Azar v. Trump

The docket entry appears to be an order indicating that one or more scheduled hearings and certain motions were terminated. The entry is terse and does not state which hearings or motions were affected or describe any substantive rulings, so the exact procedural effect is unclear from this text alone.

A stipulation and proposed order was filed on 2026-06-18; the docket text does not state the stipulation’s terms or whether the court entered or adopted the proposed order, so its procedural effect is unclear.

The parties filed a stipulation to extend the briefing schedule on the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, and the court ordered revised briefing dates: defendants' opposition is due June 19, 2026, and the plaintiff's reply is due June 22, 2026. The parties had requested a June 24, 2026 hearing at 1:30 p.m., but the order as entered only sets the briefing deadlines.

The docket entry indicates a stipulation and proposed order was filed on June 9, 2026. The entry does not state the stipulation's terms or whether the court entered or adopted the proposed order, so the exact procedural effect is unclear.

The court ordered defendants to file a response to the plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 10) by noon on June 3, 2026, and set a hearing on the motion for June 4, 2026 at 10:30 AM via Zoom. The order was signed by Judge Ajay S. Krishnan on June 1, 2026.

A docket entry titled "Consent/Declination to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge" was recorded on 2026-06-01; the entry does not state whether it is a consent or a declination or which party filed it. The exact procedural effect is unclear from the entry text.

A document titled "Consent/Declination to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge" was filed on 2026-06-01. The entry does not state whether the filing is a consent or a declination or identify which party submitted it.

A document titled "Stipulation and Proposed Order" was filed on 2026-06-01; the filing text does not state the stipulation’s terms, which parties submitted it, or whether the court entered the proposed order. The exact procedural effect of this filing is unclear from the entry alone.

The plaintiff filed a motion for leave to appear pro hac vice, indicating a $328 filing fee that was previously paid on 2026-05-26.

The petitioner filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and an Order to Show Cause re: a Preliminary Injunction, attaching a declaration and a proposed order. The docket entry reflects the filing only and does not state any court action or scheduled hearing.

On June 1, 2026 the magistrate judge signed an order granting the previously filed motion (Dkt. No. 9) for an out-of-state attorney to appear pro hac vice in the case.

The court docketed an entry titled "Order AND Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings AND ~Util - Terminate Motions." The entry appears to be an order that sets motions, deadlines, and hearings and may terminate motions, but the text is too brief to determine which motions, what deadlines or hearing dates, or the precise procedural effect.

The plaintiff filed a memorandum of points and authorities in support of the previously filed Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. No. 10), attaching two declarations. The filing appears to supplement the TRO motion but does not by itself indicate any court ruling or scheduled hearing.

The clerk issued a notice reminding plaintiffs and defendants to file either a consent or a declination to proceed before the assigned magistrate judge, provided a link to the court form, and noted parties were also notified by email and that withholding consent has no adverse substantive consequences. The consent/declination is due by June 2, 2026.

The clerk rejected the motion for leave to appear pro hac vice because local counsel’s address on the application did not match the address on the case docket and local counsel must maintain a California address under Civil Local Rule 11-3(a)(3). The clerk instructed the filer to revise and re-file the application, noting the filing fee need not be paid again and that the original receipt number should be included in the refiled docket text.

The court clerk issued summonses for the defendants named in the complaint, including several federal officials and agencies as well as the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Attorney General. The entry does not state whether those summonses have been served or any subsequent deadlines or actions.

A proposed summons was filed and entered on May 27, 2026. The entry does not state whether the summons was issued or served.

The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Ajay S. Krishnan; the summons will be issued electronically and a scheduling order will be sent by NEF within two business days. The plaintiff must file either a consent to proceed before the magistrate judge or a declination by 2026-06-10.

A document titled "Immigration Mandamus Case Procedural Order" was filed and entered on 2026-05-27. The docket text does not state the order's contents or specify any deadlines or obligations, so its exact procedural effect is unclear from this entry.

The docket entry indicates the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to appear pro hac vice, paid a $328 filing fee (receipt number ACANDC-22024056), and attached a certificate of good standing.

The plaintiff filed a complaint on 2026-05-26 against several federal officials and agencies, including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Department of Homeland Security, seeking injunctive relief against the U.S. government or vacatur under the Administrative Procedure Act; the filing includes multiple exhibits and a summons. The docket shows a $405 filing fee and a receipt number for the filing.

The petitioner filed a Certificate of Interested Entities that identifies two affiliates. This appears to be an administrative disclosure of parties or entities with an interest in the case.