Anyone with a lawsuit against USCIS or thinking about a lawsuit (Merged)

[paz1960]

this is standard stuff. The judge wants you to contact the AUSA handling your case and let him know that by 8/15/2007 both of you are supposed to submit discovery plan. If your AUSA agrees to work on such a plan, most likely he won't, natsena had uploaded a sample discovery document. Use it and ask the right questions that will help your case.

In all possibility AUSA will decline discovery and will let u know that he will file an answer together with or seperately a Motion-to-dismiss. Then you'll have to inform the judge that discovery is not possible.

Discovery is a phase where plaintiff and defendant can exchange information that'll help them decide the case without a trial. If discovery doesn't happen the case goes to trial automatically.

other experienced Wormers correct me if I'm wrong.

You are right, with some additional clarifications (the following is from Wikipedia):

"The early stages of the lawsuit may involve discovery, which is the ordered exchange of evidence and statements between the parties based on what they each expect to argue during the actual trial. Discovery is meant to eliminate surprises and clarify what the lawsuit is about, and perhaps to make a party realize they should settle or drop the claim, all before wasting court resources. At this point the parties may also engage in pretrial motion filing in order to exclude or include particular legal or factual issues before trial, by blocking the other party from presenting a particular witness or arguing a particular legal theory.

At the close of discovery, the parties may pick a jury and then have a trial by jury. Or, the case may proceed as a bench trial heard only by the judge, if the parties waive a jury trial, or if the right to a jury trial is not guaranteed for their particular claim (such as those under equity in the U.S.) or for any lawsuits within their jurisdiction."

In my interpretation the judge can order discovery even if the defendants don't agree with a discovery plan. I saw cases, when the judge ordered USCIS to produce the full A file of Plaintiff and not even arguing that some parts are classified didn't stop the discovery. The judge simply ordered an in camera view (under seal) presentation of the classified part (this means that Plaintiff or his/her counsel didn't have access to the classified document; this was presented only to the judge).

 

[paz1960]

Thanks , any other ideas and/or experience is highly appreciated.

Lazycis is right, you are mixing up the "default judgement" and "summary judgement" terms. Do a search in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures for the "default judgement" and you will understand why this doesn't apply to your case.

 

[paz1960]

Guys, I got reply from FBI to my first lady letter saying Name check was finalised May 2007, and sent to USCIS Head Qtrs in Washington DC. The confusing thing is 1.5 months after this "finalise" date, the AUSA filed a motion to dismiss on June 16,2007 where defendants claim name check results have not yet been obtained by CIS. So I am confused what is going on ? anybody had this experience ?

Lotechguy, this is again that delicate situation where you can't do much by yourself, because you hired and trusted an attorney. But let's assume for a moment that you are Pro Se. In that case, I would contact AUSA and send him/her the FBI letter showing that the name check is complete. AUSA would immediately know, that his defense lost the major argument and it is very likely that the judge will deny the MTD and order USCIS to adjudicate your case in XX days. With this order you would become the prevailing party and most likely the government would have to reimburse your costs. So "in the interest of judiciar economy" AUSA most likely would be succesful to press USCIS to adjudicate your case before the judge makes a decision.

I assume that you have periodic contact with your attorney. I would ask him/her what is his/her intention for the next move and maybe try to suggest him/her (be very careful not to appear that you are trying to tell him/her what to do) contacting AUSA with the FBI letter and including this letter in the Opposition to the MTD (or amending that, if it was already filed).

 

[goodfy]

Suggestion needed for WoM

All,

My I-485 has been pending for 3.5 years due to name check. I filed WoM, received Motion to Dismiss, then filed opposition as most of other people here. The hearing is scheduled tomorrow (July 11).

Yesterday I received a letter from the attorney of Defendents on "support of MTD".

Today, I received another letter from the court saying "This Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civial Local Rule 7-1(b)......the Motion to dismiss is DENIED" , and " It appears, however, that the issues raised in the complaint likely are amenable to resolution on summary judgment. The parties are directed , therefore, to file cross-motions for summary judgment as promptly as practicable."

May I know what I need to do? Thanks in advance for your suggestion.

Regards,

Sam

 

[lazycis]

All,

My I-485 has been pending for 3.5 years due to name check. I filed WoM, received Motion to Dismiss, then filed opposition as most of other people here. The hearing is scheduled tomorrow (July 11).

Yesterday I received a letter from the attorney of Defendents on "support of MTD".

Today, I received another letter from the court saying "This Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civial Local Rule 7-1(b)......the Motion to dismiss is DENIED" , and " It appears, however, that the issues raised in the complaint likely are amenable to resolution on summary judgment. The parties are directed , therefore, to file cross-motions for summary judgment as promptly as practicable."

May I know what I need to do? Thanks in advance for your suggestion.

Regards,

Sam

That's good news! File a motion for Summary Judgment. Check a document attached to this post:
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1717619&postcount=11865

 

[lazycis]

sample brief of appellant I-485 (AOS)

Friends,
As promised, I am posting the final version of my appelate brief. Not that I wish somebody else to go thru the appeal process, but I think it has some good points and it can be used for other motions/responses during district court action. And if somebody has to appeal, it will be a good starting point as the brief conforms to the rules of appelate procedure. If you use it, please apply your sound judgment as I do not pretend to be always right.

The best wishes to all of you!

 

[DUDE12190]

About FBI

hi all!,

I just wanted to let all of u know. I put an inquiry through a senator's office in which I asked them to inquire about my Name Check status from FBI . As u know, I already took my oath in June. I just received a letter from senator's office because they got a letter from Michael Cannon(Section chief of the NNCP). They forwarded me that letter and according to that letter, FBI finalized my Name check and sent it back to USCIS only two and half weeks after FBI received Summons from me. It took FBI more than three years to finalized my Name check and I am 100% sure that Lawsuit triggered it because at the time they sent my Name check back, my file had not yet reached AUSA .

So, looking at some other cases here in the forum and also my case, I personally believe that in most cases, as soon as FBI receives summons, they start working on your Name Check. This should remind new people on the forum that they must put FBI as a defendants and make sure that they served the copy of summons and complaint in a right way(Certified or Registered mail with return Receipt).

If you folks remember, about two/three weeks ago, someone from NJ told us that his I-485 got approved even though the judge dismissed his case. Whether the Name Check resolution starts from FBI office of general council OR CIS Office of general counsel remains a mystery for me, one thing is clear that lawsuit is still working in most cases. I hope this info is helpful. Best of luck to all who are still fighting!!! regards, dude

 

[vicky2006]

You are right, with some additional clarifications (the following is from Wikipedia):

"The early stages of the lawsuit may involve discovery, which is the ordered exchange of evidence and statements between the parties based on what they each expect to argue during the actual trial. Discovery is meant to eliminate surprises and clarify what the lawsuit is about, and perhaps to make a party realize they should settle or drop the claim, all before wasting court resources. At this point the parties may also engage in pretrial motion filing in order to exclude or include particular legal or factual issues before trial, by blocking the other party from presenting a particular witness or arguing a particular legal theory.

At the close of discovery, the parties may pick a jury and then have a trial by jury. Or, the case may proceed as a bench trial heard only by the judge, if the parties waive a jury trial, or if the right to a jury trial is not guaranteed for their particular claim (such as those under equity in the U.S.) or for any lawsuits within their jurisdiction."

In my interpretation the judge can order discovery even if the defendants don't agree with a discovery plan. I saw cases, when the judge ordered USCIS to produce the full A file of Plaintiff and not even arguing that some parts are classified didn't stop the discovery. The judge simply ordered an in camera view (under seal) presentation of the classified part (this means that Plaintiff or his/her counsel didn't have access to the classified document; this was presented only to the judge).

Thanks Paz1960, as you said if the judge can order a discovery, should I still contact the US attorney, and ask him if he would like to do a discovery? I know I should contact him, but I don't feel confident to talk to him. do you have any idea what kind of questions I can ask him. It sounds like it is the best thing that he agree with discovery plan, right? If he didn't, what is the other thing I can try to get him agree. I know motion to dismiss is what we are trying not to get.

