Dias v. Dias

Background

The court had previously dismissed the action subject to terms governing proceedings about the parties’ children. It then ordered briefing on Respondent’s claim that Petitioner violated those terms. Respondent relied on two categories of conduct in state-court marriage-dissolution proceedings: statements that the children had been abducted from Armenia to the United States by their mother, and document-request responses consisting of blanket objections that the requests were irrelevant because state-court jurisdiction had not been decided.

Civil Contempt Standard

The court explained that civil contempt requires clear and convincing evidence that a party disobeyed a specific and definite court order by failing to take all reasonable steps within the party’s power to comply. A good-faith and reasonable interpretation of the order can defeat contempt, and substantial compliance is a defense.

Alleged Violations in Docket No. 207

The court did not find contempt based on the statement that the children were taken from Petitioner without his consent. The dismissal order prohibited Petitioner from asking a federal or other court to return the children to Armenia or have Armenian courts govern custody proceedings, but it did not prohibit him from claiming that the children were taken from him without consent. The court also noted that other statements in the income-and-expense declaration were troubling, but found no order term barring those statements.

The court did find that Petitioner violated the dismissal order, or a related later order, by making jurisdictional objections in the state proceedings. The dismissal order required custody and visitation proceedings to be adjudicated exclusively in California state court. The later order broadly required Petitioner to submit to the jurisdiction of, and substantively litigate, custody, visitation, domestic-violence, and related proceedings in state court, and stated that the dismissal agreement gave up procedural challenges such as lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that this broad language covered the marriage-dissolution proceedings.

Relief

The court granted Respondent’s request for relief in part. As a coercive sanction, Respondent had to identify by September 11, 2025, the state-court documents containing jurisdictional objections. Petitioner then had until September 25, 2025, to amend those documents by removing the objections and file the amended documents in state court if necessary. If he did not comply, he would be fined $50 for each day of noncompliance, beginning on the date the amendments should have been made and filed. The fine was to be paid to the court clerk, and Respondent was to monitor Petitioner’s compliance.

As a remedial sanction, Respondent had to file by September 11, 2025, a declaration from her state-court attorney stating the attorney’s hourly rate and time spent addressing the improper jurisdictional objections. Petitioner could respond by September 25, 2025, on whether the requested fees were reasonable. After those submissions, the court stated that it would issue an order awarding Respondent all or part of her attorney fees. The court did not award a forward-looking sanction because it could not prejudge future events, although it warned that a new violation could lead to a remedial attorney-fee sanction.

Alleged New Violations in Docket No. 217

The court found no violation based on the additional allegations that Respondent abducted the children. As with the earlier statement, the dismissal order did not prohibit Petitioner from claiming that Respondent took the children from him without his consent. The court therefore made no contempt finding on those allegations.

The order disposed of Docket Nos. 207 and 217.