Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 1 of 66 Page ID #:403

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 2 of 66 Page ID #:404

1 ANGELES; POMONA ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY CENTER; and SAN
2 BERNARDINO COMMUNITY SERVICE 3 CENTER,

4

5
Plaintiffs,

6
v.
7

8

RAND BEERS, ACTING SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY; THOMAS

9 WINKOWSKI, DEPUTY

COMMISSIONER, U.S. CUSTOMS AND

10 BORDER PROTECTION; JOHN

SANDWEG, ACTING DIRECTOR, 11 BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND

12 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (“ICE”); PAUL BEESON, CHIEF BORDER

13 PATROL AGENT, SAN DIEGO SECTOR;

GREGORY ARCHAMBEAULT, ICE

14 FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, SAN DIEGO;

15

DAVE MARIN, ACTING ICE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, LOS ANGELES,

16
Defendants.

17

(2) VIOLATION OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, 8 U.S.C. § 1101, ET. SEQ. (3) VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION (PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS) (4) VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION (SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS)

18

INTRODUCTION

19

1. The immigration enforcement agencies operating in Southern

20 California regularly pressure, deceive, and threaten Mexican nationals who are

21 eligible to reside in the United States lawfully—and have built lives in the United

22 States over decades—into signing their own expulsion orders through misuse of a

23 process known as “voluntary departure.” These abusive and illegal practices rob

24 victims of their right to seek relief from removal. As administered and practiced in

25 Southern California, the “voluntary departure” program has become a regime of

26 unlawful coerced expulsion—one which tears numerous families apart every year.

27

2. Several courts have noted that voluntary departure is the immigration

28 equivalent of a criminal plea bargain. An individual who consents to voluntary

1.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 3 of 66 Page ID #:405

1 departure avoids removal proceedings and possible detention, and in return accepts

2 expulsion from the United States. The criminal plea process, however, includes

3 rigorous procedural protections. In contrast, as administered in Southern

4 California, the “voluntary departure” program is unconstitutional and violates the

5 immigration enforcement agencies’ own statutes and regulations.

6

3. Voluntary departure must be accepted knowingly and voluntarily. Yet

7 in Southern California, immigration officials’ misstatements, omissions, pressure,

8 and/or threats prevent this from happening. For instance, immigration officers

9 regularly tell individuals that: (1) if they do not agree to “voluntary departure” they

10 will be incarcerated for months; and (2) if they take “voluntary departure” they can

11 quickly and easily “fix” their papers in Mexico so that they can thereafter reside

12 legally in the United States. Such statements are patently false and fail to convey

13 the consequences of taking voluntary departure. Immigrants who elect not to

14 pursue voluntary departure are not automatically or necessarily detained pending a

15 hearing before an immigration judge. Moreover, obtaining a visa to return to the

16 United States from Mexico after a voluntary departure can be slow and difficult, if

17 not entirely impossible. Persons who would be eligible to remain in the United

18 States legally if they appeared before an immigration judge instead of taking

19 voluntary departure lose the ability to pursue many paths to legal status.

20 Additionally, after leaving the United States, many individuals are precluded from

21 obtaining a visa to return to the United States for up to ten years—even though they

22 could have obtained legal status if they had not been misinformed or coerced into

23 accepting voluntary departure.

24

4. Immigration officers’ misstatements and omissions are exacerbated by

25 the fact that they regularly pressure individuals to agree to voluntary departure

26 before they have had any opportunity to speak to an attorney.

27

5. Immigration enforcement agencies in Southern California expel

28 individuals who have taken voluntary departure as rapidly as logistically possible—

2.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 4 of 66 Page ID #:406

1 in many instances, on the same day. This practice violates the agencies’ governing

2 regulations, which require that immigration officers exercise discretion to

3 determine whether to allow an individual who has taken voluntary departure a

4 period of up to 120 days to leave the United States. Thus, individuals who have

5 been in the United States for decades are unlawfully ripped from their families and

6 established lives for up to ten years without having time to consider their other

7 legal options, put their affairs in order, or even say goodbye to family members.

8

6. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to correct immigration

9 enforcement officers’ unlawful voluntary departure practices in Southern

10 California. Individual Plaintiffs Isidora Lopez-Venegas, Ana Maria Dueñas,

11 Gerardo Hernandez-Contreras, Efrain Garcia-Martinez, Samuel Nava, Alejandro

12 Serrato, Arnulfo Sierra, and Genaro Muñoz-Flores (collectively, the

13 “Representative Plaintiffs”), and Candelaria Felix, as next friend of Yadira Felix,

14 Patricia Armenta, as next friend of Marta Mendoza, and Gorgonio Cabrera

15 (collectively, with the Representative Plaintiffs, the “Individual Plaintiffs”) are in

16 Mexico after Defendants’ agents deceived, pressured, threatened and forced them

17 into taking voluntary departure. The Individual Plaintiffs seek a declaration that

18 their expulsion from the United States was unlawful, an order that they be returned

19 to the United States in the legal position that they occupied before that expulsion

20 and an order mandating the implementation of legally adequate safeguards over

21 Defendants’ implementation of voluntary departure in Southern California. The

22 Representative Plaintiffs seek the same relief on behalf of a class of similarly

23 situated individuals who would have had a plausible basis to reside legally in the

24 United States under the immigration laws and programs of the Department of

25 Homeland Security had they not been expelled pursuant to the unlawful voluntary

26 departure program as administered in Southern California. Coalition for Humane

27 Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, and San

28 Bernardino Community Service Center (collectively, the “Organizational

3.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 5 of 66 Page ID #:407

1 Plaintiffs”) are organizations that work with immigrants and immigrant

2 communities. The Organizational Plaintiffs have been and continue to be adversely

3 affected by the way that Defendants implement voluntary departure in Southern

4 California. They seek a declaration that Defendants’ conduct and voluntary

5 departure practices are unlawful and an order mandating the implementation of

6 legally adequate safeguards over those procedures.

7

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8

7. In this Complaint, the Individual Plaintiffs raise challenges—under the

9 Administrative Procedure Act, the immigration statutes and regulations, and the

10 U.S. Constitution—to the way that Defendants processed them for voluntary

11 departure. The Organizational Plaintiffs raise similar challenges to the way that

12 voluntary departure has been and will continue to be administered. This Court has

13 subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which

14 confers jurisdiction to consider federal questions. This Court also has subject

15 matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (habeas corpus),

16 because the Individual Plaintiffs remain in Defendants’ constructive custody; 28

17 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act); and the Suspension Clause of Article I of the U.S.

18 Constitution, because there must be some forum for judicial review where a non-

19 citizen challenges the lawfulness of removal from the United States. See INS v. St. 20 Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 304 (2001).1

21

8. This Court may grant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question),

22 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2243 (habeas corpus), 28

23 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 (declaratory relief), 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706 (Administrative

24 Procedure Act), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 (injunctive relief). The United States has

25 waived any sovereign immunity it could claim for declaratory and injunctive relief

26

27 1 The Due Process Clause and Article III of the U.S. Constitution also require some federal forum for judicial review of federal statutory and constitutional claims, at
28 least where liberty is at stake.

4.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 6 of 66 Page ID #:408

1 claims. 5 U.S.C. § 702; see also, e.g., Clinton v. Babbitt, 180 F.3d 1081, 1087 (9th

2 Cir. 1999).

3

9. Venue is proper in the Central District of California because a

4 defendant federal official and multiple plaintiffs reside in this District and because a

5 substantial portion of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Los

6 Angeles, Riverside, and Orange Counties. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1).

7

PARTIES

8

10. Plaintiff Isidora Lopez-Venegas is a native of Mexico who lived in the

9 United States for more than a decade before an unlawful voluntary departure in

10 August 2011. Ms. Lopez-Venegas has an eleven-year-old U.S. citizen son who

11 suffers from Asperger’s Syndrome who was effectively forced to move to Mexico

12 with his mother as a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct. Ms. Lopez-Venegas

13 remains in Mexico with her son.

14

11. Plaintiff Ana Maria Dueñas is a native of Mexico who lived in the

15 United States for more than three decades before an unlawful voluntary departure in

16 April 2011. Ms. Dueñas has five U.S. citizen children and six U.S. citizen

17 grandchildren in the United States, from whom she is now separated. She remains

18 in Mexico.

19

12. Plaintiff Gerardo Hernandez-Contreras is a native of Mexico who lived

20 in the United States for more than a decade before an unlawful voluntary departure

21 in November 2012. Mr. Hernandez-Contreras has a U.S. citizen wife and two

22 young U.S. citizen children in the United States, from whom he is now separated.

23 He remains in Mexico.

24

13. Plaintiff Efrain Garcia-Martinez is a native of Mexico who lived in the

25 United States for approximately two decades before an unlawful voluntary

26 departure in September 2012. Mr. Garcia-Martinez has family lawfully present in

27 the United States, from whom he is now separated. He remains in Mexico.

28

5.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 7 of 66 Page ID #:409

1

14. Plaintiff Samuel Nava is a native of Mexico who lived in the United

2 States for more than a decade before an unlawful voluntary departure in March

3 2011. Mr. Nava has a U.S. citizen wife who has been effectively forced to move to

4 Mexico as a result of the government’s unlawful conduct. He remains in Mexico 5 with his wife.2

6

15. Plaintiff Alejandro Serrato is a native of Mexico who lived in the

7 United States for more than a decade before an unlawful voluntary departure in

8 October 2012. Mr. Serrato has a U.S. citizen wife and son who have been

9 effectively forced to move to Mexico as a result of the government’s unlawful

10 conduct. He remains in Mexico with his wife and son.

11

16. Plaintiff Arnulfo Sierra is a native of Mexico who lived in the United

12 States for more than twenty-five years before an unlawful voluntary departure in

13 August 2013. Mr. Sierra has a wife, two step-daughters, and two U.S. citizen

14 children in the United States, from whom he is now separated. He remains in

15 Mexico.

16

17. Plaintiff Genaro Muñoz-Flores is a native of Mexico who lived in the

17 United States for more than two decades before an unlawful voluntary departure in

18 August 2012. Mr. Muñoz-Flores has a wife and a U.S. citizen child in the United

19 States, from whom he is now separated. He remains in Mexico.

20

18. Plaintiff Candelaria Felix is acting as next friend for her granddaughter

21 Yadira Felix. Yadira Felix is a native of Mexico who lived in the United States for

22 more than twenty years before an unlawful voluntary departure in August 2012.

23 Yadira Felix suffers from cognitive disabilities that make her unable to assert her

24 own rights in this litigation. As a result, her grandmother, who has acted in loco

25

26
2 Mr. Nava was recently granted an immigrant visa allowing him to return to the 27 United States after obtaining a special waiver of the penalty that applies after a
voluntary departure. See infra ¶ 38. Mr. Nava and his wife hope to be permitted to 28 return to the United States soon.

6.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 8 of 66 Page ID #:410

1 parentis and as her caregiver throughout her life, is representing her interests as her

2 next friend. Yadira Felix remains in Mexico.

3

19. Plaintiff Patricia Armenta is acting as next friend for her mother

4 Marta Mendoza. Ms. Mendoza is a native of Mexico who lived in the United States

5 for more than three decades before an unlawful voluntary departure in July 2013.

6 Ms. Mendoza has a husband, five U.S. citizen children, and five U.S. citizen

7 grandchildren in the United States, from whom she is now separated. Ms. Mendoza

8 suffers from mental health issues that make her unable to assert her own rights in

9 this litigation. As a result, her daughter who, along with other family members, has

10 recently acted as her caregiver, is representing her interests as her next friend. Ms.

11 Mendoza remains in Mexico.

12

20. Plaintiff Gorgonio Cabrera is a native of Mexico who has been

13 coming to the United States using valid visas since he was an infant in the late

14 1980s. He had been living in the United States for about a year before an unlawful

15 voluntary departure in December 2009. Mr. Cabrera has a U.S. citizen wife and

16 two U.S. citizen children, from whom he is now separated.

17

21. Plaintiff Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles

18 (“CHIRLA”) is a non-profit, community based organization headquartered in Los

19 Angeles. CHIRLA’s mission includes advancing the human and civil rights of

20 immigrants, promoting harmonious multi-ethnic and multi-racial human relations,

21 empowering all immigrants and their allies to build a more just and humane society,

22 and promoting the integration of immigrants into their communities. At the

23 expense of fully pursuing these goals, CHIRLA has been compelled to devote

24 significant portions of its limited resources to counteract the unlawful practices

25 Defendants employ in the administration of voluntary departure. If CHIRLA had

26 not been compelled to expend these resources to address Defendants’ unlawful

27 administration of voluntary departure, it would have directed these resources

28 toward the advancement of pro-immigrant policies and immigrant integration.

7.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 9 of 66 Page ID #:411

1

22. Plaintiff Pomona Economic Opportunity Center (“PEOC”) is a non-

2 profit day laborer organization headquartered in Pomona. PEOC’s mission is

3 to provide an opportunity for day laborers to find safe work at a fair wage, to

4 organize and advocate for themselves, to obtain new trades and skills that improve

5 their employability and quality of life, and to improve the overall conditions for all

6 workers. At the expense of fully pursuing its organizational goals, PEOC has been

7 compelled to devote significant portions of its limited resources to counteract the

8 unlawful practices Defendants employ in the administration of voluntary departure.

9 If PEOC had not been compelled to expend these resources to address Defendants’

10 unlawful administration of voluntary departure, it would have directed these

11 resources toward the advancement of workers’ rights and other abuses in the

12 immigrant enforcement system.

13

23. Plaintiff San Bernardino Community Service Center (“SBCSC”) is an

14 organization headquartered in San Bernardino. SBCSC’s mission includes

15 advocating on behalf of indigent and low-income immigrants for access to the legal

16 system and robust procedural protections within it. At the expense of fully

17 pursuing those organizational goals, SBCSC has been compelled to devote

18 significant portions of its limited resources to counteract the unlawful practices

19 Defendants employ in the administration of voluntary departure. If SBCSC had not

20 been compelled to expend these resources to address Defendants’ unlawful

21 administration of voluntary departure, it would have directed these resources

22 toward the advancement of its advocacy concerning conditions of immigration

23 detention and the availability of bond hearings for individuals in removal

24 proceedings.

25

24. Defendant Rand Beers is the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security.

26 He exercises authority over both the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”)

27 and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).

28

8.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 10 of 66 Page ID #:412

1

25. Defendant Thomas Winkowski is the Deputy Commissioner of CBP

2 and performs the duties of Commissioner of CBP. He exercises authority over the

3 U.S. Border Patrol.

4

26. Defendant John Sandweg is the Acting Director of ICE and exercises

5 authority over that agency.

6

27. Defendant Paul Beeson is the Chief Border Patrol agent for Border

7 Patrol’s San Diego Sector, which encompasses the portions of Southern California

8 where the Border Patrol-related incidents described in this Complaint occurred. He

9 exercises authority over Border Patrol activities in that sector.

10

28. Defendant Gregory Archambeault is the ICE Field Office Director for

11 San Diego. He exercises authority over ICE activities in the San Diego region.

12

29. Defendant Dave Marin is the Acting ICE Field Office Director for Los

13 Angeles. He exercises authority over ICE activities in the Los Angeles region.

14

30. All Defendants are sued in their official capacities.

15

FACTS

16 Legal Background

17

31. The immigration enforcement agencies have for decades used

18 “administrative voluntary departure”—which the agencies also refer to as

19 “voluntary return”—as an expeditious, summary enforcement tool against non-

20 citizens who are not a high priority for formal “deportation” or “removal” because

21 they have no, or only insignificant, criminal history. The current statute authorizing

22 the practice reads, in part, “The Attorney General may permit an alien voluntarily to

23 depart the United States at the alien’s own expense … in lieu of being subject to 24 [removal proceedings before an immigration judge]….” 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a)(1).3

25

26 3 Voluntary departure may also be granted by an immigration judge during or at the
27 conclusion of removal proceedings. This case concerns only the administrative voluntary departure implemented by Department of Homeland Security officials
28 prior to the commencement of removal proceedings.

9.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 11 of 66 Page ID #:413

1 The statute provides that the non-citizen be provided a period of up to 120 days to 2 voluntarily depart from the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a)(2)(A).4

3

32. Federal regulations govern Defendants’ administration of voluntary

4 departure: “The authority contained in section 240B(a) of the [Immigration and]

5 Act [8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a)(1)] to permit aliens to depart voluntarily from the United

6 States may be exercised in lieu of being subject to proceedings under section 240 of

7 the Act,” by certain authorized officers within the Department of Homeland

8 Security. 8 C.F.R. § 240.25(a). An “authorized officer, in his or her discretion,

9 shall specify the period of time permitted for voluntary departure, and may grant

10 extensions thereof, except that the total period allowed, including any extensions,

11 shall not exceed 120 days.” 8 C.F.R. § 240.25(c). “[A]ny decision regarding

12 voluntary departure shall be communicated in writing on Form I–210, Notice of

13 Action—Voluntary Departure. Voluntary departure may not be granted unless the

14 alien requests such voluntary departure and agrees to its terms and conditions.” Id.

15 Form I-210 includes fields for specifying a future departure date from the United

16 States, which by statute and regulation may be up to 120 days from the date on

17 which the voluntary departure form is signed. See Appendix A, Form I-210, which

18 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference.

19

33. When Border Patrol agents or ICE officers in Southern California

20 arrest a Mexican national who has no serious criminal history, they routinely direct

21 her to sign for voluntary departure. As a matter of common practice, however, they

22 neither follow the procedures required by regulation nor present the individual with

23 a Form I-210. Instead, they present an alternative voluntary departure document

24

25

26

4 The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) “replaced all references to ‘deportation’ with ‘removal.’” See, e.g.,

27 Mariscal-Sandoval v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 851, 854 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The IIRIRA

merged deportation and exclusion proceedings into the broader category of

28 ‘removal’ proceedings.”).

10.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 12 of 66 Page ID #:414

1 known as a Form I-826, Notice of Rights and Request for Disposition. See

2 Appendix B, Form I-826, which Plaintiffs incorporate by reference.

3

34. No statute or regulation authorizes Defendants to use Form I-826.

4 Moreover, Form I-826 does not include fields for specifying a future departure date

5 from the United States. To the contrary, when an individual takes voluntary

6 departure by signing a Form I-826, she must check a box indicating, among other

7 things, “I wish to return to my country as soon as arrangements can be made to

8 effect my departure.” Accordingly, Form I-826 is incompatible with the statutory

9 and regulatory requirement that immigration officials exercise discretion to

10 designate a date by which time an individual must voluntarily depart the United

11 States.

12

35. In addition to being unauthorized by law, Form I-826 is legally

13 deficient in several other significant respects. Despite containing a section

14 captioned “Notice of Rights,” the form fails to provide material information on the

15 legal consequences of taking voluntary departure, including: loss of procedural

16 rights that would attach in proceedings before an immigration judge; abandonment

17 of forms of relief that are unavailable outside the United States; and the imposition

18 of bars to readmission to the United States for anyone who has accrued a certain

19 period of unlawful presence here. Immigration enforcement officers do not cure the

20 form’s deficiency, as they fail to provide such information orally or otherwise.

21

36. As matter of regular practice in Southern California, Defendants

22 mechanically pre-check the “voluntary departure” box on Form I-826 that indicates,

23 among other things, “I give up my right to a hearing before the Immigration Court.

24 I wish to return to my country as soon as arrangements can be made to effect my

25 departure.” For example, Defendants pre-checked this “voluntary departure” box

26 for all six of the Individual Plaintiffs whose I-826 forms were produced pursuant to

27 the initial disclosures in this litigation. Use of the pre-checked form gives the

28 impression that accepting immediate expulsion to Mexico is the only option

11.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 13 of 66 Page ID #:415

1 available to an individual. It is further evidence that Defendants’ implementation of

2 “voluntary departure” in Southern California does not provide a fair opportunity for

3 individuals to make a meaningful choice, but rather constitutes an unauthorized and

4 unlawful form of summary expulsion.

5 Consequences of Voluntary Departure

6

37. By “accepting” voluntary departure, individuals forgo a number of

7 procedural rights that apply only after removal proceedings have been initiated.

8 Pursuant to agency policy and practice, Defendants’ agents only provide Miranda-

9 type advisals to those arrested on suspicion of immigration violations after the

10 service of a notice to appear for immigration court proceedings. See, e.g., Matter of

11 E-R-M-F & A-S-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 580, 588 (BIA 2011). Once an individual

12 appears before an immigration judge, a number of other procedural rights apply.

13 The individual has the right to representation by counsel; the right to examine,

14 present, and challenge evidence, including through cross-examination of the

15 government’s witnesses; and the right not to be ordered removed from the United

16 States unless the government proves that she is removable by clear and convincing

17 evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. An immigration judge must also “inform the

18 [person] of his or her apparent eligibility to apply for any of the benefits

19 enumerated in this chapter and shall afford the [person] an opportunity to make

20 application during the hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2). If the immigration

21 judge orders the individual removed, she has the right to appeal that order to the

22 Board of Immigration Appeals and, if unsuccessful on appeal, to petition for review

23 of the removal order by a federal court of appeals.

24

38. Apart from the loss of these procedural rights, taking voluntary

25 departure also carries significant consequences as a matter of substantive

26 immigration law. Anyone who has been unlawfully present in the United States for

27 one year or more and takes voluntary departure is subsequently “inadmissible” to

28 the United States for ten years. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). There is a

12.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 14 of 66 Page ID #:416

1 similar three-year period of inadmissibility for anyone who has been unlawfully

2 present in the United States for more than 180 days but less than one year. See 8

3 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(ii)(I). Taking voluntary departure after a triggering period

4 of unlawful presence renders an individual is ineligible for an immigrant visa for

5 lawful permanent resident status or any other type of lawful entry into the United

6 States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (describing an alien who is inadmissible to be

7 “ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States”).

8 While some individuals may seek a wholly discretionary waiver of an unlawful

9 presence bar, the waiver is only available on a showing of “extreme hardship” to

10 the individual’s U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent, and the

11 immigration statute bars review of decisions denying such waivers. See 8 U.S.C.

12 § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v). Several of the Individual Plaintiffs, as well as numerous class

13 members, are ineligible to even apply for this waiver of an unlawful presence bar

14 because they do not have a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or

15 parent. Individuals cannot avoid unlawful presence bars by reentering the United

16 States without inspection, as doing so subjects them to an even more severe ground

17 of inadmissibility and disqualifies them from relief against removal. See 8 U.S.C. §

18 1182(a)(9)(C)(i); Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 2012)

19 (en banc) (finding that alien who was inadmissible due to his unlawful reentry into

20 country after accruing more than one year of unlawful presence was not eligible to

21 adjust to lawful permanent resident status based on marriage to United States

22 citizen).

23

39. An individual who takes voluntary departure also loses the opportunity

24 to seek a number of forms of relief against removal under the immigration laws and

25 the programs of the Department of Homeland Security:

26

a. Cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for certain

27 nonpermanent residents (“cancellation of removal”): An immigration judge may

28 grant cancellation of removal to an individual who has (1) been present in the

13.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 15 of 66 Page ID #:417

1 United States for a continuous ten year period, (2) displayed good moral character,

2 (3) no qualifying criminal convictions, and (4) a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent

3 resident spouse, parent, or child who would suffer exceptional and extremely

4 unusual hardship as a result of the individual’s removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b).

5 Because cancellation of removal is only available to individuals who have been

6 placed in removal proceedings before an immigration judge, an individual loses her

7 opportunity to seek this form of relief by signing a voluntary departure form and

8 waiving the right to a hearing before an immigration judge. The individual also

9 loses any period of continuous presence that had accrued prior to the voluntary

10 departure for purposes of future cancellation of removal applications. See, e.g.,

11 Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 343 F.3d 961, 974–75 (9th Cir. 2003).

12

b. Adjustment of status under Immigration and Nationality Act

13 (“INA”) §§ 245(a) and 245(i): Under INA § 245(a), an individual who entered the

14 United States after being inspected may seek to adjust her status without leaving the 15 United States, even if her status has since expired.5 See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). There

16 is no need for her to go to Mexico in order to “fix” her papers. Similarly, under

17 INA § 245(i), an individual who entered the United States without inspection but is

18 the beneficiary of an immigrant visa petition filed on or before April 30, 2001 may

19 seek to adjust her status without leaving the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).

