Singh v. Napoliatano et al

Filing 8

ORDER, CASE TRANSFERRED to Northern District of California, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/14/2009. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney AUDREY B. HEMESATH Assistant United States Attorney 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 554-2729 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JATINDER SINGH, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV F 09-1979 LJO GSA STIPULATION TO TRANSFER VENUE OF ACTION TO NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND ORDER [28 U.S.C. 1406(a)] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. Defendants. This is an action in which plaintiff seeks mandamus relief to remedy an alleged delay in the adjudication of his application to adjust status to that of lawful permanent resident by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Plaintiff is a resident of Newark, California. Newark, California is located in Alameda County, in the Northern District of California. 28 U.S.C. 84(a). Accordingly, venue for this action is proper in the Northern District, but not in this District. The parties to this action, by and through their attorneys, hereby stipulate and request of the Court that this action should be transferred to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a). Section 1406(a) provides: The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying in venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought. Because venue is proper only in the Northern District, the parties believe that the interests of justice require that this action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern -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 District of California. In addition, the time for a response to the complaint has not yet run, and in view of the uncertainty as to when this action will be docketed and assigned to a judge in the Northern District of California, the parties further stipulate and request of the Court that the time for the Defendants to answer, move, plead or otherwise respond to the Complaint should be extended to 40 days after the date the action is docketed and assigned to a judge in the Northern District of California. Respectfully submitted, Dated: December 8, 2009 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney By: /s/ Audrey B. Hemesath AUDREY B. HEMESATH Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorneys for Defendants /s/ James M. Makasian Attorney for Plaintiff -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 Dated: 66h44d December 14, 2009 ORDER The foregoing stipulation is approved and this action is hereby transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the judicial district in which this case should have been brought. The time for Defendants to answer, move, plead or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint shall be extended to 40 days after the action is docketed, and a judge assigned, in the Northern District of California. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?