Case 2: 11-cv-00225 Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 1 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

)

MARIO CACHO and ANTONIO OCAMPO, )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

SHERIFF MARIN N. GUSMAN, ORLEANS )

PARISH SHERIFF,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

No. _ _ _ _ __ DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Mr. Mario Cacho and Mr. Antonio Ocampo, New Orleans reconstruction workers, hereby file this civil rights complaint against Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin N. Gusman because of his policy and practice of holding them and other New Orleans residents for indefinite periods in his jail without any legal authority and in violation of the United States Constitution and Louisiana law. In addition to subjecting Plaintiffs to significant harms, including deprivation oflibe1ty and due process, false imprisonment, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, this policy and practice continues to impose significant hmms on the New Orleans community, the Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office, and the City of New Orleans.
2. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman's policy and practice of submitting to "hold requests" from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)- also called "immigration

Page 1 of15

Case 2: 11-cv-00225 Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 2 of 15
holds" or "immigration detainers"- and holding individuals in indefinite detention on this basis alone, represents a voluntary decision that violated Plaintiffs fundamental rights and harmed the New Orleans Community. An ICE hold request provides no legal authority for Sheriff Gusman to detain individuals beyond 48 hours after the resolution of traffic, municipal, and/or state criminal charges. ICE makes these hold requests on the mere suspicion that an individual has committed a civil immigration violation-a suspicion that is often based on racial profiling alone.
3. In addition to violating the constitutional rights of and causing significant hmm to the Plaintiffs and New Orleans community members held pursuant to these hold requests, Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman's decision to submit to all voluntary, hold requests and his unconstitutional pattern and practice of unlawfully and indefinitely holding individuals beyond the 48-hour expiration of the hold requests without lawful authority harms community relationships with all law enforcement agencies, wastes scarce Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office resources, and causes economic and other harm to the City ofNew Orleans and the New Orleans community.
4. As part of his unconstitutional policies and practices, Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman unlawfully held Plaintiff Cacho for on or about 164 days in Orleans Parish Prison. Despite filing a grievance with Orleans Parish Plison officials requesting release, Mr. Cacho was only able to secure his release fi"om Orleans Palish Prison by filing a federal civil lights complaint with the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) Office for Civil Rights and Civil Libe1ties. This illegal detention deplived Mr. Cacho of his constitutional rights and caused him and his family significant harms.
Page 2 of15

Case 2:11-cv-00225 Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 3 of 15
5. As pmi ofhis unconstitutional policies and practices, Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman unlawfully held Plaintiff Ocampo for on or about 91 days in Orleans Parish Prison. Despite filing repeated grievances within Orleans Parish Prison and requesting release directly from the warden, Mr. Ocampo was only able to secure his release from Orleans Parish Prison after filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. This illegal custody deprived Mr. Ocampo of his constitutional rights and caused him and his family substantial hmms.
6. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman's decision to hold New Orleans residents in indefinite detention on expired hold requests from ICE violates the Fomih, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Louisiana law.
7. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman has continued this illegal policy and practice despite regular complaints by directly affected individuals and community members since 2009, which put him on notice that his actions were unconstitutional and hmmful to the people of New Orleans.
8. To vindicate their and the New Orleans community's fundamental constitutional rights, Mr. Cacho and Ocampo seek compensation for Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman's unconstitutional deprivation of libetiy and the significant resulting harms.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9. This action mises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the laws of the State of Louisiana. This Comi has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and 1367. 10. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l391(b). Defendant resides within the Eastern District of Louisiana, the Plaintiffs reside or resided within
Page 3 of15

Case 2: 11-cv-00225 Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 4 of 15
the district during the time the events giving rise to this action occurred, and the events giving rise to this action occurred in the Eastem District of Louisiana.
PARTIES 11. Plaintiff Mario Cacho is an individual who Sheriff Gusman held in unlawful custody in Orleans Parish Prison for on or about 164 days. At all times relevant to this complaint, Mr. Cacho was a resident ofNew Orleans. 12. Plaintiff Antonio Ocampo is an individual who Sheriff Gusman held in unlawful custody in Orleans Parish Prison for on or about 91 days. At all times relevant to this complaint, Mr. Ocampo was a resident ofNew Orleans. 13. Defendant Marlin N. Gusman is the Sheriff of Orleans Parish, Louisiana. Defendant Gusman is sued in his official capacity. Defendant Gusman operates the Orleans Parish Prison. He is responsible for formulating policies that govem custody of all individuals held at Orleans Parish Prison. He is also responsible for the acts and omissions of his agents and employees at Orleans Parish Prison. Defendant Gusman has ultimate supervisory authority over Orleans Parish Prison. 14. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Gusman acted or failed to act under color of state law.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK 15. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman is the chieflaw enforcement officer for Orleans Parish. 16. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman has a voluntary policy and practice of submitting to hold requests from ICE. 1
1The civil immigration laws of the United States are enforced by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). ICE engages in its enforcement responsibilities through various actions. ICE may also seek judicial and
Page 4 of15

Case 2: 11-cv-00225 Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 5 of 15
17. Pursuant to his policy and practice of submitting to hold requests from ICE, Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman regularly holds New Orleans Community members in his custody after his authority to hold them deriving from traffic, municipal, and/or state criminal charges has concluded. This includes situations when the prosecutor has withdrawn the individual's municipal or state criminal charges; a judge has set a criminal bond, which the individual has paid or is ready to pay; or the criminal court has ordered his release because the individual has resolved all penalties for his charges.
18. During this additional detention time, Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman holds individuals solely pursuant to purpmied authority vested in him by hold requests from ICE.
19. ICE makes these hold requests to Sheriff Gusman on the mere suspicion that an individual has committed a civil immigration violation- a suspicion that is often based on racial profiling alone.
20. A hold request from ICE is a request- not a requirement- that a local official hold an individual for up to 48 hours (excluding weekends and holidays). 8 C.P.R.§ 287.7(a).
21. A hold request from ICE "advises" local officials that DHS may desire to initiate civil immigration proceedings against an individual and/or assume custody of an individual.
22. A hold request from ICE provides no legal authority for a local official to detain an individual beyond 48 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays) after the conclusion of lawful custody based on traffic, municipal, and/or state criminal charges.
23. ICE refers to these temporary hold requests as "immigration·detainers" in an attempt to .analogize them to intrastate criminal detainers, but this is a misnomer. An intrastate criminal
administrative warrants to conduct investigations. ICE may also conduct investigations and upon probable cause, arrest individuals it believes to have committed civil violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Page 5 of15

Case 2:11-cv-00225 Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 6 of 15
"detainer" constitutes an arrest for criminal charges in another state. The criminal arrest on which the criminal detainer is based requires a showing of probable cause, requires notice to the individual on whom it is placed, and includes a process where the individual can challenge the detainer. In contrast, a hold request from ICE does not include these basic safeguards to protect fundamental rights. An ICE hold request does not constitute a criminal arrest and does not require a showing ofprobable cause or any other standard of proof. Instead, a so-called "immigration detainer" may be issued based on the mere suspicion that a person is a "noncitizen." Neither ICE nor the Sheriff is required to inform an individual when an "immigration detainer" is placed upon them, and there is no process for an individual to contest detention pursuant to these "immigration detainers" (hereinafter "hold requests" or "ICE hold requests").
24. A hold request from ICE does not allege or purport to determine whether the individual possesses another valid immigration status or whether the person is eligible for immigration relief.
25. A hold request from ICE is not reviewed by an immigration judge before it is submitted to a local law enforcement agency and imposed on an individual.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. PLAINTIFF MARIO CACHO 26. Plaintiff Mario Cacho completed his sentence for disturbing the peace, New Orleans Municipal Code 54-405, on August 21,2009. 27. Upon expiration ofhis criminal sentence, Orleans Parish She1iffGusman continued to hold Plaintiff Cacho in his custody.
Page 6 of15

Case 2:11-cv-00225 Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 7 of 15
28. After August 21, 2009, OrleansParish Sheriff Gusman held Plaintiff Cacho based solely on the purpmted authority of a hold request from ICE.
29. ICE miginally made this hold request on July 31, 2009. 30. On August 25, 2009, ICE's hold request to Sheriff Gusman regarding Plaintiff Cacho expired. 31. ICE chose not to take custody of Plaintiff Cacho in order to issue an arrest warrant, which would have required a showing of probable cause, on or before August 25, 2009. 32. Plaintiff Cacho remained in the custody of Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman until on or about February 5, 2010. Sheliff Gusman held Plaintiff Cacho in unlawful custody in Orleans Parish Prison for on or about 164 days. 33. Between August 25, 2009 and the date of his release from the custody of the Orleans Parish Sheriff, Plaintiff Cacho filed a wlitten glievance to Orleans Parish Piison officials asking to be released. Plaintiff Cacho gave this glievance to an official at Orleans Parish Piison. 34. Plaintiff Cacho did not receive any response to the written grievance that he filed. 35. Plaintiff Cacho also made numerous oral requests asking to be released to staff of the Orleans Parish P1ison. 36. On February 5, 2010, Plaintiff Cacho, through counsel, filed a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Libe1iies (DHS-CRCL). 37. Following Plaintiff Cacho's civil rights complaint, Orleans Parish She1iff Gusman released Plaintiff Cacho to ICE. 38. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Cacho would have remained in Orleans Parish Sheliffs custody indefinitely if he had not taken legal action to defend his rights.
Page 7 of15

Case 2: 11-cv-00225 Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 8 of 15
39. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman's actions failed to provide Plaintiff Cacho with due process oflaw.
40. As a direct and proximate result of actions and omissions by Defendant Sheriff Gusman, Plaintiff Cacho suffered loss of liberty.
41. As a reasonably foreseeable direct and proximate result of actions and omissions by Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman, Plaintiff Cacho suffered substantial damages including physical pain and suffering, emotional distress and harm, embarrassment and other financial losses. Plaintiff Cacho suffered significant emotional distress due to his continued detention without legal basis and the fear that he would be detained indefinitely.
B. PLAINTIFF ANTONIO OCAMPO 42. Plaintiff Antonio Ocampo completed his concurrent sentence for two counts of simple battery, La Rev. St.§ 1435, on August 12,2010. 43. Upon completion of his criminal sentence on August 12,2010, Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman continued to hold Plaintiff Ocampo in his custody based solely on the purported authority of a hold request from ICE. 44. ICE originally made this hold request on February 23, 2010. 45. On August 16, 2010, ICE's hold request to Sheriff Gusman regarding Plaintiff Ocampo expired. 46. ICE decided not to take custody ofPlaintiffOcampo in order to issue an arrest wan·ant, which would have required a showing of probable cause, on or before August 16, 2010. 47. PlaintiffOcampo remained in the custody of Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman until November 15, 2010. Sheriff Gusman held Plaintiff Ocampo in unlawful custody in Orleans Parish Prison for on or about 91 days.
Page 8 of15