20 But if an individual who could have adjusted her status under either provision

21 leaves the United States after accruing a triggering period of unlawful presence,

22

23 5 A sizeable group of Mexican nationals who have been in the United States for

24 years would be eligible for § 245(a) relief. Estimates show that approximately 40

percent of undocumented immigrants in the United States first entered the United 25 States lawfully but then overstayed their authorized periods of admission. See

26

Border Security: Measuring the Progress and Addressing the Challenges: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. and Governmental Affairs, 113th Cong.

27 (2013) (statement of Edward Alden, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow, Council of

Foreign Relations), available at http://www.cfr.org/immigration/measuring-

28 effectiveness-border-enforcement/p30211 (last visited Oct. 1, 2013).

14.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 16 of 66 Page ID #:418

1 supra ¶ 38, then she is barred from re-entering the United States for three or ten

2 years.

3

c. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program

4 (“DACA”): DACA is a form of administrative relief available to non-citizen youth

5 who lack legal status. To qualify for DACA, an individual must satisfy a number

6 of requirements, including continuous presence in the United States since June 15,

7 2007. Expulsion from the United States through voluntary departure breaks that 8 continuous presence and renders the individual ineligible for DACA in the future.6

9

d. Adjustment of status with a Provisional Unlawful Presence

10 Waiver: An applicant for an immigrant visa for lawful permanent residence who is

11 an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen may apply for a provisional waiver of

12 unlawful presence, which would allow her to remain in the United States with her

13 family while the waiver is adjudicated before departing for a consular interview

14 abroad. See 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e). By contrast, a visa applicant who has taken

15 voluntary departure must remain outside the United States and away from her

16 family while she awaits consular adjudication of her request for a waiver of the

17 unlawful presence bar.

18

e. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”): To qualify

19 for relief under the TVPA, a victim of a severe form of trafficking must be

20 physically present in the United States. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.11(b). This is a

21 particularly significant form of relief in Southern California, where a substantial 22 proportion of undocumented migrants have been victims of human trafficking.7

23

f. The Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”): To qualify for

24 VAWA relief, a victim of domestic violence that was inflicted by a U.S. citizen or

25

6

Information

about

DACA

is

available

at

26 http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Resources/daca.pdf (last visited Oct. 1, 2013).

27 7 See SHELDON X. ZHANG, LOOKING FOR A HIDDEN POPULATION: TRAFFICKING OF MIGRANT LABORERS IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY 11 (2012), available at
28 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/240223.pdf (last visited Oct. 1, 2013).

15.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 17 of 66 Page ID #:419

1 lawful permanent resident spouse must be physically present in the United States at

2 the time of application for such relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c); 8 U.S.C. §

3 1229b(b)(2).

4

g. Asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the U.N.

5 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”): These forms of relief provide protection for

6 people who have a well-founded fear of persecution, whose lives or freedom are

7 likely to be threatened, or who are likely to be tortured in their home countries.

8 Over the past several years, Mexican nationals have increasingly sought asylum,

9 withholding, and CAT protection because of the drug wars and other violence in 10 Mexico.8 Defendants’ unfair and unlawful voluntary departure procedures have

11 already endangered those who would have had strong claims to protection here in

12 the United States.

13

40. Defendants have failed to adequately train their officers about the legal

14 consequences of voluntary departure. Defendants’ training manuals and operating

15 procedures concerning voluntary departure fail to appropriately inform officers that

16 expelling an individual pursuant to voluntary departure can carry penalties,

17 including the imposition of a ten year unlawful presence bar. Where Defendants’

18 training manuals and operating procedures address the disadvantages of voluntary

19 departure, those materials focus on an individual’s failure to timely depart the 20 United States after being granted voluntary departure.9 Thus, even if Defendants’

21 officers may be inclined to provide accurate and complete information to

22 individuals facing voluntary departure, they lack the training to do so.

23

24 8 See, e.g., Molly Hennessy-Fiske, More from Mexico seek U.S. asylum as drug violence rises, L.A. TIMES, Oct. 28, 2012, available at
25 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/28/nation/la-na-texas-asylum-20121028 (last 26 visited Oct. 1, 2013).
9 Given that Defendants do not allow any period of time for individuals subjected to 27 voluntary departure in Southern California to put their affairs in order before
departing the country, see supra ¶¶ 33-34, these disadvantages of voluntary 28 departure are effectively irrelevant, at least in Southern California.

16.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 18 of 66 Page ID #:420

1

41. While the legal consequences of expulsion from the United States are

2 significant, Defendants’ administration of voluntary departure in Southern

3 California also has the significant practical consequence of separating family

4 members.

5 Plaintiff Isidora Lopez-Venegas

6

42. Isidora Lopez-Venegas was born in Mexico, but came to the United

7 States on a valid tourist visa in 2001. She settled in San Diego with her family and

8 is the mother of an eleven-year-old U.S. citizen son who has been diagnosed with

9 Asperger’s Syndrome. Ms. Lopez-Venegas has no criminal history and has never

10 been ordered removed from the United States.

11

43. On the evening of August 13, 2011, Ms. Lopez-Venegas and her son

12 were walking to her car when an officer approached her and asked for her driver’s

13 license. When Ms. Lopez-Venegas asked who he was, he responded that he was an

14 immigration officer and demanded her papers. Several other officers appeared.

15 Some wore green uniforms (indicating affiliation with Border Patrol). The

16 immigration officers arrested Ms. Lopez-Venegas and her son, and took them to a

17 Border Patrol station.

18

44. Border Patrol agents presented Ms. Lopez-Venegas with a “voluntary

19 departure” form which had been mechanically pre-checked to indicate, in part, “I

20 give up my right to a hearing before the Immigration Court. I wish to return to my

21 country as soon as arrangements can be made to effect my departure.” The agents

22 repeatedly directed her to sign it. In doing so, the Border Patrol agents failed to

23 inform Ms. Lopez-Venegas, orally, through the I-826 form, or otherwise, of the

24 rights she would abandon and the consequences of the decision to abandon those

25 rights if she agreed to “voluntary departure.” For instance, among other defects in

26 the circumstances in which the “voluntary departure” form was presented, the

27 agents threatened Ms. Lopez-Venegas that if she refused to sign the form she could

28 be detained for several months and thus separated from her autistic eleven-year-old

17.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 19 of 66 Page ID #:421

1 son. The agents failed to inform Ms. Lopez-Venegas that she could be released on

2 her own recognizance or bond if she chose not to agree to “voluntary departure.”

3 Instead, the agents rushed her to make a decision and forcefully instructed her

4 approximately half a dozen times to sign the mechanically pre-checked voluntary

5 departure form. The agents further misinformed Ms. Lopez-Venegas that it would

6 be easy for her to obtain legal status through her son once in Mexico. Given her

7 son’s age, this statement is false—it will be about ten years before Ms. Lopez-

8 Venegas will be able to apply for adjustment of status based on her son’s U.S.

9 citizenship. The Border Patrol agents failed to inform her that she could contact an

10 attorney prior to deciding whether to elect “voluntary departure” and failed to

11 provide her time to contact an attorney. The agents also failed to provide her a list

12 of attorneys or non-profit legal service providers, such that even if they had

13 provided her an opportunity to contact an attorney she would have been unable to

14 do so. Further, the Border Patrol agents also failed to inform her of the ten year

15 unlawful presence bar to which she would be subjected upon leaving the country.

16

45. Ms. Lopez-Venegas was not provided a meaningful opportunity to

17 read the Form I-826. While the Form I-826 associated with Ms. Lopez-Venegas’s

18 processing indicates that a Border Patrol agent read the form to her in Spanish, the

19 officer failed to sign the “Certification of Service” portion of the form. Moreover,

20 Ms. Lopez-Venegas never actually signed the Form I-826, or any other form, that

21 would indicate her consent to be expelled in lieu of pursuing immigration relief in

22 the United States.

23

46. As a result of the misstatements, omissions, pressure, and/or threats of

24 or caused by the Border Patrol agents, Ms. Lopez-Venegas made an unknowing and

25 involuntary election of “voluntary departure” the same evening she was brought to

26 the Border Patrol station.

27

47. Ms. Lopez-Venegas and, effectively, her U.S. citizen son were

28 expelled from the United States soon after being brought to the Border Patrol

18.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 20 of 66 Page ID #:422

1 station. Since their expulsion from the United States, Ms. Lopez-Venegas and her

2 son have remained in Mexico.

3

48. Ms. Lopez-Venegas’s removal has negatively impacted her U.S.

4 citizen son. In Mexico, he does not have adequate access to treatment for his

5 Asperger’s Syndrome or sufficient educational opportunities in light of his

6 condition.

7

49. When Ms. Lopez-Venegas consulted with an immigration lawyer after

8 her expulsion, she learned about the ten year unlawful presence bar. Ms. Lopez-

9 Venegas also learned that by leaving the United States, she had lost her opportunity

10 to seek cancellation of removal. Had Ms. Lopez-Venegas appeared before an

11 immigration judge instead of taking voluntary departure, she would have been

12 eligible for cancellation of removal.

13 Plaintiff Ana Maria Dueñas

14

50. Ana Maria Dueñas was born in Mexico in 1958. In 1976, Ms. Dueñas

15 and her family came to the United States, entering with inspection at a port of entry.

16 She settled in the San Diego area and is the mother of five U.S. citizens and the

17 grandmother of six U.S. citizens. Ms. Dueñas did not leave the United States until

18 she was expelled from the country pursuant to the unlawful voluntary departure

19 process in April 2011. Ms. Dueñas has no criminal history and has never been

20 ordered removed from the United States.

21

51. In April 2011, Ms. Dueñas was waiting for a bus in El Cajon,

22 California, when a Border Patrol agent approached her and asked for her papers.

23 Ms. Dueñas responded that she did not have any papers. The agent then told her

24 that she would have to go with him to the nearby Border Patrol station.

25

52. A Border Patrol agent presented Ms. Dueñas with a “voluntary

26 departure” form which had been mechanically pre-checked to indicate, in part, “I

27 give up my right to a hearing before the Immigration Court. I wish to return to my

28 country as soon as arrangements can be made to effect my departure.” The agent

19.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 21 of 66 Page ID #:423

1 directed her to sign it. The Border Patrol agent, however, failed to inform Ms.

2 Dueñas, orally, through the I-826 form, or otherwise, of the rights she would

3 abandon or the consequences of abandoning those rights if she agreed to “voluntary

4 departure.” For instance, among other defects in the circumstances in which the

5 “voluntary departure” form was presented, the agent misinformed Ms. Dueñas that

6 she could not obtain relief from an immigration judge in the United States, but that

7 she could easily and quickly obtain legal status through her adult U.S. citizen

8 children once in Mexico. The agent threatened Ms. Dueñas that if she refused to

9 sign the mechanically pre-checked form, she would be detained for a minimum of

10 two months, without informing her that she could be released on her own

11 recognizance or bond if she chose not to agree to “voluntary departure.” Further,

12 the Border Patrol agent failed to provide Ms. Dueñas time to contact an attorney,

13 and instead put undue pressure on her to quickly sign the “voluntary departure”

14 form. The agent also failed to provide her a list of attorneys or non-profit legal

15 service providers, such that even if he had provided her an opportunity to contact an

16 attorney she would not have been able to do so. The agent also failed to inform her

17 of the ten year unlawful presence bar to which she would be subjected if she left the

18 United States.

19

53. Ms. Dueñas never actually signed the Form I-826, or any other form,

20 that would indicate her consent to be expelled in lieu of pursuing immigration relief

21 in the United States.

22

54. As a result of the omissions, misinformation, pressure, and/or threats

23 of or caused by the Border Patrol agent, Ms. Dueñas made an unknowing and

24 involuntary election of “voluntary departure.”

25

55. Ms. Dueñas was expelled from the United States soon after being

26 brought to the Border Patrol station. Ms. Dueñas has remained in Tijuana since

27 leaving the United States. She deeply wishes to be reunited with her children and

28 grandchildren who live in San Diego.

20.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 22 of 66 Page ID #:424

1

56. It was only after Ms. Dueñas was expelled from the United States

2 pursuant to “voluntary departure” that she learned for the first time about the ten

3 year unlawful presence bar. Had Ms. Dueñas appeared before an immigration

4 judge instead of taking voluntary departure, she could have sought to adjust her

5 status based on the status of any of her U.S. citizen children under § 245(a).

6 Because Ms. Dueñas entered the United States with inspection, she would not have

7 been required to wait in Mexico for years while her petition was processed and

8 approved.

9 Plaintiff Gerardo Hernandez-Contreras

10

57. Gerardo Hernandez-Contreras was born in Mexico but entered the

11 United States in 2001 when he was around fifteen years old. Mr. Hernandez-

12 Contreras settled in San Diego County. Mr. Hernandez-Contreras did not leave the

13 United States until he was expelled from the country pursuant to the unlawful

14 voluntary departure process in November 2012. In 2006, Mr. Hernandez-Contreras

15 married Aide Vasquez, a U.S. citizen. Mr. Hernandez-Contreras and Mrs. Vasquez

16 are the parents of two young U.S. citizen children. Mr. Hernandez-Contreras has

17 no criminal history and has never been ordered removed from the United States.

18

58. On November 27, 2012, Mr. Hernandez-Contreras was driving home

19 when two San Diego Police Department officers pulled him over for using a cell

20 phone while driving. Immigration officers wearing green uniforms (indicating

21 affiliation with Border Patrol) arrived on the scene soon thereafter. At the time of

22 the traffic stop, Mr. Hernandez-Contreras had been on the phone with Mrs.

23 Vasquez, who rushed to the scene. Mrs. Vasquez told the immigration officers that

24 she was Mr. Hernandez-Contreras’s U.S. citizen wife and that they have two U.S.

25 citizen children together. Despite Mrs. Vasquez’s pleas, the officers placed Mr.

26 Hernandez-Contreras in the back of their vehicle and drove him to a Border Patrol

27 station in Chula Vista.

28

21.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 23 of 66 Page ID #:425

1

59. Border Patrol agents presented Mr. Hernandez-Contreras with a

2 “voluntary departure” form which had been mechanically pre-checked to indicate,

3 in part, “I give up my right to a hearing before the Immigration Court. I wish to

4 return to my country as soon as arrangements can be made to effect my departure.”

5 The agents directed him to sign it. The Border Patrol agents, however, failed to

6 inform Mr. Hernandez-Contreras, orally, through the I-826 form, or otherwise, of

7 the rights he would abandon and the consequences of the decision to abandon those

8 rights if he agreed to “voluntary departure.” For instance, among other defects in

9 the circumstances in which the mechanically pre-checked form was presented, the

10 agents threatened Mr. Hernandez-Contreras that if he refused to sign he could be

11 detained for months, without informing him that he could be released on his own

12 recognizance or bond if he chose not to agree to “voluntary departure.” The agents

13 further misinformed Mr. Hernandez-Contreras that he could simply obtain legal

14 status through Mrs. Vasquez once in Mexico. The Border Patrol agents failed to

15 inform him that he could contact an attorney prior to deciding whether to elect

16 “voluntary departure,” failed to provide him time to contact an attorney, and instead

17 put undue pressure on him to quickly sign the “voluntary departure” form. The

18 agents failed to provide him a list of attorneys or non-profit legal service providers

19 such that even if they had provided him an opportunity to contact an attorney he

20 would not have been able to do so. The Border Patrol agents also failed to inform

21 him of the ten year unlawful presence bar to which he would be subjected if he left

22 the country.

23

60. As a result of the omissions, misinformation, pressure, and/or threats

24 of or caused by the Border Patrol agents, Mr. Hernandez-Contreras made an

25 unknowing and involuntary election of “voluntary departure.”

26

61. Mr. Hernandez-Contreras was expelled from the United States soon

27 after being brought to the Border Patrol station. Mr. Hernandez-Contreras has been

28 living in Tijuana since leaving the United States.

22.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 24 of 66 Page ID #:426

1

62. Mr. Hernandez-Contreras’ expulsion has placed an enormous financial

2 and emotional burden on Mrs. Vasquez as well as the couple’s children. For

3 example, their four-year-old son frequently cries and has trouble sleeping without

4 his father and their six year-old daughter’s school performance has suffered.

5

63. When Mr. Hernandez-Contreras and Mrs. Vasquez hired an

6 immigration lawyer to seek lawful permanent residence for Mr. Hernandez-

7 Contreras after his expulsion, they learned about the ten year unlawful presence bar.

8 Had Mr. Hernandez-Contreras appeared before an immigration judge instead of

9 taking voluntary departure, he would have been eligible for cancellation of removal,

10 or sought to adjust his status through the Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver.

11 Plaintiff Efrain Garcia-Martinez

12

64. Efrain Garcia-Martinez was born in Mexico but came to the United

13 States in the early 1990s and settled in the San Diego area. Mr. Garcia-Martinez

14 did not leave the United States until he was expelled from the country in September

15 2012 pursuant to the unlawful voluntary departure process. Mr. Garcia-Martinez

16 has extensive family ties in the United States. His mother and sister are lawful

17 permanent residents and his brothers are U.S. citizens. Mr. Garcia-Martinez has no

18 criminal history and has never been ordered removed from the United States.

19

65. In 2001, Mr. Garcia-Martinez’s sister filed a family relative petition

20 with a priority date of April 30, 2001, which would make him eligible for

21 adjustment of status under INA §245(i). The petition was approved on August 26,

22 2005. The petition remained pending—as Mr. Garcia-Martinez awaited the

23 availability of an immigrant visa—until September 2012, when Mr. Garcia-

24 Martinez was expelled to Mexico pursuant to the unlawful voluntary departure

25 process.

26

66. On September 24, 2012, Mr. Garcia-Martinez was fishing at Shelter

27 Island in San Diego when a law enforcement officer demanded to see his papers.

28 When Mr. Garcia-Martinez responded that he did not have any papers, the officer

23.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 25 of 66 Page ID #:427

1 handcuffed him and called Border Patrol. Shortly thereafter, a Border Patrol agent

2 arrived and took Mr. Garcia-Martinez to a Border Patrol station.

3

67. Border Patrol agents presented Mr. Garcia-Martinez with a “voluntary

4 departure” form which had been mechanically pre-checked to indicate, in part, “I

5 give up my right to a hearing before the Immigration Court. I wish to return to my

6 country as soon as arrangements can be made to effect my departure.” The agents

7 directed him to sign it. The Border Patrol agents, however, failed to inform Mr.

8 Garcia-Martinez, orally, through the I-826 form, or otherwise, of the rights he

9 would abandon and the consequences of the decision to abandon those rights if he

10 agreed to “voluntary departure.” For instance, among other defects in the

11 circumstances in which the “voluntary departure” form was presented, Border

12 Patrol agents failed to inform Mr. Garcia-Martinez of the ten year unlawful

13 presence bar to which he would be subjected upon leaving the country. The agents

14 failed to inform him that he could contact an attorney prior to deciding whether to

15 elect “voluntary departure,” failed to provide him time to contact an attorney, and

16 instead put undue pressure on him to quickly sign the “voluntary departure” form.

17 The agents failed to provide him a list of attorneys or non-profit legal service

18 providers such that even if they had provided him an opportunity to contact an

19 attorney he would not have been able to do so. Although Mr. Garcia-Martinez

20 informed the Border Patrol agents multiple times that he did not want to sign the

21 voluntary departure form, the agents persisted in pressuring him to sign the

22 mechanically pre-checked form.

23

68. As a result of the omissions, misinformation, pressure and/or threats of

24 or caused by the Border Patrol agents, Mr. Garcia-Martinez made an unknowing

25 and involuntary election of “voluntary departure.”

26

69. Mr. Garcia-Martinez was expelled from the United States soon after

27 being brought to the Border Patrol station. He has remained in Tijuana since then.

28

24.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 26 of 66 Page ID #:428

1

70. It was only after Mr. Garcia-Martinez was expelled from the United

2 States pursuant to “voluntary departure” that he learned for the first time about the

3 ten year unlawful presence bar. Had Mr. Garcia-Martinez appeared before an

4 immigration judge instead of taking voluntary departure, he could have sought to

5 adjust his status based on the approved § 245(i) petition that his sister filed for him

6 in April 2001.

7 Plaintiff Sam Nava

8

71. Sam Nava was born in Mexico in 1988, but his family has extensive

9 ties to the United States. His grandfather, who passed away in April 2011, was a

10 U.S. citizen. His parents first brought him to the United States on a tourist visa

11 around 1990 or 1991, when he was a toddler. Over the next ten years, the family

12 visited the United States regularly. Around August 2001, when Mr. Nava was

13 thirteen years old, he entered the United States on a valid tourist visa with his

14 family. They settled down in San Diego County. Mr. Nava last entered the United

15 States around April 2003 on his valid tourist visa and did not leave the country

16 again until he was expelled to Mexico in 2011 pursuant to the unlawful voluntary

17 departure process. Most of Mr. Nava’s family lives in the United States. Mr. Nava

18 has no criminal history and has never been ordered removed from the United States.

19

72. Mr. Nava graduated from high school in San Diego County. While

20 growing up in San Diego, he became active in Foothills Christian Church and

21 eventually volunteered with the youth ministry. His ministry activities included

22 leading a Christian club on a junior high campus, interning at a youth teen center

23 and leading other activities on a weekly basis for several years. These years of

24 working with youth inspired Mr. Nava to pursue a bachelor’s degree in ministry at

25 Vision International University and dedicate his life to serving youth. At Foothills

26 Christian Church, Mr. Nava met Suzanne Scott, a U.S. citizen with whom he

27 entered into a committed relationship and married after his expulsion from the

28 United States.

25.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 27 of 66 Page ID #:429

1

73. On the evening of March 10, 2011, Mr. Nava was driving home in the

2 eastern part of San Diego County when police officers pulled him over for having a

3 broken license plate light. The officers called Border Patrol.

4

74. When a Border Patrol agent arrived, Mr. Nava explained that his

5 family had an approved immigrant visa petition. The Border Patrol agent said that

6 he could not find anything about Mr. Nava in the system and incorrectly informed

7 Mr. Nava he had to be deported because of his expired tourist visa. The officer

8 took Mr. Nava to a Border Patrol station in Campo.

9

75. Border Patrol agents presented Mr. Nava with a “voluntary departure”

10 form which had been mechanically pre-checked to indicate, in part, “I give up my

11 right to a hearing before the Immigration Court. I wish to return to my country as

12 soon as arrangements can be made to effect my departure.” The agents directed

13 him to sign it. The Border Patrol agents, however, failed to inform Mr. Nava,

14 orally, through the I-826 form, or otherwise, of the rights he would abandon and the

15 consequences of the decision to abandon those rights if he agreed to “voluntary

16 departure.” For instance, among other defects in the circumstances in which the

17 mechanically pre-checked form was presented, Border Patrol agents threatened Mr.

18 Nava that if he refused to sign he could be detained for months, without informing

19 him that he could be released on his own recognizance or bond if he chose not to

20 agree to “voluntary departure.” The agents further misinformed Mr. Nava that he

21 could not obtain relief from an immigration judge in the United States, but that he

22 could obtain legal status through Ms. Scott once in Mexico. The Border Patrol

23 agents failed to inform him that he could contact an attorney prior to deciding

24 whether to elect “voluntary departure,” failed to provide him time to contact an

25 attorney, and instead put undue pressure on him to quickly sign the “voluntary

26 departure” form. The agents failed to provide him a list of attorneys or non-profit

27 legal service providers such that even if they had provided him an opportunity to

28 contact an attorney he would not have been able to do so. The agents also made

26.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 28 of 66 Page ID #:430

1 threats against his family and failed to inform him of the ten year unlawful presence

2 bar to which he would be subjected upon leaving the country.

3

76. As a result of the omissions, misinformation, pressure, and/or threats

4 of or caused by the Border Patrol agents, Mr. Nava made an unknowing and

5 involuntary election of “voluntary departure.”

