Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 44 Filed 11/14/14 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------){

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC#:
DATE FILED: ·NOV 1 4 20141

RUBEN JUAREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

14-cv-5107 (KBF)

-v-

OPINION & ORDER

THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,

Defendant.

-------------------------------------------------------------------){ KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge:

On July 9, 2014, plaintiff Ruben Juarez ("plaintiff' or "Juarez") filed this

action, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against The

Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc. ("defendant" or "Northwestern

Mutual"), alleging alienage discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (ECF

No. 2 ("Compl.").) Plaintiff alleges that he was legally authorized to work in the

United States, applied for a position at Northwestern Mutual, and was rejected

pursuant to a policy that denies employment to all persons who are not U.S. citizens

or legal permanent residents ("LPRs"). On September 4, 2014, defendant filed a

motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 22.) The

motion became fully briefed on October 10, 2014 (ECF No. 40) and the Court heard

oral argument on the motion on November 3, 2014. For the reasons set forth below,

the motion is DENIED.

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 44 Filed 11/14/14 Page 2 of 17
I. BACKGROUND The Complaint alleges the following facts. 1 The Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals ("DACA") is a federal program that authorizes recipients to remain in the United States for two years2 and to obtain an Employment Authorization Document ("EAD"), a federal work permit, and a Social Security
number. (See Compl. iii! 16-17.) Juarez is a Mexican national residing in New York. (Id. ii 2.) On October 25, 2012, Jaurez obtained DACA status.3 (Id. ii 20.)
Juarez obtained an EAD around the same time and received a Social Security
number on November 2, 2012. (Id. iii! 20-21.)
On October 26, 2012, Juarez submitted a resume to a Northwestern Mutual
representative who was recruiting college students to become interns. (Id. ii 22.)
On December 11, 2013, Juarez interviewed at Northwestern Mutual with Susan
Lewandowski ("Lewandowski"). (Id. ii 25.) After the interview, Lewandowski requested Juarez's employment documents. (Id. ii 26.) Juarez provided his valid
Social Security number. (Id.) Lewandowski then asked Juarez whether he was a
U.S. citizen or a green-card holder. (Id. ii 27.) Juarez explained that he had DACA
status and an EAD and that he was legally authorized to work in the United States. (Id.) On December 17, 2013, Juarez e-mailed Lewandowski and informed her that, based on his research, "he could legally work for Northwestern Mutual regardless of
whether he was a citizen or had a visa." (Id. ii 29.) Later that day, Lewandowski
1 The Court sets out here only those facts that are relevant to defendant's motion to dismiss.
2 Recipients may seek renewal of their DACA status for an additional two years. (Compl. i! 16.)
3 The Court has been advised that, on October 29, 2014, Juarez's DACA status was renewed for an additional two years. (See Defendant's Letter of November 7, 2014 at 3, ECF No. 42.)
2

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 44 Filed 11/14/14 Page 3 of 17
replied, "[s]orry but you have to be a US citizen or have a green card." (Id. if 30
(internal quotation marks omitted).) According to the Complaint, "Northwestern Mutual advertises its blanket ban against hiring anyone who is not a U.S. citizen or
U.S. permanent resident on its website."4 (Id. if 31.)
On July 9, 2014, Juarez filed this putative class action against Northwestern Mutual, alleging alienage discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (ECF No. 2.) On September 4, 2014, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 22.) That motion is the subject of this Opinion & Order. II. LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In applying that
4 The specific policy alleged in the Complaint is as follows: Financial representatives must have at least three years of continuous U.S. residency, hold a permanent resident visa and read, write and speak English fluently. A financial representative intern must hold a current student or resident visa, have three years continuous residency or anticipated three years of continuous residency completed upon college graduation, and read, write and speak English fluently.
(Compl. iJ 31.) For simplicity, the Court will describe the policy as requiring U.S. citizenship or legal
permanent residency. For purposes of resolving the instant motion, the only important feature of the policy is that it denies employment opportunities to (and only to) a subclass of aliens.
3

