Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled June 18, 2024

Bojja v. Jaddou

Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Docket
5:22-cv-04867
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureImmigration
In one sentence

In Bojja v. Jaddou, Judge Demarchi ordered the proceedings to remain stayed pending a Supreme Court order in the related Babaria case.

Who this affects

The stay affects Harsha Bojja and Ur Jaddou, Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, because proceedings in their case remain on hold.

What happened

In Bojja v. Jaddou, the parties submitted a joint statement about a related Ninth Circuit decision and a pending petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review it.

The parties asked the court to keep this case on hold until the Supreme Court either denied review or issued an order addressing the case’s merits. They also agreed that the plaintiffs would notify the court within seven days of either event.

Judge Virginia Demarchi adopted the parties’ stipulation, and the proceedings remain stayed. The order did not decide the underlying legal dispute.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Bojja v. Jaddou · No. 5:22-cv-04867
Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Date
June 18, 2024

Background The parties filed a joint case-management statement concerning the Ninth Circuit’s decision in a prior related proceeding, Babaria v. Blinken. The opinion states that the parties were awaiting action by the U.S. Supreme Court on a petition for review filed in that proceeding. The government’s response to the petition was due July 5, 2024.

Requested schedule The parties jointly asked the court to continue the stay of proceedings until the later of two events: the Supreme Court’s denial of review or the Supreme Court’s issuance of an order addressing the merits. The plaintiffs agreed to notify the court within seven days after either event.

Ruling Judge Virginia Demarchi ordered that, under the parties’ stipulation, the proceedings remain stayed. The order did not resolve the underlying dispute or rule on the merits of the claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.