Kashannejad v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Filing 161

ORDER re 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 Parties' Filings from October 8 to 11, 2012. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 10/12/2012. (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JAMSHID S. KASHANNEJAD,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-11-2228 EMC

Plaintiff,
ORDER RE PARTIES’ FILINGS FROM
OCTOBER 8 TO 11, 2012

v.
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al.,

(Docket Nos. 155-60)

12
13

Defendants.
___________________________________/

14
15
16

The Court has reviewed the parties filings located at Docket Nos. 155-60. Having reviewed
those filings, the Court hereby rules as follows.

17

I.

DISCUSSION

18

Previously, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide certain information (i.e., the air carrier, the

19

embassy in Turkey, and the date for pick-up of the transportation letter(s)) to Defendants by October

20

8, 2012. See Docket No. 148 (order). Plaintiff did not provide this information to Defendants as

21

ordered. It appears that Plaintiff did not provide the information because he is still trying to

22

determine which air carrier to use.

23

Based on the record, it appears that at least one air carrier -- KLM -- has indicated to Plaintiff

24

that it will accept the transportation letter(s) (i.e., one using the content approved by the Court).

25

Plaintiff, however, seems to want other options because, allegedly, a ticket from KLM will be the

26
27
28

1

most expensive. See Docket No. 149 (Plaintiff’s status report) (claiming that a ticket from KLM

2

costs $3,000).1

3

As the Court stated in a previous order, it appears that Plaintiff has at least two other options

4

available to him -- i.e., Emirates and Lufthanza. See Docket No. 148 (Order at 3). The Court

5

deemed Emirates and Lufthanza viable options based on evidence submitted by Defendants. For

6

Lufthanza, Defendants submitted an e-mail from a Lufthanza station manager in Los Angeles,

7

stating that he would contact the office in Tehran to let it know that it could accept the transportation

8

letter(s). For Emirates, Defendants submitted an e-mail from an Emirates services manager in Los

9

Angeles, essentially stating the same. See Docket No. 144 (Ex. B) (e-mail correspondence).
Subsequently, after Plaintiff suggested that the airline representatives in Tehran were not

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

willing to accept the transportation letter, the Court ordered Defendants “to meet and confer with

12

Plaintiff to determine whether they can assist him in contacting the appropriate airline representative

13

in Tehran from whom he can purchase a ticket.” Docket No. 151 (Order at 2). The record reflects

14

that Defendants provided contact information for both Emirates and Lufthanza. For Emirates,

15

Defendants provided the name and e-mail address for a specific individual

16

([e-mail]).2 For Lufthanza, Defendants provided an e-mail address that does

17

not appear to be targeted to a specific individual ([e-mail]).

18

The Court is satisfied that Defendants have met their meet and confer obligation. In

19

addition, the Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s suggestion that Emirates and Lufthanza are not in

20

fact viable options because he has not heard back from either airline. First, as to Lufthanza, Plaintiff

21

did not use the correct e-mail address, as noted by Defendants. See Docket No. 159 (Defendants’

22

status report). Second, as to Emirates, although Plaintiff claims that he has repeated problems with

23

getting the individual to respond to his e-mails, it appears that, only recently did Plaintiff use the

24
25
26
27

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff has not actually submitted any evidence to support his claim
that a ticket with KLM would cost $3,000. Nor has he provided any information about what dates of
travel he was selecting to get to an alleged cost of $3,000. The Court’s query to the KLM website
did not confirm Plaintiff’s assertion.
2

28

The individual appears to have been a person with whom Plaintiff, on his own initiative,
previously communicated.

2

1

correct e-mail address. See Docket No. 158-1, at 3 (e-mail of October 6, 2012). Prior

2

communications sent by Plaintiff (on September 25 and 26, 2012) were not sent to the correct e-mail

3

address. See Docket No. 158-1, at 1 (e-mails of September 25 and 26, 2012) (reflecting that the e-

4

mail was incorrectly sent to “emirate.com” (singular) rather than “emirates.com” (plural)).

5

Taking into account the above, the Court hereby rules as follows.

6

1.

The Court shall extend the time for Plaintiff to provide the requisite information (i.e.,

7

the air carrier, the embassy in Turkey, and the date for pick-up of the transportation letter(s)) to

8

Defendants. Plaintiff now has until three weeks from the date of this order to provide the

9

information.
2.

The Court shall not order any change to the content of the transportation letter(s).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

3.

The Court forewarns Plaintiff that, even if Emirates and Lufthanza do not respond to

12

his e-mails, he still has the option of traveling with KLM. While the cost of the ticket may be high,

13

the Court has already noted that Plaintiff has failed to establish that the cost is unreasonable or that

14

he could not afford the cost of a ticket. See Docket No. 151 (Order at 1).

15

4.

To the extent Plaintiff asks the Court for an order compelling Defendants to get

16

Emirates and Lufthanza to communicate with him directly (i.e., send him an e-mail stating that the

17

airline will accept the transportation letter), the Court denies the request for relief. The Court has

18

already denied a similar request in the past. See Docket No. 151 (Order at 2).

19

5.

To the extent Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendants to reach out to other

20

airlines, in particular, Aeroflot, the request is denied. Defendants previously submitted information

21

demonstrating that it did reach out to Aeroflot to let the airline know that it could issue a ticket and

22

board Plaintiff based on the transportation letter without incurring any fine or penalty. See Docket

23

No. 144 (Ex. A).

24

6.

At this juncture, Plaintiff’s repeated filings are imposing a burden on the Court,

25

particularly given that many of the filings revisit issues that the Court has already ruled on (and on

26

multiple different occasions). Accordingly, as to the issue of the transportation letter(s), the Court

27

hereby bars Plaintiff from making any additional filings in this case, with two limited exceptions: (a)

28

Plaintiff shall file a statement providing Defendants with the information required above in

3

1

paragraph 1 and (b) Plaintiff has leave to file a request for relief should Defendants fail to provide

2

the transportation letter(s) (i.e., after Plaintiff has provided the information required above in

3

paragraph 1).

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: October 12, 2012

8
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4