Gee v. Hendroffe

Filing 31

ORDER that the October 8, 2013, Evidentiary Hearing will concern Petitioners 21 Petition pursuant to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner, Respondent, and their two child ren must be present in court in person at the aforementioned hearing. There will be no exceptions to the personal appearance requirement. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 09/22/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

15

)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
2:13-cv-01582-JCM-NJK
)
vs.
)
)
HANNIE HENDROFFE,
)
ORDER
)
)
Respondent.
)
)
Before the Court is the question of whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. The

16

Court has reviewed the papers on this matter and finds this issue is appropriately resolved

17

without oral argument. Local Rule 78-2.

10
11
12
13
14

WILLIAM GEE,

18

BACKGROUND

19

On August 30, 2013, Petitioner filed his Petition for return of Children and Motion

20

Warrant in Lieu of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

21

Docket Nos. 1 and 2. The Court promptly set a hearing on the matter for September 4, 2013.

22

Docket No. 10.

23

At the September 4, 2013, hearing, the Court raised the issue of whether it had subject

24

matter jurisdiction over this litigation. See Docket No. 17. As neither party had briefed or

25

considered the issue, the Court continued the hearing to September 6, 2013. Id. The Court

26

ordered Petitioner to meet his burden of establishing jurisdiction and ordered Respondent to

27

provide her airline ticket or other evidence to her Nevada attorney, which indicated when she left

28

Las Vegas, Nevada, for Malaysia. Id. The Court also ruled at that time that respondent could not

1

be represented by her Australian counsel, Mr. Michael Paul, in this matter because he was not

2

admitted to practice law in the United States. Id.

3

On September 5, 2013, Respondent filed a Motion for Dismissal in which she stated that

4

she was not served with the Petition until September 4, 2013, and that she and the children left

5

the state of Nevada on August 27, 2013, and left the United States on August 31, 2013. Docket

6

No. 20, at 1. Respondent attached an email from Petitioner’s counsel’s office which informed her

7

of the September 4, 2013, hearing and provided her with a copy of the Petition as well as this

8

Court’s order setting the hearing. Id. at 3. Respondent also attached a debit card statement for a

9

card which was used in California as early as August 27, 2013, and copies of the airline tickets

10

she and the two children used to fly from Los Angeles, California to Malaysia on August 31,

11

2013. Id. at 4-9.

12

Shortly after Respondent filed her motion on September 5, 2013, Petitioner filed a

13

Motion Under Hague Convention for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order and a UCCJEA

14

Warrant. Docket No. 21. Attached to his motion was an Affidavit signed by Respondent and

15

notarized in Las Vegas, Nevada at 10:30 a.m. on August 30, 2013. Id. at 4, 34-51.

16

On September 6, 2013, prior to the hearing, Respondent filed a Declaration of Yasmin

17

Acevedo, a friend of Respondent since 2011, who lives in Las Vegas. Docket No. 24. According

18

to the Declaration, Ms. Acevedo accompanied Respondent and the two children to California on

19

August 27, 2013, where they visited some family friends and local attractions. Id. Thereafter, Ms.

20

Acevedo represents, on August 30, 2013, Respondent returned to Las Vegas to attend to some

21

legal matters while she and the children stayed in California. Id. Ms. Acevedo concludes that she

22

accompanied Respondent and the Children to the airport for their departure to Malaysia. Id.

23

At the September 6, 2013, hearing, Respondent’s Australian counsel, Mr. Paul, again

24

requested an opportunity to speak on respondents behalf or, alternatively, to stay on the

25

telephonic conference call as a spectator. Docket No.25. The Court denied Mr. Paul’s request to

26

represent Respondent and again explained that he is not licenced to practice in this Court. Id. The

27

Court granted Mr. Paul’s request to listen to the hearing as a spectator on the grounds that the

28

hearing was open to the public; however, the Court warned Mr. Paul that he would lose the
-2-

1

privilege to listen telephonically if he attempted in any way to represent Respondent. Id. The

2

Court then turned to the jurisdictional issue and determined that additional briefing and an

3

evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction may be necessary. Id. The Court ordered Petitioner to brief the

4

issue no later than September 13, 2013; Respondent to respond no later than September 20, 2012;

5

and Petitioner to reply no later than September 25, 2013. Id. The Court set an evidentiary

6

hearing concerning jurisdiction for October 8, 2013, and ordered all parties, including the

7

children, present in person at the hearing. Id.

