Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01556/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01556-10/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 GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

PROPOSED SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(ECF Nos. 51, 58).

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’, A.M.Q.A, R.M.Q.A., N.M.Q.A. (1), 

N.M.Q.A. (2), Muneera Nasr Ali Mohamed, and Nassar Ali Abdullah Mohamed (“Plaintiffs”),

motion for leave to file a proposed second amended complaint. (ECF No. 51). For the reasons 

stated below, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the proposed second 

amended complaint.

On June 6, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for leave to amend pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). (ECF No. 51). Plaintiffs’ motion attaches the proposed second 

amended complaint. (ECF No. 51-2). A hearing on the motion is set for August 15, 2022. (ECF 

No. 57). On July 15, 2022, Defendants Monica B. Lugo, USCIS Fresno Field Office, Kenneth 

Cuccinelli, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), Monica Toro, and Lynn 

Feldman (“Defendants”) filed a response stating that Defendants “do not oppose Plaintiffs’ 

motion to file a second amended complaint” and that they intend to file a motion to dismiss 

Case 1:20-cv-01556-JLT-EPG Document 60 Filed 08/11/22 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

should Plaintiff be granted leave to file the proposed second amended complaint. (ECF No. 58, p. 

3).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that “a party may amend its pleading 

only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Rule 15(a)(2) further states 

that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Given that Defendants do not 

oppose Plaintiffs’ motion (See ECF No. 58), the Court finds good cause to grant leave to file the 

proposed second amended complaint. As such, the Court will vacate the August 15, 2022, hearing 

on the motion. 

Although the Court will permit amendment, nothing in this order precludes Defendants

from filing a motion to dismiss. Moreover, because the Court is permitting amendment and 

Defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss, the Court will not set a scheduling conference at 

this time and will vacate the status conference currently set for September 7, 2022. The Court will 

reset the scheduling conference, if necessary, later in this case. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 51) is granted. Plaintiffs shall 

file their proposed amended complaint by no later than August 18, 2022.

2. The hearing on the motion (ECF No. 57) set for August 15, 2022, is vacated. 

3. After the filing of the amended complaint, Defendants shall file a response within the time 

provided by the applicable Rules.

4. Given the filing of the second amended complaint, and anticipated response, the Court 

vacates the status conference set for September 7, 2022 (ECF No. 45) and will not set a 

scheduling conference at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2022 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01556-JLT-EPG Document 60 Filed 08/11/22 Page 2 of 2