Sadighi v. Edlow

The court issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a sur-reply (docket no. 27) but nonetheless accepted the plaintiffs' sur-reply into the record. The entry was signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer and filed on 2026-06-15.

The docket entry appears to indicate that an opposition/response to a motion was filed on June 12, 2026. The entry does not state which motion the filing opposes, who filed it, or any substantive details or court action.

The docket entry appears to indicate that an ex parte application was filed on 2026-06-12. The entry provides no details about who filed it or what relief was requested or ordered.

The docket entry indicates that a reply to an opposition/response was filed on June 12, 2026. The entry gives no information about which motion the reply addresses or any substance of the filing.

The docket contains an entry titled "Leave to File Document" filed on 2026-06-12; the entry does not state who filed it, what document is at issue, or whether the court granted or denied any request.

A stipulation was filed requesting an extension of time for the defendant to respond to the complaint; the filing was later modified on 2026-05-26. The entry does not state any new response deadline or court action granting the extension.

Another plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of only their own claims, and the remaining plaintiffs' claims remain pending.

One plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of only their own claims; the filing states that the remaining plaintiffs do not dismiss their claims at this time.

Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their preliminary injunction motion on 2026-04-29, attaching multiple exhibits citing related cases.

The clerk vacated the previously scheduled May hearing and set a new motion hearing for 2026-06-26 at 10:00 AM before the district judge to be conducted via Zoom webinar; the clerk also required counsel who wish to be identified as appearing to submit a list of names and emails to the court by 2026-06-23 at 3:00 PM PST. The notice provides webinar access information and instructions for requesting to appear.

Plaintiffs filed a renotice of the motion hearing for the preliminary injunction (referencing the earlier motion filing).

The defendant filed an opposition/response to the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction on 2026-04-22, attaching a proposed order and a declaration.

A notice of appearance was filed by counsel representing the named government official on 2026-04-22.

The court docketed a 'RELATED CASE ORDER' signed by Judge Susan van Keulen on April 17, 2026. The entry provides no details about the substance or effect of that order.

A clerk's notice announced impending reassignment to a district judge because consents were not secured or time is of the essence, stating that all hearings before the magistrate judge are vacated and should be renoticed for the reassigned judge.

A certificate of service was filed indicating service of the preliminary injunction motion and its exhibits.

A clerk's notice instructs defendants to file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge, with the consent/declination due by 2026-04-16.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction with supporting memorandum and exhibits; the filing sets a motion hearing for 2026-05-13 at 9:30 AM and states responses are due 2026-04-22 with replies due 2026-04-29. The motion filing includes proposed orders and multiple exhibits including administrative records for USCIS policy memoranda.

The summons was returned executed as to all defendants, and the return includes exhibits A–C.

Plaintiffs filed a consent/declination to proceed before a magistrate judge on 2026-04-01.

The court entered an order denying a motion to relate cases; the order was signed by Judge Susan van Keulen on March 24, 2026.

The case was assigned to a magistrate judge and the entry notifies counsel that a scheduling order will issue and that consent/declination is due by 2026-04-06. The clerk's text instructs counsel about service and downloading standing orders.

A proposed summons was filed with the court.

A procedural order labeled 'Immigration Mandamus Case Procedural Order' was entered by court staff.

A notice regarding a related case was filed by several plaintiffs and includes an exhibit described as an administrative motion regarding related cases.

A complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and a writ of mandamus was filed against a government official, requesting injunctive relief and vacatur under the Administrative Procedure Act; the filing includes exhibits attaching two USCIS policy memoranda and online case status printouts. The filing indicates the court received the $405 filing fee.

A summons was issued naming the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Attorney General as defendants.