Jane Doe 1 v. United States Department of Homeland Security

The court filed a notice that the previously assigned magistrate judge is unavailable and the case has been returned to the clerk and reassigned to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott for discovery and/or post-judgment matters. The case designation was updated to 8:26-cv-00060-DOC-KESx.

The docket reflects a stipulation and order entered by Judge David O. Carter concerning the plaintiffs proceeding under pseudonyms; the entry refers to an attached order for details but does not state the substance or effect of that order in the text shown.

The defendant filed a stipulation proposing a protective order, docketed on 2026-06-26. The entry reflects only the filing of the stipulation and does not state any court action or approval.

The defendant filed a stipulation asking for an extension of time to file its answer to the complaint until July 13, 2026, attaching a declaration and a proposed order. The entry is the parties' filing requesting that new deadline; it does not state any court ruling or approval.

Plaintiffs' counsel lodged a proposed order related to the previously noticed status conference (the filing attaches the proposed order). The entry reflects only the lodging of the proposed order and does not state any court action or new deadline.

The court denied as moot the plaintiffs' motion to proceed under pseudonyms in light of an earlier order prohibiting adverse immigration action against the named plaintiffs. The court also ordered the parties to submit a stipulated protective order regarding retention and management of discovery related to the plaintiffs' identities by June 29, 2026 at 9:00 AM after they failed to meet an earlier June 26 deadline.

The court issued an order extending the defendant's deadline to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint to July 13, 2026.

On 2026-06-25 the plaintiffs filed a document titled "SUPPLEMENT PLAINTIFFS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF," which included an attachment labeled "Exhibit 1 - USCIS EB Form I-485 Processing Times."

On 2026-06-25 the defendant filed a sealed response regarding the status conference (an optional HTML form) and attached one exhibit. The filing is docketed as sealed and does not state any court ruling.

The plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and attached four exhibits described as redacted approval notices. The filing was submitted by plaintiffs' counsel and entered on 06/04/2026.

The United States Department of Homeland Security filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (document 13); the filing, submitted by counsel Haena Lee, was entered on 2026-05-28.

The court granted in part the parties' joint stipulation and continued the preliminary injunction hearing from June 4, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. to June 24, 2026 at 8:30 a.m., and it amended the briefing schedule: the defendant's opposition is due May 28, 2026 and the plaintiffs' reply is due June 4, 2026.

The plaintiffs filed a joint stipulation (with a proposed order attached) asking the court to continue the hearing that had been set for June 4, 2026 to June 18, 2026 and to adjust related deadlines referenced in the in-chambers order.

The plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion to proceed under pseudonyms (Motion No. 14), filed on April 28, 2026. The filing was submitted by plaintiffs' counsel Jonathan Wasden.

On April 24, 2026, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to an ex parte application that sought to extend the deadline to file an answer to May 24, 2026. The docket entry reflects only the filing of the opposition and does not indicate any court decision on the extension request.

The court issued an in-chambers order granting in part the government's ex parte application for more time and set the government's deadline to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint as May 14, 2026.

The defendant filed an ex parte application asking the court to extend its time to file an answer to the complaint until May 24, 2026, attaching a declaration of counsel and a proposed order. The entry reflects a filing requesting relief and does not indicate whether the court has granted the extension.

The defendant filed a memorandum opposing the plaintiffs' motion to proceed under pseudonyms and attached a declaration from counsel Haena Lee.

The defendant filed an ex parte application asking the court to extend its time to file an answer to the complaint until May 9, 2026; the filing includes a declaration by defense counsel and a proposed order. The entry reflects only the request—no court decision is shown in this entry.

The docket entry indicates that attorney Haena Lee filed a notice of appearance, adding Haena Lee as counsel of record for the defendant, the United States Department of Homeland Security, citing the reason in a G-123 notice.

A notice of appearance was filed adding attorney Alarice M. Medrano as counsel of record for the defendant, the United States Department of Homeland Security, citing the reason indicated in a G-123 notice.

A stipulation was filed by the defendant extending its time to answer the complaint; the filing states the defendant's answer is now due on April 9, 2026.

The plaintiffs filed an ex parte application seeking a temporary restraining order; the filing includes a memorandum, a proposed order, two exhibits, and seven declarations as attachments.

The plaintiffs filed a proof of service stating the summons and complaint were served on the defendant (United States Department of Homeland Security) on 2026-01-09 and that the defendant’s answer is due on 2026-03-10. The filing states service was effected on the U.S. Attorney’s Office and on the agency, and it includes a due diligence declaration, a certified/registered mail return receipt, and three exhibits.

The clerk issued a summons on 2026-01-08 directed to the United States Department of Homeland Security that carries a 60-day period for service/return.

The plaintiffs filed an application for non-resident attorney Jonathan D. Wasden to appear pro hac vice on their behalf and paid the $450 pro hac vice fee; the filing attached a certificate of good standing and a proposed order.

The plaintiffs, through counsel, filed a request asking the clerk to issue a summons on the complaint.

The plaintiffs filed a Notice indicating they are seeking nationwide relief; the filing was entered on 2026-01-08.

The docket entry indicates the case was assigned to District Judge David O. Carter and Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero. This is a clerk’s notice of judicial assignment for the case.

The plaintiffs filed a complaint and paid a $405 filing fee. Attorney Justin Tseng was added as counsel for each plaintiff listed in the filing.

The docket entry indicates the case was assigned from the district-wide case assignment deck for matters seeking nationwide or statewide relief; no PDF document is associated with this entry.

The plaintiffs filed a civil cover sheet in the case on 2026-01-08.

The court filed a notice to counsel regarding consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. The entry does not specify any deadlines, hearings, or other future obligations.

The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Interested Parties indicating that no interested parties are identified.