Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 1 of 32 Page ID #:1089

1 LINTON JOAQUIN, SBN 73547

KAREN C. TUMLIN, SBN 234691

2 NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER

3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2850

3 Los Angeles CA 9001 0

Tel: (213) 639-3900

4 Fax: (213) 639-3911 Email: Joaquin@nilc.org; Tumlin@nilc.org
5

ORIGINAL

MARK D. ROSENBAUM, SBN 59940

6 ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA

7 1313 West Eighth Street.

Los Angeles, CA 9001 7 8 Telephone: (213) 977-9500
Facsimile: (213) 977-5299 9 Email: mrosenbaum@aclu-sc.org

.-r.,..
r'1

0 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

(See next page for additional counsel)

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15 SONALIKOLHATKAR;MOURAD JELLABI; and MARIA STANWICK,
16 individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
17
Plaintiffs,
18
vs.
19
MICHAEL B. FILIP, in his official capacity as 20 Acti11g Attorney General of the United States;
JANET NAPOLITANO, in her official 21 c~pacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department
ofHomeland Secunty; MICHAEL AYTES, in 22 his official capacity as Acting Director of U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services; JANE 23 ARELLANO, in her official capacity as Field
Director of the Los Angeles District of U.S. 24 CitizenshiR and Immigration Services~ and
ROBERTS. MUELLER, III, in his orficial 25 capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, 26
Defendants.
27

CASE NO. SACV07-1394 DOC (RNBx) THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFCLASS ACTION; PETITIONS FOR NATURALIZATION

28

1 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 2 of 32 Page ID #:1090
1 MARK B. HELM, SBN 115711 JACOBS. KREILKAMP, SBN 248210
2 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 South Grand Ave. 35th Floor
3 Los Angeles CA 90011-1560 Tel: (213) 683-9260
4 Fax: (213) 593-2960 Email: Jacob.Kreilkamp@mto.com; Mark.Helm@mto.com
5
6 JULIE SU, SBN 174279 MARK YOSHIDA, SBN 195778
7 YUNGSUHN PARK, SBN 239356 ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER
8 1145 Wilshire Blvd., 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 9001 7
9 Tel: (213) 977-7500 Fax: (213) 977-7595
10 Email: myoshida@apalc.org; ypark@apalc.org 11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 24 25
26
27
28
2
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 3 of 32 Page ID #:1091

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

1. Petitioners/Plaintiffs ("Plaintiffs") are lawful permanent residents of

3 the United States whose applications for naturalization have not been adjudicated in

4 accordance with statutory deadlines because of government agencies' use of certain

5 security checks that lack timelines for completion and are of questionable value.

6 This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal

7 question), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (Administrative Procedure Act), and 28 U.S.C. §

8 2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act). This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 8

9 U.S.C. § 1447(b) (adjudication of applications for naturalization pending more than

10 120 days from the date of the naturalization examination). This Court may grant

11 declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1361,2202, and 5 U.S.C.

12 § 702.

13

2. Venue is proper in the Central District of California pursuant to 28

14 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and§ 1391(e). Respondents/Defendants ("Defendants") are

15 officers or employees of agencies of the United States government who are sued in 16 their official capacity for their acts under color of legal authority. Venue is also 17 proper pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), which provides that petitions for review of 18 naturalization applications shall be filed in the district in which the applicants 19 reside.

20

21

INTRODUCTION

22

3. Plaintiffs are lawful permanent residents of the United States who have

lived in the United States for many years. Plaintiffs have submitted applications to
23

naturalize as United States citizens to the United States Citizenship and
24

Immigration Services ("CIS"). However, their naturalization applications hate not
25

been processed and adjudicated for over 300 days since the dates of submission 26
because each of their applications is awaiting completion of an "FBI name check," 27
which is a background check performed by the FBI using a person's name. 28

3
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 4 of 32 Page ID #:1092

1

4. Plaintiffs seek to pledge their allegiance to the United States and to

2 participate fully in our society as United States citizens. Having qualified to do so

3 after years of working in the United States and contributing to their communities,

4 Plaintiffs seek only what the law provides, which is a final decision on their

5 naturalization applications within the reasonable timelines required by law.

6

5. Defendants, who are officers of CIS and the Federal Bureau of

7 Investigation ("FBI"), the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and

8 the Attorney General of the United States, are responsible for the naturalization

9 process. In November 2002, Defendants drastically altered the naturalization

10 procedure by requiring a vastly expanded FBI name check to be conducted on every

11 application even though it is not required by either statute or regulation.

12 Implementation of this unwarranted and cumbersome new name check procedure

13 has resulted in months-long and even years-long delays in naturalization

14 adjudication for Plaintiffs and the proposed class.

15

6. CIS's own Ombudsman has stated that the FBI name check used in

naturalization applications is of questionable value in detecting persons who may
16

pose a threat to security. Nevertheless, CIS uses the FBI name check without
17
imposing any deadlines for completion. In requiring and conducting name checks,
18
both CIS and the FBI have acted with complete disregard for Congress' plain
19
directive that CIS should complete the processing of naturalization applications
20
within six months from the date of submission. Through their use of FBI name
21
checks, CIS and the FBI have unreasonably delayed the processing of the 22
naturalization applications ofPlaintiffs and the proposed class members, and CIS
23
has unlawfully withheld final adjudication of these applications.
24
7. Defendants' unlawful conduct has deprived Plaintiffs of the privileges
25
of United States citizenship. Plaintiffs cannot vote, serve on juries, expeditiously
26
sponsor their immediate relatives living abroad for permanent residence, receive
27
business and education loans and benefits reserved for citizens, participate in the
28

4
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 5 of 32 Page ID #:1093

1 Visa Waiver Program, or travel abroad and return to the U.S. without fear of

2 exclusion from this country. Plaintiffs' experiences are typical of tens of thousands

3 of other naturalization applicants around the country who have suffered

4 unreasonable and unlawful delays in the naturalization process because of pending

5 name checks.

6

8. Plaintiffs respectfully request, on behalf of themselves and all others

7 similarly situated, that the Court certify the proposed class, enter judgment in favor

8 of the proposed class on all claims, and grant the relief requested herein.

9 Specifically, Plaintiffs request that the Court require the Defendants to adjudicate 10 their applications for naturalization within the time periods prescribed by law, and 11 declare that the Defendants' actions violate the naturalization statute and 12 regulations, laws governing administrative agency action, and the Due Process 13 Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

14

15

PARTIES

Plaintiffs
16

17

9. Plaintiff Maria Stanwick is a citizen of Peru. She is a lawful

permanent resident of the United States, and she resides in Newport Beach,
18

California. She submitted her application for naturalization to CIS in March 2005,
19

and was granted a CIS priority date of March 22,2005. Ms. Stanwick passed the
20

naturalization examination in September 2005, but CIS has yet to adjudicate her
21

22 naturalization application.

10. PlaintiffMourad Jellabi is a citizen ofTunisia. He is a lawful
23

permanent resident of the United States, and he resides in Valley Village,
24

California. He submitted his application for naturalization to CIS in February 2006,
25

and was granted a CIS priority date of February 14, 2006. CIS has not yet
26

scheduled Mr. Jellabi's naturalization examination, nor adjudicated his
27

28 naturalization application.

5
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 6 of 32 Page ID #:1094

1

11. Plaintiff Sonali Padmakar Kolhatkar was born in the United Arab

2 Emirates and is a citizen of India. She is a lawful permanent resident of the United

3 States, and she resides in Pasadena, California. She submitted her application for

4 naturalization to CIS in February 2005, and was granted a CIS priority date of

5 February 7, 2005. Ms. Kolhatkar passed the naturalization examination in August

6 2005, but CIS has yet to adjudicate her naturalization application. Plaintiffs'

7 counsel moved to add Ms. Kolhatkar as a named plaintiff to this action in October

8 2008. Defendants' counsel informed plaintiffs' counsel in January 2009 that CIS is

9 ready to adjudicate Ms. Kolhatkar's naturalization application.

10 Defendants

11

12. Defendant Mark Filip is the Acting Attorney General of the United

12 States and as such is the head of the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")

13 and the chief law enforcement officer of the federal government. The Attorney

14 General has the authority to naturalize persons as citizens of the United States. 8

15 U.S.C. § 1421(a). The Attorney General is also ultimately responsible for the FBI,

16 a subdivision of the DOJ. Mr. Filip is sued here in his official capacity.

17

13. Defendant Janet Napolitano is the Secretary of the Department of

18 Homeland Security ("DHS"). As ofMarch 1, 2003, DHS is the agency responsible

19 for implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"). Within DHS, CIS

20 (formerly part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS")), is

21 responsible for implementing the provisions of the INA under which lawful

22 permanent residents are naturalized as United States citizens. Ms. Napolitano is

23 sued here in her official capacity.

24

14. Defendant Michael Aytes is the Acting Director of CIS and as such is

responsible for implementing the provisions of the INA under which lawful
25

permanent residents are naturalized as United States citizens. He is sued here in his 26

official capacity.
27
15. Defendant Jane Arellano is the Field Office Director of the Los
28

6
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 7 of 32 Page ID #:1095

1 Angeles District of CIS. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 31 0.2, Ms. Arellano has been

2 delegated authority to control all CIS activities within the Los Angeles District,

3 including the authority to adjudicate naturalization applications submitted in the

4 district. She is sued here in her official capacity.

5

16. Defendant RobertS. Mueller III is the Director of the FBI. The FBI is

6 an agency within the DOJ whose mission is to enforce criminal laws and defend the

7 United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats. Upon the request of

8 CIS, the FBI's National Name Check Program performs name checks of all 9 applicants for naturalization. Mr. Mueller is sued here in his official capacity.

