Aguilar et al v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States of America Department of Homeland Security
| John Doe, David Lazaro Perez, Mario Patzan DeLeon, Nelly Amaya, Andres Leon, Andriana Aguilar, Elena Leon, Carson Aguilar, Erika Gabriela Garcia Leon and Jane Doe |
| Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States of America Department of Homeland Security, Julie L. Myers, John P. Torres, Christopher Shanahan, John Doe and Jane Doe |
| 1:2007cv08224 |
| September 20, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| John G. Koeltl |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 Declaratory Judgement |
| Plaintiff |
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
347
OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion at Docket No. 294. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 4/16/2012) (ft)
|
|
Filing
286
OPINION AND ORDER re: 220 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Michael Chertoff, Julie L. Myers, Marcy Forman, John P. Torres and 240 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claim for Injunctive Relief filed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of th e United States of America Department of Homeland Security. The Court has carefully considered all of the arguments raised by the parties. To the extent not specifically addressed, the arguments are either moot or without merit. For the reasons exp lained above, the defendants' motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is granted with prejudice with respect to the Fourth Amendment claims against defendants Chertoff and Myers and the Fifth Amendment claims against all of the Supervisory Defendants. The motion to dismiss is denied with respect to the Fourth Amendment claims against Torres and Forman. The defendants' motion to dismiss the claims for injunctive relief for lack of standing under Federal Rule o f Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) is denied without prejudice. Finally, the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the claims for injunctive relief is denied. The Clerk is directed to close Docket Nos. 220 and 240. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 7/29/2011) (mro)
|
|
Filing
173
DISCOVERY ORDER.....Accordingly, the Court does not intend to undertake an in camera review of any records to be produced pursuant to the authorizations described above, unless the plaintiffs submitted a detailed affidavit from the particular patient explaining precisely what treatment the patient seeks to shield from disclosure and the rationale therefor. Any such affidavits may be submitted under seal and ex parte, but must be received by 11/2/09....I do not intend to conduct any further in camera reviews. Copies sent by chambers (Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank Maas on 10/23/09) (cd)
|
|
Filing
165
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 137 Motion for Reconsideration. As set forth above, the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 137) is denied. The Court further clarifies that the "attorneys' eyes only" designa tion is applicable to all immigration Infonnation, including that of witnesses, provided by the Plaintiffs during discovery. Any infonnation so designated may be viewed by ICE in house counsel provided that they are not involved in the prosecution of any related immigration proceedings. SO ORDERED (Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank Maas on 6/23/2009) (jmi)
|
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 Southern 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.
