Melissa Cook v. Cynthia Harding
879 F.3d 1035
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- California enacted Family Code § 7962 to codify enforcement of gestational surrogacy agreements and allow pre-birth judicial parentage determinations.
- Melissa Cook signed a gestational surrogacy agreement to carry embryos for C.M.; disputes arose during pregnancy (e.g., selective reduction), triplets were born.
- Cook filed a pre-birth constitutional challenge to § 7962 in California state court and, shortly after, filed a nearly identical § 1983 complaint in federal district court.
- The federal district court abstained under Younger v. Harris and dismissed; Cook appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- While the federal appeal was pending, the California Children’s Court rejected Cook’s counterclaim; the California Court of Appeal affirmed in a published opinion and the state high court denied review; certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed Younger abstention de novo, concluded Younger did not apply, but affirmed dismissal based on California issue preclusion of Cook’s constitutional claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court must abstain under Younger from adjudicating Cook’s pre-birth § 1983 challenge | Younger applies to family-law parentage matters; federal court should defer to state adjudication | Younger is limited to civil enforcement proceedings or cases protecting enforcement of state-court orders; this case is neither | Younger abstention was improper; the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court on abstention grounds |
| Whether the state proceedings constituted a "civil enforcement" (quasi-criminal) proceeding | State parentage action is enforcement of the surrogacy agreement and thus an enforcement proceeding | Mere private petition between parties and statutory interpretation are not civil enforcement proceedings | The state case was not a civil enforcement proceeding; Younger inapplicable on that basis |
| Whether the state action implicated the State’s interest in enforcing its courts’ orders and judgments | Declaring parentage could affect later custody/support adjudications, implicating state interest in enforcing judgments | Challenges to a statute and pre-birth parentage determinations do not concern processes for enforcing existing judgments | The case did not fall within the category of protecting enforcement of state-court orders; Younger inapplicable on that basis |
| Whether the California Court of Appeal's judgment precludes relitigation of Cook’s constitutional claims in federal court | Court of Appeal did not actually decide Cook’s constitutional claims; its reliance on public-policy precedent means issues remain for federal review | Court of Appeal expressly reached the merits and decided each constitutional challenge; preclusion applies | Issue preclusion bars relitigation; the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal on that ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (establishing federal-court abstention doctrine for certain ongoing state proceedings)
- Sprint Commc’ns., Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584 (2013) (limits Younger in civil cases to two categories: civil enforcement and proceedings protecting state-court functions)
- ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2014) (applying Sprint; Younger scope in Ninth Circuit)
- Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415 (1979) (example of quasi-criminal family-law proceeding applying Younger)
- NOPSI v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350 (1989) (discussing Younger-related categories and federal-court jurisdiction)
- Lucido v. Superior Court, 795 P.2d 1223 (Cal. 1990) (California five-part test for issue preclusion)
- C.M. v. M.C., 213 Cal. Rptr. 3d 351 (Ct. App. 2017) (California Court of Appeal opinion resolving Cook’s constitutional challenges)