8
9

On September 13, 2013, Petitioner filed a Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for
Entry of Temporary Restraining Order and a UCCJEA Warrant, in which he argues that this

10

Court has subject matter jurisdiction and is the proper venue for this action. Docket No. 27. On

11

September 20, 2013, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss in which she argues, among other

12

things, that this Court does not have jurisdiction over this case and is not the proper venue.

13

Docket No. 29.

14
15

DISCUSSION
The Hague Convention was implemented by Congress through the International Child

16

Abduction Remedies Act (“ICARA”), and was designed to address the problem of parental

17

international child abduction. Von Kennel Gaudin v. Remis, 282 F.3d 1178, 1181-82 (9th Cir.

18

2002); citing art. 1., 19 I.L.M. at 1501; Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067, 1069-70 (9th Cir.2001);

19

Shalit v. Coppe, 182 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir.1999). Relevant to this proceeding, both the

20

United States and South Africa are signatories to the Hague Convention.

21
22
23
24
25

In the United States, a judicial proceeding under the Convention is commenced by filing a
petition for relief in the place where the child is located at the time the petition is filed.
Any person seeking to initiate judicial proceedings under the Convention for the return of
a child or for arrangements for organizing or securing the effective exercise of rights of
access to a child may do so by commencing a civil action by filing a petition for the relief
sought in any court which has jurisdiction of such action and which is authorized to
exercise its jurisdiction in the place where the child is located at the time the petition is
filed.

26
42 U.S.C.A. § 11603.
27
As the Ninth Circuit has recognized, “located” has a particular meaning in the context of
28
-3-

1

ICARA, distinct from “a traditional residency test.” Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 869 (9th

2

Cir. 2002) n. 5; citing Lops v. Lops, 140 F.3d 927, 937 (11th Cir.1998). It means “the place

3

where the abducted children are discovered,” and is more equivalent to the concept of physical

4

presence. Id.; citing Lops, 140 F.3d at 937. “This kind of common-sense definition makes sense

5

in the context of the ICARA and the Hague Convention, concerned as they are with the Hague

6

Convention's consistent application across borders.” Id.; see also 42 U.S.C. 11601(b)(1)(B).

7

Here, the evidence shows that once Petitioner discovered that the Children were in Las

8

Vegas, and that Respondent likely did not intend to return to South Africa with the children,1 he

9

promptly filed his petition for return of the children. Under the Holder/Lops common sense

10

definition of “located” and in light of the Convention’s purpose of providing an “expeditious

11

avenue” for seeking return of children, this is sufficient to establish jurisdiction.

12

Respondent’s contention that the children were in California with Ms. Acevedo on or

13

around August 27, 2013, is irrelevant because Petitioner had no knowledge of that alleged trip,

14

the children were discovered in Las Vegas, and by Respondents own admission, the children had

15

been located in Las Vegas from July 11 until at least August 27. Further, the Court finds that

16

Respondent’s argument that the children were in California is not credible. The debit card

17

statements provided by Respondent have no name attached to the card and the affidavit of Ms.

18

Acevedo did not come until after Petitioner provided proof that Respondent was in Nevada on

19

August 30, 2013. Additionally, the legal documents that Respondent signed and notarized in Law

20

Vegas on August 30, 2013, are documents for an Australian legal action, and could have been

21

signed and notarized in California as well. The Court finds that the evidence shows that the

22

children were located in Nevada at the time the Petition was filed. Accordingly, the Court finds

23

that it has jurisdiction over this matter and can determine this case on the merits.

24

...

25
1

26
27
28

On July 11, 2013, Respondent emailed Petitioner that she was taking the children on
vacation to the United States through August 9th or 10th. Docket No. 27, Exhibit 1. Thereafter,
Respondent shipped all of her belongings to the United States and began filing motions in Clark
County, Nevada in the Eight Judicial District Court - Family Division, and Nevada Family Court,
requesting prior custody agreements between Petitioner and Respondent be set aside. Id. at 7-8; see
also Exhibit 2.
-4-

1
2

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore, the Court finds that it has

3

subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, the October 8, 2013, evidentiary

4

hearing will concern Petitioner’s Petition pursuant to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of

5

International Child Abduction (Docket No. 21). The jurisdictional issue has already been

6

resolved.

7

Further, the Court ORDERS that Petitioner, Respondent, and their two children must be

8

present in court in person at the aforementioned hearing. There will be no exceptions to the

9

personal appearance requirement.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

DATED this

22nd

day of September, 2013

12
13
14
15

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-