Egervary v. Young

• Decision Date: 06 September 2001
• Docket Number: CIV. A. No. 96-3039.
• Citation: 159 F.Supp.2d 132
• Parties: Oscar W. EGERVARY v. Virginia YOUNG, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Page 132

159 F.Supp.2d 132

Oscar W. EGERVARY v. Virginia YOUNG, et al.

CIV. A. No. 96-3039.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

September 6, 2001.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Gary L. Azorsky, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, PA, for plaintiff.

Richard Mentzinger, Jr., Keir N. Dougall, James G. Sheehan, Office of U.S. Atty, Philadelphia, PA, for Virginia Young, James Schuler, defendants.

Richard A. Kraemer, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman and Goggin, Philadelphia, PA, for Frederick P. Rooney, James J. Burke, defendants.

Deborah R. Popky, Robert S. Tintner, Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, Philadelphia, PA, Frederick C. Horn, Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien and Frankel, LLP, Lansdale, PA, for Jeffrey C. Nallin, defendant.

MEMORANDUM

O'NEILL, Distict Judge.

                                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS
                  I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 136
                 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................. 136
                     A. Oscar's Alleged Abduction and Return to Hungary .......................... 136
                     B. The Hague Convention/ICARA Proceedings ................................... 137
                        1. The Law ............................................................... 137
                        2. The Proceedings ....................................................... 139
                     C. The History of This Action ............................................... 146
                III. DISCUSSION .................................................................. 149
                     A. Venue .................................................................... 149
                        1. The Law of the Case Doctrine .......................................... 149
                        2. A Substantial Part of the Events Giving Rise to the Claim ............. 150
                     B. Service of Process ....................................................... 151
                        1. Rule 4 and Pa. R. Civ. P. 403 ......................................... 152
                        2. 22 C.F.R. § 172.2 ................................................ 153
                     C. Statute of Limitations ................................................... 154
                        1. Rule 54(b) ............................................................ 155
                        2. Rule 15(c) and the Relation Back Doctrine ............................. 156
                        3. Equitable Estoppel .................................................... 158
                     D. Qualified Immunity ....................................................... 160
                        1. Due Process Violation ................................................. 160
                           a. Liberty Interest ................................................... 161
                           b. The Constitutional Sufficiency of the Process ...................... 162
                        2. Clearly Established Right ............................................. 164
                           a. Federal Law as of May 1994 ......................................... 164
                           b. Violations of ICARA, State Law, and Federal Regulations ............ 167
                        3. The Federal Defendants' Reply Arguments ............................... 169
                     E. Personal Involvement ..................................................... 171
                        1. The Summary Judgment Standard ......................................... 171
                        2. The Legal Standard for Personal Involvement in a Constitutional
                            Tort ................................................................. 172
                        3. Evidence of Personal Involvement ...................................... 173
                           a. The Retention of and Assistance to Rooney and the Model
                                Pleadings ........................................................ 173
                           b. The Phone Call to Judge Nealon's Chambers .......................... 175
                           c. The Federal Defendants' Ignorance of the "Fourth Option" ........... 177
                

                           d. The Federal Defendants' Ignorance of the Ex Parte Nature of
                                the Meeting with Judge Nealon ................................... 178
                           e. The Phone Calls after the Meeting with Judge Nealon ............... 181
                           f. The Passport Waiver ............................................... 182
                           g. Schuler's Follow Up Letter ........................................ 183
                IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................. 184
                

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is a Bivens action alleging the violation of plaintiff's due process rights during an international child custody dispute and has been the subject of four prior memorandum opinions. See Egervary v. Young, No. 96-3039, 1997 WL 9787 (E.D.Pa. Jan.7, 1997) (Troutman, J.) ("Egervary I"); Egervary v. Rooney, 80 F.Supp.2d 491 (E.D.Pa.2000) (O'Neill, J.) ("Egervary II"); Egervary v. Rooney, No. 96-3039, 2000 WL 1160720 (E.D.Pa. Aug.15, 2000) (O'Neill, J.) ("Egervary III"); and Egervary v. Young, 152 F.Supp.2d 737 (E.D.Pa.2001) (O'Neill, J.) ("Egervary IV"). Presently before me are: 1) the federal defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint for improper venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3); 2) the federal defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint for insufficient service of process pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5); 3) the federal defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on two grounds, statute of limitations and qualified immunity; and 4) the federal defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 on the grounds that they had no personal involvement in the alleged constitutional tort. For the reasons stated below, the motions will be DENIED.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Oscar's Alleged Abduction and Return to Hungary

