1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 YANIV KASLASI, Case No.: 2:25-cv-01227-GMN-MDC 5 Plaintiff, 6 vs. ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING 7 SHELI ABERGIL,

8 Defendant.

9 10 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Yaniv Kaslasi’s Motion for Temporary 11 Restraining Order (“TRO”) prohibiting the removal of his child from the jurisdiction of this 12 Court, (ECF No. 5). This case arises out of a dispute between Petitioner Yaniv Kaslasi, father 13 of child U.Y., and Respondent Sheli Abergil, U.Y.’s mother, and whether U.Y. was wrongfully 14 retained in the United States. (See generally Compl., ECF No. 1). Petitioner files this Petition 15 pursuant to the 1980 Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the 16 “Hague Convention”) and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, (“ICARA”). (Id. ¶ 17 2). 18 The Court has jurisdiction over this case under

, which grants state and 19 federal courts concurrent original jurisdiction over actions arising under the Hague Convention. 20 “A court that receives a petition under the Hague Convention may not resolve the question of 21 who, as between the parents, is best suited to have custody of the child.” Cuellar v. Joyce, 596

, 508 (9th Cir. 2010). The court’s inquiry is whether the child should be returned to 23 his or her country of habitual residence. “With few narrow exceptions, the court must return 24 the abducted child to its country of habitual residence so that that the court of that country can 25 determine custody.”

“This policy of deterrence gives way to concern for the welfare of the 1 child only in extreme cases.”

For example, Article 13(b) of the treaty provides that return 2 need not be ordered where “there is a grave risk that . . . return would expose the child to 3 physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.”

4 The Court declines to issue the requested TRO ex parte on an emergency basis. Rule 5 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the issuance of temporary restraining 6 orders. It provides that: 7 (1) Issuing Without Notice. The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if: 8 (A) Specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate 9 or irreparable injury, loss, or damages will result to the movant before the adverse 10 party can be heard in opposition; and

11 (B) The movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. 12

13 Fed R. Civ. P. 65(b). While temporary restraining orders are at times necessary, “[t]he 14 stringent restrictions imposed by . . . Rule 65 [] on the availability of ex parte temporary 15 restraining orders reflect the fact that our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of 16 court action taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted 17 both sides of a dispute. Grannt Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers 18 Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cty.,

, 438–39 (1974). Accordingly, the procedural 19 requirements of Rule 65(b) are strictly construed. 20 Here, the Court determines that the Motion for TRO fails to comply with Rule 21 65(b)(1)(B). Petitioner’s Complaint does not clearly show that immediate injury will result 22 before Respondent can be heard in opposition. (See generally Compl.). Nor does his Motion 23 for TRO provide any factual support for his argument that, without immediate ex parte relief, 24 he is likely to suffer irreparable injury. (See generally Mot. TRO). Instead, the facts proffered 25 show that Respondent has been in the District of Nevada since February, where she has at least 1 ||some family ties, suggesting she is settled in this district. (Compl. § 19-20). The Court 2 || therefore declines to grant the Motion for TRO ex parte. The Court instead orders additional 3 || briefing from the parties and sets a hearing for this matter. 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner shall serve Respondent with his Motion for 6 || Temporary Restraining Order, (ECF No. 5), and a copy of this Order, by Thursday, July 17, 7 (2025. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent will then have until July 25, 2025, to 9 || file a Response. Petitioner may have until July 28, 2025, to file a Reply. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing shall take place in Courtroom 7D of the 11 || Lloyd D. George Federal Courthouse, 333 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Las Vegas, Nevada 89101, at 12 11:00am on July 29, 2025. 13 14 DATED this 14 day of July, 2025. 15 Yj, 16 (Nj Kh 17 Gloria M. na o, District Judge UNITED SPAZES DISTRICT COURT 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 3 of 3