983 F. Supp. 2d 423
D. Vt.2013Background
- Isabella Miller-Jenkins is the daughter of Janet Jenkins and Lisa Miller; Jenkins seeks custody rights following Miller’s separation and disappearance.
- Vermont family court awarded Miller custody in 2007 but Miller repeatedly interfered with Jenkins’ visitation; by 2009 Miller fled with Isabella.
- Miller and Isabella fled to Nicaragua with assistance from CAM affiliates; U.S. and Vermont authorities later pursued criminal charges against Lisa Miller and Timothy/Miller associates.
- Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint alleges kidnapping, RICO violations, conspiracy to violate civil rights, and failure to prevent civil rights violations; several defendants challenge jurisdiction, venue, and failure to state a claim.
- Court dismisses most RICO and certain §1985 claims, grants limited discovery for jurisdiction over RUL, and preserves an amended custodial interference claim while allowing amendment on §1985(3) discrimination theory; several defendants are dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Venue and change-of-venue motions are resolved, with Vermont venue upheld and transfer denied; Kent Miller and Wall’s partial motions addressed; final conclusions outline ongoing or dismissed claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over defendants | Jenkins argues defendants directed acts at Vermont residents causing injuries there | Defendants argue lack of contacts with Vermont and insufficient connection to claims | Personal jurisdiction granted only for some defendants; others dismissed; jurisdictional discovery denied or allowed for RUL as to facts. |
| Whether plaintiffs have standing and plead a cognizable RICO claim | Plaintiffs allege a pattern of racketeering (kidnapping, money laundering, mail fraud) injuring Jenkins and Isabella | Defendants contend no RICO injury or pattern; injuries are derivative or speculative | Counts Two and Three (RICO) dismissed for lack of standing and failure to plead a pattern. |
| Whether custodial interference constitutes a Vermont tort actionable by Jenkins | Custodial interference is a Vermont common-law claim compatible with Restatement §700 | Argues no Vermont-recognized claim or mischaracterization as kidnapping | Count One allowed to proceed as custodial interference. |
| Whether § 1985(3) conspiracy claim is viable as framed (gender-based discrimination and hindrance to state actions) | Alleges discriminatory animus against same-sex couples to thwart Vermont laws, with possible gender/religion orientation claims | Bray controls; gender-based deprivation theory foreclosed; hindrance theory requires state action or proper class-based animus | Count Four dismissed for deprivation theory; leave to amend for same-sex–based discrimination; hindrance theory potentially viable with amendment. |
| Venue and transfer? | Venue proper in Vermont because substantial events occurred there; also actions relevant to Vermont jurisdiction | Venue improper or transfers favored to Western District of Virginia | Venue denied for improper venue; transfer denied; remaining venue-related rulings maintained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1985) (establishes civil RICO standing and proximate causation limits)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (minimum contacts; purposeful availment in related to forum state)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (express aiming principle for specific jurisdiction)
- Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 305 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2002) (law firm minimum contacts and purposeful availment for specific jurisdiction)
- H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1989) (pattern of racketeering requires related predicates and continuity)