Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Arjouan v. Cabre

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

November 28, 2017

OTHMAN ARJOUAN, Plaintiff/Petitioner,
v.
LATIFA BINT-ALL AL-GABRY CABRÉ, Defendant/Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          M. CHRISTIN ARMIJO, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on three motions: Petitioner's First Amended Ex Parte Motion Under the Hague Convention for Entry of a TRO [Temporary Restraining Order], Seeking Physical Custody of Child, and Scheduling of an Expedited Hearing; and Federal Rule 65(b) Certificate of Counsel [Doc. 7');">7]; Respondent's Verified Motion to Dismiss all Actions in Petitioner's Pleadings of July 31');">1');">1');">1, 2');">201');">1');">1');">17');">7 and August 1');">1');">1');">1, 2');">201');">1');">1');">17');">7 Pursuant to Rule 1');">1');">1');">12');">2(b)(6), or in the Alternative, Motion for Definite Statement pursuant to Rule 1');">1');">1');">12');">2(e), or Motion to Strike Pursuant to Rule 1');">1');">1');">12');">2(f) [Doc. 1');">1');">1');">17');">7]; and Petitioner's First Motion for Leave of Court to Amend the Verified Petition for Return of Child to Plaintiff/Petitioner in Denmark, Including Provisional Orders, and Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order, Seeking Physical Custody and an Expedited Hearing [Doc. 2');">24]. The Court has considered the submissions, the relevant law, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Further, based on the Court's rulings on the above three motions, the Court finds as moot Father's Ex Parte Motion under The Hague Convention for Entry of a TRO, Seeking Physical Custody of Child, and Scheduling of an Expedited Hearing; and Federal Rule 65(b) Certificate of Counsel [Doc. 2');">2] and Petitioner/Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply to Respondent/Defendant's Reply to the Motion to Dismiss or Motion to Strike Pursuant to Rule 1');">1');">1');">12');">2(f). [Doc. 31');">1');">1');">1]

         BACKGROUND

         Petitioner Othman Arjouan (hereafter, Father) brings this action pursuant to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, opened for signature October 2');">25, 1');">1');">1');">1980, T.I.A.S. No. 1');">1');">1');">11');">1');">1');">167');">70, 1');">1');">1');">1343 U.N.T.S. 2');">22');">251');">1');">1');">14 (hereafter, Hague Convention) and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 2');">22');">2 U.S.C. §§ 9001');">1');">1');">1-901');">1');">1');">11');">1');">1');">1. Father filed a Verified Petition for Return of Child to Plaintiff/Petitioner in Mexico, Including Provisional Orders, and Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order, Seeking Physical Custody and an Expedited Hearing on July 31');">1');">1');">1, 2');">201');">1');">1');">17');">7.[1');">1');">1');">1" name="FN1');">1');">1');">1" id= "FN1');">1');">1');">1">1');">1');">1');">1] [Doc. 1');">1');">1');">1] Generally, Father alleges that he and Respondent, Latifa Cabré (hereafter, Mother) are divorced and have a six year old child (hereafter, Child) who was born in Denmark. [Doc. 1');">1');">1');">1, p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3] He alleges that he and Mother have joint custody of Child under Danish law and that, through May of 2');">201');">1');">1');">15, Child was a habitual resident of Denmark and Father was exercising his custody rights to Child. [Doc. 1');">1');">1');">1, pp. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3, 6] In May of 2');">201');">1');">1');">15, Mother told Father she had a medical appointment in the United States and obtained Father's permission to bring the Child with her to the United States for one month. However, Mother never returned to Denmark. [Doc. 1');">1');">1');">1, 4');">p. 4] Over the next few months, Mother stopped communicating with Father and ended communication between Father and Child. [Doc. 1');">1');">1');">1, 4');">p. 4] Father realized Mother did not intend to return with Child and, in April of 2');">201');">1');">1');">16, [2');">2" name="FN2');">2" id= "FN2');">2">2');">2] Father filed an application with the Central Authority in Denmark for Child's return. [Doc. 1');">1');">1');">1, p. 6]

