2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-15-2008 

# L az aridi s v . W ehme r P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3572

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " L azar id i s v

. W ehme r " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 645. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/645NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 3572

___________ EM M A N U EL N . LA ZA RI D I S, ind ividu all yan d in h is cap ac ityas leg al cu stod ian o f V . L . , a m ino r,

A ppel l ant

vs. L AVI NA T I NA WE HM E R; M AT T HE W NEI DE RMAN; C A T H E R IN E S U T E R ; A F R O D IT I M IN A M A U R O E ID I; OFFI CE O F THE ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE STATE OF D ELAW AR E;

A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L JO S E P H B ID E N , III

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . N o. 06- cv- 00793) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sue L. R obi ns on

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t1, 2008 B efore: A M B R O , F U E N T E S and F ISH E R , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: A ugus t15, 2008 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________L a z a r i d i s a l s o a p p a r e n t l yf i l e d f o rd i v o r c e i n th e Do mi n i c a n Re p u b l i c . On 1 M ay1 6 , 2 0 0 5 , a G ree k co u rtrec o g n ized the D o m inican d ivo rce o rde r. 2 P E R C UR I AM Pr o s e appe l l antE m m anuel L aza r i di s appea l s fr om the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s A ugus t8, 2007 di s m i s s al of hi s compl ai ntw i thoutpr ej udi ce unde r28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) . Forthe r eas ons di s cus s ed bel ow , w e w i l l vaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derand r emand forfur ther act i on. W e w i l l al s o denyas m ootL aza r i di s ’ s m ot i on t o ext end comi t yt o a J une 18, 2008 G ree k o rde r. I. L az aridis cu rren tl yreside s in G ree ce w ith h is da u g h ter, V . L . A lth o u g h the h ist o ry under l y i ng t hi s cas e i s pr ot r act ed, t he bas i s of the di s put e i s the cus t odyof Lazar i di s ’ s and h is ex -w ife’s (d ef

en d an t L av ina W eh m er) d au g h ter, V . L . L az aridis an d W eh m er w ere m a rrie d in 1 9 9 5 in In d ian a , an d V .L . w a s b o rn in Ju ly2 0 0 0 . In F e b ru a ry2 0 0 2 , the f a m ily m o v e d to W ilm in g to n , D e la w a re . A n d in M a y2 0 0 2 , th e ym o v e d to L y o n , F ra n c e . H o w e v e r, in S e p tem b e r 2 0 0 2 , W e h m e r m o v e d V .L . to M ich ig a n (w h e re W e h m e r’s f a m ily li v es). L az aridis th en init iat ed d ivo rce p roc ee d ing s in M ichig an an d F ran ce . In 1 N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 2 , the O ttaw a C o u n tyC o u rt in M ich ig a n g ra n ted tem p o ra ryc u sto d yto La z a r i d i s , a n d i ti s u n c l e a rwh a th a p p e n e d i mme d i a t e l yth e r e a f t e r . Ho we v e r , a ts o me poi nt , L aza r i di s t ook V . L . t o G r eec e, w her e theys t i l l r es i de.3

I n Sept ember2003, t he O t t aw a C ount yC our tdet erm i ned thati tdi d nothave ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h e c u s to d yp ro c e e d in g s , a n d th e c u s to d yd is p u te w a s litig a te d in F ra n c e . I n J une 2004, a Fr ench c our tgr ant ed W ehmerand Lazar i di s j oi ntcus t odyof V . L . , but or der ed thatt he chi l d’ s pr i m aryr es i dence w oul d be w i t h W ehmer . T he Fr ench c us t ody or derw as r egi s t er ed i n M i chi gan, and i n O ct ober2004, the O t t aw a C ount yC our ti s s ued an arr es tw arr antforL aza r i di s forfel onyki dnappi ng. W ehmeral s o r egi s t er ed the Fr ench 2004 or deri n t he D el aw ar e Fami l yC our t . T he D el aw ar e Supr eme C our taff i r m ed the reg istrati o n o f th e o rde r. L aza r i di s t her eaf

t erfi l ed a mot i on t o vaca t e the r egi s t r at i on of the 2004 Fr ench o r d e ri n l i g h to f

a J a n u a r y3 1 , 2 0 0 7 Gr e e k c o u r to r d e rg r a n t i n g t e mpo r a r yc u s t o d yo f V. L. to L az aridis. O n N o v em b er 2 9 , 2 0 0 7 , the D elaw are F am il yC o u rtd en ied L az aridis’s r eques t , not i ng t hathe had nots oughtt o r egi s t erthe 2007 G r eek or der , and s t at ed thatt he r eques tw as barr ed byr es j udi cat a, and that“nei t herpart yi s pr ej udi ced bythe r egi s t r at i on