10

11

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

12 Naturalization Procedure

13

17. Federal immigration law allows persons who have been residing in the

14 United States as lawful permanent residents to become United States citizens

through a process known as naturalization.
15

18. A person seeking to naturalize must meet certain requirements under
16
the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., including a sufficient period of physical presence
17
in the United States; good moral character; and an understanding of the English
18
language and the history and government of the United States. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1423,
19
1427(a). 20
19. A person seeking to naturalize must submit an application for
21
naturalization to CIS, along with a fee. 8 U.S.C. § 1445; 8 C.F.R. § 334.2. 22
20. CIS is the agency that is responsible for adjudicating naturalization
23
applications. 8 C.F.R. § 100.2.
24
21. CIS has a policy of processing naturalization applications in
25
chronological order, based upon date of receipt of the application and fee. In
26
accordance with this policy, when CIS receives a naturalization application and fee,
27
CIS grants the applicant a "priority date" that is based on the date of receipt. INS
28

7
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 8 of 32 Page ID #:1096

Operation Instruction 103 .2(q), available at Operations Instructions of the

2 Immigration and Naturalization Service (Matthew Bender, 2007) (Lexis

3 Immigration Library, Operations Instructions of the INS File).

4

22. Once CIS receives a naturalization application, it conducts a

5 background investigation of the naturalization applicant. 8 U.S.C. § 1446(a); 8

6 C.F.R. § 335.1.

7

23. In 1997, Congress enacted a law requiring the INS (the predecessor

8 agency to CIS) to receive confirmation from the FBI that a "full criminal

9 background check" has been completed on each naturalization applicant prior to the

10 completion of adjudication of that application. Public Law 105-119, Title I, 111

11 Stat. 2448-49 (Nov. 26, 1997).

12

24. In March 1998, to implement the FBI criminal background check law,

13 the INS (CIS's predecessor agency) promulgated a proposed rule for notice and

14 public comment. See Requiring Completion of Criminal Background Checks

Before Final Adjudication ofNaturalization Applications, 63 Fed. Reg. 12979
15

(Mar. 17, 1998). Thereafter, after receiving public comment, INS promulgated a
16

final regulation found at 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b) to implement the 1997law.
17

25. Under 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b), the FBI performs a criminal background
18
check on each naturalization applicant. This criminal background check involves a
19
fingerprint check and database check that confirm whether or not the applicant has 20
an administrative or criminal record. 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b). Both ofthese criminal
21
background checks are usually completed within days if not hours. 22
26. After CIS completes the background investigation and the FBI
23
completes the criminal background checks, CIS schedules a naturalization
24
examination, at which an applicant meets with a CIS examiner who is authorized to
25
ask questions and take testimony. 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(a). The examination typically 26
includes questions testing the applicant's English literacy and basic knowledge of
27
the history and government of the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(c). 28

8
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 9 of 32 Page ID #:1097

1

27. The CIS examiner must determine whether to grant or deny the

2 naturalization application. 8 U.S.C. § 1446(d). Naturalization is not discretionary.

3 CIS must grant a naturalization application if the applicant has complied with all

4 requirements for naturalization. 8 C.F.R. § 335.3. CIS must make a final

5 determination on every naturalization application, either at the time of the

6 examination or, at the latest, within 120 days after the date of the examination. 8

7 C.F.R. § 335.3.

8

28. Once an application is granted, CIS schedules the applicant for an oath

9 ceremony at which he or she is sworn in as a United States citizen.

10

29. If CIS does not issue a decision within 120 days of the examination, an

11 applicant may file suit in district court under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). That statute

12 confers jurisdiction upon the district court in the district in which the applicant

13 resides, and it allows the court either to determine the matter (and grant or deny

14 citizenship) or to remand with appropriate instructions to CIS to determine the
15 matter. United States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2004). A primary
purpose of that statute, enacted in 1990, was to decrease backlogs in the
16
naturalization process and reduce waiting times for naturalization applicants. H.R.
17
Rep. No. 101-187, at 8 (1989); 135 Cong. Rec. H4539-02, H4542 (1989) (statement
18
ofRep. Morrison).
19
30. In addition, 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b) states, "It is the sense of Congress that
20
the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later
21
than 180 days after the initial date of filing of the application[.]" Naturalization
22
applications are among the "immigration benefit applications" included within this
23
provision. This provision, along with 8 U.S.C. § 1571(a), § 1572, and§ 1573,
24
make clear Congress' intent to eliminate persistent backlogs in the processing of
25
immigration benefit applications. Moreover, Congress has defined the term
26
"backlog" in the statute as "the period of time in excess of 180 days that such
27
application has been pending before the Immigration and Naturalization Service." 8
28

9
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV0?-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 10 of 32 Page ID #:1098

1 u.s.c. § 1572( 1).

2

31. 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b) provides the statutory guideline and "rule of

3 reason" for determining whether naturalization applications are being processed in

4 a timely manner. Under the most straightforward reading of8 U.S.C. § 1571(b), all

5 naturalization applications that are not finally adjudicated within 180 days of the

6 date of submission are unreasonably delayed.

7

32. In the alternative, under the most generous possible reading of the

8 interaction between 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b), which sets forth the 180-day limit, and 8

9 U.S.C. § 1447(b), which grants CIS a 120-day "grace period" after the completion

10 of the naturalization examination before frustrated applicants may seek relief in

11 federal court, naturalization applications in which applicants have passed their

12 examinations but that have not been finally adjudicated within 300 days of

13 submission are unreasonably delayed.
CIS Expansion of "FBI Name Checks"
14
33. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that CIS may have requested "FBI
15
name checks" for some subset of naturalization applicants in past years. Plaintiffs
16
are informed and believe that these FBI name checks may have involved FBI
17
searches of an applicant's name through only its criminal files and databases.
18
34. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that beginning in November 2002,
19
CIS dramatically altered the naturalization procedure by expanding the scope of the
20
FBI name check, both by requiring the FBI to make electronic and manual searches
21
of additional non-criminal FBI files and databases, and by requiring completion of 22
FBI name checks as a prerequisite to the final adjudication of every naturalization
23
application.
24
35. The expanded FBI name check used by CIS for naturalization
25
applications is not part of the FBI criminal background checks that are required by 26
Public Law 105-119, Title I, 111 Stat. 2448-49 (Nov. 26, 1997) and implemented 27
pursuant to 8 § C.F.R. 335.2. 28

10
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV0?-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 11 of 32 Page ID #:1099

1

36. When it expanded the FBI name check in November 2002, CIS did not

2 promulgate a proposed rule or give notice and an opportunity for public comment

3 on the rule, as it had done in 1998 when implementing the FBI criminal background

4 check requirement.

5

37. The expanded FBI name check was a substantive departure from prior

6 CIS policy because it imposed a new requirement in naturalization procedure not

7 based on statute or regulations and because it has had a substantial adverse effect on

8 applicants for naturalization by causing significant delays in adjudication. As such,

9 the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., required CIS to

10 promulgate a proposed rule, provide a notice and comment period, and thereafter

11 promulgate a final rule prior to enacting the November 2002 expanded FBI name

12 check.

13

38. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the expanded FBI name check

14 consists of a search of a person's name through the FBI's criminal and non-criminal

15 files in its Central Records System. The Central Records System contains

administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel, and other FBI files. Plaintiffs are
16

informed and believe that, since November 2002, the expanded FBI name check on
17

naturalization applications includes an FBI search of not only criminal "main files"
18

but also non-criminal "reference files" in the FBI's Central Records System.
19
39. By way of background, the FBI does not conduct name checks solely
20
for the CIS. Rather, it conducts name checks on a fee-for-service basis in response
21
to requests by other federal agencies, congressional committees, the federal 22
judiciary, and state and local criminal justice agencies. Name checks may be
23
sought for persons seeking government employment, a security clearance,
24
attendance at a White House function, admission to the bar, or a visa for visiting the
25
United States. 26
40. Name checks are conducted by personnel in the FBI's National Name

27
Check Program. 28

11 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 12 of 32 Page ID #:1100

1

41. CIS requests the FBI to conduct name checks on all applications for

2 naturalization and applications for lawful permanent resident status.

3

42. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the scope of FBI name checks

4 may vary based on the requesting agency. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that
5 each FBI name check based upon a CIS request can involve up to four stages-
6 batch processing, name searching, file review, and dissemination. Batch processing
7 involves the transfer of applicant information from CIS to the FBI, uploading of
8 that information into an FBI system, and electronic checking of those names against
9 the FBI's Universal Index. Name searching involves conducting manual electronic
10 searches by entering the applicant's name into FBI databases. File review involves
11 retrieving and reviewing FBI electronic and paper files that are identified as
12 possibly containing information on a particular individual whose name is being
13 checked. Files are reviewed for possible derogatory information on the applicant in question. Dissemination involves providing a summary of the relevant information
14
15 to CIS. 43. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that if the initial stages of a name
16
check yield a "No Record" result, indicating no identifiable FBI information
17
regarding a particular individual, the FBI does not search further, and it provides
18
the "No Record" result to CIS. At that point, the FBI considers the name check to
19
be complete. However, if the initial stages of a name check yield any indication 20
that the FBI has information on a particular individual, the FBI employs the later
21
stages of the name check to retrieve and review its files and search for derogatory 22
information, and report the results.
23
44. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that since the November 2002
24
expansion, CIS does not adjudicate applications for naturalization until it receives
25
the results of a completed name check from the FBI. 26
45. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that CIS and the FBI have entered
27
into written agreements regarding the conduct of FBI name checks on, among 28

12
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 13 of 32 Page ID #:1101

1 others, applicants for naturalization, and that in these agreements neither CIS nor

2 the FBI impose any time limits for the completion of name checks.

3

46. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that from time to time and under

4 certain circumstances, CIS requests the FBI to expedite the name checks of certain

5 individuals, including certain applicants for naturalization.

6

47. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that beginning in April 2006, in

7 response to a deluge of lawsuits around the country brought by frustrated post-

8 examination naturalization applicants pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), CIS

9 implemented a new policy of refusing to schedule naturalization examinations for

10 those applicants whose FBI name checks were not completed. CIS has stated that

11 an express purpose of this policy change was to preclude litigation under 8 U.S.C. §

12 1447(b) by those who have passed naturalization examinations and are awaiting
13 final adjudication of their naturalization applications. As a result of this change in
14 policy, which appears to be an explicit effort to thwart Congress's intent to provide
15 delayed naturalization applicants with recourse to the federal courts, the
applications of substantial numbers of class members have been unreasonably
16
delayed, and naturalization examinations have not been scheduled because of
17
pending FBI name checks.
18
Questionable Value and Adverse Effects of FBI Name Checks
19
48. Name checks are now a key cause of delays in the processing of 20
applications for naturalization, as well as applications for other immigration
21
benefits such as green cards. In both 2006 and 2007, the CIS Ombudsman-the 22
individual tasked by Congress to provide recommendations on improving CIS
23
services and operations-declared that name checks "significantly delay
24
adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reduction
25
efforts, and may not achieve their intended security objectives." Citizenship and
26
Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report 2006 (hereinafter "2006
27
Report"), at 23 (June 29, 2006) available at www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman; 28

13
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 14 of 32 Page ID #:1102

1 Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report 2007

2 (hereinafter "2007 Report"), at 37 (June 11, 2007) available at

3 www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman (last visited December 4, 2007).

4

49. In the most recent report, the Ombudsman declared that "FBI name

5 checks may be the single biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of

6 immigration benefits" and that the delays are getting worse, not better. 2007 Report

7 at 37. The report noted that as of May 2007, over 329,000 CIS name checks were

8 pending, with 64 percent ofthose cases (over 211,000) pending more than 90 days,

9 and 32 percent (almost 107,000) pending more than one year. !d. at 37. The report

10 also found that the problem of long-pending name checks has worsened in the last

11 year. !d.

