Case: Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen

1:16-cv-04756 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Filed Date: Aug. 25, 2016

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On August 25, 2016, a Mexican-born Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipient living in New York filed this suit against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiff, represented by Make the Road New York, the National Immigration Law Center, and the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization, sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and 5 U.S.C. § 551, alleging that the revocation of his employment authorization was unlawful, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to have the authorization reinstated. He also sought an award for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The case was assigned to Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis and Magistrate Judge James Orenstein.

Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that USCIS granted the plaintiff a three-year employment authorization under DACA, which had been expanded by the Obama administration in 2014. That authorization was then revoked pursuant to a nationwide injunction granted by the U.S. District Court in United States v. Texas, enjoining the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from implementing the expansion of DACA, which had allowed the grant or renewal of deferred action and three-year employment authorization to individuals such as the plaintiff. In place of the three-year employment authorization, the plaintiff was issued a two-year authorization, which would require the plaintiff to go through the burdensome application process more frequently than under the expansion plan. The plaintiff claimed that the United States v. Texas court had issued an overly-broad injunction, lacked jurisdiction to bind New York residents, and that revocation of his three-year employment authorization violated the APA.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 29, 2016. Further proceedings were then postponed until briefing was completed, and there was no further activity in the case until Feb. 2017. On April 5, the court granted the parties' joint motion to stay the briefing schedule indefinitely pending proceedings in the U.S. v. Texas case.

Nothing significant happened until Sept. 5, 2017, when the Trump administration revoked DACA. That day, the plaintiffs moved for a pre-motion conference, which the court immediately granted. The plaintiffs stated that they wanted leave to amend their complaint, highlighting that "[m]illions of people have benefited from, and relied on, the DACA program over the past five years," including the DACA recipients themselves and those close to them. As a result, the plaintiffs argued that "the Government has failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its reversal, in violation of the [Administrative Procedure Act]" and that "the Administration’s reversal is unconstitutionally motivated by anti-Mexican and anti-Latino animus, in violation of the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Pursuant to a Sept. 7 court order, the plaintiffs filed a letter on Sept. 11 stating the additional claims they planned to assert in an amended complaint, the interests of individual parties they want to add as plaintiffs, and additional defendants they wanted to name. The letter asserted additional claims that the government violated the APA, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Fifth Amendment equal protection and due process. The plaintiffs also stated they were seeking to add as plaintiffs individuals with current DACA status, and as defendants President Trump, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security (Elaine Duke), and the Attorney General (Jeff Sessions).

The plaintiffs filed that amended complaint on Sept. 19. In addition to including the aforementioned changes, the amended complaint also requested class certification for a "class consisting of (1) all persons with DACA as of September 5, 2017; and (2) all persons who are or will be eligible for DACA under the terms of the 2012 Guidance" for all claims except the Regulatory Flexibility Act claim. Also on that day, the plaintiffs gave notice of voluntarily dismissing the defendants named in the original complaint.

On Oct. 6, the defendants filed the administrative record, which included a series of government documents pertaining to DACA from its inception up to the decision to rescind it. The plaintiffs then moved to compel the defendants to complete the administrative record, arguing that the defendants did not produce all relevant documents leading to the rescission. Specifically, they omitted related documents that Acting Secretary Duke did not directly review. The court granted the motion on Oct. 19.

The defendants appealed to the Second Circuit, which granted an emergency motion for a stay of discovery and record supplementation in the district court pending consideration by the Second Circuit on Oct. 20.

On Oct. 27, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the rescission was an enforcement action "presumed immune from judicial review" and that the government provided ample explanation for the rescission based on the enjoinment of DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans) in U.S. v. Texas. On Nov. 9, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion. 2017 WL 4737280. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim that the government violated due process by failing to provide individualized notice of the rescission because the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court did find, however, that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the DACA rescission. The court reserved ruling on the government's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and denied all other parts of its motion.

On Dec. 11, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, naming Kirstjen M. Nielsen as a defendant in her capacity as the Secretary of DHS. They filed motions for a preliminary injunction and class certification on Dec. 15. The plaintiffs wanted to enjoin the rescission and certify a class defined as: "(1) all persons with deferred action through DACA as of September 5, 2017; and (2) all persons who are or will be eligible for deferred action under the terms of the original DACA guidance issued by DHS in 2012; (3) except the individual recipients of, or applicants for, deferred action through DACA who are Plaintiffs in other actions challenging the DACA Termination pending in a U.S. District Court as of December 11, 2017."

