2:24-cv-03180
D. Ariz.Jun 13, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, Julia Stachow, a German immigrant, married Defendant Bharathiraja Nagappan, and obtained lawful permanent resident status in the U.S., supported by Defendant’s execution of a Form I-864 Affidavit of Support.
- The Affidavit obligated Nagappan to provide Stachow with financial support at 125% of the federal poverty guidelines until a specified terminating event occurred.
- The parties separated in January 2023 and divorced in July 2024; Stachow claims she has received no financial support since the separation.
- After failed service attempts, Stachow served Nagappan by certified mail and email, leading to a default being entered when Nagappan failed to respond to the complaint.
- Stachow filed for default judgment; Nagappan did not set aside the default but did respond contesting the damages claimed.
- The court granted default judgment on liability but ordered further briefing on the amount of damages owed under the Affidavit of Support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction (federal question) | Federal question under INA, not diversity | Amount in controversy too low, both parties are AZ residents | Court has federal question jurisdiction |
| Breach of Support Obligation | Affidavit is enforceable contract, no support provided | Does not contest liability, only amount | Default judgment on liability granted |
| Damages Calculation | Seeks 125% of poverty level, reduced by her limited income | Argues plaintiff had income; mortgage payments suffice as support | Further briefing needed; damages unresolved |
| Offset from Divorce/Property | Divorce decree division irrelevant to support | Mortgage/property payments should offset damages | Further evidence needed, decree not dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (outlines factors for deciding whether default judgment is appropriate)
- Erler v. Erler, 824 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2016) (affidavit of support purpose and obligations interpreted)
- Thunderbird Metallurgical, Inc. v. Ariz. Testing Labs., 423 P.2d 124 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967) (elements required for breach of contract claim)