Marriage of Nurie

176 Cal. App. 4th 478, 98 Cal. Rptr. 3d 200 (2009)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Marriage of Nurie

California Court of Appeal
176 Cal. App. 4th 478, 98 Cal. Rptr. 3d 200 (2009)

Facts

Ghulum Nurie (plaintiff), an American citizen of Pakistani descent, resided in California and maintained his residence there. Nurie married Fizza Rizvi (defendant) in Pakistan on October 30, 2001. Rizvi moved into Nurie’s California home and gave birth to their child in California in September 2002. Rizvi took the child to Pakistan in February 2003 and refused to return to California with the child. In June of 2003, Nurie filed a petition in a California trial court for dissolution of the marriage, seeking custody of the child under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). On July 29, 2003, the California court granted temporary custody to Nurie, and Rizvi was served in September 2003 in Pakistan. In October 2003, Rizvi filed for custody in Pakistan. In November 2003, the California court, which viewed Pakistan as a sister state pursuant to the UCCJEA, found California had home-state jurisdiction beginning in June 2003, when Nurie’s dissolution action began, and awarded sole legal and physical custody to Nurie. Nurie filed the California custody order in the Pakistani court, and the Pakistani court dismissed Rizvi’s matter, deferring jurisdiction to the California court. Nonetheless, for the next four years, Nurie and Rizvi bitterly litigated in California and Pakistan. International arrest warrants were issued for custody interference amid competing accusations of stonings and an attempted kidnapping at gunpoint. In October 2007, under disputed circumstances that Rizvi characterized as a kidnapping, Nurie took the child to California. In February 2008, in response to a petition Rizvi filed in the California court to recognize the Pakistani court’s orders, the California court found that its home-state jurisdiction had been properly determined in November 2003 and the California custody order was valid and enforceable. The California court subsequently reaffirmed its exclusive and continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and held that California never lost jurisdiction as a result of Nurie’s visits to Pakistan or as a result of the alleged kidnapping. Rizvi appealed. One of Rizvi’s many arguments was that Pakistan and California had concurrent jurisdiction beginning with her initial filing in Pakistani court in October 2003.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Richman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership