Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00161/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00161-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NASHWAN ALI YAQOUB, et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-06-161 AWI/DLB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO SEVER AND DISMISS

AS MOOT (Doc. 20) AND

VACATING ORAL ARGUMENT SET

FOR AUGUST 28, 2006

Plaintiffs Nashwan Ali Yaqoub and Krikor Vartanian filed a

Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Naturalization under 8

U.S.C. §§ 1447(b) and 1421(c) and For Equal Access to Justice Act

under 5 U.S.C. § 504 and 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Defendants are

Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security; Eduardo

Aguirre, Director of the United States Citizenship and

Immigration Services; David Still, District Director of the

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; and Don

Riding, Officer in Charge of Fresno Office of the United States

Citizenship and Immigration Services. The Complaint alleges in

Case 1:06-cv-00161-AWI-DLB Document 25 Filed 08/22/06 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

2

pertinent part:

4. On or about July 21, 2004, the Plaintiff,

Nashwan Ali Yaqoub filed an application for

naturalization with the USCIS office in

Laguna Niguel, California. On or about

September 19, 2001, the Plaintiff, Krikor

Vartanian filed an application for

naturalization with the USCIS office in

Laguna Niguel, California.

5. Thereafter, all matters were transferred

to the USCIS office in Fresno, California,

because the Plaintiffs reside in Fresno,

California.

6. On or about January 25, 2005, Plaintiff,

Nashwan Ali Yaqoub took and passed a test for

United States Citizenship. On or about

February 6, 2003, Plaintiff, Krikor Vartanian

took and passed a test for United States

Citizenship. Thereafter, Plaintiffs, and

each of them have made inquiries about the

status of their respective application and

the reasons for delay in the adjudication

thereof. The Defendants’ agents told them on

each occasion, that they had to wait for a

security clearance.

7. Plaintiffs have a right to have

Defendants adjudicate their application, and

Defendants failure to take any action at all

has denied Plaintiff his rights under 8 USC 

§ 1421 and 8 USC § 1447. 

8. Defendants’ inaction represents a denial

of Plaintiffs’ application, and this Court

may review the matter de novo under 8 USC §

1421 and 1447(c).

9. Plaintiffs have exhausted their

administrative remedies.

10. Plaintiffs desire a judicial

determination of their naturalization

application and a declaration that they are

entitled to be naturalized as a citizen of

the United States.

The Complaint also prays for attorneys’ fees and costs under the

Case 1:06-cv-00161-AWI-DLB Document 25 Filed 08/22/06 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

3

Equal Access to Justice Act, if they prevail.

Defendants move to sever and dismiss the claims of plaintiff

Vartanian on the ground that he “has no apparent or familial or

other relationship with plaintiff ... Yaqoub, and his application

is in no way derivative of that of plaintiff Yaqoub.” 

Defendants’ motion is noticed for oral argument on August 28,

2006. 

In moving to sever and dismiss plaintiff Vartanian,

defendants refer to Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348 (9th

Cir.1997). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) permits joinder of

plaintiffs in one action where: “(1) the plaintiffs assert any

right to relief arising out of the same transaction, occurrence,

or series of transactions or occurrences; and (2) there are

common questions of law or fact.” Coughlin, supra, 130 F.3d at

1350. If the test for permissive joinder is not satisfied, a

court, in its discretion, may sever the misjoined parties, so

long as no substantial right will be prejudiced by the severance. 

Id. In such a case, the court can generally dismiss all but the

first named plaintiff without prejudice to the institution of

new, separate lawsuits by the dropped plaintiffs against some or

all of the present defendants based on the claim or claims

attempted to be set forth in the present complaint. Id. The

determination of whether severance is appropriate lies within the

sound discretion of the district court. Id.

While severance of plaintiff Vartanian may have been

Case 1:06-cv-00161-AWI-DLB Document 25 Filed 08/22/06 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

4

appropriate at the time defendants’ motion was filed, it is noted

that thereafter plaintiff Yaquob moved for voluntary dismissal of

the Complaint, which motion was granted by Order filed on August

15, 2006. Because the only plaintiff remaining in the action is

plaintiff Vartanian, the court, in the exercise of its

discretion, denies defendants’ motion as moot.

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Defendants’ motion to sever and dismiss plaintiff

Vartanian is denied as moot.

2. Oral argument set for August 28, 2006 is vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00161-AWI-DLB Document 25 Filed 08/22/06 Page 4 of 4