Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05221/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05221-0/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

Parties’ Request to be Exempt from ADR Process

C07-5221 EDL 1

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS, SC SBN 9990

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 Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

NISHAT KOUSAR, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

ROBERT MUELLER, III, Director, )

Federal Bureau of Investigations; )

GREGORY CHRISTIAN, Acting Director, )

Nebraska Service Center, USCIS; )

EMILIO GONZALES, Director, U.S. )

Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); )

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary, )

Department of Homeland Security; )

PAUL CLEMENT, Acting Attorney General, )

Department of Justice; )

TERRY RICE, San Francisco Field Office )

Director, USCIS; )

)

Defendants. )

 )

No. C 07-5221 EDL

PARTIES’ JOINT REQUEST TO BE

EXEMPT FROM FORMAL ADR

PROCESS

Each of the undersigned certifies that he or she has read either the handbook entitled “Dispute

Resolution Procedures in the Northern District of California,” or the specified portions of the ADR

Unit’s Internet site <www.adr.cand.uscourts.gov>, discussed the available dispute resolution

options provided by the court and private entities, and considered whether this case might benefit

from any of them. 

Here, the parties agree that referral to a formal ADR process will not be beneficial because this

Case 3:07-cv-05221-EDL Document 5 Filed 12/31/2007 Page 1 of 2 Case 3:07-cv-05221-EDL Document 7 Filed 01/14/08 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

Parties’ Request to be Exempt from ADR Process

C07-5221 EDL 2

mandamus action is limited to plaintiff’s request that this Court compel defendants to adjudicate

her application for adjustment of status. Given the substance of the action and the lack of any

potential middle ground, ADR will only serve to multiply the proceedings and unnecessarily tax

court resources. 

Accordingly, pursuant to ADR L.R. 3-3(c), the parties request the case be removed from the

ADR Multi-Option Program and that they be excused from participating in the ADR phone

conference and any further formal ADR process.

Dated: December 28, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS

United States Attorney

 /s/ 

ILA C. DEISS

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorney for Defendants

Dated: December 31, 2007 /s/ 

BEN LOVEMAN

Attorney for Plaintiff

ORDER

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05221-EDL Document 5 Filed 12/31/2007 Page 2 of 2

January 14, 2008

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

Case 3:07-cv-05221-EDL Document 7 Filed 01/14/08 Page 2 of 2