6

77. Mr. Nava was expelled from the United States soon after being

7 brought to the Border Patrol station. Since his expulsion from the United States,

8 Mr. Nava has been living in La Paz, Mexico.

9

78. Mr. Nava’s expulsion from the United States turned his life, and Ms.

10 Scott’s, upside down. He lost his volunteer work in ministries with the youth at

11 Foothills Christian Church, as well as his plans to start a family business. Mr.

12 Nava’s studies at Vision International have also been interrupted. Ms. Scott, who is

13 a U.S. citizen, had to leave her senior year of college at San Diego State University

14 and her job at Starbucks to live with Mr. Nava in La Paz, Mexico. Mr. Nava and

15 Ms. Scott were married in Mexico in April 2011.

16

79. When Mr. Nava and Ms. Scott hired an immigration lawyer to seek

17 lawful permanent residence for Mr. Nava, they learned that because Mr. Nava had

18 departed from the United States after accruing more than a year of unlawful

19 presence, he was barred from re-entering the country for ten years. If Mr. Nava had

20 appeared before an immigration judge instead of taking voluntary departure, he

21 could have sought to adjust his status through marriage to Ms. Scott under § 245(a) 22 without having to contend with the ten year bar.10

23 Plaintiff Alejandro Serrato

24

80. Alejandro Serrato was born in Mexico but entered the United States

25 lawfully around 2000 or 2001 when he was approximately ten years old. Mr.

26 Serrato did not leave the United States until he was expelled from the country

27 10 After the filing of the above captioned action, Mr. Nava was granted a waiver of the unlawful presence bar and an immigrant visa. He and Ms. Scott hope to be
28 permitted to return to the United States soon.

27.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 29 of 66 Page ID #:431

1 pursuant to the unlawful voluntary departure process in October 2012. Mr. Serrato

2 attended elementary, middle and high school here, though he stopped attending

3 high school in eleventh grade. His three sisters and his mother live in the San

4 Diego region. Mr. Serrato married his wife Mayra, a U.S. citizen, on December 9,

5 2011. They have a young U.S. citizen son. Except for the incident where he was

6 arrested prior to his voluntary departure, Mr. Serrato has no criminal history. He

7 has never been ordered removed from the United States.

8

81. In late September 2012, Mr. Serrato was arrested at his house by San

9 Diego Police Department officers after having a non-violent, verbal argument with

10 a neighbor. The officers transported Mr. Serrato to the downtown jail, where ICE

11 placed an immigration hold on him. After several days, Mr. Serrato was moved to

12 an ICE office.

13

82. Mr. Serrato told the ICE officers that he has a U.S. citizen wife and

14 child. An ICE officer did not believe Mr. Serrato and instructed Mr. Serrato to call

15 his wife to prove he was telling the truth. Mr. Serrato called Mrs. Serrato, who

16 answered the officer’s questions regarding her marriage and her citizenship. The

17 ICE officer then presented Mr. Serrato with a “voluntary departure” form which

18 had been mechanically pre-checked to indicate, in part, “I give up my right to a

19 hearing before the Immigration Court. I wish to return to my country as soon as

20 arrangements can be made to effect my departure.” The officer directed him to sign

21 it. The ICE officer, however, failed to inform Mr. Serrato, orally, through the I-826

22 form, or otherwise, of the rights he would abandon and the consequences of the

23 decision to abandon those rights if he agreed to “voluntary departure.” For

24 instance, among other defects in the circumstances in which the mechanically pre-

25 checked form was presented, the ICE officer misinformed Mr. Serrato that he could

26 simply obtain legal status through his wife once he was in Mexico and that an

27 immigration judge would not let him stay in the United States. The ICE officer

28 failed to provide him time to contact an attorney, and instead put undue pressure on

28.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 30 of 66 Page ID #:432

1 him to quickly sign the “voluntary departure” form. The officer failed to provide

2 him a list of attorneys or non-profit legal service providers such that even if the

3 officer had provided him an opportunity to contact an attorney he would not have

4 been able to do so. The ICE officer also failed to inform Mr. Serrato of the ten year

5 unlawful presence bar to which he would be subjected upon leaving the country.

6

83. As a result of the omissions, misinformation, pressure, and/or threats

7 of or caused by the ICE officer, Mr. Serrato made an unknowing and involuntary

8 election of “voluntary departure.”

9

84. Mr. Serrato was expelled from the United States soon after being

10 brought to the ICE office. He has remained in Tijuana since then.

11

85. Mr. Serrato’s expulsion from the United States has significantly and

12 negatively affected his life and his family. Among other things, Mr. Serrato lost his

13 job in the United States. Mr. Serrato’s expulsion also forced Mrs. Serrato and their

14 young son to leave San Diego to live with Mr. Serrato in Tijuana, Mexico.

15

86. When Mr. and Mrs. Serrato hired an immigration lawyer to seek

16 lawful permanent residence for Mr. Serrato after his expulsion, they learned that

17 because Mr. Serrato had departed from the United States after accruing more than a

18 year of unlawful presence, he was barred from re-entering the country for ten years.

19 Had Mr. Serrato appeared before an immigration judge instead of taking voluntary

20 departure, he would have been eligible for cancellation of removal and could have

21 sought to adjust his status based on the status of his U.S. citizen wife under

22 § 245(a). Because Mr. Serrato entered the United States with inspection, he would

23 not have been required to wait in Mexico for years while his visa petition was

24 processed and approved.

25 Plaintiff Arnulfo Sierra

26

87. Arnulfo Sierra was born in Mexico in 1968. He came to the United

27 States in 1986. Mr. Sierra lived in the United until August 2013, when he was

28 expelled pursuant to the unlawful voluntary departure process.

29.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 31 of 66 Page ID #:433

1

88. Mr. Sierra settled in San Bernardino, California, with his wife. They

2 lived together with Mr. Sierra’s two step-daughters and the couple’s two daughters,

3 who are U.S. citizens.

4

89. Mr. Sierra has no criminal history. He has never been ordered

5 removed from the United States. Prior to his expulsion, he worked to support his

6 family in San Bernardino.

7

90. On the morning of August 17, 2013, Mr. Sierra was caught in an ICE

8 raid in San Bernardino. ICE officers took him into custody at a local detention

9 facility and presented him with a “voluntary departure” form, which they directed

10 him to sign. The ICE officers, however, failed to inform Mr. Sierra, orally, through

11 the I-826 form, or otherwise, of the rights he would abandon or the consequences of

12 abandoning those rights if he agreed to “voluntary departure.” For instance, among

13 other defects in the circumstances in which the “voluntary departure” form was

14 presented, the ICE officers misinformed Mr. Sierra that he could not obtain relief

15 from an immigration judge in the United States, but that he could easily and quickly

16 obtain legal status and “fix” his papers once in Mexico. The officers threatened Mr.

17 Sierra that if he refused to sign the form, he would be detained for a minimum of

18 two to three months, without informing him that he could be released on his own

19 recognizance or on bond if he chose not to agree to “voluntary departure.” The

20 officers also made threats against Mr. Sierra’s family. Further, ICE officers failed

21 to inform Mr. Sierra that he could contact an attorney prior to deciding whether to

22 elect “voluntary departure,” failed to provide him time to contact an attorney, and

23 instead put undue pressure on him to quickly sign the “voluntary departure” form.

24 The ICE officers also failed to provide him a list of attorneys or non-profit legal

25 service providers, such that even if they had provided him time to contact an

26 attorney he would not have been able to do so. None of the ICE officers informed

27 Mr. Sierra of the ten year unlawful presence bar to which he would be subjected if

28 he left the United States.

30.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 32 of 66 Page ID #:434

1

91. As a result of the omissions, misinformation, pressure, and/or threats

2 of or caused by the ICE officers, Mr. Sierra made an unknowing and involuntary

3 election of “voluntary departure.”

4

92. Mr. Sierra was expelled from the United States soon after being taken

5 into ICE custody. Mr. Sierra has remained in Tijuana since leaving the United

6 States. He deeply wishes to be reunited with his wife and children who live in San

7 Bernardino.

8

93. It was only after Mr. Sierra was expelled from the United States

9 pursuant to “voluntary departure” that he learned for the first time about the ten

10 year unlawful presence bar. Had Mr. Sierra appeared before an immigration judge

11 instead of taking voluntary departure, he would have been eligible for cancellation

12 of removal.

13 Plaintiff Genaro Muñoz-Flores

14

94. Genaro Muñoz-Flores was born in Mexico in 1963. He came to the

15 United States in 1990. Mr. Muñoz-Flores did not leave the United States until

16 2012, when he was expelled pursuant to the “voluntary departure” process.

17

95. Mr. Muñoz-Flores settled in Santa Ana, California, with his wife and

18 their U.S. citizen son, who is now thirteen years old. Prior to the arrest that led to

19 his expulsion, Mr. Muñoz-Flores had no criminal history. He has never been

20 ordered removed from the United States.

21

96. Mr. Muñoz-Flores’ son has been diagnosed with attention deficit

22 disorder. Prior to his expulsion from the United States, Mr. Muñoz-Flores and his

23 wife were able to provide their son with sufficient support so that he did not have to

24 take medication. Since Mr. Muñoz-Flores’ expulsion, his son has had to start

25 medication for his disorder.

26

97. In August 2012, ICE officers took Mr. Muñoz-Flores into custody

27 after he was released from a Santa Ana jail after serving 45 days for driving under

28 the influence. Although Mr. Muñoz-Flores explained to the officers that he had

31.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 33 of 66 Page ID #:435

1 lived in the United States since 1990 and that he had a U.S. citizen son, the officers

2 gave him a “voluntary departure” form and directed him to sign it. The ICE

3 officers, however, failed to inform Mr. Muñoz-Flores, orally, through the I-826

4 form, or otherwise, of the rights he would abandon or the consequences of

5 abandoning those rights if he agreed to “voluntary departure.” For instance, among

6 other defects in the circumstances in which the “voluntary departure” form was

7 presented, the ICE officers informed Mr. Muñoz-Flores that they would deport him

8 immediately whether he signed the form or not. The officers did not inform Mr.

9 Muñoz-Flores that he could be released on his own recognizance or bond if he

10 chose not to agree to “voluntary departure.” Further, ICE officers failed to inform

11 Mr. Muñoz-Flores that he could contact an attorney prior to deciding whether to

12 elect “voluntary departure,” failed to provide him time to contact an attorney, and

13 instead put undue pressure on him to quickly sign the “voluntary departure” form.

14 The ICE officers also failed to provide him a list of attorneys or non-profit legal

15 service providers, such that even if they had provided him time to contact an

16 attorney he would not have been able to do so. Neither of the ICE officers

17 informed Mr. Muñoz-Flores of the ten year unlawful presence bar to which he

18 would be subjected if he left the United States.

19

98. As a result of the omissions, misinformation, pressure, and/or threats

20 of or caused by the ICE officers, Mr. Muñoz-Flores made an unknowing and

21 involuntary election of “voluntary departure.”

22

99. Mr. Muñoz-Flores was expelled from the United States shortly

23 thereafter. While he has remained in Mexico since then, he deeply wishes to be

24 reunited with his wife and son who live in Santa Ana.

25

100. Had Mr. Muñoz-Flores appeared before an immigration judge instead

26 of taking voluntary departure, he would have been eligible for cancellation of

27 removal. As a result of the ten year bar now applicable to Mr. Muñoz-Flores, it will

28

32.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 34 of 66 Page ID #:436

1 likely take at least an extra year for Mr. Muñoz-Flores to obtain an immigrant visa

2 once his U.S. citizen son is twenty-one years old and is able to petition for him.

3 Plaintiff Candelaria Fernandez Felix, as next friend to Yadira Felix

4

101. Yadira Felix was born in Mexico in 1988. Candelaria Felix is Yadira’s

5 grandmother. She has acted as Yadira’s parent since Yadira was very young.

6 Yadira was brought to the United States when she was around three years old.

7 Candelaria and Yadira settled in San Diego. Yadira did not leave the United States

8 between the time she first entered and August 2012 when she was unlawfully

9 expelled from the United States. Yadira has no criminal history and has never been

10 ordered removed from the United States.

11

102. Yadira has been evaluated as having an intelligence quotient that

12 indicates mental retardation. In the United States, Yadira attended specialized

13 programs in middle school and high school and successfully completed an

14 Individualized Education Plan in 2008 at San Pasqual High School. Yadira relies

15 heavily upon her grandmother for nearly everything for her daily living and is

16 unable to live independently or support herself financially.

17

103. In or around 2010, Yadira was physically assaulted in San Diego

18 County. She reported the incident to the police and assisted in the prosecution of

19 her assailant by testifying in court.

20

104. On or around August 13, 2012, Yadira was waiting at a bus stop in

21 Escondido when Border Patrol agents approached her and demanded her papers.

22 Yadira responded that she did not have any papers but showed the agents her school

23 identification card and said that she had been in Escondido her whole life. One of

24 the agents asked if she graduated and she responded that she had, but another agents

25 said it did not matter and that she would have to go with them.

26

105. Soon thereafter, the Border Patrol agents drove Yadira to a waiting van

27 which transported her to the U.S.-Mexico border. As Border Patrol agents led

28

33.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 35 of 66 Page ID #:437

1 Yadira to the gate, she cried that she did not want to leave, but they told her she had 2 to and pushed her through.11 Yadira remains in Mexico.

3

106. As a result of the omissions, misinformation, pressure, and/or threats

4 of or caused by the Border Patrol agents, Yadira was unlawfully expelled from the

5 United States under color of “voluntary departure.” Any “election” of “voluntary

6 departure” by Yadira was unknowing and involuntary.

7

107. If Yadira had appeared before an immigration judge instead of being

8 summarily expelled from the United States, she could have applied for relief under

9 DACA or sought a U-Visa for crime victims.

10 Plaintiff Patricia Armenta, as next friend of Marta Mendoza

11

108. Marta Mendoza was born in Mexico. She entered the United States

12 unlawfully in 1981. Ms. Mendoza did not leave the United States for more than

13 thirty years—until she was expelled from the country pursuant to the unlawful

14 voluntary departure process in July 2013. Ms. Mendoza has six U.S. citizen

15 children, including Patricia Armenta, and five U.S. citizen grandchildren in the Los

16 Angeles area. Her husband also lives in the area. She has a history of mental

17 health issues that include depression, anxiety, a bipolar disorder that causes her to

18 hear voices, and hyperthyroidism, which causes her to have severe mood swings.

19 These mental and emotional health issues have recently made her incapable of

20 tending to her daily affairs. As a result, she is incapable of pursuing this action

21 without a next friend. Prior to the arrest that led to her expulsion, Ms. Mendoza

22

23 11 Border Patrol agents appear to have simply decided to repatriate Yadira without giving her the choice of appearing before an immigration judge. Border Patrol

24 agents have expelled others without following even their own flawed voluntary

departure procedures. For example, in 2011, Border Patrol agents in the San Diego

25 Sector expelled Elizabeth Enriquez from the United States despite the fact that she

26

had refused to sign for voluntary departure and instead requested a hearing before an immigration judge. She had been in the United States for more than two decades

27 and was forcibly separated from her U.S. citizen children in this way. Only after an immigration attorney engaged in protracted advocacy on her behalf did Border
28 Patrol allow her to return to the United States.

34.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 36 of 66 Page ID #:438

1 had no criminal history. She has never been ordered removed from the United

2 States.

3

109. In July 2013, Ms. Mendoza was arrested by Van Nuys Police officers

4 on suspicion of shoplifting. The officers transported Ms. Mendoza to the Van Nuys

5 Police Station, where ICE placed an immigration “hold” on her. After several days,

6 Ms. Mendoza was transferred to the Lynwood jail. At the Lynwood jail, she was

7 administered medication for one or more of her mental health issues.

8

110. Ms. Mendoza’s family was unable to locate her for several days.

9 When they finally found her at the Lynwood jail they attempted to post bail for her.

10 The bail was rejected because of the ICE “hold.”

11

111. At the Lynwood jail, a group of ICE officers visited Ms. Mendoza on

12 multiple occasions. She told the officers that she had six children here in the

13 United States. The ICE officers nevertheless repeatedly presented Ms. Mendoza

14 with a “voluntary departure” form and directed her to sign it. The ICE officers,

15 however, failed to inform Ms. Mendoza, orally, through the I-826 form, or

16 otherwise, of the rights she would abandon and the consequences of the decision to

17 abandon those rights if she agreed to “voluntary departure.” For instance, among

18 other defects in the circumstances in which the “voluntary departure” form was

19 presented, the officers threatened Ms. Mendoza that if she refused to sign she could

20 be detained for months, without informing her that she could be released on her

21 own recognizance or on bond if she chose not to agree to “voluntary departure.”

22 Further, ICE officers failed to inform Ms. Mendoza that she could contact an

23 attorney prior to deciding whether to elect “voluntary departure.” The ICE officers

24 also failed to provide her a list of attorneys or non-profit legal service providers.

25 The ICE officers also failed to inform Ms. Mendoza of the ten year unlawful

26 presence bar to which she would be subjected upon leaving the country.

27

28

35.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 37 of 66 Page ID #:439

1

112. As a result of the omissions, misinformation, pressure, and/or threats

2 of or caused by the ICE officers, Ms. Mendoza made an unknowing and involuntary

3 election of “voluntary departure.”

4

113. Ms. Mendoza was expelled from the United States on or around

5 Monday, July 22, shortly after Defendants pressured her to take “voluntary

6 departure.” Even as Ms. Mendoza was being processed for “voluntary departure,”

7 her family was consulting with an immigration attorney. By the time the attorney

8 attempted to contact ICE, Ms. Mendoza was already in Mexico. She has remained

9 in Mexico since then.

10

114. Had Ms. Mendoza appeared before an immigration judge instead of

11 taking voluntary departure, she would have been eligible for cancellation of

12 removal based on her sixteen-year-old U.S. citizen son who suffers from bi-polar

13 disorder and could have sought a Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver. Ms.

14 Mendoza is described by other family members as the only one in the family who

15 can keep her bi-polar son calm.

16 Plaintiff Gorgonio Cabrera

17

115. Gorgonio Cabrera was born in Mexico in 1987. He first came to the

18 United States in 1988, when he was about nine months old. He has been told that

19 his parents had visas to enter the United States and his father had permission to

20 work here. Mr. Cabrera returned to the United States using a valid visa in

21 December of 2008. Prior to his unlawful voluntary departure, he lived in Mecca,

22 California, with his wife, a U.S. citizen, and their two children, who are also U.S.

23 citizens. Mr. Cabrera has no criminal history and has never been ordered removed

24 from the United States.

25

116. On or around December 22, 2009, Mr. Cabrera and his wife were

26 driving home when a Border Patrol agent stopped them. The agent told Mr.

27 Cabrera that he would have to detain him and misinformed him that he could easily

28

36.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 38 of 66 Page ID #:440

1 “fix” his papers from Mexico based on the status of his U.S. citizen wife. The

2 agent took Mr. Cabrera to a Border Patrol station in Indio, California.

3

117. At the station, Border Patrol agents presented Mr. Cabrera with a

4 “voluntary departure” form and directed him to sign it. The agents, however, failed

5 to inform Mr. Cabrera, orally, through the I-826 form, or otherwise, of the rights he

6 would abandon and the consequences of the decision to abandon those rights if he

7 agreed to “voluntary departure.” For instance, among other defects in the

8 circumstances in which the “voluntary departure” form was presented, the agents

9 likely presented Mr. Cabrera with a form in English, even though the agents knew

10 or should have known that he understood only Spanish. Further, the Border Patrol

11 agents failed to inform Mr. Cabrera that he could call the Mexican Consulate or an

12 attorney, failed to provide him time to contact an attorney, and instead put undue

13 pressure on him to quickly sign the “voluntary departure” form. The agents also

14 failed to provide him a list of attorneys or non-profit legal service providers, such

15 that even if they had provided him an opportunity to contact an attorney he would

16 not have been able to do so. Moreover, the agents also failed to inform Mr. Cabrera

17 that he could request a hearing in front of an immigration judge if he chose not to

18 take “voluntary departure.”

19

118. As a result of the omissions, misinformation, pressure, and/or threats

20 of or caused by the Border Patrol agents, Mr. Cabrera made an unknowing and

21 involuntary election of “voluntary departure.”

22

119. Mr. Cabrera was expelled from the United States soon after he was

23 brought to the Border Patrol station. He has remained in Mexico since then. Even

24 as Mr. Cabrera was being processed for “voluntary departure,” his wife was

25 desperately trying to locate him. By the time Mrs. Cabrera learned that he had been

26 held at the Indio station, she was told that it was too late and he had already been

27 transferred. Mrs. Cabrera did not hear from her husband until later that evening,

28 when he called from Mexico.

37.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 39 of 66 Page ID #:441

1

120. Mr. Cabrera’s expulsion from the United States has significantly and

2 negatively affected his life and his family. Among other things, Mr. Cabrera lost

3 his job in the United States. Mrs. Cabrera, who is a U.S. citizen, was planning to

4 attend college, but has been forced to put her studies on hold in order to provide for

5 her family and care for the couple’s two young daughters.

6

121. Had Mr. Cabrera appeared before an immigration judge instead of

7 taking voluntary departure, he could have sought to adjust his status based on the

8 status of his U.S. citizen wife under § 245(a). Because Mr. Cabrera was inspected

9 at the time he entered the United States, he would not have been required to wait in

10 Mexico for years while his visa petition was processed and approved.

11

*_*_*_*

12

122. On information and belief, Defendants did not exercise their required

13 discretion by making a determination (using an I-210 form or otherwise) of whether

14 to allow any of the Individual Plaintiffs to voluntarily depart from the United States

15 up to 120 days after their respective processing. Instead, each Individual Plaintiff

16 was expelled from the United States immediately as a matter of Defendants’

17 unlawful policy and practice of not exercising such discretion in Southern

18 California.

19 Plaintiff Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles

20

123. CHIRLA was formed in 1986 in order to advance the human and civil

21 rights of immigrants and refugees across the Los Angeles region. CHIRLA’s

22 mission includes promoting harmonious multi-ethnic and multi-racial human

23 relations, empowering all immigrants and their allies to build a more just and

24 humane society, and promoting the integration of immigrants into their

25 communities.

26

124. The significant legal and practical consequences of taking voluntary

27 departure effectively prevent an individual, and often that individual’s family

28 members, from fully integrating into the community. Consequently, CHIRLA has

38.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 40 of 66 Page ID #:442

1 been compelled to respond to this practice by expending resources to inform

2 community members of the dangers of administrative voluntary departure.

3 Furthermore, the manner in which voluntary departure is administered – with

4 Mexican nationals being held incommunicado and expelled from the country within

5 hours – prevents CHIRLA from effectively following up with the most affected

6 members of Los Angeles’ immigrant community about whether they were

7 subjected to racial profiling or other mistreatment at the hands of local law

8 enforcement and immigration enforcement authorities, thereby frustrating

9 CHIRLA’s mission.

10

125. Coerced and misinformed “voluntary departures” have been prevalent

11 in the immigrant community of Los Angeles for years. CHIRLA focused on the

12 issue at least as early as 2007 when a woman told a CHIRLA community organizer

13 that she signed a voluntary departure form because immigration enforcement

14 officers yelled at her and threatened her. Following that incident, CHIRLA

15 received several more reports that individuals had signed for voluntary departure

16 due to misinformation or coercion. In 2008, CHIRLA also assisted a U.S. citizen

17 named Peter Guzman who was illegally expelled from the United States pursuant to

18 the unlawful voluntary departure process. See infra ¶ 159.

19

126. CHIRLA staff spent a substantial amount of organizational time and

20 transportation funds responding to immigration raids in Van Nuys in 2008 and in

21 Fullerton in 2009 by rushing to the scenes of the raids and advising workers who

22 were being detained that they had the right to decline to sign any documents,

23 including voluntary departure forms, and subsequently providing similar advice to

24 other community members in post-raid “Know Your Rights” presentations.

25

127. To address issues related to immigration enforcement, including

26 voluntary departure, CHIRLA established a free referral and information hotline.

