SHAH v. SHAH
Filing
114
OPINION filed re. 109 and 110 . Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 10/30/2015. (drw)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
(Doc. Nos. 109 & 110)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
___________________________________
:
Olga SHAH,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
Ashok SHAH,
:
:
Defendant.
:
___________________________________ :
Civil No. 12–4648 (RBK/KMW)
OPINION
KUGLER, United States District Judge:
This action comes before the Court on the motions of Olga Shah (“Plaintiff”) for a new
trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 (Doc. No. 109) and for amendment of court
findings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 (Doc. No. 110). Plaintiff also requests
that the United States pay her transcript fees. For the reasons articulated below, Plaintiff’s
motions are DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
This matter arose out of pro se Plaintiff’s claim for enforcement of an Affidavit of
Support, Form I-864 (“Form I-864”), against her ex-husband, Ashok Shah (“Defendant”). In
January 2010, Plaintiff obtained a fiancé visa, and she married Defendant in April 2010.
Defendant signed a Form I-864 on behalf of Plaintiff on August 13, 2010. Based on Defendant’s
Form I-864, Plaintiff obtained conditional resident status for two years, see Joint Final Pretrial
Order at 1 (Doc. No. 68), beginning on May 25, 2011 (Doc. No. 105). Defendant filed a divorce
complaint in 2011, but later withdrew that complaint. Joint Final Pretrial Order at 1.
1
On July 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking to enforce the Form I-864
retroactively to June 2011, the date when Defendant allegedly abandoned her and terminated
financial support (Doc. No. 1). Defendant filed another divorce complaint in January 2013. Final
Pretrial Order at 1. Plaintiff’s original conditional resident status was set to expire on May 25,
2013. However, on March 4, 2013, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
extended Plaintiff’s conditional resident status for one year (Doc. No. 25). Defendant sent a letter
to USCIS on March 20, 2013, seeking to withdraw the Form I-864 on behalf of Plaintiff (Doc.
No. 65, Exh. 1). The divorce was finalized on August 12, 2013. Final Pretrial Order at 1.
Defendant sent another letter on November 7, 2013, informing USCIS of the divorce and asking
USCIS to deny Plaintiff the status of lawful permanent resident (Doc. No. 65, Exh. 2).
This Court granted partial summary judgment to Plaintiff on the issue of liability,
Opinion of October 28, 2013 at 8 (Doc. No. 43), but denied Plaintiff’s summary judgment
motion as to damages because there were material facts in dispute. Id. at 12. On December 13,
2013, USCIS adjusted Plaintiff’s status from conditional resident to lawful permanent resident
(Doc. No. 105). This adjustment was obtained by the Plaintiff on her own petition. Final Pretrial
Order at 1.
This matter went to a trial by jury solely on the issue of damages. Plaintiff filed her
“Notice of Removal of Conditional Basis of Lawful Permanent Residence” with this Court on
March 16, 2015—the same day as the trial (Doc. No. 105).This Court determined that, as a
matter of law, Defendant owed Plaintiff support from June 1, 2011 to December 13, 2013.
Defendant’s obligation under Form I-864 was to maintain Plaintiff at an income of at least 125%
of the federal poverty line. After a one-day trial, the jury returned a verdict. The jury found that
Defendant had not yet paid any of his obligation to Plaintiff, that Plaintiff already received
2
$27,372 during the relevant time period, and that Defendant did not prove that Plaintiff failed to
mitigate her damages. On March 17, 2015, this Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and
against Defendant in the amount of $8,145.99.1 On March 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant
motions: Motion for a New Trial (Doc. No. 109) and Motion for Amendment of Court Findings
(Doc. No. 110).
II.
DISCUSSION
A. Motion for a New Trial
Plaintiff moves for a new trial, alleging errors of law, erroneous jury instruction, and
judicial misconduct. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(1) states: “The court may, on motion,
grant a new trial on all or some of the issues . . . after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new
trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court.” Plaintiff’s sole concern
appears to be this Court’s determination that Defendant’s obligation to support Plaintiff
terminated on December 13, 2013, the date when USCIS granted Plaintiff an adjustment of status
to lawful permanent resident.
Plaintiff obtained two-year conditional resident status on May 25, 2011 based on
Defendant’s Form I-864. Support obligations under Form I-864 terminate when the alien: (1)
becomes a United States citizen; (2) has worked or can be credit with 40 qualifying quarter under
the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq.; (3) ceases to hold the status of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence and departs the United States; (4) obtains a new grant of
adjustment of status as relief from removal; or (5) dies. 8 C.F.R. § 213a2(e)(2). After Plaintiff
1
Federal Poverty Guidelines indicated that Plaintiff’s income needed to be maintained at
$35,517.99 for the relevant time period to meet the requirement under Form I-864. As the jury
found that Plaintiff had already received $27,372 during the relevant time period, the Court
entered judgment for the difference: $8,145.99.
3
received a one-year extension from USCIS, her status was set to expire on May 25, 2014. But
upon Plaintiff’s petition, USCIS adjusted Plaintiff’s immigration status to that of lawful
permanent resident on December 13, 2013 (Doc. No. 105). Because Plaintiff’s status adjustment
was not based upon Defendant’s Form I-864, her status adjustment terminated Defendant’s
obligation to support Plaintiff. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial (Doc. No. 109) is
DENIED.
B. Motion for Amendment of Court Findings
Plaintiff also moves for an amendment of court findings. “On a party’s motion . . . the
court may amend its findings—or make additional findings—and may amend the judgment
accordingly.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b). Rule 52(b) allows district courts to “correct plain errors of
law or fact, or, in limited situations, to allow the parties to present newly discovered evidence.”
Roadmaster (USA) Corp. v. Calmodal Freight Systems, Inc., 153 Fed. Appx. 827, 829 (3d Cir.
2005).
Rule 52 governs “findings and conclusions . . . by the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). The
court finds facts in cases “tried on the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury.” Id. Rule
52(b) relief is available after summary judgment has been granted, after a bench trial, and in
habeas proceedings. Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 289 F. Supp. 2d 555, 561 (D.N.J. 2003). However,
Rule 52(b) relief is not appropriate after a jury trial. See Diebitz v. Arreola, 834 F. Supp. 298,
302 (E.D. Wis. 1993) (grounds for Rule 52(b) relief include “‘manifest error of fact or law’ by
the trial court, ‘newly discovered evidence,’ or ‘a change in the law.’” (emphasis added)). This
Court does not have the authority pursuant to Rule 52(b) to amend findings made by a jury. As
such, Plaintiff’s Motion for Amendment of Court Findings (Doc. No. 110) is DENIED.
4
C. Request for Trial Transcripts
Plaintiff requests that the United States pay her transcript fees under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f).
Section 753(f) states, in part, that “[f]ees for transcripts furnished in other proceedings to persons
permitted to appeal in forma pauperis shall also be paid by the United States if the trial judge or a
circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial question).” On
July 27, 2012, this Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2).
However, Plaintiff has not requested to appeal in forma pauperis, and neither this Court nor a
judge on the Third Circuit has certified that an appeal would present a non-frivolous, substantial
question. As such, Plaintiff’s request for the United States to pay her transcript fees is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motions are DENIED.
Dated:
10/30/2015
s/ Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge
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?