Alcala v. Hernandez
| Decision Date | 19 November 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No.: 4:14-cv-04176-RBH |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | Fernando Contreras Alcala, Petitioner, v. Claudia Garcia Hernandez, Respondent. |
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Fernando Contreras Alcala's motion to alter or amend the judgment [ECF #83], motion for free trial transcripts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) [ECF #84], and motion to restore injunction pending appeal [ECF #86]. Respondent filed a response opposing each of Petitioner's motions.
This case was initiated by Petitioner, who filed a Verified Petition pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the "Hague Convention") and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act ("ICARA"), 22 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9011. Petitioner alleged that Respondent wrongfully removed the couple's minor children from their habitual state of residence in Mexico and illegally entered the United States with the minor children. Petitioner sought the return of the minor children to Mexico through the remedies provided under ICARA. After a bench trial held on May 11-12, 2015, the Court issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and an Order. The Court found that the Petitioner had established a prima facie case of wrongful removal under the Hague Convention. Despite their wrongful removal, the Court found that the minor children were well-settled in their new environment. The Court declined to exercise its discretion to order the minor children returned to Mexico and denied Petitioner's verified petition for return of the minor children to Mexico.
Petitioner timely filed a motion to alter or amend the Court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order under Rules 52(b) and 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner asks the Court to amend its Findings of Fact pursuant to Rule 52(b) "to reflect or clarify certain factual testimony or evidence presented at trial." Petitioner also requests that the Court amend its judgment and return the minor children to Mexico in order to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice under Rule 59(e).
Petitioner requests that the Court restore the preliminary injunction order issued on November 7, 2014, that prevented Respondent from leaving the district with the minor children while the case was pending. Petitioner moves for the reinstatement of the injunction order through the pendency of an expedited appeal.
Lastly, Petitioner requests that the Court enter an order permitting costs of the transcript in this case to be paid by the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753(f).
Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(b) provides that "on a party's motion filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment, the court may amend its findings—or make additional findings—and may amend the judgment accordingly." Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b). "The primary purpose of Rule 52(b) is to ensure that the trial court's findings of fact and legal reasoning are clear ... not to allow a party a second opportunity to prove its case." Haberen v. Kaupp Vascular Surgeons, Ltd., 151 F.R.D. 49, 50-51 (E.D.Pa.1993). "A Rule 52(b) motion to amend findings ... is not intended to allow parties to relitigate old issues, to advance new theories, or to rehear the merits." Diebitz v. Arreola, 834F.Supp. 298, 302 (E.D.Wis.1993). "[A] Rule 52(b) motion is intended to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." U.S. v. Carolina E. Chem. Co., Inc., 639 F. Supp. 1420, 1423 (D.S.C. 1986).
Motions under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Procedure are not to be made lightly; "reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources." 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 59.30[4] (3d ed.); see also Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir.1998) . The Fourth Circuit has held such a motion should be granted for only three reasons: (1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Collison v. Int'l Chem. Workers Union, 34 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir.1994) (quoting Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir.1993)). Rule 59 motions "may not be used to make arguments that could have been made before the judgment was entered." Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 708 (4th Cir.2002). Nor are they opportunities to rehash issues already ruled upon because a litigant is displeased with the result. See Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1082 (4th Cir.1993) () (citation omitted).
Petitioner requests that various findings of fact be amended and the judgment amended accordingly under Rules 52(b) and 59(e). In particular, Petitioner asks for amendments toparagraphs 13, 15, 17-n.4, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 28 of the Court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order [ECF #81]. Petitioner also requests that the Court include an additional finding "to explain that the reason for a majority of the delays in the litigation were due to Respondent's failure to retain counsel." Petitioner also argues the Court committed clear error of law by relying on family members' business ownership as evidence that the minor children were well-settled and that Petitioner will suffer manifest injustice if the Court declines to exercise its discretion and return the minor children to Mexico.
Finding of Fact, Paragraph 13 - Petitioner requests that the finding be amended to include Respondent's testimony that she was saving money to take the minor children to the United States without Petitioner's knowledge and that she eventually snuck out of the family's house with the Children. The Court's Finding of Fact, paragraph 13, states "Since Petitioner did not want to move to the United States, Respondent began preparing to move to the United States with her minor children, with or without Petitioner." Petitioner's requested amendment to paragraph 13 is not necessary to correct a manifest error of law or fact and is DENIED.
Finding of Fact, paragraph 15 - Petitioner requests that the finding be amended to include that Petitioner filed his Hague application on August 12, 2013 at the direction of the local Mexican officials who could not locate Respondent or the Children in Mexico. The Court's Finding of Fact, paragraph 15, states:
Petitioner made a complaint to the authorities and provided a statement on June 18, 2013. Petitioner told the authorities that Respondent had been telling him that she wanted to move to the United States with the minor children and that her mother, who already lived in the United States, had been making arrangements for the move. Petitioner completed an application for Hague Relief on or about August 20, 2013, in which he listed Florence, SouthCarolina, United States as the minor children's probable location.
There was no testimony from any local Mexican officials that they instructed Petitioner to file his Hague application on August 12, 2013, and a review of Petitioner's testimony reflects that Petitioner did not offer a reason for his August 12, 2013 filing date for his Hague application. Petitioner's request to amend paragraph 15 is DENIED.
Finding of Fact, paragraph 17, footnote 4 - Petitioner requests that the finding be amended to state that neither Respondent nor the Children are eligible for DACA status for various reasons. Footnote 4 simply provides general background information on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program available on the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services website. The Court addressed Respondent's DACA status in Paragraph 27 of the Court's Findings of Fact, which states that "Respondent, her mother, Jose Vasquez and Gustavo Vasquez Maas all admitted that they are in the United States illegally and do not have DACA status." The fact that the minor children are not eligible for DACA status is evident from the requirements of the DACA program as stated in footnote 4. The Court's failure to explicitly state that the minor children are not eligible for DACA status does not constitute a manifest error of law or fact justifying amendment of the Court's Order. Petitioner's request to amend paragraph 17, footnote 4 is DENIED.
Finding of Fact, paragraph 21 - Petitioner requests that the finding be amended: 1) to state that Respondent and the minor children moved in with Mr. Vasquez and his father; 2) to state that neither Mr. Vasquez or his father are eligible for DACA status; and 3) to state that Mr. Vasquez and his father have no enforceable legal obligation to support the minor children. The Court's Finding of Fact, paragraph 21 states:
Respondent met her boyfriend, Jose Vasquez, sometime in 2013. Mr. Vasquez is also in the United States illegally and does not have work authorization, residency authorization, DACA status, or a driver's license. Mr. Vasquez moved in with Respondent and the minor children in February of 2014. The testimony from Respondent's witnesses reveals that Mr. Vasquez and Respondent are involved in a stable, loving relationship and that they eventually plan to marry. Respondent's older sister described their relationship as loving and very supportive.
At paragraph 23, the Court noted that Respondent and the minor children resided with Mr. Vasquez and his father. At paragraphs 21 and 27, the Court noted that neither Mr. Vasquez or his father were eligible for DACA status. The Court's Findings of Fact do not suggest that Mr. Vasquez or his father...
To continue reading
Request your trial