Case Activity (3071)

1. Misc | Filed: July 08, 2026 | Entered: July 08, 2026 City of Seattle v. Trump et al

   Civil Rights: Other | Washington Western

   Declaration (non motion)

   DECLARATION of Sarah Louise Bishop re 85 Order on Stipulated Motion,,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, by Defendants Todd Blanche, Sean Duffy, Federal Transit Administration, MarkWayne Mullin, Office of Federal Contracts Compliance Programs, Office of Management and Budget, Ashley Romanias, Donald J Trump, Scott Turner, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, United States Department of Justice, United States Department of Transportation, United States of America, Russell Vought, Matthew Welbes (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Bishop, Sarah)

2. Order | Filed: July 07, 2026 | Entered: July 07, 2026 GEORGE HARMS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. et al v. GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION et al

   Labor: Other | New Jersey

   Order on Motion to Dismiss Order on Motion to Amend/Correct

   TEXT ORDER: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's cross motion to amend at Dkt. No. 88 , as well as Gateway Defendants' reply at Dkt. No. 97 , and the parties' supplemental joint letter at Dkt. No. 96 . As an initial matter, the Court finds it retains jurisdiction as set forth by the Third Circuit in United States v. Price, 688 F.2d 204, 215 (3d Cir. 1982) (noting the district court erred in staying all proceedings during the pendency of the appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction). Particularly tailored to the circumstances of this case, the Third Circuit noted in Price that "[a]lthough the filing of a notice of appeal ordinarily divests the district court of jurisdiction, S. E. C. v. Investors Security Corp., 560 F.2d 561, 568 (3d Cir. 1977), in an appeal from an order granting or denying a preliminary injunction, a district court may nevertheless proceed to determine the action on the merits." Id. (citations omitted). Next, in order to promote judicial efficiency and streamline the procedural steps here, Gateway Defendants' motion to dismiss at Dkt. No. 67 and Plaintiff's cross-motion to amend at Dkt. No. 88 are administratively terminated. Gerald Chamales Corp. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc., 247 F.R.D. 453, 454 (D.N.J. 2007) (Magistrate Judges have broad discretion to manage their docket); see also In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 818 (3d Cir. 1982) ("[M]atters of docket control and conduct of discovery are committed to the sound discretion of the district court."). After the Court issues its decision as to of the State of New Jersey's motion to intervene at Dkt. No. 99 , Plaintiff may file a formal motion to amend its complaint for the Court's consideration. Once the operative pleading is decided, Gateway Defendants may either refile their motion to dismiss or respond to the amended complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Proceeding in this manner will allow all parties the opportunity to participate in this litigation and will ensure the case proceeds most efficiently. So Order by Magistrate Judge Jose R. Almonte on 7/7/2026. (akw, )

3. 3069 additional result(s)