1 2 3 4 5 JS-6 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAHMEH ALHERIMI, ) Case No. CV 24-3555 FMO (MARx) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) 13 v. ) ORDER RE: DISMISSAL WITHOUT ) PREJUDICE 14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND ) SECURITY, et al., ) 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 17 On April 30, 2024, Rahmeh Alherimi (“plaintiff”) filed an action against the United States 18 Department of Homeland Security, et al. (“defendants”), seeking declaratory relief and a writ of 19 mandamus compelling defendants to act on her application for asylum and withholding of removal. 20 (See Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 1-4, 20, 29-34). On June 14, 2024, the parties filed a Joint 21 Stipulation to Stay [the] Case Pending Adjudication of Application, (see Dkt. 33, “Joint 22 Stipulation”), and thereafter, the court granted parties’ Joint Stipulation and stayed the action until 23 September 2, 2025. (See Dkt. 34, Court’s Order of June 17, 2024). On September 5, 2024, the 24 case was reassigned to this court. (See Dkt. 35, Notice of Reassignment to District Judge []). 25 The court has reviewed the Joint Stipulation, where parties request a stay of the action in 26 the interest of judicial economy, noting that plaintiff will voluntarily dismiss this case upon receipt 27 of the asylum decision. (See Dkt. 33, Joint Stipulation at 3). In the court’s experience with 28 1 numerous similar requests in recent mandamus actions challenging similar delays, the setting of 2 an agreed interview date generally leads to the resolution of the parties’ dispute without the need 3 for further intervention by the court. However, staying cases requires the continued commitment 4 of judicial resources to monitoring the cases and ensuring compliance with requirements to file 5 status reports. It also increases the burden on the parties to file status reports or seek dismissal 6 of the stayed case upon resolution of the matter. It appears that the more efficient approach is 7 to lift the stay in this action, see Montgomery v. Target Corp.,

, *4 (C.D. Cal. 8 2019) (“The corollary to the power to stay is the ability to lift a stay previously imposed.”) (internal 9 quotation and alteration marks omitted), and dismiss it without prejudice to either party moving to 10 reopen nunc pro tunc in the event that further court intervention becomes necessary. The court 11 perceives no practical difference between this approach and the relief stipulated by the parties, 12 apart from eliminating the need for future monitoring or action if the parties honor their agreement, 13 as the court expects them to. 14 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 15 1. The previously imposed stay in the above-referenced matter is hereby lifted. 16 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice to any party seeking to vacate this Order 17 and reopen the action nunc pro tunc in the event that plaintiff is unable to receive a determination 18 in the time contemplated by the parties. 19 Dated this 20th day of September, 2024. 20 21 /s/ Fernando M. Olguin 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28