IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 02-50024
(Summary Calendar)
_____________________
LISA MARIE SMITH, also known as
LISA MARIE GENSKOW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ERIC DEMOSENEEDS ARNOLD; REBECCA K.
ARNOLD,
Defendants-Appellees.
---------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(A-01-CV-64-SS)
---------------------
June 20, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Lisa Marie Smith appeals the district
court’s dismissal of her multifaceted suit against Defendants-
Appellees, Eric Demoseneeds Arnold and Rebecca K. Arnold, husband
and wife, arising from and connected with domestic litigation in
the States of Washington and Texas over custody and related matters
implicating the minor natural child of Ms. Smith and Mr. Arnold
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
(Mrs. Arnold was earlier dismissed for lack of personal
jurisdiction, and Ms. Smith has not appealed that ruling). Many of
the claims asserted by Ms. Smith are grounded in tort but relate in
principal part to Mr. Arnold’s unilateral removal of the child from
Texas, where the child was present following his earlier unilateral
removal from Washington by Ms. Smith. The district court rendered
a take-nothing judgment on Ms. Smith’s tort claims and dismissed
her remaining claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The
court grounded its dismissal in the domestic relations exception to
diversity jurisdiction, citing, inter alia, Barber v. Barber, 62
U.S. (21 How) 582 (1859) and Rykers v. Alford, 832 F.2d 895 (5th
Cir. 1987). In the alternative, the district court noted
additional legal bases for rejecting Ms. Smith’s claims, including
time bar and Mr. Arnold’s prior discharge in bankruptcy.
We have carefully considered the pertinent parts of the record
in this case and the arguments advanced by able counsel in their
appellate briefs, examining the findings of fact of the district
court for clear error and its legal rulings de novo. As a result,
we are satisfied that the district court is correct in all respects
and should be affirmed for the reasons set forth in its
comprehensive Order of December 5, 2001.
AFFIRMED. S:\OPINIONS\UNPUB\02\02-50024.0.wpd
4/29/04 10:33 am
2