Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02991/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02991-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

Joint Case Management Conference Statement

C07-2991 MJJ 1

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS, SC SBN 9990

United States Attorney

JOANN M. SWANSON, CSBN 88143

Assistant United States Attorney

Chief, Civil Division

ILA C. DEISS, NY SBN 3052909

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7124

FAX: (415) 436-7169

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

EMILIO MORALES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, as Secretary of the )

Department of Homeland Security; )

EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, Director of the )

U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services; )

ROBERT S. MULLER, Director of )

Federal Bureau of Investigation, )

)

Defendants. )

 )

No. C 07-2991 MJJ

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE STATEMENT;

REQUEST TO VACATE CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; and

PROPOSED ORDER

1. Jurisdiction and Service

The basis for this Court’s jurisdiction is 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), which provides that if the United

States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has failed to make a determination on an

individual’s application for naturalization within 120 days after the date on which the applicant is

examined, the applicant may apply to the United States District Court for a hearing on the matter. 

The District Court “may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate

instructions, to the Service to determine the matter.” 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b); United States v.

Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1160 (9 Cir. 2004); Zhai v. USCIS, 2004 WL 1960195 (N.D. Cal. th

2004). The parties do not dispute that venue is proper in this district. No issues exist regarding

Case 3:07-cv-02991-MJJ Document 12 Filed 10/10/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Joint Case Management Conference Statement

C07-2991 MJJ 2

personal jurisdiction or venue, and no parties remain to be served.

2. Facts

The plaintiff is a lawful permanent resident of the United States who filed an application for

naturalization with USCIS and was interviewed on November 15, 2004. The USCIS has not yet

adjudicated the plaintiff’s naturalization application.

3. Legal Issues

1. Whether the USCIS or this Court may adjudicate a naturalization application before all of

the necessary background checks of the applicant have been completed. 

2. Whether this Court may compel the FBI to complete the necessary name check in a timely

manner.

3. Whether this Court may compel the USCIS to adjudicate a naturalization case within a

certain time frame when the CIS has failed to make a decision within the statutory 120-day period

after the date of the initial examination of the application.

4. Motions

The defendants will file a motion asking this Court to remand this matter back to USCIS with

instruction to adjudicate the application for naturalization promptly upon receipt of the FBI

background check.

5. Amendment of Pleadings

No parties, claims or defenses are expected to be added or dismissed.

6. Evidence Preservation

The parties do not have any evidence that falls within this category.

7. Disclosures

The parties believe that the initial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 do not apply to

this case.

8. Discovery

The parties do not intend to take any discovery in this case at this time.

9. Class Actions

N/A

Case 3:07-cv-02991-MJJ Document 12 Filed 10/10/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Joint Case Management Conference Statement

C07-2991 MJJ 3

10. Related Cases

The parties are not aware of any related case or cases.

11. Relief

The plaintiff asks this Court to direct defendants to adjudicate his application for

naturalization.

12. Settlement and ADR

The Court granted the parties request to be exempt from the formal ADR process on September

28, 2007.

13. Consent to Magistrate Judge for All Purposes

The parties will not consent to the assignment of this case to a magistrate judge.

14. Other References: 

The parties do not believe that this case is suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a

special master, or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

15. Narrowing of Issues

The parties do not believe that the issues can be narrowed by agreement or by motion, and do

not have suggestions to expedite the presentation of evidence at trial (e.g., through summaries or

stipulated facts), and any request to bifurcate issues, claims or defenses.

16. Expedited Schedule

The defendants believe this case can be resolved on their motion to remand.

17. Scheduling

The parties propose the following schedule on the defendants’ motion to remand. 

Defendants’ Motion to Remand: November 6, 2007

Plaintiff’s Opposition: November 20, 2007

Defendants’ Reply: November 27, 2007

Hearing: December 11, at 9:30 a.m.

18. Trial

The parties request that this Court set a date for an evidentiary hearing should the matter not

resolve through motions.

Case 3:07-cv-02991-MJJ Document 12 Filed 10/10/07 Page 3 of 4
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

Joint Case Management Conference Statement

C07-2991 MJJ 4

19. Disclosure of Non-Party Interested Entities or Persons:

The Plaintiff intends to file the “Certification of Interested Entities or Persons” required by

Civil Local Rule 3-16.

20. Such other matters as may facilitate the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of

this matter

The parties respectfully ask this Court to vacate the case management conference, currently

scheduled for October 16, 2007, in light of the fact that the parties have agreed on a schedule for

the defendants’ motion to remand, and will ask the Court to set a further case management

conference if and when the Court denies the defendants’ motion to remand.

Dated: October 9, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS

United States Attorney

 /s/ 

ILA C. DEISS

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Defendants

Dated: October 9, 2007 ________/s/_________________

TRICIA WANG

Attorney for Plaintiff

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

The Joint Case Management Statement and Proposed Order are hereby adopted by the Court as

the Case Management Order for the case, and the parties are ordered to comply with this Order.

Further, the case management conference is vacated.

Dated: ___________________________

MARTIN J. JENKINS

United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Martin J. Jenkins

10/10/07

Case 3:07-cv-02991-MJJ Document 12 Filed 10/10/07 Page 4 of 4