l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL 

PROCEDURE 12( c) ................................................................................................. 6 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 

PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(c) ................ 6 

I. STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ................................................... 6 

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................... 7 

A) Undisputed Facts ............................................................................................. 7 

B) Defendant's Claims ......................................................................................... 8 

III. LEGAL STANDARD .......................................................................................... 9 

A) This motion is properly and timely made ....................................................... 9 

B) Only the pleadings, exhibits thereto, and matters judicially notices may be

considered ....................................................................................................... 9 

C) Judgment as a matter of law ......................................................................... 10 

D) Insufficient affirmative defenses must be stricken ...................................... 10 

IV. TETYANA IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ........... I I 

A) The elements for a breach of contract claim are established

in the pleadings .......................................................................................... 11 

i) There was a contract ............................................................................... 11 

ii) The non-defendant oblige performed the contract.. .............................. 12 

iii) Defendant breached the contract .......................................................... 12 

iv) Resulting damages ................................................................................ 13 

B) Defendant's affirmative defenses are legally insufficient.. ......................... 14 

V. ALTERNATIVELY, TETYANA IS ENTITLED TO PARTIAL

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ................................................................ 16 

VI. CON CL USON ................................................................................................... 16 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

CASES 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,678 (2009) ................................................................. 10, 11 

Askew v. Askew (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 942 ....................................................................... 15 

Barber v. TadayasuAbo, 186 F.2d 775, 777 (9th Cir. Cal. 1951) ................................. 9, 10 

Boyd v. Boyd (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 374 .......................................................................... 15 

Buckley, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at 932 .............................................................................. 15 

Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. Ariz. 

2011) ................................................................................................................................ 9 

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 98 (1983) ........................................................ 16 

Colaprico v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 758 F.Supp.1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. 

1991) ........................................................................................................................ 11, 15 

Cutler v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association, 441 F. 

Supp. 863,866 (N.D. Cal. 1977) ................................................................................... 16 

Doe v. United States, 419 F.3d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. Wash. 2005) ...................................... 9 

Erler v. Erler, 824 F.3d 1173, 1175-1176, 1177, 1179-1180 (9th Cir. Cal. 

2016) ...................................................................................................... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 

Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th 

Cir. Cal. 1989) ...................................................................................................... 9, 10, 14 

Harris v. Cnty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. Cal. 2012) ................... 10, 11, 13 

Hart v. Baca, 204 F.R.D. 456,457 (C.D. Cal. 2001) ............................................. 11, 15, 16 

In re Marriage of Buckley (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 927 ..................................................... 15 

Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. Cal. 2001) ............................. 10 

MacDonaldv. Grace Church Seattle, 451 F.3d 1079, 1081 (9th Cir. Wash. 

2006) .............................................................................................................................. 10 

Mack v. South Bay Beer Distrib., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. Cal. 1986) .................... 10 

Marshall Naify Revocable Trust v. United States, 612 F .3d 620, 623 (9th 

Cir. Cal. 2012) .......................................................................................................... 10, 11 

Motown Record Corp. v. George A. Hormel & Co., 657 F.Supp.1236, 1238 

(C.D. Cal. 1987) ............................................................................................................. 16 

Ill 

-3-

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT 

ON THE PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL 

PROCEDURE 12lc} 

TO EACH PARTY AND ATTORNEY OF RECORD: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Thursday, July 20, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., or as 

soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, in Courtroom 4 of the above-entitled Court, 

located at 450 Golden Gate A venue, 17th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102, plaintiff 

Tetyana Dorsaneo ("Tetyana'') will, and hereby does, move for judgment on the pleadings 

(the "motion"). 

Tetyana seeks an order grantingjudgment on the pleadings, in her favor, on her 

complaint, including an award of the relief prayed for therein. The motion is based on this 

notice, all pleadings, papers, records on file in this action, the attached supporting 

memorandum, and/or any and all items of which this Court may take judicial notice. 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 

OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 

PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12{c} 

PlaintiffTetyana Dorsaneo ("Tetyana") states her motion for judgment on the 

pleadings (the "motion") as follows: 

I. 

STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED 

In her motion, Tetyana asks this Court to determine, on the pleadings, that she is 

entitled to have judgment on her complaint entered - in full - in her favor. If this Court 

declines to do so, Tetyana requests entry of partial judgment in her favor. As such, the 

issues to be decided are: 

1) Whether the motion is timely and properly filed;

2)Whether Tetyana's request for judicial notice filed concurrently herewith should

be granted; 

. 3) Whether Tetyana is entitled to judgment on the pleadings- either in full or in 

part - as a matter of law; and 

-6-

MOTION FOR ruDOMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4) Whether Defendant's affirmative defenses should be stricken as insufficient.

II. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

The parties agree that a contract has been signed via Form 1-864. They agree on the 

statute that governs that contract. The only alleged issue for dispute is whether defendant 

Edward Matthew Dorsaneo ("defendant") was excused from performing the contract in 

question. He is not excused as a matter of law. 

No material issues of fact need to be resolved for that issue to be determined, and 

judgment granted, as a matter of law. Therefore, this case is properly determined on the 

pleadings. 

A) Undisputed Facts

The following facts are not in dispute. They were set forth in Tetyana's verified 

complaint in this action and admitted in defendant's answer to that complaint. 1

This is a lawsuit for immigration financial support under the Form 1-864, Affidavit 

of Support ("Form 1-864") (Complaint ,r 1) A true and correct copy of the Form 1-864 at 

issue here was attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 1. (Id. at ,r 1, Exhibit 1) 

Defendant is a citizen of the United States of America, residing in Rohnert Park, 

County of Sonoma, California. (Complaint 119, 11, 24; Answer ,r,r 5, 8) Tetyana is a 

citizen of Ukraine. (Complaint ,r 25; Answer ,r 8) Tetyana and defendant were legally 

married on September 24, 2013. (Complaint ,r 26; Answer 18) Defendant thereafter 

elected to petition for Tetyana to immigrate to the United States by, among other things, 

signing Form 1-864. (Complaint ,r,r 4, 5, 26, 27; Answer ,r 8) 

Form I-864 was created by the United States Congress in 1996 to ensure that 

family-sponsored immigrants are guaranteed a basic level of financial support, sufficient 

to meet the most basic needs of life. (Complaint ,r 2) In mandating Form I-864, Congress 

required visa sponsors, rather than the American people via the U.S. government, to serve 

1 True and correct copies of the complaint and answer are attached hereto as Exhibits 1 

and 2, respectively. 

-7-

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

as a safety net to new immigrants. (Ibid.) By signing Form I-864, defendant obligated 

himself to provide financial support to Tetyana. (Complaint, ,r,r 2, 4, 5, 27, Exhibit 1; 

Answer 113, 8) Form I-864 is a contractual promise to provide statutorily-mandated 

financial support. (Ibid.) 

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1331, as this action arises under federal immigration law. 8 U.S.C. § l 183a(e)(I.) 

(Complaint ,r 4; Answer ,r 3) This court has personal jurisdiction over defendant as, by 

signing Form I-864, defendant submitted to the jurisdiction of any court with subject 

matter jurisdiction over Tetyana's claims. 8 U.S.C. § 1183a(a)(l)(C). (Complaint ,r 5; 

Answer 13) Venue in this matter is proper in this United States District because the 

defendant resides in this district. 28 U.S.C. § 139l(e)(l)(A). (Complaint ,r 6; Answer ,r 3) 

8 U.S.C. § 1183a governs this case. (Complaint 14; Answer 13) 

B) Defendant's Claims

Defendant admits he signed Form I-864 and is bound by the statutory support 

obligations that result from his doing so. (Complaint ff 2, 4, 5, 27, Exhibit 1; Answer 11 

3, 8) Defendant has not provided the support required under Form I-864, therefore, he has 

breached that obligation and Tetyana is entitled to the relief requested. (Ibid.) 

Because he has admitted to signing Form I-864 and admitted the validity and 

legality of Form I-i64 and the support obligations it places upon him, defendant had only 

two possible defenses in this case. He could have claimed that he has provided ( and 

continues to provide) all of the support necessary under Form I-864. Or, he could attempt 

to produce some legal excuse for his non-compliance with the support obligations. 

