Shahi v. Edlow

An errata entry was filed on 2026-05-20; the docket text provides no further detail about its content.

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.

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.

Counsel (John Louis Wollman) filed a notice of appearance on behalf of 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.

A related-case order was entered and signed by Judge Susan van Keulen on 2026-04-17; the docket text provides no additional detail about the relation.

An errata was filed correcting specified pages of the complaint.

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

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

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

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.

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.