Skip to content

Case Detail

[Subscribe to updates]
Case TitleSOTO, et al v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DistrictDistrict of Columbia
CityWashington, DC
Case Number1:2014cv00604
Date Filed2014-04-13
Date Closed2017-03-27
JudgeJudge Randolph D. Moss
PlaintiffMAURICIO ROJAS SOTO
PlaintiffAMALIA SIERRA CORREAL
PlaintiffNATHALIA ROJAS SIERRA
PlaintiffISABELLA ROJAS SIERRA
Case DescriptionMauricio Rojas Soto made a FOIA request to the State Department for all records relied upon by the agency in denying his family a visa. The agency released three documents in full and 14 in part. It withheld 110 documents under Exemption 3 (other statutes), citing Section 222(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Soto appealed and the agency told him that since it had missed the 20-day time limit for responding, he could file suit. Soto then filed suit.
Complaint issues: immediate disclosure of records, attorney's fees

DefendantUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Documents
Docket
Complaint
Opinion/Order [20]
FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Randolph Moss has ruled that the State Department may supplement its affidavits to support its interpretation that 8 U.S.C. § 1202(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits disclosure of records concerning revocation of visas as well as denials of visas. The case involved State's decision to deny a non-immigrant visa to Colombian citizen Mauricio Rojas Soto because the agency believed Soto was involved in illicit drug trafficking. As a result of that finding, State denied the visa applications for Soto's wife and daughter and revoked the student visa of another daughter on the ground that no family member was eligible for admission to the U.S. if the head of the household is ineligible. The Sotos brought suit to obtain records about their applications and any other records about themselves. The agency found 132 records. It released three records in full, 14 records with redactions, and withheld 115 records in full. The agency claimed all the records withheld were covered by Exemption 3 (other statutes). The Sotos challenged the agency's search, arguing that it should have found records related to why the agency had concluded Mauricio was involved in drug trafficking. Moss noted, however, that "Plaintiffs' dissatisfaction with the Department's search, moreover, seems to turn on the proposition that the Department must have some records that relate to why it believed that Mauricio Rojas Soto was involved in drug trafficking." He observed that "FOIA merely requires an agency to describe what it did to search for records in response to a FOIA request�"not to describe how it originally located records relied upon in making an administrative decision. . .[T]o the extent the Plaintiffs seek documents maintained in the files of other agencies, an agency does not have a duty to release records or documents that are not under its control or possession." The Sotos argued that § 1202(f), which pertains "to the issuance or refusal of visas or permits to enter the United States" did not apply to the revocation of their daughter's student visa. While several courts have ruled that § 1202(f) does not apply to revocations of existing visas, Moss explained that he "is not yet convinced that visa revocations fall beyond the reach of section 1202(f)." He noted that Section 1202 "established the procedures that effectuate the authorities granted in section 1201. The provisions, accordingly, appear to work together in a manner that might well contemplate the application of the confidentiality provisions of section 1202(f) to the entire grouping of proceedings." But Moss indicated that here the State Department's problem was that it had not provided sufficient information about the revocation of the daughter's student visa and how it related to the denial of a visa to Mauricio Soto. He noted that "the Department needs to be more specific about what it is withholding and on what basis. Its supporting declaration and Vaughn index, for example, should distinguish between the different terms and concepts that form possible bases for withholding. Only after the Department provides that information can the Court address whether the Department's refusal of issuance and revocation decisions were 'inextricably intertwined' in this case." The Sotos also questioned whether the agency had disclosed all non-exempt materials. With the exception of the dispute over their daughter's student visa, Moss found the agency had appropriately considered whether any non-exempt material could be separated and disclosed. He observed that "this is thus not a case where the Agency has withheld large reports or documents containing merely passing references to particular visa applications; rather, Plaintiffs' visa applications were the primary subject of, or reason for the existence of, each document withheld."
