Case 2:07-cv-00188 Document 1 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 1 of 16

1

2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIr--.TU~.~S.RDNISmTSRTICmTCCTOOtFJRTTEXA~

3

t-

F1LED

4

5

AMARILLO DIVISION

6

CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT

7

~----D~e~pu-ty-----

§

8 UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS

INTERNATIONAL UNION;

§

9

ROSA ARELLANO;

10

DELFINA ARIAS; SONIA MENDOZA;

11 ROSALVA RODRIGUEZ;
CANDACE MICHELLE SVENNINGSEN;

2 - v- § CIVIL ACTION No.:
§ 0 7C 1 88- ~

12 MICHAEL RAY GRAVES;

§

ALICIA RODRIGUEZ;

13 SERGIO B. RODRIGUEZ,

§

14 v.
15

Plaintiffs,

§

§

16 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND § 17 SECURITY, MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND §

18 SECURITY, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS

ENFORCEMENT, JULIE 1. MYERS, ASSISTANT §

19 SECRETARY;

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS §
20 ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

21

HOMELAND SECURITY; JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-100,

§

22

§ Defendants.

23

24

25

26

ORGINAL COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

REOUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARTORY RELIEF AND DAMAGES

27

JURY DEMAND ON DAMAGE CLAIMS

28

Case 2:07-cv-00188 Document 1 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 2 of 16

1
I 2

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
3

4

1. This is a class action in which all plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive

5 relief compelling defendants the Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security

6 and the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (sometimes hereinafter

7 referred to as "USICE") to comply with the Immigration and Nationality Act and the

8 First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution while

9 implementing work-place enforcement activities aimed at locating and deporting

10 undocumented immigrant workers. The named individual plaintiffs also seek

11 incidental damages for violations of their well-established Fourth Amendment right to

12
be free from unreasonable searches and seizures during USICE work-place enforcement
13

activities. 14

15

2. The manner in which defendants implement enforcement activities at work

16 sites not only flaunts Congress's will and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the

17 United States Constitution, it also unduly and unnecessarily disrupts the operation of

18 businesses and the work of union members throughout the United States.

19

II

20

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

21

3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1331 (federal

22 question jurisdiction). Declaratory judgment is sought pursuant to 28 U.s.C §§ 2201-02.
23 4. Venue is properly in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1391(b) and (e)(l), (2)
24
and (4), because some of the acts complained of occurred in this district, some of the 25

26 plaintiffs reside in this district, defendants have offices in this district, and no real

27 property is involved in this action.

28

/ / /

Original Complaint

-2-

Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90057 213/388-8693

Case 2:07-cv-00188 Document 1 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 3 of 16

1

2

III

3

PARTIES

4

5. Plaintiff UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION

5 ("UFCW") was formed in 1979 as a merger between Retail Clerks International Union

6 and the Amalgamated Meat Cutters International Union. The UFCW currently
7 represents 1.3 million workers across the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico in
8

industries including retail food, meatpacking and meat processing, and food 9

10 processing. UFCW's membership includes approximately 250,000 workers employed in

11 meatpacking plants. The UFCW's goals and programs seek to improve the lives and

12 working conditions of workers and their families and communities, and to protect the

13 legal rights of its members, particularly when they are at work. UFCW members and

14 potential members were detained without reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
15 believe that they were immigrants present in the United States in violation of the 16
Immigration and Nationality Act during the Swift Raids as more fully set forth below. 17
Additionally defendants denied UFCW members detained and/ or arrested at all five of
18
the Swift plants access to UFCW attorneys or attorneys retained by the UFCW to
19 20 represent its members. The unlawful and unconstitutional manner in which defendants'
21 have implemented and continue to implement work-place enforcement actions violates
22 the rights of UFCW's members, interferes with the UFCW's goals and work and makes

23 the achievement of its goals substantially more difficult. time-consuming, and

24 expensive than would be the case if defendants conducted work-place enforcement

25 activities in a manner consistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act and the

26 United States Constitution. Defendants' unlawful enforcement activities divert the

27
limited resources of the UFCW and make its work and the achievement of its goals 28
more difficult and costly.

Original Complaint

-3-

Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles. CA 90057 213/388-8693

Case 2:07-cv-00188 Document 1 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 4 of 16

1

6. Plaintiff DELFINA ARIAS is a citizen of the United States. She is a resident of

2 Cactus, Texas. She has worked at the Swift plant in Cactus, Texas for approximately five

3 years. She is a member of the UFCW, and has been a member for approximately five
4 years. On December 12, 2006, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, without '5
warrant or a reasonable suspicion based upon articulable facts that she was an
6
immigrant present in the United States in violation of the Immigration and Nationality 7
Act, or otherwise subject to seizure, detained plaintiff DELFINA ARIAS at the Swift plant 8 9 in Cactus, Texas for approximately four hours. At no time while she was detained was
10 she advised of her right to remain silent or right to counsel, or permitted access to
11 counsel.

12

7. Plaintiff ROSA ARELLANO is a citizen of the United States. She is a resident of

13 Dumas, Texas. She has worked at the Swift plant in Cactus, Texas for approximately 27

14 years. She has been a member of the UFCW for approximately 23 years, and a UFCW
15 steward for the last six years. On December 12, 2006, Immigration and Customs 16
Enforcement agents, without warrant or a reasonable suspicion based upon articulable 17
facts that she was an immigrant present in the United States in violation of the 18
Immigration and Nationality Act, or otherwise subject to seizure, detained plaintiff 19 20 ROSA ARELLANO at the Swift plant in Cactus, Texas for approximately four hours. At no
21 time while she was detained was she advised of her right to remain silent or right to
22 counsel, or permitted access to counsel.

23

8. Plaintiff SONIA MENDOZA is a citizen of the United States. She is a resident of

24 Dumas, Texas. She has worked at the Swift plant in Cactus, Texas for approximately 12

25 years. She is a member of the UFCW, and has been a member for approximately 12

26 years. On December 12, 2006, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, without
27
warrant or a reasonable suspicion based upon articulable facts that she was an 28
immigrant present in the United States in violation of the Immigration and Nationality

Original Complaint

-4-

Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90057 213/388-8693

Case 2:07-cv-00188 Document 1 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 5 of 16

1 Act, or otherwise subject to seizure, detained plaintiff SONIA MENDOZA at the Swift

2 plant in Cactus, Texas for approximately four and a half hours. During this time period

3 ICE agents searched plaintiff SONIA MENDOZA's person without warrant or other lawful
4 justification. At no time while she was detained was she advised of her right to remain 5
silent or right to counsel, or permitted access to counsel.
6
9. Plaintiff ROSALVA RODRIGUEZ is a lawful permanent resident of the United 7
States. She is a citizen and national of Mexico. She is a resident of Sunray, Texas. She
8
has worked at the Swift plant in Cactus, Texas for approximately 27 years. She has been 9
10 a member of the plaintiff UFCW for over three years. On December 12, 2006,
11 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, without warrant or a reasonable

12 suspicion based upon articulable facts that she was an immigrant present in the United

13 States in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or otherwise subject to

14 seizure, detained Plaintiff ROSALVA RODRIGUEZ at the Swift plant in Cactus, Texas for

15 approximately four hours. During this time period ICE agents searched plaintiff

16
ROSALVA RODRIGUEZ's person without warrant or other lawful justification. At no time
17
while she was detained was she advised of her right to remain silent or right to counsel,
18
or permitted access to counsel.
19

20

10. Plaintiff CANDACE MICHELLE SVENNINGSEN is a citizen of the United States.

21 She is a resident of Dumas, Texas. She has worked at the Swift plant for approximately

22 ten years. She is a member of the UFCW, and has been a union member for

23 approximately ten years. On December 12, 2006, Immigration and Customs

24 Enforcement agents, without warrant or a reasonable suspicion based upon articulable

25 facts that she was an immigrant present in the United States in violation of the

26 Immigration and Nationality Act, or otherwise subject to seizure, detained plaintiff

27
CANDACE MICHELLE SVENNINGSEN for approximately three to four hours. During this
28
time period ICE agents searched plaintiff CANDACE MICHELLE SVENNINGSEN's personal

Original Complaint

-5-

Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90057 213/388-8693

Case 2:07-cv-00188 Document 1 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 6 of 16

1 effects without warrant or other lawful justification. At no time while she was detained

2 was she advised of her right to remain silent or right to counsel, or permitted access to

3 counsel..

4

11. Plaintiff MICHAEL RAy GRAVES is a citizen of the United States. He is a

5 resident of Waterloo, Iowa. He has worked at the Swift meatpacking plant in

6 Marshalltown, Iowa for approximately 21 years. He has been a member of plaintiff the
7 UFCW union for over 20 years. On December 12, 2006, Immigration and Customs
8

9 Enforcement agents, without warrant or a reasonable suspicion based upon articulable

10 facts that he was an immigrant present in the United States in violation of the

11 Immigration and Nationality Act, or otherwise subject to seizure, detained Plaintiff

12 MICHAEL RAy GRAVES at the Swift plant in Marshalltown, Iowa for approximately eight

13 (8) hours. During this time period ICE Agents searched plaintiff MICHAEL RAy GRAVES'

14 person and personal effects without warrant or other lawful justification. ICE agents
15 also unlawfully physically restrained plaintiff MICHAEL RAy GRAVES. At no time while 16
he was detained or phYSically restrained was he advised of his right to remain silent or 17
right to counsel, or permitted access to counsel. 18
12. Plaintiff ALICIA RODRIGUEZ is a Lawful Permanent Resident of the United
19 20 States. She is a citizen and national of Mexico. She is a resident of Marshalltown, Iowa.
21 She has worked at the Swift plant in Marshalltown, Iowa for approximately five (5)
22 years. She has been a member of the UFCW union for approximately five (5) years. On

23 December 12, 2006, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, without warrant or

24 a reasonable suspicion based upon articulable facts that she was an immigrant present

25 in the United States in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or had

26 committed a misdemeanour in their presence or a felony outside of their presence,

27 detained plaintiff ALICIA RODRIGUEZ at the Swift plant in Marshalltown, Iowa for
28 approximately six (6) hours. During this time period Plaintiff ALICIA RODRIGUEZ was

Original Complaint

-6-

Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90057 213/388-8693

Case 2:07-cv-00188 Document 1 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 7 of 16

1 unlawfully assaulted and battered by at least one ICE agent. At no time while she was

2 detained was she advised of her right to remain silent or right to counsel, or permitted

3 access to counsel.

4

13. Plaintiff SERGIO B. RODRIGUEZ is a lawful permanent resident of the United

5 States. He is a resident of Evans, Colorado. He has worked at the Swift meatpacking

6 plant in Greeley, Colorado for approximately 24 years. He is a member of the UFCW,
7
and has been a member for over 20 years. On December 12, 2006, Immigration and 8

9 Customs Enforcement agents, without warrant or a reasonable suspicion based upon

10 articulable facts that he was an immigrant present in the United States in violation of

11 the Immigration and Nationality Act, or otherwise subject to seizure, detained Plaintiff

12 SERGIO B. RODRIGUEZ at the Swift plant in Greeley, Colorado and then without warrant

13 or probable cause, arrested and transported him to a Denver detention center. Plaintiff

14 SERGIO B. RODRIGUEZ was unlawfully detained for approximately 12 hours. During the

15 time plaintiff SERGIO B. RODRIGUEZ was unlawfully detained and arrested by ICE

16 agents, his person and personal effects were searched without warrant or lawful cause.
17 At no time while he was detained was he advised of his right to remain silent or right to
18 counsel, or permitted access to counsel.
19

20

14. Defendant Michael CHERTOFF is the Secretary of the United States

21 Department of Homeland Security. Defendant CHERTOFF is charged with the

22 implementation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. §§ 1101 et seq., and

23 with the administration and oversight of the United States Immigration and Customs

24 Enforcement. He is sued in his official capacity.

25

15. Defendant Julie L. Myers is the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for

26 Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and as such is charged with the administration

27 and oversight of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. She is sued
28 in her official capacity.

Original Complaint

-7-

Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles. CA 90057 213/388-8693

Case 2:07-cv-00188 Document 1 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 8 of 16

1

16. Defendant UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT is a

2 bureau of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. USICE is charged with the lawful

3 implementation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. §§ 1101 et seq.,
4 including with engaging in enforcement activities aimed to locating, arresting and 5
removing immigrants present in the United States in violation of the Immigration and
6
Nationality Act. 7
17. Defendants John and Jane Does 1-100 are officers, agents, and employees of
8 9 the Department of Homeland Security who prior to and during the Swift Raids
10 planned, authorized, encouraged, executed, or acquiesced in the violation of the
11 individual named plaintiffs' well-established Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights as

12 alleged throughout this Complaint. Their identities are presently unknown to the

13 plaintiffs. This Complaint will be amended to add the names of John and Jane Does 1-

14 100 when such identities become known to the plaintiffs. Defendants John and Jane
15 Does 1-100 are sued for damages in their individual and official capacities.
16
IV
17 CLASS ALLEGATIONS
18 18. Plaintiffs bring this action for injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of
19 20 themselves and all other persons similarly situated pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule
21 23(a) and 23(b)(2). Plaintiffs provisionally propose this action be certified on behalf of

22 the following class:

23

All persons subjected to group detention without warrant or a reasonable

24

suspicion based upon articulable facts that they are immigrants unlawfully

25

present in the United States in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act

26

during work-place enforcement activities conducted by agents of the United

27 States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
28

Original Complaint

-8-

Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90057 213/388-8693

Case 2:07-cv-00188 Document 1 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 9 of 16

1

19. Members of the proposed class likely number in the thousands and are so

2 numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The claims of the proposed class

3 representatives and those of the proposed class members raise common questions of
4 law and fact concerning, inter alia, whether defendants may detain workers without 5
warrant or reasonable suspicion that they are immigrants present in the United States in
6
violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. These questions are common to the 7
named plaintiffs and to the members of the proposed class because Defendants have 8 9 acted and will continue to act on grounds generally applicable to both the named
10 plaintiffs and proposed class members. The claims of the UFCW's members and those
11 of the individual named plaintiffs are typical of the class claims. The plaintiffs will

12 adequately represent all members of the proposed class.

13

20. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class would

14 create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications establishing incompatible
15 standards of conduct for defendants. Work-place enforcement by agents of the 16
Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a national function, not a function performed 17
differently in each individual case or in each USICE district or region. Prosecution of
18
separate actions would create the risk that individual class members will secure court 19
20 orders that would as a practical matter be dispositive of the claims of other class
21 members not named parties to this litigation, thereby substantially impeding the ability
22 of unrepresented class members to protect their interests.

23

21. Defendants, their agents, employees, and predecessors and successors in

24 office have acted or refused to act, and will continue to act or refuse to act, on grounds

25 generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate injunctive relief or

26 corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. Plaintiffs will
27
vigorously represent the interests of unnamed class members. All members of the 28
proposed class will benefit by the action brought by the plaintiffs. The interests of the

Original Complaint

-9-

Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90057 213/388-8693

Case 2:07-cv-00188 Document 1 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 10 of 16

1 plaintiffs and those of the proposed class members are identical. Plaintiffs are

2 represented inter alia by counsel associated with a non-profit public interest law firm

3 that includes attorneys highly experienced in federal class action litigation involving the

4 U.S. Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act.

5

v

6
FACTUAL ALLEGAnONS
7

22. Swift and Company ("Swift") is one of the largest meat producing companies
8

in the United States with some 15,000 employees. On December 12, 2006, six Swift 9

10 facilities located in Greeley, Colorado, Cactus, Texas, Grand Island, Nebraska, Hyrum,

11 Utah, Marshalltown, Iowa, and Worthington, Minnesota were raided by Immigration

12 and Customs Enforcement agents ("Swift Raids"). All of the plants had contracts with

13 the UFCW except for the plant in Hyrum, Utah.

14

23. Following the Swift Raids defendant Chertoff publicly announced that the

15 raids were conducted following "months of investigation ... targeted at [the] massive

16 use of document fraud to support illegal work in the workplace." Defendant Chertoff
17 asserted that this investigation disclosed "substantial evidence" that some Swift
18 workers "illegally assumed the identities of U.S. citizens," a crime under federal law.
19
20 Despite this purported prior knowledge of certain individuals who had allegedly

21 violated United States law, as alleged below, during the Swift Raids defendants

22 engaged in mass warrantless detentions of workers rather than focusing their

23 enforcement activities on those workers regarding whom they allegedly had prior

24 knowledge of illegal activity.

25

24. On information and belief, several thousand UFCW members were detained

26 during the Swift Raids, and administrative arrests totalled approximately 1,139, with

27
approximately 297 from Cactus, approximately 252 from Greeley, approximately 252 28
from Grand Island, approximately 239 from Worthington, and approximately 99 from

Original Complaint

-10 -

Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles. CA 90057 213/388-8693

Case 2:07-cv-00188 Document 1 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 11 of 16

1 Marshalltown. On information and belief approximately 150 workers were arrested for

2 alleged crimes incident to immigration status, including approximately 53 workers at

3 Cactus, approximately 21 at Greeley, approximately 26 at Grand Island, approximately
4 20 at Worthington, and approximately 30 at Marshalltown. On information and belief 5
approximately 65 of those arrested, were charged with criminal violations related to
6
identity theft. 7
25. During the Swift Raids virtually all UFCW members at each Swift plant were 8
detained as a group, told to remain in specific locations for interrogation, and were not 9
10 free to leave those areas, regardless of their citizenship or immigration status, and
11 without reasonable suspicion based upon articulable facts that they were immigrants

12 present in the United States in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act or

13 otherwise subject to seizure

14

26. During the Swift Raids members of plaintiff the UFCW union had their

15 person's and personal effects searched without warrant or other lawful justification.
16
27. During the Swift Raids UFCW members allegedly suspected of criminal
17
conduct were not advised of their rights to remain silent or to counsel.
18
28. During and immediately following the Swift Raids defendants' agents barred
19 20 lawyers associated with plaintiff UFCW from conferring with UFCW members detained

21 by agents of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

22

29. During and following the Swift Raids UFCW members were detained

23 without regard to the immediate need to provide care and custody for their minor

24 children, including United States citizen children.

25

30. Following the Swift Raids defendants' agents coerced members of plaintiff

26 UFCW into executing waivers of their statutory and constitutional right to a due 27
process removal hearing. On information and belief defendants employed such 28
coercion because they lacked sufficient detention space to hold UFCW members

Original Complaint

-11-

Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90057 213/388-8693

Case 2:07-cv-00188 Document 1 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 12 of 16

1 pending removal hearings and sufficient Immigration Judges to process arrested UFCW

2 members for formal removal hearings.

3

31. Defendants carried out the unlawful searches and seizures of UFCW

4 members as alleged herein during the Swift Raids pursuant to custom, policy, practice

5 and usage that defendants have followed, and unless and until enjoined by this Court,
6
will continue to follow at dozens of work sites nationwide. Defendant Chertoff has 7
publicly declared that such raids will continue to occur into the foreseeable future. 8

9

VI

10

IRREPARABLE INJURY

11

32. The UFCW and the named individual plaintiffs and those similarly situated

12 are suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury unless this Court orders relief

13 as prayed for herein. Such injury includes, inter alia, violation of their right to be free

14 from unreasonable and unlawful detention and arrest in violation of the Fourth

15 Amendment, and deprivation of due process and equal protection in violation of the

16 Fifth Amendment. Damages cannot adequately address the injuries suffered by
17 plaintiffs and their proposed class members.
18
VII
19

20

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

21

[Unlawful mass detentions]

22

33. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference the allegations set out in CJICJI 1-32 above

23 as though fully re-alleged here.

24

34. 8 U.S.c. § 1357(a)(1) permits USICE agents to interrogate, without detaining,

25 any person reasonably believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the

26 United States. Section 1357(a)(2) authorizes an USICE agent to arrest "any alien in the 27
United States, if he has reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States 28
in violation of any ... law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be

Original Complaint

-12 -

Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles. CA 90057 213/388-8693

Case 2:07-cv-00188 Document 1 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 13 of 16

1 obtained for his arrest." The Fourth Amendment permits USICE agents to detain

2 persons for deportation only upon a reasonable suspicion based upon articulable facts

3 that the person is an immigrant present in the United States in violation of the

4 Immigration and Nationality Act. Defendants' policy and practice of engaging in mass
5
warrantless group detentions of all workers during work-place enforcement activities
6
without reasonable suspicion based upon articulable facts that such detained workers 7
are immigrants present in the United States in violation of the Immigration and
8 9 Nationality Act violate 8 U.S.c. § 1357 and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the
10 United States Constitution.

11

VIII

12

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

13

[Unlawful warrantless arrests]

14

35. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference the allegations set out in <JI<JI 1-32 above

15 as though fully re-alleged here.
16 36.8 U.S.c. § 1226 provides that "on a warrant" issued by the Secretary of
17 Homeland Security, an immigrant may be arrested and detained pending a decision on
18 whether the immigrant is to be removed from the United States. 8 U.S.c. § 1357(a)(2)
19
20 authorizes defendants to execute warrantless arrests only if they have "reason to

21 believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or

22 regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest ..."

23 Defendants' policy, practice, custom and usage are to conduct warrantless arrests of

24 plaintiffs and their proposed class members without any reason to believe they would

25 escape before warrants could be obtained for their arrest. Defendants' policy and
26 practice to arrest plaintiffs and their putative class members without warrants and 27
without determining whether the individuals arrested are likely to flee before warrants
28

Original Complaint

-13 -

Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles. CA 90057 213/388-8693

Case 2:07-cv-00188 Document 1 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 14 of 16

1 can be obtained are violative of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. §§ 1226

2 and 1357(a)(2), and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

3

IX

4

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

5
[Failure to take into account the care of UFCW's members' children]

6
37. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference the allegations set out in CJICJI 1-32 above 7
as though fully re-alleged here. 8

38. During the Swift Raids defendants' agents detained and arrested members of 9

10 plaintiff the UFCW without regard to children of such members who required the care

11 and custody of a responsible adult. Defendants' actions in this regard violated

12 defendants' internal policies and the due process guarantee of the Fifth Amendment of

13 the United States Constitution.

14

X

15
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

16
[UNLAWFUL DENIAL OF ACCESS TO COUNSEL]
17
39. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference the allegations set out in CJICJI 1-32 above 18
as though fully re-alleged here. 19

20

40. Defendants' policy, practice, custom and usage is to deny persons detained

21 during work place raids reasonably prompt access to attorneys who are willing and

22 available to advise and/ or represent them. Said policy, practice, custom and usage

23 violate the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

24

XI

25

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

26

[FOR DAMAGES UNDER BIVENS]

27
41. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference the allegations set out in CJICJI 1-32 above
28 as though fully re-alleged here.

