Case: Giammarco v. Beers

3:13-cv-01670 | U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut

Filed Date: Nov. 12, 2013

Closed Date: 2017

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On November 12, 2013, a long-time legal permanent resident and Army veteran of the United States, filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiff sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the FBI, under 5 USC § 551 et seq. and 28 USC §1361. The plaintiff, represented by counsel from Yale Law School's clinic, Jerome N. Frank Legal Services, sought adjudication of the plaintiff's naturalization application by USCIS, which succeeded INS; if necessary, direct the FBI to complete all required background checks; and attorneys' fees and costs. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that USCIS had a clear, nondiscretionary duty to timely adjudicate naturalization petitions and to notify petitioners of the disposition of their applications, and the failure to do so was a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Similarly, the plaintiff claimed that the FBI had a clear, non-discretionary duty to perform background checks on naturalization applicants.

Specifically, the plaintiff's complaint stated that he was brought to the United States from Italy in 1960 by his parents as a lawful permanent resident, enlisted in the Army in 1976, and after being honorably discharged, joined the National Guard and served from 1980-83. He filed a naturalization petition in 1982, which was delayed due to a pending criminal charge against him that was eventually dropped by the prosecutor. The plaintiff never received a letter requesting a copy of the certified disposition relating to the dropped charges, despite the fact that the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) records indicate such a letter was drafted. The FBI contacted the INS, saying that it could find no record of the disposition of the 1981 charges. There was no contact between the plaintiff and INS after 1982 and INS never completed adjudication of the plaintiff's naturalization petition. The plaintiff served short sentences in 1997 and 1999 for shoplifting and was convicted of other minor, non-violent offenses. On May 14, 2011, he was arrested by ICE agents, detained, and eventually deported in November 2012.

On September 17, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Vanessa L. Bryant issued an order sua sponte dismissing the plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The dismissal was based on the court's interpretation of the plaintiff's complaint as a challenge to an order of removal and the Second Circuit ruling in Delgado v. Quarantillo, 643 F.3d 52, 55 (2d Cir. 2011), that District Courts were precluded from hearing direct and indirect challenges to removal orders (based on the REAL ID Act of 1995). The complaint was dismissed without prejudice and the court advised the plaintiff that he could file a motion to vacate the dismissal supported by a memorandum establishing that the District Court had jurisdiction. On September 17, 2014, Judge Bryant dismissed the defendants' motion to dismiss and for summary judgement as moot.

On October 8, 2014, the plaintiff filed the Motion to Vacate invited by the district court, and on November 13, 2014, also filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (docket number 14-4362).

On November 9, 2015, Judge Bryant granted the plaintiff's Motion to Vacate and the court retained the subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Upon a closer review of Delgado v. Quarantillo, 643 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2011), Judge Bryant found the case arguably distinguishable from the present matter, insofar as the plaintiff in that case was already deportable and subject to a "lifetime bar on admission" prior to her filing her Form I-212 application. In this lawsuit, the plaintiff's naturalization application long predated both the removal proceedings and the conduct underlying them, and the lifetime bar on admission to which the plaintiff in Delgado was subject was not applicable here. Judge Bryant found that it was not certain that any action taken with respect to the plaintiff's naturalization application would render the removal order "invalid," such that the application was inextricably linked to the removal order.

On November 18, 2015, the plaintiff removed the appeal to the Second Circuit.

In November of 2015, the defendants and the plaintiff filed cross motions for summary judgement and oppositions.

On March 17, 2016, Judge Bryant denied the defendants' motion to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgement, granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgement and remanded the case to USCIS. She ordered USCIS review the plaintiff's application and to render a timely decision on the plaintiff's naturalization application. Judge Bryant held that the INS breached its duty to timely adjudicate the plaintiff's naturalization application and failed to comply with its statutory duty to notify the plaintiff of its denial of his request for a second interview. The defendants had violated the APA, be it by failing to render a disposition, in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 555(b), or by failing to inform the plaintiff of its ultimate denial of his application, in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 555(e). The plaintiff had standing and his requested relief was not clearly futile, as neither the statutes nor the regulation precluded the relief sought. The statute of limitations applicable to the plaintiff's action seeking to compel adjudication of his application had not yet commenced, and the doctrine of laches did not apply to bar the plaintiff's action seeking to compel adjudication of his application for naturalization. 170 F.Supp.3d 320. On March 22, 2016, the final judgment of the order of March 17, 2016 was entered.

