Hajro et al v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Filing 104

ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING RE: ATTORNEY'S FEES. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on 8/30/2012. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN JOSE DIVISION

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
)
IMMIGRATION SERVICES; T. DIANE
)
CEJKA, Director, USCIS National Records
)
Center; ROSEMARY MELVILLE, USCIS
)
District Director of San Francisco; JANET
)
NAPOLITANO, Secretary, Department of
)
Homeland Security; ERIC HOLDER, Attorney )
General, Department of Justice,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
MIRSAD HAJRO, JAMES R. MAYOCK,

22

Case No.: 08-1350-PSG
ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER
BRIEFING RE: ATTORNEY’S FEES

On October 13, 2011, the court issued an order (the “October 13 Order”) granting-in-part

23

and denying-in-part cross-motions for summary judgment brought by Mirsad Hajro (“Hajro”) and

24

James R. Mayock (“Mayock”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), and by Defendant United States

25

Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), together with various individual defendants

26

(collectively “Defendants”).1 Plaintiffs brought this suit under the Freedom of Information Act

27

1

28

See Docket No. 77 (Amended Order Granting-In-Part and Denying-In-Part Mot. for Summ. J.)
(“Summary Judgment Order”).
1
Case No.: 08-1350
ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING RE: ATTORNEY’S FEES

1

(“FOIA”),2 and the 1992 Settlement Agreement between Mayock and USCIS. Plaintiffs now move

2

for attorney’s fees and costs.3 Defendants oppose.4

3

The court is cognizant that this action has lumbered along for nearly six years.

4

Nevertheless, the court must reluctantly request further briefing on Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees

5

request because USCIS’ opposition failed to reach the merits of whether Plaintiffs’ are in fact

6

entitled to the fees they have requested. USCIS elected only to brief whether this court should issue

7

a stay pending USCIS’ appeal of the court’s October 13 Order.

8

With this in mind, the court ORDERS as follows: (1) no later than September 7, 2012,
USCIS shall submit its opposition—on the merits—to Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees and

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

costs. USCIS’ opposition may not exceed 10 pages; and (2) no later than September 14, 2012,

11

Plaintiffs’ may submit a response to USCIS’ opposition. Plaintiffs’ response, if they elect to file

12

one at all, shall not exceed 10 pages.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: August 30, 2012

15

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2

See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3).

3

See generally Docket No. 93 (Mot. for Att’y Fees and Costs).

4

See generally Docket No. 99 (Opp’n to Mot. for Att’y Fees and Costs).

26
27
28

2
Case No.: 08-1350
ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING RE: ATTORNEY’S FEES