Adkins v. Adkins
This text of Adkins v. Adkins (Adkins v. Adkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ARTEMIZ ADKINS, Case No. 19-cv-05535-HSG
8 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR 9 v. TEMPORARY RETRAINING ORDER
10 GARRETT ADKINS, Re: Dkt. No. 6 11 Respondent.
12 13 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Artemiz Adkins’ Motion for a Temporary 14 Restraining Order (“TRO”) enjoining Respondent Garrett Adkins from violating the Hague 15 Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“Convention”), as 16 implemented by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (“ICARA”), pending a 17 preliminary injunction hearing. See Dkt. No. 6. For the reasons detailed below, the Court 18 GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Petitioner, who resides in Switzerland, seeks the return of her and Respondent’s four-year- 21 old daughter, A.F.A. See Dkt. No. 1. According to Petitioner’s Verified Complaint and Petition 22 for Return of Child Under 16 Years Old, Petitioner and Respondent agreed that, following their 23 separation in December 2018, A.F.A. would continue to live in Switzerland with Petitioner and 24 A.F.A. would begin kindergarten there. Id. ¶ 13. Petitioner alleges that despite this agreement, 25 Respondent, who now resides in California, wrongfully retained their daughter during one of 26 A.F.A.’s trips to the United States to visit Respondent in July 2019. See Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 12–14. 27 In her accompanying TRO motion, Petitioner requests several forms of relief, including 1 Respondent from removing A.F.A. from the jurisdiction of the Court pending an expedited 2 hearing on preliminary injunction and the merits of this action. See Dkt. No. 6 at 2. 3 Because when the motion was filed Petitioner had not provided notice to Respondent of 4 the motion or otherwise complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the Court directed 5 (1) Petitioner to serve the motion, its supporting documents, and the Court’s order on Respondent; 6 and (2) Respondent to file an expedited response. See Dkt. No. 16. Petitioner served Respondent 7 on September 9, 2019. See Dkt. Nos. 17–22. Respondent, in turn, filed his opposition to the 8 motion on September 11, 2019. See Dkt. Nos. 23, 24. In his opposition, Respondent contends 9 that A.F.A. has split time equally between California and Switzerland since the parties’ separation; 10 he is domiciled in Petaluma, California; and he will stipulate to an order that he not remove A.F.A. 11 from California during the pendency of this action. See Dkt. No. 23 at ¶¶ 6, 10; id. at 6 12 (“Response to Orders Requested.”). 13 II. ANALYSIS 14 A court exercising jurisdiction under ICARA “may take or cause to be taken measures 15 under Federal or State law, as appropriate, to protect the well-being of the child involved or to 16 prevent the child’s further removal or concealment before the final disposition of the petition.” 22 17 U.S.C. § 9004(a). That authority extends to issuing a temporary restraining order where the 18 requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) are satisfied. Under Rule 65(b), a party 19 seeking a temporary restraining order must establish: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; 20 (2) a likelihood of irreparable injury if the requested relief is not granted; (3) that a balancing of 21 the hardships weighs in its favor; and (4) that the requested relief will advance the public interest. 22 See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 23 Here, Respondent has conceded that an order enjoining him from removing A.F.A. from 24 the jurisdiction of this Court would be appropriate. See Dkt. No. 23 at 6 (“Response to Orders 25 Requested”). The Court agrees that such minimally burdensome relief ensures that Petitioner’s 26 Hague Convention claim and her underlying custody rights may be meaningfully adjudicated. 27 Nevertheless, the Court does not find, based on the record before it, that Petitioner has adequately 1 pending a hearing on a preliminary injunction and the merits of the Verified Complaint. 2 Respondent currently lives in Petaluma, California, where he has substantial family ties, see Dkt. 3 No. 23 at ¶ 6, and has complied with all Court orders and court-imposed deadlines to date. 4 Petitioner has not alleged any facts to suggest that Respondent has taken—or will take—any effort 5 to conceal A.F.A.’s whereabouts or otherwise harm her well-being during the pendency of this 6 action. 7 III. CONCLUSION 8 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 9 • Petitioner’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is hereby GRANTED IN 10 PART such that Respondent Garrett Adkins is prohibited from directly or 11 indirectly removing A.F.A. from the Northern District of California, until further 12 order of the Court; 13 • The Court finds that there is no reasonable likelihood of harm to Respondent from 14 being wrongfully enjoined, and therefore orders that Petitioner is not required to 15 give security pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c); 16 • Respondent is ORDERED to show cause why the relief requested in the Verified 17 Complaint and Petition, Dkt. No. 1, including the return of the parties’ minor child 18 to Switzerland, should not be granted. Respondent shall file his response to this 19 Order in writing by September 20, 2019, at 5:00 p.m.; 20 • The parties shall appear before this Court on Monday, September 23, 2019, at 21 10:00 a.m., for a hearing on this Order to Show Cause. At the hearing, the Court 22 will also determine whether any evidentiary hearing or further proceedings may be 23 necessary; 24 • Respondent is further ORDERED to bring A.F.W.’s passport and any other 25 identification and/or travel documents to the hearing; 26 // 27 // 1 e The Court otherwise DENIES Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining 2 order. 3 IT ISSO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: September 13, 2019 5 Absipured 5 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12
© 15 16
it
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Adkins v. Adkins, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adkins-v-adkins-cand-2019.