Frenken v. Hunter

Filing 60

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)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
GEERTE M. FRENKEN,

7

Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

CHRISTOPHER PERRY HUNTER,

10

Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.17-cv-03125-HSG
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO
EXPEDITE CASE SCHEDULE AND
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR
TELEPHONICALLY
Re: Dkt. Nos. 14, 20, 53

12

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Geerte M. Frenken’s motions to expedite the case

13

schedule, Dkt. Nos. 14, 53, and her motion for leave to appear telephonically, Dkt. No. 20. The

14

Court DENIES the motions to expedite the case schedule for two reasons: (1) Plaintiff failed to

15

comply with Civil Local Rule 16-2(d); and (2) Article 11 of the Hague Convention on the Civil

16

Aspects of International Child Abduction, by its plain language, does not support the relief

17

requested.1 The Court also DENIES the motion for leave to appear telephonically at all

18

proceedings in this matter. The Court will continue to consider requests to appear telephonically

19

on a proceeding-by-proceeding basis.2

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: 8/30/2017

22
23
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

24
25
1

26
27
28

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.
2
For example, the Court recently granted Plaintiff’s request to appear telephonically at the
upcoming case management conference. See Dkt. No. 57.