Plaintiffs respectfully suggest that the Court voluntarily reassign this matter to another district judge pursuant to Local Rule 40.6. The honorable presiding judge has a very considerable docket, and just recently took on yet additional responsibilities as Chief Judge of this Court. Plaintiffs understand that, in light of those duties, the Court has been unable to rule on any of the various motions, substantive or procedural, that have been filed since this action was initiated in early May 2013. However, Plaintiffs have just filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which under the Local Rules must be heard within 21 days. See LCvR 65.1(d). Resolving that motion will require a careful analysis of the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, as well as the Government’s jurisdictional arguments for dismissal of the case. See Davenport v. Int’l B’hood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO, 166 F.3d 356, 360-61 (D.C. Cir. 1999). This will require a significant expenditure of time, and expedition is essential given that the relevant statutory mandates take effect on January 1, 2014, threatening irreparable injury if the challenged regulation is not enjoined by then.