Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Davila Calixto v. Acosta

District of ColumbiaColleen Kollar-KotellyDecided March 24, 2021

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 Department of Labor Read by a model
Plaintiffs alleged in their Complaint that DOL’s “delay” in “giv[ing] effect” to the wage rates set forth in the 2013 SPWDs requests was “unreasonable” agency action under section 706(1) the APA.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Defendants’ failure to “issue final [SPWDs] reflecting the prevailing methodology in the [2013 IFR].”
Kind of order A procedural order Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall GRANT Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File an Amended and Supplemental Complaint.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ [26] Motion for Leave to File an Amended and Supplemental Complaint
Disposition Procedural order A scheduling, briefing, stay, show-cause or other procedural order. Not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall GRANT Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File an Amended and Supplemental Complaint.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall GRANT Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File an Amended and Supplemental Complaint.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall GRANT Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File an Amended and Supplemental Complaint.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
The merits of this argument shall be left for later dispositive motions.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
Moreover, dismissal of Plaintiffs’ original complaint is not required even if some of the claims are now moot.
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Plaintiffs are Mexican nationals

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 D.C. 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.