Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02461/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02461-0/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 300 

San Jose, CA 95131 

Telephone: (408) 437-1788 

Facsimile: (408) 437-9788 

Email: jfok@jclawoffice.com

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Xinrong Jiang 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

Xinrong Jiang, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

Alberto Gonzales, United States Attorney 

General, U.S. Department of Justice; 

Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the 

Department of Homeland Security; 

Emilio T. Gonzalez, Director of United States 

Citizenship and Immigration Services; 

David Still, San Francisco District Director, 

United States Citizenship and Immigration 

Services; 

Robert S. Mueller III, Director of the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. C 07-2461 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 

Parties’ Joint Request for Exemption 

C07-2461 HRL 

1

* E-filed 7/26/07 *

Case 5:07-cv-02461-HRL Document 7 Filed 07/26/07 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

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 plaintiff’s request that this 

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: July 24, 2007 __________/s/______________ 

 Justin G. Fok

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

Dated: July 23, 2007 __________/s/______________ 

 Ila C. Deiss 

 Assistant United States Attorney 

 Attorney for Defendants 

ORDER 

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: ___________________________ 

 Howard R. Lloyd 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Parties’ Joint Request for Exemption 

C07-2461 HRL 

2

 Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. Further, the parties should file and 

serve either a Consent to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge or a Request for 

Reassignment to a U.S. District Judge as soon as possible.

ORDER 7/26/07

Case 5:07-cv-02461-HRL Document 7 Filed 07/26/07 Page 2 of 2