Qi et al v Alberto R. Gonzales, et al

Filing 3

SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 3/30/07. (rssec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2007)

Download PDF
Qi et al v Alberto R. Gonzales, et al Doc. 3 Case 5:07-cv-01739-RS Document 3 Filed 03/30/2007 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION LIWEI QI, et al., v. Plaintiffs, SCHEDULING ORDER No. C 07-01739 RS *E-FILED 3/30/07* United United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ALBERTO GONZALES, et al., Defendants. / On March 27, 2007, plaintiffs Liwei Qi and Lei Xu, appearing through counsel, filed a "Complaint for Mandamus (Adjustment of Status)" against defendant Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, and other government officials in their official capacities. Plaintiffs allege defendants have failed to process their I-485 applications in a timely manner, apparently as a result of delays in obtaining a completed background check clearance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result, defendants have violated the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C 701 et. seq. Plaintiffs request that this Court enter an order compelling defendants to act upon their applications. In view of defendants' previously stated position in cases like these that the Court lacks jurisdiction, and because the nature of this action is such that resolution of the issues will not be facilitated by the ordinary case management procedures, Case No. C 07-01739 SCHEDULING ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:07-cv-01739-RS Document 3 Filed 03/30/2007 Page 2 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: (1) The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of the complaint and a copy of this Order upon counsel for Defendants, the Office of the United States Attorney. The Clerk of the Court also shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiffs' counsel. (2) Defendants shall, within sixty (60) days after receiving service of the complaint, file and serve any motion to dismiss they may wish to bring. Opposition and reply papers shall thereafter be filed and served in conformance with the schedule provided by Civil Local Rule 7. (3) Within twenty (20) days of the date of this order, the parties shall make their determination regarding the issue of consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge and file the appropriate form. In the event any party declines to consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge, this action will be reassigned to a District Judge for further proceedings; in such event, defendants shall notice their motion to dismiss before such judge. (4) The Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR deadlines dated United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 March 27, 2007, in this action is hereby VACATED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 30, 2007 RICHARD SEEBORG United States Magistrate Judge Case No. C 07-01739 SCHEDULING ORDER 2 Case 5:07-cv-01739-RS Document 3 Filed 03/30/2007 Page 3 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER WAS ELECTRONICALLY PROVIDED TO: Tricia Wang, Esq. Email: tricia@wangslaw.com Dated: March 30, 2007 /s/ BAK Chambers of Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. C 07-01739 SCHEDULING ORDER

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?