Motion - Plaintiffs in Innovation Law Lab v. Nielsen, Case No. 3-19-cv-00807 (N.D. Cal.) (2019-02-14)
- Date
- 2019-02-14
Summary
An administrative motion to consider whether cases should be related, filed February 14, 2019 as Document 110 in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, Case 4:18-cv-06810-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It is submitted by the plaintiffs in Innovation Law Lab v. Nielsen, Case No. 3-19-cv-00807, under Civil L.R. 3-12 and Civil L.R. 7-11. The motion describes Innovation Law Lab as challenging a Department of Homeland Security policy of returning asylum seekers at the southern border to Mexico while their removal proceedings are decided. It argues the two actions involve a substantially similar body of facts and substantially the same parties, and asks that Innovation Law Lab be assigned to Judge Tigar. The motion states that defendants oppose it, and it closes with a certificate of service.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
Case 4:18-cv-06810-JST Document 110 Filed 02/14/19 Page 1 of 7
1 Lee Gelernt* Jennifer Chang Newell (SBN 233033)
Judy Rabinovitz* Cody Wofsy (SBN 294179)
2 Omar C. Jadwat* Julie Veroff** (SBN 310161)
Anand Balakrishnan* ACLU FOUNDATION
3 Celso Perez**(SBN 304924) IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
ACLU FOUNDATION 39 Drumm Street
4 IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT San Francisco, CA 94111
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor T: (415) 343-0770
5 New York, NY 10004 F: (415) 395-0950
T: (212) 549-2660 jnewell@aclu.org
6 F: (212) 549-2654 cwofsy@aclu.org
lgelernt@aclu.org jveroff@aclu.org
7 jrabinovitz@aclu.org
ojadwat@aclu.org
8 abalakrishnan@aclu.org
cperez@aclu.org
9
Attorneys for Plaintiffs (Additional counsel listed on following page)
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12 East Bay Sanctuary Covenant; Al Otro Lado;
Innovation Law Lab; and Central American Case No.: 18-cv-06810
13 Resource Center in Los Angeles,
14 Plaintiffs,
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
15 v. MOTION TO CONSIDER
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE
16 Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, in RELATED, PURSUANT TO CIVIL
his official capacity; Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting L.R.7-11
17 Attorney General, in his official capacity; U.S.
Department of Justice; James McHenry, Director [IMMIGRATION ACTION]
18 of the Executive Office for Immigration Review,
in his official capacity; the Executive Office for
19 Immigration Review; Kirstjen M. Nielsen,
Secretary of Homeland Security, in her official
20 capacity; U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
Lee Francis Cissna, Director of the U.S.
21 Citizenship and Immigration Services, in his
official capacity; U.S. Citizenship and
22 Immigration Services; Kevin K. McAleenan,
Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border
23 Protection, in his official capacity; U.S. Customs
and Border Protection; Ronald D. Vitiello, Acting
24 Director of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, in his official capacity; Immigration
25 and Customs Enforcement,
26 Defendants.
27
28
Case 4:18-cv-06810-JST Document 110 Filed 02/14/19 Page 2 of 7
1 Melissa Crow* Baher Azmy*
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER Angelo Guisado*
2 1666 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 100 Ghita Schwarz*
Washington, D.C. 20009 CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
3 T: (202) 355-4471 666 Broadway, 7th Floor
F: (404) 221-5857 New York, NY 10012
4 melissa.crow@splcenter.org T: (212) 614-6464
F: (212) 614-6499
5 Mary Bauer* bazmy@ccrjustice.org
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER aguisado@ccrjustice.org
6 1000 Preston Avenue gschwarz@ccrjustice.org
Charlottesville, VA 22903
7 T: (470) 606-9307 Christine P. Sun (SBN 218701)
F: (404) 221-5857 Vasudha Talla (SBN 316219)
8 mary.bauer@splcenter.org AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN
9
CALIFORNIA, INC.
