Caldera Carrillo v. Higgins

W.D. Washington

Caldera Carrillo v. Higgins

DecidedApril 15, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00305

StatusUnknown

This text of Caldera Carrillo v. Higgins (Caldera Carrillo v. Higgins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Caldera Carrillo v. Higgins, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 NORMA CALDERA CARRILLO, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00305-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 12 v. MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE 13 KIKA SCOTT, et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Hold Case in 17 Abeyance. Dkt. No. 6. Plaintiff Norma Caldera Carrillo brought this litigation under the 18 Administrative Procedure Act and Declaratory Judgment Act, seeking to compel action from U.S. 19 Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) “on her and her spouse’s Form I-918, 20 Application for U Nonimmigrant Status, Form I-918A, and Form I-765, Application for 21 Employment Authorization.” Id. at 1. The parties now seek to hold this case in abeyance until June 22 9, 2025 because “[w]ith additional time, this case may be resolved without the need of further 23 judicial intervention.” Id. at 2. 24 1 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 2 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 3 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court “may order 4 a stay of the action pursuant to its power to control its docket and calendar and to provide for a

5 just determination of the cases pending before it.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 6 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979). In considering whether to grant a stay, courts consider several 7 factors, including “the possible damage which may result,” “the hardship or inequity which a party 8 may suffer in being required to go forward,” and “the orderly course of justice[.]” CMAX, Inc. v. 9 Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 10 As noted, this case may be resolved without further judicial intervention. Dkt. No. 6 at 2. 11 The parties assert that USCIS is working to take adjudicative action on Plaintiff’s applications and 12 that, once this occurs, Plaintiff will voluntarily dismiss this case. Id. A stay to allow this process 13 to play out will not cause any damage, nor any hardship or inequity to either party, and will 14 promote the orderly course of justice and preserve the parties’ and the Court’s resources.

15 The Court thus GRANTS the parties’ stipulated motion. Dkt. No. 6. This case will be held 16 in abeyance until June 9, 2025. The parties are ORDERED to submit a joint status report on or 17 before June 9, 2025. 18 Dated this 15th day of April, 2025. 19 A 20 Lauren King United States District Judge 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 NORMA CALDERA CARRILLO, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00305-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 12 v. MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE 13 KIKA SCOTT, et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Hold Case in 17 Abeyance. Dkt. No. 6. Plaintiff Norma Caldera Carrillo brought this litigation under the 18 Administrative Procedure Act and Declaratory Judgment Act, seeking to compel action from U.S. 19 Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) “on her and her spouse’s Form I-918, 20 Application for U Nonimmigrant Status, Form I-918A, and Form I-765, Application for 21 Employment Authorization.” Id. at 1. The parties now seek to hold this case in abeyance until June 22 9, 2025 because “[w]ith additional time, this case may be resolved without the need of further 23 judicial intervention.” Id. at 2. 24 1 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 2 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 3 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court “may order 4 a stay of the action pursuant to its power to control its docket and calendar and to provide for a

5 just determination of the cases pending before it.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 6 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979). In considering whether to grant a stay, courts consider several 7 factors, including “the possible damage which may result,” “the hardship or inequity which a party 8 may suffer in being required to go forward,” and “the orderly course of justice[.]” CMAX, Inc. v. 9 Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 10 As noted, this case may be resolved without further judicial intervention. Dkt. No. 6 at 2. 11 The parties assert that USCIS is working to take adjudicative action on Plaintiff’s applications and 12 that, once this occurs, Plaintiff will voluntarily dismiss this case. Id. A stay to allow this process 13 to play out will not cause any damage, nor any hardship or inequity to either party, and will 14 promote the orderly course of justice and preserve the parties’ and the Court’s resources.

15 The Court thus GRANTS the parties’ stipulated motion. Dkt. No. 6. This case will be held 16 in abeyance until June 9, 2025. The parties are ORDERED to submit a joint status report on or 17 before June 9, 2025. 18 Dated this 15th day of April, 2025. 19 A 20 Lauren King United States District Judge 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Caldera Carrillo v. Higgins, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caldera-carrillo-v-higgins-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack