Asilonu v. Asilonu

• Decision Date: 22 July 2021
• Docket Number: 1:19CV1122
• Citation: 550 F.Supp.3d 282
• Parties: Anoruo U. ASILONU, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Blessing ASILONU, an individual, and Esther Okeiyi, an individual and her marital community, Defendants. Blessing Asilonu, Esther Okeiyi, and Sunday Okeiyi, Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, v. Anoruo U. Asilonu, Counterclaim-Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina

550 F.Supp.3d 282

Anoruo U. ASILONU, an individual, Plaintiff,

v.Blessing ASILONU, an individual, and Esther Okeiyi, an individual and her marital community, Defendants.

Blessing Asilonu, Esther Okeiyi, and Sunday Okeiyi, Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,

v.Anoruo U. Asilonu, Counterclaim-Defendant.

1:19CV1122

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina.

Signed July 22, 2021

Gregory H. McLawsen, Immigration Support Advocates, Seattle, WA, Valeria Cesanelli, Morgan & Cesanelli Law PLLC, Carrboro, NC, for Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant.

Jocelyn Davis Singletary, Singletary Law Firm, PLLC, Cornelius, NC, Mary Nnene Okeiyi, The Singletary Law Firm, Charlotte, NC, for Defendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Sunday Okeiyi, Esther Okeiyi.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on various related motions by Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Anoruo U. Asilonu ("Plaintiff"): Revised Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings Against Defendant Esther Okeiyi [Doc. #37], Amended Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Against Defendant Esther Okeiyi [Doc. #40], Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims of Sunday Okeiyi [Doc. #70], Motion to Dismiss Defendant Blessing Asilonu [Doc. #82], and Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims in Answer of Defendant Blessing Asilonu [Doc. #102]. In these motions, Plaintiff seeks to dismiss Esther Okeiyi's affirmative defenses, each Counterclaim-Plaintiff's counterclaims, and Blessing Asilonu as a party. For the reasons that follow, the motion for partial judgment on the pleadings is granted in part and denied in part and all other motions are granted.

I.

The underlying action is one for enforcement of Form I-864, an Affidavit of Support, submitted in support of Plaintiff's application for legal permanent residency. Plaintiff is a Nigerian citizen who became engaged to Blessing Asilonu ("Dr. Asilonu"), a United States citizen, while he resided in Nigeria. (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 50-52 [Doc. #1]; Esther Okeyi's [sic] Second Am. Answer (Redacted) ("Dr. Okeiyi's Am. Answer") ¶¶ 50, 52 [Doc. #47].) After Dr. Asilonu initiated the legal process for Plaintiff's entry into the United States, he received a K-1 fiancé visa and arrived in the United States in December 2015. (Compl. ¶¶ 54-59; Dr. Okeiyi's Am. Answer ¶¶ 56-59.) He and Dr. Asilonu married soon afterwards on January 8, 2016. (Compl. ¶ 61; Dr. Okeiyi's Am. Answer ¶ 61.)

As part of Plaintiff's Application for Permanent Residency, he was required to submit a Form I-864, Affidavit of Support, "to overcome public charge inadmissibility." (Compl. ¶¶ 20-26, 69-70; Dr. Okeiyi's Am. Answer ¶¶ 69-70.) Because Dr. Asilonu's finances were insufficient for her to serve as Plaintiff's sole Form I-864 financial sponsor, she and her mother Esther Okeiyi ("Dr. Okeiyi") each executed a Form I-864. (Compl. ¶¶ 64-67; Dr. Okeiyi's Am. Answer ¶¶ 64, 66, 67; Primary Form I-864 by Blessing Chibuzo Okeiyi (Apr. 14, 2016), Ex. 2 to Compl.; First Joint Sponsor Form I-864 by Esther Chinyere Okeiyi (Apr. 11, 2016), Ex. 3 to Compl.) These two Form I-864s were submitted to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") with Plaintiff's Application for Permanent Residency on May 2, 2016. (Compl. ¶¶ 69, 70; Dr. Okeiyi's Am. Answer ¶¶ 69, 70.) After USCIS received his application, Plaintiff's immigration attorney became aware of deficiencies in Dr. Okeiyi's Form I-864 so Dr. Okeiyi executed a Second Joint Sponsor Form I-864 which was filed with USCIS in support of Plaintiff's application. (Compl. ¶¶ 71, 72, 74; Dr. Okeiyi's Am. Answer ¶¶ 71, 72, 74; Second Joint Sponsor Form I-864 by Esther Chinyere Okeiyi (July 14, 2016), Ex. 7 to Compl.) On September 22, 2016, USCIS approved Plaintiff's application and he gained the status of a Lawful Permanent Resident ("LPR"). (Compl. ¶¶ 75, 77; Dr. Okeiyi's Am. Answer ¶¶ 75, 77.)

As explained in each of the Form I-864s that Dr. Asilonu and Dr. Okeiyi executed, when an immigrant submits an executed Form I-864 with his application for adjustment of status to an LPR, a contract is created between the sponsor and the United States Government according to which the sponsor "agree[s] to assume certain specific obligations under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and other Federal laws." (E.g., Second Joint Sponsor Form I-864, pt. 8, at 7 (citing § 213A of the INA).)

