ACCO,(SKx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY,MANADR,PROTORD,STAYED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:18−cv−06081−JAK−SK

Ms. J.P. et al v. William P Barr fka Jefferson B. Sessions et al Assigned to: Judge John A. Kronstadt Referred to: Magistrate Judge Steve Kim Case in other court: USCA 9th Cir, 19−56400 Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/12/2018 Date Terminated: 03/24/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Ms. J.P. on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated

represented by Alma David Immigrant Advocacy and Litigation Center PLLC 19309 68th Avenue South Suite R102 Kent, WA 98032−2112 253−872−4730 Fax: 253−237−1591 Email: adavid@ia−lc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ellyce R Cooper Sidley Austin LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 310−595−9500 Fax: 310−595−9501 Email: ecooper@sidley.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy London Public Counsel 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 213−385−2977 Fax: 213−385−9089 Email: jlondon@publiccounsel.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Luis Cortes Romero Immigrant Advocacy and Litigation Center PLLC 19309 − 68th Avenue South Suite R102 Kent, WA 98032−2112 253−872−4730 Fax: 253−237−1591 Email: lcortes@ia−lc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark E Haddad University of Southern California USC Gould School of Law 699 Exposition Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90089−0071 213−675−5957 Email: mhaddad@law.usc.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark D Rosenbaum Public Counsel 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 213−385−2977 Fax: 213−385−9089 Email: mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean A Commons Sidley Austin LLP 555 West Fifth Street Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013−1010 213−896−6178 Fax: 213−896−6600 Email: scommons@sidley.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Talia R Inlender Public Counsel 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 213−385−2977 Fax: 213−385−9089 Email: tinlender@publiccounsel.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alisa Louise Hartz Public Counsel 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 213−359−2977 Fax: 213−385−9089 TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Amanda Roman Mangaser Savage Public Counsel 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 213−385−2977 Fax: 213385−9089 Email: asavage@publiccounsel.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bridget S Johnsen Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, CA 91770 626−302−8537 Fax: 626−302−5951 Email: bridget.johnsen@sce.com TERMINATED: 12/13/2019
Carter G Phillips Sidley Austin LLP 1501 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 202−736−8270 Fax: 202−736−8711 Email: cphillips@sidley.com PRO HAC VICE

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel C Craig Sidley Austin LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 312−853−7370 Fax: 312−853−7036 Email: dcraig@sidley.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deena N Tumeh Public Counsel 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 213−385−2977 Fax: 213−385−9089 Email: dtumeh@publiccounsel.org TERMINATED: 08/17/2018
Elizabeth Hadaway Public Counsel 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005−2322 213−385−2977 Fax: 213−385−9089 Email: ehadaway@publiccounsel.org TERMINATED: 08/17/2018
Jennifer J Clark Sidley Austin LLP 1501 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 202−736−8954 Fax: 202−736−8711 Email: jennifer.clark@sidley.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin M Fee Sidley Austin LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 312−853−7919 Fax: 312−853−7036 Email: kfee@sidley.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Logan Perry Brown Sidley Austin LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 310−595−9500 Fax: 310−595−9501 Email: lbrown@sidley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucero Chavez Public Counsel 610 S. Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 213−385−2977 Fax: 213−385−9089

Plaintiff
Ms. J.O. on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated

Email: lchavez@publiccounsel.org TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Malhar Shah Public Counsel 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 562−879−4889 Email: mshah@jd17.law.harvard.edu TERMINATED: 08/17/2018
Michael C Andolina Sidley Austin LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 312−853−2228 Fax: 312−853−7036 Email: mandolina@sidley.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven Patrick Kelly Sidley Austin LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 415−772−1200 Fax: 415−772−7400 Email: patrick.kelly@sidley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy G Payne Sidley Austin LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 312−853−7445 Fax: 312−853−7036 Email: tpayne@sidley.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy P Lally Sidley Austin LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 310−595−9500 Fax: 310−595−9501 Email: alally@sidley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alma David (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ellyce R Cooper (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy London (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Luis Cortes Romero (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark E Haddad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean A Commons (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Talia R Inlender (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alisa Louise Hartz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Amanda Roman Mangaser Savage (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bridget S Johnsen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/2019
Carter G Phillips (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel C Craig (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deena N Tumeh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/17/2018
Elizabeth Hadaway (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/17/2018
Jennifer J Clark (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin M Fee (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ms. R.M. on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated

Logan Perry Brown (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucero Chavez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Malhar Shah (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/17/2018
Michael C Andolina (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven Patrick Kelly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy G Payne (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy P Lally (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alma David (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ellyce R Cooper (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy London (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Luis Cortes Romero (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark E Haddad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean A Commons (See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Talia R Inlender (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alisa Louise Hartz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Amanda Roman Mangaser Savage (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bridget S Johnsen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/2019
Carter G Phillips (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel C Craig (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deena N Tumeh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/17/2018
Elizabeth Hadaway (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/17/2018
Jennifer J Clark (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin M Fee (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Logan Perry Brown (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucero Chavez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020
Malhar Shah (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/17/2018
Michael C Andolina (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Jefferson B. Sessions III Attorney General of the United States TERMINATED: 11/05/2019

Steven Patrick Kelly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy G Payne (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy P Lally (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael C Heyse US Department of Justice Civil Division − OIL PO Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−305−7002 Fax: 202−616−4923 Email: michael.heyse@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel E Goldman US Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation PO Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−353−7743 Fax: 202−616−4950 Email: daniel.goldman@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 10/31/2019
Lance Lomond Jolley US Department of Justice Civil Division − Office of Immigration Litigation Benjamin Franklin Station PO Box 878 Washington, DC 20044 202−616−4293 Fax: 202−616−4975 Email: lance.jolley@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Lindsay M Vick US Department of Justice Civil Division − Office of Immigration Litigation Benjamin Franklin Station PO Box 868 Washington, DC 20044 202−532−4023 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: lindsay.vick2@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle R Slack US Department of Justice

Defendant
Kirstjen M. Nielsen Secretary of Homeland Security, and its Subordinate Entities TERMINATED: 11/05/2019

Civil Division − Office of Immigration Litigation P O Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−598−8897 Email: michelle.r.slack@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 11/14/2019
Nicole N Murley United States Department of Justice Civil Division − Office of Immigration Litigation Ben Franklin Station P O Box 878 Washington, DC 20044 202−616−0473 Fax: 202−616−4950 Email: nicole.murley@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah B Fabian US Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−532−4824 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: sarah.b.fabian@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Marconda US Department of Justice − Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation PO Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−305−4831 Fax: 202−353−7224 Email: scott.marconda@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 03/12/2019
represented by Michael C Heyse (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel E Goldman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2019
Lance Lomond Jolley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Lindsay M Vick (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle R Slack (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2019
Nicole N Murley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security and its Subordinate Entities
Defendant U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Sarah B Fabian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Marconda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/12/2019
represented by Michael C Heyse (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel E Goldman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2019
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 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance Lomond Jolley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Lindsay M Vick (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle R Slack (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2019
Nicole N Murley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah B Fabian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Marconda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/12/2019
represented by Michael C Heyse (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel E Goldman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2019

Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance Lomond Jolley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Lindsay M Vick (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle R Slack (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2019
Nicole N Murley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah B Fabian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Marconda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/12/2019
represented by Michael C Heyse (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel E Goldman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2019
Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance Lomond Jolley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Lindsay M Vick (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle R Slack (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2019
Nicole N Murley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah B Fabian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Marconda (See above for address)

Defendant Alex M. Azar II Secretary of Health and Human Services
Defendant U.S. Department of Health and Human Service

TERMINATED: 03/12/2019
represented by Michael C Heyse (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel E Goldman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2019
Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance Lomond Jolley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Lindsay M Vick (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle R Slack (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2019
Nicole N Murley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah B Fabian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Marconda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/12/2019
represented by Michael C Heyse (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel E Goldman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2019
Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance Lomond Jolley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Lindsay M Vick (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle R Slack (See above for address)

Defendant Scott Lloyd Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement TERMINATED: 11/05/2019
Defendant Office of Refugee Resettlement

TERMINATED: 11/14/2019
Nicole N Murley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah B Fabian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Marconda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/12/2019
represented by Michael C Heyse (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel E Goldman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2019
Lance Lomond Jolley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Lindsay M Vick (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle R Slack (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2019
Nicole N Murley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah B Fabian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Marconda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/12/2019
represented by Michael C Heyse (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel E Goldman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2019
Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance Lomond Jolley (See above for address)

Defendant David Marin
Defendant Lisa Von Nordheim Warden

TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Lindsay M Vick (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle R Slack (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2019
Nicole N Murley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah B Fabian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Marconda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/12/2019
represented by Michael C Heyse (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel E Goldman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2019
Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance Lomond Jolley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Lindsay M Vick (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle R Slack (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2019
Nicole N Murley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah B Fabian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Marconda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/12/2019
represented by Michael C Heyse (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Marc J Moore Seattle Field Office Director

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel E Goldman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2019
Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance Lomond Jolley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Lindsay M Vick (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle R Slack (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2019
Nicole N Murley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah B Fabian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Marconda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/12/2019
Steven C Miller Office of the County Counsel County of Orange 333 West Santa Ana Boulevard Suite 407 Santa Ana, CA 92701 714−834−3300 Fax: 714−834−2359 Email: steven.miller@coco.ocgov.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael C Heyse (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel E Goldman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2019
Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance Lomond Jolley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Lindsay M Vick (See above for address)

Defendant Lowell Clark Warden
Defendant William P Barr Substituted for Jefferson B. Sessions, III

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle R Slack (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2019
Nicole N Murley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah B Fabian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Marconda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/12/2019
represented by Michael C Heyse (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel E Goldman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2019
Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance Lomond Jolley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Lindsay M Vick (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle R Slack (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2019
Nicole N Murley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah B Fabian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Marconda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/12/2019
represented by Michael C Heyse (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address)

Defendant Kevin K McAleenan Substituted for Kirstjen M. Nielsen
Defendant Jonathan H Hayes Substituted for Scott Lloyd

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance Lomond Jolley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Lindsay M Vick (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle R Slack (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2019
Nicole N Murley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah B Fabian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael C Heyse (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance Lomond Jolley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Lindsay M Vick (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle R Slack (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2019
Nicole N Murley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah B Fabian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael C Heyse (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance Lomond Jolley (See above for address)

Amicus Alliance for Children's Right

TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Lindsay M Vick (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle R Slack (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2019
Nicole N Murley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah B Fabian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Steven A Marenberg Paul Hastings LLP 1899 Avenue of the Stars Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310−620−5710 Fax: 310−203−7199 Email: stevenmarenberg@paulhastings.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R Smith Irell and Manella LLP 1800 Avenue of the Stars Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90067−4276 310−277−1010 Email: gsmith@irell.com TERMINATED: 01/24/2020

Date Filed 07/12/2018
07/12/2018 07/12/2018 07/12/2018 07/12/2018

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973−22083505 − Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Loring, # 2 Declaration Berrick et al., # 3 Declaration J.P., # 4 Declaration Acuna, # 5 Declaration Allen, # 6 Declaration Chavez re L.P., # 7 Declaration C.I., # 8 Declaration J.O., # 9 Declaration Chavez re T.B., # 10 Declaration R.M., # 11 Declaration Chavez re S.Q., # 12 Declaration S.T., # 13 Declaration Gee, # 14 Declaration Hidalgo, # 15 Declaration Perry, # 16 Declaration Wong, # 17 Declaration Zayas, # 18 Declaration Carrion, # 19 Declaration Murphy, # 20 Declaration Mercado) (Attorney Amy P Lally added to party Ms. J.O.(pty:pla), Attorney Amy P Lally added to party Ms. J.P.(pty:pla), Attorney Amy P Lally added to party Ms. R.M.(pty:pla))(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, # 2 Attachment B)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
3 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, 1 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, # 2 Attachment B, # 3 Attachment C)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M., (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
5 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. Related Case(s): 2:85−cv−04544−DMG−AGR (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/12/2018)

07/13/2018 07/13/2018 07/13/2018 07/13/2018
07/13/2018
07/13/2018
07/13/2018
07/13/2018

6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge John A. Kronstadt and Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. (jtil) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT−DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
8 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Request to Issue Summons. The following error(s) was found: The caption of the summons must match the caption of the complaint verbatim. If the caption is too large to fit in the space provided, enter the name of the first party and then write see attached.Next, attach a face page of the complaint or a second page addendum to the Summons. Summons is not directed to the defendant(s). The defendants name must appear in the To:section of the summons. The summons cannot be issued until this defect has been corrected. Please correct the defect and re−file your request. (jtil) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
9 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non−Resident Attorney Carter G. Phillips. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out−of−state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G−64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (jtil) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
10 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non−Resident Attorney Jennifer J. Clark. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out−of−state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G−64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (jtil) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
11 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non−Resident Attorney Michael Andolina. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out−of−state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G−64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (jtil) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
12 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non−Resident Attorney Timothy Payne. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out−of−state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G−64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (jtil) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
13 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non−Resident Attorney Kevin Fee. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out−of−state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro

07/13/2018 07/13/2018 07/13/2018 07/13/2018 07/13/2018 07/13/2018 07/13/2018 07/13/2018 07/13/2018 07/13/2018 07/13/2018 07/13/2018 07/13/2018 07/16/2018
07/17/2018

Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G−64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (jtil) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
14 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, 1 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
15 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, 1 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
16 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, 1 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
17 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, 1 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
18 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, 1 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
19 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, 1 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
20 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, 1 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
21 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, 1 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
22 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, 1 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
23 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, 1 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
24 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, 1 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
25 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, 1 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
26 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, 1 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
27 ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 16−05 (Related Case) filed. Transfer of case declined by Judge Dolly M. Gee, for the reasons set forth on this order. Related Case No. 2:85−cv−04544 DMG(AGRx) (rn) (Entered: 07/16/2018)
28 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Request to Issue Summons RE: Summons Request 15 . The following error(s) was found: The caption of the summons must match the caption of the complaint verbatim. If the caption is too large to fit in the space provided, enter the name of the first party and then write see attached.Next, attach a face page of the complaint or a second page addendum to the Summons. The summons

07/17/2018 07/17/2018
07/17/2018 07/17/2018 07/17/2018
07/17/2018
07/17/2018 07/17/2018 07/17/2018 07/17/2018 07/17/2018 07/17/2018 07/17/2018 07/17/2018 07/17/2018

cannot be issued until this defect has been corrected. Please correct the defect and re−file your request. (yl) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
29 Summons On Complaint Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 as to Defendant Jefferson B. Sessions III, Attorney General of the United States. (yl) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
30 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Request to Issue Summons RE: Summons Request 16 . The following error(s) was found: The caption of the summons must match the caption of the complaint verbatim. If the caption is too large to fit in the space provided, enter the name of the first party and then write see attached.Next, attach a face page of the complaint or a second page addendum to the Summons. The summons cannot be issued until this defect has been corrected. Please correct the defect and re−file your request. (yl) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
31 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, 1 as to Defendant U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (yl) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
32 60 DAY Summons Issued issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 as to Defendant United States Customs and Border Protect.S. Customs and Border Protection. (yl) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
33 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Request to Issue Summons RE: Summons Request 19 . The following error(s) was found: The caption of the summons must match the caption of the complaint verbatim. If the caption is too large to fit in the space provided, enter the name of the first party and then write "see attached."Next, attach a face page of the complaint or a second page addendum to the Summons. The summons cannot be issued until this defect has been corrected. Please correct the defect and re−file your request. (yl) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
34 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Request to Issue Summons RE: Summons Request 21 . The following error(s) was found: The caption of the summons must match the caption of the complaint verbatim. If the caption is too large to fit in the space provided, enter the name of the first party and then write see attached.Next, attach a face page of the complaint or a second page addendum to the Summons. The summons cannot be issued until this defect has been corrected. Please correct the defect and re−file your request. (yl) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
35 Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 as to Defendant David Marin, Los Angeles Field Office Director (yl) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
36 Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 as to Defendant Office of Refugee Resettlement. (yl) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
37 Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 as to Defendant Lisa Von Nordheim, Warden. (yl) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
38 Summons Issued re Complaint 1 as to Defendant Marc J Moore, Seattle Field Office Director. (yl) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
39 Summons Issued on Complaint 1 as to Defendant Lowell Clark, Warden. (yl) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
40 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, 1 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
41 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, 1 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
42 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, 1 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
43 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, 1 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/17/2018)

07/17/2018 07/18/2018 07/18/2018 07/18/2018 07/18/2018 07/18/2018 07/18/2018 07/18/2018 07/18/2018 07/18/2018 07/18/2018 07/19/2018

44 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, 1 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
45 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Provision of meaningful access to mental health care screening and treatment. with Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Motion filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. Motion set for hearing on 10/29/2018 at 08:30 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
46 DECLARATION in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Provision of meaningful access to mental health care screening and treatment. with Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Motion 45 Expert Declaration of Marleen Wong filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
47 DECLARATION of Kenneth Berrick, John Sprinson, and Kevin Campbell in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Provision of meaningful access to mental health care screening and treatment. with Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Motion 45 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
48 DECLARATION of Dylan Gee in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Provision of meaningful access to mental health care screening and treatment. with Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Motion 45 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
49 DECLARATION of Dr. Jose Hidalgo in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Provision of meaningful access to mental health care screening and treatment. with Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Motion 45 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
50 DECLARATION of Bruce D. Perry NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Provision of meaningful access to mental health care screening and treatment. with Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Motion 45 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
51 DECLARATION of Luis H. Zayas in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Provision of meaningful access to mental health care screening and treatment. with Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Motion 45 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
52 DECLARATION of Alejandra Acuna in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Provision of meaningful access to mental health care screening and treatment. with Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Motion 45 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
53 DECLARATION of Marti T. Loring in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Provision of meaningful access to mental health care screening and treatment. with Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Motion 45 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
54 DECLARATION of Alfonso Mercado in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Provision of meaningful access to mental health care screening and treatment. with Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Motion 45 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
55 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M., upon Defendant Lisa Von Nordheim served on 7/19/2018, answer due 8/9/2018. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Michael Delos Reyes, Staff Assistant in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/19/2018)

07/19/2018
07/19/2018
07/19/2018
07/19/2018
07/19/2018 07/19/2018
07/19/2018 07/19/2018 07/19/2018 07/19/2018

56 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M., re Declaration (Motion related), 51 , Declaration (Motion related), 53 , Declaration (Motion related), 52 , Declaration (Motion related), 47 , Declaration (Motion related), 49 , Declaration (Motion related), 54 , Declaration (Motion related), 48 , Declaration (Motion related), 46 , Declaration (Motion related), 50 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Provision of meaningful access to mental health care screening and treatment. with Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Motion 45 served on 7/19/2018. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
57 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M., upon Defendant David Marin served on 7/17/2018, answer due 9/17/2018; Marc J Moore served on 7/17/2018, answer due 9/17/2018; Office of Refugee Resettlement served on 7/17/2018, answer due 9/17/2018; Jefferson B. Sessions III served on 7/17/2018, answer due 9/17/2018; U.S. Customs and Border Protection served on 7/17/2018, answer due 9/17/2018; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement served on 7/17/2018, answer due 9/17/2018. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. 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. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
58 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M., re Declaration (Motion related), 51 , Declaration (Motion related), 53 , Declaration (Motion related), 52 , Declaration (Motion related), 47 , Declaration (Motion related), 49 , Declaration (Motion related), 54 , Declaration (Motion related), 48 , Declaration (Motion related), 46 , Declaration (Motion related), 50 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Provision of meaningful access to mental health care screening and treatment. with Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Motion 45 served on 7/18/2018. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
59 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M., re Declaration (Motion related), 51 , Declaration (Motion related), 53 , Declaration (Motion related), 52 , Declaration (Motion related), 47 , Declaration (Motion related), 49 , Declaration (Motion related), 54 , Declaration (Motion related), 48 , Declaration (Motion related), 46 , Declaration (Motion related), 50 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Provision of meaningful access to mental health care screening and treatment. with Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Motion 45 served on 7/18/2018. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
60 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Defendant Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M., upon Defendant Lowell Clark served on 7/18/2018, answer due 8/8/2018. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon John Foster, Authorized to Accept Service in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
61 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M., re Declaration (Motion related), 51 , Declaration (Motion related), 53 , Declaration (Motion related), 52 , Declaration (Motion related), 47 , Declaration (Motion related), 49 , Declaration (Motion related), 54 , Declaration (Motion related), 48 , Declaration (Motion related), 46 , Declaration (Motion related), 50 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Provision of meaningful access to mental health care screening and treatment. with Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Motion 45 served on 7/18/2018. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
62 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), 1 as to Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security and its Subordinate Entities (yl) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
63 Summons Issued on Complaint 1 as to Defendant Kirstjen M. Nielsen Secretary of Homeland Security (yl) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
64 Summons Issued on Complaint 1 as to Defendant Alex M. Azar II Secretary of Health and Human Services (yl) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
65 60 DAY Summons Issued on Complaint 1 as to Defendant U.S. Department of Health and Human Service. (yl) (Entered: 07/19/2018)

07/19/2018 07/20/2018 07/20/2018 07/20/2018 07/20/2018 07/20/2018 07/20/2018
07/20/2018
07/20/2018

66 Summons Issued re Complaint 1 as to Defendant Scott Lloyd Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. (yl) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
67 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Michael C. Andolina to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−22122489) filed by Plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing) (Johnsen, Bridget) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
68 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Jennifer J. Clark to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−22122607) filed by Plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing) (Johnsen, Bridget) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
69 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Kevin M. Fee to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−22122678) filed by Plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing) (Johnsen, Bridget) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
70 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Timothy G. Payne to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−22122728) filed by Plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing) (Johnsen, Bridget) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
71 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Carter G. Phillips to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−22122796) filed by Plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing) (Johnsen, Bridget) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
72 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M., re APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Jennifer J. Clark to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−22122607) 68 , APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Kevin M. Fee to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−22122678) 69 , APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Timothy G. Payne to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−22122728) 70 , APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Carter G. Phillips to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−22122796) 71 , APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Michael C. Andolina to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−22122489) 67 served on July 20, 2018. (Johnsen, Bridget) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
73 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M., upon Defendant Alex M. Azar II served on 7/20/2018, answer due 9/18/2018; Scott Lloyd served on 7/20/2018, answer due 9/18/2018; Kirstjen M. Nielsen served on 7/20/2018, answer due 9/18/2018; U.S. Department of Health and Human Service served on 7/20/2018, answer due 9/18/2018; U.S. Department of Homeland Security served on 7/20/2018, answer due 9/18/2018. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Pat Myles, Civil Process Clerk. 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. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
74 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M., re Declaration (Motion related), 51 , Declaration (Motion related), 53 , Declaration (Motion related), 52 , Declaration (Motion related), 47 , Declaration (Motion related), 49 , Declaration (Motion related), 54 , Declaration (Motion related), 48 , Declaration (Motion related), 46 , Declaration (Motion related), 50 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Provision of meaningful access to mental health care

07/26/2018 07/26/2018 07/26/2018 07/26/2018 07/26/2018 07/27/2018 07/27/2018 07/27/2018 07/27/2018 07/27/2018 07/27/2018 07/27/2018

screening and treatment. with Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Motion 45 served on 7/20/2018. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
75 ORDER ON APPLICATION OF NON−RESIDENT ATTORNEY TO APPEAR IN A SPECIFIC CASE PRO HAC VICE by Judge John A. Kronstadt: granting 67 Non−Resident Attorney Michael C Andolina APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M., designating Bridget S Johnsen as local counsel. (jp) (Entered: 07/26/2018)
76 ORDER ON APPLICATION OF NON−RESIDENT ATTORNEY TO APPEAR IN A SPECIFIC CASE PRO HAC VICE by Judge John A. Kronstadt: granting 68 Non−Resident Attorney Jennifer J Clark APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M., designating Bridget S Johnsen as local counsel. (jp) (Entered: 07/26/2018)
77 ORDER ON APPLICATION OF NON−RESIDENT ATTORNEY TO APPEAR IN A SPECIFIC CASE PRO HAC VICE by Judge John A. Kronstadt: granting 69 Non−Resident Attorney Kevin M Fee APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M., designating Bridget S Johnsen as local counsel. (jp) (Entered: 07/26/2018)
78 ORDER ON APPLICATION OF NON−RESIDENT ATTORNEY TO APPEAR IN A SPECIFIC CASE PRO HAC VICE by Judge John A. Kronstadt: granting 70 Non−Resident Attorney Timothy G Payne APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M., designating Bridget S Johnsen as local counsel. (jp) (Entered: 07/26/2018)
79 ORDER ON APPLICATION OF NON−RESIDENT ATTORNEY TO APPEAR IN A SPECIFIC CASE PRO HAC VICE by Judge John A. Kronstadt: granting 71 Non−Resident Attorney Carter G Phyllips APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M., designating Bridget S Johnsen as local counsel. (jp) (Entered: 07/26/2018)
80 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Review of MOTION BY PLAINTIFFS TO PROCEED USING PSEUDONYMS filed by Plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. Motion set for hearing on 10/29/2018 at 08:30 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
81 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification; Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. Motion set for hearing on 10/29/2018 at 08:30 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
82 DECLARATION of Lucero Chavez In Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification; Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof 81 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
83 DECLARATION of J.P. In Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification; Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof 81 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
84 DECLARATION of Dylan Gee In Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification; Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof 81 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
85 DECLARATION of Alejandra Acuna In Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification; Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof 81 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
86 DECLARATION of Alfonso Mercado In Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification; Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof 81 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/27/2018)

07/27/2018 07/27/2018 07/27/2018 07/27/2018
07/27/2018
07/27/2018
07/27/2018 07/30/2018 07/30/2018 07/30/2018
07/31/2018 07/31/2018

87 DECLARATION of J.O. In Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification; Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof 81 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
88 DECLARATION of R.M. In Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification; Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof 81 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
89 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Hearing TO ADVANCE HEARING DATES filed by Plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
90 DECLARATION of Bridget S. Johnsen In Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification; Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof 81 , EX PARTE APPLICATION for Hearing TO ADVANCE HEARING DATES 89 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Review of MOTION BY PLAINTIFFS TO PROCEED USING PSEUDONYMS 80 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
91 DECLARATION of Bridget S. Johnsen in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification; Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof 81 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Review of MOTION BY PLAINTIFFS TO PROCEED USING PSEUDONYMS 80 , EX PARTE APPLICATION for Hearing TO ADVANCE HEARING DATES 89 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
92 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M., re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification; Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof 81 , Declaration (Motion related), 87 , EX PARTE APPLICATION for Hearing TO ADVANCE HEARING DATES 89 , Declaration (Motion related),, 91 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Review of MOTION BY PLAINTIFFS TO PROCEED USING PSEUDONYMS 80 , Declaration (Motion related), 88 , Declaration (Motion related), 83 , Declaration (Motion related), 84 , Declaration (Motion related), 86 , Declaration (Motion related), 85 , Declaration (Motion related), 82 served on July 27, 2018. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
93 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. correcting Declaration (Motion related), 90 (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
94 STANDING ORDERS FOR CIVIL CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JOHN A. KRONSTADT by Judge John A. Kronstadt: Please read each Order carefully as they differ in some respects from the Local Rules. (ake) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
95 ORDER SETTING RULE 16(b)/26(f) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge John A. Kronstadt: Scheduling Conference is set for September 20, 2018 at 1:30 pm. Joint Report is due by September 10, 2018. (ake) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
96 ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE HEARING DATES ON MOTIONS (DKT 89) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The Application is GRANTED IN PART as follows: Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed July 18, 2018 (Dkt. 45), and Motions for Class Certification (Dkt. 81), and to Proceed Using Pseudonyms (Dkt. 80) filed on July 27, 2018 (collectively, the "Motions"), shall be set for hearing on September 20, at 1:30 p.m. (bp) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
97 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M., served on July 31, 2018. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 07/31/2018)
98 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Declaration (Motion related), 87 , Declaration (Motion related), 88 , Declaration (Motion related), 83 , Declaration (Motion related), 84 , Declaration (Motion related), 86 , Declaration (Motion related), 85 , Declaration (Motion related), 82 . The following error(s) was/were found: Title page missing. In response to this notice, the

08/01/2018 08/01/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018
08/02/2018 08/03/2018
08/03/2018

Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (bp) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
99 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M., served on July 20, 2018. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
100 NOTICE Plaintiffs' Summary of Filed Certificates of Service Per Order on Ex Parte Application to Advance Hearing Dates on Motions filed by Plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
101 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M., re Notice (Other) 100 Plaintiffs' Summary of Filed Certificates of Service Per Order On Ex Parte Application to Advance Hearing Dates on Motions (Dkt No. 96) served on August 2, 2018. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
102 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Michael C Heyse on behalf of Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim (Attorney Michael C Heyse added to party Alex M. Azar II(pty:dft), Attorney Michael C Heyse added to party Lowell Clark(pty:dft), Attorney Michael C Heyse added to party Scott Lloyd(pty:dft), Attorney Michael C Heyse added to party David Marin(pty:dft), Attorney Michael C Heyse added to party Marc J Moore(pty:dft), Attorney Michael C Heyse added to party Kirstjen M. Nielsen(pty:dft), Attorney Michael C Heyse added to party Office of Refugee Resettlement(pty:dft), Attorney Michael C Heyse added to party Jefferson B. Sessions III(pty:dft), Attorney Michael C Heyse added to party U.S. Customs and Border Protection(pty:dft), Attorney Michael C Heyse added to party U.S. Department of Health and Human Service (pty:dft), Attorney Michael C Heyse added to party U.S. Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft), Attorney Michael C Heyse added to party U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(pty:dft), Attorney Michael C Heyse added to party Lisa Von Nordheim(pty:dft))(Heyse, Michael) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
103 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File as to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, 1 , Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days), 55 filed by Defendant Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Attorney Steven C Miller added to party Lisa Von Nordheim(pty:dft))(Miller, Steven) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
104 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Scott Michael Marconda on behalf of Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim (Attorney Scott Michael Marconda added to party Alex M. Azar II(pty:dft), Attorney Scott Michael Marconda added to party Lowell Clark(pty:dft), Attorney Scott Michael Marconda added to party Scott Lloyd(pty:dft), Attorney Scott Michael Marconda added to party David Marin(pty:dft), Attorney Scott Michael Marconda added to party Marc J Moore(pty:dft), Attorney Scott Michael Marconda added to party Kirstjen M. Nielsen(pty:dft), Attorney Scott Michael Marconda added to party Office of Refugee Resettlement(pty:dft), Attorney Scott Michael Marconda added to party Jefferson B. Sessions III(pty:dft), Attorney Scott Michael Marconda added to party U.S. Customs and Border Protection(pty:dft), Attorney Scott Michael Marconda added to party U.S. Department of Health and Human Service (pty:dft), Attorney Scott Michael Marconda added to party U.S. Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft), Attorney Scott Michael Marconda added to party U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(pty:dft), Attorney Scott Michael Marconda added to party Lisa Von Nordheim(pty:dft))(Marconda, Scott) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
105 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response and Reply as to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification; Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof 81 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Review of MOTION BY

08/03/2018 08/07/2018 08/10/2018 08/13/2018
08/13/2018
08/13/2018 08/17/2018

PLAINTIFFS TO PROCEED USING PSEUDONYMS 80 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Provision of meaningful access to mental health care screening and treatment. with Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Motion 45 filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heyse, Michael) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
106 ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, CLASS CERTIFICATION AND USE OFPSEUDONYMS AND PLAINTIFFS TO REPLY (DKT. 105 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: Defendants' Opposition is due by August 13, 2018. Plaintiffs' are to file their Replies by August 22, 2018. The hearing date remains on September 20, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. (ake) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
107 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Steven C Miller counsel for Defendant Lisa Von Nordheim. Adding Steven C. Miller as counsel of record for Lisa Von Nordheim, Warden, James A Musick Facility for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Lisa Von Nordheim, Warden, James A Musick Facility. (Miller, Steven) (Entered: 08/07/2018)
108 ORDER Re Stipulation to Extend Filing Deadline or Defendant Response to the Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 103 by Judge John A. Kronstadt that Defendant LISA VON NORDHEIM, WARDEN, JAMES A. MUSICK FACILITY shall file her answer, motion, or other response to Plaintiffs on or before 9/18/2018. (jp) Modified on 8/20/2018 (ake). (Entered: 08/10/2018)
109 OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Provision of meaningful access to mental health care screening and treatment. with Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Motion 45 filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heyse, Michael) (Entered: 08/13/2018)
110 OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification; Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof 81 filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heyse, Michael) (Entered: 08/13/2018)
111 NOTICE OF NON−OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Review of MOTION BY PLAINTIFFS TO PROCEED USING PSEUDONYMS 80 filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Heyse, Michael) (Entered: 08/13/2018)
112 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Steven A Marenberg counsel for Amicus Alliance for Children's Right. Adding Steven A. Marenberg as counsel of record for Proposed Amicus Alliance for Children's Rights for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Proposed Amicus Alliance for Children's Rights. (Attorney Steven A Marenberg added to party Alliance for Children's Right(pty:am))(Marenberg, Steven) (Entered: 08/17/2018)

08/17/2018 08/17/2018 08/20/2018 08/20/2018 08/20/2018 08/22/2018
08/22/2018

113 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Steven A Marenberg counsel for Amicus Alliance for Children's Right. Adding Gregory R. Smith as counsel of record for Proposed Amicus Alliance for Children's Rights for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Proposed Amicus Alliance for Children's Rights. (Marenberg, Steven) (Entered: 08/17/2018)
114 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to File Amicus Brief filed by Proposed Amicus Alliance for Children's Right. Motion set for hearing on 9/20/2018 at 01:30 PM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Attachments: # 1 Amicus Curiae Brief Of The Alliance For Childrens Rights, # 2 Declaration Declaration Of Jennifer L. Braun, # 3 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Motion For Leave To File Amicus Curiae Brief) (Marenberg, Steven) (Entered: 08/17/2018)
115 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Alisa Louise Hartz counsel for Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. Elizabeth Hadaway 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 Ms. J.P. et al. (Hartz, Alisa) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
116 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Alisa Louise Hartz counsel for Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. Malhar Shah 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 Ms. J.P. et al. (Hartz, Alisa) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
117 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Alisa Louise Hartz counsel for Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. Deena Tumeh 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 Ms. J.P. et al. (Hartz, Alisa) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
118 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Lance Lomond Jolley counsel for Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. Adding Lance Lomond Jolley as counsel of record for Jefferson B. Sessions, USAG; Hon. Kirstjen Nielsen, DHS Sec.; DHS; ICE; CBP, Alex Azar, HHS Sec.; HHS; E. Scott Lloyd, ORR Dir.; ORR; David Marin, LA ICE Field Office Dir., Lisa Von Nordheim, Warden, James Musick Fac.; Marc J. Moore, Seattle ICE Field Office Dir.; Lowell Clark, Tacoma NW Det. Ctr. for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by attorney for defendants Jefferson B. Sessions, USAG; Hon. Kirstjen Nielsen, DHS Sec.; DHS; ICE; CBP, Alex Azar, HHS Sec.; HHS; E. Scott Lloyd, ORR Dir.; ORR; David Marin, LA ICE Field Office Dir., Lisa Von Nordheim, Warden, James Musick Fac.; Marc J. Moore, Seattle ICE Field Office Dir.; Lowell Clark, Tacoma NW Det. Ctr.. (Attorney Lance Lomond Jolley added to party Alex M. Azar II(pty:dft), Attorney Lance Lomond Jolley added to party Lowell Clark(pty:dft), Attorney Lance Lomond Jolley added to party Scott Lloyd(pty:dft), Attorney Lance Lomond Jolley added to party David Marin(pty:dft), Attorney Lance Lomond Jolley added to party Marc J Moore(pty:dft), Attorney Lance Lomond Jolley added to party Kirstjen M. Nielsen(pty:dft), Attorney Lance Lomond Jolley added to party Office of Refugee Resettlement(pty:dft), Attorney Lance Lomond Jolley added to party Jefferson B. Sessions III(pty:dft), Attorney Lance Lomond Jolley added to party U.S. Customs and Border Protection(pty:dft), Attorney Lance Lomond Jolley added to party U.S. Department of Health and Human Service (pty:dft), Attorney Lance Lomond Jolley added to party U.S. Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft), Attorney Lance Lomond Jolley added to party U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(pty:dft), Attorney Lance Lomond Jolley added to party Lisa Von Nordheim(pty:dft))(Jolley, Lance) (Entered: 08/22/2018)
119 REPLY In Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Provision of meaningful access to mental health care screening and treatment. with Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Motion 45 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Declaration Lucero Chavez, # 3 Declaration Luis A. Cortes Romero, # 4 Declaration Kenneth Berrick and John Spinson, # 5 Declaration Jose Hidalgo, # 6 Declaration R.M.)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

08/22/2018 08/22/2018 08/23/2018
08/24/2018 09/10/2018 09/11/2018 09/12/2018
09/12/2018 09/14/2018
09/17/2018

120 REPLY In Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification; Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof 81 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 08/22/2018)
121 REPLY In Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Review of MOTION BY PLAINTIFFS TO PROCEED USING PSEUDONYMS 80 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 08/22/2018)
122 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF (DKT. 114) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: On August 17, 2018, proposed amicus curiae Alliance for Childrens Rights (the "Alliance") filed a Motion for leave to file an amicus brief in this action in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 45). See Dkt. 114 ("Motion"); Dkt. 114−1 (Amicus Brief). Good cause appearing, the Motion is GRANTED. The Alliance shall file the Amicus Brief, as its own entry on the docket, no later than August 27, 2018. IT IS SO ORDERED. (yl) (Entered: 08/23/2018)
123 Amicus Curiae Brief filed filed by Amicus Alliance for Children's Right. RE: Order on Motion to File Amicus Brief,, 122 . (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Jennifer L. Braun)(Marenberg, Steven) (Entered: 08/24/2018)
124 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan (and Rule 16(b) Report) ; estimated length of trial 7−10 days, filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M... (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 09/10/2018)
125 STIPULATION for Order on Pseudonym Stipulation filed by Plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 09/11/2018)
126 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REGARDING CASE NUMBER by Judge John A. Kronstadt: This action has been assigned to the Honorable John A. Kronstadt, United States District Judge. The case number now reads: LA CV18−06081 JAK (SKx) or 2:18−cv−06081−JAK−SK. Please be sure to include the initials of the District Judge and Magistrate Judge in the case number on all future filings. This will ensure that the courtesy copies of all documents are routed properly. 6 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/12/2018)
127 ORDER RE STIPULATION TO PROCEED USING PSEUDONYMS (DKTS. 80, 125) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: Having considered the Pseudonym Motion and the Stipulation, and good cause appearing, the request through the Stipulation for the issuance of a corresponding order is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Pseudonym Motion is MOOT. It is hereby ORDER that: The parties shall proceed in this matter with the use of pseudonyms for Plaintiffs and non−management government and contract employees. (bp) (Entered: 09/13/2018)
128 First NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Michelle R Slack on behalf of Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim (Attorney Michelle R Slack added to party Alex M. Azar II(pty:dft), Attorney Michelle R Slack added to party Lowell Clark(pty:dft), Attorney Michelle R Slack added to party Scott Lloyd(pty:dft), Attorney Michelle R Slack added to party David Marin(pty:dft), Attorney Michelle R Slack added to party Marc J Moore(pty:dft), Attorney Michelle R Slack added to party Kirstjen M. Nielsen(pty:dft), Attorney Michelle R Slack added to party Office of Refugee Resettlement(pty:dft), Attorney Michelle R Slack added to party Jefferson B. Sessions III(pty:dft), Attorney Michelle R Slack added to party U.S. Customs and Border Protection(pty:dft), Attorney Michelle R Slack added to party U.S. Department of Health and Human Service (pty:dft), Attorney Michelle R Slack added to party U.S. Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft), Attorney Michelle R Slack added to party U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(pty:dft), Attorney Michelle R Slack added to party Lisa Von Nordheim(pty:dft))(Slack, Michelle) (Entered: 09/14/2018)
129 [STRICKEN PURSUANT TO DOCKET ENTRY #131] MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark,

09/17/2018 09/18/2018
09/18/2018 09/18/2018 09/18/2018

Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Order)(Heyse, Michael) Modified on 9/18/2018 (bp). (Entered: 09/17/2018)
130 [STRICKEN PURSUANT TO DOCKET ENTRY #131] EX PARTE APPLICATION for Hearing TO ADVANCE HEARING, re Memorandum in Support of Motion, 129 , UNOPPOSED filed by Defendants Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Advance Hearing) (Heyse, Michael) Modified on 9/18/2018 (bp). (Entered: 09/17/2018)
131 ORDER TO STRIKE ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS by Judge John A. Kronstadt: the following document(s) be STRICKEN for failure to comply with the Local Rules, General Order and/or the Courts Case Management Order: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Hearing TO ADVANCE HEARING, re Memorandum in Support of Motion, 129 , UNOPPOSED 130 , Memorandum in Support of Motion, 129 , for the following reasons: Incorrect event selected. Correct event is Civil Events−Motions & Related Filings−Other Motion Related Documents−Notice of Motion. Hearing information is missing, incorrect, or not timely. The docket text and title of document do not match. The document is filed as a Memorandum in Support of a Motion to Dismiss. However, the document is titled as a Motion to Dismiss Complaint, wich fails to comply with L.R. 7−4. A hearing date has not been set. Counsel shall refile the Motion using the correct event codes. Accoridngly the Ex Parte Application is moot.; (bp) (Entered: 09/18/2018)
132 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendant Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. Motion set for hearing on 1/7/2019 at 10:00 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Attachments: # 1 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; SUPPORTING DECLARATION, # 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS) (Heyse, Michael) (Entered: 09/18/2018)
133 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Reschedule Motion to Dismiss Hearing (unopposed) filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE HEARING DATE FOR MOTION TO DISMISS) (Heyse, Michael) (Entered: 09/18/2018)
134 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Daniel E Goldman on behalf of Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim (Attorney Daniel E Goldman added to party Alex M. Azar II(pty:dft), Attorney Daniel E Goldman added to party Lowell Clark(pty:dft), Attorney Daniel E Goldman added to party Scott Lloyd(pty:dft), Attorney Daniel E Goldman added to party David Marin(pty:dft), Attorney Daniel E Goldman added to party Marc J Moore(pty:dft), Attorney Daniel E Goldman added to party Kirstjen M. Nielsen(pty:dft), Attorney Daniel E Goldman added to party Office of Refugee Resettlement(pty:dft), Attorney Daniel E Goldman added to party Jefferson B. Sessions III(pty:dft), Attorney Daniel E Goldman added to party U.S. Customs and Border Protection(pty:dft), Attorney Daniel E Goldman added to party U.S. Department of Health and Human Service (pty:dft), Attorney Daniel E Goldman added to party U.S. Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft), Attorney Daniel E Goldman added to party U.S. Immigration and

