Felberbaum v. Felberbaum

Background

Perl Felberbaum filed a petition against Yaakov Felberbaum on March 27, 2024, and also sought an order requiring Yaakov to respond to a request for provisional relief. The court permitted Perl to re-file documents to correct identified deficiencies. After several attempted filings were rejected, the court issued a July 8 order requiring Perl either to file proof that Yaakov had been served by June 25, 2024, or to explain why she had not complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which governs the time for serving a defendant.

Perl later filed an amended complaint or petition, a proposed order to show cause with attachments, and a letter seeking an extension of the service deadline. The court clarified that its July 8 order had not directed Perl to serve Yaakov with an order to show cause by July 15. It had instead required proof of timely service or an explanation for the failure to comply with Rule 4(m).

Service of Process

The court stated that the docket did not show that Yaakov had been served or that Perl had requested issuance of a summons. Service of a summons is required for a federal court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. The court also explained that service is required in actions under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, a federal law implementing the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The court granted Perl’s request to extend the time for service, despite her failure to establish good cause or any other stated cause for the delay. Perl was given until August 26, 2024, to properly serve Yaakov under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, the laws governing notice in interstate child-custody proceedings, and Rule 4. The court instructed Perl to request issuance of a summons and warned that failure to complete timely and proper service by August 26 would result in dismissal of the action.

Proposed Emergency Relief

The court did not sign Perl’s proposed order to show cause. It was unclear whether Perl was seeking a temporary restraining order, which is an emergency order that can temporarily restrict conduct, and what specific relief she wanted. The court stated that the proposed order needed to clearly identify the emergency relief requested, include the affidavits or certifications required by Rule 65(b), and include a legal memorandum supported by a factual record sufficient to justify the requested relief.

Although Perl had submitted a memorandum, the court found that it did not address the required burden for obtaining an emergency temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. The court therefore declined to sign the proposed order because the request and supporting record were deficient. The order resolved procedural issues and did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.