Levitin v. Rabbi Chaim Leibish Rottenberg
Joshua Levitin v. Rabbi Chaim Leibish Rottenberg, Beryl (David) Friedman, Suri (Sarah) Friedman, Hon. Rachel Tanguay, Hon. David M. Ascher, Anna Kosovych, John Dok(s) 1-10
- Nelson Roman
- 7:25-cv-08524
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 22
In Joshua Levitin v. Rottenberg, Judge Roman set briefing on Levitin’s temporary-restraining-order motion but did not decide whether to grant it.
The order affects Levitin and the defendants by setting deadlines for briefing on Levitin’s emergency motion. Levitin’s children and the challenged state-court orders are central to the requested relief, but the court did not decide that relief in this order.
What happened
In Joshua Levitin v. Rabbi Chaim Leibish Rottenberg and others, Levitin, who is representing himself, asked the court for an emergency order concerning his children, state-court protection orders, and alleged coercion. He alleged that defendants were enforcing invalid orders and conditioning custody and other benefits on his agreement to marry someone.
The court did not decide whether Levitin’s allegations were correct or whether he should receive the requested emergency relief. Instead, it directed the defendants to oppose the motion by November 7, 2025, allowed Levitin to reply by November 17, 2025, and said it would schedule a hearing if necessary.
Judge Nelson S. Roman also directed the Clerk to mail the endorsement to Levitin, record service on the docket, and terminate the motion at Electronic Court Filing No. 13. The supplied text does not state that the temporary-restraining-order request was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Levitin v. Rabbi Chaim Leibish Rottenberg · No. 7:25-cv-08524
- Nelson Roman
- Oct. 22, 2025
Procedural posture
The supplied text consists of Levitin’s amended motion and memorandum requesting a temporary restraining order, together with Judge Roman’s October 22, 2025 endorsement. A temporary restraining order is a short-term court order seeking to prevent immediate harm while a request for broader preliminary relief is considered. The text does not contain a ruling on the motion’s merits.
Levitin’s allegations and requested relief
Levitin alleged that the defendants—including private individuals, state court judges, a court clerk, and unidentified defendants—acted together to enforce temporary orders of protection that he claimed were invalid because New York had allegedly lost custody jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act. He also alleged that defendants conditioned his custody, organizational privileges, and professional contracts on his agreement to marry Devorah Pomerantz-Friedman and help reconcile her with her parents.
Levitin described alleged harms involving separation from his children, possible psychiatric institutionalization, psychological distress, and the loss of Hatzoloh emergency-medical-service radio privileges and business contracts. These assertions are presented in the motion as Levitin’s allegations and supporting evidence; the supplied text does not show that the court found them true.
Levitin asked the court to stop enforcement of specified temporary orders of protection, vacate those orders, declare earlier protection orders ineffective, restore an August 11, 2023 custody order that he said awarded him temporary full custody, authorize federal marshals and law-enforcement assistance, address security for the requested injunction, seal sensitive records, and award fees and costs.
Court’s action
Judge Roman directed the defendants to file an opposition by November 7, 2025. The court directed Levitin to file a reply by November 17, 2025 and stated that it would schedule a hearing if necessary. The Clerk was directed to mail the endorsement to Levitin, show service on the docket, and terminate the motion at Electronic Court Filing No. 13.
The endorsement does not say that the temporary restraining order was granted, denied, dismissed, or otherwise decided. It also does not resolve Levitin’s arguments about jurisdiction, abstention, the validity of the state-court orders, or the alleged civil-rights conspiracy.
Read the full 22-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.