Whether the domestic relations exception to federal question jurisdiction bars federal courts from adjudicating breach of contract claims arising from divorce settlements when framed as third-party beneficiary actions

do not involve a domestic relations dispute between a feuding couple,” but rather “Appellees present a third-party beneficiary claim based in contract law.” Ex. 1, at 10. 4. The Eighth Circuit’s decision creates a direct circuit split with decisions from the First and Sixth Circuits, both of which have held breach of contract claims seeking to enforce a divorce settlement are not cognizable in federal court. See Irish v Irish, 842 F.3d 736, 741 (1st Cir. 2016); McLaughlin v. Cotner, 193 F.3d 410, 413 (6th Cir. 1999). 5. Applicant’s counsel returned from maternity leave on October 4, 2023, and has a period of adjustment returning to work from that extended absence. Moreover, counsel has substantial argument and briefing obligations in coming weeks, including: an amicus brief for Mothers against Drunk Driving in the Massachusetts Supreme Court, No. SJC-13384, (Ma. S.Ct.); an opening brief in Crain v. Crain, No. 22-2693 (8th Cir.); oral argument in Appvion v. Buth, No. 23-01073 (7th Cir.). 6. Counsel therefore requests a modest extension of time in which to prepare and file this petition, in order to fully address the complex issues below ina way that will be helpful to the Court’s consideration of the petition. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Applicant requests an extension of time within which they may file a petition for a writ of certiorari to and including January 11, 2024. Respectfully submitted, Barbara A. Smith Counsel of Record BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102 (314) 259-2000 Counsel for Applicant October 6, 2023