Megha Shanthraj et al v. Ur Jaddou
| MEGHA SHANTHRAJ and SIDDHARTHA SHARMA |
| UR M JADDOU and Ur Jaddou |
| 2:2022cv05109 |
| July 22, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Dolly M Gee |
| Karen L Stevenson |
| Other Immigration Actions |
| 08 U.S.C. ยง 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 19, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER #11 by Judge Dolly M. Gee. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. Defendant shall file his Opposition to Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction (MPI) by September 23, 2022. Plaintiffs shall file their Reply Brief by September 30, 2022. The Court will hold a hearing on Plaintiffs MPI on October 14, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. 2. If at any time before the October 14 hearing the parties stipulate to any form of interim relief, they shall immediately inform the Court of that development. IT IS SO ORDERED. (rolm)
|
| Filing 11 APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Defendant's Retrogression Policy filed by Plaintiffs Megha Shanthraj, Siddhartha Sharma. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum, #2 Exhibit A: DOS Memo, #3 Exhibit B: LR 7-19 and 7-19.1 Declaration and Statement, #4 Proposed Order) (Wolfsdorf, Bernard) |
| Filing 10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Megha Shanthraj, Siddhartha Sharma, upon Defendant Ur Jaddou served on 8/2/2022, answer due 10/3/2022. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to L Arratia - Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by unspecified means. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by unspecified means. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A: Certified Mail Receipt)(Wolfsdorf, Bernard) |
|
Filing 9
INITIAL STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Dolly M. Gee. (kti)
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 21-01 (Related Case) filed. Transfer of case declined by Judge Percy Anderson, for the reasons set forth on this order. Related Case No. 2:22-cv-04129-PA (MARx). (et)
|
| Filing 7 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 as to Defendant Ur Jaddou. (lh) |
| Filing 6 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (lh) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Dolly M. Gee and Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. (lh) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Plaintiffs MEGHA SHANTHRAJ, SIDDHARTHA SHARMA. (Wolfsdorf, Bernard) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs MEGHA SHANTHRAJ, SIDDHARTHA SHARMA, (Wolfsdorf, Bernard) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiffs MEGHA SHANTHRAJ, SIDDHARTHA SHARMA. (Wolfsdorf, Bernard) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-33683824 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiffs MEGHA SHANTHRAJ, SIDDHARTHA SHARMA. (Attorney Bernard Pavel Wolfsdorf added to party MEGHA SHANTHRAJ(pty:pla), Attorney Bernard Pavel Wolfsdorf added to party SIDDHARTHA SHARMA(pty:pla))(Wolfsdorf, Bernard) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