The government moved to dismiss the new complaint on Dec. 26.

Meanwhile, a series of entities filed amicus briefs. The following entities filed in support of the plaintiffs: over 100 companies, educational justice organizations, Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, historians, public education groups, law enforcement leaders, workers' organizations, legal services organizations, New York University, Latino/a services and support organizations, the Mexican government, dozens of religious organizations, immigration nonprofits, various U.S. cities and counties, and civil rights organizations.

On Dec. 27, the Second Circuit denied the government's petition for mandamus and lifted the district court's stay on discovery. Seeking to appeal the court's Nov. 9, 2017 decision, two days later, the government moved to stay further supplementation of the administrative record in the district court in light of its pending filing of a "petition for writ of mandamus challenging the scope of the administrative record and discovery in these matters." The court granted the motion on Dec. 30 pending consideration of the government's motion for certification of interlocutory appeal of the Nov. 9 order. On Jan. 8, the court granted the government's motion for certification of interlocutory appeal and stayed further proceedings pending resolution in the Second Circuit. 2018 WL 333515. The government appealed the Nov. 9 order that day.

On Jan. 31, 2018, the Second Circuit ordered that the petitions for leave to appeal be held in abeyance while the district court resolved the motions for injunctive relief and dismissal.

On Feb. 13, 2018, the district court granted the preliminary injunction, holding that the government had not provided a legally sufficient basis for ending the DACA program. 279 F. Supp. 3d 401. The court found that while the government could end DACA, the question was whether they provided the necessary legally adequate reasons for the rescission. The court found that the decision to end the program was based on an erroneous conclusion that DACA was unconstitutional and violated the APA and the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA), and that this conclusion in turn relied on the "plainly incorrect factual premise" that courts have found the related DAPA program to have "constitutional defects." The court also found that the purported reason for rescission was contradictory in that the government claimed DACA must end because it was unconstitutional and yet also provided for a wind-down period in which certain DACA renewal applications would continue to be adjudicated. As a result, the court held that the rescission was arbitrary and capricious and enjoined the government from ending the program on a nationwide basis pending the court's decision on the merits of the case. In the same order, the court also denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot.

The government filed notice on Feb. 20 that it had appealed the preliminary injunction to the Second Circuit.

On March 29, 2018, the district court granted in part and denied in part the government's motion to dismiss. 279 F. Supp. 3d 401. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim that the rescission violated the APA's requirement for notice-and-comment, finding that the rescission memorandum was a general statement of policy exempt from the notice-and-comment requirement rather than a legislative rule. This finding led the court to further dismiss the plaintiffs' claim regarding Regulatory Flexibility Act violations since an RFA violation is contingent on a notice-and-comment requirement in the first place. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' claim that the government changed its information-use policy but left the door open to other challenges of that policy. The court sustained the plaintiffs' equal protection claim that the rescission was motivated by racial animus against Latinos, finding that the plaintiffs adequately alleged the rescission had a disparate impact. Further, the court found that while the plaintiffs may not have sufficiently alleged that Acting Secretary Duke or the Attorney General had discriminatory intent, they did sufficiently allege that President Trump may have had such intent and that his influence on the rescission cannot be ignored.

The government promptly appealed the decision to the Second Circuit, which granted leave to appeal the November 9, 2017, and March 29, 2018 orders of the district court.

Meanwhile, the defendants sought certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court before judgment in this case, as well as in Regents of the University of California v. DHS and NAACP v. Trump. In both this case and Regents of the University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the district courts had granted a nationwide injunction to maintain the DACA program. In NAACP v. Trump, the district court also found that the vacatur of rescission was proper, but later granted a limited stay for certain DACA applications pending appeal. All three cases were appealed to the Circuit courts as well. On June 28, 2019, the Supreme Court agreed to consolidate and hear these three cases. 139 S.Ct. 2779.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 12, 2019, on the issues of whether DHS's decision to wind down the DACA policy is judicially reviewable and whether DHS’s decision to rescind DACA is lawful.

On June 18, 2020, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor), the Court held that the DACA rescission was subject to judicial review under the APA and that the DHS secretary had offered insufficient justification to rescind the program. 2020 WL 3271746. The case was remanded to the district court. 966 F.3d 1036.