Case 2:11-cv-00225 Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 9 of 15
48. Between August 16,2010 and November 15,2010, Plaintiff Ocampo filed approximately five written complaints with Orleans Parish Prison officials asking to be released.
49. Plaintiff Ocampo gave each written complaint to an official at the Orleans Parish Prison. 50. Plaintiff Ocampo did not receive any response to the written grievances that he filed. 51. Plaintiff Ocampo also made numerous oral requests asking to be released to staff of the Orleans Parish Prison. 52. On one occasion, Plaintiff Ocampo made an oral request for release to the Warden. 53. On November 12, 2010, Plaintiff Ocampo, through counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Ocampo v. Gusman, no. 10-4309, U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. La. 54. On November 15, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff Ocampo's writ of habeas corpus and ordered him released from Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman's custody. 55. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Ocampo would have remained in Orleans Parish Sheriffs custody indefinitely ifhe had not taken legal action to defend his rights. 56. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman's actions failed to provide Plaintiff Ocampo with due process oflaw. 57. As a direct and proximate result of actions and omissions by Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman, Plaintiff Ocampo suffered loss of liberty. 58. As a reasonably foreseeable direct and proximate result of actions and omissions by Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman, Plaintiff Ocampo suffered substantial damages including physical pain and suffering, emotional distress and hann, as well as embarrassment and other financial losses. Throughout his months of unlawful detention, Plaintiff Ocampo suffered extreme emotional distress with no sense of when his prolonged detention would end and he
Page 9 of15

Case 2:11-cv-00225 Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 10 of 15
would be re-united with his family. Plaintiff Ocampo suffered great distress over each day he was detained when he could not see his young child and be a part of his life.
C. LIABILITY OF ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF GUSMAN 59. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman is responsible for establishing policies, procedures, training, and practices that ensure that he only detains individuals that he has legal authority to detain at the Orleans Parish Prison. 60. Pursuant to his authority as Sheriff, Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman chose to adopt policies and practices that include voluntarily submitting to hold requests from ICE. 61. As a consequence of Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman's decision to voluntarily submit to hold requests from ICE, and his failure to release detained individuals after the hold requests expire, Plaintiffs Cacho and Ocampo and many other individuals have been held in unlawful custody. 62. Since at least 2009, Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman has received notice on numerous occasions that his policies and practices are leading to regular instances of excessive and unlawful custody, including holding New Orleans community members long beyond the expiration of the ICE hold requests. 63. On June 18, 2009, community members sent a letter to Sheriff Gusman documenting an individual cmTently being unlawfully held in the Orleans Parish Prison based merely on an ICE hold request. In a meeting in response to this letter, Sheriff Gusman acknowledged that ICE hold requests do not allow him to detain an individual for more than 48 hours after the resolution of their traffic, municipal, and/or state criminal charges. Nonetheless, subsequent to this meeting Sheriff Gusman continued the practice of submitting to ICE hold requests and detaining individuals in custody beyond the 48-hour expiration of these requests.
Page 10 of15

Case 2: 11-cv-00225 Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 11 of 15
64. On November 15, 2010, this Court ordered Sheriff Gusman to release Plaintiff Ocampo from unlawful custody after holding Ocampo for on or about 91 days on the basis of an expired hold request from ICE.
65. On January 18, 2011, the New Orleans' Workers Center for Racial Justice filed a request for public records relating to Defendant Gusman's practices and policies regarding immigration detainers pursuant to the Public Records Act of Louisiana, La. Rev. Stat. §44: 1 et seq. By law, Sheriff Gusman should have responded to this request within 3 days, or by January 21, 2011. To date, Sheriff Gusman has failed to provide a response of any kind.
66. Upon information and belief, Sheriff Gusman has not established any policies, procedures, guidance or training regarding the Orleans Parish Prison's legal obligation to release individuals held on the purported authority of an ICE hold request no later than 48 hours after they are otherwise eligible for release.
67. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman's actions failed to provide Plaintiffs with due process of law. In some cases, Sheriff Gusman's decision to submit to these hold requests has prevented individuals from getting their day in court for underlying traffic, municipal, and/or criminal charges.
68. At all times relevant to this complaint, by continuing to hold individuals in custody without lawful authority, Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman acted in willful, reckless, and callous disregard ofPlaintiffs' rights under federal and state law.
69. The costs related to holding Plaintiffs and other individuals solely pursuant to ICE hold requests have been borne by the Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office alone, contributing to its excessive budget shmifalls. The City ofNew Orleans has no legal or contractual obligation to pay Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office costs related to a per diem fee for individuals held pursuant
Page 11 of15

Case 2:11-cv-00225 Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 12 of 15
to ICE hold requests. Upon information and belief, the City ofNew Orleans did not pay such costs related to the incarceration of Plaintiffs or other similarly situated individuals held solely pursuant to ICE hold requests. The State of Louisiana has no legal or contractual obligation to pay Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office costs related to a per diem fee for individuals held pursuant to temporary ICE hold requests. Upon information and belief, the State of Louisiana did not pay such costs related to Plaintiffs and has not paid costs related to other individuals held solely pursuant to ICE hold requests. The U.S. DHS has no legal or contractual obligation to pay Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office costs related to a per diem fee for individuals held pursuant to ICE hold requests. Upon information and belief, the U.S. DHS did not pay such costs related to Plaintiffs and has not paid costs related to other individuals held solely pursuant to ICE hold requests.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOURTH, FIFTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY; DUE PROCESS) 70. The foregoing allegations are incorporated by reference. 71. In committing the acts complained of herein, Defendant Gusman acted under color of state law to deprive plaintiffs of liberty without legal authority, in violation of their right to be free from umeasonable search and seizures and their right to due process oflaw. 72. Defendant Gusman's procedures, policies, customs, and practices including his deliberately indifferent failure to establish adequate procedures, policies, supervision, and training, caused Plaintiffs' injuries and violations of their constitutional rights. 73. As a direct and proximate cause of the violations of constitutional rights by the Defendant, Plaintiffs suffered general and special damages as alleged in this Complaint and are
Page 12 of15

Case 2: 11-cv-00225 Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 13 of 15
entitled to compensatory damages, attorney's fees, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and any other relief the Court deems just.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF FALSE IMPRISONMENT, LA. CN. CODE ART. 2315
74. The foregoing allegations are incorporated by reference.
75. Plaintiffs Cacho and Ocampo bring this claim for damages resulting from their false imprisonment by Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman.
76. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman acted to unlawfully and unreasonably detain the Plaintiffs Cacho and Ocampo against their will and consent and without legal authority.
77. In detaining plaintiffs without lawful authority, Orleans Pmish Sheriff Gusman acted with malice, gross negligence, and/or reckless disregard.
78. Plaintiffs Cacho and Ocampo suffered injury as a result of Orleans Pmish Sheriff Gusman's actions.
79. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman is liable to Plaintiffs Cacho and Ocampo for compensatory damages, and all other damages allowed by law.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF NEGLIGENCE, LA CN. CODE ART. 2316 80. The foregoing allegations are incorporated by reference. 81. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs during the time of their incarceration in Orleans Parish Prison. 82. By committing the aforementioned acts and omissions, Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman negligently breached his duty of care to Plaintiffs, which directly and ;>roximately resulted in the injmies and damages, including emotional distress that Plaintiffs allege herein.
Page 13 of15

Case 2:11-cv-00225 Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 14 of 15
83. The injuries suffered by Plaintiffs Cacho and Ocampo were a reasonably foreseeable result of Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman's conduct.
84. Plaintiffs Cacho and Ocampo suffered severe emotional injury as a result of Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman's actions.
85. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman is liable to Plaintiffs Cacho and Ocampo for compensatory damages, and all other damages allowed by law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing facts and arguments, Plaintiffs request that this Court take the following actions:
A Declare that Defendant Gusman's detention of individuals named in an ICE hold request for more than 48 hours beyond the termination of any detention authority based on traffic, municipal, and/or state criminal charges, is an egregious violation of the rights enshrined in the United States Constitution;
B. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages, and all other damages allowed by law; C. Grant Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and
any other applicable law; D. Award Plaintiffs pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest on any award of
damages to the extent permitted by law; and E. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
JURY DEMAND F. Plaintiffs request a trial by jury.
Page 14 of15

Case 2:11-cv-00225 Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 15 of 15
Respectfully submitted this 2nd day ofFebmary 2011, s/ Jennifer J. Rosenbaum Jennifer J. Rosenbaum, Trial Attorney Admitted to Practice in the Eastern District ofLouisiana La. BarNo. 31946 NE\V ORLEANS \YORKERS' CENTER FOR RACIAL JUSTICE 217 N. Prieur St. New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 309-5165 Facsimile: (504) 309-5205 jjrosenbaum@nowc1j. org Linton Joaquin Pro Hac Vice Motion Pending California Bar no. 73547 Joaquin@nilc.org Karen C. Tumlin Pro Hac Vice Motion Pending California Bar no. 234691 Tumlin@nilc.org Melissa S. Keaney California Bar no. 265306 Pro Hac Vice Motion Pending Keaney@nilc.org NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LA\V CENTER 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 9001 0 Telephone: (213) 639-3900 Facsimile: (5213) 639-3911
Page 15 of15

Case 2:11-cv-00225 Document 1-1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 1 of 1

'l>.JS 44 (Rev. 12/07)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information containedhereinneitherreplace nor supplement the filing and service ofpleadingsor other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules ofcourt This form, approved by the Judicial Conference ofthe United States in September 1974, is required for the use ofthe Clerk ofCourt for the purpose ofInitiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INS1RUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE Of THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS Mario Cacho and Antonio Ocampo

DEFENDAl'ITS Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin Gusman

(b) County ofResidence ofFirst Listed Plaintiff
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

County ofResidence ofFirst Listed Defendant (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE LAND INVOLVED.

(C) Attorney's (Finn Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Jennifer J. RosenBaum, Tnal Attorney New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice 217 N. rieur St. New Orleans LA 70112 504 309-5165
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

a 1 U.S. Government
Plaintiff

1"1 3 Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)

a 2 U.S. Government
Defendant

a 4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Partie< in Item Ill)

Attorneys (IfKnown) Usry, Weeks, & Matthews, APLC

1615 Poydras Street, Suite 1250

New Orleans LA 70112 504 592-4600

Ill. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL P ARTIES(Piace an "X" in one Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only)

and One Box for Defendant)

Citizen of'This State

PTF DEF
a 1 a 1 Incorporated or Principal Place

PrF DEF
a 4 a4

of Business InThis State

Citizen ofAnother State

a 2 0 2 Incorporated and Principal Place
ofBusiness In Another State

0 5 05

a 3 a 3 ForeignNation

a 6 a6

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Piacean"X"inOneBoxOnlv)

a 110 Insurance a 120Marine

PERSONAL INJURY
a 310Airplane

0 !30 Miller Act

0 315 Airplane Product

0 140Negotiableinstrument

Liability

a 150 Recovery ofOverpayment a 320Assault, Libel &

&EnforcementofJudgment

Slander

a 151 Medicare Act

0 330 Federal Employers'

0 152 Recovery ofDefaulted

LiabiUty

S!udentLoanS

a 340Marine

(Excl. Veterans)

0 345MarineProduct

0 153 Recovery ofOverpayment

Liilbility

ofVeteran's Benefits

a 350 Motor Vehicle

PERSONAL INJURY
a 362Persona!Injury-
Med. Malpractice
a 365Personallnjwy-

a 610 Agriculture
d 6200therFood&Drug
0 625 Drug Related Seizure
ofProperty21 USC831

a 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 a 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157

0 400 State Reapportionment 0 410Antitrust
a 430 Banks and Banking a 450Commerce

Product Liability 0 630 Liquor Laws
a 368 Asbestos Personal 0 640 R.R. & Truck

,.,~:PROPERTY·RIGHTR::;-·.-~~: 0 460 Deportation

0 820 Copyrights

0 470 Racketeer Influenced and

Injury Product Liability

0 650 Aiiiine Regs. 0 660 Occupationa~

0 830 Patent
a 840 Trademark

Corrupt Organizations . 0 480 Consumer Credit

PERSONAL PROPERTY

Safety/Health.·

0

a 3700therFraud

a 6900ther

a

a 0 371 Truth in Lending ,;:t']'<'<ME<J.'UA:BOR'·.•:''''''''".'·•··"· •'-'-•-i::iO •ll\]jJ:iEG:UK TY>o<c;,>;

0 380 Other Personal

0.710 FairLabor Standards

a 861 RIA (!395ft)

490Cable/SatTV 8!0SelectiveService 850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange

0 160 Stockholders' Suits

0 355 Motor Vehicle

Property Damage

Act

0 862 Black Lung (923)

0 875 Customer Challenge

0 190 Other Contract

Product Liilbility

0 385 Property Damage a 720 Labor/Mgmt Relations 0 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))

12 USC 3410

a 195 Contract Product Liability a 360 Other Personal

ProductLiability 0 730 Labor/MgmtReporting 0 864 SSID Title XVI

0 890 Other Statutory Actions

a l96Franchise

Injury

&Disclosure Act

0 865 RS!(405(g))

0 891 Agriculturn!Acts

a J<iii"1'i.tEAI;.;I'ROi'ER1\Y:<::r •·:.:,;o',•ieNil:hlUGHTS::,•:-: :;,, ·_;piUSONER;I~ETITIOlils:;;o 740 Railway Labor Act

;_;-;;~FE"DERAI;ifKi{StJJTS:';·.,:,. 0 892 Economic Stabilization Act

a 210LandCondemnation

a 441 Voting

a 510MotionstoVacate a 7900therLaborLitigation 0 870Taxes(U.S.Plaintiff a 893 Environmental Matters

LJ 220 Foreclosure

LJ 442 Employment

Sentence

a ·79 I Empl. Ret. Inc.

or Defendant)

a 894 Energy Allocation Act

0 230 Rent Lease & Ejecbnent 0 443 Housing/

Habeas Corpus:

Security Act

a 871 IRS-Third Party

a 895 Freedom ofInformation

0 240 Torts to Land

Accommodations

a 530 Genernl

26 USC 7609

Act

a 0 245 Tort Product Liability

444 Welfare

0 535 Death Penalty

~\o'Si'."tifM!";JIG.RATJON~:;,r;o';";·:

a 900Appeal ofFee Determination

0 290 All Other Real Property a 445 Amer. w/Disabilities- 0 540 Mandamus & Other 0 462 Naturalization Application

Under Equal Access

Employment

a 550 Civil Rights

0 463 Habeas Corpus -

to Justice

a 446 Amer. w/Disabilities- 0 555 Prison Condition

Alien Detainee

a 950 Constitutionality of

Other

0-465 Otl1er Immigration

State Statutes

L1l: 440 Other Civil Rights

Actions

V. ORIGIN 121 Original
Proceeding

(Place an "X" in One Box Only)

0 2 Removed from

0 3 Remanded from

State Court

Appellate Court

0 4 Reinstated or 0
Reopened

5 Tasrnaoen~CsefI err)dri~sdtrfi!cotm

0 6 Multidistrict
·Litigation

Appeal to District

0

7

Judge from Magistrate

Jud ent

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing· (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION I::B-?!::=.~f-:"~7~""~~rlC:"7P~·~'"";,:::';ca-u-s-e:----------.:~-----------------------­

VII; REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:

U Ia ul Custod in violation of the Fourth Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

0 CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

DE!Y.IA.t'ID $

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

UNDERF.R.C.P. 23

JURY DE!VIAND: lilf Yes 0 No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)

IF ANY

(See instructions): JUDGE Sarah S. Vance

DOCKETNUiv!BER 10-4309 Section R

02/02/2011 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

- - - - - - - RECEIPT#

AMOUNT
---~~---

MAG. JUDGE -------------------

Case 2: 11-cv-00225 Document 1-2 Filed 02/02/11 Page 1 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the Eastern District ofLouisiana

Mario Cacho and Antonio Ocampo
Plaintiff
v. Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin Gusman
Defendant

) ) ) ) Civil Action No. ) ) )

SUMlVIONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant's name and address) Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin Gusman Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office 819 South Broad Street New Orleans, LA 70119-7418

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) - or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3)- you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney,
whose name and address are: Jennifer J. Rosenbaum, Trial Attorney New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice 217 N. Prieur St. New Orleans, LA 70112 (504) 309-5165 telephone jjrosenbaum@nowcrj.org

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

·

Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

CLERK OF COURT
Signature ofClerkorDeputy Clerk

Case 2: 11-cv-00225 Document 1-2 Filed 02/02/11 Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (!))
This summons for (name ofindividual and title, ifany) was received by me on (date)

0 I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
------------------------------------

on (date)

; or

-----------------------------------------------

----------------

0 I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
-------------------

' a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
---------------------------------

on (date)

' and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or

----~----------

0 I served the summons on (name ofindividual)

, who is

----------------------------------------

designated by law to accept service ofprocess on behalf of (name oforganization)

on (date)

; or

-----------------------------------------------

----------------

0 I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

------------------------------------------

0 Other (specify):

My fees are$

for travel and$

for services, for a total of$

0.00

-----------

-----------

I declare under penalty ofpe:tjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server's signature Printed name and title

Additional infonnation regarding attempted service, etc:

Server's address

 
 Case 2:11-cv-00225-SS Document 95-3 Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 1
ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF'S OFFICE
CHAPTER: Inmate Acceptance, Booking, Release and Records SUBJECT: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Procedures
POLICY:
It is the policy of the Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office to cooperate with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in accordance with the following procedures:
1. For purposes of this section, a voluntary Immigrations and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") detainer request shall be defined as any request, including but not limited to Form 1247 (also known as a "48 hour hold"), which seeks continued detention of an inmate beyond expiration ofmunicipal, state, or federal charges, or a finding ofno probable cause, or a posting ofbail or parole, or a completion of a sentence, or lifting ofanother jurisdiction or agency's detainer, or a court ordered release. ICE criminal warrants, or any court order for continued detention shall not be considered voluntary ICE detainer requests for purposes of this section.
2. The Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office shall decline all voluntary ICE detainer requests unless the individual's charge is for one or more of the following offenses: First Degree Murder (La. R.S. 14:30); Second Degree Murder (La. R.S. 14:30.1); Aggravated Rape (La. R.S. 14:42); Aggravated Kidnapping (La. R.S. 14:44); Treason (La. R.S. 14:113); or Armed Robbery with Use of a Firearm (La. R.S. 14:64.3). If a court later dismisses or reduces the individual's charge such that the individual is no longer charged with one of the above offenses or the court recommends declining the ICE hold request, OPSO will decline the ICE hold request on that individual.
3. OPSO officials shall not initiate any immigration status investigation into individuals in OPSO custody or affrrmatively provide information on an inmate's release date or address to ICE.
4. Prior to any interview pertaining to an ICE criminal investigation, ICE must notify the subject inmate's attorney, provide a reasonable opportunity for counsel to be present during the interview, and certify to OPSO that this notice and opportunity has occurred. Absent a criminal warrant or court order transferring custody, no ICE agent shall be permitted into the secure area ofthe Intake and Processing Center. Absent a court order, OPSO shall not allow ICE to conduct civil immigration status investigations at OPSO or otherwise interview an inmate before the detainee's first appearance.
5. Any individual who alleges a violation of the policy set forth herein may file a written complaint for investigation with the Orleans Parish Sheriffs Director of Intake and Processing.
\

 
 Case 2:11-cv-00225-SS Document 95-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MARIO CACHO and ANTONIO OCAMPO, CIVIL ACTION NO: 2:11-CV-225

Plaintiffs,

MAGISTRATE (I)

v.

