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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?