On July 28, 2020, the Acting Secretary of DHS issued a memorandum effectively suspending DACA while DHS reviewed it. The plaintiffs sought to challenge the memorandum on the grounds that the Acting Secretary was not lawfully appointed to his position and thus did not have the authority to issue the memorandum. The plaintiffs also argued that the memorandum was arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The district court directed the parties to brief their cross-motions for partial summary judgment on whether the Acting Secretary lawfully held his position.

Before the district court issued its opinion, the plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint on August 28, 2020. In their amended complaint, the plaintiffs (composed of four new DACA recipients and dropping one old recipient) renamed President Trump as a defendant and added as defendants the purported Acting Secretary of DHS, DHS, the Deputy Director for Policy of USCIS, and USCIS. The plaintiffs also redefined the class to include “[a]ll persons who are or will be prima facie eligible for deferred action under the terms of the Napolitano Memorandum" and defined a subclass including individuals who had DACA applications pending between June 30, 2020 and July 28, 2020 that had not been adjudicated. The plaintiffs alleged that the President, the purported Acting Secretary, and DHS had violated the FVRA and the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution by failing to adhere to the appointments process. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the purported Acting Secretary's predecessor held his position for more than 210 days in violation of FVRA and thus had no authority to appoint a successor. Moreover, the purported Acting Secretary had not been confirmed by the Senate. As a result, the plaintiffs alleged, the Acting Secretary lacked the authority to issue the memorandum.

On November 14, 2020, the court found that the Acting Secretary was not lawfully serving as Acting Secretary of DHS and therefore did not have the authority to issue the memorandum. 2020 WL 6695076. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and denied defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment. The court also granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification of the newly proposed class; the certification consisted of a main class (the "DACA Class") and a subclass (the "Pending Applications Subclass"). The DACA Class included all persons who are or will be prima facie eligible for deferred action under the terms of the 2012 Napolitano Memorandum. The Pending Application Subclass included all persons who had an application for deferred action through DACA, whether initial or renewal, pending at USCIS on any date between June 30, 2020, and July 28, 2020, that have not been or will not be adjudicated in accordance with the 2012 Napolitano Memorandum.

The plaintiffs filed another partial motion for summary judgment on November 24, 2020. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion on December 4, 2020, vacating the Acting Secretary's memorandum and ordering DHS to resume processing DACA applications and to notify the public accordingly. 2020 WL 7121849. he order required DHS to accept initial DACA applications, accept advance parole applications, and grant DACA renewals for two-years. On December 7, 2020 USCIS updated their website and indicated that effective that day, USCIS would accept initial applications, extend one-year DACA renewals to two-years, and accept applications for advance parole.

	Document
1:16-cv-04756 1:17-cv-05228	Docket [PACER]	Dec. 18, 2020	Dec. 18, 2020 Docket
1 1:16-cv-04756	Complaint Batalla Vidal v. Baran	Aug. 25, 2016	Aug. 25, 2016 Complaint
29 1:16-cv-04756	Amended Complaint Batalla Vidal v. Baran	Sept. 29, 2016	Sept. 29, 2016 Complaint
46 1:16-cv-04756	Re: Batalla Vidal v. Baran Batalla Vidal v. Baran	Sept. 5, 2017	Sept. 5, 2017 Pleading / Motion / Brief
52 1:16-cv-04756	Re: Batalla Vidal v. Baran Batalla Vidal v. Baran	Sept. 11, 2017	Sept. 11, 2017 Correspondence
56 1:16-cv-04756	Re: Batalla Vidal v. Baran Batalla Vidal v. Baran	Sept. 13, 2017	Sept. 13, 2017 Pleading / Motion / Brief
60 1:16-cv-04756	Second Amended Complaint Batalla Vidal v. Duke	Sept. 19, 2017	Sept. 19, 2017 Complaint
61 1:16-cv-04756	Notice of Voluntary Dismal Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) Batalla Vidal v. Duke	Sept. 19, 2017	Sept. 19, 2017 Notice Letter
77 1:16-cv-04756	Notice of Filing of Administrative Record Batalla Vidal v. Baran	Oct. 6, 2017	Oct. 6, 2017 Pleading / Motion / Brief
95 1:16-cv-04756	Notice of Motion to Dismiss Batalla Vidal v. Baran	Oct. 27, 2017	Oct. 27, 2017 Notice Letter