09/19/2018 09/19/2018
09/20/2018
09/24/2018 09/25/2018 09/27/2018 09/27/2018

Customs Enforcement(pty:dft), Attorney Daniel E Goldman added to party Lisa Von Nordheim(pty:dft))(Goldman, Daniel) (Entered: 09/18/2018)
135 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Logan Perry Brown counsel for Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. Adding Logan P. Brown as counsel of record for J.P., J.O., & R.M. for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff J.P., J.O., & R.M.. (Attorney Logan Perry Brown added to party Ms. J.O.(pty:pla), Attorney Logan Perry Brown added to party Ms. J.P.(pty:pla), Attorney Logan Perry Brown added to party Ms. R.M.(pty:pla))(Brown, Logan) (Entered: 09/19/2018)
136 SUPPLEMENT to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification; Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof 81 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Provision of meaningful access to mental health care screening and treatment. with Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Motion 45 filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Supplemental Declaration of James De La Cruz)(Marconda, Scott) (Entered: 09/19/2018)
137 MINUTES OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 81 ; PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 45 ; SCHEDULING CONFERENCE earing held before Judge John A. Kronstadt. The Court takes the Class Motion and Injunction Motion UNDER SUBMISSION and a ruling will be issued. Defendants shall lodge on the docket the pink "Inmate Health Message Slip" that was published to the Court during the hearing. The scheduling conference is not held. The Court defers setting dates until after the issuance of the final ruling on the submitted motions. Moreover, counsel believe they will be in a better position to discuss settlement at that time. The Court defers ruling on Defendants' Unopposed Ex Parte Application, which seeks to advance the hearing date for the motion to dismiss. Court Reporter: Alex Joko. (lom) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
138 ***THIS DOCUMENT IS HEREBY STRICKEN, PER ORDER 139 *** EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. Inmate Health Message Slip as to Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,, Order on Motion to Certify Class Action,,,, Order on Motion to Reschedule,,,, Motion Hearing,,,, Terminate Hearings,,, 137 , Response in Opposition to Motion,, 109 , Response in Opposition to Motion,, 110 . (Heyse, Michael) Modified on 9/26/2018 (jp). (Entered: 09/24/2018)
139 ORDER TO STRIKE ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS by Judge John A. Kronstadt: the following document(s) be STRICKEN for failure to comply with the Local Rules, General Order and/or the Courts Case Management Order: Exhibit (non−trial) 138 ,for the following reasons: (1) Title page is missing; (2) Counsel shall re−lodge the Inmate Health Slip by filing a "Notice of Lodging of...." which shall attach the Inmate Health Slip to the Notice. The Notice shall have a title/caption page pursuant to L.R. 11−3.8. The document shall be lodged no later than September 27, 2018. (jp) (Entered: 09/26/2018)
140 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M. for Court Reporter. Court will contact Denise Brown at denise.brown@sidley.com with further instructions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter. (Johnsen, Bridget) (Entered: 09/27/2018)
141 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,, Order on Motion to Certify Class Action,,,, Order on Motion to Reschedule,,,, Motion Hearing,,,, Terminate Hearings,,, 137 (Attachments: # 1 Inmate Health Slip)(Heyse, Michael) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

09/29/2018
09/29/2018 10/02/2018 10/03/2018
10/05/2018
10/12/2018
10/15/2018 10/15/2018 10/15/2018 10/15/2018 10/15/2018

142 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 9/20/18, 1:30 PM. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Alex Joko, phone number aj_csr@yahoo.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 10/22/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/30/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/28/2018. (Joko, Alexander) (Entered: 09/29/2018)
143 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 9/20/18, 1:30 PM re Transcript 142 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Joko, Alexander) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/29/2018)
144 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response as to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case 132 filed by Plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Joint Stipulation for Extension of Time for Plaintiffs to Oppose Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Defendants to Reply and to Advance Hearing Date)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
145 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REGARDING CASE NUMBER by Judge John A. Kronstadt: This action has been assigned to the Honorable John A. Kronstadt, United States District Judge. The case number now reads: LA CV18−06081 JAK (SKx) or 2:18−cv−06081−JAK−SK. Please be sure to include the initials of the District Judge and Magistrate Judge in the case number on all future filings. This will ensure that the courtesy copies of all documents are routed properly. 6 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/03/2018)
146 ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFFS TO OPPOSE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REPLY AND TO ADVANCE HEARING DATE (DKT. 144) by Judge John A. Kronstadt. Having considered the stipulation, the Court finds that Plaintiffs and Defendants have demonstrated good cause to extend the briefing schedule as stipulated, and it is ordered that: Plaintiffs' time to file the opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss is extended to October 15, 2018; Defendants' time to file their reply in connection with the Motion to Dismiss is extended to October 29, 2018; and whether the hearing date for the motion to dismiss will be advanced will be addressed in a later order. (bp) Modified on 10/9/2018 (ake). (Entered: 10/05/2018)
147 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION RELEANT TO PENDING MOTIONS; DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. 132) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: In light of the pending motions, and this Order for supplemental information, a ruling on Defendant's ex parte application to advance the hearing on its motion to dismiss, see Dkt. 133, is DEFERRED, pending the resolution of the issues presented in this Order. The stipulated briefing schedule for the motion to dismiss remains in place. See Dkt. 146. (bp) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
148 Opposition Opposition re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case 132 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
149 DECLARATION of Marleen Wong Opposition NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case 132 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
150 DECLARATION of Kenneth Berrick, John Sprinson, and Kevin Campbell Opposition NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case 132 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
151 DECLARATION of Dylan Gee Opposition NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case 132 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
152 DECLARATION of Dr. Jose Hidalgo Opposition NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case 132 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 10/15/2018)

10/15/2018 10/15/2018 10/15/2018 10/15/2018 10/15/2018 10/15/2018 10/15/2018 10/15/2018 10/15/2018 10/19/2018 10/23/2018
10/24/2018
10/29/2018
11/06/2018

153 DECLARATION of Bruce D. Perru Opposition NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case 132 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
154 DECLARATION of Alejandra Acuna Opposition NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case 132 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
155 DECLARATION of Marti T. Loring Opposition NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case 132 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
156 DECLARATION of Alfonso Mercado Opposition NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case 132 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
157 DECLARATION of Kenneth Berrick and John Sprinson Opposition NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case 132 Supplemental filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
158 DECLARATION of Dr. Jose Hidalgo Opposition NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case 132 Supplemental filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
159 DECLARATION of Luis A. Cortes Romero Opposition NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case 132 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
160 DECLARATION of Lucero Chavez Opposition NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case 132 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
161 DECLARATION of R.M. Opposition NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case 132 Supplemental filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
162 DECLARATION of Kenneth Berrick re Notice of Lodging, 141 Supplemental Declaration of Kenneth Berrick in Response to Inmate Health Slip Lodged by Defendants filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 10/19/2018)
163 Joint REPORT of In Response to Court's October 12, 2018 Order ECF No. 147 filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Heyse, Michael) (Entered: 10/23/2018)
164 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE JOINT REPORT AND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The Court has reviewed the parties' Joint Report (Dkt. 163 ) (the "Report") filed in response to the Order issued on October 12, 2018. The parties request an extension of time, to November 6, 2018, in order to review certain information pertaining to the number of putative class members who remain in custody. Good cause appearing, this request is GRANTED. The parties shall file a supplemental joint report, by November 6, 2018, containing updated information obtained as a result of the review process described in the Report.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jaklc2, ) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/24/2018)
165 REPLY Support NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case 132 filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Heyse, Michael) (Entered: 10/29/2018)
166 SECOND JOINT REPORT of Response to Court's October 12, 2018 Order filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore,

11/07/2018
11/20/2018 12/14/2018 12/21/2018 12/27/2018 12/28/2018 01/02/2019 01/04/2019

Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Heyse, Michael) (Entered: 11/06/2018)
167 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE JOINT REPORT AND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The Court has reviewed the parties' Second Joint Report (Dkt. 166 ) (the "Report") filed in response to the Order issued on October 12, 2018. The Government seeks a further extension of time, to November 20, 2018, in order to continue its review of information pertaining to the number of putative class members who remain in custody. Plaintiffs oppose this request, but would agree to a shorter extension of the deadline, to November 16, 2018. Good cause appearing, the Government's request is GRANTED; provided, however, that absent a showing of compelling circumstances, no further extensions will be granted. The parties shall file a further supplemental joint report, no later than November 20, 2018, containing updated information obtained as a result of the review process described in the Report. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jaklc2, ) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 11/07/2018)
168 JOINT REPORT of Response to Court Order filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sheila Celentano)(Heyse, Michael) (Entered: 11/20/2018)
169 NOTICE of Filing in Ms. L. filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ms. L. Dec. 12, 2018 Status Report)(Heyse, Michael) (Entered: 12/14/2018)
170 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Daniel C. Craig to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−22940366) filed by plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Proposed Order) (Johnsen, Bridget) (Entered: 12/21/2018)
171 ORDER by Judge John A. Kronstadt: granting 170 Non−Resident Attorney Daniel C. Craig APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of plaintiffs J.P., J.O., and R.M., designating Bridget S. Johnsen as local counsel. (mrgo) (Entered: 12/27/2018)
172 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to hold case in abeyance pending Restoration of Appropriations filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. Motion set for hearing on 1/28/2019 at 08:30 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dec. 28 Email from Amy Lally) (Heyse, Michael) (Entered: 12/28/2018)
173 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY MOTION TO DISMISS HEARING IN LIGHT OF LAPSE OF APPROPRIATIONS (DKT. 172 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is DENIED. (ake) (Entered: 01/02/2019)
174 NOTICE of Decision: Doe v. Shenandoah (WDVA) filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Doe v. Shenandoah Decision)(Heyse, Michael) (Entered: 01/04/2019)

01/07/2019
01/10/2019 01/14/2019 01/16/2019
01/16/2019 01/17/2019 01/18/2019 01/21/2019
01/24/2019
01/25/2019 01/28/2019

175 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS CASE (DKT. 132 )DEFENDANTS UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCEHEARING DATE FOR MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. 133 ) held before Judge John A. Kronstadt. The Court states its tentative view that it is inclined to deny Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Case (the "Motion") for specific reasons as to each of the five bases for the Motion. Counsel address the Court as to these and related issues presented by the other pending motions. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court states that the Motion will be taken UNDER SUBMISSION Status Report due by 1/21/2019. On or before January 21, 2019, Defendants shall file an update with respect to whether any of the putative class members who have been detained remain in detention, and if so, how many. In light of the foregoing, the Unopposed Ex Parte Application to Reschedule Motion to Dismiss Hearing (Dkt. 133) is MOOT. Court Reporter: Alex Joko. (bp) (Entered: 01/08/2019)
176 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M. for Court Reporter. Court will contact Denise Brown at denise.brown@sidley.com with further instructions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 01/10/2019)
177 STATEMENT Settlement Discussions and Lodging filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M. (Joint) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 01/14/2019)
178 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 1/7/19, 10:30 AM. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Alex Joko, phone number aj_csr@yahoo.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 2/6/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/19/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/16/2019. (Joko, Alexander) (Entered: 01/16/2019)
179 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 1/7/19, 10:30 AM re Transcript 178 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Joko, Alexander) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/16/2019)
180 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority filed by plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 01/17/2019)
181 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. correcting Notice (Other) 180 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
182 RESPONSE filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheimto Order on Motion to Dismiss Case,,,, Order on Motion to Reschedule,,,, Motion Hearing,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,,, 175 (Marconda, Scott) (Entered: 01/21/2019)
183 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay Case pending Settlement & Government Shutdown filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Brian Stimson − HHS, # 2 Proposed Order) (Heyse, Michael) (Entered: 01/24/2019)
184 Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay Case pending Settlement & Government Shutdown 183 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
185 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER SETTING TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The Court sets a Status Conference for January 29, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. Counsel shall call in no later than 10:15 am using the following information: Call In Number 877.402.9753; Access Code − 9158568. Please note that cell phones and speaker phones are not permitted. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered:

01/29/2019 01/30/2019
01/31/2019
01/31/2019 02/04/2019

01/28/2019)
186 MINUTES OF Telephonic Status Conference and Ex Parte Application to Limit Proceedings During Settlement Discussions 183 held before Judge John A. Kronstadt: Counsel agree that a bench officer would be the best facilitator at a settlement conference. When a bench officer is selected, a minute order will issue as to the manner in which counsel should contact the clerk of the bench officer and the deadline for conducting the conference. Defendants Ex Parte Application to Limit Proceedings (Application) (Dkt. 183) is discussed. The Court will assess the Application as it applies to individual issues, and may schedule a telephonic hearing before ruling on the Application. (See minutes for further details) Court Reporter: Alex Joko. (yl) (Entered: 01/30/2019)
187 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REFERRING SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS TO SENIOR JUDGE JAMES S. OTERO AND RE DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO LIMIT PROCEEDINGS DURING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS (DKT. 183 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: Following the hearing on January 29, 2019, the Court has selected Senior District Judge James S. Otero to preside over the settlement proceedings in this action. The settlement conference will proceed with Judge Otero on February 6, 2019 at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 10C of the First Street Courthouse. On January 31, 2019, counsel shall contact Judge Otero's Clerk, Victor Cruz, at 213.894.1796, for further instructions on those necessary actions, if any, that the parties are to take prior to the settlement conference. A Post Mediation Status Conference is set for February 25, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. No appearance will be required if a notice of settlement is filed on or before February 15, 2019. In light of the timing of the settlement conference, the Defendants Ex Parte Application to Limit Proceedings During Settlement Discussions (Dkt. 183 ) is GRANTED IN PART, i.e., as to the current discovery response deadline of February 11, 2019, which is extended to March 11, 2019, without prejudice as to a subsequent request for further extension for good cause shown. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. (ake) (Entered: 01/30/2019)
188 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Sarah B Fabian on behalf of Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim (Attorney Sarah B Fabian added to party Alex M. Azar II(pty:dft), Attorney Sarah B Fabian added to party Lowell Clark(pty:dft), Attorney Sarah B Fabian added to party Scott Lloyd(pty:dft), Attorney Sarah B Fabian added to party David Marin(pty:dft), Attorney Sarah B Fabian added to party Marc J Moore(pty:dft), Attorney Sarah B Fabian added to party Kirstjen M. Nielsen(pty:dft), Attorney Sarah B Fabian added to party Office of Refugee Resettlement(pty:dft), Attorney Sarah B Fabian added to party Jefferson B. Sessions III(pty:dft), Attorney Sarah B Fabian added to party U.S. Customs and Border Protection(pty:dft), Attorney Sarah B Fabian added to party U.S. Department of Health and Human Service (pty:dft), Attorney Sarah B Fabian added to party U.S. Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft), Attorney Sarah B Fabian added to party U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(pty:dft), Attorney Sarah B Fabian added to party Lisa Von Nordheim(pty:dft))(Fabian, Sarah) (Entered: 01/31/2019)
189 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Judge S. James Otero. This matter having been referred to the calendar of Judge S. James Otero for settlement, the Court sets a Settlement Conference for Wednesday, 02/06/2019 @ 09:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero in courtroom 10C, tenth floor, of the First Street Courthouse. The parties shall fully comply with this court's Standing Order rule 33. Procedures for Settlement Conferences Held Before Judge Otero. Counsel shall submit confidential settlement conference briefs to chambers in accordance with L.R. 16−15.5(a) by Monday, February 5, 2019.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vcr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/31/2019)
190 RESPONSE filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheimto Order on Motion to Dismiss Case,,,,

02/06/2019 02/07/2019 02/07/2019
02/11/2019 02/21/2019 02/22/2019 02/28/2019 02/28/2019
03/04/2019 03/05/2019

Order on Motion to Reschedule,,,, Motion Hearing,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,,, 175 , Response,, 182 (Jolley, Lance) (Entered: 02/04/2019)
191 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Judge S. James Otero presiding for Honorable John A. Kronstadt: Court and counsel confer. Court conducts in−chambers conference with parties. Matter does not settlement. The Court schedules further settlement conference on Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:00 p.m. before Judge S. James Otero. Court Reporter: Carol Zurborg. (lc) (Entered: 02/07/2019)
192 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Judge S. James Otero presiding for Honorable John A. Kronstadt: Hearing held (Court reporter is not present).Court and counsel confer in chambers. Case does not settle. The parties will contact the clerk to Judge Otero to determine another settlement conference date. Court Reporter: Not Present. (lc) (Entered: 02/07/2019)
193 RESPONSE filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheimto Order on Motion to Dismiss Case,,,, Order on Motion to Reschedule,,,, Motion Hearing,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,,, 175 , Response,, 190 , Response,, 182 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ms. L. Status Report)(Jolley, Lance) (Entered: 02/07/2019)
194 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.to Response,, 193 Response to Court's January 7, 2019 Order (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 02/11/2019)
195 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER CONTINUING POST MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE (DKT. 187 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The Court has reviewed the Minute Orders issued by Judge Otero. Dkt. 191 192 . The Post Mediation Status Conference is continued from February 25, 2019 to March 11, 2019 at 11:30 a.m. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 02/21/2019)
196 STATUS REPORT filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2−20 Ms. L. Report)(Jolley, Lance) (Entered: 02/22/2019)
197 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Judge S. James Otero. The Court sets a Settlement Conference for Tuesday, 3/12/2019 @ 09:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vcr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 02/28/2019)
198 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Order on Motion to Stay Case,,,,, 187 filed by defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Jolley, Lance) (Entered: 02/28/2019)
199 ORDER Re Defendants Consent Motion for Extension of Deadline for Discovery Response (DKT. 198 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt that the Motion is GRANTED. The deadline for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production of Documents is extended to 4/25/2019 without prejudice as to a subsequent request for further extension for good causeshown. (jp) (Entered: 03/05/2019)
200 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TAKING POST MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE OFF CALENDAR by Judge John A. Kronstadt: In light of the continued settlement conference, scheduled for March 12, 2019 (Dkt. 197 ), the Court takes the March 11, 2019 Post Mediation Status Conference off calendar. If a settlement is reached, counsel shall file a notice of settlement that includes a date by which a dismissal will be filed. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/05/2019)

03/07/2019 03/11/2019 03/12/2019
03/12/2019 03/21/2019 03/28/2019 04/02/2019
04/15/2019 04/15/2019 04/17/2019 04/22/2019

201 STATUS REPORT filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 3−6 Ms. L. Report)(Jolley, Lance) (Entered: 03/07/2019)
202 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority filed by plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 03/11/2019)
203 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Scott Michael Marconda counsel for Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. Scott Michael Marconda 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 Jefferson B. Sessions III, et al.. (Marconda, Scott) (Entered: 03/12/2019)
204 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Judge S. James Otero: Court and counsel confer. Court conducts in−chambers conference with parties. No settlement reached. The Court will set a further settlement conference at a later date. Court Reporter: Carol Zurborg. (lc) (Entered: 03/12/2019)
205 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Judge S. James Otero. The Court sets a telephonic conference on Monday, March 25, 2019 @ 2:30 p.m. Counsel shall call (888) 363−4735 and then when prompted input the Access Code: 9838315. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vcr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/21/2019)
206 STATUS REPORT filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 3−27 Ms. L. report)(Jolley, Lance) (Entered: 03/28/2019)
207 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE NOTICE OF AMENDED STANDING ORDER by Judge John A. Kronstadt: Counsel are advised that on March 25, 2019, the Court amended its Consolidated Standing Order. Counsel shall refer to this Court's Procedures and Schedules found on the website for the United States District Court (http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/honorable−john−kronstadt) to obtain a copy of the Order. The March 25, 2019 version of the Consolidated Standing Order is effective in this action immediately. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (rrey) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/02/2019)
208 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Judge S. James Otero. With the consent of all parties the Court sets a Settlement Conference for 4/17/2019 10:30 AM before Judge S. James Otero in courtroom 6C, sixth floor. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vcr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/15/2019)
209 STATUS REPORT filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 4−12 Ms L report)(Jolley, Lance) (Entered: 04/15/2019)
210 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Judge S. James Otero: Court and counsel confer in chambers. Case does not settle. The Court orders the parties to meet and confer then contact the clerk to set further conference. Court Reporter: Cindy Nirenberg. (lc) (Entered: 04/18/2019)
211 [DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER ORDER ON 4/22/2019, SEE DOCKET ENTRY NUMBER 212]. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Extension of Time to File response as to Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Discovery Matter, 199 , MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Order

04/22/2019
04/24/2019 04/25/2019 05/08/2019 05/31/2019
05/31/2019 06/03/2019

on Motion to Stay Case,,,,, 187 198 , Order on Motion to Stay Case,,,,, 187 filed by defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Jolley, Lance) Modified on 4/22/2019 (jp). (Entered: 04/22/2019)
212 ORDER TO STRIKE ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS by Judge John A. Kronstadt: the following document(s) be STRICKEN for failure to comply with the Local Rules, General Order and/or the Courts Case Management Order: MOTION for Extension of Time to File response 211 , for the following reasons: (1) Incorrect event selected; (2) Hearing information is missing, incorrect, or not timely; (3) The docket text and title of document do not match. Moreover, motions are set for hearing and briefed pursuant to L.R. 6−1 and 7. The appropriate manner in which to seek leave of an agreed upon matter is by filing a stipulation and proposed order. If the matter is not agreed upon, the motion shall be set for hearing or an ex parte application shall be filed. (jp) (Entered: 04/22/2019)
213 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Discovery Matter, 199 , MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Order on Motion to Stay Case,,,,, 187 198 , Order on Motion to Stay Case,,,,, 187 filed by defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Jolley, Lance) (Entered: 04/24/2019)
214 ORDER RE STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE (DKT. 213 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt. The current April 25, 2019 deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents is extended to June 10, 2019, without prejudice as to a subsequent request for further extension for good cause shown. (lom) (Entered: 04/25/2019)
215 STATUS REPORT filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 5−7−19 Ms. L. report)(Jolley, Lance) (Entered: 05/08/2019)
216 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,, 213 , Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Discovery Matter, 199 , Stipulation and Order, 214 , MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Order on Motion to Stay Case,,,,, 187 198 , Order on Motion to Stay Case,,,,, 187 filed by defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Jolley, Lance) (Entered: 05/31/2019)
217 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Judge S. James Otero. The Court sets a Telephone Conference set for 6/4/2019 10:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero. Counsel shall call toll free number 888−363−4735, dial Access Code 9838315, then wait for the court to enter the phone call.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vcr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 05/31/2019)
218 ORDER RE STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE (DKT. 216)by Judge John A. Kronstadt. The Stipulation is GRANTED as follows: 1. The current deadline of June 10, 2019, to respond to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, is extended to July 25, 2019, without prejudice as to a subsequent request for further extension for good cause shown. (shb) (Entered: 06/03/2019)

06/04/2019 06/25/2019 07/02/2019 07/09/2019 07/24/2019
07/25/2019 08/22/2019
08/23/2019 08/30/2019 09/06/2019

219 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held before Judge S. James Otero: The Court and counsel confer telephonically. The parties shall contact the court clerk to Judge Otero to arrange further settlement conference. Court Reporter: Not Present. (lc) (Entered: 06/04/2019)
220 TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Judge S. James Otero. On the Court's motion, the Court sets a Status Conference re Settlement for 7/2/2019 at 10:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (smo) (Entered: 06/25/2019)
221 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE re: Settlement held before Judge S. James Otero:Status conference/mediation held. The Court sets a further settlement conference for Tuesday, July 9, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.Court Reporter: not reported. (lc) (Entered: 07/03/2019)
222 MINUTES OF Further Settlement Conference held before Judge S. James Otero: Cause called; appearances made. Further mediation is held Court Reporter: Lisa Gonzalez. (lc) (Entered: 07/12/2019)
223 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,,, 216 , Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,, 213 , Order, 218 , Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Discovery Matter, 199 , Stipulation and Order, 214 , MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Order on Motion to Stay Case,,,,, 187 198 , Order on Motion to Stay Case,,,,, 187 filed by defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Jolley, Lance) (Entered: 07/24/2019)
224 ORDER Re Stipulation for Extension of Time to file Response by Judge John A. Kronstadt. The Stipulation 223 is GRANTED as follows: The current deadline of 7/25/2019, to respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, is extended to 8/26/2019, without prejudice as to a subsequent request for further extension for good cause shown. (jp) (Entered: 07/25/2019)
225 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,,, 216 , Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,, 213 , Order, 218 , Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Discovery Matter, 199 , Stipulation and Order, 214 , MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Order on Motion to Stay Case,,,,, 187 198 , Order on Motion to Stay Case,,,,, 187 , Order, 224 , Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,,, 223 filed by defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Jolley, Lance) (Entered: 08/22/2019)
226 ORDER GRANTING Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response (DKT. 225 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt. The Stipulation is GRANTED as follows: The current deadline of 8/26/2019, to respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, is extended to 9/9/2019, without prejudice as to a subsequent request for further extension for good cause shown. (jp) (Entered: 08/25/2019)
227 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Judge S. James Otero. With the consent of the parties, Judge Otero sets a further in−chambers Settlement Conference for Tuesday, 9/10/2019 @ 09:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vcr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/30/2019)
228 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,,, 216 , Order, 226 , Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,, 213 , Order, 218 , Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Discovery Matter, 199 , Stipulation and Order, 214 , MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Order on Motion

09/06/2019 09/10/2019 09/20/2019 10/08/2019
10/09/2019 10/17/2019 10/22/2019 10/23/2019

to Stay Case,,,,, 187 198 , Order, 224 , Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,,, 225 , Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,,, 223 filed by defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Jolley, Lance) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
229 ORDER GRANTING Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response (DKT. 228 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt as follows: The current deadline of 9/9/2019 to respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents is extended to 10/9/2019, without prejudice as to a subsequent request for further extension for good cause shown. (jp) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
234 MINUTES TELEPHONIC SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held before Judge S. James Otero: The Court and counsel confer. The Court sets the following deadlines: (1) Date to submit final settlement agreement to Judge Otero: September 23, 2019(2) Date for final approval of settlement agreement: October 7, 2019. Court Reporter: None. (lc) (Entered: 10/18/2019)
230 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE RE: SETTLEMENT held before Judge S. James Otero: The Court extends the deadlines for the parties settlement agreements as follows: (1) Date to submit final settlement agreement to Judge Otero: September 30, 2019 (2) Date for final approval of settlement agreement: October 15, 2019. Court Reporter: none. (lc) Modified on 9/23/2019 (lc). (Entered: 09/23/2019)
231 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File response as to Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,,, 216 , Order, 226 , Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,, 213 , Order, 218 , Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Discovery Matter, 199 , Order, 229 , Stipulation and Order, 214 , MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Order on Motion to Stay Case,,,,, 187 198 , Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,,,, 228 , Order, 224 , Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,,, 225 , Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,,, 223 filed by defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Jolley, Lance) (Entered: 10/08/2019)
232 ORDER Re Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response (DKT. 231 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt, the Stipulation is GRANTED as follows: The current deadline of 10/9/2019 to respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents is extended to 10/24/2019, without prejudice as to a subsequent request for further extension for good cause shown. (jp) (Entered: 10/11/2019)
233 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge S. James Otero: The Court having been advised that this case has not settles refers this matter back to the calendarof Judge Kronstadt for all further proceedings. (lc) (Entered: 10/18/2019)
235 REQUEST for Ruling Motions Under Consideration filed by plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 10/22/2019)
236 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR A RULING ON MOTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION (DKT. 235 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: On October 17, 2019, this matter was returned to the Court's active docket (Dkt. 233 ), and on October 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Request for Ruling on Motions Under Consideration (the Request (Dkt. 235 )). In light of the Request, and because several months have elapsed since the completion of the briefing of the pending motions while the parties participated in settlement efforts, on or before October 31, 2019, the parties shall submit a joint report, not to exceed five pages, stating their collective and/or respective positions as to the number of putative class members, if any, who are presently in DHS custody, or who are expected to be placed in such custody within the next 30 days. The joint report shall provide separate figures for these putative class members as follows: those who were detained in immigration custody by DHS (i) on

10/24/2019
10/25/2019 10/28/2019 10/28/2019 10/29/2019 10/29/2019

or after May 7, 2018; and (ii) between July 1, 2017 and May 6, 2018. The joint report may also provide updates as to any other factual matters addressed in the pending motions that either party considers material to the issues presented in the pending motions. Upon the filing of the joint report, the Court will determine whether any additional information is needed with respect to the pending motions, or whether it will proceed with them based on the record at that time. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jaklc3) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/23/2019)
237 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File response as to Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,,, 216 , Order, 218 , Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Discovery Matter, 199 , Order, 229 , Order on Motion to Stay Case,,,,, 187 , Order, 232 , Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,,, 223 , Order, 226 , Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,, 213 , Stipulation and Order, 214 , MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Order on Motion to Stay Case,,,,, 187 198 , Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,,,, 228 , Order, 224 , Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,,,, 231 , Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,,, 225 filed by defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Jolley, Lance) (Entered: 10/24/2019)
238 EX PARTE APPLICATION to hold case in abeyance pending To abey discovery pending resolution of Defendants Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs Motions for Class Certification and for a Preliminary Injunction, and the entry of a Scheduling Order, Protective Order, and Protocol Regarding the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information. filed by defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Jolley, Lance) (Entered: 10/25/2019)
239 ORDER Re Stipulation for an Extension of Time to Serve Discovery Response (DKT. 237 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt, the relief requested through the Stipulation is GRANTED as follows: The current deadline of October 24, 2019 for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents is extended to October 31, 2019; provided, however, that this is without prejudice to setting new deadlines in response to the pending Ex Parte Application to Stay Discovery (the "Ex Parte Application" (Dkt. 238)) filed by Defendants. Plaintiffs shall file any response to the Ex Parte Application no later than October 29, 2019 at 4:00 p.m. (jp) (Entered: 10/28/2019)
240 OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION to hold case in abeyance pending To abey discovery pending resolution of Defendants Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs Motions for Class Certification and for a Preliminary Injunction, and the entry of a Scheduling Order, Protective Or 238 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 10/28/2019)
241 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION (DKT. 240) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: On October 28, 2019, Plaintiffs timely filed an Opposition (Dkt. 240 ) to Defendants' Ex Parte Application (Dkt. 238 ). The Opposition references an Exhibit A; however, Exhibit A appears as second copy of the Opposition. Additionally, the Opposition does not comply with L.R. 11−3. See, e.g., Dkt. 240 at 8. No later than October 29, 2019 at 4 p.m., Plaintiffs shall file an amended Opposition that complies with the Local Rules as to formatting, together with the referenced Exhibit A. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jaklc3) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/29/2019)
242 OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION to hold case in abeyance pending To abey discovery pending resolution of Defendants Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs Motions for Class Certification and for a Preliminary Injunction, and the entry of a

10/30/2019 10/31/2019
10/31/2019 10/31/2019 11/01/2019 11/01/2019

Scheduling Order, Protective Or 238 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 10/29/2019)
248 ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY DISCOVERY (DKT. 238 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: A consideration of the merits of the Application is DEFERRED until after the filing of that report. In light of this determination, the October 31, 2019 deadline for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (see Dkt. 239 ) is presently continued to November 7, 2019. (ake) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
243 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Nicole N Murley on behalf of Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim (Attorney Nicole N Murley added to party Alex M. Azar II(pty:dft), Attorney Nicole N Murley added to party Lowell Clark(pty:dft), Attorney Nicole N Murley added to party Scott Lloyd(pty:dft), Attorney Nicole N Murley added to party David Marin(pty:dft), Attorney Nicole N Murley added to party Marc J Moore(pty:dft), Attorney Nicole N Murley added to party Kirstjen M. Nielsen(pty:dft), Attorney Nicole N Murley added to party Office of Refugee Resettlement(pty:dft), Attorney Nicole N Murley added to party Jefferson B. Sessions III(pty:dft), Attorney Nicole N Murley added to party U.S. Customs and Border Protection(pty:dft), Attorney Nicole N Murley added to party U.S. Department of Health and Human Service (pty:dft), Attorney Nicole N Murley added to party U.S. Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft), Attorney Nicole N Murley added to party U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(pty:dft), Attorney Nicole N Murley added to party Lisa Von Nordheim(pty:dft))(Murley, Nicole) (Entered: 10/31/2019)
244 STATUS REPORT filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Murley, Nicole) (Entered: 10/31/2019)
245 DECLARATION of Kenneth Berrick re Status Report, 244 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 10/31/2019)
246 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Daniel E Goldman counsel for Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. Daniel Eric Goldman is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by defendant all defendants. (Goldman, Daniel) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
247 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Lindsay M Vick counsel for Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. Adding Lindsay M. Vick as counsel of record for Defendants for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by defendants Lindsay M. Vick. (Attorney Lindsay M Vick added to party Alex M. Azar II(pty:dft), Attorney Lindsay M Vick added to party Lowell Clark(pty:dft), Attorney Lindsay M Vick added to party Scott Lloyd(pty:dft), Attorney Lindsay M Vick added to party David Marin(pty:dft), Attorney Lindsay M Vick added to party Marc J Moore(pty:dft), Attorney Lindsay M Vick added to party Kirstjen M. Nielsen(pty:dft), Attorney Lindsay M Vick added to party Office of Refugee Resettlement(pty:dft), Attorney Lindsay M Vick added to party Jefferson B. Sessions III(pty:dft), Attorney Lindsay M Vick added to party U.S. Customs and Border Protection(pty:dft), Attorney Lindsay M Vick added to party U.S. Department of Health and Human Service (pty:dft), Attorney Lindsay M Vick added to party U.S. Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft), Attorney Lindsay M Vick

11/01/2019 11/04/2019 11/05/2019 11/05/2019 11/06/2019
11/13/2019 11/14/2019

added to party U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(pty:dft), Attorney Lindsay M Vick added to party Lisa Von Nordheim(pty:dft))(Vick, Lindsay) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
249 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Strike Supplemental Declaration Declaration 245 of Kenneth Berrick re Status Report filed by defendants Alex M. Azar II, Lowell Clark, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Vick, Lindsay) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
250 Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to Strike Supplemental Declaration Declaration 245 of Kenneth Berrick re Status Report 249 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 11/04/2019)
251 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (DKT. 81 ), PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DKT. 45 ), DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. 132 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: For the reasons stated in this Order, the Certification Motion is GRANTED IN PART. The Injunction Motion is GRANTED IN PART. The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), the Clerk is ORDERED to alter the docket to reflect the following substitutions of certain Defendants: William P. Barr in place of Jefferson B. Sessions III; Kevin K. McAleenan in place of Kirstjen M. Nielsen; and Jonathan H. Hayes in place of Scott Lloyd. (ake) (Entered: 11/05/2019)
252 ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STRIKE THE DECLARATION OF KENNETH BERRICK (DKT. 249 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The Application is DENIED. This determination is without prejudice to a future request to consider the Berrick Declaration in connection with issues that are presented at that time. (ake) (Entered: 11/05/2019)
253 ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY DISCOVERY (DKT. 238 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: the Application is DENIED. However, the deadline for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (see Dkt. 248 ) is continued to November 12, 2019. In light of the Order issued on November 5, 2019 (Dkt. 251 ), the parties shall meet and confer about a proposed, revised pre−trial schedule in this action. During those communications they may agree to modify the November 12, 2019 due date for the aforementioned discovery production. Following the meet and confer process, on or before November 14, 2019, the parties shall file a Joint Report stating their collective and/or respective positions as to a revised pre−trial schedule, including a completed Exhibit A as required by the Court's Standing Order. Upon review of the Joint Report, the Court will determine whether to set dates or to set a status conference as to scheduling and/or other issues. (ake) (Entered: 11/06/2019)
254 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Lance Lomond Jolley counsel for Defendants Alex M. Azar II, William P Barr, Lowell Clark, Jonathan H Hayes, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Kevin K McAleenan, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. Lance Lomond Jolley 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 − all defendants. (Jolley, Lance) (Entered: 11/13/2019)
255 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Michelle R Slack counsel for Defendants Alex M. Azar II, William P Barr, Lowell Clark, Jonathan H Hayes, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Kevin K McAleenan, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. Michelle R Slack 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 All Defendants. (Slack, Michelle) (Entered: 11/14/2019)

11/14/2019 11/19/2019 11/20/2019 11/20/2019 11/26/2019 11/27/2019
11/27/2019 11/29/2019 12/02/2019

256 JOINT REPORT of Per Court's November 6, 2019 Order filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 11/14/2019)
257 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Extend Time to File Answer to 12/19/2019 re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, 1 filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, William P Barr, Lowell Clark, Jonathan H Hayes, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Kevin K McAleenan, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Murley, Nicole) (Entered: 11/19/2019)
258 ORDER Re Defendants Unopposed Ex Parte Application to Stay Answer Deadline (DKT. 257 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt, the Application is GRANTED as follows: The deadline for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint (Dkt.1), currently set for 11/19/2019, is continued by 30 days; i.e., until 12/19/2019. (jp) (Entered: 11/20/2019)
259 ORDER Re Joint Report (Dkt. 256 )/Scheduling Conference by Judge John A. Kronstadt: The Court sets the following deadlines: Last Date to Add Parties/Amend Pleadings: March 5, 2020; Non−Expert Discovery Cut−Off: 10/5/2020; Initial Expert Disclosures: 10/19/2020; Rebuttal Expert Disclosures:11/2/2020; Expert Discovery Cut−Off: 11/16/2020; Last Day to File All Motions (including discovery motions): 11/16/2020. (SEE ORDER FOR SPECIFICS). (jp) (Entered: 11/21/2019)
260 STATUS REPORT filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, William P Barr, Lowell Clark, Jonathan H Hayes, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Kevin K McAleenan, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Murley, Nicole) (Entered: 11/26/2019)
261 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, William P Barr, Lowell Clark, Jonathan H Hayes, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Kevin K McAleenan, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. Appeal of Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,, Order on Motion to Certify Class Action,,, Order on Motion to Dismiss Case,, 251 . (Appeal Fee − Not Required for US Goverment.) (Murley, Nicole) (Entered: 11/27/2019)
262 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay Case pending Resolution of Defendants' Appeal of the Court's November 5, 2019 Order filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, William P Barr, Lowell Clark, Jonathan H Hayes, David Marin, Kevin K McAleenan, Marc J Moore, Office of Refugee Resettlement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Proposed Order) (Murley, Nicole) (Entered: 11/27/2019)
265 NOTIFICATION from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of case number assigned and briefing schedule. Appeal Docket No. 19−56400 assigned to Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 261 as to Defendants Alex M. Azar II, William P Barr, Lowell Clark, Jonathan H Hayes, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Kevin K McAleenan, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (yl) (Entered: 12/03/2019)
263 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE by Judge John A Kronstadt: Based upon a review of the parties' Status Report of November 26, 2019 (Dkt. 260 ), the Court sets a Status Conference for January 13, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ake) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 12/02/2019)

12/02/2019 12/02/2019 12/10/2019 12/13/2019 12/19/2019 01/08/2020 01/13/2020
01/13/2020

264 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay Case pending Resolution of Defendants' Appeal of the Court's November 5, 2019 Order 262 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amy Lally, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Amy Lally, # 3 Declaration of Kenneth Berrick)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 12/02/2019)
266 ORDER from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 261 . CCA # 19−56400. The appeal filed November 27, 2019 is a preliminary injunction appeal. Accordingly, Ninth Circuit Rule 3−3 shall apply. Failure to file timely the opening brief shall result in the automatic dismissal of this appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. [See document for complete details.] (mat) (Entered: 12/03/2019)
267 (IN CHAMBERS)ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL by Judge John A. Kronstadt. For the reasons stated in this Order, the Application is DENIED. (lom) (Entered: 12/11/2019)
268 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Bridget S Johnsen counsel for Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. Bridget S. Johnsen is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.P., et al.. (Johnsen, Bridget) (Entered: 12/13/2019)
269 ANSWER to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, 1 filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, William P Barr, Lowell Clark, Jonathan H Hayes, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Kevin K McAleenan, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim.(Murley, Nicole) (Entered: 12/19/2019)
270 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Amanda Roman Mangaser Savage counsel for Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. Adding Amanda Savage as counsel of record for Plaintiffs for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Ms. J.P., et al. (Attorney Amanda Roman Mangaser Savage added to party Ms. J.O.(pty:pla), Attorney Amanda Roman Mangaser Savage added to party Ms. J.P.(pty:pla), Attorney Amanda Roman Mangaser Savage added to party Ms. R.M.(pty:pla))(Savage, Amanda) (Entered: 01/08/2020)
271 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Jeffrey S Robins on behalf of Defendants Alex M. Azar II, William P Barr, Lowell Clark, Jonathan H Hayes, David Marin, Kevin K McAleenan, Marc J Moore, Office of Refugee Resettlement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim (Attorney Jeffrey S Robins added to party Alex M. Azar II(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey S Robins added to party William P Barr(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey S Robins added to party Lowell Clark(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey S Robins added to party Jonathan H Hayes(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey S Robins added to party David Marin(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey S Robins added to party Kevin K McAleenan(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey S Robins added to party Marc J Moore(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey S Robins added to party Office of Refugee Resettlement(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey S Robins added to party U.S. Customs and Border Protection(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey S Robins added to party U.S. Department of Health and Human Service (pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey S Robins added to party U.S. Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey S Robins added to party U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey S Robins added to party Lisa Von Nordheim(pty:dft))(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/13/2020)
272 STATUS CONFERENCE before Judge John A. Kronstadt: The status conference is held. It is ordered that, on or before 1/31/2020, counsel meet and confer as to any outstanding issues on a protective order and then file a joint submission that includes the parties' respective and/or collective positions. A Further Status Conference is set for 2/13/2020 at 1:30 PM. Counsel shall meet and confer and file a joint report on or before 2/6/2020 as to the status of the issues addressed at the 1/13/2020 status conference. In the report, counsel shall state their respective views as to whether the 2/13/2020 status conference should proceed, or should be continued or taken off

