Wyttenbach v. Parrish

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM DECISION-granting 2 Motion to Dismiss Denied-finding as moot 32 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution; Denied-finding as moot 36 Motion ; Denied-finding as moot 12 Motion to Strike ; Denied-finding as moot 21 Motion to Stay; Denied-finding as moot 24 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 4/23/12. (jmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

WILLIAM HAYES WYTTENBACH,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:11-cv-0968-CW

RANITA M. PARRISH,

Judge Clark Waddoups

Defendant.

Plaintiff William Hayes Wyttenbach brings this suit against his former domestic partner,
Defendant Ranita M. Parrish, alleging that she is in breach of the Mediated Settlement
Agreement the parties agreed to following the dissolution of their domestic relationship. (Dkt.
No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has failed to comply with provisions of the agreement
relating to his paternal rights, and that this failure constitutes a breach of the parties’ contractual
agreement. (Dkt. No. 1, 9.)
Before the court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 2.) Defendant argues that this case falls under the jurisdictional
exception created by Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 690 (1992). Indeed, the Supreme
Court stated that “the domestic relations exception . . . divests the federal courts of power to
issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees.” Id. at 703. Plaintiff argues that because this
is a breach of contract claim, Ankenbrandt is inapposite. (Dkt. No. 9, 3-4.) Plaintiff’s argument
is of no moment.

1

It is undisputed that Texas law governs the Mediated Settlement Agreement. (Compl.,
4.) And, because contract law is within the purview of each state, Texas law therefore governs
all aspects of this suit. In looking to Texas law for guidance, Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 153.001(c)
states: “Terms of the agreed parenting plan contained in the order or incorporated by reference
regarding conservatorship or support of or access to a child in an order may be enforced by all
remedies available for enforcement of a judgment, including contempt, but are not enforceable as
a contract.”1 Therefore, the Mediated Settlement Agreement cannot be considered an
enforceable contract insofar as it relates to the parenting plan of the parties’ children.
Accordingly, Plaintiff has no breach of contract claim. Because Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate other grounds upon which the court could find that the Akenbrandt exception to this
court’s jurisdiction should not apply, the court finds that its subject matter jurisdiction is
lacking.2 Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 2.) The following motions
are also DENIED as moot: Dkt. Nos. 12, 21, 24, 32, and 36.
DATED this 23rd day of April, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

______________________________
Clark Waddoups
United States District Court Judge

1

Defendant further argues that the Mediated Settlement Agreement merged into a final order in Texas court.
(Dkt. No. 13, 3.) Regardless, such an order still fails to constitute a contract by which Plaintiff’s complaint may
survive. 
2
Because the court finds that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, Defendant’s other arguments are moot. 

2