. . . [of the 2004 Fr ench or der ] . B ot h par t i es ar e fr ee, atanyt i m e, t o att empt t o r egi s t er t he mostr ece ntor dert hathas been i s s ued bya C our tm ai nt ai ni ng pr operj ur i s di ct i on over th is m a tter.” T .W . v . E .L ., N o . C N 0 4 -0 8 7 0 7 , 2 0 0 7 W L 4 7 9 3 1 2 3 , at * 2 (D e l. F a m . C t. N o v . 2 9 , 2 0 0 7 ). T hi s backgr ound l eads us t o the curr entcas e. I n D ece m ber2006 ( befor e the G r eek co u rt ’s ord er), L az aridis fil ed a c o m p lai n t i n the D istri ct of D elaw are ag ains t W eh m er, h e r a tto rn e y s, th e S tate o f D e law a re , an d th e D e law a re A tto rn e yG e n e ra l. L a z a rid isT h e F re n c h c o u rt a ls o is s u e d a n o rd e r i n 2 0 0 5 g ra n tin g s o le c u s to d yto W e h m e r. 2 O n J ul y30, 2007, t he D el aw ar e Fami l yC our tvaca t ed the r egi s t r at i on of thator der , ci t i ng to the Jan u ary2 0 0 7 G ree k o rde r. W e not e thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d nots peci fyw hetheri tw as di s m i s s i ng the 3 compl ai ntbeca us e i tw as fr i vol ous , m al i ci ous , orbeca us e i tfai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m . See 28 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B )(i )-( ii i) . 4 s oughta dec l ar at i on t hatcert ai n pr ovi s i ons of D el aw ar e’ s U ni form C hi l d C us t ody J ur i s di ct i on and Enfor cementA ct( “U C C J E A ”) and U ni form I nt er s t at e Fami l yand Suppor tA ct( “I FSA ”) w er e uncons t i tut i onal . H e al s o s oughti nj unct i ve r el i ef pr ecl udi ng th e d e f e n d a n ts f ro m e n f o rc in g th e F re n c h o rd e rs in th e D e law a re C o u rt. 2 O n A u g u st 8, 20 0 7 , b ef o re the d ef

en d an ts w ere serv ed , the D istri ct C o u rt d i s mi s s e d La z a r i d i s ’ s c o mp l a i n twi th o u tp r e j u d i c e u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) 3 bas ed on i t s det erm i nat i on t hatL aza r i di s w as barr ed fr om fi l i ng s ui tunderthe s o- cal l ed fu g it ive d isen ti tl em en t do ctri n e. S ee D eg en v . U n it ed S tat es, 51 7 U . S . 8 2 0 (19 9 6 ); O r t ega- R odr i guez v. U ni t ed St at es , 507 U . S. 234 ( 1993) . T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hat D egen a l l ow ed i tt o di s m i s s t he ac t i on beca us e Lazar i di s ’ s appar entfugi t i ve s t atus w as

“ in e x trica b lyc o n n e c ted to th e a c tio n a t b a r b e c a u se [ L a z a rid is] u rg e s th is c o u rt to v o id t he Fr ench Courtor der s w hi ch aw ar ded cus t odyt o hi s form erw i fe a nd w er e the i m petus of the fe l onyarr es tw arr ant . A nyact i on r egar di ng the Fr ench Courtcus t odyor der s has th e p o te n tia l to a f

f e c t th e f e lo n ya rr e s t w a rr a n t.” L aza r i di s t i m el yappea l ed fr om the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on. W hi l e hi s appea l w as pendi ng, L aza r i di s fi l ed i n t he D i s t r i ctC our ta mot i on t o s t ayi t s A ugus t8, 2007 or der5

di s m i s s i ng t he ca s e w i t houtpr ej udi ce. I n t hatm ot i on, he s t at ed, among ot herthi ngs , t hat h e h a d a n sw e re d th e O ttaw a C o u n tya rre st w a rra n t an d h a s b e e n a p p o in ted c o u n se l to defe nd agai ns tt he ki dnappi ng char ge. T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the mot i on, butl at er re sc in d e d its o rd e r d u e to a c ler ica l er ro r. L a z a rid is a lso f iled in th is C o u rt a m o tio n to ext end comi t yt o a r ece ntG r eek c our tor derw hi ch appa r ent l yexoner at ed hi m of ki dnappi ng orcus t odi al i nt er fer ence . II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew of a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al under28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) i s pl enary . T our s cherv. M cC u ll o u g h , 1 8 4 F . 3 d 2 3 6 , 2 4 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). W e agr ee w i t h L aza r i di s t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n r el y i ng on t he fugi t i ve d ise n tit lem e n t d o c trin e to d ism iss h is c o m p lain t. F e d e ra l co u rts h a v e th e “ a u th o rityto di s m i s s an appe al . . . i f the part ys eeki ng r el i ef i s a fugi t i ve w hi l e the mat t eri s pendi ng. ” D eg en , 5 1 7 U . S . at 82 4 . F o r a d ism issal un d er the d o ctri n e to b e a p p rop ri ate, ho w ev er, “[t ]he fug i t i ve st atus m usthav e a con necti on t o the ci vil act i on , and the d i sm i ssal m ust a n i ma t e t h e c o n c e r n s u n d e r l y i n g t h e f u g i t i v e d i s e n t i t l e me n td o c t r i n e . ” Ba r n e t tv . YM CA , I nc. , 268 F. 3d 614, 618 ( 8t h C i r . 2001) ( appl y i ng D egen t o a ca s e w her e the fugi t i ve w as a pl ai nt i ff i n a ci vi l s ui t ) . D egen a l s o “s hi ft ed the emphas i s fr om cons i der at i ons of di gni t y , det err ence , r es pect , pr opr i ety , and s ym m etr y. . . t o t he ki nd of pr act i cal con si derat i on s that i nfo rm t he d eci si on w hethert o d i sm i ss . . . as a sanct i on for m i st akes,W e not e w hi l e the Supr eme C our thas notcons i der ed a c as e s uch as thi s w her e the 4 purpor t ed fugi t i ve i s t he pl ai nt i ff i n a ci vi l cas e, thi s C our t , as w el l as the Fi r s t , E i ght h, and El eventh C i r cui t s , has us ed the D egen s t andar d t o anal y ze s uch ca s es . See M arr an v. M arr an, 376 F. 3d 143 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ; W al s h, 221 F. 3d at215; B arnet t , 268 F. 3d at618; M ag luta v . S am p les, 1 6 2 F . 3 d 6 6 2 , 6 6 4 (11 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) (pe r cu ri am ). 6 om i s s i ons , orm i s conduct . ” W al s h v. W al s h, 221 F. 3d 204, 215 ( 1s tC i r . 2000) ( ci t i ng S arlun d v . A n d erso n , 2 0 5 F . 3 d 9 7 3 , 9 7 4 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 0 )). 4 H er e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tacknow l edged thatappl y i ng the di s ent i t l ementdoctr i ne r equi r ed a ne xus betw een Laza r i di s ’ s fugi t i ve s t atus and the ci vi l act i on. See M arr an v. M arr an, 376 F. 3d 143, 149 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . I tconcl uded thata rul i ng thatthe 2004 Fr ench cus t odyor derw as unenfor cea bl e mayaff ectthe M i chi gan arr es tw arr antbeca us e the w a rra n t w a s p re d ica ted o n th e 2 0 0 4 F re n c h o rd e r. T h is c o n n e c tio n to th e c u rre n t law su it i s , how ever , “t oo s l i m a r eed” on w hi ch t o s uppor tthe w ei ghtof the di s ent i t l ement doctr i ne, es peci al l yi n “a c as e i nvol vi ng par ent al r i ght s . ” See W al s h, 221 F. 3d at215, 216. A ddi t i onal l y , al t hough L aza r i di s ’ s al l eged f ugi t i ve s t atus m aybe an a ffr ontt o t he d ig n ity o f

th e M ic h ig a n c o u rt s , it is n o t a n a f f ro n t to th is C o u rt o r t o th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . S e e M a rra n , 3 7 6 F .3 d a t 1 4 9 . A c c o rd in g ly , itw a s in a p p ro p ria te f o r th e D istric t C o u rt to di s m i s s L aza r i di s ’ s compl ai ntbas ed on the fugi t i ve di s ent i t l ementdoctr i ne. F u rth e rm o re , w h ile w e d o n o t d e c id e w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tly des i gnat ed Lazar i di s as a fugi t i ve, i tappea r s that , i f hi s r epr es ent at i ons ar e true, he i s not a fugi t i ve now beca us e he ha s ans w er ed the O tt aw a C ount yarr es tw arr antand has been as s i gned a l aw y ert o defe nd agai ns tt he ki dnappi ng char ge. T hus , bas ed on the7

inf o rm ati o n that L az aridis ha s p rese n ted, he h as su b m itted to the M ichig an co u rt ’s ju risd ictio n f

o r th e p u rp o se o f

d e f e n d in g a g a in st th e k id n a p p in g c h a rg e . If th is is tru e , it i s doubt ful t hathe coul d be cons i der ed a f ugi t i ve eve n i f D egen’ s nexus pr ong w as s at i s fi ed. See I n r e A s s et s of M ar t i n, 1 F. 3d 1351, 1356- 57 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( di s cus s i ng w h ethe r de sign ati o n o f a p p ell an t as a f u g it ive w as a p p rop ri ate). Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entent er ed on A ugus t8, 2007, and r emand forfur therpr ocee di ngs . O n r emand, the D i s t r i ctC our tm ay w i s h t o cons i derw hethers ervi ce of the compl ai nton t he def endant s i s appr opr i at e. D ue to th e d isp o sitio n o f

th is a p p e a l, w e d e n ya s m o o t L a z a rid is’s Ju ly1 , 2 0 0 8 m o tio n to e x t e n d c o m i t y.