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
Wolf v. Vidal SCOTUS Blog	Holding: The Department of Homeland Security’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.	June 18, 2020	June 18, 2020 https://www.scotusblog.com/...
Memorandum on Rescission Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Department of Homeland Security	"This memorandum rescinds the June 15, 2012 memorandum entitled 'Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children,' which established the prog…	Sept. 5, 2017	Sept. 5, 2017 https://www.dhs.gov/...
Batalla Vidal v. Baran Yale Law School	Summary of case provided by co-counsel Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic at Yale Law School	Sept. 6, 2017	Sept. 6, 2017 https://law.yale.edu/...
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California Oyez	In 2017, after the national election, when the Trump administration replaced the Obama administration, DHS began a phase-out of DACA. The parties do not dispute the authority of a new administration …	June 18, 2020	June 18, 2020 https://www.oyez.org/...
Executive Order 13768: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States President Donald Trump		Jan. 25, 2017	Jan. 25, 2017 https://www.gpo.gov/...
Re: Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest (Final, 2/20/2017) DHS Secretary John Kelly		Feb. 20, 2017	Feb. 20, 2017 https://www.dhs.gov/...
Executive Order 13767: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements President Donald Trump		Jan. 27, 2017	Jan. 27, 2017 https://www.govinfo.gov/...

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
	Case Assigned to Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis and Magistrate Judge James Orenstein. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (Davis, Kimberly)	Aug. 25, 2016	Aug. 25, 2016 PACER
1	COMPLAINT against All Defendants filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0207-8866017 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -YES,, filed by Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit, # (2) Exhibit, # (3) Exhibit, # (4) Exhibit, # (5) Exhibit, # (6) Civil Cover Sheet) (Taylor, Amy) 1 Exhibit View on PACER 2 Exhibit View on PACER 3 Exhibit View on PACER 4 Exhibit View on PACER 5 Exhibit View on PACER 6 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER	Aug. 25, 2016	Aug. 25, 2016 Clearinghouse
2	Civil Cover Sheet.. by Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal (Taylor, Amy)	Aug. 25, 2016	Aug. 25, 2016 PACER
3	In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Davis, Kimberly)	Aug. 25, 2016	Aug. 25, 2016 PACER
4	This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (Davis, Kimberly)	Aug. 25, 2016	Aug. 25, 2016 PACER
5	NOTICE of Appearance by Michael J. Wishnie on behalf of All Plaintiffs (aty to be noticed) (Wishnie, Michael)	Aug. 26, 2016	Aug. 26, 2016 PACER
6	Proposed Summons. by Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal (Wishnie, Michael)	Aug. 26, 2016	Aug. 26, 2016 PACER
7	Summons Issued as to Kathy A. Baran, Susan M. Curda, Kelvin Medlock, Donald W. Neufeld. (Lee, Tiffeny)	Aug. 29, 2016	Aug. 29, 2016 PACER
8	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Karen C. Tumlin Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0207-8875764. by Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal. (Attachments: # (1) Notice of Motion, # (2) Affidavit in Support) (Tumlin, Karen) 1 Notice of Motion View on PACER 2 Affidavit in Support View on PACER	Aug. 29, 2016	Aug. 29, 2016 PACER
	ORDER denying 8 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice -- The motion is denied without prejudice to renewal in conformity with this court's local rules, which require that an application for admission pro hac vice include a certificate from the state court of each state in which the applicant is a member of the bar confirming that the applicant is a member in good standing of the state court's bar. See Loc. Civ. R. 1.3(c). Ordered by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on 8/30/2016. (Howley, Thomas)	Aug. 30, 2016	Aug. 30, 2016 PACER
	ORDER granting Plaintiff's 10 application for Pre-Motion Conference. The application is GRANTED. The parties are instructed to confer and contact the court's Deputy at 718-613-2545 to schedule the pre-motion conference. Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 8/30/2016. (Polaris, Julian)	Aug. 30, 2016	Aug. 30, 2016 PACER
9	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal. All Defendants. (Wishnie, Michael)	Aug. 30, 2016	Aug. 30, 2016 PACER
10	Letter MOTION for pre motion conference by Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal. (Wishnie, Michael)	Aug. 30, 2016	Aug. 30, 2016 PACER
11	First MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Clement Lee Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0207-8878570. by Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal. (Taylor, Amy)	Aug. 30, 2016	Aug. 30, 2016 RECAP