01/15/2020
01/15/2020 01/15/2020 01/16/2020 01/16/2020 01/17/2020 01/24/2020 01/31/2020

calendar in light of the progress by the parties in narrowing the open issues. Court Reporter: Lisa Gonzalez. (SEE CIVIL MINUTES FOR FURTHER SPECIFICS). (jp) (Entered: 01/14/2020)
273 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Supplemental Discovery Responses filed by plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. Motion set for hearing on 2/5/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Attachments: # 1 Joint Stipulation, # 2 Declaration of Kevin M. Fee, # 3 Exhibit A to Declaration of Kevin M. Fee, # 4 Exhibit B to Declaration of Kevin M. Fee, # 5 Exhibit C to Declaration of Kevin M. Fee, # 6 Exhibit D to Declaration of Kevin M. Fee, # 7 Exhibit E to Declaration of Kevin M. Fee, # 8 Exhibit F to Declaration of Kevin M. Fee, # 9 Exhibit G to Declaration of Kevin M. Fee, # 10 Exhibit H to Declaration of Kevin M. Fee, # 11 Exhibit I to Declaration of Kevin M. Fee, # 12 Exhibit J to Declaration of Kevin M. Fee, # 13 Exhibit K to Declaration of Kevin M. Fee, # 14 Exhibit L to Declaration of Kevin M. Fee, # 15 Exhibit M to Declaration of Kevin M. Fee, # 16 Exhibit N to Declaration of Kevin M. Fee, # 17 Exhibit O to Declaration of Kevin M. Fee, # 18 Exhibit P to Declaration of Kevin M. Fee, # 19 Exhibit Q to Declaration of Kevin M. Fee, # 20 Exhibit R to Declaration of Kevin M. Fee, # 21 Exhibit S to Declaration of Kevin M. Fee, # 22 Declaration of Lindsay M. Vick, # 23 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Lindsay M. Vick, # 24 Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Lindsay M. Vick, # 25 Exhibit 3 to Declaration of Lindsay M. Vick, # 26 Exhibit 4 to Declaration of Lindsay M. Vick, # 27 Exhibit 5 to Declaration of Lindsay M. Vick, # 28 Exhibit 6 to Declaration of Lindsay M. Vick, # 29 Exhibit 7 to Declaration of Lindsay M. Vick, # 30 Exhibit 8 to Declaration of Lindsay M. Vick, # 31 Exhibit 9 to Declaration of Lindsay M. Vick)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 01/15/2020)
274 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Mark D Rosenbaum counsel for Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. Alisa Louise Hartz 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 Ms. J.P., et al. (Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 01/15/2020)
275 NOTICE OF MOTION re MOTION to Compel Supplemental Discovery Responses 273 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. Motion set for hearing on 2/5/2020 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 01/15/2020)
276 Notice of Electronic Filing re Status Conference − optional html form,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,,, 272 e−mailed to Alisa Hartz bounced due to No longer with firm. The primary e−mail address associated with the attorney record has been deleted. Pursuant to Local Rules it is the attorneys obligation to maintain all personal contact information including e−mail address in the CM/ECF system. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (lmh) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/16/2020)
277 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Mark D Rosenbaum counsel for Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. Lucero Chavez 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 Ms. J.P., et al. (Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 01/16/2020)
278 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY [ECF 273 ] by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. The hearing on this motion noticed for February 5, 2020 is vacated. All sides will bear their own costs and expenses in litigating this motion. (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). (clee) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
279 (Smith, Gregory) (Entered: 01/24/2020)
280 Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for protective order filed by plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. Motion set for hearing on 2/13/2020 at 01:30 PM before Judge John A. Kronstadt. (Attachments: # 1 Joint Stipulation, # 2 Declaration of Kevin M. Fee in Support of Joint Motion, # 3 Exhibit A to Fee Declaration, # 4 Exhibit B to Fee Declaration, # 5 Exhibit C to Fee Declaration, # 6 Exhibit D to Fee Declaration, # 7 Exhibit E to Fee Declaration, # 8 Exhibit F to Fee Declaration, # 9 Exhibit G to Fee Declaration, # 10 Exhibit H to Fee Declaration, # 11 Exhibit I to Fee Declaration, # 12 Exhibit J to Fee Declaration, # 13 Exhibit K to Fee

02/06/2020 02/07/2020 02/10/2020
02/11/2020 02/11/2020
02/12/2020
02/13/2020 02/13/2020
02/13/2020

Declaration, # 14 Exhibit L to Fee Declaration, # 15 Exhibit M to Fee Declaration, # 16 Exhibit N to Fee Declaration, # 17 Exhibit O to Fee Declaration, # 18 Exhibit P to Fee Declaration, # 19 Exhibit Q to Fee Declaration, # 20 Exhibit R to Fee Declaration, # 21 Exhibit S to Fee Declaration, # 22 Exhibit T to Fee Declaration, # 23 Exhibit U to Fee Declaration, # 24 Exhibit V to Fee Declaration, # 25 Exhibit W to Fee Declaration, # 26 Exhibit X to Fee Declaration, # 27 Exhibit Y to Fee Declaration, # 28 Exhibit Z to Fee Declaration, # 29 Exhibit AA to Fee Declaration, # 30 Exhibit BB to Fee Declaration, # 31 Exhibit CC to Fee Declaration, # 32 Declaration of Lindsay M. Vick in Support of Joint Stipulation, # 33 Exhibit 1 to Vick Declaration, # 34 Exhibit 2 to Vick Declaration, # 35 Exhibit 3 to Vick Declaration, # 36 Exhibit 4 to Vick Declaration, # 37 Exhibit to Vick Declaration) (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 01/31/2020)
281 STATUS REPORT (Joint) filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kenneth Berrick, # 2 Exhibit A to Berrick Declaration)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 02/06/2020)
282 STATUS REPORT (Amended Joint) filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kenneth Berrick, # 2 Exhibit A to Berrick Declaration)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 02/07/2020)
283 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Supplement Joint Status Report re Status Report 282 filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, William P Barr, Lowell Clark, Jonathan H Hayes, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Kevin K McAleenan, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defs Supplemental Response, # 2 Proposed Order) (Murley, Nicole) (Entered: 02/10/2020)
284 NOTICE OF NON−OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Supplement Joint Status Report re Status Report 282 283 filed by Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. (Lally, Amy) (Entered: 02/11/2020)
285 SUPPLEMENT to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Supplement Joint Status Report re Status Report 282 283 filed by Defendants Alex M. Azar II, William P Barr, Lowell Clark, Jonathan H Hayes, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Kevin K McAleenan, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Vick, Lindsay) (Entered: 02/11/2020)
286 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Steven Patrick Kelly counsel for Plaintiffs Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M.. Adding Steven Patrick Kelly as counsel of record for Ms. J.P., Ms. J.O., and Ms. R.M. for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by plaintiff Ms. J.P., Ms. J.O., and Ms. R.M.. (Attorney Steven Patrick Kelly added to party Ms. J.O.(pty:pla), Attorney Steven Patrick Kelly added to party Ms. J.P.(pty:pla), Attorney Steven Patrick Kelly added to party Ms. R.M.(pty:pla))(Kelly, Steven) (Entered: 02/12/2020)
287 ORDER by Judge John A. Kronstadt. The Ex Parte Application for Leave to File a Supplemental Response to the Joint Status Report 283 is granted. (cw) (Entered: 02/13/2020)
288 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Defendants Alex M. Azar II, William P Barr, Lowell Clark, Jonathan H Hayes, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Kevin K McAleenan, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim DCN number: 18−cv−06081 for Court Reporter. (Murley, Nicole) (Entered: 02/13/2020)
290 STATUS CONFERENCE; JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DKT. 280 ) before Judge John A. Kronstadt: The status conference is held. Defendants shall provide to Plaintiffs' counsel Defendants' proposed language as to remaining issuesin the Status Report and the Motion for Protective Order by 2/21/2020 at noon PST. Plaintiffs shall provide to Defendants' counsel any proposed changes, including

02/14/2020 02/21/2020
02/24/2020
02/24/2020 02/28/2020 03/12/2020
03/12/2020 03/24/2020 03/24/2020

redlined versions, by 2/25/2020 at 12 p.m. PST. Defendants will provide any new redlines to Plaintiffs by 2/27/2020 at noon PST. On or before 2/28/2020, the parties shall file a joint submission that sets forth any remaining disputes from the Status Report and a joint revised Motion for Protective Order. Upon the filing of the joint submission, the Motion is taken UNDER SUBMISSION. (SEE CIVIL MINUTE FOR SPECIFICS). Court Reporter: Lisa Gonzalez. (jp) (Entered: 02/20/2020)
289 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Plaintiff Ms. J.O., Ms. J.P., Ms. R.M. for Court Reporter. Court will contact Isaura Ramirez Espinoza at iramirezespinoza@sidley.com with further instructions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter. (Kelly, Steven) (Entered: 02/14/2020)
293 ORDER from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 261 filed by David Marin, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lowell Clark, Alex M. Azar II, Scott Lloyd, Lisa Von Nordheim, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, William P Barr, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Jefferson B. Sessions III, Jonathan H Hayes, Kevin K McAleenan. CCA # 19−56400. The motion filed by the appellants for voluntary dismissal of this appeal is granted. This appeal is dismissed. See Fed. R. App. P. 42(b); 9th Cir. R. 27−9.1. This order shall constitute the mandate. (jp) (Entered: 02/25/2020)
291 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 02/13/20 − 1:32 p.m. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Lisa M. Gonzalez;csrlisag@aol.com, phone number 213−894−2979. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 3/16/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/26/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/26/2020. (Gonzalez, Lisa) (Entered: 02/24/2020)
292 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 02/13/20 − 1:32 p.m. re Transcript 291 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Gonzalez, Lisa) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 02/24/2020)
294 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Order on Motion for Order,,,, Status Conference − optional html form,,,, Motion Hearing,,, 290 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Order)(Lally, Amy) (Entered: 02/28/2020)
295 STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER Governing the Handling of Confidential Material by Judge John A. Kronstadt. Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure, all discovery and other materials exchanged by the Parties or Non−Party Producing Party and/or Designating, or filed with the Court, in Ms. J.P., et al., v. William P. Barr, et al., Case No. 2: 18−cv−06081−JAK−SK (C.D. Cal.) shall be provided subject to the conditions set forth in the foregoing Stipulated Protective Order. This order shall be construed as a lawful order pursuant to the Privacy Act permitting release consistent with the terms of this Order. (jp) (Entered: 03/12/2020)
296 ORDER FOLLOWING FEBRUARY 13, 2020 STATUS CONFERENCE by Judge John A. Kronstadt. A Further Status Conference set for 5/11/2020 at 08:30 AM., without prejudice to a request by either or both sides for one on an earlier date based on developments in this proceeding. Counsel shall meet and confer and file a joint report 5/1/2020. (SEE ORDER FOR SPECIFICS). (jp) (Entered: 03/12/2020)
297 Joint STIPULATION to Stay Case filed by defendant Alex M. Azar II, William P Barr, Lowell Clark, Jonathan H Hayes, Scott Lloyd, David Marin, Kevin K McAleenan, Marc J Moore, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Jefferson B. Sessions III, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lisa Von Nordheim. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Vick, Lindsay) (Entered: 03/24/2020)
298 ORDER RE STIPULATION TO STAY CASE (DKT. 297 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt, the Stipulation is GRANTED, and this litigation, including all pending

deadlines and any pending discovery, is stayed in its entirety until January 10, 2021 and placed on the Courts inactive calendar. Defendants shall file status reports with this Court every sixty (60) days, with the first report due on May 22, 2020. (MD JS−6. Case Terminated). (jp) (Entered: 03/25/2020)

 
 Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 1 of 64 Page ID #:1

1 Amy P. Lally (SBN 198555) alally@sidley.com
2 Ellyce R. Cooper (SBN 204453) ecooper@sidley.com
3 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor
4 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: +1 310 595-9500
5 Facsimile: +1 310 595-9501

6 Mark Rosenbaum (SBN 59940)

7

mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org Judy London (SBN 149431)

8 jlondon@publiccounsel.org

9

Talia Inlender (SBN 253796) tinlender@publiccounsel.org

10 Alisa Hartz (SBN 285141) ahartz@publiccounsel.org
11 Lucero Chavez (SBN 273531)

12

lchavez@publiccounsel.org Elizabeth Hadaway (SBN 308800)

13 ehadaway@publiccounsel.org

14

Malhar Shah (SBN 318588) mshah@publiccounsel.org

15 Deena Tumeh (SBN 318573)

dtumeh@publiccounsel.org

16 PUBLIC COUNSEL

17

610 S. Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005

18

Telephone: +1 213 385-2977 Facsimile: +1 213 385-9089

19 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 20 Additional counsel on next page

21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

22

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

23 Ms. J.P., Ms. J.O., Ms. R.M., on behalf of Case No. 2:18-cv-06081
24 themselves and all other similarly situated, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY

25

Plaintiffs,

AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

26

v.

27

28

233895133

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 2 of 64 Page ID #:2

1 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
2 UNITED STATES; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, SECRETARY OF
3 HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
4 SECURITY, AND ITS SUBORDINATE ENTITIES; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND
5 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER
6 PROTECTION; ALEX M. AZAR II, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
7 HUMAN SERVICES; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
8 HUMAN SERVICES; SCOTT LLOYD, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF
9 REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT; OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT;
10 DAVID MARIN, LOS ANGELES FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, U.S.
11 IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; LISA VON
12 NORDHEIM, WARDEN, JAMES A. MUSICK FACILITY; MARC J. MOORE,
13 SEATTLE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
14 ENFORCEMENT; LOWELL CLARK, WARDEN, TACOMA NORTHWEST
15 DETENTION CENTER,

16

Defendants.

17

18 Carter G. Phillips*
19 cphillips@sidley.com Jennifer J. Clark*
20 jennifer.clark@sidley.com
21 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W.
22 Washington, D.C. 20005
23 Telephone: +1 202 736-8000 Facsimile: +1 202 736-8711
24

Mark E. Haddad (SBN 205945) markhadd@usc.edu Part-time Lecturer in Law USC Gould School of Law** University of Southern California 699 Exposition Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90089 Telephone: +1 213 675-5957

25 Michael Andolina*

26

mandolina@sidley.com Timothy Payne*

27 tpayne@sidley.com

28

Luis Cortes Romero (SBN 310852) lcortes@ia-lc.com Alma L. David (SBN 257676) adavid@ia-lc.com IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY &

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 3 of 64 Page ID #:3

1 Kevin Fee*
2 kfee@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
3 One South Dearborn
4 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: +1 312 853-7000
5 Facsimile: +1 312 853-7036

6

7

Sean A. Commons (SBN 217603) scommons@sidley.com

8 Bridget S. Johnsen (SBN 210778)

9

bjohnsen@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

10 555 West Fifth Street

11

Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: +1 213 896-6000

12 Facsimile: +1 213 896-6600

LITIGATION CENTER, PLLC 19309 68th Avenue South, Suite R-102 Kent, WA 98032 Telephone: +1 253 872-4730 Facsimile: +1 253 237-1591

13 14 *Application for admission pro hac vice to be submitted 15 ** Institution listed for identification purposes only

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 4 of 64 Page ID #:4

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. This complaint challenges the federal government’s infliction of

3 enormous emotional trauma on immigrant families through its extraordinary,

4 deliberate, and needless policy of separating parents from their children without a

5 showing of that the parents are unfit, and then holding the parents and children each in

6 separate detention with no access to one another. This family separation policy

7 inflicts severe harm on Plaintiffs and their children and violates their Fifth

8 Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. To remedy these

9 constitutional violations and address the severe harm from trauma the government has

10 inflicted, Plaintiffs and their children are entitled to appropriate screening and trauma-

11 informed and family-centered mental-health services under conditions conducive to

12 effective treatment.

13

2. Leading trauma experts agree that forcible separation of children from

14 their parents is a traumatic event that can have both immediate and long-term

15 psychological consequences if left unaddressed by professional care. As one expert

16 explains, “[s]eparation of a child from his/her mother would be a traumatic event for

17 both the child/adolescent and for the mother and father, causing … [p]anic and terror,

18 frightening dreams, flashbacks, dissociation (blanking out and lack of awareness),

19 depersonalization (sense of unreality and separation from oneself), withdrawal into

20 intense grief and depression, an ongoing sense of fear and terror.”1 Acute

21 psychological distress from separation not only produces mental symptoms such as

22 anxiety and depression but also has serious consequences for the physical health of

23 parent and child as well as for child development.

24

3. The circumstances of separation under the government’s policy—

25 including the lack of information on the children’s whereabouts, the inability of

26 parents and children to communicate with each other, their detention in crowded

27 facilities with poor food and round-the-clock lighting, the extended nature of the

28 1 Declaration of Marti Loring, ¶ 8.
1 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 5 of 64 Page ID #:5

1 separation, and the lack of procedures for and information about reunification, all

2 coupled with the stressors and trauma that initially led the families to flee their homes

3 and that they may have experienced on their journey—further exacerbates the trauma

4 and distress inflicted on the families. According to trauma experts, “[w]hen the

5 separation is sudden and frightening, when it is initiated by adults unknown to the

6 child, when the parent has no opportunity to prepare the child, when it is done

7 forcefully, and when there is no or minimal contact between the child and parent after

8 and during the separation, then the distress will be greater and the effects significantly

9 more damaging to the child.”2

10

4. Plaintiffs in this case are three mothers who have been separated from

11 their minor children under the family separation policy and have been held in

12 detention by the federal government. Each Plaintiff came to the United States with a

13 child under the age of 18, fleeing from persecution in her native country, and seeking

14 asylum here as permitted under the laws of the United States. They have been

15 detained separately from their children. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all

16 similarly situated parents.

17

5. Defendants are each charged with faithfully executing the laws of the

18 United States. Nonetheless, Defendants have adopted their family separation policy

19 with the deliberate objective of defying these laws and deterring families from Central

20 America from seeking asylum. The policy is a component of Defendants’ racially-

21 motivated effort to stem immigration from non-European countries.

22

6. Defendants implemented their cruel policy in a chaotic manner. They

23 subjected parents already fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries to

24 one of the most brutal traumas: forced separation from their children. Parents and

25 children were torn away from each other with little explanation. Guards mocked

26 children and parents for their tears. Parents received little or no information about

27 2 Declaration of Kenneth Berrick, John Sprinson & Kevin Campbell, ¶ 16 (hereinafter
28 “Berrick Decl.”).
2 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 6 of 64 Page ID #:6

1 their children’s whereabouts or well-being, and no explanation as to when or whether

2 they would ever see their children again.

3

7. The harms inflicted by the family separation policy were avoidable. In

4 the past, the federal government found alternatives to family separation, including the

5 release of parents and children. In those rare cases where release on recognizance is

6 insufficient, there are a variety of effective programs to ensure attendance at court

7 hearings and other proceedings. For instance, under the Family Case Management

8 Program, the government released asylum-seeking parents and children together. In

9 this program, which costs far less than detention, immigrants appeared for their

10 removal hearings over 99% of the time.

11

8. Defendants’ policy of family separation during detention was thus a new

12 and gratuitous injury inflicted solely to terrify immigrant parents and children, deter

13 other refugees from seeking asylum, and extract political concessions. Executive

14 Order No. 13841, which summarily and prospectively terminates the family separation

15 policy, confirms that the policy of separating parents and children was never required

16 by law.

17

9. Indeed, on June 26, 2018, the United States District Court for the

18 Southern District of California enjoined the federal government’s unjustifiable policy,

19 finding a likelihood that the policy violates the Constitution. See Ms. L v. U.S.

20 Immigration & Customs Enf’t, 18-cv-0428, 2018 WL 3129486 (S.D. Cal. June 26,

21 2018). The court recognized that the putative class of migrant parents was likely to

22 succeed on the due process challenge because the federal government was separating

23 children from their parents without any finding that the parents were unfit or presented

24 a danger to their children. Id. at *7. Additionally, the court found that the

25 government’s policy “was implemented without any effective system or procedure for

26 (1) tracking the children after they were separated from their parents, (2) enabling

27 communication between the parents and their children after separation, and (3)

28 reuniting the parents and children after the parents are returned to immigration
3 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 7 of 64 Page ID #:7

1 custody following completion of their criminal sentence.” Id. As a result, the court

2 ordered the government to reunify all class member parents with their children under

3 five years old by July 10, 2018, and with all their children by July 26, 2018. Id. at

4 *12.

5

10. Despite indicating on July 5, 2018 that it would comply with the court-

6 imposed deadlines,3 the federal government sought clarification and/or relief from

7 these deadlines later the same day. See Ms. L v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t,

8 No. 18-cv-428, ECF No. 86 (S.D. Cal. July 5, 2018). As of July 9, 2018, Defendants

9 had reunited only four of the approximately 100 children under the age of five who

10 have been separated from their parents.4 On July 10, 2018, the district court issued a

11 number of rulings related to the reunification process and stated that “[w]ith these

12 rulings, the Court anticipates the Government will be reuniting fifty-nine (59) Class

13 Members with their children by the end of the day today,” i.e., July 10, 2018, in

14 addition to the four parents and children already reunified.5

15

11. Defendants have also contended that they require relief from the Flores

16 Settlement sufficient to detain asylum-seeking parents and children indefinitely in

17 substandard unlicensed detention centers. On July 9, 2018, the District Court for the

18 Central District of California rejected this argument entirely. See Flores v. Sessions,

19 No. CV 85-4544-DMG, ECF No. 455 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2018). The Court found that

20 Defendants’ arguments turned on “a tortured interpretation of the Flores Agreement”

21 that would render key provisions “meaningless,” and that “[a]bsolutely nothing [in the

22 Ms. L order or the Flores Settlement] prevents Defendants from reconsidering their

23 current blanket policy of family detention and reinstating prosecutorial discretion.”

24 3 See Merrit Kennedy, Trump Administration Says It Will Comply with Family

25

Reunification Deadlines, NPR (July 5, 2018) (reporting statements of Defendant Alex M. Azar II), https://www.npr.org/2018/07/05/626216102/trump-administration-says-

26 it-will-comply-with-family-reunification-deadlines.

4 See Ms. L v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, No. 18-cv-428, ECF No. 101 (S.D. 27 Cal. July 10, 2018).

28 5 Id.

4 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 8 of 64 Page ID #:8

1 Id. at 5. Indeed, the Court concluded that “it is apparent that Defendants’ Application

2 is a cynical attempt … to shift responsibility to the Judiciary for over 20 years of

3 Congressional inaction and ill-considered Executive action that have led to the current

4 stalemate.” Id. at 7. As a result, the Court denied the application as “procedurally

5 improper and wholly without merit.” Id.

6

12. These decisions make clear that Defendants’ efforts to avoid their legal

7 responsibilities are unacceptable. Plaintiffs have been harmed by Defendants’

8 unconstitutional family separation policy and have further suffered from Defendants’

9 failure to prepare for that policy shift. Defendants must remedy this crisis of their

10 own making. What is needed is for the government to act promptly and to remedy the

11 significant harms that it has caused by reunifying the separated families and providing

12 immediate and appropriate mental-health services under conditions conducive to

13 effective treatment as required under the Constitution and the Flores Settlement.

14

13. Plaintiffs and their children are entitled to these services for three

15 separate reasons. First, under the Due Process Clause, the government has an

16 obligation to provide adequate medical care, including mental-health services, to

17 individuals that it detains against their will. See, e.g., Wakefield v. Thompson, 177

18 F.3d 1160, 1164 (9th Cir. 1999); Gibson v. Cty. of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1188

19 (9th Cir. 2002), overruled on other grounds by Castro v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d

20 1060 (en banc) (9th Cir. 2016).

21

14. Second, the egregious and gratuitous family separation policy has

22 directly caused Plaintiffs’ injuries that only appropriate mental-health services can

23 remedy, and thus, Defendants have an obligation to provide those services. See, e.g.,

24 Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing, inter alia,

25 DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 489 U.S. 189, 197 (1989)).

26

15. Third, under the Flores Settlement, the government must provide

27 noncitizen children detained in immigration custody with “[a]ppropriate routine

28 medical and dental care” and “appropriate mental health interventions when
5 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 9 of 64 Page ID #:9

1 necessary.” Flores Settlement, Ex. 1, ¶ 2. In these circumstances, where the

2 government has inflicted trauma through family separation, those services must

3 include appropriate mental-health screenings and any services deemed necessary by

4 medical professionals, including family counseling, under conditions conducive to

5 effective treatment.

6

Plaintiff Ms. J.P.6

7

16. Plaintiff Ms. J. P. (“Ms. P”) is the 37-year-old mother of 16-year-old L.P.

8 Ms. P is currently being detained in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs

9 Enforcement (“ICE”) at the James A. Musick Facility in Irvine, California. Her

10 daughter, L.P., is currently being held at Casa Phoenix, a Southwest Key Programs,

11 Inc., facility in Phoenix, Arizona.

12

17. Ms. P entered the United States with her daughter near San Luis,

13 Arizona, on or around May 17, 2018, after having fled Guatemala in fear for her life.

14 Ms. P sought to escape death threats from a former partner who had sexually abused

15 and beaten Ms. P. Ms. P and L.P. were detained by U.S. Customs and Border

16 Protection (“CBP”) officers shortly after crossing the border. Ms. P’s native

17 language, Q’eqchi’, is a Mayan dialect that is rarely spoken in the United States. She

18 cannot speak or understand English, and understands very little Spanish. As a result,

19 Ms. P was not able communicate with the CBP officers who detained her and L.P.

20

18. Upon their detention, CBP officials placed Ms. P and L.P. in a cold,

21 windowless room alongside approximately 150 other detainees. There were no beds,

22 showers, or private toilets, and the lights were on 24 hours a day. The room was too

23 crowded to allow them to lie down, and they were provided only nylon blankets. Ms.

24 P and L.P. were fed nothing but lukewarm soup for days, and the only water available

25 was from the bathroom tap. L.P. recalls witnessing other children forcibly taken from

26

27

6 See Declaration of J.P. (“J.P. Decl.”); Declaration of Alejandra Acuña (“Acuña Decl.”); Declaration of Chandra Allen (“Allen Decl.”); Declaration of Lucero Chavez

28 re. L.P. (“Chavez L.P. Decl.”).

6 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 10 of 64 Page ID #:10

1 their parents’ arms, and seeing a mother being physically restrained by guards as her

2 son was taken away. Guards at the facility taunted mothers, saying: “If you’re such a

3 good mother why would you bring your child here.”

4

19. Ms. P and L.P. were not told if or when they would be released. L.P. was

5 questioned without her mother and given papers to sign in English, which she does not

6 speak or read. On or around May 20, 2018, officers came in and took L.P. away from

7 Ms. P. L.P. fainted in terror when she realized what was happening, causing injury to

8 her mouth that left her face swollen for several days. This cut was not treated until

9 L.P. was moved to Southwest Key Programs. Ms. P was not told or able to

10 understand why her daughter was being taken, where she was going, or when—or if—

11 she would see her daughter again.

12

20. On June 1, 2018, with the assistance of a fellow detainee, Ms. P

13 submitted a request to ICE seeking information on her daughter’s whereabouts. Ms. P

14 can neither read nor write, and was not able to understand the written response that

15 she received several days later, which, in any event, contained only her daughter’s

16 location and not a telephone number or other way to reach her daughter. Ms. P had no

17 contact with her daughter until June 22, 2018, when, after 30 hours of advocacy by her

18 attorney, she was allowed to speak with L.P. by phone. Until then, Ms. P feared that

19 she would never see or speak to her daughter again. She still fears that she faces

20 certain death if she is forced to return to Guatemala, and remains worried that she will

21 be deported and separated from her daughter. Ms. P believes that she has been to

22 court, but does not understand the purpose or substance of the court hearings that she

23 attended.

24

21. L.P. says that she has felt isolated during this period. She has been kept

25 hundreds of miles from her mother, and her only regular contact is with a counselor

26 whom she sees once a week but who tells her not to cry even though L.P. feels crying

27 helps her cope with the situation. She feels depressed, hopeless, and confused by her

28 detention and separation. She cannot speak about her mother or the experience of
7 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 11 of 64 Page ID #:11

1 separation without crying. She dreams of her mother and prays to be reunited with

2 her. According to according to a family member, L.P. “[i]s suffering without her

3 mother.” Declaration of C.I., ¶ 3.

4

22. Based on the preliminary evaluation of a licensed clinical social worker,

5 Chandra Allen, L.P shows signs of depression, anxiety, adjustment to trauma, and

6 traumatic grief. L.P.’s constant uncertainty as to her situation and whether she will be

7 reunited with her mother could lead to dissociative detachment and anxiety.

8

23. Ms. P reports almost always having upsetting thoughts about being

9 separated from her daughter, and repeatedly experiences bad dreams or nightmares.

10 She has significant difficulty sleeping and concentrating since L.P. was taken from

11 her, and reports crying four times a day. Based on the preliminary evaluation of a

12 licensed clinical social worker, Alejandra Acuña, Ms. P is displaying symptoms of

13 post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), depression, and anxiety as a result of being

14 separated from L.P. Ms. P has not reported having access to mental-health treatment.

15

Plaintiff Ms. J.O.7

16

24. Plaintiff Ms. J.O. (“Ms. O”) is the mother of 16-year-old T.B. Ms. O and

17 her daughter fled their native Honduras in fear for their lives after gangs killed her

18 husband in 2015 and beat her teenage son. Ms. O and T.B. entered the United States

19 near Granjeno, Texas, on or around May 17, 2018. Rather than continuing into the

20 interior, Ms. O and her daughter waited along a dirt road for a patrol car to arrive and

21 flagged one down the next day. They claimed fear of returning to Honduras and

22 hoped to live with her sister in the United States.

23

25. Ms. O and T.B. were processed separately and kept apart at the detention

24 center that Ms. O called “La Hielera”—the icebox—because of the cold temperature

25 inside. While there, Ms. O was moved to “La Perrera,” the doghouse, section of the

26 facility where the holding cells resemble dog kennels. During this transfer, Ms. O saw

27 7 See Declaration of J.O. (“J.O. Decl.”); Declaration of Lucero Chavez re. T.B. 28 (“Chavez T.B. Decl.”).
8 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 12 of 64 Page ID #:12

1 a young child taken from his mother, and the guards told the parents that a new law

2 permitted them to take away their children permanently. This statement terrified the

3 parents, including Ms. O who feared she would be separated from T.B. forever.

4

26. Ms. O was kept in a holding cell with over 50 other women. There were

5 no beds or pillows, and the lights were kept on 24 hours per day. Ms. O was provided

6 a piece of bread and a juice box for food. From her cell, she could see T.B. in a

7 similar chain-link cell with other children, some no more than five years old. Because

8 there were no adults in the cell, the older children were forced to care for the younger

9 ones. T.B., for instance, braided the younger girls’ hair to provide them with some

10 comfort. During her time at La Hielera, Ms. O was moved from cell to cell. But each

11 cell was overcrowded, and at no time was she placed with her daughter. Ms. O was

12 not provided clean clothes or permitted to shower for the five days that she was in the

13 facility. She slept little, if at all, due to the cold temperature, 24-hour-a-day lighting,

14 and her and others’ constant crying.

15

27. Ms. O spoke to T.B. once more in the facility, when they passed each

16 other on the way to the restroom. T.B. urged Ms. O not to sign deportation papers,

17 fearing that Ms. O would be returned to Honduras without her.

18

28. Ms. O’s time in La Hielera separated from T.B. was traumatizing. She

19 lost track of which day it was, and the constant exposure to crying parents and

20 children left her shaken.

21

29. On or about May 21, 2018, Ms. O was taken with more than 50 other

22 detainees to court for criminal proceedings. Ms. O was told that she was to be

23 charged with illegal entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1). Like the 35 people

24 before her, she pleaded guilty, though she was not able to meet with an attorney

25 before the proceedings and she did not understand the consequences of her plea.

26

30. After these proceedings, CBP explained that Ms. O would be transferred

27 to another facility without her daughter. On or about May 21, 2018, Ms. O was

28 moved to the SeaTac Federal Prison in SeaTac, Washington, and subsequently
9 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 13 of 64 Page ID #:13

1 transferred to the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington. On July 12,

2 2018, Ms. O was released on bond.

3

31. Ms. O has not seen her daughter since approximately May 21, 2018 when

4 Ms. O was moved to SeaTac. For nine days thereafter, Ms. O was unable to obtain

5 any information regarding her daughter, despite multiple pleas to immigration

6 officials. Ms. O did not learn of T.B.’s whereabouts until May 30, 2018. She learned

7 from her sister that T.B. is currently being detained in Southwest Key Programs,

8 Inc.—Casa Antigua in San Benito, Texas. Ms. O has since spoken with her daughter

9 only three times for less than five minutes per call. Ms. O has attempted to call a

10 social worker to set up further calls, but the social worker has not answered the phone.

11

32. To date, Ms. O has not received any mental-health or counseling services

12 from the government to address the trauma she has experienced due to the separation

13 from her daughter.

14

Plaintiff Ms. R.M.8

15

33. Plaintiff Ms. R. M. (“Ms. M”) and her 15-year-old daughter, S.Q., fled El

16 Salvador to get away from Ms. M’s husband, a former military officer, who had

17 severely beaten her and threatened her life, and in fear of gangs who have threatened

18 S.Q. On or around May 18, 2018, Ms. M and S.Q. entered the United States near

19 Hidalgo, Texas. Ms. M and her daughter waited under a tree and flagged down a

20 patrol car. They claimed fear of returning to their country of origin.

21

34. Ms. M and her daughter were immediately taken to a facility and

22 separated for questioning. Ms. M was unable to concentrate on the officials’

23 questions until she saw where her daughter was taken. Once she located her daughter

24 and turned her attention to the officials, they began yelling at her that she would be

25 deported without her daughter and punished for bringing S.Q. from El Salvador. Ms.

26 M. started crying, and one official told her: “You can thank Trump.” The officials

27 8 See Declaration of R.M. (“R.M. Decl.”); Declaration of Lucero Chavez re. S.Q. 28 (“Chavez S.Q.. Decl.”).
10 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 14 of 64 Page ID #:14

1 pressured her to sign deportation papers by threatening that she would go to jail if she

2 did not sign them. Ms. M refused for fear of being deported without her daughter.

3 The officials laughed at her. The questioning ended only when Ms. M reiterated that

4 she feared returning to El Salvador.

5

35. After this questioning, Ms. M was taken to La Perrera and placed into a

6 cage with 40 or 50 other women. They sat shoulder to shoulder on the floor. They

7 were not provided beds, mats, pillows, or blankets. There was only one toilet in the

8 cell, and it was in the open without walls or a door. Women would stand to create a

9 human wall to provide the person using the toilet a small measure of privacy.

10

36. Ms. M and the women in her cell were provided a soggy piece of bread, a

11 frozen piece of ham, and a juice box for sustenance twice a day. The guards would

12 also open the cell door and throw crackers on the floor. When the hungry women

13 scrambled to pick them up, the guards would laugh. One time when Ms. M was

14 standing close to the door, she reached out her hand for a cracker. Instead of handing

15 her the cracker, the guard asked, “do you want five-star treatment,” and then threw the

16 cracker on the floor, saying “there is your room service.”

17

37. Ms. M was also not permitted to brush her teeth for four days, and she

18 was not given a change of clothes.

19

38. From her cage, Ms. M could see her daughter in a different cage with

20 other children. She was not permitted to speak with her, but she could see her

21 continuously crying.

22

39. On or about May 21, 2018, Ms. M was taken with over 50 detainees

23 before a judge for criminal proceedings. Ms. M was told that she was being charged

24 with illegal entry into the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1). She was

25 placed in shackles and handcuffs, and before the proceedings began, a man stood up

26 and advised the detainees to plead guilty in order to receive a lower sentence. Ms. M

27 and the 25 people before her pleaded guilty because she thought that she had to do so.

28 She did not understand the consequences of her plea.
11 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 15 of 64 Page ID #:15

1

40. Following these proceedings, Ms. M was placed on a bus and transferred

2 to Laredo, Texas. Ms. M and the other women cried out, asking for their children.

3 One guard yelled, “stop asking about your kids!” Ms. M began crying uncontrollably

4 once she realized that she was going to be separated from her daughter. For three

5 days, she slept no more than one hour per night. She could not eat and she could not

6 talk to anyone. No official told her where her daughter was or even whether she was

7 safe, though she learned from her mother on May 25, 2018, that her daughter was in

8 San Benito, Texas at Southwest Key Programs, Inc.—Casa Antigua.

9

41. Eventually, Ms. M was transferred to the SeaTac Federal Prison in

10 SeaTac, Washington. She was later moved to the Northwest Detention Center in

11 Tacoma, Washington. On July 12, 2018, Ms. M was released on bond.

12

42. On or about June 22, 2018, Ms. M was finally able to speak with her

13 daughter for about one minute. S.Q was crying uncontrollably and could not speak.

14 Ms. M has tried to set up additional calls through S.Q.’s social worker, but the social

15 worker does not answer the phone.

16

43. Ms. M believes that her daughter has suffered significantly due to their

17 separation and detention and that she will need trauma-based counseling as a result.

18 To date, Ms. M has not received any mental-health services from the government to

19 address the trauma she has experienced due to the separation from her daughter.

20

44. Ms. M’s mother—S.T.—is a permanent legal resident in the United

21 States and has lived here since 1989. See Declaration of S.T. Based on her

22 conversations with her daughter and granddaughter, she believes that their separation

23 has been traumatic for them. Additionally, she is “ready, willing, and able to take care

24 of, and provide a home for[,] both R.M. and S.Q. at any time, and [is] committed to

25 doing what [she] can to have R.M. released and to support her while she is in the

26 United States.” Id. ¶ 15.

27

28
12 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 16 of 64 Page ID #:16

1

Defendants

2

45. Defendant Jefferson B. Sessions is the Attorney General of the United

3 States. In this capacity, Defendant Sessions is responsible for setting policy related to

4 the enforcement of immigration laws in the United States, including the policy of

5 family separation.

6

46. Defendant Kirstjen Nielsen is the Secretary of the Department of

7 Homeland Security. In this capacity, Defendant Nielsen is responsible for the

8 administration of immigration laws in the United States. Defendant Nielsen has

9 ultimate responsibility for each of the agencies within DHS, and for all DHS policies

10 and procedures.

11

47. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is

12 responsible for enforcing the immigration laws of the United States.

13

48. Defendant U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) is the

14 agency of DHS responsible for administering immigration laws in the United States,

15 including overseeing immigration detention.

16

49. Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) is an agency of

17 DHS responsible for the processing and detaining of noncitizens who are apprehended

18 near the United States border.

19

50. Defendant Alex M. Azar II is the Secretary of Health and Human

20 Services. In this capacity, Defendant Azar is responsible for the detention of

21 unaccompanied non-citizen children. Defendant Azar has ultimate responsibility for

22 each of the agencies within HHS, and for all HHS policies and procedures.

23

51. Defendant U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) is

24 responsible for the detention of unaccompanied non-citizen children.

25

52. Defendant Scott Lloyd is the Director of the Office of Refugee

26 Resettlement. In this capacity, Defendant Lloyd is responsible for the detention of

27 unaccompanied non-citizen children, and has ultimate responsibility for all ORR

28 policies and procedures.
13 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 17 of 64 Page ID #:17

1

53. Defendant Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”) is the agency of

2 HHS responsible for detaining unaccompanied non-citizen children.

3

54. Defendant David Marin is the Los Angeles Field Office Director for ICE.

4 In this capacity, Defendant Marin is responsible for the detention of J.P.

5

55. Defendant Lisa Von Nordheim is the warden at the James A. Musick

6 Facility. In this capacity, Defendant Von Nordheim is responsible for the detention of

7 J.P.

8

56. Defendant Marc J. Moore is the Seattle Field Office Director for ICE. In

9 this capacity, Defendant Moore has been responsible for the detention of J.O. and

10 R.M.

11

57. Defendant Lowell Clark is the warden at the Tacoma Northwest

12 Detention Center. In this capacity, Defendant Clark has been responsible for the

13 detention of J.O. and R.M.

14

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

15

58. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28

16 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1346, and 2241 because this action arises under the Constitution and

17 laws of the United States.

18

59. Sovereign immunity does not bar claims against federal officials seeking

19 solely to prevent future violations of federal law (rather than monetary relief). See,

20 e.g., Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 697-99 & nn.18-

21 19 (1949); Shields v. Utah Idaho Cent. R.R. Co., 305 U.S. 177, 183-84 (1938); 5

22 U.S.C. § 702.

23

60. Venue is proper in the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C.

24 §§ 84(c) and 1391(e)(1) because at least one plaintiff resides in this judicial district

25 and each defendant is an agency of the United States or an officer of the United States

26 sued in his or her official capacity.