Judge Sally Shushan

SHERIFF MARLIN N. GUSMAN, ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF,

Defendant.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement"), effective· as of the date all Parties have executed this Agreement (the "Effective Date"), is made by and between Mario Cacho and Antonio Ocampo (collectively "Plaintiffs") and Sheriff Marlin Gusman in his official capacity as Orleans Parish Sheriff ("the Sheriff"), and is based on the following: I. The Parties enter into and do hereby stipulate to an Agreement that imposes binding obligations upon the Parties and their successors to the extent stated below and that constitutes a full and complete resolution ofthe issues in the above-captioned action. 2. Plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Lousiana against the Sheriff styled Cacho v. Gusman, Case No. 2:11-cv-00225 (the "Lawsuit") that alleges violations of the constitutional rights of liberty and due process, false imprisonment, and negligence. 3. The Parties desire to settle their dispute in order to avoid the time and expense of additional litigation of the above-captioned case.

Page 1 of6

Case 2:11-cv-00225-SS Document 95-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 6
4. With the entry of the Consent Judgment, the Sheriff shall adopt and implement the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office Policy on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Procedures (herein "Policy") incorporated in the Consent Judgment. The Policy shall remain premanently in effect absent a change in federal or state law applicable to immigration detainers.
5. With the entry of the Consent Judgment, the Sheriff shall ensure that the Policy is disseminated to all employees of the Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office and fully implemented.
6. Within l 0 business days of the entry of the Consent Judgment, the Sheriff shall pay the following amounts to Plaintiffs by the method set forth herein:
a. The Sheriff shall pay Plaintiff Mario Cacho: $19,294.12. b. The Sheriff shall pay Plaintiff Antonio Ocampo: $10,705.88. c. The Sheriff shall pay the amounts set forth above via check which will be
deposited to the IOLTA account of the New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice Legal Department, and distributed to Plaintiffs (unless another payment method is agreeable to the parties). 7. The Parties agree that the entry of the Consent Judgment shall make Plaintiffs the prevailing parties for the purpose of court adjudication of the motion for attorneys fees and costs and Plaintiffs shall submit their fee request within thirty calendar days of the entry of the consent motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and 28 U.S.C. § 1988. The fee request must be fully briefed and supported. Opposition to the fee request shall be filed within thirty calendar days of the fee request, with any reply due within ten calendar days. 8. The Parties agree that the Court retains jurisdiction over this action in order to enforce Paragraph 4 of the Consent Judgment, determine reasonable attorneys fees and costs, and resolve any disputes regarding the implementation and enforcement of this Consent Judgment. For
Page 2 of6

Case 2:11-cv-00225-SS Document 95-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 3 of 6
purposes of enforcement, "Plaintiff Representatives" shall mean New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice and National Immigration Law Center.
9. The Parties agree that any dispute related to this Consent Judgment be submitted to the following mediation process or any amended process agreed upon by the Sheriff and Plaintiff Representatives before being brought to the Court:
a. If the Plaintiff Representatives believe the Sheriff's action violates the terms of the Consent Judgment including but not limited to the Policy in Paragraph 4, they shall notify the Sheriff of the reasons in writing and provide 48 hours for the Sheriff to lift the detainer or otherwise review and alter its actions.
b. If Plaintiff Representatives and the Sheriff cannot resolve the dispute related to the Consent Judgment within 48 hours of notice, the Sheriff and/or the Plaintiff Representatives shall submit the matter in dispute to non-binding mediation. Each party shall submit a written statement of its position. Plaintiff Representatives and the Sheriff shall also participate in person in mediation with the mediator within two weeks from time the dispute is submitted for mediation. Within one week of the mediation, the Mediator shall issue a report on the outcome of the mediation.
c. The mediator shall be a faculty member of the Stuart H. Smith Law Clinic and Center for Social Justice at Loyola University, College of Law or another mediator mutually agreeable to the Sheriff and the Plaintiff Representatives.
d. If the Sheriff and the Plaintiff Representatives are not able to resolve the dispute through nonbinding mediation, Plaintiff Representatives and/or Sheriff may file a complaint with the Court seeking to enforce this Consent Judgment. Plaintiff
Page 3 of6

Case 2:11-cv-00225-SS Document 95-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 4 of 6
Representatives and/or Sheriff must contemporaneously file a copy of the mediator's report, including certification of the steps taken pursuant to this mediation agreement. e. Nothing in this section shall take away any rights or remedies parties have under law and equity. 10. All Parties acknowledge and agree that the execution of this Agreement shall not be construed as an express or implied admission of misconduct, responsibility, or liability of any Party and the Parties expressly and specifically deny all such admissions. Rather, it is acknowledged and agreed that the Agreement has been entered into solely for the purpose of settling and compromising the Lawsuit and to avoid future expenses and uncertainties related to the Lawsuit. 11. The payment set forth in Paragraph 7 is compensation for non-wage damages, including compensatory damages (for physical pain and suffering, emotional distress and harm), and is exclusive of attomey fees and costs accrued to date. 12. The Parties stipulate that this Agreement represents a full and final settlement of all claims which were or could have been asserted in the Lawsuit. 13. The Parties agree tlmt they shall not seek appellate or mandamus review or reconsideration of any order entered in this Lawsuit. 14. The covenants and releases set forth in this Agreement shall be irrevocable and remain in full force and effect perpetually and shall be binding on any successors to the Parties. 15. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude any person not bmmd by this Agreement from filing a separate, original action to vindicate alleged rights that are otherwise addressed in this Agreement.
Page 4 of6

Case 2:11-cv-00225-SS Document 95-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 5 of 6
16. The Parties agree that the Court in the above captioned case shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Lawsuit and ancillary jurisdiction over any action arising from or relating to the Lawsuit in order to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement, determine attorneys' fees and costs, and to take any action necessary or appropriate for the Agreement's enforcement, interpretation, execution, modification, or adjudication of disputes. Any Party may apply to the Court for any relief necessary to construe or effectuate the terms of this Agreement.
17. It is further agreed that, if any of the Parties initiates proceedings to enforce the terms of the Consent Judgment and the Court finds that the other party is in violation of its obligations under the Consent Judgment, the violating party shall be liable for the attorneys' fees and costs associated with enforcing the Consent Judgment.
18. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed and interpreted in accordance with, the laws of the State of Louisiana, without regard to its conflict oflaw provisions.
19. This Agreement embodies the entire understanding between the parties as to the subject matter hereof and supercedes all previous discussions and documents respecting such subject matter.
20. This Agreement may not be amended, supplemented, or modified in any manner, orally or otherwise, except by an instrument in writing referencing this Agreement signed by duly authorized representatives of the parties hereto.
21. If any provision hereof or any portion thereof shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. The parties shall then endeavor to replace the invalid or unenforceable portion by a clause which is closest to the contents of the invalid or unenforceable portion.
Page 5 of6

Case 2:11-cv-00225-SS Document 95-2 Filed 08/09/13 Page 6 of 6
22. This Agreement shall be construed as if the Parties jointly prepared it and any uncertainty or ambiguity shall not be interpreted against any one Party because of the marmer in which this Agreement was drafted or prepared.
23. The Parties each aclmowledge, accept, warrant and represent that they are represented at all relevant times during the negotiation and execution of this Agreement by counsel of their choice, and that they have executed this Agreement with the consent and on the advice of such independent legal counsel.
24. This Agreement may be executed in three or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement through their duly authorized representatives as set forth below:

Marlin Gusman, Orleans Parish Sheriff
~u~---

·r. 1/ By: LA /~.A--

f'l C JVV}

Dated: fl/#I ); :)
I I

Mario Cacho

Page 6 of6

 
 RESOLUTION
NO. R-13-164
CITY HALL: May 16, 2013
BY: COUNCILMEMBERS CANTRELL, GRAY AND GUIDRY
WHEREAS, federal regulation, specifically Title 8, Part 287, Section 287.7, Subsection (a), authorizes a federal immigration officer to issue a “Form I-247 Immigration Detainer” to a local law enforcement agency; and
WHEREAS, this federal regulation, specifically Title 8, Part 287, Section 287.7, Subsection (d), contemplates that the local law enforcement agency, upon issuance of the Form I-247 Immigration Detainer for a particular person, will detain that person for up to 48 additional hours, excluding weekends and holidays, after the point when there is no longer any local law enforcement basis for detention; and
WHEREAS, in practice, the issuance of a Form I-247 Immigration Detainer, and the anticipation of additional detention pursuant thereto contemplated by Subsection (d) of Section 287.7, often results in the continued detention – in some cases for far longer than 48 hours – of individuals that would otherwise be able to secure release from custody by posting bail via commercial surety in an amount deemed appropriate by a local judge; and
WHEREAS, this federal regulation, specifically Title 8, Part 287, Section 287.7, Subsection (e), explicitly states that the federal government is not required to compensate the local law enforcement agency for any costs associated with additional detention incurred pursuant to, or as a result of, the issuance of a Form I-247 Immigration Detainer; and
WHEREAS, the federal agency charged with immigration enforcement, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), has confirmed in writing that ICE neither reimburses nor indemnifies against liability a local law enforcement agency detaining an individual pursuant to a Form I-247 Immigration Detainer; and
WHEREAS, multiple studies have found that issuance of and compliance with Form I247 Immigration Detainers have increased the average jail stay of affected individuals by dozens of days and consequently increased annual detention costs by millions of dollars; and
WHEREAS, unlike a traditional arrest warrant, a Form I-247 Immigration Detainer may be issued by a federal immigration enforcement agent without any judicial scrutiny, established standard of proof, or finding of probable cause; and
WHEREAS, a recent report by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University found that during a 50-month period covering Fiscal Year 2008 through the start of Fiscal Year 2012, ICE issued Form I-247 Immigration Detainers for over 8,000 U.S. citizens and over 28,000 Legal Permanent Residents; and