On May 12, 2016, the defendants filed an appeal. On October 25, 2016, the Second Circuit granted a voluntary dismissal of the appeal.

Although the docket does not include the settlement, according to the plaintiff's attorney's website, the plaintiff reached a settlement with USCIS in early 2017. USCIS stipulated that the record failed to show that a particular larceny conviction on the plaintiff's record constituted an aggravated felony, under recent Supreme Court precedent, and the plaintiff agreed to submit a new naturalization application in lieu of proceeding on his 1982 application. The settlement agreement is not available. In July 2017, the plaintiff had a naturalization interview at the U.S. Embassy in Rome, where he was approved and sworn in during a military naturalization ceremony that same day. Ten days later, after almost five years away, he returned home to his family in Connecticut as a United States citizen. Giammarco v Johnson

On March 27, 2017, Judge Bryant dismissed the case with prejudice. This Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. The case is now closed.


3:13-cv-01670	Docket [PACER]	March 27, 2017	March 27, 2017 Docket
1 3:13-cv-01670	Complaint	Nov. 12, 2013	Nov. 12, 2013 Complaint
1473952 14-04362	Appellee's Status Report Giammarco v. Johnson U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit	March 31, 2015	March 31, 2015 Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report
56 3:13-cv-01670	Memorandum of Decision Granting Plaintiff's [Dkt. 23] Crossmotion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt.#18]	March 17, 2016	March 17, 2016 Order/Opinion 170 F.Supp.3d 320