Original Complaint

- 14-

Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90057 213/388-8693

Case 2:07-cv-00188 Document 1 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 15 of 16

1

42. The actions of defendants as described throughout this Complaint violated

2 the well-established Fourth Amendment rights of the named individual plaintiffs to be

3 free from unreasonable searches and seizures and the individual named plaintiffs

4 therefore seek damages in an amount to be proven at trial from defendants John and

5
Jane Does 1-100 pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
6
Pursuant to the Seventh Amendment the individual named plaintiffs demand a civil 7
jury trial on their Bivens claim for damages.
8

9

XII

10

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

11

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court -

12

1. Assume jurisdiction over this action;

13

2. Certify this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), Fed.R.Civ.Proc.;

14

3. Declare that defendants' policies, procedures, and practices as alleged

15 throughout this Complaint violate the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Fourth
16 Amendment and the due process clause and equal protection guarantee of the Fifth
17 Amendment to the United States Constitution;
18 4. Issue injunctive relief requiring that defendants, their agents, employees, and
19 successors in office comply with the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Fourth
20
21 Amendment and the due process clause and equal protection guarantee of the Fifth

22 Amendment to the United States Constitution when engaged in work-place

23 enforcement activities;

24

5. Grant the individual named plaintiffs a civil jury trial on their damage claims;

25

6. Award Plaintiffs costs of suit and attorney's fees reasonably incurred as a

26 result of this lawsuit; and

27 / / /
28

Original Complaint

-15 -

Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90057 213/388-8693

09-11-07;09:15AM;

;8063589296

•

Case 2:07-cv-00188 Document 1 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 16 of 16

# 1 // :.I.tl

1

7. Grant such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

2

Dated: September 11,2007

Respectfully submitted,

3

4

Peter A. Schey, (CA # 58232)

5

Carlos R. Holguin, (CA # 90754)

Stephanie Richard (DC #498701)

6

Center for Human Rights and

Constitutional Law

7

256 S. Occidental Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90057

8

Telephone: (213) 388-8693 exts. 104, 109

9

Facsimile: (213) 386-9484 Email: pschey@centerforhumanrights.org,

10

crholguin@centerforhumanrights.org srichard@centerforhumanrights.org

11

12

Edward P. Wendel (DC #217-224)

Gening Liao (CA #248075)

13

United Food and Commercial Workers

International Union

14

1775 K Street, NW

15

Washington, DC 20006-1598 Telephone: (202) 466-1521

16

Fax: (202) 728-1803

Email: ewendel®Ufcw.org

17

gliao®Ufcw .org

18

Philip R. Russ (TX #17406000)

19

Law Offices of Philip R. Russ

20

2700 S. Western Street, Suite 1200 Amarillo, TX 79109

21

Telephone: (806) 358-9293 Fax: (80 -9296

22

Email: Philiruss@russlawfirm.com

23

-~-)

24

"

25

26

27

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

28

Original Complaint

-16 -

Cenler ror Human Righls & Constitutional Law 256 S. QcddentaJ Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90057 213/388-8693

 
 FILED Case 2:07-cv-00188-J Document 34 Filed 03/04/09 Page 1 of 4 PageID 484
MARCH 4, 2009
KAREN S. MITCHELL
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL

§

WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, §

et al.,

§

Plaintiffs,

§

v.

§

§

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF §

HOMELAND SECURITY, MICHAEL §

CHERTOFF, SECRETARY, et al.,

§

§

Defendants.

§

2:07-CV-188-J ECF

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

This class action lawsuit is brought to challenge the methods, practices and procedures

by which government agencies enforce the nation’s immigration and criminal identity theft laws

in the meat packing, commercial foods and other industries. Plaintiffs are an international

commercial food workers’ union and eight of its members who allege that civil rights of citizen

and alien workers are being violated in simultaneous plant-wide and company-wide law

enforcement actions such as occurred at six Swift & Co. meat packing plants. The relief sought

in this case is not limited to Swift plants or the meat packing and commercial foods industries.

Plaintiffs seek nationwide relief that would encompass all workers, whether U.S. citizens, legal

aliens or aliens illegally within the United States, who are employed in all industries and

businesses subject to Swift-like enforcement actions. How the government conducted the

immigration enforcement actions at the six Swift plants are at the center of the contested issues

in this case.

Case 2:07-cv-00188-J Document 34 Filed 03/04/09 Page 2 of 4 PageID 485

The eight Plaintiff union members work at three of the six Swift plants. They seek permission to be authorized class representatives of all 250,000 United States members of the International Food and Commercial Workers Union, which has 1.3 million members in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico, and the “thousands of persons” within the expansive class definition who “will continue to” be impacted by the allegedly unconstitutional governmental workplace enforcement actions. The international union has locals with collective bargaining agreements (CBA) at many, but not all, Swift & Co. meat packing plants and facilities in multiple states./1
The Defendants are statutorily charged with enforcement of the immigration and criminal laws of the United States. Defendants are Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Michael Chertoff, DHS Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Asst. Secretary Julie L. Myers, ICE itself, and up to 100 “John and Jane Doe” DHS and/or ICE agents. Defendants oppose class certification.
Plaintiffs’ proposed class definition is “all persons subjected to group detention without warrant or a reasonable suspicion based upon articulable facts that they are immigrants unlawfully present in the United States in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act [Act] during work-place enforcement activities conducted by [ICE] agents.” Plaintiffs seek a nationwide class that encompasses all workers, whether U.S. citizens, legal aliens or aliens illegally within the United States, who are employed in all industries and businesses, who have been subjected to such group detention. This proposed class definition fails because it is vague, too speculative, and unsupportable.

1

No locals are parties to this suit. One local, number 540, brought an earlier class action

lawsuit in this Court challenging some of the government’s actions which are at issue in this case. In

October, 2007, that earlier case, civil number 2:06-CV-350-J, was dismissed with prejudice as to the local

union and without prejudice to the workers who were proposed class representatives.

Case 2:07-cv-00188-J Document 34 Filed 03/04/09 Page 3 of 4 PageID 486

Rule 23 is designed to protect against vague and overbroad class definitions. See Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997); Chiang v. Veneman, 385 F.3d 256, 271 (3rd Cir. 2004)(a class cannot be defined by subjective criterion in what should be an objective evaluation); NOW v. Scheidler, 172 F.R.D. 351, 357 (N.D. Ill. 1997)(an identifiable class exists only if its members can be ascertained by reference to objective criteria). Limiting the class to those whose due process rights were violated would seem to prejudge the merits of the case, contrary to the teaching of Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177, 94 S.Ct. 2140, 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974); see also 5 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 23.21[3][c] (3d ed. 1999) (“A class definition is inadequate if a court must make a determination of the merits of the individual claims to determine whether a particular person is a member of the class.”).
The proposed class definition is too vague. The meaning of “ group detention without warrant” is undefined. Given the fact that there were warrants issued at all six Swift plants, Plaintiffs are obviously arguing for some type of individualized warrants. But what kind of warrant? Would any warrant suffice? Plaintiffs seem to be proposing a limit such as an arrest warrant issued for each individual suspected by ICE to be illegally present, such that only those so detained would be ascertained one by one./2 But they are not clear. There is no guidance suggested by Plaintiffs by which this phrase can be properly interpreted by either class members receiving a class notice, or the Defendants, or the Court. After all, ICE has statutory authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1357, without a warrant, to interrogate any person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States.
Also lacking definition is “a reasonable suspicion based upon articulable facts that they are immigrants unlawfully present in the United States in violation of” the immigration laws. There is no

2

Or a search warrant naming each individual person suspected to be at the workplace

illegally, or administrative warrants naming each individual person to be interviewed upon a showing of

reasonable suspicion, or some combination thereof, or something else entirely?

Case 2:07-cv-00188-J Document 34 Filed 03/04/09 Page 4 of 4 PageID 487
guidance suggested by which this phrase can be properly interpreted. “Reasonable” is too subjective. What if proposed class members in fact know that they are unlawfully present in the United States in felony violation of the immigration and other laws; are they included within the class because they were rounded up in a mass raid and had to wait to be sorted out? This definition raises the prospect of a class of persons who truly believed that they were discriminated against because of their nation origin, a subjective belief, a class definition based upon subjective beliefs which courts have rightfully refused to certify. Cf. Chiang v. Veneman, 385 F.3d at 272.
Plaintiffs provide no guidance and suggest no limits on these questions. For these reasons the motion for class certification is denied.
It is SO ORDERED.
Signed this the 4th day of March, 2009.
/s/ Mary Lou Robinson MARY LOU ROBINSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL $

UNION; ROSA ARELLANO; DELFNA ARIAS; SONIA MENDOZA; $

ROSALVA RODRIGUEZ; CANDACE MICHELLE SVENNINGSEN;
MICHAEL RAY GRAVES; ALICIA RODRIGIJEZ; and SERGIO B. RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiffs, vs.

$ $ $ $ $

$

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, $

LINITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; $

of JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary, United States Department

$

Secretary, Homeland Security; JOHN T. MORTON, Assistant

$

and United States Department of Homeland Security,Immigration

$

l-100, Customs Enforcement; and JOHN AND JANE DOES

$

Defendants.

$ $

CIVIL NO. 2:07-CV-188-J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiffs are an international food workers union and eight (8) of its members who allege that

the civil rights of citizen and alien workers were violated in simultaneous plant-wide law enforcement
actions by ICE at six (6) Swift & Co. meat packing plants. Plaintiffs contend inter alia that the

workers at the plants were unlawfully detained and denied access to counsel and that the detentions

violated due process because they were done without regard to the children of union members who
required the care and custody of a responsible adult. The Union and individual Plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief and the individual Plaintiffs seek damages. The Defendants respond that Plaintiffs

do not have standing to recover the relief sought. Defendants contend that the individual Plaintiffs are

not entitled to damages because their civil rights were not violated.

Background

On December 12,2006, Defendant ICE conducted six plant-wide law enforcement actions at Swift & Co.'s facilities in the United States. The eight named Plaintiffs are citizens or legal resident

aliens who are union members at the Swift facilities in Cactus, Texas, (five plaintiffs), Marshalltown, Iowa (two plaintiffs), and Greeley, Colorado (one plaintiff). The otherthree Swift facilities are located in Nebraska, Utah and Minnesota./r The intemational union has locals representing workers at all Swift facilities at issue except the meat packing plant located in Utah.
All six enforcement actions were conducted pursuant to civil warrants, issued by federal
judges, which authorized Defendants to search an entire plant to locate persons who are in the United States illegally and, if they found such persons, to exercise their statutory authority as set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1357. That statute authorizes any ICE officer or employee, without a warrant, to:
( 1 ) intenogate any person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United
States;
(2) anest any alien in the United States if he or she has reason to believe that the alien is in the United States illegally,
(3) make arrests for felonies which have been committed and which are cognizable under any law of the United States regulating aliens if he or she has reason to believe that the person so arrested is guilty of a felony, and
(4) arrest anyone for any offense against the laws of the United States if the offense is
committed in the officer's or employee's presenceo or arrest for any felony cognizable under the laws
of the United States if the officer or employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the person
arrested has committed or is committing a felony, such as identity theft or social security ftaud,. Id. at

I

The Minnesota enforcement action resulted in a similar lawsuit filed in federal court in

Minnesota. That case was dismissed for lack of standing and other legal deficiencies . See Barrera v.

U.S. Inmigration & Customs Enforcement Div. of Dep't of Homeland Sec., Civ. No. 07-3879,2009 WL

825787 (D. Minn. March 27,2}}9)(concluding the union and the individual plaintiffs lacked standing to

seek an injunction where their constitutional rights were allegedly violated as a result of an ongoing

national initiative by ICE directed at the Swift plant in Minnesota). That dismissal was not appealed.

(a)(1)-(5). ICE officers or employees are authorized to carry a firearm and execute and serve any warrant or other process issued under the authority of the United States, such as the warrants at issue in this case. Id.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants apprehended approximately 1,139 (Defendants say it was 1,297) aliens who were union members illegally working at Swift & Co. under false identities and in
violationofthe immigration, social security, identitytheftandothercriminal lawsoftheUnited States. All six enforcement actions were simultaneously conducted during the morning shift. Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants conducted any secondary enforcement actions during evening or night shifts.
Approximately 297 persons were arrested in Texas ,P 252 in Colorado ,252 inNebraska, 239 in Minnesota, and 99 in Iowa./3 Some but not all of those aliens illegally in the country were charged with various felony crimes, including but not limited to identity theft and social security fraud. Those detainees not indicted for one or more felonies were removed from the United States by immigration authorities pursuantto the Act and returnedto the countries theyadmitted and/orclaimed astheirhome
countries. ICE agents in cooperation with Swift management caused all workers to be removed from their
working locations and brought to a central area for separation by ICE agents into two groups - citizens
and non-citizens. Plaintiffs allege that ICE agents searched the person of some of the Swift workers, and searched the personal effects of some. Plaintiffs do not dispute that pat-downs searches of Swift workers uncovered numerous knifes and pocket knives. The 100+ affidavits submiued by Plaintiffs state that the personal and locker searches were conducted for the safety of the govemment agents.