Defendant has taken the second approach. 2 He sets forth three affirmative defenses 

2 Defendant makes a vague attempt at the first approach in his answer. However, instead 

of outright stating that he has provided the reqmred financial support, he claims to lack 

sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny whether he has done so. ( Answer 11 

2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10) Certainly, defendant knows whether he has provided Tetyana with 

financial support. His claim not to know whether he has done so is disingenuous. The 

reasonable mference from the face of the pleading is that defendant does not dispute nonpayment of the financial obligation but instead is mounting a defense that he is excused 

from performance of the obligation. 

-8-

MOTION FOR nJOOMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 
1 that he claims provide him with an excuse to not perform his Form I-864 obligations. 

2 (Answer p. 2) Defendant's affirmative defenses are not legally sufficient, and judgment 

3 should be entered on the pleadings in Tetyana's favor. 

4 m 

5 LEGAL STANDARD 

6 A) This Motion is properly and timely made

7 "After the pleadings are closed - but early enough not to delay trial - a party may 

8 move for judgment on the pleadings." Fed. R. Civ. Proc. R. 12(c). "The pleadings are 

9 closed for the purposes of Rule 12(c) once a complaint and answer have been filed, 

10 assuming, as is the case here, that no counterclaim or cross-claim is made." Doe v. United

11 States, 419 F.3d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. Wash. 2005). 

12 Both the complaint and answer have been filed. No counterclaim or cross-claim 

13 has been made. Trial has not yet been set, and will therefore not be delayed by this 

14 motion. This motion is ripe for consideration by this Court. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. R. 12(c); 

15 Doe, supra, 419 F.3d at 1061. 

16 B) Only the pleadings, exhibits thereto, and matters judicially noticed may be

17 considered

18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) is "functionally identical" to Federal Rule of 

19 Civil Procedure 12(b )( 6), such "that the same standard of review applies to motions 

20 brought under either rule.'' Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th 

21 Cir. Ariz. 2011 ). A court may not go beyond the pleadings to resolve any portion of a 

22 motion for judgment on the pleadings. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 

23 896 F .2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. Cal. 1989). Reliance on or consideration of declarations, 

24 witness testimony, etc. is patently improper. /bid.

25 However, exhibits to the complaint and similar documents upon which the 

26 complaint necessarily relies are considered part of the pleadings for purposes of a motion 

27 for judgment on the pleadings. Barber v. Tadayasu Abo, 186 F.2d 775, 777 (9th Cir. Cal. 

28 

-9-

MOTION FOR nJOOMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 
1 1951 ); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F .3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. Cal. 200 I). In addition, 

2 under Federal Rule of Evidence 20 I, a court deciding a motion for judgment on the 

3 pleadings may consider facts properly judicially noticed. Mack v. South Bay Beer Distrib., 

4 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. Cal. 1986). 

5 To determine this motion, this Court must consider only Tetyana's complaint, the 

6 exhibit thereto, defendant's answer, and any matter properly judicially noticed. Ibid; 

1 Barber, supra, 186 F.2d at 777; Lee, supra, 250 F.3d at 688-689. 

8 C) Judgment as a matter of law

9 Judgment on the pleadings should be granted ifTetyana "clearly establishes on the 

10 face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that [she] is 

11 entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Hal Roach Studios, supra, 896 F.2d at 1550. This 

12 Court should accept all undisputed facts as true. MacDonald v. Grace Church Seattle, 457 

13 F.3d 1079, 1081 (9th Cir. Wash. 2006). As to all remaining facts, those "of the

14 nonmoving party are accepted as true, while contradicting allegations of the moving party 

15 are assumed to be false." Ibid. 