         The same day Father filed his Petition in this Court, he filed an Ex Parte Motion under The Hague Convention for Entry of a TRO, Seeking Physical Custody of Child, and Scheduling of an Expedited Hearing; and Federal Rule 65(b) Certificate of Counsel. [Doc. 2');">2] Therein Father argued that, because Mother allegedly abducted the Child, there was an obvious risk that she would “further secret the [C]hild and herself” and that she would “refuse to appear before the Court to prevent her own return to Denmark with the Child.” [Doc. 2');">2, p. 2');">2] Given this risk, Father sought the TRO ex parte so that Mother would not have the opportunity to hide from him and the Court. [Doc. 2');">2, pp. 1');">1');">1');">1-2');">2] Father sought: an ex parte order prohibiting Mother or anyone acting in concert with her from removing Child from the jurisdiction of the Court pending the Court's determination of the merits of the case; for the Court to allow Mother to return to Denmark immediately with the Child if she so desired; and for the Court to set “an expedited preliminary injunction hearing on the merits of the Verified Complaint.” [Doc. 2');">2, p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3]

         Upon receipt and review of Father's Petition and Motion for TRO the Court held an ex parte status conference on August 1');">1');">1');">1, 2');">201');">1');">1');">17');">7, at which the Court requested additional documents from Father demonstrating custody and a copy of Mother and Father's divorce decree. Father's attorney agreed to provide such documents, but did not do so. Instead, Father served Mother on August 1');">1');">1');">10, 2');">201');">1');">1');">17');">7. [Doc. 1');">1');">1');">10]

         Mother obtained counsel who entered an appearance [Doc. 1');">1');">1');">12');">2] and filed, on August 31');">1');">1');">1, 2');">201');">1');">1');">17');">7, a Verified Motion to Dismiss all Actions in Petitioner's Pleadings of July 31');">1');">1');">1, 2');">201');">1');">1');">17');">7 and August 1');">1');">1');">1, 2');">201');">1');">1');">17');">7 Pursuant to Rule 1');">1');">1');">12');">2(b)(6), or in the Alternative, Motion for Definite Statement Pursuant to Rule 1');">1');">1');">12');">2(e), or Motion to Strike Pursuant to Rule 1');">1');">1');">12');">2(f). [Doc. 1');">1');">1');">17');">7] Mother attached numerous documents to her Motion to Dismiss and asked that the case be dismissed on the basis of the documents. [Doc. 1');">1');">1');">17');">7, ¶¶ 1');">1');">1');">19, 2');">25, pp. 1');">1');">1');">13-1');">1');">1');">14] Such documents include, inter alia: a Petition for Order of Protection from Domestic Abuse which Mother filed in the First Judicial District Court of New Mexico on August 7');">7, 2');">201');">1');">1');">15, [Doc. 1');">1');">1');">17');">7, pp. 1');">1');">1');">16-2');">21');">1');">1');">1] and the Default Order of Protection issued on October 6, 2');">201');">1');">1');">15 [Doc. 1');">1');">1');">17');">7, p. 51');">1');">1');">1]; Mother's Petition to Establish Parentage, Determine Custody and Timesharing, and Assess Child Support [Doc. 1');">1');">1');">17');">7, pp. 2');">29-36], filed on February 1');">1');">1');">15, 2');">201');">1');">1');">16 in the First Judicial District Court of New Mexico, and an Order of Sole Custody dated June 1');">1');">1');">15, 2');">201');">1');">1');">16, granting her sole custody of Child [Doc. 1');">1');">1');">17');">7, pp. 7');">74-7');">75], also issued by the First Judicial District Court; the parties' Divorce Decree [Doc. 1');">1');">1');">17');">7, 4');">p. 40]; and a Refusal of application for temporary custody issued by the Danish State administration on July 2');">24, 2');">201');">1');">1');">16, in which the administration declined to give Father temporary custody while he filed for sole custody of the Child [Doc. 1');">1');">1');">17');">7, pp. 43-50]. In addition, due to errors in Father's Petition and based on the documents provided by Mother, Mother sought, in the alternative to dismissal, either an order for more definite statement or an order striking the pleadings. [Doc. 1');">1');">1');">17');">7, pp. 1');">1');">1');">13-1');">1');">1');">14]