Another thing, should i prepare the discovery plan before I talk to the US attorney. Is anyone have a discovery plan, can you please uploaded again. I looked through the recent posts, didn't find that one posted by nastena.

Vicky

 

[lotechguy]

On July 5, just a day short of a deadline, AUSA filed answer. Looked at Pacer. it's generic answer filed by Olsen in naturalization cases. What spooked me was, they list in all their answers First ans Second affirmative defenses requesting court to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. But from comparing with other cases, no action is required on my part now because it is still an answer. One of the similar cases (since then resolved) got as far as Joint state-t with planned MTD and Opposition announced, but the case was resolved before them. In another such case, Olsen requested to waive ADR because he "requested to expedite nc" and ADR would not be helpful. Case resolved shortly. Now can plan for the worst (prepare Opposition to MTD on the grounds stated above) and hope for the best.

My husband's FP is scheduled for 7-14, but no contacts from AUSA and infopass didn't show nc cleared.

Another fact: from checking Pacer for N CA court, NO case was unresolved beyond 7 months and all cases in the last 1/2 year were resolved for Plaintiffs in both, AOS, and N-400 cases without judges intervention (ruling). I checked about 20+ cases. So far so good...

I know the Pro-Se book advices that there is no answer to an answer, but can the plaintiff file :

MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Evidence

And put in like and answer to an answer, except not exactly an answer to an answer ? See case #2:06-cv-15394, Awada vs Gonzales ED Mich.

That way you can say everything you wanted to say in a MTD response ? Any expert opinions, Paz, lazycis ?

 

[lotechguy]

Lotechguy, this is again that delicate situation where you can't do much by yourself, because you hired and trusted an attorney. But let's assume for a moment that you are Pro Se. In that case, I would contact AUSA and send him/her the FBI letter showing that the name check is complete. AUSA would immediately know, that his defense lost the major argument and it is very likely that the judge will deny the MTD and order USCIS to adjudicate your case in XX days. With this order you would become the prevailing party and most likely the government would have to reimburse your costs. So "in the interest of judiciar economy" AUSA most likely would be succesful to press USCIS to adjudicate your case before the judge makes a decision.

I assume that you have periodic contact with your attorney. I would ask him/her what is his/her intention for the next move and maybe try to suggest him/her (be very careful not to appear that you are trying to tell him/her what to do) contacting AUSA with the FBI letter and including this letter in the Opposition to the MTD (or amending that, if it was already filed).

Paz, Thanks. I contacted my attorney and sent him the letter. He said he will contact AUSA and file this with the court. I have to see what happens.

 

[shvili]

hi all!,

I just wanted to let all of u know. I put an inquiry through a senator's office in which I asked them to inquire about my Name Check status from FBI . As u know, I already took my oath in June. I just received a letter from senator's office because they got a letter from Michael Cannon(Section chief of the NNCP). They forwarded me that letter and according to that letter, FBI finalized my Name check and sent it back to USCIS only two and half weeks after FBI received Summons from me. It took FBI more than three years to finalized my Name check and I am 100% sure that Lawsuit triggered it because at the time they sent my Name check back, my file had not yet reached AUSA .

So, looking at some other cases here in the forum and also my case, I personally believe that in most cases, as soon as FBI receives summons, they start working on your Name Check. This should remind new people on the forum that they must put FBI as a defendants and make sure that they served the copy of summons and complaint in a right way(Certified or Registered mail with return Receipt).

