Deng v. United States Department of Homeland Security
This text of Deng v. United States Department of Homeland Security (Deng v. United States Department of Homeland Security) 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.
Opinion
District Judge Marsha J. Pechman 1
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9
10 FEIJIN DENG, KAAN GOKSAL, NAOYUKI Case No. 2:22-cv-00608-MJP KANDA, SEO YEONG KIM, SEUNG WOO 11 SON, EROMOSELE UDUEBHO, MAI THANH STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION DUC LE, RAFAEL ANGELO AMADEI OF TIME 12 REQUENA, Note on Motion Calendar: 13 Plaintiffs, July 5, 2022 14 v. 15 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 16 SECURITY, a federal agency, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, a federal 17 agency, UR MENDOZA JADDOU, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants, by and through their counsel of record, pursuant to 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and Local Rules 10(g) and 16, jointly stipulate and move for 22 an extension of 30 days for Defendants to respond to the Complaint. Defendants answer or 23 response to the complaint is currently set for July 8, 2022. The Court has also set initial 24 scheduling dates and the parties recently notified the Court that they agreed this matter is 25 exempt from the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) and 26(f). 26 A court may modify a deadline for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Continuing pretrial 27 and trial dates is within the discretion of the trial judge. See King v. State of California, 1 784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir. 1986). The parties are currently attempting to resolve this matter 2 and a significant number of issues are now moot. Therefore, the parties believe good cause 3 exists for a brief stay to resolve this matter and to save the Court and the parties from spending 4 unnecessary time and resources on it. 5 In light of the above, the parties jointly stipulate and request that the Court: 6 1. Extend Defendants’ time to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint to August 5, 2022. 7 2. Stay all other initial scheduling dates. 8 Stipulated to and presented this 5th day of July 2022.
9 FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP NICHOLAS W. BROWN United States Attorney 10
11 s/ Al Roundtree s/ Nickolas Bohl AL ROUNDTREE, WSBA #54851 NICKOLAS BOHL WSBA #48978 12 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4400 Assistant United States Attorney Seattle, Washington 98154 United States Attorney’s Office 13 Phone: 206-624-3600 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 Fax: 206-389-1708 Seattle, Washington 98101-1271 14 Email: ARoundtree@foxrothschild.com Phone: 206-553-7970 15 Fax: 206-553-4067 Counsel for Plaintiffs Email: nickolas.bohl@usdoj.gov 16 FRAGOMEN, DEL REY, BERNSEN & LOEWY, Counsel for Defendants 17 LLP 18 s/Carl W. Hampe 19 CARL W. HAMPE, DC Bar #440475 Pro Hac Vice 20 s/Daniel P. Pierce 21 DANIEL P. PIERCE, DC Bar #988836 22 Pro Hac Vice 1101 15th Street NW, Suite 700 23 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-223-5513 24 Fax: 202-371-2898 Email: champe@fragomen.com 25 dpierce@fragomen.com 26 Counsel for Plaintiffs 27 1 ORDER 2 The parties having stipulated and agreed, it is hereby so ORDERED. 3 4 DATED this 7th day of July, 2022.
5 A 6
7 MARSHA J. PECHMAN 8 United States Senior District Judge 9 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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Deng v. United States Department of Homeland Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deng-v-united-states-department-of-homeland-security-wawd-2022.