Yaguil v. Lee

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 4/9/2014 ORDERING that the Court GRANTS without leave to amend Defendant's 8 Motion to Dismiss. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MADONNA YAGUIL,

12

2:14-cv-00110-JAM-DAD

Plaintiff,

13
14

No.

v.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS

GARY LEE, et al.,

15

Defendant.

16
17

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Gary Lee’s

18

(“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #8).

19

Plaintiff Madonna Yaguil (“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion (Doc.

20

#9) and Defendant replied (Doc. #10). 1

21

below, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint is

22

GRANTED.

For the reasons set forth

23
I.

24

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff originally filed this action on January 16, 2014,

25
26
27
28

1

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled
for April 9, 2014
1

1

against Defendant.

2

Defendant has breached the I-864 Affidavit of Support.

3

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that

Plaintiff is a Philippine citizen.

She married Defendant, a

4

United States Citizen, on April 28, 2011.

As part of Plaintiff’s

5

naturalization process, Defendant signed United States

6

Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I–864 (“I–864

7

Affidavit”).

8

signing the I–864 Affidavit, Defendant promised to provide any

9

support necessary to maintain Plaintiff at an income of no less

See generally Aff., Compl. Ex. A, Doc. #2.

By

10

than 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines.

11

form explains, the I–864 Affidavit “create[s] a contract between

12

[the sponsor] and the U.S. Government,” which can be enforced by

13

the sponsored immigrant.

14

ends if the sponsored immigrant (1) becomes a U.S. citizen, (2)

15

works 40 quarters as defined by the Social Security Act, (3) no

16

longer has lawful permanent resident status and permanently

17

leaves the United States, (4) receives a new grant of adjustment

18

of status based on a new Affidavit of Support, or (5) dies.

19

at 7.

20

your obligations under this Form I–864.”

21

Aff. at 6.

Id.

As the

The sponsor’s obligation

Id.

The form states, “Note that divorce does not terminate
Id.

On November 7, 2013, a Judgment of Divorce was entered in

22

the Superior Court for the State of California, County of

23

Sacramento.

24

November 7, 2013, Defendant has not maintained Plaintiff at an

25

income that is at least 125 percent of Federal Poverty

26

Guidelines.

Compl. ¶ 13.

Plaintiff alleges that since at least

Id. ¶ 14.

27
28
2

1

II.

OPINION

2

A.

Judicial Notice

3

Defendant requests judicial notice of four filings in Gary

4

T. Lee Jr. v. Madonna Yaguil Lee, 12FL06880, Superior Court of

5

California, County of Sacramento: Respondent’s Statement of

6

Issues, Family Law Stipulation and Order, Judgment for

7

Dissolution, and Notice of Entry of Judgment.

8

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice (“DRJN”), Doc. #8-1.

9

These documents are appropriate for judicial notice because

Exs. A-D,

10

federal courts are allowed to take judicial notice of proceedings

11

in other courts.

12

v. Boerno, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing St.

13

Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. FDIC, 605 F.2d 1169 (10th Cir.

14

1979)).

15

judicial notice.

U.S. ex rel Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s request for

16

B.

Discussion

17

Defendant contends that res judicata applies to this action

18

because the parties have already litigated the issue of support

19

in state court during the divorce proceedings.

20

responds that the divorce judgment has no preclusive effect in

21

this instance because the state court did not decide the I-864

22

Affidavit support issue.

23

Plaintiff

Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, prohibits

24

lawsuits on “any claims that were raised or could have been

25

raised” in a prior action.

26

Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting W. Radio Servs.

27

Co. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 1997)).

28

for a claim to be barred by res judicata, there must be “(1) an

Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan,

3

In order

1

identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and

2

(3) identity or privity between parties.”

3

Id.

Plaintiff only disputes the first requirement, identity of

4

claims, arguing that spousal support is different from I-864

5

Affidavit support.

6

Plaintiff in the parties’ marital dissolution action, Plaintiff

7

stated that Defendant should pay spousal support because “[s]ince

8

the separation (19[]months) my sponsor Mr. Gary Lee failed to

9

comply the I-864 [sic].”

However, in the statement of issues filed by

Respondent’s Statement of Issues, Ex.

10

A, Doc. #8-1, at 5.

11

Affidavit was part of the documents for the settlement

12

conference, but then argues that at the settlement conference,

13

“the issue was apparently dropped.”

14

her declaration, Plaintiff states that she did not waive or

15

intend to waive any right to support under the I-864 Affidavit.

16

Declaration of Madonna Yaguil, Doc. #9-3, ¶ 3.

17

no evidence that the issue was dropped.

18

spousal support is different from I-864 Affidavit support,

19

Plaintiff raised it as an issue in the marital dissolution action

20

under the heading for spousal support thereby removing any

21

distinction between the two.

22

court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that spousal support was

23

different from I-864 financial support because the exhibits

24

attached showed that the plaintiff presented evidence and argued

25

that the divorce court should award plaintiff support based on

26

the I–864 Affidavit.

27

130241, *2-3 (D. Or. Jan. 14, 2011).

28

Plaintiff acknowledges that the I-864

Opp. at 2.

In addition, in

However, there is

Therefore, even if

For example, in Nguyen v. Dean, the

Nguyen v. Dean, CIV. 10-6138-AA, 2011 WL

Because Plaintiff raised this issue in state court, this
4

1

case is different from the cases cited by Plaintiff: Erler v.

2

Erler, CV-12-2793-CRB, 2013 WL 6139721 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2013)

3

and Shah v. Shah, CIV. 12-4648 RBK/KMW, 2014 WL 185914 (D.N.J.

4

Jan. 14, 2014).

5

judgment did not void the I-864 Affidavit because the divorce

6

judgment was based on the premarital agreement and the Affidavit

7

did not go to the validity of the premarital agreement.

8

CV-12-2793-CRB, 2013 WL 6139721, at *3.

9

that the there was no evidence in the record that the plaintiff’s

In Erler, the court held that the divorce

Erler,

In Shah, the court held

10

claim was litigated and decided by another court.

11

4648 RBK/KMW, 2014 WL 185914, at *3.

12

was no premarital agreement and Defendant has provided evidence

13

that this issue was previously litigated.

14

Shah, CIV. 12-

Here, contrastingly, there

Accordingly, because there is identity of claims, res

15

judicata applies.

The Court does not grant Plaintiff leave to

16

amend because the claim cannot be saved by amendment.

17

Consequently, the Court need not address Defendant’s alternative

18

Rooker-Feldman argument.

19
20
21
22
23
24

III.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 9, 2014

25
26
27
28
5