1In addition to the State of Utah, Bromley names Utah

Attorney General Mark L. Shurtleff, Assistant Utah Attorney

General Ben Stoneman, the Utah Department of Human Services

(“UDHS”), UDHS Director Lisa-Michele Church, the Office of

Recovery Services for the State of Utah, Colleen Berrett, and

Luann Jenson as defendants to this action.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven L. Bromley

v. Civil No. 08-cv-161-JL

State of Utah, et al.1

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter comes before me on Steven Bromley’s request for

an injunction preventing defendants from withholding his wages

(document no. 1). A hearing was held on this matter on November

13, 2008. In addition to the evidence and argument adduced at

the hearing, the parties have filed memoranda addressing several

questions of law that arose at the hearing. After considering

all of the material submitted, and as explained fully herein, I

recommend that the request for preliminary injunction be denied.

Case 1:08-cv-00161-JL Document 29 Filed 02/17/09 Page 1 of 8
2Steven contests the paternity of this child. Whether or

not the second child is his biological child is immaterial to my

recommendation in this matter.

2

Background

Steven Bromley married Jennifer Bromley in New Hampshire in

January of 2003. They had a child in October of 2003. Shortly

thereafter, Steven was incarcerated in New York. During his

incarceration, Jennifer gave birth to the Bromleys’ second

child.2 In May of 2004, Jennifer left New Hampshire and moved to

Utah. In December of 2004, Jennifer filed a petition for divorce

in a Utah state court.

 Steven was served with a notice of the filing of Jennifer’s

divorce petition. While the summons accompanying the petition

directed Steven to file a written response or else suffer default

in the action, Steven failed to respond in writing to the divorce

petition. Instead, Steven made inquiry at the Utah court about

the time, date, and place of hearing. He got no response to his

inquiry, presumably because he never filed a written response,

resulting in a default judgment of divorce without a hearing.

The petition for divorce was granted on June 16, 2005. The

decree of divorce directed Steven to make child support payments

for the Bromleys’ two children during their minority. On

Case 1:08-cv-00161-JL Document 29 Filed 02/17/09 Page 2 of 8
3

February 13, 2006, the State of Utah filed a petition in the

divorce case seeking to modify the divorce decree to address the

payment of the children’s medical expenses. Steven was served

with the petition on February 24, 2006. 

On February 27, 2006, in response to the petition, Steven

filed a “Motion for Extension of Time” requesting an extension of

fifteen days to prepare for a scheduled hearing, and also

requesting court-appointed counsel. On May 5, 2006, Steven filed

a “Motion for Appointment of Counsel” and an “Affidavit in

Support of Motion for Appointment of Counsel” and a “Memorandum

of Law” in the divorce modification matter. On the day of the

hearing, May 11, 2006, the Utah court denied Steven’s motions and

entered Steven’s default. On June 6, 2006, the Utah court

granted the petition to modify the support order.

In 2007, the State of New Hampshire, on behalf of the State

of Utah, sought to register Utah’s foreign support order with the

New Hampshire state courts, pursuant to New Hampshire’s Uniform

Interstate Family Support Act, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 546-B:39,

et seq., which allows a support order or income-withholding order

issued by a tribunal of another state to be registered in New

Hampshire for enforcement. Plaintiff objected on the grounds

Case 1:08-cv-00161-JL Document 29 Filed 02/17/09 Page 3 of 8
3At the November 13, 2008 hearing on this matter, the

parties before the Court had not yet been notified of this Order. 

The Superior Court notified the parties of its October 8, 2008

Order on November 18, 2008.

4

that the Utah state court lacked personal jurisdiction over him

at the time it issued the order of which enforcement was sought. 

See N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 546-B:45(I)(a) (providing for a

defense to an enforcement action based on lack of personal

jurisdiction). Finding that New Hampshire failed to demonstrate

that plaintiff had been subject to the personal jurisdiction of

the Utah court, and that, therefore the Utah court lacked

personal jurisdiction over plaintiff, the New Hampshire Superior

Court denied the petition to enforce, without prejudice to

refiling, on February 21, 2008.

