Keane v. Keane , 549 F. App'x 54 ( 2014 )

13-853
Keane v. Keane
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
2 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
3 13th day of January, two thousand fourteen.
4
5 PRESENT:
6 DENNIS JACOBS,
7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
8 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
9 Circuit Judges.
10 _____________________________________
11
12 Nitza Keane,
13
14 Plaintiff-Appellant,
15
16 v. 13-853
17
18 Frank M. Keane,
19
20 Defendant-Appellee.
21
22 _____________________________________
23
24
25 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Nitza Keane, pro se, White Plains, NY.
26
27 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Matthew John Keating, Maffei Maffei & Keating,
28 Yonkers, NY.
29
30
1 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
2 New York (Yanthis, M.J.).
3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
4 DECREED that the judgment of the magistrate judge is AFFIRMED.
5 Nitza Keane appeals from the dismissal of her action for fraud against her former
6 husband. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under
7 the domestic relations exception. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts,
8 the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
9 “In reviewing a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter
10 jurisdiction, we review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.” Maloney
11 v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 517 F.3d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Dismissal of a complaint is
12 proper “when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it.”
13 Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000).
14 The domestic relations exception to subject matter jurisdiction generally “encompasses
15 only cases involving the issuance of a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree.” Ankenbrandt
16 v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 704 (1992); see Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Block, 905 F.2d 12, 14 (2d Cir.
17 1990) (noting that the domestic relations exception generally applies only when a district court is
18 asked to grant a divorce, determine alimony, or award custody of a child). However, there are
19 exceptions. See Ankenbrandt, 504 U.S. at 705 (noting that it may be appropriate for courts to
20 abstain from exercising subject matter jurisdiction “in a case involving elements of the domestic
21 relationship even when the parties do not seek divorce, alimony, or child custody”). “A federal
22 court presented with matrimonial issues or issues on the verge of being matrimonial in nature
2
1 should abstain from exercising jurisdiction so long as there is no obstacle to their full and fair
2 determination in state courts.” Am. Airlines, 905 F.2d at 14 (internal quotation marks omitted).
3 We find no error in the magistrate judge’s dismissal of Keane’s action for lack of subject
4 matter jurisdiction for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s memorandum decision and
5 order.
6 We have considered Keane’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
7 Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the magistrate judge.
8 FOR THE COURT:
9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
10
11
12
13
14
3