ALSEDDA et al v. BLINKEN et al
| AHMED ALSEDDA, GHADEER ALSEDDA, KA, OA, RUSHIK SHUKAL, NAVGHANBHAI RAMABHAI GADHAVI, BHAKTI PRAVEENBHAI GADHAVI, BHUPENDRAKUMAR DARAJI, MD, SUNITABAHEN YOGESHKUMAR PATEL, KP, BHAVANABEN PATEL, DP, HP, MANUBHAI AMRATBHAI DESAI, SUREKHA MANUBHAI DESAI, DMD, ADOLFO MALAGON, ABDUL MOTALEB, SHARMIN SHILA, PRISCILA KELLY DE ALMEID FONSECA, DENIVAL JOSE DA SILVA, BABUBHAI PATEL, PADAMABEN BABUBHAI PATEL, JBP, KBP, MAHESHKUMAR PATEL, RITABEN PATEL, PRUTHVI PATEL, ASHVINKUMAR CHAUDHARI, AMITABEN CHAUDHARI, DC, PC, NISHANT MEHTA, MANALI MEHTA, HM, GARVIDKUMAR PATEL, SP, USHABEN ISHWARBHAI PATEL, ANP, BAKULBHAI PATEL, SANGITABEN PATEL, TUSHAR PATEL, DHARMENDRA PATEL, DIYA PATEL, ATULKUMAR PATEL, FENAL PATEL, TOBIAS ALCALA, MARIA DEL PUEBLITO GRANADOS, TAA, IZA, AA and ALL PLAINTIFFS |
| ANTONY BLINKEN and UR JADDOU |
| 1:2023cv03107 |
| October 17, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Amy Berman Jackson |
| Immigration: Other Immigration Actions |
| 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 15, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
MINUTE ORDER: After reviewing the pleadings in both cases and the parties' responses to the Court's Minute Order of December 7, 2023, the Court finds that this case and 23-cv-919, Theophilus v. Mayorkas, were not properly identified as related in plaintiffs' #2 Notice of Related Case. Under Local Rule 40.5(a), civil cases are deemed related when they "(i) relate to common property, or (ii) involve common issues of fact, or (iii) grow out of the same event or transaction or (iv) involve the validity or infringement of the same patent." See LCvR 40.5. While plaintiffs point to general agency policies and practices in some of the counts, at bottom, these are unreasonable delay cases, and as the government points out, what links the case is the allegation of agency delay, which is not enough to bring the two lawsuits within the definition in the Local Rule. Each plaintiff's claim is based on its own set of facts and processing timeline, and personal circumstances may govern whether the extraordinary relief sought is warranted. While the applicable legal test will be the same, the adjudication of each unreasonable delay claim will require an individualized analysis that may take both the particular circumstances of each plaintiff and the circumstances pertaining to the particular consulate into account. See Telecomms. Rsch. & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 79 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (discussing the six factors courts must consider when evaluating agency delay, including "the effect of expediting delayed action on agency activities of a higher or competing priority," "the nature and extent of the interests prejudiced by delay," and the fact that "delays that might be reasonable in the sphere of economic regulation are less tolerable when human health and welfare are at stake"). For these reasons, the Clerk of the Court is directed to return Alsedda et. al., v. Blinken, 23-cv-3107, to the calendar committee for random assignment. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 12/15/2023. (lcabj1) Modified TEXT on 12/15/2023 (bb).
|
|
MINUTE ORDER. In light of the parties' responses #7 #8 , to the Court's December 7, 2023 minute order, the Court finds that consolidation of this case with Theophilus v. Mayorkas, 23-919 would be inappropriate at this time given the very different procedural posture of the two cases. Moreover, while the claims of unreasonable delay at the heart of both cases may turn on the application of the same legal principles, they are fact dependent, and the circumstances in the particular consular offices involved may vary widely. Furthermore, the Court notes that one of the reasons it granted defendants' motion for additional time to answer was so that defendants could investigate the allegations and potentially resolve some or all of the plaintiffs' applications without the need for further litigation. Therefore, it is ORDERED that further briefing of plaintiffs' #6 motion for summary judgment is STAYED until the defendants have the opportunity to respond to the complaint by the previously established February 15, 2024 deadline. The Court will set a schedule for the filing of any opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment after defendants have responded. However, if defendants choose to respond to the complaint with a motion for summary judgment, it should be designated as a combined cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiffs' motion, which must be supported by a single memorandum of points and authorities. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 12/14/2023. (lcabj1)
|
| Filing 8 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT Notice Responding to Court's Order by ANTONY BLINKEN, UR JADDOU re Order (Restrepo, Luz) Modified event title on 12/11/2023 (znmw). |
| Filing 7 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT by ALL PLAINTIFFS re Order (Banias, Bradley) Modified event title and docket text on 12/8/2023 (znmw). |
