) Motion To Relate Cases
- Date
- 2019-02-19
Summary
Defendants' Response to Motion to Relate Cases in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, filed February 19, 2019 as Document 111. The government opposes the plaintiffs' motion to relate the case to Innovation Law Lab v. Nielsen, Case No. 3-19-cv-00807, and asks that the motion be denied. It argues under Civil L.R. 3-12(a) that the cases involve different claims, parties, events and legal authorities: this case challenges an interim final rule at 83 Fed. Reg. 55,934, while the other challenges the Migration Protection Protocols. The response also argues that no unduly burdensome duplication of labor or conflicting results has been shown. It is six pages, signed by attorneys of the Office of Immigration Litigation, 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 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 111 Filed 02/19/19 Page 1 of 6
JOSEPH H. HUNT
1
Assistant Attorney General
2 SCOTT G. STEWART
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
3 AUGUST E. FLENTJE
Special Counsel
4
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
5 Director
EREZ REUVENI
6 Assistant Director
7 Office of Immigration Litigation
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division
8 P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
9 Tel: (202) 307-4293
10 Email: Erez.R.Reuveni@usdoj.gov
PATRICK GLEN
11 Senior Litigation Counsel
CHRISTINA GREER
12 FRANCESCA GENOVA
13 Trial Attorneys
14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16 )
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al., )
17 ) Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST
)
18
Plaintiffs, ) DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
19 ) MOTION TO RELATE CASES
)
20 v. )
)
21
Donald J. Trump, President of the United )
22 States, et al., )
)
23 Defendants. )
)
24
25
26
27
28
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 111 Filed 02/19/19 Page 2 of 6
1 Defendants submit this response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to relate this case to
2 Innovation Law Lab v. Nielsen, Case No. 3-19-cv-00807 (N.D. Cal.). The motion should be denied.
3 This case and Innovation Law Lab involve different claims, different parties, different events, and
4 challenges and to different legal authorities. The cases are obviously not related. The Court should
5 reject Plaintiffs’ attempt to misuse the related-case mechanism.
6 Local Rule 3-12 provides that an “action is related to another when: (1) the actions concern
7 substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event, and (2) it appears likely that there
8 will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases
9 are conducted before different Judges.” Civil L.R. 3-12(a).
10 Neither of those criteria is satisfied here. First, this case does not concern substantially the
11 same parties, property, transaction, or event as Innovation Law Lab. This case involves a challenge
12 under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to an interim final rule issued by the Departments
13 of Homeland Security and Justice, “Aliens Subject to a Bar on Entry Under Certain Presidential
14 Proclamations; Procedures for Protection Claims,” 83 Fed. Reg. 55,934 (Nov. 9, 2018). That rule
15 renders ineligible for asylum any alien who crosses the southern border without presenting for
16 inspection at a port of entry if a Presidential proclamation forbidding such entry is in effect. See
17 id. Plaintiffs allege that the rule violates 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1) and was improperly issued without
18 notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. § 553. See Complaint, ¶¶ 101-10.
19 Innovation Law Lab does not challenge that rule. Rather, it challenges a different policy,
20 the “Migration Protection Protocols” (MPP), issued exclusively by the Department of Homeland
21 Security and its components, which provides guidance to immigration officials on how to
22 implement 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(C) at the San Ysidro port of entry in the Southern District of
23 California. Section 1225(b)(2)(C) provides that in the case of certain aliens “arriving on land . . .
24 from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States,” the government “may return the alien to
25 that territory pending a proceeding under [8 U.S.C. § 1229a].” The Innovation Law Lab plaintiffs
26 allege that the MPP violates the APA because it: (1) conflicts with section 1225(b)(2)(C); (2) is a
27 legislative rule rather than policy guidance; (3) is arbitrary and capricious; (4) violates 8 U.S.C.
28 § 1231(b)(3); (5) violates customary international law; and (6) allegedly deprives aliens subject to
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
MOTION TO RELATE CASES
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06810-JST 1
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 111 Filed 02/19/19 Page 3 of 6
1 it of an opportunity to apply for asylum. See Complaint, Innovation Law Lab, at ¶¶ 147-81. Section
2 1225(b)(2)(C) is not at issue in East Bay and none of the claims raised by Plaintiffs in Innovation
3 Law Lab (which all challenge the policy guidance implementing section 1225(b)(2)(C)) are similar
4 to the claims raised by the East Bay Plaintiffs challenging “Aliens Subject to a Bar on Entry Under
