Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Puerto Rico

Carolina Catering Corp. v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District of Puerto RicoGina R. Mendez-MiroDecided July 2, 2024

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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 DHS Read by a model
Carolina catering seeks a writ of mandamus under the All Writs Acts (“AWA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a) that orders DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
to take all necessary measures within the statutory authority granted to him to ensure compliance by Aerostar of a provision in the airport security program for LMMIA
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Co-Defendant’s motion and DISMISSES the claim against Aerostar WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The Court finds that the present claim can be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and thus, finds it unnecessary to address Co-Defendant’s 12(b)(6) arguments.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending is Co-Defendant Aerostar Airport Holdings, LLC’s (“Aerostar” or “Co-Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss.
Disposition Granted in the government's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Co- Defendant’s motion and DISMISSES the claim against Aerostar WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Co- Defendant’s motion and DISMISSES the claim against Aerostar WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Co-Defendant’s motion and DISMISSES the claim against Aerostar WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
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 First 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.