| Filing 6 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by AA, TOBIAS ALCALA, AHMED ALSEDDA, GHADEER ALSEDDA, ANP, AMITABEN CHAUDHARI, ASHVINKUMAR CHAUDHARI, BHUPENDRAKUMAR DARAJI, DC, MANUBHAI AMRATBHAI DESAI, SUREKHA MANUBHAI DESAI, DMD, DP, PRISCILA KELLY DE ALMEID FONSECA, BHAKTI PRAVEENBHAI GADHAVI, NAVGHANBHAI RAMABHAI GADHAVI, MARIA DEL PUEBLITO GRANADOS, HM, HP, IZA, JBP, KA, KBP, KP, ADOLFO MALAGON, MD, MANALI MEHTA, NISHANT MEHTA, ABDUL MOTALEB, OA, ATULKUMAR PATEL, BABUBHAI PATEL, BAKULBHAI PATEL, BHAVANABEN PATEL, DHARMENDRA PATEL, DIYA PATEL, FENAL PATEL, GARVIDKUMAR PATEL, MAHESHKUMAR PATEL, PADAMABEN BABUBHAI PATEL, PRUTHVI PATEL, RITABEN PATEL, SANGITABEN PATEL, SUNITABAHEN YOGESHKUMAR PATEL, TUSHAR PATEL, USHABEN ISHWARBHAI PATEL, PC, SHARMIN SHILA, RUSHIK SHUKAL, DENIVAL JOSE DA SILVA, SP, TAA. (Attachments: #1 Statement of Facts, #2 Exhibit B: BFD Policies)(Banias, Bradley) |
|
MINUTE ORDER. When plaintiffs in Alsedda et. al., v. Blinken, 23-cv-3107, filed their complaint #1 , they filed a notice of related case #2 , indicating that the case presented common questions of fact with 23-cv-919, Theophilus v. Mayorkas. Defendants have never indicated their position with respect to the related case issue, but this case, 23-cv-3107, does appear to involve the same or similar legal issues and the same counsel. In the Theophilus case that plaintiffs consider to be related to this one, there is a pending motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction that has been fully briefed: the motion to dismiss was filed on September 12, 2023, plaintiffs opposed it on September 26, and defendants' reply was filed on October 3, 2023. Two weeks later, plaintiffs filed the Alsedda complaint in 23-cv-3107, along with the notice of related case. On November 20, 2023, the defense sought additional time to respond to the complaint #5 , stating, "defendants now seek a 60-day extension of their deadline to review and analyze the allegations in the complaint, properly assess the current posture of each of the 102 plaintiffs and determine whether this matter may be resolved without further litigation and, if not, prepare an answer or other response to the complaint." Defendants stated that they reached out to counsel for plaintiffs twice to determine plaintiffs' position on the motion, but counsel did not respond. The Court granted the motion, setting the date for defendants' response to be February 15, 2024. Notwithstanding the posture of the cases and the schedule established by the court, the Alsedda plaintiffs in 23-cv-3107 have now moved for partial summary judgment #6 . Given all of those facts and circumstances, the Court has questions concerning the most appropriate and efficient way to proceed, and the parties are hereby ordered to each file a notice responding to each of the following questions: (1) What is your position on whether 23-919 and 23-1307 are related pursuant to Local Civil Rule 40.5(a), and what are the reasons for that position? (2) If the cases are found to be related, should they be consolidated? Why or why not? (3) Whether the cases are consolidated or not, should the Court defer briefing of the motion for partial summary judgment in 23-1307 until after it has ruled on the pending motion to dismiss in 23-919? (4) And finally, should the Court defer briefing of the motion for partial summary judgment in 23-1307 until after defendants have responded in accordance with the schedule already established? SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 12/7/2023. (lcabj1)
|
|
MINUTE ORDER granting #5 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants must respond to the complaint by February 15, 2024. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 11/21/2023. (lcabj1)
|
| Filing 5 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by ANTONY BLINKEN, UR JADDOU. (Restrepo, Luz) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Luz Restrepo on behalf of All Defendants (Restrepo, Luz) |
| Filing 3 SUMMONS (4) Issued Electronically as to All Defendants, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: #1 Notice and Consent)(zljn) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Amy Berman Jackson. (zljn) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by All Plaintiffs. Case related to Case No. 23-919. (Banias, Bradley) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ADCDC-10425650) filed by DC, AMITABEN CHAUDHARI, OA, BHAKTI PRAVEENBHAI GADHAVI, JBP, DMD, GHADEER ALSEDDA, AHMED ALSEDDA, ADOLFO MALAGON, PRUTHVI PATEL, SUREKHA MANUBHAI DESAI, TUSHAR PATEL, PADAMABEN BABUBHAI PATEL, KBP, MAHESHKUMAR PATEL, USHABEN ISHWARBHAI PATEL, SHARMIN SHILA, HP, TOBIAS ALCALA, BABUBHAI PATEL, SUNITABAHEN YOGESHKUMAR PATEL, ASHVINKUMAR CHAUDHARI, NISHANT MEHTA, KP, AA, FENAL PATEL, BAKULBHAI PATEL, PRISCILA KELLY DE ALMEID FONSECA, DIYA PATEL, DENIVAL JOSE DA SILVA, DP, RITABEN PATEL, NAVGHANBHAI RAMABHAI GADHAVI, MARIA DEL PUEBLITO GRANADOS, SP, KA, MANALI MEHTA, TAA, MD, BHAVANABEN PATEL, ANP, MANUBHAI AMRATBHAI DESAI, ATULKUMAR PATEL, GARVIDKUMAR PATEL, BHUPENDRAKUMAR DARAJI, IZA, PC, DHARMENDRA PATEL, HM, SANGITABEN PATEL, ABDUL MOTALEB, RUSHIK SHUKAL. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A: Plaintiffs Information, #2 Exhibit B: WLDs, #3 Civil Cover Sheet, #4 Summons, #5 Summons, #6 Summons, #7 Summons)(Banias, Bradley) (Attachment 3 replaced on 10/18/2023) (zljn). |
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 District Of Columbia 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.