The State of New Hampshire refiled its petition in the New

Hampshire Superior Court in May of 2008. Again, plaintiff

objected on the grounds that the Utah court issuing the support

order did not have personal jurisdiction over him. At the

October 8, 2008 hearing held on the second petition, the Marital

Master found that the Utah court issuing the order sought to be

enforced had personal jurisdiction over plaintiff at the time of

issuance. The New Hampshire Superior Court granted the state’s

motion on October 8, 2008.3

Case 1:08-cv-00161-JL Document 29 Filed 02/17/09 Page 4 of 8
5

Discussion

The Younger v. Harris abstention doctrine provides that

federal courts should, in certain circumstances, abstain from

entertaining cases involving issues that are the subject of

currently pending state judicial proceedings when: (1) there is

an ongoing state proceeding which is judicial in nature; (2)

important state interests are involved; and (3) the plaintiff

will have an adequate opportunity in the state proceeding to

raise the constitutional challenges presented by the federal law

suit. 401 U.S. 37, 43-44 (1971); see Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd.,

420 U.S. 592, 603-05 (1975) (discussing that Younger is grounded

in principles of comity and noting that federal courts should

not, in certain circumstances, interfere with state courts); see

also Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457

U.S. 423, 431-32 (1982) (applying the abstention defined in

Younger, a criminal case, to civil cases); Brooks v. N.H. Sup.

Ct., 80 F.3d 633, 638 (1st Cir. 1996). “Except in the most

extraordinary cases, a federal court must presume that state

courts, consistent with the imperatives of the Supremacy Clause,

see U.S. Const. art. VI, are fully competent to adjudicate

federal constitutional and statutory claims properly presented by

Case 1:08-cv-00161-JL Document 29 Filed 02/17/09 Page 5 of 8
6

the parties.” Casa Marie, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 988 F.2d 252, 262

(1st Cir. 1993). Federal court intervention can be countenanced

only where a plaintiff can show there is no opportunity to raise

the federal issues in a state court, a state statute under attack

is “flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional

prohibitions in every clause,” or plaintiffs can show “bad faith, 

harassment, or any other unusual circumstances that would call

for equitable relief.” Younger 401 U.S. at 53-54. 

There is no doubt that the enforcement of child support

orders is an important matter of state interest. Further, none

of the facts plaintiff alleges suggest that he has been denied an

adequate opportunity in the state courts to adjudicate all of the

issues raised in this action, including his federal

constitutional claim. Plaintiff makes no assertion that he was

subjected to an unconstitutional state statute, or that he has

been the victim of bad faith or harassment in the New Hampshire

state court proceedings. The state courts did not deny Mr.

Bromley the opportunity to present his arguments; they simply

denied him the relief he sought. 

The New Hampshire Superior Court notified the parties of its

order on November 18, 2008. The parties have not notified this

Case 1:08-cv-00161-JL Document 29 Filed 02/17/09 Page 6 of 8
4Should plaintiff have failed to file an appeal of the New

Hampshire Superior Court’s order in the New Hampshire Supreme

Court, that failure would render the New Hampshire Superior

Court’s decision a final judgment in the state matter. In that

circumstance, this Court would likely be precluded from

exercising jurisdiction over this action under the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine, which provides that “lower federal courts are precluded

from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court

judgments.” Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 463, (2006)

(affirming principles established in D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman,

460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983) and Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S.

413, 416 (1923)). 

7

Court as to whether or not Bromley has appealed that decision to

the New Hampshire Supreme Court, whether there is an active

appellate case, or whether the order of the New Hampshire

Superior Court has become final. In the event that plaintiff did

appeal, however, and that a state court case is therefore

ongoing, I recommend dismissal of this case based on the Younger

abstention doctrine.4

The parties, at my direction, briefed additional issues of

law after the evidentiary hearing pertaining to personal

jurisdiction and the collateral estoppel effect, if any, of

findings of fact made in the New Hampshire Superior Court order

dismissing New Hampshire’s first enforcement petition without

prejudice to refiling. Although the parties submitted additional

filings, my decision on Younger grounds renders it inadvisable,

in the interest of comity, for me to comment on the merits of the

Case 1:08-cv-00161-JL Document 29 Filed 02/17/09 Page 7 of 8
8

arguments made by the parties, as these are likely to be issues

presented to the state courts for decision.

Conclusion

As explained fully above, I recommend that this matter be

dismissed, as this Court should abstain from entertaining this

action. Any objections to this report and recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of

Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992); United

States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986). 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: February 17, 2009

cc: Steven L. Bromley, pro se

John P. Soltis, III, Esq.

Joni J. Jones, Esq.

Nancy J. Smith, Esq. 

Case 1:08-cv-00161-JL Document 29 Filed 02/17/09 Page 8 of 8