Opinion
2:21-cv-01558-BJR
05-02-2022
DEKA AHMED ABDULE and BASHIR MOHAMED HASHI, Plaintiffs, v. UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; THOMAS SMITHAM, Charges d'Affairs of the United States Embassy in Rome, Italy; ANTONY J. BLINKEN, United States Secretary of State, United States Department of State; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security;
MENTER IMMIGRATION LAW PLLC Meena Pallipamu Menter MEENA PALLIPAMU MENTER, WSBA #31870 Counsel for Plaintiffs NICHOLAS W. BROWN United States Attorney Nickolas Bohl NICKOLAS BOHL WSBA #48978 Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Counsel for Defendants
MENTER IMMIGRATION LAW PLLC
Meena Pallipamu Menter
MEENA PALLIPAMU MENTER, WSBA #31870
Counsel for Plaintiffs
NICHOLAS W. BROWN
United States Attorney
Nickolas Bohl
NICKOLAS BOHL WSBA #48978
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Counsel for Defendants
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, U.S. District Court Judge.
Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants, by and through their counsel of record, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and Local Rules 10(g) and 16, hereby jointly stipulate and move for an extension of 45 days for Defendants to respond to the Complaint. The Court had previously extended the response date until May 2, 2022, and stayed initial scheduling dates.
A court may modify a deadline for good cause. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b). Continuing pretrial and trial dates is within the discretion of the trial judge. See King v. State of California, 784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir. 1986). The underlying facts continue to evolve and there is a significant likelihood that the matter could either become moot or the parties are able to resolve it without the need for litigation. Therefore, the parties believe good cause exists for a brief stay to save the Court and the parties from spending unnecessary time and resources on it.
The parties also agree that this case is exempt from initial disclosures and will submit a Joint Proposed Case Plan within thirty days of the latest answer deadline (i.e. June 2, 2022), as directed in the Initial Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 15.
In light of the above, the parties jointly stipulate and request that the Court:
1. Extend Defendants' time to respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint to June 16, 2022.
ORDER
The parties having stipulated and agreed, it is hereby so ORDERED.