Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01016/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01016-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 05:702 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZAFAR NEYMATOV, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ANTONY BLINKEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01016-CDB

ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR SECOND

EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS 

TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

(Doc. 10)

ORDER RESETTING SCHEDULING 

CONFERENCE

On August 27, 2024, Plaintiffs Zafar Neymatov, Alia Sanatulova, Alexsandr Komarov, 

and Maria Neymatova1(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated this action with the filing of a 

complaint against Defendants Antony J. Blinken (Secretary of the U.S. Department of State), 

Rena Bitter (Assistant Secretary of Bureau of Consular Affairs), Kate McGeary (Director of 

National Visa Center), and Michelle Yerkin (Consul General, Almaty, Kazakhstan) 

(collectively, “Defendants”). (Doc. 1).

On October 29, 2024, the Court granted the parties’ first extension of time for Defendants 

1 Plaintiff Maria Neymatova, originally identified as “M.N.” in the original complaint (Doc. 1), is 

the child of Plaintiffs Zafar Neymatov and Alia Sanutulova. (Doc. 6). On August 30, 2024, the 

Court ordered Plaintiffs to file either a motion for Plaintiff “M.N.” to proceed pseudonymously in 

this action or a first amended complaint identifying Plaintiff “M.N.” by full name on or before 

September 13, 2024. (Id. at 2). Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint on September 7, 2024, 

wherein Plaintiff “M.N.” is identified as Maria Neymatova. (Doc. 7 ¶ 5).

Case 1:24-cv-01016-CDB Document 11 Filed 12/09/24 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

to respond to the complaint by filing an answer or other responsive pleading until December 30, 

2024, and continued the scheduling conference to January 13, 2025. (Doc. 9).

Pending before the Court is the parties’ second stipulated request to extend the time for 

Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. (Doc. 10). The parties represent

this case concerns a set of visa applications of the non-citizen Plaintiffs in this case. (Id.). The 

parties represent that Plaintiffs have successfully submitted the requested documentation and a 

consular interview has been scheduled in this case for January 21, 2025. (Id.). The parties 

anticipate that a consular official will be able to complete the adjudication of the visa applications

following the consular interview. (Id.). The parties request that the new date for Defendants to 

file an answer or other dispositive pleading be extended to January 31, 2025. (Id.). The parties 

further request that all other filing deadlines be similarly extended. (Id.).

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Defendants shall have until 

January 31, 2025, to respond to the complaint by filing an answer or other responsive pleading. 

See Local Rule 144(a).

And it is FURTHER ORDERED that the scheduling conference set for January 13, 2025, 

is continued to February 12, 2025, at 10:00 AM.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01016-CDB Document 11 Filed 12/09/24 Page 2 of 2