If you folks remember, about two/three weeks ago, someone from NJ told us that his I-485 got approved even though the judge dismissed his case. Whether the Name Check resolution starts from FBI office of general council OR CIS Office of general counsel remains a mystery for me, one thing is clear that lawsuit is still working in most cases. I hope this info is helpful. Best of luck to all who are still fighting!!! regards, dude

Dude, I also think that all defendants listed in your law suit start working INDEPENDENTLY, and usually before and not necessarily in agreement with US Attny who is defending them. This is based on several posts (yours including) as well as on my own observations. (In some cases AUSA doesn't even know a nc is cleared until plaintiff notified him/her of that.) Like in Lotechguy situation, his AUSA didn't even know his nc was "finalized" until he got a letter from the FBI. And the worst thing is, neither AUSA, nor the individual defendants (Like FBI), don't even bother providing a prompt feedback directly to plaintiff unless they are bugged by First Lady, senators, etc! I am not sure if it's related only to pro se plaintiffs or to attorney cases as well.

So in our idiotic world it's a perfectly plausible scenario that you learn details of your nc completion from your senator's office,,, after you've already been naturalized

 

[ddwalker]

I think you are mistaken with respect to July Visa bulletin update. It says "No more new visa authorization will be made, as everything has been assigned to the service centers".

If you actually read between the lines, it never said its retrogressed (that means all pending application as of july 2nd) are current and they don't authorize any new visa petitions (They can't accept any new applications). This makes perfect sense.

I believe one of the reason they made it current, is to use the ROW spill over for high demand countries like India and china else it will go unused (like it happened for 2006 110K visas went unused). I think, USCIS has made a smart and bold move finally.

It also means visa numbers are availble and assigned to service center. Its now the "discretion" of each service centers how they assign and/or process the pettition. If your case is in adjudicating stage, they will adjudicate it. Just hope that whatever is stopping your case from being adjudicated is taken care like NC or security check.

Good luck

Thanks Kishore and lazycis,

I took an Infopass today and talked to a CIS officer. I was told that the (lack of) visa number thing applies to everyone, including new applications as well as existing cases. However there is a chance that my case can be adjudicated before October if the Service Center already acquired a visa number for me. And he doesn't know (or can't tell) if that's the case. Of cause that's just for the normal case, and we are talking about WOM here.

In WOM, as lazycis pointed out, the judge might rule that my case be adjudicated right away. No matter what, here is something I'd like to know you guy's opinion. My AUSA called me the other day and talked to me about the visa number situation. She presented me an option that she'll put in a stipulation that the defendants promise to adjudicate my case within 30 days when the visa numbers are available. There are two catches, first this is just her idea and she needs to talk to the defendants to get the promise. So it's not formal yet. Second, I didn't ask her in what form she'll put the stipulation in. Will it be in the form of ADR, MTD or Summary Judgement, I dont' know.

So my questions are, can you tell in what form she present it to me? Shall I accept something like that? If I got something like that, is there anything I need to watch out for?

Thanks a lot.

 

[lazycis]

I know the Pro-Se book advices that there is no answer to an answer, but can the plaintiff file :

MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Evidence

And put in like and answer to an answer, except not exactly an answer to an answer ? See case #2:06-cv-15394, Awada vs Gonzales ED Mich.

That way you can say everything you wanted to say in a MTD response ? Any expert opinions, Paz, lazycis ?

My advice is to file motion for summary judgment (judgment on the pleadings) or talk to AUSA and file a joint stipulation to remand case back to USCIS/FBI with instructions to complete case processing in 30 days.
You can file motion for supplemental pleadings, but it applies only if you have an additional evidence that was not available when you filed a complaint.
You can file any other memorandum as well, but you have to ask "leave" or permission from the court to do that. But what's the point in doing so if you can go directly to resolution via summary judgment?

 

[lazycis]

Thanks Kishore and lazycis,

I took an Infopass today and talked to a CIS officer. I was told that the (lack of) visa number thing applies to everyone, including new applications as well as existing cases. However there is a chance that my case can be adjudicated before October if the Service Center already acquired a visa number for me. And he doesn't know (or can't tell) if that's the case. Of cause that's just for the normal case, and we are talking about WOM here.

In WOM, as lazycis pointed out, the judge might rule that my case be adjudicated right away. No matter what, here is something I'd like to know you guy's opinion. My AUSA called me the other day and talked to me about the visa number situation. She presented me an option that she'll put in a stipulation that the defendants promise to adjudicate my case within 30 days when the visa numbers are available. There are two catches, first this is just her idea and she needs to talk to the defendants to get the promise. So it's not formal yet. Second, I didn't ask her in what form she'll put the stipulation in. Will it be in the form of ADR, MTD or Summary Judgement, I dont' know.

