Edelkind v. Boudreaux

Filing 5

ORDER remanding this action to the Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Lafayette, Louisiana, from which it was removed. Signed by Judge Tucker L Melancon on 08/11/11. (crt,Yocum, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
Edelkind

Civil Action 11-1440

versus

Judge Tucker L. Melançon

Boudreaux

Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Hanna
ORDER

Before the Court is a Notice of Removal stating that defendant, Jamie Edelkind,
has removed this action from the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Lafayette, Louisiana,
Docket No. C-200015722-H2. The record indicates that the removed action is a Rule
Nisi issued by the state court in response to a Rule To Show Cause filed by Edelkind’s
ex-wife, Suzanne Boudreaux, seeking payment of a Judgment rendered by the state court
dated November 17, 2003 in which Edelkind was found in contempt for his willful
violation of child support orders. R. 1, Exh. B. The state court held that Edelkind owed
approximately $70,000 in back child support. He was sentenced to serve 90 days in jail
unless he made an immediate payment of $25,000. He made the $25,000 payment but
thereafter did not consistently make the ordered child support payments. Thereafter, on
October 12, 2005, Edelkind was indicted in this Court for willfully failing to pay child
support in violation of the Child Support Recovery Act, 18 U.S.C. § 228, from December
1998 to the date of the indictment, Criminal Action No. 6:05-cr-60067. After a jury trial,
Edelkind was convicted on June 16, 2006 of one count of willful nonpayment of child
support in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(3). He was subsequently sentenced to serve
twenty-four months in prison, to make restitution, and to pay a special assessment. He
is currently incarcerated.
In his Notice of Removal, Edelkind contends that diversity jurisdiction exists over
the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The Court disagrees. Issues of domestic

relations are the province of the state courts, and the federal court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over those disputes. J.D. Franks v. Smith, 717 F.2d 183 (5th Cir.1983).
Abstention from the exercise of diversity jurisdiction in cases involving intra-family
relations is a policy of long standing in the federal courts. Congleton v. Holy Cross Child
Placement Agency, 919 F.2d 1077 (5th Cir.1990). The domestic relations exception
prohibits the exercise of federal jurisdiction in diversity cases involving issues of
domestic relations. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992). The Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals has held that if a federal court must determine issues involving
payment of child support or whether a previous court’s determination on those matters
should be modified, then the federal court should dismiss the case pursuant to the
domestic relations exception. Rykers v. Alford, 832 F.2d 895 (5th Cir.1987). Also, under
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a federal court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a collateral
attack on a state-court order. Liedtke v. St. Bar of Tex., 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir.1994).
“When issues raised in a federal court are ‘inextricably intertwined’ with a state
judgment and the court is ‘in essence being called upon to review the state-court
decision,’ the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to conduct such a review.” Davis
v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375-76 (5th Cir.1995).
This action is a domestic relations dispute over which this Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to the domestic relations exception. Moreover, as the Court
is called upon to review and consider a collateral attack on the Rule Nisi and the
Judgment underlying plaintiff’s Rule to Show Cause, both of which were issued by the
state court,

the Court lacks jurisdiction to conduct such a review under the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Because, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) requires that the case shall be
remanded if at any time before final judgment it appears the district court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, it is

ORDERED that this action is remanded to the Fifteenth Judicial District Court,
Lafayette, Louisiana, from which it was removed. The Clerk of this Court is to submit
a certified copy of this Judgment to the Fifteenth Judicial District Court.
Thus done and signed this 11th day of August, 2011 at Lafayette, Louisiana.