Jammu

Jammu v. Bardini

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 8, 20252:24-cv-02063California3,301 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BALWINDER JAMMU, et al., No. 2:24-cv-02063 CSK 12 Plaintiffs, 13 . ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

14 EMILIA BARDINI, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Balwinder Jammu and derivative applicants, Plaintiffs Manjinder Kaur and 18 Abhiraj Jammu, proceed on a complaint for a writ of mandamus.1 Compl. (ECF No. 1.) 19 Defendants Emilia Bardini, Ur M. Jaddou, Alejandro Mayorkas, and Merrick Garland, 20 federal officials sued in their official capacity, seek to dismiss the complaint under Rule 21 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defs. Mot. (ECF No. 13). In the 22 alternative, Defendants seek summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of 23 Civil Procedure. (Id.) Plaintiffs failed to file an opposition. See Docket. After reviewing the 24 filings, on January 3, 2025, the Court found the matter suitable for decision without oral 25 argument and vacated the hearing date of February 11, 2025. (ECF No. 15.) For the 26

27 1 This case…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.