GOUPIL v. HOLSTON, 2:13-cv-02171-JCM-PAL (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20140404h19
Visitors: 17
Filed: Apr. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2014
Summary: ORDER PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge. The court set theses matters for a scheduling conference on April 1, 2014. Constantinos Fountas appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff, and John Inkeles appeared on behalf of the Defendants. The Complaint (Dkt. #1) in this case was filed November 22, 2013, and involves judicial review of a decision by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") to deny I-130 petitions filed by the Plaintiff on behalf of her adopted minor children, the be
Summary: ORDER PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge. The court set theses matters for a scheduling conference on April 1, 2014. Constantinos Fountas appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff, and John Inkeles appeared on behalf of the Defendants. The Complaint (Dkt. #1) in this case was filed November 22, 2013, and involves judicial review of a decision by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") to deny I-130 petitions filed by the Plaintiff on behalf of her adopted minor children, the ben..
More
ORDER
PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.
The court set theses matters for a scheduling conference on April 1, 2014. Constantinos Fountas appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff, and John Inkeles appeared on behalf of the Defendants. The Complaint (Dkt. #1) in this case was filed November 22, 2013, and involves judicial review of a decision by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") to deny I-130 petitions filed by the Plaintiff on behalf of her adopted minor children, the beneficiaries of the petitions. The minor children are natives and citizens of China and seek adjustment of status in the United States based on their legal adoption by a United States citizen. The complaint names the Director USCIS, the Director of the Las Vegas Field Office of USCIS and their predecessors, the Attorney General, and the United States Attorney for the District of Nevada as Defendants. Defendants filed Answers in both cases (Dkt. #7) January 24, 2014. The court granted the Defendants' Motion to Permit Appearance of Government Attorney allowing John Inkeles to practice in this court on behalf of the Attorney General.
At the scheduling conference the court inquired how the parties proposed to proceed. Counsel agreed both sides would file cross-motions for summary judgment based on the Administrative Record. Counsel for the Attorney General indicated the record could be assembled and filed with the court within thirty days, and requested ninety days for the parties to file cross-motions for summary judgment. Counsel for Plaintiffs agreed with this proposal.
Having reviewed and considered the matter,
IT IS ORDERED that the following scheduling order deadlines shall apply:
1. Defendants shall have until May 1, 2014, in which to file the Administrative Record with the Court.
2. Counsel shall have until May 15, 2014, to meet and confer to resolve any disputes about the completeness and accuracy of the Administrative Record.
3. Counsel for Plaintiff shall have until May 30, 2014, in which to file any motion addressing any disputes about the completeness or accuracy of the Administrative Record.
4. The parties shall have until July 1, 2014, to file cross-motions for summary judgment.
5. The parties shall have until July 31, 2014, to file responses to opposing counsel's motion for summary judgment.
6. The parties shall have until August 7, 2014, to file any replies.
Source: Leagle
