Durgam et al v. Blinken et al
| Samarth Sekhar Durgam and Cindy Rita Nahhas |
| Antony Blinken, Alejandro Mayorkas, District Director UR M JADDOU, Tracy Tarango, MERRICK B GARLAND, Ur M Jaddou and Merrick Garland |
| 1:2024cv00038 |
| January 2, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Steven C Seeger |
| Other Statutes: Administrative Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision |
| 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 16, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed the notice of dismissal (Dckt. No. #11 ), which is self-effectuating under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The parties will each bear their own fees and costs. The case is closed. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Samarth Sekhar Durgam, Cindy Rita Nahhas (Schmitt, Brian) |
| Filing 10 DESIGNATION of Joshua Samuel Press as U.S. Attorney for Defendants Antony Blinken, Merrick Garland, Ur M Jaddou, Alejandro Mayorkas, Tracy Tarango (Press, Joshua) |
| Filing 9 DESIGNATION of Craig Arthur Oswald as U.S. Attorney for Defendants Antony Blinken, Merrick Garland, Ur M Jaddou, Alejandro Mayorkas, Tracy Tarango (Oswald, Craig) |
| Filing 8 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Samarth Sekhar Durgam, Cindy Rita Nahhas by Brian Christopher Schmitt (Schmitt, Brian) |
| Filing 7 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The motion for leave to appear pro hac vice (Dckt. No. #6 ) is hereby granted. Attorney Brian Christopher Schmitt is added as counsel for plaintiffs. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 6 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number AILNDC-21571822. (Schmitt, Brian) |
| SUMMONS Issued as to Antony Blinken, Merrick Garland, Ur M Jaddou, Alejandro Mayorkas, Tracy Tarango, U.S. Attorney. (evw, ) |
| Filing 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: There is no need for a certificate of service for a court filing when all parties of record receive a copy through CM/ECF. Under the Local Rules, "[a] certificate of service is required only when service of a document filed on the Court's E-Filing system is made on a recipient who is not an E-Filer listed on the docket of the proceeding." See L.R. 5.5(a); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1)(B) ("No certificate of service is required when a paper is served by filing it with the court's electronic-filing system."). The Court handles service through CM/ECF. In effect, the CM/ECF header is the certificate of service. Save yourself the work, and the trouble. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 4 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: An initial status report is due by March 18, 2024. Counsel must read the Standing Order entitled "Initial Status Conferences and Joint Initial Status Reports" on the Court's website. The parties must confer as required by Rule 26(f) about the nature, scope, and duration of discovery. The parties must submit two documents to the Court. First, the parties must file the Joint Initial Status Report under Rule 26(f) on the docket. A Word version of the Joint Initial Status Report is available on the Court's website. All parties must participate in the preparation and filing of the Joint Initial Status Report. The Court requires a joint report, so a filing by one side or the other is not sufficient. Second, the parties must email a Word version of a proposed Scheduling Order under Rule 16(b) to the Court's proposed order inbox. Lead counsel for the parties must participate in filing the initial status report. Plaintiff must serve this Order on all other parties. If the defendant has not been served with process, plaintiff's counsel must contact the Courtroom Deputy at jessica_j_ramos@ilnd.uscourts.gov to reschedule the initial status report deadline. Plaintiff should not file the Joint Initial Status Report before the defendant(s) has been served with process. The parties must discuss settlement in good faith and make a serious attempt to resolve this case amicably. All counsel of record must read and comply with this Court's Standing Orders on its webpage. Please pay special attention to the Standing Orders about Depositions and Discovery. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey Cole. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). (jcc, ) |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (jcc, ) |
| Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Samarth Sekhar Durgam, Cindy Rita Nahhas by Scott D. Pollock (Pollock, Scott) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Pollock, Scott) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Samarth Sekhar Durgam; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-21479250.(Pollock, Scott) |
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 Illinois Northern 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.
