alimony, or child-custody decree. See, e.g., Matusow v. Trans-County Title Agency, LLC, al diversity jurisdiction does not deprive federal courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim that meets the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 unless “a plaintiff positively sues in federal court for divorce, alimony, or child custody,” Catz, 142 F.3d at 292, or seeks to modify or interpret an existing divorce, alimony, or child-custody decree. When analyzing the applicability of the domestic-relations exception, we must focus on the remedy that the plaintiff seeks: Does the plaintiff seek an issuance or modification or enforcement of a divorce, alimony, or child-custody decree? See Catz, 142 F.3d at 292; Cf. Mercer v. Bank of New York Mellon, N.A., 609 Fed. Appx. 677, 679-80 (2d Cir.2015) (<HOLDING>). If the plaintiff is seeking to dissolve the
holding that texass probate statute does not affect whether the probate exception to federal jurisdiction applies to a case holding that in a diversity action a federal court must apply the law of the forum state holding that under the probate exception to federal diversity jurisdiction a court must examine the substance of the relief that plaintiffs are seeking and not the labels that they have used holding that a federal court in diversity jurisdiction must apply state substantive law holding that a federal court with diversity jurisdiction must apply the choiceoflaw rules of the state in which the federal court sits