Goupil v. Holston

Filing 11

ORDER that the following scheduling order deadlines shall apply: Defendants shall have until May 1, 2014, in which to file the Administrative Record with the Court; Counsel shall have until May 15, 2014, to meet and confer to resolve any disputes ab out the completeness and accuracy of the Administrative Record; Counsel for Plaintiff shall have until May 30, 2014, in which to file any motionaddressing any disputes about the completeness or accuracy of the Administrative Record; The parties shall have until July 1, 2014, to file cross-motions for summary judgment; The parties shall have until July 31, 2014, to file responses to opposing counsel's motion for summary judgment; The parties shall have until August 7, 2014, to file any replies. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 4/2/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

TRACY LU GOUPIL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LEANDER HOLSTON, et al.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:13-cv-02171-JCM-PAL
Case No. 2:13-cv-02172-JCM-PAL
ORDER

12
13

The court set theses matters for a scheduling conference on April 1, 2014. Constantinos Fountas

14

appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff, and John Inkeles appeared on behalf of the Defendants. The

15

Complaint (Dkt. #1) in this case was filed November 22, 2013, and involves judicial review of a

16

decision by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to deny I-130 petitions

17

filed by the Plaintiff on behalf of her adopted minor children, the beneficiaries of the petitions. The

18

minor children are natives and citizens of China and seek adjustment of status in the United States

19

based on their legal adoption by a United States citizen. The complaint names the Director USCIS, the

20

Director of the Las Vegas Field Office of USCIS and their predecessors, the Attorney General, and the

21

United States Attorney for the District of Nevada as Defendants. Defendants filed Answers in both

22

cases (Dkt. #7) January 24, 2014. The court granted the Defendants’ Motion to Permit Appearance of

23

Government Attorney allowing John Inkeles to practice in this court on behalf of the Attorney General.

24

At the scheduling conference the court inquired how the parties proposed to proceed. Counsel

25

agreed both sides would file cross-motions for summary judgment based on the Administrative Record.

26

Counsel for the Attorney General indicated the record could be assembled and filed with the court

27

within thirty days, and requested ninety days for the parties to file cross-motions for summary

28

judgment. Counsel for Plaintiffs agreed with this proposal.

1

Having reviewed and considered the matter,

2

IT IS ORDERED that the following scheduling order deadlines shall apply:

3

1.

4
5

with the Court.
2.

6
7

Defendants shall have until May 1, 2014, in which to file the Administrative Record

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

8

addressing any disputes about the completeness or accuracy of the Administrative

9

Record.

10

4.

The parties shall have until July 1, 2014, to file cross-motions for summary judgment.

11

5.

The parties shall have until July 31, 2014, to file responses to opposing counsel’s

12

motion for summary judgment.

13

6.

The parties shall have until August 7, 2014, to file any replies.

14

Dated this 2nd day of April, 2014.

15
16
17

______________________________________
Peggy A. Leen
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2