Eidem v. Eidem
- Richard Sullivan
- 1:18-cv-06153
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Eidem v. Eidem, Judge Sullivan denied as premature a request to enforce the children’s return because an appellate stay remained in effect.
Per Magne Eidem and Dana Marie Eidem, concerning the return of their two minor children to Norway.
What happened
In Eidem v. Eidem, the Court of Appeals had affirmed an earlier order requiring the parties’ two minor children to return to Norway, their state of habitual residence, under the Hague Convention. The return date agreed by the parties was January 6, 2020.
The petitioner asked the court to require the respondent to take specific steps, including signing passport forms, to carry out the children’s return. The court denied that request as premature because the Court of Appeals’ stay of the earlier order was still in effect.
Judge Sullivan explained that the stay would remain in effect until the Court of Appeals issued its mandate. After the mandate issued, the petitioner could renew a request to enforce the order, including by seeking contempt sanctions; before then, he would need to ask the Court of Appeals to lift the stay.
The detailed version
- Eidem v. Eidem · No. 1:18-cv-06153
- Richard Sullivan
- Dec. 23, 2019
Background
The court had previously granted Petitioner Per Magne Eidem’s request under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties’ two minor children to Norway, identified in the opinion as the children’s state of habitual residence. The Court of Appeals affirmed that order on December 10, 2019, but its stay of the district court’s order remained in effect while the appeal process continued.
Petitioner’s counsel asked the district court to order Respondent Dana Marie Eidem to take specified steps, including signing necessary passport forms, so the children could return to Norway by January 6, 2020. The opinion states that January 6 was the return date agreed upon by the parties.
Ruling
The court denied Petitioner’s request as premature. It explained that the appellate stay would continue until the Court of Appeals issued its mandate. The mandate was scheduled to issue under the appellate rules after the applicable time for seeking rehearing or a stay of the mandate ended.
The court stated that, if Respondent indicated that she would not comply with the appellate mandate and the district court’s earlier order, Petitioner could renew his request to enforce compliance after the mandate issued, including through contempt sanctions. If Petitioner wanted relief before the mandate issued, he first had to obtain a lift of the stay from the Court of Appeals. Judge Richard J. Sullivan signed the order while sitting by designation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.