Red Eagle Law, L.C. v. Edlow

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal Only the listed parties. The remaining Plaintiffs in this action do not dismiss their claims at this time. by Red Eagle Law, L.C. (Morrison, Curtis) (Filed on 10/4/2026) (Entered: 10/04/2026)

STATUS REPORT Joint by Joseph B. Edlow. (Chu, Nag Young) (Filed on 10/1/2026) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

CLERK'S NOTICE VACATING STATUS CONFERENCE set for September 25, 2026 before the Honorable Charles R. Breyer. A Joint Status Report due by 10/1/2026. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2026) (Entered: 09/24/2026)

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer: Granting 9 Motion for Pro Hac Vice, Zhao Guo. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2026) Modified on 9/1/2026 (ls, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/01/2026)

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer: Granting 10 Motion for Pro Hac Vice, John Ting. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2026) Modified on 9/1/2026 (ls, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/01/2026)

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer: Granting 12 Motion for Pro Hac Vice, Carolina Solano. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2026) (Entered: 09/01/2026)

Red Eagle Law, L.C. filed a notice stating that only the parties listed in that notice are voluntarily dismissing their claims and that the remaining plaintiffs in the action are not dismissing their claims at this time.

Order deferring ruling on 47 Motion to Dismiss and granting stay. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on August 28, 2026. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2026) (Entered: 08/28/2026)

The clerk vacated the Motion to Dismiss hearing that had been scheduled for August 28, 2026 before Judge Charles R. Breyer and stated the motion will be decided on the written briefs rather than by a hearing.

ORDER granting 19 Motion to Certify Class; granting 20 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on August 24, 2026. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2026) (Entered: 08/24/2026)

The plaintiffs filed a response to the defendant’s Statement of Recent Decision (docket no. 55) on August 17, 2026, attaching two exhibits: Exhibit A, an “Adjudications Chart as of Aug. 14, 2026,” and Exhibit B, a “DHS Post.” The entry reflects only that the response and attachments were filed; it does not state any court ruling or scheduling change.

The defendant filed a Statement of Recent Decision under Civil Local Rule 7-3(d), attaching one exhibit and noting it relates to a prior filing (document 34). The entry reflects only that the statement and exhibit were filed on 2026-08-13.

The clerk's notice vacated the August 14, 2026 hearing before Judge Charles R. Breyer on the motion for class certification and the motion for preliminary injunction, stating that the motion(s) will be decided on the briefs. This entry is a text-only clerk notice and contains no additional deadlines or orders.

The defendant filed a reply to his previously filed Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 47) on August 10, 2026. The entry reflects only the filing of that reply and does not state any court ruling.

The defendant filed an errata to its previously filed Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 47). The filing includes two declarations and two exhibits as attachments.

On 2026-08-06, the defendant filed a motion asking the court to remove a document that was incorrectly filed in the case. The entry reflects only the filing of that motion and does not state any court ruling or scheduled hearing.

Red Eagle Law, L.C. filed a notice stating that only the parties listed in that notice are voluntarily dismissing their claims, and that the remaining plaintiffs in the action are not dismissing their claims at this time.

The plaintiffs filed an opposition/response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss on August 4, 2026, attaching two exhibits: an Order to Show Cause from Meschi v. Edlow and an expert report by Dr. Jordan Ragusa.

A notice was filed stating that certain plaintiffs are voluntarily dismissing their claims, and that the remaining plaintiffs in the action are not dismissing their claims at this time.

The defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss. The motion is noticed for a videoconference hearing on August 28, 2026 at 10:00 AM, with the defendant's motion response due August 3, 2026 and any reply due August 10, 2026.

The court granted the defendant’s ex parte application to continue the July 24, 2026 hearing and rescheduled the hearings on the motion for class certification and the motion for preliminary injunction for August 14, 2026 at 10:00 AM as a videoconference before Judge Charles R. Breyer.

On July 15, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a reply in connection with their Ex Parte Application for Expedited Discovery (docket no. 5).

The plaintiffs filed an opposition/response (docketed as entry 44) to the defendant's Ex Parte Application at docket no. 43, which related to the Clerk's Notice (docket no. 21) about a teleconference/Zoom matter. The entry reflects a party filing and does not state any court ruling or deadline.