12

50. The Ombudsman also questioned the value of FBI name checks in

13 accomplishing their stated purpose, which is to detect persons who should be

14 denied immigration benefits because they pose a danger or threat to security. In

response to CIS's claims of effectiveness, the Ombudsman declared that "most, if
15

not all, of the problem cases which would result in an eventual denial of benefits
16

also can be revealed by the other more efficient, automated criminal and security
17

checks that US CIS initiates." 2007 Report at 41.
18

51. Moreover, the Ombudsman "agree[d] with the assessment of many
19
case workers and supervisors at USCIS field offices and service centers that the FBI
20
name check process has limited value to public safety or national security,
21
especially because in almost every case the applicant is in the United States during 22
the name check process, living or working without restriction." 2007 Report at 40.
23
In further acknowledgment of the limited use of name checks, the Ombudsman
24
noted that "[n]arne checks are not conducted by the FBI as part of ongoing

25
investigations or from a need to learn more about an individual because of any 26
threat or risk perceived by the ,FBI." 2007 Report at 38.

27
52. In addition, "[t]o date, the Ombudsman has been unable to ascertain

28

14
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 15 of 32 Page ID #:1103

1 from USCIS the total number of actual problem cases that the agency discovered

2 exclusively as a result of the FBI name check." 2007 Report at 41. Indeed, neither

3 CIS nor the FBI has ever shown that naturalization applicants, as a class, pose a

4 special danger or threat to security. In addition, neither CIS nor the FBI has ever

5 shown that the FBI name check alone has led to the detection of even one

6 naturalization applicant who posed a danger or threat to security.

7

53. Finally, according to the Ombudsman, the FBI has admitted "that it

8 lacks the resources to perform the [CIS name check] function in a timely manner."

9 2007 Report at 39.

10

11

STATEMENT OF FACTS

12 Plaintiffs

13

54. Plaintiff Maria Stanwick is a native and citizen of Peru. She came to

14 the United States in 1999 on a tourist visa and has been a lawful permanent resident

15 since 2000. She lives with her husband and two children- all U.S. citizens- in

16 Newport Beach, California.

17

55. Ms. Stanwick submitted her application for naturalization to CIS in

18 March 2005. CIS granted her a priority date on her naturalization application of

19 March 22, 2005. Ms. Stanwick passed her naturalization examination in September

20 2005. Over three years later, CIS has yet to adjudicate her application despite the

21 fact that she has provided all necessary information in support of her application,

22 including her fingerprints. Ms. Stanwick has made numerous inquiries about her

23 application with CIS and has requested the intervention of United States Senator

24 Barbara Boxer, but still CIS fails to adjudicate her application.

25

56. On September 9, 2005, CIS informed Ms. Stanwick that her

26 naturalization application was pending the results of her background check. Since

27 that time, Ms. Stanwick has not received any other information regarding the reason

28 for the delay of her application. As a result, Ms. Stanwick believes that her

15
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 16 of 32 Page ID #:1104

1 application continues to be delayed due to pending FBI name and background

2 checks. According to the joint plan adopted by CIS and the FBI in February 2008

3 to reduce the FBI name check backlog, Ms. Stanwick's name check should have

4 been completed no later than May 31, 2008.

5

57. Ms. Stanwick would like to join her husband and children in enjoying

6 the privileges of U.S. citizenship, including the right to vote.

7

58. PlaintiffMourad Jellabi is a native and citizen of Tunisia. He came to

8 the United States in 1995 and was granted asylum and became a lawful permanent

9 resident as of 1995. He lives in Valley Village, California.

10

59. Mr. Jellabi submitted his application for naturalization to CIS in

11 February 2006. CIS granted him a priority date on his naturalization application of

12 February 14, 2006. Mr. Jellabi has provided all necessary documentation in

13 support of his application for citizenship. CIS has not yet scheduled a

14 naturalization examination for Mr. Jellabi.

15

60. Mr. Jellabi has to believe that his application has pending for nearly

16 two years due to the FBI name check. On three occasions, Mr. Jellabi scheduled

17 appointments through Infopass with CIS to inquire about his application. During

18 these appointments, CIS officials told Mr. Jellabi that his application is pending due

19 to a background check.

20

61. Mr. Jellabi works as a surgical technician. He seeks U.S. citizenship

21 so that he may sponsor his wife, who resides in Tunisia, to immigrate to the United

22 States. In March 2006, Mr. Jellabi filed a visa petition to immigrate his wife to the

23 United States, but there are currently no visas available for her relative preference

24 category. As a U.S. citizen, Mr. Jellabi would be able to immigrate his wife to the

25 United States as an immediate relative, without limits on the number of available

26 visas.

27

62. Mr. Jellabi also wishes to become a U.S. citizen in order to vote.

28

63. Plaintiff Sonali Padmakar Kolhatkar was born in the United Arab

16 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 17 of 32 Page ID #:1105

1 Emirates and is a citizen of India who came to the United States in 1991 on a

2 student visa. Ms. Kohlhatkar has been a lawful permanent resident since 2001.

3 She lives with her husband of over nine years- a U.S. citizen- and their U.S.

4 citizen son in Pasadena, California. Since 2002, Ms. Kolhatkar has worked as a

5 journalist at the Pacifica Foundation. Prior to her current job, she was an

6 Applications Developer at the California Institute of Technology.

7

64. Ms. Kolhatkar submitted her naturalization application to CIS in

8 January 2005. CIS granted her a priority date based upon her application of

9 February 7, 2005. On August 5, 2005, Ms. Kolhatkar passed her naturalization

10 examination. Over three years later, her application has yet to be adjudicated

11 despite the fact that she had provided all necessary information in support of her

12 application including her fingerprints. CIS had informed Ms. Kolhatkar that the

13 sole reason her naturalization application has not been adjudicated is because of

14 pending FBI background checks.

15

65. According to the joint plan adopted by CIS and FBI in February 2008

16 to reduce the FBI name check backlog, Ms. Kolhatkar's application should have

17 been adjudicated no later than July 31, 2008, but it has not.

18

66. Ms. Kolhatkar would like to become a U.S. citizen so that she may

19 vote in U.S. elections and travel on a U.S. passport.

20

67. Ms. Kolhatkar's work includes investigative journalism. Due to her

21 immigration status, her supervisors have limited her opportunities to cover public

22 events with a police presence, including peaceful protests, out of fear that she might

23 be arrested, which might put her immigration status in jeopardy. Ms. Kolhatkar

24 feels that her inability to naturalize is, therefore, limiting her ability to fully engage

25 in her profession.

26

68. In addition, Ms. Kolhatkar would like to sponsor her sister for lawful

27 permanent residence to the United States. Her sister had a promising job at a

28 Seattle-based video game company, but was unable to obtain an employment visa,

17
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV0?-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 18 of 32 Page ID #:1106

1 and therefore, had to leave her job and return to the United Arab Emirates. As a

2 U.S. citizen, Ms. Kolhatkar can petition for her sister's permanent residence,

3 whereas as a lawful permanent resident, she cannot.

4 Defendants' Policies And Practices

5

69. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants Napolitano, Aytes,

6 and Arellano have a policy, pattern, and practice of failing to process and adjudicate

7 the applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class in accordance with

8 statutory deadlines, namely within 180 days of the date of submission of such

9 applications, and within 120 days ofthe date of naturalization examinations,

10 because of pending FBI name checks.

11

70. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants Napolitano, Aytes,

12 and Arellano have a policy, pattern, and practice of unlawfully withholding and

13 unreasonably delaying the processing and adjudication of applications for

14 naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class, in utter disregard of statutory

15 deadlines, because of pending FBI name checks.

16

71. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants Napolitano, Aytes,

and Arellano have a policy, pattern, and practice of unlawfully failing to take all
17
necessary steps to complete FBI name checks in a timely manner so as to allow CIS
18
to process and adjudicate the applications for naturalization of the proposed
19
plaintiff class within 180 days of the date of submission of such applications, and
' 20
within 120 days of the date of naturalization examinations, in accordance with
21
statutory deadlines. 22
72. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants Filip and Mueller
23
have a policy, pattern, and practice of failing to complete FBI name checks in a
24
timely manner, with the full knowledge that CIS requires the completion of such
25
name checks for processing and adjudication of applications for naturalization of 26
the proposed plaintiff class, and with the full knowledge that the statutory deadlines
27
require CIS to process and adjudicate such applications within 180 days of the date 28

18
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 19 of 32 Page ID #:1107

1 of submission, and within 120 days of the date of naturalization examinations.

2 Defendants Filip and Mueller's actions and omissions result in the unlawful

3 withholding of and unreasonable delays in the completion of FBI name checks.

4

73. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants have a policy,

5 pattern, and practice of failing to set deadlines for completing FBI name checks and

6 taking all the other reasonable steps necessary to complete the adjudication of

7 applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class, in utter disregard of

8 statutory deadlines that require CIS to process and adjudicate such applications

9 within 180 days of the date of submission, and within 120 days of the date of

10 naturalization examinations.

11

74. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants Napolitano, Aytes,

12 and Arellano have a policy, pattern and practice of unlawfully requiring FBI name
13 checks for adjudication of applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff
14 class, despite the lack of any statutory or regulatory authorization for such name
checks.
15
75. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants Filip, Napolitano,
16
Aytes, and Arellano unlawfully expanded the FBI name checks in November 2002,
17
as set forth above, without giving notice to the public and allowing a period for
18
public comment and without promulgating a regulation. Requiring name checks as
19
a prerequisite to naturalization effected a substantive change in existing law, 20
resulting in substantial and undue hardship and burden to the proposed plaintiff
21
class. 22
76. As a result of the Defendants' policies, practices, actions, and
23
omissions described herein, members of the proposed plaintiff class have suffered
24
injury, in that they have been unlawfully denied the rights and benefits of U.S.
25
citizenship. Among other things, members of the proposed plaintiff class have been
26
unable to vote in local, state, and national elections that have occurred since the
27
adjudication of their naturalization applications, including state and national 28

19
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 20 of 32 Page ID #:1108

elections in 2006, 2007, and 2008. They have been unable to sponsor expeditiously

2 their immediate relatives living abroad for permanent residence in the United

3 States. They have been unable to travel freely outside of the United States because 4 they do not have U.S. passports and the guarantee of re-admission into the country 5 upon their return. Finally, they have been unable to apply for certain types of 6 employment, educational grants and loans, and other benefits that are limited to 7 U.S. citizens.

8

9

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

10

77. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other

11 persons similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and

12 23(b)(2). The class, as proposed by Plaintiffs, consists of:

13

All lawful permanent residents who have submitted or will submit

14

applications for naturalization to the CIS Los Angeles District Office

15

and its sub-offices, and whose applications for naturalization have not

been or will not be adjudicated by CIS for over 300 days from the date
16

of submission, because of pending FBI name checks, excluding those
17

individuals who have filed and have pending individual actions
18

relating to this subject matter.
19

78. The proposed Plaintiff class includes a sub-class of Plaintiffs 20

(hereinafter referred to as the "Post-Examination Plaintiffs") that consists of:
21
All lawful permanent residents who have submitted or will submit 22
applications for naturalization to the CIS Los Angeles District Office
23
and its sub-offices, who have passed or will pass their naturalization
24
examinations, whose applications for naturalization have not been or

25
will not be adjudicated by CIS for over 300 days from the date of 26
submission, and whose applications for naturalization have not been or

27
will not be adjudicated by CIS for over 120 days from the date of the

28

20
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV07-l394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 21 of 32 Page ID #:1109

naturalization examination, because of pending FBI name checks,

2

excluding those individuals who have filed and have pending

3

individual actions relating to this subject matter.

