Sari Bakour v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al
| Sari Bakour |
| United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Los Angeles Asylum Office, Matthew D. Emrich, Tracy Renaud, David Radel, Christopher A. Wray, Alejandro Mayorkas and Jennifer Higgins |
| 8:2021cv00483 |
| March 12, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Douglas F McCormick |
| James V Selna |
| Other Statutes: Administrative Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision |
| 05 U.S.C. § 702 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 5, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 37
ORDER by Judge James V. Selna: Pursuant to the Stipulation filed by the parties, and for good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. This action is stayed until November 30, 2021. 2. The initial scheduling conference set on June 7, 2021 is vacated. #36 (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) (es)
|
| Filing 36 STIPULATION to Stay Case pending ADJUDICATION OF APPLICATION AND VACATE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE filed by Defendants Matthew D. Emrich, Jennifer Higgins, Los Angeles Asylum Office, Alejandro Mayorkas, David Radel, Tracy Renaud, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security, Christopher A. Wray. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Attorney Margaret Ming Chen added to party Matthew D. Emrich(pty:dft), Attorney Margaret Ming Chen added to party Jennifer Higgins(pty:dft), Attorney Margaret Ming Chen added to party Los Angeles Asylum Office(pty:dft), Attorney Margaret Ming Chen added to party Alejandro Mayorkas(pty:dft), Attorney Margaret Ming Chen added to party David Radel(pty:dft), Attorney Margaret Ming Chen added to party Tracy Renaud(pty:dft), Attorney Margaret Ming Chen added to party United States Citizenship and Immigration Services(pty:dft), Attorney Margaret Ming Chen added to party United States Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft), Attorney Margaret Ming Chen added to party Christopher A. Wray(pty:dft))(Chen, Margaret) |
| Filing 35 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Sari Bakour, upon Defendant Christopher A. Wray served on 3/24/2021, answer due 5/24/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. The officer agency or corporation was NOT served. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (Hu, Evan) |
| Filing 34 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Sari Bakour, upon Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services served on 3/24/2021, answer due 5/24/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. The officer agency or corporation was NOT served. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (Hu, Evan) |
| Filing 33 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Sari Bakour, upon Defendant Tracy Renaud served on 3/24/2021, answer due 5/24/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. The officer agency or corporation was NOT served. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (Hu, Evan) |
| Filing 32 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Sari Bakour, upon Defendant David Radel served on 3/24/2021, answer due 5/24/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. The officer agency or corporation was NOT served. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (Hu, Evan) |
| Filing 31 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Sari Bakour, upon Defendant Los Angeles Asylum Office served on 3/24/2021, answer due 5/24/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. The officer agency or corporation was NOT served. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (Hu, Evan) |
| Filing 30 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Sari Bakour, upon Defendant Alejandro Mayorkas served on 3/24/2021, answer due 5/24/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. The officer agency or corporation was NOT served. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (Hu, Evan) |
| Filing 29 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Sari Bakour, upon Defendant Jennifer Higgins served on 3/24/2021, answer due 5/24/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. The officer agency or corporation was NOT served. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (Hu, Evan) |
| Filing 28 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Sari Bakour, upon Defendant Matthew D. Emrich served on 3/24/2021, answer due 5/24/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. The officer agency or corporation was NOT served. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (Hu, Evan) |
| Filing 27 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Sari Bakour, upon Defendant United States Department of Homeland Security served on 3/24/2021, answer due 5/24/2021. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. The officer agency or corporation was NOT served. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (Hu, Evan) |
|
Filing 26
Order Setting Rule 26(f) Scheduling Conference for 6/7/2021 at 10:30 am before Judge James V. Selna. Counsel shall file the Joint Rule 26 Meeting Report, with the completed Exhibit A, by 6/1/2021. (lb)
|
| Filing 25 INITIAL ORDER FOLLOWING FILING OF COMPLAINT ASSIGNED TO JUDGE SELNA (lb) |
| Filing 24 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Christopher A. Wray. (lh) |
| Filing 23 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Matthew D. Emrich. (lh) |
| Filing 22 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Jennifer Higgins. (lh) |
| Filing 21 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Tracy Renaud. (lh) |
| Filing 20 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Alejandro Mayorkas. (lh) |
| Filing 19 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant David Radel. (lh) |
| Filing 18 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Los Angeles Asylum Office. (lh) |
| Filing 17 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (lh) |
| Filing 16 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant United States Department of Homeland Security. (lh) |
| Filing 15 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (lh) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge James V. Selna and Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. (lh) |
| Filing 13 NOTICE RE INTRA-DISTRICT TRANSFER by Clerk of Court due to incorrect intra-district venue selected by the filer. Case is transferred to the Southern Division. Case has been assigned to Judge James V. Selna for all further proceedings. Any matters that may be referred to a Magistrate Judge are assigned to Douglas F. McCormick. New Case Number 8:21-cv-00483 - JVS (DFMx). (lh) |
| Filing 12 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff SARI BAKOUR. (Hu, Evan) |
| Filing 11 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff SARI BAKOUR. (Hu, Evan) |
| Filing 10 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff SARI BAKOUR. (Hu, Evan) |
| Filing 9 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff SARI BAKOUR. (Hu, Evan) |
| Filing 8 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff SARI BAKOUR. (Hu, Evan) |
| Filing 7 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff SARI BAKOUR. (Hu, Evan) |
| Filing 6 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff SARI BAKOUR. (Hu, Evan) |
| Filing 5 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff SARI BAKOUR. (Hu, Evan) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff SARI BAKOUR. (Hu, Evan) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff SARI BAKOUR, (Hu, Evan) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff SARI BAKOUR. (Hu, Evan) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-30910618 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiff SARI BAKOUR. (Attorney Evan Hu added to party SARI BAKOUR(pty:pla))(Hu, Evan) |
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.
