Cortes Gomez v. Cuccinelli

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedMay 3, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-00242
StatusUnknown

This text of Cortes Gomez v. Cuccinelli (Cortes Gomez v. Cuccinelli) 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
Cortes Gomez v. Cuccinelli, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Opinion

1 Chief Judge Ricardo S. Martinez

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9

10 MARIO ALBERTO CORTES GOMEZ, Case No. C21-0242-RSM

11 Plaintiff, STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 12 V. Note on Motion Calendar: April 30, 2021 13 KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI1, Director, 14 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Mario Alberto Cortes Gomez, and Defendants by and through 18 their counsel of record, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and Local Rules 10(g) and 19 16, and hereby jointly stipulate and move for an extension of 120 days for Defendants to respond 20 to the Complaint. Defendant’s responsive pleading to the Complaint is due May 4, 2021. 21 A court may modify a deadline for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Continuing pretrial 22 and trial dates is within the discretion of the trial judge. See King v. State of California, 23 784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir. 1986). 24 25

26 1 Tracy Renaud is the Senior Official performing the Duties of the Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as of January 20, 2021, and should be automatically substituted for Defendant Kenneth T. Cuccinelli under 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). 1 The parties submit there is good cause for an extension of the deadlines. U.S. Citizenship 2 and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (“NOID”). Plaintiff 3 has 90 days to respond to the NOID. Once the NOID has been adjudicated, this matter might be 4 resolved without further involvement of the Court. Continuing the existing deadline for a 5 responsive pleading will allow the parties to conserve resources because they will not have to 6 expend resources completing work on the case that may become moot (or the issues may change). 7 Therefore, the parties stipulate and agree to a 120-day extension for Defendants to respond 8 to the Complaint. If the matter is not resolved before then, Defendants will respond to the 9 Complaint by September 1, 2021. 10 Stipulated to and presented this 30th day of April 2021.

11 ALEXANDRA LOZANO TESSA M. GORMAN IMMIGRATION LAW Acting United States Attorney 12

13 s/ Alexandra Lozano s/ Nickolas Bohl ALEXANDRA LOZANO, WSBA No. 40478 NICKOLAS BOHL, WSBA No. #48978 14 Alexandra Lozano Immigration Law Assistant United States Attorney 16400 Southcenter Pkwy, Suite 410 United States Attorney’s Office 15 Tukwila, WA 98188 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 16 Phone: 206-406-3068 Seattle, Washington 98101-1271 Email: alexandra@abogadaalexandra.com Phone: 206-553-7970 17 Fax: 206-553-4067 Counsel for Plaintiff Email: nickolas.bohl@usdoj.gov 18 Counsel for Defendants 19

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDER 1 The parties having stipulated and agreed, it is hereby so ORDERED. 2 3 DATED this 3rd day of May, 2021. 4

5 A 6 7 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

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

Related

King v. State Of California
784 F.2d 910 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cortes Gomez v. Cuccinelli, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cortes-gomez-v-cuccinelli-wawd-2021.