16 Tetyana need not prove that every fact in her complaint is undisputed. She need 

17 only establish that "the complaint at issue contains sufficient factual matter, accepted as 

18 true, to state a claim of relief that is plausible on its face." Han-is v. Cnty. of Orange, 682 

19 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. Cal. 2012) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,678

20 (2009)). That, considering all undisputed facts and accepting defendant's contradictory 

21 facts as true, Tetyana is entitled to judgment under the law. Marshall Naify Revocable 

22 Trust v. United States, 672 F.3d 620, 623 (9th Cir. Cal. 2012). If so, she is entitled to 

23 prevail, even if facts related to the case remain in dispute. Han-is, supra, 682 F.3d at 1131. 

24 D) Insufficient affirmative defenses must be stricken

25 This Court must consider defendant's affirmative defenses in determining whether 

26 Tetyana is entitled to prevail on her motion. Marshall Naify, supra, 672 F.3d at 623. 

27 However, only those affirmative defenses that are sufficient as a matter of law need be 

28 

-10-

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 
1 given any consideration. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. R. 12(f); Colaprico v. Sun Microsystems, 

2 Inc., 758 F.Supp.1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. 1991). Where an affirmative defense is legally 

3 insufficient, the court should make a determination of its insufficiency and strike it as 

4 early as possible in the litigation, "to avoid the needless expenditures of time and money 

5 in litigating the defense." Hart v. Baca, 204 F.R.D. 456,457 (C.D. Cal. 2001). 

6 � 

7 TETY ANA IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 

8 The undisputed facts in this case are sufficient to establish that defendant has 

9 breached his obligations to Tetyana under Form I-864. Defendant's denials and 

10 affirmative defenses are legally insufficient to overcome Tetyana's stated case. Tetyana is 

11 therefore entitled to judgment on the pleadings. Harris, supra, 682 F .3d at 1131; Ashcroft, 

12 supra, 556 U.S. at 678. 

13 Tetyana is a third-party beneficiary of the Form 1-864 contract at issue in this case. 

14 Erler v. Erler, 824 F.3d 1173, 1175-76 (9th Cir. Cal. 2016). She therefore may enforce it. 

15 Civ. Code§ 1559. 

16 To state her cause of action for breach of contract, Tetyana must establish that 

17 there was a contract, that the non-defendant obligee performed, that defendant breached 

18 the contract, and that as a result, damages were suffered. Reichert v. General Ins. Co. 

19 (1968) 68 Cal.2d 822, 830; Civ. Code§ 1559. She must also negate any affirmative 

20 defenses to her claim for breach of contract alleged by defendant. Marshall Naify, supra, 

21 672 F.3d at 623. 

22 A)The elements for a breach of contract claim are established in the pleadings

23 i) There was a 1

contract

24 Defendant admits he signed Form 1-864 and is bound by the statutory support 

25 obligations that accompany signing Form 1-864. (Complaint ,r,r 2, 4, 5, 27, Exhibit 1; 

26 Answer fl 3, 8) The Form 1-864 is the contract at issue here. (Ibid.) 

27 /// 

28 

-11-

MOTION FOR JUOOMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 
1 ii) The non-defendant obligee performed the contract

2 The non -defendant obligee in this case is the United States government. Its promise 

3 under Form I-864 was to allow Tetyana entry into the United States in exchange for 

4 defendanf s promise to financially provide for her. It did so. ( Complaint ,r,r 2, 4, 25, 26, 

5 27, Exhibit 1; Answer ,r,r 3, 8) 

6 iii) Defendant breached the contract

7 Defendant 's obligation under the contract was to provide financial support for 

8 Tetyana according to the statutory terms. ( Complaint ,r,r2, 4, 5, 27, Exhibit l; Answer ,r,r 

9 3, 8) 

10 "The Immigration and Nationality Act forbids admission to the United States of 

11 any alien who 'is likely at any time to become a public charge."' Erler, supra 824 F.3d at 

12 1175 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)( 4 )). These inadmissible persons may become 

13 admissible if a sponsor signs an affidavit of support. Erler, supra, 824 F.3d at 1175 ; 8 

14 U.S.C. § 1183a. These affidavits - called a Form I-864 - are governed by 8 U.S.C. §

15 1183a. 