ECF Number	Date	Description	Link
1	Nov. 12, 2013	COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $400 receipt number 0205-3061344.), filed by Arnaldo Giammarco.(Wishnie, Michael) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/12/2013: # 1 REPLACEMENT PDF) (Torres, K.). (Entered: 11/12/2013) 1 REPLACEMENT PDF View on PACER	RECAP
2	Nov. 12, 2013	Docket Entry Correction re 1 Complaint-- original pdf was unsigned. (Torres, K.) (Entered: 11/12/2013)	RECAP
3	Nov. 12, 2013	ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER: Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11/12/2013.(Grady, B.) (Entered: 11/12/2013)	RECAP
4	Nov. 12, 2013	ORDER RE: Judge's Chambers Practices. Counsel are directed to read and comply with the Chambers Practices and Standing Orders prior to filing any document. So ordered. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11/12/2013.(Grady, B.) (Entered: 11/12/2013)	RECAP
5	Nov. 12, 2013	STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER: Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11/12/2013.(Grady, B.) (Entered: 11/12/2013)	RECAP
6	Nov. 12, 2013	ENTERED IN ERROR . . . Notice to Counsel and Pro Se Parties. Signed by Clerk on 11/12/2013.(Grady, B.) Modified on 11/13/2013 (Grady, B.). (Entered: 11/12/2013)	RECAP
7	Nov. 12, 2013	ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to Rand Beers with answer to complaint due within 60 days. Attorney Michael J. Wishnie Jerome N. Frank Legal Services - Wall St Yale Law School, 127 Wall Street New Haven, CT 06511. (Grady, B.) (Entered: 11/12/2013)	RECAP
8	Nov. 12, 2013	ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to James Comey with answer to complaint due within 60 days. Attorney Michael J. Wishnie Jerome N. Frank Legal Services - Wall St Yale Law School, 127 Wall Street New Haven, CT 06511. (Grady, B.) (Entered: 11/12/2013)	RECAP
9	Nov. 12, 2013	ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to Alejandro Mayorkas with answer to complaint due within 60 days. Attorney Michael J. Wishnie Jerome N. Frank Legal Services - Wall St Yale Law School, 127 Wall Street New Haven, CT 06511. (Grady, B.) (Entered: 11/12/2013)	RECAP
10	Nov. 13, 2013	NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Counsel initiating or removing this action is responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of 1 Complaint filed by Arnaldo Giammarco, 4 Order Re: Chambers Practices, 3 Electronic Filing Order, 5 Protective Order. Signed by Clerk on 11/13/2013.(Grady, B.) (Entered: 11/13/2013)	RECAP
11	Jan. 17, 2014	NOTICE of Appearance by Carolyn Aiko Ikari on behalf of Rand Beers, James Comey, Alejandro Mayorkas (Ikari, Carolyn) (Entered: 01/17/2014)	RECAP
12	Jan. 17, 2014	Joint MOTION for Scheduling Order by Rand Beers, James Comey, Arnaldo Giammarco, Alejandro Mayorkas. (Ikari, Carolyn) (Entered: 01/17/2014)	RECAP
13	Jan. 27, 2014	ORDER granting in part and denying in part 12 Motion for Scheduling Order. To the extent that this motion requests a 30 day extension until February 18, 2014 for the defendants to answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff's complaint, such request is GRANTED. To the extent that this motion requests that the Court enter a scheduling order, the motion is DENIED for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 1/27/14. (Ives, D) (Entered: 01/27/2014)	RECAP
14	Feb. 12, 2014	MOTION for Leave to Appear Law Student Interns Attorney Sung Jin, Steven Seigel, Elizabeth Song, Sam Thypin-Bermeo. by Arnaldo Giammarco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 02/12/2014)	RECAP
15	Feb. 13, 2014	ORDER granting 14 Motion for Leave to Appear Law Student Interns Attorney Sung Jin, Steven Seigel, Elizabeth Song, Sam Thypin-Bermeo. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 2/13/14. (LaLone, L.) (Entered: 02/13/2014)	RECAP
16	Feb. 18, 2014	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until February 21, 2014 to respond to the Complaint by Rand Beers, James Comey, Alejandro Mayorkas. (Ikari, Carolyn) (Entered: 02/18/2014)	RECAP
17	Feb. 19, 2014	ORDER granting 16 Motion for Extension of Time until February 21, 2014 to respond to the Complaint. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 2/19/14. (Ives, D) (Entered: 02/19/2014)	RECAP
18	Feb. 21, 2014	MOTION to Dismiss, MOTION for Summary Judgment by Rand Beers, James Comey, Alejandro Mayorkas.Responses due by 3/14/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute, # 3 Exhibit 1 to 10, # 4 Exhibit 11 to 17 and 200 to 201, # 5 Appendix of Historical Statutes and Regulations)(Ikari, Carolyn) (Entered: 02/21/2014)	RECAP
19	Feb. 27, 2014	REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 02/27/2014)	RECAP
20	March 3, 2014	SCHEDULING ORDER: The parties have represented in their 19 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting that no discovery is needed and that this matter can be resolved through dispositive motion practice. The Court will therefore not set deadlines in anticipation of trial at this time. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 3/3/14. (Ives, D) (Entered: 03/03/2014)	RECAP
