Huynh v. Desimone (2025)

Case details
Full caption
Nga Huynh v. Joseph Desimone
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
California (CA)
Court
California Supreme Court
Decided
2025
Disposition
Affirmed
Majority
Opinion Delaney (J.) (unanimous Court)
NGA HUYNH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JOSEPH..., Not Reported in... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 2641314Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115, restrictscitation of unpublished opinions in California courts.NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTSCalifornia Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibitscourts and parties from citing or relying onopinions not certified for publication or orderedpublished, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b).This opinion has not been certified for publicationor ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, California.NGA HUYNH, Plaintiff and Appellant,v.JOSEPH DESIMONE, JR., Defendant and Respondent.G063687|Filed 9/15/2025(Super. Ct. No. 23P000437)Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County,Eileen Solis, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const.,art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss.Denied. Respondent's Request for Judicial Notice. Denied.Respondent's Motion for Sanctions. Denied. Appellant'sRequest to File Late Reply Brief. Denied.Attorneys and Law FirmsNga Huynh, in pro. per.Stegmeier, Gelbart, Schwartz & Benavente, and JasonM. Schwartz, and Garrett C. Dailey, for Defendant andRespondent.OPINIONDELANEY, J.*1 Nga Huynh appeals from the California family court's(the court) order determining the State of Nevada hasjurisdiction of her son pursuant to the Uniform Child CustodyJurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), Family Code,§§ 3400 et seq.1 Respondent Joseph DeSimone argues theappeal should be dismissed because Nevada has exclusivejurisdiction. We disagree because whether Nevada hasexclusive jurisdiction is subject to appellate review. Turningto the merits, we conclude Huynh forfeited her appellateclaims by failing to cite to the full record or to proper legalauthority. Accordingly, we affirm the court's order.In reply, in support of their motion to dismiss the appeal,DeSimone requests this court sanction Huynh, includingfor citing nonexistent cases, a practice which createsinefficiencies for lawyers and the courts and promotescynicism about the legal profession and the American judicialsystem. Although citation of fictitious cases is sanctionableconduct, we conclude sanctions are not warranted in thiscase.2STATEMENT OF THE CASEHuynh, a California resident, and DeSimone, a Nevadaresident, never married, but have a son, who was born in July2022. On January 3, 2023, DeSimone filed a complaint toestablish paternity and child custody in Nevada family court.On April 21, 2023, Huynh filed a Petition to DetermineParental Relationship (Petition) in California. She requestedchild custody and visitation orders, as well as an ordershortening the time for an UCCJEA conference with theNevada family court to determine jurisdiction. At the time,Huynh was represented by attorneys in California andNevada.On May 25, 2023, DeSimone filed a request for, amongothers, an order quashing Huynh's Petition. Alternatively, herequested a stay of the California action and a conference withthe Nevada family court to determine the more appropriateforum.Subsequently, Judge Mary Perry of the Nevada family courtand Temporary Judge Solis held an initial discussion todiscuss the case. On June 15, 2023, a UCCJEA conferencewas held jointly by the Nevada family court and the court. Theparties' California attorneys were physically present in theCalifornia courtroom, and their Nevada attorneys and JudgePerry appeared remotely. The proceedings spanned severaldays over two months. During this period, Huynh changedattorneys multiple times.
