Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04764/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04764-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jane Doe
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

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 JT. STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY 

ACTION PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL

CASE NO. C06-04764 SBA 

PALIB1_3009690_1.DOC 

MARK PARNES (SBN 104775) 

CHRISTOPHER R. PARRY (SBN 209858) 

AILEEN OCON (SBN 240417) 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 

Email: cparry@wsgr.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

JANE DOE 

KEVIN V. RYAN (SBN 118321) 

United States Attorney 

JOANN M. SWANSON (SBN 88143) 

Chief, Civil Division 

ILA C. DEISS (SBN 3052909) 

Assistant United States Attorney 

450 Golden Gate Ave., 9th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94102-3495 

Telephone: (415) 436-7124 

Facsimile: (415) 436-7169 

Email: ila.deiss@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Defendant 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

JANE DOE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CV 06-04764 MEJ 

AMENDED JOINT STIPULATION 

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO 

STAY ACTION PENDING 

OUTCOME OF ADMINISTRATIVE 

APPEAL 

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-12, the parties to this action, Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Ms. Doe”) and 

Defendant United States of America (“United States”), through their respective counsel, hereby 

jointly request the Court to enter an order staying all claims in the present action for the 

following reasons and upon the following terms and conditions: 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Doe filed a complaint against the United States on August 7, 2006 

alleging a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) based on events that happened on 

August 13, 2003, when the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detained her at the U.S.-

Mexico border in El Paso, Texas and expeditiously removed her to Mexico; 

WHEREAS, on August 14, 2003, Plaintiff Doe reentered the United States without 

inspection and later applied for asylum with the immigration court in San Francisco; 

Case 3:06-cv-04764-MEJ Document 20 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 1 of 4
 Case 3:06-cv-04764-MEJ Document 21 Filed 12/12/06 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 

27 

28 JT. STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY 

ACTION PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL

CASE NO. C06-04764 SBA 

2 PALIB1_3009690_1.DOC 

WHEREAS, on September 19, 2006, the Honorable George W. Proctor (Immigration 

Judge) granted Ms. Doe’s asylum application; 

WHEREAS, the U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) has filed an 

administrative appeal to Judge Proctor’s decision, and the appeal is currently pending before the 

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA Appeal”); 

WHEREAS, on October 3, 2006, the United States filed a Motion to Dismiss Ms. Does’s 

FTCA claim and has noticed a January 18, 2006 hearing for its motion; 

WHEREAS, the outcome of the BIA Appeal may resolve some or all of the issues raised 

in Ms. Doe’s FTCA claim against the United States; 

WHEREAS, to promote efficiency and conserve judicial resources, both Ms. Doe and the 

United States wish to stay all issues in the present action until the BIA Appeal has been resolved; 

NOW, THEREFORE Ms. Doe and the United States, and their respective counsel of 

record hereby stipulate and request entry of the following order: 

1. The present action filed by Ms. Doe against the United States shall be stayed on 

all matters until the BIA Appeal has concluded. All deadlines, dates, and hearings—including 

the currently noticed dates for the hearing and briefing schedule on the United States’ Motion to 

Dismiss—shall be continued during the period of the stay. 

2. The parties shall promptly inform the Court when the BIA Appeal has concluded. 

3. If the conclusion of the BIA Appeal resolves Ms. Doe’s FTCA claims against the 

United States, the parties shall so inform the Court and file a motion for dismissal of this action 

in its entirety. 

Case 3:06-cv-04764-MEJ Document 20 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 2 of 4
 Case 3:06-cv-04764-MEJ Document 21 Filed 12/12/06 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 

27 

28 JT. STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY 

ACTION PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL

CASE NO. C06-04764 SBA 

3 PALIB1_3009690_1.DOC 

4. If the conclusion of the BIA Appeal does not resolve Ms. Doe’s FTCA claims 

against the United States, the United States may re-notice a hearing on its Motion to Dismiss, 

subject to the Court’s availability. 

Dated: December 11, 2006 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

By: /s/ 

Christopher Parry 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Jane Doe 

Dated: December 11, 2006 

By: /s/ 

Ila C. Deiss 

Attorneys for Defendant 

United States of America 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: _______________, 2006 

 The Honorable Maria-Elena James 

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:06-cv-04764-MEJ Document 20 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 3 of 4

December 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Maria-Elena James

Case 3:06-cv-04764-MEJ Document 21 Filed 12/12/06 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 

27 

28 JT. STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY 

ACTION PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL

CASE NO. C06-04764 SBA 

4 PALIB1_3009690_1.DOC 

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding signatures, 

I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained 

from Ila C. Deiss. 

Dated: December 11, 2006 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

By: /s/ 

Christopher Parry 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Jane Doe 

Case 3:06-cv-04764-MEJ Document 20 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 4 of 4
 Case 3:06-cv-04764-MEJ Document 21 Filed 12/12/06 Page 4 of 4