Neumann v. Neumann

Filing 4

OPINION and ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF/PETITIONERS EX PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, (2) DIRECTING SERVICE ON DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT, and (3) SCHEDULING AN EXPEDITED HEARING , ( Hearing re Restraining Order is set for 6/8/2015 01:30 PM before District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith) Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (CHad)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEVEN MICHAEL NEUMANN,
Plaintiff/Petitioner,

Civil Action No. 15-CV-11995
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH

vs.
JULIE ANNE NEUMANN,
Defendant/Respondent.
_______________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER (Dkt. 2), (2) DIRECTING SERVICE ON
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT, and (3) SCHEDULING AN EXPEDITED HEARING
Before the Court is Plaintiff/Petitioner Michael Steven Neumann’s ex parte motion under
the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the
International Child Abduction Remedies Act (“ICARA”), 22 U.S.C. § 9001 et seq., for entry of
an ex parte temporary restraining order to prevent Defendant/Respondent from removing their
children from the Court’s jurisdiction and for other relief (Dkt. 2). The central contention in the
Verified Complaint and motion papers is that Defendant/Respondent has wrongfully removed
their children from their place of habitual residence in Mexico, in violation of the Hague
Convention. As discussed below, Plaintiff/Petitioner’s motion is granted in part and denied in
part.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 permits the Court to issue a temporary restraining
order without notice to the adverse party only where “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified
complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the
movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition,” and “the movant’s attorney certifies

1

in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).
Upon reviewing Plaintiff/Petitioner’s motion and brief in support, the Court concludes
that Plaintiff/Petitioner will suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage unless the
order is entered without notice. Furthermore, the ICARA permits courts to “take or cause to be
taken measures under Federal or State law, as appropriate, to protect the well-being of the child
involved or to prevent the child’s further removal or concealment before the final disposition of
the petition.” 22 U.S.C. § 9004(a).
Plaintiff/Petitioner has set forth facts demonstrating that Defendant/Respondent removed
the parties’ minor children from Mexico to the United States without permission from or notice
to Plaintiff/Petitioner. Plaintiff/Petitioner has also attested that Defendant/Respondent has forbid
any and all contact between Plaintiff/Petitioner and the minor children. There is a strong
likelihood that if Defendant/Respondent receives notice of the present court action, she will flee
the jurisdiction with the minor children. The inability or difficulty in locating the children, if
they are further removed, will cause Plaintiff/Petitioner irreparable injury by loss of association
with his children.

A temporary restraining order will also prevent further removal or

concealment of the children pending disposition of the petition. Accordingly, entry of the order
without notice is appropriate.
Therefore, Plaintiff/Petitioner’s ex parte motion is granted in part, as follows:
1. Defendant/Respondent and any person acting in concert or participating with her are
prohibited from taking any action to remove the parties’ children (identified for privacy purposes
as JMN, JSN, and MKN) from the state of Michigan pending further Order of this Court.
2. The Court will conduct a hearing in this matter on June 8, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. The hearing will
be conducted at the Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette Boulevard,
Detroit, Michigan 48226, Room 860. Defendant/Respondent must personally appear and show
cause why this temporary restraining order should not be continued and/or other temporary relief
ordered pending a hearing on Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction.
2

3. Plaintiff/Petitioner’s request for an order requiring immediate and liberal telephone contact
with the children is denied without prejudice at this time. This issue may be raised by
Plaintiff/Petitioner at the June 8 hearing.
4. Plaintiff/Petitioner is directed to serve Defendant/Respondent with this Order, the Verified
Complaint, and all other motion papers no later than noon on June 5, 2015.
5. Unless extended by the Court, this Order expires on June 17, 2015 at 5 p.m.
SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of June, 2015 at

Dated: June 3, 2015
Detroit, Michigan

2:23

o’clock p.m .

s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and
any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class
U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on June 3, 2015.
s/Carrie Haddon
Case Manager

3