Lucas Molo v. Caroline Molo

Filing 10

ORDER REGARDING 7 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND OTHER RELIEF. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 8/27/2015. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LUCAS MOLO,

Case No. 15-cv-03903-HSG

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
OTHER RELIEF

v.
9
10

CAROLINE MOLO,

Re: Dkt. No. 7

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On August 26, 2015, Petitioner Lucas Molo filed a motion for preliminary injunction

13

without notice, stay of state court custody proceedings, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a)

14

relief, order to show cause, and expedited adjudication. Dkt. No. 7. Notice of the motion was not

15

given to Respondent Caroline Molo.

16

The Court finds that Petitioner has failed to articulate a sufficient legal and factual basis to

17

warrant departure from the normal requirements of service and written notice. Petitioner cites to

18

42 U.S.C. § 11604, but that statute merely provides general authority for the Court to “take or

19

cause to be taken measures under Federal or State law, as appropriate, to protect the well-being of

20

the child involved or to prevent the child’s further removal or concealment before the final

21

disposition of the petition.” And Civil Local Rule 65-2 provides that “[m]otions for a preliminary

22

injunction unaccompanied by a temporary restraining order are governed by Civil L.R. 7-2,”

23

which requires motions to be “filed, served, and noticed in writing . . . for hearing not less than 35

24

days after filing of the motion,” “[e]xcept as ordered or permitted by the assigned Judge or these

25

Local Rules.” On the record presented, the Court finds it inappropriate to excuse these service and

26

notice requirements.

27

Petitioner is directed to serve and provide written notice of the present motion in

28

compliance with L.R. 7-2. Once the motion is fully briefed, the Court will consider the merits of

1

Petitioner’s requests.

2

In addition, the Court notes that Petitioner asserts in his verified petition that “Respondent

3

and [his minor daughter] are presently located within the jurisdiction of the court . . . in Fairfield,

4

California,” Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 4, and that the state court action Petitioner seeks to stay is pending in

5

Solano County Superior Court, id. ¶¶ 62-63. Petitioner seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent

6

Respondent from “removing [their daughter] from the Northern District of California.” Dkt. No. 7

7

¶ 1. Solano County, in which Fairfield is located, is in the Eastern District of California, not the

8

Northern District. In his next filing, Petitioner must explain why venue in the Northern District of

9

California is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 27, 2015
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2