Batalla Vidal v. Baran et al
||Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal
||Director Kathy A. Baran, Susan M. Curda, Kelvin Medlock and Director Donald W. Neufeld
||August 25, 2016
||New York Eastern District Court
||Nicholas G. Garaufis
|Nature of Suit:
||Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
|Cause of Action:
||05:551 Administrative Procedure Act
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|March 29, 2018
MEMORANDUM & ORDER, For the reasons stated above, Defendants' motions to dismiss the Batalla Vidal Plaintiffs' third amended complaint and the State Plaintiffs' amended complaint (Dkt. 207 in No. 16-CV-4756; No. 71 in No. 17 -CV-5228) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Batalla Vidal Plaintiffs' first, third, and fourth claims for relief are dismissed, and the second claim for relief is dismissed to the extent it alleges that Defendants weakened DHS's information-use policy. The sixth claim for relief is dismissed in part, as stated above. The State Plaintiffs' fifth and sixth claims for relief are dismissed. So Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 3/29/2018. (Lee, Tiffeny)
|February 13, 2018
AMENDED MEMORANDUM & ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. The Memorandum & Order filed earlier today is withdrawn. Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 2/13/2018. (Scott, Conrad)
|January 8, 2018
MEMORANDUM & ORDER, For the reasons stated above, Defendants' motion for the court to certify its November 9th M&O for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (Dkt. 219 in No. 16-CV-4756; Dkt 184 in No. 17-CV-5228) is GRANTED. Discovery and record supplementation in these cases are stayed pending the Second Circuit's decision on Defendants' anticipated interlocutory appeal. (See Dec. 27, 2017, USCA Order at 4.) So Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 1/8/2018. (Lee, Tiffeny)
|November 9, 2017
MEMORANDUM & ORDER, For the reasons stated above. Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Dkt. 95 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The following claims are dismissed: Batalla Vidal v. Duke, No. 16 -CV-4756: Fourth claim for relief (Due Process Clause--Notice); New York v. Trump, No. 17-CV-5228: Second claim for relief (Due Process Clause--Information-Use Policy); Third claim for relief (Equitable Estoppel--Information-Use Policy); Seve nth claim for relief (Due Process Clause--Notice). Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is denied with respect to all other claims. The court RESERVES RULING on Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. So Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 11/9/2017. (Lee, Tiffeny)
|October 19, 2017
ORDER re: Motion to Stay in Case No. 1:16-cv-04756 (Dkt. 87) and Motion to Stay in Case No. 1:17-cv-05228 (Dkt. 64): The motion is denied for the reasons stated in the attached order. Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 10/19/2017. (Scott, Conrad)
|October 3, 2017
ORDER re Defendants' Motion to Vacate in Part Magistrate Judge James Orenstein's Case Management and Scheduling Order: The Motion is GRANTED in part, as stated in the attached order. Defendants' time to submit a privilege log is exte nded to October 20, 2017. The court will address Defendants' remaining objections by separate order. Defendants are invited to file a reply, not to exceed five pages, to Plaintiffs' oppositions no later than October 10, 2017. Re (69) Motion to Vacate in Case 16-CV-4756-NGG-JO and (48) Motion to Vacate in Case 17-CV-5228-NGG-JO. Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 10/3/2017. (Scott, Conrad)
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 New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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.
Why Is My Information Online?