Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04824/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04824-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 8:1446 Petition for Naturalization Hearing

---

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 TO EXTEND DEADLINES

C 06-4824-CRB 1

KEVIN V. RYAN, CSBN 118321

United States Attorney

JOANN M. SWANSON, CSBN 88143

Assistant United States Attorney

Chief, Civil Division

ILA C. DEISS, NY SBN 3052909

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7124

FAX: (415) 436-7169

Attorneys for Respondents

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

KUMARASWAMY MULAVALLI,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID STILL, Acting District Director,

San Francisco Office, U.S. Bureau of

Citizenship and Immigration Services; et

al., 

Respondents.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-06-4824-CRB

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES;

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Petitioner, by and through her attorney of record, and respondents, by and through their

attorneys of record, hereby stipulate, subject to the approval of the Court, to the following:

1. The petitioner filed and served a petition for de novo review of petitioner’s application for

naturalization on August 9, 2006.

2. On August 15, 2006, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) directing the

respondents to show cause on or before September 8, 2006, why the application for naturalization 

should not be granted.

3. Because the respondents had not filed any responsive pleading to the petition or otherwise

Case 3:06-cv-04824-CRB Document 7 Filed 09/20/06 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

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES

C 06-4824-CRB 2

entered an appearance on the Court’s Electronic Filing System (ECF), the respondents were not

notified via the ECF or otherwise of the OSC.

4. The respondents were notified of the Court’s OSC on Thursday, September 14, 2006, when

called by petitioner’s counsel who brought the existence of the OSC to respondents’ counsel’s

attention. That same day, the parties discussed a briefing schedule.

5. In light of the fact that counsel for the respondents has only recently learned of the OSC, the

parties hereby agree to the following schedule, subject to approval by the Court and in accordance

with the Court’s August 9, 2006 scheduling order.

Respondents’ Response to the OSC and 

Answer due: October 10, 2006

Petitioner’s Reply: October 17, 2006

Joint Case Management Statement: November 13, 2006

Case Management Conference: November 17, 2006, 8:30 a.m.

Date: September 14, 2006 Respectfully submitted,

KEVIN V. RYAN

United States Attorney

 /s/ 

ILA C. DEISS

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Respondents

Date: September 14, 2006 /s/ 

STACEY L. GARTLAND

Attorney for Petitioner

ORDER

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

September 20, 2006

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:06-cv-04824-CRB Document 7 Filed 09/20/06 Page 2 of 2