27 Through this hotline and walk-in intake at its storefront office in Los Angeles,

28 CHIRLA has been in contact with dozens of individuals who have indicated that

39.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 41 of 66 Page ID #:443

1 they or a relative were pressured to sign a voluntary departure form. In the

2 instances where CHIRLA receives a report that an individual has been detained but

3 has not yet signed a voluntary departure form, CHIRLA staff members have

4 assisted in reaching the detained individual to provide her with information about

5 her rights, including her rights to see an immigration judge and not to sign

6 anything.

7

128. Because there is little that CHIRLA staff can do once an individual has

8 signed for voluntary departure, CHIRLA has also focused on educating the

9 immigrant community of Los Angeles and has expended considerable resources to

10 attempt to prevent coerced and misinformed voluntary departures. CHIRLA has

11 created printed materials and videos, and allocated staff resources to educate

12 immigrants about their constitutional rights, including the right to not sign any

13 forms they do not understand.

14

129. CHIRLA staff regularly convene “Know Your Rights” presentations

15 for immigrant communities in Los Angeles. These presentations address an

16 individual’s right to request to see an immigration judge and the consequences of

17 signing for voluntary departure. CHIRLA staff educate community members about

18 the pressure and deception that immigration enforcement officers might employ to

19 convince them to sign for voluntary departure. During the Question and Answer

20 segment of these “Know Your Rights” presentations, community members often

21 ask questions about voluntary departure and share first-hand accounts of the

22 coercive tactics immigration enforcement officers use to convince individuals to

23 take voluntary departure.

24

130. If CHIRLA had not been compelled to expend resources to address

25 coerced and misinformed voluntary departures, it would have directed these

26 resources toward the advancement of its core mission, including the advancement

27 of pro-immigrant policies and immigrant integration.

28

40.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 42 of 66 Page ID #:444

1

131. The voluntary departure regime has frustrated CHIRLA’s mission of

2 advancing the human and civil rights of immigrants and fully integrating

3 immigrants into Los Angeles and California. At the cost of fully pursuing

4 organizational goals, CHIRLA has been compelled to devote significant resources

5 to counteract the coercive and abusive practices Defendants employ in the

6 administration of voluntary departure.

7

132. CHIRLA itself has been, and continues to be, harmed by Defendants’

8 practices and conduct because those practices undermine CHIRLA’s organizational

9 mission and cause CHIRLA to divert resources from the pursuit of other goals.

10 Plaintiff Pomona Economic Opportunity Center

11

133. PEOC was formed to advance the rights of day laborers and encourage

12 them to organize to protect their rights as workers. PEOC fulfills this mission

13 through organizing, community education, and advocacy on behalf of day laborers.

14 PEOC is headquartered in the city of Pomona in Los Angeles County, but its work

15 is focused on the Inland Empire, including Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.

16 PEOC serves a community of citizens and non-citizens alike, including Mexican

17 nationals.

18

134. PEOC’s involvement in immigration enforcement issues arose out of

19 necessity as immigration enforcement officers periodically targeted day laborers

20 over the past decade. In 2009, immigration enforcement officers began raiding day

21 laborer sites and arresting day laborers in the Inland Empire. PEOC received

22 reports that day laborers were expelled from the United States within six to twelve

23 hours of being arrested in those raids. At that time, one of PEOC’s key day laborer

24 leaders signed for voluntary departure under pressure and mistreatment by Border

25 Patrol and witnessed other day laborers being similarly pressured and mistreated.

26 PEOC has continued offering services to unorganized day laborers because it fears

27 that the coercive tactics employed by immigration enforcement officers will spread

28 to other areas.

41.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 43 of 66 Page ID #:445

1

135. In 2013, immigration enforcement officers began raiding day laborer

2 sites again, targeting unorganized sites in southern Riverside County. PEOC

3 received reports that individuals detained during those raids were pressured or

4 tricked into signing for voluntary departure as well.

5

136. In response to reports of voluntary departures that arose from

6 misinformation and coercion, PEOC was compelled to divert resources to learn

7 about immigration law and voluntary departure.

8

137. Because there is little that PEOC staff can do once an individual has

9 signed for voluntary departure, PEOC has focused on educating day laborers to

10 attempt to prevent coerced and misinformed voluntary departures. PEOC has had

11 to divert resources to present “Know Your Rights” educational sessions at day

12 laborer corners. These presentations address an individual’s right to request to see

13 an immigration judge, call a lawyer, and the consequences of signing for voluntary

14 departure. PEOC staff educate day laborers about the pressure and deception that

15 immigration enforcement officers might employ to convince them to sign for

16 voluntary departure.

17

138. Additionally, in response to immigration raids on particular day

18 laborer sites, PEOC staff spend organizational time and gas money to reach the

19 affected day laborers to provide them with crucial information about their rights,

20 including the consequences of taking voluntary departure and immigrants’ right to

21 decline to take voluntary departure.

22

139. If PEOC had not been compelled to expend these resources to address

23 coerced and misinformed voluntary departures, it would have directed these

24 resources toward the advancement of its core mission, including advocating and

25 organizing to provide economic opportunity for day laborers. Instead of spending

26 time on rapid response and prevention, PEOC would focus on affirmative advocacy

27 in other areas, including adjustment of status and DACA cases.

28

42.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 44 of 66 Page ID #:446

1

140. The voluntary departure regime has frustrated PEOC’s foundational

2 mission of improving overall conditions for day laborers in Los Angeles and

3 Riverside counties. At the cost of fully pursuing these goals, PEOC has been

4 compelled to devote significant resources to counteract the coercive and abusive

5 tactics Defendants employ in the administration of voluntary departure.

6

141. PEOC itself has been, and continues to be, harmed by Defendants’

7 practices because those practices undermine PEOC’s organizational mission and

8 cause PEOC to divert resources from the pursuit of other goals.

9 Plaintiff San Bernardino Community Service Center

10

142. SBCSC was founded in 1998 and formally incorporated in 2001.

11 SBCSC is headquartered in San Bernardino, but its work encompasses Riverside

12 County as well. SBCSC’s mission includes advocating on behalf of indigent and

13 low-income immigrants for access to the legal system and robust procedural

14 protections within it. SBCSC fulfills this mission in part through policy advocacy,

15 community education, and community organizing. SBCSC serves a diverse

16 community of immigrants, including Mexican nationals.

17

143. SBCSC believes that an unfair voluntary departure effectively denies

18 an individual access to the legal system because of the manner in which it is

19 administered – with Mexican nationals often being held incommunicado and

20 expelled from the country within hours of their initial detention – and the

21 significant legal consequences that it carries. Additionally, many individuals who

22 take voluntary departure have no legal recourse once they have been removed to

23 Mexico. Consequently, SBCSC has been compelled to respond to this practice by

24 engaging in rapid response to try to intervene before an individual is expelled

25 pursuant to an unfair and unlawful voluntary departure and by informing

26 community members of the consequences of administrative voluntary departure.

27

144. SBCSC staff have spent a substantial amount of organizational time

28 and resources responding to calls that an individual has been detained and is being

43.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 45 of 66 Page ID #:447

1 or has been pressured to sign a voluntary departure form. In many instances in

2 which SBCSC receives a report that an individual is being pressured to sign a

3 voluntary departure form, SBCSC staff members attempt to reach the detained

4 individual to provide her with information about her rights, including her rights to

5 see an immigration judge and not to sign anything. Also, in many instances in

6 which SBCSC receives a report that an individual already signed a voluntary

7 departure form due to coercion or misinformation and is awaiting removal, SBCSC

8 staff members attempt to reach that individual or ICE or Border Patrol officials in

9 order to rescind the signed voluntary departure form.

10

145. Because in many instances there is little that SBCSC staff can do once

11 an individual has signed for voluntary departure, SBCSC has also sought to educate

12 the immigrant community of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties about the

13 dangers associated with Defendants’ unfair and unlawful voluntary departure

14 practices. SBCSC staff have convened presentations that address an individual’s

15 right to request to see an immigration judge and the consequences of signing for

16 voluntary departure. SBCSC staff educate community members about the pressure

17 and deception that immigration enforcement officers might employ to convince

18 them to sign for voluntary departure. During the Question and Answer segment of

19 these “Know Your Rights” presentations, community members often ask questions

20 about voluntary departure and share first-hand accounts of the coercive tactics

21 immigration enforcement officers use to convince individuals to take voluntary

22 departure.

23

146. If SBCSC had not been compelled to expend resources to address

24 coerced and misinformed voluntary departures, it would have directed these

25 resources toward advocacy concerning conditions of immigration detention and the

26 availability of bond hearings for people in removal proceedings.

27

147. The voluntary departure regime has frustrated SBCSC’s mission of

28 advocating for access to the legal system and for robust procedural protection for

44.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 46 of 66 Page ID #:448

1 indigent and low-income immigrants. At the cost of fully pursuing these goals,

2 SBCSC has been compelled to devote significant resources to counteract the

3 coercive and abusive practices Defendants employ in the administration of

4 voluntary departure.

5

148. SBCSC itself has been, and continues to be, harmed by Defendants’

6 practices and conduct because those practices undermine SBCSC’s organizational

7 mission and cause SBCSC to divert resources from the pursuit of other goals.

8 Persistent Pattern of Abuse

9

149. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every

10 allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

11

150. Defendants regularly fail to inform individuals of the consequences of

12 taking voluntary departure, and regularly use misstatements, pressure, coercion and

13 threats in the administration of voluntary departure in Southern California. This

14 misconduct is a routine part of the way that the agencies enforce the immigration

15 laws.

16

151. As a matter of everyday practice, Defendants’ officers direct

17 individuals to take voluntary departure, telling them that they “have to” sign and

18 that they have “no rights.” This pressure persists even after an individual

19 affirmatively states that she wants to see an immigration judge and does not want to

20 sign. In addition, officers rely on lies and patently false “legal advice” to convince

21 individuals to sign away their rights. Defendants’ officers threaten these

22 individuals with detention for months or years if they ask to see an immigration

23 judge, even though they would be immediately eligible for release on their own

24 recognizance or bond because they have no serious criminal history. Defendants’

25 officers also misinform individuals that they should sign for voluntary departure

26 because they can quickly and easily “fix their papers” (i.e., obtain legal status) from

27 Mexico. But because of the unlawful presence bar and other hurdles, obtaining

28 legal status from Mexico after voluntary departure is often slow and difficult, and

45.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 47 of 66 Page ID #:449

1 sometimes impossible. Those same officers misinform individuals who would have

2 extremely strong grounds to live lawfully in the United States – for example, the

3 parents of disabled or sick U.S. citizen children, or immigrant college students who

4 were brought to the United States when they were very young – that an immigration

5 judge would surely order them removed. Defendants’ officers threaten those who

6 do not sign and subject them to physical mistreatment.

7

152. Defendants also effectively prevent individuals from seeking advice of

8 counsel before choosing whether or not to take voluntary departure in multiple

9 ways. Defendants do not inquire as to whether individuals are represented by

10 counsel at the time of their arrest, and do not provide unrepresented individuals

11 with contact information for legal service providers or other opportunity to consult

12 with an attorney before being forced to choose whether to immediately leave the

13 United States. Defendants also fail to provide contact information for attorneys

14 despite providing that information to individuals directly after they refuse to accept

15 voluntary departure. For example, Border Patrol agents did not provide Plaintiff

16 Ana Maria Dueñas with a list of legal service providers before she was pressured

17 into accepting “voluntary departure.” Yet Border Patrol agents provided a man

18 they arrested and processed at the same time as Ms. Dueñas with a list of legal

19 service providers after he was referred for removal proceedings.

20

153. In rare cases where an individual already has retained counsel before

21 being arrested and processed for “voluntary departure,” Defendants’ officers often

22 affirmatively interfere with access to that counsel. See infra, ¶¶ 156-57 (Border

23 Patrol officers depriving S.J, a minor, of access to retained counsel prior to

24 subjecting her to “voluntary departure”); ¶ 161 (ICE officers depriving Miguel

25 Quiroz of access to retained counsel prior to subjecting him to “voluntary

26 departure”). For example, in September 2013, Border Patrol agents at the Imperial

27 Beach Station pressured two siblings – both of whom are DACA eligible and one of

28 whom has a U.S. citizen spouse – into accepting “voluntary departure.” When their

46.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 48 of 66 Page ID #:450

1 attorney contacted Border Patrol Supervisor Sigla in an attempt to intervene,

2 Supervisor Sigla hung up on the attorney after refusing to pass the attorney’s phone

3 number on to the siblings and telling the attorney that the siblings had no right to

4 speak with their counsel. Only after reaching an official within the CBP General

5 Counsel’s Office was the attorney able to have the siblings’ “voluntary departures”

6 rescinded prior to their expulsion.

7

154. Defendants’ history of misusing voluntary departure and related

8 authority is well documented. In the early 1980s, a class of Salvadoran asylum

9 seekers sued Border Patrol to stop the agency from engaging in exactly the kind of

10 practices that it now uses against Mexican nationals. As a result of that litigation,

11 this Court ordered Border Patrol to cease “employ[ing] threats, misrepresentation,

12 subterfuge or other forms of coercion, or in any other way attempt to persuade or

13 dissuade [Salvadoran nationals] when informing them of the availability of

14 voluntary departure.” Orantes-Hernandez v. Smith, 541 F. Supp. 351, 386 (C.D.

15 Cal. 1982), perm. injunction entered by Orantes-Hernandez v. Meese, 685 F. Supp.

16 1488 (C.D. Cal. 1988), aff’d sub nom Orantes-Hernandez v. Thornburgh, 919 F.2d

17 549 (9th Cir. 1990). As recently as 2007, this Court found that Border Patrol still

18 failed to show that voluntary departure “is properly administered at ports of entry

19 and border patrol stations” to Salvadorans. Orantes-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 504 F.

20 Supp. 2d 825, 853 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (denying government’s motion to dissolve

21 injunction), aff’d sub nom Orantes-Hernandez v. Holder, 321 F. App’x 625 (9th

22 Cir. 2009).

23

155. Also in the 1980s, a class of unaccompanied minor immigrants

24 similarly challenged the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s (INS) practice of

25 “coerc[ing] class members into unknowingly and involuntarily selecting voluntary

26 departure, thereby waiving their rights to a deportation hearing or any other form of

27 relief.” Perez-Funez v. District Director, 619 F. Supp. 656, 656–57 (C.D. Cal.

28 1985). In that case, this Court found the INS’s voluntary departure procedures

47.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 49 of 66 Page ID #:451

1 unconstitutional and entered permanent injunctive relief in favor of the class, id. at

2 669–70, which led to the promulgation of federal regulations providing procedural

3 protections for unaccompanied minors presented with the choice of voluntary 4 departure.12 See 8 C.F.R. § 236.3(g).

5

156. Despite Perez-Funez and the ensuing federal regulations, Border Patrol

6 has continued to engage in widespread abuses in administering voluntary departure

7 to minors. For example, on May 20, 2009, Border Patrol officers in San Diego

8 arrested three students, sixteen-year-old S.J., a seventeen-year-old boy, and a

9 fifteen-year-old boy, as they were on their way to their high school. All three

10 students had lived in the United States with their families for years and were on

11 their way to high school that morning. Border Patrol officers drove the three

12 minors to the Imperial Beach Border Patrol station. At the station, a Border Patrol

13 officer told S.J. to sign a form without giving her sufficient time to read the form or

14 an explanation of the consequences of signing it. When S.J. said, “I don’t have a

15 legal signature,” the Border Patrol officer told her to write her name in the signature

16 block, which she did. It was a voluntary departure form.

17

157. About thirty minutes later, S.J.’s father called the station and a Border

18 Patrol officer put S.J. on the phone with him using the speaker function. When

19 S.J.’s father told her that the family had hired an immigration attorney for her, the

20 Border Patrol officer who had told her to sign the form and who had been listening

21 to the conversation became visibly upset and began talking to another Border Patrol

22 officer. The other Border Patrol officer told the first Border Patrol officer that there

23 was nothing an immigration attorney could do. One of the officers then abruptly

24 told S.J.’s father to stop talking. After the call ended, that same Border Patrol

25 officer told S.J. that, “no lawyer can set foot in here – there’s nothing they can do.”

26 Despite the fact that Border Patrol knew S.J. had an attorney, they expelled her and

27

28 12 At the time of the case, Border Patrol was a part of INS.

48.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 50 of 66 Page ID #:452

1 the other two students to Mexico that afternoon. Only after sustained advocacy by

2 several non-profit organizations were the students permitted to return to the United

3 States.

4

158. A recent report on Border Patrol practices found that “most

5 unaccompanied Mexican minors do not understand their rights and are not making

6 an ‘independent decision’ to [voluntarily] return to Mexico … [M]any children

7 stated that they were never asked whether they wanted voluntary departure; they 8 were simply told that they would be returning to Mexico.”13

9

159. Along with children, other exceptionally vulnerable individuals,

10 including those who are mentally disabled, have been summarily expelled through

11 Defendants’ unlawful voluntary departure regime. For example, ICE expelled Peter

12 Guzman, a mentally-disabled U.S. citizen, from Los Angeles pursuant to a

13 voluntary departure. See Guzman, et al. v. Chertoff, et al., No. 08-cv-01327 (C.D. 14 Cal., filed Feb. 27, 2008).14 Mr. Guzman was lost on the streets of Mexico for

15 weeks before he managed to return to the United States border and was eventually

16 reunited with his family. More recently, ICE expelled Alejendro Cruz, a severely

17 mentally-disabled man, from Los Angeles pursuant to a voluntary departure. After

18 counsel in Franco, et al. v. Napolitano, et al,, No. 11-cv-02211 (C.D. Cal., filed

19 Nov. 2, 2010), a case concerning mentally ill immigration detainees, learned of Mr.

20

21
13 BETTY CAVENDISH & MARU CORTAZAR, CHILDREN AT THE BORDER: THE 22 SCREENING, PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION OF UNACCOMPANIED MEXICAN

23

MINORS 40 (2011), available at http://appleseednetwork.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/05/Children-At-The-Border1.pdf (last visited June 2, 2013).

24 14 Other U.S. citizens have also been subjected to “voluntary departure” by Defendants’ officers. For example, Border Patrol agents expelled Luis Alberto
25 Delgado, a U.S. citizen born in Texas, under color of “voluntary departure” in June 2010, and only allowed him to return to the United States after protracted advocacy
26 by his attorney. See Kari Huus, Wrongfully Deported American Home after 3 Month Fight, NBCNews.com (September 16, 2010), available at
27 http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39180275/ns/us_newsimmigration_a_nation_divided/t/wrongfully-deported-american-home-after-month-
28 fight/ (last visited Sept. 30, 2013).

49.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 51 of 66 Page ID #:453

1 Cruz’s expulsion and advocated for his return, Defendants agreed to parole him

2 back into the country to be reunited with his family.

3

160. Defendants’ broader reliance on omissions, misinformation, pressure,

4 coercion and threats in the administration of voluntary departure and related

5 enforcement measures is also well documented. The group No More Deaths has

6 documented numerous incidents of migrants being “[c]oerc[ed] into signing

7 voluntary repatriation documents under threat of violence, criminal charges, or 8 lengthy detentions” by Border Patrol officers.15 In one reported incident, a Border

9 Patrol agent told a Mexican migrant who had come to the United States seeking

10 protection from a drug cartel that had kidnapped him, “The illegals here don’t have

11 any rights. Here you are nothing,” before other agents physically abused him until 12 he signed papers that resulted in his expulsion to Mexico.16 Similarly, a report on

13 “stipulated removals”—a summary process through which immigration detainees

14 give up the right to contest removal by signing a form that is then reviewed by an

15 immigration judge—noted that “immigrants have reported being coerced to sign

16 stipulated orders of removal or being pressured to accept stipulated orders of 17 removal as a way to get out of immigration detention.”17

18

161. The immigration enforcement agencies’ unlawful voluntary departure

19 practices in Southern California have also been challenged in individual lawsuits.

20 For example, in July 2012, Miguel Angel Quiroz sued ICE for coercing him into

21 signing for voluntary departure after preventing him from consulting with his

22 retained counsel. See Quiroz v. Napolitano, et al., No. 12-cv-06607 (C.D. Cal.,

23

24 15 See NO MORE DEATHS, A CULTURE OF CRUELTY 32 (2011), available at

http://www.cultureofcruelty.org/documents/2011_report/ (last visited June 2, 2013).
25
16 Id.

26 17 JENNIFER LEE KOH, JAYASHRI SRIKANTIAH & KAREN C. TUMLIN, DEPORTATION

27 WITHOUT

DUE

PROCESS

2

(2011),

available

at

http://www.law.stanford.edu/organizations/clinics/immigrants-rights-clinic/report-

28 deportation-without-due-process (last visited June 2, 2013).

50.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 52 of 66 Page ID #:454

1 filed July 21, 2012). After the lawsuit was filed, the government paroled Mr.

2 Quiroz back into the United States. The government has also been sued for

3 unlawfully expelling individuals under its voluntary departure authority in other

4 parts of the country. See, e.g., Galicia v. United States, No. 2:13-cv-00105

5 (D.N.M., filed Jan. 31, 2013) (alleging that Border Patrol officers in New Mexico

6 effected “voluntary departure” of a minor without allowing him to access to legal

7 counsel, family, or adult friends); Maria S., as next friend for E.H.F., S.H.F., and

8 A.S.G., minors v. Four Unknown Named Agents of Customs and Border Protection

9 and/or Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., No. 13-cv-00108 (S.D. Tex.,

10 filed June 5, 2013) (alleging that Defendants’ officers “voluntarily returned” a

11 woman to Mexico over her objection that she feared her physically abusive former

12 partner and that the woman was shortly thereafter abducted, strangled, and killed in

13 Mexico by him).

14

162. Plaintiffs’ counsel have documented numerous other cases where

15 Defendants have used omissions, misstatements, pressure, and threats to try to

16 convince individuals to take “voluntary departure.” For example, in 2013, Border

17 Patrol agents in the San Diego Sector arrested Ismael Ibarra-Rocha, who had lived

18 in the United States for more than a decade and is the father of a U.S. citizen child

19 with a serious health condition. Border Patrol agents presented him with a

20 voluntary departure form and directed him to sign it. The Border Patrol agents,

21 however, failed to adequately inform him, orally, through the I-826 form, or

22 otherwise, of the rights he would abandon or the consequences of abandoning those

23 rights if he agreed to “voluntary departure.” For instance, among other defects in

24 the circumstances in which the “voluntary departure” form was presented, an agent

25 presented him with a form in English even though the agent knew or should have

26 known that he understood only Spanish. Further, the Border Patrol agent failed to

27 inform him in Spanish that he could call the Mexican Consulate or an attorney. The

28 agent also failed to inform him of the ten year unlawful presence bar to which he

51.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 53 of 66 Page ID #:455

1 would be subjected if he left the country. As a result of the omissions,

2 misstatements, pressure and/or threats of or caused by the Border Patrol agents, Mr.

3 Ibarra-Rocha made an unknowing and involuntary election of “voluntary

4 departure.” Had Mr. Ibarra-Rocha appeared before an immigration judge, he would

5 have been eligible for cancellation of removal. Moreover, his expulsion effectively

6 forced his wife and their U.S. citizen daughter to move to Mexico with him.

7

163. Despite this history of abuse in the voluntary departure regime,

8 Defendants’ unlawful policies and practices continue, and they have failed to

9 engage in meaningful reform.

10

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

11

164. The Representative Plaintiffs (plaintiffs Lopez-Venegas, Dueñas,

12 Hernandez-Contreras, Garcia-Martinez, Nava, Serrato, Sierra, and Muñoz-Flores)

13 bring this class action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The

14 proposed Class is defined as follows:

15

All individuals who are physically present in, or will in

the future be returned to, Mexico under color of an

16

administrative voluntary departure that occurred in the

territory under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Border

17

Patrol Sector, the ICE Field Office for San Diego, or the

ICE Field Office for Los Angeles on or after January 1,

18

2009 and who would have had a plausible basis to seek

the opportunity to reside legally in the United States

19

under the immigration laws and programs of the

Department of Homeland Security had they not been

20

expelled under administrative voluntary departure.

