Hu v. Jaddou

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedNovember 13, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-01452
StatusUnknown

This text of Hu v. Jaddou (Hu v. Jaddou) 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
Hu v. Jaddou, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Opinion

1 District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein 2

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

9 XIANZI HU, No. 2:23-cv-1452-BJR 10 Plaintiff, STIPULATED MOTION TO HOLD 11 CASE IN ABEYANCE AND ORDER v. 12 UR M. JADDOU, et al., 13

14 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff and Defendants, by and through their counsel of record, pursuant to Federal Rule 16 of Civil Procedure 6 and Local Rules 7(d)(1), 10(g) and 16, hereby jointly stipulate and move to 17 stay these proceedings for 120 days from Plaintiff’s scheduled interview. Plaintiff brings this 18 litigation pursuant to the Mandamus Act seeking to compel the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 19 Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate her Form I-589, Asylum and for Withholding of Removal. For 20 good cause, the parties request that the Court hold this case in abeyance until April 5, 2024. 21 Courts have “broad discretion” to stay proceedings. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 22 (1997). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 23 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 24 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Fed. R. Civ. 25 P. 1. 26 27 1 With additional time, this case may be resolved without the need of further judicial 2 intervention. USCIS has scheduled Plaintiff’s asylum interview for December 7, 2023. The San 3 Francisco Asylum Office will diligently work towards adjudication of her application within 120 4 days of the interview date, absent unforeseen or exceptional circumstances that would require 5 additional time for adjudication. To prevent the interview from being rescheduled, Plaintiff agrees 6 to submit all supplemental documents and evidence to USCIS at least 7 days prior to the scheduled 7 interview. Once USCIS adjudicates the application, Plaintiff will voluntarily dismiss this case 8 with the parties to bear their own litigation costs and attorneys’ fees. 9 Accordingly, the parties request that this case be stayed until April 5, 2024. The parties 10 will submit a joint status report on or before April 5, 2024. In addition, the parties request that the 11 Court’s Order setting initial scheduling dates be vacated. Dkt. No. 7. 12 Dated: November 3, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

13 TESSA M. GORMAN 14 Acting United States Attorney

15 s/Michelle R. Lambert MICHELLE R. LAMBERT, NYS #4666657 16 Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney’s Office 17 1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 700 18 Tacoma, Washington 98402 Phone: 253-428-3824 19 Email: michelle.lambert@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Defendants 20 I certify that this memorandum contains 21 310 words in compliance with the LCR. 22 s/Aimei Xi 23 AIMEI XI, WSBA#48639 Bright Law Firm PLLC 24 14205 SE 36th Street, Suite 100 Bellevue, Washington 98006 25 Phone: 425-209-0126 26 Email: aimei@usbrightlawfirm.com Attorney for Plaintiff 27 1 ORDER 2 The case is held in abeyance until April 5, 2024. The parties shall submit a joint status 3 report on or before April 5, 2024. The Court’s Order setting initial scheduling dates (Dkt. No. 7) is vacated. It is so ORDERED. Dated this 13" day of November, 2023. 5 6 & Avera eu, 8 U.S. District Court Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 STIPULATED MOTION -3 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY (23-cv-1452-BJR) 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

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

Related

Landis v. North American Co.
299 U.S. 248 (Supreme Court, 1936)
Clinton v. Jones
520 U.S. 681 (Supreme Court, 1997)
Barkly v. Copeland
25 P. 1 (California Supreme Court, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hu v. Jaddou, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hu-v-jaddou-wawd-2023.