Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Zeune v. Mickley

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

November 15, 2017

RODNEY D. ZEUNE, Plaintiff,
BETH A. MICKLEY, Defendant.

          James L. Graham Judge.



         Plaintiff, Rodney D. Zeune, who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, filed this action against his ex-wife, Defendant Beth A. Mickley, asserting a number of state-law claims. Pursuant to the Court's October 6, 2017 Order, this matter is before the United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation on the question of whether subject matter jurisdiction exists in this case. For the reasons set forth below, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.


         According to Plaintiff's December 8, 2015 Complaint, Defendant breached “several conditions” of their Separation Agreement. (Pl.'s Compl. 2, ECF No. 1.) The Exhibits Plaintiff attaches to his Complaint reflect that on October 23, 2006, following an October 3, 2006 hearing, the Common Pleas Court of Knox County, Ohio, Division of Domestic Agreement, entered an “Agreed Judgment - Decree of Divorce” in which the state court detailed, in pertinent part, as follows:

IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Separation Agreement signed by the parties and attached to this Decree is hereby approved and incorporated as part of this Decree, and that all of the terms and conditions of the Separation Agreement shall be and hereby are made Orders of this Court.

(ECF No. 1-2 at 3.)

         Although the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint lack clarity, Plaintiff appears to allege that at an October 2008 state-court proceeding relating to the Separation Agreement, the state court relied upon Defendant's testimony to enter judgment against him and in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $25, 000. (Compl. ¶¶ 9-11 and 19, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that because he had no notice of that state-court hearing, he was unable to “point out Defendant's fraud upon the Court.” (Id. at ¶ 11.) Plaintiff makes several allegations concerning Defendant's actions that he appears to contend contradict her testimony at the October 2008 state-court hearing and/or constitute violations of the Separation Agreement.

         Plaintiff asserts that this action is properly in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is a resident of Arizona, that he is a resident of Ohio, and that he is seeking $150, 000 in damages. (Id. at 2, 5.)


         “[F]ederal courts have a duty to consider their subject matter jurisdiction in regard to every case and may raise the issue sua sponte.” Answers in Genesis, Inc. v. Creation Ministries Int'l, ltd., 556 F.3d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 2009); Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982) (“[A] court . . . will raise lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on its own motion.”). Under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).

         Traditionally, federal courts do not have jurisdiction when the case involves “the issuance of a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree.” Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 704 (1992). This exception is not “compelled by the text of the Constitution or federal statute, ” but rather is a “judicially created doctrine[ ] stemming in large measure from misty understandings of English legal history.” Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 299 (2006). The domestic-relations exception is also premised on the notion that state courts have expertise in the area of domestic-related decrees “because of the special proficiency developed by state tribunals over the past century and a half in handling issues that arise in the granting of such decrees.” Ankenbrandt, 504 U.S. at 703-04. If, however, the matter does not squarely pertain to “issuing a divorce, alimony, or child-custody decree, ” federal courts retain jurisdiction “even if the matter involves married or once-married parties.” Marshall, 547 U.S. at 308 (citing Ankenbrandt, 504 U.S. at 704).

         Despite the narrow range of cases that encompass the domestic-relations exception, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held that breach-of-contract claims arising from a divorce decree are not subject to federal jurisdiction. McLaughlin v. Cotner, 193 F.3d 410, 413 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding that the federal court had no jurisdiction over the plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim that sought to enforce “obligations arising from marital status.” Id. at 413-14.); see also Chevalier v. Estate of Barnhart, 803 F.3d 789, 795 (6th Cir. 2015) (affirming that the domestic-relations exception prevents federal courts from “adjudicat[ing] a breach-of-contract claim arising from the alleged breach of a divorce decree”).

         A doctrine known as Rooker-Feldman further limits this Court's ability to adjudicate certain claims. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983). Specifically, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's claims attacking the rulings of the Knox County Court of Common Pleas. “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine embodies the notion that appellate review of state-court decisions and the validity of state judicial proceedings is limited to the Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1257, and thus that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review such matters.” In re Cook, 551 F.3d 542, 548 (6th Cir. 2009). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to cases “brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Ind. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). “The pertinent question in determining ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.