Complaint (2019-07-17) — East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al. v. William Barr, et al.

What This Document Is

This is a one-page, form-generated scheduling order issued automatically at case intake on July 17, 2019, the same day the complaint was filed. It applies the district's standard "Immigration Mandamus Case" template, used for actions seeking a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 or the Administrative Procedure Act, and sets the default briefing schedule before any judge had substantively engaged with the case's TRO motion.

Factual Summary

The order sets a boilerplate answer-and-summary-judgment schedule: defendants must answer within 60 days of service; plaintiffs may move for summary judgment at any time, or must do so within 90 days of filing the complaint or defendants become the first-moving party (120 days after service); opposition and reply deadlines follow standard local-rule intervals (30 and 14 days respectively). It states no case management conference or ADR process will be held unless a party requests one, and that the court may waive any requirement on its own motion or joint party request. The order's case caption lists the docket number as "19-cv-04073-LB," and the page stamp shows the case initially captioned "3:19-cv-04073-WHO" — both different from the "3:19-cv-04073-JST" number used throughout the rest of this docket's later filings once Judge Tigar was assigned.

Key Facts

Filed 2019-07-17, the same day as the complaint, as a standard-form "Immigration-Mandamus_Scheduling-Order_Intake" document (revision June 2018).
Sets a 60-day answer deadline and a 90/120-day summary-judgment briefing schedule under the mandamus/APA framework.
States no case management conference or ADR is required unless a party requests one.
Signed for the court by Clerk Susan Y. Soong, by Deputy Clerk Betty Walton.
Shows two different case-number designations predating the docket's later, consistent "3:19-cv-04073-JST" caption: "19-cv-04073-LB" in the order's own caption and "3:19-cv-04073-WHO" in the page stamp.

Source Caveats

None. Full 1-page order text extracted cleanly; no OCR recovery needed. The order's boilerplate summary-judgment schedule was superseded in practice by the case's early TRO and preliminary-injunction proceedings (see Doc. 42).

Date: 2019-07-17

Full text

Immigration-Mandamus_Scheduling-Order_Intake
rev. June 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

WILLIAM BARR, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 19-cv-04073-LB

SCHEDULING ORDER
(IMMIGRATION MANDAMUS CASE)
Re: Dkt. Nos. 19-4073
TO PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD IN THE ABOVE ACTION:
This action seeks a writ of mandamus regarding immigration benefits filed pursuant to the
mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, and/or the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et
seq. The following schedule will apply in this case:
1. Defendant shall serve and file an answer within 60 days of receipt of service of the summons
and complaint.
2. Plaintiff may file a motion for summary judgment at any time permitted by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and this court’s local rules, in which event the defendant may respond as
permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this court’s local rules.
3. If Plaintiff has not filed a motion for summary judgment within 90 days of filing the complaint,
Defendant shall be the party who shall first file a motion for summary judgment, and the
defendant must serve and file that motion within 120 days of service of the complaint.
4. Unless a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) is filed, Plaintiff shall serve
and file any opposition and/or counter-motion within 30 days of service of Defendant’s motion.
5. Defendant may serve and file a reply and/or opposition within 14 days of service of Plaintiff’s
opposition or counter-motion.
6. If Plaintiff filed a counter-motion, Plaintiff may serve and file a reply within 14 days of service
of Defendant’s opposition.
7. For scheduling purposes, motions shall be noticed in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-2. If a
party wishes to have the court decide the matter on the briefs and without oral argument, a party
may make that request pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).
8. Unless the court orders otherwise, no case management conference will be held, and no ADR
process is required.
9. Any party who so wishes may request that the court set a case management conference,
pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-10, per the schedule in Civil Local Rule 16-2. Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26 and Civil Local Rules 16-9 and 16-10 shall apply.
10. The court on its own motion or on the joint request of the parties may waive any requirement of
this order.

FOR THE COURT:

Susan Y. Soong, CLERK

By: ___________________________________
Betty Walton, Deputy Clerk
Case 3:19-cv-04073-WHO Document 6 Filed 07/17/19 Page 1 of 1
U
N
I
T
E
D
S
T
A
T
E
S
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
C
O
U
R
T
N
O
R
T
H
E
R
N
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
O
F
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
Susan Y. Soong

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.cand.344869.6.0.pdf
Size: 195,804 bytes
SHA-256: 2c1254b951077fb9d184f9e673c284406de582bc71d78baa3e8310f8390ace8b
Our copy: gov.uscourts.cand.344869.6.0.pdf
Original: archive.org