Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00430/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00430-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AVTAR SINGH, HARVINDER SINGH, CASE NO. CV-F-08-430 LJO SMS

and GURJEET KAUR,

ORDER ON PARTIES STIPULATION TO

DISMISS

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ROSEMARY MELVILLE, District Director, 

United States Citizenship and Immigration 

Services, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

In this immigration action, Plaintiffs are refugees who challenge the delay in the adjudication of

their immigration petitions to adjust status to legal permanent resident, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1159(b).

Plaintiffs and Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) filed a

stipulation to dismiss this action on August 4, 2008. The parties base their stipulation to dismiss on the

following grounds: (1) The lawsuit is moot as to Avtar Singh, because USCIS granted his application

on May 6, 2008; and (2) USCIS will complete its adjudication of Harvinder Singh’s and Gurjeet Kaur’s

applications by October 31, 2008. The parties stipulated to dismiss this action with the following caveat:

“In the event U.S. CIS is unable to comply with the deadlines set forth in this stipulation, jurisdiction

will revert to this Court for a status conference as soon as possible.”

Dismissal is proper at to Avtar Singh. Avtar Singh’s claim was rendered moot when USCIS

adjudicated his application on May 6, 2008. See Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of North America, 523

F.3d 1091, 1097 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Case 1:08-cv-00430-LJO -SMS Document 33 Filed 08/06/08 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

Dismissal is improper as to Harvinder Singh and Gurjeet Kaur. The parties cannot stipulate that

this Court’s jurisdiction “will revert to this Court for a status conference” in the event USCIS fails to

adjudicate the applications by October 31, 2008. An order to dismiss an action, unlike a stay order, is

a final decision which: “(1) is a full adjudication of the issues; and (2) clearly evidences the judge's

intention that it be the court's final act in the matter.”Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 1000 (9th

Cir. 2006) (emphasis added). Contrary to the parties’ stipulation, jurisdiction does not revert

automatically to this Court after it enters final judgment. Rather, a party seeking relief from this Court’s

order to dismiss must file the appropriate motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, and must show good cause.

Because the parties contemplate that this Court will act in the future, and do not contemplate an

appropriate procedure to re-open this action, dismissal is inappropriate. 

The parties are working toward resolution, and expect to resolve this action in its entirety on

October 31, 2008. Accordingly, this Court:

1. GRANTS the parties’ stipulated dismissal of Avtar Singh;

2. DENIES the parties’ stipulated dismissal of Harvinder Singh and Gurjeet Kaur;

3. STAYS this action until October 31, 2008;

4. ORDERS the parties, no later than November 7, 2008, to file either: (1) dispositive

papers or (2) a joint status report indicating agreed-upon trial and pre-trial dates; 

5. VACATES the August 27, 2008 scheduling conference; and

6. DIRECTS the clerk of this Court to terminate Avtar Singh from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00430-LJO -SMS Document 33 Filed 08/06/08 Page 2 of 2