213 So. 3d 423
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Child born January 3, 2016 in Minnesota to Nicole DeRung; child has lived in Minnesota virtually continuously except for a 2½ week stay in Louisiana (Mar 14–Apr 3, 2016).
- Ms. DeRung returned to Minnesota from Louisiana in Nov 2015 and filed a Minnesota petition to establish custody and parenting time (filed Apr 28, 2016).
- Glen Sergeant filed a Rule to Establish Child Custody in Orleans Parish, LA (filed Apr 8, 2016) alongside a prior protection-from-abuse petition by DeRung.
- DeRung raised a declinatory exception of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under La. R.S. 13:1813 and alternatively sought transfer/decline under La. R.S. 13:1819; the district court denied the exception and entered judgment Oct 3, 2016.
- The appellate court granted supervisory review, concluded the Louisiana court lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement (La. R.S. 13:1813), reversed the denial of the exception, and dismissed Sergeant’s custody rule with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Louisiana court had subject-matter jurisdiction under La. R.S. 13:1813 to make an initial child custody determination | DeRung: Child's home state is Minnesota (born there and lived there since birth); Louisiana lacks jurisdiction under §1813 | Sergeant: Louisiana may exercise jurisdiction by filing in Orleans Parish (argued procedure and locale support LA court) | Court: No jurisdiction — child’s home state is Minnesota under §1802/§1813; LA court erred and must dismiss the rule |
| Standard of review for jurisdictional ruling | DeRung: Jurisdiction is a question of law and should be reviewed de novo | Sergeant: (implicitly) defer to trial court factual findings and ruling | Court: Jurisdiction is a legal question reviewed de novo; district court’s denial was legally incorrect |
Key Cases Cited
- Herlitz Const. Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., 396 So.2d 878 (La. 1981) (factors for exercising supervisory writ jurisdiction)
- United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1989) (plain statutory language governs when unambiguous)
- Cannizzaro ex rel. State v. American Bankers Ins. Co., 120 So.3d 853 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2013) (jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Winston v. Millaud, 930 So.2d 144 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2006) (appellate courts review legal questions without deference to trial court)
- State in Interest of MJ, 160 So.3d 1040 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2015) (statutory interpretation begins with plain language)
- Williams v. Bestcomp, Inc., 185 So.3d 269 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2016) (discussion of standards for questions of law on appeal)