1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

STEVEN MICHAEL NEUMANN, 

 

 Plaintiff/Petitioner, Civil Action No. 15-CV-11995 

vs. HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

JULIE ANNE NEUMANN, 

 

 Defendant/Respondent. 

_______________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER (Dkt. 2), (2) DIRECTING SERVICE ON 

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT, and (3) SCHEDULING AN EXPEDITED HEARING 

 Before the Court is Plaintiff/Petitioner Michael Steven Neumann’s ex parte motion under 

the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the 

International Child Abduction Remedies Act (“ICARA”), 22 U.S.C. § 9001 et seq., for entry of 

an ex parte temporary restraining order to prevent Defendant/Respondent from removing their 

children from the Court’s jurisdiction and for other relief (Dkt. 2). The central contention in the 

Verified Complaint and motion papers is that Defendant/Respondent has wrongfully removed 

their children from their place of habitual residence in Mexico, in violation of the Hague 

Convention. As discussed below, Plaintiff/Petitioner’s motion is granted in part and denied in 

part. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 permits the Court to issue a temporary restraining 

order without notice to the adverse party only where “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified 

complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the 

movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition,” and “the movant’s attorney certifies 

2:15-cv-11995-MAG-EAS Doc # 4 Filed 06/03/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 276
2 

in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). 

Upon reviewing Plaintiff/Petitioner’s motion and brief in support, the Court concludes 

that Plaintiff/Petitioner will suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage unless the 

order is entered without notice. Furthermore, the ICARA permits courts to “take or cause to be 

taken measures under Federal or State law, as appropriate, to protect the well-being of the child 

involved or to prevent the child’s further removal or concealment before the final disposition of 

the petition.” 22 U.S.C. § 9004(a). 

 Plaintiff/Petitioner has set forth facts demonstrating that Defendant/Respondent removed 

the parties’ minor children from Mexico to the United States without permission from or notice 

to Plaintiff/Petitioner. Plaintiff/Petitioner has also attested that Defendant/Respondent has forbid 

any and all contact between Plaintiff/Petitioner and the minor children. There is a strong 

likelihood that if Defendant/Respondent receives notice of the present court action, she will flee 

the jurisdiction with the minor children. The inability or difficulty in locating the children, if 

they are further removed, will cause Plaintiff/Petitioner irreparable injury by loss of association 

with his children. A temporary restraining order will also prevent further removal or 

concealment of the children pending disposition of the petition. Accordingly, entry of the order 

without notice is appropriate. 

 Therefore, Plaintiff/Petitioner’s ex parte motion is granted in part, as follows: 

1. Defendant/Respondent and any person acting in concert or participating with her are 

prohibited from taking any action to remove the parties’ children (identified for privacy purposes 

as JMN, JSN, and MKN) from the state of Michigan pending further Order of this Court. 

2. The Court will conduct a hearing in this matter on June 8, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. The hearing will 

be conducted at the Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette Boulevard, 

Detroit, Michigan 48226, Room 860. Defendant/Respondent must personally appear and show 

cause why this temporary restraining order should not be continued and/or other temporary relief 

ordered pending a hearing on Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction. 

2:15-cv-11995-MAG-EAS Doc # 4 Filed 06/03/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 277
3 

3. Plaintiff/Petitioner’s request for an order requiring immediate and liberal telephone contact 

with the children is denied without prejudice at this time. This issue may be raised by 

Plaintiff/Petitioner at the June 8 hearing. 

4. Plaintiff/Petitioner is directed to serve Defendant/Respondent with this Order, the Verified 

Complaint, and all other motion papers no later than noon on June 5, 2015. 

5. Unless extended by the Court, this Order expires on June 17, 2015 at 5 p.m. 

 SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of June, 2015 at 2:23 o’clock p.m . 

 

Dated: June 3, 2015 s/Mark A. Goldsmith 

 Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

 United States District Judge 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and 

any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class 

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on June 3, 2015. 

 s/Carrie Haddon 

 Case Manager 

2:15-cv-11995-MAG-EAS Doc # 4 Filed 06/03/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 278