Case Activity (508)

1. Order | Filed: March 25, 2026 | Entered: March 25, 2026 Soliman et al v. Bondi et al

   Other Immigration Actions | New York Eastern

   Order on Motion to Reopen Case

   ORDER:
   
   Familiarity with the procedural history and background of this action is assumed herein. As particularly relevant here: (1) on July 21, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this action, see ECF No. 1; (2) on November 3, 2025, the Court issued an Order noting that Plaintiffs had failed to file proof of service and directing Plaintiffs to file, by November 7, 2025, proof of timely service or a letter explaining why the Complaint should not be dismissed for lack of timely service under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see November 3, 2025 Order; (3) on November 17, 2025, the Court issued an Order noting that Plaintiffs had failed to file proof of timely service or a letter explaining why the Complaint should not be dismissed for lack of timely service under Rule 4(m) and dismissing the Complaint without prejudice, see November 17, 2025 Order; and (4) on November 19, 2025, judgment was entered, see Judgment, ECF No. 7.
   
   On December 29, 2025 – almost six weeks after judgment was entered – Plaintiffs filed a document styled "Notice of Application to Reopen Case." See Notice, ECF No. 8. In the Notice, Plaintiffs request that the Court: "[r]eopen this action;" "[v]acate the judgment entered on November 19, 2025;" "[r]einstate the Complaint;" and "[p]ermit Plaintiff to effect service of process forthwith." See Notice at 3. Plaintiffs assert that "[s]ervice was not timely completed due to an internal clerical oversight within counsel's office;" that "Plaintiffs have acted diligently and in good faith at all times;" that "[n]o defendant has been prejudiced;" and that "the interests of justice favor resolution of Plaintiffs' claims on the merits." See Notice at 2. Plaintiffs – who are represented by counsel – do not set forth the legal basis for their request for relief and do not cite to any authority in support of their request for relief. See generally Notice.
   
   Plaintiffs' request for relief, ECF No. 8, is DENIED. As an initial matter, Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the requirements of Local Civil Rule 7.1. See Local Civil Rule 7.1 (setting forth requirements with respect to motions). Moreover, Plaintiffs' sparse – and largely conclusory – Notice fails to satisfy Plaintiffs' burden of demonstrating that relief from final judgment is warranted. See United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 247 F.3d 370, 391 (2d Cir. 2001) (noting that "[a] motion for relief from judgment is generally not favored and is properly granted only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances"); see also Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 561 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir. 2009) (noting that Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "provides a mechanism for extraordinary judicial relief available only if the moving party demonstrates exceptional circumstances" and that "relief under the rule is discretionary" (alteration accepted and quotations omitted)).
   
   Ordered by Judge Diane Gujarati on 3/25/2026. (KEP)

2. Motion | Filed: December 29, 2025 | Entered: December 29, 2025 Soliman et al v. Bondi et al

   Other Immigration Actions | New York Eastern

   Reopen Case

   Letter MOTION to Reopen Case by Menatallah Amro Abbas Sayed Gahalrasoul, Zeyad Amro Abbas Sayed Gahalrasoul, Abdelrahman Amro Abbas Sayed Gahelrassoul, Amro Abbas Sayed Gahelrassoul, Hemmat Moustafa Abdelhamid Soliman. (Frenkel, David)

3. 506 additional result(s)