Issues: Adequacy - Search, Exemption 3 - Statutory prohibition of disclosure
Opinion/Order [36]
FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Randolph Moss has ruled decisively in favor of the State Department's use of 8 U.S.C. § 1202(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to withhold records pertaining to the revocation of visas under Exemption 3 (other statutes), finding that § 1202(f) covers information pertaining to both issuing and revoking visas. The case involved a request by Mauricio Rojas Soto, a Colombian citizen, for records concerning the agency's decision to deny Soto a non-immigrant visa to enter the United State based on allegations that he had been involved in drug trafficking. At the same time, State denied visas to Amalia Sierra Correal and Isabella Rojas Sierra, and revoked a student visa previously issued to Nathalia Rojas Sierra, apparently on the ground that the spouse, son, or daughter of anyone involved in drug trafficking was also inadmissible. The family filed suit and in August 2015 Moss ruled against them on the visa application records, but asked for further briefing on the issue of whether § 1202(f) also protected the revocation of Nathalia's student visa. Several recent district court decisions, particularly Darnbrough v. Dept of State, 924 F. Supp. 2d 213 (D.D.C. 2013), had concluded that because § 1202(f) appeared in a section of the INA dealing with issuing visas, it did not reach revocation of visas. However, the State Department's argument has remained consistent"that the agency used the same kinds of records to revoke a visa that it used to issue a visa and, thus, there was no legal distinction between them. Agreeing with the agency's position, Moss noted that "the language of the statute, standing alone, is sufficiently capacious to encompass this result. Indeed, although the Court previously withheld judgment on the issue, it now holds that this statutory language is best read to reach visa revocations, which 'pertain' to the 'issuance or refusal of visas or permits to enter the United States.' That is, as a textual matter, a decision to revoke a visa relates to, has a bearing on, or concerns the issuance of a visa"it nullifies that action." Moss observed that "it is difficult to understand why Congress would have intended to treat documents related to the issuance or refusal of a visa as confidential, while declining to protect similar (if not identical) documents that relate to the revocation of a visa." He added that "the revocation of a visa also, as the Department explains, involves either revisiting the information relied upon in the initial issuance of the visa or considering new information that would usually be made available in an application for the issuance of a new visa. In either situation, the Department's decision to revoke a visa is essentially the same as its decision whether to issue a visa in the first instance." Soto had asked Moss to reconsider his original decision accepting the State Department's finding that he had been involved in drug trafficking. As new evidence to support the motion for reconsideration, Soto explained that he had made a FOIA request to the DEA, which responded that it had no records on him. Moss was not convinced by the DEA response, noting that "the [State] Department did not decline to provide records to the plaintiffs because none existed; indeed, it told them that it had identified over 400 pages that might be responsive to their request." Moss pointed out that "the fact that a different agency failed to identify responsive documents does not undermine the Department's assertion that it located responsive documents, nor is it evident how such a suggestion would support the plaintiffs' efforts to obtain documents from the Department." Soto argued State should have processed his request under the Privacy Act as well, since he had cited the Privacy Act in his complaint. But Moss indicated that "the only claim alleged [under the Privacy Act]"and the only relief sought"relates to the plaintiffs' demand that the Department 'immediately release the requested records to the plaintiffs.' Likewise, in their prior briefing, Plaintiffs did not raise this issue"or even hint at it. In light of their failure to raise any claim for correction of agency records or damages under the Privacy Act until now, the Court declines to reconsider its opinion on this basis."
Issues: Exemption 3 - Statutory prohibition of disclosure
Opinion/Order [40]
User-contributed Documents
 
Docket Events (Hide)
Date FiledDoc #Docket Text

2014-04-151COMPLAINT against UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE filed by All Plaintiffs (Filing fee $400, Receipt #: 0090-3683824).(Herrick, Peter) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
2014-04-152CIVIL COVER SHEET by AMALIA SIERRA CORREAL filed by AMALIA SIERRA CORREAL.(Herrick, Peter) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
2014-04-153NOTICE by AMALIA SIERRA CORREAL (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons)(Herrick, Peter) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
2014-04-16Case Assigned to Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. (md, ) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
2014-04-164SUMMONS (3) ISSUED ELECTRONICALLY as to UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Summons 2nd, # 2 Summons 3rd, # 3 Notice of Conent, # 4 Consent Form)(md, ) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
2014-04-175AMENDED COMPLAINT against UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE filed by AMALIA SIERRA CORREAL.(Herrick, Peter) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
2014-04-296RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 4/24/2014. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 5/24/2014. (Herrick, Peter) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
2014-05-277NOTICE of Appearance by Benton Gregory Peterson on behalf of All Defendants (Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
2014-05-278ANSWER to 5 Amended Complaint by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. Related document: 5 Amended Complaint filed by AMALIA SIERRA CORREAL.(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
2014-06-03MINUTE ORDER. The parties shall file a joint proposed briefing schedule no later than June 24, 2014. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 6/3/2014. (lcrmc1) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
2014-06-03Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint proposed briefing schedule due by 6/24/2014. (cdw) (Entered: 06/04/2014)
2014-06-249STATUS REPORT Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 06/24/2014)
2014-06-24MINUTE ORDER. Pursuant to the 9 Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule, it is hereby ordered that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed no later than 8/27/14; Plaintiffs' Opposition/Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed no later than 9/27/14; Defendant's Opposition/Reply shall be filed no later than 10/27/14; and Plaintiffs' Reply shall be filed no later than 11/27/14. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 6/24/2014. (lcrmc1) (Entered: 06/24/2014)
2014-06-24Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Defendant's Summary Judgment motion due by 8/27/2014. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 9/27/2014. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/27/2014. Plaintiffs' Cross Motion due by 9/27/2014. Response to Cross Motion due by 10/27/2014. Reply to Cross Motions due by 11/27/2014. (cdw) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
2014-08-2610MOTION for Extension of Time to File by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
2014-08-2711RESPONSE re 10 MOTION for Extension of Time to File filed by AMALIA SIERRA CORREAL. (Herrick, Peter) (Entered: 08/27/2014)
2014-09-02MINUTE ORDER granting 10 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant has provided sufficient reasons to justify its request for a modest extension. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed no later than September 16, 2014; Plaintiffs' Opposition/Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed no later than October 16, 2014; Defendant's Opposition/Reply shall be filed no later than November 17, 2014; and Plaintiffs' Reply shall be filed no later than December 8, 2014. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 9/2/2014. (lcrmc1) Modified on 9/3/2014 (cdw). (Entered: 09/02/2014)
2014-09-02Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Defendant's Summary Judgment motion due by 9/16/2014. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/16/2014. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/17/2014. Plaintiffs' Cross Motion due by 10/16/2014. Response to Cross Motions due by 11/17/2014. Reply to Cross Motions due by 12/8/2014. (cdw) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
2014-09-1612MOTION for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
2014-09-1713NOTICE of Filing by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE re 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Declaration w/ exhibits)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
2014-10-1414MOTION for Extension of Time to by MAURICIO ROJAS SOTO (Herrick, Peter) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
2014-10-14MINUTE ORDER granting 14 Plaintiffs' Motion to Enlarge the Briefing Schedule. Plaintiffs' Opposition/Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed no later than October 23, 2014; Defendant's Opposition/Reply shall be filed no later than November 24, 2014; and Plaintiffs' Reply shall be filed no later than December 15, 2014. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on October 14, 2014. (lcrmc1) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
2014-10-14Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Plaintiffs' Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/23/2014. Defendant's Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/24/2014. Plaintiffs' Cross Motion due by 10/23/2014. Defendant's Response to Cross Motions due by 11/24/2014. Plaintiffs' Reply to Cross Motions due by 12/15/2014. (cdw) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
2014-10-2315MOTION for Summary Judgment by MAURICIO ROJAS SOTO (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Material Facts, # 3 Dispute Defendant's Material Facts, # 4 Proposed Order)(Herrick, Peter) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