         Father responded to the Motion to Dismiss raising several arguments, including an objection to the Court's consideration of the documents Mother attached to her Motion to Dismiss because the Court must determine the “sufficiency of a complaint . . . on its contents alone.” [Doc. 2');">25, p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3] Briefing was complete on Mother's Motion to Dismiss on November 1');">1');">1');">1, 2');">201');">1');">1');">17');">7. [Doc. 2');">27');">7] Thereafter, Father filed a Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply pertaining to the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 2');">28], which the Court denied without prejudice [Doc. 2');">29] and which Father refiled, in accordance with the Court's instructions, on November 1');">1');">1');">15, 2');">201');">1');">1');">17');">7 [Doc. 31');">1');">1');">1]. Mother has not yet responded to the Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply.

         On October 1');">1');">1');">12');">2, 2');">201');">1');">1');">17');">7, Father moved for leave to amend his Petition. [Doc. 2');">24] Father sought to correct typographical and citation errors. Although Mother represented to Father that she did not concur in the filing of the Motion for Leave to Amend [Doc. 2');">24, p. 1');">1');">1');">1], she failed to respond in opposition to the Motion. [Doc. 2');">26]

         ANALYSIS

         Amended Ex Parte Motion for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. 7');">7]

         On July 31');">1');">1');">1, 2');">201');">1');">1');">17');">7, Father filed an Ex Parte Motion under The Hague Convention for Entry of a TRO, Seeking Physical Custody of Child, and Scheduling of an Expedited Hearing; and Federal Rule 65(b) Certificate of Counsel. [Doc. 2');">2] The next day, Father filed his First Amended Ex Parte Motion under the Hague Convention for Entry of a TRO, Seeking Physical Custody of Child, and Scheduling of an Expedited Hearing; and Federal Rule 65(b) Certificate of Counsel.[3] [Doc. 7');">7] The filing of the Amended Motion makes the original Motion moot, and therefore the Court finds Document 2');">2 moot.

         Within Father's First Amended Ex Parte Motion for Entry of TRO [Doc. 7');">7], Father states that ex parte injunctive relief prohibiting Mother or anyone acting in concert with Mother from removing Child from New Mexico is necessary to prevent irreparable harm to Father. [Doc. 7');">7, pp. 1');">1');">1');">1-3] Father states that “if notice . . . was provided, there exists the possibility that Ms. Cabré would further secret both herself and the Child from both Petitioner and this Court.” [Doc. 7');">7, p. 2');">2] However, after filing this Amended Motion and before submitting the additional documentation requested by the Court, Father served Mother [Doc. 1');">1');">1');">10], and Mother filed a responsive pleading [Doc. 1');">1');">1');">17');">7]. This demonstrates that the basis for the requested relief, i.e. the fear that Mother would secret herself and the Child, did not come to pass, making the relief requested unnecessary. Mother is already subject to the authority of the Court and potential penalties, up to and including entry of default judgment, if she fails to participate in the Court proceedings.

         Father also requested that the Court “[a]llow Petitioner and the Child, along with Respondent, [if] she so desires, to return to Denmark immediately following a preliminary hearing on this Motion for an ex parte TRO.” The parties are advised that, consistent with the Hague Convention, nothing about the pendency of this case prevents Mother from voluntarily returning to Denmark with the Child so that Denmark may make the custody determination. Hague Convention, art. 7');">7(a) (requiring Central Authorities to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.