Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05184/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05184-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

Justin Fok, Esq., CA State Bar #242272 

Law Offices of Jean D. Chen 

2107 N. First Street, Suite 400 

San Jose, CA 95131 

Telephone: (408) 437-1788 

Facsimile: (408) 437-9788 

Email: jfok@jclawoffice.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Lei Hua 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

Lei Hua, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the 

Department of Homeland Security; 

Emilio T. Gonzalez, Director of United States 

Citizenship and Immigration Services 

 Defendants 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. C 07-5184 HRL 

PARTIES JOINT REQUEST TO BE 

EXEMPT FROM FORMAL ADR 

PROCESS 

Each of the undersigned certifies that he or she has read either the handbook entitled 

“Dispute Resolution Procedures in the Northern District of California,” or the specified portions 

of the ADR Unit’s Internet site <www.adr.cand.uscourts.gov>, discussed the available dispute 

resolution options provided by the court and private entities, and considered whether this case 

might benefit from any of them. Here, the parties agree that referral to a formal ADR process 

will not be beneficial because this mandamus action is limited to plaintiffs’ request that this 

Parties’ Joint Request for Exemption 

C 07-5184 HRL 

1

*ORDER E-FILED 1/9/2008* AND ORDER

Case 5:07-cv-05184-HRL Document 8 Filed 01/09/08 Page 1 of 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

Court compel defendants to adjudicate the application for adjustment of status. Given the 

substance of the action and the lack of any potential middle ground, ADR will only serve to 

multiply the proceedings and unnecessarily tax court resources. Accordingly, pursuant to ADR 

L.R. 3-3(c), the parties request the case be removed from the ADR Multi-Option Program and 

that they be excused from participating in the ADR phone conference and any further formal 

ADR process. 

 Respectfully Submitted, 

Dated: January 8, 2008 __________/s/___________ 

 Justin G. Fok

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

Dated: January 8, 2008 ____/s/_________________ 

 Ila C. Deiss 

 United States Attorney

 Attorney for Defendants 

ORDER 

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: ___________________________ 

 Howard R. Lloyd 

 Magistrate Judge 

Parties’ Joint Request for Exemption 

C 07-5184 HRL 

2

January 9, 2008

Case 5:07-cv-05184-HRL Document 8 Filed 01/09/08 Page 2 of 2