Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied Respondent’s Emergency Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and request for a stay in a Hague Convention petition seeking the return of children to Venezuela. The court held that newly submitted affidavits and a psychological report could have been presented during the evidentiary hearing, and that prior counsel’s litigation decisions and concession did not warrant relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b).
Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Decision date
January 7, 2026
Docket number
25-cv-24087-BLOOM/Elfenbein
Disposition
denied
Questions Presented
- Whether Respondent was entitled to reconsideration under Rule 59(e) based on affidavits and a psychological report that were known or available before the evidentiary hearing.
- Whether attorney decisions to concede an affirmative defense and not present additional evidence constituted a basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1) or Rule 60(b)(6).
- Whether Respondent was entitled to a stay of the Hague Convention return order under the four traditional stay factors.
Holdings
- Evidence that was known or available before judgment, and arguments or evidence that could have been presented before judgment, do not provide a basis for relief under Rule 59(e).
- Claims based on attorney error must be brought under the more specific Rule 60(b)(1), not under Rule 60(b)(6)’s residual equitable provision.
- A party’s counsel’s deliberate decision to concede an affirmative defense and not present particular evidence is a strategic or tactical choice, not excusable neglect warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(1).
- Respondent was not entitled to a stay because she failed to make a strong showing of likely success on the merits.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…