16 "Once executed, the [Form 1-864] becomes a contract between the sponsor and the 

17 U.S. Government for the benefit of the sponsored immigrant ... " Erler, supra, 824 F.3d

18 at 1175 -1176. Under federal law, a Form 1-864 affidavit remains enforceable indefinitely 

19 unless one of five terminating events occurs. Ibid; 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(e)( 2)(i); 8 U.S.C. § 

20 1183a. Nothing other than those terminating events-not even divorce or remarriage to 

21 another person-terminates sponsorship obligations under Form 1-864. Erler, supra, 824 

22 F.3d at 1177.

23 Because the primary purpose of the sponsorship requirement is to "prevent the 

24 admission to the United States of any alien who 'is likely at any time to become a public 

25 charge,"' Form 1-864 affidavits are strictly interpreted against the sponsor. Erler, supra, 

26 824 F.3d at 1177-1179. The affidavits must be interpreted "in a way that makes 

27 prospective sponsors more cautious about sponsoring immigrants.' ' Ibid. Any close call 

28 

-12-

MOTION FOR .ruooMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 
1 should be interpreted in favor of requiring strict and ongoing financial support. Ibid. Even 

2 a windfall to a sponsored immigrant is preferred to releasing a sponsor from payment 

3 obligations outside of the strict conditions set forth in the statute. Ibid. 

4 The amount of support due is statutorily mandated as well. The statute provides 

5 that a sponsor must "provide the immigrant with whatever support is necessary to 

6 maintain him or her at an annual income of at least 125% of the [federal] poverty 

7 guidelines for a one-person household." Erler, supra, 824 F.3d at 1179-1180. 

8 For Tetyana to qualify for admission to the United States, defendant agreed to 

9 become her sponsor and signed a Form 1-864 affidavit. (Complaint ,r,r 4, 5, 26, 27; 

10 Answer 1,r 3, 8) By doing so, he obligated himself to provide Tetyana with whatever 

11 financial support was necessary to maintain her at an annual income of at least 125% of 

12 the federal poverty guidelines for her household size. Erler, supra, 824 F .3d at 1179-1180. 

13 These facts are not in dispute. 

14 The only way defendant could be released from his financial support obligations 

15 would be the occurrence of one of the five terminating events. Erler, supra, 824 F.3d at 

16 1175-1176; 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(e)(2)(i); 8 U.S.C. § 1183a. Nowhere in his answer does 

17 defendant raise the claim or defense that one of those terminating events has occurred. 

18 Tetyana testified that they have not. (Complaint ,r,r 32) In fact, therefore, no terminating 

19 event has occurred. By law, the financial support obligation exists and continues. 

20 Defendant's affirmative defenses do not include a claim that he has met his support 

21 obligations. (Answer p. 2) Instead, he argues that he is excused from performance of those 

22 obligations. (Ibid.) Taken as a whole, the law and undisputed facts show defendant owes 

23 Tetyana a financial support obligation and has not paid it. Ha"is, supra, 682 F.3d at 1131. 

24 iv) Resulting damages

25 The amount of support required to be paid by defendant is mandated by statute and 

26 can be judicially noticed. Penilla v. Westmont Corp. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 205,221 

27 /// 

28 

-13-

MOTION FOR JUOOMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

(the federal poverty guidelines can be judicially noticed); Fed. R. Evid. 201 (statutes may 

be judicially noticed). 

Defendant was required to pay Tetyana $1.;216 per month since February 5, 2014. 

(Complaint ,r,r 40-45) He is required to continue to do so until one of the five tenninating 

events occurs. Erler, supra, 824 F.3d at 1175-1176; 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(e)(2)(i); 8 U.S.C. § 

1183a. 

Because the amount of support can be judicially noticed and calculated based on 

the statutory formula, as a matter of law, Tetyana has established her right to judgment on 

the pleadings. Hal Roach Studios, supra, 896 F.2d at 1550; Fed. R. Evid. 201. 