10 39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
11 T: (415) 621-2493
F: (415) 255-8437
12 csun@aclunc.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs vtalla@aclunc.org
13 *Pro hac vice application forthcoming
**Application for admission forthcoming
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case 4:18-cv-06810-JST Document 110 Filed 02/14/19 Page 3 of 7
1 Plaintiffs in Innovation Law Lab v. Nielsen, Case No. 3-19-cv-00807 (N.D. Cal.)—
2 Innovation Law Lab; Central American Resource Center of Northern California; Centro Legal de la
3 Raza; Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic at the University of San Francisco School of
4 Law; Al Otro Lado; Tahirih Justice Center; John Doe; Gregory Doe; Bianca Doe; Dennis Doe; Alex
5 Doe; Christopher Doe; Evan Doe; Frank Doe; Kevin Doe; Howard Doe; Ian Doe (hereinafter
6 “Plaintiffs”)—respectfully submit this Notice of a Related Case, pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12, and the
7 required Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, pursuant to Civil
8 L.R. 7-11. Plaintiffs notified counsel for Defendants in Innovation Law Lab (Erez R. Reuveni) via
9 email on February 14, 2019, of their intent to file this motion. Counsel for Defendants stated via
10 email that Defendants oppose the motion.
11 I. APPLICABLE STANDARD UNDER CIVIL L.R. 3-12
12 Under Civil Local Rule 3-12, an “action is related to another when: (1) the actions concern
13 substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event, and (2) it appears likely that there will
14 be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are
15 conducted before different Judges.” Civil L.R. 3-12(a).
16 Whenever a party knows or believes that an action may be related to an action which is or
17 was pending in the Northern District, said party “must promptly file in the earliest-filed case an
18 Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related, pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-
19 11.” Civil L.R. 3-12(b). That motion must include: “(1) The title and case number of each
20 apparently related case; (2) A brief statement of the relationship of the actions according to the
21 criteria set forth in Civil L.R. 3-12(a).” Civil L.R. 3-12(d).
22 II. INNOVATION LAW LAB IS RELATED TO EAST BAY SANTUARY COVENANT
23 Innovation Law Lab v. Nielsen, Case No. 3-19-cv-00807, is an action for declaratory and
24 injunctive relief that challenges the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) new policy of
25 forcing asylum seekers who arrive at the southern border to return to Mexico while their removal
26 proceedings are being decided. Plaintiffs challenge the lawfulness of DHS’s policy as violating the
27 Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the United States’ duty of
28 nonrefoulement under international law. See Innovation Law Lab Compl. ¶¶ 7; Causes of Action.
1
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED,
PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R.7-11
Case No.: 18-cv-06810
Case 4:18-cv-06810-JST Document 110 Filed 02/14/19 Page 4 of 7
1 Innovation Law Lab is related to East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump, No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST
2 (N.D. Cal.), under the criteria set forth in Civil Local Rule 3-12(a). Most significantly, the actions
3 involve a substantially similar body of facts. Each action involves, and so requires an understanding
4 of, migration trends at the southern border, including apprehension numbers and U.S. Customs and
5 Border Protection resources as well as trends regarding asylum seekers from Central America.
6 Compare, e.g., EBSC Compl. ¶¶ 45-47, 71-76, with Innovation Law Lab Compl. ¶¶ 39-41. Each
7 action also involves, and so requires an understanding of, the dangers facing asylum seekers in
8 Mexico as well as in their home countries, and the ways in which these dangers have evolved over
9 time. Compare, e.g., EBSC Compl. ¶¶ 45-53, 66-70 with Innovation Law Lab Compl. ¶¶ 39-71.
10 Furthermore, each action involves, and so requires an understanding of, the factual underpinnings of
11 the government’s asserted justifications for denying migrants at the southern border meaningful
12 access to the asylum process. For example, to justify both the Interim Final Rule at issue in East
13 Bay Sanctuary and the forced return policy at issue in Innovation Law Lab, Defendants rely on in
14 absentia rates and the number of asylum seekers from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras with
15 meritorious asylum claims. Compare, e.g., EBSC Compl. ¶¶ 52-53, 77 with Innovation Law Lab
16 Compl. ¶¶ 42-43. The parties in East Bay Sanctuary disagreed about how to calculate and interpret
17 these figures, and Plaintiffs anticipate similar disagreement in Innovation Law Lab.
18 The Court has already expended significant resources developing expertise regarding this
19 body of facts in East Bay Sanctuary by virtue of adjudicating a Motion for Temporary Restraining
20 Order, Motion for Stay, and Motion for Preliminary Injunction. In doing so, the Court examined
21 over twenty declarations from academics, former government officials, and leaders of human rights
22 organizations, among others. Plaintiffs anticipate filing declarations from several of the same
23 declarants in Innovation Law Lab. The Court also examined a lengthy administrative record in East
24 Bay Sanctuary that contained data and reports Plaintiffs anticipate again will be at issue in
25 Innovation Law Lab.
26 In addition, the actions concern “substantially the same parties.” Common to both actions are
27 Plaintiffs Al Otro Lado and Innovation Law Lab, and Defendants the Department of Homeland
28 Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S.