12	ORDER granting [11] Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice -- Attorney Clement K. Lee, Esq. is permitted to argue or try this case in whole or in part as counsel or advocate. By September 7, 2016, Mr. Lee shall register for ECF. Registration is available online at the EDNY's homepage. Once registered, Mr. Lee shall file a notice of appearance and ensure that he receives electronic notification of activity in this case. Mr. Lee shall also ensure that the $150 admission fee be submitted to the Clerk's Office. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on 8/31/2016. (Howley, Thomas)	Aug. 31, 2016	Aug. 31, 2016 PACER
13	MOTION for Leave to File Law Student Appearances by Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal. (Attachments: # (1) Law Student Intern Appearance Form of Willem Bloom, # (2) Law Student Intern Appearance Form of Jordan Laris Cohen, # (3) Law Student Intern Appearance Form of Amit Jain, # (4) Law Student Intern Appearance Form of Aaron Korthuis, # (5) Law Student Intern Appearance Form of Zachary Manfredi) (Wishnie, Michael) 1 Law Student Intern Appearance Form of Willem Bloom View on PACER 2 Law Student Intern Appearance Form of Jordan Laris Cohen View on PACER 3 Law Student Intern Appearance Form of Amit Jain View on PACER 4 Law Student Intern Appearance Form of Aaron Korthuis View on PACER 5 Law Student Intern Appearance Form of Zachary Manfredi View on PACER	Aug. 31, 2016	Aug. 31, 2016 PACER
14	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Karen C. Tumlin Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0207-8880437. by Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal. (Attachments: # (1) Affidavit in Support, # (2) Certificate of Good Standing) (Tumlin, Karen) 1 Affidavit in Support View on PACER 2 Certificate of Good Standing View on PACER	Aug. 31, 2016	Aug. 31, 2016 PACER
	ORDER granting 13 Motion for Leave to File Law Student Appearances -- The motion is granted. The law students are authorized to appear under the supervision of attorney Michael J. Wishnie. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on 9/1/2016. (Howley, Thomas)	Sept. 1, 2016	Sept. 1, 2016 PACER
15	ORDER granting [14] Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice -- Attorney Karen C. Tumlin, Esq. is permitted to argue or try this case in whole or in part as counsel or advocate. By September 8, 2016, Ms. Tumlin shall register for ECF. Registration is available online at the EDNY's homepage. Once registered, Ms. Tumlin shall file a notice of appearance and ensure that she receives electronic notification of activity in this case. Ms. Tumlin shall also ensure that the $150 admission fee be submitted to the Clerk's Office. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on 9/1/2016. (Howley, Thomas)	Sept. 1, 2016	Sept. 1, 2016 RECAP
16	NOTICE of Appearance by Clement Lee on behalf of Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal (aty to be noticed) (Lee, Clement)	Sept. 1, 2016	Sept. 1, 2016 PACER
17	NOTICE of Appearance by Scott Dunn on behalf of All Defendants (aty to be noticed) (Dunn, Scott)	Sept. 7, 2016	Sept. 7, 2016 PACER
18	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Muneer I. Ahmad Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0207-8892225. by Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal. (Ahmad, Muneer)	Sept. 7, 2016	Sept. 7, 2016 PACER
19	NOTICE of Appearance by Karen C. Tumlin on behalf of Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal (notification declined or already on case) (Tumlin, Karen)	Sept. 7, 2016	Sept. 7, 2016 PACER
20	ORDER granting [18] Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice -- Attorney Muneer I. Ahmad, Esq. is permitted to argue or try this case in whole or in part as counsel or advocate. By September 15, 2016, Mr. Ahmad shall register for ECF. Registration is available online at the EDNY's homepage. Once registered, Mr. Ahmad shall file a notice of appearance and ensure that he receives electronic notification of activity in this case. Mr. Ahmad shall also ensure that the $150 admission fee be submitted to the Clerk's Office. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on 9/8/2016. (Howley, Thomas)	Sept. 8, 2016	Sept. 8, 2016 PACER
21	NOTICE of Appearance by Adam Kirschner on behalf of All Defendants (aty to be noticed) (Kirschner, Adam)	Sept. 9, 2016	Sept. 9, 2016 PACER
22	NOTICE of Appearance by Muneer Ahmad on behalf of Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal (notification declined or already on case) (Ahmad, Muneer)	Sept. 9, 2016	Sept. 9, 2016 PACER
23	NOTICE by Kathy A. Baran, Susan M. Curda, Kelvin Medlock, Donald W. Neufeld, Proposed Briefing Schedule (Kirschner, Adam)	Sept. 15, 2016	Sept. 15, 2016 PACER