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 44 Filed 11/14/14 Page 4 of 17
standard, the court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and draws all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor, but does not credit "mere conclusory statements" or "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
B. Section 1981 Section 1981 provides in relevant part, "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts ... as is enjoyed by white citizens ...." 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). The statute, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, prohibits both public and private actors from discriminating on the basis of race or alienage in the making and enforcement of contracts, including employment contracts. See Anderson v. Conboy, 156 F.3d 167, 170, 180 (2d Cir. 1998). Alienage discrimination is discrimination on the basis of citizenship. See, e.g., Anderson, 156 F.3d at 171 (observing that § 1981's "juxtaposition of 'persons' and 'citizens' suggests that it prohibits alienage discrimination" (emphasis added)); see also 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(3) (defining "alien" as "any person not a citizen or national of the United States"). "Alienage discrimination is distinct from both national-origin and birthplace discrimination." Anderson, 156 F.3d at 171 n.5 (citation omitted). To state a claim under § 1981, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he or she is a member of a protected class, (2) the defendant intentionally discriminated against him or her on the basis of membership in that protected class; and (3) the discrimination concerned one of§ 1981's enumerated activities. See Brown v. City
4

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 44 Filed 11/14/14 Page 5 of 17
of Oneonta, 221 F.3d 329, 339 (2d Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).5 "[Section] 1981, like the Equal Protection Clause, can be violated only by purposeful discrimination." Gen. Bldg. Contractors Ass'n, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 391 (1982). Purposeful discrimination is "conduct motivated by a discriminatory purpose," rather than conduct that "merely result[s] in a disproportionate impact on a particular class." Id. at 386; see also id. at 388 (quoting a case for the proposition that § 1981 would be violated if a private actor discriminated against someone "solely because" of his race).
C. Relationship Between§ 1981 and the Fourteenth Amendment There is a close relationship between§ 1981 and the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 1981 is derived from Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Section 16 of the Voting Rights Act of 1870. Anderson, 156 F.3d at 172. "Both of these laws, in turn, were legislative cousins of the Fourteenth Amendment": The 1866 Act represented Congress' first attempt to ensure equal rights for the freedmen following the formal abolition of slavery effected by the Thirteenth Amendment. As such, it constituted an initial blueprint of the Fourteenth Amendment, which Congress proposed in part as a means of "incorporat[ing] the guaranties of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in the organic law of the land." The 1870 Act, which contained the language that now appears in§ 1981, was enacted as a means of enforcing the recently ratified Fourteenth Amendment. Gen. Bldg. Contractors, 458 U.S. at 389 (citations omitted). "In light of the close connection between these Acts and the Amendment, it would be incongruous to construe the principal object of their successor, § 1981, in a manner markedly
5 Brown addressed discrimination on the basis of race, but Anderson held that alienage is also a protected characteristic under§ 1981. See Anderson, 156 F.3d at 180.
5

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 44 Filed 11/14/14 Page 6 of 17
different from that of the Amendment itself." Id. at 389-90. In particular, "purposeful discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment will also violate § 1981." Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 276 n.23 (2003) (citing Gen. Bldg. Contractors, 458 U.S. at 389-90). The pleading standards for two claims are also the same. See Brisbane v. Milano, 443 F. App'x 593, 594 (2d Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). III. DISCUSSION
A. Defendant's argument Defendant does not dispute that the Complaint sufficiently alleges the first and third elements required to state a claim under § 1981-namely, that plaintiff was a member of a protected class and that the alleged discrimination concerned one of§ 1981's enumerated activities. Rather, defendant argues that the Complaint fails because it does not (and cannot) plausibly allege that Northwestern Mutual engaged in intentional, purposeful discrimination on the basis of alienage. (See Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss ("Def.'s Mem.") at 1, ECF No. 23.) Defendant cites Igbal for the meaning of "discriminatory purpose": Under extant precedent purposeful discrimination requires more than "intent as volition or intent as awareness of consequences." It instead involves a decisionmaker's undertaking a course of action '"because of,' not merely 'in spite of,' [the action's] adverse effects upon an identifiable group." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77 (citations omitted). According to defendant, Northwestern Mutual's willingness to hire LPRs-"the single largest group of non-U.S. citizens who are authorized to work in the United States"-renders implausible any
6

