Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chen v. U.S. Bank National Association

United States District Court, W.D. Washington Seattle.

April 5, 2018

CHI CHEN, PI-CHUAN CHANG, PI-SHAN CHANG, SHUQIN CHEN, XIANGLI CHEN, BINGXIN FAN, QIANG GUO, JINSONG HUANG, LIHUA HUANG, JIAPING JIANG, XIAOWEN JIN, CHENMIN LI, JINGHAN LI, YUN LIU, XIAOWEN PAN, XIAOLI SONG, JINGUO WANG, JIE XIONG, BIN XU, LU YU, QIANG ZHAO, YANYI ZHAO, WENQUAN ZHI, QUAN ZHOU, YIQIN CHEN, KE LI, MING LI, LEI WANG, and ZHISHENG YUAN, Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; QUARTZBURG GOLD, LP; ISR CAPITAL, LLC; IDAHO STATE REGIONAL CENTER, LLC; and SIMA MUROFF, Defendants.

          Peter Ehrlichman, Shawn Larsen-Bright, Attorneys for Defendant U.S. Bank National Association.

          Eric B. Swartz, admitted pro hac vice, Thomas M. Brennan Attorneys for Defendant Sima Muroff.

          Michael Black, Rita M. Cornish, April M. Medley, Lawrence Carl Locker, Steven O. Fortney, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

          Sean C. Knowles, Austin J. Rice-Stitt, Sean T. Prosser, Attorneys for Defendants Quartzburg Gold, LP, ISR Capital LLC and Idaho State Regional Center, LLC.

          JOINT STATUS REPORT AND STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND STAY

          RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         All parties to this action (the “Parties”) hereby respectfully submit this Joint Status Report and Stipulated Motion to Extend Stay. As set forth herein, the Parties stipulate to and jointly request that activity in this case continue to be stayed, with the Parties to submit a further joint status report within ninety days. Good cause, including judicial economy and efficiency for the Parties, supports this stipulated motion.[1]

         On December 28, 2017, the Parties submitted their Joint Status Report and Stipulated Motion and Order to Strike Case Schedule and Trial Date (“First Stipulated Motion”). Dkt. 95. In their First Stipulated Motion, the Parties described the background of this litigation and the subsequent events and related litigation that have significantly impacted it. Id. (For efficiency and to avoid unnecessary repetition, the Parties incorporate by reference and will not restate their prior description of these issues). On January 2, 2018, this Court granted the First Stipulated Motion. Dkt. 96. Per the Parties' stipulation, the Court ordered that the case schedule and trial date in this case be stricken, and further ordered the Parties to submit a further joint status report and a proposed case schedule within ninety days. Id. This joint submission timely follows.

         As detailed in the First Stipulated Motion, one of the primary reasons the Parties had initially entered into a series of informal stays and ultimately filed the First Stipulated Motion was the potential significant effect on this case of the ongoing administrative and litigation proceedings involving United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), the government agency responsible for adjudicating Plaintiffs' immigration petitions. Also as detailed in the First Stipulated Motion, USCIS has re-opened and has been reconsidering the immigration petitions of Plaintiffs and other investors, on remand from a court order in related ongoing litigation (John Doe et al. v. USCIS, D.D.C. Case No. 1:15-cv-00273). USCIS originally denied the applications but is now reconsidering that decision. The ongoing USCIS reconsideration process and related litigation are of direct relevance to the Parties' claims and defenses here. If the ultimate result of the USCIS reconsideration or related litigation was that the immigration petitions of the investor-plaintiffs were approved, that could have a very significant impact on the claims being asserted in the cases before this Court. The interests of judicial economy and efficiency to the Parties therefore strongly support waiting for the reconsidered decision from USCIS before incurring the potentially needless burden and expense that would be associated with discovery and other events in this litigation.

         USCIS had initially stated that it anticipated issuing new decisions in approximately the early Spring of 2018, which is what the Parties previously informed this Court in the First Stipulated Motion. However, USCIS has not yet issued any decisions and has recently informed counsel that it now anticipates decisions being made in or about May 2018. Thus, the reasons for staying this case are the same now as they were when the case schedule was stricken in January, and the Parties are not yet in a position to evaluate how that USCIS decision will impact the claims at issue in this case or make any proposals as to a new case schedule. The Parties agree it is in their best interests for the stay to continue at this time.

         Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein and for purposes of efficiency for the Parties and judicial economy, the Parties stipulate to and jointly request that activity in this case continue to be stayed, with the Parties to submit a further joint status report, together with a proposed case schedule if appropriate, within ninety days.

         Stipulated and Respectfully Submitted this 2nd day of April, 2018.

         ORDER

         PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. The Parties are directed to submit a further joint status report, together with a proposed case schedule if appropriate, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.