Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07595/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07595-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1651 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

*E-FILED 11/13/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

YU YANG,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06-07595 RS

ORDER RE DISMISSAL

On September 19, 2007, the Court heard oral argument on the parties’ cross-motions for

summary judgment in this action. At the hearing, the Court stated its intent to grant plaintiff’s

motion, and to deny defendants’ motion, in conformance with the results in many other similar

cases in this District issued both before and after that hearing. See, e.g., Dong v. Chertoff, 2007

WL 2601107 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2007) (holding delay in processing I-485 application of close to

two years unreasonable as a matter of law); Gelder v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 902382 at *3 (N.D.

Cal. March 22, 2007) (holding that a more than two year delay in processing unreasonable as a

matter of law); Clayton v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 2904049 at * 6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2007)

(recognizing that courts within the district have adopted two years as an unreasonable amount of

time.).

Case 5:06-cv-07595-RS Document 23 Filed 11/13/07 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

2

Before a written decision on the motions issued, defendants filed notice that plaintiff’s

application for adjustment of status has now been approved. Accordingly, it appears that this

action is now moot and should be dismissed on that basis. If plaintiff believes otherwise, he may

file a brief stating his reasons in opposition to dismissal within twenty calendar days of the date

of this order. Should plaintiff file such a brief, defendants may file a response within 10 court

days thereafter, and the matter will be submitted for decision without oral argument. If plaintiff

does not file an opposition to dismissal, this action will automatically be dismissed on the 21st

day after this order is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/13/07 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-07595-RS Document 23 Filed 11/13/07 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

3

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER WAS ELECTRONICALLY

PROVIDED TO:

Counsel for Plaintiff(s)

Melanie Lea Proctor Melanie.Proctor@usdoj.gov, tiffani.chiu@usdoj.gov

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

AND A COPY OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN MAILED TO:

Yu Yang

1901 Halford Avenue

Apt #3

Santa Clara, CA 95051

Dated: November 13, 2007

 /s/ BAK 

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg 

Case 5:06-cv-07595-RS Document 23 Filed 11/13/07 Page 3 of 3