Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Georgia

YER USA, Inc. v. Magloire

Northern District of GeorgiaDecided June 27, 2022

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.

These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.

What the decision decided

Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.

Agency Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
the Plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking to compel the Defendants to provide an immediate decision on Plaintiff Camilla Daniels’s then-pending ETA-9141, Application for a Prevailing Wage Determination (“PWD”)
Kind of order An order on fees Read by a model
The Plaintiffs’ Motion for Costs and Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act [Doc. 24] is therefore DENIED.
Motion decided Fees under EAJA Read by a model
It is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Costs, Fees, and Other Expenses Under the Equal Access to Justice Act [Doc. 24].
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
It is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Costs, Fees, and Other Expenses Under the Equal Access to Justice Act [Doc. 24].
Disposition Attorney's fees An order on attorney's fees or costs after the case, counted for the side that won the fee motion. Read by a model
The Plaintiffs’ Motion for Costs and Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act [Doc. 24] is therefore DENIED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Plaintiffs’ Motion for Costs and Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act [Doc. 24] is therefore DENIED.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
The Plaintiffs’ Motion for Costs and Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act [Doc. 24] is therefore DENIED.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
the Defendants were therefore justified in defending the FIFO policy by arguing that the Plaintiffs should not be allowed to advance to the head of the line.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit authority

District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.