2

The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that all of the aliens arrested at Swift & Co. in

Texas who were prosecuted criminally were prosecuted in the Amarillo Division of the Northern District

of Texas, before the undersigned judge.

3

Plaintiffs do not allege how many illegal aliens were arrested or prosecuted at the Utah

facility at which the union does not have a CBA in force.

The six raids followed a similar pattern. In cooperation with Swift management, teams composed of Swift supervisors and ICE agents stopped work in one area and either instructed Swift
employees, or permitted ICE agents to instruct all employees, to leave their work station in a sequential manner and report to various central locations (usually the plant's cafeteria) where they could be sorted through individual interviews by ICE agents, who would then make an initial determination as to their legal status. After workers left an area, tearfi members would sweep through the area looking for employees who were hiding from ICE. Those employees were arrested and removed to ICE detention facilities, or were escorted or sent on to the interview areas. After interviews were completed and work areas swept, employees were released to retum to work, and workers in another work area were gathered for interviews./a
Plaintiffs do not contend that any union member was not paid during this waiting, sorting and
interview process. They do not contend that Defendants' actions extended beyond the normal end of
an employees' shift./5 They do not contend that any employee lost any pay or employment benefits as a result of the raid, except presumably for the 1,139 illegal aliens arrested, deported or otherwise

*

For example, at the Cactus, Texas, Swift plant management and ICE teams interviewed

the 1,400 employees there in groups of 200 to 300 hundred at a time. Workers who had stayed over from

the previous night shift (2 or 3 workers) were interviewed first, so they could go home. Employees who

self-identified as citizens were briefly interviewed next, then released to Swift management. After their

work areas had been swept of people management directed those workers to go back to work. Employees

who self-identified as legal aliens were interviewed next. If they had their immigration documents,

passports, or other legal identification papers with them, they were released to management and went

back to work. Employees who had self-identified as illegal aliens were interviewed and removed to

waiting buses for transport to the Amarillo, Texas, NS processing center. When ICE had a bus full of

illegal aliens, that bus departed Cactus and those arrested were placed into the next bus waiting in line.

All 1,400 interviews were completed in four hours, before the end of that day's work shift.

s

Although Plaintiffs have not alleged a claim or cause of action for lost wages, there may

be one named Plaintiff, Sergio Rodriguez in Colorado, whose detention (according to the complaint)

lasted 12 hours. He was arrested because he did not have his immigration papers with him and was

admittedly in violation of the law.

retumed to their home country, or prosecuted and incarcerated for felony violations of federal laws, including but not limited to identity theft and social security fraud./6
Atthe conclusionofthe interviewprocess 1,297 workers believedto be illegallyinthe country were removed from the plant and transported to DHS facilities for further processing and, in at least one case, for release. Those not removed by ICE were all released to Swift's supervisors to retum to work.
The complaint states that ICE agents detained union members without regard to their
immediate need to provide care and custody for their minor children. However, none of the named Plaintiffs allege that they had a need to provide care and custody for their own children or had responsibility for the care or custody of any other person's minor children.
The complaint states that ICE agents coerced union members into executing waivers of their
due process rights to removal hearings because there were too many detainees to process in a
constitutional manner. No named Plaintiff executed such a waiver. The eight named Plaintiffs allege that during the search and the subsequent sorting process,
they were detained between three to four and a half hours at the Texas facility, for up to six to eight hours at the Iowa facility, and one worker for twelve hours in the Colorado enforcement action. Only

o

This case does not arise in a vacuum. Plaintiffs' counsel Philip Russ has tried in this

Court many cases arising out of meat packing plants, including Swift & Co., and was counsel of record

for Plaintiffs in an earlier lawsuit, 2:07-CY-350-J, wherein the local union sued these government

defendants alleging claims similar to those the international union asserts in this case. Defendants'

counsel Victor Lawrence was counsel in earlier lawsuits related to these ICE raids at Swift & Co. This

Court presided over the pre-raid lawsuit brought by Swift against ICE, DHS, then Secretary Chertoff and

ICE Asst. Director Myers, and others to prevent the raids at issue from taking place. At the evidentiary

hearing inthe Swift vs ICE proceeding, civil action 2:06-CY-314-J, the government contended that its

investigation revealed that up to 30%o of Swift's 15,000 workforce were workers not legally eligible to

work in the United States who were working under assumed or false identities. The government

continues to make the same assertion in this case.

Review of published cases shows that a moment's inattention by a line worker in a meat packing

plant can (and has) resulted in hands and fingers being severed by the power cutters and extremely sharp

knives and powered saws regularly being used by line workers at such plants. The safety of workers and

agents was a genuine concern in that environment.

the Colorado worker, Rodriguez, a resident legal alien who did not have his immigration papers with him at work, was allegedly removed from the workplace before being released from ICE detention several hours later. Plaintiffs, however, do not allege that any employee asked to leave, or tried to leave, or was denied the right to leave. Affidavits tendered in response to Defendants' summary judgment motion state that the workers did not believe that they were free to leave during the course of the enforcement action.
Plaintiffs complain that some were searched without a search or arrest warrant or lawful justification, that some were physically restrained, and that while detained and/or restrained they were not advised of their right to remain silent, a right to counsel, or permitted access to counsel. Plaintiffs do not allege that any Swift employee asked for legal counsel or was refused counsel upon making
such a request.T Class certification has been denied.
Summary Judgment Standards
Defendants seek summary judgment. Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, the
discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The movant "bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court ofthe basis for its motion,"
and must identifu "those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuineissueof materialfact." CelotexCorp.v. Catrett,477U.S.3l7,323 (1986). If themovant
satisfies its burden, the party opposing the motion must respond by submitting evidentiary materials
that "set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2); see Matsushita

7

Plaintiff Alicia Rodriguez, a citizen and national of Mexico who is alleged to be a lawful

permanent resident of the United States, further alleges in the complaint that she was hit on the shoulder

by an ICE agent during the Iowa raid. However, there is no assault and/or battery or excessive force

cause of action brought by Rodriguez herself, nor was there a similar claim or cause of action asserted on

behalf of anv Plaintiff.

Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,475 U.S. 574,587 (1986). In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, a court must look at the record and any inferences to be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 tJ .5.242, 2ss (1e86).
Discussion and Analysis The International Union's Standing
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, deriving their authority from both
constitutional and legislative sources. See U.S. Const. art. III, $ II; 28 U.S.C. $ 1331 ; Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, I l3 S.Ct. 2035,124L.8d.2d I l8 (1993). The federal judiciary's power to hear cases is constitutionally confined to "caseso'and oocontroversies," U.S. Const. art. III, $ 2, which impose certain limits on the federal courts. "One of the most important ofthese constitutionally-based limits is the requirement that a litigant have 'standing' to invoke the power of a federal court." Malowney v. Federal Collection Deposit Group, 193 F.3d 1342,1346 (1lth Cir. 1999). A plaintiff asserts Article III standing to sue in federal court by alleging an "irreducible constitutional minimum"
of three elements: (l) an injury in fact - in other words, an invasion of a legally protected interest
which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal connection between plaintiffs alleged injury and defendant's alleged behavior; and (3) a likelihood that the alleged injury will be redressed by a decision in plaintiff s favor. Lujanv. Defenders
of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, II2 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d35l (1992)(quotingWhitmore v.
Arkansas,495 U.S. 149,T55,ll0 S.Ct. l7l7,l09L.Ed.2d 135 (1990))(citationsomitted). For a union to have associational standing it must be an organization that meets the same
standing test that applies to individuals. See Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363,378-79,
102 S.Ct. Ill4,7I L.Ed.2d2l4 (1982); National Taxpayers Union, Inc. v. United States,68 F.3d
1428, T433 (D.C. Cir. 1995). It must show a concrete and demonstrable injury to the organization's

- - activities with the consequent drain on the organization's resources constituting far more than
simply a setback to the organization's abstract social interests.
There is no evidence that the Intemational Union had objectives related to immigration
enforcement actions in December2006,orthat ithad longstanding commitments to challenge federal
immigration enforcement actions before the actions at issue in this slit. See Hunt v. Washington Appel Advertising Comm.,432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977) (for associational standing the union must meet all
three test prongs, demonstrating that at the time of the Swift enforcement actions the union had as a goal the protection of member workers' rights against illegal immigration enforcement actions); InternationalUnion,UAWv.Brock,477U.3.274,286,106S.Ct.2523,9lL.Ed.2d228(1986).Any
future workplace enforcement actions such as that at Swift in December 2006 are not actual or
imminent, they are merely conjectural or hypothetical.
There has been no workplace action involving the individual Plaintiffs or any Swift plant in
three years - since this case was filed in September of 2007 - and such actions are unlikely in the near
future because of the new administration's 2009 change in enforcement policy from industry-wide
enforcement actions to individual criminal prosecutions.s The two workplace enforcement actions
Homeland Security Release April 30,2009 states is part:
This week, updated worksite enforcement guidance was distributed to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which reflects a renewed
Department-wide focustargeting criminal aliens and employers who cultivate illegal workplaces by breaking the country's laws and knowingly hiring illegal workers.
Effective immediately, ICE will focus its resources in the worksite enforcement program on the criminal prosecution of employers who
knowingly hire illegal workers in order to target the root cause of illegal
immigration.

which occurred after the Swift raid and before the change of administration, the last one being in October of 2008 at a non-UFCWru facility, appear on this record to be the end of the DHS plant-wide workplace enforcement actions. Plaintiffs' fears are purely speculative concerning whether DHS and ICE's future conduct might impede the union's lawful workplace activities. For the same reasons, the Union does not have individual standing.
Also, although there is evidence that the Union locals expended resources as a result of the Swift workplace actions, there is no explanation of any expenditure that would give the International Union standing to sue individually. An organization cannot obtain standing to sue in its own right as a result of self-inflicted injuries, i.e., those that are not "fairly traceable to the actions of the defendant." Bennett,520
U.S. at 162, ll7 S.Ct. I 154 (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, allegations of injury due to resources
expendedbringingthisorotherenforcementlitigationfailtodemonstratestanding. SeeFairHousingCouncil,
l4l F.3d at 80 ("We hold, therefore, that the pursuit of litigation alone cannot constitute an injury sufficient
to establish standing under Article III."); Associationfor Retarded Citizens v. Dallas County Mental Health
& Mental Retardation Ctr. Bd. of Trustees, 19 F.3d 241, 244 (5th Cir. 1994)("The mere fact that an
organization redirects some of its resources to litigation and legal counseling in response to actions or inactions of another party is insufficient to impart standing upon the organization.").
*tl.rl.*tF*!&*{.{.{.
ICE offices will obtain indictments, criminal arrest or search warrants, or a
commitment from a U. S. Attorney' s Offi ce (USAO) to prosecute the targeted
employer before arresting employees for civil immigration violations at a
worksite.