So my questions are, can you tell in what form she present it to me? Shall I accept something like that? If I got something like that, is there anything I need to watch out for?

Thanks a lot.

It may not be a bad idea, you can work with AUSA and let him/her prepare a joint stipulation (motion) to remand case back to USCIS with instructions to adjudicate your case no later than October, 31st. Just make sure it is motion to remand, not to dismiss. In that case you can resume court proceedings if USCIS won't do its job. I know it's another 2-3 months of waiting, but there is no guarantee that the court will rule in your favor within the next 2 months (even if it does, they usually give USCIS 30 days to resolve the case, so what's the point?). It will definitely reduce your stress/level of effort. And if USCIS decides to adjudicate your case earlier, you lose nothing.

 

[kk405]

Case getting very intersting...could set precedence...need some help

My update on Infopass:

It proved true in my husband's case: the clerk told him that "background check is pending", nothing new. The funny thing, he also told him that he can contact senator and file a law suit (!). Really, thank you for the advise



kk405,

First of all, congratulations!! Your citizenship is almost there! As for your question, although I haven't gotten to that stage yet, although discovery is useless on this point you technically still can request docs. I don't know the exact process, but I suggest you check Wenlock's notes serving subpoena on local FBI. It's also discussed on pp.99-105 of CA Pro se handbook. But in your place, I would just wait to save myself trouble-I never heard that CIS/FBI disobeyed court order from judge.

Good luck!

Thanks everyone for their help...but the plot in my case is thickening, and I am afraid that this will be the way the AUSAs will start to fight these cases, a bit underhanded and rigorous, and we need to get prepared....

As I mentioned before, during a conference call with the magistrate judge, she set certain deadline for discovery, etc....and during that conversation, she asked the AUSA: what have you done in the last 5 months regarding the plaintiff's case to which he didn’t have much of any answer, but he did volunteer that there have been several recent ORDERS by judges in Southern District of New York, ordering the FBI and USCIS to complete the investigations within 30 days...The judge asked for a copy of those cases and subsequently he sent a copy to me and the magistrate judge.

within approximately 2 weeks of that conference call, the District Judge in charge of my case issued an ORDER for the FBI to complete the investigation within 45 days and USCIS to complete the case within another 45 days... Although this was good news, there was a chance that FBI or USCIS would want to appeal the order, so I decided to go ahead with the discovery process anyway (in parallel with the Judge's ORDER) and sent-in my questions/requests to the AUSA...

Today, I received a lengthy filing by the US Attorney, called 'Government's Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion For Reconsideration of the Court's Order Dated .../.../...'

This document is a detailed argument of the government why, first, the court has no jurisdiction, secondly, argues the point about 'examination', and also argues that IF the court decides to still accept my argument and send the case back to USCIS/FBI, it should remove the instruction about '45 days', etc. This ia basically a document similar to what many of you have received as a Motion to Dismiss (MTD)... Although the AUSA always seems nice and congenial on the phone conversations, his office is clearly swamped with these cases and they are planning a rigorous fight from now on....we need to continue to fight these cases, be prepared, do our best, and WIN!!!!

my question for the experts are these: first, this is not a MTD...if it were, my reply would be called a OMTD...does anyone know what I should call this document that I file with the court? more importantly, do I need to answer each and every one of the government's points, paragraph by paragraph, number by number? lastly, included in the package i received was a bound copy of the government's case, and an extra and separate 2-page stapled sheets that is titled: 'Notice of Motion'…do I file a notice like that as well? or do I just reply to the main document?

 

[shvili]

kk405, first,
AUSA was supposed to get a permission to file a Mot-n for reconsideration. According to pp.103 of CA Pro Se book (Internet version), she must show some serious reasons for the judge to even grant a permission to file. Unfortunately I can't print the excerpt but here is the pro se book, look up in ch 16. (Also, I just realized that my paper version of CA handbook that I got from court that I quoted to many members earlier doesn't match in page numbers with the internet version. Oops! Sorry, guys- I hope you still were able to find what I quoted!).

