Vonnahme v. Lugo
2:22-cv-00707
D. Nev.May 5, 2022Background
- Child Imayubis Maria Vonnahme Mustelier (born 2013 in Cuba) lived in Germany with both parents from infancy; parents (Vonnahme and Lugo) shared joint custody established by a Cuban order later recognized in Germany.
- Child attended school in Germany through January 26, 2022; Lugo requested a ten-day school absence claiming passport validation and then brought the child to Las Vegas without notifying Vonnahme.
- Vonnahme alleges he did not consent (and could not consent because he was unaware) to the child’s removal and immediately pursued remedies: criminal complaint in Germany, Hague channels, U.S. Department of State, and this federal suit under the Hague Convention/ICARA and Nevada law.
- Vonnahme asserted a substantial risk Lugo would flee to Cuba (not a Hague signatory) because both have Cuban passports and Lugo has family there.
- The court granted an ex parte temporary restraining order: enjoined Lugo from removing or concealing the child or taking the child outside Nevada without written court authorization; ordered surrender of the child’s passports to the U.S. Marshal; set an expedited merits hearing for May 10, 2022.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on Hague/ICARA wrongful-removal claim | Germany is the child’s habitual residence; removal breached domesticated joint custody; Vonnahme was exercising custody when removal occurred | (Implied) Lugo could argue consent or a change in habitual residence | Court: Vonnahme likely to succeed on wrongful-removal claim (habitual residence Germany; breach of custody; petitioner exercising custody) |
| Risk of flight and need for passport surrender | Lugo and child hold Cuban passports; Cuba is not a Hague party; risk of concealment/relocation to Cuba is substantial | (Implied) TRO and passport surrender unduly burden Lugo/child | Court: Flight risk likely; ordered passports surrendered to U.S. Marshal and enjoined removal from Nevada |
| Irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest | Loss of Hague remedies if child taken to Cuba constitutes irreparable harm; status-quo preservation favors petitioner; public interest supports enforcing Hague/ICARA | TRO would constrain Lugo’s and child’s movement and could inconvenience them | Court: Irreparable harm likely; balance and public interest favor TRO |
| Ex parte relief without notice | Immediate risk of removal justifies relief without prior notice to prevent irreparable harm | (Implied) Respondent entitled to notice before injunctive relief | Court: Granted TRO without prior notice due to flight risk; set expedited hearing to permit defense and further briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (sets four-factor injunction standard)
- Monasky v. Taglieri, 140 S. Ct. 719 (2020) (habitual-residence inquiry is fact-specific)
- Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281 (9th Cir. 2013) (discusses sliding-scale alternative when only "serious questions" on the merits exist)
- All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (explains the serious-questions/balance-of-hardships standard)
- Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Bush & Co., 240 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) (analysis for TRO and preliminary injunction is substantially identical)
- Int’l Molders’ & Allied Workers’ Loc. Union No. 164 v. Nelson, 799 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1986) (district court not required to resolve difficult questions of law or disputed facts at preliminary-injunction stage)