Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01556/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01556-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 46:1156 Administrative Procedure Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

A.M.Q.A., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MONICA B. LUGO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01556-JLT-EPG

ORDER RE: JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULE 

FOR PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 54)

SEVEN (7) DAY DEADLINE

Before the Court is the parties’ joint proposed briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ motion for 

leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 54.) According to the parties’ joint report, 

“the Court ordered Parties to file a Joint Proposed Scheduled [sic] on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave 

to File Second Amended Complaint.” (ECF No. 54.) The parties submit a briefing schedule for 

the proposed motion, including an opposition deadline of July 15, 2022, a reply deadline of 

August 5, 2022, and a hearing on August 12, 2022. (Id.)

The proposed dates do not include “a schedule for proceeding with this case” as

previously ordered. (ECF Nos. 45, 50.) The Court cannot determine if the parties are in agreement 

to wait for further scheduling until the motion for leave to amend has been decided. If they are not 

in agreement, the Court requests the position of the parties to determine whether the case can 

proceed while the motion to amend has been determined or not.

Case 1:20-cv-01556-JLT-EPG Document 55 Filed 06/13/22 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Accordingly, the Court will direct the parties to file either a proposed schedule for this 

case or a joint statement that all parties agree to wait on further scheduling until the motion to 

amend has been resolved.

Additionally, if the parties file a statement indicating that they agree to defer scheduling 

until after the motion to amend has been resolved, they shall including a showing as to why the 

deadlines set forth in Local Rule 230 are insufficient and whether there is good cause for 

extending the briefing deadlines for the motion to amend. 

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within seven (7) days of entry 

of this order, the parties shall file either: 1) a proposed schedule for this case; or 2) a joint 

statement that all parties agree to wait on further scheduling until the motion to amend has been 

resolved. If the parties agree to wait on further scheduling, they shall also include a statement as 

to why the deadlines set forth in Local Rule 230 are insufficient for the briefing on the motion to 

amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2022 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01556-JLT-EPG Document 55 Filed 06/13/22 Page 2 of 2