The document further advises that if the immigrant becomes an LPR based on a Form I-864 signed by the sponsor, the sponsor must "[p]rovide the intending immigrant any support necessary to maintain him ... at an income that is at least 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for his ... household size ...." (Id. ) If the sponsor does not "provide sufficient support to the person who becomes a lawful permanent resident based on a Form I-864 that [the sponsor] signed, that person may sue [the sponsor] for this support." (E.g., id. pt. 8, at 8.)

The sponsor is also made aware of the events that terminate her support obligation: if the LPR becomes a United States citizen; has worked or can receive credit for forty quarters of coverage under the Social Security Act; no longer has LPR status and has left the United States; is subject to removal, but applies for and obtains in removal proceedings a new grant of adjustment of status based on a new affidavit of support if one is required; or dies; or if the sponsor dies ("Terminating Events"). (E.g., id. ) "Divorce does not terminate [the sponsor's] obligations under Form I-864." (E.g., id. )

Plaintiff alleges that because his "LPR status was ‘based on’ " the Primary Form I-864 and the Second Joint Sponsor Form I-864, Dr. Asilonu and Dr. Okeiyi were required to provide him sufficient financial support. (Compl. ¶¶ 78, 79, 94, 95.) Yet, Plaintiff alleges that when his annual income in 2017, 2018, and 2019 (as of November 8) was below 125 percent of the federal poverty guideline, Dr. Asilonu and Dr. Okeiyi failed to provide the requisite financial support. (Id. ¶¶ 91, 92, 94, 95.) None of the Terminating Events has occurred. (Id. ¶¶ 80-85; Dr. Okeiyi's Am. Answer ¶ 85.) As a result, Plaintiff has sued Dr. Asilonu and Dr. Okeiyi for breach of contract as the third-party beneficiary to the Primary Form I-864 and Second Joint Form I-864, respectively. (Compl. ¶¶ 102-19.)

II.

In response, Dr. Okeiyi answered the Complaint and asserted fifteen so-called affirmative defenses. (See generally Dr. Okeiyi's Am. Answer.) As affirmative defenses, she alleges: (1) breach of implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing "by acting unreasonably, unethically, immorally, and fraudulently, denying the benefits of the contract to Dr. Esther Okeiyi", (2) "[n]o breach" because she performed all her duties under the contract "other than any duties which were prevented or excused", (3) contributory negligence because Plaintiff is "at fault, due to his conduct, actions and omissions", (4) unclean hands "due to [Plaintiff's] conduct, actions and omissions" so "any equitable relief is barred", (5) waiver and estoppel arising from Plaintiff's "conduct, actions and omissions", (6) fraud by Plaintiff, (7) "[n]o breach" because she "has breached no duties owed to [Plaintiff], as a result of his conduct, theft, actions and omissions", (8) impossibility and impracticability as a result of Plaintiff's "conduct, theft, actions and omissions", (9) unconscionability because her "performance of her contractual obligations are [sic] unconscionable as a result of [Plaintiff's] intervening events", (10) "Non-Moving Party" requiring "[a]ll contract provisions of the I-864 Affidavit of Support [to] be determined in the light most favorable to the non-drafting party", (11) offset "[a]s a result of [her] financial efforts", (12) failure to mitigate on Plaintiff's part for failing "to take reasonable steps to reduce or minimize the damages experienced", (13) her "entitle[ment] to counterclaim as set out", (14) duress/undue influence when Plaintiff "forced her to enter into the contract against her will and physical and/or mental capacity by taking unfair advantage of her physical and/or mental state" as she "had gone through a serious surgery for removal of [ovarian] cancer", (15) incapacity because she "was battling a return of Ovarian Cancer" and "had gone through a serious surgery for removal of this cancer, and lacked the mental and/or physical capacity" to enter into the contract, and (16) "further and additional affirmative defenses, which are not yet known to the Defendant, but which may become known through future discovery." (Dr. Okeiyi's Am. Answer at 30-34.)

Plaintiff moves for partial judgment on the pleadings on all of these "affirmative defenses ... because they are categorically inapplicable to cases enforcing the Form I-864, Affidavit of Support." (Br. in Supp. of Pl.’s (1) Mot. to Dismiss & (2) Revised Mot. for Partial J. on the Pleadings at 5 ("Br. in Supp. of Docs. 37, 40") [Doc. #39].) Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[a]fter the pleadings are closed – but early enough not to delay trial – a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." A court considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings must "view the facts presented in the pleadings and inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Atwater ex rel. Estate of Peterson v. Nortel Networks, Inc., 394 F. Supp. 2d 730, 731 (M.D.N.C. 2005) (citing Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 248 (4th Cir. 1999) ).

A motion pursuant to Rule 12(c) is analyzed under the same standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Massey v. Ojaniit, 759 F.3d 343, 347 (4th Cir. 2014). Particularly relevant here, because a 12(b)(6) motion "tests the sufficiency of the complaint, generally [such a motion] cannot reach the merits of an affirmative defense". Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458, 464 (...