Dvorak v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Civil Action No. 2018-1941
| D.D.C. | Apr 3, 2019Background
- Plaintiffs filed for a writ of mandamus in Aug. 2018 asking the Court to compel DHS to adjudicate long-delayed sibling visa applications.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) on Feb. 28, 2019, arguing the claims were moot because DHS had acted on the applications.
- The motion was supported by a sworn declaration from DHS and copies of final decisions on the visa applications.
- Plaintiffs did not file any opposition to the motion within the deadline; Local Civ. R. 7(b) permits treating an unopposed motion as conceded.
- The Court reviewed jurisdictional facts (per Rule 12(b)(1) standards) and concluded the Department’s actions provided the relief plaintiffs sought.
- Because the requested relief was already accomplished, the Court found the case moot and dismissed it without prejudice on April 3, 2019.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court has jurisdiction where DHS subsequently acted on visa applications | Plaintiffs sought court intervention because DHS had not acted; presumably argued relief remained needed | DHS argued its adjudication of the applications mooted plaintiffs’ requests and deprives the Court of jurisdiction | Court held the case is moot because DHS provided the relief requested; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether failure to oppose motion permits treating motion as conceded | Plaintiffs did not file an opposition; no separate counterargument presented | Defendants noted lack of opposition and argued Court may treat motion as conceded under local rule | Court treated the unopposed motion as conceded and relied on it in dismissing the action |
Key Cases Cited
- Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (Rule 12(b)(1) presents a threshold jurisdictional challenge)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; presumption against jurisdiction)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
- Jerome Stevens Pharm., Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (courts may consider materials outside the pleadings in jurisdictional inquiries)
- Schmidt v. United States, 749 F.3d 1064 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (mootness occurs when issues are no longer live or parties lack a legally cognizable interest)
- Mittleman v. Postal Regulatory Com’n, 757 F.3d 300 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (court cannot provide effective relief when plaintiff already obtained requested relief)