Meschi v. Edlow

On August 13, 2026, an opposition/response to a motion was filed. The entry itself does not identify which motion was opposed, who filed the response, or any court disposition.

The defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting declarations; the filing sets a hearing and deadlines for opposing and reply briefs. The hearing is scheduled for September 4, 2026, with responses and replies due in August 2026.

The magistrate judge granted the parties' stipulation to extend the deadline to file a motion for summary judgment, extending the deadline from July 9, 2026 to July 30, 2026.

On July 10, 2026, the defendant filed a stipulation with a proposed order requesting an extension of the deadline to file a motion for summary judgment. The docket entry shows the filing but does not indicate whether the court has granted the requested extension.

The defendant filed a response to the court's Order to Show Cause on July 2, 2026, attaching four declarations as exhibits. The filings include declarations labeled S. Burdess, S. Bays, C. Lewis, and E. Martinez.

The plaintiff filed a notice alerting the court to concerns that the defendant is not complying with the court’s Order on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 25) and attached an exhibit described as evidence of non-compliance. The filing appears to be a notice of concern rather than a court order or ruling.

The federal defendant filed an answer to the complaint on May 11, 2026.

The plaintiffs filed a second notice of supplemental authority in support of their pending motion for a preliminary injunction, attaching as Exhibit A an April 24, 2026 order from Abdulraheemzai v. Noem (N.D. Cal.).

The defendant filed a joint statement in response to the court's supplemental briefing order (Order No. 22); the document was filed and entered on 2026-04-24. The filing appears to be the defendant's response to the court's instruction on supplemental briefing and hearings.

The magistrate judge entered a supplemental briefing order regarding the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and rescheduled the motion hearing. The hearing is now set for May 1, 2026 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom A (15th Floor) before Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse.

The magistrate judge issued a related-case order on 2026-04-17 stating that three more-recently filed cases listed in the order are not related to the judge’s assigned case and referring those cases to the judges of the next-earliest filed cases for related-case determination.

A plaintiff filed a notice providing supplemental authority from other district cases in support of the preliminary-injunction motion. The filing supplies recent decisions for the court's consideration.

The clerk issued a notice rescheduling the preliminary-injunction motion hearing to 2026-04-24 at 2:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom A before Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse. The entry is a text-only docket notice of the new hearing time.

Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of the preliminary-injunction motion on 2026-04-06, attaching multiple exhibits. The filing supplements the motion practice with additional materials.

A summons was returned executed for the named plaintiffs as to all defendants, with attached exhibits. The entry indicates the return of service was filed.

The federal defendant filed an opposition/response to the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction on 2026-03-30, including several declarations. The filing opposes the requested preliminary relief.

A notice of voluntary dismissal of one plaintiff was filed by one named plaintiff. The entry reflects the plaintiff's filed notice but does not state the court has entered a dismissal order.

The federal defendant filed a consent/declination form regarding proceeding before a magistrate judge. The entry indicates the defendant's selection on the magistrate-jurisdiction form.

Substitution of counsel was filed, showing a different attorney replacing prior counsel for the federal defendant. The entry records the change in representation.

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

Clerk's notice (marked to be disregarded for an earlier incorrect attachment) directed the defendant to file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge by 2026-03-23 and notes service by first-class mail. The entry corrects an earlier docketing mistake.

A notice of appearance was filed on behalf of the named federal defendant. The entry shows counsel entered an appearance in the case.

Clerk's notice directed the defendant to file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge by 2026-03-23 and indicates the notice was served by first-class mail. This is the corrected notice after a prior docketing error.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction with supporting exhibits and requested a hearing; the filing set a hearing for 2026-04-24 at 10:00 AM and set response and reply deadlines (responses due 2026-03-30, replies due 2026-04-06).

Plaintiffs filed a consent/declination form regarding proceeding before a magistrate judge. The filing indicates plaintiffs' position on magistrate-judge adjudication.

A procedural order specific to immigration mandamus cases was entered; no substantive details are provided in the docket text. The entry appears to be a standard case-management order.

A summons was issued directed to the named federal defendants. The entry notes the issuance but does not describe return or service.

Plaintiffs filed a notice regarding a related-case issue, attaching a motion to consider cases related. The entry indicates plaintiffs sought the court consider relatedness with another case.

The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse, and the docket instructs that counsel is responsible for service; a consent/declination to proceed before a magistrate judge was due by 2026-03-23. The entry also notes a scheduling order would issue within two business days.

A multi-plaintiff complaint was filed challenging USCIS policy memoranda, with several exhibits and a summons attached. The filing includes two USCIS policy memoranda as exhibits and requests relief against named federal defendants.

A proposed summons was filed with the complaint. No additional detail about service or return is provided in this entry.