2014-10-24NOTICE OF ERROR re 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; emailed to pherrick1@comcast.net, cc'd 3 associated attorneys -- The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Two-part docket entry, 2. Please refile document, 3. Counsel IS instructed to DOCKET the opposition as a separate entry. ACTION REQUIRED (zrdj, ) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
2014-10-2616Memorandum in opposition to re 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by MAURICIO ROJAS SOTO. (Herrick, Peter) (Entered: 10/26/2014)
2014-11-19Case randomly reassigned to Judge Randolph D. Moss. Judge Rosemary M. Collyer no longer assigned to the case. (gt, ) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
2014-11-2417Memorandum in opposition to re 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
2014-11-2418REPLY to opposition to motion re 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
2014-12-1519REPLY to opposition to motion re 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by MAURICIO ROJAS SOTO. (Herrick, Peter) Modified on 12/16/2014 to correct linkage (zrdj). (Entered: 12/15/2014)
2015-08-0620MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING in part and DENYING in part Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment 12 and DENYING Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 15 . It is further ORDERED that on or before August 28, 2015, the Department shall file an additional affidavit providing further detail as to whether each document pertains to the issuance, denial, or revocation of a visa. See Order for Details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 8/6/2015. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 08/06/2015)
2015-08-2021Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 08/20/2015)
2015-08-2822NOTICE of Filing of Declaration of Jeffrey H. Gorsky by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE re 20 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,, (Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 08/28/2015)
2015-09-04MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendant's unopposed Motion for Extension of Time 21 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Although Defendant has already filed an affidavit 22 addressing some of the issues in the Court's August 6, 2015 Memorandum Opinion and Order 20 , Defendant may file a supplemental submission addressing the issues set forth in that Memorandum and Order on or before October 13, 2015. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 9/4/2015. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 09/04/2015)
2015-09-04Set/Reset Deadline: Defendant may file a supplemental submission addressing the issues set forth in the August 6, 2015 Memorandum and Order, on or before 10/13/2015. (kt) (Entered: 09/04/2015)
2015-10-2023ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that (1) the Department of State shall file a renewed motion for summary judgment on or before November 20, 2015; (2) Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the Department's renewed motion for summary judgment on or before December 21, 2015, and may, at the same time, file a cross-motion for summary judgment in combination with that opposition; (3) the Department may file a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment on or before January 8, 2016; and, if Plaintiffs file a cross-motion for summary judgment, shall, at the same time, file an opposition to Plaintiffs' cross-motion in combination with its reply; and (4) Plaintiffs may file a reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment, if any, on or before January 29, 2016. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/20/2015. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
2015-10-20Set/Reset Deadlines: Department of State shall file a renewed motion for summary judgment on or before 11/20/2015; Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the Department's renewed motion for summary judgment on or before 12/21/2015, and may, at the same time, file a cross-motion for summary judgment in combination with that opposition; the Department may file a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment on or before 1/8/2016; and, if Plaintiffs file a cross-motion for summary judgment, shall, at the same time, file an opposition to Plaintiffs' cross-motion in combination with its reply; Plaintiffs may file a reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment, if any, on or before 1/29/2016. (kt) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
2015-11-2024Second MOTION for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
2015-12-1625MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 24 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment by AMALIA SIERRA CORREAL (Herrick, Peter) (Entered: 12/16/2015)
2015-12-17MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiffs' consent motion to enlarge the briefing schedule 25 is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment and any cross-motion for summary judgment on or before January 21, 2016. Defendant shall file any reply in support of its motion for summary judgment and/or opposition to Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on or before February 23, 2016. If Plaintiffs file a cross-motion for summary judgment, they shall file any reply in support of their motion on or before March 16, 2016. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 12/17/2015. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 12/17/2015)
2015-12-17Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment and any cross-motion for summary judgment on or before 1/21/2016; Defendant shall file any reply in support of its motion for summary judgment and/or opposition to Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on or before 2/23/2016; If Plaintiffs file a cross-motion for summary judgment, they shall file any reply in support of their motion on or before 3/16/2016. (kt) (Entered: 12/17/2015)
2016-01-2026MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,, by MAURICIO ROJAS SOTO (Herrick, Peter) (Entered: 01/20/2016)