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 44 Filed 11/14/14 Page 7 of 17
allegation that the company refused to hire Juarez "because of' his lack of U.S. citizenship. (Def.'s Mem. at 1; see also id. at 15 ("[The] Complaint acknowledges that if he had held a green card, Juarez would have been welcome to apply for a contract notwithstanding his lack of United States citizenship."); 1113/14 Tr.6 at 11 ("[The policy] clearly couldn't be driven by a motive, an intent, purposeful discrimination against someone because of their lack of citizenship, or they would have excluded all of them.").) According to defendant, the Complaint at most plausibly alleges that Juarez was turned away because of his work authorization or immigration status (that is, his lack of a green card)-a classification that does not fall within the ambit of§ 1981. (See Def.'s Mem. at 4; 11/3/14 Tr. at 19 ("Mr. Juarez was not turned away because he was not a citizen. He was turned away because he didn't have a green card ....").) Relatedly, defendant argues that Juarez has not pled "specific facts giving rise to a reasonable inference of discriminatory animus and purpose" (Def.'s Mem. at 14), as required to state a claim under§ 1981. (Id. at 14-15.)
B. The Court's Analysis The policy alleged in the Complaint-essentially, "Legal aliens without green cards need not apply"-on its face discriminates against a subclass of lawfully present aliens. Juarez's allegations that he was denied employment pursuant this policy are sufficient to state a claim under§ 1981. This conclusion follows directly from three premises, each of which is well supported in the law: (1) § 198l's
6 Citations to "11/3/14 Tr." refer to the transcript of the oral argument held on November 3, 2014.
7

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 44 Filed 11/14/14 Page 8 of 17
protection against discrimination extends to all lawfully present7 aliens, whether or not they have a green card; (2) a plaintiff need not allege discrimination against all members of a protected class to state a claim under§ 1981; and (3) a plaintiff can plead intentional discrimination by alleging that the defendant acted pursuant to a facially discriminatory policy requiring adverse treatment based on a protected trait. The Court elaborates on each of these premises in turn.
The protection of§ 1981, like that of the Fourteenth Amendment, extends to all lawfully present aliens, whether or not they have a green card. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right ...." (emphasis added)); Anderson, 156 F.3d at 173-74 (explaining that "any prohibition against alienage discrimination [in§ 1981] must be derived from Section 16 of the 1870 Act," id. at 173, and later concluding that "Section 16 was to apply to all aliens," id. at 174); see also Torao Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. 410, 419-20 (1948) ("The protection of[§ 1981 (then codified at 8 U.S.C. § 41)] has been held to extend to aliens as well as to citizens. . . . The Fourteenth Amendment and the laws adopted under its authority thus embody a general policy that all persons lawfully in this country shall abide 'in any state' on an equality of legal privileges with all citizens under non-discriminatory laws." (emphasis added) (footnote omitted)). Indeed, defendant does not dispute that all lawfully present
7 The Court need not address the extent, if any, to which§ 1981's protection against discrimination extends to illegal or undocumented aliens.
8

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 44 Filed 11/14/14 Page 9 of 17
aliens, including those who do not hold green cards, are protected under§ 1981. (See 1113/14 Tr. at 15.)
Defendant also does not dispute that a plaintiff need not allege discrimination against all members of a protected class to state a claim under§ 1981. (See Reply Brief in Support of Northwestern Mutual's Motion to Dismiss at 2-3 (acknowledging that the "observation that a principal cannot escape liability for unlawful discrimination against one member of a protected class merely by establishing that it did not discriminate against every member of that protected class" is "unremarkable" and "undisputed"), ECF No. 40.) In Brown v. Henderson, the Second Circuit explored this issue in the context of a Title VII claim of sex discrimination by virtue of a hostile work environment. See 257 F.3d 246, 252-55 (2d Cir. 2001). Like Juarez, the plaintiff in Brown was required to show that the challenged conduct occurred "because of' her protected characteristic. Id. at 252. Although ultimately concluding that the plaintiff could not show that she was discriminated against because of her sex,s id. at 256, the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's argument that "there could be no discrimination 'because of sex' where both a woman ([the plaintiff]) and a man ... were harassed,'' id. at 252. The Court explained that "discrimination against one employee cannot be cured, or disproven, solely by favorable, or equitable, treatment of other employees of the same race or sex." Id. (citations omitted). Similarly, "whether an employer discriminates against only a subset of a protected class or discriminates inconsistently, Title VII
8 Unlike this case, Brown did not involve a facially discriminatory policy. 9

