Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

OTG NEW YORK INC v. GARLAND

District of New JerseyJamel K. SemperDecided September 9, 2025No. 2:23-cv-23344

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 Department of Labor Read by a model
WHEREAS this action arises from the United States Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) denial of OTG’s Form ETA 9089 Application for Permanent Employment Certification (“PERM Application”) on behalf of beneficiary Jin Woo Kim for a billing clerk position.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
it asked this Court to order the DOL to promptly adjudicate OTG’s request to reconsider the denial of its PERM Application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDERED that OTG’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF 20) is DENIED.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Petitioner OTG New York Inc.’s (“OTG” or “Petitioner”) Motion for Reconsideration
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: relief the plaintiff asked for denied on the merits, such as summary judgment, an injunction or fees. The government's motion denied so the case goes on is listed apart. Read by a model
ORDERED that OTG’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF 20) is DENIED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
ORDERED that OTG’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF 20) is DENIED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
On November 22, 2024, this Court granted Respondents’ motion to dismiss, finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) because OTG “failed to demonstrate that [it] made a proper request for reconsideration to DOL.”
Months pending 19.3 months from the application to the suit; 39.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
following the April 26, 2022 DOL decision denying OTG’s PERM application, on May 18, 2022, OTG’s attorney, Yungsung Choi, sent an email to the DOL Help Desk.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
OTG NEW YORK INC v. GARLAND November 22, 2024 Jamel K. Semper Dismissed
OTG NEW YORK INC v. GARLANDThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted September 9, 2025 Jamel K. Semper Denied in the government's favor

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-23344
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 22)
Filed
December 26, 2023
Ended
November 22, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
332 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Third 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.