Cook v. Harding
190 F. Supp. 3d 921
| C.D. Cal. | 2016Background
- Cook, a gestational surrogate, sued California officials, Los Angeles County officials, Kaiser Hospital, the hospital administrator, and the genetic father C.M., claiming Cal. Fam. Code § 7962 (2012) unconstitutionally enforces surrogacy contracts and deprives surrogates and children of due process and equal protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Cook entered a surrogacy contract with C.M.; triplet embryos were implanted and she carried the pregnancy to 28 weeks. Disputes arose when C.M. sought a selective reduction and later sought termination of Cook’s parental rights under § 7962.
- C.M. filed a § 7962 petition in California Children’s Court, which granted his petition and severed Cook’s parental rights; Cook appealed that state-court judgment.
- Cook filed this federal action challenging § 7962 as facially and as-applied unconstitutional and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to block enforcement of the state-court order and to obtain parenting/custody relief.
- Defendants moved to dismiss primarily on abstention and jurisdictional grounds; the district court found Younger abstention compelled dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the action with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court may decide constitutional challenge to § 7962 while related state proceeding is pending | Cook sought federal adjudication of § 7962 and injunction against enforcement of the state-court order | Defendants urged abstention under Younger because a state parentage/custody proceeding was ongoing and implicates core state interests | Court held Younger abstention applies and federal court must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether state proceedings were "ongoing" when federal suit filed | Cook filed federal suit after state petition was filed but before the Children’s Court order; appeals pending | Defendants argued state process was underway before federal filing and continued through appeal | Court found state proceedings were ongoing (pending at time of federal filing and on appeal) |
| Whether state forum afforded adequate opportunity to raise federal constitutional claims | Cook argued state courts refused to consider her constitutional claims and barred evidence beyond contract | Defendants argued Cook had procedural routes (appeal/writ) to present federal claims and state courts can adjudicate constitutional issues | Court held opportunity to present constitutional claims in state appellate process was adequate; Younger’s third prong met |
| Whether exceptional circumstances (e.g., bias, bad faith) excuse Younger abstention | Cook alleged procedural unfairness in state hearings and argued federal intervention necessary | Defendants denied bias/bad-faith; no evidence of extraordinary circumstances | Court found no exceptional circumstances to overcome Younger; abstention required |
Key Cases Cited
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (federal courts should not enjoin pending state judicial proceedings except under narrow exceptions)
- Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415 (Younger abstention applies to state child-custody and family-law proceedings)
- Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423 (state proceedings pending before initiation of federal suit satisfy Younger; federal courts should generally abstain)
- AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden, 495 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir.) (Younger elements summarized; abstention required absent extraordinary circumstances)
- Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965 (9th Cir.) (discussion of Younger and its extension to noncriminal state proceedings)
- Beltran v. State of Cal., 871 F.2d 777 (9th Cir.) (district court must dismiss under Younger; no discretion to retain jurisdiction when abstention appropriate)