4

79. The requirements ofFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and

5 23(b)(2) are met in that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is

6 impracticable. Counsel for Plaintiffs are aware of at least two dozen proposed class

7 members who are similarly situated to the named Plaintiffs.

8

80. There are questions of law and fact common to the proposed class that

9 predominate over any questions affecting only the individually named Plaintiffs,
10 including: (1) whether CIS's actions and omissions, including its failure to
11 adjudicate the naturalization applications of the proposed plaintiff class within 180
12 days of the date of submission because of pending FBI name checks, and its failure
13 to impose deadlines on the completion of FBI name checks in accordance with
14 statutory deadlines, violate the Immigration and Nationality Act and implementing
15 regulations and constitute unreasonable delay and unlawful withholding of agency
action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act; (2) whether the FBI's
16
actions and omissions, including its failure to complete name checks in a timely
17
fashion so as to allow CIS to adjudicate the naturalization applications of the
18
proposed plaintiff class within 180 days of the date of submission, in accordance
19
with statutory deadlines, constitute unreasonable delay and unlawful withholding of 20
agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act; (3) whether CIS
21
and the FBI's failure to set deadlines for completing name checks and failure to 22
take all the other reasonable steps necessary to complete the adjudication of
23
applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class within 180 days of the
24
date of submission, in accordance with statutory deadlines, violate the
25
Administrative Procedure Act; and (4) whether CIS's failure to provide the 26
opportunity for public notice and comment of the expanded FBI name check 27
requirement violates the Administrative Procedure Act. 28

21
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 22 of 32 Page ID #:1110

81. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the

2 proposed class. The named Plaintiffs, like all class members, are lawful permanent

3 residents who have submitted applications for naturalization, and whose

4 applications CIS has failed to process or adjudicate despite the passage of over 180

5 days since the date of submission, because of pending FBI name checks. Like all

6 members of the proposed class, the named Plaintiffs bring claims under the

7 Administrative Procedure Act against both CIS and the FBI and a claim under the

8 Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause against CIS and the FBI.

9

82. All of the named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the

10 interests of all members of the proposed class because they seek relief on behalf of

11 the class as a whole and have no interests antagonistic to other members of the
12 class. In addition, Plaintiff Stanwick will fairly and adequately represent the
13 interests of all members of the proposed Post-Examination plaintiff sub-class 14 because she seeks relief on behalf of the class as a whole and has no interests
antagonistic to other members of the sub-class. The named Plaintiffs are also
15
represented by pro bono counsel, including the National Immigration Law Center,
16
the ACLU of Southern California, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, and the
17
law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, who have extensive expertise in class
18
action litigation, including litigation regarding the rights of immigrants. Finally,
19
Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making
20
appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
21

22 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
23
VIOLATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
24
ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS NAPOLITANO, AYTES AND
25
ARELLANO 26
83. Plaintiffs reallege and reassert the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth
27 fully herein.
28

22
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 23 of 32 Page ID #:1111

1

84. The Administrative Procedure Act requires administrative agencies to

2 conclude matters presented to them "within a reasonable time." 5 U.S.C. § 555. A

3 district court reviewing agency action may "compel agency action unlawfully

4 withheld or unreasonably delayed." 5 U.S.C. § 706(1 ). The court also may hold

5 unlawful and set aside agency action that, inter alia, is found to be: "arbitrary,

6 capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," 5

7 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); "in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or

8 short of statutory right," 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C); or "without observance of procedure

9 required by law," 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D). "Agency action" includes, in relevant part,

10 "an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof,

11 or failure to act." 5 U.S.C. §551(13).

12

85. The actions and omissions of Defendants Napolitano, Aytes, and

13 Arellano in failing to adjudicate the applications for naturalization of the proposed

14 plaintiff class within 180 days of the date of submission because of pending FBI

15 name checks, in violation of8 U.S.C. § 1446(d), 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) 8 U.S.C. §

1571(b), and 8 C.F.R. § 335, violate the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §
16

555(b); 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(1 ), 706(2)(A), 706(2)(C), 706(2)(D).
17
86. The actions and omissions of Defendants Napolitano, Aytes, and
18
Arellano in failing to set deadlines for completing FBI name checks and to take all
19
the other reasonable steps necessary to complete the adjudication of applications for
20
naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class within 180 days of the date of
21
submission because of pending FBI name checks, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 22
1446(d), 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b), and 8 C.F.R. § 335, violate the
23
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 555(b); 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(1 ), 706(2)(A),
24
706(2)(C), 706(2)(D).
25
87. Defendants have a duty under 8 U.S.C. § 1446(d), 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) 26
8 U.S.C. § 1571(b), and 8 C.F.R. § 335 to finally adjudicate Plaintiffs'
27
naturalization applications within the deadlines imposed by statute and regulations.
28

23
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV07-I394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 24 of 32 Page ID #:1112

Defendants' unlawful conduct in failing to do so has resulted in, inter alia,

2 unreasonable delays in and unlawful withholding of the adjudication ofPlaintiffs'

3 naturalization applications. As a result of Defendants' actions in utter indifference

4 to statutory deadlines, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer injury.

5 Declaratory and injunctive relief are therefore warranted.

6

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

7

VIOLATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT

8

ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS FILIP AND MUELLER

9

88. Plaintiffs reallege and reassert the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth

10 fully herein.

11

89. The Administrative Procedure Act requires administrative agencies to

12 conclude matters presented to them "within a reasonable time." 5 U.S.C. § 555. A
13 district court reviewing agency action may "compel agency action unlawfully
14 withheld or unreasonably delayed." 5 U.S.C. § 706(1 ). The court also may hold
unlawful and set aside agency action that, inter alia, is found to be: "arbitrary,
15
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," 5
16
U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); "in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or
17
short of statutory right," 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C); or "without observance of procedure
18
required by law," 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D). "Agency action" includes, in relevant part,
19
"an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, 20
or failure to act." 5 U.S.C. §551(13).
21
90. The failure of Defendants Filip and Mueller to timely complete FBI 22
name checks, or to set or adhere to any timelines for completion of FBI name
23
checks, with the full knowledge that CIS requires the completion of such name
24
checks for adjudication of applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff
25
class, and with the full knowledge of the statutory deadlines and requirements for 26
adjudication of naturalization applications pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1446, 8 U.S.C. § 27
1447(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b), and 8 C.F.R. § 335, violates the Administrative
28

24 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
SACV0?-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 25 of 32 Page ID #:1113

1 Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 555(b); 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(1 ), 706(2)(A), 706(2)(C),

2 706(2)(D).

3

91. Defendants Filip and Mueller have a duty pursuant to the

4 Administrative Procedure Act, agreements with CIS, and Executive Order 10450, to

5 timely complete CIS-initiated name checks for naturalization applications, given

6 Defendants' full knowledge that FBI name checks are required to finally adjudicate

7 Plaintiffs' naturalization applications within the deadlines imposed by statute and

8 regulations. Defendants' unlawful conduct in failing to do so has resulted, inter

9 alia, in unreasonable delays in and unlawful withholding of the adjudication of

10 Plaintiffs' naturalization applications. As a result of Defendants' actions in utter

11 indifference to statutory deadlines, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer

12 InJUry. Declaratory and injunctive relief are therefore warranted.

13

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

14

PETITIONS FOR NATURALIZATION

15

POST-EXAMINATION PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS

NAPOLITANO, AYTES, AND ARELLANO
16

92. Plaintiffs reallege and reassert the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth
17

fully herein.
18

93. Defendants have failed to finally adjudicate the Post-Examination
19

Plaintiffs' applications for naturalization within 120 days of the date of their 20

naturalization examinations, in violation of8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Pursuant to 8
21
U.S.C. § 1447(b), this Court should exercise its authority to grant the Post22
Examination Plaintiffs' naturalization applications, or to remand to CIS with
23
appropriate instructions to complete the FBI name checks and to finally adjudicate
24
these Plaintiffs' applications thereafter within a reasonable time period, as set forth
25
in the prayer for relief below. 26
94. Named Plaintiff Stanwick seeks a determination by the Court that he

27
meets the requirements for naturalization and is to be naturalized as a U.S. citizen

28

25
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 26 of 32 Page ID #:1114

1 without further delay, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).

2

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

3

VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

4

ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

5

95. Plaintiffs reallege and reassert the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth

6 fully herein.

7

96. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the

8 government from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due

9 process of law. U.S. CONST., AMEND. V.

10

97. Defendants Napolitano, Aytes, and Arellano have a pattern, practice,

11 or policy of failing to adjudicate the applications for naturalization of the proposed

12 plaintiff class within 180 days of the date of submission of such applications and
13 within 120 days of the date of naturalization examinations because of pending FBI
14 name checks, in violation of8 U.S.C. § 1446(d), 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), 8 U.S.C. §
15 1571, and 8 C.F.R. § 335.
98. Defendants Filip and Mueller have a pattern, practice, or policy of
16
failing to timely complete FBI name checks, with the full knowledge that CIS
17
requires the completion of such "name checks" for adjudication of applications for
18
naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class within the statutory deadlines.
19
99. Defendants have a pattern, practice, or policy of failing to set deadlines
20
for completing "name checks" and to take all the other reasonable steps necessary
21
to complete the adjudication of applications for naturalization of the proposed 22
plaintiff class within 180 days of the date of submission of such applications and
23
within 120 days of the date of naturalization examinations because of pending FBI
24
name checks, in violation of8 U.S.C. § 1446(d), 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), 8 U.S.C. §
25
1571, and 8 C.F.R. § 335.
26 100. The above-described actions and omissions by Defendants violate
27 Plaintiffs' rights to due process oflaw. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs
28

26
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 27 of 32 Page ID #:1115

1 have suffered and continue to suffer injury. Declaratory and injunctive relief are

2 therefore warranted. ·

3

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

4 VIOLATION OF NOTICE-AND-COMMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE

5

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT

6 ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS NAPOLITANO, AYTES, AND

7

ARELLANO

8

101. Plaintiffs reallege and reassert the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth

9 fully herein.

10

102. Defendants Napolitano, Aytes and Arellano's actions in November

11 2002 to expand the FBI name check for naturalization applications constitute a rule

12 within the meaning of5 U.S.C. § 551(4).

