Encarnacao v. Beryozkina
Filing
24
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why case should not be dismissed with prejudice. Show Cause Response due by 10/5/2017.Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 9/8/2017. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/8/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (rmm2S, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
EDER DA ENCARNACAO,
Case No. 17-cv-02504-MEJ
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
ANNA BERYOZKINA,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
The Court has presided over five actions filed by Plaintiff Eder Da Encarnacao against
13
14
Defendant Anna Beryozkina arising out of Beryozkina’s failure to support Plaintiff and his minor
15
son after Plaintiff and Defendant divorced. See generally Da Encarnacao v. Beryozkina (“Da
16
Encarnacao I”), Case No. 16-cv-2522 (N.D. Cal.), Order on Motion to Dismiss and Motion to
17
Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant, Dkt. No. 92. The Court and the parties are familiar with the
18
procedural history and factual background of this matter. As a result of the procedural
19
background, the Court ordered Defendant not to answer the operative Second Amended Complaint
20
(SAC, Dkt. No. 14). Plaintiff is representing himself in this action; Defendant at this point also is
21
pro se.
22
In this action, Plaintiff alleges Defendant undertook legal obligations to support him and
23
his minor son when she sponsored them for immigration into the United States and signed an I-
24
134 Form and an I-864 Form. See SAC.
25
First, it appears that Plaintiff settled and released claims of support based on the I-864
26
Form, at least through 2016, in Da Encarnacao I. Plaintiff’s complaint in Da Encarnacao I
27
alleged Defendant failed in her obligation to support “Plaintiff and his minor child in the United
28
States. . . . Defendant gave Plaintiff and his son no support . . . the income for Plaintiff and his son
1
is not at the required level, and has not been compensated for the many months last year.” Da
2
Encarnacao I, Dkt. No. 8 (First Am. Compl.) ¶¶ 7-9. Plaintiff settled his support claim and
3
dismissed it with prejudice. See Da Encarnacao I, Dkt. No. 63 (dismissal); Opp’n to Mot. to
4
Relate, Ex. A (Plaintiff agreed to settle breach of contract claim through 2016).
5
Second, an I-134 Form does not carry the same contractual obligations created by an I-864
6
Form. See Kalincheva v. Neubarth, 2012 WL 5328616, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2012) (“‘The
7
contractual obligations imposed by the [Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
8
Act of 1996] on an affidavit of support made on an I-864 Form do not attach to affidavits of
9
support made on an old I-134 Form.’” (quoting Cobb v. Cobb, 2012 WL 2620524, at *3 (E.D. Cal.
July 5, 2012))); Cheshire v. Cheshire, 2006 WL 1208010, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2006)
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
(“[F]ederal courts have consistently found that Form I-134 is not a legally enforceable contract
12
against a sponsor by a sponsored immigrant”) (citing cases)); Tornheim v. Kohn, 2002 WL
13
482534, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2002) (contractual obligations imposed through I-864 Form “do
14
not attach to affidavits of support made on an old I-134 Form. As such, this Court finds that an
15
affidavit of support on an I-134 Form is not a legally binding contract.”).
16
Because it appears that Plaintiff released any claim based on the I-864 Form (at least to the
17
extent the claim had accrued by December 2016) and that the I-134 Form is not an enforceable
18
contract, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed
19
with prejudice. Plaintiff shall file a declaration by October 5, 2017. Notice is hereby provided
20
that failure to file a written response will be deemed an admission that Plaintiff concedes the case
21
lacks merit and does not intend to prosecute it further; the case will be dismissed with prejudice.
22
Thus, it is imperative that the Court receive a written response by the deadline above.
23
24
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 8, 2017
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge
27
28
2
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?