27

61. The Court has authority to provide declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C.

28 §§ 2201-2202.
14 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 18 of 64 Page ID #:18

1

STATUTORY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

2

U.S. Law Permits Families to Seek Asylum upon Arrival

3

62. The laws of the United States permit non-citizens on American soil to

4 seek asylum regardless of how, or where, or with whom they arrive at the border.

5 Specifically, these laws establish that “[a]ny alien” who arrives in the United States,

6 “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” may apply for asylum “irrespective of

7 such alien’s status.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158.

8

63. Statutes that govern the process for seeking asylum in the United States

9 have their roots in the refugee crisis that followed World War II. They incorporate

10 concepts from international law (see, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 101(a)(42) (incorporating the

11 definition of “refugee” from the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of

12 Refugees)), and provide a process for individuals who fear persecution in their native

13 countries to seek protection in the United States (see, e.g., Refugee Act of 1980, Pub.

14 L. No. 96-212 § 201(b), 94 Stat. 102 (1980)).

15

64. The United States does not limit the right to seek asylum to those who

16 cross into the country at a port of entry. Those apprehended for the first time crossing

17 into the United States outside a port of entry may be subject to expedited removal, a

18 process under which an individual may be removed from the United States without a

19 full hearing before an immigration judge. See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i). But there

20 are safeguards to protect those seeking asylum in that context. If an individual

21 “indicates either an intention to apply for asylum . . . or a fear of persecution,”

22 immigration officers must refer the individual “for an interview by an asylum officer”

23 to evaluate whether the individual has a credible fear of persecution if returned to their

24 country. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii).

25

65. If an asylum officer concludes that there is a “significant possibility” the

26 individual can prove eligibility for asylum, the asylum seeker receives a positive

27 credible fear determination and is placed into regular removal proceedings. During

28 those regular removal proceedings, the putative refugee may submit an asylum
15 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 19 of 64 Page ID #:19

1 application, obtain a hearing before an immigration judge, and appeal an adverse

2 decision through the Board of Immigration Appeals and the federal courts. 8 U.S.C.

3 § 1225 (b)(1)(B)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 235.6(a)(1)(ii), (iii).

4

66. An asylum seeker may also be placed directly into regular removal

5 proceedings with issuance of a Notice to Appear for a future hearing date. See 8

6 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(2), 1229(a)(1), 1229a.

7

67. No law requires the detention of asylum seekers throughout this process,

8 and no law requires the prolonged separation of families either.

9 The Flores Settlement Sets Standards for Housing and Providing Services to

10

Detained Children

11

68. When the government detains children, it must comply with the Flores

12 Settlement, regardless of whether the children arrive unaccompanied or with their

13 families. Flores v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2016).

14

69. The Flores Settlement requires the government to “place each detained

15 minor in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs.”

16 Settlement ¶ 11. Children should generally be released within five days to one of the

17 following recipients, in order of preference: a parent, a legal guardian, an adult

18 relative, an adult designated by a parent or legal guardian, or, if no such individuals

19 are available, a licensed program willing to accept legal custody. Id. ¶¶ 12, 14. In the

20 event of an “emergency” or an “influx” of minors into the country, the government is

21 required to place minors “as expeditiously as possible.” Id. ¶ 12.C. The Flores court

22 found that up to 20 days may be as expeditious as possible for the government under

23 extenuating circumstances, a time frame that has been widely reported in the press.

24

70. The government must “make and record the prompt and continuous

25 efforts on its part toward family reunification and the release of the minor,” and

26 “[s]uch efforts at family reunification shall continue so long as the minor is in [the

27 government’s] custody.” Settlement ¶ 18.

28
16 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 20 of 64 Page ID #:20

1

71. When the government transfers a detained minor to any person or entity

2 other than a parent, guardian, adult relative, or a parent or guardian’s designee, such

3 person or entity is required to be “licensed by an appropriate State agency to provide

4 residential, group, or foster care services for dependent children.” Settlement ¶ 6.

5 Any such licensed person or entity to which the government transfers a minor is

6 required to meet certain additional standards, as described in Exhibit 1 of the Flores

7 Settlement.

8

72. Among other services, licensed programs must provide “appropriate

9 mental health interventions when necessary,” “identification of the minor’s special

10 needs including any specific problem(s) which require immediate intervention,” “[a]t

11 least one (1) individual counseling session per week conducted by trained social work

12 staff,” “[g]roup counseling,” and “[v]isitation and contact with family members

13 (regardless of their immigration status).” Settlement, Exhibit 1.

14

73. The government is required by the Flores Settlement to “treat minors

15 with dignity, respect, and special concern for their particular vulnerability.”

16 Settlement, Exhibit 2. The government is further required to “hold minors in a facility

17 that is safe and sanitary and that is consistent with . . . the particular vulnerability of

18 minors.” Id. Any such facility in which minors are held by the government following

19 arrest must provide for “contact with family members who were arrested with the

20 minor.” Id.9

21

22

23

24

25 9 On June 21, 2018, the government requested relief from the Flores Settlement so as

26

to permit it to detain minors who are arrested with their parents indefinitely through the pendency of their immigration proceedings, in facilities unlicensed by any state

27

authority. Flores v. Sessions, No. 85-cv-04544, Dkt. 435 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 21, 2018). The Court rejected this request as “procedurally improper and wholly without merit.”

28 Flores v. Sessions, No. CV 85-4544, ECF No. 455, at 7 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2018).

17 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 21 of 64 Page ID #:21

1

THE NEEDLESS AND INHERENTLY CRUEL POLICY OF

2

FAMILY SEPARATION INFLICTED IRREPARABLE HARM

3

The Family Separation Policy Was Unnecessary

4

74. Defendants have falsely claimed that the family separation policy was

5 required by existing law. 10 Their position is belied by the June 20, 2018 Executive

6 Order ending the policy on a prospective basis. It is also belied by the practice of 7 prior administrations11 and the undeniable existence of effective alternatives.

8

75. Several alternatives to detention would allow asylum seekers and their

9 families to remain together. For example, in recent years community supported

10 models have proven particularly effective and economical. For many migrants,

11 release on recognizance is sufficient to ensure that they attend court hearings and 12 other proceedings. 12

13

76. In other cases, case management programs have proven effective. Indeed,

14 the American Academy of Pediatrics (“AAP”) endorses community-based case 15 management as an alternative solution to detention.13 Beginning on January 21, 2016,

16 the Family Case Management Program (“FCMP”) was offered as an “alternative to

17 detention . . . that use[d] qualified case managers to promote participant compliance 18 with their immigration obligations.”14 The program used a wrap-around services

19 10 Linda Qiu, Fact-Checking the Trump Administration’s Case for Child Separation at

20

the Border, N.Y. TIMES (June 19, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/us/fact-check-trump-child-separation.html.

21 11 Id.

22

12 See, e.g., Report of the DHS Advisory Committee on Family Residential Centers, DHS (Sept. 30, 2016), https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents

23

/Report/2016/ACFRC-sc-16093.pdf (“For many families, release on recognizance with information about rights and responsibilities and referrals to legal services and

24

psycho-social supports is sufficient to ensure compliance with immigration proceedings.”).

25 13 Julie M. Linton et al., Detention of Immigrant Children, THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (March 2017), http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/
26 2017/03/09/peds.2017-0483.

27

14 Fact Sheet: Stakeholder Referrals to the ICE/ERO Family Case Management Program, U.S. I.C.E, available at http://www.ilw.com/immigrationdaily/

28 news/2016,0111-ICE.pdf.

18 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 22 of 64 Page ID #:22

1 model for immigrant families whom ICE recommended for placement after

2 determining they were “non-dangerous” and “low-flight-risk families.”15 The cost

3 was reported to be $36 per family each day compared to $319 per bed per day in a

4 family detention center.16

5

77. The FCMP was designed, but not limited, to serve victims of domestic

6 violence or sexual abuse, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and families with

7 physical and/or mental illness. The FCMP operated in five cities across the United

8 States: Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, and New York. The program

9 allowed families for whom detention in ICE centers or more traditional alternative

10 programs would exacerbate their trauma or illness to exit detention into the

11 community while they moved through their immigration proceedings. The program

12 facilitated access to holistic community-based services tailored to each family’s needs,

13 including:17

14

• Orientation and education for participants about their legal rights and

15

responsibilities;

16

• Individualized family service plans;

17

• Assistance in accessing low-cost or pro bono legal assistance for housing,

18

education, and—as most relevant here—mental health providers (if

19

needed);

20

• Assistance with transportation logistics;

21

22

15 Id.; see also Loiselle, Mary F., GEO Care’s New Family Case Management Program,” GEO World, at 3 (2016), available at

23 https://www.geogroup.com/userfiles/1de79aa6-2ff2-4615-a997-7869142237bd.pdf.

16 Elise Foley & Jennifer Bendery, This Alternative to Detaining Immigrant Families 24 Works. Trump Just Won’t Use It., HUFFINGTON POST (June 22, 2018), available at

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-family-detention25 alternative_us_5b2d4731e4b0321a01d1002e.

26

17 Fact Sheet: Stakeholder Referrals to the ICE/ERO Family Case Management Program, U.S. I.C.E, available at http://www.ilw.com/immigrationdaily/

27

news/2016, 0111-ICE.pdf; Loiselle, Mary F., GEO Care’s New Family Case Management Program,” GEO World, at 3 (2016), available at

28 https://www.geogroup.com/userfiles/1de79aa6-2ff2-4615-a997-7869142237bd.pdf.

19 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 23 of 64 Page ID #:23

1

• Tracking and monitoring of immigration obligations; and

2

• Safe repatriation and reintegration planning (where applicable).

3 The FCMP was launched on January 21, 2016, and proved within its first year of

4 operation to be a more effective alternative to other more restrictive alternatives

5 traditionally utilized. It was a step forward in procuring dignity for immigrant

6 families, and it satisfied ICE’s primary goal of ensuring compliance with participants’

7 immigration obligations—99% for ICE check-ins and appointments, and 100% for

8 attendance at court hearings.18

9

78. Despite its success in terms of the government’s stated compliance

10 priorities, the program was closed in June 2017.

11

“Zero Tolerance” Family Separation Policy Rationalized as Deterrent

12

79. On May 7, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a “zero-

13 tolerance” policy of forced family separation to deter migrants from crossing the

14 southern border of the United States. Sessions said, “If you cross this border

15 unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple. . . . If you are smuggling a

16 child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you. . . .”19

17

80. The family separation policy was by no means limited to “smugglers.”

18 In the first month of the policy, nearly 3,000 children were separated from their

19 parents while crossing the border.20 Some children were as young as 18 months old,

20

21

22 18 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Award of the Family Case

23

Management Program Contract (Redacted). DHS Office of Inspector General, at 5 (OIG-18-22) (Nov. 30, 2017).

24 19 Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the Immigration

Enforcement Actions of the Trump Administration, DOJ Justice News (May 7, 2018),

25 https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers-remarks-

discussing-immigration-enforcement-actions.

26 20 Caitlin Dickerson, Trump Administration in Chaotic Scramble to Reunify Migrant

27

Families, N.Y. TIMES (July 5, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/us/migrant-children-chaos-family-

28 separation.html.

20 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 24 of 64 Page ID #:24

1 and more than 100 children were younger than four years old.21 These children have

2 been sent to shelters and other temporary housing, overseen by the U.S. Department of

3 Health and Human Services (“HHS”), across the United States. The children are often

4 housed hundreds of miles away from their parents. There are an estimated 100

5 shelters in 17 states, including Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois,

6 Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Oregon,

7 Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.22 Of course,

8 separation of a mere mile between a child and parent is a terrifying situation for both

9 when there is no certainty of where the parent or child is being kept and no guarantee

10 that the two ever will be reunited.

11

81. Defendants have mischaracterized family separation as necessary to

12 enforce the law. But DHS expressly contemplated using family separation to deter

13 migration from Central America into the United States at least a year before the “zero

14 tolerance” policy was adopted.23 In March 2017, then-DHS Secretary John Kelly

15 confirmed that family separation was under consideration as a means to deter

16 migration across the southern border. After experts and members of Congress

17 strongly opposed the idea, DHS Secretary Kelly testified in April 2017 that DHS

18 would not “routinely” separate children from their families at the border, except under

19 extenuating circumstances.24 Nevertheless, non-profit organizations observed a trend

20 21 Caitlin Dickerson, Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From

21

Parents at U.S. Border, N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 20, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/20/us/immigrant-children-separation-ice.html.

22 22 Sarah Almukhtar et al., Where Migrant Children Are Being Held Across the U.S., N.Y. TIMES (June 21, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/21/
23 us/where-are-the-border-children.html.

24

23 Daniella Diaz, Kelly: DHS is considering separating undocumented children from their parents at the border, CNN (March 6, 2017),

25

https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/politics/john-kelly-separating-children-fromparents-immigration-border/index.html.

26 24 See, e.g., Stein, Fernando et al., AAP Statement Opposing Separation of Mothers and Children at the Border, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (March 4, 2017),
27 available at https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-pressroom/Pages/immigrantmotherschildrenseparation.aspx; Letter to Secretary Kelly
28 Opposing Plan to Separate Migrant Families at the Border, ALIANZA AMERICAS ET

21 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 25 of 64 Page ID #:25

1 of family separation at the border with Mexico and complained to DHS and urged it to

2 clarify its policies.

3

82. On May 11, 2018, now-White House Chief of Staff Kelly confirmed that

4 the policy was put in place to deter other migrants, specifically Central Americans,

5 from coming to the United States. In his words, “a big name of the game is

6 deterrence.”25

7

Separated Families Held Hostage to Exact Political Concessions

8

83. As the horrors of family separation reached the media, President Trump

9 insisted that he would not change the policy unless lawmakers agreed to his

10 immigration reform demands.26 He asserted that if lawmakers had passed the

11 aggressive anti-immigration legislation he wanted, the policy would be unnecessary.27

12 He urged Congress to crack down on asylum seekers, reduce visas, and spend $25

13 billion on a border wall.28

14

84. President Trump also contended that the solution to the emerging

15 humanitarian crisis that he had created was for Democrats to give in to his political

16

17 AL. (March 22, 2017), available at https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/

18

rights/gbv/resources/1460-family-separation-sign-on-letter; Testimony before Congress in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee

19

hearing titled, “Improving Border Security and Public Safety” (April 5, 2017); Kelly says DHS won’t separate families at the border, CNN (March 29, 2017),

20 http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/29/politics/border-families-separation-kelly/index.html.

25 Transcript: White House Chief of Staff John Kelly’s Interview with NPR, NPR (May 21 11, 2018), https://www.npr.org/2018/05/11/610116389/transcript-white-house-chief-

of-staff-john-kellys-interview-with-npr. 22 26 Michael Scherer & Josh Dawsey, Trump cites as a negotiating tool his policy of

23

separating immigrant children from their parents, WASH. POST (June 15, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/trump-cites-as-a-negotiating-tool-

24

his-policy-of-separating-immigrant-children-from-their-parents/2018/06/15/ade82b8070b3-11e8-bf86-

25

a2351b5ece99_story.html?utm_term=.8d0d24db87ef&__twitter_impression=true&no redirect=on.

26 27 Michael D. Shear et al., G.O.P. Moves to End Trump’s Family Separation Policy, but Can’t Agree How, N.Y. TIMES (June 19, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/
27 2018/06/19/us/politics/trump-immigration-children-separated-families.html.

28 28 Id.

22 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 26 of 64 Page ID #:26

1 demands.29 On June 15, 2018, he tweeted, “The Democrats are forcing the breakup of

2 families at the Border with their horrible and cruel legislative agenda. Any

3 Immigration Bill MUST HAVE full funding for the Wall, end Catch & Release, Visa

4 Lottery and Chain, and go to Merit Based Immigration. Go for it! WIN!”30

5

85. Despite his administration’s previous characterization of the family

6 separation policy as a means to deter future immigration, President Trump also

7 advanced the fiction that existing federal law already compelled family separation.

8 On June 19, 2018, he said, “[W]e have to get the Democrats to go ahead and work

9 with us. Because as a result of Democrat-supported loopholes in our federal laws,

10 most illegal immigrant families and minors from Central America who arrive

11 unlawfully at the border cannot be detained together or removed together, only

12 released. These are crippling loopholes that cause family separation, which we don’t

13 want.”31

14

86. As children and parents suffered the consequences of being torn apart

15 with no certainty that they would ever see each other again, President Trump used

16 their suffering as a bargaining chip in his political negotiations to advance his broader

17 anti-immigrant agenda.

18

Family Separation is Motivated by Racial Animus

19

87. The family separation policy was adopted as part of an anti-immigration

20 agenda that is motivated by racial animus. On the first day of his presidential

21 campaign, then-Candidate Trump categorically labeled Mexican immigrants as

22 criminals and rapists: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their

23 29 Linda Qiu, Fact-Checking the Trump Administration’s Case for Child Separation at

24

the Border, N.Y. TIMES (June 19, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/us/fact-check-trump-child-separation.html.

25 30 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), TWITTER (June 15, 2018),

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1007671131841671169.

26 31 Remarks by President Trump at the National Federation of Independent Businesses

27

75th Anniversary Celebration, WHITE HOUSE (June 19, 2018), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-national-

28 federation-independent-businesses-75th-anniversary-celebration/.

23 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 27 of 64 Page ID #:27

1 best. … They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those

2 problems with [them]. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re

3 rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”32

4

88. Three years later, when Chief of Staff Kelly discussed the family

5 separation policy, he echoed similar sentiments about the categorical undesirability of

6 migrants from Central America. “[T]hey’re also not people that would easily

7 assimilate into the United States into our modern society. They’re overwhelmingly

8 rural people in the countries they come from—fourth, fifth, sixth grade educations are

9 kind of the norm. They don’t speak English, obviously that’s a big thing. They don’t

10 speak English. They don’t integrate well, they don’t have skills.”33

11

89. The Trump Administration has consistently demonstrated a pattern of

12 pursuing immigration policies motivated by racial animus toward non-European

13 immigrants. For example, in or around June 2017, in a meeting with Secretary of

14 State Rex Tillerson and then-DHS Secretary Kelly, President Trump reportedly said of

15 the 15,000 Haitians admitted to the United States, they “all have AIDS.”34 At this

16 same meeting, the President, after learning that 40,000 people had entered the United

17 States from Nigeria, reportedly stated that they would never “go back to their huts” in

18 Africa.35

19

90. On or about January 11, 2018, several lawmakers gathered with the

20 President in the Oval Office of the White House to discuss a bipartisan immigration

21

22 32 Donald Trump Announces a Presidential Bid, WASH. POST (June 16, 2015), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/full-text-donald-
23 trump-announces-a-presidential-bid/?utm_term=.0b727c71c4c8.

24 33 Transcript: White House Chief of Staff John Kelly’s Interview with NPR, NPR (May

25

11, 2018), https://www.npr.org/2018/05/11/610116389/transcript-white-house-chiefof-staff-john-kellys-interview-with-npr.

26 34 Michael D. Shear & Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Stoking Fears, Trump Defied Bureaucracy to Advance Immigration Agenda, N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 23, 2017),
27 https://nyti.ms/2DEQLyv.

28 35 Id.

24 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 28 of 64 Page ID #:28

1 proposal. President Trump grew frustrated when the conversation turned to

2 protections for foreign nationals from certain Central American and African countries.

3 “Why,” the President asked, “are we having all these people from shithole countries

4 come here?”36 President Trump asked, “Why do we need more Haitians?” He

5 insisted that lawmakers “[t]ake them out” of any potential immigration deal.37

6 Instead, he expressed a preference for immigrants from countries like Norway, which

7 is overwhelmingly white, or from Asian countries, which he felt would help the

8 United States economically.38

9

91. Senator Dick Durbin, who was present at the January 11, 2018, meeting

10 in the Oval Office, characterized the President’s “shithole” comments as “clearly

11 racial,” “hate-filled,” and “vile.”39 Senator Durbin reportedly warned the President

12 that exclusion of immigrants based on those grounds would be “an obvious racial

13 decision.”40

14

92. Similarly vile sentiments motivate the Trump Administration’s policies

15 on family separation. Not only are these policies being used to attempt to deter

16 asylum seekers and other migrants from certain countries, they are also dehumanizing

17

18

19

20 36 Josh Dawsey, Trump Derides Protections for Immigrants from “Shithole”

21

Countries, WASH. POST (Jan 12, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-attacks-protections-for-immigrants-

22

from-shithole-countries-in-oval-office-meeting/2018/01/11/bfc0725c-f711-11e7-91af31ac729add94_story.html?utm_term=.06cbc70bfaec.

23 37 Id.

24

38 Id. Despite the President’s openness to the financial benefits of Asian immigrants, his Administration has targeted Asian refugees for deportation. Agnes Constante, As

25

Cambodian deportations resume, community looks for ways to cope, NBC NEWS (April 20, 2018), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/deportation-

26 cambodian-refugees-u-s-devastates-community-n867096.

39 Carl Hulse, Inside the Oval Office Immigration Meeting that Left a Senator 27 Stunned, N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 19, 2018), https://nyti.ms/2DiqhlM.

28 40 Id.

25 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 29 of 64 Page ID #:29

1 and inhumane. In fact, President Trump explicitly stated on May 16, 2018, “These

2 aren’t people. These are animals.” 41

3

93. On June 18, 2018, he again asserted that migrant parents crossing the

4 border with their children “could be murderers and thieves and so much else.”42 He

5 also argued that his political opponents “don’t care about crime and want illegal

6 immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like

7 MS-13.”43 He refers to migrants, including asylum seekers, as people who “invade

8 our Country” and who should not receive the process due to them under United States

9 and international law: “When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no

10 Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came.”44

11

94. These categorical insults expose the racial animus motivating recent

12 policies. Other explanations have proven false and pretextual. DHS Secretary

13 Nielsen argued that the policy was necessary due to a marked increase in the number

14 of adults arriving at the border with children and fraudulently claiming to be a family

15 unit. In the last five months, however, less than one percent of families apprehended

16 at the border fraudulently claimed to be a family unit.45 President Trump has also

17 claimed that 80 percent of migrants who are released never show up for their

18

19

41 Julie H. Davis, Trump Calls Some Unauthorized Immigrants ‘Animals’ in Rant, N.Y. TIMES (May 16, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/us/politics/trump-

20 undocumented-immigrants-animals.html.

42 Philip Rucker et al., Trump defiant as crisis grows over family separation at the 21 border, WASH. POST (June 19, 2018),

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-defiant-as-crisis-grows-over-family22 separation-at-the-border/2018/06/18/210c78ca-730f-11e8-805c-

4b67019fcfe4_story.html?utm_term=.1d4d5ae8f8b7. 23 43 Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), TWITTER (June 18, 2018),

24 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1009071403918864385 (emphasis added).

44 John Bacon, Trump wants to send undocumented immigrants back without 25 hearings: What we know now, USA TODAY (June 24, 2018),

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/06/24/immigrant-children-trump26 warns-undocumented-immigrants-invade-us/728949002/.

27

45 Linda Qiu, Fact-Checking the Trump Administration’s Case for Child Separation at the Border, N.Y. TIMES (June 19, 2018),

28 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/us/fact-check-trump-child-separation.html.

26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 30 of 64 Page ID #:30

1 immigration hearings and disappear into the country. Federal data, however, reveals

2 that most do appear at their court hearings.46

3

95. Research also suggests that deterrence policies have little effect on

4 reducing illegal immigration.47 Indeed, even a forced-separation policy would not

5 deter many Central American migrants from traveling to the United States because

6 they are asylum seekers whose lives are in danger; the alternative of staying in their

7 own countries is even worse.48 Many migrants simply have no choice but to escape

8 the violence of their home countries.

9

Family Separation Is Exposed As Needless Cruelty

10

96. As news about the family separation policy spread, it shocked the public

11 conscience. Thousands of people across the country protested the cruel and inhumane

12 policy of forcible separation.49 Major health organizations, political figures, and the

13 business community voiced their outrage and opposition.

14

97. America’s medical and public health communities broadly decried the

15 practice of separating families.50 The American Academy of Pediatrics said that the

16 “[s]eparation of a parent or primary caregiver from his or her children should never

17

18 46 Noah Bierman, et al., Trump orders end to his family separation policy at the

19

border, but relief could be temporary, N.Y. TIMES (June 20, 2018), http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-immigration-20180620-story.html.

20 47 Anna Oltman, Does separating families at the border discourage immigration? Here’s what the research says, WASH. POST (May 31, 2018),
21 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/31/does-separatingfamilies-at-the-border-discourage-immigration-heres-what-the-research-
22 says/?utm_term=.58063f1056b9.

23

48 Julie Turkewitz & Jose A. Del Real, Why Are Parents Bringing Their Children on Treacherous Treks to the U.S. Border?, N.Y. TIMES (June 22, 2018),

24 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/us/immigration-border-children.html.

49 Tim Argango & Kalya Cockrel, Marches Across the U.S. Protest Separation of 25 Migrant Families, N.Y. TIMES (June 14, 2018),

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/protest-marches-family-separation.html. 26 50 Melissa Healy, ‘Children must not be abused for political purposes’: What health

27

groups say about family separation, L.A. TIMES (June 20, 2018), http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-family-separation-medical-

28 groups-20180620-story.html.

27 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 31 of 64 Page ID #:31

1 occur, unless there are concerns for safety of the child at the hand of parent.”51 The

2 American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry stated that “[s]eparating these

3 children from their families in times of stress creates unnecessary and high-risk

4 trauma at the very time they need care and support the most.”52 The National

5 Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine said that “[p]arents’ impact on

6 their children’s well-being may never be greater than during the earliest years of life,

7 when a child’s brain is developing rapidly and when nearly all of her or his

8 experiences are shaped by parents and the family environment.”53

9

98. In an open letter to Attorney General Sessions and Secretary Nielsen, the

10 Attorneys General in 21 states called for the Trump Administration to end the zero-

11 tolerance policy.54 The Attorneys General called the policy “inhumane” and “contrary

12 to American values,” and characterized the policy as raising serious due process and

13 equal protection concerns. The letter concluded, “Put simply, the deliberate

14 separation of children and their parents who seek lawful asylum in America is wrong.”

15

16

17 51 Julie M. Linton et al., Detention of Immigrant Children, THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (March 2017), http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/
18 2017/03/09/peds.2017-0483; U.S. Rights Chief: Migrant Family Separations “Unconcionable,” CBS NEWS (June 18, 2018) (Dr. Colleen A. Kraft, President of the
19 American Academy of Pediatrics, say that separating children from their parents by force is a “form of child abuse”), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-policy-
20 migrant-family-separation-parents-children-unconscionable-un-says/.

21

52 Karen Wagner, President’s Statement on Separating Children from Families, American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (May 11, 2018),

22

https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Press/Press_Releases/2018/Statement-on-SeparatingChildren-from-Families.aspx.

23 53 Statement on Harmful Consequences of Separating Families at the U.S. Border, The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine (June 20, 2018),
24 http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=06202018.

25

54 Hector H. Balderas, Open Letter to the Honorable Jeff Sessions and the Honorable Kirstjen Nielsen, STATE OF NEW MEXICO OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (June

26

19, 2018), https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/ag_ltr_to_ag_sessions_sec._nielsen _re_family_separation_6.19.181.pdf (joined by the Attorney Generals of California,

27

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,

28 Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington).

28 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 32 of 64 Page ID #:32

1

99. All four living former first ladies also joined the chorus of critics.55

2 Laura Bush compared the situation to Japanese Internment.56 She called the policy

3 “cruel” and “immoral,” and noted that such treatment inflicts serious trauma.57

4 Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton both supported Mrs. Bush’s article; Secretary

5 Clinton called the situation a “humanitarian crisis” and noted that “every human being

6 with a sense of compassion and decency, should be outraged.”58 Rosalynn Carter

7 called the policy “disgraceful and a shame to our country.”59

8

100. Several airlines also condemned the separation policy and said that they

9 would not allow the federal government to use their flights to transport separated

10 children. American Airlines said that it has “no desire to be associated with

11 separating families, or worse, to profit from it.”60 Southwest Airlines asked that

12 “anyone” involved with the separation policy not fly with them.61

13

101. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable also

14 condemned forcibly separating children from their parents. The Business Roundtable

15 called it “cruel and contrary to American values,” and the U.S. Chamber of

16 Commerce’s top official said that “this is not who we are, and it must end now.”62

17 55 Stephanie Ebbs, All 5 first ladies speak out against family-separation immigration

18

policy, ABC NEWS (June 18, 2018), https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ladies-speakfamily-separation-immigration-policy/story?id=55986862.

19 56 Laura Bush, Laura Bush: Separating children from their parents at the border ‘breaks my heart’, WASH. POST (June 17, 2018),
20 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/laura-bush-separating-children-from-theirparents-at-the-border-breaks-my-heart/2018/06/17/f2df517a-7287-11e8-9780-
21 b1dd6a09b549_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d43b5a479ab6.

22 57 Id. 58 Stephanie Ebbs, All 5 first ladies speak out against family-separation immigration
23 policy, ABC NEWS (June 18, 2018), https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ladies-speakfamily-separation-immigration-policy/story?id=55986862.
24 59 Id.

25 60 Richard Fausset, Airlines Ask Government Not to Use Their Flights to Carry Children Separated at the Border, N.Y. TIMES (June 20, 2018),
26 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/airlines-transport-immigrant-children.html.

27 61 Id. 62 Michael D. Shear et al., G.O.P. Moves to End Trump’s Family Separation Policy,
28 but Can’t Agree How, N.Y. TIMES (June 19, 2018),

29 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 33 of 64 Page ID #:33

1

102. Governors from at least eight states announced that they would withhold

2 or recall National Guard troops from efforts to secure the border in response to the

3 separation policy.63 North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper said that the “cruel policy

4 of tearing children away from their parents requires a strong response” and that he was

5 pulling his state’s troops from the border.64 Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker

6 called the policy “cruel and inhumane.”65

7

103. Republican Senator Orrin G. Hatch (UT) said that the separation policy

8 was “not American.”66 Senator Rob Portman (OH) said that policy runs “counter to

9 our values.”67

10

104. In addition, 75 former United States Attorneys also called on Sessions to

11 end the family separation policy. The open letter stated that Attorney General

12 Sessions’ “Zero Tolerance policy has resulted in the unnecessary trauma and suffering

13 of innocent children.” The letter went on to say that “[u]nder [the] policy, families

14 and children are greeted with unexpected cruelty at the doorstep of the United States,

15 instead of with relief or asylum in the greatest country in the world.”68

16

“Tender Age” Facilities

17

105. Conditions in detention centers are especially poor for younger children,

18 particularly those of “tender age,” defined as 12 years old or younger. As of July 5,

19

20

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/us/politics/trump-immigration-childrenseparated-families.html.

21 63 Matthew Haag & Jess Bidgood, Governors Refuse to Send National Guard to Border, Citing Child Separation Practice, N.Y. TIMES (June 19, 2018),
22 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/us/national-guard-trump-childrenimmigration.html.
23 64 Id.

24 65 Id.

25 66 Id.

67 Id.

26 68 Bipartisan Group of Former United States Attorneys Call on Sessions to End

27

Family Separation, MEDIUM (June 18, 2018), https://medium.com/@formerusattorneys/bipartisan-group-of-former-united-states-

28 attorneys-call-on-sessions-to-end-child-detention-e129ae0df0cf.

30 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 34 of 64 Page ID #:34

1 reportedly more than 100 children under age five were separated from their parents at

2 the border.69 Homeland Security officials were unable to “provide information about

3 the age cutoff below which they would decline to take a child.”70

4

106. These “tender age” children are being sent to their own shelters, three of

5 which were family detention centers that were hurriedly updated to care for younger

6 children who were separated from their parents.71 A fourth facility is planned for

7 Houston to “house up to 240 children in a warehouse previously used for people

8 displaced by Hurricane Harvey.”72

9

107. Lawyers and health care professionals who have visited the “tender age”

10 shelters “described play rooms of crying preschool-age children in crisis.”73 Elizabeth

11 Frankel, associate director of the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights, said

12 that her colleagues have been given the responsibility for caring for a number of

13 infants.74 She described children in crisis, crying uncontrollably, having panic attacks,

14 not sleeping, wetting the bed, and regressing to the point that they can no longer talk.75

15

16 69 Caitlin Dickerson, Trump Administration in Chaotic Scramble to Reunify Migrant
17 Families, N.Y. TIMES (July 5, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/ us/migrant-children-chaos-family-separation.html.
18 70 Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Separated at the Border From Their Parents: In Six Weeks,

19 1,995 Children, N.Y. TIMES (June 15, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/

20 us/politics/trump-immigration-separation-border.html. 71 Caitlin Dickerson and Manny Fernandez, What’s Behind the ‘Tender Age’ Shelters
21 Opening for Young Migrants, N.Y. TIMES (June 20, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/tender-age-shelters-family-separation-
22 immigration.html.

23

72 Garance Burke and Martha Mendoza, Toddlers Separated from Parents at the Border Are Being Detained in ‘Tender Age’ Shelters, TIME (June 20, 2018),

24 http://time.com/5316764/toddler-immigrants-tender-age-shelters/.

25

73 Id. 74 Caitlin Dickerson and Manny Fernandez, What’s Behind the ‘Tender Age’ Shelters

26 Opening for Young Migrants, N.Y. TIMES (June 20, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/tender-age-shelters-family-separation-

27 immigration.html.

28 75 Id.

31 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 35 of 64 Page ID #:35

1 Other children are too young to speak, and therefore staff members have been unable

2 to determine where or who their parents are.76

3

108. The government has not provided for a comprehensive and independent

4 investigation by qualified mental-health professionals into the circumstances under

5 which Plaintiffs and other asylum-seeking parents were separated from their children

6 or into the effects of that separation on the families. Absent relief from this Court,

7 Plaintiffs, even if eventually reunited with their children, will have no way adequately

8 to determine and respond to the harms inflicted by the separation policy.

9 President Trump Issues An Executive Order To Halt Prospective Application Of

10

Family Separation Policy

11

109. Faced with national revulsion at family separation and legislative refusal

12 to accede to his political demands as the price of ending the policy, President Trump

13 abruptly changed course.

14

110. On June 20, 2018, President Trump issued an executive order entitled

15 “Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation” (“Executive

16 Order”).77 The Executive Order continued the policy of initiating criminal

17 proceedings for all who cross the border illegally and called for indefinite detention of

18 families, including children covered by the Flores Settlement, in camps and makeshift

19 detention centers.78

20

111. President Trump’s Executive Order did not and could not end the trauma

21 of family separation. Most families still have not been reunited. Parents still do not

22 know where their children are and, like Plaintiffs, are not able to care for them or even

23 speak with them. Traumatized children remain in deplorable detention conditions.

24 Some may be lost in the system. Detention centers “are often unable to locate the

25 76 Id. 26 77 Executive Order, Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation,
WHITE HOUSE (June 20, 2018), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential27 actions/affording-congress-opportunity-address-family-separation/.
28 78 Id.
32 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 36 of 64 Page ID #:36

1 parent of separated children because the children arrive without proper records.”79

2 Once a child arrives at a detention center, “there is no firm process in place to

3 determine whether they have been separated from someone who was legitimately their

4 parent, or for reuniting parents and children who had been mistakenly separated.”80

5

112. Critically, the Executive Order failed to provide any remediation for the

6 trauma and devastation unnecessarily inflicted by the government on the children and

7 parents whom it separated. To mitigate the negative effects of the trauma suffered,

8 separated families must be immediately reunited and provided with access to mental

9 health screenings, and to appropriate and effective intensive trauma treatment services

10 outside of the traumatizing environment of the current detention environment.81

11 Without these remedies, the deleterious impact of forcible separation is debilitating

12 and causes life-long harm.82

13

A System in Utter Chaos and Confusion: Difficulties in Reunification

14

113. Because the Executive Order was a surprise to many, further chaos

15 ensued. Agencies carrying out the policy received no advanced notice about the major

16 changes. And one official who works for ICE said that an internal email about the

17 Executive Order arrived “literally at the same time that it was breaking on CNN.”83

18

19 79 Caitlin Dickerson, Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border, N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 20, 2018),
20 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/20/us/immigrant-children-separation-ice.html.

21 80 Id. 22 81 Declaration of Dylan Gee (“Gee Decl.”), ¶ 17 (“Following reunification, children
and parents require immediate, intensive clinical intervention to support healing 23 following trauma exposure.”); Declaration of Luis H. Zayas (“Zayas Decl.”), ¶ 12
24 (“The psychological wounds of detention and family separation will last a lifetime. It will take social work, psychiatric, psychological and counseling services to start and
25 see through the repairs.”).

26

82 Declaration of Marleen Wong (“Wong Decl.”), ¶ 25 (“Without such trauma treatment programs, the effect of the forcible separation on these children will be

27 debilitating and will cause them life-long harm.”).

83 Caitlin Dickerson, On Family Separation, Federal Workers Often Agonized Over 28 Enforcement, N.Y. TIMES (June 23, 2018),

33

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 37 of 64 Page ID #:37

1 Such an abrupt change of course has left federal agencies scrambling with little

2 guidance on how to proceed.84

3

114. Notably, the Executive Order failed to mention what would happen to the

4 nearly 3,000 children who had been separated from their parents. There is no reliable

5 plan in place yet to reunite families. On the day the Executive Order was issued, a

6 spokesman for HHS initially said that the government would not try to reunite

7 separated families, but later backtracked, saying that “it is still very early, and we are

8 awaiting further guidance on the matter.”85 Anthony Enriquez, director of the

9 unaccompanied minors program for Catholic Charities, explained, “There is no system

10 whatsoever to track these family separations, no efforts systemically to reunite these

11 families. There is no supervisor, there is no database saying, ‘child here, parent

12 there,’ so they can come back together.”86 While HHS insists that it “is working with

13 relevant agency partners to foster communications and work towards reuniting every

14 minor and every parent or guardian via well-established reunification processes,” very

15 few details have been released about how HHS will go about reuniting families and

16 what the timeline is for reunification.87

17

115. Indeed, even after the Executive Order was signed, many parents had still

18 not spoken with their children and did not know where they were being held. Parents

19 report repeatedly calling the government-established hotline number, but nobody

20 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/23/us/migrant-children-federal-agency-

21 border.html.

84 Michelle Goldberg, They Really Don’t Care About Migrant Families, N.Y. TIMES 22 (June 21, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/opinion/trump-family-

separation-melania-jacket.html. 23 85 Charlie Savage, Explaining Trump’s Executive Order on Family Separation, N.Y.

24

TIMES (June 20, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/familyseparation-executive-order.html.

25 86 Liz Robbins, Hundreds of Separated Children Have Quietly Been Sent to New York, N.Y. TIMES (June 20, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/nyregion/children-
26 separated-border-new-york.html.

27

87 Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification, DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY (June 23, 2018), https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/06/23/fact-

28 sheet-zero-tolerance-prosecution-and-family-reunification.

34 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 38 of 64 Page ID #:38

1 answers or no information is provided. Compounding the difficulties, detained

2 parents do not have a phone number where agencies may call them back.88 As a

3 result, parents and children have no idea if and when they will see each other again.

4 One separated parent said, “I feel like I am going to die. I feel powerless.”89

5

116. Out of pure desperation, some parents have agreed to give up their

6 asylum claims in the hopes of seeing their children again. Knowing how desperate

7 separated parents are, the government has taken advantage of their fears and

8 vulnerability by encouraging parents to sign voluntary deportation orders in exchange

9 for the return of their children. One Honduran detainee agreed to abandon his asylum

10 case and signed voluntary deportation forms in the hopes of seeing his 6-year-old

11 daughter again.90

12

THE FEDERAL COURTS ENJOIN SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS OF THE

13 FAMILY SEPARATION POLICY AND REJECT ATTEMPTS TO ALTER

14

THE FLORES SETTLEMENT

15

117. Faced with the government’s inhumane and cruel policy, migrant parents

16 separated from their children have turned to the federal courts. In a number of these

17 cases, the courts have already acted by requiring the government to conform its

18 actions to the Constitution, statutes passed by Congress, and its own policies.

19

Ms. L v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (S.D. Cal.)

20

118. For example, on June 26, 2018, the District Court for the Southern

21 District of California in a nationwide class action granted a preliminary injunction,

22 88 Jennifer Jett & Mihir Zaveri, More Than 500 Migrant Children Reunited with

23

Adults, Government Says, N.Y. TIMES (June 24, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/us/migrant-children-reunited.html.

24 89 Jack Healy, Migrant Parents Wait and Hope for Their Children: ‘I Feel Like I’m

Going to Die’, N.Y. TIMES (June 21, 2018),

25 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/us/immigrant-children-separating-

families.html.

26 90 Jay Root & Shannon Najmabadi, Kids in exchange for deportation: Detained

27

migrants say they were told they could get kids back on way out of U.S., TEXAS TRIBUNE (June 24, 2018), https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/24/kids-exchange-

28 deportation-migrants-claim-they-were-promised-they-could/.

35 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 39 of 64 Page ID #:39

1 prohibiting the government from (1) separately detaining migrant parents and their

2 children, (2) detaining minor children if their parents are released from custody, and

3 (3) removing any migrant parent from the United States without their child—absent

4 voluntary waiver by the parents or a finding of unfitness. See Ms. L, 2018 WL

5 3129486, at *11-12. Additionally, the Court ordered the government to reunite

6 detained parents with the children under the age of five by July 10, 2018, and to

7 reunite detained parents with their other children by July 26, 2018. Id. at *12; see also

8 Souza v. Sessions, No. 18-cv-4412, ECF No. 23 (N.D. Ill. June 28, 2018) (ordering

9 government to release child to custody of parent).

10

119. In providing this relief, the Court had to find first that the parents were

11 likely to succeed on their Fifth Amendment challenge to the family separation policy.

12 The parents argued that “the Government’s practice of separating class members from

13 their children, and failing to reunite those parents who have been separated, without a

14 determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child violates the

15 parents’ substantive due process rights to family integrity.” Ms. L, 2018 WL 3129486,

16 at *6.

