No. 18-6489

Guetatchew Fikrou v. Montgomery County Office of Child Support Enforcement Division, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2018-10-29
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: abuse-of-discretion bankruptcy bankruptcy-code child-support civil-procedure civil-rights due-process federal-jurisdiction federal-statute standing state-law supplemental-jurisdiction
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess FourthAmendment Jurisdiction JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2019-01-04
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the abuse of discretion standard applies to review of the issues presented in the petition

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ; 1. Whether the United States Supreme Court can review the abuse of . discretions standard applied? Whether this Court would still review de novo the vast majority of the issues on this Petition for Writ of Certiorari? Under the abuse of discretion standard, the Appellate Court must first “determine de novo whether the trial court identified the correct legal rule to apply to the relief requested.” 2. Whether The Federal District Court of Nevada has supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over the subject matter of the Petitioner’s claims because those claims are so related to Petitioner’s federal claims as to form part of the same case or controversy under Article ITI of the United States Constitution Amendment Fourteen, Section 1. 3. Whether, in conflict with decisions of the Fourth and Eighth Circuits, federal . statutory silence overrides any right to contribution under state law for liabilities arising under the federal statute regardless of whether Congress intended to preempt the state law; and 4. Whether, in conflict with decisions of the First and Seventh Circuits, a trustee lacks standing under SIPA or the Bankruptcy Code to assert claims against parties that hastened or deepened the bankruptcy and are therefore general to all of an estate’s customers or creditors. B. PARTIES IN THIS PROCEEDING Petitioner, Appellant and Plaintiff Guetatchew Fikrou (herein after “Petitioner”) is during this action a citizen of the State of Nevada (since April 2012) and the current case was filed in 2015 (Old Case Nb. : Respondent, Appellee and Defendant Santa Clara County California (herein after “SCCC”) Child Support Enforcement Division (herein after “CSED”), is a i . government unit of the State of California, with principal office located at: 880 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, CA. 95131. The events of this action occurred in the SCCC, while Petitioner lived in the SCCC from 1992 (when Petitioner divorce started in 1992), until November 2001. ; Respondent, Appellee and Defendant Los Angeles County California (herein after “LACC”) CSED is a government unit of the State of California, with principal office located at: 5770 South Eastern Avenue, Commerce, CA. 90040.The LACC DCSE was enforcing child support while Petitioner was working in Los Angeles from Noy. 2001 until 2012. Respondent, Appellee and Defendant Northrop Grumman Corporation (“NGC”) is an Aerospace Corporation, has a Legal Representatives in Las Vegas, located at: 701 South Carson Street, Carson City, NV. 89701. Phone: (703) 280 : 2900. The NGC was enforcing child support while Petitioner was working in Los Angeles from Nov. 2001 until 2012 from the rate of $700 to about $900 without an alleged Court order. . ; Respondent, Appellee and Defendant Montgomery County Maryland Office (herein after “MCO”) CSED is a government unit of the State of Maryland, with principal office located at: 51 Monroe Street, Suite 811, Rockville, MD 20850. The MCO CSED was enforcing child support since 1992 and while Petitioner lived in Maryland from May 2008 until April 2012. Respondent, Appellee and Defendant Samir Malhortra is the Secretary of Human Resources, in charge of the MCO CSED. Respondent, Appellee and Defendant Christopher J. Kunz, is Special Counsel for MCO CSED. Respondent, Appellee and Defendant E. Harkleroad, is an agent and or an employee of MCO CSED. Respondent, Appellee and Defendant Pamela Steromwsky, is a supervisor of the MCO CSED. : li . DOE Respondent, Appellee and Defendant District Attorney Officer 1, is a female employee by and or agent of SCCC.DCSE. DOE Respondent, Appellee and Defendant District Attorney Officer 1 is sued in both her official and individual capacity. DOE Respondent, Appellee and Defendant District Attorney Officer 2, is a male employee by and is an agent of LACC CSED. ; DOE Respondent, Appellee and Defendant District Attorney Officer 2; DOE Respondent, Appellee and Defendant Human Resources rep. 1 i

Docket Entries

2019-01-07
Petition DENIED.
2018-12-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.
2018-11-29
Waiver of right of respondent Los Angeles County Child Support Services to respond filed.
2018-10-31
Waiver of right of respondents Montgomery County Office of Child Support, Christopher J. Kunz, Pamela Stromowsky, Samir Malhotra, Erin Harkleroad, and Debbie Hinds to respond filed.
2018-04-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 28, 2018)

Attorneys

Guetatchew Fikrou
Guetatchew Fikrou — Petitioner
Guetatchew Fikrou — Petitioner
Los Angeles County Child Support Services
Avi BurkwitzPeterson, Bradford, Burkwitz, Respondent
Avi BurkwitzPeterson, Bradford, Burkwitz, Respondent
Montgomery County Office of Child Support, Christopher J. Kunz, Pamela Stromowsky, Samir Malhotra, Erin Harkleroad, and Debbie Hinds
Julia Doyle Bernhardt — Respondent
Julia Doyle Bernhardt — Respondent