B)Defendant's affirmative defenses are legally insufficient

Defendant does not claim that he has been meeting his financial support obligations 

to Tetyana. He does not claim that any of the statutory bases for termination of those 

obligations (the five terminating events) occurred. Instead, his alleged defense in this case 

is that those obligations are negated because: 1) the affidavit was procured by fraud 

because Tetyana only married him to procure a green card/citizenship and never intended 

to stay married to him; 2) Tetyana is estopped from bringing her claim for support 

because she never intended to fulfill her marriage to defendant'; and 3) the affidavit was 

procured illegally because Tetyana defrauded defendant to obtain a green card/citizenship. 

(Answer p. 2) These are all variations on the same theme: the obligations defendant 

signed up for in signing the Form 1-864 should be negated because Tetyana only married 

him to obtain a green card. 

The only way defendant could be released from his financial support obligations 

would be the occurrence of one of the five terminating events. Erler, supra, 824 F.3d at 

1175-1176; 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(e)(2)(i); 8 U.S.C. § 1183a. An allegation of fraud in the 

inducement of marriage to obtain a green card is not a terminating event. Ibid. The statute 

is strict and narrow on purpose, to discourage potential sponsors from entering into the 

3 It is unclear what defendant means in this defense, as it is undisputed that Tetyana diq, in 

fact, marry defendant. (Complaint ,r 26; Answer p. 1) 

-14-

MOTION FOR ruDOMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 

1 � 

2 ALTERNATIVELY, TETY ANA IS ENTITLED TO PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON 

3 THE PLEADINGS 

4 Tetyana submits that she is entitled to the full relief sought in her complaint on her 

5 motion. In the event this Court finds that certain aspects of her complaint are not properly 

6 determined on the pleadings, Tetyana requests that this Court grant her a partial judgment 

7 on the pleadings. Numerous cases provide for partial judgment on the pleadings, including 

8 cases from the United States Supreme Court. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 

9 98 (1983); Motown Record Corp. v. George A. Hormel & Co., 657 F.Supp.1236, 1238 

10 (C.D. Cal. 1987); Cutler v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association, 441 F.

11 Supp. 863, 866 (N.D. Cal. 1977). 

12 This Court has discretion to fashion an order for partial judgment on the pleadings 

13 on any claim or fact this Court deems proper. City of Los Angeles, supra, 461 U.S. at 98. 

14 Any issue not in dispute or capable of determination by law should be determined now by 

15 this Court, to avoid an unnecessary waste of judicial resources going forward. Ibid; Hart,

16 supra, 204 F.R.D. at 457. 

17 VI. 

18 CONCLUSION 

19 Tetyana requests that this Court grant her motion and issue an order granting her 

20 the full relief requested in her complaint. Alternatively, Tetyana requests that this Court 

21 issue partial summary relief on the pleadings to the extent this Court deems appropriate. 

22 Dated: May /6', 2017 LLOYDWINTER, P.C. 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-16-

� By: 

Jody� 

Attorney for plaintiff 

Tetyana Dorsaneo. 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 
EXHIBIT ''1'' 





















EXHIBIT ''2'' 

Case 4:17-cv-00765-DMR Document 12 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 2 

1 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

2 Defendant asserts the following affirmative defenses: 

3 1., Defendant alleges and asserts that any alleged contract or third-party beneficiary contract was procured by 

4 the fraud of plaintiff as she married defendant only to obtain a green card and eventual citizenship of this 

5 country and never intended to stay married to him. 

6 2, Defendant alleges and asserts that plaintiff is estopped from being bringing the instant claim because she 

7 never Intended to fulfill her marriage to defendant which was the basis for obtaining a green card and eventual 

8 citizenship of this country. 

9 3, Defendant alleges and asserts that any alleged contract or third-party beneficiary contract was procured 

10 illegally as plaintiff acted in violation of law by defrauding defendant only to obtain a green card and eventual 

11 citizenship of this country and for no other reason. 

WHEREFORE, defendant prays: 

1, That this claim be dismissed with prejudice; 

2. That defendant be awarded his attorney fees;

3. That defendant be awarded his costs;

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4. And for such further and other relief that this Court deems just and in proper.

Dated this 10 of April, 2017. 

/s/ Jeffrey 8 Neustadt 

Jeffrey B Neustadt 

Attorney for defendant, EDWARD DORSANEO

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT - 2