Guam Contractors Association et al v. Lynch et al
| Guam Contractors Association, Ace Builders, LLC, BME & Son's, Inc., Guam Tropical Dive Station, Inc., Guam XRay, Johndel International, Inc., Inland Builders Corporation, Landscape Management Systems, Inc., Marianas Linen Supply, Inc., Phil-Gets (Guam) International Trading Corporation, Zenaida M. Zantua and 5M Construction Corporation |
| Loretta E. Lynch, Jeh Johnson, Leon Rodriguez, Donald Neufeld and Kathy Baran |
| 1:2016cv00075 |
| October 4, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Guam |
| Hagatna Office |
| Guam |
| Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood |
| Joaquin V.E. Manibusan |
| Review or Appeal of Agency Decision |
| 05 U.S.C. ยง 702 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
160
Order denying 147 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 151 Request for Judicial Notice. Signed by Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood on 1/27/2021. (fad, )
|
|
Filing
135
Order denying 108 Motion for Contempt (related document(s): 126 Report and Recommendations; 132 Objection to Report and Recommendation). Signed by Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood on 12/11/2019. (fad, )
|
|
Filing
129
Order granting 110 Motion to Hold Summary Judgment in Abeyance. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joaquin V.E. Manibusan, Jr on 7/19/2019. (fad, )
|
|
Filing
128
Order denying 109 Motion to Compel Additional Discovery without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joaquin V.E. Manibusan, Jr on 7/15/2019. (fad, )
|
|
Filing
126
Report And Recommendations re 108 Motion Contempt. The Court hereby recommends that the District Court find that Defendants have failed to comply with the Court's PI Order of January 24, 2018.... Defendants have failed to meaningfully apprec iate the implications, ramifications, and reach of the Court's PI Order which enjoined them from using its prior denial reasoning with respect to current petitions and the Court's mandate to adjudicate future petitions in accord with long standing practice. Plaintiffs are entitled to appropriate sanctions. Objections to R&R due by 7/9/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joaquin V.E. Manibusan, Jr on 6/25/2019. (fad, )
|
|
Filing
85
Order granting in part and denying in part 82 Motion for Clarification; granting in part and denying in part 83 Motion for More Definite Statement. The court ORDERS that: (1) For any earlier submitted petition for which Plaintiffs seek reconsi deration, Plaintiffs shall seek updated temporary labor certification from GDOL and, if granted, shall submit the certification to USCIS to be considered in conjunction with the corresponding petition. New labor certifications may be issued for the s ame period of time originally requested or whatever other period GDOL may deem appropriate. (2) For any new petition Plaintiffs may submit to USCIS for adjudication for any prospective period of need, Plaintiffs must submit along with the petition a new temporary labor certification from GDOL corresponding to the period of need. Signed by Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood on 2/8/2018. (fad, )
|
|
Filing
81
Order Re Motion to Dismiss; Objections to Report and Recommendation. The Defendants' 30 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs' Claims 4, 5, 6 and 7 are DISMISSED. The Plaintiffs' 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED in part. The Magistrate Judge's 61 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in part and MODIFIED in part. Signed by Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood on 1/24/2018. (fad, )
|
|
Filing
61
Report And Recommendations re 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Based on the above analysis, although some Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction, and that the balance of equities and the public interest appears to tip in favor of the Plaintiffs, the court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. Because mandatory injunctions are generally disfavored and because the standard of review is highly deferential under the APA, the below-signed judge recommends that the Chief Judge deny the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Objections to R&R due by 8/25/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joaquin V.E. Manibusan, Jr on 8/11/2017. (fad, )
|
|
Filing
59
Order granting 10 Motion to Hold in Abeyance Plaintiffs' 7 Motion to Certify a Class. Since a decision on the merits may render all class certification issues moot, the court further finds that it is in the interests of justice and judicial economy to stay the class certification issue until Defendants' motion to dismiss and any other dispositive motions are resolved. Signed by Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood on 7/25/2017. (fad, )
|
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 Guam 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.