21

165. Representative Plaintiffs are members of the Class they seek to

22 represent.

23

166. Representative Plaintiffs and members of the Class seek class-wide

24 equitable, declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).

25

167. Membership in the Class is so numerous that individual joinder of all

26 of their members would be impracticable. Such joinder is also impracticable as

27 membership in the Class is geographically diverse and will change over time,

28

52.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 54 of 66 Page ID #:456

1 because many members of the Class are unaware of their rights, and because many

2 members of the Class have limited access to legal services and representation.

3

168. There are many questions of fact and law that admit answers common

4 to the Representative Plaintiffs and the members of the Class, including, but not

5 limited to the following:

6

a. There is an unlawful pattern and practice of administering voluntary

7

departure to Class Members in a manner inconsistent with the

8

governing statute and implementing regulations, such that no Class

9

Members received the benefit of up to 120 days to depart from the

10

United States;

11

b. There is an unlawful pattern and practice to deny Class Members

12

sufficient accurate information so that they can make a knowing

13

election of “voluntary departure”;

14

c. There is an unlawful pattern and practice to provide Class Members

15

deceptive information, or to make misstatements, regarding the rights

16

Class Members give up by, and the consequences of, agreeing to

17

“voluntary departure”; and

18

d. There is an unlawful pattern and practice to obtain Class members’

19

agreement to “voluntary departure” by pressure and threats.

20

169. The claims of the Representative Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of

21 the members of the Class.

22

170. The Representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the

23 interests of the members of the Class. There is no conflict between the interests of

24 the Representative Plaintiffs and members of the Class with respect to the issues in

25 this action.

26

171. Representative Plaintiffs have retained legal counsel who are

27 experienced in civil rights and class action litigation, and who will adequately

28

53.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 55 of 66 Page ID #:457

1 represent the interests of the members of the Class as well as those of the individual

2 Plaintiffs.

3

172. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to both the

4 Representative Plaintiffs and the members of the Class, making declaratory and

5 injunctive relief appropriate as to the Class as well as the Representative Plaintiffs.

6

173. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c), notice is not required in an action

7 certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). To the extent notice is to be

8 provided, notice would be provided by (at least) publication and/or broadcast in

9 Mexico and the geographic area covered by the jurisdiction of the San Diego

10 Border Patrol Sector, the ICE Field Office for San Diego, and the ICE Field Office

11 for Los Angeles.

12

174. In addition to, and in the alternative to, certification under Fed. R. Civ.

13 P. 23(b)(2), Representative Plaintiffs also seek partial certification under Fed. R.

14 Civ. P. 23(c)(4). See Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 97 F.3d 1227, 1234 (9th

15 Cir. 1996) (“Even if the common questions do not predominate over the individual

16 questions so that class certification of the entire action is warranted, Rule 23

17 authorizes the district court in appropriate cases to isolate the common issues under

18 Rule 23(c)(4)[] and proceed with class treatment of these particular issues.”).

19 Further, should the Court find that neither of these rules permit certification,

20 Plaintiffs alternatively seek certification of a representative action under a common

21 law analogue to Rule 23 under the general federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

22 See Bijeol v. Benson, 513 F.2d 965, 968 (6th Cir. 1975) (“[A] representative

23 procedure analogous to the class action provided for in Rule 23 may be appropriate

24 in a habeas corpus action under some circumstances.”).

25

REQUISITES FOR RELIEF

26

175. As a result of the general and specific conduct of Defendants described

27 above, Plaintiffs have been denied their constitutional and federal statutory rights.

28 Defendants’ conduct is the result of ongoing policies, practices, conduct and acts

54.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 56 of 66 Page ID #:458

1 that have resulted and will continue to result in irreparable injury to Plaintiffs,

2 including but not limited to further threats to and violations of their constitutional

3 and civil rights. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law to

4 redress the violations alleged herein, and therefore seek injunctive relief restraining

5 Defendants from continuing to engage in the unlawful and unconstitutional

6 policies, practices, conduct and acts described in this Complaint.

7

176. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants in that

8 Plaintiffs contend that the policies, practices, conduct and acts of Defendants as

9 alleged in this Complaint are unlawful and unconstitutional, whereas Plaintiffs are

10 informed and believe that Defendants contend that said policies, practices, conduct

11 and acts are lawful and constitutional. Plaintiffs seek a declaration of rights with

12 respect to this controversy.

13

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

14
VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE IN VIOLATION OF REGULATIONS: 15 VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 5 U.S.C. § 551, ET. SEQ.

16

177. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every

17 allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

18

178. The expulsion of the Individual Plaintiffs, and a class of individuals

19 similarly situated to the Representative Plaintiffs, from the United States through

20 voluntary departure procedures other than those specified in 8 C.F.R. § 240.25

21 violates the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. § 551, et. seq.

22

179. Defendants’ continued use of voluntary departure procedures in

23 Southern California other than those specified in 8 C.F.R. § 240.25 likewise results

24 in ongoing violations of the Administrative Procedure Act to the detriment and

25 harm of the Organizational Plaintiffs.

26

27

28

55.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 57 of 66 Page ID #:459

1

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

2

VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE WITHOUT A KNOWING AND VOLUNTARY WAIVER OF

RIGHTS: STATUTORY VIOLATION, 8 U.S.C. § 1101, ET. SEQ.

3

4

180. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every

5 allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

6

181. The expulsion of the Individual Plaintiffs, and a class of individuals

7 similarly situated to the Representative Plaintiffs, from the United States in a

8 manner that is not knowing and voluntary, violates the Immigration and Nationality

9 Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101, et. seq., including 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a)(1), which requires that

10 any voluntary departure be knowing and voluntary.

11

182. Defendants’ voluntary departure practices likewise result in ongoing

12 waivers of rights in Southern California that are not knowing and voluntary, in

13 violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, to the detriment and harm of the

14 Organizational Plaintiffs.

15

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

16

VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE WITHOUT A KNOWING AND VOLUNTARY WAIVER OF

RIGHTS: CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION, U.S. CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT V

17

(PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS)

18

183. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every

19 allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

20

184. The expulsion of the Individual Plaintiffs, and a class of individuals

21 similarly situated to the Representative Plaintiffs, from the United States in a

22 manner that was not knowing and voluntary violates the Due Process Clause of the

23 Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which requires that an individual’s

24 waiver of rights in connection with his or her expulsion from the United States be

25 knowing and voluntary.

26

185. Defendants’ voluntary departure practices likewise result in ongoing

27 waivers of rights in Southern California that are not knowing and voluntary, in

28

56.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 58 of 66 Page ID #:460

1 violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.

2 Constitution, to the detriment and harm of the Organizational Plaintiffs.

3

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

4

SUMMARY AND UNAUTHORIZED EXPULSION FROM THE UNITED STATES:

5

CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION, U.S. CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT V (SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS)

6

186. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every

7 allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

8

187. The summary and unauthorized expulsion of Yadira Felix from the

9 United States under color of the voluntary departure process, but without resort to

10 even the flawed procedures ordinarily relied upon by Defendants in Southern

11 California, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.

12 Constitution, which prohibits governmental conduct that shocks the conscience.

13

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

14

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant the

15 following relief:

16

1. Certify a class of individuals similarly situated to the Representative

17

Plaintiffs;

18

2. Declare that Defendants’ expulsion of the Individual Plaintiffs and Class

19

under guise of so-called “voluntary departure” violates the Administrative

20

Procedure Act, Immigration and Nationality Act, and/or the Due Process

21

Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and that Defendants’ ongoing practices

22

violate the Administrative Procedure Act, Immigration and Nationality Act,

23

and/or the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment;

24

3. Declare that Defendants’ expulsion of Yadira Felix violates the substantive

25

component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

26

27

28

57.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 59 of 66 Page ID #:461

1

4. Order that Defendants return the Individual Plaintiffs and Class to the United

2

States in a manner that restores them to the legal position that they occupied

3

prior to their respective voluntary departures;

4

5. Order that Defendants undertake all reasonable steps to inform Class

5

members of their rights under this case, including through publication of

6

notice in written, broadcast, and online media outlets in Mexico.

7

6. Issue injunctions against Defendants and any of their officers, agents,

8

successors, employees, representatives and any and all persons acting in

9

concert with them forbidding them from expelling individuals in Southern

10

California under color of voluntary departure unless they:

11

a. Exercise their discretion and provide appropriate time periods for

12

voluntary departure to occur as provided by 8 C.F.R. § 240.25;

13

b. Use Form I-210, or a form that is not materially distinguishable from

14

that form, in the administration of voluntary departure, as required by

15

8 C.F.R. § 240.25;

16

c. Change Form I-210 so that it affirmatively advises individuals, at a

17

minimum, of: (1) loss of the ability to obtain lawful status here in the

18

United States through certain forms of relief from removal and

19

programs of the Department of Homeland Security, including, but not

20

limited to cancellation of removal; and (2) inadmissibility for at least

21

three years and as many as ten years for anyone who has accrued more

22

than 180 days of unlawful presence in the United States;

23

d. Refrain from using threats, misrepresentation, subterfuge or other

24

forms of coercion, or from attempting in any other way to persuade or

25

dissuade individuals when informing them of the availability of

26

voluntary departure;

27

28

58.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 60 of 66 Page ID #:462

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 61 of 66 Page ID #:463

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 62 of 66 Page ID #:464

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 63 of 66 Page ID #:465

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 64 of 66 Page ID #:466

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 65 of 66 Page ID #:467

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 28 Filed 10/02/13 Page 66 of 66 Page ID #:468

 
 Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 104 Filed 02/25/15 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:2298
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV13-03972 JAK (PLAx)

Title

Isadora Lopez-Venegas, et al. v. Jeh Johnson, et al.

Date February 25, 2015

Present: The Honorable

JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Andrea Keifer Deputy Clerk Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Not Reported Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE REPRESENTATIVE CLASS PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS (DKT. 99) AND MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT APPROVAL OF CLASS-WIDE PORTIONS OF AGREEMENT (FINAL APPROVAL) (DKT. 101)

I.

Introduction

This putative class action was brought by 11 individuals (the “Individual Plaintiffs”) and three non-profit organizations (the “Organizational Plaintiffs”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). They brought claims arising from a voluntary departure program (the “Program”) for foreign nationals who were present in the United States without permission. The Program was administered by immigration enforcement agencies in Southern California. First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Dkt. 28.1 Under the Program, foreign nationals could agree to leave the United States voluntarily by signing expulsion orders. Id. The FAC alleges that implementation of the Program deprived the deportees of their rights under federal statutes and the Constitution. The FAC advances the following causes of action: (1) violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.; (2) violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.; (3) violation of procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment; and (4) violation of substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. FAC, Dkt. 28.

After several months of litigation, exchange of discovery materials and substantial arms-length negotiations, the parties reached a settlement agreement (the “Agreement”). Agreement, Dkt. 90-4,

1 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) named the following senior, federal officials as Defendants: Rand Beers, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”); Thomas Winkowski, the Deputy Commissioner of CBP, who performs the duties of CBP Commissioner; and John Sandweg, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). Id. ¶¶ 24-26. The FAC also named the following local federal, officials as Defendants: Paul Beeson, Chief Patrol Agent for CBP’s San Diego Sector; Gregory Archambeault, ICE Field Office Director for San Diego; and Dave Marin, Acting ICE Field Office Director for Los Angeles. Id. ¶¶ 27-30. After the filing of the FAC, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Jeh Johnson, the current secretary of the DHS, was named as a defendant in place of Rand Beers. See Dkt. 70 at 6 n.1. Collectively, they are called “Defendants” throughout this Order.
Page 1 of 12

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 104 Filed 02/25/15 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:2299
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV13-03972 JAK (PLAx)

Title

Isadora Lopez-Venegas, et al. v. Jeh Johnson, et al.

Date February 25, 2015

Ex. 1. On August 18, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an order: (i) provisionally certifying a settlement class; (ii) appointing certain plaintiffs as class representatives; (iii) appointing Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class Counsel; (iv) granting preliminary approval of the class-wide terms of the Agreement; (v) approving the plan for notice to class members; (vi) staying all proceedings in the litigation other than those necessary to effect the terms of the Agreement; and (vii) setting a hearing for final approval of the class settlement. Dkt. 90. Applications were also filed on behalf of Individual Plaintiffs Marta Mendoza and Yadira Felix for approval of the settlement, by and through representatives acting on their behalf. Dkt. 91, 92. The motion was unopposed. On August 28, 2014, the motion for preliminary approval of the class-wide portion of the Agreement was granted. Dkt. 94.2 Plaintiffs were ordered to file a motion for final approval, including applications for attorney’s fees and costs, on or before January 5, 2015. Id.
On December 17, 2014, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (“Fee Application”), Dkt. 99. On January 5, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of the class-wide portions of the Agreement. Motion for Settlement Approval of Class-Wide Portions of Agreement (“Motion”), Dkt. 101. Both the Fee Application and the Motion are unopposed.
A hearing on the Fee Application and Motion was held on February 9, 2015 and the matter was taken under submission. For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Fee Application and Motion are GRANTED.
II. Factual Background
The factual background of this matter is set forth in the August 28, 2014 Order granting preliminary approval of the Agreement. That Order is incorporated by this reference. Dkt. 94. The central facts are as follows. On June 4, 2013, Plaintiffs brought this putative class action against federal immigration enforcement agencies in Southern California. See FAC ¶¶ 1-6, Dkt. 28. They alleged that Defendants were employing deceptive and threatening tactics to coerce non-citizens to sign their own expulsion orders, and that this denied them due process. Id. The specific conduct challenged by the FAC is the following: (i) Defendants caused a pre-marking of the term “voluntary departure” on a common form before presenting it to non-citizens; (ii) Defendants failed to disclose to putative class members certain consequences of accepting voluntary departure; and (iii) Defendants failed to provide non-citizens with access to counsel while they were deciding whether to accept voluntary departure. Id.
III. Procedural Background
On June 4, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their original complaint. Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. 1.3 On July 1, 2013, the original defendants moved to transfer the matter to the Southern District of California. Dkt. 11. The matter was set for hearing on September 23, 2013. Id. On September 11, 2013, before the hearing, the original defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint. Dkt. 20. That motion was set for hearing on
2 The August 28, 2014 Order granting preliminary approval of the class-wide portions of the Agreement is incorporated by this reference. 3 The Complaint named the following defendants: Janet Napolitano (then Secretary of DHS); Thomas Winkowski; John Morton (Director of ICE); Paul Beeson; Gregory Archambeault; and Dave Marin. Compl., Dkt. 1.
Page 2 of 12

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 104 Filed 02/25/15 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:2300
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV13-03972 JAK (PLAx)

Title

Isadora Lopez-Venegas, et al. v. Jeh Johnson, et al.

Date February 25, 2015

November 4, 2013. Dkt. 21. On September 23, 2013, the Court continued the motion to transfer venue to November 4, 2013, which was the date set for the hearing on the pending motion to dismiss the Complaint. Dkt. 26. Thereafter, on September 26, 2013, the original defendants filed a second motion to dismiss the Complaint. Dkt. 27.
On October 2, 2013, Plaintiffs filed the FAC. This made moot the pending motions to dismiss (Dkt. 20, 27). Dkt. 32. On October 23, 2013, the Court continued the motion to transfer venue to December 9, 2013. Id.
On October 31, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC. Dkt. 35. On November 5, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. 37. Plaintiffs sought relief only as to certain Individual Plaintiffs. That relief included that the voluntary departure orders they had signed would be stayed so that they could reenter the United States without suffering adverse consequences. See Proposed Order, Dkt. 37-11. On December 2, 2013, Defendants withdrew their motion to transfer venue. Dkt. 45.
On December 27, 2013, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the FAC was granted in part and denied in part. Dkt. 53.4 The motion was granted with respect to Plaintiffs’ second cause of action under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a)(1) and denied as to all other claims. Id. at 22. Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction was denied in the same Order. Id. Although that motion was denied, the Order stated that Plaintiffs had made a showing of likely success on the merits. Id. at 28-29.
Thereafter, the parties engaged in substantial discovery. Plaintiffs served numerous document requests, interrogatories and deposition notices. Decl. of Sean Riordan (“Riordan Decl.”) ¶ 3, Dkt. 90-3. Defendants produced over 8000 pages of documents in response to these requests. Id. Plaintiffs took 10 depositions. Id. Plaintiffs also produced over 2000 pages of documents in response to Defendants’ requests. Id. ¶ 4. Defendants also deposed eight Individual Plaintiffs and three witnesses designated by the Organizational Plaintiffs. Id. In the course of the discovery process, the parties filed motions with respect to certain disputes, including as to the appropriate terms of a protective order and whether the production of certain documents would be required. See Dkt. 58, 75.
On April 10, 2014, the parties attended a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Abrams. Riordan Decl. ¶ 5. The parties did not reach an agreement at that time. Id. On April 25 and May 23, 2014, the parties participated in further settlement conferences with Judge Abrams. Id. ¶ 6. Between these conferences, counsel for the parties engaged in extensive discussions on open issues. Id. Ultimately, with the assistance of Judge Abrams, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle all of the pending claims. Id. On June 10, 2014, the parties met again with Judge Abrams to discuss and resolve certain open issues, including as to an award of attorney’s fees. Id. The parties succeeded in resolving all issues and then prepared and executed a written settlement agreement. Id. ¶ 7.
On August 28, 2014, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Agreement. Dkt. 94. Consistent with

4 The December 27, 2013 Order is incorporated by this reference.

Page 3 of 12

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 104 Filed 02/25/15 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:2301
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV13-03972 JAK (PLAx)

Title

Isadora Lopez-Venegas, et al. v. Jeh Johnson, et al.

Date February 25, 2015

that Order, notice to class members was then provided by Dahl Administration, LLC (“Dahl”). Agreement §§ 1.25; 3.2(e); 3.3(a). Dahl posted 13 out-of-home “billboard” publication notices along “high-traffic roadways in the Tijuana, Tecate, and Mexicali regions of Mexico during November and the first week of December, 2014.” Decl. of Jeffrey D. Dahl (“Dahl Decl.”) ¶ 6, Dkt. 101-4. The text of the billboard notices was approved by counsel for both parties and “included both the domain name for the Settlement website and the phone number of Class counsel.” Id.; see also Dahl Decl., Exs. B, C. Dahl also broadcasted 538 “30-second radio announcements” on seven radio stations in San Diego, California; Tijuana, Mexico; and Baja, Mexico. Id. ¶ 7. The radio announcements were broadcast in Spanish and the message was approved by counsel for both parties. Id. The broadcast occurred at several times during the day on a series of weekdays and weekends. Id. Dahl placed “banner-style notices” on several websites with “readership profiles matching those of the Settlement Class.” Id. ¶ 8. The text was approved by counsel for both parties. Id. Those who clicked on the banner were re-directed to www.SalidaVoluntariaAcuerdo.com. Id.5 The banners appeared between October 14, 2014 and November 7, 2014. Id. Dahl displayed notices on Facebook from October 13, 2014 to November 7, 2014. Id. ¶ 9. Finally, keyword searches were programmed on Google and Bing websites for users located in the “border regions of California and Mexico” from October 16, 2014 through December 15, 2014. Id. ¶ 10. Dahl declares that “by producing more than 50 million impressions targeted to Class Members using methods universally employed in the advertising industry,” adequate notice was provided. Id. ¶ 17.
No objections to the settlement have been received, although several inquiries have been made by persons who may be class members. Decl. of Bardis Vakili (“Vakili Decl.”) ¶ 4, Dkt. 101-3; see also Dahl Decl. ¶ 14. During the recent hearing on the Motion, counsel for both parties confirmed that no objections have been received.
IV. Terms of the Proposed Settlement
The terms of the Agreement were outlined in the August 28, 2014 Order granting preliminary approval of the class-wide portions of the Agreement (Dkt. 94). For convenience, they are also summarized here.
A. Settlement Class
The parties agree that the “Class” is defined as:
All Individuals who returned to Mexico pursuant to a Qualifying Voluntary Return,[6] and
5 As of February 20, 2015, the home page for this website is in English. Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson Settlement, http://www.salidavoluntariaacuerdo.com (last visited Feb. 20, 2015). Two pages are in Spanish, however: “frequently asked questions” and “contact us.” Id. A link to these pages is located in a side-bar in the upper left corner of the website. 6 As used in the Class definition, the term “Qualifying Voluntary Return” means “any Voluntary Return that occurred within the Relevant Area during the period starting June 1, 2009, and [the date the Court preliminarily approves the class-wide settlement relief], on which a potential Class Member relies when applying to be a member of the Settlement Class.” Agreement § 1.21. The term “Relevant Area” means, “with regard to Border Patrol, the geographic area covered by Border Patrol’s San Diego Sector, and with regard to ICE, the geographic area covered
Page 4 of 12

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 104 Filed 02/25/15 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:2302
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV13-03972 JAK (PLAx)

Title

Isadora Lopez-Venegas, et al. v. Jeh Johnson, et al.

Date February 25, 2015

who are described in both paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section:
(a) Based on the facts as they existed at the time of his or her Qualifying Voluntary Return, the Individual:
(i) Last entered the United States with inspection prior to his or her Qualifying Voluntary Return and satisfied the non-discretionary criteria for submitting an approvable application to adjust status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), based on a bona fide immediate relative relationship defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i);
(ii) Was the beneficiary of a properly filed Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative based on a bona fide family relationship, which was pending or approved at the time of the Qualifying Voluntary Return;
(iii) Satisfied the non-discretionary criteria to apply for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b; or
(iv) His or her Qualifying Voluntary Return occurred on or after June 15, 2012, and at that time he or she satisfied the bulleted criteria for consideration for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) listed on page one of the June 15, 2012 memorandum from former Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano; and
(b) At the time of application for class membership, the Individual:
(i) Is physically present within Mexico; and
(ii) Is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B), due to his or her Qualifying Voluntary Return, except that this requirement does not apply to an Individual seeking recognition as a Class Member under § 1.26(a)(i) above.
Agreement § 1.26.7
by ICE’s San Diego and Los Angeles Field Offices.” Id. § 1.22. The term “Voluntary Return” means “the process by which an Individual in the custody of ICE or Border Patrol admits being unlawfully present in the United States, and returns to his or her country of citizenship or nationality under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a), in lieu of formal removal proceedings. This term does not include voluntary departure granted by an immigration judge during or at the conclusion of formal removal proceedings.” Id. § 1.27. 7 This class definition varies slightly from the one alleged in the FAC. However, Plaintiffs represent that the categories of individuals described in the proposed Settlement Class comprise most of the persons described in the FAC and who have “a plausible basis to seek the opportunity to reside legally in the United States[.]” FAC ¶ 164. This slight variation in the definitions of the class does not affect the substance of the fairness inquiry. See McBean v. New York, 233 F.R.D. 377, 384 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“It was perfectly reasonable . . . for class counsel to define the class in a way that, in their opinion, would lead to the best recovery for the class. Fairness does not require class counsel to act on behalf of individuals not in the class, even if at one time those individuals were included in a pretrial
Page 5 of 12

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 104 Filed 02/25/15 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:2303
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV13-03972 JAK (PLAx)

Title

Isadora Lopez-Venegas, et al. v. Jeh Johnson, et al.