WHEREAS, issuance of and compliance with Form I-247 Immigration Detainers may impose significant adverse effects on individuals, families, and communities that make vital contributions to and constitute an integral part of the great City of New Orleans; and
WHEREAS, this federal regulation, specifically Title 8, Part 287, Section 287.7, Subsection (a), explicitly characterizes a Form I-247 Immigration Detainer as a “request”; and
WHEREAS, in response to a formal letter of inquiry from County Counsel of the County of Santa Clara, regarding the question of whether “localities are required to hold individuals pursuant to Form I-247” or whether “detainers [are] merely requests with which a county could legally decline to comply,” an Assistant Director at ICE stated that “ICE views an immigration detainer as a request…”; and
WHEREAS, in the case of Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997), the United States Supreme Court declared that the principles of federalism embodied in the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits Congress from directly commandeering local law enforcement “to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program”; and
WHEREAS, in recent years, cities and states across the country - including Cook County, Illinois; Santa Clara County, California; Milwaukee County, Wisconsin; Multnomah County, Oregon; San Francisco County, California; San Miguel County, New Mexico; the District of Columbia; New York City; Los Angeles; and the State of Connecticut – have exercised their federal constitutional right to limit compliance with Form I-247 Immigration Detainer requests in a manner consistent with local interests and values; and
WHEREAS, the City of New Orleans is responsible for funding the maintenance and operation of local detention facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office is responsible for operating local detention facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor of the City of New Orleans has recently warned the Council of the City of New Orleans that the City of New Orleans presently faces the prospect of additional expenditures to operate the local jail that may have adverse fiscal and budgetary impacts on other vital city services and priorities; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of New Orleans is committed to working in close collaboration with the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office to ensure that scarce local taxpayer dollars appropriated for local law enforcement purposes are spent on the work of local law enforcement and in a manner that furthers local values and interests; NOW THEREFORE
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS HEREBY RESOLVES, That the Orleans Parish Sheriff is formally urged to:
2

1.) Carefully examine its policies and practices related to its voluntary compliance with Form I-247 Immigration Detainer requests; and
2.) Determine under what circumstances, if any, it serves local law enforcement interests to comply with a voluntary Form I-247 Immigration Detainer request to detain an individual beyond the point when there exists any independent local law enforcement basis for the detention, without any compensation for the associated costs or indemnification for the associated liabilities; and
3.) Upon such examination and determination, either: A) adopt a formal, clear, public, written policy of not honoring voluntary Form I-247 Immigration Detainer requests; or B) Present to the Council of the City of New Orleans, for its consideration and review, a formal, clear, public, written policy enumerating the circumstances under which voluntary Form I-247 Immigration Detainer requests will be honored, along with a full accounting of all anticipated expenses associated with said policy to be paid by appropriations from the Council of the City of New Orleans.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS READ IN FULL, THE ROLL WAS CALLED ON THE ADOPTION THEREOF AND RESULTED AS FOLLOWS: YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT: AND THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED.
3

 
 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3

4

5 ANTONIO OCAMPO

"k

~·:

6 versus

~'(

-;':

7 MARLIN N. GUSMAN, et al

•k

8

* -;': -;'( 'i'( ~'c ')'( ')'( "1: "/( -/(

-;'( -;'( -:,'( ~·( "/( "4'(

Docket 2:10-CV-4309-R New Orleans, Louisiana November 15, 2010

9

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER HEARING

10

BEFORE THE HONORABLE SARAH S. VANCE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11

12 Appearances:
13

14 For the Plaintiff: 15 16 17
For the Defendants: 18 19 20

New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice
BY: JENNIFER J. ROSENBAUM, ESQ. 803 Baronne Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
Usry Weeks & Matthews
BY: FREEMAN R. MATTHEWS, ESQ. TIMOTHY R. RICHARDSON, ESQ.
1615 Poydras Street, Suite 1250 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112

21 Official Court Reporter: 22 23

Toni Doyle Tusa, CCR, FCRR 500 Poydras Street, B-406 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 (504) 589-7778

24 Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography; transcript
25 produced by computer.

2

1

PROCEEDINGS

2

(November 15, 2010)

3

THE DEPUTY CLERK: All rise, please.

4

Court is in session. Please be seated. Civil

5 Action 10-4309, Antonio Ocampo v. Marlin Gusman? et al.

6 Counsel, please make your appearances for the record.

7

MS. ROSENBAUM: This is Jennifer Rosenbaum appearing

8 for petitioner Antonio Ocampo.

9

MR. RICHARDSON: Timothy Richardson and Freeman R.

10 Matthews on behalf of Sheriff Gusman.

11

THE COURT: Good afternoon. Is the prisoner present?

12

We are here on a habeas petition to show cause

13 why the prisoner should not be released. Do you want to tell

14 me why he is still being held?

15

Who are all these people?

16

MR. RICHARDSON: I'm sorry, Your Honor?

17

THE COURT: Who are all the people in the audience?

18

MR. RICHARDSON: I'm not sure, Your Honor.

19

MS. ROSENBAUM: The people that I know are some

20 members from the public defender and some members of the

21 community who are interested in what's happening. I don't know

22 everyone in the audience, Your Honor.

23

THE COURT: I thought I heard handcuffs and things,

24 so I couldn't tell if those were other prisoners or what.

25 Thank you.

3

1

MS. ROSENBAUM: We do have an interpreter who 1s

2 interpreting for Mr. Ocampo, so that may be part of the

3

THE COURT: Has she been sworn in? Swear her in.

4

(WHEREUPON the interpreter, Nicky Thanos, was duly

5 sworn.)

6

MR. RICHARDSON: Tim Richardson on behalf of the

7 sheriff. Judge, from what we could gather from today -- and,

8 again, Judge, we received this file this morning, but this is

9 what looks like has happened.

10

Originally, the pr1soner was arrested for an

11 attempted first-degree murder and two aggravated batteries by

12 cutting. Those were the original charges. What happened from

13 that point is it started to go through the district attorney's

14 office.

15

At that point, we have some documentation that

16 INS actually placed a hold on the inmate. Well, it went

17 through until about August of 2010. In August, the charges

18 were reduced to a simple battery. That happens in August, and

19 we have some documentation that we actually checked with the

20 clerk's office they were still showing an attempted

21 first-degree murder as of that point in time.

22

Now, pursuant to the office policies of the

23 sheriff, as soon as there is any indication that the inmate is

24 to be released or that the charges have been reduced or so

25 forth, INS will be notified. The way that that works, Judge,

4

1 is the district attorney's office has the information which

2 goes to the clerk's office. The clerk's office goes to the

3 sheriff's office and notifies the sheriff's office that, at

4 this point in time, the inmate can be released.

5

THE COURT: Let's back up. You're not disputing that

6 the inmate was entitled to be released in August?

7

MR. RICHARDSON: It looks like that's the case from

8 the district attorney's standpoint. The only issue at that

9 point, Judge -- I would agree with you with the caveat there

10 was still a hold from INS.

11

THE COURT: That hold was for 48 hours.

12

MR. RICHARDSON: Well, Judge, pursuant to INS-- and

13 it's 8 C.F.R § 287. Pursuant to the C.F.R., INS takes the

14 position they have 48 hours after being notified.

15

THE COURT: I looked for that. I don't have any law

16 on that. Do you have some law on that?

17

MR. RICHARDSON: I have the actual

18

THE COURT: It says: "Temporary detention at

19 department request. Upon a determination by the department to

20 issue a detainer for an alien not otherwise detained by a

21 criminal justice agency, such agency shall maintai~ custody of

22 the alien for a period not to exceed 48 hours, excluding

23 Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, in order to permit assumption

24 of custody by the department."

25

MR. RICHARDSON: Correct, Your Honor. That's

5

1 Subsection (d). That's correct.

2

THE COURT: So where does it say that that is more

3 than 48 hours and that it's 95 days?

4

MR. RICHARDSON: No, I understand that, Judge. I

5 think the issue is that upon notice that the inmate's charges

6 have been dissolved. I guess the problem here is the clerk's

7 office and we did go to the clerk's office today, Judge, to

8 try to find the actual record to see when the sheriff's office

9 was notified that there was actually a dismissal or a reduction 10 of the charge.

11

The clerk's office can't find the file, but the

12 sheriff's office indicates --we can present testimony of

13 this -- that the sheriff's office did not receive any

14 notification from the criminal clerk's office until Friday.

15 The only reason we received it on Friday is because the sheriff

16 actually had someone go down there Friday to obtain some

17 documents. Even after the sentencing -- according to the

18 documents from the clerk's office, even after the charge had

19 been reduced, the clerk's office was still showing the

20 attempted first-degree murder charge.

21

THE COURT: The fact of the matter is that the man

22 was entitled to be released in August. There was a 48-hour

23 detainer that elapsed. Unless there's some legal authority

24 that says that that can be extended for months at a time

25 pending some sort of notice, that makes no sense to me. We

6

1 looked for law that said that the 48 hours can be extended

2 until you give notice and we couldn't find any.

3

MR. RICHARDSON: I understand your concern,

4 Your Honor. I agree with you that as soon as there's notice,

5 things need to happen. I think the problem in this case is

6 that the criminal clerk's office didn't give notice to the

7 sheriff's office so that the sheriff's office could be on

8 notice when this individual had to be released. I think that's

9 the problem, Judge.

10

Of course, INS -- and they are not here, so I

11 can't really speak too much for INS other than they wanted to

12 say, "Look, we didn't get notice until Friday, Sheriff, so we

13 still want our 48 hours."

14

Judge, our position 1s whatever Your Honor wants

15 to do is okay. We are just kind of in a weird position between

16 INS and the inmate. We will do whatever we need to do, Judge.

17 We just want to make it clear it's not that the sheriff was

18 intentionally holding this individual; it's that the sheriff

19 never did get notice from the clerk's office.

20

As soon as we got Your Honor's order last

21 Friday, the sheriff actually sent someone to the clerk's

22 office, couldn't find the record, but went to the screening

23 area and found that the diminished charge was in August. At

24 that point, we obtained that document.

25

We are here today to say, Judge, whatever you

7

1 need us to do is fine, but we just didn't have the notice

2 before. I don't want anyone to misconstrue that the sheriff

3 some kind of way had notice in August of a reduced charge and

4 time served on a charge and just held this individual based on

5 an INS hold. It's just that the clerk didn't give us the

6 information. That's really all I wanted to say about that, 7 Judge.

8

THE COURT: Well, it's clear to me that if I release

9 this prisoner that INS can go get a warrant and arrest him

10 tomorrow.

