Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07132/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07132-0/pdf.json

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

---

Second Stip. re Briefing on PI No. C 06-07132 JW

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 

Marc Van Der Hout, CA SBN # 80778 

Stacy Tolchin, CA SBN # 217431 

Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP 

180 Sutter Street, Fifth Floor 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 981-3000 

Facsimile: (415) 981-3003 

Email: ndca@vblaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

A.M. Rashed CHOWDHURY, 

Mumtaz CHOWDHURY, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

Frank SICILIANO, his Official Capacity, Officer in 

Charge, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

United States Department of Homeland Security, San 

Jose, California; David STILL, in his Official 

Capacity, District Director, U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, United States Department of 

Homeland Security, San Francisco, California; 

Christina POULOS, in her Official Capacity, Acting 

Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

California Service Center, United States Department of

Homeland Security; Michael CHERTOFF, in his 

Official Capacity, Secretary, United States Department 

of Homeland Security; and Alberto R. GONZALES, in 

his Official Capacity, Attorney General, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C 06-07132 JW 

PARTIES’ SECOND 

STIPULATION 

REGARDING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE AND 

HEARING ON 

PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION MOTION 

Immigration Case, Administrative 

Procedure Act Case

Agency No.:A75 246 305 

A75 246 306 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge James Ware

Case 5:06-cv-07132-JW Document 12 Filed 11/29/06 Page 1 of 3
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 

Plaintiffs have filed a petition for writ of mandamus and complaint for declaratory 

and injunctive relief. On November 17, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary 

injunction, requesting that Defendants issue employment authorization documents 

(“EAD”) to Plaintiffs, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 274a.13, on or before December 8, 2006. 

The parties also stipulated to an expedited briefing schedule, which this Court approved 

on November 22, 2006. 

On November 27, 2006, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) 

sent via facsimile and via email a copy of Plaintiffs’ EAD applications (Form I-765) with a stamp 

marked “APPROVED November 27, 2006.” Defendants’ counsel also notified Plaintiffs’ 

counsel that Plaintiffs’ EAD applications had been approved. Defendants’ counsel further 

notified Plaintiffs’ counsel that the actual EAD cards, which are the documents required to prove 

authorization for employment, will take additional days to issue. Plaintiffs’ counsel have called 

Plaintiff Rashed Chowdhury’s employer, Wells Fargo Bank, to inform them that his EAD 

application has been approved and that his EAD card is expected to be issued within the next few

days. Wells Fargo Bank is currently in the process of determining whether to accept Plaintiff

Rashed Chowdhury back for employment during this interim period where his EAD application 

has been approved, but his actual EAD card has not yet been issued. 

In light of the approval of Plaintiffs’ EAD application, Plaintiffs and Defendants have 

agreed, subject to Court approval, to stay the deadline by which Defendants were to file their 

response to Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, which was due by 12:00 p.m. on 

November 27, 2006. If Plaintiff Rashed Chowdhury’s employer agrees to take him back by 

December 1, 2006, Plaintiffs will request that the December 4, 2006 hearing date be taken off 

calendar and that the parties be given an additional 30 days to determine whether the pending 

motion for preliminary injunction is still appropriate in this case. 

1

Case 5:06-cv-07132-JW Document 12 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 3
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 

_________/s/_______________________ 

Date: November 28, 2006 MARC VAN DER HOUT 

Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Dated: November 28, 2006 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 ____________/s/____________________ 

 ILA C. DEISS

 Assistant United States Attorney 

 Attorney for Defendants 

I declare under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of this document has been 

obtained from Ila C. Deiss. 

 

 _________/s/_______________________ 

Dated: November 28, 2006 MARC VAN DER HOUT 

It is so ordered. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________________ 

 Hon. James Ware 

 United States District Judge 

2

November 29, 2006

Case 5:06-cv-07132-JW Document 12 Filed 11/29/06 Page 3 of 3