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 44 Filed 11/14/14 Page 10 of 17
nevertheless protects any individual so long as that individual is mistreated because of her sex." Id. at 253 (citations omitted). The same principles apply to § 1981 claims. See Whidbee v. Garzarelli Food Specialties, Inc., 223 F.3d 62, 69 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting a case for the proposition that "[i]n analyzing§ 1981 claims, we apply the same standards as in Title VII cases" (quoting Hardin v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 167 F.3d 340, 347 n.2 (7th Cir. 1999)) (internal quotation marks omitted)). A defendant is not insulated from § 1981 liability for intentional discrimination against some members of a protected class merely because not every member of the class becomes a victim of the discrimination.9
Finally, while defendant is correct that"§ 1981 reaches only purposeful discrimination," Gen. Bldg. Contractors, 458 U.S. at 389, a plaintiff who alleges a policy that is discriminatory on its face is not required to make any further allegations of discriminatory intent or animus. The Second Circuit has explained that there are "several ways for a plaintiff to plead intentional discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause," Brown, 221 F.3d at 337, and that the same pleadings standards apply to § 1981 claims, id. at 339. One of the ways to plead intentional discrimination is to point to a law or policy that expressly classifies people on the basis of a protected characteristic. Id. at 337; see also Hazen Paper
9 Put differently, a plaintiff can state a claim under§ 1981 by alleging that defendant imposed an additional burden on a protected class, even if some members of the class are able to overcome that burden. See Joseph v. New York Yankees P'ship, No. 00 Civ. 2275 (SHS), 2000 WL 1559019, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2000) ("Assuming [the plaintiffs] allegations are true and that she was required to fulfill an additional condition that non-minority customers were not before she could contract for dining services, she would be limited in her right to contract as she could not enjoy 'all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship' to the same extent as non-minority customers." (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1981)).
10

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 44 Filed 11/14/14 Page 11 of 17
Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 610 (1993) ("The employer may have relied upon a formal, facially discriminatory policy requiring adverse treatment of employees with [a protected] trait." (citations omitted)); Amini v. Oberlin Coll., 440 F.3d 350, 359 (6th Cir. 2006) ("[P]roof of 'a facially discriminatory employment policy ... to [avoid hiring] employees in the protected group is direct evidence of discriminatory intent."' (citations omitted)). It follows that allegations that Juarez's application was rejected pursuant to a policy that expressly denies employment to lawfully present aliens without green cards-a protected subclass-suffice to state a claim under § 1981.
Defendant misinterprets the law when it argues that Northwestern Mutual's willingness to hire some lawfully present aliens renders implausible any allegation of intentional discrimination on the basis of alienage. Iqbal's statement that purposeful discrimination requires that the adverse action be taken "because of' rather than "in spite of' a protected characteristic, see 556 U.S. at 676-77, is consistent with the principle that one of the ways to engage in purposeful discrimination is to apply a policy that is discriminatory on its face. Facial discrimination is discrimination "because of' a protected characteristic. An employer cannot implement a policy, "Members of protected class P need not apply," and then successfully argue that the policy was not motivated by any animus toward the protected class. Similarly, the employer cannot implement a policy that expressly discriminates against members of a protected class (here, lawfully present aliens) with characteristic X (here, lack of LPR status) and then, when a rejected
11

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 44 Filed 11/14/14 Page 12 of 17
candidate files a lawsuit, successfully argue that case should be dismissed because the discrimination was on the basis of X rather than the protected trait. Such an argument fails at pleadings stage irrespective of the nature of characteristic X: X could be a particular eye color ("Aliens with blue eyes need not apply") or X could be, as here, a particular immigration status ("Aliens without LPR status need not apply"). 10 The important point is that the alleged policy facially singles out a protected subclass for adverse treatment.
Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993), does not support defendant's position. In Biggins, the Supreme Court held that an employer does not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA") "just by interfering with an older employee's pension benefits that would have vested by virtue of the employee's years of service." Id. at 613. The Court explained that discrimination on the basis of years of service does not run afoul of the ADEA because "an employee's age is analytically distinct from his years of service":
An employee who is younger than 40, and therefore outside the class of older workers as defined by the ADEA, see 29 U.S.C. § 631(a), may have worked for a particular employer his entire career, while an older worker may have been newly hired. Because age and years of service are analytically distinct, an employer can take account of one while ignoring the other, and thus it is incorrect to say that a decision based on years of service is necessarily "age based." Id. at 611. Unlike in Biggins, where the classification was on the basis of a characteristic (years of service) that was merely correlated with a protected trait
10 There is no question that an employer may have good business reasons to refuse to hire aliens who are not LPRs-reasons that would not justify discriminating on the basis of eye color. However, any such reasons are irrelevant to the present motion.
12

