Barboza v. Hughes Jiron
- James Oetken
- 1:24-cv-05995
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Barboza v. Hughes Jiron, Judge Oetken stayed the case, denied dismissal without prejudice, and denied the discovery stay as moot.
Hans Tupper Barboza and Doreen Ann Hughes Jiron are affected. Their federal action is stayed while the Costa Rican court determines whether it has jurisdiction over the disputed funds. The dismissal motions may be renewed after that determination, and the discovery-stay motion was denied as moot.
What happened
Barboza v. Hughes Jiron concerns Hans Tupper Barboza’s claims that Doreen Ann Hughes Jiron wrongfully kept more than $10 million he transferred to her, and his request for an accounting. A related divorce case between them is pending in Costa Rica.
Hughes Jiron asked the federal court to dismiss or stay the case because of the Costa Rican proceeding or because Costa Rica was the more appropriate forum. She also asked to pause discovery. Barboza opposed those requests and argued, among other things, that the Costa Rican court might not be able to order the return of the money.
Judge J. Paul Oetken stayed the federal case until the Costa Rican court decides whether it has jurisdiction over the disputed funds. He denied the dismissal requests without prejudice to renewal after that decision and denied the request to stay discovery as moot.
The detailed version
- Barboza v. Hughes Jiron · No. 1:24-cv-05995
- James Oetken
- Dec. 5, 2024
Background
Hans Tupper Barboza sued Doreen Ann Hughes Jiron for conversion—the alleged unauthorized control of property belonging to another person—and for an accounting concerning more than $10 million. The complaint alleges that Barboza inherited the money before the marriage and, between 2018 and 2021, transferred proceeds from family trusts to Hughes Jiron to hold in Morgan Stanley accounts located in New York.
The parties married in Costa Rica in 2015. Barboza began divorce proceedings there in 2022, and that case remained pending when he filed this federal action. In the Costa Rican proceeding, Barboza initially sought 50% of the transferred funds. Hughes Jiron argued there that the money was a gift and was not marital property that she had to return. Barboza described the funds in this federal case as his separate inheritance and alleged that Hughes Jiron moved them to an account hidden from him.
Hughes Jiron moved to dismiss or, alternatively, stay the federal case based on international comity and forum non conveniens. International comity allows a court to defer, in appropriate circumstances, to a foreign court or proceeding. Forum non conveniens allows dismissal when a foreign court is a more appropriate and convenient forum. Hughes Jiron also moved to stay discovery while the court considered the other motions.
International Comity
The court held that the federal and Costa Rican proceedings involved the same parties and substantially related issues. Although both sides characterized the funds as nonmarital, they gave different reasons: Hughes Jiron characterized them as a gift, while Barboza characterized them as inherited property. The Costa Rican court could determine that the funds were marital property or otherwise subject to equitable division. Such a ruling could preclude Barboza’s conversion claim or make his accounting claim moot. Even if the Costa Rican court concluded that the funds were not marital property, its determination could help resolve the legal status of the funds.
The court also concluded that a stay would allow the Costa Rican court to determine its own jurisdiction over the funds and whether it could provide the requested relief. The court found that the concern about the funds being depleted was speculative. It noted that the parties expected the Costa Rican court to decide the funds’ status within about six months and that an accounting was available in the Costa Rican divorce proceeding.
The court found that four relevant factors favored a stay: the similarity of the proceedings, the adequacy of the Costa Rican court to determine its jurisdiction, the relationship between the requested relief and that jurisdictional decision, and the stronger connection that either Costa Rica or the United States might have depending on how the Costa Rican court characterized the funds. The possible prejudice from delay weighed modestly against a stay. On balance, the court found exceptional circumstances supporting a stay in the interest of international comity.
Forum Non Conveniens
The court denied the forum non conveniens motion without prejudice to renewal after the Costa Rican court determines its jurisdiction over the funds. A defendant seeking dismissal on this ground must show that an adequate alternative forum exists. The court was not satisfied that Costa Rica could hear Barboza’s conversion and accounting claims if the funds were found not to be marital property. Hughes Jiron had not established that the Costa Rican court could litigate the subject matter of those claims.
Discovery and Disposition
Because the court stayed the action based on international comity, it denied Hughes Jiron’s motion to stay discovery as moot. The court directed the parties to submit a joint status letter after the Costa Rican court determines its jurisdiction over the funds, or within 180 days of the order. It directed the Clerk to mark the action as stayed and close the motions.
The court granted the motion to stay the proceeding pending the Costa Rican court’s jurisdictional determination. It denied without prejudice the motion to dismiss based on international comity or forum non conveniens, subject to renewal after the Costa Rican decision. It denied as moot the motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the dismissal motion. The order did not decide whether Barboza proved conversion or was entitled to an accounting.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.