Esam Kaoud et al v. Antony Blinken et al
| Esam Kaoud, Ameer Kaoud and Nezam Kaoud |
| Antony Blinken and Lloyd Austin |
| 5:2023cv02292 |
| November 7, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Consuelo B Marshall |
| Sheri Pym |
| Mandamus & Other |
| 05 U.S.C. ยง 551 Administrative Procedure Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 27, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 13
IN CHAMBERS-ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Counsel are hereby notified that pursuant to the Judge's directive, the motion for preliminary injunction #6 is hereby denied as moot in light of the dismissal #12 . This case is now dismissed without prejudice per the notice of dismissal #12 . IT IS SO ORDERED. (shb)
|
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiff Ameer Kaoud, Esam Kaoud, Nezam Kaoud. Dismissal is without prejudice. (Kohgadai, Sara) |
|
Filing 11
STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. It controls this case and may differ in some respects from the Local Rules. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. (ys)
|
|
Filing 10
IN CHAMBERS- ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND DECLARATORY RELIEF by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: On November 7, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their "Emergency Complaint for Mandamus With Request for Injunctive Relief." (Dkt. No. 1.) On that same date, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion. (Dkt. No. 6.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 provides that the district court "may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a). No proof of se1vice has been filed by Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to file a proof of se1vice re the Complaint and Motion. The Court shall set a date for the government to file a response to the Motion upon the filing of the proof of se1vice. IT IS SO ORDERED. (shb)
|
| Filing 9 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 as to Defendants Lloyd Austin and Antony Blinken. (Attachments: #1 LAustin) (jtil) |
| Filing 8 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (jtil) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall and Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym. (jtil) |
| Filing 6 First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Equal Protection filed by Plaintiff Ameer Kaoud, Esam Kaoud, Nezam Kaoud. (Kohgadai, Sara) |
| Filing 5 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Ameer Kaoud, Esam Kaoud, Nezam Kaoud, (Kohgadai, Sara) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #2 , Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Plaintiff Ameer Kaoud, Esam Kaoud, Nezam Kaoud. (Kohgadai, Sara) |
| Filing 3 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #2 , Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Plaintiff Ameer Kaoud, Esam Kaoud, Nezam Kaoud. (Kohgadai, Sara) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiffs Ameer Kaoud, Esam Kaoud, Nezam Kaoud. (Kohgadai, Sara) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-36363710 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiff Esam Kaoud, Nezam Kaoud, Ameer Kaoud. (Attorney Sara Belqis Kohgadai added to party Ameer Kaoud(pty:pla), Attorney Sara Belqis Kohgadai added to party Esam Kaoud(pty:pla), Attorney Sara Belqis Kohgadai added to party Nezam Kaoud(pty:pla))(Kohgadai, Sara) |
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.
