Dhunna v. Department of Homeland Security

1 The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE PAWANDEEP DHUNNA, ) No.: 2:21-cv-00720-BJR ) 9 Plaintiff, ) STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO ) CONTINUE DEADLINES 10 vs. ) ) DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND ) SECURITY, et al., ) 12 ) Defendants. ) 13 STIPULATION 14 Plaintiff Pawandeep Dhunna and Defendants the Department of Homeland Security, et al., through their respective counsel, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and Local Rules 10(g) and 16, and hereby jointly stipulate and move for a 90-day extension of (1) the deadline for Defendants to respond to the Complaint, and (2) the deadlines in the Court’s order (Dkt. #10) that sets dates for the exchange of Initial Disclosures and filing a Combined Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan.

20 A court may modify a deadline for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Continuing pretrial and trial dates is within the discretion of the trial judge. See King v. State of California, 784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir. 1986).

23 The parties submit there is good cause for an extension of the deadlines as there was when the parties submitted their previous stipulated request for an extension of the deadlines (Dkt. #7, 9). As the parties explained then, statutory authorization related to the EB-5 regional center program (the program under which the plaintiff filed an I-526 petition) expired at the end of the day on June 30, 2021. The lapse continues. Due to this lapse in authorization, in general, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) will not act on any pending Form I-526 petition that is dependent on the lapsed statutory authority until further notice. See https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/permanent-workers/eb-5-immigrant- investor-program (second alert). In addition, “[a]lthough USCIS is unable to review [the plaintiff’s Request for Evidence] response at this time, [USCIS] will . . . maintain the response for review if circumstances change.” A 90-day extension will give the parties time to monitor whether Congress will renew the statutory authorization related to the regional center program and to assess the impact of such reauthorization (or lack thereof) on this litigation. Continuing the existing deadlines for a responsive pleading, initial disclosures, and a joint status report will allow the parties to conserve resources because they will not have to expend resources completing work on the case that may become moot (or the issues may change) depending on whether Congress renews the statutory authorization related to the program.

17 Therefore, the parties agree to and propose new deadlines as follows: Action Deadline Defendants’ responsive pleading May 9, 2022 Rule 26(f) Conference April 25, 2022 Exchange initial disclosures May 2, 2022 File Joint Status Report May 9, 2022 // IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

2 DATED: January 19, 2022 s/ Gabrielle D. Schneck Gabrielle D. Schneck, WSBA #45448 3 Millar & Hayes, PC 2633 Eastlake Avenue E., Suite 300 4 Seattle, WA Phone: 206.262.0561 5 [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff

8 DATED: January 19, 2022 NICHOLAS W. BROWN United States Attorney s/ Michelle R. Lambert 10 MICHELLE R. LAMBERT, NYS#4666657 Assistant United States Attorney 11 United States Attorney’s Office 1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 700 12 Tacoma, WA 98402 Phone: (253) 428-3824 13 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Defendants ] ORDER 2 IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 DATED this 27th day of January, 2022. ficraa focheteins 5 ARBARA J..ROTHSTEIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE STIPULATED MOTION UNITED STATES ATTORNEY AND ORDER 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220 9-91-cv-00720-BJIR SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101