Mene v. Sokola
- Katherine Failla
- 1:22-cv-10333
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mene v. Sokola, Judge Failla set trial dates, allowed Respondent to appear remotely, and postponed briefing on a possible stay until after trial.
The order directly affects Petitioner Sebastien Funez Mene and Respondent Kaja Funez Sokola, including Respondent’s trial appearance and the timing of briefing concerning a possible stay of a return order.
What happened
In Mene v. Sokola, the parties attended a conference about next steps. The court scheduled trial for October 30, 2023, and a final pretrial conference for October 26, 2023.
The court granted Respondent’s request to appear remotely at trial. It said it would consider remote-appearance requests for other witnesses, but was unlikely to grant them without a compelling reason.
The court also decided that briefing on Respondent’s planned request to pause enforcement of any order requiring the child’s return should occur with the parties’ proposed factual and legal findings, rather than before trial. Judge Katherine Polk Failla said delaying trial would not help secure proper custody as soon as possible.
The detailed version
- Mene v. Sokola · No. 1:22-cv-10333
- Katherine Failla
- July 24, 2023
Proceeding and scheduling
The parties appeared for a conference on July 20, 2023, to discuss the next steps in the matter. The court ordered that trial would begin at 9:00 a.m. on October 30, 2023, and that the parties would appear for a final pretrial conference at 11:00 a.m. on October 26, 2023.
Remote appearance
The court granted Respondent Kaja Funez Sokola’s request to appear remotely at trial. The court stated that it would consider requests for other witnesses to appear remotely, but advised that such requests were unlikely to be granted without compelling cause.
Briefing on a possible stay
Respondent contemplated moving to stay enforcement of any return order while Respondent’s asylum application was resolved. A stay is a pause in enforcement. The court decided that the parties should brief that issue together with their proposed findings of fact and law after trial, rather than brief it before trial.
The court explained that earlier briefing would delay trial, while later briefing could create a risk that a judgment would be issued before it could be immediately enforced. It chose to tolerate the latter risk because Respondent’s asylum application could remain pending for months or longer and might not affect the present application. The court also stated that it wanted to secure proper custody for the child as soon as possible. This order set scheduling and appearance procedures; it did not decide the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute or grant a stay.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.