17

120. The Court agreed with the parents for several reasons. First, the Court

18 found that, even when the Executive Branch “is acting within its powers to detain

19 individuals lawfully entering the United States and to apprehend individuals illegally

20 entering the country,” “the right to family integrity still applies.” Id. at *7. Second, it

21 recognized that “asylum seekers [like the plaintiffs] may be fleeing persecution and are

22 entitled to careful consideration by government officials. Particularly so if they have a

23 credible fear of persecution.” Id. To that end, Congress has “plainly stated [the nation’s]

24 intent to treat refugees with an ordered process, and benevolence, by codifying

25 principles of asylum.” Id. But, in its view, “[t]he Government’s treatment of [migrant

26 parents] does not meet this standard, and it is unlikely to pass constitutional muster.”

27 Id. Third, the Court highlighted that “the practice of separating these families was

28 implemented without any effective system or procedure for (1) tracking the children
36 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 40 of 64 Page ID #:40

1 after they were separated from their parents, (2) enabling communication between the

2 parents and their children after separation, and (3) reuniting the parents and children

3 after the parents are returned to immigration custody following completion of their

4 criminal sentence.” Id. In the Court’s words, “[t]his is a startling reality,” particularly

5 given that the government routinely tracks detained individuals’ personal property with

6 efficiency and accuracy. Id. The Court concluded these practices, taken together,

7 “shock the conscience” and are likely inconsistent with due process.

8

121. The Court also found that “the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly found” that

9 “separation of a parent from his or her child” “constitutes irreparable harm.” Id. at *9

10 (citing Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 969-70 (9th Cir. 2011); Washington v.

11 Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1169 (9th Cir. 2017)). The Court also determined that the

12 injuries inflicted by the family separation policy “deserve[] special mention,” noting

13 that “the separations at issue have been agonizing for parents who have endured them.”

14 Id. In particular, the Court noted that declarations submitted by class representatives in

15 the case and press reports of the trauma caused by the policy, including reports that

16 government officials ripped one mother’s crying 18-month-old son from her and that

17 one parent committed suicide as a result of being separated from his three-year-old son.

18 The Court further noted that press reports and declarations submitted by class

19 representatives demonstrate that these separations have inflicted a “highly destabilizing,

20 traumatic experience that has long term consequences on child well-being, safety, and

21 development.” Id. at *9-10.

22

122. Finally, the Court concluded that the balance of equities and the public

23 interest favored injunctive relief. Specifically, the Court found that stopping the

24 needless separation of parents from children would not “have a negative impact on the[]

25 [government’s] ability to enforce the criminal and immigration laws.” Id. at *10. It

26 also found that “[t]he public interest in upholding and protecting th[e] [right to family

27 integrity and association] would be served by issuance of the requested injunction.” Id.

28 at *11.

37 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 41 of 64 Page ID #:41

1

Damus v. Nielsen (D.D.C.)

2

123. On July 2, 2018, the District Court for the District of Columbia entered a

3 preliminary injunction requiring the government to follow its 2009 Directive, “Parole

4 of Arriving Aliens Found to Have a Credible Fear of Persecution or Torture,” issued by

5 Immigration and Customs Enforcement. See Damus v. Nielsen, 2018 WL 3232515, at

6 *2 (D.D.C. July 2, 2018). This ICE Directive mandates that ‘“[e]ach alien’s eligibility

7 for parole should be considered and analyzed on its own merits and based on the facts

8 of the individual alien’s case,’ and that if an asylum-seeker establishes his identity and

9 that he presents neither a flight risk nor a danger to the public, ‘[ICE] should, absent

10 additional factors ... parole the alien on the basis that his or her continued detention is

11 not in the public interest.’” Id. The plaintiffs in Damus—a provisional class covering

12 asylum seekers in five ICE Field Offices who have been found to have a credible fear

13 of persecution or torture and who are being detained by ICE after having been denied

14 parole—showed that when the ICE Directive was in force, more than 90 percent of

15 asylum seekers were granted parole, while 92 to 100 percent of similar individuals were

16 denied parole between February and September 2017. Id. at *15.

17

124. The Court concluded that, on the basis of these statistics and declarations

18 from class members, the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their Administrative

19 Procedure Act claim because it appears that the government is no longer following its

20 own directives. Id. at *16-17. The Court also found that plaintiffs sufficiently showed

21 they would suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction given that “detention pursuant

22 to an unlawful departure from agency procedure cannot be remediated after the fact.”

23 Id. at *17. Finally, the Court determined that the balance of harms and the public

24 interest would be served by the injunction because the plaintiffs were asking only for

25 the government to follow its own procedures.

26

Flores v. Sessions (C.D. Cal.)

27

125. On July 9, 2018, the District Court for the Central District of California

28 denied the government’s efforts to modify the Flores Settlement. Flores v. Sessions,
38 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 42 of 64 Page ID #:42

1 No. CV 85-4544, ECF No. 455 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2018). The Flores Settlement is a

2 consent agreement between a class including all immigrant children held by the

3 government and the government, which “sets out nationwide policy for the detention,

4 release, and treatment of minors in the custody of [the federal government].” Flores v.

5 Lynch, 828 F.3d 898, 901 (9th Cir. 2016). The government asked for two specific

6 exemptions: (1) permission to detain children indefinitely with their parents in ICE

7 custody, and (2) permission to detain children in facilities that do not meet the

8 agreement’s state licensure requirement. Flores, ECF No. 455, at 1.

9

126. The Court first found that Defendants’ ex parte application was

10 procedurally improper because it was a “thinly veiled motion for reconsideration” of

11 previous motion asking for similar relief. Id. Second, the Court concluded that the

12 government failed to satisfy Rule 60’s requirements for altering a settlement agreement,

13 given that the current so-called difficulties, to the extent they exist, were foreseeable.

14 Id. at 2. To that end, the Court also determined that Defendants had not shown that the

15 Flores Settlement bore any responsibility for the uptick in family border crossings, that

16 families routinely fail to appear at required proceedings, or that the Ms. L injunction

17 prevents the government from meeting its obligations. Rather, in the Court’s view, “[i]t

18 is apparent that Defendants’ Application [was] a cynical attempt … to shift

19 responsibility to the Judiciary for over 20 years of Congressional inaction and ill-

20 considered Executive action that have led to the current stalemate.” Id. at 7. The Court

21 therefore denied the application as “procedurally improper and wholly without merit.”

22 Id.

23 THE FAMILY SEPARATION POLICY HAS INFLICTED SIGNIFICANT

24

TRAUMA ON MIGRANT PARENTS AND THEIR CHILDREN

25

127. The family separation policy has caused traumatic harm to separated

26 families. The consensus among leading experts on trauma is that tearing children

27 from their parents inflicts severe complex trauma on both parents and children alike

28
39 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 43 of 64 Page ID #:43

1 that might never be fully remedied.91 As Senior Vice Dean and Professor of Mental

2 Health at University of Southern California Dr. Marleen Wong explains, trauma is the

3 body’s neurobiological stress response to experiencing or witnessing an event

4 involving life-threatening circumstances or threat of serious injury that causes him or

5 her to feel intense fear, helplessness, or horror.92 Complex trauma describes multiple,

6 repeated, persistent, or prolonged exposure to trauma such that the body’s stress

7 response impacts the development and functioning of the brain.93 Left untreated, such

8 trauma causes immediate and long-lasting physical and psychological harm, especially

9 in children, whose still-developing bodies and brains are ill-equipped to cope with

10 traumatic stress. 94

11

Trauma Experienced by Parents

12

128. Parents experience trauma due to forcible separation from their

13 children.95 Psychologists and other mental-health professionals, including Drs. Gee,

14 Hidalgo, Sprinson, Loring, and Zayas, Messrs. Berrick and Campbell, and Professor

15 Wong, expect that parents who experience their children being taken away from them

16 will likely suffer acute psychological distress that manifests in physical and mental

17 symptoms of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, loss of appetite, and/or loss of

18 sleep.96 After all, “[s]eparation of a child from his/her mother would be a traumatic

19 91 Declaration of Kenneth Berrick, John Sprinson & Kevin Campbell (“Berrick

20

Decl.”), ¶¶ 10, 12; Gee Decl. ¶ 5; Declaration of Jose Hidalgo (“Hidalgo Decl.”), ¶¶ 12, 13; Declaration of Bruce Perry (“Perry Decl.”), ¶ 21; Declaration of Marleen

21 Wong (“Wong Decl.”), ¶ 23; Declaration of Luis Zayas (“Zayas Decl.”), ¶¶ 12, 14.

92 Wong Decl. ¶ 12. 22 93 Id.

23 94 Berrick Decl. ¶ 15; Gee Decl. ¶¶ 5, 8, 9; Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 12; Perry Decl. ¶ 21; Wong Decl. ¶ 24 (“Prolonged exposure to such stress has a debilitating effect on
24 children even after the particular traumatic event is over.”).

25

95 See, e.g., Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 14; Gee Decl. ¶ 6; Berrick Decl. ¶¶ 17, 19; Declaration of Marti T. Loring (“Loring Decl.”), ¶ 8; Wong Decl. ¶ 23; Zayas Decl. ¶ 8.

26 96 Gee Decl. ¶ 6 (“Forcible family separation can also have devastating psychological and neurobiological consequences for parents, [which are] likely to be exacerbated
27 when parents are not provided with information about their child’s location or condition, or when parents do not have access to information in their native
28 language.”); Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 14 (“This level of stress related to the separation can take

40 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 44 of 64 Page ID #:44

1 event for both the child/adolescent and for the mother and father, causing … [p]anic

2 and terror, frightening dreams, flashbacks, dissociation (blanking out and lack of

3 awareness), depersonalization (sense of unreality and separation from oneself),

4 withdrawal into intense grief and depression, an ongoing sense of fear and terror.”97

5

129. “The traumatic nature of separation from the child is likely to be

6 exacerbated when parents are not provided with information about their child’s

7 location or condition, or when parents do not have access to information in their

8 native language ….”98

9

130. Indeed, there has been at least one credible report that a parent forcibly

10 separated from his child under the zero-tolerance policy was driven to suicide.99

11 According to press reports, Marco Antonio Muñoz and his family were taken into

12 custody and sought asylum. His child was forcibly taken from his arms, and then Mr.

13 Muñoz was placed in a chain-link detention cell. After he struggled to break free of

14 his cage, the Border Patrol transported him to a local jail and placed in a padded cell.

15 The next morning, he was found dead at his own hand.

16 a toll on parents and may cause physical and mental health symptoms such as loss of sleep, loss of appetite, headaches, anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation.”);
17 Berrick Decl. ¶¶ 17, 19 (“Parents also experience psychological distress and trauma due to separation and detention [and] may includ[e] anxiety, depression, suicidal
18 ideations, and loss of appetite.”); Loring Decl. ¶ 8 (“Separation of a child from his/her mother would be a traumatic event for both the child/adolescent and for the mother
19 and father, causing … [p]anic and terror, frightening dreams, flashbacks, dissociation (blanking out and lack of awareness), depersonalization (sense of unreality and
20 separation from oneself), withdrawal into intense grief and depression, an ongoing sense of fear and terror.”); Wong Decl. ¶ 23 (“Forcible separation of familes inflicts
21 severe trauma on children and parents.”); Zayas Decl. ¶ 8 (“The separation of parents from their children—the very children they sought to protect and save by requesting
22 asylum in the United States—creates emotional stresses on parents beyond that which they have already suffered.”).
23 97 Loring Decl. ¶ 8.

24 98 Gee Decl. ¶ 6; see also Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 26 (“Ongoing separation and the uncertainty of not knowing where separated loved ones are is likely to be re-traumatizing for
25 separated children and parents.”).

26

99 See Nick Miroff, A Family Was Separated At the Border, and This Distraught Father Took His Own Life, WASH. POST (June 9, 2018),

27

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/a-family-was-separated-atthe-border-and-this-distraught-father-took-his-own-life/2018/06/08/24e40b70-6b5d-

28 11e8-9e38-24e693b38637_story.html?utm_term=.f3c12fb7157d.

41 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 45 of 64 Page ID #:45

1

131. Parents, like their children, must also cope with the events that prompted

2 their migration in the first place, as well as the stressors and trauma experienced on

3 the way. 100 As with their children, such experiences are only compounded by

4 subsequent detention and separation from their families.101

5

Trauma Experienced by Children

6

132. Recent media reports offer but a hint at the on-going suffering caused by

7 forced family separation on children. Recently, an audio recording from inside a CBP

8 facility captured the voices of ten Central American children separated from their

9 parents. The children, as young as four, can be heard crying out desperately for their

10 parents. They repeatedly scream “Mami” and “Papa,” many crying so hard it sounds

11 like they can barely breathe. Above the heart wrenching weeping and crying is the

12 voice of a Border Patrol agent who jokes: “Well, we have an orchestra here. What’s

13 missing is a conductor.”102

14

133. A pediatrician visiting the Texas detention facility known as “the Ursula”

15 reported seeing somewhere between 20 and 30 ten-year-old boys caged in by a chain

16 link fence crying and sobbing for their mothers—some of them reaching out through

17 the fence as they screamed. Their mothers, who were in identical cages about 50 feet

18 away, could only look on, unable to help or console them.103

19

134. Upon separation, children experience acute psychological distress.104

20 Indeed, “[f]or children younger than seven or eight years of age, separation from

21 parents is even worse than the concept of death, as at young ages children see death as

22 100 See, e.g., Gee Decl. ¶ 7; Zayas Decl. ¶ 8.

23 101 See, e.g., Gee Decl. ¶ 7; Zayas Decl. ¶ 8.

24

102 Ginger Thompson, Listen to Children Who’ve Just Been Separated From Their Parents at the Border, PROPUBLICA (June 18, 2018),

25

https://www.propublica.org/article/children-separated-from-parents-border-patrol-cbptrump-immigration-policy.

26 103 Sady Doyle, Child Trauma Can’t Be Undone With an Executive Order, ELLE MAGAZINE (June 21, 2018), https://www.elle.com/culture/career-
27 politics/a21748590/child-trauma-cant-be-undone-with-an-executive-order/.

28 104 Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 9.

42 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 46 of 64 Page ID #:46

1 something that can be reversible and is not universal.”105 According to founder and

2 Chief Executive Office of Seneca Family of Agencies Kenneth Berrick, founder of the

3 Center for Family Finding and Youth Connectedness Kevin Campbell, and Clinical

4 Director of Seneca Family of Agencies Dr. John Sprinson, such trauma may be

5 particularly severe when the separation is sudden or forcible.106 During the moment

6 of separation, a child can experience “severe neurobiological stress causing the child

7 to feel intense fear, helplessness, or horror.”107 “Immediate reactions include obvious

8 emotional suffering in the form of inconsolable crying, desperate efforts to pursue or

9 search for the parent and anger.”108 Instructor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical

10 School and Massachusetts General Hospital Dr. Jose Hidalgo notes these effects may

11 be exacerbated by the additional trauma caused when witnessing a parent’s reaction to

12 separation.109

13

135. In the immediate aftermath of separation, children are likely to continue

14 to suffer from “extraordinary stress and pain.”110 They may show signs of regression,

15 reverting to crying and bed-wetting, or suffer the loss of other important

16 developmental milestones.111 Separated children are also likely to exhibit a variety of

17 negative behaviors from aggressiveness to withdrawal.112

18

19

20 105 Declaration of Victor Carrion (“Carrion Decl.”) ¶ 5.

21

106 Berrick Decl. ¶ 9 (“When the separation is sudden, unpredictable, or in a strange environment with no other familiar adult figures present then the response is likely to

22 be extreme.”); see Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 9; Wong Decl. ¶ 22.

107 Wong Decl. ¶ 23. 23 108 Berrick Decl. ¶ 10.

24 109 Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 9.

25

110 Zayas Decl. ¶ 11; see also Gee Decl. ¶ 5 (“The immediate psychological consequences of exposure to traumatic events involving caregivers include, but are not

26

limited to, anxiety, distress, despair, and terror for both the child and the parent.”); Perry Decl. ¶ 21; Wong Decl. ¶ 22.

27 111 Doyle, supra note 103; see also Berrick Decl. ¶ 10.

28 112 Berrick Decl. ¶ 10; Wong Decl. ¶¶ 18, 22.

43 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 47 of 64 Page ID #:47

1

136. The longer the parent and child are separated, the greater the harms the

2 child experiences.113 Decades of public health research demonstrate that the child-

3 parent bond is a crucial factor in healthy child development.114 The absence of

4 interaction between parent and child “acts as a ‘double whammy’ for healthy

5 development: not only does the brain not receive the positive stimulation it needs, but

6 the body’s stress response is activated, flooding the developing brain with potentially

7 harmful stress hormones.”115 Moreover, separation disrupts and severely damages the

8 relationship between a child and their parent.116

9

137. Assistant Professor of Psychology at Yale University Dr. Dylan Gee

10 writes that “For a child who has been separated from their parent at the border, their

11 body and brain are being shaped to anticipate danger and prepare for the worst.”117 As

12 detailed by substantial research conducted by Adjunct Professor in the Department of

13 Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Feinberg School of Medicine at

14 Northwestern University Dr. Bruce Perry, stress hormones induce a state of

15

16

113 Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 12; Jessica Henderson Daniel, PhD, Statement of APA President Regarding Executive Order Rescinding Immigrant Family Separation Policy, AM.

17

PSYCHOLOGICAL ASS’N (June 20, 2018), http://www.apa.org/news/ press/releases/2018/06/family-separation-policy.aspx.

18 114 Karen Dineed Wagner, MD, PhD, President’s Statement on Separating Children From Families, AMER. ACAD. OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY,
19 https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/ Press/Press_Releases/2018/Statement-on-SeparatingChildren-from-Families.aspx (“Parental support is an essential and proven protective
20 factor that substantially reduces risk for adverse health and developmental outcomes for children.”); “Separating Parents and Children at US Border is Inhumane and Sets
21 the Stage for a Public Health Crisis,” AM. PUBLIC HEALTH ASS’N (June 15, 2018), https://www.apha.org/news-and-media/news-releases/apha-news-
22 releases/2018/parent-child-separation (“Decades of public health research have shown that family structure, stability and environment are key social determinants of a
23 child’s and a community’s health.”).

24

115 Serve and Return, HARVARD UNIVERSITY CENTER ON THE DEVELOPING CHILD, https://developingchild.harvard.edu/science/key-concepts/serve-and-return/ (last

25 visited June 24, 2018); see also Berrick Decl. ¶ 15

116 Berrick Decl. ¶¶ 11, 12. 26 117 Dylan Gee, I study kids who were separated from their parents. The trauma could

27

change their brains forever, VOX (June 20, 2018), https://www.vox.com/firstperson/2018/6/20/17482698/tender-age-family-separation-border-immigrants-

28 children.

44 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 48 of 64 Page ID #:48

1 hypervigilance that alters a child’s cognition and emotion and causes chronic

2 problems with how that child responds to stress over a lifetime.118 Such alterations

3 increase the risk of “psychological and physical health problems,” including

4 “fundamental changes in brain function,” which may “manifest[] as a loss of capacity

5 to regulate intense emotions, to cope with future stress and to regulate fear reactions to

6 reminders of traumatic events,” and may in turn cause “other effects such as

7 depression, substance abuse, problems forming relationships, and other behavioral

8 problems.”119

9

138. Separation is not the only source of trauma migrant children will face

10 upon arrival at the border. After separation, children are likely to be held in detention

11 centers, where even a short length of stay is known to cause traumatic effects.120

12 According to Dr. Luis Zayas, Dean of Steve Hicks School of Social Work and

13 Professor of Psychiatry at Dell Medical School at the University of Texas, Austin,

14

15

16

118 Id.; see also Perry Decl. ¶ 13 (“[T]rauma, neglect, and maltreatment during childhood have profound effects on physical, social, emotional, behavioral, and

17

cognitive development. Some of the most important consequences of developmental adversity are the result of abnormal development and functioning of the brain’s stress

18

response systems.”); ¶ 21 (“[T]raumatic stress alters the developing brain. It can increase risk for a host of emotional and behavioral problems, including antisocial

19

behavior, attention problems, acting out, aggressive or violent behaviors, lack of trust, and other counterproductive coping mechanisms.”); Berrick Decl. ¶¶ 13, 16; Gee

20 Decl. ¶¶ 5, 8.

119 Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 13; Gee, supra note 117 (“A child whose brain is constantly 21 scanning the environment for danger will undoubtedly have difficulty paying attention

in class or interacting with peers on the playground. Some children will internalize 22 their feelings and appear numb; others will respond by acting out. In the long run, the

cascade of consequences places individuals who have experienced early trauma at risk 23 for academic or occupational failure, substance abuse, and health problems such as

heart disease and diabetes.”); Doyle, supra note 103, (“‘Long-term, these individuals 24 who have traumatic reactions are at heightened risk of virtually every medical

problem,’ says Dr. Judith Cohen, Medical Director of the Center for Traumatic Stress. 25 ‘Neurologic to cardiac to pulmonary to reproductive problems . . . just go down the

body and virtually every part is affected.’”). 26 120 Council on Community Pediatrics, Policy Statement—Detention of Immigrant

27

Children, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (March 2017), http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/03/09/peds.2017-0483; see

28 also Zayas Decl. ¶¶ 11, 15.

45 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 49 of 64 Page ID #:49

1 both “[s]cience and clinical practice show that [] children being held in detention with

2 or without their parents are undergoing extraordinary stress and pain.”121

3

139. Reports concerning unaccompanied immigrant children detained in the

4 United States found high rates of mental health disorders like anxiety, depression,

5 posttraumatic stress disorder, and suicidal ideation, as well other behavioral problems

6 that do not necessarily disappear upon release.122 Experts concur that any period of

7 detention, even if brief, can cause psychological trauma and induce long term mental

8 and medical health risks in children.123 According to the American Academy of

9 Pediatrics, “there is no evidence indicating that any time in detention is safe for

10 children.”124

11

140. Indeed, separation and detention are likely to be only some of many

12 traumatic experiences already suffered by a migrant child. The families arriving daily

13 at this nation’s borders are likely to be fleeing endemic levels of crime, violence, and

14 victimization in their home countries.125 They are likely to have been victims of

15 violence, both in their homes and communities.126 On top of that, migrant children

16 and their families are likely to have endured a harrowing journey across thousands of

17 miles without adequate food, water, or protection.127 To be suddenly separated from

18

19 121 Zayas Decl. ¶ 11.
20 122 Council on Community Pediatrics, supra note 120. 123 Zayas Decl. ¶¶ 11, 15-19.
21 124 Council on Community Pediatrics, supra note 120.
22 125 Adriana Beltrán, Fleeing Violence in Central America, WOLA: COMMENTARY (Feb. 21, 2017), https://www.wola.org/analysis/people-leaving-central-americas-
23 northern-triangle/ (“In [] Guatemala and Honduras, homicide levels have decreased overall, but both remain among the world’s most violent countries not at war.”);
24 (“Extortion is widespread, with small businesses, the public transportation sector, and poor neighborhoods being the most heavily hit. . . . Failure to pay can result in
25 harassment, violence, or death.”); id. (“Honduras and Guatemala are some of the most dangerous countries to be a woman, with female homicide rates among the highest in
26 the world.”).
27 126 Id. 127 NAPNAP Statement Opposing the Border Separation of Children and Parents,
28 NAT’L ASS’N OF PEDIATRIC NURSE PRACTITIONERS (June 11, 2018), 46
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 50 of 64 Page ID #:50

1 one or both parents compounds trauma upon trauma.128 Exposure to multiple

2 traumatic events results in even higher risks for the multitude of mental and medical

3 problems described above.129

4

Plaintiffs and Their Children Forcibly Separated By the Government Are

5

Subject to Severe, Ongoing Trauma

141. Plaintiffs and their children have experienced and continue to experience 6

severe, complex trauma as a result of their forced separation. This trauma is evident 7

in the emotional response to this separation that each has displayed. 8

142. Ms. P, Ms. O, and Ms. M have exhibited symptoms of trauma. “For 9

example, both J.O. and R.M. cried unconsolably after they realized that their children 10
were being taken away.”130 “Both R.M. and J.O. reported feeling a sense of anguish 11
and fear that they would not see [their] daughter[s] again.”131 According to Dr. 12

Hidalgo, the “level of stress related to the separation can take a toll on parents and 13

may cause physical and mental health symptoms such as loss of sleep, loss of appetite, 14
headaches, anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation.”132 Ms. O and Ms. M have 15

experienced distress and symptoms such as losing sense of time, inability to eat, and 16
sleeplessness.133 17

143. Likewise, Ms. P “reports that she was terrified by the fact of separation 18
and thought that she would never see her daughter again.”134 As a result, she has 19

20 https://www.napnap.org/napnap-statement-opposing-border-separation-children-and-

parents.

21 128 Tammy Bean, PhD, et al., Comparing Psychological Distress, Traumatic Stress

22

Reactions, and Experiences of Unaccompanied Refugee Minors with Experiences of Adolescents Accompanied by Parents, 195 J. NERVOUS MENTAL DISEASE, 288, 288

23

(2007); see also Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 9; Zayas Decl. ¶ 8; Declaration of Carolyn Murphy (“Murphy Decl.”), ¶ 5.

24 129 Gee, supra note 117.

25 130 Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 14. 131 Id.
26 132 Id.

27 133 See generally J.O. Decl.; R.M. Decl.

28 134 Acuña Decl. ¶ 6.

47 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 51 of 64 Page ID #:51

1 “upsetting thoughts or images about being separated from her daughter ‘almost

2 always,’” “feel[s] upset when she thinks or hears about events that have transpired

3 ‘almost always,’” “and reports crying four times a day.”135 Ms. P has difficulty

4 sleeping, and has “trouble concentrating ‘almost always.”’136

5

144. These symptoms due to family separation are compounded by the

6 presence of other traumatized parents in confinement and by the traumatic events that

7 caused them to migrate in the first place. For instance, R.M. has reported that “she

8 saw other parents ‘wailing and crying until they could cry no more.’”137 J.P. has

9 similarly reported that “[s]he worries what will happen to her next,” in part, because

10 “when she sees women leave the detention center, she does not know where they go

11 and what happens to them.”138 Further, Dr. Hidalgo notes that “[m]any of the

12 parents”—including the Plaintiffs—“have previously experienced other traumas and

13 have fled their home countries seeking sanctuary from violence,” and that for “parents

14 who have a prior history of trauma and losses, the forcible separation from their

15 children can lead to higher rates of posttraumatic stress disorders, depression, anxiety,

16 suicidal behavior, among other impacts.”139

17

145. Plaintiffs’ children have also experienced identifiable trauma. For

18 instance, L.P. recalls having “a hard time thinking of anything but her mother” and

19 “spen[t] most of the time crying” until she could speak with her mother.140 When she

20 attempts not to cry, she experiences nosebleeds and headaches.141 The harm is made

21 worse because other children in the facility are also distressed. As she has “tearfully

22 reported,” “it can sometime be hard to fall asleep as she can hear the younger children

23 135 Id. ¶ 7. 24 136 Id.
25 137 Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 14. 138 Acuña Decl. ¶ 8.
26 139 Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 15. 27 140 Allen Decl. ¶ 12.
28 141 Id.
48 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 52 of 64 Page ID #:52

1 [as young as two years old] crying for their mothers.”142 “S.Q. and T.B. each [have]

2 reported symptoms including excessive worry, dysphoric mood, crying spells, sleep

3 and appetite disturbances, and fear of the unknown” “stemming from family

4 separation.”143 Other children who have been separated from their parents “ha[ve]

5 significantly regressed to the point that [they] are now non-verbal, soil themselves,

6 and have communication and socializing problems.”144

7

146. Further, in what appears to be a willful disregard for the trauma they have

8 and continue to endure, immigration officers responsible for carrying out the

9 detentions have treated each of the Plaintiffs with remarkable cruelty. Ms. P and her

10 daughter were held in deplorable conditions for three days before their forced

11 separation.145 Officers made no efforts to help Ms. P communicate with her daughter

12 until counsel became involved, despite her obvious distress.146 In an act particularly

13 symbolic of the subhuman way that detainees are treated, a CBP officer threw

14 crackers on the floor to force Ms. M pick them up, rather than simply handing them to

15 her.147 These actions inevitably and purposely exacerbate the trauma for the Plaintiffs.

16

147. To date, Plaintiffs have not received trauma-informed mental-health

17 screenings or services to address the harms suffered.

18

TO REMEDY TRAUMA INFLICTED BY ITS CRUEL POLICY, THE

19

GOVERNMENT MUST OFFER SEPARATED FAMILIES

20 COMPREHENSIVE MENTAL-HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDED UNDER

21

APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS

22

148. Defendants have an obligation to provide adequate medical care,

23 including mental-health services, to individuals that they detain against their will and

24 142 Id. ¶ 14.
25 143 Declaration of Alfonso Mercado (“Mercado Decl.”) ¶ 7. 144 Id. ¶ 8.
26 145 Chavez L.P. Decl. ¶¶ 10-12. 27 146 J.P. Decl. ¶ 21.
28 147 R.M. Decl. ¶ 11.
49 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 53 of 64 Page ID #:53

1 to remedy the harms caused by their unconstitutional actions. If the separated families

2 are to recover from the trauma imposed by Defendants’ actions, these mental-health

3 services cannot be provided in the same slipshod manner as the government

4 implemented its initial trauma-inducing policy. Instead, they must be provided under

5 conditions conducive to effective treatment.

6

149. Most importantly, the treatment must be evidence-based and trauma-

7 informed, meaning that it must be designed especially to alleviate the psychological

8 and neurobiological consequences of forcible separation.148 Such treatments exist and

9 have been shown to be effective across cultural backgrounds.149 Some have been

10 successfully adapted for immigrant populations.150 These mental-health services often

11 take the form of trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy.151

12

150. For these services to be effective, several conditions must be met.

13

151. First, the families must be reunified in short order consistent with the Ms.

14 L injunction. The longer the separation, the more pervasive and intense the trauma

15 becomes.152 “The effects of trauma on separated children are [already] significant,

16 long-lasting, and difficult to mitigate.”153 Prolonging the separation understandably

17 increases the trauma and thus requires more intense mental-health services.

18

152. Second, all parents and children must be immediately screened “to

19 identify those whose anxiety is toxic and detrimental to themselves and their families,

20 as well as those whose anxiety has grown into trauma with its accompanying

21

22 148 See, e.g., Perry Decl. ¶ 22; Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 21; Gee Decl. ¶ 10.
23 149 See Gee Decl. ¶ 10; Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 18. 150 See Gee Decl. ¶ 10.
24 151 See, e.g., id. 25 152 See id. (“Longer durations of trauma exposure are consistently associated with
poorer outcomes.”); Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 12; Carrion Decl. ¶ 13 ([reuniting the families] is 26 necessary to prevent further damage as it will restore the children’s primary support
system and prevent the accretion of yet more stress from the continuation of the 27 traumatic separation to their allostatic loads”).
28 153 Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 13.
50 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 54 of 64 Page ID #:54

1 symptoms,”154 so that treatment plans can be developed for them. “Screening is a

2 ‘wide-net’ process, the first step in the assessment and treatment process,”155 and it is

3 essential because “[t]he longer [appropriate] interventions are delayed, the greater the

4 negative cumulative effect the acute neurophysiological, neuroendocrine, and

5 neuropsychological response will have on these children and their parents.”156 Such

6 screenings must also be repeated following family reunification to determine whether

7 the process of reunification revealed trauma not previously evident. For these

8 screenings to be effective given the special trauma inflicted upon the families, they

9 must be conducted according to trauma-informed procedures and by appropriately

10 trained trauma-informed professionals.157 Specifically, they must meet several

11 conditions: to start, a tool must show “efficacy (i.e., reliability, validity, and accuracy

12 in identifying individuals with trauma) and effectiveness (i.e., generalizability to the

13 real-world that adults and children inhabit).”158 A tool must also show “sensitivity

14 (i.e., number of individuals correctly identified, that is true positives) and specificity

15 (i.e., eliminating those who do not demonstrate a problem, that is true negatives).”159

16

153. Third, to the extent that professionals conducting the screening find that

17 the families are experiencing or have experienced trauma due to Defendants’ policy,

18 appropriate mental-health services must be offered in an appropriate environment.

19 While each family’s ultimate treatment must be tailored to its particular

20

21

22 154 Loring Decl. ¶ 11; see Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 16; Zayas Decl. ¶¶ 20-21; Mercado Decl. ¶ 9.
23 155 Zayas Decl. ¶ 21.

24 156 Perry Decl. ¶ 22.

25

157 See Gee Decl. ¶ 18 (“All mental health assessment and treatment provided to plaintiffs and all similarly situated parents and children be delivered in a culturally

26

competent and linguistically sensitive manner and by mental health clinicians trained in evidence-based trauma-informed interventions.”); Zayas Decl. ¶ 28.

27 158 Zayas Decl. ¶ 21.

28 159 Id.

51 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 55 of 64 Page ID #:55

1 circumstances, extensive research suggests that several baseline factors will be

2 common for all affected families.

3

154. One, counseling services are most effective in such situations when

4 provided at the family level, meaning that “the adult caregivers must be a part of the

5 trauma intervention provided to these children.”160 “Appropriate treatment for trauma

6 caused by separation should consist of family therapy” because the trauma touched

7 “all family members” and their relationships with each other, and thus family therapy

8 “is necessary to address family pain.”161 Put another way, this approach is necessary

9 not only to assist the child in “reestablishing [his or her] ability to effectively regulate

10 himself [or herself],” but also “to treat [the parent’s] own primary trauma and to

11 effectively support their traumatized child.”162 Indeed, “[d]ecades of research

12 demonstrates that the most significant protective factor for vulnerable children facing

13 adversity are bonds to those that love them.”163

14

155. Two, these services must “be delivered in a culturally competent and

15 linguistically sensitive manner and by mental health clinicians trained in evidence-

16 based trauma-informed interventions.”164 The trauma caused by family separation is

17 acute, and the migrant families are diverse. For the trauma to be appropriately

18

19

20

21 160 Perry Decl. ¶ 23; see Allen Decl. ¶ 22.

161 Acuña Decl. ¶ 12. 22 162 Perry Decl. ¶¶ 23-24; see also Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 25; Murphy Decl. ¶ 9 (“family or

23

parental involvement is often critical in providing treatment to children and young people, both to obtain collateral historical information and because the entire family

24

‘system’ may have been traumatized and need treatment both in support of the minor child and to prevent a re-traumatization effect when the child is reunited with family

25 members whose own trauma has not been addressed.”).

163 Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 31. 26 164 Gee Decl. ¶ 31; see Allen Decl. ¶ 22; Zayas Decl. ¶ 28 (“all screenings,

27

assessments, and treatments [must] be culturally, linguistically, and developmentally appropriate, and scientifically tested”); Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 18 (“[s]creenings and

28 evaluations should be conducted by culturally and linguistic competent providers”).

52 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 56 of 64 Page ID #:56

1 mitigated, the mental-health services must be tailored to address the specific

2 individuals harmed and their symptoms.

3

156. Three, these services must be provided in an environment that does not

4 continue or prolong the trauma. “[T]herapeutic work while in a setting or

5 circumstance where there is continuing distress, threat, uncertainty and

6 unpredictability can undermine, or even make impossible, meaningful therapeutic

7 progress.”165 In addition, “[f]or a child and an adult to remain in a setting he/she

8 associates with the traumatic separation (even after reunification with the mother or

9 father), … will cause additional and profound anticipation of further traumatic events:

10 The mother and father who also experienced traumatic separation from their child

11 would need to be placed in a safe family setting with their child(ren) to avoid an

12 increase in such trauma symptoms as persistent negative thoughts and expectations

13 about oneself, one’s world, and others.”166

14

157. An environment like the detention centers where class members are

15 currently housed can prevent and even undermine trauma intervention.167 AAP has

16 stated that “continuing to maintain the ‘zero tolerance’ policy will put more children

17 in detention facilities, an environment [that] is no place for a child, even if they are

18 accompanied by their families.”168 AAP explained, “Studies of detained immigrants

19 have shown that children and parents may suffer negative physical and emotional

20 symptoms from detention, including anxiety, depression and posttraumatic stress

21 disorder. Conditions in U.S. detention facilities, which include forcing children to

22 sleep on cement floors, open toilets, constant light exposure, insufficient food and

23 165 Perry Decl. ¶ 22.
24 166 Loring Decl. ¶ 10.

25 167 Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 24 (“Facilities with a law enforcement orientation do not have the

training or expertise to manage the complex needs of trauma survivors.”). 26 168 Colleen Kraft, AAP Statement on Executive Order of Family Separation,

27

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (June 20, 2018), https://www.aap.org/enus/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/AAP-Statement-on-Executive-Order-on-

28 Family-Separation.aspx.

53 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 57 of 64 Page ID #:57

1 water, no bathing facilities, and extremely cold temperatures, are traumatizing for

2 children. No child should ever have to endure these conditions.”169

3

158. Data from Texas Health and Human Services Commission and the

4 Department of Family and Protective Services shows that numerous of the centers

5 where children are being sent pursuant to this policy “have been cited by state child

6 care facility regulators for dozens of violations in recent years,” some of which have

7 been for serious issues.170

8

159. Such centers have also been the subject of “fire-code violations, lawsuits

9 claiming abuse, and complaints from employees alleging wrongful termination and

10 unpaid wages.”171

11

160. At family detention centers, former detainees have reported a dozen or

12 more people sharing a single cell, guards ordering that toddlers not be allowed to

13 crawl, and toys barred from living quarters.172 A 2014 evaluation of children at family

14 detention centers found that “children regressed to bed wetting. A 9-year-old-girl

15 sought to return to breast feeding. Children clung to their mothers legs, fearful of

16 letting them out of sight. Many had night terrors, were depressed or acted out.”173

17

18

19 169 Id.
20 170 Manny Fernandez, Inside the Former Walmart That Is Now A Shelter for Almost

21 1,500 Migrant Children, N.Y. TIMES (June 14, 2018),

22

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/family-separation-migrant-childrendetention.html.

23 171 Manny Fernandez and Katie Benner, The Billion-Dollar Business of Operating

24 Shelters for Migrant Children, N.Y. TIMES (June 21, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/us/migrant-shelters-border-crossing.html.
25 172 Sonia Nazario, There’s a Better, Cheaper Way to Handle Immigration, N.Y. TIMES
26 (June 22, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/opinion/children-detention-

27 trump-executive-order.html.

28 173 Id.

54 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 58 of 64 Page ID #:58

1

161. Guards at family detention centers have been accused of sexual assault,

2 abusive treatment, and neglect.174

3

162. In any event, the government has an obligation to provide the families it

4 has traumatized access to conditions that will not exacerbate the trauma already

5 inflicted and that will allow for effective treatment.

6

163. Finally, given that Defendants’ actions have caused this trauma, mental-

7 health services must be provided for a sufficient period of time, including after

8 release.

9

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

10

164. Plaintiffs bring this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

11 23(b)(2) on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of all other persons similarly

12 situated.

13

165. Plaintiffs seek to represent the following nationwide class:

14

All adult parents nationwide who (1) were, are, or will be detained in

15

immigration custody by the Department of Homeland Security, (2) have

16

a minor child who has been, is, or will be separated from them by DHS

17

and detained in DHS or ORR custody or foster care, absent a

18

demonstration in a hearing that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to

19

the child.

20

166. The proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all members is

21 impractical, satisfying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1). According to

22 Defendants, nearly 3,000 children have been separated from their parents under the

23 Trump Administration’s immigration policy. Nearly all of these children’s parents

24 remain in DHS’s custody.

25

26

27

174 Id.; Manny Fernandez and Katie Benner, The Billion-Dollar Business of Operating Shelters for Migrant Children, N.Y. TIMES (June 21, 2018),

28 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/us/migrant-shelters-border-crossing.html.

55 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 59 of 64 Page ID #:59

1

167. The proposed class meets the commonality requirements of Federal Rule

2 of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) for several reasons. First, the proposed class members

3 have all been subject to the government’s family separation policy and, as a result,

4 have had their children forcibly taken from their care, triggering the harms alleged.

5 Second, other factual questions are common to the proposed class, including whether

6 and to what extent the government has developed an appropriate policy for mitigating

7 the harms inflicted by the family separation policy. Third, multiple questions of law

8 are common to the proposed class, namely whether Defendants’ actions have violated

9 their substantive due process rights and their rights to equal protection of the law.

10

168. The proposed class meets the typicality requirements of Federal Rule of

11 Civil Procedure 23(a)(3). Ms. P, Ms. O, and Ms. M have all have been forcibly

12 separated from their children without a finding of unfitness or that they present a

13 danger to their children, and they have not been provided with appropriate mental-

14 health screening or offered appropriate trauma-informed intervention. Additionally,

15 Plaintiffs assert the same rights under the Fifth Amendment.

16

169. The proposed class meets the adequacy requirements of Federal Rule of

17 Civil Procedure 23(a)(4). Ms. P, Ms. O, and Ms. M assert the same claims and seek

18 the same relief as the other members of the class, namely an order that they be

19 provided appropriate mental-health screening and any appropriate trauma-informed

20 intervention in an appropriate environment. The named plaintiffs will defend the

21 rights of all proposed class members fairly and adequately. Further, the proposed class

22 is represented by Sidley Austin LLP and Public Counsel. Counsel have extensive

23 experience litigating class action suits and other complex cases in federal court,

24 including civil rights suits on behalf of noncitizens.

25

170. The members of the proposed class are readily ascertainable through

26 Defendants’ records.

27

171. Finally, the proposed class satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

28 23(b)(2). Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to
56 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 60 of 64 Page ID #:60

1 the class by forcibly separating the migrant parents from their children under a

2 common policy and failing to provide adequate medical care for detained individuals

3 and to remedy the harms inflicted. As a result, the declaratory and injunctive relief

4 sought by the proposed class will be appropriate with respect to the class as a whole.

