Shahi v. Edlow

The court docketed an order that addresses an administrative motion under Civil Local Rule 7-11 and also an order on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction; the entry does not state what the court actually decided or what relief, if any, was granted. The exact procedural effect and the outcomes of those orders are unclear from the entry text.

The docket reflects an entry titled "Order on Stipulation" dated 2026-07-13; the entry appears to indicate the court issued an order concerning a stipulation, but the entry text does not state the substance or effect of that order.

The docket entry indicates that the parties filed a stipulation together with a proposed order. The entry does not describe the stipulation's terms or state whether the court has signed or entered the proposed order.

The docket entry indicates that an administrative motion was filed under Civil Local Rule 7-11. The entry does not state who filed it, what relief is requested, or any court action on the motion.

A document titled "Opposition/Response to Motion" was filed on 2026-07-08; the docket entry does not identify which motion is opposed or which party filed the document.

A filing labeled “Reply to Opposition/Response” was filed on 2026-06-29. The entry does not state which motion it replies to or which party filed it.

The docket entry indicates that an Opposition/Response to a motion was filed on June 25, 2026. The entry does not identify which motion the filing opposes or state any court action or outcome.

The court found the previously filed opposition and reply noncompliant with the local rules and the court’s standing order, ordered the parties to re-file both documents without presenting new arguments, reset briefing deadlines, and continued the scheduled motion hearing. The hearing originally set for June 25, 2026 was continued to July 9, 2026 at 9:00 AM.

The court granted the parties' stipulation extending the defendant's time to respond to the complaint; the response is to be filed one week after the Court decides the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, which is set for hearing on June 25, 2026. The order was signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on June 12, 2026.

The defendant filed a stipulation, accompanied by a proposed order, requesting additional time to file a response to the plaintiffs' complaint.

The plaintiffs filed an errata correcting their previously filed reply to the defendant's opposition to the preliminary injunction; the filing (dated 2026-05-20) includes an exhibit.

Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for preliminary injunction.

The defendant filed an errata correcting declarations attached to the opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction.

The defendant filed an opposition/response to the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, including multiple declarations and an exhibit.

Following reassignment, the clerk reset the motion hearing for the preliminary injunction to 2026-06-25 at 9:00 AM before Judge Edward J. Davila and set opposition and reply deadlines of 2026-05-11 and 2026-05-18, respectively.

The clerk notified the parties that the case will be reassigned to a U.S. District Judge because a party has not consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, and that all hearings scheduled before the magistrate judge are vacated and must be re-noticed.

Counsel (John Louis Wollman) filed a notice of appearance on behalf of the named federal official defendant.

A summons return was filed indicating the named federal official defendant was served on 2026-04-27 and that an answer is due by 2026-06-26.

A consent/declination to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge was filed by the named federal official defendant.

An errata was filed correcting pages in the previously filed motion for preliminary injunction.

The clerk issued a notice ordering plaintiffs to serve defendants with the preliminary injunction motion and to file proof of service.

The clerk issued a notice requesting that defendant file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge, with that filing due by 2026-04-30.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction; the original hearing was set for 2026-05-27 at 11:00 AM with responses due 2026-05-06 and replies due 2026-05-13.

A summons return was filed stating that summonses were returned executed with respect to the listed parties and defendants.

The entry indicates the court entered a Related Case Order signed by Judge Susan van Keulen on April 17, 2026; the entry does not state the contents or procedural effect of that order.

An errata was filed correcting specified pages of the complaint.

A notice was filed indicating that one plaintiff is voluntarily dismissing that plaintiff's individual claims; the remaining plaintiffs are not dismissing their claims at this time. The filing is a unilateral notice of voluntary dismissal by a plaintiff.

A notice of voluntary dismissal was filed indicating one plaintiff is dismissed while the remaining plaintiffs do not dismiss their claims at this time.

A summons was issued as to the named federal defendants (U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General).

Multiple plaintiffs filed a consent/declination form regarding proceeding before a U.S. Magistrate Judge.

The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins; the clerk advised counsel about service responsibilities and that a scheduling order would issue within two business days. The docket entry directed that consent or declination to proceed before the magistrate judge was due by 2026-04-27.

A procedural order for an immigration mandamus case was entered by the court; no substantive details are provided in the docket text.

On 2026-04-12 the plaintiffs filed a Complaint and Petition for Writ of Mandamus seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and vacatur under the Administrative Procedure Act against a government official. The filing includes multiple exhibits and shows a $405 filing fee was paid.

A proposed summons document was filed and entered in the case on April 12, 2026.

A plaintiff filed a notice informing the court that an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Are Related was filed in an earlier-filed, potentially related case; the notice includes an exhibit attaching that motion.

A notice was filed stating that one plaintiff is voluntarily dismissing her individual claims, and that the remaining plaintiffs are not dismissing their claims at this time.