Tara Lasham v. Jason Grimes ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 1 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TARA LASHAM, Co-Trustee, Kingdom of No. 22-15768
Heaven Trust,
D.C. No.
Plaintiff-Appellant, 1:22-cv-00098-DKW-KJM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JASON GRIMES; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Derrick Kahala Watson, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 27, 2023**
Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Tara Lasham appeals the district court's dismissal of her claims against four
defendants: Jason Grimes, Gerald Scatena (Grimes’ attorney), the State of Hawaii,
and Judge Bruce Larson (Judge of the Family Court for the Third District, State of
Hawaii). Lasham sought injunctive and declaratory relief from Judge Larson’s
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
temporary order, which gave temporary legal and physical custody of Lasham and
Grimes’ minor daughter, S.H.L.G., to Grimes. The federal district court dismissed
Lasham’s claims under Younger abstention because of the ongoing family court
proceeding, which had yet to be finalized at the time Lasham filed suit in federal
district court.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the decision to
dismiss de novo, and we affirm without reaching the merits. Green v. City of Tucson,
255 F.3d 1086, 1093 (9th Cir. 2001).
1. The district court correctly abstained here under Younger. Younger
abstention is “essentially a jurisdictional doctrine,” Canatella v. California, 404 F.3d
1106, 1113 (9th Cir. 2005), and each of the four factors for applying
Younger abstention are met. See Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir.
2018). Here, the family court proceeding was ongoing at the time Lasham filed suit
in the district court on March 13, 2022. The family court proceeding involved a
custody dispute over S.H.L.G., which is a traditional area of state concern, expertise,
and experience. H.C. v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000); see Moore v.
Sims, 422 U.S. 415, 435 (1979). States also have an interest in protecting “the
authority of the judicial system, so that its orders and judgments are not rendered
nugatory.” Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 336 (1977). Lasham had an adequate
opportunity to assert her claims in state court proceedings. See Pennzoil Co. v.
2
Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987) (highlighting that a federal court should assume
that state procedures will afford an adequate remedy). The family court’s temporary
order even informed Lasham of her right to appeal, yet she did not appeal that order
in state court. Lastly, had the district court ruled on Lasham’s claims, it might have
practically enjoined any final family court decision by preventing that court from
exercising authority over Lasham and Grimes. For these reasons, the district court
correctly refrained from exercising jurisdiction over Lasham’s claims due to
Younger abstention.
2. We DENY Hawaii’s motion to supplement the record with the final state
court judgment granting custody of S.H.L.G. to Grimes. Because Younger
abstention is analyzed at the time the federal complaint is filed, the final state court
judgment is not necessary in our determination that the district court correctly
abstained under Younger. See Rynearson v. Ferguson, 903 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir.
2018).
AFFIRMED.
3