So unless AUSA can show change of laws, major change in circumstances, a failure of the court to consider material facts or key legal arguments presented at previous stages, the judge is not supposed to even permit the motion for reconsideration. Also, AUSA isn't allowed to repeat teh same arguments that were already presented before.
That is I think is very important: if she already argued these points before, she will be denied.

Now, if she filed Motion for permission, you're not supposed to answer to it. You are supposed to prepare for response only after (and if) the judge allows her to proceed, and this is definitely not for sure. So right now it looks like you don't have to do anything. But in you case I would start preparing answering point by point all her allegations although I would hope the judge would not permit it. Use Oppositions for MTD to prepare your brief. Just be ready, but don't worry too much as yet.

Good luck and please post the developments!

Thanks everyone for their help...but the plot in my case is thickening, and I am afraid that this will be the way the AUSAs will start to fight these cases, a bit underhanded and rigorous, and we need to get prepared....

As I mentioned before, during a conference call with the magistrate judge, she set certain deadline for discovery, etc....and during that conversation, she asked the AUSA: what have you done in the last 5 months regarding the plaintiff's case to which he didn’t have much of any answer, but he did volunteer that there have been several recent ORDERS by judges in Southern District of New York, ordering the FBI and USCIS to complete the investigations within 30 days...The judge asked for a copy of those cases and subsequently he sent a copy to me and the magistrate judge.

within approximately 2 weeks of that conference call, the District Judge in charge of my case issued an ORDER for the FBI to complete the investigation within 45 days and USCIS to complete the case within another 45 days... Although this was good news, there was a chance that FBI or USCIS would want to appeal the order, so I decided to go ahead with the discovery process anyway (in parallel with the Judge's ORDER) and sent-in my questions/requests to the AUSA...

Today, I received a lengthy filing by the US Attorney, called 'Government's Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion For Reconsideration of the Court's Order Dated .../.../...'

This document is a detailed argument of the government why, first, the court has no jurisdiction, secondly, argues the point about 'examination', and also argues that IF the court decides to still accept my argument and send the case back to USCIS/FBI, it should remove the instruction about '45 days', etc. This ia basically a document similar to what many of you have received as a Motion to Dismiss (MTD)... Although the AUSA always seems nice and congenial on the phone conversations, his office is clearly swamped with these cases and they are planning a rigorous fight from now on....we need to continue to fight these cases, be prepared, do our best, and WIN!!!!

my question for the experts are these: first, this is not a MTD...if it were, my reply would be called a OMTD...does anyone know what I should call this document that I file with the court? more importantly, do I need to answer each and every one of the government's points, paragraph by paragraph, number by number? lastly, included in the package i received was a bound copy of the government's case, and an extra and separate 2-page stapled sheets that is titled: 'Notice of Motion'…do I file a notice like that as well? or do I just reply to the main document?

 

[springbranch]

What if

hi all!,

I just wanted to let all of u know. I put an inquiry through a senator's office in which I asked them to inquire about my Name Check status from FBI . As u know, I already took my oath in June. I just received a letter from senator's office because they got a letter from Michael Cannon(Section chief of the NNCP). They forwarded me that letter and according to that letter, FBI finalized my Name check and sent it back to USCIS only two and half weeks after FBI received Summons from me. It took FBI more than three years to finalized my Name check and I am 100% sure that Lawsuit triggered it because at the time they sent my Name check back, my file had not yet reached AUSA .

So, looking at some other cases here in the forum and also my case, I personally believe that in most cases, as soon as FBI receives summons, they start working on your Name Check. This should remind new people on the forum that they must put FBI as a defendants and make sure that they served the copy of summons and complaint in a right way(Certified or Registered mail with return Receipt).

