Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02904/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02904-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Chertoff
Defendant
Alberto R. Gonzales
Defendant
Emilio T. Gonzalez
Defendant
Mahshid Kianfard
Plaintiff
Rosemary Melville
Defendant
Robert S. Mueller
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

Joint Case Management Conference Statement

C07-2904 WDB 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

OAKLAND DIVISION

MAHSHID KIANFARD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General )

of the United States in his Official Capacity; )

ROBERT S. MUELLER, Director of FBI in his )

Official Capacity; )

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of the )

Department of Homeland Security, in his Official )

Capacity; )

EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, Director of the United )

States Citizenship and Immigration Services, in )

his Official Capacity; )

ROSEMARY MELVILLE, District Director of )

the San Francisco Citizenship and Immigration )

Services, in her Official Capacity, )

)

Defendants. ) )

No. C 07-2904 WDB

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT

STATEMENT and ORDER 

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.

Case 4:07-cv-02904-WDB Document 10 Filed 09/12/07 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 Conference Statement

C07-2904 WDB 2

2. Facts: 

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

with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on or about January 18,

2005. The USCIS has not yet adjudicated the Form I-485 application. The plaintiff filed an action

on June 5, 2007, seeking an order from this Court directing USCIS to adjudicate her Form I-485

application. Plaintiff’s name check remains pending with the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI).

3. Legal Issues: 

Whether this Court should dismiss the plaintiff’s action for lack of 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 her Form I-485 application, and

Case 4:07-cv-02904-WDB Document 10 Filed 09/12/07 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 Conference Statement

C07-2904 WDB 3

award reason attorney’s fees.

12. Settlement and ADR: 

The parties’ filed a joint request for an exemption from the Court’s ADR process on August 21,

2007.

13. Consent to Magistrate Judge for All Purposes: 

The parties consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

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 (as revised by the Court at the Initial Case Management Conference on

September 11, 2007):

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment: October 5, 2007

Cross-Oppositions: October 24, 2007

Hearing: November 7, 2007, 1:30 p.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.

///

 ///

 ///

Case 4:07-cv-02904-WDB Document 10 Filed 09/12/07 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 Conference Statement

C07-2904 WDB 4

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

None.

Date: September 4, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS

United States Attorney

 

ILA C. DEISS

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Defendants

 Date: September 4, 2007 THEODORE C. CHEN

Attorney for Plaintiff

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

The Joint Case Management Statement and Proposed Order are hereby adopted by the

Court, with revisions, as the Case Management Order for the case, and the parties are ordered to

comply with this Order.

Date: 9/12/2007 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:07-cv-02904-WDB Document 10 Filed 09/12/07 Page 4 of 4