Haimdas v. Haimdas

10-2532-cv Haimdas v. Haimdas UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 17 th day of November, two thousand and ten. 5 6 PRESENT: WILFRED FEINBERG, 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 11 12 13 FELICIA HAIMDAS, 14 15 Plaintiff-Appellee, 16 17 -v.- 10-2532-cv 18 19 JAGMOHAN HAIMDAS, 20 21 Defendant-Appellant. 22 23 24 1 FOR APPELLANT: PETER C. LOMTEVAS, Law Office of Peter C. 2 Lomtevas, Ozone Park, NY. 3 4 FOR APPELLEE: LAURA W. SAWYER, (Mark R. Seiden, Jonathan A. 5 Muenkel, on the brief), Jones Day, New York, 6 NY. 7 8 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 9 Eastern District of New York (Vitaliano, J.). 10 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 12 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 13 AFFIRMED. 14 Jagmohan Haimdas(“Appellant”) appeals from a judgment of 15 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 16 New York (Vitaliano, J.) following a bench trial granting 17 Felicia Haimdas’ (“Appellee”) petition for the return of the 18 parties’ two sons to England pursuant to the Hague 19 Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child 20 Abductions, 51 Fed. Reg. 10,494, 10,498 (Mar. 26, 1986) 21 (implemented at 42 U.S.C. §§ 11601-11611) (the “Hague 22 Convention”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 23 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 24 presented for review. 25 Appellant argues that the district court erred by 26 finding that Appellee has custodial rights. We disagree for 27 substantially the same reasons set forth by the district 2 1 court in its thorough and well-reasoned Memorandum and 2 Order. 3 Appellant also argues that the district court erred by 4 denying Appellant’s motion to appoint a guardian ad litem to 5 represent the children. We review a decision not to appoint 6 a guardian ad litem for abuse of discretion. Ferrelli v. 7 River Manor Health Care Ctr., 323 F.3d 196, 200 (2d Cir. 8 2003). Here, Appellant’s proffered reason for seeking a 9 guardian — to represent the best interests of the children — 10 was not relevant to the court’s analysis under the Hague 11 Convention. See Tsai-Yi Yang v. Fu-Chiang Tsui, 416 F.3d 12 199, 203 (3d Cir. 2005) (explaining that the best interests 13 of the child are not at issue in a Hague Convention 14 analysis). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse 15 its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion. 16 Finally, Appellant contends that the district court 17 abused its discretion or violated his due process rights by 18 excluding Appellant’s expert’s report and testimony. We 19 review a decision to exclude expert testimony for abuse of 20 discretion. Zaremba v. Gen. Motors Corp., 360 F.3d 355, 357 21 (2d Cir. 2004). Appellant characterized his expert as a 22 rebuttal expert and failed to satisfactorily explain to the 3 1 district court how his expert was qualified to rebut 2 Appellee’s expert. Given the district court’s decision not 3 to rely on Appellee’s expert, the district court’s exclusion 4 of Appellant’s rebuttal expert was neither an error nor a 5 violation of Appellant’s due process rights. 6 We have considered Appellant’s remaining arguments and 7 find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, 8 the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED. 9 10 FOR THE COURT: 11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 12 13 4