Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01875/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01875-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 462
Nature of Suit: Naturalization, Petition For Hearing of Denial
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

1

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

28

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

AUDREY B. HEMESATH

Assistant United States Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2700

Email: Audrey.Hemesath@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEANLIM YITH and SEAK LEANG YITH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JEH JOHNSON, Secretary, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security; LEON RODRIGUEZ, 

Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01875 LJO SKO

Stipulation and Order re: Abeyance

On February 24, 2015, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued interview 

notices pertaining to Plaintiffs’ currently-pending naturalization applications. The interviews are 

set for March 10, 2015. Plaintiffs have sought (among other relief) an order requiring 

adjudication of their naturalization applications, and Defendants believe that the issuance of 

interview notices has the potential to affect this Court’s jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ first two 

causes of action, in that interviews would trigger the statutory 120-day deadline for issuance of 

decisions on Plaintiff’s naturalization applications. See 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Accordingly, the 

parties therefore stipulate to hold this matter in abeyance, vacate the March 17, 2015 hearing 

date, vacate the April 16, 2015 status conference, and instead file status reports or a joint status 

report if possible by May 1, 2015. The parties agree that this stipulation itself has no effect on 

Plaintiffs’ right to seek, or Defendants’ right to oppose, attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to 

Case 1:14-cv-01875-DAD-SKO Document 24 Filed 03/03/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

28

Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), or under any other legal theory, authority or precedent 

preserved in Plaintiffs’ complaint.

Dated: March 2, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

s/ Audrey B. Hemesath

AUDREY B. HEMESATH

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorney for Defendants

Bruce Leichty, A Professional Corporation

By: /s/ Bruce Leichty

Bruce Leichty

Attorney for Plaintiffs

ORDER

The above stipulation is approved. 

SO ORDERED

Dated: March 3, 2015

 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

United States District Judge

Case 1:14-cv-01875-DAD-SKO Document 24 Filed 03/03/15 Page 2 of 2