GONZALEZ

v.

SOLIN

This cause comes before the Court on Petitioner Luz Gonzalez’s Verified Motion for Stay of Hague Convention Proceedings (Doc. 23), filed in response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, dated November 29, 2022 (Doc. 22). The Court’s Order directed Petitioner to provide the status of her attempts to serve Respondent and show cause as to why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice. Id. In her motion, Petition provides a status update and asks the Court to stay the action for 30 days so that she can obtain new counsel, file an amended petition, and complete her efforts to locate and serve Respondent. Doc. 23. Having considered the motion and being fully advised in its premises, the Court will grant the Verified Motion for Stay of Hague Convention Proceedings.

DISCUSSION

Courts have broad discretion in managing their own dockets. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). District courts have “inherent power not governed by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Castle v. Appalachian

Technical College, 430 Fed. App’x 840, 841 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations omitted), citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962); Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Moreover, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires a court to extend the time for service for an appropriate period when a plaintiff shows good cause for its failure to effectuate service within 90 days after a complaint is filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Good cause exists when some outside factor, rather than the plaintiff’s inadvertence or negligence, prevented service. Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cnty. Commissioners, 476 F. 3d 1277, 1281 (11th Cir. 2007). Here, the Court concludes that Petitioner has established good cause for her inability to serve Respondent within 90 days. In her motion, she describes the exhaustive efforts she has made to locate and serve Respondent, who was apparently located in another state for a period of months before returning to Florida. Doc. 23 at 2-6. An attorney who was in communication with both Respondent and Petitioner’s counsel indicates that Respondent is aware of the instant proceedings but has declined to reveal her location. Id. at 4-5. Nonetheless, Petitioner explains that a private investigator she retained will likely be able to effectuate service in the coming days or weeks. Id. at 6. The Court finds that Petitioner’s failure to serve Respondent is the result of outside factors rather than any negligence on Petitioner’s part, and therefore constitutes good cause. Further, a brief stay of this action is appropriate pursuant to the Hague Convention. As described in the Court’s Order to Show Cause, proceedings under the Hague Convention must occur expeditiously because of the time-sensitive nature of alleged child abductions. Doc. 22 at 3. However, the Convention authorizes courts to stay a petition where they have reason to believe the child has been taken to another jurisdiction. See Hague Convention, Art. 12.1 The Court finds that such a stay is warranted here, as much of the delay was occasioned by Respondent’s apparent departure from this jurisdiction with the child. Petitioner has indicated she is now on the verge of locating Respondent. Before the action can proceed, however, she intends to obtain new counsel because her current attorney is serving for the military overseas and can no longer continue as her counsel. See Doc. 24. She has also explained that she intends to file a Second Amended Petition in the near future, either with or without counsel. Doc. 23 at 7, 11. A brief stay would facilitate Petitioner’s ability to undertake these actions. Her motion to stay is therefore due to be granted.

Chae sas Cuda as Wana A gl ell [...] Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties