Joya Rubio v. Menendez Alvarez
| Jose de Jesus Joya Rubio |
| Yelaine Menendez Alvarez |
| Jose de Jesus Joya-Rubio |
| Yelaine Menendez-Alvarez |
| 1:2020cv24208 |
| October 14, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| K Michael Moore |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 8, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 18
ORDER STRIKING third affirmative defense. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 12/7/2020. See attached document for full details. (hwr)
|
| Filing 17 NOTICE of Change of Address, Email or Law Firm Name by Clayton Reed Kaeiser (Kaeiser, Clayton) |
| Filing 16 RESPONSE in Opposition to Petitioner's Memorandum of Law in Support of Petitioner's Motion to Srike Respondent's Third Affirmative Defense by Yelaine Menendez Alvarez. (Gamez, Anna) |
| Filing 15 MEMORANDUM of Law re 13 Scheduling Order,,,,,,,,,,,,, as to Response to Third Affirmative Defenses by Yelaine Menendez Alvarez. (Gamez, Anna) |
| Filing 14 MEMORANDUM of Law re 13 Scheduling Order,,,,,,,,,,,,, to strike third affirmative defense by Jose de Jesus Joya Rubio. (Kaeiser, Clayton) |
|
Filing 13
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the filing of the Parties' Joint Scheduling Report. #12 . Therein, the Parties anticipate a two-day trial will be necessary to resolve the matters in dispute. Id. at 3. However, the Parties ask that the Court first rule on Respondent's Third Affirmative Defense as a matter of law prior to trial. Id. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Parties shall file Memorandums of Law regarding Respondent's Third Affirmative Defense on or before November 24, 2020. The Parties shall file any responses within three (3) days of the service of any motion on Respondent's Third Affirmative Defense.It is further ORDERED that this case is now set for a bench trial commencing the two week trial period of January 4, 2021 at 9 a.m. in Courtroom 13-1, (thirteenth floor) United States Courthouse, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida. All parties are directed to report to the calendar call on December 31, 2020 at 2 p.m., at which time all matters relating to the scheduled trial date may be brought to the attention of the Court. A final pretrial conference as provided for by Rule 16, Fed. R. Civ. P., and Rule 16.1(C), S.D. Fla. L.R., is scheduled for December 22, 2020 at 11 a.m. A bilateral pretrial stipulation and all other pretrial preparations shall be completed NO LATER THAN FIVE DAYS PRIOR TO THE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. All motions to amend the pleadings or to join additional parties must be filed no later than seven (7) days after the date of entry of this Order. All discovery shall be completed ten (10) days after the date of entry of this Order. The failure to engage in discovery pending settlement negotiations shall not be grounds for continuance of the trial date. Any and all dispositive motions, including motions for summary judgment, Daubert motions, and motions in limine, must be filed no later than fourteen (14) days after entry of this Order. Responses to the motions must be filed no later than three (3) days after service of the motion, and replies in support of the motion must be filed no later than two (2) days after service of the response, with both deadlines computed as specified in Rule 6, Fed. R. Civ. P. Each party is limited to one Daubert motion. Each party is also limited to one motion in limine (other than Daubert motions). If any pretrial motion cannot be sufficiently argued in a 20-page memorandum, the parties must file for leave to exceed the page limit. All exhibits must be pre-marked, and a typewritten exhibit list setting forth the number and description of each exhibit must be submitted at the time of trial. Plaintiff's exhibits shall be marked numerically with the letter "P" as a prefix. Defendant's exhibits shall be marked numerically with the letter "D" as a prefix. The parties shall prepare and submit to the Court proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law fully supported by the evidence, which counsel expects the trial to develop, and fully supported by citations to law. The proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be submitted to the Court no later than five (5) business days prior to the scheduled trial date. THE FILING BY COUNSEL OF A "NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY" BY MOTION OR OTHERWISE IS NOT PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE LOCAL RULES AND SHALL NOT BE PRESUMED TO ALTER OR MODIFY THE COURT'S SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 11/10/2020. (hwr)
|
| Filing 12 Joint SCHEDULING REPORT - Rule 16.1 by Yelaine Menendez Alvarez (Gamez, Anna) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Lawrence Sheldon Katz on behalf of Yelaine Menendez Alvarez. Attorney Lawrence Sheldon Katz added to party Yelaine Menendez Alvarez(pty:dft). (Katz, Lawrence) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Benjamin Anthony Taormina on behalf of Yelaine Menendez Alvarez. Attorney Benjamin Anthony Taormina added to party Yelaine Menendez Alvarez(pty:dft). (Taormina, Benjamin) |
| Filing 9 Respondent's ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint (Verified Petition) by Yelaine Menendez Alvarez. Attorney Anna Marie Gamez added to party Yelaine Menendez Alvarez(pty:dft). (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Gamez, Anna) |
|
Filing 8