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 44 Filed 11/14/14 Page 13 of 17
(age), the classification alleged here is expressly based on a protected trait: the
alleged policy singles out a subclass of aliens, namely those without green cards,
and denies them employment. A Biggins-like analogue would be a policy that
discriminates against employees over 50 with Y years of service. 11
C. Equal Protection Cases
The conclusion that Juarez has stated a plausible claim under§ 1981 is
supported by a long line of precedent interpreting the Equal Protection Clause.12 In
11 Defendant's reliance on Vaughn v. City of New York, No. 06-CV-6547 (ILG), 2010 WL 2076926 (E.D.N.Y. May 24, 2010), is also misplaced. In stating that "alienage discrimination is discrimination on the basis of citizenship status, not immigrant status," id. at *10, Vaughn was distinguishing between alienage discrimination and national origin discrimination. See id. (citing cases for the proposition that§ 1981 does not prohibit national origin discrimination). Here, there is no question that the alleged policy classifies people on the basis of alienage rather than national origin.
Finally, Talwar v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., No. 12-CV-0033 (CBA)(JMA), 2014 WL 5784626 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2014), which is currently on appeal before the Second Circuit, is distinguishable from this case. In Talwar, the plaintiff argued that her employer violated§ 1981 by insisting that she obtain an unlimited medical license, which was available only to citizens and LPRs. See id. at *7. Importantly, the employer did not impose this requirement on Dr. Talwar until after she complained about her salary. The district court found that the plaintiffs own testimony on this point undercut any inference that her employer discriminated against her because she was an alien:
Here, ... any [inference of discrimination on the basis of alienage] is entirely undercut by the fact that Dr. Talwar's own testimony establishes that Dr. Simpkins took these actions only after she complained about her salary. Given her long and amicable relationship with Dr. Simpkins, Dr. Talwar acknowledges that Dr. Simpkins did not "suddenly develop a dislike" for her because she was not a citizen. Instead, Dr. Talwar testified at her deposition that she believed the revision of her employment contract and the scrutiny of her citizenship status were a "cover" in order to retaliate against her for her complaints about a pay disparity. In other words, under Dr. Talwar's own theory of the facts, defendants' sudden insistence that she obtain an unlimited medical license was pretext for her complaints to Dr. Simpkins about her salary.
Id. (citations omitted). Unlike the employer in Talwar, Northwestern Mutual allegedly rejected plaintiffs application pursuant to a policy that expressly denied employment to a subset of aliens. As explained above, the allegation of a facially discriminatory policy-an allegation not made in Talwar-obviates the need for additional allegations of discriminatory intent or animus behind the alleged adverse action. 12 Although these cases were not decided on a motion to dismiss, they are relevant because they suggest that the policy alleged in Juarez's Complaint runs afoul of§ 1981. See Gen. Bldg. Contractors, 458 U.S. at 389-90 ("In light of the close connection between these Acts and the
13

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 44 Filed 11/14/14 Page 14 of 17
Torao Takahashi, the Supreme Court struck down13 a California statute that denied commercial fishing licenses to any "person ineligible [for] citizenship," 334 U.S. at 413 (internal quotation marks omitted), explaining that "[s]tate laws which impose discriminatory burdens upon the entrance or residence of aliens lawfully within the United States" are invalid, id. at 419. Then, in Graham v. Richardson, the Supreme Court struck down two state statutes that prevented immigrants from receiving public assistance. 403 U.S. 365, 376 (1971). Notably, neither statute denied benefits to all aliens: one barred aliens who did not qualify under federal assistance programs, and the second barred aliens who did not satisfy a fifteen-year residency requirement. See id. at 367-68. Nonetheless, the Court subjected both statutes to strict scrutiny and held that they violated the Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 376.
Since Graham, the Court has repeatedly applied strict scrutiny to statutes discriminating on the basis of alienage. 14 See Dandamudi, 686 F.3d at 73 (collecting cases). In Nyquist v. Mauclet, resident aliens challenged the constitutionality a New York statutory provision barring certain resident aliens from receiving state financial assistance for higher education. See 432 U.S. 1, 3-5 (1977). The statutory provision provided:
Amendment, it would be incongruous to construe the principal object of their successor, § 1981, in a manner markedly different from that of the Amendment itself."). 13 As the Second Circuit has observed, "the basis for the decision was unclear, appearing to rely on both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Congress's exclusive power under Article I to control immigration." Anderson, 156 F.3d at 177 (citation omitted). 14 The Court has recognized two exceptions, neither of which is relevant here. The first exception is that states' exclusion of aliens from political and governmental functions is subject to only rationalbasis review. Dandamudi v. Tisch, 686 F.3d 66, 73 (2d Cir. 2012). The second exception allows states more latitude to deny opportunities and benefits to undocumented aliens. Id. at 74.
14