11

MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, Your Honor, absolutely.

12

THE COURT: That warrant, if they get one from the

13 attorney general, it's not even reviewable by the judiciary.

14 There's no question about that. I'm here on a habeas that

15 challenges your authority to continue to hold this man and

16 that's what I have to rule on.

17

MR. RICHARDSON: Absolutely.

18

THE COURT: So far I have not heard anything that

19 justifies the continued detention by your office based on the

20 law that I have seen and the facts that I understand.

21

MR. RICHARDSON: That's correct, Judge. I think

22 what's just important is until Friday, there was nothing that

23 we had received 1n other words, the sheriff, as you know,

24 Judge, pursuant to Louisiana law, which has the sheriff's

25 authority, is just the keeper of the jail. So the sheriff

8

1 doesn't make the decision as to who to release and when to

2 release. We have to act on a court order. The problem, of

3 course, Judge, is we never did receive the order from the court

4 until the sheriff himself undertook it personally to go pick it

5 up.

6

THE COURT: I'm not blaming the sheriff. He just

7 happens to have custody of the prisoner and he is the one who

8 has to release him if I order him released.

9

MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, Your Honor.

10

THE COURT: I'm not saying that the sheriff is

11 intentionally detaining a prisoner who was entitled to be

12 released in blatant disregard of his rights. I'm not saying

13 that. I'm saying that if the prisoner was entitled to be

14 released in August, to hold him past the due date of the

15 detainer would violate his due process right because he was at

16 that point entitled to be released. That's all I'm saying.

17

MR. RICHARDSON: Sure, Judge. In terms of the INS

18 position, if their position is that they have 48 hours from the

19 point in time that they received notice versus 48 hours from

20 when the sentence is reduced, I really don't know that, Judge.

21 It's really part of the INS, and we really don't want to get

22 involved with that portion of the argument.

23

THE COURT: INS could have appeared and intervened

24 and argued that to me and given me some law, but they haven't

25 done it, and I haven't found any.

9

1

MR. RICHARDSON: That's all we have, Judge. With

2 that, I think I can conclude if that satisfies Your Honor.

3

THE COURT: It does satisfy me. I appreciate you

4 acting on such quick notice. I know this thing was served this

5 morning, so I appreciate it.

6

MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you and the

7 Court for your time.

8

What do you want to say?

9

MS. ROSENBAUM: Thank you, Your Honor. I do just

10 want to put on the record that the 48 hours comes from the

11 constitutional requirements under the Fifth Amendment that

12 that's how long someone can be held before there's a charge

13 entered. It's not something that was devised solely for the

14 Department of Homeland Security detainer process. It's the

15 fundamental time in which we have decided as a nation you can

16 be held without a charge. The remedy for being held unlawfully

17 without a charge is release. That's what we are asking for 18 here.

19

I do think that the sheriff does have some

20 responsibility in his interpretation of the detainer statute,

21 and its concerning to hear that that interpretation is 48 hours

22 from whenever the notification happens as opposed to 48 hours

23 from when the person becomes due for release, which is clearly

24 what the regulations say and what the detainer says on its

25 face.

10

1

THE COURT: I think I have heard enough to make a

2 determination.

3

Based on the evidence in the record provided by

4 the petitioner, which the respondent does not dispute as to the

5 date on which the prisoner was entitled to release and the date

6 on which the detainer had been imposed and on which it would 7 have expired, the Court finds as a fact as follows:

8

It has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

9

The defendant was arrested on February 20, 2010.

10 At some point after his arrest, the Department of Homeland

11 Security issued an immigration detainer notice that the

12 Orleans Parish Prison advise the department prior to Ocampo's

13 release. Ocampo plead guilty to two counts of simple battery

14 and was sentenced to two concurrent five-month sentences and 15 given credit for time served.

16

Ocampo contends -- and it is not disputed on the

17 record -- that Ocampo's sentence was completed on August 12,

18 2010. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 287.7(d), the sheriff's office

19 was permitted to detain Ocampo until August 16, 2010, when the

20 immigration detainer expired. Ocampo remains in the custody of

21 the sheriff in his capacity as keeper of the Orleans Parish 22 Prison.

23

The sheriff has explained on the record that the

24 detention was because he did not have notice from the clerk's

25 office that the prisoner was entitled to release. Be that as

11

1 it may, the Court finds that the prisoner has been held beyond

2 any point in time in which the sheriff is entitled to hold him

3 and he is entitled to be released. There's been no other basis

4 offered that the Court can determine the legal basis for

5 retaining custody of Ocampo by the sheriff's office.

6

The Court cites Ochoa v. Bass, 181 P.3d 727

7 (Ok. 2008): "Once the 48-hour period granted to ICE by

8 8 C.F.R. § 287.7(d) (2007) for assumption of custody had lapsed

9 without ICE taking any action on its detainers, the state no

10 longer had authority to hold petitioners."

11

Accordingly, it is ordered that Ocampo's

12 petition is granted and that he be immediately released from

13 the custody of the sheriff. If there's nothing further, the

14 Court is adjourned. Thank you.

15

THE DEPUTY CLERK: All rise, please.

16

(OFF THE RECORD)

17

THE COURT: I need to change the writ to say that

18 since the hearing has been held, the Court has determined that

19 the prisoner is entitled to be released immediately. I'm

20 amending this writ to provide that the marshal shall not return

21 the prisoner to the sheriff's office but that since the sheriff

22 1s here, the prisoner is here, and the prisoner is entitled to

23 be immediately released, he shall be immediately released from

24 the custody of the sheriff.

25

THE SHERIFF: Can we get his clothes brought here?

12

1

THE COURT: Sure. Sixth floor.

2

THE SHERIFF: We will have his clothes bought here 1n

3 the next 15 minutes.

4

THE COURT: Thank you, Sheriff.

5

(WHEREUPON the Court was in recess.)

6

* * *

7

CERTIFICATE

8

I, Toni Doyle Tusa, CCR, FCRR, Official Court

9 Reporter for the United States District Court, Eastern District

10 of Louisiana, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true

11 and correct transcript, to the best of my ability and

12 understanding, from the record of the proceedings in the

13 above-entitled and numbered matter.

14

15

16

s/ Toni Doyle Tusa

17

Toni Doyle Tusa, CCR, FCRR Official Court Reporter

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 
 Case: 2:11-cv-225 As of: 09/11/2013 02:48 PM CDT 1 of 10
CLOSED,CONMAG,PROTO
U. S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:11−cv−00225−SS

Cacho et al v. Gusman Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff Mario Cacho

Date Filed: 02/02/2011 Date Terminated: 08/09/2013 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Jennifer Jean Rosenbaum New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice 217 N. Prieur St. New Orleans, LA 70112 504−309−5165 Email: jjrosenbaum@nowcrj.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth A. Stevens Orrick, Herrington &Sutcliffe, LLP (San Francisco) The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 415−773−4126 Email: estevens@orrick.com TERMINATED: 05/13/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Ghazal Tajmiri Orrick, Herrington &Sutcliffe, LLP (Los Angeles) 777 South Figueroa St. Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−629−2020 Email: gtajmiri@orrick.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Tumlin National Immigration Law Center (Los Angeles) 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−639−3900 Email: tumlin@nilc.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linton Joaquin National Immigration Law Center (Los Angeles) 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−639−3900 Email: joaquin@nilc.org

Case: 2:11-cv-225 As of: 09/11/2013 02:48 PM CDT 2 of 10

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa J. Anderson Orrick, Herrington &Sutcliffe, LLP (Seattle) 701 Fifth Avenue Suite 5600 Seattle, WA 98104 206−839−4300 Email: mjanderson@orrick.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa Keaney National Immigration Law Center (Los Angeles) 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−639−3900 Email: keaney@nilc.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas D. Espiritu National Immigration Law Center (Los Angeles) 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−639−3900 Email: espiritu@nilc.org

Yihong Julie Mao New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice 217 N. Prieur St. New Orleans, LA 70112 504−309−5165 Fax: 504−309−5205 Email: jmao@nowcrj.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Antonio Ocampo

represented by Jennifer Jean Rosenbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth A. Stevens (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Ghazal Tajmiri (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen Tumlin (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:11-cv-225 As of: 09/11/2013 02:48 PM CDT 3 of 10

Linton Joaquin (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa J. Anderson (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa Keaney (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas D. Espiritu (See above for address)
Yihong Julie Mao (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Marlin N. Gusman Orleans Parish Sheriff

represented by Freeman Rudolph Matthews Usry, Weeks &Matthews 1615 Poydras St. Suite 1250 New Orleans, LA 70112 504−592−4600 Email: pmatthews@uwmlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Blake J. Arcuri Usry, Weeks &Matthews 1615 Poydras St. Suite 1250 New Orleans, LA 70112 504−592−4600 Email: barcuri@uwmlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy R. Richardson Usry, Weeks &Matthews 1615 Poydras St. Suite 1250 New Orleans, LA 70112 504−592−4600 Email: trichardson@uwmlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/02/2011
02/02/2011

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT with jury demand against Marlin N Gusman (Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 053L−2797662) filed by Antonio Ocampo, Mario Cacho. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons)(Rosenbaum, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
2 Notice of Related Case(s) by All Plaintiffs of related case(s) 10−4309. (Rosenbaum, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/02/2011)

Case: 2:11-cv-225 As of: 09/11/2013 02:48 PM CDT 4 of 10

02/02/2011
02/02/2011
02/02/2011
02/02/2011 02/03/2011 02/03/2011
02/10/2011 02/10/2011 02/10/2011 02/15/2011 02/15/2011
02/15/2011 02/16/2011 02/16/2011 02/17/2011