PAPERLESS PRETRIAL ORDER. As the Petition in this case is brought pursuant to the Hague Convention and the Civil Aspects of the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, it is subject to expedited review. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall hold a scheduling conference on or before November 6, 2020. Within two (2) days of the scheduling conference, counsel shall file a joint scheduling report. Failure of counsel to file a joint scheduling report within the deadlines set forth above may result in dismissal, default, and the imposition of other sanctions including attorney's fees and costs. The parties should note that the time period for filing a joint scheduling report is not tolled by the filing of any other pleading, such as an amended complaint or Rule 12 motion. The scheduling conference may be held via telephone. At the conference, the parties shall comply with the following agenda that the Court adopts from S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1: (1) Documents (S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.B.1 and 2) - The parties shall determine the procedure for exchanging a copy of, or a description by category and location of, all documents and other evidence that is reasonably available and that a party expects to offer or may offer if the need arises. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B). (2) List of Witnesses - The parties shall exchange the name, address and telephone number of each individual known to have knowledge of the facts supporting the material allegations of the pleading filed by the party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). The parties have a continuing obligation to disclose this information. (3) Discussions and Deadlines (S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.B.2) - The parties shall discuss the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case. Failure to comply with this Order or to exchange the information listed above may result in sanctions and/or the exclusion of documents or witnesses at the time of trial. S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.I. Upon reaching a settlement in this matter the parties are instructed to notify the Court by telephone and to file a Notice of Settlement within twenty-four (24) hours. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 11/2/2020. (hwr)
|
| Filing 7 NOTICE by Jose de Jesus Joya Rubio re #1 Complaint, #6 Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, #5 Renewed MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Filing of Verified Service of Process (Kaeiser, Clayton) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER granting #5 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 10/23/2020. See attached document for full details. (hwr)
|
| Filing 5 Renewed MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Jose de Jesus Joya Rubio. Responses due by 11/5/2020 (Attachments: #1 Appendix Hague Convention Petition, #2 Appendix Police Report Acknowledgment)(Kaeiser, Clayton) |
|
Filing 4
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Petitioner Jose de Jesus Joya Rubio's ("Petitioner") Verified Petition for the Return of the Child Pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Preliminary Injunction, and Monetary Damages. #1 . Therein, Petitioner requests that the Court issue a "preliminary injunction" prohibiting the Respondent from "removing R.M.J.M. from the jurisdiction of this Court pending conclusion of the instant proceedings." Id. Petitioner is hereby advised that any request for relief shall be filed separately as a motion on the docket in compliance with the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida. See S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(1). Moreover, the Local Rules require that "every motion when filed and served shall incorporate a memorandum of law citing supporting authorities." Id. Here, Petitioner provides no legal authority justifying Petitioner's requests. Therefore, to the extent that Petitioner requests that the Court enter an order enjoining Respondent from leaving the jurisdiction of the Court, Petitioner shall file a motion on the docket, with an accompanying memorandum of law as required by Local Rule 7.1(a)(1), requesting either an ex parte temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction in compliance with the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida. Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Petition, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the request for preliminary injunction is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Any renewed motion shall be filed on or before October 23, 2020 and shall include legal authority in support of Petitioner's request. Specifically, Petitioner shall provide the legal authority justifying the request for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to prohibit Respondent from removing R.M.J.M. from within this Court's jurisdiction during the pendency of the instant proceeding. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 10/16/2020. (hwr)
|
| Filing 3 Clerk's Notice Re Expedited Review - Pursuant to Court policy, petitions filed under The Hague Convention and ICARA should be resolved within six-weeks from the initial filing of the petition. See Internal Operating Procedures, Section 2.18.00, on the Courts website. (yar) |
| Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Chief Judge K. Michael Moore. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (kpe) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT pursuant to the Hague Convention against Yelaine Menendez-Alvarez. Filing fees $ 400.00 receipt number AFLSDC-13692303, filed by Jose de Jesus Joya-Rubio. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Appendix Exhibit A Signature Page, #3 Appendix Exhibit B Mexican Judgment)(Kaeiser, Clayton) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