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 44 Filed 11/14/14 Page 15 of 17
Citizenship. An applicant (a) must be a citizen of the United States, or (b) must have made application to become a citizen, or (c) if not qualified for citizenship, must submit a statement affirming intent to apply for United States citizenship as soon as he has the qualifications, and must apply as soon as eligible for citizenship, or (d) must be an individual of a class of refugees paroled by the attorney general of the United States under his parole authority pertaining to the admission of aliens to the United States. Id. at 3-4. The district court held that this provision violated the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against resident aliens. Id. at 5-6. On appeal, the defendants argued, inter alia, that the provision should not be subjected to strict scrutiny, id. at 7, because it distinguished "only within the 'heterogeneous' class of aliens," not "between citizens and aliens vel non": "[a]liens who have applied for citizenship, or, if not qualified for it, who have filed a statement of intent to apply as soon as they are eligible, are allowed to participate in the assistance programs," id. at 8 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court, citing Graham, squarely rejected this argument, explaining that "[t]he important points are that [the provision] is directed at aliens and that only aliens are harmed by it. The fact that the statute is not an absolute bar does not mean that it does not discriminate against the class." Id. at 9 (citations omitted). The Court struck down the provision as unconstitutional. Id. at 12. The Second Circuit also has affirmed the principle that discrimination against a subclass of aliens is subject to strict scrutiny. In Dandamudi, nonimmigrant aliensl5 who had temporary authorization from the federal
15 "Nonimmigrant" aliens are aliens whose "status grants them the right to reside and work in the United States only temporarily." Dandamudi, 686 F.3d at 70.
15

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 44 Filed 11/14/14 Page 16 of 17
government to work in the United States challenged the constitutionality of a New York licensing statute that provided that only U.S. citizens and LPRs were eligible for a pharmacist's license. 686 F.3d at 69-70. The district court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and the Second Circuit affirmed. Id. at 70. The Second Circuit rejected the state's argument that the statute should be subjected to rational-basis review because it discriminates against only against nonimmigrant aliens: "In our view, ... a state statute that discriminates against aliens who have been lawfully admitted to reside and work in the United States should be viewed in the same light under the Equal Protection Clause as one which discriminates against aliens who enjoy the right to reside here permanently."16 Id.; see also id. at 74- 75 (" [T]he [Supreme] Court has never distinguished between classes oflegal resident aliens. The state's argument that suspect class protection extends no further than to LPRs simply has no mooring in the High Court's prior ventures into this area." (footnote omitted)); id. at 76-77 ("Nothing in the Supreme Court's precedent counsels us to 'judicially craftD a subset of aliens, scaled by how [we] perceive the aliens' proximity to citizenship.' Rather, the Court's precedent supports drawing a distinction among aliens only as between lawfully admitted aliens and those who are in the United States illegally." (footnotes and citations omitted)).
16 In so holding, the Second Circuit disagreed with two contrary decisions in the Fifth and Sixth Circuits. See id. at 72, 75.
16

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 44 Filed 11/14/14 Page 17 of 17

In these cases, statutes that discriminated against a subclass of lawfully

present aliens were subjected to strict scrutiny and struck down as violating the

Equal Protection Clause. As in these cases, the policy alleged here is "is directed at

aliens and that only aliens are harmed by it," Nyquist, 432 U.S. at 9. Given the

close connection between§ 1981 and the Equal Protection Clause, Gen. Bldg.

Contractors, 458 U.S. at 389-90, these cases suggest that Juarez's allegations, if

proven, would establish a violation of§ 1981. See Gratz, 539 U.S. at 276 n.23

("[P]urposeful discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment will also violate § 1981.").

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 22.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

New York, New York
November J.!i_, 2014

KATHERINE B. FORREST United States District Judge

17

 
 Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 2 Filed 07/09/14 Page 1 of 12

4 OUTTEN COLDKN LLP
Adam T. Klein
Ossai Miazad
Lewis M. Steel
Michael N. Litrownik
Olivia J. Quinto* 3 Park Avenue, 29" floor
New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-245-1000

THK MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEEENSE AND EDUCATION FUND Thomas A. Saenz* Victor Viramontes*
634 S. Spring St., 11"'loor
Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: 213-629-25 2
Maribel Hernandez River
1016 16th Street N.W., Suite Washington, D.C., 20036. Telephone 202-572-0836
"'ro hac vice motion forthcoming

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RUBEN JUAREZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant.

Plaintiff Ruben Juarez, individually and as class representative on behalf of all others
similarly situated, by his attorneys, brings the following allegations against Defendant The
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Northwestern Mutual" ):
SUMMARY OF CLAIM 1. Northwestern Mutual, the nation's largest direct provider of individual life
insurance, outright refuses to hire individuals based on their alienage status notwithstanding the fact that they are authorized to work in the United States. Specifically, Northwestern Mutual
denies individuals the right to work if they are non-U.S, citizens or U.S, permanent residents.