Date February 25, 2015

B. Procedures to Petition to Return to the United States
Beginning four months after the Court grants final approval, Defendants will accept applications from class members who wish to return to the United States. With certain exceptions, Defendants will permit the physical return of a class member upon a showing that he or she meets the criteria for class membership. Id. §§ 2.2, 2.3. If an application is granted, a class member will be permitted to return to the United States through the San Ysidro Port of Entry. If a Class member is allowed to return to the United States, Defendants agree to place the individual in the same position with respect to the applicable immigration laws and regulations that he or she had immediately prior to the Qualifying Voluntary Return. Id. § 2.2(e). Thus, the class member may be admitted or may be placed in parole or removal proceedings. Agreement §§ 2.2(a)-(c), 2.3(a).
Defendants will accept applications for a period of 180 days. Id. § 2.3(b). Applications may be submitted by any of the following: (i) Plaintiffs’ counsel; (ii) persons employed by or affiliated with the Organizational Plaintiffs; and (iii) up to 12 other non-profit organizations, law school clinics, law firms or immigration practitioners. Id. §§ 1.2; 2.3(c). The Agreement also provides for a dispute resolution procedure if a disagreement arises with respect to whether an individual qualifies for the benefits of Class membership. Id. § 2.4.
C. Release of Claims
Plaintiffs have agreed to release all claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against all Defendants arising from, or related to, the events in the FAC that occurred on or before the entry of an order of preliminary approval. Agreement §§ 6.1-6.2. The Individual, Representative and Organizational Plaintiffs also have waived any claims for monetary damages. Id. However, the Agreement does not include a release by other Class members of any individual claims for monetary relief. Id. § 6.2.8
D. Notice and Claim Procedures
The parties agreed to the selection of Dahl to provide notice to the members of the proposed Class. Agreement §§ 1.25; 3.2(e); 3.3(a). Defendants are responsible for Dahl’s costs and fees for providing such notice up to an amount that is the lesser of: (i) 50% of the total costs and fees; or (ii) $150,000. Id. § 3.3(b). Class Counsel is responsible for Dahl’s costs and fees that exceed that amount. Id. If the total costs and fees of Dahl exceed $300,000, plaintiffs may seek to renegotiate the apportionment of such costs with Defendants. Id.
class definition.”) (emphasis in original). 8 If a Class member is not permitted to return to the United States under the Agreement, he or she is not bound by the release and may raise claims through separate litigation. The parties have agreed that there will be a tolling of any limitations periods with respect to such claims between the filing of the instant action and the conclusion of the dispute resolution process as to the applications by individual Class members to return to the United States. Id. § 2.4.
Page 6 of 12

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 104 Filed 02/25/15 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:2304
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV13-03972 JAK (PLAx)

Title

Isadora Lopez-Venegas, et al. v. Jeh Johnson, et al.

Date February 25, 2015

E. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and Administration.
The proposed settlement provides that Class Counsel may petition the Court for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, not to exceed $700,000. Agreement § 7.1. The parties agree that the relief afforded to the Class will not be affected should the Court award less than the amount requested. Id. § 7.2.9
V. Analysis
A. Motion for Final Approval
1. Whether the Class Should be Certified
a) Legal Standard
The “threshold task” when deciding a motion for final approval of a class action settlement is to “ascertain whether the proposed settlement satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to all class actions, namely: (1) numerosity, (2) commonality, (3) typicality, and (4) adequacy of representation.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998). A court must also determine whether “the action is maintainable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1), (2) or (3).” Id. at 1022. Rule 23(b)(2) requires that the “party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” “Civil rights cases against parties charged with unlawful, class-based discrimination are prime examples.” Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 614 (1997).
Cases alleging due process violations in connection with immigration proceedings have also been considered appropriate for certification under Rule 23(b)(2). See, e.g., Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1047 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming certification for a class that challenged Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) procedures used to obtain waivers in document fraud cases). To qualify for certification under Rule 23(b)(2), it is “sufficient if class members complain of a pattern or practice that is generally applicable to the class as a whole.” Id.
b) Application
The August 28, 2014 Order determined that the Class, as defined, met the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Dkt. 94 at 9-10. Nothing has changed since its issuance. Therefore, for the reasons states in the prior Order, the requirements of both Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) have been satisfied, and the class is certified.
9 Defendants also have agreed to certain prospective relief. Thus, they have agreed to do each of the following: provide certain additional information to non-class members about possible voluntary return to the United States; modify Form I-826 to include certain information; implement an advisory hotline with information relevant to individuals who have or will be offered the opportunity to request voluntary return; post notices of rights; and modify other voluntary return procedures. See Settlement Agreement §§ 4-4.7. Because these terms do not apply to Class members, they are not considered as part of this Order.
Page 7 of 12

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 104 Filed 02/25/15 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:2305
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV13-03972 JAK (PLAx)

Title

Isadora Lopez-Venegas, et al. v. Jeh Johnson, et al.

Date February 25, 2015

2. Whether the Agreement Should Receive Final Approval
a) Legal Standard
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) requires that a court engage in a two-step process when considering whether to approve the settlement of a class action. First, in the preliminary approval process, a court must determine whether the proposed settlement provides benefits to the class members that are within the range of what might have been recovered through litigation such that they are fair, reasonable and adequate. See Acosta v. Trans Union, 243 F.R.D. 377, 386 (C.D. Cal. 2007). In the second step of the process, which occurs after preliminary approval, notification to class members, and the consideration of any objections by class members, a court determines whether final approval of the settlement should be granted.
A court is to consider and evaluate several factors as part of its assessment of a proposed classwide settlement. In the Ninth Circuit, the following eight, non-exclusive factors are among those that may be considered during both the preliminary and final approval processes:
1) the strength of the plaintiff’s case; 2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; 3) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; 4) the amount offered in settlement; 5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; 6) the experience and view of counsel; 7) the presence of a governmental participant; and 8) the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.
See Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship, 151 F.3d 1234, 1242 (9th Cir. 1998). Each factor does not necessarily apply to every class action settlement, and other factors may be considered. For example, courts often consider whether the settlement is the product of arms-length negotiations. See Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 965 (9th Cir. 2009) (“We put a good deal of stock in the product of an arms-length, non-collusive, negotiated resolution.”).
b) Application
The August 28, 2014 Order concluded that the Agreement had the potential to be deemed fair, reasonable and adequate. Dkt. 94 at 8. Based on the evidence now presented, these tests have been met for several reasons.
First, this settlement agreement was the product of extensive negotiations informed by meaningful discovery. That Judge Abrams participated with the parties in four separate mediation sessions is also significant. It reflects that the Agreement has the necessary indicia of fairness toward class members. Further, these were arm’s length negotiations conducted by experienced counsel. This factual setting confirms that the parties were aware of the complex legal issues presented and reached an agreement
Page 8 of 12

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 104 Filed 02/25/15 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:2306
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV13-03972 JAK (PLAx)

Title

Isadora Lopez-Venegas, et al. v. Jeh Johnson, et al.

Date February 25, 2015

while mindful of the risks and expenses of further litigation. These facts support a finding that the settlement negotiations were fair and reasonable. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1027 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming approval of settlement after finding “no evidence to suggest that the settlement was negotiated in haste or in the absence of information illuminating the value of plaintiffs’ claims”); Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., No. C-08-5198, 2011 WL 1627973, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011) (“With the Court’s prior rulings as guidance, the parties were in a position to assess the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments and evidence, and make an informed decision about the risks associated with proceeding . . . to trial.”); Cicero v. DirecTV, Inc., No. ED CV07-1182, 2010 WL 2991486, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 27, 2010); In re Immune Response Sec. Litig., 497 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1171 (S.D. Cal. 2007).
Second, in light of the uncertainty as to the outcome of further litigation, the Agreement provides significant benefits to Class members. In the FAC, Plaintiffs sought, among other things, an order that they be allowed to return to the United States in “a manner that restores them to the legal position that they occupied prior to their respective voluntary departures[.]” FAC, Prayer for Relief ¶ 4, Dkt. 28 at 59. The Agreement provides that relief. For these reasons, the relief afforded is reasonable.
Third, counsel for both parties have extensive experience with civil rights actions related to immigration procedures. Riordan Decl. ¶ 11. Thus, their support of the proposed settlement provides further support for approval. See In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litig. Advocate Health Care, No. MDL 1290, 2003 WL 22037741, at *6 (D.D.C. June 16, 2003) (the opinion of experienced counsel “should be afforded substantial consideration by a court in evaluating the reasonableness of a proposed settlement”); Lyons v. Marrud, Inc., No. 66 Civ. 415, 1972 WL 327, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 1972) (“The parties’ decision regarding the respective merits of their positions has an important bearing on this case.”). Given that attorney’s fees were negotiated after the parties reached the substance of the Agreement, there is no evidence to suggest any conflict between the interests of the Class members and their counsel.
Fourth, there have been no objections to the Agreement by any member of the Class. There were no objections during the hearing on February 9, 2015. Given the significant, multi-faceted notice that was given to Class members, the lack of objections is significant and supports a finding that the Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate.
A consideration of all the foregoing factors shows that the Agreement is sufficiently fair, reasonable and adequate to warrant final approval. The Motion is GRANTED.
B. Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Class Counsel argue that attorney’s fees and costs of $700,000 are authorized under both prongs of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). Thus, they are authorized by party agreement and by statute under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) and (d)(2)(C). Because the fees requested are reasonable in light of the Agreement, the issue whether fees would be awarded under the EAJA is not
Page 9 of 12

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 104 Filed 02/25/15 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:2307
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV13-03972 JAK (PLAx)

Title

Isadora Lopez-Venegas, et al. v. Jeh Johnson, et al.

Date February 25, 2015

addressed.10
1. Legal Standard
Attorney’s fees and costs “may be awarded in a certified class action where so authorized by law or the parties’ agreement”; however, “courts have an independent obligation to ensure that the award, like the settlement itself, is reasonable, even if the parties have already agreed to an amount.” In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 941 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). “If fees are unreasonably high, the likelihood is that the defendant obtained an economically beneficial concession with regard to the merits provisions, in the form of lower monetary payments to class members or less injunctive relief for the class than could otherwise have [been] obtained.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 964 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, a district court must “assure itself that the fees awarded in the agreement were not unreasonably high, so as to ensure that the class members’ interests were not compromised in favor of those of class counsel.” Id. Factors considered in examining the reasonableness of the fee include: (1) whether the results achieved were exceptional; (2) risks of litigation; (3) non-monetary benefits conferred by the litigation; (4) customary fees for similar cases; and (5) the contingent nature of the fee and financial burden carried by counsel. Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1048-50 (9th Cir. 2002).
“The ‘lodestar method’ is appropriate in class actions brought under fee-shifting statutes (such as federal civil rights, securities, antitrust, copyright, and patent acts), where the relief sought—and obtained—is often primarily injunctive in nature and thus not easily monetized, but where the legislature has authorized the award of fees to ensure compensation for counsel undertaking socially beneficial litigation.” Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 941. To calculate fees under the lodestar method, a court multiplies “the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation (as supported by adequate documentation) by a reasonable hourly rate for the region and for the experience of the lawyer.” Id. This figure is “presumptively reasonable” but may be adjusted “by an appropriate positive or negative multiplier reflecting a host of ‘reasonableness’ factors[.]” Id. at 941-42. Such factors include quality of representation, benefit obtained for the class, complexity and novelty of issues presented and the risk of nonpayment. Id. at 942. If only limited success is achieved, “counting all hours expended on the litigation--even those reasonably spent--may produce an excessive amount” and courts are to “award only that amount of fees that is reasonable in relation to the results obtained.” Id. (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
///
10 Under the EAJA, “attorney fees shall not be awarded in excess of $125 per hour unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living or special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii). Plaintiffs argue that the rates under the EAJA for work performed in 2013 are $187.02 and $189.78 for 2014. The rates for 2014 increased to $190.06. Statutory Maximum Rates under the Equal Access to Justice Act, http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000039 (last visited Feb. 20, 2015). Plaintiffs argue that, for some attorneys, the EAJA rates should not be used and that market rates should instead be used to calculate the lodestar amount. The applicable rates are discussed below.
Page 10 of 12

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 104 Filed 02/25/15 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #:2308
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV13-03972 JAK (PLAx)

Title

Isadora Lopez-Venegas, et al. v. Jeh Johnson, et al.

Date February 25, 2015

2. Application

Plaintiffs argue that the requested fees are reasonable because they were negotiated at arm’s length. They also contend that they achieved exceptional results for the Class while taking on this litigation without any assurance of payment. Plaintiffs also argue that, considering the risks taken in pursuing this litigation and the results achieved, the requested fees fall well below the lodestar amount. Having reviewed the fee requests as well as the detailed descriptions of the work performed by each attorney, and having considered the quality and nature of the work performed by the attorneys during the course of the litigation, as well as the rates charged by others in this District, the Court finds that most of the hourly rates requested by Plaintiffs’ counsel are reasonable. However, the Court also finds that certain reductions in the hours charged are necessary in light of the time spent on certain tasks and the overlap in hours charged by different attorneys.

The rates that the Court deems reasonable for each counsel are set forth in the following table:

Name

Position

ACLU ATTORNEYS & STAFF

Ahilan Arulanantham

Senior Staff Attorney

Lucero Chavez

Staff Attorney

Mitra Ebadolahi

Staff Attorney

Belinda Escobosa

Director, OC

Maria Esquivel

Paralegal

David Loy

Legal Director

Sean Riordan

Senior Staff Attorney

Gabriela Rivera

Staff Attorney

Bardis Vakili

Staff Attorney

Adrienna Wong

Staff Attorney

COOLEY ATTORNEYS

Brandon Brett

Associate

Lindsay Chapman

Associate

Peter Dahlquist

Associate

Matthew Krengel

E-Discovery Staff Attorney

Michael Nieto

Associate

Leo Norton

Special Counsel

Jose Rodriguez

Associate

Anthony Stiegler

Partner

Craig TenBroeck

Associate

Darcie Tilly

Associate

Neda Weems

E-Discovery Staff Attorney

Blake Zollar

Associate

Requested Rate
$665-690/hr $180.59/hr $187.02-189.78/hr $180.59/hr
$200/hr $700/hr $420-500/hr $187.02-189.78/hr $420-510/hr $189.78/hr
$187.02-189.78/hr $187.02-189.78/hr $187.02-189.78/hr $187.02-189.78/hr $187.02-189.78/hr $187.02-189.78/hr $187.02-189.78/hr
$870-920/hr $189.78/hr $670-710/hr $187.02/hr $187.02/hr

Approved Rate
$600/hr $180.59/hr $187.02-189.78/hr $180.59/hr
$200/hr $650/hr $425/hr $187.02-189.78/hr $425/hr $189.78/hr
$187.02-189.78/hr $187.02-189.78/hr $187.02-189.78/hr $187.02-189.78/hr $187.02-189.78/hr $187.02-189.78/hr $187.02-189.78/hr
$650/hr $189.78/hr
$425/hr $187.02/hr $187.02/hr

Using these rates and the hours worked in performing the Lodestar analysis shows that its amount is substantially greater than the $700,000 fee request. Thus, the Lodestar amount is $1,389,011.57.
Page 11 of 12

Case 2:13-cv-03972-JAK-PLA Document 104 Filed 02/25/15 Page 12 of 12 Page ID #:2309
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. LA CV13-03972 JAK (PLAx)

Title

Isadora Lopez-Venegas, et al. v. Jeh Johnson, et al.

Date February 25, 2015

Although the Court finds that an overall reduction of 25% of the hours charged is appropriate based on a review of the time charges to account for redundancy and inefficiency, this would reduce the Lodestar to $1,041,758.67. Both amounts are well above the $700,000 requested in the Fee Application. Further, its reasonableness is confirmed because the $700,000 will be paid by the sophisticated federal Defendants who have a responsibility to assess such fees. It is also significant that the fees are not being paid from a common fund that is being allocated between counsel and Class members. Thus, there was no potential for conflict in the allocation negotiated by counsel with Defendants after the substantive terms of the Agreement had been reached. Finally, Plaintiffs’ counsel achieved a significant portion of the relief sought in the FAC. For all of these reasons, the Court finds that an attorney’s fee award of $700,000 is reasonable and the Fee Application is GRANTED.
VI. Conclusion
For these reasons, the Motion for Final Approval of the Class-Wide Portions of the Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. The Motion for Attorney’s Fees of $700,000 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to submit a proposed judgment in accordance with the terms of this Order and the Agreement on or before March 3, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Preparer ak

Page 12 of 12

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 ISIDORA LOPEZ-VENEGAS, et al., No. CV 13-03972-JAK (PLAx)

12

Plaintiffs,

FINAL JUDGMENT

13

v.

JS-6

14 JEH JOHNSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CV 13-03972-JAK (PLAx)

FINAL JUDGMENT

1 1. In the Final Order Approving Class Action Settlement, the Court
2 granted final certification of a class defined as: “all Individuals who returned to
3 Mexico pursuant to a Qualifying Voluntary Return between June 1, 2009 and
4 August 28, 2014, and who are described in both paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
5 section:
6 (a) Based on the facts as they existed at the time of his or her Qualifying
7 Voluntary Return, the Individual:
8 (i) Last entered the United States with inspection prior to his or her
9 Qualifying Voluntary Return and satisfied the non-discretionary
10 criteria for submitting an approvable application to adjust status
11 under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), based on a bona fide immediate
12 relative relationship defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i);
13 (ii) Was the beneficiary of a properly filed Form I-130 Petition for
14 Alien Relative based on a bona fide family relationship, which
15 was pending or approved at the time of the Qualifying
16 Voluntary Return;
17 (iii) Satisfied the non-discretionary criteria to apply for cancellation
18 of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b; or
19 (iv) His or her Qualifying Voluntary Return occurred on or after
20 June 15, 2012, and he or she satisfied the non-discretionary
21 criteria for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”)
22 listed on page one of the June 15, 2012 memorandum from
23 former Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano; and
24 (b) At the time of application for class membership, the Individual:
25 (i) Is physically present within Mexico; and
26 (ii) Is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B), due to his or her
27 Qualifying Voluntary Return, except that this requirement does
28

CV 13-03972-JAK (PLAx)

1.

FINAL JUDGMENT

1 not apply to an Individual seeking recognition as Class Member
2 under Paragraph (a)(i) above.
3 The term “ICE” means U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the term
4 “Border Patrol” means U.S. Border Patrol, both of which are within the U.S.
5 Department of Homeland Security. The term “Qualifying Voluntary Return”
6 means “any Voluntary Return that occurred within the Relevant Area during the
7 period starting June 1, 2009, and ending on the date of the District Court’s
8 Preliminary Approval of the Classwide Settlement,” August 28, 2014. The term
9 “Voluntary Return” means “the process by which an Individual in the custody of
10 ICE or Border Patrol admits being unlawfully present in the United States, and
11 returns to his or her country of citizenship or nationality under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a),
12 in lieu of formal removal proceedings. This term does not include voluntary
13 departure granted by an immigration judge during or at the conclusion of formal
14 removal proceedings.” Further, the term “Individual” means “a natural person who
15 is not a citizen or national of the United States.”
16 2. All persons who satisfy the class definition above are Class Members,
17 regardless of whether they file an application for class membership. However, an
18 Individual is not a Class Member if: (1) Defendants deny his or her application for
19 class membership and that decision is not otherwise reversed; or (2) Defendants
20 deny him or her physical entry into the United States.
21 3. In the Final Order Approving Class Action Settlement, the Court found
22 that notice of the Settlement Agreement and Release (“Settlement Agreement”) was
23 provided to Class Members by creating a website dedicated to providing notice of
24 the settlement (www.salidavoluntariaacuerdo.com), “billboard” publication notices,
25 radio announcements, “banner-style notices” on several websites, notices on
26 Facebook, and keyword searches in compliance with Section 3.3 of the Settlement
27 Agreement, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process.
28

CV 13-03972-JAK (PLAx)

2.

FINAL JUDGMENT

1 4. Consistent with the Settlement Agreement, by entry of this Final
2 Judgment, each Class Member and his or her assignees, heirs, successors, and
3 personal representatives unconditionally releases the United States of America and
4 all Defendants, including their sub-agencies, officers, agents, and employees, from
5 all claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint based on events that occurred
6 on or before the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, August 28, 2014.
7 This Judgment shall not have preclusive effect on any damages claim by any Class
8 Member.
9 5. The Court and assigned Magistrate Judge shall retain jurisdiction over
10 all disputes between and among the parties arising out of the Settlement Agreement,
11 including but not limited to interpretation and enforcement of the terms of the
12 Settlement Agreement, except as otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreement.
13 6. Class Counsel is awarded $700,000 (total) in fees and costs, in full
14 settlement of attorneys’ fees and costs for this action and all obligations and
15 disputes arising from it.
16 NOW, THEREFORE, the Court, finding that no reason exists for delay,
17 hereby directs the Clerk to enter this Final Judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of
18 Civil Procedure 58, forthwith.
19

20 DATED: March 11, 2015 21 22

JOHN A. KRONSTADT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23

24

25

26

27

28

CV 13-03972-JAK (PLAx)

3.

FINAL JUDGMENT

 
 Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 1 of 27
(PLAx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY,PROTORD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:13−cv−03972−JAK−PLA

Isidora Lopez Venegas v. Janet Napolitano et al Assigned to: Judge John A. Kronstadt Referred to: Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams Cause: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff
Isidora Lopez Venegas individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

Date Filed: 06/04/2013 Date Terminated: 03/11/2015 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 465 Other Immigration Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
represented by Ahilan T Arulanantham ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 West Eighth Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−9500 Fax: 213−977−5299 Email: aarulanantham@aclu−sc.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony M Stiegler Cooley LLP 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121−1909 858−550−6000 Fax: 858−550−6420 Email: tstiegler@cooley.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bardis Vakili ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties P O Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138−7131 619−232−2121 Fax: 619−232−0036 Email: bvakili@aclusandiego.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Belinda Escobosa Helzer ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1851 East First St, Suite 450 Santa Ana, CA 92705 714−450−3962 Fax: 714−543−5240 Email: bescobosahelzer@aclu−sc.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darcie Allison Tilly Cooley LLP 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121−1909 858−550−6035 Fax: 858−550−6420 Email: dtilly@cooley.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 2 of 27

Plaintiff
Ana Maria Duenas individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

Gabriela Rivera Bird Marella Wolpert Nessim Drooks Lincenberg and Rhow PC 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 310−201−2100 Email: gcr@birdmarella.com TERMINATED: 04/20/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John David Loy ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties PO Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138−7131 619−398−4496 Fax: 619−232−0036 Email: davidloy@aclusandiego.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitra Ebadolahi ACLU foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties P O Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138−7131 619−232−2121 Fax: 619−232−0036 Email: mebadolahi@aclusandiego.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucero Chavez ACLU Foundation of Southern California 2100 N Broadway, Suite 209 Santa Ana, CA 92706 714−450−3962 Fax: 714−543−5240 Email: LChavez@aclu−sc.org TERMINATED: 12/01/2014
Sean Riordan ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties P O Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138−7131 619−398−4485 Fax: 619−232−0036 Email: sriordan@aclusandiego.org TERMINATED: 12/29/2014
represented by Ahilan T Arulanantham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony M Stiegler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 3 of 27

Bardis Vakili (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Belinda Escobosa Helzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darcie Allison Tilly (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gabriela Rivera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/20/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John David Loy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitra Ebadolahi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lucero Chavez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2014

Sean Riordan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2014

Plaintiff
Gerardo Hernandez Contreras individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Ahilan T Arulanantham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony M Stiegler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bardis Vakili (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Belinda Escobosa Helzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darcie Allison Tilly (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 4 of 27

Plaintiff
Efrain Garcia Martinez individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

Gabriela Rivera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/20/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John David Loy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitra Ebadolahi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucero Chavez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2014
Sean Riordan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2014
represented by Ahilan T Arulanantham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony M Stiegler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bardis Vakili (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Belinda Escobosa Helzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darcie Allison Tilly (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabriela Rivera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/20/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John David Loy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitra Ebadolahi (See above for address)

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 5 of 27

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lucero Chavez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2014

Sean Riordan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2014

Plaintiff
Samuel Nava individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 01/09/2014

represented by Ahilan T Arulanantham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony M Stiegler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bardis Vakili (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Belinda Escobosa Helzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darcie Allison Tilly (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gabriela Rivera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/20/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John David Loy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitra Ebadolahi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lucero Chavez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2014

Sean Riordan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2014

Plaintiff
Candelaria Felix Next of Friend

represented by Ahilan T Arulanantham (See above for address)

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 6 of 27

Yadira Felix

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony M Stiegler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bardis Vakili (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Belinda Escobosa Helzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darcie Allison Tilly (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gabriela Rivera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/20/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John David Loy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitra Ebadolahi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lucero Chavez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2014

Sean Riordan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2014

Plaintiff
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles

represented by Ahilan T Arulanantham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony M Stiegler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bardis Vakili (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Belinda Escobosa Helzer

