Josette Marie-Louise Claire Rochat, No. 3:2009mc09226 - Document 2 (D. Or. 2009)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.Signed on October 20th, 2009 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (eo)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON FIL&09 OCT 21 IN RE JOSETTE MARIE-LOUISE CLAIRE ROCHAT 8 :40\.lSOC·(Rp No. 09-MC-9226 OPINION AND ORDER MOSMAN,J., This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Josette Rochat's Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Ms. Rochat's petition focuses on a ten-year custody battle with her son's father, . Kevin Marsh. Ms. Rochat's chief complaint is that, in 1998, Mr. Marsh and a state circuit court in Washington County conspired to deprive her of custody ofher son through an ex parte proceeding. She alleges that the court lacked jurisdiction to issue the temporary protective order that deprived her of custody and that the order violated due process. According to Ms. Rochat's petition, her son was eventually returned to her when a judge reconsidered the temporary protective order and found that it was entered in error. Ms. Rochat also submitted evidence of an April 2009 email exchange with a man named Kurt Tarkalson, who appears to be a law enforcement officer in Washington County. In his email.Mr. Tarkalson expresses concern that Ms. Rochat may have encouraged her son to file a false police report alleging that his father sexually abused him. Mr. Tarkalson indicated that he -1- intended to the case over to the Washington County District Attorney's Office. that Ms. Rochat seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the decisions in her custody case void for fraud or lack ofjurisdiction and prohibiting the state court from exercising jurisdiction over future criminal or custody matters. This Court lacks jurisdiction to compel a state court to act or refrain from acting in a certain way, at least where mandamus is not necessary to aid the Court's exercise ofjurisdiction. See Demos v. U.S. Dist. Court for the E. Dis!. ofWash. , 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1651). Accordingly, I DENY plaintiffs Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this ~ay of October, 2009. ~w~-- United States District Court -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
