Flores Mora v. Edlow

Defendants filed their reply to the petitioner's opposition. This is a responsive filing completing the briefing sequence but does not reflect a judicial decision.

The petitioner filed a motion requesting leave to excuse local counsel from attending the noticed hearing. This is a procedural request related to the scheduled hearing and does not indicate a ruling.

Defendants filed a consent motion seeking additional time to file a reply to the petitioner's supplemental opposition. This is a request for an extension and does not itself grant the extension.

A hearing was noticed for May 14, 2026 on the defendants' motion to dismiss and the petitioner's motion for a preliminary injunction. This notice sets a future court date but does not reflect any court ruling.

A docket entry indicates a filing was made in error and removed. The entry does not provide further details about the substance of the removed filing.

The petitioner filed an opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss. This is substantive briefing in opposition to the dismissal motion and does not itself decide the motion.

The petitioner filed an opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss and to the motion for a preliminary injunction, along with a proposed order granting the petitioner's requested preliminary injunction. This is additional briefing and a proposed remedy, but not a court decision.

Defendants filed a certificate of service for their reply to a response to the motion. This entry documents service and does not decide any issue.

The petitioner filed a motion for an out-of-state attorney to appear pro hac vice. This is a procedural request to allow counsel to participate and does not indicate a court ruling by itself.

A notice of appearance was filed by the petitioner's newly retained counsel. This is a routine counsel appearance and does not itself resolve any pending matter.

Defendants filed a reply to a response to their motion. This is additional briefing by the defendants and does not indicate a court decision.

The petitioner filed a reply in support of the motion for preliminary injunction and an opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss. This is additional briefing by the petitioner and does not reflect a court ruling.

Defendants filed a memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss. The filing provides legal argument in support of the defendants' motion but does not reflect any court decision.

Defendants filed a response opposing the petitioner's motion for a preliminary injunction. This is a responsive filing opposing the requested emergency relief; no court disposition is indicated in this entry.

The petitioner filed a notice addressing whether the previously filed motion for a preliminary injunction applies to the first amended complaint. The filing appears intended to clarify the motion's applicability but does not itself resolve any issues.

A hearing was noticed for April 16, 2026 on the defendants' motion to dismiss and the petitioner's motion for a preliminary injunction. The notice sets a future court hearing date but does not itself resolve the motions.

Defendants filed a certificate of service indicating they served their memorandum in support, response in opposition, notice of hearing, and motion to dismiss. This is a routine proof of service and does not alter the court's disposition.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. This is a substantive defense filing asking the court to dismiss some or all claims, but the docket entry does not indicate any court ruling.

The petitioner filed the USCIS administrative record related to two policy memoranda, including PM-602-0194. This is a document filing of agency materials and does not itself decide any legal issue.

The plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice as to one defendant previously named in the case on 2026-03-13. The entry reflects the plaintiff’s filing and does not indicate any court order or ruling effecting the case outcome.

The plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on 2026-03-12 against the defendants, attaching Exhibits A through D.

The petitioner filed a waiver of oral argument concerning her pending motion for a preliminary injunction (docket no. 9). The entry indicates the petitioner waived the right to oral argument but does not state any court ruling or scheduled hearing date.

The plaintiff filed a memorandum in support of her pending motion for a preliminary injunction, attaching a declaration and a proposed order. The entry records the filing but does not state any court ruling or scheduled hearing related to the motion.

On 2026-03-06 the plaintiff filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction (docket entry entered 2026-03-09). The entry does not indicate any court ruling, hearing date, or deadlines related to that motion.

On 2026-02-20, counsel for the defendants filed a consent motion requesting an extension of time to file an answer to the complaint; a proposed order was attached.

The docket entry indicates that attorney Christian James Cooper filed a notice of appearance on 2026-02-20 stating he represents the defendants in the case.

The docket entry records that the summonses were returned executed: all four defendants were served on 2025-12-22, and each has an answer due on 2026-02-20.

The court issued summonses to be served by certified mail to the four individuals named as defendants; a Summons Notice attachment is listed. The entry reflects issuance of the summonses but does not state any deadlines or subsequent court actions.

The plaintiff filed a complaint on 2025-12-22 against multiple defendants and paid a $405 filing fee (receipt number 100014758). The filing includes attachments labeled Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and the receipt.

The petitioner filed a motion requesting enrollment in Pro Se E-Noticing (to receive electronic court notices as a pro se litigant). The entry does not indicate any ruling by the court or establish any deadlines or hearings.