The Individual Plaintiffs' Standing Defendants assert that the individual Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief because they will not likely suffer an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete, particularized, actual or imminent. Defendants correctly argue that any such future invasion or injury is merely conj ectural or hypothetical. While two Swift-type ICE workplace raids may have been conducted after December of 2006, Plaintiffs point to no subsequent workplace enforcement actions at any Swift plant or any other worksite where they were or are employed. Plaintiffs point to no actions being done in a manner similar to the Swift raids or any done at a unionized Swift plant, or at a union plant whose local is a member of Plaintiff International Union. Also, as explained further in this opinion, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on allegations ofunlawful detention, denial of access to counsel, and that due process was denied because detentions were made without adequate care for the children of union members. Plaintiffs have not shown an injury in fact. The individual Plaintiffs do not have standing to seek injunctive relief.
Unlawful Detention In addition to all Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, the individual Plaintiffs
seek damages against John and Jane Does l-100 for unlawful detention based on Bivens v. ,Slx Unknown NamedAgents of Federal Burequ of Narcotic,s, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. I999,29L.8d.2d619
(1e71). The complaint that workers were detained without individual probable cause is foreclosed by
NS v. Delgado, 460 U.S. 210 (1984) and the specific work environment at issue in this case. In Delgado, the Supreme Court held that questioning employees in a plant-wide action with armed
l0

officers stationed at the exits was constitutional, reasoning that there were no constitutional violations although INS had no individualizedprobable cause to believe that any particular individual had done anything wrong.
Plaintiffs argue that ICE should be required to go through the plant worker by worker to
question workers at their workstations as the agents did in the garment factory in Delgado. That argument ignores the reality of the workplace environment in a meat packing plant where
handguns loaded with hollow point bullets, lethal stun guns, circular saws, lethal bolt pistols, meat
hooks, and extremely sharp - razor sharp - knives are ubiquitous at many workstations. Further, Swift and the FDA had legitimate concerns about contamination of the meat during the execution of the
search warrants.
In determining whether workers were unlawfully detained, the Court must first determine whether there was a detention of the workers.
"A seizure of the person within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments occurs when, taking into account all ofthe circumstances surroundingthe encounter, the police conductwould have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and goabouthisbusiness." Kauppv.Texas,538U.S.626,I23 S.Ct. 1843,1844,155L.8d.2d814(2003) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, an encounter between an officer or other government official and
an individual "will not trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny unless it loses its consensual nature."
Floridav. Bostick,50l U.S. 429,434,111 S.Ct.2382,115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991).
A seizure of the person includes not only a full-fledged arrest, but also "investigatory
detentions," see Davisv. Mississippi,394U.S.72l,726,89 S.Ct. 1394, 1397,22L.8d.2d676(1969), and any other "detention of [a person] against his will," see Cupp v. Murphy,412 U.S. 291,294,93
ll

S.Ct. 2000, 2003,36L.Ed.2d 900 (1973). Though an individual need not be arrested in order for a seizure of the person to have occurred, the restraint on liberty typically must be effected by physical force or a show of lawful authority. See Califurnia v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 626-27 , I I 1 S.Ct. 1547,ll3L.Ed.2d 690 (1991);Terryv. Ohio,392 U.S. 1, 19,88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879 n. 16, 20L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)("Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a'seizure'has occurred"). Such a show of force and lawful authority occurred in this case.
An individual's voluntary choices may give rise to a limitation on freedom that does not equate
to a seizure by law enforcement. Bostick,sOl U.S. at 436,1 I 1 S.Ct. 2382. The same is true of the work environment. "Ordinarily, when people are at work their freedom to move about has been
meaningfully restricted, not by the actions of law enforcement officials, but by the workers' voluntary obligations to their employers." .INS v, Delgado,466 U.S. 210,218,104 S.Ct. 1758, 80 L.8d.2d247 ( I 9 84). However, "an initially consensual encounter . . . can be transformed into a seizure or detention
within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." Delgado, 466 U.S. at2I5,104 S.Ct. 1758. Resolving all inferences in favor of Plaintiffs, as the Court must do at this point, the Court
concludes that the information available and circumstances apparent to Plaintiffs would "have
communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business;' Michigan v. Chesternut,4S6 U.S. 567, 569, 108 S.Ct. 1975, 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1e88).
Having found that a seizure did take place, the Court must next determine whether that seizure
was unreasonable under the specific facts of this case. See Illinois v. McArthur,53I U.S. 326, 330, 121 S.Ct. 946, 148 L.Ed.2d 838 (2001) ("[The Fourth Amendment's] central requirement is one of
12

reasonableness."). The reasonableness of the seizure is determined by balancing factors under the totality of the circumstances. See Bd. of Educ. v. Earls,536 U.S. 822,829, 122 s.Ct.2559,153 L.8d.2d735 (2002). Using a standard of "reasonableness," the Court must determine, in light of the competing interests involved, whether the length and conditions ofthe seizure were unreasonable and, therefore, constitute a violation of Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights. In making this determination, the Court asks whether the seizure was 1) justified at its inception, and 2) reasonably related in scope
to the circumstances that justified it. O'Connor,480 U.S. at726,107 S.Ct. 1492 (To conform to the Constitution, the seizure ooas actually conducted [must be] reasonably related in scope to the
circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.")(quotations omitted); Florida v. Royer,460 U.S. 491,504,103 S.Ct. 1319,1328,75L.8d.2d229 (1983)(statingthat "[i]t is the State's burden to demonstrate that the seizure it seeks to justify on the basis of a reasonable suspicion was sufficiently limited in scope and duration to satis$ the conditions of an investigative seizure.").
Plaintiffs here were detained and were not free to leave until they had been intenogated. Considering the facts set forth in Plaintiffs' affidavits, each individual's interrogation was brief and was directly related to their legal status, or lack thereof. All the enforcement actions collectively lasted
four to eight hours because there were four thousand employees to interrogated by agents, but no one interview was very long.
In the case of Ganwich v. Knapp,319 F.3d 1 I 15 (9th Cir. 2003), a seizure arose in a criminal context where it was clear that the officers performing the seizure were doing so in their capacities as law enforcement officials, and Plaintiffs were detained incommunicado without probable cause in order to have them submit to an interrogation. While the facts inGanwichare somewhat different, the
l3

Ninth Circuit's ruling regarding the legality of the detention favors the government's position in this
case.
In Ganwich the Plaintiffs, employees of a business suspected of criminal wrongdoing, were detained during a search of the business'premises by officers executing a search warrant despite the fact that none of them apparently had any knowledge of their employer's allegedly fraudulent business practices. Upon serving the search warrant at the business' offices, the officers gathered the plaintiffs in a waiting room and told the plaintiffs that they were not under arrest, but that they would be held in the waiting room until they submitted to individual interviews with police investigators in a back room. During their detention, the plaintiffs were not permitted to leave the waiting room, go to the restroom unattended, retrieve personal possessions, make telephone calls, or answer the telephone when it rang. The plaintiffs were detained in this manner for up to four hours and forty-five minutes, gaining release only after submitting to tape-recorded interrogations.
The Ninth Circuit found that the initial seizure was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Because the seizure did not involve conduct thatwas pe,r ^re unreasonable, the case fit
"within the category of cases in which it is appropriate to balance govemmental and individual
interests." Id. at lll9-20. Specifically, the court "balance[d] the privacy-related and law
enforcement-related concems to determine if the intrusion was reasonable." Id. at 1120 (quoting McArthur,53l U.S. at33l, 121 S.Ct. 946). The court concluded that it was reasonable to detain the plaintiffs on their employer's premises during the search of the building. Id. lnfinding the detention
to be reasonable, the court emphasized the important law enforcement interests it served. Holding the employees in the waiting room prevented the employees from fleeing, minimized the risk of harm to the officers, and ensured the employees were on the premises to provide the officers with necessary
t4

assistance. 1d. These interests outweighed the plaintiffs'privacy-related concerns implicated by their detention, which the court found "worked no great invasion of privacy." Id.P
The Court concludes that the relatively brief seizures here were not unreasonable. All employees save one were released before their normal work shift ended. Holding the employees in the cafeterias and hallways leading to the interview room prevented the employees from fleeing,
minimized the risk of contamination of the meat, minimized the risk of harm to the agents and to the
employees - a paramount concem in the work environment at issue in this case - and ensured the
employees were on the premises to provide the officers with necessary assistance in retrieving
requested documentation. Defendants also argue that qualified immunity shields the John and Jane Doe Defendants from
liability. Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable personwouldhaveknown." Harlowv.Fitzgerald,457U.S.800,818,102S.Ct.2727,73L.Ed.2d396 ( I 982). More precisely, "[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right ... in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent." Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, I07 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). As the Fifth Circuit has held, 'opre-existing law must dictate, that is, truly compel (notjust suggest or allow or raise a question about), the conclusion for every like-situated, reasonable

e

The Ninth Circuit held other aspects of the police's conduct violated the law, namely, the

coerced taped interrogations of employees who were not suspected of wrongdoing. In this case, up to

30% of the Swift employees were reasonably believed to be illegal aliens, for whom warrants were

issued, a significant difference from the facts before the Ninth Circuit.

15

govemment agent that what defendant is doing violates federal law in the circumstances." Pierce v. Smith,117 F.3d 866, 882 (5th Cir. 1997)(intemal quotation and citation omitted).
Until recently, courts resolved government officials' qualified immunity claims under the strict two-part test mandated by the Supreme Court in Saucier v. Katz,deciding: (1) whether facts alleged or shown by plaintiff make out the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct. See Saucier,533 U.S. 194,
20l,l2l S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d272 (2001); Sorensonv. Ferrie,l34 F.3d 325,328 (5th Cir.1998).
However, the Supreme Court has revisited this rule and determined that the rigid two-step structure is no longer mandatory. Pasco ex rel. Pasco v. Knoblauch, 566 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2009)(citing Pearsonv. Callahan,555U.S.223,l29 S.Ct.808,818,172L.F,d.zd 565 (2009)). Accordingly, as the Supreme Court did in Pearson, this Court has considered whether the officer's conduct violated
clearly established law. Id. at 822. The answer being no, qualified immunity will shield the Doe
defendants from suit. Also, it is clear that an individual's voluntary choices may give rise to a limitation on freedom
that does not equate to a seizure by law enforcement. Accordingly, in tum, it is clearly established that when a person reasonably feels he is not free to terminate an encounter with an officer or other government offrcial because he believes that doing so would lead to adverse employment action (as
opposed to being physically prevented from leaving), that person is not seized under the Fourth Amendment. Seee.g., Delgado,466U.S. at2l8,104S.Ct. 1758. Here,swiftsupervisorsstoppedthe work line and instructed all employees to report to the designated interview areas. Therefore, if a
reasonable officer could have reasonably believed that Plaintiffs were remaining atwork and reporting to designated areas as instructedto avoid adverse employment action, thenthat same reasonable officer
16

would have no reason to believe that a seizure protected by the Fourth Amendment had taken place,
nor that he was violating a clearly established constitutional right. Under these circumstances, he could also reasonably believe that if a seizure occurred, such seizure was reasonable under the specific
facts of this case. Claim of Immediate Right to Counsel
Plaintiffs claim that union members had the right to contact their union steward, family
members, co-workers scheduled to come in on later shifts, co-workers who might be coming in late, or anyone else they chose to call at the initiation of the enforcement action, during the course of the action and, by implication, aright ofputative classmembers to make suchcalls immediatelyfollowing the 1,139 arrests and subsequent detentions. This claim "is incorrect." Aguilar, 510 F.3d at 23. "Even
one accused of committing a crime does not have an absolute right to place a telephone call immediately upon his apprehension." Id. (citing Harrill v. Blount County,55 F.3d Il23,Il25 (6th
Cir. 1995)). Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated the constitution by denying Plaintiffs access to counsel
during the search of the plants. The right to counsel does not attach until criminal prosecution is commenced. Rothgery v. Gillespie County,l2S S.Ct. 2578,2592 (2008) ("[A] criminal defendant's initial appearance before a judicial officer, where he learns the charge against him and his liberty is subject to restriction, marks the start of adversary judicial proceedings that trigger attachment of the ... right to counsel."). Because the record establishes that Plaintiffs' right to counsel had not attached
at the time that rights were allegedly violated, that is, when the workers were questioned and detained at the Swift plants, Plaintiffs' claims for violation of those rights are without merit.
t7

