Mounika Arjula et al v. Kristine R. Crandall et al
| Mounika Arjula and Ravi Kiran Reddy Pothula |
| Kristine R. Crandall, Alejandro Mayorkas, Attorney General Merrick Garland, Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Merrick Garland and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive |
| 8:2022cv02042 |
| November 8, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Autumn D Spaeth |
| 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 December 27, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiffs Mounika Arjula, Ravi Kiran Reddy Pothula. Dismissal is Without Prejudice. (Prasad, Rajesh) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Filed Document RE: Proof of Service #7 . The following error(s) was/were found: Local Rule 11-3.8 title page is missing; The proof of service is missing information on the form re: how, when, and upon whom service was made. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (hr) |
| Filing 7 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Ravi Kiran Reddy Pothula, Mounika Arjula, upon Defendant Kristine R. Crandall served on 11/16/2022, answer due 1/17/2023; DOES served on 11/16/2022, answer due 1/17/2023; Merrick Garland served on 11/16/2022, answer due 1/17/2023; Ur Mendoza Jaddou served on 11/16/2022, answer due 1/17/2023; Alejandro Mayorkas served on 11/16/2022, answer due 1/17/2023. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to ER. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by unspecified means. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy to ER. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. (Prasad, Rajesh) |
| Filing 6 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Kristine R. Crandall, Merrick Garland, Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Alejandro Mayorkas. (et) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO COUNSEL re Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program. This case has been randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth. (Attachments: #1 CV11C Statement of Consent) (et) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #2 , Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 , Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties #3 filed by Plaintiffs Mounika Arjula, Ravi Kiran Reddy Pothula. (Prasad, Rajesh) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs All Plaintiffs, identifying None. (Prasad, Rajesh) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiffs Mounika Arjula, Ravi Kiran Reddy Pothula. (Prasad, Rajesh) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-34292017 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiffs Ravi Kiran Reddy Pothula, Mounika Arjula. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-I) (Attorney Rajesh Nakchhed Prasad added to party Mounika Arjula(pty:pla), Attorney Rajesh Nakchhed Prasad added to party Ravi Kiran Reddy Pothula(pty:pla))(Prasad, Rajesh) |
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.