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 7 of 27

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darcie Allison Tilly (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gabriela Rivera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/20/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John David Loy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitra Ebadolahi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lucero Chavez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2014

Sean Riordan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2014

Plaintiff Pomona Economic Opportunity Center

represented by Ahilan T Arulanantham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony M Stiegler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bardis Vakili (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Belinda Escobosa Helzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darcie Allison Tilly (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gabriela Rivera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/20/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 8 of 27

Plaintiff Genaro Munoz−Flores individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 01/09/2014
Plaintiff Patricia Armenta as nedt of fried for Yadira Felix

John David Loy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitra Ebadolahi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucero Chavez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2014
Sean Riordan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2014
represented by Bardis Vakili ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties P O Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138−7131 619−398−4485 Fax: 619−232−0036 Email: bvakili@aclusandiego.org LEAD ATTORNEY
Gabriela Rivera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/20/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitra Ebadolahi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean Riordan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2014
represented by Bardis Vakili (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Gabriela Rivera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/20/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitra Ebadolahi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean Riordan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2014

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 9 of 27

Plaintiff Marta Mendoza

represented by Bardis Vakili (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Gabriela Rivera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/20/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitra Ebadolahi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Riordan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2014

Plaintiff Arnulfo Sierra

represented by Darcie Allison Tilly (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gabriela Rivera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/20/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bardis Vakili (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitra Ebadolahi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Riordan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2014

Plaintiff
San Bernardino Community Service Center

represented by Bardis Vakili (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Gabriela Rivera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/20/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitra Ebadolahi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Riordan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2014

Plaintiff

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 10 of 27

Alejandro Serrato

represented by Darcie Allison Tilly (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gabriela Rivera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/20/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bardis Vakili (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitra Ebadolahi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Riordan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2014

V.
Defendant
Janet Napolitano Secretary of Homeland Security TERMINATED: 10/02/2013

represented by Jeffrey S Robins Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation − District Court Section PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−616−1246 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: jeffrey.robins@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
OIL−DCS Trial Attorney Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−353−8806 Email: oil−dcs.cacd@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Craig A Defoe US Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation − District Court Section PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−532−4114 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: craig.defoe@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 02/18/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Durwood Riedel US Department of Justice − Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation − District Court Section

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 11 of 27

PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−616−3074 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: durwood.h.riedel@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hans Chen US Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation − Civil Division P O Box 868 Washington, DC 20001 301−307−4469 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: hans.h.chen@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Thomas Winkowski Deputy Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection

represented by Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

OIL−DCS Trial Attorney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Craig A Defoe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Durwood Riedel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hans Chen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy Michael Belsan US Department of Justice Civil Division − Immigration Litigation PO Box 868 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−532−4596 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: timothy.m.belsan@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Morton Director, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) TERMINATED: 10/02/2013

represented by Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

OIL−DCS Trial Attorney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Craig A Defoe

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 12 of 27

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Durwood Riedel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hans Chen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Paul Beeson Chief Border Patrol Agent, San Diego Sector

represented by Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

OIL−DCS Trial Attorney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Craig A Defoe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Durwood Riedel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hans Chen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy Michael Belsan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Gregory Archambeault Ice Field Office Director, San Diego

represented by Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

OIL−DCS Trial Attorney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Craig A Defoe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Durwood Riedel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hans Chen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 13 of 27

Timothy Michael Belsan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Dave Marin Acting ICE Field Office Director, Los Angeles

represented by Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

OIL−DCS Trial Attorney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Craig A Defoe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Durwood Riedel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hans Chen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy Michael Belsan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Rand Beers Acting Secretary of Homeland Security

represented by Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Craig A Defoe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Durwood Riedel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hans Chen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy Michael Belsan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Sandweg Acting Director, Bureau of Immigration and Custome Enforcement ("ICE:)

represented by Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Craig A Defoe (See above for address)

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 14 of 27
TERMINATED: 02/18/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Durwood Riedel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hans Chen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Michael Belsan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/04/2013
06/04/2013 06/04/2013 06/04/2013 06/14/2013 06/14/2013 06/14/2013 06/17/2013
06/20/2013

# Docket Text
1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Morton, Janet Napolitano, Thomas Winkowski. Case assigned to Judge John A. Kronstadt for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams.(Filing fee $ 400:PAID), filed by plaintiffs Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Candelaria Felix, Samuel Nava, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras.(ghap) Modified on 6/7/2013 (ghap). (mg). (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/11/2013: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (ds). (Entered: 06/07/2013)
2 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint − (Discovery),, 1 as to Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Morton, Janet Napolitano, Thomas Winkowski. (ghap) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
3 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center. (ghap) (mg). (Entered: 06/07/2013)
4 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by plaintiffs Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center. Related Case(s): CV 12−6607 and CV 82−1107. (ghap) (mg). (Entered: 06/07/2013)
5 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Jeffrey S Robins on behalf of Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Morton, Janet Napolitano, Thomas Winkowski (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
6 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Craig A Defoe on behalf of Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Morton, Janet Napolitano, Thomas Winkowski (Defoe, Craig) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
7 RESPONSE filed by Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Morton, Janet Napolitano, Thomas Winkowskito Notice of Related Case(s), 4 (Defoe, Craig) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
8 INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JOHN A. KRONSTADT by Judge John A. Kronstadt: Please read this Order carefully. It governs this case and differs in some respect from the Local Rules. The Initial Standing Order can also be found on the Court's Website under Judge Kronstadt's Procedures and Schedules, which is the most recent and updated version. (jloz) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
9 ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 08−05 (Related Case) filed. Transfer of case declined by Judge Margaret M. Morrow, for the reasons set forth on this order. Related Case No. CV 82−01107 MMM(VBKx) (rn) (Main Document 9 replaced on 6/20/2013) (rn). (Entered: 06/20/2013)

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 15 of 27

07/01/2013 07/01/2013
07/02/2013 07/15/2013 07/17/2013 07/26/2013
08/07/2013 08/30/2013
08/30/2013 09/09/2013 09/11/2013 09/12/2013

10 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Hans Chen on behalf of Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Morton, Janet Napolitano, Thomas Winkowski (Chen, Hans) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
11 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Change Venue to U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Cal. filed by defendants Gregory Archambeault, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Morton, Janet Napolitano, Thomas Winkowski. Motion set for hearing on 9/23/2013 at 08:30 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of M. Milne, # 2 Proposed Order)(Chen, Hans) Modified on 11/1/2013 (ake). Modified on 11/1/2013 (ake). (Entered: 07/01/2013)
12 ORDER SETTING RULE 16(b) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge John A Kronstadt: The Scheduling Conference is set for September 23, 2013 at 8:30 a.m., with the Joint Report, which shall include the completed Schedule of Pretrial and Trial Dates, to be filed no later than September 13, 2013. (Attachments: # 1 Schedule) (ake) (Entered: 07/02/2013)
13 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Class Certification filed by plaintiff Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 07/15/2013)
14 ORDER by Judge John A. Kronstadt, re Stipulation for Extension of Time to File, 13 . Note changes made by the Court. (rne) (Entered: 07/18/2013)
15 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE PILOT PROGRAM FOR UNDER SEAL DOCUMENTS by Judge John A. Kronstadt: This Court is participating in a pilot program regarding the submission of sealed documents. Effective July 8, 2013, all proposed sealed documents must be submitted via email to the Judge's Chambers' email at: jak_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov consistent with this Order. (dv) (Entered: 07/26/2013)
16 Joint STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to All Defendants, re Complaint − (Discovery),, 1 filed by Defendants Thomas Winkowski, Dave Marin, Janet Napolitano, Paul Beeson, Gregory Archambeault, John Morton.(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
17 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Change Venue to U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Cal. 11 filed by Plaintiffs Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sean Riordan, # 2 Exhibit 1 through 8 to Declaration of Sean Riordan, # 3 Exhibit 9 through 17 to Declaration of Sean Riordan, # 4 Declaration of Gorgonio Cabrera, # 5 Declaration of Patricia Armenta, # 6 Declaration of Joseph Villela, # 7 Declaration of Arnulfo Sierra, # 8 Declaration of Genaro Munoz Flores, # 9 Declaration of Suzanne Foster)(Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 08/30/2013)
18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, re Response in Opposition to Motion,, 17 served on 08/30/2013. (Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 08/30/2013)
19 REPLY in support of MOTION to Change Venue to U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Cal. 11 filed by Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Morton, Janet Napolitano, Thomas Winkowski. (Chen, Hans) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
20 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Morton, Janet Napolitano, Thomas Winkowski. Motion set for hearing on 10/28/2013 at 08:30 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
21 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER CONTINUING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. 20) by Judge John A Kronstadt: The Court, on its own motion, continues Defendants' Motion from October 28, 2013 to November 4, 2013 at 8:30 am. 20 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/12/2013)

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 16 of 27

09/13/2013 09/20/2013
09/20/2013 09/23/2013
09/23/2013 09/26/2013 10/02/2013
10/07/2013

22 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 15, filed by Plaintiff Isidora Lopez Venegas.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Schedule of Pretrial and Trial Dates)(Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
23 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Candelaria Felix, Samuel Nava, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, upon Defendant All Defendants. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Andrew Villar. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to Emily San. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy to Samuels. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt NOT attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (Tilly, Darcie) (Entered: 09/20/2013)
24 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan , Addendum to ; estimated length of trial 15 days, filed by Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Morton, Janet Napolitano, Thomas Winkowski.. (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/20/2013)
25 ORDER ON COURT/JURY TRIAL by Judge John A Kronstadt: The Court sets the following trial dates: Court Trial − December 16, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.; Status Conference re Exhibits − December 12, 2014 at 3:00 p.m.; and Final Pretrial Conference − December 1, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. Counsel for all parties shall comply with this Courts standing orders with respect to documents to be prepared and filed in connection with the Final Pretrial Conference. Please refer to this Court's Procedures and Schedules found on the United States District Court's Website (www.cacd.uscourts.gov) to obtain a copy of the Order on Court/Jury Trial. Please read the Order carefully as it differs in some respect to the Local Rules. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/23/2013)
26 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference and Motion hearing held before Judge John A. Kronstadt: The Court continues the motion 11 hearing to 11/4/2013 08:30 AM. Final Pretrial Conference set for 12/1/2014 03:00 PM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. Jury Trial set for 12/16/2014 09:00 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. Status Conference set for 12/12/2014 03:00 PM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. Amended Pleadings due by 12/31/2013. Discovery cut−off 8/29/2014. Motions due by 10/20/2014. Court Reporter: Alex Joko. (rne) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
27 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Amended MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Morton, Janet Napolitano, Thomas Winkowski. Motion set for hearing on 11/4/2013 at 08:30 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, Thomas Winkowski, Rand Beers, John Sandweg; Party John Morton (Director, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)) and Janet Napolitano (Secretary of Homeland Security) terminated amending Complaint − (Discovery), 1 ,filed by Plaintiffs Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Ana Maria Duenas, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Candelaria Felix, Samuel Nava, Genaro Munoz−Flores, Patricia Armenta, Marta Mendoza, Arnulfo Sierra, San Bernardino Community Service Center, Alejandro Serrato (shb) (bp). (Entered: 10/04/2013)
29 TRANSCRIPT ORDER re: Initial Order Setting R26 Scheduling Conference, 12 , Motion to Change Venue, 11 , as to plaintiff Patricia Armenta, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Marta Mendoza, Genaro Munoz−Flores, Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, San Bernardino Community Service Center, Alejandro Serrato, Arnulfo Sierra Court Reporter. Court will contact Darcie Tilly at dtilly@cooley.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Other: September 23, 20013 Motion to Transfer Venue Hearing; and Scheduling Conference. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Tilly, Darcie) (Entered: 10/07/2013)

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 17 of 27

10/11/2013 10/17/2013 10/23/2013
10/31/2013 10/31/2013 10/31/2013 11/01/2013 11/05/2013

30 Joint STIPULATION to Stay Case pending Ceassation of Lapse in Government Funding filed by Plaintiff Patricia Armenta, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Marta Mendoza, Genaro Munoz−Flores, Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, San Bernardino Community Service Center, Alejandro Serrato, Arnulfo Sierra. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 10/11/2013)
31 NOTICE of Restoration of Federal Government Appropriations filed by Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Rand Beers, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Sandweg, Thomas Winkowski. (Defoe, Craig) (Entered: 10/17/2013)
32 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT by Judge John A. Kronstadt: finding as moot 20 Motion to Dismiss Case ; finding as moot 27 Motion to Dismiss Case. The November 4, 2013 hearing on defendants Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 20, 27) is taken off calendar, in light of the filing of plaintiffs First Amended Complaint. If Defendants wish to file a motion to dismiss with respect to the First Amended Complaint, Defendants shall do so no later than October 31, 2013. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition no later than November 14, 2013, and Defendants shall file a reply no later than November 21, 2013. The hearing for any filed Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint shall be set for December 9, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. The November 4, 2013 hearing on Defendants Motion to TransferVenue (Dkt. No. 11) is reset to December 9, 2013. Defendants may submit an optional supplemental brief regarding venue (no longer than ten pages) no later than October 31, 2013. Plaintiffs may submit an optional supplemental brief regarding venue (no longer than ten pages) no later than November 14, 2013. The November 4, 2013 continued Rule 26(f) conference shall be reset to December 9, 2013. The Joint Stipulation to stay the case is moot. (shb) (Entered: 10/24/2013)
33 Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Change Venue, 11 filed by Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Rand Beers, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Morton, Janet Napolitano, John Sandweg, Thomas Winkowski. (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/31/2013)
34 STIPULATION to Exceed Page Limitation as to Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Rand Beers, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Morton, Janet Napolitano, John Sandweg, Thomas Winkowski.(Attorney Jeffrey S Robins added to party Rand Beers(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey S Robins added to party John Sandweg(pty:dft))(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/31/2013)
35 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Rand Beers, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Morton, Janet Napolitano, John Sandweg, Thomas Winkowski. Motion set for hearing on 12/9/2013 at 08:30 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/31/2013)
36 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE ENLARGING THE PAGE LIMIT FOR BRIEFING RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. 34, 35)The Court finds good cause to support the parties stipulation to enlarge the maximum page limit for both Defendants memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss the FAC and Plaintiffs memorandum in opposition. The parties may submit briefs of no longer than 30 pages in support of and in opposition to the motion to dismiss. 34 35 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jaklc3, ) TEXT ONLY ENTRY Modified on 11/5/2013 (ake). (Entered: 11/01/2013)
37 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday through Friday, on a weekend or holiday, and need immediate judicial review, please call 213−894−2485 to advise that a Preliminary Injunction has been electronically filed. Failure to call the courtroom deputy, or the after hours filing contact number, may result in a delay of judicial review. Motion filed by plaintiffs Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Genaro Munoz−Flores, Arnulfo Sierra. Motion set for hearing on 2/3/2014 at 08:30 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in support of Preliminary Injunction, # 2 Declaration of Gabriela Rivera, # 3 Exhibit 1 to Rivera Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 2 to Rivera Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 3 to Rivera

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 18 of 27

11/05/2013
11/06/2013
11/06/2013 11/14/2013 11/20/2013
11/21/2013 11/22/2013
12/02/2013 12/02/2013 12/04/2013

Declaration, # 6 Declaration of Gerardo Hernandez−Contreras, # 7 Declaration of Arnulfo Sierra, # 8 Declaration of Genaro Munoz−Flores, # 9 Declaration of Isidora Lopez−Venegas, # 10 Declaration of Aide Vasquez, # 11 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction)(Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 11/05/2013)
38 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Special Hearing re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday through Friday, on a weekend or holiday, and need im 37 filed by plaintiffs Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Genaro Munoz−Flores, Arnulfo Sierra. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sean Riordan, # 2 Proposed Order Setting Hearing Date for Motion for Preliminary Injunction)(Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 11/05/2013)
39 DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE re EX PARTE APPLICATION for Special Hearing re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday thro 38 filed by Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Rand Beers, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Sandweg, Thomas Winkowski. (Attorney Craig A Defoe added to party Rand Beers(pty:dft), Attorney Craig A Defoe added to party John Sandweg(pty:dft))(Defoe, Craig) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
40 NOTICE filed by Plaintiffs Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Genaro Munoz−Flores, Arnulfo Sierra. Notice of Errata Re Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Aide Vasquez In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction)(Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
41 Opposition re: MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 35 filed by Plaintiffs Patricia Armenta, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Marta Mendoza, Genaro Munoz−Flores, Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, San Bernardino Community Service Center, Alejandro Serrato, Arnulfo Sierra. (Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 11/14/2013)
43 ORDER by Judge John A. Kronstadt: granting 38 Ex Parte Application for Special Hearing and setting hearing date of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunctin on the same date as the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The hearing on the PI Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 37) is set for December 9, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.; and 2. Any Opposition to the Motion shall be filed no later than November 22, 2013 at 12pm. The Reply shall be filed no later than December 2, 2013 at 12pm. (shb) (Entered: 11/21/2013)
42 REPLY in support of MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 35 filed by Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Rand Beers, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Sandweg, Thomas Winkowski. (Defoe, Craig) (Entered: 11/21/2013)
44 OPPOSITION to MOTION for Preliminary Injunction .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday through Friday, on a weekend or holiday, and need im 37 filed by Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Rand Beers, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Sandweg, Thomas Winkowski. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Table, # 2 Exhibit A − Correa Declaration with Attachments, # 3 Exhibit B − Milne Declaration, # 4 Exhibit C − Holmes Declaration)(Defoe, Craig) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
45 NOTICE Withdrawal of Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Genaro Munoz−Flores filed by Plaintiff Genaro Munoz−Flores. (Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
46 REPLY In Support Of MOTION for Preliminary Injunction .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday through Friday, on a weekend or holiday, and need im 37 filed by Plaintiffs Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Arnulfo Sierra. (Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
47 STATUS REPORT filed by Plaintiffs Patricia Armenta, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Marta Mendoza, Genaro Munoz−Flores, Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, San

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 19 of 27

12/09/2013 12/09/2013
12/10/2013
12/10/2013
12/13/2013 12/27/2013 01/09/2014

Bernardino Community Service Center, Alejandro Serrato, Arnulfo Sierra. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Schedule of Pretrial and Trial Dates, # 2 Exhibit ESI Production Protocol)(Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 12/04/2013)
48 ORDER/REFERRAL to ADR Procedure No 1 by Judge John A. Kronstadt. Case ordered to Magistrate Judge Paul L Abrams for Settlement Conference. Status Conference set for 4/21/2014 at 01:30 PM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (shb) (Entered: 12/09/2013)
51 MINUTES: DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS 35 ; PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 37 ; CONTINUED HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFERVENUE (DKT. 11 − WITHDRAWN]; CONTINUED SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: The motion hearing is held. The Court states its tentative view that it is inclined to deny Defendants Motion to Dismiss (the "Motion") and deny Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (the "Injunction Motion"). Counsel address the Court. The Court takes the Motion and Injunction Motion UNDER SUBMISSION and will issue an order. Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue is WITHDRAWN. Dkt. 11, 45. The continued hearing on the Scheduling Conference is held. The Court confers with counsel regarding the status of the case and reschedules the following deadlines (See document for further details) IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge John A. Kronstadt Court Reporter: Alex Joko. (ir) (Entered: 12/11/2013)
49 **TEXT ONLY ENTRY** MINUTES (In Chambers) by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Abrams for settlement. IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) confer with each other and set a date and time for a settlement conference, after clearing the date with Magistrate Judge Abrams' clerk, Christianna Howard, (213) 894−7103. The date selected must be soon enough to comply with any deadlines imposed by the District Judge, but not before the parties have engaged in sufficient discussions to make a settlement conference meaningful. In general, the parties should contact the court clerk at least 30 days prior to the date on which they wish to hold the settlement conference. Please note that settlement conferences are usually conducted on Thursdays and begin at 9:00 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ch) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 12/10/2013)
50 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Plaintiffs Patricia Armenta, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Marta Mendoza, Genaro Munoz−Flores, Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, San Bernardino Community Service Center, Alejandro Serrato, Arnulfo Sierra Court Reporter. Court will contact Michelle Fitzmorris at mfitzmorris@cooley.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Other: 12/92013 Hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue, Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Scheduling Conference. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Tilly, Darcie) (Entered: 12/10/2013)
52 NOTICE Clarifying Position on Preliminary Injunctive Relief filed by plaintiff Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Arnulfo Sierra. (Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 12/13/2013)
53 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge John A. Kronstadt: granting in part and denying in part 35 Motion to Dismiss ; denying 37 Motion for Preliminary Injunction (shb) (Entered: 12/30/2013)
54 Joint STIPULATION to Clarify Inconsistent Dates, Re: Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Motion Hearing, Scheduling Conference, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 51 , filed by plaintiff Patricia Armenta, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Marta Mendoza, Genaro Munoz−Flores, Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, San Bernardino Community Service Center, Alejandro Serrato, Arnulfo Sierra. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 01/09/2014)

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 20 of 27

01/09/2014 01/09/2014 01/10/2014 01/14/2014 01/15/2014 01/21/2014 01/24/2014
01/24/2014 01/28/2014

55 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL filed by plaintiff Alejandro Serrato, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Genaro Munoz−Flores, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, San Bernardino Community Service Center, Patricia Armenta, Ana Maria Duenas, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Candelaria Felix, Samuel Nava, Arnulfo Sierra, Marta Mendoza pursuant to FRCP 41a(1) as to All Defendants. (Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 01/09/2014)
56 ORDER by Judge John A. Kronstadt, GRANTING Stipulation to Clarify Inconsistent Dates, 54 . In accordance with the Courts intention in setting hearing dates and the parties joint stipulation, the Court sets (1) the Hearing on Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification and a Status Conference Concerning Settlement Process on April 21, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. and (2) the last day to hear motions on Monday, December 15, 2014. IT IS SO ORDERED. (shb) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
57 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Dave Marin answer now due 1/24/2014; John Sandweg answer now due 1/24/2014; Gregory Archambeault answer now due 1/24/2014; Thomas Winkowski answer now due 1/24/2014; Rand Beers answer now due 1/24/2014; Paul Beeson answer now due 1/24/2014, re Amended Complaint,,, 28 filed by Defendants Dave Marin; John Sandweg; Gregory Archambeault; Thomas Winkowski; Rand Beers; Paul Beeson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Defoe, Craig) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
58 Joint STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by plaintiff Patricia Armenta, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Marta Mendoza, Genaro Munoz−Flores, Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, San Bernardino Community Service Center, Alejandro Serrato, Arnulfo Sierra. (Attachments: # 1 Joint Stipulation, # 2 Declaration of Sean Riordan with Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit for Defendants, # 4 Appendix)(Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
59 ORDER by Judge John A. Kronstadt, GRANTING Stipulation to extend Defendants' Answer deadline 57 . Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Defendants shall file ananswer to the remaining claims in Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint no laterthan January 24, 2014. The Court also hereby extends the deadline to amend oradd parties from January 15, 2014, to January 24, 2014. (ir) (Entered: 01/15/2014)
60 SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING THE HANDLING OF CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL filed by Plaintiffs Patricia Armenta, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Marta Mendoza, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, San Bernardino Community Service Center, Alejandro Serrato. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5)(Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
61 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Timothy Michael Belsan on behalf of Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Rand Beers, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Sandweg, Thomas Winkowski (Attorney Timothy Michael Belsan added to party Gregory Archambeault(pty:dft), Attorney Timothy Michael Belsan added to party Rand Beers(pty:dft), Attorney Timothy Michael Belsan added to party Paul Beeson(pty:dft), Attorney Timothy Michael Belsan added to party Dave Marin(pty:dft), Attorney Timothy Michael Belsan added to party John Sandweg(pty:dft), Attorney Timothy Michael Belsan added to party Thomas Winkowski(pty:dft))(Belsan, Timothy) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
62 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,, 28 filed by Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Rand Beers, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Sandweg, Thomas Winkowski.(Defoe, Craig) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
63 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams: The Court has reviewed plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order Governing the Handling of Confidential Material (Docket No. 58) and has determined that oral argument will not be of material assistance in determining the Motion. Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for February 4, 2014, is ordered off calendar (see Local Rule 7−15), and the matter is under submission. (es) (Entered: 01/28/2014)