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 2 Filed 07/09/14 Page 2 of 12

This company-wide policy and practice discriminates based on alienage and is unlawful under the
Civil Rights Act of 1866, as codified by 42 U.S.C. ) 1981.
PARTIES

Plaintiff Ruben Juarez

2.

Plaintiff Ruben Juarez is a 25-year-old Mexican national presently residing in

Yonkers, New York. On May 29, 2014, Mr. Juarez graduated summa curn laude from Lehman College, a liberal arts college within the City University of New York, with a Bachelor of Science in Accounting and a G.P.A. of 3.83/4.0. Mr. Juarez was recently accepted to Fordham

University's School of Business to earn a Master of Science in Global Finance,

3. Mr, Juarez has authorization to work in the U.S. through the Federal

Government's immigration program for undocumented youth in the United States called
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA").

Defendant

The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc. Milwaukee, WI (NM)

(life and disability insurance, annuities) is a Wisconsin corporation using the marketing name

Northwestern Mutual.

5.

Noithwestern Mutual, by soliciting, conducting, and transacting business in New

York State, engages in continuous, permanent, and substantial activity within the state.

6. Northwestern Mutual is not a federal enclave and therefore is subject to Plaintiff's

42 U.S.C. ) 1981 claim.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1331. 8. This Court is empowered to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

$ $ 2201 and 2202.

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 2 Filed 07/09/14 Page 3 of 12

9,

Venue is proper in the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C, )

1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims

occurred in this district and Defendant conducts business within this district.

BACKGROUND 10. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS")provides

Form I-9 to employers within the United States to verify the identity and employment

authorization of individuals they wish to hire. 11. Employers are responsible for completing and maintaining Form I-9 for all of their

employees, whether they are citizens or non-citizens.
12. Both employees and employers must complete Form I-9. An employee must

provide the employer with acceptable documents confirming both his identity and employment
authorization. Acceptable documents for Form I-9 verification are listed on the form and include,

among others, a Social Security Account number card and an Employment Authorization
Document ("EAD"). An EAD establishes both identity and employment authorization, no further

documentation is necessary.

13. "Employers CANNOT specify which document(s) they will accept from an
employee."'oreover, according to the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") —which regulates the USCIS —"[i]t is illegal to discriminate against any work-authorized individual in
hiring, discharge, recruitment or referral for a fee, or in the employment eligibility verification

(Form I-9 and E-Verify) process based on that individual's citizenship status, immigration

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, OMB NO. 1615-0047, INSTRUCTIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION at 1 (emphasis in original) (2016), available at http: //www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/i9.pdf (last visited July 9, 2014).

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 2 Filed 07/09/14 Page 4 of 12

status or national origin."&02 Furthermore, "[t]he refusal to hire an individual because the

documentation presented has a future expiration date may also constitute illegal

discrimination."

14. On June 15, 2012, President Obama announced that DHS would no longer remove certain young immigrants under an executive order now known as DACA.
15. DACA's purpose, as explained by President Obama, is to "[stop] expel[ling]
... talented young people, who [have] been raised as Americans; understand themselves to be part ... of this country [and] who want to staff our labs, or start new businesses, or defend our

country." 16.

DACA is a form of "deferred action", a discretionary grant of authorized stay by

the Federal Government. Deferred action granted through DACA is valid for two years and is

subject to renewal for an additional two years.
17. DACA mandates that persons who are granted "deferred action" will be eligible to obtain an EAD, a federal work permit, and a Social Security number. In other words, those granted "deferred action" and in possession of an EAD are legally authorized to work in the

United States.
18. As of February 6, 2014, USCIS has approved over 500,000 requests for DACA. 19. DACA recipients are not the only class of immigrants who have legal work

authorization, but may not meet Noithwestern Mutual's alienage requirements. Northwestern

Id.

Id.
President Obama, Remarks by the President on Immigration (June 15, 2012), available at

http: //www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/15/remarks-president-immigration

(last

visited July 9, 2014).