Further, inAguilar, undocumented aliens brought a class action against ICE alleging that ICE violated various constitutional and statutory rights in connection with detaining and transferring them
following a workplace raid. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. The aliens appealed. The circuit court affirmed, holding that their right-to-counsel claims must be administratively exhausted, id. at 13-14, that requiring exhaustion of their right-to-counsel
claims will not give rise to a substantive constitutional question, id. at 14-15, that 8 U.S.C. $
I252(b)(9)(baring jurisdiction in federal district courts) is expansive enough to cover right-to-counsel claims brought by aliens in connection with removal proceedings, id. at 15, and that reviewing tribunals, whether administrative or later judicial, can fairly hear and determine, on the basis of the record compiled before the immigration judge, charges that ICE's actions during and after such factory
raids transgressed a particular petitioner's right to counsel. Id. at 16. This is because such
right-to-counsel claims and denial ofprocedural due process rights ooarise from" removal proceedings. Id. at 14-18.
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights because Defendants failed to inform them oftheir rights before subjecting them to interrogation. See Miranda v. Arizona,384 U.S. 436 (1966). A civil action for alleged violations of Miranda rights, however, cannot be maintained. See Hannon v. Sanner,44I F.3d 635,636 (8th Cir. 2006); Brock v. Logan CountySherffsDep't,3F.3dl2l5,l2l7 (8thCir. 1993)(percuriam);Warrenv.CityofLincoln,S64 F.2d 1436,1442 (&th Cir. 1989)(en banc).
18

Childcare Claim Plaintiffs have not offered evidence that the childcare needs of any worker legally working were disrupted by the alleged detentions during the work periods. The Intemational Union claims as members alien workers who are not legally in the United States. These claims concerning childcare are brought on behalf of the aliens who were removed from the country because they were illegally
present and working under false identities at the Swift & Co. plants. These claims - that ICE violated
various constitutional and statutoryrights in connectionwith detaining andtransferringthem following workplace raids, ICE procedures making it difficult to secure counsel of their choosing, and the due process claim that the govemment violated those aliens'right to make decisions as to care, custody, and control of their children- are foreclosed for the reasons set forth in Aguilar v. tlS. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement Div. of Dept. of Homeland, 510 F.3d I (lst Cir. 2007).
Regarding the claim that the government violated those aliens'right to make decisions as to care, custody, and control of their children, Aguilar stated that this claim in essence is that their immediate detention and swift transfer to distant places wreaked havoc with their right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control oftheir minor children. Id. at22. Aguilar then went on
to hold that the Plaintiffs' complaint - which alleged facts arguably more egregious than here - did not
offer any reason to believe that ICE's actions were so "extreme, egregious, or outrageously offensive" as to cross the "shock the conscience" line as required by County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833,846-47,118 S.Ct. 1708, 1717, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998). As in Aguilar, the amount of time during which any worker was denied the ability to make arrangements for their children was not
disproportionate to what was reasonably necessary to process the large number of aliens detained
during the six plant raid.
l9

CONCLUSION Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the claims brought by all Plaintiffs. Signed this I lth day of March, 201 1.
20

 
 Page 1 of 2

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 12, 2007

CONTACT: press@ufcw.org

WORKERS SUE TO STOP MASS ARRESTS AND DETENTIONS BY FEDERAL AGENTS

UFCW suit challenges punitive immigration raids and claims violation of 4th Amendment rights
Washington, D.C., —The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), today, sought court intervention to protect the 4th Amendment rights of all Americans and enjoin the government from illegally arresting and detaining workers including U.S. citizens and legal residents while at their workplace.
The lawsuit—filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas—names the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency as defendants. The suit calls for an injunction against the excessive, illegal and unnecessary worksite raids conducted by ICE agents.
"This lawsuit is about ensuring that workers are protected and that their constitutional rights are respected,” said UFCW International President Joe Hansen at a press conference announcing the lawsuit. "It is unconscionable that our government would round up hundreds, sometimes thousands, of innocent workers in an effort to target a few select individuals."
More than 12,000 meatpacking workers—including citizens, legal residents and immigrants in the process of legalization—were swept up in ICE raids on December 12, 2006, at six meat packing plants across the country. The UFCW represents workers at five of the plants including Worthington, Minn.; Greeley, Colo.; Cactus, Tex.; Marshalltown, Iowa; and Grand Island, Neb. Despite this unprecedented, unwarranted and excessive use of force, only 65 workers were indicted for identity theft.
The legal complaint contends that during the December 12th raids workers were denied access to telephones, bathrooms and legal counsel. Citizens and legal residents also were deprived of the opportunity to retrieve documents to establish their legal status. Some workers were handcuffed. Others were shipped out on buses. Families, schools and daycare centers could not be contacted to make arrangements for the children of detained workers. Families were left divided and scared—not knowing where or when they might see a missing family member again.
"When I tried to report to the cafeteria during the raid, ICE agents accused me of trying to run away. They held me in handcuffs. I'm a U.S. Citizen, born in Iowa. My parents live in Mississippi. My government treated me like a criminal, and I didn’t do anything wrong. I knew our rights were being violated. What they're doing in these raids is illegal," said Mike Graves, who has lived in the United States his entire life, works at the Marshalltown, Iowa, Swift and Company plant, and is a member of UFCW Local 1149.
Peter Schey, President of the Los Angeles-based Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law and the lead counsel in the UFCW litigation said, “The Department of Homeland Security routinely violates the Constitution and federal law when it conducts work place raids to detect undocumented workers by engaging in mass detentions of all workers without any basis for believing that they have violated any laws. Such mass detentions have long been considered unlawful by the U.S. courts. While the Department of Homeland Security has a legitimate function to perform enforcing the nation’s immigration laws, it cannot do so by running roughshod over the well-established constitutional rights of U.S. citizens and lawful resident workers. If DHS Secretary Chertoff is unwilling or unable to stop the unconstitutional conduct of his agents, then we are sure the federal courts will step in to do so.”
The lawsuit also includes in its complaint that union lawyers and representatives were not given prompt access to UFCW members during and immediately after the raids. In many cases, union lawyers were denied access to UFCW members, a direct violation of a worker’s right to legal counsel.
"Work is not a crime, and workers do not leave their constitutional rights at the plant gate," said Hansen. "To

http://www.ufcw.org/press_room/index.cfm?pressReleaseID=349&bsuppresslayout=1

9/17/2007

Page 2 of 2
inflict this kind of enforcement on innocent workers—to arrest and illegally detain massive numbers of people against their will, to treat them as criminals—is not just unacceptable, it is un-American.”
The UFCW expects members of the union, civil rights, religious, and immigrant rights communities to file amicus briefs on behalf of the UFCW suit. In addition to the class-action lawsuit announced today, the UFCW will continue to hold field hearings across the country to investigate and expose these punitive actions against hardworking families. The UFCW also will press Congress to hold hearings into the issue and to renew its efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform.
Click here for a pdf copy of Lawsuit Click here for a pdf Immigration Raid Flyer
________________________________________________________________________
### The UFCW represents 1.4 million workers, 250,000 in the meatpacking and poultry industries. UFCW members also work in the health care, garment,
chemical, distillery and retail industries.

http://www.ufcw.org/press_room/index.cfm?pressReleaseID=349&bsuppresslayout=1

9/17/2007

 
 Case: 2:07-cv-00188-J As of: 06/11/2012 11:33 AM CDT 1 of 17
CLOSED, ECF, JURY
U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas (Amarillo) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07−cv−00188−J

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union et al v. Chertoff et al Assigned to: Judge Mary Lou Robinson Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Date Terminated: 03/11/2011 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union

represented by Philip R Russ Law Office of Philip R Russ 2700 S Western Suite 1200 Amarillo, TX 79109 806/358−9293 Fax: 806/358−9296 FAX Email: philiprruss@russlawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carlos R Holguin Center for Human Rights &Constitutional Law 256 S Occidental Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90057 213/388−8693 Fax: 213/386−9484 Email: crholguin@centerforhumanrights.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward P Wendel United Food &Commercial Workers Intl Union 1775 K St NW Washington, DC 20006−1598 202/466−1521 Fax: 202/728−1803 PRO HAC VICE

Gening Liao United Food &Commercial Workers Intl Union 1775 K St NW Washington, DC 20006−1598 202/466−1521 Fax: 202/728−1803 Email: gliao@ufcw.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter A Schey Center for Human Rights &Constitutional Law 256 S Occidental Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90057 213/388−8693 ext 104 Fax: 213/386−9484 Email: pschey@centerforhumanrights.org

Case: 2:07-cv-00188-J As of: 06/11/2012 11:33 AM CDT 2 of 17

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie Richard Center for Human Rights &Constitutional Law 256 S Occidental Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90057 213/388−8693 Fax: 213/386−9484

Plaintiff Rosa Arellano

represented by Philip R Russ (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carlos R Holguin (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward P Wendel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Gening Liao (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter A Schey (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie Richard (See above for address)

Plaintiff Delfina Arias

represented by Philip R Russ (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carlos R Holguin (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward P Wendel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Gening Liao (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter A Schey (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:07-cv-00188-J As of: 06/11/2012 11:33 AM CDT 3 of 17

Stephanie Richard (See above for address)

Plaintiff Sonia Mendoza

represented by Philip R Russ (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carlos R Holguin (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward P Wendel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Gening Liao (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter A Schey (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie Richard (See above for address)

Plaintiff Rosalva Rodriguez

represented by Philip R Russ (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carlos R Holguin (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward P Wendel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Gening Liao (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter A Schey (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie Richard (See above for address)

Plaintiff Candace Michelle Svenningsen

represented by Philip R Russ (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:07-cv-00188-J As of: 06/11/2012 11:33 AM CDT 4 of 17

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carlos R Holguin (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward P Wendel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Gening Liao (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter A Schey (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie Richard (See above for address)

Plaintiff Michael Ray Graves

represented by Philip R Russ (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carlos R Holguin (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward P Wendel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Gening Liao (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter A Schey (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie Richard (See above for address)

Plaintiff Alicia Rodriguez

represented by Philip R Russ (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carlos R Holguin (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward P Wendel

Case: 2:07-cv-00188-J As of: 06/11/2012 11:33 AM CDT 5 of 17

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Gening Liao (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter A Schey (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie Richard (See above for address)

Plaintiff Sergio B Rodriguez

represented by Philip R Russ (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carlos R Holguin (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward P Wendel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Gening Liao (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter A Schey (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie Richard (See above for address)

V.
Defendant
Michael Chertoff Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security TERMINATED: 01/12/2010

represented by Theodore William Atkinson US Department of Justice PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 21108 202/532−4135 Fax: 202/305−7000 Email: theodore.atkinson@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 01/12/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor M Lawrence US Department of Justice PO Box 878 Ben Franklin Station

Case: 2:07-cv-00188-J As of: 06/11/2012 11:33 AM CDT 6 of 17

Washington, DC 20044 202/305−8788 Fax: 202/233−0397 FAX Email: victor.lawrence@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 01/12/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher W Hollis US Department of Justice Civil Division − Office of Immigration Litigation PO Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202/305−0899 Fax: 202/233−0397 Email: christopher.hollis@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 01/12/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

D Gordon Bryant−DOJ , Jr US Attorney's Office 500 South Taylor Suite 300 LB 238 Amarillo, TX 79101−2442 806/324−2356 Fax: 806/324−2399 Email: gordon.bryant@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 01/12/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Julie L Myers Assistant Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement TERMINATED: 01/12/2010

represented by Theodore William Atkinson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor M Lawrence (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher W Hollis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

D Gordon Bryant−DOJ , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement U.S. Department of Homeland Security

represented by Theodore William Atkinson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor M Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:07-cv-00188-J As of: 06/11/2012 11:33 AM CDT 7 of 17

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher W Hollis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