5

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

6

FIRST CLAIM

7

Violation of Substantive Due Process

8

172. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

9 contained in the preceding paragraphs.

10

173. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

11 provides that “[n]o person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without

12 due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V.

13

174. The Due Process Clause applies to all persons on United States soil and

14 thus applies to Plaintiffs and their children. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).

15

175. The guarantee against the deprivation of liberty without due process bars

16 the government from infringing on certain fundamental liberty interests. The

17 continued separation and confinement of Plaintiffs and their children violates those

18 rights in several respects.

19

176. Plaintiffs and their children have a liberty interest under the Due Process

20 Clause in remaining together as a family and a right to be protected against the

21 government’s arbitrary destruction of the integrity of their families. See, e.g.,

22 Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982); Moore v. E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494

23 (1977); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). Under the Fifth Amendment,

24 Plaintiffs also have “the right … to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and

25 control of their children.” Fields v. Palmdale Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 1197, 1204 (9th

26 Cir. 2005) (citing Troxel v. Granville, 430 U.S. 57, 66 (2000) (plurality op.)). The

27 continued separation of Plaintiffs from their children, without any determination that

28 Plaintiffs were unfit or present a danger to their children, plainly violates these rights.
57 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 61 of 64 Page ID #:61

1

177. Plaintiffs’ separation and the resulting trauma occurred while Plaintiffs

2 and their children were in the custody of the United States Department of Homeland

3 Security and the Department of Health and Human Services. Once Defendants

4 detained Plaintiffs and their children, the Defendants incurred a duty not to

5 gratuitously inflict emotional and psychological harm and a duty to provide for their

6 safety and general well-being. See DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dept. of Soc. Servs.,

7 489 U.S. 189 (1989).

8

178. By forcibly separating Plaintiffs from their children and keeping them

9 apart, Defendants have inflicted and will continue to inflict upon Plaintiffs

10 extraordinary harm that they would not have otherwise have faced. During Plaintiffs’

11 confinement and since the time Defendants arbitrarily separated Plaintiffs from their

12 children, Plaintiffs have not received the intensive family mental-health screenings

13 and services that they need on an ongoing basis—including for a period following

14 their release from detention—as a result of Defendants’ intentional infliction of

15 emotional and psychological harm.

16

179. The separation of Plaintiffs from their children and their continued

17 detention is arbitrary and shocks the conscience. Defendants forcibly separated

18 Plaintiffs from their children without explanation or basis in fact, which deliberately

19 induced severe trauma to both parent and child. Defendants did so despite clear

20 warnings, including from numerous professionals and organizations such as the

21 American Academy of Pediatrics, that their actions were tantamount to child abuse

22 and could result in long-term adverse mental health consequences.

23

180. Defendants intentionally took these actions pursuant to a policy of

24 detention and family separation that lacked any legitimate basis. Subjecting parents

25 and their minor children to the cruel practice of separating families for the purposes of

26 deterring other legitimate asylum seekers, and to use their profound suffering as a

27 political bargaining chip, clearly violates due process.

28
58 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 62 of 64 Page ID #:62

1

181. Plaintiffs and their children have suffered and will continue to suffer

2 irreparable injury from the arbitrary and cruel separation of their families and their

3 unnecessary continued detention.

4

SECOND CLAIM

5

Violation of the Equal Protection Guarantee of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment

6

7

182. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

8 contained in the preceding paragraphs.

9

183. The Fifth Amendment contains an implicit guarantee of equal protection

10 that invalidates any official action that in part reflects a racially discriminatory intent

11 or purpose. Classifications based on race or national origin receive exacting scrutiny,

12 and even facially neutral policies and practices will be held unconstitutional when

13 they reflect a pattern unexplainable on grounds other than race. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347

14 U.S. 497, 499 (1954); Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S.

15 252, 265-66 (1977).

16

184. Defendants’ decisions to forcibly separate families and to isolate children

17 in detention facilities separate from their parents, are unconstitutional because they

18 were motivated, at least in part, by intentional discrimination based on race, ethnicity,

19 and/or national origin and, in particular, reflect bias against immigrants perceived to

20 come from non-white, non-European countries.

21

185. Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer irreparable injury resulting

22 from the separation and continued detention of asylum-seeking parents and children,

23 and the denial of adequate, remedial, family medical and mental-health services in a

24 setting conducive to effective treatment.

25

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

26

Plaintiffs ask this Court to grant the following relief:

27

1. Certify a class of all adult parents nationwide who (1) were, are, or will

28 be detained in immigration custody by the Department of Homeland Security, and (2)
59 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 63 of 64 Page ID #:63

1 have a minor child who has been, is, or will be separated from them by DHS and

2 detained in DHS or ORR custody or foster care, absent a demonstration in a hearing

3 that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child;

4

2. Name Ms. O, Ms. P., and Ms. M. as representatives of the class, and

5 appoint Plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel;

6

3. Order Defendants to provide mental-health screenings of Plaintiffs and

7 their children immediately as well as after reunification in order to assess their need

8 for subsequent trauma-informed remedial medical and mental-health services to

9 address the trauma of separation and child detention;

10

4. Order Defendants to offer appropriate trauma-informed remedial medical

11 and mental-health services appropriate to address the trauma of separation and

12 detention to Plaintiffs and to Plaintiffs’ children and under conditions conducive to

13 effective treatment;

14

5. Order Defendants to permit class counsel or their agents entry into

15 government facilities in which class members are detained to evaluate whether the

16 mental-health screenings and services are being provided and whether they are

17 appropriate;

18

6. Require Defendants to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant

19 to 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and on any other basis justified under law; and

20

7. Grant any other and further relief that this Court may deem fit and

21 proper.

22 Dated: July 12, 2018
23

Respectfully Submitted,

24

25

Mark Rosenbaum (CABN 59940) mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org

26 Judy London (SBN 149431)

jlondon@publiccounsel.org 27 Talia Inlender (SBN 253796)

28 tinlender@publiccounsel.org

/s/ Amy P. Lally Amy P. Lally (CABN 198555) alally@sidley.com Ellyce R. Cooper (CABN 204453) ecooper@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor

60 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 1 Filed 07/12/18 Page 64 of 64 Page ID #:64

1 Alisa Hartz (SBN 285141)

2

ahartz@publiccounsel.org Lucero Chavez (SBN 273531)

3 lchavez@publiccounsel.org Elizabeth Hadaway (SBN 308800)

4 ehadaway@publiccounsel.org

5

Malhar Shah (SBN 318588) mshah@publiccounsel.org

6 Deena Tumeh (SBN 318573)

7

dtumeh@publiccounsel.org PUBLIC COUNSEL

8

610 S. Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005

9

Telephone: +1 213 385-2977 Facsimile: +1 213 385-9089

10

Mark E. Haddad (SBN 205945)

11

markhadd@usc.edu Part-time Lecturer in Law, USC Gould

12

School of Law** University of Southern California

13

699 Exposition Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90089

14 Telephone: +1 213 675-5957

15 Luis Cortes Romero (SBN 310852)

16

lcortes@ia-lc.com Alma L. David (SBN 257676)

17

adavid@ia-lc.com Immigrant Advocacy & Litigation

18

Center, PLLC 19309 68th Ave South R-102

19 Kent, WA 98032

Telephone: +1 253 872-4730

20 Facsimile: +1 253 237-1591

Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: +1 310 595-9662 Facsimile: +1 310 595-9501
Carter G. Phillips* cphillips@sidley.com Jennifer J. Clark* jennifer.clark@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: +1 202 736-8270 Facsimile: +1 202 736-8711
Michael Andolina* mandolina@sidley.com Timothy Payne* tpayne@sidley.com Kevin Fee* kfee@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: +1 312 853-7000 Facsimile: +1 312 853-7036
Sean A. Commons (SBN 217603) scommons@sidley.com Bridget S. Johnsen (SBN 210778) bjohnsen@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: +1 213 896-6000 Facsimile: +1 213 896-6600

21

22 *Application for admission pro hac vice to be submitted 23 ** Institution listed for identification purposes only

24

25

26

27

28
61 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 
 Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 1 of 35 Page ID #:643

1 Amy P. Lally (SBN 198555) alally@sidley.com
2 Ellyce R. Cooper (SBN 204453) ecooper@sidley.com
3 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor
4 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: +1 310 595-9500
5 Facsimile: +1 310 595-9501

6 Mark Rosenbaum (SBN 59940)

7

mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org Judy London (SBN 149431)

8 jlondon@publiccounsel.org

Talia Inlender (SBN 253796) 9 tinlender@publiccounsel.org

10 Alisa Hartz (SBN 285141) ahartz@publiccounsel.org

11 Lucero Chavez (SBN 273531)

12

lchavez@publiccounsel.org Elizabeth Hadaway (SBN 308800)

13 ehadaway@publiccounsel.org

Malhar Shah (SBN 318588) 14 mshah@publiccounsel.org

15 Deena Tumeh (SBN 318573) dtumeh@publiccounsel.org

16 PUBLIC COUNSEL 610 S. Ardmore Avenue
17 Los Angeles, CA 90005 Telephone: +1 213 385-2977
18 Facsimile: +1 213 385-9089

19 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 20 Additional Counsel on next page

21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

22

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

23
MS. J.P., MS. J.O., AND MS. R.M., on 24 behalf of themselves and all others
similiarly situated,
25
Plaintiffs,
26
v.
27
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 28 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

Case No. 2:18-cv-06081 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 2 of 35 Page ID #:644

1 UNITED STATES; KIRSTJEN

Date: October 29, 2018

NIELSEN, SECRETARY OF 2 HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S.

Time: 8:30 a.m.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

Judge: Hon. John A. Kronstadt

3 SECURITY, AND ITS SUBORDINATE ENTITIES; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND

Courtroom: 10B

4 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; U.S.

CUSTOMS AND BORDER

5 PROTECTION; ALEX M. AZAR II,

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

6 HUMAN SERVICES; U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

7 HUMAN SERVICES; SCOTT LLOYD,

DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF

8 REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT; OFFICE

OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT;

9 DAVID MARIN, LOS ANGELES FIELD

OFFICE DIRECTOR, U.S.

10 IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS

ENFORCEMENT; LISA VON

11 NORDHEIM, WARDEN, JAMES A.

MUSICK FACILITY; MARC J. MOORE,

12 SEATTLE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR,

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS

13 ENFORCEMENT; LOWELL CLARK,

WARDEN, TACOMA NORTHWEST

14 DETENTION CENTER,

15

Defendants.

16
17 Carter G. Phillips* cphillips@sidley.com
18 Jennifer J. Clark* 19 jennifer.clark@sidley.com
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 20 1501 K Street, N.W. 21 Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: +1 202 736-8000 22 Facsimile: +1 202 736-8711

Mark E. Haddad (SBN 205945) markhadd@usc.edu Part-time Lecturer in Law USC Gould School of Law** University of Southern California 699 Exposition Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90089 Telephone: +1 213 675-5957

23
Michael Andolina* 24 mandolina@sidley.com

Luis Cortes Romero (SBN 310852) lcortes@ia-lc.com

25 Timothy Payne*

Alma L. David (SBN 257676)

tpayne@sidley.com 26 Kevin Fee*

adavid@ia-lc.com IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY &

27 kfee@sidley.com

LITIGATION CENTER, PLLC

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
28

19309 68th Avenue South, Suite R-102

2

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 3 of 35 Page ID #:645

1 One South Dearborn 2 Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: +1 312 853-7000 3 Facsimile: +1 312 853-7036
4
Sean A. Commons (SBN 217603) 5 scommons@sidley.com 6 Bridget S. Johnsen (SBN 210778)
bjohnsen@sidley.com 7 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 8 555 West Fifth Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013 9 Telephone: +1 213 896-6000 10 Facsimile: +1 213 896-6600

Kent, WA 98032 Telephone: +1 253 872-4730 Facsimile: +1 253 237-1591

11
12 *Application for admission pro hac vice to be submitted 13 ** Institution listed for identification purposes only

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
3
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 4 of 35 Page ID #:646

1 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

2

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 29, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. or as soon

3 thereafter as may be heard in Courtroom 10B of the above-entitled court, located at

4 350 West 1st Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, plaintiffs Ms. J.P., Ms. J.O., and

5 Ms. R.M., (collectively “Plaintiffs”) will and hereby do move this Court for entry of a

6 preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to provide meaningful access to mental

7 health care screening and treatment to Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class.

8 Plaintiffs seek, in particular, meaningful access to:

9 • mental health screening for all Plaintiffs and class members to identify those

who require further treatment as a result of the trauma inflicted on them, which

10

must be performed by persons trained to recognize the signs and symptoms of

such trauma, within fourteen (14) days of the entry of the Court’s injunction;

11

• subsequent mental health screening for all Plaintiffs and class members to

12

identify those who require further treatment as a result of the trauma inflicted

on them, which must be performed by persons trained to recognize the signs

13

and symptoms of such trauma, within fourteen (14) days of the reunification of

the Plaintiff or class member with his/her child(ren) if such reunification takes

14

place after the screening ordered as referenced above;

15 • mental health care treatment, for those Plaintiffs and class members whose

screenings indicate that such treatment is needed, which must:
16

o be provided in a safe environment that will not reinforce trauma;
17

o be provided on a family basis to all members of the reunified family

18

together;

19

o be provided in a culturally competent manner by mental health clinicians

trained in evidence-based trauma-informed interventions; and
20

o be provided for a period of time sufficient to treat the trauma inflicted;

21

and

22 • such other relief as is permitted by law.

23
This motion is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 on the
24
grounds that 1) Plaintiffs and class members are likely to prevail on their substantive
25
due process claim under the Fifth Amendment and obtain an order directing the
26
government to provide them with effective mental health screening and treatment, 2)
27
Plaintiffs and class members will likely suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary
28
1
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 5 of 35 Page ID #:647

1 relief, 3) the balance of equities favors entry of an injunction, and 4) an injunction is

2 in the public interest.

3

This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion; the supporting Memorandum

4 of Points and Authorities; the supporting declarations; all documents and pleadings on

5 file in this action; and on such other oral and documentary evidence as may be

6 presented at the hearing on this motion.

7

8
DATED: July 18, 2018
9

10

/s/ Amy P. Lally

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
2
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 6 of 35 Page ID #:648

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2

3 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1

4 FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................................... 2

5

A. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class. ................................................. 2

6

B. The Government Implemented the Family Separation Policy. ...... 2

7

C. The Government’s Family Separation Policy Is Found Likely

Unconstitutional and Enjoined ...................................................... 3

8

D. The Government’s Family Separation Policy Inflicts Trauma and

9

Increased Risk of Lifelong Health Problems on Plaintiffs, Class

Members, and Their Children. ...................................................... 5

10

E. Plaintiffs, Class Members, and Their Children Require Trauma-

11

Informed Family Mental Health Screenings and Services to

Recover From the Trauma Inflicted by the Government ..............10

12

F. Mental Health Care Services Provided by the Government Are Not

13

Effective Or Sufficient. ................................................................12

14 LEGAL STANDARD................................................................................................13

15 ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................14

16

I. PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS. .........14

17

A. The Government’s Detention of Class Members Created a Special

Relationship Requiring It to Provide Effective Mental Health

18

Treatment During and Following Detention.................................14

19

B. The Government Must Provide Effective Mental Health Care to

Plaintiffs and Class Members to Remedy the Injury That It Caused

20

.....................................................................................................16

21

C. The Government Has Failed To Provide Adequate Mental Health

Screenings and Treatment ............................................................21

22

II. PLAINTIFFS WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM IF THE

23

INJUNCTION IS NOT GRANTED ......................................................21

24

III. THE BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS FAVORS THE INJUNCTION ......23

25

IV. THE PUBLIC INTEREST FAVORS THE INJUNCTION ....................24

26 CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................25

27

28
i
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 7 of 35 Page ID #:649

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2 Cases

Page(s)

3
All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 4 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011)...............................................................................13

5 Cook v. California, 6 No. 1:16-CV-00674-LJO-SAB, 2016 WL 4161114 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5,
2016) ....................................................................................................................16
7

8 Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998)........................................................................................17, 18
9

DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,

10

489 U.S. 189 (1989)..............................................................................................14

11
Doe v. Kelly,
12 878 F.3d 710 (9th Cir. 2017).............................................................................3, 14

13 Estelle v. Gamble, 14 429 U.S. 97 (1976)................................................................................................14

15 Garcia v. Google, Inc., 16 786 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) .................................................................13

17 Gibson v. Cty. of Washoe,

18

290 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2002), overruled on other grounds by Castro v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) ............... 14, 15, 21

19
Estate of Gonzales v. Hickman, 20 No. ED CV 05-00660 MMM, 2006 WL 4959780 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30,

21 2006) ....................................................................................................................16

22 Gordon v. Cty. of Orange,

23

888 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2018)...............................................................................20

24 Halet v. Wend Inv. Co., 672 F.2d 1305 (9th Cir. 1982)...............................................................................19
25
26 Haskins v. Stanton, 794 F.2d 1273 (7th Cir. 1986)...............................................................................24
27

28
ii
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 8 of 35 Page ID #:650

1 Henry A. v. Willden, 2 678 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2012)............................................................... 14, 17, 18, 19

3 Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017)..................................................................... 22, 23, 24
4

5 Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2006).........................................................................14, 16
6

Leiva-Perez v. Holder,

7

640 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2011).................................................................................19

8
M.R. v. Dreyfus, 9 697 F.3d 706 (9th Cir. 2012).................................................................................24

10 Melendres v. Arpaio, 11 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012).................................................................................24

12 Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, 13 Case No. 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD (S.D. Cal.) ................................... 4, 5, 13, 18

14 Norsworthy v. Beard,

15

87 F. Supp. 3d 1164 (N.D. Cal. 2015)...................................................................25

16 Patel v. Kent Sch. Dist.,
648 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2011).................................................................................19
17

18

Penilla v. City of Huntington Park, 115 F.3d 707 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) ............................................................16

19
Pimentel v. Dreyfus, 20 670 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2012)...............................................................................13

21 Porter v. Osborn, 22 546 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2008)...............................................................................17

23 Rodriguez v. Robbins, 24 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013)...............................................................................23

25 Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 26 577 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2009)...............................................................................13
27 United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17 (1960)................................................................................................24
28
iii
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 9 of 35 Page ID #:651
1 Wakefield v. Thompson, 2 177 F. 3d 1160 (9th Cir. 1999).................................................................. 14, 15, 16 3 Constitutional Provisions 4 Fifth Amendment.......................................................................................................14 5 Eighth Amendment ....................................................................................................15
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
iv
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 10 of 35 Page ID #:652

1

INTRODUCTION

2

Every parent who has lost sight of a child for even a short time knows that

3 family separation may cause severe stress to parent and child alike. They also know

4 that separation can become traumatic where it is forcible, sudden, or prolonged, and

5 where loved ones cannot contact one another while separated. Yet the government,

6 including Defendants, deliberately, needlessly, and unconstitutionally separated

7 thousands of children from their parents, refused to allow parents and children to

8 communicate, failed to provide information about the well-being of separated family

9 members, and kept separated family members in intolerable suspense by refusing to

10 explain when or even if families would ever be reunified.

11

Even if the government somehow failed fully to anticipate the trauma that its

12 actions would cause, the reactions of the separated family members immediately

13 informed the government that it was inflicting severe harm. Media reports and

14 personal accounts of the separations are replete with vivid descriptions of obviously

15 terrified children and desperate parents. Compl., Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 107, 130,

16 132-33. The experience of the putative class representatives in this case and their

17 families likewise shows the obvious nature of the harm inflicted by the government.

18 Plaintiff Ms. J.P.’s daughter fainted in terror when she realized she was about to be

19 separated from her mother, and after nearly two months of separation feels depressed

20 and cannot speak about her mother without crying. Id. ¶¶ 19, 21. Plaintiff Ms. O’s

21 and Ms. M’s daughters have suffered excessive worry, dysphoric mood, crying spells,

22 sleep and appetite disturbances, and fear of the unknown. Id. ¶ 145.

23

The government’s misconduct inflicted devastating psychological trauma on

24 both parents and children the government chose to tear apart. This trauma is being

25 multiplied each day that these families remain separated and its effects will not

26 evaporate once families are reunited; instead, it risks causing long-lasting damage to

27 the physical and mental health of parents and children alike, including anxiety,

28 depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). Plaintiffs, and the group of
1
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 11 of 35 Page ID #:653

1 parents whom they seek to represent in this action, need immediate mental health

2 screenings, and if appropriate, family mental health treatment designed to alleviate

3 such trauma to reduce the risk of such long-term consequences to both parent and

4 child.

5

The government has compounded the harm caused by its callous and

6 unconstitutional family separation program by failing to provide adequate mental

7 health care. This failure violates the government’s constitutional obligations in two

8 independent ways. First, the government must provide adequate health care, including

9 mental health care, to persons it detains. Second, having inflicted grievous harm on

10 thousands of people by its misconduct, which has already been found likely to violate

11 due process, the government is promptly required to remedy the damage it has caused

12 and prevent further damage by providing effective trauma-focused family therapy.

13 This motion seeks an order from the Court requiring the government to live up to its

14 constitutional obligations by providing effective treatment in an appropriate setting to

15 address the harm inflicted by its unconstitutional family separation policy.

16

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

17

A. Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class.

18

Plaintiffs in this case are three mothers who were separated from their minor

19 children under the government’s family separation policy.1 They seek to represent the

20 following nationwide class:

21

All adult parents nationwide who (1) were, are, or will be detained in

immigration custody by the Department of Homeland Security, (2) have

22

a minor child who has been, is, or will be separated from them by DHS

and detained in DHS or ORR [Office of Refugee Resettlement] custody

23

or foster care, absent a demonstration in a hearing that the parent is unfit

or presents a danger to the child.
24

B. The Government Implemented the Family Separation Policy.
25

On May 7, 2018, Defendant Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a “zero-

26

tolerance” policy of forced family separation to deter migrants from crossing the

27

28 1 Compl. ¶ 4. 2
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 12 of 35 Page ID #:654

1 southern border, announcing “If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will

2 prosecute you. It’s that simple. . . . If you are smuggling a child, then we will 3 prosecute you and that child will be separated from you. . . .”2 But the policy was not

4 limited to “smugglers.” Rather, ordinary immigrant families – many of whom are

5 seeking asylum – bore its brunt. In the first month of the policy, nearly 3,000 children 6 were separated from their parents while crossing the border.3 Some children were as 7 young as 18 months old, and more than 100 were younger than four years old.4

8

The government mischaracterized family separation as necessary to enforce the

9 law. But DHS expressly contemplated using family separation to deter migration

10 from Central America into the United States at least a year before the “zero tolerance” 11 policy was adopted.5 In March 2017, then-DHS Secretary Kelly confirmed that

12 family separation was under consideration as a means to deter migration across the

13 southern border. On May 11, 2018, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly confirmed

14 that the family separation policy was put in place to deter other migrants, specifically

15 Central Americans, from coming to the United States. In his words, “a big name of 16 the game is deterrence.”6

17

C. The Government’s Family Separation Policy Is Found Likely

Unconstitutional and Enjoined.

18

The government’s policy of separating families was met with widespread

19

2 Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the Immigration 20 Enforcement Actions of the Trump Administration, DOJ Justice News (May 7, 2018),
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers-remarks21 discussing-immigration-enforcement-actions.
3 Caitlin Dickerson, Trump Administration in Chaotic Scramble to Reunify Migrant 22 Families, N.Y. TIMES (July 5, 2018),
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/us/migrant-children-chaos-family23 separation.html.
4 Caitlin Dickerson, Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents 24 at U.S. Border, N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 20, 2018),
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/20/us/immigrant-children-separation-ice.html. 25 5 Daniella Diaz, Kelly: DHS is considering separating undocumented children from
their parents at the border, CNN (March 6, 2017), 26 https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/politics/john-kelly-separating-children-from-
parents-immigration-border/index.html. 27 6 Transcript: White House Chief of Staff John Kelly’s Interview with NPR, NPR (May

11, 2018), https://www.npr.org/2018/05/11/610116389/transcript-white-house-chief28 of-staff-john-kellys-interview-with-npr (last visited July 12, 2018).

3

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 13 of 35 Page ID #:655

1 condemnation and, unsurprisingly, litigation. One of the cases challenging the policy

2 was filed by a refugee known as “Ms. L.” in the Southern District of California, and is

3 pending before Judge Dana Sabraw. Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t,

4 Case No. 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD (S.D. Cal.) (“Ms. L. Case”). On June 26, 2018,

5 Judge Sabraw preliminarily certified a class of parents who enter the United States

6 who were, are or will be detained in immigration custody, and who have a minor child

7 who is or will be separated from them absent a determination that the parent is unfit or

8 endangers the child. Ms. L. Case, Dkt. No. 82 at 17. That same day, he entered a

9 preliminary injunction that included the following provisions, among others:

10 • Defendants . . . are preliminarily enjoined from detaining Class Members in

11

DHS custody without and apart from their minor children, absent a

12

determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child . . . .

13 • Defendants must reunify all Class Members with their minor children who are

14

under the age of five (5) within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order;

15

and . . . Defendants must reunify all Class Members with their minor children

16

age five (5) and over within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order.

17 • Defendants . . . are preliminarily enjoined from removing any Class Members

18

without their child . . . .

19 Ms. L. Case, Dkt. No. 83 at 22-24.

20

In support of this injunction, Judge Sabraw found that the Ms. L. Case plaintiffs

21 had submitted evidence demonstrating that they were likely to succeed in showing that

22 the government’s family separation practice violates due process and “shocks the

23 conscience.” Id. at 12. Judge Sabraw found that the government implemented this

24 practice “without any effective system or procedure for (1) tracking the children after

25 they were separated from their parents, (2) enabling communication between the

26 parents and their children after separation, and (3) reuniting the parents and children

27 after the parents are returned to immigration custody following completion of their

28 criminal sentence.” Id. at 14. Noting that the government routinely catalogs, stores,
4
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 14 of 35 Page ID #:656

1 and returns property seized from detainees upon their release, Judge Sabraw found

2 that the government’s failure to do the same with respect to children “cannot satisfy

3 the requirements of due process.” Id. at 14-15. Going further, Judge Sabraw found

4 that the government improperly placed the onus on parents to “search for their

5 children and make application for reunification;” he found that placing that burden on

6 parents “is backwards” because “the Government has an affirmative obligation to

7 track and promptly reunify these family members.” Id. at 16-17. In summary, Judge

8 Sabraw found that the government’s practice of separating families, as implemented,

9 “is likely to be so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the

10 contemporary conscience . . . interferes with rights implicit in the concept of ordered

11 liberty, . . . and is so brutal and offensive that it [does] not comport with traditional

12 ideas of fair play and decency.” Id. at 17 (citations and quotation marks omitted).

13

Judge Sabraw also found that the plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable

14 harm because they were likely deprived of their constitutional rights. Id. Judge

15 Sabraw further found that the balance of equities and public interest favored the

16 plaintiffs, because they had established a likelihood that the government’s policy was

17 unconstitutional, because the injunction would not interfere with the government’s

18 ability to enforce criminal and immigration laws, and to exercise discretion in matters

19 of release and detention consistent with law, and because the injunction would protect

20 the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children, which is

21 perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by the Supreme

22 Court. Id. at 20-21 (quoting Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000)).

23

D. The Government’s Family Separation Policy Inflicts Trauma and

Increased Risk of Lifelong Health Problems on Plaintiffs, Class

24

Members, and Their Children.

25

The government’s policy of separating families has caused harm to separated

26 families. The consensus among trauma experts is that tearing children from their

27 parents inflicts severe complex trauma on parents and children alike. As Senior Vice

28 Dean and Professor of Mental Health at University of Southern California Dr.
5
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 15 of 35 Page ID #:657

1 Marleen Wong explains, trauma is the body’s neurobiological stress response to

2 experiencing or witnessing an event involving life-threatening circumstances or threat

3 of serious injury that causes him or her to feel intense fear, helplessness, or horror.7

4 Complex trauma describes multiple, repeated, persistent, or prolonged exposure to

5 trauma such that the body’s stress response impacts the development and functioning

6 of the brain.8 Left untreated, such trauma causes immediate and long-lasting physical

7 and psychological harm, especially in children, whose developing bodies and brains

8 are ill equipped to cope with traumatic stress.9

9

Upon separation, children experience acute psychological distress. According

10 to Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Seneca Family of Agencies Kenneth

11 Berrick, founder of the Center for Family Finding and Youth Connectedness Kevin

12 Campbell, and Clinical Director of Seneca Family of Agencies Dr. John Sprinson, 13 such trauma may be particularly severe when the separation is sudden or forcible.10

14 During the moment of separation, a child can experience “severe neurobiological 15 stress causing the child to feel intense fear, helplessness, or horror.”11 “Immediate

16 reactions include obvious emotional suffering in the form of inconsolable crying, 17 desperate efforts to pursue or search for the parent and anger.”12 Instructor of

18 Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital Dr.

19 Jose Hidalgo notes these effects may be exacerbated by the additional trauma caused

20

21 7 Declaration of Marleen Wong, Dkt. No. 1-16 (“Wong Decl.”) ¶ 12. Each Declaration cited herein also was attached to the Complaint. Plaintiffs have
22 referenced the document number for those attachments to the Complaint as well as refiled the Declarations relied upon in this Motion per L.R. 7.5(b).
23 8 Id. 9 Declaration of Kenneth Berrick, et al., Dkt. No. 1-2 (“Berrick Decl.”) ¶ 15;
24 Declaration of Dylan Gee, Dkt. No. 1-13 (“Gee Decl.”) ¶¶ 5, 8, 9; Declaration of Jose Hidalgo, Dkt. No. 1-14 (“Hidalgo Decl.”) ¶ 13; Declaration of Bruce D. Perry, Dkt.
25 No. 1-15 (“Perry Decl.”) ¶ 21; Wong Decl. ¶ 24 (“Prolonged exposure to such stress has a debilitating effect on children even after the particular traumatic event is over.”).
26 10 Berrick Decl. ¶ 9 (“When the separation is sudden, unpredictable, or in a strange environment with no other familiar adult figures present then the response is likely to
27 be extreme.”); Hidalgo Decl. ¶¶ 9, 13; Wong Decl. ¶¶ 19, 23. 11 Wong Decl. ¶ 23.
28 12 Berrick Decl. ¶ 10. 6
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 16 of 35 Page ID #:658

1 when witnessing a parent’s reaction to separation.13

2

In the immediate aftermath of separation, children are likely to continue to

3 suffer from “extraordinary stress and pain.”14 They may show signs of regression,

4 reverting to crying and bed-wetting, or suffer the loss of other important 5 developmental milestones.15 Separated children are also likely to exhibit a variety of 6 negative behaviors from aggressiveness to withdrawal.16

7

The longer the parent and child are separated, the greater the harm the child will

8 experience.17 Decades of public health research demonstrate that the child-parent

9 bond is a crucial factor in healthy child development.18 The absence of interaction

10 between parent and child “acts as a ‘double whammy’ for healthy development: not

11 only does the brain not receive the positive stimulation it needs, but the body’s stress

12 response is activated, flooding the developing brain with potentially harmful stress 13 hormones.”19 Moreover, separation disrupts and severely damages the relationship

14

15 13 Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 9. 14 Declaration of Luis H. Zayas, Dkt. No. 1-17 (“Zavas Decl.”) ¶ 11; see also Gee
16 Decl. ¶ 5 (“The immediate psychological consequences of exposure to traumatic events involving caregivers include, but are not limited to, anxiety, distress, despair,
17 and terror for both the child and the parent.”); Perry Decl. ¶ 21; Wong Decl. ¶ 20. 15 Sady Doyle, Child Trauma Can’t Be Undone With an Executive Order, ELLE
18 MAGAZINE (June 21, 2018), https://www.elle.com/culture/careerpolitics/a21748590/child-trauma-cant-be-undone-with-an-executive-order/ (last
19 visited July 12, 2018); see also Berrick Decl. ¶ 10. 16 Berrick Decl. ¶ 10; Wong Decl. ¶¶ 18, 20.
20 17 Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 12; Jessica Henderson Daniel, PhD, Statement of APA President Regarding Executive Order Rescinding Immigrant Family Separation Policy, AM.
21 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASS’N (June 20, 2018), http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2018/06/family-separation-policy.aspx (last
22 visited July 12, 2018). 18 Karen Dineed Wagner, MD, PhD, President’s Statement on Separating Children
23 From Families, AMER. ACAD. OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY (May 11, 2018), https://www.aacap.org/App_Themes/AACAP/Docs/press/2018/Statement-on-
24 Separating-Children-and-Families.pdf (last visited July 12, 2012) (“Parental support is an essential and proven protective factor that substantially reduces risk for adverse
25 health and developmental outcomes for children.”); Separating Parents and Children at US Border is Inhumane and Sets the Stage for a Public Health Crisis, AM. PUBLIC
26 HEALTH ASS’N (June 15, 2018), https://www.apha.org/news-and-media/newsreleases/apha-news-releases/2018/parent-child-separation (last visited July 12, 2018).
27 19 Serve and Return, HARVARD UNIVERSITY CENTER ON THE DEVELOPING CHILD, https://developingchild.harvard.edu/science/key-concepts/serve-and-return/ (last
28 visited July 11, 2018); see also Berrick Decl. ¶ 14 7
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 17 of 35 Page ID #:659

1 between a child and their parent.20

2

Assistant Professor of Psychology at Yale University Dr. Dylan Gee writes,

3 “[f]or a child who has been separated from their parent at the border, their body and

4 brain are being shaped to anticipate danger and prepare for the worst.”21 As detailed

5 by substantial research conducted by Adjunct Professor in the Department of

6 Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Feinberg School of Medicine at

7 Northwestern University, Dr. Bruce Perry, stress hormones induce a state of

8 hypervigilance that alters a child’s cognition and emotion and causes chronic

9 problems with how that child responds to stress over a lifetime.22 Such alterations

10 increase the risk of “psychological and physical health problems,” including

11 “fundamental changes in brain function,” which may “manifest[] as a loss of capacity

12 to regulate intense emotions, to cope with future stress and to regulate fear reactions to

13 reminders of traumatic events,” and may cause “other effects such as depression,

14 substance abuse, problems forming relationships, and other behavioral problems.”23

15

Parents experience psychological trauma due to forcible separation from their

16 children.24 In adults, such trauma “is associated with elevated risk for psychiatric

17 20 Berrick Decl. ¶¶ 10, 11. 21 Dylan Gee, I study kids who were separated from their parents. The trauma could
18 change their brains forever, VOX (June 20, 2018), https://www.vox.com/firstperson/2018/6/20/17482698/tender-age-family-separation-border-immigrants-children
19 (last visited July 12, 2018). 22 Id.; see also Perry Decl. ¶¶ 4, 13 (“[T]rauma, neglect, and maltreatment during
20 childhood have profound effects on physical, social, emotional, behavioral, and cognitive development.”); ¶ 21 (“[T]raumatic stress alters the developing brain. It can
21 increase risk for a host of emotional and behavioral problems, including antisocial behavior, attention problems, acting out, aggressive or violent behaviors, lack of trust,
22 and other counterproductive coping mechanisms.”); Berrick Decl. ¶¶ 12, 16; Gee Decl. ¶¶ 5, 8.
23 23 Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 13; Gee, supra n.21 (“A child whose brain is constantly scanning the environment for danger will undoubtedly have difficulty paying attention in class
24 or interacting with peers on the playground. . . . In the long run, the cascade of consequences places individuals who have experienced early trauma at risk for
25 academic or occupational failure, substance abuse, and health problems such as heart disease and diabetes.”); Doyle, supra n. 15 (“‘Long-term, these individuals who have
26 traumatic reactions are at heightened risk of virtually every medical problem,’ says Dr. Judith Cohen, Medical Director of the Center for Traumatic Stress. ‘Neurologic to
27 cardiac to pulmonary to reproductive problems . . . just go down the body and virtually every part is affected.’”).
28 24 Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 14; Gee Decl. ¶ 6. 8
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 18 of 35 Page ID #:660

1 disorders including [PTSD] and can induce physiological changes, including but not

2 limited to dysregulated stress responding, amygdala hyperactivity, and deficits in

3 prefrontal cortex control of the amygdala, which are associated with difficulty 4 regulating fear.”25 The trauma may also manifest in physical and mental symptoms of 5 anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, loss of appetite, and loss of sleep.26

6

PTSD can escalate into more severe mental health and social problems,

7 including (i) intrusive recollections of the traumatic event, (ii) dissociative states

8 lasting several days in which persons feel detached from their bodies or the world

9 around them, (iii) auditory pseudo-hallucinations and paranoid ideation, (iv) an

10 increased likelihood of engaging in aggressive, reckless, or self-destructive behavior, 11 and (v) an increased risk of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.27 PTSD has

12 functional consequences, including high levels of social, occupational, and physical

13 disability, high levels of medical utilization, and impaired functioning across social, 14 interpersonal, educational, physical, health, and occupational domains.28

15

Plaintiffs and class members here have already suffered such trauma and

16 consequent injury. Plaintiff Ms. P. “is displaying symptoms of [PTSD] . . . as a result

17 of her separation from her daughter” and is also “displaying symptoms of both 18 depression and anxiety.”29 If left untreated, these symptoms “could escalate into a 19 diagnosis of PTSD, Dissociative Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder.”30 There

20 have also been credible reports that a parent forcibly separated from his child under 21 the zero-tolerance policy was driven to suicide.31 According to press reports, Marco

22
25 Gee Decl. ¶ 6 (citations omitted). 23 26 Berrick Decl. ¶ 19.
27 Declaration of Alejandra Acuna, Dkt. No. 1-4 (“Acuna Decl.”) ¶ 11. 24 28 Id.
29 Acuna Decl. ¶¶ 7-8. 25 30 Id. ¶ 11.
31 See Nick Miroff, A Family Was Separated At the Border, and This Distraught 26 Father Took His Own Life, WASH. POST (June 9, 2018),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/a-family-was-separated-at27 the-border-and-this-distraught-father-took-his-own-life/2018/06/08/24e40b70-6b5d-
11e8-9e38-24e693b38637_story.html?utm_term=.f3c12fb7157d (last visited July 12, 28 2018).
9
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 19 of 35 Page ID #:661

1 Antonio Muñoz and his family were taken into custody and sought asylum. His child

2 was forcibly taken from his arms, and then Mr. Muñoz was placed in a cell. After he

3 struggled to break free of his cage, the Border Patrol transported him to a local jail and

4 placed him in a padded cell. The next morning, he was found dead apparently as a

5 suicide.

6

E. Plaintiffs, Class Members, and Their Children Require Trauma-

Informed Family Mental Health Screenings and Services to Recover

7

From the Trauma Inflicted by the Government.

8

If the separated families are to recover from the trauma caused by the

9 government’s separation, they require mental health screening and services that meet

10 several criteria. Most importantly, the treatment must be evidence-based and trauma-

11 informed, meaning that it must be designed especially to alleviate the psychological 12 and neurobiological consequences of forcible separation.32 Such treatments exist and 13 have been shown to be effective across cultural backgrounds.33 Some have been 14 successfully adapted for immigrant populations.34 These mental-health services often 15 take the form of trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy.35

16

For these services to be effective, several conditions must be met. First, the

17 families must be reunified quickly. The longer the separation, the more pervasive 18 and intense the trauma becomes.36 “The effects of trauma on separated children are 19 [already] significant, long-lasting, and difficult to mitigate.”37 Prolonging the

20 separation increases the trauma and thus requires more intense mental-health services.

21

Second, all reunited parents and children must be immediately screened “to

22 identify those whose anxiety is toxic and detrimental to themselves and their families,

23 as well as those whose anxiety has grown into trauma with its accompanying

24

25
32 See, e.g., Perry Decl. ¶ 22; Hidalgo Decl. ¶¶ 17-20. 26 33 See Gee Decl. ¶ 10.
34 Id. 27 35 Id.
36 See id.; Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 12. 28 37 Id. ¶ 13.
10
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 20 of 35 Page ID #:662

1 symptoms,”38 so that treatment plans can be developed for them. This screening

2 process is essential because “[t]he longer [appropriate] interventions are delayed, the

3 greater the negative cumulative effect the acute neurophysiological, neuroendocrine,

4 and neuropsychological response will have on these children and their parents.”39 For

5 these screenings to be effective given the special trauma inflicted upon the families,

6 they must be conducted according to trauma-informed procedures and by

7 appropriately trained trauma-informed professionals.40 Such screenings must also be

8 repeated following family reunification to determine whether the process of

9 reunification revealed trauma not previously evident.

10

Third, mental-health services must be offered to those requiring them in an

11 environment that does not continue or prolong the trauma. Treatment for trauma

12 requires the restoration of a sense of safety and it is much easier to achieve this goal 13 when the person receiving the service is in an environment of actual safety.41 When

14 an individual must remain vigilant for threats and is preoccupied with uncertain and

15 unknown possible outcomes they are less likely to, or are much slower to, develop a 16 trusting alliance and an emotionally resonant connection with a therapist.42 The

17 detention centers in which Plaintiffs, class members, and their children were or are

18 held are not suitable locations to provide such therapy: “[f]or a child and an adult to

19 remain in a setting he/she associates with the traumatic separation (even after

20 reunification with the mother or father) . . . will cause additional and profound

21 anticipation of further traumatic events[.] The mother and father who also experienced

22 traumatic separation from their child would need to be placed in a safe family setting

23 with their child(ren) to avoid an increase in such trauma symptoms as persistent 24 negative thoughts and expectations about oneself, one’s world, and others.”43

25 38 Declaration of Marti T. Loring, Dkt. No. 1-1 (“Loring Decl.”) ¶ 11; Hidalgo Decl. ¶¶ 17-20.
26 39 Perry Decl. ¶ 22. 40 See Gee Decl. ¶ 18.
27 41 Berrick Decl. ¶ 27. 42 Id.
28 43 Loring Decl. ¶ 10. 11
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 21 of 35 Page ID #:663

1

Fourth, counseling services must be provided to the family as a whole,

2 meaning that “the adult caregivers must be a part of the trauma intervention provided 3 to these children.”44 This approach is necessary not only to assist the child in

4 “reestablishing [his or her] ability to effectively regulate himself [or herself],” but also

5 “to treat [the parent’s] own primary trauma and to effectively support their 6 traumatized child.”45 Indeed, “[d]ecades of research demonstrates that the most

7 significant protective factor for vulnerable children facing adversity are bonds to those 8 that love them.”46

9

Fifth, these services must “be delivered in a culturally competent manner and

10 linguistically sensitive manner and by mental health clinicians trained in 11 evidence-based trauma-informed interventions.”47 The trauma caused by family

12 separation is acute, and the migrant families are diverse. For the trauma to be

13 appropriately mitigated, the mental-health services must be tailored to address the

14 specific individuals harmed and their symptoms.

