Jenkins v. Miller
| Decision Date | 20 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:12-cv-184 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Vermont |
| Parties | JANET JENKINS, for herself and as next friend of ISABELLA MILLER-JENKINS, a/k/a ISABELLA MILLER Plaintiffs, v. KENNETH L. MILLER, LISA ANN MILLER f/k/a LISA MILLER-JENKINS, TIMOTHY D. MILLER, RESPONSE UNLIMITED, INC. PHILIP ZODHIATES, individually and as an agent for RESPONSE UNLIMITED, INC., VICTORIA HYDEN, f/k/a VICTORIA ZODHIATES, individually and as an Agent for RESPONSE UNLIMITED, INC., LINDA M. WALL, Defendants. |
Plaintiff Janet Jenkins ("Jenkins"), for herself and as next friend of her daughter Isabella Miller-Jenkins ("Miller-Jenkins"), brings this action against individuals and organizations that she alleges conspired with her former same-sex partner, Lisa Miller ("Miller") to kidnap her daughter and transport her outside of the United States. Jenkins contends that Miller, fearing that courts would award Jenkins full custody over her daughter, left the country with the Defendants' aid after failing to comply with a Vermont court's orders granting Jenkins parental rights and visitation.
This Court previously granted the Defendants' request for a stay of this civil case in light of the federal indictment of Defendant Philip Zodhiates ("Zodhiates") and the criminal investigation of Defendant Response Unlimited, Inc. ("RUL") on the basis of facts closely related to the claims at issue here. ECF No. 192. Although the Court did not explicitly specify how long the stay would last, the Defendants' motion granted by the Court had requested the stay "pending the resolution of the criminal proceedings [then] pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York." ECF No. 172. Moreover, the Court ordered the parties to "inform the Court of the status of Zodhiates' criminal case within 14 days of the conclusion of the trial, a guilty plea, or dismissal of the charges in that case." ECF No. 192. Zodhiates was convicted by a jury in that district on September 29, 2016, and a sentencing hearing was initially scheduled for January 30, 2017. The trial judge granted Zodhiates' motion to adjourn sentencing, and sentencing is now set for March 22, 2017. Post-trial motions have been filed and are currently pending with the Court. On October 7, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion informing the Court that Zodhiates' trial had concluded in a guiltyverdict, and requesting that the Court lift its prior stay of this case. ECF No. 204.
In addition, Plaintiffs have moved to join additional defendants connected to the legal representation of Jenkins' former same-sex partner, Lisa Miller ("Miller").1 In particular, they seek to join attorneys Rena Lindevaldsen, Esq. ("Lindevaldsen") and Mathew Staver, Esq. ("Staver"), as well as Liberty Counsel, a Christian law firm with which they were affiliated when they began to represent Miller. In addition, they seek to join Liberty University, an institution that the Court had previously dismissed from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the evidence adduced at Zodhiates' trial and in discovery so far provides new grounds for a different jurisdictional ruling. ECF No. 204.
Finally, the Plaintiffs seek a ruling from the Court asserting that it has specific jurisdiction over Defendant Response Unlimited, Inc. ("RUL"). Defendant RUL had previously moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims against it, alleging lack of personal jurisdiction. ECF No. 57. The Courtsubsequently ordered the parties to proceed with jurisdictional discovery to permit it to reach a more informed decision on this question. ECF No. 115. The Plaintiffs contend that information obtained through the criminal proceedings and jurisdictional discovery suffices to show that RUL had sufficient minimum contacts with Vermont to give rise to personal jurisdiction in this forum, and request that the Court rule on this question.
For the reasons outlined below, the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay of this civil case. Moreover, the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint so as to join Lindevaldsen, Staver, Liberty Counsel and Liberty University. Finally, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction over Defendant RUL, and thereby denies RUL's pending motion to dismiss on this ground.
Plaintiffs put forth substantial additional evidence gathered through Zodhiates' criminal proceeding and in jurisdictional discovery, both in their revised pleadings, in the recitation of facts contained in their motion and reply brief, and in supporting exhibits. These facts are laid out in greater detail in the parties' filings, and will not be recited in their entirety here. However, several incidents described in the Plaintiffs' papers are worth highlighting briefly.
First, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant RUL had a business relationship with Liberty Counsel specifically related to Liberty Counsel's efforts to terminate Jenkins' contact with Miller-Jenkins and entitle Miller to obtain sole custody of Miller-Jenkins. In particular, RUL entered into an agreement with Liberty Counsel to raise funds for Liberty Counsel's work on behalf of Miller by developing and sending out materials on the case to conservative mailing lists. Around the time that these entities entered into this agreement in 2007, Zodhiates met with Staver and toured Liberty University and Liberty Counsel's premises. Although the parties dispute how long this business relationship continued, Plaintiffs allege that RUL employees continued to correspond over Miller's case well into the fall of 2009. In January of 2009, Zodhiates wrote to William Sidebottom, the director of communications for Liberty Counsel, with whom he had communicated regarding RUL's work with Liberty Counsel, to suggest that he had a "personal option" for Lisa Miller that the lawyers "should not or would not want to know about". In addition, the Plaintiffs allege in their motion that as part of its work for Liberty Counsel, RUL hosted Miller and Miller-Jenkins at its offices, where its staff prayed that Jenkins' contact with Miller-Jenkins would be stopped. Finally, Plaintiffs assert that on the day that Zodhiates drove Miller to the United States border with Canada in order to flee thecountry, he wrote to other RUL employees stating that he was working from home on Liberty Counsel, and that other employees speculated that he was working on the Lisa Miller case.
Furthermore, the Plaintiffs have alleged additional facts regarding Lindevaldsen's and Staver's involvement in Miller's scheme to transport Miller-Jenkins outside of the country and avoid detection by law enforcement. Specifically, they allege that Zodhiates was in touch with Lindevaldsen via his daughter, and that he asked Lindevaldsen through his daughter when others involved in the conspiracy could go to Miller's last apartment in the United States to obtain her belongings after she left the country. In addition, Jenkins alleges that Lindevaldsen deliberately misled a Vermont family court by stating that she did not know of her clients' whereabouts, when in fact she knew that her client had fled the country. Plaintiffs also allege that, in her role as a professor at Liberty University, Lindevaldsen essentially espoused the notion that Miller should commit civil disobedience rather than comply with a Vermont court's orders granting her former same-sex partner parental rights and full custody of Miller-Jenkins. Furthermore, Plaintiffs assert that Zodhiates was in contact with both Lindevaldsen and Staver on the day that he drove Miller to the border in order to flee the country. Finally, Plaintiffs contendthat Staver was Lindevaldsen's boss and supervisor during the relevant time period, both at Liberty Counsel and Liberty University, and specifically served as co-counsel to Miller alongside Lindevaldsen in Miller's family court litigation.
This Court has broad discretion in deciding whether to issue or extend a stay, and must exercise its "studied judgment," weigh "competing interests[,] and maintain an even balance" in doing so. Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F. 3d 83, 96-97, 99 (2d Cir. 2012) (). Nevertheless, staying a civil case until the conclusion of a parallel criminal prosecution "has been characterized as an extraordinary remedy," id. at 98, and a criminal defendant has "no absolute right to a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings." Guggenheim Capital, LLC v. Birnbaum, 722 F.3d 444, 453-54 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation omitted); see also Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Selb. Mfg. Co., 481 F.2d 1204, 1213 (8th Cir. 1973) (). The Second Circuit has embraced a six-factor test for courts to consider as a "rough guide" in its exercise of this discretion. Louis Vuitton, 676 F. 3d at 99. Thus, as this Court previously noted, it should look to:
1) the extent to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with those presented in the civil case; 2) the status of the case, including whether the defendants have been indicted; 3) the private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to plaintiffs caused by the delay; 4) the private interests of and burden on the defendants; 5) the interests of the courts; and 6) the public interest.
Id. (citing Trs. of Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat'l Pension Fund, 886 F.Supp. 1134, 1139 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
Here, there is no question that the issues in the criminal case, which center on Zodhiates' assistance to Miller in escaping...
To continue reading
Request your trial