3 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Linton Joaquin to Appear Pro Hac Vice . (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−2797816) by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 certificate of good standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Rosenbaum, Jennifer) Modified on 2/3/2011 to edit text (cab). (Entered: 02/02/2011)
4 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Karen Tumlin to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−2797830) by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Certificate of good standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Rosenbaum, Jennifer) Modified on 2/3/2011 to edit text (cab). (Entered: 02/02/2011)
5 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Melissa Keaney to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−2797848) by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Certificate of good standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Rosenbaum, Jennifer) Modified on 2/3/2011 to edit text (cab). (Entered: 02/02/2011)
6 Initial Case Assignment to Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt and Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (cl, ) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
7 Summons Issued as to Marlin N Gusman. (cab) (Entered: 02/03/2011)
8 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 3 MOTION for Linton Joaquin to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 4 MOTION for Karen Tumlin to Appear Pro Hac Vice and 5 MOTION for Melissa Keaney to Appear Pro Hac Vice ; Document's signature line is blank. All future documents must reflect either an original signature or an electronic signature following the format 's/(attorney name)'. No further action is necessary. (cab) (Entered: 02/03/2011)
9 ORDER granting 3 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Linton Joaquin. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 2/10/2011. (cab) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
10 ORDER granting 5 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Melissa Keaney. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 2/10/2011. (cab) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
11 ORDER granting 4 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Karen Tumlin. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 2/10/2011. (cab) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
12 ***WRONG EVENT*** NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Service of Summons on Defendant Marlin Gusman, Orleans Parish Sheriff. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Rosenbaum, Jennifer) Modified on 2/16/2011 (cab). (Entered: 02/15/2011)
13 MOTION to Transfer this Action to Hon. Judge Vance Pursuant to Local Rules 3.1 and 3.1.1 by Mario Cacho and Antonio Ocampo. Motion set for 3/9/2011 09:30 AM before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit Transcript, Hearing in related case, 2:10cv4309−R, # 3 Notice of Submission, # 4 Proposed Order, # 5 Certificate of Service)(Rosenbaum, Jennifer) Modified on 2/16/2011 to edit text (cab). (Entered: 02/15/2011)
14 SUMMONS Returned Executed; Marlin N Gusman served on 2/8/2011, answer due 4/11/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service, # 2 Certificate of Service)(cab) (Entered: 02/16/2011)
15 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 12 Notice (Other) ; Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is "Service of Process − Summons Returned Executed as to USA or Agency of USA." Clerk took corrective action by re−docketing the event. (cab) (Entered: 02/16/2011)
16 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Marlin N Gusman.(Matthews, Freeman) (Entered: 02/16/2011)
17 ORDER and REASONS denying 13 Motion to Transfer This Action to Hon. Judge Vance Pursuant to Local Rules 3.1 and 3.1.1 as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 2/16/2011. (cab) Modified on 2/17/2011 to edit document type (cab). (Entered: 02/17/2011)

Case: 2:11-cv-225 As of: 09/11/2013 02:48 PM CDT 5 of 10

02/23/2011 03/23/2011
08/26/2011 09/12/2011 09/13/2011 10/11/2011 10/13/2011 10/13/2011 10/17/2011 10/31/2011 10/31/2011
03/12/2012 03/28/2012 05/03/2012
05/03/2012

18 NOTICE − Scheduling Conference set for 3/22/2011 11:15 AM before courtroom deputy by telephone, by Clerk.(cab) (Entered: 02/23/2011)
19 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/12/2012 10:30 AM before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt. Jury Trial set for 1/23/2012 08:30 AM before Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 3/22/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Pretrial Notice Form) (cc: Magistrate Judge Shushan)(cab) (Entered: 03/23/2011)
20 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Responses by Marlin N Gusman. Motion(s) referred to Sally Shushan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 8/29/2011 to edit text (cab). (Entered: 08/26/2011)
21 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Discovery Deadlines and Trial Date by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rosenbaum, Jennifer) Modified on 9/13/2011 to edit text (cab). (Entered: 09/12/2011)
22 ORDER denying 21 Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadlines and Trial Date. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 9/13/2011. (cab) (Entered: 09/13/2011)
23 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Entry of Order of Reference to Magistrate Judge by Mario Cacho and Antonio Ocampo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate)(Rosenbaum, Jennifer) Modified on 10/12/2011 to edit text (cab). (Entered: 10/11/2011)
24 ORDER granting 23 Motion for Entry of Order of Reference to Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 10/12/2011. (cab) (Entered: 10/14/2011)
25 CONSENT to Jurisdiction and Order referring case to US Magistrate Judge. Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt terminated. Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 10/13/2011. (NEF: Magistrate Judge Shushan)(cab) (Entered: 10/14/2011)
26 ORDERED that a Telephone Scheduling Conference is set for 10/31/2011 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. The Court will initiate the conference call. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan on 10/17/2011.(gbw, ) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
27 ORDER Scheduling Settlement Conference for 9/10/2012 01:30 PM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan on 10/31/2011.(tsf, ) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
28 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan: Scheduling Conference held on 10/31/2011. Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/26/2012 09:30 AM and Jury Trial set for 10/22/2012 08:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (Attachments: # 1 Pretrial Notice Form) (tsf, ) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
29 ORDER Settlement Conference set for 4/12/2012 09:30 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan on 3/12/2012. (tsf, ) (Entered: 03/12/2012)
30 ORDER Rescheduling Settlement Conference for 5/14/2012 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan on 3/28/2012.(caa, ) (Entered: 03/28/2012)
31 MOTION to Compel Discovery by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. Motion set for 5/23/2012 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (Rosenbaum, Jennifer) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/4/2012: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Notice of Submission (Civil Only)) (caa, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/4/2012: # 4 Proposed Order) (caa, ). (Entered: 05/03/2012)
32 **ERROR: DOCKETED AS SEPARATE DOCUMENT** Memorandum by All Plaintiffs re 31 MOTION to Compel Discovery (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Part 1), # 2 Exhibit A (Part 2))(Rosenbaum, Jennifer) Modified on 5/4/2012 (caa, ). (Entered: 05/03/2012)

Case: 2:11-cv-225 As of: 09/11/2013 02:48 PM CDT 6 of 10

05/03/2012 05/04/2012
05/04/2012
05/10/2012 05/14/2012 05/14/2012 05/21/2012 05/21/2012 09/26/2012
10/04/2012 10/09/2012 12/21/2012
01/02/2013
01/03/2013

33 **ERROR: DOCKETED AS SEPARATE DOCUMENT** NOTICE by All Plaintiffs re 32 Memorandum, 31 MOTION to Compel Discovery re Notice of Hearing. (Rosenbaum, Jennifer) Modified on 5/4/2012 (caa, ). (Entered: 05/03/2012)
34 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 32 Memorandum. Document was incorrectly filed as a separate document instead of an attachment to document 31 AND Image was erroneously attached in improper size. Filing attorney is reminded of Local Rule 10.1. Clerk took corrective action by resizing the PDF and attaching to proper document. No further action is necessary at this time.(caa, ) (Entered: 05/04/2012)
35 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 33 Notice (Other). Document was incorrectly filed as a separate document instead of an attachment to document 31 AND The title of the attached Notice should reflect Notice of Submission instead of Notice of Hearing on the actual document, pursuant to the Local Rules. Clerk took corrective action by attaching to proper document. No further action is necessary at this time.(caa, ) (Entered: 05/04/2012)
36 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Elizabeth Stevens (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3509114) by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Rosenbaum, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
37 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan: Settlement Conference held on 5/14/2012. (car, ) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
38 ORDER granting 36 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Elizabeth A. Stevens. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan on 5/11/12. (ala, ) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
39 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan: Settlement Conference held on 5/21/2012. (caa, ) (Entered: 05/21/2012)
40 ORDER that 31 Motion to Compel Production is hereby CONTINUED WITHOUT DATE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan on 5/21/2012.(caa, ) (Entered: 05/21/2012)
41 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan: Telephone Conference held on 9/26/2012. Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/1/2013 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. Jury Trial set for 5/20/2013 08:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (Attachments: # 1 Pretrial Notice Form) (gec, ) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
42 STIPULATION by All Plaintiffs Joint Stipulated Protective Order (Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 10/04/2012)
43 JOINT STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan on 10/9/2012.(caa, ) (Entered: 10/09/2012)
44 **DEFICIENT** Second MOTION to Compel Discovery by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. Motion set for 1/9/2013 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A through F, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Proposed Order)(Rosenbaum, Jennifer) Modified on 12/26/2012 (gec, ). (Entered: 12/21/2012)
45 MOTION to Compel Discovery Requests by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. Motion set for 1/9/2013 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Exhibits A through F , # 4 Proposed Order)(Rosenbaum, Jennifer) Modified on 1/3/2013 (gec, ). (Entered: 01/02/2013)
46 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 45 MOTION to Compel Discovery Requests. Attachments have duplicate descriptions. For attachments, select either a category OR enter a description, but not both since this results in duplicate docket text. Clerk took corrective action. (gec, ) (Entered: 01/03/2013)

Case: 2:11-cv-225 As of: 09/11/2013 02:48 PM CDT 7 of 10

01/03/2013
01/08/2013 01/10/2013 01/11/2013
01/25/2013 01/30/2013 02/01/2013 02/08/2013
02/08/2013
02/14/2013 02/20/2013 02/20/2013 02/20/2013 02/20/2013

