Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01875/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01875-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 462
Nature of Suit: Naturalization, Petition For Hearing of Denial
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

1

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

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

AUDREY B. HEMESATH

Assistant United States Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2700

Email: Audrey.Hemesath@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEANLIM YITH and SEAK LEANG YITH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JEH JOHNSON, Secretary, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security; LEON RODRIGUEZ, 

Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01875 LJO SKO

Second Stipulation and [Proposed] Order 

re: Abeyance

On March 3, 2015, this Court granted the parties’ joint stipulation to hold the matter in 

abeyance in light of then-scheduled interviews pertaining to Plaintiffs’ pending naturalization 

applications. See ECF No. 24. Those interviews occurred on March 10, 2015. Following the 

interviews, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) issued Notices of Intent to 

Deny Plaintiffs’ applications. Plaintiffs filed responses to those notices on April 24, 2015.

In light of the pending adjudication of Plaintiffs’ naturalization applications and in order 

to allow USCIS to review Plaintiffs’ recent responses and issue a decision, the parties stipulate 

to hold this matter in abeyance for an additional sixty (60) days, and to file status reports—or a 

joint status report if possible—on or before June 30, 2015. The parties agree that this stipulation

itself has no effect on Plaintiffs’ right to seek, or Defendants’ right to oppose, attorney’s fees 

under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), or under any other legal theory, 

Case 1:14-cv-01875-DAD-SKO Document 26 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 2
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

authority, or precedent preserved in Plaintiffs’ complaint; or on the substance of any other claim, 

cause of action, or contention made by Plaintiff therein, or availability or non-availability of any 

relief sought by Plaintiff thereon.

Dated: April 30, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

s/ Audrey B. Hemesath

AUDREY B. HEMESATH

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorney for Defendants

Bruce Leichty, A Professional Corporation

By: /s/ Bruce Leichty

Bruce Leichty

Attorney for Plaintiffs

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01875-DAD-SKO Document 26 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 2