Nasir v. Napolitano et al

Filing 13

ORDER Exempting from formal ADR process 12 filed by Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 5/11/10. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2010)

Download PDF
1 J OSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO, CSBN 44332 United States Attorney 2 J OANN M. SWANSON, CSBN 88143 Assistant United States Attorney 3 Chief, Civil Division ILA C. DEISS, NY SBN 3052909 4 Assistant United States Attorney 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 5 San Francisco, California 94102 Telephone: (415) 436-7124 6 Fax: (415) 436-7169 Email: 7 TONY WEST 8 Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division DAVID J. KLINE 9 D i r e ct o r J OSHUA E.T. BRAUNSTEIN 10 Assistant Director LANA VAHAB (DC 976203) 11 Trial Attorney Office of Immigration Litigation 12 Civil Division, Justice Department P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station 13 Washington, D.C. 20044 Tel: (202) 532-4067 14 Fax: (202) 305-7000 Email: 15 Attorneys for the United States 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 19 LEMAR SANTANA NASIR, ) 20 ) No. C 10-0656 EMC Plaintiff , ) 21 ) v. ) 22 ) PARTIES' JOINT REQUEST TO BE J ANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of the ) EXEMPT FROM FORMAL ADR 23 Department of Homeland Security; ) PROCESS; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Director of the ) 24 Department of Homeland Security, United ) States Citizenship and Immigration Services, ) 25 ) D ef en d a n t s . ) 26 ) 27 Each of the undersigned certifies that he or she has read either the handbook entitled "Dispute 28 Resolution Procedures in the Northern District of California," or the specified portions of the ADR Request for ADR Exemption C 10-0656 EMC 1 1 Unit's Internet site <>, discussed the available dispute resolution 2 options provided by the court and private entities, and considered whether this case might benefit 3 from any of them. 4 Here, the parties agree that referral to a formal ADR process will not be beneficial because this 5 action is limited to Plaintiff's request that this Court issue a declaratory judgment recognizing his 6 derivative United States citizenship and ordering the issuance of a certificate of citizenship. Given 7 the substance of the action and the lack of any potential middle ground, ADR will only serve to 8 multipl y the proceedings and unnecessarily tax court resources. 9 Accordingly, pursuant to ADR L.R. 3-3(c), the parties request the case be removed from the 10 ADR Multi-Option Program and that they be excused from participating in the ADR phone 11 conference and any further formal ADR process. If any party subsequently determines that 12 submission to the formal ADR process would be beneficial to the efficient resolution of this 13 matter, the parties agree to submit to the Court's ADR program at that time. 14 Dated: May 5, 2010 15 16 17 18 19 20 Attorneys for Defendants 21 22 Dated: May ___, 2010 23 24 25 26 27 28 Request for ADR Exemption C 10-0656 EMC 2 ____________________________ J ASON H. LEE Attorney for Plaintiff /s/ ILA C. DEISS Assistant United States Attorney LANA VAHAB Trial Attorney J OSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United States Attorney Respectfully submitted, 1 2 O RD ER Pursuant to stipulation and to ADR L. R. 3-3(c), the parties are hereby removed from the ADR 3 Multi-Option Program and are excused from participating in the ADR phone conference and any 4 further formal ADR process. Should any party subsequently determine that submission to the 5 formal ADR process would be beneficial to the efficient resolution of this matter, that party may 6 request placement in one of the Court's ADR programs at that time. 7 8 SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Request for ADR Exemption C 10-0656 EMC 3 May 11, 2010 ER N F D IS T IC T O R A C LI FO dwa Judge E rd M. C hen R NIA ______________________RED_ ____ EDWARD M. CHEN RDE OO IT IS S United States Magistrate Judge UNIT ED S S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O NO RT H

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?