MK Family Law

A father, Gyorgy Matrai , sued his California family court judge in the U.S. District Court for the ND California for ordering a bond of $5 million before Mr. Matrai could see his son.  Mr. Matrai argues that the bond violates his, and his son's, substantive due process rights under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  He asks, as relief, that his family court judge, Joni Hiramoto, be enjoined from imposing any such bond requirement on him in the state family court proceedings.  Judge Hiramoto files to dismiss, and the court ordered Mr. Matrai to show cause why the Court should not dismiss the action under the Younger doctrine.  Younger abstention is appropriate in civil cases “when the state proceedings: (1) are ongoing, (2) are quasi-criminal enforcement actions or involve a state's interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts, (3) implicate an important state interest, and (4) allow litigants to raise federal challenges." If those “thresho...

Thamilselvan v. Thamilselvan reads like a law school exam question.  The spouses, both Indian citizens had lived in Michigan with their daughter since 2000.  They owned a house.  In December 2017, the Wife and daughter left the marital home.  In February 2018, the Wife sought a divorce in Michigan, alleging abuse.  The Husband then petitioned the Indian Family Court for "restoration of his conjugal rights" in an attempt to reconcile.  He also asked for an injunction to prevent the Wife from continuing with her divorce action in Michigan.  Despite her fighting the injunction, it was granted.  The Husband then sought to amend his Answer in the Michigan divorce suit claiming he erroneously admitted the spouses were residents of Michigan.  The court rejected the amendment.  He also sought to dismiss the Michigan divorce suit, first using a comity argument in an attempt to recognize the Indian injunction, and then, when his first motion was ...