If you folks remember, about two/three weeks ago, someone from NJ told us that his I-485 got approved even though the judge dismissed his case. Whether the Name Check resolution starts from FBI office of general council OR CIS Office of general counsel remains a mystery for me, one thing is clear that lawsuit is still working in most cases. I hope this info is helpful. Best of luck to all who are still fighting!!! regards, dude

Thanks for the post. I am filing WoM this October that my case will be 1.5 year old. I am hoping filing WoM will make FBI complete my name check, but I am a little concerned about the possibility that Attorneys for US will try to dismiss the case without letting FBI know about my WoM.
What is your take on this scenario?
Thanks,

 

[kk405]

kk405, first,
AUSA was supposed to get a permission to file a Mot-n for reconsideration. According to pp.103 of CA Pro Se book (Internet version), she must show some serious reasons for the judge to even grant a permission to file. Unfortunately I can't print the excerpt but here is the pro se book, look up in ch 16. (Also, I just realized that my paper version of CA handbook that I got from court that I quoted to many members earlier doesn't match in page numbers with the internet version. Oops! Sorry, guys- I hope you still were able to find what I quoted!).

So unless AUSA can show change of laws, major change in circumstances, a failure of the court to consider material facts or key legal arguments presented at previous stages, the judge is not supposed to even permit the motion for reconsideration. Also, AUSA isn't allowed to repeat teh same arguments that were already presented before.
That is I think is very important: if she already argued these points before, she will be denied.

Now, if she filed Motion for permission, you're not supposed to answer to it. You are supposed to prepare for response only after (and if) the judge allows her to proceed, and this is definitely not for sure. So right now it looks like you don't have to do anything. But in you case I would start preparing answering point by point all her allegations although I would hope the judge would not permit it. Use Oppositions for MTD to prepare your brief. Just be ready, but don't worry too much as yet.

Good luck and please post the developments!

Thanks shvili.... I looked at my case on pacer and there is no other documents after the Judge's Order 2 weeks ago....I am not aware of the Judge giving permission to the AUSA to file a 'reconsideration motion'...However, in the Motion, the AUSA is arguing that " ...in issuing its Order, the Court may have overlooked facts and authorities that, had they been considered, may have influenced, and possibly changed, the Court's decision' and then it goes into details of 'examination' 'lack of jurisdiction',

and this is also very important regarding 'examination': there is a point in the Motion that says the ONLY Court of Appeals to have considered the question of 'examination' was a recent one in the 5th cir. June 19, 2007 Walji vs. Gonzales, where the Plaintiff apparently lost...

I am preparing my motion and as of now, I am calling it ' Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Court's Order dated .../.../...'

 

[imhrb]

Question about MTD/Response etc.

Lazycis (or anyone else with experience),

We filed the response to AUSA's MTD last week.

1- What is the benefit of motion for summary judgment? Does it just put somewhat of an extra pressure on the judge to decide in our favor? I have heard/seen in the past those getting denied; if that happens, is it a bad sign?

2- I have been reading stuff about "joint stipulation" to remand the case back to CIS for them to decide in 30 days of whatever. I am assuming it means that plaintiff and AUSA decide together to file this request. Is that correct? Also, is this something that is initiated by the AUSA or is it a good idea for me to do it?

Finally, which of the two should be done first? Or both one after the other?

Thanks

 

[imhrb]

Thanks shvili.... I looked at my case on pacer and there is no other documents after the Judge's Order 2 weeks ago....I am not aware of the Judge giving permission to the AUSA to file a 'reconsideration motion'...However, in the Motion, the AUSA is arguing that " ...in issuing its Order, the Court may have overlooked facts and authorities that, had they been considered, may have influenced, and possibly changed, the Court's decision' and then it goes into details of 'examination' 'lack of jurisdiction',

and this is also very important regarding 'examination': there is a point in the Motion that says the ONLY Court of Appeals to have considered the question of 'examination' was a recent one in the 5th cir. June 19, 2007 Walji vs. Gonzales, where the Plaintiff apparently lost...

I am preparing my motion and as of now, I am calling it ' Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Court's Order dated .../.../...'

kk405,

Do you mind me asking which District court are you in?