Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02459/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02459-0/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

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING CMC 

C 06-02459 CRB 1

KEVIN V. RYAN, CSBN 118321

United States Attorney

JOANN M. SWANSON, CSBN 88143

Assistant United States Attorney

Chief, Civil Division

EDWARD A. OLSEN, CSBN 214150

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-6915

FAX: (415) 436-7169

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

RAJ SINGH KOHLI and 

VEENA KAUR KOHLI,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et. al. 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-02459-CRB

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their undersigned counsel,

subject to approval by the Court, the following:

1. On April 7, 2006, plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court, seeking an

order compelling the adjudication of the I-730 Petition for Asylee Relative filed by plaintiff Veena

Kaur Kohli on behalf of plaintiff Raj Singh Kohli.

2. The plaintiffs filed an amended petition for writ of mandamus seeking the same relief on

April 18, 2006.

3. The defendants filed an answer to the amended petition on June 7, 2006.

4. On June 8, 2006, the defendants issued a Request for Evidence, asking the plaintiffs for

further information regarding their I-730 Petition.

Case 3:06-cv-02459-CRB Document 8 Filed 06/19/06 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

I, Edward A. Olsen, attest that Stacy Tolchin and I have signed this stipulation. 1

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING CMC 

C 06-02459 CRB 2

5. A response to the Request for Evidence is due on August 31, 2006.

6. The parties have met and conferred and believe that plaintiffs’ case may possibly be

resolved within the next few months.

7. The parties therefore agree, subject to court approval, to continue the Case Management 

Conference currently set for July 7, 2006, to October 6, 2006.

8. The parties further agree, subject to court approval, to file a joint case management

statement seven days in advance of the case management conference, and to file the necessary

Alternative Dispute Resolution Documents twenty-one days in advance of the case management

conference. The parties are also discussing the propriety of discovery and, if necessary, will

provide their initial disclosures and Rule 26(f) report seven days before the case management

conference.

Dated: June 15, 2006 /s/

STACY TOLCHIN

Van Der Hout, Brigagliano and Nightingale

Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: June 15, 2006

KEVIN V. RYAN

United States Attorney 

/s/

EDWARD A. OLSEN1

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorney for Defendants

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED that the Case Management Conference be

continued to October 6, 2006.

Dated: ___________________ _____________________________

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Court Judge

June 16, 2006

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:06-cv-02459-CRB Document 8 Filed 06/19/06 Page 2 of 2