Shalabi v. United States Department of State et al

Filing 27

MEMO ENDORSED ORDER granting 26 Motion to Stay. ENDORSEMENT: APPLICATION GRANTED. SO ORDERED. In the interest of judicial efficiency, Plaintiff's request for a stay is GRANTED until November 19, 2024. Plaintiff is directed to submit a status letter by November 19, 2024 setting forth her position as to whether this case is moot. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to stay this case. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 9/25/24) (yv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
AMIRA ASSRAN SHALABI,
Civil Action No. 23-cv-09948-VSB

Plaintiff,
v.
In the interest of judicial efficiency, Plaintiff's request for a
stay is GRANTED until November 19, 2024. Plaintiff is
directed to submit a status letter by November 19, 2024
setting forth her position as to whether this case is moot.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to stay this case.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
STATE, et al.,
Defendants.

Dated: September 25, 2024

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSED MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
Plaintiff, through her undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully moves the
Court to stay the proceedings in the above-captioned action. The grounds for this
motion are as follows:
1. On November 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Complaint seeking to compel a
decision by the United States Department of State (the “Department”) on
Plaintiff’s spouse visa application. ECF No. 1.
2. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) on March 21, 2024.
ECF No. 21.
3. Plaintiff filed her opposition on April 4, 2024, and Defendants filed their
reply on April 11, 2024. ECF No. 24-25.

1

Case 1:23-cv-09948-VSB

Document 26

Filed 09/23/24

Page 2 of 5

4. On September 20, 2024, the Embassy requested Plaintiff’s spouse to
submit an updated medical exam and his passport.
5. Rather than continuing with the litigation of this issue at this time, and
out of concern for valuable judicial resources, Plaintiff is requesting to
stay the case to allow Plaintiff’s spouse to submit the requested
documentation which could render further litigation unnecessary.
6. This Court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its
power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706
(1997); Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). The Court
should consider whether a stay would promote judicial economy and the
hardship and burden on the respective parties if a stay is granted. See
Nat’l Ass’n for Advancement of Colored People v. United States Dep’t of
Homeland Sec., No. CV DKC 18-0239, 2020 WL 1331998, at *3 (D. Md.
2020) (granting stay); Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 323 F.
Supp. 3d 726, 730 (D. Md. 2018) (same).
7. A stay is appropriate in this case because it would promote judicial
economy.
8. In the interests of judicial economy, a stay would avoid the unnecessary
and burdensome expenditure of the parties’ and this Court’s resources
that would be required to adjudicate the numerous jurisdictional and
2

Case 1:23-cv-09948-VSB

Document 26

Filed 09/23/24

Page 3 of 5

merits issues presented in this action. Moreover, no hearings have been
scheduled in this action, and there are no pending deadlines. Therefore, a
stay would not affect any current proceedings in this Court.
9. Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Defendants’ counsel to discuss jointly
requesting a stay of the proceedings. Defendants do not consent. It is
Defendants’ position that the action should be dismissed for the reasons
set forth in Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), see ECF Nos. 21, 22, 23, and 25, and if
another reason for dismissal/mootness arises while the matter remains
sub judice, Defendants will alert the court at that time.
10. If the case is stayed, Plaintiff agrees to file a status report on November
19, 2024 (i.e., 60 days from the date of the filing of this motion)
apprising the Court of the status of Plaintiff’s spouse visa application.
Depending on the result of the Department’s consideration of the further
information provided by Plaintiff’s spouse, Plaintiff may dismiss the case
as moot.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order
staying this case.
Dated: September 23, 2024

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Michael Samuel
3

Case 1:23-cv-09948-VSB

Document 26

Filed 09/23/24

Page 4 of 5

Michael Samuel, Esq. (MS 7997)
The Samuel Law Firm
1441 Broadway
Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
(O) [phone]
(E) [e-mail]
/s/ James O. Hacking, III
James O. Hacking, III (Pro Hac Vice)
MO Bar # 46728
Hacking Immigration Law, LLC
10121 Manchester Road, Suite A
St. Louis, MO 63122
(O) 314.961.8200
(F) 314.961.8201
(E) [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff

4

Case 1:23-cv-09948-VSB

Document 26

Filed 09/23/24

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on 23rd day of September 2024, the foregoing document
was filed electronically, and a copy was served via the Court’s electronic filing
system upon:
Joseph Anthony Pantoja
United States Attorney
/s/ Michael Samuel
MICHAEL SAMUEL
The Samuel Law Firm
/s/ James O. Hacking, III
JAMES O. HACKING, III
Hacking Immigration Law, LLC

5