nysdivorce.com    brandeslaw.com

^{The definitive site on the web for New York Divorce and Family Law.}

In Rigby v Damant 486 F.3d 692 (1^st Cir. 2007) petitioner sought to appeal from the district court's order denying his motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). He contended that this court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1) because the denial of the summary judgment motion was a denial of his request for an injunction ordering the return of his child to Canada pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Convention). The Circuit court disagreed and dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court has stated that "the denial of a motion for a summary judgment because of unresolved issues of fact does not settle or even tentatively decide anything about the merits of the claim." Switzerland Cheese Assoc., Inc. v. E. Horne's Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25, 87 S.Ct. 193, 17 L.Ed.2d 23 (1966). Such a motion is merely "a pretrial order that decides only one thing-that the case should go to trial. Orders that in no way touch on the merits of the claim but only relate to pretrial procedures are not 'interlocutory' within the meaning of 1292(a)(1).

The Court added a coda. It noted that the petitioner's central concern appeared to be that the district court's rulings-denying summary judgment and granting the respondent's motion to extend the time for completing discovery-seemed to him to be in conflict with the Convention's directive that such cases be resolved expeditiously. The Convention itself provides a means for petitioners to raise a concern that the judicial authority is not proceeding expeditiously enough. See Article 11(2). To the extent that the petitioner also is concerned that he will be required to litigate custody issues in a state court proceeding initiated by the respondent, the Convention itself furnishes the answer. "[T]he Hague Convention provides that any state court custody litigation be stayed pending the outcome of the Hague Convention litigation." Yang v. Tsui, 416 F.3d 199, 203 (3d Cir.2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1208, 126 S.Ct. 1419, 164 L.Ed.2d 116 (2006). The petitionerdid not allege that he requested and been denied a stay in state court.