13

103. The Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553, requires

administrative agencies to provide a notice-and-comment period prior to
14

implementing a substantive rule, including a rule that is a departure from prior
15
policy and practice and that has a substantial adverse effect upon a large number of
16
those affected.
17
104. Defendants Napolitano, Aytes, and Arellano's actions and omissions
18
in failing to provide a notice-and-comment period prior to the November 2002
19
expansion of the FBI name check requirement violated 5 U.S.C. § 553 in that the
20
expansion constituted a substantive rule that departed from prior policy and practice
21
and has had a substantial adverse effect upon a large number of those affected, 22
namely naturalization applicants.
23
105. As a result of Defendants' actions and omissions, Plaintiffs were 24
injured, and declaratory and injunctive relief is appropriate.
25

26
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
27
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: 28

27
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 28 of 32 Page ID #:1116

1

1. Assume jurisdiction over the matter;

2

2. Certify the class of Plaintiffs and the sub-class of Post-Examination

3 Plaintiffs, as proposed herein;

4

3. Review de novo and grant the naturalization of Plaintiff Stanwick,

5 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b);

6

4. With respect to the certified class of Plaintiffs, and the sub-class of

7 Post-Examination Plaintiffs, order Defendants to: (a) take all necessary steps to

8 complete all FBI name checks of class members within a reasonable time period not

9 to exceed 45 days from the date of the Court's order; and (b) finally adjudicate all

10 naturalization applications of class members within a reasonable time period not to

11 exceed 90 days from the date of the Court's order.

12

5. Enjoin Defendants and order them to: (a) take all necessary steps to

13 complete all FBI name checks of naturalization applicants within 90 days from the

14 date of submission of the applications; (b) finally adjudicate all naturalization

15 applications within 180 days from the date of submission; and (c) finally adjudicate

all naturalization applications within 120 days from the date of the naturalization
16

examination.
17

6. Order Defendants Napolitano, Aytes, and Arellano to revoke and
18
suspend the November 2002 expansion of the FBI name check with respect to
19
naturalization applications, until such time as Defendants have completed
20
promulgating a rule following the process for notice and comment by the public;
21
7. Issue a declaratory judgment holding unlawful: 22
(a) the actions and omissions ofDefendants Napolitano, Aytes, and Arellano in
23
failing to adjudicate applications for naturalization within 180 days of the date of
24
submission, because of pending FBI name checks;
25
(b) the actions and omissions of Defendants Filip and Mueller in failing to timely 26
complete FBI name checks to allow CIS to adjudicate applications for
27
naturalization within 180 days of the date of submission;
28

28
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 29 of 32 Page ID #:1117

1 (c) the actions and omissions ofDefendants Napolitano, Aytes, and Arellano in

2 failing to adjudicate applications for naturalization within 120 days of the date of

3 the naturalization examination, because of the pending FBI name checks; and

4 (d) the actions and omissions of all Defendants in failing to set deadlines and to

5 take all necessary steps to adjudicate applications for naturalization within 180 days

6 of the date of submission and within 120 days of the date of the naturalization

7 examinations.

8

8. Award reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access

9 to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504, 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and

10

Ill

11

Ill

12

Ill

13

Ill

14

Ill

15

Ill

Ill
16

Ill
17

Ill
18

Ill
19

21
Ill
22
Ill
23
Ill
24
25
26
27
28

29
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 30 of 32 Page ID #:1118

1

9. Grant any and all further relief this Court deems just and proper.

2 DATED: January 30, 2009
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Respectfully submitted,
LINTON JOAQUIN, SBN 73547 KAREN C. TUMLIN, SBN 234691 NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2850 Los Angeles CA 9001 0 Tel: (213) 639-3900 Fax: (213) 639-3911 Email: tumlin@nilc.org
MARK D. ROSENBAUM, SBN 59940 ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1313 West Eighth Street. Los Angeles, CA 9001 7 Telephone: (213) 977-9500 Facsimile: (213) 977-5299 Email: mrosenbaum@aclu-sc.org

13

MARK B. HELM, SBN, 115711

JACOBS. KREILKAMP, SBN 248210

14

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

355 South Grand Ave. 35th Floor

15

Los Angeles CA 90011-1560

Tel: (213) 683-9260

16

Fax: (213) 593-2960

Email: Jacob.Kreilkamp@mto.com

17

JULIE SU, SBN 174279

18

MARK YOSHIDA, SBN 195778

YUNGSUHN PARK, SBN 239356

19

ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL

CENTER

20

1145 Wilshire Blvd., 2nd Floor

Los Angeles, CA 900 17

21

Tel: (213) 977-7500

Fax: (213) 977-7595

22

Email: myoshida@apalc.org;

ypark@apalc.org

23

24

By:~C.~

25

KAREN C. TUMLIN

l

26

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

27

28

30
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 31 of 32 Page ID #:1119

1

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

2

I, Naghmeh Harirchi, declare:

3

1. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within cause. I am employed

4 by the National Immigration Law Center in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My

5 business address is 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2850, Los Angeles, California 90010.

6

2. On January 30, 2009, I served a true copy of the attached document entitled

7

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

8 by placing it in an addressed sealed envelope(s) clearly labeled to identify the person(s) being
9 served at the address(es) shown below/set forth on the attached service list and placed said
10 envelope(s) in interoffice mail for collection and deposit with the United States Postal Service at
11 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2850, Los Angeles, California on that same date, following ordinary
12 business practices:
13

14

ELIZABETH J. STEVENS, ESQ.

Assistant Director,

15

District Court Section

Office of Immigration Litigation

16

P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station

Washington, DC 20044

17

Telephone: (202) 616-9752

Facsimile: (202) 305-7000

18

E-mail: elizabeth.stevens@usdoj .gov3.

19 I am familiar with National Immigration Law Center's practice for collection and
20 processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service; in the ordinary
21 course of business, correspondence placed in interoffice mail is deposited with the United States
22
Postal Service with first class postage thereon fully prepaid on the same day it is placed for
23 collection and mailing.
24

25

26

27

28
PROOF OF SERVICE

7010012.1

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 91 Filed 01/30/09 Page 32 of 32 Page ID #:1120

1

I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at

2 whose direction the service was made.

3

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed

4 on January 30, 2009, at Los Angeles, California.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
- 2-
PROOF OF SERVICE

 
 Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 106 Filed 10/16/09 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:1189

1 TONY WEST United States Department of Justice
2 Assistant Attorney General

3 DAVID J. KLINE Director, District Court Section
4 Office of Immigration Litigation

5 ELIZABETH J. STEVENS VSB 47445

Assistant Director,

6 District Court Section

Office of Immigration Litigation

7

P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station

Washington, DC 20044

8

Telephone: (202) 616-9752

Facsimile: (202) 305-7000

9

E-mail: elizabeth.stevens@usdoj.gov

10 Attorneys for Defendants

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

AT SANTA ANA

14 SONALI KOLHATKAR, et al.,

15

Plaintiffs,

16

v.

17 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., et al.,

18

Defendants.

19

Case No. SACV07-1394-DOC (RNBx)
JOINT STIPULATION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Judge: Hon. David O. Carter

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 JOINT STIPULATION FOR APPROVAL OF
28 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

SACV07-1394-DOC-RNBx

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 106 Filed 10/16/09 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:1190

1

On December 4, 2007, Plaintiffs filed the above-captioned

2 action seeking class certification and declaratory and injunctive

3 relief challenging the actions of the United States Citizenship

4 and Immigration Service (USCIS) and the Federal Bureau of

5 Investigation (FBI) in the adjudication of naturalization

6 applications. Following arms-length negotiations, the parties

7 have now reached a mutually agreeable settlement, and seek this

8 Court’s approval of the Settlement.

9

As set forth in the Settlement, USCIS is to adjudicate 70

10 percent of all pending adjudicable naturalization applications of

11 Kolhatkar applicants within 90 days of the approval date, and 90

12 percent of all pending adjudicable naturalization applications of

13 Kolhatkar applications within 180 days of the Approval Date. The

14 baseline for the percentages is a data run of all files in

15 District 23 that fell within the definition of Kolhatkar

16 applicants, done on June 30, 2009. In addition, USCIS will send

17 out a notice of the settlement to all identified Kolhatkar

18 applicants within ten days of the date this Court approves the

19 settlement (approval date).

20

“Kolhatkar applicants” are defined as all individuals

21 residing within the jurisdiction of this Court, who, as of June

22 30, 2009 through the approval date (including those adjudicated

23 from June 30, 2009 to present):

24

(1) Had applied for naturalization within USCIS District

25 23, which includes the USCIS Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and San

26 Bernardino Field offices;

27 JOINT STIPULATION FOR APPROVAL OF

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

1

28

SACV07-1394-DOC-RNBx

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 106 Filed 10/16/09 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:1191

1

(2) Continue to reside within USCIS District 23;

2

(3) Had N-400 applications for naturalization that remained

3 pending for more than 180 days after filing due to the non-

4 completion of the FBI name check;

5

(4) Have attended an interview; and

6

(5) Have their N-400 applications unadjudicated by USCIS.

7

Cases that are not adjudicable are defined as those in which

8 the Kolhatkar applicant failed to provide information requested

9 by USCIS, failed to take some other action required by USCIS, in

10 which USCIS is awaiting receipt of information from the Kolhatkar

11 applicant, or in which the Kolhatkar applicant has a pending

12 individual federal court action challenging the lack of

13 adjudication expressly or constructively under 8 U.S.C. §

14 1447(b), and has not agreed to voluntary dismissal of that claim.

15

The agreement also provides for three sets of limited

16 reports by USCIS to Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the status of

17 naturalization applications. If USCIS meets the benchmarks, the

18 parties will file a joint stipulation dismissing the action in

19 full. If USCIS fails to meet the benchmarks, plaintiffs may seek

20 enforcement from the Court. The Court’s determinations would be

21 limited to two issues: whether the failure to meet the 90% mark

22 was reasonable, or whether USCIS failed to take all steps

23 necessary to meet the 90% mark. The Court would also have

24 jurisdiction to determine whether a failure by Defendants to meet

25 certain deadlines was reasonable. The Court’s jurisdiction over

26 enforcement of the Settlement Agreement ends upon the

27 JOINT STIPULATION FOR APPROVAL OF

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

2

28

SACV07-1394-DOC-RNBx

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 106 Filed 10/16/09 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:1192

1 government’s compliance with any order issued by the Court

2 pursuant to the enforcement.

3

Plaintiffs have agreed to settle their demands for EAJA fees

4 and costs for a total of $4,397.38 in taxable costs under 28

5 U.S.C. § 1920, and $4,800.18 in other costs. No attorneys fees

6 will be paid under this agreement.

7

Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request

8 that this Court enter an order approving the Settlement. A

9 proposed Order is attached.

