Gonzales v. Jaddou

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: December 19, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01604
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 SYLVIA GONZALES et al., CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01604-LK 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 12 v. MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE 13 UR JADDOU 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. 4. Plaintiffs brought this litigation under the Administrative Procedure Act 18 and Mandamus Act seeking, inter alia, to compel U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 19 (“USCIS”) to adjudicate two Forms I-485, or Applications to Register Permanent Residence or 20 Adjust Status. Dkt. No. 1 at 6–15. Because the parties are currently working towards an out-of- 21 court resolution to this litigation, they now move this Court to hold the case in abeyance until 22 March 28, 2025. Dkt. No. 4 at 1. 23 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 24 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 1 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court “may order 2 a stay of the action pursuant to its power to control its docket and calendar and to provide for a 3 just determination of the cases pending before it.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 4 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979). In considering whether to grant a stay, courts consider several

5 factors, including “the possible damage which may result,” “the hardship or inequity which a party 6 may suffer in being required to go forward,” and “the orderly course of justice[.]” CMAX, Inc. v. 7 Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 8 As the parties note, this case may be resolved without further judicial intervention. Dkt. 9 No. 4 at 2. The parties represent that “USCIS issued a request for evidence (‘RFE’) to [Plaintiff 10 Jose Manuel Carillo] Montano,” and that “[h]is counsel reports that the response [to that RFE] will 11 be submitted imminently.” Id. USCIS has issued a separate RFE to Plaintiff Alberto Antonio Pena 12 Rodriguez, which seeks his “original medical” by February 28, 2025. Id. Pena Rodriguez’s counsel 13 reports “that an appointment has been made with the doctor for a new medical and to update 14 laboratory tests.” Id. The parties aver that “[a]dditional time is necessary to allow Plaintiffs to

15 submit the responses” to USCIS’s RFEs and “for USCIS to review the responses and adjudicate 16 the applications.” Id. If and when that happens, “this case will be moot.” Id. A stay to allow this 17 process to play out will not cause any damage, nor any hardship or inequity to either party, and 18 will promote the orderly course of justice and preserve the parties’ and the Court’s resources. 19 The Court thus GRANTS the parties’ stipulated motion. Dkt. No. 4. This case will be held 20 in abeyance until March 28, 2025. The parties are ORDERED to submit a joint status report on or 21 before March 28, 2025. 22 Dated this 19th day of December, 2024. A 23 Lauren King 24 United States District Judge