Barboza v. Hughes Jiron

Background

Hans Tupper Barboza brought this action against Doreen Ann Hughes Jiron for conversion and an accounting concerning several million dollars. The opinion states that the parties are involved in a divorce proceeding in Costa Rica.

On December 5, 2024, the Court stayed, or paused, the federal case while the Costa Rican divorce court considered its jurisdiction over the disputed assets. The Court relied on factors governing abstention in the interest of international comity, meaning respect for a foreign court’s authority to address matters connected to its proceedings. The Court previously found that most of those factors favored waiting for the Costa Rican proceeding because it was filed first, involved the same parties and potentially dispositive issues, and was an adequate forum to decide its own jurisdiction.

The Court had also considered Barboza’s concern that the funds might be depleted and that immediate discovery was needed. It previously found that concern too speculative to justify proceeding before the Costa Rican court, noting that Barboza had not alleged wrongdoing by Hughes Jiron, that the Costa Rican court was likely to decide its jurisdiction within six months, and that an accounting was available in the divorce proceeding.

Motion to Lift the Stay

The parties reported on June 2, 2025, that the Costa Rican divorce proceeding remained pending and that the Costa Rican court had not made a substantive determination about its jurisdiction over the disputed funds. On June 6, 2025, Barboza filed a letter motion asking the Court to lift the stay and allow discovery under a new scheduling order. Hughes Jiron opposed the motion.

The Court acknowledged that the time since the original stay order somewhat strengthened Barboza’s argument that continued delay could prejudice him. It nevertheless concluded that the factors still favored maintaining the stay. The federal action concerns funds that may be marital assets involved in the first-filed Costa Rican divorce proceeding. Depending on the Costa Rican court’s jurisdictional decision, the federal case might be unnecessary or might be the only forum available to Barboza for the relief he seeks. The Court also found no new evidence showing that Barboza had actually been prejudiced during the stay.

The Court noted that the principal change since the December 2024 order was the passage of time. It stated that the risk of prejudice could eventually become strong enough to outweigh the other factors, but concluded that it was too early to lift the stay because the Costa Rican court’s file was with the judge for a decision.

Ruling

Judge J. Paul Oetken denied Barboza’s request to lift the stay. The parties were directed to submit a joint status letter when the Costa Rican divorce court decides its jurisdiction over the disputed funds or, in any event, within 180 days of the order. The Court also stated that Barboza may move sooner to lift the stay if circumstances materially change. The Clerk was directed to close the motion at ECF No. 33.

Classification

This is a procedural order. The Court decided whether to continue pausing the federal case while a parallel foreign proceeding addresses jurisdiction; it did not decide the underlying conversion or accounting claims.