Mene v. Sokola

Background

This case is a proceeding under the Hague Abduction Convention. The hearing ended on November 2, 2023. Mene later informed the court that a California Superior Court had vacated his 2012 San Francisco conviction retroactively. He argued that the conviction had played a significant role in the proceeding and asked the court to reopen the hearing.

The court reopened the hearing and allowed supplemental discovery limited to the vacatur and the facts underlying the conviction. During that period, Sokola submitted a French court decision describing what it characterized as Mene’s extensive criminal history. The court stated that, if accurate, the information suggested that Mene and his counsel had repeatedly lied to the court and to Sokola during the proceedings. The court scheduled a hearing to address those issues.

Mene then asked to voluntarily withdraw his pending petition before judgment, without admitting wrongdoing and without an award of fees or costs to either side, while preventing renewal or refiling. The court denied that request and later denied his renewed request. Mene appealed the denial, but the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal because the district court had not entered a final order and the appellate court lacked jurisdiction.

June 6 Order

After receiving the parties’ joint letter, along with submissions concerning Mene’s assertion of Fifth Amendment rights in response to Sokola’s fourth request for production of documents, the court ordered the following:

- The reopened hearing was closed. - The parties had to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, limited to 75 pages, by June 28, 2024. - Those submissions had to address the vacatur of Mene’s California conviction; whether Mene waived his Fifth Amendment rights; possible adverse inferences from his discovery noncompliance and any waiver or non-waiver of those rights; and whether the French judicial records offered by Sokola were admissible. - The court retained jurisdiction over any motion seeking sanctions against Mene or his counsel, including attorney fees or other relief, and deferred consideration of those requests until after ruling on Mene’s petition. - Mene had to clarify to foreign courts handling divorce or custody actions involving the parties that the federal proceedings remained open and that the court’s decision was forthcoming.

Disposition and significance

This order closed the hearing and set the next post-trial steps, but it did not rule on the Hague petition itself. It also did not decide the Fifth Amendment, discovery, admissibility, or sanctions issues; it directed the parties to address those matters in their proposed findings and deferred sanctions consideration. The opinion therefore leaves the underlying petition pending.