Moradipari v. Edlow

The docket entry appears to indicate the court entered an "Order on Stipulation" on August 20, 2026; the entry does not state the order's terms, deadlines, or any substantive effect, so the exact procedural or substantive impact is unclear from the entry text.

A stipulation and a proposed order were filed in the case on August 18, 2026. The docket entry does not state the stipulation's terms, who filed it, or any court action resulting from it.

On 2026-08-18 a document titled "Answer to Complaint" was filed in the case; the docket entry provides no additional details about the contents of the filing or who submitted it.

On August 12, 2026, the court entered an "Order on Stipulation." The docket text does not state the order's terms, who filed the stipulation, or any resulting deadlines or relief, so the exact procedural or substantive effect is unclear.

A stipulation and a proposed order were filed in the case on August 11, 2026. The docket entry provides no details about the stipulation’s substance, which party filed it, or any court action taken on it.

A Case Management Statement was filed on July 19, 2026; the docket entry shows only the filing of the statement and provides no other details about its content or any court action.

Defendants filed a status report on May 11, 2026. The filing appears to be the parties' submission following the May 6 hearing and related court deadlines.

A minute entry shows the court held the Motion to Dismiss hearing on May 6, 2026, heard argument from counsel, took the matter under submission, and stated an order will issue; the court directed the parties to file a stipulation by May 11, 2026 and scheduled a further status conference for June 9, 2026 at 2:00 PM in San Jose. The entry records that the court heard argument for approximately 34 minutes.

Defendants filed a status report on May 5, 2026. The filing appears to be the parties' update following the court's May 1 order directing a meet-and-confer.

A clerk's notice dated April 28, 2026 converted the May 6, 2026 Motion to Dismiss hearing to a videoconference-only Zoom proceeding and required counsel to submit a list of names and emails of participants by May 1, 2026 at 5:00 PM. The notice provided Zoom access information and remote-appearance rules.

The court issued an order on April 28, 2026, signed by Judge Noel Wise, granting the parties' joint administrative request (docket entry 13) to appear via Zoom.

On April 25, 2026 the petitioner filed a second notice of supplemental authority for the Motion to Dismiss, attaching an additional order. The submission provided the court with another cited decision.

On April 16, 2026 the petitioner filed a notice of supplemental authority related to the Motion to Dismiss, attaching recent district decisions. The entry notifies the court of additional legal authorities the petitioner believes are relevant.

On April 16, 2026 the petitioner filed a joint administrative motion requesting permission for counsel to appear at the May 6, 2026 hearing via Zoom. The filing also noted a response deadline for that administrative motion.

Defendants filed a reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss on March 13, 2026. The filing completes the briefing on the motion as reflected in the docket.

The petitioner filed an opposition/response to the Motion to Dismiss on March 6, 2026, attaching exhibits and a proposed order. The filing represents the petitioner's briefing in opposition to the defendants' motion.

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 20, 2026 and the court set a hearing for May 6, 2026 at 9:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor; the entry also set the deadlines for oppositions (due March 6, 2026) and replies (due March 13, 2026).

The court granted the parties' stipulation extending the defendants' deadline to respond to the complaint and extending the deadline for filing a motion for summary judgment. The order sets the defendants' response due on February 20, 2026 and the summary-judgment filing deadline on April 21, 2026.

Defendants filed a stipulation on February 3, 2026 requesting an extension of time to respond to the petitioner's complaint. The stipulation sought additional time for the defendants' response.

A notice of appearance for counsel representing the defendants was filed on February 3, 2026. The document indicates new counsel entered an appearance in the case.

On December 10, 2025, the petitioner filed a return of service indicating the summons was returned executed as to all defendants and attached exhibits. The entry reflects proof of service being filed with the court.

A docket entry titled 'Immigration Mandamus Case Procedural Order' was entered on December 5, 2025; the entry appears to be a procedural order specific to immigration mandamus cases. The exact directives in the procedural order are not specified in the entry text.

A summons was issued to the named defendants on December 5, 2025. The clerk issued the summons as part of case initiation.

The case was assigned to a district judge and the clerk's office provided administrative instructions about service, issuance of the summons, and an upcoming scheduling order. The entry notifies counsel that a scheduling order will be sent within two business days.

A proposed summons form was filed on December 4, 2025. The document appears to be the plaintiff's proposed summons for service.

The petitioner filed a Complaint on December 4, 2025 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and a writ of mandamus, attaching exhibits including a December 2, 2025 USCIS Policy Memorandum and immigration-related notices. The filing initiated the lawsuit against state and federal officials and paid the filing fee.