Plaintiff Egervary was born in 1955 in Hungary, where he suffered political oppression at the hands of the then-communist government because his father was a church official.¹ See Egervary Aff. (June 9, 1994) ¶¶ 1-2. In 1980, he emigrated to the United States as a political refugee. Id. He became a U.S. citizen in 1987. Id. ¶ 3.

In 1990, Egervary became romantically involved with Aniko Kovacs, a Hungarian national who came to the U.S. to study music. Id. ¶ 4. They briefly returned to Hungary in 1991 to be wed by Egervary's father. Id. Thereafter, they established their marital residence in Hackensack, New Jersey. Id. ¶ 5. Their son, Oscar Jonathan Egervary, was born on Independence Day, July 4, 1992. Id. ¶ 6.

In February 1993, Kovacs, a concert violinist, traveled to Hungary with Oscar to perform in a concert to be held in Budapest that March. Id. ¶ 7. They were scheduled to return to the U.S. on April 6, 1993, and Egervary had purchased a ticket to fly to Hungary and escort them back. See Egervary Aff. (July 7, 1994) ¶ 2. A few days before, however, Kovacs called Egervary and said she needed to stay until the beginning of May to perform in another concert. Id. Shortly before she and Oscar were to return in May, Kovacs again called Egervary and said that she would be staying in Hungary because she had an opportunity to take a teaching position in Budapest until the end of the year. Id. Shortly thereafter, she separated from Egervary and informed him that she would not return to the U.S. and would not return Oscar to this country. Id.

In June and July of that year, Egervary traveled to Hungary in an attempt to reconcile with his wife and bring Oscar home. Id. In July, Kovacs returned to the U.S. with Egervary for a short time, but she insisted on leaving Oscar in Hungary with her parents. Id.

In August, Egervary returned to Hungary and stayed for three months in another attempt to reconcile with his wife. Id. During that stay, he took a job teaching English in order to support himself. Id. He stayed there from approximately August to November of 1993. Id. He brought some personal belongings from the U.S., but he did not plan on establishing residence there and did not register with the Hungarian government as a resident. Id.

In September, Kovacs took Oscar to an undisclosed location in Hungary in an apparent attempt to hide the child from his father. See Egervary Aff. (June 9, 1994) ¶ 8. At that time, she left Egervary a letter that, in part, stated: "I'd like to notify you in this farewell letter that I've moved out from you, together with Ossika [i.e., Oscar] ... I moved to a location unknown to others deliberately and I didn't move to my parents on purpose." See Egervary Aff. (July 7, 1994) ¶ 3. Egervary searched for his son for approximately three months. Id. During that time, he consulted with the American Embassy in Budapest and was told that if he could find Oscar he was free to take the child back to the U.S. Id.

On December 18, 1993, Egervary found Kovacs and Oscar leaving her parents' apartment house in Budapest. Id. According to Egervary, Oscar's clothing was "dirty and ragged" and the boy appeared undernourished. See Egervary Aff. (June 9, 1994) ¶ 9. Egervary took Oscar from Kovacs and left Hungary with him the next day. Id. Upon their return to the U.S., Egervary set up residence with his son in Monroe County, Pennsylvania. Id.

On May 13, 1994, members of the Pennsylvania State Police and U.S. Marshals arrived at Egervary's home with an order signed by the Honorable William J. Nealon of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Id. ¶ 10. Pursuant to the order, Oscar was removed from Egervary's custody and delivered to defendant Frederick P. Rooney, Esq. Id. Rooney then took Oscar to the airport, flew him to Europe, and returned the child to his mother. See Rooney Dep. at 169. All parties concede that Egervary was given no notice of or opportunity to be heard in the ex parte Hague Convention/ICARA proceedings that led to the order.

B. The Hague Convention/ICARA Proceedings

1. The Law

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is a multilateral international treaty on parental kidnaping adopted by the United...