The defendant filed an ex parte application (with an attached declaration) that appears to relate to the Clerk's Notice at docket no. 21 and to a teleconference/Zoom matter. The filing was submitted by counsel Nag Young Chu on July 14, 2026.

On July 8, 2026, the defendant filed a Statement of Recent Decision under Civil Local Rule 7-3(d), attaching two exhibits and referencing related filings (docs. 34 and 33). The docket entry reflects a party filing and does not state any court action or deadlines.

The defendant filed an opposition/response to the plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Expedited Discovery (dockets 5 and 7), attaching a proposed order, on July 8, 2026.

The plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction on July 6, 2026; the filing includes Exhibit A, an Order to Show Cause from Meschi v. Edlow dated June 25, 2026.

The defendant filed a stipulation with a proposed order concerning the plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Expedited Discovery (docket entries 5 and 7). The filing was submitted by counsel for the defendant on July 2, 2026.

The court granted the parties’ stipulated briefing schedule on the plaintiffs’ ex parte application for expedited discovery, ordering the defendant’s response due July 8, 2026 and the plaintiffs’ reply due July 15, 2026. The order is signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer and filed July 2, 2026.

The plaintiffs filed a reply brief supporting their Motion to Certify Class (Dkt. No. 19) on July 2, 2026, submitted through counsel Jessica T. Arena. The entry simply reflects that the reply was filed and does not state any court ruling.

The defendant filed an opposition/response to the plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction on June 29, 2026, attaching three declarations and a proposed order. The filing was submitted by defendant's counsel (Nag Young Chu).

The defendant filed an opposition/response to the plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class (Dkt. 19), attaching a declaration and a proposed order; the filing was submitted on 2026-06-26.

The filing is a Second Notice of Errata concerning the plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 20), submitted by Red Eagle Law, L.C.; it attaches a corrected errata for ECF No. 20-1, page 97 of 152. The document was filed on June 16, 2026.

The plaintiffs filed an errata correcting or supplementing their complaint; the entry was filed on June 12, 2026. The docket entry does not state the substance of the correction.

The court granted the defendant’s administrative motion to continue briefing and set new deadlines: the defendant must respond to the motion to certify the class by June 26, 2026 (plaintiff reply due July 3, 2026), and must respond to the motion for preliminary injunction by June 29, 2026 (plaintiff reply due July 6, 2026).

An administrative motion correcting a prior docket entry (No. 28) was filed asking to continue the briefing deadlines on the pending motion to certify the class and the motion for a preliminary injunction. The filing includes a declaration and notes that responses are due by 2026-06-15.

The docket entry notes an administrative motion to continue the briefing deadlines on the pending motion for preliminary injunction and motion to certify class filed by the defendant; the entry is marked “Erroneous Entry” and directs readers to document 29. It states responses due by 2026-06-15, lists an attached declaration, and was filed on 2026-06-10 (modified 2026-06-11).

On 2026-06-10, attorney Nag Young Chu filed a notice of appearance indicating representation of the defendant (the government official).

The district court issued an order granting the motion to admit attorney Nicholas Pierce pro hac vice to appear in this case under Civil Local Rule 11-3.

The plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave for attorney Nicholas Pierce to appear pro hac vice, accompanied by a $328 filing fee (receipt ACANDC-22073573); the motion was docketed on 2026-06-08.

A motion was filed requesting leave for attorney Nicholas Pierce to appear pro hac vice on behalf of the plaintiff; a $328 filing fee was paid on 2026-06-08 and a certificate/proof of service was attached. The filing was submitted by counsel and docketed on 2026-06-08.

On June 6, 2026, Red Eagle Law, L.C. filed a Certificate of Service stating that the filings at docket nos. 18 (motion for leave to file excess pages), 20 (motion for preliminary injunction), and 19 (motion to certify class) were served; three exhibits (A–C) are attached.

A summons was returned executed as to all defendants and that filing was submitted by Red Eagle Law, L.C.; the entry includes three attachments labeled Exhibit A-C.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction; the filing schedules a hearing and sets response and reply deadlines. The motion package includes declarations and an email exhibit and a proposed order.

