Collins v. Schusterman et al
Filing
20
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan that plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. # 1) is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Re: 1 Complaint ) (RGG, Chambers)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MARYGOLD COLLINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
LYNN SCHUSTERMANN et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 16-CV-0501-CVE-PJC
OPINION AND ORDER
On November 16, 2015, plaintiff Marygold Collins filed this case alleging that defendants
engaged in the “false solicitations of funds from American donors to propel a booming industry of
child trafficking, outplacements and snatching of children from natural parents . . . .” Dkt. # 1, at
1. Plaintiff seeks $2 million in damages from defendants for alleged violations of the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 78dd-1 et seq. (FCPA), the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77a
et seq. (Securities Act), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. (Securities
Exchange Act), and federal common law. The case was originally filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, but plaintiff requested that the case be transferred to
this Court and her motion was granted. Dkt. ## 16, 17. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and, consistent
with Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent, the Court will construe her pro se pleadings
liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Gaines v. Stenseng, 292 F.3d 1222, 1224
(10th Cir. 2002).
Plaintiff alleges that she is a British citizen who resides in Israel and she has two 10 year old
daughters who resided with her. Dkt. # 1, at 3-4. Although it is difficult to determine precisely what
happened from plaintiff’s rambling complaint, it appears that plaintiff’s children were removed from
her home after she sought assistance from Israeli social workers, and plaintiff claims that the social
workers made false statements that the children were “at risk.” Id. at 17. She alleges that the
children were taken to a home operated by the Women’s International Zionist Organization (WIZO),
and she claims that the Israeli courts did not allow her present a defense to the charges that her
children were “at risk.” Id. at 18. She accuses WIZO of kidnapping her children and subjecting
them to physical and emotional abuse, and she claims that the children were transferred to another
home operated by S.O.S. Children’s Village-USA, Inc. (SOS). Id. at 21. Plaintiff claims that Lynn
Schustermann purportedly raises money to help at-risk children in Israel, but the money raised does
not actually benefit children and donors are being mislead by Schustermann, WIZO, and SOS about
the services provided to children. Id. at 24-28. She states that the International Fellowship of
Christians and Jews (IFCJ) serves as a conduit for funneling private donations from Schustermann
to WIZO and SOS. Id. at 13. Plaintiff alleges claims of common law detention and intentional
infliction of emotional distress against WIZO and SOS, and a claim of false solicitation against
Schustermann, WIZO, SOS and IFCJ.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and there is a presumption against the
exercise of federal jurisdiction. Merida Delgado v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 916, 919 (10th Cir. 2005);
Penteco Corp. Ltd. Partnership--1985A v. Union Gas System, Inc., 929 F.2d 1519, 1521 (10th Cir.
1991). The party invoking federal jurisdiction has the burden to allege jurisdictional facts
demonstrating the presence of federal subject matter jurisdiction. McNutt v. General Motors
Acceptance Corp. of Indiana, Inc., 298 U.S. 178, 182 (1936) (“It is incumbent upon the plaintiff
properly to allege the jurisdictional facts, according to the nature of the case.”); Montoya v. Chao,
296 F.3d 952, 955 (10th Cir. 2002) (“The burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction is on the
2
party asserting jurisdiction.”). The Court has an obligation to consider whether subject matter
jurisdiction exists, even if the parties have not raised the issue. The Tenth Circuit has stated that
“[f]ederal courts ‘have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction
exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party,’ and thus a court may sua sponte raise the
question of whether there is subject matter jurisdiction ‘at any stage in the litigation.’” 1mage
Software, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds Co., 459 F.3d 1044, 1048 (10th Cir. 2006).
The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case for at least two reasons. First, this
case falls squarely within the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction. “It is wellestablished that federal courts lack jurisdiction over ‘the whole subject of the domestic relations of
husband and wife . . .’” Hunt v. Lamb, 427 F.3d 725 (10th Cir. 2005). Family relations are
traditionally a matter of state law and federal courts do not have jurisdiction to resolve substantive
family law issues. United States v. Bigford, 365 F.3d 859 (10th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff claims that her
children were taken from her based on false statements of social workers and she argues that she was
not given a fair opportunity to present a defense, and this is clearly a challenge to a child custody
ruling by another court.1 Plaintiff attempts to frame her allegation in terms of common law or
statutory claims, but the factual allegations supporting her claims primarily concern the
“kidnapping” of her children. The Court could not resolve plaintiff’s claims without considering
the merits of the child custody dispute between plaintiff and the country of Israel. Plaintiff’s case
directly concerns the “issuance of a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree,” and she may not
1
The Court notes that the child custody decision being challenged was made a court in a
foreign county, and plaintiff has made no reference to issues of international law that might
prevent the Court from hearing her claims. The Court finds that it is unnecessary to consider
any issue of international law because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this
case without reaching such issues.
3
litigate these issues in federal court. Johnson v. Rodrigues (Orozco), 226 F.3d 1103, 1112 (10th Cir.
2000). The Court has considered whether plaintiff could be attempting to allege a claim under the
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention), but
there is no possibility that the Hague Convention has an applicability in this case. The Hague
Convention “is meant to provide for a child’s prompt return once it has been established the child
has been ‘wrongfully removed’ to or retained in any affiliated state.” Ohlander v. Larson, 114 F.3d
1531, 1534 (10th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff has not alleged that her children were wrongfully removed
to Israel and she clearly alleges that she resided in Israel when the child custody dispute arose.
In addition to the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction, the Court also finds
that plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff cites the Securities
Act, Securities and Exchange Act, and the FCPA in her complaint, but these statutes would not
provide a basis to challenge a child custody decision by a foreign court. Plaintiff could be
challenging the truthfulness of representations made by WIZO, SOS, IFCJ, or Schustermann when
soliciting donations, but she lacks standing to assert claims on this issue because she has not alleged
that made a donation based on any misleading statements. The Court notes that there are other
jurisdictional defects with the complaint. Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as a basis for federal
subject matter jurisdiction, but she has not identified the citizenship of each defendant and the Court
cannot determine from the complaint if diversity jurisdiction exists. Plaintiff also alleges common
law claims of detention and intentional infliction of emotional distress against WIZO and SOS, but
she has not alleged that these defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in Oklahoma and it
appears from the allegations of the complaint that these entities operate in Israel only. The Court
has liberally construed the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint to determine if plaintiff could possibly
4
state a claim upon which relief could be granted and, even if the domestic relations exception did
not apply, the Court would find that plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim and that other
jurisdictional defects exist that would prevent the Court from hearing plaintiff’s claims.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. # 1) is dismissed without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A separate judgment of dismissal is entered
herewith.
DATED this 5th day of August, 2016.
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?