D Gordon Bryant−DOJ , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David J Kline US Department of Justice − Office of Immigration Litigation Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Civil Division Washington, DC 20044−0878 202/616−4856 Fax: 202/616−4948

Defendant John and Jane Does 1−100

represented by Theodore William Atkinson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor M Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher W Hollis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

D Gordon Bryant−DOJ , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David J Kline (See above for address)

Defendant
Janet Napolitano Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security

represented by Theodore William Atkinson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor M Lawrence US Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation PO Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202/305−8788 Fax: 202/233−0397 FAX Email: victor.lawrence@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher W Hollis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

D Gordon Bryant−DOJ , Jr

Case: 2:07-cv-00188-J As of: 06/11/2012 11:33 AM CDT 8 of 17

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David J Kline (See above for address)

Defendant
John T Morton Assistant Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement

represented by Theodore William Atkinson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor M Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher W Hollis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

D Gordon Bryant−DOJ , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David J Kline (See above for address)

Amicus
American Friends Service Committee TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman Hoffman Sheffield Sauseda &Hoffman 1008 S Madison Amarillo, TX 79101 806/376−8903 Fax: 806/376−5345 Email: thoffman@hsshlaw.com TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance AFL−CIO TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
Casa de Maryland TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
Center for New Community TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
Change to Win TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

Case: 2:07-cv-00188-J As of: 06/11/2012 11:33 AM CDT 9 of 17

LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
La Gente Unida TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
Instituto Laboral de La Raza TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
Interfaith Worker Justice TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
International Brotherhood of Teamsters TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 97 TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
Jobs with Justice TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
Laborer's International Union of North America TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
Latinos Unidos TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address)

Case: 2:07-cv-00188-J As of: 06/11/2012 11:33 AM CDT 10 of 17

TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
Los Amigos of Orange County TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
Los Angeles County Federation of Labor AFL−CIO TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
Minority Coalition of the UFCW TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
National Immigration Law Center TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
National Korean American Service and Education Consortium TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
National Organization of Women TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
New Sanctuary Movement TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus

represented by

Case: 2:07-cv-00188-J As of: 06/11/2012 11:33 AM CDT 11 of 17

Partnership for Working Families TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
Service Employees International Union TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
Southern Poverty Law Center TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
Sweatshop Watch TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
Texas Civil Rights Project TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
UFCW Women's Network TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
UNITE HERE TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus
United Latinos of the UFCW TERMINATED: 03/25/2008

represented by Timothy L Hoffman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Date Filed 09/12/2007
09/12/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT − CLASS ACTION REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF AND DAMAGES, JURY DEMAND ON DAMAGE CLAIMS against Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John and Jane Does 1−100 filed by Rosalva Rodriguez, Candace Michelle Svenningsen, Michael Ray Graves, Alicia Rodriguez, Sergio B Rodriguez, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Rosa Arellano, Delfina Arias, Sonia Mendoza. (Filing fee $350; Receipt number AM001092) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (djs) (Entered: 09/12/2007)
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Rosalva Rodriguez, Candace Michelle Svenningsen, Michael Ray Graves, Alicia Rodriguez, Sergio B Rodriguez, United

Case: 2:07-cv-00188-J As of: 06/11/2012 11:33 AM CDT 12 of 17

09/12/2007 09/12/2007 09/12/2007 09/18/2007 09/21/2007
09/25/2007
10/01/2007 10/01/2007 10/01/2007 10/02/2007
10/04/2007 10/04/2007 10/05/2007 10/11/2007

Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Rosa Arellano, Delfina Arias, Sonia Mendoza. (See Doc #1) (djs) (Entered: 09/12/2007)
2 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS by Rosalva Rodriguez, Candace Michelle Svenningsen, Michael Ray Graves, Alicia Rodriguez, Sergio B Rodriguez, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Rosa Arellano, Delfina Arias, Sonia Mendoza. (djs) (Entered: 09/12/2007)
3 Summons Issued as to Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (djs) (Entered: 09/12/2007)
4 Order Designating Case for ECF − see order for specifics. (Signed by Judge Mary Lou Robinson) (djs) (Entered: 09/12/2007)
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ; served on 9/14/2007. (Russ, Philip) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
6 Application and Order for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Carlos R Holguin for Rosalva Rodriguez, Candace Michelle Svenningsen, Michael Ray Graves, Alicia Rodriguez, Sergio B Rodriguez, Rosa Arellano, Delfina Arias, Sonia Mendoza. (Receipt #AM001114) (Signed by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 9/21/07) (djs) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
7 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Complaint, Certificate of Interested Parties and Summons to ICE, Homeland Security, Julie L. Meyers and Standing Order for Cases Enrolled for ECF System sent certified mail return receipt requested and served on Attorney General of the U.S. on September 18, 2007. (Russ, Philip) (Entered: 09/25/2007)
8 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Original Complaint, Certificate of Interested Parties, Summons on ICE, Summons on Julie Meyers, Summons on Michael Chertoff, Standing Order for ECF served on U.S. Department of Homeland Security, ICE on 09/21,2007. (Russ, Philip) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
9 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Original complaint, Certificate of Interested Parties, Summons to U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Standing Order on ECF affidavit of mailing of courtesy copy served on U.S. Department of Homeland Security on 09/21/2007. (Russ, Philip) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
10 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Julie L Myers ; served on 9/21/2007. (Russ, Philip) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
11 ORDER REGARDING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE − Attorney Peter Schey has applied for leave to appear pro hac vice as co−counsel for Pltfs but has not answered all of the questions on his application form. The Court will not grant leave to appear unless the requisite form has been fully completed. Court staff have attempted on numerous occasions to communicate with Mr. Schey regarding deficiencies in this application, however, the only phone number listed on the application was not answered. Co−counsel are informed that if they wish to appear in this action at all they must provide a reliable means of telephonic communication so that they can be contacted, even upon short notice if necessary. (Signed by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 10/2/07) (plh) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
12 Application and Order for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Edward P Wendel for all plaintiffs (Receipt #AM001121) (Signed by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 10/4/07) (djs) Modified on 10/4/2007 (djs). (Entered: 10/04/2007)
13 Application and Order for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Gening Liao for all plaintiffs (Receipt #AM001121) (Signed by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 10/4/07) (djs) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
14 Application and Order for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Peter A Schey for all Pltfs (Signed by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 11/5/07) (plh) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
15 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons w/ copy of Complaint, Certificate of Interested Parties, Summons to ICE, Summons to Julie Meyers and Standing Order for ECF system served on Michael Chertoff on 10/02/2007. (Russ, Philip) (Entered: 10/11/2007)

Case: 2:07-cv-00188-J As of: 06/11/2012 11:33 AM CDT 13 of 17

10/15/2007 11/13/2007 11/13/2007 12/04/2007
12/12/2007 12/13/2007 12/27/2007 12/27/2007 12/28/2007 12/28/2007
01/03/2008

16 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Victor M Lawrence for Gordon Bryant on behalf of all defendants. (Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
17 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Christopher W Hollis on behalf of Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John and Jane Does 1−100. (Hollis, Christopher) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
18 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint by Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John and Jane Does 1−100 with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Matt Allen# 2 Exhibit Exhibits 1−3) (Hollis, Christopher) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
19 ORDER − In light of the complexity of this case and the schedules of counsel, the parties by and through their undersigned counsel stipulate that Pltfs' Opposition to Dfts' Motion to Dismiss may be filed and served via email and overnight delivery on or before 12/27/07; and that Dfts' Reply to Pltfs' Opposition may be filed and served via email and overnight delivery on or before 1/28/08., Set/Reset Deadlines as to 18 Motion to Dismiss,. Responses due by 12/27/2007 (Signed by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 12/4/07) (plh) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
20 MOTION to Certify Class by United Food and Commercial Workers International Union with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Schey, Peter) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
21 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE regarding 20 Motion for Class Certification by United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (Schey, Peter) Modified on 12/14/2007 (plh). (Entered: 12/13/2007)
22 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Extend Time enlarge time for defendants to respond to plaintiffs' 20 motion for class certification by Julie L Myers, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John and Jane Does 1−100 (Lawrence, Victor) Modified on 12/27/2007 (plh). (Entered: 12/27/2007)
23 RESPONSE in Opposition filed by United Food and Commercial Workers International Union to Defendants 18 Motion to Dismiss (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss) (Schey, Peter) Modified on 12/28/2007 (jeh). (Entered: 12/27/2007)
24 ORDER granting 22 Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Response. Responses to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification due by 2/28/2008 (Signed by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 12/28/07) (djs) Modified on 1/2/2008 (djs). (Entered: 01/02/2008)
25 MOTION for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint by American Friends Service Committee, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL−CIO, Casa de Maryland, Center for New Community, Change to Win, La Gente Unida, Instituto Laboral de La Raza, Interfaith Worker Justice, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 97, Jobs with Justice, Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Laborer's International Union of North America, Latinos Unidos, Los Amigos of Orange County, Los Angeles County Federation of Labor AFL−CIO, Minority Coalition, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, National Immigration Law Center, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, National Korean American Service and Education Consortium, National Organization of Women, New Sanctuary Movement, Partnership for Working Families, Service Employees International Union, Southern Poverty Law Center, Sweatshop Watch, Texas Civil Rights Project, UFCW Women's Network, UNITE HERE, United Latinos of the UFCW (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (djs) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
26 FIRST AMENDED MOTION for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint by American Friends Service Committee, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance AFL−CIO, Casa de Maryland, Center for New Community, Change to Win, La Gente Unida, Instituto Laboral de La Raza, Interfaith Worker Justice, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 97, Jobs with Justice, Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Laborer's International Union of North America, Latinos Unidos,

Case: 2:07-cv-00188-J As of: 06/11/2012 11:33 AM CDT 14 of 17

01/03/2008
01/04/2008 01/07/2008 01/07/2008 01/28/2008 02/28/2008 03/25/2008 03/04/2009 04/02/2009 04/15/2009
04/30/2009

Los Amigos of Orange County, Los Angeles County Federation of Labor AFL−CIO, Minority Coalition of the UFCW, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, National Immigration Law Center, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, National Korean American Service and Education Consortium, National Organization of Women, New Sanctuary Movement, Partnership for Working Families, Service Employees International Union, Southern Poverty Law Center, Sweatshop Watch, Texas Civil Rights Project, UFCW Women's Network, UNITE HERE, United Latinos of the UFCW (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (djs) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
27 Supplemental Declaration in Support of Opposition to Motion to Dismiss ( 23 RESPONSE in Opposition) to Defendants to 18 Motion to Dismiss filed by Rosalva Rodriguez, Candace Michelle Svenningsen, Michael Ray Graves, Alicia Rodriguez, Sergio B Rodriguez, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Rosa Arellano, Delfina Arias, Sonia Mendoza (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Supplemental Declaration in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss) (Schey, Peter) Modified on 1/4/2008 (jeh) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
28 ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RESPONSE − setting Immediate Deadline as to 26 Amended Motion for Leave to File proposed amici brief. Defendants Responses due immediately. (Signed by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 1/4/08) (jeh) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
30 OPPOSITION to 26 Amici Curiae Motion for Leave to File Brief by Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John and Jane Does 1−100 (Hollis, Christopher) Modified on 1/8/2008 (plh). Modified on 1/8/2008 (plh). (Entered: 01/07/2008)
NOTICE of Docket Text/Document Modification by Deputy Clerk regarding Doc #29 Deleted filed in error pending motion for leave of court to file 01/07/2008(29RESPONSE in Opposition) (plh) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
31 REPLY TO RESPONSE filed by Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John and Jane Does 1−100 re 18 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint (Hollis, Christopher) Modified on 1/29/2008 (plh). (Entered: 01/28/2008)
32 RESPONSE and Brief in Opposition filed by Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John and Jane Does 1−100 re 20 MOTION to Certify Class (Hollis, Christopher) Modified on 2/29/2008 (plh). (Entered: 02/28/2008)
33 ORDER Denying Motion for Leave to Appear and File Amicus Brief − terminating 25 Motion for Leave to Appear and File Amicus Brief; denying 26 First Amended Motion for Leave to Appear and File Amicus Brief. (Signed by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 3/25/08) (jeh) (Entered: 03/25/2008)
34 ORDER denying 20 Motion to Certify Class (Ordered by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 3/4/09) (plh) (Entered: 03/04/2009)
35 NOTICE Defendants' Advisory to the Court Regarding Recent Decision filed by Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John and Jane Does 1−100 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A−−Barrera Order) (Hollis, Christopher) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
36 NOTICE of Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Advisory of Court Decision re: 35 Notice − Advisory of Court Decision filed by Rosalva Rodriguez, Candace Michelle Svenningsen, Michael Ray Graves, Alicia Rodriguez, Sergio B Rodriguez, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Rosa Arellano, Delfina Arias, Sonia Mendoza (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit to Response to Advisory) (Liao, Gening) Modified on 4/16/2009 (plh). (Entered: 04/15/2009)
37 NOTICE Defendants' Reply Supporting Defendants' Advisory to the Court Regarding Recent Decision re: 35 Notice − Advisory to the Court regarding Recent Decision filed by Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John and Jane Does 1−100 (Hollis, Christopher) Modified on 4/30/2009 (plh). (Entered: 04/30/2009)