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 21 of 27

02/03/2014 02/05/2014
02/06/2014 02/06/2014 02/12/2014 02/12/2014 02/20/2014 03/28/2014 04/04/2014

64 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Class Certification Dates from February 28, 2014 to April 25, 2014 Re: Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Motion Hearing, Scheduling Conference, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 51 filed by Plaintiffs Marta Mendoza, Genaro Munoz−Flores, Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, San Bernardino Community Service Center, Alejandro Serrato, Arnulfo Sierra. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order to Extend Class Certification Dates)(Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 02/03/2014)
65 ORDER re Stipulation to Continue 64 by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The Court hereby orders as follows: A. the February 28, 2014 deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Class Certification be continued to April 25, 2014; B. the March 28, 2014 deadline for Defendants to file their Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification be continued to May 23, 2014; C. the April 11, 2014 deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Reply to Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification be continued to June 16, 2014; D. the April 21, 2014 hearing on the Motion for Class Certification be continued to June 30, 2014, at 8:30 a.m.; E. the Court sets a Status Conference re Settlement for June 30, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. Counsel shall file a joint status report by February 12, 2014, regarding when the parties anticipate a settlement conference with Judge Abrams would be productive; and F. All other dates previously set in this matter remain in place. There will be no further continuances of the date for the hearing on the motion for class certification. IT IS SO ORDERED. (kti) (Entered: 02/06/2014)
66 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 58 GOVERNING THE HANDLING OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. Plaintiffs' Motion (Docket No. 58) is GRANTED IN PART, as set forth above. Concurrently with this Order, the Court will issue plaintiffs' Proposed Protective Order (Riordan Dec., Exh. A), modified to reflect the Court's decision herein, as well as to reflect other minor changes made by the Court (see 13, 26(e)). **See Order for details.** (ch) (Entered: 02/06/2014)
67 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams re Stipulation for Protective Order,, 58 **NOTE CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT** (ch) (Entered: 02/06/2014)
68 STATUS REPORT RE Settlement filed by Plaintiffs Patricia Armenta, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Marta Mendoza, Genaro Munoz−Flores, Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, San Bernardino Community Service Center, Alejandro Serrato, Arnulfo Sierra. (Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 02/12/2014)
69 ORDER RE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. A Settlement Conference will be held on April 10, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. in courtroom G, ninth floor of the U.S Courthouse, located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California. No later than April 3, 2014, each party shall submit a Confidential Settlement Conference Statement directly to the chambers of Magistrate Judge Abrams (i.e., Room 926) or fax to (213) 894−8534. (See attached Order.) (es) (Entered: 02/13/2014)
70 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Review of Order granting Motion for Protective Order re Order,, 66 filed by defendants Gregory Archambeault, Rand Beers, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Morton, Janet Napolitano, John Sandweg, Thomas Winkowski. Motion set for hearing on 4/21/2014 at 08:30 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Attorney Hans Chen added to party Rand Beers(pty:dft), Attorney Hans Chen added to party John Sandweg(pty:dft))(Chen, Hans) (Entered: 02/20/2014)
71 Opposition re: MOTION for Review of Order granting Motion for Protective Order re Order,, 66 70 filed by Plaintiffs Patricia Armenta, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Marta Mendoza, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, San Bernardino Community Service Center, Alejandro Serrato, Arnulfo Sierra. (Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
72 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams.Telephonic conference held off the record. Court and counsel discuss logistics

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 22 of 27

04/07/2014 04/08/2014 04/08/2014
04/09/2014
04/10/2014 04/10/2014 04/14/2014 04/16/2014 04/25/2014

for Thursday, April 10, 2014, settlement conference which will begin at 8:00 a.m. (ch) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
73 REPLY support MOTION for Review of Order granting Motion for Protective Order re Order,, 66 70 filed by Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Rand Beers, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Sandweg, Thomas Winkowski. (Chen, Hans) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
74 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Durwood Riedel on behalf of Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Rand Beers, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Sandweg, Thomas Winkowski (Attorney Durwood Riedel added to party Gregory Archambeault(pty:dft), Attorney Durwood Riedel added to party Rand Beers(pty:dft), Attorney Durwood Riedel added to party Paul Beeson(pty:dft), Attorney Durwood Riedel added to party Dave Marin(pty:dft), Attorney Durwood Riedel added to party John Sandweg(pty:dft), Attorney Durwood Riedel added to party Thomas Winkowski(pty:dft))(Riedel, Durwood) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
75 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel the Production of Documents filed by Plaintiffs Patricia Armenta, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Marta Mendoza, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, San Bernardino Community Service Center, Alejandro Serrato, Arnulfo Sierra. Motion set for hearing on 4/29/2014 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Appendix, # 3 Declaration of Gabriela Rivera, # 4 Declaration of Timothy Belsan, # 5 Declaration of Mark Hopkins)(Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
76 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Hearing to Set Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel for April 22, 2014 filed by Plaintiffs Patricia Armenta, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Marta Mendoza, Genaro Munoz−Flores, Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, San Bernardino Community Service Center, Alejandro Serrato, Arnulfo Sierra. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gabriela Rivera, # 2 Exhibit 1 through 4 to Declaration of Gabriela Rivera, # 3 Proposed Order)(Attorney Gabriela Rivera added to party Patricia Armenta(pty:pla), Attorney Gabriela Rivera added to party Marta Mendoza(pty:pla), Attorney Gabriela Rivera added to party Genaro Munoz−Flores(pty:pla), Attorney Gabriela Rivera added to party San Bernardino Community Service Center(pty:pla), Attorney Gabriela Rivera added to party Alejandro Serrato(pty:pla), Attorney Gabriela Rivera added to party Arnulfo Sierra(pty:pla))(Rivera, Gabriela) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
77 OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Hearing to Set Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel for April 22, 2014 76 filed by Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Rand Beers, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Morton, Janet Napolitano, John Sandweg, Thomas Winkowski. (Attorney Durwood Riedel added to party John Morton(pty:dft), Attorney Durwood Riedel added to party Janet Napolitano(pty:dft))(Riedel, Durwood) (Entered: 04/10/2014)
78 MINUTES OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held before Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams: Settlement Conference held. A further settlement conference will be held on Friday, April 25, 2014, beginning at 8:00 a.m. A joint progress report concerning the status of settlement discussions shall be submitted to chambers no later than noon on Monday, April 21, 2014. Court Recorder: N/A. (es) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
79 RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER CONTINUING DEADLINES RELATED TO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Judge John A. Kronstadt. **See Order for details.** (ch) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
80 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Set Hearing Date of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel for April 22, 2014, filed on April 9, 2014 (Docket No. 76 ), is DENIED AS MOOT, in light of the District Judge's Order freezing discovery in this action until May 12, 2014 (Docket No. 79). For the same reason, the April 29, 2014, hearing on plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Docket No. 75) is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR. (ch) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
81 MINUTES OF Further Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. Further Settlement Conference held. A further settlement conference will be

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 23 of 27

05/05/2014 05/06/2014 05/09/2014 05/23/2014 06/09/2014 06/10/2014 06/13/2014 06/17/2014 08/18/2014
08/19/2014

held telephonically on TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2014, at 10:15 a.m. (Pacific Standard Time). Counsel shall contact Judge Abrams' clerk, Christianna Howard, at (213) 894−7103 with the necessary call−in information. A progress report concerning the status of settlement discussions shall be submitted directly to chambers by either facsimile ((213) 894−8534), or email (pla_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov), NO LATER THAN NOON ON FRIDAY, MAY 2, 2014. (ch) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
82 (IN CHAMBERS) MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams: Having reviewed the parties May 2, 2014, submission, the further settlement conference (telephonic) scheduled in this action for May 6, 2014, is hereby continued to Friday, May 9, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. Pacific time. The parties shall notify the courtroom deputy of the contact information for participation in the conference. (es) (Entered: 05/05/2014)
83 SECOND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER CONTINUING DEADLINES RELATED TO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Judge John A. Kronstadt. **See Order for specific details.** (ch) (Entered: 05/06/2014)
84 MINUTES OF Telephonic Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. Telephonic Settlement Conference held off the record. A further settlement conference will be held on Friday, May 23, 2014, at 8:30 a.m. (ch) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
85 MINUTES OF (FURTHER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE) held before Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams: Further Settlement Conference held. A further settlement conference will be held on Tuesday, June 10, 2014,at 8:30 a.m. Court Recorder: N/A. (es) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
86 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE NOTICE OF AMENDED STANDING ORDER(S) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: Counsel are advised that the Court has amended one or more of its Standing Orders. Counsel shall refer to this Court's Procedures and Schedules found on the website for the United States District Court (www.cacd.uscourts.gov) to obtain the Order(s).THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/09/2014)
87 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. Further Settlement Conference held. A further settlement conference (telephonic) will be held on Friday, June 13, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. Pacific Time. (ch) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
88 MINUTES OF FURTHER TELEPHONIC SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held before Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams: Further Telephonic Settlement Conference held off the record. Parties to submit a status report no later than July 11, 2014, concerning the status of the preparation of the settlement agreement. Court Recorder: NA. (es) (Entered: 06/16/2014)
89 THIRD RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER CONTINUING DEADLINES RELATED TO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION, AND MODIFYING AND SETTING OTHER DATES by Judge John A. Kronstadt. **See Order for details.** (ch) (Entered: 06/17/2014)
90 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class−Wide Portions of Settlement Agreement (Preliminary Approval) filed by Plaintiffs Ana Maria Duenas, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Alejandro Serrato, Arnulfo Sierra. Motion set for hearing on 9/8/2014 at 08:30 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Memorandum, # 3 Declaration of Sean Riordan, # 4 Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Sean Riordan, # 5 Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Sean Riordan, # 6 Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Sean Riordan, # 7 Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Sean Riordan, # 8 Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Sean Riordan, # 9 Exhibit 6 to the Declaration of Sean Riordan, # 10 Exhibit 7 to the Declaration of Sean Riordan)(Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
91 APPLICATION for Settlement Approval of on behalf of Marta Mendoza by Patricia Armenta filed by plaintiff Patricia Armenta, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Marta Mendoza, Genaro Munoz−Flores,

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 24 of 27

08/19/2014 08/19/2014 08/28/2014
08/29/2014 10/02/2014 12/01/2014

Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, San Bernardino Community Service Center, Alejandro Serrato, Arnulfo Sierra. Application set for hearing on 9/8/2014 at 08:30 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Patricia Armenta Application, # 2 Exhibit B to Patricia Armenta Application, # 3 Proposed Order)(Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 08/19/2014)
92 APPLICATION for Settlement Approval of on behalf of Yadira Felix by Maria Calendaria Hernandez−Felix filed by plaintiff Patricia Armenta, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Marta Mendoza, Genaro Munoz−Flores, Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, San Bernardino Community Service Center, Alejandro Serrato, Arnulfo Sierra. Application set for hearing on 9/8/2014 at 08:30 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Maria Calendaria Hernandez−Felix Application, # 2 Exhibit B to Maria Calendaria Hernandez−Felix Application, # 3 Proposed Order)(Riordan, Sean) (Entered: 08/19/2014)
93 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams: In light of the filing of the Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class−Wide Portion of Settlement Agreement (Docket No. 90), plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Docket No. 75) is hereby denied without prejudice. (es) (Entered: 08/19/2014)
94 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge John A. Kronstadt: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS−WIDE PORTION OF SETTLEMENT (DKT. 90); APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RESOLVING CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF MARTA MENDOZA BY AND THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND PATRICIA ARMENTA (DKT. 91); APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RESOLVING CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF YADIRA FELIX BY AND THROUGHHER NEXT FRIEND CANDELARIA FELIX (DKT. 92); DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (JUDGE ABRAMS) (DKT. 70). The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion and the Applications. A hearing on finalapproval of the settlement is set for February 9, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiffs shall file a motion for final approval, including Plaintiffs counsels application for attorneys fees and costs, on or before January 5, 2015. Any opposition shall be filed on or before January 19, 2015, and any reply shall be filed on or before January 26, 2015. In light of Plaintiffs Motion and Applications, Defendant's Motion for Review of Order Granting Motion for Protective Order (Judge Abrams) is MOOT. (shb) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
95 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER VACATING DATES by Judge John A Kronstadt: In light of the hearing on the final approval of the class action settlement, scheduled to be heard on February 9, 2015, the Court vacates the October 6, 2014 Status Conference re Settlement, November 3, 2014 hearing on the anticipated motion for class certification, February 2, 2015 Final Pretrial Conference, February 13, 2015 Status Conference re Exhibits, and February 17, 2015 Court Trial. All other dates and deadlines remain. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/29/2014)
96 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Bardis Vakili counsel for Plaintiff Isidora Lopez Venegas. Changing Bardis Vakili change of address to ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties, P.O. Box 87131, San Diego, CA 92138−7131. Changing email to bvakili@aclusandiego.org. Filed by Plaintiffs Isidora Lopez−Venegas, et al. (Vakili, Bardis) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
97 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Belinda Escobosa Helzer counsel for Plaintiffs Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center. Changing address to 1851 East First Street, Suite 450, Santa Ana, CA 92705. Filed by plaintiff Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 12/01/2014)

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 25 of 27

12/01/2014 12/17/2014
12/29/2014 01/05/2015 02/05/2015 02/09/2015

98 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Belinda Escobosa Helzer counsel for Plaintiffs Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center. Filed by plaintiff Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center. (Escobosa Helzer, Belinda) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
99 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by Representative Class Plaintiffs Ana Maria Duenas, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Alejandro Serrato, Arnulfo Sierra. Motion set for hearing on 2/9/2015 at 08:30 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration of Bardis Vakili, # 3 Exhibit A to Decl. of Bardis Vakili, # 4 Exhibit B to Decl. of Bardis Vakili, # 5 Exhibit C to Decl. of Bardis Vakili, # 6 Exhibit D to Decl. of Bardis Vakili, # 7 Declaration of Darcie Tilly, # 8 Exhibit A to Decl. of Darcie Tilly, # 9 Exhibit B to Decl. of Darcie Tilly, # 10 Exhibit C to Decl. of Darcie Tilly, # 11 Exhibit D to Decl. of Darcie Tilly, # 12 Exhibit E to Decl. of Darcie Tilly, # 13 Declaration of Ahilan T. Arulanantham, # 14 Exhibit A to Decl. of Ahilan T. Arulanantham, # 15 Exhibit B to Decl. of Ahilan T. Arulanantham, # 16 Declaration of Carol A. Sobel, # 17 Exhibit 1 to Decl. of Carol A. Sobel, # 18 Exhibit 2 to Decl. of Carol A. Sobel, # 19 Exhibit 2a to Decl. of Carol A. Sobel, # 20 Exhibit 3 to Decl. of Carol A. Sobel, # 21 Exhibit 4 to Decl. of Carol A. Sobel, # 22 Exhibit 5 to Decl. of Carol A. Sobel, # 23 Exhibit 6 to Decl. of Carol A. Sobel, # 24 Exhibit 7 to Decl. of Carol A. Sobel, # 25 Exhibit 8 to Decl. of Carol A. Sobel, # 26 Declaration of Marc Van der Hout, # 27 Declaration of Sean Riordan, # 28 Exhibit A to Decl. of Sean Riordan, # 29 Declaration of David Loy, # 30 Exhibit A to Decl. of David Loy, # 31 Declaration of Mitra Ebadolahi, # 32 Declaration of Gabriela Rivera)(Attorney Bardis Vakili added to party Alejandro Serrato(pty:pla), Attorney Bardis Vakili added to party Arnulfo Sierra(pty:pla))(Vakili, Bardis) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
100 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Bardis Vakili counsel for Plaintiffs Patricia Armenta, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Marta Mendoza, Genaro Munoz−Flores, Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, San Bernardino Community Service Center, Alejandro Serrato, Arnulfo Sierra. Sean Riordan is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Isidora Lopez−Venegas, et al.. (Attorney Bardis Vakili added to party Patricia Armenta(pty:pla), Attorney Bardis Vakili added to party Marta Mendoza(pty:pla), Attorney Bardis Vakili added to party Genaro Munoz−Flores(pty:pla), Attorney Bardis Vakili added to party San Bernardino Community Service Center(pty:pla))(Vakili, Bardis) (Entered: 12/29/2014)
101 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class−Wide Portions of Agreement (Final Approval) filed by Representative Plaintiffs Ana Maria Duenas, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Alejandro Serrato, Arnulfo Sierra. Motion set for hearing on 2/9/2015 at 08:30 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Attachments: # 1 [Proposed] Judgment, # 2 Memorandum, # 3 Declaration of Bardis Vakili, # 4 Declaration of Jeffrey Dahl)(Attorney Darcie Allison Tilly added to party Alejandro Serrato(pty:pla), Attorney Darcie Allison Tilly added to party Arnulfo Sierra(pty:pla))(Tilly, Darcie) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
102 NOTICE OF NON−OPPOSITION to MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs 99 , MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class−Wide Portions of Agreement (Final Approval) 101 filed by Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Rand Beers, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Sandweg, Thomas Winkowski. (Defoe, Craig) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
103 MINUTES OF REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CLASS WIDE PORTION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND CLASS CERTIFICATION (DKT. 101) PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS (DKT. 99) The motion hearing is held. The Court states its tentative views that it is inclined to grant Representative Plaintiffs' Motion and Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of the

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 26 of 27

02/25/2015 03/04/2015 03/11/2015
08/25/2015
08/27/2015 08/27/2015

Class Wide Portion of the Settlement Agreement and Class Certification (the "Class Motion") and grant in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs (the "Fees Motion"). Counsel address the Court. The Court takes the Class Motion and Fees Motion UNDER SUBMISSION and will issue a written ruling. Court Reporter: Alex Joko. (bp) (Entered: 02/10/2015)
104 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER RE REPRESENTATIVE CLASS PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS (DKT.99) AND MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT APPROVAL OF CLASS−WIDE PORTIONS OF AGREEMENT (FINAL APPROVAL)(DKT. 101) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The Motion for Approval of the Class−Wide Portions of the Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. The Motion for Attorney's Fees of $700,00 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to submit a proposed judgment in accordance with the terms of this Order and the Agreement on or before March 3, 2015. (bp) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
105 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class−Wide Portions of Agreement (Final Approval) 101 (Attachments: # 1 proposed judgment)(Vakili, Bardis) (Entered: 03/04/2015)
106 FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge John A. Kronstadt. 1. In the Final Order Approving Class Action Settlement, the Courtgranted final certification of a class defined as: all Individuals who returned toMexico pursuant to a Qualifying Voluntary Return between June 1, 2009 andAugust 28, 2014, and who are described in both paragraphs (a) and (b) of thissection:(a) Based on the facts as they existed at the time of his or her QualifyingVoluntary Return, the Individual:(i) Last entered the United States with inspection prior to his or herQualifying Voluntary Return and satisfied the non−discretionarycriteria for submitting an approvable application to adjust statusunder 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), based on a bona fide immediaterelative relationship defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i); (ii) Was the beneficiary of a properly filed Form I−130 Petition forAlien Relative based on a bona fide family relationship, whichwas pending or approved at the time of the QualifyingVoluntary Return;(iii) Satisfied the non−discretionary criteria to apply for cancellationof removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b; or(iv) His or her Qualifying Voluntary Return occurred on or afterJune 15, 2012, and he or she satisfied the non−discretionarycriteria for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)listed on page one of the June 15, 2012 memorandum fromformer Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano (MD JS−6, Case Terminated). (See judgment for further details) (bp) (Entered: 03/11/2015)
107 Joint STIPULATION for Order Referral to Mediation Before Magistrate filed by plaintiff Patricia Armenta, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Marta Mendoza, Genaro Munoz−Flores, Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, San Bernardino Community Service Center, Alejandro Serrato, Arnulfo Sierra. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Attorney Mitra Ebadolahi added to party Patricia Armenta(pty:pla), Attorney Mitra Ebadolahi added to party Marta Mendoza(pty:pla), Attorney Mitra Ebadolahi added to party Genaro Munoz−Flores(pty:pla), Attorney Mitra Ebadolahi added to party San Bernardino Community Service Center(pty:pla), Attorney Mitra Ebadolahi added to party Alejandro Serrato(pty:pla), Attorney Mitra Ebadolahi added to party Arnulfo Sierra(pty:pla))(Ebadolahi, Mitra) (Entered: 08/25/2015)
108 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION SEEKING REFERRAL TO MEDIATION BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE ABRAMS PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES' SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by Judge John A. Kronstadt, re Stipulation for Order, 107 . For good cause shown, pursuant to the Parties' stipulation, the Court refers the Parties to mediation before Magistrate Judge Abrams. (bp) (Entered: 08/27/2015)
109 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams: In that, based on the parties request for further mediation in this matter, the District Judge on August 27, 2015, referred the matter to this Court, the Court orders the parties to: (1) meet and confer and select three dates on which they are available to participate in further mediation; (2) contact the Courts courtroom deputy, Christianna Howard, at (213) 894−7103 to determine the Courts availability on those dates; and (3) no later than three court days prior to the scheduled mediation, submit to the Court each partys position concerning the issue(s) as to which further mediation is being sought. The position papers may not exceed three pages in length, and shall be sent by facsimile to

Case: 2:13-cv-3972 As of: 02/14/2018 01:21 PM PST 27 of 27

08/28/2015 09/09/2015 10/19/2015 10/28/2015 11/12/2015 12/18/2015 01/29/2016 02/18/2016 04/20/2016
04/22/2016

chambers at (213) 894−8534. (es) (Entered: 08/27/2015)
110 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams: Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement entered in this action, an in−person mediation session will be held on Wednesday, September 9, 2015, beginning at 9:00 a.m. The parties joint letter brief setting forth their respective positions (not to exceed eight pleading pages per party) shall be submitted to chambers no later than noon on Friday, September 4, 2015. (es) (Entered: 08/28/2015)
111 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. Mediation held off the record concerning asserted violation of settlement agreement. Parties to continue discussions and report back to the Court NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 7, 2015. (ch) (Entered: 09/11/2015)
112 TEXT ONLY ENTRY (In Chambers) by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. Based on the parties' October 7, 2015, joint status report, the parties shall submit their next status report to the Court NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 28, 2015.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ch) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/19/2015)
113 TEXT ONLY ENTRY (In Chambers) by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. Based on the parties' October 28, 2015, joint status report, the parties shall submit their next status report to the Court NO LATER THAN NOVEMBER 11, 2015. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ch) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/28/2015)
114 TEXT ONLY ENTRY (In Chambers) by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. Based on the parties' November 10, 2015, joint status report, the parties shall submit their next status report to the Court NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 18, 2015. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ch) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
115 TEXT ONLY ENTRY (In Chambers) by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. Based on the parties' December 18, 2015, joint status report, the parties shall submit their next status report to the Court NO LATER THAN JANUARY 29, 2016. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ch) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 12/18/2015)
116 TEXT ONLY ENTRY (In Chambers) by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. Based on the parties' January 29, 2016, joint status report, the parties shall submit their next status report to the Court NO LATER THAN APRIL 8, 2016. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ch) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/29/2016)
117 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Craig A Defoe counsel for Defendants Gregory Archambeault, Rand Beers, Paul Beeson, Dave Marin, John Morton, Janet Napolitano, John Sandweg, Thomas Winkowski. Craig A. Defoe is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendants Jeh Johnson, et al.. (Defoe, Craig) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
118 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Gabriela Rivera counsel for Plaintiffs Patricia Armenta, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ana Maria Duenas, Candelaria Felix, Efrain Garcia Martinez, Gerardo Hernandez Contreras, Isidora Lopez Venegas, Marta Mendoza, Genaro Munoz−Flores, Samuel Nava, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, San Bernardino Community Service Center, Alejandro Serrato, Arnulfo Sierra. Gabriela Rivera is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Gabriela Rivera. (Attachments: # 1 proof of service)(Rivera, Gabriela) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
119 Notice of Resolution of Matter Underlying Referral to Mediation Before Magistrate Judge Abrams (Ebadolahi, Mitra) (Entered: 04/22/2016)