Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
IMMIG Kestelboym v. Chertoff Def Reconsider

IMMIG Kestelboym v. Chertoff Def Reconsider

Ratings: (0)|Views: 519|Likes:
Published by matt29nyc

More info:

Published by: matt29nyc on Nov 17, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





United States Department of Justice
United States Attorney District of New Jersey Civil Division 
970 Broad Street, Suite 700 General Tel: 973.645.2700 Newark, New Jersey 07102Direct Tel: 973.645.289Fax:: 973.297.2010e-mail: Jafer.Aftab@usdoj.gov 
ELECTRONICALLY FILED31 March 2008 The Honorable Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr., U.S.D.J.United States District CourtUnited States Post Office & CourthouseFederal SquareNewark, NJ 07102Re:Kestelboym v. Chertoff, et al.,Civil Action No. 07-857 Your Honor:Please accept this letter in support of defendant's motion for reconsideration. Local CivilRule 7.1(i) permits a party to set forth concisely the matter or controlling decision that the party believes the judge has overlooked in support of a motion for reconsideration. The courts in thisdistrict have emphasized repeatedly that the motion of reconsideration invites counsel to draw thecourt's attention to decision which counsel believes the court may have overlooked, not thoseoverlooked by counsel.
See Polizzi Meats, v. Aetna Life & Cas.
, 931 F. Supp. 328, 339 (D.N.J. 1996). The United States further recognizes that a motion for reconsideration should be rare, though it isimproperly used with unfortunate frequency.
See Bowers v. NCAA
, 130 F. Supp.2d 610, 613 (D.N.J.2001). The United States believes this is that rare case where the Court overlooked the UnitedStates's argument and would like to give the Court another opportunity to reconsider.In the end, the United States had asserted in its succinct submissions to the Court that thematter should be dismissed, because it is unripe only. After the United States had reviewed thestatutory and administrative scheme and the case law, the United States advised the Court that the Third Circuit left open the question of whether there was subject matter jurisdiction in the matter,but because the United States already had reviewed the other case law on the subject, holding thatthere was subject matter jurisdiction, it therefore only scrupulously asserted, "this Court mustdismiss the instant petition without prejudice, because it is, at a minimum, unripe."
Def.'s Mot.Letter Br. at p. 1-2. Accordingly, the United States then brought to the Court's attention anddigested the Sixth Circuit case,
Zayed v. United States 
, 368 F.3d 902 (6th Cir. 2004), in relation to thismatter, which explored the interplay between Sections 1421 and 1429, and determined that theDistrict Court had subject matter jurisdiction.
at 906. However, based on the statutory andadministrative scheme and consistent with the case law, the United States novelly argued that theDistrict Court should dismiss the complaint, because it was unripe only.
Def.'s Mot. Letter Br. atp. 2. The United States therefore concluded that "this Court should dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice while the removal proceedings are pending, because the amended complaint isunripe."
. at p. 3.
Case 2:07-cv-00857-JAG-MCA Document 16-3 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 1 of 3
Concerned that plaintiff had misconstrued defendant's argument about subject matterjurisdiction, in its reply, the United States in its preliminary statement, again reiterated its unripenessposition.
Def. Reply Br. at p. 1. The United States maintained in the reply brief, "Defendantscrupulously argued in its initial brief that this Court should dismiss the matter as unripe. Defendantprovided a footnote citation to a Third Circuit opinion wherein the Court of Appeals pondered whether the District Court even had subject matter jurisdiction. However, defendants' explicitly concluded that '[t]his Court should dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice while theremoval proceedings are pending, because the amended complaint is unripe.
Def.'s Letter Br. atpp. 2-3."
Def. Reply Br. at p. 3. The United States then reiterated its position three more times,including the conclusion, leaving little doubt that the United States asserted that while there isconcurrent jurisdiction, again citing to
, the Court should dismiss the unripe matter to advancethe sound administration of justice by avoiding duplicative litigation.
. at 3-4. As footnote 1 of this Court's opinion demonstrates, this Court has overlooked the argumentof the United States.
See Kestelboym v. Chertoff 
, ___ F. Supp.2d ___, 2008 WL 68398 at *1 n.1 (D.N.J.Mar. 13, 2008). Contrary to the Court's assertion in that footnote, the United States was notchallenging the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. The United States's collective submissionsdemonstrate this to be true. Furthermore, contrary to the Court's assertion, the United States restedits authority on Rule 12 as well as
, for the repeated assertion that while there may be subjectmatter jurisdiction, the matter should be dismissed as unripe. Aside from this, the United Statessubmits that ripeness is not truly rooted in any rule, but in prudential considerations, as the ThirdCircuit has recited.
See Armstrong World Indus. by Wolfson v. Adams 
, 961 F.2d 405, 411 n. 12 (3d Cir.1992). Interestingly, one District Court in the District of New Jersey has attached the ripenessdoctrine to Rule 12(b)(1), which is the Rule this Court attached to the United States's submission.
See Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Chiorasso
, 529 F. Supp.2d 535, 539-40 (D.N.J. 2008). Aside from the citationto the Rule or case law, the United States plainly set forth the novel ripeness argument for review.Finally, because of the novelty of the argument, it was not possible to cite to case law. The Court's entire opinion went on to hold that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction.
See Kestelboym 
, 2008 WL 68398 at *1-6. However, the United States plainly had recognized and concededthat point. The United States's only argument was that the Court should dismiss the matter asunripe. This Court did not address the United States's only argument. The United States submits that this is that rare case for reconsideration, and submits furtherthat this Court should dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice because of unripeness as amatter prudence, because of the pending removal proceedings. In support thereof, consistent withthe position of the United States, this Court in its opinion has agreed that the priority provision isdesigned to prevent a race between the immigrant and the Attorney General and that the overhaulof the naturalization process was designed to shift from judicial to administrative naturalizationproceedings.
See Kestelboym 
, 2008 WL 68398 at *3. Moreover, consistent with the United States'sposition, this Court has agreed that the Court has concurrent jurisdiction. The United States neversuggested, as the Court has understood the United States's argument, that the Attorney Generalcould avoid the Court's jurisdiction,
. at *5, rather it conceded the Court's jurisdiction and only suggested that prudentially this Court should dismiss the immigrant's complaint. However, the Courtdid not reach the United States's ripeness argument. In this way, should this Court reconsider andagree, the immigrant, under the proper circumstances, would still have the opportunity to bring the
Case 2:07-cv-00857-JAG-MCA Document 16-3 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 2 of 3

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->