2016-01-22MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiffs' motion to enlarge the briefing schedule 26 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to the government's renewed motion for summary judgment and cross-motion for summary judgment on or before February 5, 2016. Defendant shall file its opposition to Plaintiffs' cross-motion and/or any reply in support of its motion on or before March 9, 2016. Plaintiffs shall file any reply in support of their cross-motion on or before March 30, 2016. Plaintiffs may file a renewed motion for additional time, if necessary, after conferring with the government regarding that request. Any further motion for an extension of time shall be filed no fewer than three days before the deadline to be extended. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 1/22/2016. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
2016-01-22Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to the government's renewed motion for summary judgment and cross-motion for summary judgment on or before 2/5/2016; Defendant shall file its opposition to Plaintiffs' cross-motion and/or any reply in support of its motion on or before 3/9/2016; Plaintiffs shall file any reply in support of their cross-motion on or before 3/30/2016. (kt) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
2016-02-0227MOTION for Extension of Time to by MAURICIO ROJAS SOTO (Herrick, Peter) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
2016-02-02MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiffs' consent motion to enlarge the briefing schedule 27 is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to the government's renewed motion for summary judgment and cross-motion for summary judgment on or before March 7, 2016. Defendant shall file its opposition to Plaintiffs' cross-motion and/or any reply in support of its motion on or before April 6, 2016. Plaintiffs may file a reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment, if any, on or before April 27, 2016. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 2/2/2016. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
2016-02-03Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to the government's renewed motion for summary judgment and cross-motion for summary judgment on or before 3/7/2016; Defendant shall file its opposition to Plaintiffs' cross-motion and/or any reply in support of its motion on or before 4/6/2016; Plaintiffs may file a reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment, if any, on or before 4/27/2016. (kt) Modified on 2/25/2016 to correct date(kt). (Entered: 02/03/2016)
2016-03-0228MOTION for Relief from Judgment by MAURICIO ROJAS SOTO (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Herrick, Peter) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
2016-03-0529NOTICE Of Filing by MAURICIO ROJAS SOTO re 28 MOTION for Relief from Judgment (Herrick, Peter) (Entered: 03/05/2016)
2016-03-0730MOTION for Summary Judgment by NATHALIA ROJAS SIERRA (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Herrick, Peter) (Entered: 03/07/2016)
2016-03-0731Memorandum in opposition to re 24 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by AMALIA SIERRA CORREAL, ISABELLA ROJAS SIERRA, NATHALIA ROJAS SIERRA, MAURICIO ROJAS SOTO. (See docket entry 30 to view document)(zrdj) (Entered: 03/07/2016)
2016-03-2132Memorandum in opposition to re 28 MOTION for Relief from Judgment filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
2016-03-3133REPLY to opposition to motion re 28 MOTION for Relief from Judgment filed by MAURICIO ROJAS SOTO. (Herrick, Peter) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
2016-04-0634Memorandum in opposition to re 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
2016-04-2735REPLY to opposition to motion re 24 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by NATHALIA ROJAS SIERRA. (Herrick, Peter) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
2016-06-1736MEMORANDUM OPINION: For the reasons set out in this Memorandum Opinion, the Court will grant the Department's motion for summary judgment, deny the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, and deny the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The Court will delay the entry of judgment in this case for two weeks, until July 1, 2016. See Memorandum Opinion for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 6/17/2016. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
2016-06-1737ORDER: For the reasons stated in the Court's Memorandum Opinion 36 , the Court hereby ORDERS that (1) the Department's renewed motion for summary judgment 24 is GRANTED; (2) the plaintiffs' renewed cross-motion for summary judgment 30 is DENIED; (3) the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration 28 is DENIED; and (4) the plaintiffs shall file any motion for leave to amend their complaint on or before July 1, 2016. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 6/17/2016. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
2016-06-17Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs shall file any motion for leave to amend their complaint on or before 7/1/2016. (kt) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
2016-06-3038MOTION for Leave to File SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by AMALIA SIERRA CORREAL, ISABELLA ROJAS SIERRA, NATHALIA ROJAS SIERRA, MAURICIO ROJAS SOTO (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Second Amended Complaint)(Herrick, Peter) Modified on 7/1/2016 (zrdj). (Entered: 06/30/2016)
2016-07-1839Memorandum in opposition to re 38 MOTION for Leave to File filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 07/18/2016)
2017-03-2540MEMORANDUM OPINION denying Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint 38 . See attached document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 3/25/2017. (lcrdm2, ) Modified on 3/27/2017 (kt). (Entered: 03/25/2017)
2017-03-2541ORDER: The State Department's motion for summary judgment 24 is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is hereby DENIED. See attached document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 3/25/2017. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 03/25/2017)
Hide Docket Events
by FOIA Project Staff