Declaration of Paul M. Jonna in Support of Motion for Class Certification — Air Force Officer v. Austin

Summary

Declaration of Paul M. Jonna filed February 28, 2022 in Air Force Officer v. Austin, Case No. 5:22-cv-00009-TES, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, supporting the plaintiff's motion for class certification against the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force Surgeon General. Jonna, a named partner of LiMandri & Jonna LLP since 2016, describes the firm's First Amendment and RFRA litigation, including South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, and his earlier class-action work at Gordon & Rees and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, including recoveries of $315 million, $125 million and $65 million. He says the firm has served since 2019 as Special Counsel for the Thomas More Society, which has challenged vaccine mandates, and that counsel have the resources to prosecute the class action.

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION

AIR FORCE OFFICER, on behalf of herself
)
and all others similarly situated,
)

)
Case No. 5:22-cv-00009-TES

Plaintiff,
)
v.

)

)
LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, in his
)
official capacity as Secretary of Defense;
)
FRANK KENDALL, III, in his
)
official capacity as Secretary of the Air Force; and  )
ROBERT I. MILLER, in his
)
official capacity as Surgeon General of the
)
Air Force,

)

)

Defendants.
)

DECLARATION OF PAUL M. JONNA
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

I, Paul M. Jonna, declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the
following is true and correct:
1.
I am over the age of eighteen and am competent to make this declaration.
2.
I am submitting this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class
Certification.
3.
I am one of Plaintiff’s attorneys in this case.
4.
I am a lawyer licensed to practice in the State of California, the United States
District Courts for the Southern, Central, Eastern, and Northern Districts of California, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court.
5.
Since 2016, I have been a named partner in the California law firm of LiMandri &
Jonna LLP, and I have worked with Charles LiMandri since 2013.  We represent corporate and
Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES   Document 57-3   Filed 02/28/22   Page 1 of 4

2

individual clients in the areas of complex business, securities, and real estate litigation, and we
have a very successful First Amendment and RFRA practice. Our firm successfully defended
Establishment Clause challenges to the Mt. Soledad War Memorial from 2004 to 2016, in serial
actions in both state and federal court. See, e.g., Paulson v. Abdelnour, 145 Cal. App. 4th 400
(2006); San Diegans for Mt. Soledad Nat. War Memorial v. Paulson, 548 U.S. 1301 (2006)
(Kennedy, J., in chambers). In that same time frame, we were involved in RFRA challenges to
the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that religious nonprofits provide health insurance to their
employees covering contraception and abortifacients. Priests for Life v. Sebelius, No. 12–CV–
753 (FB) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2013).
6.
More recently, in 2018, we obtained the first judicial ruling nationwide that a
wedding professional’s First Amendment rights excused her from participating in wedding
ceremonies violative of her conscience. D.F.E.H. v. Miller, No. BCV-17-102855, 2018 WL
747835 (Cal. Super. Feb. 5, 2018). In 2020 we obtained the first two judicial rulings holding that
California’s lockdown of Churches violated Free Exercise principles (both of which were
overturned by the California Court of Appeal), County of Los Angeles v. Grace Community
Church of the Valley, No. 20STCV30695, 2020 WL 5553662 (Cal. Super. Aug. 14, 2020);
Burfitt v. Newsom, No. BCV-20-102267, 2021 WL 2152961 (Cal. Super. Dec. 10, 2020), and in
2021, we obtained a similar ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. South Bay United Pentecostal
Church v. Newsom, 141 S. Ct. 716 (2021).  I argued the South Bay case at the District Court level
three times.
7.
Prior to 2013, I was an associate at the national law firm of Gordon & Rees,
where I represented a broad range of clients, including major Fortune 500 companies, small and
Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES   Document 57-3   Filed 02/28/22   Page 2 of 4

3

large businesses, and leading national and international insurers in complex commercial
litigation and class actions in state and federal courts throughout California.
8.
In my career I have represented clients in dozens of class actions, including
plaintiffs in many of them.
9.
Prior to joining Gordon & Rees, I was an associate at Bernstein Litowitz Berger
& Grossmann, where I represented plaintiff institutional investors in complex litigation and
securities class actions, including, for example, Public Employees Ret. Sys. of Mississippi v.
Merrill Lynch & Co., No. 08 Civ. 10841 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 16, 2011) ($315 million
recovery); In re Wells Fargo Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litigation, No. 09-CV-1376-
LHK (PSG) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2011) ($125 million); and In re AXA Rosenberg Investor
Litigation, No. CV 11-00536 JSW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2012) ($65 million).
10.
Since 2019, our firm has served as Special Counsel for the Thomas More Society
to represent pro bono clients in high-profile, complex constitutional cases throughout the
country. The Thomas More Society is a not-for-profit, national public interest law firm dedicated
to restoring respect in law for life, family, and religious liberty. The Thomas More Society
provides pro bono legal representation to plaintiffs and defendants involved in complex civil
rights and constitutional litigation in state and federal courts nationwide.
11.
The Thomas More Society has taken a leading role in litigation challenging
vaccine mandates across the country.  For example, Thomas More Society attorneys, including
Michael McHale, who is one of Plaintiff’s attorneys of record in this case, won an injunction
against the State of New York’s mandate for health care workers before being overturned by a
panel of the Second Circuit, Dr. A. v. Hochul, No. 1:21-CV-1009, 2021 WL 4734404 (N.D.N.Y.
Oct. 12, 2021), reversal noted by Dr. A v. Hochul, 142 S. Ct. 552 (2021) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting
Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES   Document 57-3   Filed 02/28/22   Page 3 of 4

4

from denial of application).  And Thomas More Society attorneys, including myself, succeeded
in delaying the vaccine mandate imposed by the San Diego Unified School District in Doe v. San
Diego Unified Sch. Dist., __ S. Ct. __, 2022 WL 498812 (Feb. 18, 2022) (denying application
without prejudice due to cessation of mandate).
12.
The Thomas More Society is an entire law firm of specialists in the laws
applicable in this case, including RFRA and the First Amendment. Our team has expended
considerable effort already in connection with the preliminary injunction [Doc. 51] and
formulating and presenting the legal issues before the Court in the First Amended Class Action
Complaint. We are fully prepared to prosecute this matter on behalf of the Plaintiff and the
proposed class.
13.
I understand the nature and magnitude of the expenses involved in litigating class
action lawsuits and, as attorneys associated with the Thomas More Society, counsel have
sufficient resources to vigorously prosecute this action.
Dated this 28th day of February 2022.

/s/ Paul M. Jonna

Paul M. Jonna

Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES   Document 57-3   Filed 02/28/22   Page 4 of 4

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gamd.123364.57.3.pdf

Size

558,804 bytes

SHA-256

902cceeb3889206fc15870ea25134e413b825fc50fef44e4665c9aa82fb819f4

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gamd.123364.57.3.pdf

Original

archive.org