Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Shah v. Wilco Systems, Inc.

Southern District of New YorkDecided November 20, 2000

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
Accordingly, plaintiffs request that the Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the Attorney General and Secretary of Labor to take certain actions with respect to the labor condition applications filed by Wilco and "others."
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Plaintiffs request that the government defendants deny all labor condition applications "supported by false or fraudulent statements," and to reject all further applications filed by Wilco
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, Wilco's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part, and the government defendants' motion is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The government defendants move to dismiss this cause of action pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) because plaintiffs have not properly established the availability of a private right of action under the INA or mandamus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 ("Section 1361").
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Currently before the Court are separate motions to dismiss by Wilco and by defendants Janet Reno and Alexis Herman (the "government defendants").
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, Wilco's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part, and the government defendants' motion is granted.
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 Second 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.