47 ORDER re 45 MOTION to Compel, that defendant's response shall be filed by the close of business on 1/8/2013, and plaintiffs' reply shall be filed by the close of business on 1/10/2013. The motion will then be taken under submission on the briefs without oral argument. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan.(gec, ) (Entered: 01/03/2013)
48 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Marlin N Gusman re 45 MOTION to Compel Discovery Requests. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Supplement to Exhibit A)(Arcuri, Blake) Modified on 1/11/2013 (gec, ). (Entered: 01/08/2013)
49 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 45 MOTION to Compel Discovery Requests . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Rosenbaum, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
50 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 49 Reply to Response to Motion. Document's signature line is blank. All future documents must reflect either an original signature or an electronic signature of the filing attorney following the format 's/ (attorney name)'. No further action is necessary. (gec, ) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
51 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 45 Motion to Compel as stated within document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (gec, ) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
52 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Yihong "Julie" Mao by Mario Cacho. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rosenbaum, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/30/2013)
53 ORDER granting 52 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Yihong Julie Mao for Mario Cacho and Antonio Ocampo. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (gec, ) (Entered: 02/04/2013)
54 **DEFICIENT** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Melissa Anderson (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3824807) by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. (Attachments: # 1 Decl. of Ms. Anderson, # 2 Cert. of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Mao, Yihong) Modified on 2/15/2013 (gec, ). (Entered: 02/08/2013)
55 **DEFICIENT** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Ghazal Tajmiri (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3825240) by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. (Attachments: # 1 Decl. of Ms. Tajmiri, # 2 Cert. of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Mao, Yihong) Modified on 2/8/2013 (gec, ). (Entered: 02/08/2013)
56 **DEFICIENT** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Ghazal Tajmiri (Fee previously paid) by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. (Attachments: # 1 Cert. of Good Standing, # 2 Decl. of Ms. Tajmiri, # 3 Proposed Order)(Mao, Yihong) Modified on 2/15/2013 (gec, ). (Entered: 02/14/2013)
57 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Ghazal Tajmiri (Fee previously paid) by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. (Attachments: # 1 Cert. of Good Standing, # 2 Decl. of Ms. Tajmiri, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 E−File Registration Form)(Mao, Yihong) (Entered: 02/20/2013)
58 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Melissa Anderson (Fee previously paid) by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. (Attachments: # 1 Cert. of Good Standing, # 2 Decl. of Ms. Anderson, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 E−file Registration Form)(Mao, Yihong) (Entered: 02/20/2013)
59 STIPULATION Regarding Discovery by All Parties (Stevens, Elizabeth) Modified on 2/21/2013 (gec, ). (Entered: 02/20/2013)
60 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Clarify Record and Permission to Exceed Discovery Deadline by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo, Marlin N Gusman . (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) Modified on 2/21/2013 (gec, ). (Entered: 02/20/2013)

Case: 2:11-cv-225 As of: 09/11/2013 02:48 PM CDT 8 of 10

02/21/2013 02/21/2013 02/21/2013 02/21/2013
02/28/2013 02/28/2013 02/28/2013 02/28/2013 02/28/2013 03/26/2013
03/28/2013
03/28/2013
03/29/2013
04/15/2013 04/15/2013

61 ORDERED that 31 Motion to Compel Production is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (gec, ) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
62 ORDER granting 57 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Ghazal Tajmiri. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (gec, ) Modified on 2/21/2013 to link to correct document. (gec, ). (Entered: 02/21/2013)
63 ORDER granting 58 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Melissa J. Anderson. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (gec, ) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
64 ORDER granting 60 Motion to Clarify Record and Permission to Exceed Discovery Deadline. All fact discovery shall be completed by 3/29/2013. Defendant's counsel has leave to depose Plaintiff Mario Cacho in person at a later date outside the current discovery date, but before trial. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (gec, ) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
65 Witness and Exhibit List by Marlin N Gusman. (Matthews, Freeman) (Entered: 02/28/2013)
66 Exhibit List by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/28/2013)
67 Witness List by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/28/2013)
68 Supplemental Witness List by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Resume of James Evans Aiken)(Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/28/2013)
69 Amended Exhibit List by All Plaintiffs. (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/28/2013)
70 **DEFICIENT** MOTION to Enforce This Court's Order and Modify Fact Discovery Deadline by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration of Elizabeth Stevens, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) Modified on 3/27/2013 (gec, ). (Entered: 03/26/2013)
71 ERROR: DOCKETED AS SEPARATE DOCUMENT NOTICE by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo OF SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE RECORDS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE THIS COURTS ORDER AND MODIFY FACT DISCOVERY DEADLINE. (Stevens, Elizabeth) Modified on 3/29/2013 (bbc, ). (Entered: 03/28/2013)
72 MOTION to enforce this court's order &modify fact discovery deadline by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. Motion set for 4/17/2013 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit Of Elizabeth Stevens, # 3 Exhibit A to Declaration of Elizabeth Stevens, # 4 Exhibit B to Declaration of Elizabeth Stevens, # 5 Exhibit C to Declaration of Elizabeth Stevens, # 6 Exhibit D to Declaration of Elizabeth Stevens, # 7 Proposed Order)(Stevens, Elizabeth) Modified on 3/29/2013 to edit text &add submission date (bbc, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/29/2013: # 8 Notice of Submission (Civil Only)) (bbc, ). (Entered: 03/28/2013)
73 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 71 Notice &72 MOTION to enforce this court's order &modify fact discovery deadline. Document #71 was incorrectly filed as a separate document instead of as an attachment to document #72. Filing attorney should take note of Local Rule 7.2 re Noticing Motions for Submission. A list of available submission dates and times for all judicial officers are available at the court's website (http://www.laed.uscourts.gov/CASES/motions/MoHear.htm). Clerk took corrective action by setting the submission date for 4/17/2013. No further action is necessary. (bbc, ) (Entered: 03/29/2013)
74 ORDER granting 72 Motion to Enforce This Court's Order and Modify Fact Discovery Deadline as stated within document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (gec, ) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
75 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Trial by Marlin N Gusman. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Matthews, Freeman) (Entered: 04/15/2013)

Case: 2:11-cv-225 As of: 09/11/2013 02:48 PM CDT 9 of 10

04/16/2013 04/17/2013 04/18/2013 04/25/2013 04/25/2013 04/25/2013 05/07/2013 05/13/2013 05/30/2013
05/30/2013 05/31/2013
05/31/2013
06/05/2013 06/06/2013

76 RESPONSE to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 75 MOTION to Continue Trial. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Proposed Order Exhibit D)(Mao, Yihong) Modified on 4/17/2013 (gec, ). (Entered: 04/16/2013)
77 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION Withdraw Jury Demand by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 04/17/2013)
78 ORDER: Status Conference set for 4/25/2013 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan on 4/18/2013.(caa, ) (Entered: 04/18/2013)
79 ORDER granting 77 Motion Withdraw Jury Demand. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan on 4/25/2013. (caa, ) (Entered: 04/25/2013)
80 ORDER granting 75 MOTION to Continue Trial filed by Marlin N Gusman. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan on 4/25/2013.(caa, ) (Entered: 04/25/2013)
81 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 8/27/2013 02:00 PM &Bench Trial set for 9/18/2013 08:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan on 4/25/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Pretrial Notice Form)(caa, ) (Entered: 04/25/2013)
82 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Elizabeth A. Stevens as Attorney by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mao, Yihong) Modified on 5/8/2013 (gec, ). (Entered: 05/07/2013)
83 ORDER granting 82 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Elizabeth A. Stevens terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (gec, ) (Entered: 05/13/2013)
84 MOTION to Compel Compliance and/or for Contempt by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. Motion set for 6/19/2013 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission, # 4 Decl. of Yihong "Julie" Mao, # 5 Ex A to Mao Decl., # 6 Ex B to Mao Decl., # 7 Ex C to Mao Decl., # 8 Ex D to Mao Decl., # 9 Ex E to Mao Decl, # 10 Ex F to Mao Decl, # 11 Ex G to Mao Decl, # 12 Ex H to Mao Decl)(Mao, Yihong) (Entered: 05/30/2013)
85 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Compliance and/or for Contempt by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Memorandum in Support)(Mao, Yihong) (Entered: 05/30/2013)
86 ORDERED that Plaintiffs' 85 MOTION to Expedite is GRANTED. Defendant's response to 84 MOTION to Compel shall be filed by the close of business on 6/5/2013, and plaintiffs' reply shall be filed by the close of business on 6/7/2013, at which time the Motion to Compel will taken under submission on the briefs without oral argument. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan.(gec, ) (Entered: 05/31/2013)
87 **DEFICIENT** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Nicholas D. Espiritu (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3998469) by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. (Attachments: # 1 Decl. of Nicholas Espiritu, # 2 Cert. of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Registration Form)(Mao, Yihong) Modified on 6/3/2013 (gec, ). (Entered: 05/31/2013)
88 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Marlin N. Gusman re 84 MOTION to Compel . (Matthews, Freeman) Modified on 6/6/2013 to add linkage, edit event (bbc, ). (Entered: 06/05/2013)
89 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 88 MOTION to Compel . Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Clerk has modified to RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Marlin N. Gusman re 84 MOTION to Compel. No further action necessary. (bbc, ) (Entered: 06/06/2013)

Case: 2:11-cv-225 As of: 09/11/2013 02:48 PM CDT 10 of 10

06/07/2013 06/07/2013
06/10/2013 06/10/2013 07/01/2013
08/09/2013 08/09/2013 08/09/2013 09/09/2013

90 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Nicholas D. Espiritu (Fee previously paid) by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Cert. of Good Standing, # 3 Decl. of Nicholas Espiritu, # 4 Registration Form)(Mao, Yihong) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
91 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo re 84 MOTION to Compel Compliance and/or for Contempt, 88 MOTION to Compel . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Nicholas Espiritu, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration− Discovery AS400 Deficiencies Chart, # 3 Exhibit B to Declaration− Mario Cacho Grievances, # 4 Exhibit C to Declaration− Antonio Ocampo Grievances)(Keaney, Melissa) Modified on 6/10/2013 (gec, ). (Entered: 06/07/2013)
92 ORDERED that 84 Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as stated within document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (gec, ) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
93 ORDER granting 90 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Nicholas D. Espiritu. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (gec, ) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
94 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Entry of Consent Judgment for Injunctive Relief and Damages by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Ex. A to draft order of consent judgment, settlement agreement, # 3 Exhibit B to draft order of consent judgment, OPSO policy)(Rosenbaum, Jennifer) Modified on 7/2/2013 (gec, ). (Entered: 07/01/2013)
95 EXPARTE/CONSENT Second MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Ex. A Settlement Agreement, # 3 Ex. B, OPSO Policy)(Rosenbaum, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
96 CONSENT JUDGMENT entered in favor of Antonio Ocampo and Mario Cacho against Marlin N. Gusman. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan on 8/9/2013.(caa, ) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
97 ORDER that the previously scheduled final pretrial conference and non−jury trial are hereby CANCELED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan on 8/9/2013.(caa, ) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
98 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs by Mario Cacho, Antonio Ocampo. Motion set for 9/25/2013 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Memorandum in Support, # 4 Exhibit A − Summary of Hours, # 5 Exhibit B − Decl Linton Joaquin, # 6 Exhibit C − Decl Jennifer Rosenbaum, # 7 Exhibit D − Decl William Molinski, # 8 Exhibit E − Summary of Expenses, # 9 Exhibit F − Decl Javier Maldonaldo)(Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 09/09/2013)