Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02519/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02519-2/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

Joint Case Management Statement

C07-2519 MEJ 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

JASVIR SINGH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General of )

the United States; MICHAEL CHERTOFF, )

Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; )

EMILIO GONZALEZ, Director, U.S. )

Citizenship and Immigration Services; EVELYN )

UPCHURCH, Director, Texas Service Center, )

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; )

ROBERT S. MUELLER, Director of Federal )

Bureau of Investigation, )

)

Defendants. ) )

No. C 07-2519 MEJ

ORDER VACATING AUGUST 23, 2007

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;

ORDER ADOPTING PARTIES’ DATES

FOR HEARING MOTIONS

. 

1. Jurisdiction and Service: 

The basis asserted by plaintiff for this Court’s jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. §

1361, and 5 U.S.C. § 701. The parties do not dispute that venue is proper in this district. No issues

exist regarding personal jurisdiction or venue, and no parties remain to be served. 

2. Facts: 

The plaintiff filed a Form I-485 application to adjust his status to lawful permanent resident

Case 3:07-cv-02519-MEJ Document 10 Filed 08/21/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Joint Case Management Statement

C07-2519 MEJ 2

with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on or about August 25, 2003. 

The USCIS has not yet adjudicated the Form I-485 application. The plaintiff filed an action on

May 11, 2007, seeking an order from this Court directing USCIS to adjudicate his Form I-485

application. 

3. Legal Issues: 

Whether this Court should dismiss the plaintiff’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

If this Court has jurisdiction, whether the USCIS is processing the plaintiff’s I-485 application

within a reasonable period of time.

4. Motions: 

The parties intend to file cross-motions for summary judgment.

5. Amendment of Pleadings: 

No parties, claims or defenses are expected to be added or dismissed.

6. Evidence Preservation:

The parties do not have any evidence that falls within this category.

7. Disclosures: 

The parties believe that the initial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 do not apply to

this case.

8. Discovery: 

The parties do not intend to take any discovery at this time.

9. Class Actions: 

N/A

10. Related Cases: 

The parties are not aware of any related case or cases.

11. Relief: 

The plaintiff asks this Court to direct USCIS to adjudicate his Form I-485 application.

12. Settlement and ADR: 

The parties filed a Request for an exemption from the Court’s ADR process on July 26, 2007.

13. Consent to Magistrate Judge for All Purposes: 

Case 3:07-cv-02519-MEJ Document 10 Filed 08/21/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Joint Case Management Statement

C07-2519 MEJ 3

The parties will consent to the assignment of this case to a magistrate judge.

14. Other References:

The parties do not believe that this case is suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a special

master, or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

15. Narrowing of Issues: 

The parties do not believe that the issues can be narrowed by agreement or by motion, and do

not have suggestions to expedite the presentation of evidence at trial (e.g. through summaries or

stipulated facts), and any request to bifurcate issues, claims or defenses.

16. Expedited Schedule:

The parties believe this case can be resolved on cross-motions for summary judgment.

17. Scheduling:

The parties propose the following schedule on the parties’ cross-motions for summary

judgment:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment: September 27, 2007

Defendants’ Opposition/Cross-Motion: October 18, 2007

Plaintiff’s Reply/Opposition: October 25, 2007

Defendants’ Reply: November 1, 2007

Hearing: November 15, 2007 at 10:00 a.m.

18. Trial: 

The parties do not anticipate the need for a trial in this case.

19. Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons:

The parties’ intend to file the “Certification of Interested Entities or Persons” required by Civil

Local Rule 3-16.

20. Such other matters as may facilitate the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of

this matter.

None.

///

Case 3:07-cv-02519-MEJ Document 10 Filed 08/21/07 Page 3 of 4
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

Joint Case Management Statement

C07-2519 MEJ 4

///

Date: August 16, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS

United States Attorney

 /s/ 

ILA C. DEISS

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Defendants

 /s/ 

Date: August 16, 2007 AJAI MATHEW

Attorney for Plaintiff

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

The Court is in receipt of the parties’s Joint Case Management Statement, filed on August

16, 2007. Upon review of the statement, the Court finds a case management conference

unnecessary and VACATES the August 23, 2007 C.M.C. As both parties state that this matter

would be best handled through motions, the Court shall not schedule any pre-trial or trial dates.

Since the parties have meet and conferred as to a time frame for the hearing of the motions, and

indicate that no discovery is to be taken, the Court hereby adopts the parties’ proposed scheduling.

The parties are ordered to comply with this Order. Further, the parties are ORDERED to

meet and confer and file a joint statement of undisputed facts.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: August 21, 2007 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Maria-Elena James

Case 3:07-cv-02519-MEJ Document 10 Filed 08/21/07 Page 4 of 4