5 Certain Presidential Proclamations; Procedures for Protection Claims.”
6 Plaintiffs suggest these cases share a “substantially similar body of facts” because they
7 “require an understanding of[] migration trends at the southern border.” Mot. at 2. This Court
8 should reject such a boundless approach to deeming cases “related.” Thousands of cases could be
9 said to “require an understanding of migration trends at the southern border.” Indeed, any case
10 involving any alien who seek entry at the border or who crosses the border illegally could require
11 such background knowledge. Plaintiffs’ theory of relatedness would essentially create an end-run
12 around the random assignment of cases in this or any other jurisdiction and render a nullity general
13 rules governing jurisdiction and venue. And the possibility that both cases involve plaintiffs
14 purporting to speak on behalf of migrants arriving from Mexico does not mean the cases involve
15 substantially similar property, transactions, or events. See Nozolino v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins.
16 Co., No. 12-CV-04314-JST, 2013 WL 2468350, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2013) (Tigar, J.)
17 (rejecting claim that cases are related because they involve claims brought under a similar statute
18 and have a similar defendant). Were it otherwise, any case involving APA claims raised by
19 migrants at or near the southern border would be related. If anything, Plaintiffs’ claim that these
20 cases involve an understanding of events at the border raises questions as to why this case was
21 brought in this district rather than a district where the alleged events took place.
22 Nor are Plaintiffs correct to suggest that the cases concern substantially the same parties
23 because some of the defendants and two of the plaintiff organizations are in both cases. The cases
24 clearly involve different parties: the Department of Justice is a defendant in East Bay but not
25 Innovation Law Lab, and East Bay involves only organizational Plaintiffs, while Innovation Law
26 Lab includes nine individual Plaintiffs allegedly subject to MPP, but not the asylum-eligibility rule
27 at issue in East Bay. That Secretary Nielsen or some components of DHS are defendants in both
28
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
MOTION TO RELATE CASES
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06810-JST 2
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 111 Filed 02/19/19 Page 4 of 6
1 cases does not warrant circumventing the normal, random assignment of cases that applies in this
2 district. See L.R. 3-3(a); see also General Order No. 44, A.2.
3 Second, Plaintiffs have made no showing of anything resembling “unduly burdensome
4 duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different
5 Judges.” That is not surprising, given that the two cases involve different claims, different parties,
6 different events, and different legal authorities. Plaintiffs’ suggestion that the Court “has already
7 expended significant resources” in East Bay (Mot. at 2) does not remotely show how there could
8 be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are
9 conducted before different judges Again, the cases involves different government policies
10 implementing very different statutory provisions, will entail review of entirely different
11 administrative records, and involve factual allegations that are unique to each case and do not
12 overlap. And the administrative record in East Bay will be irrelevant to review in Innovation Law
13 Lab, as each APA case must be reviewed on its own unique administrative record. The fact that
14 both cases involve APA claims generally or that some component of the government is a defendant
15 does not mean litigating the cases separately will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor.
16 Again, this Court should reject Plaintiffs’ boundless view of the related-case mechanism.
17 For these reasons, the government respectfully submits that these cases are not related.
18 //
19 //
20 //
21 //
22 //
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
28 //
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
MOTION TO RELATE CASES
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06810-JST 3
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 111 Filed 02/19/19 Page 5 of 6
1
Respectfully submitted,
2
JOSEPH H. HUNT
3 Assistant Attorney General
4
SCOTT G. STEWART
5 Deputy Assistant Attorney General
6 AUGUST E. FLENTJE
7 Special Counsel
8 WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
Director
9
10 By: /s/ DRAFT
EREZ REUVENI
11 Assistant Director
Office of Immigration Litigation
12 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division
13 P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
14 Tel: (202) 307-4293
Email: Erez.R.Reuveni@usdoj.gov
15
16 PATRICK GLEN
Senior Litigation Counsel
17
FRANCESCA GENOVA
18
CHRISTINA GREER
19 Trial Attorneys
20 Dated: February 19, 2019 Attorneys for Defendants
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
MOTION TO RELATE CASES
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06810-JST 4
Case 3:18-cv-06810-JST Document 111 Filed 02/19/19 Page 6 of 6
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I hereby certify that on February 19, 2019 I electronically filed the foregoing document
3 with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of for the Northern District of California
4 by using the CM/ECF system. Counsel in the case are registered CM/ECF users and service will
5 be accomplished by the CM/ECF system.
6
By: /s/ Erez Reuveni
7
EREZ REUVENI
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
MOTION TO RELATE CASES
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06810-JST 5
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.334557.111.0.pdf
- Size
- 385,458 bytes
- SHA-256
- 202d1a0f88af5bcc6cbddebce60a795f25ce995210375edf98870d9a60637021
- Original
- archive.org