21	March 10, 2014	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until March 27, 2014 to file a response to the Government's Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment by Arnaldo Giammarco. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 03/10/2014)	RECAP
22	March 11, 2014	ORDER granting 21 Motion for Extension of Time until March 27, 2014 to file a response to the Government's Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 3/11/14. (LaLone, L.) (Entered: 03/11/2014)	RECAP
23	March 27, 2014	Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by Arnaldo Giammarco.Responses due by 4/17/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Material Facts 56(a)1 Statement, # 3 A. Giammarco Declaration, # 4 L. Giammarco Declaration, # 5 E. Giammarco Declaration, # 6 Song Declaration and Exhibits A-L, # 7 Appendix)(Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 03/27/2014)	RECAP
24	March 27, 2014	Memorandum in Opposition re 18 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Arnaldo Giammarco. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Material Facts 56(a)2, # 2 A. Giammarco Declaration, # 3 L. Giammarco Declaration, # 4 E. Giammarco Declaration, # 5 Song Declaration and Exhibits A-L, # 6 Appendix)(Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 03/27/2014)	RECAP
25	April 11, 2014	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 23 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment until April 22, 2014 by Rand Beers, James Comey, Alejandro Mayorkas. (Ikari, Carolyn) (Entered: 04/11/2014)	RECAP
26	April 14, 2014	ORDER granting 25 Motion for Extension of Time until April 22, 2014 for the Defendants to File Response/Reply as to the Plaintiff's 23 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 4/14/14. (Ives, D) (Entered: 04/14/2014)	RECAP
27	April 22, 2014	Memorandum in Opposition re 23 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Rand Beers, James Comey, Alejandro Mayorkas. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Material Facts, # 2 Exhibit 18 Warrant application, # 3 Exhibit 19 Rap sheet)(Ikari, Carolyn) (Entered: 04/22/2014)	RECAP
28	April 22, 2014	REPLY to Response to 18 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Rand Beers, James Comey, Alejandro Mayorkas. (Ikari, Carolyn) (Entered: 04/22/2014)	RECAP
29	April 25, 2014	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until 5/9/2014 TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Arnaldo Giammarco. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 04/25/2014)	RECAP
30	April 28, 2014	ORDER granting 29 Motion for Extension of Time until 5/9/2014 for the Plaintiff to file a reply in further support of motion. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 4/28/14. (Ives, D) (Entered: 04/28/2014)	RECAP
31	April 28, 2014	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Arnaldo Giammarco. Rand Beers served on 11/15/2013, answer due 1/14/2014; James Comey served on 11/15/2013, answer due 1/14/2014; Alejandro Mayorkas served on 11/15/2013, answer due 1/14/2014. (Wishnie, Michael) Modified on 4/29/2014 to change event (Grady, B.). (Entered: 04/28/2014)	RECAP
32	May 3, 2014	REPLY to Response to 23 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Arnaldo Giammarco. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 05/03/2014)	RECAP
33	Sept. 17, 2014	ORDER: Order sua sponte DISMISSING Plaintiff's 1 complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as Plaintiff's claim constitutes a challenge to an order of removal and therefore may only be heard by the appropriate court of appeals under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). The Court may sua sponte raise a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction at any time. Transatlantic Marine Claims Agency, Inc. v. Ace Shipping Corp., 109 F.3d 105, 107-108 (2d Cir. 1997). The REAL ID Act of 2005 divests federal district courts of subject matter jurisdiction to review challenges to removal orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). The Second Circuit has ruled that this jurisdictional bar precludes district courts from hearing both direct and indirect challenges to removal orders. Delgado v. Quarantillo, 643 F.3d 52, 55 (2d Cir. 2011). Here, Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendants to adjudicate his naturalization application nunc pro tunc, and if this application is approved, Plaintiff's removal order would be invalid. The adjudication of his naturalization application is thus a necessary prerequisite to Plaintiff's ultimate goal of challenging his removal from the U.S. See Delgado, 645 F.3d at 55. Even if the relief sought from the Court would not directly invalidate Plaintiff's removal, the "substance of the relief" Plaintiff seeks is "inextricably linked" to his removal order and therefore the Court does not have jurisdiction over those claims. Id.; see also, e.g., Bici v. Napolitano, 2012 WL 642781, at 2 (D. Conn. Feb. 28, 2012); Nieto-Ayala v. Holder, 2011 WL 3918156, at 4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2011). The 1 complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a motion to vacate by 10/8/2014 that is supported by a memorandum of law establishing that this Court has jurisdiction. Should a motion to vacate be filed, Defendants shall file any opposition within 14 days of the filing of such motion. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 9/17/14.(De Palma, C) (Entered: 09/17/2014)	RECAP
