Amit Bedi v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al
Amit Bedi |
United States Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Alejandro Mayorkas, Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Ted H. Kim and David M. Radel |
5:2024cv00275 |
February 5, 2024 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Sheri Pym |
Other Immigration Actions |
08 U.S.C. ยง 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on April 4, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 10 STATEMENT OF CONSENT TO PROCEED before the assigned Magistrate Judge filed by Plaintiff Amit Bedi. (Prescott, Pamela) |
Filing 9 Joint STIPULATION to Stay Case pending adjudication of application filed by defendants Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Ted H. Kim, Alejandro Mayorkas, David M. Radel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Finn, Stephen) |
Filing 8 STATEMENT OF CONSENT TO PROCEED before the assigned Magistrate Judge filed by Defendants Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Ted H. Kim, Alejandro Mayorkas, David M. Radel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security. (Attorney Stephen Finn added to party Ur Mendoza Jaddou(pty:dft), Attorney Stephen Finn added to party Ted H. Kim(pty:dft), Attorney Stephen Finn added to party Alejandro Mayorkas(pty:dft), Attorney Stephen Finn added to party David M. Radel(pty:dft), Attorney Stephen Finn added to party U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services(pty:dft), Attorney Stephen Finn added to party United States Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft))(Finn, Stephen) |
Filing 7 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Amit Bedi, upon Defendant Ur Mendoza Jaddou served on 2/21/2024, answer due 4/22/2024; Ted H. Kim served on 2/21/2024, answer due 4/22/2024; Alejandro Mayorkas served on 2/21/2024, answer due 4/22/2024; David M. Radel served on 2/21/2024, answer due 4/22/2024; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services served on 2/21/2024, answer due 4/22/2024; United States Department of Homeland Security served on 2/21/2024, answer due 4/22/2024. Service of the Summons and Complaint were Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to US Attorney General Department of Justice. 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)(Prescott, Pamela) |
Filing 6 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Ted H. Kim, Alejandro Mayorkas, David M. Radel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security. (car) |
Filing 5 NOTICE TO COUNSEL re Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program. This case has been randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym. (Attachments: #1 CV-11C) (car) |
Filing 4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Amit Bedi, (Kazerounian, Seyed) |
Filing 3 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Amit Bedi. (Kazerounian, Seyed) |
Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Amit Bedi. (Kazerounian, Seyed) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-36854349 - Fee: $405, filed by Plaintiff Amit Bedi. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2) (Attorney Seyed Abbas Kazerounian added to party Amit Bedi(pty:pla))(Kazerounian, Seyed) |
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.