Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05694/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05694-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

*Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(1), Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor,

Alberto Gonzales, as the United States Attorney General, and Rosemary L. Melville is

substituted for her predecessor, David Still, as the Director of the San Francisco Field Office..

ADR CERTIFICATION

C 07-5694 HRL 1

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO, CSBN 44332

United States Attorney

JOANN M. SWANSON, CSBN 88143

Assistant United States Attorney

Chief, Civil Division

MELANIE L. PROCTOR, CSBN 228971

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-6730

FAX: (415) 436-7169

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KAMAL KHARRAT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General; )

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary, Department )

of Homeland Security; EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, )

Director, United States Citizenship and )

Immigration Services; ROSEMARY L. )

MELVILLE,* Director, San Francisco Field )

Office, United States )

Citizenship and Immigration Services, )

)

Defendants. ) )

No. C 07-5694 HRL

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO BE

EXEMPT FROM THE FORMAL ADR

PROCESS; PROPOSED ORDER

Defendants’ counsel certifies that 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, Defendants believe that referral to a formal ADR process will not be beneficial because this

mandamus action is limited to Plaintiff’s request that this Court adjudicate the application for

*ORDER E-FILED 2/15/2008* XXXXXXXX

Case 5:07-cv-05694-JW Document 7 Filed 02/15/08 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

ADR CERTIFICATION

C 07-5694 HRL 2

naturalization. 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), Defendants 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.

Defendants’ counsel has attempted to contact Plaintiff regarding this matter, but has not had a

response.

Dated: February 5, 2008 Respectfully submitted,

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO

United States Attorney

 /s/ 

MELANIE L. PROCTOR

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorneys for Defendants

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: ___________________ 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

February 15, 2008

Case 5:07-cv-05694-JW Document 7 Filed 02/15/08 Page 2 of 2