Tchenguiz v. Bird
This text of Tchenguiz v. Bird (Tchenguiz v. Bird) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Montana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION
ROBERT TCHENGUIZ, CV 21-128-M-DWM Petitioner, VS. ORDER HEATHER BIRD, Defendant.
Stephen Komie, of the law firm of Komie and Associates, moves for pro hac vice admission on behalf of the V.A.B.T, the minor child at issue in this case. (Doc. 65.) Petitioner Robert Tchenguiz opposes the motion. (Doc. 66.) As Tchenguiz notes, Komie cites no authority in support of his motion to appear pro hac vice, nor does Komie make any arguments as to why V.A.B.T., who is not a party to these proceedings, requires representation. In Hague Convention cases, a district court may appoint counsel for children who are the subject of proceedings under the Convention. See Kufner v. Kufner, 519 F.3d 33, 37 (1st Cir. 2008). However, such appointments are generally made “with the consent of the parties” and the appointment is made by the district court not—as is apparently the case here—at the suggestion of only one of the parties. See id. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Komie’s motion for pro hac vice admission, (Doc. 65), is DENIED. DATED this ard, of January, 2022.
iM A olloy, District Judge United States District Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Tchenguiz v. Bird, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tchenguiz-v-bird-mtd-2022.