10

Respectfully submitted,

11

TONY WEST

United States Department of Justice

12

assistant Attorney General

13

DAVID J. KLINE

Director, District Court Section

14

Office of Immigration Litigation

15

By: S/Elizabeth J. Stevens

ELIZABETH J. STEVENS

16

Assistant Director

District Court Section

17

Office of Immigration Litigation

P.O. Box 868

18

Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044

19

Telephone: (202) 616-9752

FAX: (202) 305-7000

20

Elizabeth.stevens@usdoj.gov

21

Attorneys for Defendants

22 Dated: 23 24 25

By: S/ Linton Joaquin LINTON JOAQUIN National Immigration Law Center 3435 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010

26

Attorney for Plaintiffs

27 JOINT STIPULATION FOR APPROVAL OF

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

3

28

SACV07-1394-DOC-RNBx

Case 8:07-cv-01394-DOC-RNB Document 106 Filed 10/16/09 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:1193

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 JOINT STIPULATION FOR APPROVAL OF

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

4

28

SACV07-1394-DOC-RNBx

 
 Case: 8:07-cv-1394 As of: 10/19/2013 12:19 PM PDT 1 of 18 (RNBx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY,MANADR,PROTORD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Southern Division − Santa Ana)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:07−cv−01394−DOC−RNB

Sonali Kolhatkar et al v. Jane Arellano et al Assigned to: Judge David O. Carter Referred to: Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff
Mansour Bavi TERMINATED: 02/01/2008

Date Filed: 12/04/2007 Date Terminated: 11/06/2009 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Karen C Tumlin National Immigration Law Center 3435 Wilshire Blvd Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−639−3900 Fax: 213−639−3911 Email: tumlin@nilc.org TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linton Joaquin National Immigration Law Center 3435 Wilshire Blvd Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−639−3900 Fax: 213−639−3911 Email: joaquin@nilc.org TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Bartrum Helm Munger Tolles &Olson 355 S Grand Ave, 35th Fl Los Angeles, CA 90071−1560 213−683−9187 Email: mark.helm@mto.com TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark D Rosenbaum ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 West Eighth Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−9500 x224 Fax: 213−977−5297 Email: mrosenbaum@aclu−sc.org TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ranjana Nataranjan ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1616 Beverly Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90026 213−977−9500 TERMINATED: 11/13/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 8:07-cv-1394 As of: 10/19/2013 12:19 PM PDT 2 of 18

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Abbas Amirichimeh TERMINATED: 12/19/2007

represented by Karen C Tumlin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linton Joaquin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ranjana Nataranjan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kwang Ho Lee TERMINATED: 02/01/2008

represented by Karen C Tumlin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linton Joaquin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Bartrum Helm (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ranjana Nataranjan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
James Moorhead individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated TERMINATED: 01/30/2009

represented by Karen C Tumlin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 8:07-cv-1394 As of: 10/19/2013 12:19 PM PDT 3 of 18
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Bartrum Helm (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado National Immigration Law Center 3435 Wilshire Blvd Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−639−3900 Fax: 213−639−3911 Email: preciado@nilc.org TERMINATED: 06/04/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ranjana Nataranjan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob S Kreilkamp Munger Tolles and Olson LLP 355 South Grand Avenue 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−683−9260 Fax: 213−687−3702 Email: jacob.kreilkamp@mto.com TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Koji Yoshida Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California 1145 Wilshire Blvd 2nd Fl Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−7500 Email: myoshida@apalc.org TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yungsuhn Park Asian Pacific American Legal Center 1145 Wilshire Boulevard, 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−7500 Email: ypark@apalc.org TERMINATED: 01/30/2009

Case: 8:07-cv-1394 As of: 10/19/2013 12:19 PM PDT 4 of 18

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Carlos Guillermo Flores TERMINATED: 01/30/2009

represented by Ali Manuchehry US Department of Justice 450 5th Street NW Room 6415 Washington, DC 20001 202−305−7109 Email: ali.manuchehry@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 02/19/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen C Tumlin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linton Joaquin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nora A Preciado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/04/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob S Kreilkamp (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Koji Yoshida (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sonali Kolhatkar TERMINATED: 02/24/2009

represented by Jacob S Kreilkamp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie A Su Asian Pacific American Legal Center 1145 Wilshire Blvd 2nd Fl Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−7500

Case: 8:07-cv-1394 As of: 10/19/2013 12:19 PM PDT 5 of 18

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen C Tumlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linton Joaquin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Bartrum Helm (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Koji Yoshida (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mourad Jellabi

represented by Jacob S Kreilkamp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie A Su (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen C Tumlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linton Joaquin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Bartrum Helm (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 8:07-cv-1394 As of: 10/19/2013 12:19 PM PDT 6 of 18

Mark Koji Yoshida (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Maria Stanwick individually

represented by Jacob S Kreilkamp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie A Su (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen C Tumlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linton Joaquin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Bartrum Helm (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Koji Yoshida (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Maria Stanwick on behalf of all those similarly situated

represented by Jacob S Kreilkamp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie A Su (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen C Tumlin (See above for address)

Case: 8:07-cv-1394 As of: 10/19/2013 12:19 PM PDT 7 of 18
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Bartrum Helm (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Koji Yoshida (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Michael B Mukasey in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States TERMINATED: 01/30/2009
Defendant

represented by Ali Manuchehry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth J Stevens United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation − Civil Division PO Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−616−9752 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: elizabeth.stevens@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel P Go Office of Immigration Litigation − District Court Section US Department of Justice, Civil Division P O Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−353−9923 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: samuel.go@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 8:07-cv-1394 As of: 10/19/2013 12:19 PM PDT 8 of 18

Michael Chertoff in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security TERMINATED: 01/30/2009

represented by Ali Manuchehry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth J Stevens (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel P Go (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Emilio T. Gonzalez in his official capacity as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services TERMINATED: 01/30/2009

represented by Ali Manuchehry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth J Stevens (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel P Go (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Jane Arellano in her official capacity as Field Director of the Los Angeles District of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

represented by Ali Manuchehry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth J Stevens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel P Go (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Robert S Mueller, III in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

represented by Ali Manuchehry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth J Stevens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 8:07-cv-1394 As of: 10/19/2013 12:19 PM PDT 9 of 18

Defendant
Michael B Filip in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General of the United States
Defendant
Janet Napolitano in her offficial capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Defendant
Michael Aytes in his official capacity as Acting Director of U.S. Citzenship and Immigration Services

Samuel P Go (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Elizabeth J Stevens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Elizabeth J Stevens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Elizabeth J Stevens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/04/2007
12/04/2007 12/04/2007 12/04/2007 12/04/2007 12/18/2007 12/18/2007 12/18/2007 12/18/2007 12/18/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against defendants Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III. (Filing fee $ 350 paid), filed by plaintiff Kwang Ho Lee, James Moorhead, Mansour Bavi, Abbas Amirichimeh.(klg) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint 1 as to defendants Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III. (klg) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
2 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Kwang Ho Lee, James Moorhead, Mansour Bavi, Abbas Amirichimeh. (klg) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
3 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF ADR PILOT PROGRAM filed.(klg) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
4 STATEMENT Related Cases filed by Plaintiffs Kwang Ho Lee, James Moorhead, Mansour Bavi, Abbas Amirichimeh (klg) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
6 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiffs. The Summons and Complaint were served by personal service. Service accepted by Dennis Deleon on behalf of Robert S. Mueller. Original Summons not attached. (smi) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
7 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiffs. The Summons and Complaint were served by personal service. Service accepted by Jonathan Katz on behalf of Jane Arellano. Original Summons not attached. (smi) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
8 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiffs. The Summons and Complaint were served by personal service. Service accepted by Jonathan Katz on behalf of Emilio T. Gonzalez. Original Summons not attached. (smi) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
9 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiffs. The Summons and Complaint were served by personal service. Service accepted by Kevin Riley on behalf of Michael Chertoff. Original Summons not attached. (smi) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiffs. The Summons and Complaint were served by personal service. Service accepted by Genoveva Ortega on behalf of Michael B. Mukasey. Original Summons not attached. (smi) (Entered: 12/27/2007)

Case: 8:07-cv-1394 As of: 10/19/2013 12:19 PM PDT 10 of 18

12/19/2007 02/01/2008 02/01/2008 02/01/2008 02/01/2008 02/01/2008 02/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/15/2008
02/19/2008
02/19/2008 02/21/2008

5 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL filed by plaintiffs Kwang Ho Lee, James Moorhead, Mansour Bavi, Abbas Amirichimeh pursuant to FRCP 41a(1) as to Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III. (rla) (Entered: 12/26/2007)
11 STIPULATION for Hearing re motion to dismiss; motion for class certification filed by plaintiffs James Moorhead. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re briefing schedule)(Helm, Mark) (Entered: 02/01/2008)
12 STIPULATION to Dismiss plaintiffs Kwang Ho Lee, Mansour Bavi filed by plaintiffs Kwang Ho Lee, Mansour Bavi. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re dismissal of plaintiffs Mansour Bavi and Kwang Ho Lee)(Helm, Mark) (Entered: 02/01/2008)
13 NOTICE of Manual Filing of First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Relief−Class Action; Petitions for Naturalization. (ade) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
14 First AMENDED COMPLAINT; Party Mansour Bavi and Kwang Ho Lee terminated amending Complaint − (Discovery) 1 . Filed by Plaintiffs James Moorhead, Carlos Guillermo Flores. (ade) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/8/2008 (ade, ). (Entered: 02/05/2008)
10 DAY Summons Issued re Amended Complaint 14 as to defendants Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III. (ade) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
15 (Kreilkamp, Jacob) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
16 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following deficiency was found: No text entered; Docket entry is blank: RE Notice of Change of Attorney Information (G−06) 15 (cbr) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
17 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Elizabeth J Stevens on behalf of Defendants Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
18 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class filed by plaintiffs James Moorhead, Carlos Guillermo Flores.Motion set for hearing on 4/7/2008 at 08:30 AM before Judge David O. Carter. (Kreilkamp, Jacob) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
19 DECLARATION of Nora A. Preciado in support of MOTION to Certify Class 18 and Exhibits A−G filed by Plaintiffs James Moorhead, Carlos Guillermo Flores. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits H−M to Declaration of Nora A. Preciado)(Kreilkamp, Jacob) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
20 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case In Part And Remand In Part filed by Defendants Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III.Motion set for hearing on 4/7/2008 at 10:00 AM before Judge David O. Carter. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
21 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Jacob S Kreilkamp counsel for Plaintiffs James Moorhead, Carlos Guillermo Flores. Adding Jacob S. Kreilkamp as attorney as counsel of record for Carlos Guillermo Flores and James Moorhead for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by plaintiffs Carlos Guillermo Flores and James Moorhead (Kreilkamp, Jacob) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
22 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Ali Manuchehry on behalf of Plaintiffs James Moorhead, Carlos Guillermo Flores, Defendants Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III (Manuchehry, Ali) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
23 ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge David O. Carter re Stipulation for Hearing 11 . Moving papers due: February 15, 2008; Opposition papers due: March 14, 2008; Reply papers due: March 28, 2008; Hearing: April 7, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (kh) (Entered: 02/22/2008)

Case: 8:07-cv-1394 As of: 10/19/2013 12:19 PM PDT 11 of 18

02/26/2008 03/05/2008
03/07/2008 03/14/2008 03/14/2008 03/14/2008
03/21/2008 03/21/2008 03/21/2008 03/24/2008
03/25/2008
03/28/2008 03/28/2008 03/28/2008 03/31/2008