34	Sept. 17, 2014	ORDER denying as moot Defendants' 18 Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment; and denying as moot Plaintiff's 23 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. See the Court's Order at Docket 33 . Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 9/17/14. (De Palma, C) (Entered: 09/17/2014)	RECAP
35	Oct. 8, 2014	MOTION to Vacate by Arnaldo Giammarco. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 10/08/2014)	RECAP
36	Oct. 22, 2014	Memorandum in Opposition re 35 MOTION to Vacate filed by Rand Beers, Alejandro Mayorkas. (Ikari, Carolyn) (Entered: 10/22/2014)	RECAP
37	Nov. 5, 2014	REPLY to Response to 35 MOTION to Vacate filed by Arnaldo Giammarco. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 11/05/2014)	RECAP
38	Nov. 11, 2014	NOTICE OF APPEAL by Arnaldo Giammarco. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0205-3417379. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 11/11/2014)	RECAP
39	Dec. 28, 2014	Index to Record on Appeal by Arnaldo Giammarco re 38 Notice of Appeal, Appeal Record Sent to USCA, USCA Request, 6 Electronic Filing Order, 34 Order on Motion to Dismiss,, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,, 1 Complaint, 7 Electronic Summons Issued, 33 Order,,,,,,,, 10 Electronic Service Documents, 27 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 21 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until March 27, 2014 to file a response to the Government's Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, 2 Docket Annotation, 20 Scheduling Order, 19 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting, 8 Electronic Summons Issued, 5 Protective Order, 22 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, 25 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 23 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment until April 22, 2014, 14 MOTION for Leave to Appear Law Student Interns Attorney Sung Jin, Steven Seigel, Elizabeth Song, Sam Thypin-Bermeo., 17 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, 37 Reply to Response to Motion, 9 Electronic Summons Issued, 36 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 18 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment, 15 Order on Motion to Appear, 30 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, 13 Order on Motion for Order, 29 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until 5/9/2014 TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 4 Order Re: Chambers Practices, 35 MOTION to Vacate, 16 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until February 21, 2014 to respond to the Complaint, 31 Affidavit of Service, 28 Reply to Response to Motion, 12 Joint MOTION for Scheduling Order, 3 Electronic Filing Order, 26 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion, 23 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment, 24 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 32 Reply to Response to Motion, 11 Notice of Appearance. For docket entries without a hyperlink, contact the court to arrange for the document(s) to be made available to you. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 12/28/2014)	RECAP
40	Oct. 7, 2015	NOTICE by Arnaldo Giammarco re 35 MOTION to Vacate (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Second Circuit Order)(Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 10/07/2015)	RECAP
41	Nov. 4, 2015	NOTICE by Arnaldo Giammarco, re: 35 Motion to Vacate (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Wishnie, Michael) Modified on 11/5/2015 to link to document (Grady, B.). Modified on 11/5/2015 to create association (Grady, B.). (Entered: 11/04/2015)	RECAP
42	Nov. 9, 2015	ORDER granting Plaintiff's 35 Motion to Vacate. Upon a closer review of Delgado v. Quarantillo, 643 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2011), the Court finds the case arguably distinguishable from the present matter, insofar as the plaintiff in that case was already deportable and subject to a "lifetime bar on admission" prior to her filing her Form I-212 application. Id. at 54. Here, Plaintiff's naturalization application long predated both the removal proceedings and the conduct underlying them. In addition, the lifetime bar on admission to which the plaintiff in Delgado was subject is not applicable here. Accordingly, it is not certain that any action taken with respect to Plaintiff's naturalization application will render the removal order "invalid," such that the application is inextricably linked to the removal order. Id. at 55. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED and the Court retains subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11/9/2015. (Nadler, S.) (Entered: 11/09/2015)	RECAP
	Nov. 9, 2015	Order on Motion to Vacate