NGA HUYNH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JOSEPH..., Not Reported in... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2Following the hearing, at Huynh's request, the court issueda written statement of decision. The court summarized theparties' evidence before ruling on various issues under theUCCJEA. First, the court determined that neither Californianor Nevada has “home state” jurisdiction under the UCCJEAbecause the child did not reside six consecutive monthsin either state prior to the commencement of the Nevadaor California actions. The court stated the parties agreedwith this determination. Because there is no home statejurisdiction, the court analyzed the significant connectionsthe child and parents have with the relevant states andwhether any substantial evidence is available in the statesconcerning the child's care, protection, training, and personalrelationships.*2 The court concluded the child had more significantconnections to Nevada than California. Substantial evidenceincluded the child seeing doctors, receiving immunizationshots, and being fitted for a custom helmet to correct skullformation issues in Nevada. He also was baptized in Nevada,played the role of baby Jesus at Christmas Mass in Nevada,and attended football games and holiday celebrations inNevada. His half-sister lived with the child for over fivemonths in Nevada, and DeSimone has substantial connectionsto Nevada. As to California connections, the child was born inCalifornia and saw doctors in California following his birth.Huynh enrolled him in swim and sign language classes inCalifornia, but provided no details. As to Huynh's connectionsto the two states, she does not own property in California,but during the time period in question, co-owned a Nevadacondominium with DeSimone. She has worked for DeSimonein Nevada, but there is no evidence that she worked inCalifornia.Finally, the court concluded that Nevada was not aninconvenient forum because, among other factors, it is normalto hold remote hearings in Nevada, which is advantageousto Huynh because it reduces the significant wealth disparitybetween the parties. Additionally, California and Nevada areneighboring states, and the respective family courts haveequal knowledge of the facts and issues. Based on its findings,the court concluded that Nevada should have full jurisdictionover the matter.DISCUSSIONI.APPLICABLE LAW“The UCCJEA is the exclusive method of determiningsubject matter jurisdiction in child custody cases” (Schneerv. Llaurado (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1287 (Schneer).)“The UCCJEA is designed to avoid jurisdictional conflictsbetween states and relitigation of custody decisions, promotecooperation between states, and facilitate enforcement ofanother state's custody decrees.” (In re R.L. (2016) 4Cal.App.5th 125, 136.) “Subject matter jurisdiction over achild custody dispute either exists or does not exist at thetime the petition is filed, and jurisdiction under the UCCJEAmay not be conferred by mere presence of the parties orby stipulation, consent, waiver, or estoppel.” (Schneer, at p.1287.)Section 3421, subdivision (a), sets forth four alternative basesfor subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA:“(1) This state is the home state of the child on the date of thecommencement of the proceeding, or was the home state ofthe child within six months before the commencement of theproceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parentor person acting as a parent continues to live in this state.“(2) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction underparagraph (1), or a court of the home state of the child hasdeclined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this stateis the more appropriate forum under Section 3427 or 3428,and both of the following are true: [¶] (A) The child and thechild's parents, or the child and at least one parent or a personacting as a parent, have a significant connection with thisstate other than mere physical presence. [¶] (B) Substantialevidence is available in this state concerning the child's care,protection, training, and personal relationships.“(3) All courts having jurisdiction under paragraph (1) or (2)have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that acourt of this state is the more appropriate forum to determinethe custody of the child under Section 3427 or 3428.“(4) No court of any other state would have jurisdiction underthe criteria specified in paragraph (1), (2), or (3).”“Home state” under the UCCJEA means, “the state in whicha child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parentfor at least six consecutive months immediately before thecommencement of a child custody proceeding. In the case of
NGA HUYNH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JOSEPH..., Not Reported in... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3a child less than six months of age, the term means the statein which the child lived from birth with any of the personsmentioned. A period of temporary absence of any of thementioned persons is part of the period.” (§ 3402, subd. (g).)“Temporary absence” requires consideration of the parents'intentions, as well as other factors relating to the departurecircumstances. (See, e.g., In re Marriage of Nurie (2009)176 Cal.App.4th 478, 493, fn. 12 (Nurie) [“both parentsintended for Son to return to California .... Because the tripat least began as a ‘temporary absence,’ under any applicablestandard, the time Son spent in Pakistan before Wife informedHusband that she would not return to California should beconsidered part of Son's period of residence in California”].)