DELETION for the following reason: Attorney Ali Manuchehry erroneously added as counsel of record for Plaintiff.(sm) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
24 NOTICE Change of Attorney Information for attorney Yungsuhn Park counsel for Plaintiffs James Moorhead, Carlos Guillermo Flores. Adding Yungsuhn Park as attorney as counsel of record for Carlos Guillermo Flores and James Moorhead for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. filed by plaintiffs James Moorhead, Carlos Guillermo Flores. (Park, Yungsuhn) (Entered: 03/05/2008)
25 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following deficiency was found Incorrect event selected, correct event is Change of Attorney Information (G−06). (rrp) (Entered: 03/07/2008)
26 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss Case In Part And Remand In Part 20 filed by Plaintiffs James Moorhead, Carlos Guillermo Flores. (Kreilkamp, Jacob) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
27 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Certify Class 18 filed by Defendants Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A# 2 Appendix B)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
28 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss Case In Part And Remand In Part 20 Appendix of Unpublished Authority filed by Plaintiffs James Moorhead, Carlos Guillermo Flores. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to Appendix of Unpublished Authority# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B to Appendix of Unpublished Authority# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C to Appendix of Unpublished Authority# 4 Exhibit Exhibit D to Appendix of Unpublished Authority)(Kreilkamp, Jacob) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
29 STIPULATION to Clarify Prior stipulation to dismiss plaintiffs Bavi and Lee is Moot, Re: Stipulation to Dismiss Party 12 , filed by plaintiff Carlos Guillermo Flores. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
30 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Nora Adriana Preciado on behalf of Plaintiff Carlos Guillermo Flores (Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
31 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Nora Adriana Preciado on behalf of Plaintiff James Moorhead (Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
32 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Yungsuhn Park counsel for Plaintiffs James Moorhead, Carlos Guillermo Flores. Adding Yungsuhn Park as attorney as counsel of record for Carlos Guillermo Flores; James Moorhead for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by plaintiffs Carlos Guillermo Flores and James Moorhead (Park, Yungsuhn) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
33 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Mark Koji Yoshida counsel for Plaintiffs James Moorhead, Carlos Guillermo Flores. Adding Mark Yoshida as attorney as counsel of record for Carlos Guillermo Flores, James Moorhead for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Carlos Guillermo Flores, James Moorhead (Yoshida, Mark) (Entered: 03/25/2008)
34 REPLY In support MOTION to Dismiss Case In Part And Remand In Part 20 filed by Defendants Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A# 2 Appendix B)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
35 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Samuel P Go on behalf of Defendants Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III (Go, Samuel) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
36 REPLY in support of MOTION to Certify Class 18 filed by Plaintiffs James Moorhead, Carlos Guillermo Flores. (Kreilkamp, Jacob) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
37 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTIONS held before Judge David O. Carter re: MOTION to Certify Class 18 ; MOTION to Dismiss Case and In Part And Remand In Part 20 . Motions CONTINUED to 5/5/2008 at 08:30 AM before Judge David O. Carter. (kh) Modified on 3/31/2008 (kh, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 3/31/2008 (kh, ).

Case: 8:07-cv-1394 As of: 10/19/2013 12:19 PM PDT 12 of 18

04/14/2008
04/29/2008
04/29/2008 05/05/2008 05/10/2008 05/10/2008 05/12/2008 05/16/2008 05/16/2008 05/19/2008

(Entered: 03/31/2008)
38 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Leave to file Second Amended Complaint filed by plaintiff Carlos Guillermo Flores.Motion set for hearing on 5/5/2008 at 08:30 AM before Judge David O. Carter. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration In support of motion for leave to file second amended complaint# 2 Proposed Order Granting plaintiffs motion for leave to file second amended complaint# 3 Appendix Proposed Second Amended Complaint)(Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
39 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER TAKING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND AMEND UNDER SUBMISSION; CONTINUING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION held before Judge David O. Carter. MOTION to Dismiss Case In Part and Remand In Part 20 , MOTION for Leave to file Second Amended Complaint 38 are taken under submission. MOTION to Certify Class 18 is CONTINUED to 5/12/2008 at 08:30 AM before Judge David O. Carter. (kh) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
40 NOTICE of Decision: Supp Authority Relevant to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by plaintiff Carlos Guillermo Flores. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits to Notice of Supplemental Authority)(Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
41 NOTICE of Decision: notice of decision relevant to Pls.' Opp. filed by plaintiff Carlos Guillermo Flores. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit to Notice of Suppl. Authority)(Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 05/05/2008)
42 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Elizabeth J Stevens counsel for Defendants Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III. Changing Address to P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Changing fax number to 202−305−7000. Filed by defendants Michael B. Mukasey, et al. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/10/2008)
43 NOTICE Notice of Supplemental Authority in Further Support of Defendants' Motion To Dismiss filed by defendants Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/10/2008)
44 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge David O. Carter RE: MOTION to Certify Class 18 and MOTION to Dismiss Case In Part And Remand In Part 20 . Tentative ruling issued to counsel, a copy of which is attached hereto.Argument by counsel. Motions held in abeyance and continued to May 19, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. Court Reporter: Debbie Gale. (Attachments: # 1) (kh) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
45 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Certify Class 18 Plaintiffs' Submission Regarding Information to be Provided by Defendants to the Court filed by Plaintiffs James Moorhead, Carlos Guillermo Flores. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Karen Tumlin# 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Karen Tumlin)(Kreilkamp, Jacob) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
46 Defendants' Submission Regarding Information To Be Provided To The Court In Support Of Defendants' Motion To Hold The Case In Abeyance filed by Defendants Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III re: Motion Hearing,, Link Motions to Minutes,, Set Motion and RRDeadlines, 44 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
47 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge David O. Carter: 1) Motion by Plaintiff for Class Certification; 2) Motion by Defendants to Dismiss in Part and Remand in Part. Defendants will supply the court and plaintiffs with snapshots of cases pending completion of FBI name check. The parties will conduct a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Michael Cannon in Courtroom 9C of Santa Ana Courthouse on 9/3/08 at 8:00 a.m. A hearing is set for the pending motions for 10/6/08 at 8:30 a.m. The motion for class certification and motion to dismiss will be held in abeyance until 10/6/08 hearing. Court Reporter: Pamela Cotten. (ade) (Entered: 05/28/2008)

Case: 8:07-cv-1394 As of: 10/19/2013 12:19 PM PDT 13 of 18

06/04/2008 06/16/2008 07/03/2008 07/11/2008 07/14/2008 07/31/2008
08/04/2008 08/08/2008 08/26/2008
08/27/2008 08/28/2008
08/29/2008

48 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Nora Adriana Preciado counsel for Plaintiffs James Moorhead, Carlos Guillermo Flores.Nora A. Preciado is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Counsel of Record Nora A. Preciado (Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
49 Defendants' Submission Pursuant To The Court's Order Of May 19, 2008 filed by Defendants Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III re: Motion Hearing,, 47 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
50 NOTICE re Status of Motions Held in Abeyance filed by plaintiff Carlos Guillermo Flores. (Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
51 Defendants' Second Submission Pursuant To The Court's Order of May 19, 2008 filed by Defendants Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III and Certificate of Service re: Motion Hearing,, 47 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
52 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER Clarifying Case Status held before Judge David O. Carter. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Notice Re: Status of Motions Held in Abeyance 50 . The Court hereby holds the pending Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint in abeyance. The Court will address all pending motions subsequent to the receipt of the final report from Defendants. (See minute order for further details) (db) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
53 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 5/19/2008 8:30 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Pamela Cotten, CSR, RDR, phone number 714)323−6850. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 8/21/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/31/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/29/2008. (Cotton, Pamela) (Entered: 07/31/2008)
54 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings held on 5/19/08 8:30AM. (ml) (Entered: 08/04/2008)
55 STATEMENT Regarding Deposition of Michael Cannon filed by Plaintiff Carlos Guillermo Flores (Kreilkamp, Jacob) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
56 Joint Stipulation Regarding Defendants' Motion to Quash Plaintiffs' Proposed Topics For The Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Michael Cannon As The Representative of the FBI filed by Plaintiffs Kwang Ho Lee, James Moorhead, Mansour Bavi, Carlos Guillermo Flores, Abbas Amirichimeh, Defendants Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III re: Motion Hearing,, 47 , Statement 55 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Defendants, # 2 Proposed Order plaintiffs)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/26/2008)
57 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected, correct event is Quash RE: Miscellaneous Document,, 56 . In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (rrp) (Entered: 08/27/2008)
58 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS REQUEST TO QUASH PLAINTIFFS held before Judge David O. Carter re: Joint Stipulation/Motion 56 . Court will closely monitor the deposition to ensure that Mr. Cannon is not asked questions that extend beyond the scope of the Courts limitations on the deposition. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services process and methodology will not be disclosed. All parties are ordered to appear for the September 3, 2008 deposition at 8:00 a.m. (kh) (Entered: 08/28/2008)
59 AMENDED DOCUMENT filed by Defendants Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III. Amendment to Miscellaneous Document, 51 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Stevens, Elizabeth)

Case: 8:07-cv-1394 As of: 10/19/2013 12:19 PM PDT 14 of 18

09/08/2008 09/08/2008
09/25/2008 10/02/2008 10/15/2008 10/16/2008
10/20/2008 10/21/2008 10/21/2008 10/22/2008 10/24/2008
10/29/2008

(Entered: 08/29/2008)
60 Defendants' Third Submission of Data Pursuant to the Court's Order of May 19, 2008 filed by Defendants Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III re: Motion Hearing,, 47 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
61 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge David O. Carter Ordering Counsel to Appear for Deposition. Defendants are ORDERED to produce their next required submission by 10/15/08. Additionally, both parties are ORDERED to attend the deposition of a knowledgeable USCIS representative, before this Court, on 10/27/08. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to submit their deposition questions by 10/15/08 with Defendants' response to be on or before 10/22/08. (db) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
62 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge David O. Carter: Court Orders Status Conference/Motions Hearing, presently set October 6, 2008, CONTINUED to October 9, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (kh) (Entered: 09/25/2008)
63 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER VACATING HEARING held before Judge David O. Carter: Court Orders Stats Conference/Motions Hearing, in the above−entitled action, presently set October 9, 2008 VACATED. (kh) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
64 STATEMENT Regarding Deposition of USCIS Official filed by Plaintiff Carlos Guillermo Flores (Kreilkamp, Jacob) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
65 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendants' Submission Pursuant to the Court's Order of Sept. 3, 2008 filed by Defendants' Unopposed Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III. Motion set for hearing on 10/27/2008 at 08:30 AM before Judge David O. Carter. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Defendants' Submission Pursuant to the Court's Order of Sept. 3, 2008)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
66 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge David O. Carter GRANTING MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendants' Submission Pursuant to the Court's Order of Sept. 3, 2008 65 . The Motion to Extend Time to File Defendants' Submission is hereby GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED. (nbo) (Entered: 10/20/2008)
67 Submission Pursuant to the Court's Order of September 3, 2008 filed by Defendants Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III re: Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held, 61 , Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held, 66 (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
68 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of USCIS Representatives from October 27, 2008 to October 28, 2008 Re: Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held, 61 filed by Defendants Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
69 ORDER by Judge David O. Carter, on Stipulation to Continue Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of USCIS Represetative 68 : The Deposition of USCIS Representatives Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) is hereby continued from Monday, October 27, 2008, to Tuesday, October 28, 2008, at 8:00 A.M. IT IS SO ORDERED. (rla) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
70 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Amend Amended Complaint 14 filed by Plaintiff Carlos Guillermo Flores. Motion set for hearing on 11/17/2008 at 08:30 AM before Judge David O. Carter. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Karen C Tumlin, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint)(Kreilkamp, Jacob) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
71 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge David O. Carter: Order Setting Scheduling Conference and Hearing Date for Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Amended Complaint. ( Scheduling Conference set for 12/1/2008 11:30 AM