15

Sixth, mental-health services must be provided for a sufficient period of time

16 in order to effectively mitigate the harm the government has caused, including after

17 the families’ ultimate release from detention.

18

F. Mental Health Care Services Provided by the Government Are Not

Effective Or Sufficient.
19
The mental health services actually offered by the government in detention

20
facilities are sporadic to nonexistent. Family detention centers operated by the Office

21

of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”) do not routinely provide mental health services at

22
all.48 As to centers where minors reside, ORR provides general case management

23
personnel and mental health follow-up services, but does not provide trauma-informed

24
mental health care services for minors at such centers.49 In fact, some “clinicians” at

25

44 Perry Decl. ¶ 23. 26 45 Id. ¶¶ 23-24; see also Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 25.
46 Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 31. 27 47 Gee Decl. ¶ 18 (emphasis added).
48 Declaration of Alfonso Mercado, Dkt. No. 1-20 (“Mercado Decl.”) ¶ 4. 28 49 Id.

12

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 22 of 35 Page ID #:664

1 such centers are not licensed mental health professionals.50 None of the Plaintiffs

2 have been offered any mental health care screenings or services by the government.

3

Facilities with a law-enforcement purpose do not provide the conditions needed

4 for trauma-informed therapy to be effective. Far from providing an environment that

5 makes patients feel safe and reduces their toxic stress levels, conditions in law-

6 enforcement detention facilities “are highly stressful and do not provide children with

7 sufficient opportunities for positive, social-emotional supports.”51 Just as importantly,

8 because Plaintiffs, class members, and their children experienced trauma while in

9 detention at the hands of those in control of the detention environment, “children and

10 parents would not be likely to feel safe in such facilities and are likely to be re-

11 traumatized by the conditions.”52

12

LEGAL STANDARD

13

Plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary injunctive relief if they show: (1) likely

14 success on the merits; (2) likely irreparable harm absent preliminary relief; (3) the

15 balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public’s interest.

16 Pimentel v. Dreyfus, 670 F.3d 1096, 1105–06 (9th Cir. 2012); Sierra Forest Legacy v.

17 Rey, 577 F.3d 1015, 1021-23 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiffs seeking a mandatory

18 injunction must show that the law and facts clearly favor their position. See Garcia v.

19 Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc). Under the Ninth Circuit’s

20 “sliding scale” approach, a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker

21 showing of another, as long as plaintiffs “establish that irreparable harm is likely.” All.

22 for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). “While

23 Plaintiffs carry the burden of demonstrating likelihood of success, they are not

24 required to prove their case in full at the preliminary injunction stage but only such

25 portions that enable them to obtain the injunctive relief they seek.” Ms. L. Case, Dkt.

26 No. 83 at 11, (citing Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981)).

27 50 Id. 51 Hidalgo Decl. ¶ 24.
28 52 Id. 13
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 23 of 35 Page ID #:665

1

ARGUMENT

2 I.
3

PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS. Plaintiffs and the Class are likely to prevail on their substantive due process

4 claim under the Fifth Amendment and obtain an order directing the government to

5 provide them with effective mental health screening and treatment on two separate

6 and independent grounds. First, the government is required to provide effective

7 mental health care services to all persons it detains, both during detention and for a

8 reasonable period thereafter. See Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F. 3d 1160, 1164-65

9 (9th Cir. 1999). To date, it has provided no such services to Plaintiffs and class

10 members, in violation of its clearly established constitutional obligations.

11

Second, the government’s separation of Plaintiffs and class members from their

12 children, which has already been found likely to violate due process and shock the

13 conscience, directly and foreseeably injured Plaintiffs and class members, and the

14 government is obligated to remedy the injuries and risk of future injuries that its

15 violations caused. See Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055, 1062 (9th Cir.

16 2006) (“this circuit has held state officials liable . . . for their roles in creating or

17 exposing individuals to danger they otherwise would not have faced.”)

18

A. The Government’s Detention of Class Members Created a Special

Relationship Requiring It to Provide Effective Mental Health

19

Treatment During and Following Detention.

20

Detained persons have a due process right requiring the government to provide

21 adequate medical care. Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 1000 (9th Cir. 2012); see

22 also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t

23 of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199–200 (1989)). The reason for this right is clear: while

24 the government restricts a person’s ability to provide for his or her own medical care,

25 it must bear the responsibility of providing it. See Wakefield, 177 F.3d at 1164.

26

The government held or is holding Plaintiffs and class members in detention.

27 Accordingly, it is required to provide adequate medical care including mental health

28 services. DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 199–200; see also, e.g., Doe v. Kelly, 878 F.3d 710,
14
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 24 of 35 Page ID #:666

1 722–23 (9th Cir. 2017) (“There is no question that detainees are entitled to ‘adequate

2 medical care’” as a component of their due process rights); Gibson v. Cty. of Washoe,

3 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002), overruled on other grounds by Castro v. Cty. of

4 Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (“With regard to medical needs,

5 the due process clause imposes, at a minimum, the same duty the Eighth Amendment

6 imposes: ‘persons in custody ha[ve] the established right to not have officials remain

7 deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs.’ This duty to provide medical

8 care encompasses detainees’ psychiatric needs.”) (citation omitted). “In order to

9 comply with their duty not to engage in acts evidencing deliberate indifference to

10 inmates’ medical and psychiatric needs, jails must provide medical staff who are

11 ‘competent to deal with prisoners’ problems.’” Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1187 (quoting

12 Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982)).

13

Here, Plaintiffs and class members have suffered serious psychological trauma

14 as a result of the government’s conduct, and as such they need immediate

15 psychological screening and appropriate mental health care by appropriately-trained

16 therapists to prevent further trauma and injury. See supra at 5-11. To be effective,

17 such care must be provided to reunited families in an environment that does not

18 continue or prolong the trauma. See supra at 11-12. Especially while class members

19 remain in the government’s custody, effective care must be provided by the

20 government.

21

Moreover, the government’s obligation to continue to provide effective, trauma-

22 focused mental health care to Plaintiffs and class members remains in force for a

23 period following their release. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that as “a matter of

24 common sense,” a prisoner’s ability to secure medication is “not necessarily restored

25 the instant he walks through the prison gates and into the civilian world.” Wakefield,

26 177 F.3d at 1164. Instead, the court found that “it may take a number of days, or

27 possibly even weeks, for a recently released prisoner to find a doctor, schedule an

28 examination, obtain a diagnosis, and have a prescription filled.” Accordingly, the
15
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 25 of 35 Page ID #:667

1 Ninth Circuit held that to comply with its due process obligations, a government

2 releasing a prisoner “who is receiving and continues to require medication” must

3 provide the prisoner “with a supply sufficient to ensure that he has that medication

4 available during the period of time reasonably necessary to permit him to consult a

5 doctor and obtain a new supply.” Id.; see also Cook v. California, No. 1:16-CV-

6 00674-LJO-SAB, 2016 WL 4161114, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016) (a three-month

7 period following confinement could plausibly fall within the transitional period

8 outlined in Wakefield).

9

Similarly here, the government’s responsibility to provide effective

10 psychological care extends beyond the period of confinement. Many Plaintiffs and

11 class members will be unable to immediately obtain effective mental health care upon

12 release from detention. As many Plaintiffs and class members have never lived in the

13 United States, they are unlikely to know how to navigate the process of identifying an

14 appropriate mental health care provider. These difficulties are compounded by the

15 fact that certain Plaintiffs and many class members do not speak English or Spanish,

16 but instead speak languages that are not widely spoken in the United States. Thus, the

17 length of time the government’s obligation to provide effective mental health care will

18 continue after the release of Plaintiffs and class members in this case is not yet known,

19 but what is clear is that Plaintiffs have a right to trauma-appropriate mental health care

20 for a reasonable period after their confinement has ended.

21

B. The Government Must Provide Effective Mental Health Care to

Plaintiffs and Class Members to Remedy the Injury That It Caused.

22

The government is responsible for remedying the injuries that it caused to

23

Plaintiffs and class members under the “state-created danger” doctrine. That doctrine

24

applies where “the state action ‘affirmatively place[s] the plaintiff in a position of

25

danger,’ that is, where state action creates or exposes an individual to a danger which

26

he or she would not have otherwise faced.” Kennedy, 439 F.3d at 1061 (quoting

27

28
16
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 26 of 35 Page ID #:668

1 DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 197). 53 The Ninth Circuit has adopted a three-part test to

2 determine whether this doctrine applies: “(1) whether any affirmative actions of the

3 official placed the individual in danger he otherwise would not have faced; (2)

4 whether the danger was known or obvious; (3) whether the officer acted with

5 deliberate indifference to that danger.” Henry A., 678 F.3d at 1002. In this case,

6 Plaintiffs will succeed in demonstrating that each of these prongs is met.

7

The Government Put Plaintiffs and Class Members in Danger. The

8 government’s actions satisfy the first prong of the Henry A. test because it

9 affirmatively decided to separate Plaintiffs and class members from their children,

10 directly inflicting trauma and injury on Plaintiffs and class members and exposing

11 them to additional risk of future serious health problems that they would not face but

12 for the government’s actions, including PTSD, anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation,

13 loss of appetite, and loss of sleep. See supra at 5-10.

14

Neither Plaintiffs, class members, nor their children would have experienced

15 this trauma, or the consequential risk of lifelong physical and mental illness, but for

16 the government’s decision to separate Plaintiffs and class members from their

17 children. The government gratuitously exacerbated that injury by effecting that

18 separation suddenly, using force, and without providing information about loved ones’

19 well-being or whereabouts, and with little or no communication between separated

20 family members. These deliberate actions by the government have injured Plaintiffs

21 and class members, and the government is responsible for remedying that injury.

22

Notably, the government’s actions that injured Plaintiffs and class members

23 53 The state-created danger doctrine is not limited to circumstances in which the government bears sole responsibility for a particular risk – it applies in instances
24 where a government official exposes an individual to additional risk. Penilla v. City of Huntington Park, 115 F.3d 707 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (doctrine applicable
25 against police officers who, after finding a man in need of medical care, cancelled a request for paramedics and locked him inside his house); see also Estate of Gonzales
26 v. Hickman, No. ED CV 05-00660 MMM (RCx), 2006 WL 4959780, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2006) (“The name of the doctrine . . . is something of a misnomer.
27 Liability is not restricted to situations where the state actors create a danger; rather state actors who act affirmatively to increase an existing risk of danger . . . .”)
28 (citations omitted). 17
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 27 of 35 Page ID #:669

1 have already been found likely to violate substantive due process. The Ninth Circuit

2 has held that executive action violates substantive due process when it “shocks the

3 conscience.” Porter v. Osborn, 546 F.3d 1131, 1137 (9th Cir. 2008); see generally

4 Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 846–47 (1998) (collecting cases). That

5 standard is “not subject to a rigid list of established elements.” Ms. L. Case, Dkt. No.

6 83 at 12 (citing Lewis, 523 U.S. at 850). Instead, “an investigation into substantive

7 due process involves an appraisal of the circumstances rather than a formalistic

8 examination of fixed elements.” Id. (citation omitted).

9

Here, it is abundantly clear that the government’s gratuitous and unnecessary

10 separation of children from their parents meets this standard. As Judge Sabraw

11 recently found in the Ms. L. Case, the totality of the government’s conduct is likely to

12 be found to “shock[] the conscience,” including the government’s separation of

13 children from their parents without an individualized determination that the parents

14 were unfit or presented a danger to their children (Ms. L. Case, Dkt. No. 83 at 12-13,

15 17); its separation of parents who presented themselves at a point of entry and thus

16 committed no crime from their children (id. at 13); and its implementation of the

17 family separation policy “without any effective system or procedure for (1) tracking

18 the children after they were separated from their parents, (2) enabling communication

19 between the parents and their children after separation, and (3) reuniting the parents

20 and children after the parents are returned to immigration custody following

21 completion of their criminal sentence” (id. at 14).

22

Here, the government’s conduct vis-à-vis Plaintiffs and class members is the

23 same conduct found likely by Judge Sabraw to “shock the conscience” and thus

24 violate due process. This Court should accordingly find that Plaintiffs and class

25 members are likely to prevail in showing that the government violated their

26 substantive due process rights and that that violation injured them.

27

The Government Knew That Separating Children From Parents Would

28 Cause Injury. As to the second prong of the Henry A. test, the danger that forced
18
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 28 of 35 Page ID #:670

1 separation of children from their parents would cause psychological and physical

2 harm was known and obvious to Defendants. As set forth in the prior section, the

3 danger of family separation is well-understood in the medical and psychological

4 communities. In fact, in a recent report, the government stated that “[s]tudies have

5 found that both private and government-run residential institutions for children, or

6 places such as orphanages and psychiatric wards that do not offer a family-based

7 setting, cannot replicate the emotional companionship and attention found in family

8 environments that are prerequisites to healthy cognitive development.”54

9

Courts themselves have frequently recognized that separating children from

10 their parents is harmful to both. See, e.g., Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 969-

11 70 (9th Cir. 2011) (“separation from family members” identified as a factor in

12 irreparable harm analysis); Halet v. Wend Inv. Co., 672 F.2d 1305, 1311 (9th Cir.

13 1982) (“Family life, in particular the right of family members to live together, is part

14 of the fundamental right of privacy” and noting that “[a] fundamental right is even

15 more clearly involved” when it involves the right of children to live with their

16 parents.”).

17

The facts of this case establish that Defendants were aware of the harm that

18 would be caused to Plaintiffs, class members, and their children by ripping apart

19 families and failing to reunify them. Ms. P.’s daughter fainted in terror when she

20 realized she was about to be separated from her mother. Compl. ¶ 19. After nearly

21 two months of separation from her mother, she feels depressed, hopeless, confused,

22 and cannot speak about her mother or the experience of separation without crying,

23 something witnessed by a counselor in her facility. Id. ¶ 21. Plaintiff Ms. O’s and Ms.

24 M’s daughters have suffered excessive worry, dysphoric mood, crying spells, sleep

25 and appetite disturbances, and fear of the unknown. Id. ¶ 145.

26

The Government Inflicted Injury With Deliberate Indifference. To satisfy

27 54 Child Institutionalization and Human Trafficking, U.S. DEP’T OF STATE (June 28, 2018), https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/283784.pdf (last visited July 12,
28 2018) 19
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 29 of 35 Page ID #:671

1 the third Henry A. factor, “[t]he state actor must ‘recognize[] [an] unreasonable risk

2 and actually intend[] to expose the plaintiff to such risks without regard to the

3 consequences to the plaintiff.’” Patel v. Kent Sch. Dist., 648 F.3d 965, 974 (9th Cir.

4 2011). In evaluating whether a government official acted with deliberate indifference

5 in the context of a due process claim, the Ninth Circuit recently held that “the proper

6 standard of review for such claims is one of objective indifference, not subjective

7 indifference.” Gordon v. Cty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1120–24 (9th Cir. 2018).

8 That is, a plaintiff must show that the government official took a harmful action

9 notwithstanding that “a reasonable official in the circumstances would have

10 appreciated the high degree of risk involved—making the consequences of the

11 defendant’s conduct obvious.” Id. at 1125.

12

Here, reasonable officials in the Defendants’ positions would have appreciated

13 the high risk that ripping the Plaintiffs and class members from their small children

14 would inflict psychological trauma and consequent harm. As set forth above, experts,

15 courts, and the government all have recognized that separating children from their

16 parents inflicts trauma and imposes a high degree of risk that the separated family

17 members will suffer psychological and physiological consequences for years to come.

18 See supra at 5-10. Even if reasonable officials could somehow fail to anticipate what

19 every human being would intuit, viz., that tearing families apart would impose a high

20 risk of trauma, the heart-rending reactions of separated families (including at least one

21 suicide) would put those officials on immediate notice of the harm they were

22 inflicting. In addition, there are a number of measures available that the government

23 could have taken to avoid the harm caused here. For example, the government could

24 have kept families together by using community-based case management, such as the

25 arbitrarily terminated Family Case Management Program. Compl. ¶¶ 7, 76-78.

26 Particularly in light of these alternatives, a reasonable government official would have

27 appreciated that tearing families apart imposed a high risk of harm. Due Process

28 requires the government to remedy its wanton violation.
20
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 30 of 35 Page ID #:672

1

C. The Government Has Failed To Provide Adequate Mental Health

Screenings and Treatment.

2
The government has completely failed to provide effective, trauma-focused

3
mental health care screenings and treatment to Plaintiffs and class members, which is

4
a further violation of their constitutional rights.

5
The government has not staffed the detention facilities with therapists trained in

6 recovery from traumatic experiences,55 and has not offered any family-based, trauma-

7
informed treatment. In fact, some “clinicians” who purportedly provide mental health

8 services at centers where minors reside are not licensed mental health professionals.56

9
Even as to children separated from their parents, who are at the greatest risk of

10
suffering lifelong mental and physical harm as a result of the stress inflicted on them,

11
the government does not provide specialized trauma-informed mental health care

12
services, and does not routinely provide any mental health services at family detention

13 centers operated by the Office of Refugee Resettlement.57 The government has thus

14
fallen far short of the constitutional standard of providing “medical staff who are

15
competent to deal with prisoners’ problems.” Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1187. The

16
government has also wholly abdicated its constitutional responsibilities to Plaintiffs

17
and class members who have been released from detention by providing absolutely no

18
mental health care screenings or services to any class members following their release.

19
The government’s failure to provide these mental health services constitutes a second

20
Constitutional violation.

21

II. PLAINTIFFS WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM IF THE

22

INJUNCTION IS NOT GRANTED.

23

The government needlessly and gratuitously traumatized vulnerable families

24 seeking asylum by separating them in violation of their constitutional rights. The

25 government compounded that trauma and constitutional violation by failing to provide

26 Plaintiffs and class members the trauma-focused therapy that is their constitutional

27 55 Mercado Decl. ¶ 4. 56 Id.
28 57 Id. 21
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 31 of 35 Page ID #:673

1 due as detainees and as persons injured by the government’s violations of their rights.

2 The government’s failure to provide effective therapy itself violates the constitutional

3 rights of Plaintiffs and class members, and thus constitutes irreparable harm. Worse,

4 however, the government’s failure to provide such treatment risks subjecting Plaintiffs

5 and class members to a lifetime of psychological and physical problems, intangible

6 injuries that cannot be remedied by monetary damages alone.

7

“It is well established that the deprivation of constitutional rights

8 unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976,

9 994 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir.

10 2012)). As set forth above at 14-20, the government’s ongoing failure to provide

11 effective, trauma-focused therapy to Plaintiffs and class members violates its

12 constitutional obligations to them, both as persons who were or are detained by the

13 government, and as persons injured by the government’s unconstitutional policy of

14 separating parents from their children. This violation alone constitutes irreparable

15 injury.

16

Without the injunctive relief sought by this motion, Plaintiffs and class

17 members also are likely to suffer lifelong intangible injuries, which also constitute

18 irreparable harm. In Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer, the Ninth Circuit

19 explained that “[i]rreparable harm is traditionally defined as harm for which there is

20 no adequate legal remedy, such as an award of damages.” 757 F.3d 1053, 1068 (9th

21 Cir. 2014). In that case, which challenged Arizona’s policy of refusing to issue

22 driver’s licenses to beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

23 program, the Ninth Circuit held that Arizona’s policy caused the plaintiffs to suffer

24 irreparable harm because the plaintiffs’ inability to obtain driver’s licenses “limit[ed]

25 their professional opportunities” and “diminished their opportunity to pursue their

26 chosen professions.” Id. It found that “[t]he irreparable nature of Plaintiffs’ injury is

27 heightened by Plaintiffs’ young age and fragile socioeconomic position. Setbacks

28 early in their careers are likely to haunt Plaintiffs for the rest of their lives.” Id. It
22
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 32 of 35 Page ID #:674

1 noted that “[n]o award of damages can compensate Plaintiffs[] for the myriad personal

2 and professional harms caused by their inability to obtain driver’s licenses. Thus,

3 Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction.” Id.

4

Here, the harm caused by the government’s failure to provide effective mental

5 health care and screenings to Plaintiffs and class members are more profound than the

6 harm in Arizona Dream Act Coalition. Absent such therapy, Plaintiffs and class

7 members risk a lifetime of mental health conditions including PTSD, depression, and

8 anxiety, which have consequences including an increased risk of suicide and

9 professional and social difficulties. See supra at 5-10. All of these conditions, if

10 realized, will diminish Plaintiffs’ and class members’ professional opportunities and

11 life prospects in myriad ways. Accordingly, the government’s failure to provide the

12 constitutionally-required screenings and treatment constitutes irreparable harm under

13 the standard set forth in Arizona Dream Act Coalition. This is precisely the type of

14 harm that warrants the injunctive relief requested here. See Hernandez, 872 F.3d at

15 999 (noting that injunction is appropriate where maintenance of “the status quo . . . is

16 exactly what will inflict the irreparable injury”) (citation omitted).

17 III. THE BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS FAVORS THE INJUNCTION.

18

The government needlessly traumatized Plaintiffs by forcibly separating them

19 from their children and continuing to keep them apart. Beginning to appropriately

20 treat that trauma is in the public interest and outweighs any purported injury the

21 government may assert. As explained above (at 14-20), the Due Process Clause

22 requires that Plaintiffs be provided with trauma-focused mental health services. These

23 mental health services are plainly in the interests of Plaintiffs and class members, as

24 they are the sole means by which the harm inflicted by the government might be

25 mitigated.

26

On the other hand, ordering the government to provide treatment does no harm

27 because it simply requires the government to live up to its constitutional and legal

28 obligations. See Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127, 1145 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing
23
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 33 of 35 Page ID #:675

1 Zepeda v. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983) (“[T]he INS cannot reasonably

2 assert that it is harmed in any legally cognizable sense by being enjoined from

3 constitutional violations.”)); Haskins v. Stanton, 794 F.2d 1273, 1277 (7th Cir. 1986)

4 (where an injunction seeks to require defendants to comply with existing law, the

5 injunction imposes no burden but “merely seeks to prevent the defendants from 6 shirking their responsibilities”).58 The balance of hardships favors the injunction.

7 IV. THE PUBLIC INTEREST FAVORS THE INJUNCTION.

8

The requested injunction serves the interest of the general public by ensuring

9 that the government complies with its constitutional obligations. This alone is

10 sufficient to justify entry of the requested injunction. See Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 996

11 (“public interest concerns are implicated when a constitutional right has been violated,

12 because all citizens have a stake in upholding the Constitution.”). Melendres, 695 F.3d

13 at 1002 (“[I]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s

14 constitutional rights.” (internal quotation omitted)); see also United States v. Raines,

15 362 U.S. 17, 27 (1960) (“[T]here is the highest public interest in the due observance of

16 all the constitutional guarantees.”).

17

The injunction also serves the public interest by reducing “the indirect hardship

18 to . . . friends and family members” of the Plaintiffs and class members. Hernandez,

19 872 F.3d at 996. Without effective, trauma-focused screening and treatment, the

20 psychological and physical health conditions that Plaintiffs and class members may

21 suffer will place heavy burdens on their friends and family members, both as a result

22 of the care to Plaintiffs and class members that friends and family members may be

23 required to provide directly or pay for, and as a result of the diminution in the ability

24 of Plaintiffs and class members to act as breadwinners and caretakers.

25
58 In the event the government claims that providing appropriate mental health care 26 creates a financial burden, the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly rejected such arguments.
See, e.g., Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 996 (“Faced with such a conflict between financial 27 concerns and preventable human suffering, we have little difficulty concluding that
the balance of hardships tips decidedly in plaintiffs’ favor.” (internal quotation marks 28 omitted)); see also M.R. v. Dreyfus, 697 F.3d 706, 737-38 (9th Cir. 2012).
24
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 34 of 35 Page ID #:676

1

Finally, allowing the suffering of Plaintiffs and class members to continue

2 untreated is contrary to the public interest. See Norsworthy v. Beard, 87 F. Supp. 3d

3 1164, 1194 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“[t]here is no public interest in [Plaintiff]’s continued

4 suffering during the pendency of this litigation”). The public interest favors the

5 injunctive relief requested in this motion.

6

CONCLUSION

7

Plaintiffs and class members are entitled to mental health care screenings and

8 effective family treatment to address and remediate the effects of the trauma that the

9 government wantonly and knowingly inflicted on them under its unconstitutional

10 policy of separating parents from their children. The government has wholly failed to

11 provide such treatment, violating its constitutional obligations to care for persons it

12 detains and on whom it has inflicted injury. The balance of harms and public interest

13 favor requiring the government to live up to its obligations. The Court should enter an

14 injunction requiring the government to provide meaningful access to:

15 • mental health screening for all Plaintiffs and class members to identify those

who require further treatment as a result of the trauma inflicted on them, which

16

must be performed by persons trained to recognize the signs and symptoms of

such trauma, within fourteen (14) days of the entry of the Court’s injunction;

17

• subsequent mental health screening for all Plaintiffs and class members to

18

identify those who require further treatment as a result of the trauma inflicted

on them, which must be performed by persons trained to recognize the signs

19

and symptoms of such trauma, within fourteen (14) days of the reunification of

the Plaintiff or class member with his/her child(ren) if such reunification takes

20

place after the screening ordered as referenced above;

21 • mental health care treatment, for those Plaintiffs and class members whose

screenings indicate that such treatment is needed, which must:
22

o be provided in a safe environment that will not reinforce trauma;
23

o be provided on a family basis to all members of the reunified family

24

together;

25

o be provided in a culturally competent manner by mental health clinicians

trained in evidence-based trauma-informed interventions; and
26

o be provided for a period of time sufficient to treat the trauma inflicted;

27

and

28 • such other relief as is permitted by law. 25
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 45 Filed 07/18/18 Page 35 of 35 Page ID #:677

1

2 Dated: July 18, 2018

Respectfully Submitted,

3 MARK ROSENBAUM (SBN 59940) mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org

4 Judy London (SBN 149431)

5

jlondon@publiccounsel.org Talia Inlender (SBN 253796)

6 tinlender@publiccounsel.org

Alisa Hartz (SBN 285141) 7 ahartz@publiccounsel.org

8 Lucero Chavez (SBN 273531) lchavez@publiccounsel.org

9 Elizabeth Hadaway (SBN 308800)

10

ehadaway@publiccounsel.org Malhar Shah (SBN 318588)

11 mshah@publiccounsel.org

Deena Tumeh (SBN 318573) 12 dtumeh@publiccounsel.org

13

PUBLIC COUNSEL 610 S. Ardmore Avenue

14

Los Angeles, CA 90005 Telephone: +1 213 385-2977

15 Facsimile: +1 213 385-9089

16 Mark E. Haddad (SBN 205945) markhadd@usc.edu
17 Part-time Lecturer in Law, USC Gould School of Law**
18 University of Southern California 699 Exposition Blvd.
19 Los Angeles, CA 90089 Telephone: +1 213 675-5957
20
Luis Cortes Romero (SBN 310852) 21 lcores@ia-lc.com
Alma L. David (SBN 257676) 22 adavid@ia-lc.com
Immigrant Advocacy & Litigation 23 Center, PLLC
19309 68th Ave South R-102 24 Kent, WA 98032
Telephone: +1 253 872-4730 25 Facsimile: +1 253 237-1591

/s/ Amy P. Lally Amy P. Lally (SBN 198555) alally@sidley.com Ellyce R. Cooper (SBN 204453) ecooper@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: +1 310 595-9662 Facsimile: +1 310 595-9501
Carter G. Phillips* cphillips@sidley.com Jennifer J. Clark* jennifer.clark@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: +1 202 736-8270 Facsimile: +1 202 736-8711 Michael Andolina* mandolina@sidley.com Timothy Payne* tpayne@sidley.com Kevin Fee* kfee@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: +1 312 853-7000 Facsimile: +1 312 853-7036 Sean A. Commons (SBN 217603) scommons@sidley.com Bridget S. Johnsen (SBN 210778) bjohnsen@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: +1 213 896-6000 Facsimile: +1 213 896-6600

26

27 *Application for admission pro hac vice to be submitted

28 ** Institution listed for identification purposes only
26
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

 
 Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 1 of 30 Page ID #:1058

1 Amy P. Lally (SBN 198555) alally@sidley.com
2 Ellyce R. Cooper (SBN 204453) ecooper@sidley.com
3 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor
4 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: +1 310 595-9500
5 Facsimile: +1 310 595-9501

6 Mark Rosenbaum (SBN 59940)

7

mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org Judy London (SBN 149431)

8 jlondon@publiccounsel.org

9

Talia Inlender (SBN 253796) tinlender@publiccounsel.org

10 Alisa Hartz (SBN 285141) ahartz@publiccounsel.org
11 Lucero Chavez (SBN 273531)

12

lchavez@publiccounsel.org Elizabeth Hadaway (SBN 308800)

13 ehadaway@publiccounsel.org

14

Malhar Shah (SBN 318588) mshah@publiccounsel.org

15 Deena Tumeh (SBN 318573)

dtumeh@publiccounsel.org

16 PUBLIC COUNSEL

17

610 S. Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005

18

Telephone: +1 213 385-2977 Facsimile: +1 213 385-9089

19 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 20 Additional counsel on next page

21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

22

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

23

Ms. J.P., Ms. J.O., Ms. R.M., on behalf of Case No. 2:18-cv-06081

24 themselves and all other similarly situated,

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION

25

Plaintiffs,

AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; MEMORANDUM

26

v.

OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

27 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

28

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 2 of 30 Page ID #:1059

1 UNITED STATES; KIRSTJEN

NIELSEN, SECRETARY OF

2 HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

Date:

October 29, 2018

3 SECURITY, AND ITS SUBORDINATE Time:

8:30 a.m.

ENTITIES; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND Judge: Hon. John A. Kronstadt

4 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; U.S.

Courtroom: 10B

CUSTOMS AND BORDER

5 PROTECTION; ALEX M. AZAR II,

[Filed concurrently with Supporting

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

Declarations of Ms. J.P., Ms. J.O., Ms.

6 HUMAN SERVICES; U.S.

R.M., Lucero Chavez, Alejandra Acuña,

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

Dylan Gee, Alfonso Mercado, and

7 HUMAN SERVICES; SCOTT LLOYD, Bridget S. Johnsen]

DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF

8 REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT; OFFICE

OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT;

9 DAVID MARIN, LOS ANGELES FIELD

OFFICE DIRECTOR, U.S.

10 IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS

ENFORCEMENT; LISA VON

11 NORDHEIM, WARDEN, JAMES A.

MUSICK FACILITY; MARC J. MOORE,

12 SEATTLE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR,

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS

13 ENFORCEMENT; LOWELL CLARK,

WARDEN, TACOMA NORTHWEST

14 DETENTION CENTER

15

Defendants.

16

17 Carter G. Phillips*
18 cphillips@sidley.com Jennifer J. Clark*
19 jennifer.clark@sidley.com
20 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W.
21 Washington, D.C. 20005
22 Telephone: +1 202 736-8000 Facsimile: +1 202 736-8711
23

Mark E. Haddad (SBN 205945) markhadd@usc.edu Part-time Lecturer in Law USC Gould School of Law** University of Southern California 699 Exposition Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90089 Telephone: +1 213 675-5957

24 Michael Andolina*

25

mandolina@sidley.com Timothy Payne*

26 tpayne@sidley.com

27

Kevin Fee* kfee@sidley.com

28 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

Luis Cortes Romero (SBN 310852) lcortes@ia-lc.com Alma L. David (SBN 257676) adavid@ia-lc.com IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY & LITIGATION CENTER, PLLC 19309 68th Avenue South, Suite R-102

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 3 of 30 Page ID #:1060

1 One South Dearborn
2 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: +1 312 853-7000
3 Facsimile: +1 312 853-7036

4

Bridget S. Johnsen (SBN 210778) 5 bjohnsen@sidley.com

6 Sean A. Commons (SBN 217603)

7

scommons@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

8 555 West Fifth Street

9

Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: +1 213 896-6000

10 Facsimile: +1 213 896-6600

Kent, WA 98032 Telephone: +1 253 872-4730 Facsimile: +1 253 237-1591

11 12 *Admitted pro hac vice 13 ** Institution listed for identification purposes only

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 4 of 30 Page ID #:1061

1

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

2

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

3

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, on October 29, 2018 at 8:30 a.m., or as soon

4 thereafter this matter may be heard, before the Honorable John A. Kronstadt, in

5 Courtroom 10B, of the United States District Court for the Central District of

6 California, located at 350 W. First Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, Plaintiffs Ms. J.P.,

7 Ms. J.O., and Ms. R.M. (“Plaintiffs”) will and hereby move, pursuant to Federal Rule

8 of Civil Procedure 23, for an order certifying the following proposed Class,

9 appointing each of them as class representatives, and appointing their undersigned

10 counsel as class counsel:

11

All adult parents nationwide who (1) were, are, or will be

detained in immigration custody by the Department of

12

Homeland Security (“DHS”), and (2) have a minor child who

13

has been, is, or will be separated from them by DHS and detained in DHS or Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”)

14

custody or foster care, absent a demonstration in a hearing

that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child.

15

This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the following 16

Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the supporting Declarations of Ms. J.P., Ms. 17

J.O., Ms. R.M., Lucero Chavez, Alejandra Acuña, Dylan Gee, Alfonso Mercado, and 18

Bridget S. Johnsen; the pleadings, declarations, and filings in this action; any 19

additional matter of which the Court may take judicial notice; and such further 20

evidence or argument as may be presented before or at the hearing on this Motion. 21

This motion is made following the conference with counsel for the defendants 22

pursuant to L.R. 7-3, which took place on July 25, 2018. Plaintiffs first requested a 23

conference in a letter dated July 18, 2018, which was served on July 18 and 20, 2018, 24

each time by personal delivery and mail on the United States Government defendants 25

-- Jeffrey B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States; Kirstjen Nielsen, 26

Secretary of Homeland Security, and its subordinate entities; U.S. Immigration and 27

Customs Enforcement; U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Alex M. Azar, II, 28

1
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 5 of 30 Page ID #:1062

1 Secretary of Health and Human Services; Scott Lloyd, Director of the Office of

2 Refugee Resettlement; Office of Refugee Resettlement; David Marin, Los Angeles

3 Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Marc J. Moore,

4 Seattle Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

5 (collectively, the “US Defendants”), and was served by personal delivery and mail by

6 July 20 on Defendants Lisa Von Nordheim, Warden at the James A. Musick Facility

7 in Irvine, California, and Lowell Clark, Warden at the Tacoma Northwest Detention

8 Center (collectively, the “Wardens”). Plaintiffs additionally met and conferred

9 telephonically with counsel for the Tacoma Northwest Detention Center on July 27,

10 2018. Despite Plaintiffs’ numerous attempts to contact defendant Lisa Von

11 Nordheim, Warden at the James A. Musick Facility in Irvine, California,

12 representatives of defendant Lisa Von Nordheim have not contacted Plaintiffs. The

13 concurrently filed Declaration of Bridget S. Johnsen details Plaintiffs’ efforts to meet

14 and confer with defendants regarding this Motion pursuant to L.R. 7-3.

15

16 Date: July 27, 2018 17

Respectfully submitted,

18

/s/ Amy P. Lally

Amy P. Lally

19

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 6 of 30 Page ID #:1063

1 2 3 I. 4 II. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 III. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
IV. 26 27 28

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 3 A. The Government’s Implementation of its Unconstitutional Family
Separation Policy ....................................................................................... 3 B. The Plaintiffs and the Government’s Separation of Plaintiffs and their
Minor Children...........................................................................................5 1. Plaintiff Ms. J.P. (“Ms. P”)..............................................................5 2. Named Plaintiff: Ms. J.O. (“Ms. O”)...............................................6 3. Named Plaintiff: Ms. R. M. (“Ms. M”) ........................................... 7 C. The Proposed Class .................................................................................... 8 D. The Government’s Family Separation Policy is Found Likely Unconstitutional and Enjoined in Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement.................................................................................9 E. The Plaintiffs’ PI Motion Seeks Relief for the Trauma the Government’s Separation Policy Inflicted on Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class Members. ........................................................................ 10 ARGUMENT...................................................................................................... 11 A. The Proposed Class Satisfies Rule 23(a)’s Requirements ....................... 12 1. The Proposed Class Satisfies the Numerosity Requirement ......... 12 2. The Class Presents Common Questions of Law and Fact ............. 13 3. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Typical of Class Members’
Claims ............................................................................................16 4. Adequacy: Plaintiffs Will Adequately Protect the Interests of
the Proposed Class, and Plaintiffs’ Counsel Are More Than Qualified to Litigate this Action .................................................... 17 5. The Class Is Sufficiently Ascertainable.........................................18 B. This Action Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(2)........................19 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................20
i
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 7 of 30 Page ID #:1064

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2

Page(s)

Cases 3

Ali v. Ashcroft, 4 213 F.R.D. 390 (W.D. Wash. 2003), aff’d, 346 F.3d 873 (9th Cir.
2003), vacated on other grounds, 421 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2005) ............................ 13 5

Ark. Educ. Ass’n v. Bd. of Ed. of Portland, Ark. Sch. Dist., 6 446 F.2d 763 (8th Cir. 1971) ................................................................................... 12

7 Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds, Johnson v.
8 California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005).............................................................................. 14

9 Arnott v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 290 F.R.D. 579 (C.D. Cal. 2012).................................................................11, 12, 15
10 Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
11 844 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................. 18

12 Carrillo v. Schneider Logistics, Inc., No. 11-cv-8557, 2012 WL 556309 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2012) .................................. 3
13 Cervantez v. Celestica Corp.,
14 253 F.R.D. 562 (C.D. Cal. 2008)............................................................................. 12

15 Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................... 15
16 Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell,
17 688 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................. 15

18 Franco-Gonzales v. Napolitano, No. 10-cv-02211, 2011 WL 11705815 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2011)......................... 12
19 Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, Inc. v. Reel Servs. Mgmt. LLC,
20 No. 13-cv-7172, 2014 WL 12561074 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2014) ............................. 18

21 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................. 16
22 Hawker v. Consovoy,
23 198 F.R.D. 619 (D.N.J. 2001) ................................................................................. 13

24 Hum v. Dericks, 162 F.R.D. 628 (D. Haw. 1995) .............................................................................. 12
25 LaDuke v. Nelson,
26 762 F.2d 1318 (9th Cir. 1985) ................................................................................. 16

27 Lamumba Corp. v. City of Oakland, No. 05-cv-2712, 2007 WL 3245282 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2007) .............................. 18
28

ii
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 8 of 30 Page ID #:1065
1 Lynch v. Rank, 604 F. Supp. 30 (N.D. Cal. 1984), aff’d 747 F.2d 528 (9th Cir. 1984),
2 amended on reh’g, 763 F.2d 1098 (9th Cir. 1985).................................................. 17 3 Lyon v. ICE,
308 F.R.D. 203 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................ 19 4
Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 5 126 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 1997) .................................................................................... 17 6 Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................... 13 7
Mendez Rojas, et al. v. Johnson, 8 No. 16-cv-1024, 2017 WL 1397749 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 10, 2017).......................... 11 9 Moreno v. Napolitano,
No. 11-cv- 5452, 2014 WL 4911938 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2014) ............................. 18 10
Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, 11 Case No. 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD, 2018 WL 3129486 (S.D. Cal.
June 26, 2018)................................................................................................9, 10, 11 12
O’Connor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 13 184 F.R.D. 311 (C.D. Cal. 1998)............................................................................. 18 14 Orantes-Hernandez v. Smith,
541 F. Supp. 351 (C.D. Cal. 1982) .......................................................................... 15 15
Parsons v. Ryan, 16 754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014) ....................................................................... 13, 16, 20 17 Perez-Funez v. Dist. Dir., I.N.S.,
611 F. Supp. 990 (C.D. Cal. 1984) .......................................................................... 12 18
Perez-Olano v. Gonzalez, 19 248 F.R.D. 248 (C.D. Cal. 2008)............................................................................. 14 20 Preap v. Johnson,
303 F.R.D. 566 (N.D. Cal. 2014), aff’d, 831 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2016) ................ 13 21
Santillan v. Ashcroft, 22 No. 04-cv-2686, 2004 WL 2297990 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2004)........................ 11, 14 23 Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
559 U.S. 393 (2010)................................................................................................. 10 24
Smith v. Heckler, 25 595 F. Supp. 1173 (E.D. Cal. 1984) ........................................................................ 13 26 Sweet v. Pfizer,
232 F.R.D. 360 (C.D. Cal. 2005)............................................................................. 14 27
Wagafe v. Trump, 28 No. 17-cv-0094, 2017 WL 2671254 (W.D. Wash. June 21, 2017)......................... 11
iii
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 9 of 30 Page ID #:1066
1 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011)................................................................................................. 15
2 Walters v. Reno,
3 145 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 1998) ..........................................................................passim 4 Weinberger v. Thornton,
114 F.R.D. 599 (S.D. Cal. 1986) ............................................................................. 16 5
Constitutional Provisions 6
Fourth Amendment ....................................................................................................... 16 7
Fifth Amendment ................................................................................................ 2, 16, 19 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
iv
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 10 of 30 Page ID #:1067

1 I. INTRODUCTION

2

In the last several months, the government, and Defendants working on its

3 behalf, deliberately, needlessly, and unconstitutionally separated thousands of children

4 from their parents, refused to allow parents and children to communicate, failed to

5 provide information about the well-being of the separated family members, and kept

6 separated family members in intolerable suspense by refusing to explain when or even

7 if family would ever be reunified.