2
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED,
PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R.7-11
Case No.: 18-cv-06810
Case 4:18-cv-06810-JST Document 110 Filed 02/14/19 Page 5 of 7
1 Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the corresponding agency heads. The actions also both
2 concern the administration’s policy and practice of denying migrants at the southern border
3 meaningful access to the asylum process, and returning them to situations where they face
4 persecution and other severe harm.
5 In light of the resources committed to understanding the factual corpus in East Bay
6 Sanctuary, the substantial overlap with the factual corpus in Innovation Law Lab, and the centrality
7 of those facts to the legal claims in each case, “it appears likely there will be an unduly burdensome
8 duplication of labor and expense” should Innovation Law Lab not be assigned to Judge Tigar. Civil
9 L.R. 3-12(a).
10
Dated: February 14, 2019 Respectfully submitted,
11
Judy Rabinovitz* /s/Jennifer Chang Newell
12 Michael Tan* Jennifer Chang Newell (SBN 233033)
Omar Jadwat* Katrina Eiland (SBN 275701)
13 Lee Gelernt* Julie Veroff (SBN 310161)
Anand Balakrishnan* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
14 Daniel Galindo** (SBN 292854) FOUNDATION
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
15 FOUNDATION 39 Drumm Street
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT San Francisco, CA 94111
16 125 Broad St., 18th Floor T: (415) 343-1198
New York, NY 10004 F: (415) 395-0950
17 T: (212) 549-2660 jnewell@aclu.org
F: (212) 549-2654 keiland@aclu.org
18 jrabinovitz@aclu.org jveroff@aclu.org
mtan@aclu.org
19 ojadwat@aclu.org Sean Riordan (SBN 255752)
lgelernt@aclu.org Christine P. Sun (SBN 218701)
20 abalakrishnan@aclu.org AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
dgalindo@aclu.org FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN
21
CALIFORNIA, INC.
Melissa Crow* 39 Drumm Street
22 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER San Francisco, CA 94111
1101 17th Street NW, Suite 705 T: (415) 621-2493
23 Washington, DC 20036 F: (415) 255-8437
T: (202) 355-4471 sriordan@aclunc.org
24 F: (404) 221-5857 csun@aclunc.org
melissa.crow@splcenter.org
25
Mary Bauer*
26 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
1000 Preston Avenue
27 Charlottesville, VA 22903
T: (470) 606-9307
28 F: (404) 221-5857
mary.bauer@splcenter.org 3
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED,
PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R.7-11
Case No.: 18-cv-06810
Case 4:18-cv-06810-JST Document 110 Filed 02/14/19 Page 6 of 7
1 Saira Draper* Blaine Bookey
Gracie Willis* Karen Musalo
2 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER Eunice Lee
150 East Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 340 Kathryn Jastram
3 Decatur, GA 30030 Sayoni Maitra*
T: (404) 221-6700 CENTER FOR GENDER & REFUGEE
4 F: (404) 221-5857 STUDIES
saira.draper@splcenter.org 200 McAllister St.
5 gracie.willis@splcenter.org San Francisco, CA 94102
T: (415) 565-4877
6 Steven Watt* F: (415) 581-8824
ACLU FOUNDATION bookeybl@uchastings.edu
7 HUMAN RIGHTS PROGRAM musalok@uchastings.edu
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor leeeunice@uchastings.edu
8 New York, NY 10004 jastramkate@uchastings.edu
T: (212) 519-7870 maitras@uchastings.edu
9 F: (212) 549-2654
swatt@aclu.org
10
11
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12
*Pro hac vice application forthcoming
13 **Application for admission forthcoming
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED,
PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R.7-11
Case No.: 18-cv-06810
Case 4:18-cv-06810-JST Document 110 Filed 02/14/19 Page 7 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1
I hereby certify that on February 14, 2019, I caused a PDF version of the foregoing document
2
3 to be electronically transmitted to the Clerk of the Court, using the CM/ECF system for filing and
4 mailed courtesy copies to all necessary parties using certified mail.
5 Dated: February 14, 2019 /s/ Jennifer Chang Newell
Jennifer Chang Newell
6 Attorney for Plaintiffs
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED,
PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R.7-11
Case No.: 18-cv-06810
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.334557.110.0.pdf
- Size
- 175,632 bytes
- SHA-256
- 4f1f07bbb875e31c7db5a8c043b7c962ef6fc2a621b216847a88231f566b9e6a
- Original
- archive.org