Case: 8:07-cv-1394 As of: 10/19/2013 12:19 PM PDT 15 of 18

11/10/2008 11/13/2008 11/17/2008 11/18/2008 11/25/2008 12/01/2008
12/05/2008 12/15/2008 12/16/2008
12/17/2008 01/05/2009

before Judge David O. Carter.) ( Responses due by 11/10/2008, Replies due by 11/17/2008. Motion set for hearing on 12/1/2008 at 11:30 AM before Judge David O. Carter.) (ade) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
72 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Amend Amended Complaint 14 MOTION to Amend Amended Complaint 14 70 filed by Defendants Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
73 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Mark D Rosenbaum counsel for Plaintiffs James Moorhead, Carlos Guillermo Flores. Filed by plaintiff Flores (Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
74 REPLY In support MOTION to Amend Amended Complaint 14 MOTION to Amend Amended Complaint 14 70 filed by Plaintiff Carlos Guillermo Flores. (Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
75 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: re: MOTION To Leave To File Second Amended Complaint 70 : After considering the moving, opposing, and replying papers, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Motion. (See document for details.) The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action.(rla) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
76 STATUS REPORT filed by Plaintiff Carlos Guillermo Flores. (Kreilkamp, Jacob) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
77 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge David O. Carter, Court and parties confer off the record and decide upon the following deadlines: Government to provide a report to plaintiffs' counsel, in same format provided previously to Court, no later than December 15, 2008. Plaintiff to submit a request for additional CIS reports on or before January 5, 2009. Government response to be filed no later than January 21, 2009. Plaintiff to file under seal information re putative class members no later than January 21, 2009. Court sets a class certification hearing to be held on May 11, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification to be filed no later than April 20, 2009. Goverment's opposition is due no later than May 4, 2009. Parties are to appear before Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block on April 1, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. for a mediation hearing. eporter: Not Reported. (rla) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
78 ORDER RE SETTLEMENT CONFERNCE by Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block: This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block for settlement proceedings. The Settlement Conference is placed on calendar for 4/1/09 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6D of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, in Santa Ana, California. (see document for further details) (klg) Modified on 12/5/2008 (klg). (Entered: 12/05/2008)
79 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendants' Submission Pursuant To The Court's Order of December 1, 2008 filed by Defendants' Unopposed Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
80 Defendants' Submission Pursuant To The Court's Order of December 1, 2008 filed by Defendants Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III re: Scheduling Conference,,,, Set Deadlines/Hearings,,,, Set Motion and RRDeadlines,,, 77 , MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendants' Submission Pursuant To The Court's Order of December 1, 2008 79 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/16/2008)
81 ORDER RE: UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE DEFENDANTS' SUBMISSION PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S ORDER OF 12/01/08 by Judge David O. Carter 79 . The filing date of the 12/15/08 report from USCIS is extended from 12/15/08 to 12/16. (db) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
82 Plaintiffs' submission pursuant to the Court's order of December 1, 2008 filed by Plaintiff Carlos Guillermo Flores re: Scheduling Conference,,,, Set

Case: 8:07-cv-1394 As of: 10/19/2013 12:19 PM PDT 16 of 18

01/06/2009 01/21/2009 01/21/2009
01/28/2009 01/28/2009 01/30/2009
01/30/2009 01/30/2009
01/30/2009 01/30/2009 01/30/2009 01/30/2009 01/30/2009 02/03/2009 02/23/2009

Deadlines/Hearings,,,, Set Motion and RRDeadlines,,, 77 (Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
83 NOTICE of Corrected Filing filed by plaintiff Carlos Guillermo Flores. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 01/06/2009)
84 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Submission re Putative Class Members filed by plaintiff Carlos Guillermo Flores. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Re Unopposed Motion to Extend Time)(Joaquin, Linton) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
85 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Opposition filed by Defendants' Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III. to Plainitffs' Submission Pursuant to the Court's Order of December 1, 2008 Re: Miscellaneous Document 82 , Scheduling Conference, Set Deadlines/Hearings, Set Motion and RRDeadlines,,,,,,,,, 77 , Notice (Other) 83 (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
86 STIPULATION File Names of Putative Class Members Under Seal filed by plaintiff Carlos Guillermo Flores. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Stipulated Protective Order)(Joaquin, Linton) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
87 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Plaintiff Carlos Guillermo Flores of Submission re Putative Class Members. (Joaquin, Linton) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
88 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: Applications and Orders to Seal, along with the document(s) to be placed under seal, shall NOT be electronically filed but shall be filed traditionally in the manner prescribed by Local Rule 79−5 pursuant to General Order 08−02 RE: Stipulation to Seal 86 . In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (rrp) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
89 NOTICE of filing of Third Amended Complaint filed by plaintiff Carlos Guillermo Flores. (Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
91 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendants Michael B Filip, Janet Napolitano, Michael Aytes, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III; Party Emilio T. Gonzalez; James Moorhead; Michael B Mukasey; Michael Chertoff and Carlos Guillermo Flores terminated amending Complaint − (Discovery) 1 . Filed by plaintiffs Sonali Kolhatkar, Mourad Jellabi, Maria Stanwick. (rla) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
92 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge David O. Carter. (See Order for details) (db) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
93 ORDER re: Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File Plaintiffs' Submission re: Putative Class Members by Judge David O. Carter 84 . The filing date of plaintiffs' submission regarding putative class members is extended from 01/21/09 to 01/28/09. (db) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
94 SEALED DOCUMENT − APPLICATION TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL (smi) (Entered: 02/05/2009)
95 SEALED DOCUMENT − ORDER RE APPLICATION TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL **DOCUMENT SEALED** (smi) (Entered: 02/05/2009)
96 SEALED DOCUMENT − PLAINTIFFS' SUBMISSION RE PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS UNDER SEAL (smi) (Entered: 02/05/2009)
90 STIPULATION for Order to Remand Sonali Kolhatkar's Application to USCIS filed by plaintiff Carlos Guillermo Flores. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Re: Remand Sonali Kolhatkar's Application to USCIS)(Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
97 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Defendants Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III, Michael B Filip, Janet Napolitano, Michael Aytes of Application to file document under seal, proposed order, and Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs'

Case: 8:07-cv-1394 As of: 10/19/2013 12:19 PM PDT 17 of 18

02/24/2009 03/16/2009 04/01/2009
04/13/2009 04/17/2009
05/05/2009
05/15/2009 05/20/2009 10/16/2009 10/26/2009

Motions for Orders to Show Cause and Exhibit. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
98 ORDER by Judge David O. Carter GRANTING Stipulation to Remand Sonali Kolhatkar's Application to Defendant USCIS. Ms. Kolhatkar's claim under 8 USC § 1447(b) is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). (Sonali Kolhatkar terminated.) (nbo) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
99 Defendants' March Submission Pursuant to the Court's Order of December 1, 2008 filed by Defendants Michael B Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III, Michael B Filip, Janet Napolitano, Michael Aytes re: Scheduling Conference, Set Deadlines/Hearings, Set Motion and RRDeadlines,,,,,,,,, 77 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/16/2009)
100 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block: After the Magistrate Judge conferred separately with each side, it was clear that the parties were at an impasse and that a complete settlement of the matte r could not be reached at the settlement conference. However, it appeared to the Magistrate Judge and both sides concurred that this impasse could be resolved and a settlement could be reached if the District Judge would rule on whether defendants should be required to disclose to plaintiffs and the Court the following information, limited to District 23. Court Recorder: CS 4/1/09. (ade, ) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
101 STIPULATION to Reschedule Briefing for Renewed Motions filed by plaintiff Sonali Kolhatkar. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Re Briefing Schedule for Renewed Motions)(Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 04/13/2009)
102 ORDER by Judge David O. Carter RE: BRIEFING SCHDULE FOR PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND DEFENDANTS RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS Moving papers due: 45 calendar days after the Court rules on the Magistrate Judges pending Minute Order dated April 1, 2009; Opposition papers due: 10 business days after service of the moving papers; Reply papers due: 6 business days before the hearing on these motions; Hearing: At the Courts earliest convenience following briefing. (smi) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
103 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER BY Judge David O. Carter, SETTING HEARING AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE: Pursuant to Magistrate Judge Block's minute order dated April 1, 2009, this Court sets a hearing for June 1, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. Counsel for the defendant shall file a brief by May 18, 2009 regarding whether they should be required to disclose to plaintiffs and the Court the information listed in the April 1, 2009 minute order. A response to the brief shall be filed by plaintiff on or before May 26, 2009. (rla) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
104 Joint STIPULATION to Vacate Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held, Set Hearings, Terminate Deadlines and Hearings,,,,,, 103 re Document Disclosure and Request To Vacate briefing Schedule filed by defendants Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III, Michael B Filip, Janet Napolitano, Michael Aytes. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
105 ORDER on Stipulation re: Document Disclosure and Request to Vacate Briefing Schedule by Judge David O. Carter. (ade) (Entered: 05/20/2009)
106 Joint STIPULATION for Settlement Agreement Approval filed by Defendants Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III, Michael B Filip, Janet Napolitano, Michael Aytes. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
107 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: ORDER SETTING HEARING: Before the Court is a Joint Stipulation for Approval of Settlement Agreement. Court sets this matter for hearing on November 9, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this minute order on counsel for all parties in this action. (rla) (Entered: 10/26/2009)

Case: 8:07-cv-1394 As of: 10/19/2013 12:19 PM PDT 18 of 18

11/06/2009 11/12/2009 11/17/2009
10/04/2010 10/05/2010

108 JOINT STIPULATION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: The hearing set for Monday, November 9, 2009, is hereby VACATED. Said Motion 106 is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Made JS−6. Case Terminated.) (rla) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
109 Joint STIPULATION to Remand Case to US Agency Remand of Maria Stanwick's Application to Defendant USCIS filed by defendant Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III, Michael B Filip, Janet Napolitano, Michael Aytes. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
110 ORDER On Stipulation re: Remand of Maria Stanwick's Application to Defendant USCIS by Judge David O. Carter, re Stipulation to Remand Case to US Agency, 109 . WHEREAS the parties have reached a settlement agreement in this action, IT IS ORDERED, according to the terms of that settlement agreement, that Ms. Maria Stanwicks naturalization application is remanded to defendant USCIS to adjudicate her application. (db) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
111 STIPULATION to Dismiss Case pursuant to Settlement filed by plaintiff Sonali Kolhatkar. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
112 ORDER by Judge David O. Carter re Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Case with Prejudice 111 . (nbo) (Entered: 10/06/2010)