24	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Marisol Orihuela Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0207-8921984. by Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal. (Orihuela, Marisol)	Sept. 19, 2016	Sept. 19, 2016 PACER
25	ORDER granting [24] Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice -- Attorney Marisol Orihuela, Esq. is permitted to argue or try this case in whole or in part as counsel or advocate. By September 27, 2016, Ms. Orihuela shall register for ECF. Registration is available online at the EDNY's homepage. Once registered, Ms. Orihuela shall file a notice of appearance and ensure that she receives electronic notification of activity in this case. Ms. Orihuela shall also ensure that the $150 admission fee be submitted to the Clerk's Office. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on 9/20/2016. (Howley, Thomas)	Sept. 20, 2016	Sept. 20, 2016 PACER
26	NOTICE of Appearance by Marisol Orihuela on behalf of Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal (notification declined or already on case) (Orihuela, Marisol)	Sept. 20, 2016	Sept. 20, 2016 PACER
27	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Justin Cox Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0207-8931610. by Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal. (Cox, Justin)	Sept. 21, 2016	Sept. 21, 2016 PACER
	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis: Pre-Motion Conference held on 9/22/2016. Counsel for both parties present. The court granted leave for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, and for both parties to file motions for dismissal or summary judgment. The court set the following schedule: Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint by September 29, 2016; Plaintiff shall serve his motion by October 6, 2016; Defendants shall serve their consolidated opposition and cross-motion by November 10, 2016; Plaintiff shall serve his reply, if any, and his consolidated opposition by November 30, 2016; and Defendants shall serve their reply, if any, and file the fully briefed motions by December 28, 2016. Oral argument is scheduled for January 25, 2017, at 2 p.m. The court granted Defendants' oral request to stay Defendants' answer to the anticipated amended complaint until 30 days after the court rules on the parties' dispositive motions. (Court Reporter Anthony Mancuso) (Polaris, Julian)	Sept. 22, 2016	Sept. 22, 2016 PACER
28	ORDER granting [27] Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice -- Attorney Justin B. Cox, Esq. is permitted to argue or try this case in whole or in part as counsel or advocate. By September 29, 2016, Mr. Cox shall register for ECF. Registration is available online at the EDNY's homepage. Once registered, Mr. Cox shall file a notice of appearance and ensure that he receives electronic notification of activity in this case. Mr. Cox shall also ensure that the $150 admission fee be submitted to the Clerk's Office. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on 9/22/2016. (Howley, Thomas)	Sept. 22, 2016	Sept. 22, 2016 PACER
29	AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal, Make the Road New York. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit, # (2) Exhibit, # (3) Exhibit, # (4) Exhibit, # (5) Exhibit, # (6) Exhibit) (Wishnie, Michael) 1 Exhibit View on PACER 2 Exhibit View on PACER 3 Exhibit View on PACER 4 Exhibit View on PACER 5 Exhibit View on PACER 6 Exhibit View on PACER	Sept. 29, 2016	Sept. 29, 2016 Clearinghouse
30	Proposed Summons. by Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal, Make the Road New York (Wishnie, Michael)	Oct. 5, 2016	Oct. 5, 2016 PACER
31	NOTICE of Appearance by Justin B. Cox on behalf of All Plaintiffs (aty to be noticed) (Cox, Justin)	Oct. 5, 2016	Oct. 5, 2016 PACER
32	Summons Issued as to Leon Rodriguez, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (Lee, Tiffeny)	Oct. 11, 2016	Oct. 11, 2016 RECAP
33	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Make the Road New York, Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal. Leon Rodriguez served on 10/11/2016, answer due 11/1/2016. (Wishnie, Michael)	Oct. 12, 2016	Oct. 12, 2016 RECAP
34	MOTION for Leave to File Law Student Appearances by Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal, Make the Road New York. (Attachments: # (1) Law Student Appearances) (Wishnie, Michael) 1 Law Student Appearances View on PACER	Oct. 27, 2016	Oct. 27, 2016 PACER
35	First MOTION to Stay Briefing Schedule by Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal, Make the Road New York. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order) (Wishnie, Michael) 1 Proposed Order View on PACER	Nov. 21, 2016	Nov. 21, 2016 PACER

Case: Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen

1:16-cv-04756 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details