Case: 2:07-cv-00188-J As of: 06/11/2012 11:33 AM CDT 15 of 17

09/16/2009
10/14/2009
10/15/2009 10/29/2009 10/29/2009 11/30/2009 12/01/2009 12/15/2009 12/15/2009 12/16/2009

38 ORDER − Court converts Doc #18 to a Motion for Summary Judgment. Dfts are to file their brief in support of summary judgment by Friday, October 16, 2009. Pltfs are to file their responsive brief by Monday, November 2, 2009. Dfts are to file their reply brief by Tuesday, November 17, 2009. Additional evidence, if any, which the parties wish the Court to consider on summary judgment should be filed with their briefs due on October 16 and November 2, 2009. When filing these briefs the parties are to restyle this case to reflect the current office holders for the Secretary of DHS and the Asst. Secretary of ICE. Motions terminated: 18 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John and Jane Does 1−100. (Ordered by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 9/16/09) (plh) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
39 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to the Court's Order dated September 16, 2009 Joint Motion and Stipulation for Enlargement of Time for Parties to Respond to the Court's Order filed by Rosalva Rodriguez, Candace Michelle Svenningsen, Michael Ray Graves, Alicia Rodriguez, Sergio B Rodriguez, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John and Jane Does 1−100, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Rosa Arellano, Delfina Arias, Sonia Mendoza (Hollis, Christopher) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
40 ORDER granting 39 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to the Court's Order. Dfts are to file their brief in support of summary judgment by Friday, 10/30/09. Pltfs are to file their responsive brief by Monday, 11/30/09. Dfts are to file their reply brief by Tuesday, 12/15/09. (Ordered by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 10/15/09) (plh) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
41 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John and Jane Does 1−100 (Hollis, Christopher) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
42 Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John and Jane Does 1−100 re 41 MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendants' Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Defendants' Appendix in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment) (Hollis, Christopher) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
43 JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re: 38 Order filed by Rosalva Rodriguez, Candace Michelle Svenningsen, Michael Ray Graves, Alicia Rodriguez, Sergio B Rodriguez, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John and Jane Does 1−100, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Rosa Arellano, Delfina Arias, Sonia Mendoza (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Liao, Gening) Modified on 12/1/2009 (plh). (Entered: 11/30/2009)
44 ORDER granting 43 Motion to Extend Time to File Response/Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment. Responses due by Tuesday, 12/15/2009. Dft's reply brief shall be filed by Friday, 1/15/10. (Ordered by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 12/1/2009) (plh) (Entered: 12/01/2009)
45 RESPONSE (Opposition) filed by Rosalva Rodriguez, Candace Michelle Svenningsen, Michael Ray Graves, Alicia Rodriguez, Sergio B Rodriguez, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Rosa Arellano, Delfina Arias, Sonia Mendoza re: 41 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Liao, Gening) Modified on 12/16/2009 (plh). (Entered: 12/15/2009)
46 Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Rosalva Rodriguez, Candace Michelle Svenningsen, Michael Ray Graves, Alicia Rodriguez, Sergio B Rodriguez, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Rosa Arellano, Delfina Arias, Sonia Mendoza re 45 Response/Objection, Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (Liao, Gening) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
47 MOTION (request) for Leave to E−File Appendix One Day After Brief filed by Rosalva Rodriguez, Candace Michelle Svenningsen, Michael Ray Graves, Alicia Rodriguez, Sergio B Rodriguez, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Rosa Arellano, Delfina Arias, Sonia Mendoza (Liao, Gening)

Case: 2:07-cv-00188-J As of: 06/11/2012 11:33 AM CDT 16 of 17

12/16/2009 12/16/2009 12/16/2009 12/16/2009 12/16/2009 12/16/2009 12/16/2009 12/16/2009 01/04/2010 01/08/2010

Modified on 12/17/2009 (plh). (Entered: 12/16/2009)
48 Appendix in Support filed by Rosalva Rodriguez, Candace Michelle Svenningsen, Michael Ray Graves, Alicia Rodriguez, Sergio B Rodriguez, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Rosa Arellano, Delfina Arias, Sonia Mendoza re 46 Brief/Memorandum in Support of Motion, Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Part Two, # 2 Appendix Part Three, # 3 Appendix Part Four, # 4 Appendix Part Five) (Liao, Gening) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
49 ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS to 48 Appendix in Support, by Plaintiffs Rosalva Rodriguez, Candace Michelle Svenningsen, Michael Ray Graves, Alicia Rodriguez, Sergio B Rodriguez, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Rosa Arellano, Delfina Arias, Sonia Mendoza. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Part Seven, # 2 Appendix Part Eight, # 3 Appendix Part Nine, # 4 Appendix Part Ten) (Liao, Gening) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
50 ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS to 48 Appendix in Support, by Plaintiffs Rosalva Rodriguez, Michael Ray Graves, Alicia Rodriguez, Sergio B Rodriguez, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Rosa Arellano, Delfina Arias, Sonia Mendoza. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Part Twelve, # 2 Appendix Part Thirteen, # 3 Appendix Part Fourteen, # 4 Appendix Part Fifteen) (Liao, Gening) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
51 ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS to 48 Appendix in Support, by Plaintiffs Rosalva Rodriguez, Candace Michelle Svenningsen, Michael Ray Graves, Alicia Rodriguez, Sergio B Rodriguez, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Rosa Arellano, Delfina Arias, Sonia Mendoza. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Part Seventeen, # 2 Appendix Part Eighteen, # 3 Appendix Part Nineteen, # 4 Appendix Part Twenty) (Liao, Gening) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
52 ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS to 48 Appendix in Support, by Plaintiffs Rosalva Rodriguez, Candace Michelle Svenningsen, Michael Ray Graves, Alicia Rodriguez, Sergio B Rodriguez, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Rosa Arellano, Delfina Arias, Sonia Mendoza. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Part Twenty Two, # 2 Appendix Part Twenty Three, # 3 Appendix Part Twenty Four, # 4 Appendix Part Twenty Five) (Liao, Gening) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
53 ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS to 48 Appendix in Support, by Plaintiffs Rosalva Rodriguez, Candace Michelle Svenningsen, Alicia Rodriguez, Sergio B Rodriguez, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Rosa Arellano, Delfina Arias, Sonia Mendoza. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Part Twenty Seven, # 2 Appendix Part Twenty Eight, # 3 Appendix Part Twenty Nine, # 4 Appendix Part Thirty) (Liao, Gening) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
54 ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS to 48 Appendix in Support, by Plaintiffs Rosalva Rodriguez, Candace Michelle Svenningsen, Michael Ray Graves, Alicia Rodriguez, Sergio B Rodriguez, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Rosa Arellano, Delfina Arias, Sonia Mendoza. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Part Thirty Two, # 2 Appendix Part Thirty Three, # 3 Appendix Part Thirty Four, # 4 Appendix Part Thirty Five) (Liao, Gening) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
55 ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS to 48 Appendix in Support, by Plaintiffs Rosalva Rodriguez, Candace Michelle Svenningsen, Michael Ray Graves, Alicia Rodriguez, Sergio B Rodriguez, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Rosa Arellano, Delfina Arias, Sonia Mendoza. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Part Thirty Seven, # 2 Appendix Part Thirty Eight, # 3 Appendix Part Thirty Nine, # 4 Appendix Part Forty, # 5 Appendix Part Forty One) (Liao, Gening) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
56 ORDER Granting Motion for Leave to File Appendix − granting 47 Motion for Leave to File appendix one day out of time. (Ordered by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 1/4/2010) (jeh) (Entered: 01/04/2010)
57 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Theodore William Atkinson on behalf of all defendants. (Atkinson, Theodore) (Entered: 01/08/2010)

Case: 2:07-cv-00188-J As of: 06/11/2012 11:33 AM CDT 17 of 17

01/15/2010 01/15/2010 02/05/2010
02/05/2010
02/05/2010 02/17/2010 02/18/2010 02/19/2010 02/26/2010 10/08/2010 03/11/2011 03/11/2011

58 REPLY filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John and Jane Does 1−100, John T Morton re: 45 RESPONSE to 41 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Lawrence, Victor) Modified on 1/19/2010 (jeh) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
59 First MOTION for Protective Order filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John and Jane Does 1−100, John T Morton with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A) (Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
60 Ex Parte MOTION to Extend Time of time to file response filed by Rosalva Rodriguez, Candace Michelle Svenningsen, Michael Ray Graves, Alicia Rodriguez, Sergio B Rodriguez, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Rosa Arellano, Delfina Arias, Sonia Mendoza (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Liao, Gening) (Entered: 02/05/2010)
61 OPPOSITION filed by Rosalva Rodriguez, Candace Michelle Svenningsen, Michael Ray Graves, Alicia Rodriguez, Sergio B Rodriguez, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Rosa Arellano, Delfina Arias, Sonia Mendoza re: 59 First MOTION for Protective Order (Liao, Gening) Modified on 2/9/2010 (plh). (Entered: 02/05/2010)
62 RESPONSE filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John and Jane Does 1−100, Janet Napolitano, John T Morton re: 60 Ex Parte MOTION to Extend Time of time to file response (Atkinson, Theodore) (Entered: 02/05/2010)
63 ORDER granting 60 Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Response. Responses due by 2/5/2010 to Motion for Protective Order. The Court will consider Pltfs' response filed on 2/5/10 to have been timely filed. (Ordered by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 2/17/2010) (plh) (Entered: 02/18/2010)
64 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John and Jane Does 1−100, Janet Napolitano, John T Morton (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Atkinson, Theodore) (Entered: 02/18/2010)
65 ORDER granting 64 Motion to Extend Time to File Response to Motion for Protective Order. Responses due by 2/26/2010 (Ordered by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 2/19/2010) (plh) (Entered: 02/22/2010)
66 REPLY filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John and Jane Does 1−100, Janet Napolitano, John T Morton re: 59 First MOTION for Protective Order (Atkinson, Theodore) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
67 ORDER Granting 59 Defendants' Motion for Protective Order pending a ruling on the issues raised in their motion for summary judgment. See Order for specifics. (Ordered by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 10/8/2010) (chmb) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
68 MEMORANDUM OPINION Granting 41 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment −− Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the claims brought by all Plaintiffs. (Ordered by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 3/11/2011) (chmb) (Entered: 03/11/2011)
69 FINAL JUDGMENT − Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the Pltfs take nothing any and all claims and cause of action asserted in this lawsuit against all of the Dfts, and it is Further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the Dfts are entitled to their reasonable and necessary costs in this action, for which let execution issue. (Ordered by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 3/11/2011) (plh) (Entered: 03/11/2011)