Frenken v. Hunter
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING ( 14 , 53 ) MOTIONS TO EXPEDITE CASE SCHEDULE AND 20 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2017)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GEERTE M. FRENKEN,
CHRISTOPHER PERRY HUNTER,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO
EXPEDITE CASE SCHEDULE AND
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR
Re: Dkt. Nos. 14, 20, 53
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Geerte M. Frenken’s motions to expedite the case
schedule, Dkt. Nos. 14, 53, and her motion for leave to appear telephonically, Dkt. No. 20. The
Court DENIES the motions to expedite the case schedule for two reasons: (1) Plaintiff failed to
comply with Civil Local Rule 16-2(d); and (2) Article 11 of the Hague Convention on the Civil
Aspects of International Child Abduction, by its plain language, does not support the relief
requested.1 The Court also DENIES the motion for leave to appear telephonically at all
proceedings in this matter. The Court will continue to consider requests to appear telephonically
on a proceeding-by-proceeding basis.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
In addition to an expedited case schedule, the first motion above also requested that the Court
issue summons and grant Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. No. 14.
Subsequently, summons was issued and executed, the filing fee was paid, and the IFP application
was terminated. Dkt. Nos. 3, 15–16, 19. Thus, the first motion above is now fully resolved.
For example, the Court recently granted Plaintiff’s request to appear telephonically at the
upcoming case management conference. See Dkt. No. 57.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?