*3 “ ‘The UCCJEA takes a strict “first in time” approachto jurisdiction. Basically, subject to exceptions not applicablehere [citations], once the court of an appropriate state(Fam. Code, § 3421, subd. (a)) has made a “child custodydetermination,” that court obtains “exclusive, continuingjurisdiction....” (Fam. Code, § 3422, subd. (a).) The courtof another state: [¶] (a) Cannot modify the child custodydetermination (Fam. Code, §§ 3421, subd. (b), 3422, subd.(a), 3423, 3446, subd. (b)); [and] [¶] (b) Must enforce the childcustody determination (Fam. Code, §§ 3443, 3445, 3446,3448, 3453)....’ ” (Nurie, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 491.)“[A]s with any statute, interpretation of the UCCJEA isa question of law we review de novo.” (Schneer, supra,242 Cal.App.4th at p. 1287.) However, the findings of factmade by the family court in determining jurisdiction underthe UCCJEA are “reviewed under the deferential substantialevidence standard” and its “resolution of conflicts in theevidence and credibility assessments are binding on thiscourt.” (Id. at pp. 1286–1287, fn. omitted.) The family court'sdecision to decline jurisdiction on the ground of inconvenientforum, as well as its failure to do so, is reviewed for an abuseof discretion. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 311–313.)II.DISCUSSIONA. Motion to Dismiss AppealDeSimone argues this court should dismiss the appeal becauseNevada has exclusive jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.Section 3422 provides that “a court of this state that hasmade a child custody determination consistent with Section3421 or 3423 has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction overthe determination,” until it determines jurisdiction has beenlost. (See Segal v. Fishbein (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 692,704 [“[S]ection 3422 ‘unambiguously gives the decreestate sole power to decide whether jurisdiction has beenlost on this basis’ ”].) Nevada made the initial custodydetermination on November 30, 2023, after the Californiaand Nevada family courts held the joint UCCJEA conference.Thus, DeSimone argues, California courts cannot entertainany challenges to Nevada's jurisdiction over the child. Wedisagree. DeSimone's dismissal motion is predicated on theinitial custody determination being “consistent with Section3421 or 3423,” which requires appellate review of the court'sdetermination. Accordingly, we have appellate jurisdiction toreview the court's order finding Nevada has subject matterjurisdiction over the child under the UCCJEA.3B. Forfeiture of Appellate ClaimsHuynh challenges the court's determination that Nevadahas jurisdiction over her son on several grounds. First, shecontends California is the home state because her presenceand the child's presence in Nevada during the relevant timeperiods were temporary absences. She does not address hercounsel's concessions during the hearing that California doesnot have home state jurisdiction. Second, she argues thecourt erred in its analysis of the significant connections test.She cites several facts supporting significant connectionsto California, but did not cite to the record. Instead, herappellate brief left the record citations incomplete, stating“(CT [insert reference])” numerous times. She also does notcite the evidence supporting the court's ruling. Third, sheargues the court erred by not recognizing Nevada as theinconvenient forum. In connection with this appellate claim,Huynh cites two nonexistent cases. The first fictitious case(In re Marriage of Handley) was cited for the argument thatthe standard of review is abuse of discretion. The secondcase (In re Marriage of Akins) was cited for the propositionthat substantial wealth disparity is a factor in determiningthe convenient forum. Finally, Huynh contends the courterred when it held an unrecorded conference call with theNevada family court without the participation or presenceof the parties. She acknowledges the court referenced thiscall in its statement of decision, but does not address whyshe failed to raise any objection below. She also asserts thisalleged procedural error was prejudicial without any furtherargument.
NGA HUYNH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JOSEPH..., Not Reported in... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4*4 Huynh's first three claims of error implicate the court'sfactual findings. Whether an absence is temporary for homestate jurisdiction, whether there are significant connections,and whether a forum is more appropriate than anotherforum all require findings of facts and weighing thosefacts. Here, both parties presented facts that would lead todiffering results. As noted, in UCCJEA proceedings, wherejurisdictional facts are disputed, we review the court's factualdeterminations for substantial evidence. (See Schneer, supra,242 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1286–1287.) A party challenging aruling for lack of substantial evidence must “ ‘set forth,discuss, and analyze all the evidence on that point, bothfavorable and unfavorable.’ ” (Pope v. Babick (2014) 229Cal.App.4th 1238, 1246.) “Unless this is done the error isdeemed to be waived.” (Ibid.) Additionally, “[a]n appellantwho fails to cite accurately to the record forfeits the issueor argument on appeal that is presented without the recordreference.” (Alki Partners, LP v. DB Fund Services, LLC(2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 574, 589.) By failing to cite evidencesupporting the order and explain why such evidence isinsufficient, Huynh has forfeited her first three appellateclaims.Her third claim also is forfeited for the separate reason thatshe cites fictitious cases, which is sanctionable.Finally, her fourth and last claim of error relating to theinitial conference call between the judicial officers is forfeitedbecause she does not explain why she failed to object below orwhy the alleged procedural error is prejudicial. (See Doers v.Golden Gate Bridge Etc. Dist. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 180, 184, fn.1, overruled in part on other grounds by Quach v. CaliforniaCommerce Club, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 562, 573, 582, fn. 4.)[“ ‘An appellate court will ordinarily not consider proceduraldefects or erroneous rulings, in connection with relief soughtor defenses asserted, where an objection could have been butwas not presented to the lower court by some appropriatemethod’ ”]; Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th779, 784–785 [“When an appellant fails to raise a point, orasserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument andcitations to authority, we treat the point as waived”].) In sum,Huynh has forfeited her appellate claims.C. Request for SanctionsDeSimone requests this court sanction Huynh for filing theappeal. He argues the appeal is frivolous because (1) theappeal is moot for lack of jurisdiction, as argued in his Motionto Dismiss, (2) Huynh failed to comply with the rules ofappellate procedures by fairly summarizing the evidence orpresenting cogent arguments, and (3) Huynh cited nonexistentcases. As we concluded above, the appeal is not moot becausewe have appellate jurisdiction to review whether the Nevadafamily court has jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. As forHuynh's failure to present reasoned arguments or recordcitations, her resulting forfeiture of those claims on appealis a sufficient sanction. (Cf. Kabbe v. Miller (1990) 226Cal.App.3d 93, 98 [“We do not believe it is appropriate tohold a propria persona appellant to the standard of what a‘reasonable attorney’ should know is frivolous unless anduntil that appellant becomes a persistent litigant”].)As for Huynh's references to nonexistent cases, substantialauthority supports sanctions for such misconduct, evenwhen committed by a self-represented litigant. “[Self-represented] litigants are held to the same standardsas attorneys.” (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175Cal.App.4th 536, 543.) Moreover, self-represented litigantshave been sanctioned for citing fictitious cases. (See, e.g.,United States v. Hayes (E.D. Cal. 2025) 763 F.Supp.3d1054, 1071 [collecting cases, including Maine case imposingsanctions “to deter other litigants from ‘blindly’ relying onAI-generated filings]; Kruse v. Karlen (Mo.Ct.App. 2024)692 S.W.3d 43, 54 [sanctioning propria persona party whocited fictitious cases in appellate brief $10,000 in attorneyfees because it is “a necessary and appropriate message in thiscase, underscoring the importance of following court rulesand presenting meritorious arguments supported by real andaccurate judicial authority”].)*5 Nevertheless, we concluded sanctions are not warrantedin this case. DeSimone's request for sanctions was made notby formal motion, but in reply to Hyunh's opposition to themotion to dismiss and referenced again in the respondent'sbrief. Neither is appropriate. (See Cowan v. Krayzman (2011)196 Cal.App.4th 907, 919 [denying sanctions request becauselitigant “has not filed a separate sanctions motion as requiredby California Rules of Court, Rule 8.276(b)(1). Sanctionscannot be sought in the respondent's brief”].) Moreover, therequested sanctions in the amount of $10,000 is grosslyexcessive in terms of what was necessary to correct theinaccuracy. Indeed, although fictitious, the cases were cited tosupport legal contentions that are correct statements of the lawand supported by extant cases. This fact mitigates against theamount of the requested sanctions and sanctions in general.In addition, we recognize Huynh promptly removed thechallenged citations in corrected filings after being apprisedof her errors.
NGA HUYNH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JOSEPH..., Not Reported in... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5It is a serious and sanctionable action to cite fictitious caseson appeal. All parties, whether self-represented or not, muststrive to include proper legal authorities in support of theirarguments. Blind reliance on cases generated by artificialintelligence damages the litigant's credibility with the courtwhen the cases are fictitious. Responding to the fictitiouscases wastes the limited resources of the courts. Althoughwe decline to impose sanctions in this case, self-representedlitigants who cite fictitious cases in future appeals may not beso fortunate to avoid monetary or other sanctions.DISPOSITIONThe order is affirmed. Respondent is awarded his costs onappeal.WE CONCUR:MOTOIKE, ACTING P.J.MOORE, J.All CitationsNot Reported in Cal.Rptr., 2025 WL 2641314Footnotes1All further statutory references are to the Family Code, unless stated otherwise.2Prior to her appearance on the day of oral argument, Huynh attempted to file a late reply brief, which werejected. During oral argument, she requested leave to file a late reply brief. We deny leave because she didnot present sufficient reasons to explain her lack of diligence and overcome the prejudice to the other party.3We deny the related Request for Judicial Notice because it concerns documents not relevant to the issuesin this appeal.End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access