The clerk vacated the July 10, 2026 hearing on the Motion to Certify Class and the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and re-noticed a motion hearing for July 24, 2026 at 10:00 AM as a Zoom videoconference before Judge Charles R. Breyer, with webinar access instructions and procedures. The notice requires counsel or parties who wish to be identified as appearing to submit a list of names and emails to the Courtroom Deputy by July 21, 2026 at 3:00 PM PST.

The plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court for permission to exceed the page limit for an upcoming motion for a preliminary injunction; the filing includes an attachment titled “Proposed Order Granting Leave to Exceed Page Limit.”

The plaintiffs filed a Motion to Certify the class. The filing schedules a hearing for July 10, 2026 at 10:00 AM before Judge Charles R. Breyer and sets response and reply deadlines of June 15, 2026 and June 22, 2026, respectively.

The court ordered the case reassigned to U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer and removed Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson; counsel must place the reassigned judge's updated judicial initials on future filings. All existing hearing and trial dates are vacated, motions must be re-noticed for hearing before Judge Breyer (but prior motion briefing schedules and other deadlines such as ADR compliance and discovery cutoff remain unchanged), and the assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project.

A motion was filed on 05/28/2026 requesting leave for attorney Carolina Solano to appear pro hac vice on behalf of the plaintiffs; the filing included a $328 fee (receipt number ACANDC-22033317).

Attorney Hamdy Maher Masri filed a notice of appearance indicating he will represent the plaintiffs in this case.

The court filed an "Immigration Mandamus Case Procedural Order" on May 28, 2026. The docket text does not state the order's contents or any specific deadlines, so the exact procedural effect is unclear from this entry.

A court summons was issued naming Joseph B. Edlow and the offices of the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Attorney General as the parties to be served in this case. The entry records the clerk's issuance of that summons on 2026-05-28.

The clerk issued a notice that the case will be randomly reassigned to a U.S. District Judge because either a party has not consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction or time is of the essence and required consents are not secured. The notice states that all hearings scheduled before the current magistrate judge are vacated and must be re-noticed before the district judge who will be assigned, and that a separate notice will identify the reassigned district judge.

On 2026-05-27, a motion was filed seeking permission for attorney John Ting to appear pro hac vice; the filing included a $328 fee (receipt ACANDC-22026679) and attached two certificates of good standing.

A document titled "Consent/Declination to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge" was filed by Red Eagle Law, L.C. and docketed on 2026-05-27; the entry does not indicate whether the filer consented or declined to proceed before the magistrate judge.

The plaintiffs filed a motion requesting leave for attorney Zhao Guo to appear pro hac vice in the case, accompanied by a $328 filing fee (receipt ACANDC-22023183).

The plaintiffs filed a motion requesting leave for attorney Garrett Carter May to appear pro hac vice in the case; the filing included a $328 fee (receipt number ACANDC-22021857).

The clerk issued a notice directing the plaintiffs to file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge by June 1, 2026, and provided a link to the required forms; parties were also notified by phone or email. The entry is text-only and no separate document is attached.

The plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application for Expedited Discovery. The filing schedules a motion hearing and sets deadlines for responses and replies.

The plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Notice of Application and an Application for Expedited Discovery, referencing their earlier Ex Parte Application for Expedited Discovery. The filing was submitted by counsel Jessica T. Arena on May 25, 2026.

On 2026-05-22, attorney Jessica T. Arena filed a notice of appearance indicating she will represent the plaintiffs in this case. The filing lists multiple plaintiffs as her clients.

The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson. The clerk's entry instructs counsel to serve the complaint, summons, and the judge's standing orders, notes the summons will be issued electronically upon receipt, and states a scheduling order will be sent within two business days; a consent/declination is due by 6/5/2026.

A class-action complaint and petition for a writ of mandamus was filed on 2026-05-21 against government official Joseph B. Edlow seeking declaratory and injunctive relief (including APA vacatur) and mandamus relief; the filing paid a $405 fee. The complaint included appendices listing additional plaintiffs and attached certified administrative records for PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194 plus a March 31, 2026 USCIS spokesperson statement.

A proposed summons was filed and entered on 2026-05-21 by counsel listed as Morrison, Curtis; the entry appears to record the submission of a proposed summons to the court.