8

The government’s misconduct inflicted devastating psychological trauma on

9 both parents and children, which trauma is multiplied the longer the families remain

10 separated and/or untreated. Its effects do not evaporate once families are united;

11 instead, there is a risk of long-lasting damage to the physical and mental health of

12 parents and children alike, including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress

13 disorder (“PTSD”). Plaintiffs and the group of parents whom they seek to represent in

14 this action need immediate mental health screenings, and if appropriate, family-

15 centered mental health treatment designed to alleviate such trauma and to reduce the

16 risk of long-term consequences to both parent and child. In their Motion for

17 Preliminary Injunction, filed July 18, 2018 (Dkt. No. 45) (“PI Motion”), Plaintiffs

18 seek an order requiring the government to live up to its constitutional obligations by

19 screening Plaintiffs and the proposed class members to identify those who require

20 treatment and providing effective treatment in an appropriate setting to address the

21 harm inflicted by the unconstitutional separation of families.

22

Together with this injunctive relief, Plaintiffs seek to certify the following

23 nationwide class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2):

24

All adult parents nationwide who (1) were, are, or will be

25

detained in immigration custody by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), and (2) have a minor child

26

who has been, is, or will be separated from them by DHS

and detained in DHS or Office of Refugee Resettlement

27

(“ORR”) custody or foster care, absent a demonstration in a

28

1
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 11 of 30 Page ID #:1068

1

hearing that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the

child. 2

The proposed class satisfies the requirements of numerosity, commonality,

3

typicality, and adequacy in Rule 23(a) and is ascertainable:

4

Numerosity. The proposed class includes over one thousand individuals whose

5

minor children were separated from them, and many members of the proposed class

6

have not been reunited with their minor children.

7

Commonality. The class raises numerous common questions of fact and law.

8

Each of the class members has been subject to the government’s family separation

9

policy, and had their minor children forcibly taken from their care, triggering the

10

trauma and other harms alleged in the Complaint and described in the PI Motion. In

11

addition, the question of whether and to what extent the government has developed an

12

appropriate policy for mitigating the harms inflicted by the family separation policy is

13

common to all proposed class members. Multiple questions of law also are common

14

to the proposed class, namely whether Defendants’ family separation practice violates

15

the substantive due process and equal protection rights of the proposed class members

16

and the appropriate relief to address the harm.

17

Typicality. Plaintiffs’ due process and equal protection claims are typical of

18

the class of individuals whom they seek to represent—that is, other parents who were

19

forcibly separated from their children without a finding of unfitness or that they

20

present a danger to their children, and who have not been provided with appropriate

21

mental-health screening or offered appropriate trauma-informed intervention.

22

Plaintiffs assert the same rights under the Fifth Amendment as the members of the

23

proposed class.

24

Adequacy. The proposed class representatives satisfy the adequacy

25

requirement as the Plaintiffs assert the same claims and seek the same relief—

26

appropriate mental-health screen and any appropriate trauma-informed intervention

27

under appropriate conditions—and will defend the rights of all the proposed class

28

2
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 12 of 30 Page ID #:1069

1 members fairly and adequately. Additionally, the proposed class counsel is a team of

2 attorneys from Public Counsel and Sidley Austin LLP with significant experience

3 litigating class actions and other complex cases in federal court, including civil rights

4 cases on behalf of noncitizens.

5

Ascertainable. The proposed class is ascertainable using Defendants’ records.

6 Plaintiffs’ proposed class likewise satisfies Rule 23(b)(2) because Defendants have

7 “acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final

8 injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class

9 as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Defendants have forcibly separated migrant

10 parents from their children under a common policy and have failed to provide

11 adequate mental health evaluation and care to the families to remedy the harm

12 inflicted on the proposed class members and their minor children. As a result, the

13 declaratory and injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs will be appropriate with

14 respect to the class as a whole.

15

Accordingly, this Court should grant class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) for

16 purposes of entering Plaintiffs’ requested classwide preliminary and permanent

17 injunctions.1 See Carrillo v. Schneider Logistics, Inc., No. 11-cv-8557, 2012 WL

18 556309, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2012) (“courts routinely grant provisional class

19 certification for purposes of entering [preliminary] injunctive relief” under Rule

20 23(b)(2) where the plaintiff establishes that the four prerequisites in Rule 23(a) are

21 also met) (citing Baharona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228, 1233 (9th Cir. 1999)).

22 II. BACKGROUND

23

A. The Government’s Implementation of its Unconstitutional Family

Separation Policy

24

On May 7, 2018, Defendant Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a “zero-

25 tolerance” policy of forced family separation to deter migrants from crossing the

26

27 1 Plaintiffs also request that they be appointed Class Representatives, and that
28 undersigned counsel be appointed Class Counsel.

3
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 13 of 30 Page ID #:1070

1 southern border, announcing “If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will

2 prosecute you. It’s that simple. . . . If you are smuggling a child, then we will

3 prosecute you and that child will be separated from you. . . .”2 But the policy was not

4 limited to “smugglers.” Rather, ordinary immigrant families—many of whom are

5 seeking asylum—bore its brunt. In the first month of the policy, nearly 3,000 children

6 were separated from their parents while crossing the border.3 Some children were as

7 young as 18 months old, and more than 100 were younger than four years old.4

8

The government mischaracterized family separation as necessary to enforce the

9 law. But DHS expressly contemplated using family separation to deter migration

10 from Central America into the United States at least a year before the “zero tolerance”

11 policy was adopted,5 and administration officials have confirmed the goal of deterring

12 Central American immigrants.6

13

14

15

16

17

18 2 Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the Immigration

19

Enforcement Actions of the Trump Administration, DOJ Justice News (May 7, 2018), https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers-remarks-

20 discussing-immigration-enforcement-actions. 3 Caitlin Dickerson, Trump Administration in Chaotic Scramble to Reunify Migrant

21 Families, N.Y. TIMES (July 5, 2018),

22

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/us/migrant-children-chaos-familyseparation.html.

23 4 Caitlin Dickerson, Hundreds of Immigrant Children Have Been Taken From Parents at U.S. Border, N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 20, 2018),

24 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/20/us/immigrant-children-separation-ice.html.

5 Daniella Diaz, Kelly: DHS is considering separating undocumented children from 25 their parents at the border, CNN (March 6, 2017),

26

https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/politics/john-kelly-separating-children-fromparents-immigration-border/index.html.

27 6 Transcript: White House Chief of Staff John Kelly’s Interview with NPR, NPR (May

11, 2018), https://www.npr.org/2018/05/11/610116389/transcript-white-house-chief-

28 of-staff-john-kellys-interview-with-npr (last visited July 12, 2018).

4
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 14 of 30 Page ID #:1071

1

B. The Plaintiffs and the Government’s Separation of Plaintiffs and

their Minor Children 2

1. Plaintiff Ms. J.P. (“Ms. P”)

3

After Ms. P fled Guatemala with her 16-year-old daughter, both crossed the

4 border and were detained by Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”).7 Ms. P fled

5

Guatemala to escape death threats from a former partner who sexually abused and

6 beat her.8 Because Ms. P spoke a Mayan dialect rarely spoken in the United States,

7 Ms. P could not communicate with detention officers.9

8

When they arrived in the United States, Ms. P and her daughter, L.P. initially

9

were detained by the government in a windowless room without beds or showers and

10 fed nothing but lukewarm soup.10 Guards at the facility taunted mothers, saying: “If

11 you’re such a good mother, why would you bring your child here?”11 Three days after

12

entering the United States, with no explanation, the government removed L.P. from

13 the detention center where the government was holding Ms. P.12 When she realized

14

what was happening, L.P. fainted in terror, which injured her mouth and left her face

15 swollen for several days.13 The government did not permit Ms. P to speak to her

16

daughter until June 22, 2018, when, after 30 hours of advocacy by her attorney, she

17 was allowed to speak with L.P. by phone.14

18

Ms. P “is displaying symptoms of [PTSD] . . . as a result of her separation from

19 her daughter” and is also “displaying symptoms of both depression and anxiety.”15 If

20

left untreated, these symptoms “could escalate into a diagnosis of PTSD, Dissociative

21 Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder.”16 “Ms. P speaks a Mayan dialect and

22

23

7 Declaration of Ms. J.P. (“J.P. Decl.”) ¶¶ 2, 5-6. 8 Id. ¶ 4.

24 9 Id. ¶¶ 6, 16, 18.

10 Id. ¶¶ 7, 10.

25 11 Declaration of Lucero Chavez (“Chavez Decl.”) ¶ 11.

26

12 J.P. Decl. ¶ 15. 13 Chavez Decl. ¶ 14.

27 14 J.P. Decl. ¶ 21; Complaint, Dkt. 1, (“Compl.”) ¶ 20.

15 Declaration of Alejandra Acuña (“Acuña Decl.”) ¶¶ 7-8.

28 16 Id. ¶ 11.

5
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 15 of 30 Page ID #:1072

1 understands very little Spanish and no English,” which likely exacerbated her trauma

2 when guards “did not communicate supportively when she did not understand.”17 L.P.

3 has reported feeling depressed, hopeless, and confused by her detention and

4 separation.18

5

2. Named Plaintiff: Ms. J.O. (“Ms. O”)

6

Ms. O and her daughter, T.B., fled their native Honduras in fear for their lives

7 after gangs directly threatened their family.19 Ms. O and T.B. entered the United

8 States on or around May 18, 2018, where they encountered a CBP officer.20 Ms. O

9 claimed fear of returning to Honduras, but was told that she was to be charged with

10 illegal entry.21 Ms. O and T.B. were processed separately and kept apart at the

11 detention center.22 In her time at the detention center, Ms. O was kept in a cell

12 resembling a dog kennel with 50 other women without beds or pillows, and where the

13 lights were kept on 24 hours per day.23 While there, Ms. O heard guards tell parents

14 that a new law permitted them to take away their children permanently, which terrified

15 Ms. O, who feared she would be separated from T.B. forever.24

16

On or about May 21, 2018, after criminal proceedings in which Ms. O pleaded

17 guilty for illegal entry into the United States, the government transferred Ms. O to the

18 SeaTac Federal Prison in SeaTac, Washington, and then to the Northwest Detention

19 Center in Tacoma, Washington.25 Ms. O’s daughter was detained in Southwest Key

20 Programs, Inc.—Casa Antigua in San Benito, Texas.26 Following the separation, T.B.

21

22

23

17 Declaration of Dylan Gee (“Gee Decl.”) ¶ 15. 18 Chavez Decl. ¶ 15.

24 19 Declaration of Ms. J.O. (“J.O. Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 5.

20 Id. ¶ 6.

25 21 Compl. ¶ 24, 29.

26

22 J.O. Decl ¶ 7-8. 23 Id. ¶¶ 15-16.

27 24 Id. ¶¶ 10-11.

25 Compl. ¶ 30.

28 26 Id.

6
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 16 of 30 Page ID #:1073

1 has “reported symptoms including excessive worry, dysphoric mood, crying spells,

2 sleep and appetite disturbances, and fear of the unknown.”27

3

3. Named Plaintiff: Ms. R.M. (“Ms. M”)

4

Ms. M and her 15-year-old daughter, S.Q., fled El Salvador in fear of Ms. M’s

5 husband, a former military officer, who severely beat them both and threatened their

6 lives.28 On or around May 18, 2018, Ms. M and her daughter entered the United States

7 near Hidalgo, Texas, where they encountered a CBP officer and claimed fear of

8 returning to their country of origin.29

9

CBP immediately detained and separated Ms. M and her daughter.30 Officers

10 told Ms. M that she was to be deported without her daughter, and that she would be

11 punished for exposing her daughter to such a harsh journey. 31 Upon hearing this, Ms.

12 M began to cry, and one officer said, “You can thank Trump.”32

13

Ms. M was kept in a holding cell that resembled a dog kennel tightly packed

14 with at least 40 – 50 other women.33 The guards fed them with pieces of soggy bread

15 and a frozen piece of what looked like ham.34 The guards would humiliate the women

16 by opening the cage door and throwing crackers at them.35

17

Within several days of her detention, Ms. M was prosecuted on federal criminal

18 charges and transferred to the SeaTac Federal Prison in SeaTac, Washington.36 She

19 was subsequently transferred to the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma,

20 Washington.37 Ms. M’s daughter was detained in Southwest Key Programs, Inc.—

21

22 27 Declaration of Alfonso Mercado (“Mercado Decl.”) ¶ 7.

23

28 Declaration of Ms. R.M. (“R.M. Decl.”) ¶ 2-4. 29 Id. ¶ 5.

24 30 Id. ¶ 6.

31 Id. ¶ 7. 25 32 Id.

26

33 Id. ¶ 9. 34 Id. ¶ 11.

27 35 Id.

36 Compl. ¶ 39, 41.

28 37 Id. ¶ 41.

7
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 17 of 30 Page ID #:1074

1 Casa Antigua in San Benito, Texas.38 Following the separation, S.Q. has “reported

2 symptoms including excessive worry, dysphoric mood, crying spells, sleep and

3 appetite disturbances, and fear of the unknown.”39

4

* * *

5

The government has never alleged that Ms. P, Ms. O, or Ms. M are unfit parents

6 or that their children are unsafe with them and has not provided Plaintiffs or their

7 children with mental health services.

8

C. The Proposed Class

9

Plaintiffs’ experiences are representative of Defendants’ practice of forcibly

10 separating parents from their children without a hearing and without any

11 demonstration that the parent is endangering the child. Their experiences exemplify

12 the severity of the harm inflicted by the government’s family separation policy and the

13 government’s failure to provide adequate mental health care. Media reports and

14 personal accounts of the separations are replete with vivid descriptions of terrified

15 children and desperate parents. Garance Burke and Martha Mendoza, Toddlers

16 Separated from Parents at the Border Are Being Detained in ‘Tender Age’ Shelters,

17 TIME (June 20, 2018), http://time.com/5316764/toddler-immigrants-tender-age-

18 shelters/; Caitlin Dickerson and Manny Fernandez, What’s Behind the ‘Tender Age’

19 Shelters Opening for Young Migrants, N.Y. TIMES (June 20, 2018),

20 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/tender-age-shelters-family-separation-

21 immigration.html.; Nick Miroff, A Family Was Separated At the Border, and This

22 Distraught Father Took His Own Life, WASH. POST (June 9, 2018),

23 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/a-family-was-separated-at-

24 the-border-and-this-distraught-father-took-his-own-life/2018/06/08/24e40b70-6b5d-

25 11e8-9e38-24e693b38637_story.html?utm_term=.f3c12fb7157d. Such reports reveal

26 that, by the government’s own estimation, on July 5, 2018, the government held

27 38 Compl. ¶ 40.
28 39 Mercado Decl. ¶ 7.

8
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 18 of 30 Page ID #:1075

1 nearly 3,000 children after forcibly separating them from their parents. Caitlin

2 Dickerson, Trump Administration in Chaotic Scramble to Reunify Migrant Families,

3 NY. TIMES (July 5, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/us/migrant-children-

4 chaos-family-separation.html.

5

D. The Government’s Family Separation Policy is Found Likely

Unconstitutional and Enjoined in Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration &

6

Customs Enforcement

7

The government’s policy of separating families was met with widespread

8 condemnation and, unsurprisingly, litigation. One of the cases challenging the policy

9 was filed by a refugee known as “Ms. L.” in the Southern District of California, and is

10 pending before Judge Dana Sabraw. Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t,

11 Case No. 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD, 2018 WL 3129486 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018)

12 (“Ms. L. Case”). On June 26, 2018, Judge Sabraw preliminarily certified a class of

13 parents who enter the United States who were, are or will be detained in immigration

14 custody, and who have a minor child who is or will be separated from them absent a

15 determination that the parent is unfit or endangers the child. Ms. L. Case, Dkt. No. 82

16 at 17.

17

That same day, Judge Sabraw also concluded that the Ms. L Case plaintiffs had

18 submitted evidence demonstrating they were likely to succeed in showing that the

19 government’s family separation practice violates due process and “shocks the

20 conscience” and “interferes with rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,

21 … and is so brutal and offensive that it [does] not comport with traditional ideas of

22 fair play and decency,” Ms. L. Case, Dkt. No. 83 at 12, 17, and entered a preliminary

23 injunction that required the following:

24 • Defendants . . . are preliminarily enjoined from detaining Class Members in

25

DHS custody without and apart from their minor children, absent a

26

determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child . . . .

27 • Defendants must reunify all Class Members with their minor children who are

28

under the age of five (5) within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order;

9
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 19 of 30 Page ID #:1076

1

and . . . Defendants must reunify all Class Members with their minor children

2

age five (5) and over within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order.

3 • Defendants . . . are preliminarily enjoined from removing any Class Members

4

without their child . . . .

5 Id. at 22-24. The government has struggled to comply with the injunction ordered in

6 the Ms. L Case and has not fully complied with that order as of the filing of this

7 Motion. Ms. L. Case, Dkt. No. 152 at 4; Tal Kopan, Hundreds of separated children

8 not reunited by court-ordered deadline, CNN (Jul. 26, 2018),

9 https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/26/politics/family-separations-deadline/index.html;

10 Tom Hals, Immigrants lost in ‘black hole’ of U.S. family reunification: advocates,

11 REUTERS (Jul. 26, 2018), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-

12 immigration/immigrants-lost-in-black-hole-of-u-s-family-reunification-advocates-

13 idUSKBN1KG19B; Paloma Esquivel and Esmeralda Bermudez, Hundreds of children

14 remain separated from migrant parents as deadline looms, L.A. TIMES (Jul. 26, 2018),

15 http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-family-reunification-numbers-20180726-

16 story.html.

17

E. The Plaintiffs’ PI Motion Seeks Relief for the Trauma the

Government’s Separation Policy Inflicted on Plaintiffs and the

18

Proposed Class Members

19

As detailed in the PI Motion, the consensus among trauma experts is that

20 tearing children from their parents inflicts severe complex trauma on parents and

21 children alike. This trauma increases the longer the separation continues and/or goes

22 untreated. Accordingly, in the PI Motion, Plaintiffs seek for themselves and the

23 proposed class members mental health screening and appropriate and sufficient mental

24 health services to alleviate the psychological and neurobiological consequences of the

25 government’s forcible separation of migrant parents and their children. See Dkt. No.

26 45. As set forth below, certification of the proposed class in this action is appropriate

27 under Rule 23.

28

10
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 20 of 30 Page ID #:1077

1 III. ARGUMENT

2

A plaintiff whose suit meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil

3 Procedure 23 has a “categorical” right “to pursue his claim as a class action.” Shady

4 Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393, 398 (2010). To

5 meet these requirements, the “suit must satisfy the criteria set forth in [Rule 23(a)]

6 (i.e., numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation), and it also

7 must fit into one of the three categories described in subdivision (b).” Id.

8

Plaintiffs’ proposed class satisfies all four of the Rule 23(a) prerequisites, as

9 well as the judicially implied requirement of ascertainability. The proposed class

10 likewise meets the requirements for certification under Rule 23(b)(2). This Court

11 should certify the proposed class in keeping with the numerous court decisions

12 certifying classes in similar actions challenging the federal government’s

13 administration of immigration programs. See, e.g., Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032

14 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming certification of nationwide class of individuals challenging

15 adequacy of notice in document fraud cases); Arnott v. U.S. Citizenship &

16 Immigration Servs., 290 F.R.D. 579 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (certifying nationwide class of

17 immigrant investors challenging USCIS’ retroactive application of new rules

18 governing approval petitions to remove permanent residency conditions); Santillan v.

19 Ashcroft, No. 04-cv-2686, 2004 WL 2297990 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2004) (certifying

20 nationwide class of lawful permanent residents challenging delays in receiving

21 documentation of their status); Wagafe v. Trump, No. 17-cv-0094, 2017 WL 2671254,

22 at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 21, 2017) (certifying nationwide class of naturalization

23 applicants challenging national security screening procedures); Mendez Rojas, et al. v.

24 Johnson, No. 16-cv-1024, 2017 WL 1397749 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 10, 2017) (certifying

25 two nationwide classes of asylum seekers challenging defective asylum application

26 procedures); see also Ms. L. Case, 2018 WL 3129486, at *3, 11-12 (certifying a class

27 of parents who enter the United States at or between designated ports of entry who (1)

28 have been, are, or will be detained in immigration custody by the DHS, and (2) have a

11
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 21 of 30 Page ID #:1078

1 minor child who is or will be separated from them absent a determination that the

2 parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child).

3

A. The Proposed Class Satisfies Rule 23(a)’s Requirements

4

1. The Proposed Class Satisfies the Numerosity Requirement

5

Rule 23(a)(1) requires that a class be “so numerous that joinder of all members

6 is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). “‘[I]mpracticability’ does not mean

7 ‘impossibility,’ but only the difficulty or inconvenience of joining all members of the

8 class.” Franco-Gonzales v. Napolitano, No. 10-cv-02211, 2011 WL 11705815, at *6

9 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2011) (quoting Harris v. Palm Springs Alpine Estates, Inc., 329 F.

10 2d 909, 913-14 (9th Cir. 1964)). No fixed number of class members is required.

11 Perez-Funez v. Dist. Dir., I.N.S., 611 F. Supp. 990, 995 (C.D. Cal. 1984). Moreover,

12 where a plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, the “requirement is relaxed

13 and plaintiffs may rely on [] reasonable inference[s] arising from plaintiffs’ other

14 evidence that the number of unknown and future members of [the] proposed subclass

15 … is sufficient to make joinder impracticable.” Arnott v. U.S. Citizenship &

16 Immigration Servs., 290 F.R.D. 579, 586 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (quoting Sueoka v. United

17 States, 101 Fed. App’x 649, 653 (9th Cir. 2004)).

18

Here, the number of class members far exceeds the requirement for numerosity.

19 The government admitted that as recently as July 5, 2018, 3,000 minor children were

20 held in detention after being forcibly separated from their parents. Caitlin Dickerson,

21 Trump Administration in Chaotic Scramble to Reunify Migrant Families, NY. TIMES

22 (July 5, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/us/migrant-children-chaos-

23 family-separation.html; Separating families at the border: How we got here, CBS

24 NEWS (June 18, 2018), https://cbsn.ws/2MAkOvq. The Court can thus reasonably

25 conclude that the proposed class is sufficiently numerous. See Cervantez v. Celestica

26 Corp., 253 F.R.D. 562, 569 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (noting that “where the exact size of the

27 class is unknown but general knowledge and common sense indicate that it is large,

28 the numerosity requirement is satisfied”) (quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g.,

12
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 22 of 30 Page ID #:1079

1 Hum v. Dericks, 162 F.R.D. 628, 634 (D. Haw. 1995) (“Courts have certified classes

2 with as few as thirteen members.”); Ark. Educ. Ass’n v. Bd. of Ed. of Portland, Ark.

3 Sch. Dist., 446 F.2d 763, 765-66 (8th Cir. 1971) (class of 20 sufficient).

4

Second, in addition to the number of individuals who have already been

5 separated from their children, the proposed class also includes individuals who will

6 have a child taken from them. The presence of such future class members renders

7 joinder inherently impractical, thereby satisfying the purpose behind the numerosity

8 requirement. See, e.g., Ali v. Ashcroft, 213 F.R.D. 390, 408 (W.D. Wash. 2003), aff’d,

9 346 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2003), vacated on other grounds, 421 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2005)

10 (quotation marks omitted) (“[W]here the class includes unnamed, unknown future

11 members, joinder of such unknown individuals is impracticable and the numerosity

12 requirement is therefore met, regardless of class size.”) (quoting Nat’l Ass’n of

13 Radiation Survivors v. Walters, 111 F.R.D. 595, 599 (N.D. Cal. 1986)); Smith v.

14 Heckler, 595 F. Supp. 1173, 1186 (E.D. Cal. 1984) (in injunctive relief cases,

15 “[j]oinder in the class of persons who may be injured in the future has been held

16 impracticable without regard to the number of persons already injured”); Hawker v.

17 Consovoy, 198 F.R.D. 619, 625 (D.N.J. 2001) (“The joinder of potential future class

18 members who share a common characteristic, but whose identity cannot be

19 determined yet is considered impracticable.”).

20

2. The Class Presents Common Questions of Law and Fact

21

To satisfy commonality, Plaintiffs must show that “there are questions of law or

22 fact common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). Rule 23(a)(2)’s commonality

23 requirement “has been construed permissively.” Preap v. Johnson, 303 F.R.D. 566,

24 585 (N.D. Cal. 2014), aff’d, 831 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Hanlon v.

25 Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998)) (quotation marks omitted). A

26 plaintiff “need not show . . . that every question in the case, or even a preponderance

27 of questions, is capable of class wide resolution.” Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 675

28 (9th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). Rather, even one shared legal issue can be

13
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 23 of 30 Page ID #:1080

1 sufficient. See, e.g., Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581, 589 (9th Cir.

2 2012) (noting that “commonality only requires a single significant question of law or

3 fact”); Walters, 145 F.3d at 1046 (“What makes the plaintiffs’ claims suitable for a

4 class action is the common allegation that the INS’s procedures provide insufficient

5 notice.”).

6

Moreover, “[i]ndividual variation among plaintiffs’ questions of law and fact

7 does not defeat underlying legal commonality, because ‘the existence of shared legal

8 issues with divergent factual predicates is sufficient’ to satisfy Rule 23.” Santillan v.

9 Ashcroft, 2004 WL 2297990, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2004) (quoting Hanlon, 150

10 F.3d at 1019). The commonality standard is even more liberal in a civil rights suit like

11 this one, in which “the lawsuit challenges a system-wide practice or policy that affects

12 all of the putative class members.” Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 868 (9th Cir.

13 2001), abrogated on other grounds, Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005).

14

Plaintiffs’ lawsuit raises numerous legal and factual questions common to the

15 proposed class. First, whether and to what extent the government has an obligation to

16 develop an appropriate policy for mitigating the harms inflicted by the family

17 separation policy. Second, and relatedly, whether Defendants’ policies and practices

18 actions have violated the substantive due process rights of proposed class members

19 and their rights to equal protection of the law. Each of these raises multiple common

20 questions of law and fact. And any one of these common issues, standing alone, is

21 enough to satisfy Rule 23(a)(2)’s permissive standard. See Perez-Olano v. Gonzalez,

22 248 F.R.D. 248, 257 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (“Courts have found that a single common issue

23 of law or fact is sufficient.”) (citation omitted); Sweet v. Pfizer, 232 F.R.D. 360, 367

24 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (observing that “there must only be one single issue common to the

25 proposed class”) (quotation and citation omitted).

26

Plaintiffs and proposed class members also share a common core of facts: all

27 came to the United States with their children and were subsequently detained; all were

28 separated from their children without any allegation or showing that they present a

14
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 24 of 30 Page ID #:1081

1 danger to their child; the scientific consensus is that child—parent separation is a

2 traumatic event; there is no existing policy to provide class members appropriate

3 mental-health screening or appropriate trauma-informed intervention. Plaintiffs and

4 proposed class members, thus, “have suffered the same injury.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

5 v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011) (quoting Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S.

6 147, 157 (1982)). And that common injury is clearly “capable of class wide

7 resolution.” Id. Should the Court agree that Defendants’ policies or practices violate

8 the Due Process Clause, all who fall within the class will benefit from the requested

9 relief: mental-health screenings for Plaintiffs and their children to assess their need for

10 subsequent trauma-informed remedial medical and appropriate mental-health services

11 to address the trauma of separation and child detention. A common answer as to the

12 legality of the challenged policies and practices will “drive the resolution of the

13 litigation.” Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 981 (9th Cir. 2011)

14 (quoting Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350).

15

Significantly, courts have made clear that even “[w]here the circumstances of

16 each particular class member vary but retain a common core of factual or legal issues

17 with the rest of the class, commonality exists.” Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell,

18 688 F.3d 1015, 1029 (9th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted); see also Walters, 145

19 F.3d at 1046 (“Differences among the class members with respect to the merits of

20 their actual document fraud cases, however, are simply insufficient to defeat the

21 propriety of class certification. What makes the plaintiffs’ claims suitable for a class

22 action is the common allegation that the INS’s procedures provide insufficient

23 notice.”); Arnott, 290 F.R.D. at 586-87 (factual variations did not defeat certification

24 where core legal issues were similar). Moreover, any factual differences that may exist

25 among Plaintiffs and individual proposed class members are immaterial to their core

26 claim that they are entitled to mental health care screenings and effective family

27 treatment to address and remediate the effects of the trauma that the government

28 wantonly and knowingly inflicted on them under the unconstitutional policy of

15
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 25 of 30 Page ID #:1082

1 separating parents from their children. See, e.g., Orantes-Hernandez v. Smith, 541 F.

2 Supp. 351, 370 (C.D. Cal. 1982) (granting certification in challenge to common

3 agency practices in asylum cases, even though the outcome of individual asylum cases

4 would depend on individual class members’ varying entitlement to asylum).

5

3. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Typical of Class Members’

Claims

6 Rule 23(a)(3) requires that “the claims or defenses of the representative parties

7 [be] typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” The purpose of this requirement is

8 to “assure[] that the interests of the named representatives align with those of the

9 class” as a whole. Weinberger v. Thornton, 114 F.R.D. 599, 603 (S.D. Cal. 1986).

10 “Under the rule’s permissive standards, representative claims are ‘typical’ if they are

11 reasonably coextensive with those of the absent class members.” Parsons, 754 F.3d at

12 685 (quoting Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020). “The test of typicality is ‘whether other

13 members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct

14 which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have

15 been injured by the same course of conduct.’” Id. (citation omitted).

16 Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the proposed class, for largely the

17 same reasons that the class presents common questions of law and fact. Each proposed

18 class member—like each proposed class representative, Ms. P, Ms. O, and Ms. M—

19 was forcibly separated from her child without a finding of unfitness or that she

20 presented a danger to her child, and she has not been provided with appropriate

21 mental-health screenings or offered appropriate trauma-informed intervention.

22 Additionally, Plaintiffs assert the same rights under the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs’

23 claims are not only typical of proposed class members, they are nearly identical.

24 Moreover, as with commonality, any factual differences between Plaintiffs and

25 proposed class members are not material enough to defeat typicality. See, e.g.,

26 Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020 (under “permissive” typicality standard, representative

27 claims need only be “reasonably co-extensive with those of absent class members;

28

16
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 26 of 30 Page ID #:1083

1 they need not be substantially identical”); LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1332 (9th

2 Cir. 1985) (“The minor differences in the manner in which the representative’s Fourth

3 Amendment rights were violated does not render their claims atypical of those of the

4 class.”); cf. Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372, 378 (2d Cir. 1997) (certifying Rule

5 23(b)(2) class despite differences in the exact nature of the harm suffered by class

6 members).

7

4. Adequacy: Plaintiffs Will Adequately Protect the Interests of

the Proposed Class, and Plaintiffs’ Counsel Are More Than

8

Qualified to Litigate this Action

9

Rule 23(a)(4) requires that “[t]he representative parties will fairly and

10 adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Adequacy

11 depends on “the qualifications of counsel for the representatives, an absence of

12 antagonism, a sharing of interests between representatives and absentees, and the

13 unlikelihood that the suit is collusive.” Walters, 145 F.3d at 1046 (quotation marks

14 omitted). Plaintiffs’ counsel are deemed qualified when they possess experience in

15 previous class actions and cases involving the same area of law. Lynch v. Rank, 604

16 F. Supp. 30, 37 (N.D. Cal. 1984), aff’d 747 F.2d 528 (9th Cir. 1984), amended on

17 reh’g, 763 F.2d 1098 (9th Cir. 1985). Here, putative Class Counsel are attorneys from

18 Public Counsel and Sidley Austin LLP with significant experience in immigrants’

19 rights issues and hundreds of class action cases. Class Counsel have more than

20 sufficient resources to litigate this matter vigorously.

21

Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed class,

22 and therefore, are adequate class representatives. Plaintiffs do not seek any unique or

23 additional benefit from this litigation that may make their interests different from or

24 adverse to those of absent class members. Instead, Plaintiffs’ aim is to secure

25 injunctive relief that will protect themselves and the entire class from Defendants’

26 challenged practices and enjoin Defendants from further violations. Nor do Plaintiffs

27 or Class Counsel seek financial gain at the cost of absent class members’ rights.

28

17
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 27 of 30 Page ID #:1084

1 Accordingly, Plaintiffs lack any antagonism with the class, and their interests align

2 squarely with the other proposed class members.

3

5. The Class Is Sufficiently Ascertainable

4

Although ascertainability is not required for class certification in the Ninth

5 Circuit, Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d 1121, 1133 (9th Cir. 2017), the

6 proposed class is, nevertheless, sufficiently ascertainable because it is

7 “administratively feasible” to ascertain whether an individual is a member. Greater

8 Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, Inc. v. Reel Servs. Mgmt. LLC, No. 13-cv-7172,

9 2014 WL 12561074, at *5 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2014) (quotation marks omitted)

10 (finding ascertainable proposed class of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing

11 and require closed captioning). Here, membership in the class is defined by clear and

12 objective criteria: class members were, are, or will be in immigration detention, their

13 children were taken from them without a hearing and showing of unfitness, and their

14 children were or are held elsewhere by ORR or DHS. See supra at 3. These

15 parameters are “precise, objective, and presently ascertainable.” O’Connor v. Boeing

16 N. Am., Inc., 184 F.R.D. 311, 319 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (quotations omitted) (observing

17 that class definitions for actions maintained under Rule 23(b)(2) involve less precision

18 than actions for damages requiring notice to the class); see also, e.g., Lamumba Corp.

19 v. City of Oakland, No. 05-cv-2712, 2007 WL 3245282, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2,

20 2007) (“Plaintiffs putative class is based on the objective factors of business

21 ownership, race, and indebtedness to the City, and therefore is sufficiently defined.”).

22 The fact that some administrative process may be required to identify class members

23 does not undermine ascertainability. See, e.g., Moreno v. Napolitano, No. 11-cv-

24 5452, 2014 WL 4911938, at *6-7 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2014) (finding that the necessity

25 of manually reviewing tens of thousands of detainer forms to identify class members

26 did not undermine ascertainability) (citing Young v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 693

27 F.3d 532, 539 (6th Cir. 2012)).

28

18
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 28 of 30 Page ID #:1085

1

B. This Action Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(2)

2

In addition to satisfying the four requirements of Rule 23(a), a class must also

3 come within one of the subsections of Rule 23(b). Certification of a class under Rule

4 23(b)(2) requires that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on

5 grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or

6 corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed.

7 R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]t is sufficient” to meet Rule 23(b)(2)’s

8 requirements that “class members complain of a pattern or practice that is generally

9 applicable to the class as a whole.” Walters, 145 F.3d at 1047. Indeed, Rule “23(b)(2)

10 was adopted in order to permit the prosecution of civil rights actions” like this one. Id.

11 “‘The key to the (b)(2) class is the indivisible nature of the injunctive or declaratory

12 remedy warranted—the notion that the conduct is such that it can be enjoined or

13 declared unlawful only as to all of the class members or as to none of them.’” Lyon v.

14 ICE, 308 F.R.D. 203, 213 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2557).

15

Rule 23(b)(2)’s requirements are met here. Plaintiffs ask the Court for

16 declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy the harm inflicted on the proposed class

17 members and their minor children by Defendants’ practice—common to all class

18 members—of forcibly separating them from their children without a hearing and

19 showing that they are unfit or present a danger to their children and failing to provide

20 adequate family based mental health evaluations and care for this traumatic event. If

21 Defendants’ failure to provide adequate mental health services to parents and children

22 traumatized by Defendants’ unconstitutional family separation practice violates

23 substantive due process or the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment, it

24 does so as to all proposed class members. A single injunction would protect both

25 Plaintiffs and the other class members from this same practice and would provide

26 relief to Plaintiffs and the other class members through mental-health screenings and

27 appropriate trauma-informed remedial medical and mental-health services. See, e.g.,

28 Walters, 145 F.3d at 1047 (certifying Rule 23(b)(2) class based on Defendants’

19
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 29 of 30 Page ID #:1086

1 practice of providing deficient notice of deportation procedures).

2

This relief would benefit Plaintiffs as well as all members of the proposed class

3 in the same fashion. No individual class member would be entitled to a different

4 injunction or declaratory judgment. The requested relief would address these policies

5 or practices in a single stroke, and, therefore, the proposed class warrants certification

6 under Rule 23(b)(2). See Parsons, 754 F.3d at 689 (finding declaratory and injunctive

7 relief proper as to the whole class where “every [member] in the proposed class is

8 allegedly suffering the same (or at least a similar) injury and that injury can be

9 alleviated for every class member by uniform changes in . . . policy and practice”).

10

Because Plaintiffs and proposed class members all have suffered or will suffer

11 the same constitutional violations as a result of the government’s challenged practice,

12 and because they seek singular injunctive and corresponding declaratory relief that

13 remedy those injuries, certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is proper.

14 IV. CONCLUSION

15

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion and enter an

16 order certifying the proposed class under Rule 23(b)(2); appoint Plaintiffs as Class

17 Representatives; and appoint the Plaintiffs’ counsel from Public Counsel and Sidley

18 Austin LLP as Class Counsel.

19 20 Dated: July 27, 2018

21 Mark Rosenbaum (SBN 59940)

22 mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org Judy London (SBN 149431)
23 jlondon@publiccounsel.org

24

Talia Inlender (SBN 253796) tinlender@publiccounsel.org

25 Alisa Hartz (SBN 285141) ahartz@publiccounsel.org

26 Lucero Chavez (SBN 273531)

lchavez@publiccounsel.org 27 Elizabeth Hadaway (SBN 308800)

28 ehadaway@publiccounsel.org

Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Amy P. Lally Amy P. Lally (SBN 198555) alally@sidley.com Ellyce R. Cooper (SBN 204453) ecooper@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: +1 310 595-9662 Facsimile: +1 310 595-9501
Carter G. Phillips* cphillips@sidley.com

20
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 81 Filed 07/27/18 Page 30 of 30 Page ID #:1087

1 Malhar Shah (SBN 318588)

2

mshah@publiccounsel.org Deena Tumeh (SBN 318573)

3 dtumeh@publiccounsel.org PUBLIC COUNSEL

4 610 S. Ardmore Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90005 5 Telephone: +1 213 385-2977

6 Facsimile: +1 213 385-9089

7 Mark E. Haddad (SBN 205945) markhadd@usc.edu

8 Part-time Lecturer in Law, USC Gould

9

School of Law** University of Southern California

10 699 Exposition Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90089

11 Telephone: +1 213 675-5957

12 Luis Cortes Romero (SBN 310852)

13

lcortes@ia-lc.com Alma L. David (SBN 257676)

14 adavid@ia-lc.com Immigrant Advocacy & Litigation

15 Center, PLLC

19309 68th Ave South R-102 16 Kent, WA 98032

17

Telephone: +1 253 872-4730 Facsimile: +1 253 237-1591

18

*Admitted pro hac vice 19

Jennifer J. Clark* jennifer.clark@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: +1 202 736-8270 Facsimile: +1 202 736-8711
Michael Andolina* mandolina@sidley.com Timothy Payne* tpayne@sidley.com Kevin Fee* kfee@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: +1 312 853-7000 Facsimile: +1 312 853-7036
Bridget S. Johnsen (SBN 210778) bjohnsen@sidley.com Sean A. Commons (SBN 217603) scommons@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: +1 213 896-6000 Facsimile: +1 213 896-6600

20 ** Institution listed for identification purposes only

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

234300113v.2

21
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

 
 Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 1 of 50 Page ID #:2922

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 2 of 50 Page ID #:2923

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 3 of 50 Page ID #:2924

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 4 of 50 Page ID #:2925

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 5 of 50 Page ID #:2926

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 6 of 50 Page ID #:2927

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 7 of 50 Page ID #:2928

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 8 of 50 Page ID #:2929

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 9 of 50 Page ID #:2930

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 10 of 50 Page ID #:2931

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 11 of 50 Page ID #:2932

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 12 of 50 Page ID #:2933

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 13 of 50 Page ID #:2934

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 14 of 50 Page ID #:2935

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 15 of 50 Page ID #:2936

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 16 of 50 Page ID #:2937

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 17 of 50 Page ID #:2938

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 18 of 50 Page ID #:2939

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 19 of 50 Page ID #:2940

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 20 of 50 Page ID #:2941

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 21 of 50 Page ID #:2942

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 22 of 50 Page ID #:2943

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 23 of 50 Page ID #:2944

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 24 of 50 Page ID #:2945

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 25 of 50 Page ID #:2946

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 26 of 50 Page ID #:2947

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 27 of 50 Page ID #:2948

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 28 of 50 Page ID #:2949

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 29 of 50 Page ID #:2950

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 30 of 50 Page ID #:2951

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 31 of 50 Page ID #:2952

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 32 of 50 Page ID #:2953

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 33 of 50 Page ID #:2954

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 34 of 50 Page ID #:2955

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 35 of 50 Page ID #:2956

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 36 of 50 Page ID #:2957

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 37 of 50 Page ID #:2958

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 38 of 50 Page ID #:2959

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 39 of 50 Page ID #:2960

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 40 of 50 Page ID #:2961

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 41 of 50 Page ID #:2962

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 42 of 50 Page ID #:2963

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 43 of 50 Page ID #:2964

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 44 of 50 Page ID #:2965

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 45 of 50 Page ID #:2966

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 46 of 50 Page ID #:2967

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 47 of 50 Page ID #:2968

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 48 of 50 Page ID #:2969

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 49 of 50 Page ID #:2970

Case 2:18-cv-06081-JAK-SK Document 251 Filed 11/05/19 Page 50 of 50 Page ID #:2971