Valencia v. Cuccinelli

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedApril 30, 2021
Docket3:20-cv-06026
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

1 Chief District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez 2

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

9 JESUS ANGELES VALENCIA, Case No. C20-6026-RSM

10 Plaintiff, STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 11 V. Note on Motion Calendar: April 29, 2021 12 TRACY RENAUD, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al., 13 ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary of Homeland Security, CYNTHIA MUNITA, 14 Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Seattle Field Office 15 Defendants. 16 17 COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Jesus Angeles Valencia, and Defendants Tracy Renaud, et al., 18 by and through their counsel of record, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and Local 19 Rules 10(g) and 16, and hereby jointly stipulate and move for an extension of 120 days for 20 Defendants to respond to the Complaint. Defendants’ responsive pleading to the Complaint is due 21 May 4, 2021. 22 A court may modify a deadline for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Continuing pretrial 23 and trial dates is within the discretion of the trial judge. See King v. State of California, 24 784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir. 1986). 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 29th day of April, 2021. 11 ALEXANDRA LOZANO TESSA M. GORMAN 12 IMMIGRATION LAW Acting United States Attorney

13 s/ Alexandra Lozano s/ James C. Strong ALEXANDRA LOZANO, WSBA # 40478 JAMES C. STRONG, OR # 131597 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 Phone: 206-406-3068 Seattle, Washington 98101-1271 16 Email: alexandra@abogadaalexandra.com Phone: 206-553-7970 Fax: 206-553-4067 17 Counsel for Plaintiff Email: james.strong@usdoj.gov

18 Counsel for Defendants

20 21 22 23 24 1 ORDER 2 The parties having stipulated and agreed, it is hereby so ORDERED. 3 DATED this 30th day of April, 2021. 4

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

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

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)
Valencia v. Cuccinelli, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valencia-v-cuccinelli-wawd-2021.