Alegre v. Contreras

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CINDY ALEGRE, et al, Case No.: 16-cv-02442-AJB-MSB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER LIFTING STAY 13 v. 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Presently before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Status Report (“JSR,” Doc. No. 242), 18 which was filed in response to the Court’s October 25, 2023 Order Granting Joint Motion 19 for Remand and Stay (“Order,” Doc. No. 244). In the Order, the Court remanded the matter 20 to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) for the purpose of the agency’s reconsideration, 21 consistent with the terms of the Parties’ agreement, of the April 7, 2006 decision denying 22 a requested correction of the recorded blood degree of Modesta Martinez Contreras (the 23 “Blood Quantum Decision”). (Order at 2.) The Court further stayed the action pending 24 resolution of the BIA’s reconsideration of the Blood Quantum Decision. (Id.) The Court 25 ordered the Parties to notify the Court by filing a joint status report promptly after the 26 resolution of the BIA’s reconsideration of the Blood Quantum Decision. (Id.) 27 In the Parties’ JSR, they state that on October 31, 2024, the BIA issued its final 28 decision for reconsideration, denying Plaintiffs’ request to increase Mrs. Contreras’ blood 1 || degree. (JSR at 1—2.) In light of these facts, the Court LIFTS the stay on these proceedings. 2 || See Ralph v. HAJ, Inc., No. 17CV1332 JM(JMA), 2019 WL 313098, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 3 2019) (“[A] court may lift a stay of litigation when the reasons for imposing the stay 4 || no longer exist.”). As new deadlines must be set, the Court DIRECTS the Parties to contact 5 ||the chambers of Magistrate Judge Berg to schedule a status conference for the Parties to 6 || attend. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. ? ||Dated: February 23, 2025 Q Ite : 10 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28