43	Nov. 11, 2015	MOTION for Leave to Appear Law Student Interns Attorney Jonathan Hurley, Aaron Korthuis, Claire Simonich. by Arnaldo Giammarco. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 11/11/2015)	RECAP
44	Nov. 12, 2015	ORDER granting Plaintiff's 43 Motion for Law Student Interns to Appear. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11/12/2015. (Nadler, S.) (Entered: 11/12/2015)	RECAP
	Nov. 12, 2015	Order on Motion to Appear
47	Nov. 18, 2015	MANDATE of USCA dated 11/18/2015 withdrawing 38 Notice of Appeal (Grady, B.) (Entered: 11/23/2015)	RECAP
45	Nov. 20, 2015	NOTICE of Appearance by Jason Parkin on behalf of Arnaldo Giammarco (Parkin, Jason) (Entered: 11/20/2015)	RECAP
46	Nov. 20, 2015	Joint STATUS REPORT and Proposed Scheduling Order by Arnaldo Giammarco. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 11/20/2015)	RECAP
48	Nov. 23, 2015	AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: The parties shall refile their prior dispositive motions and briefs by 11/25/2015. Supplemental briefing, not to exceed 10 pages per party, shall be filed on or before 12/7/2015. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11/23/2015.(Nadler, S.) (Entered: 11/23/2015)	RECAP
	Nov. 23, 2015	Order
49	Nov. 24, 2015	MOTION to Dismiss, MOTION for Summary Judgment by Rand Beers, James Comey, Alejandro Mayorkas.Responses due by 12/15/2015 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute, # 3 Exhibit #1 - 10, # 4 Exhibit #11 - 17 and 200-201, # 5 Appendix of Historical Statutes and Regulations)(Ikari, Carolyn) (Entered: 11/24/2015)	RECAP
	Nov. 24, 2015	Set Deadlines/Hearings
50	Nov. 25, 2015	Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by Arnaldo Giammarco.Responses due by 12/16/2015 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Material Facts Rule 56(a)(1) Statement, # 3 A. Giammarco Declaration, # 4 L. Giammarco Declaration, # 5 E. Giammarco Declaration, # 6 Song Declaration and Exhibits A-L, # 7 Appendix)(Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 11/25/2015)	RECAP
51	Nov. 25, 2015	Memorandum in Opposition re 49 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Arnaldo Giammarco. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Material Facts Rule 56(a)(2) Statement, # 2 A. Giammarco Declaration, # 3 L. Giammarco Declaration, # 4 E. Giammarco Declaration, # 5 Song Declaration and Exhibits A-L, # 6 Appendix)(Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 11/25/2015)	RECAP
52	Dec. 2, 2015	Memorandum in Opposition re 50 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Rand Beers, James Comey, Alejandro Mayorkas. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Material Facts, # 2 Exhibit 18, # 3 Exhibit 19)(Ikari, Carolyn) (Entered: 12/02/2015)	RECAP
53	Dec. 2, 2015	REPLY to Response to 49 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment (N.B. mirror image pleading to doc. #52) filed by Rand Beers, James Comey, Alejandro Mayorkas. (Ikari, Carolyn) (Entered: 12/02/2015)	RECAP
54	Dec. 3, 2015	REPLY to Response to 50 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Arnaldo Giammarco. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 12/03/2015)	RECAP
55	Dec. 7, 2015	Supplemental RESPONSE re 50 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment, 49 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Arnaldo Giammarco. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 12/07/2015)	RECAP
56	March 17, 2016	ORDER DENYING Defendants' 49 Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgment and GRANTING Plaintiff's 50 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. See attached Memorandum of Decision. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and to remand this matter, in accordance with the Memorandum of Decision. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 3/17/2016. (Nadler, S.)	RECAP
57	March 17, 2016	VACATED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: By 3/22/2016, the parties are ORDERED to show cause why the State of Connecticut or an entity thereof need not be joined as a necessary party to this action. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 3/17/2016.(Nadler, S.) Modified on 3/22/2016 (Fernandez, C.). (Entered: 03/17/2016)	RECAP
58	March 17, 2016	ORDER VACATING 57 Order to Show Cause. This entry was in error. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 3/17/2016.(Nadler, S.) (Entered: 03/17/2016)	RECAP
	March 17, 2016	Order
	March 17, 2016	Order to Show Cause
59	March 22, 2016	JUDGMENT entered in favor of Arnaldo Giammarco against Alejandro Mayorkas, James Comey, Rand Beers.For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms/all-forms/appeals_forms Signed by Clerk on 03/22/16.(Fernandez, C.) (Entered: 03/22/2016)	RECAP
60	May 12, 2016	Notice of Appeal	RECAP
61	Oct. 25, 2016	USCA Mandate	RECAP
62	Nov. 17, 2016	Extension of Time	RECAP
	Nov. 21, 2016	Order on Motion for Extension of Time
64	March 24, 2017	Stipulation of Dismissal	RECAP
	March 27, 2017	Order Dismissing Case

Case: Giammarco v. Beers

3:13-cv-01670 | U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details