USCIS 2012-2014 First Quarter Report, available at

http: //www.uscis. gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigrati

on%20Forms%20Data/AI1%20Form%20Types/DACA/DACA-06-02-14.pdf

(last visited July 9,

2014),

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 2 Filed 07/09/14 Page 5 of 12
Mutual's imposed condition for entering into a work contract also discriminates against individuals who have been granted temporary residence, refugee, asylee, or fiance/e status and are legally authorized to work. Northwesterii Mutual's policy also discriminates against
survivors of severe forms of trafficking and serious criminal activity for whom Congress has
provided visas and work authorization.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 20. In September 2012, Mr. Juarez applied for, and on October 25, 2012, was granted, DACA status. In and around the same date, Mr. Juarez also obtained an EAD. 21. On November 2, 2012, Mr. Juarez was granted a Social Security number. 22. On October 26, 2012, a Northwestern Mutual recruiter, Zuleyma Stryker, visited Lehman College's 13ronx campus to recruit college students to become interns. Mr. Juarez submitted his resume to Ms. Stryker, 23. Approximately one year later, on October 6, 2013, another Northwestern Mutual recruiter, Susan Lewadowski, invited Mr. Juarez to an information session at Northwestern Mutual's offices in Stamford, Connecticut. 24. On November 27, 2013, Mr, Juarez traveled to Northwestern Mutual's Stamford office to attend an information session alongside approximately 50 other individuals. 25. On December 11, 2013, Mr. Juarez interviewed with Ms. Lewandowski who expressed strong interest in hiring Mr. Juarez. 26. After a very positive interview, Ms. Lewandowski asked Mr. Juarez for employment documents. Mr. Juarez provided his valid Social Security number. 27. Ms. Lewandowski then asked Mr. Juarez whether he had a "green card" or whether he was a U.S. citizen. Mr. Juarez informed Ms. Lewandowski that he had DACA status and an EAD and explained that he was authorized to legally work in the United States.

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 2 Filed 07/09/14 Page 6 of 12
28. When Defendant learned that Mr. Juarez was not a citizen of the United States and did not have a green card, it blocked Mr. Juarez from receiving the job.
29, On December 17, 2013, Mr. Juarez emailed Ms. Lewandowski and informed her
that based on his research, because he had an EAD, he could legally work for Northwestern
Mutual regardless of whether he was a citizen or had a visa. 30. Later that day, Ms. Lewandowski replied, "[s]orry but you have to be a US citizen
or have a green card."
31. Northwestern Mutual advertises its blanket ban against hiring anyone who is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. permanent resident on its website. The first question that individuals are asked to answer on an online "assessment" form is: "Do you have a [sic] least 3 years of continuous U.S. residency, hold a permanent resident visa and read, write and speak English fluently?" If the respondent answers "no" to this question, she is taken to a page with the following statement of policy: "Financial representatives must have at least three years of continuous U.S. residency, hold a permanent resident visa and read, write and speak English
fluently. A financial representative intern must hold a current student or resident visa, have three
years continuous residency or anticipated three years of continuous residency completed upon
college graduation, and read, write and speak English fluently, Your answers to our screening
questions indicated that you did not fulfill one or more of these qualifications. If you anticipate
meeting these requirements in the future, we do hope to you consider investigating opportunities with the Northwestern Mutual
again."'ackground
Information, NDRTHWESTERN MUTUAL, https://www.selfmgmt.corn/cgibin/assessment.exe? testtype=s12kfunction=cackac=025266188293kwrappeis=clients(nmfn2kc
ustomcaption=%20 (last visited July 9, 2014).
Background Information, NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL, https://www.selfmgmt.corn/cgibin/assessment.exe? testtype=s12k function=cack ac=025266188293 &wrappers=clients(nmfn2kc
ustomcaption=%20 (last visited June 9, 2014).

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 2 Filed 07/09/14 Page 7 of 12
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 32. Plaintiff brings his class allegations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of a class defined as follows: All persons, who are within the jurisdiction of the United
States and legally authorized to work in the United States, who were denied the right to work at
Northwestern Mutual because they are not U.S. citizens or U.S. permanent residents between July 9, 2010 and the date ofjudgment in this action (the "Class").
33. Plaintiff is a member of the Class. 34, Upon information and belief, the members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all of them is impracticable. Northwestern Mutual has offices throughout the United States, USCIS has approved over 500,000 requests for DACA, and there are thousands of people
who despite having work authorization do not meet Northwestern Mutual's immigration status
and residency requirements. Plaintiff does not know the precise number of Class Members —this
information is in Northwestern Mutual's possession.
35. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class, and these questions
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common questions include,
among others: (1) whether it is Northwestern Mutual's policy or practice to reject job applicants
or terminate current workers who are legally authorized to work in the United States because they
are not U.S. citizens or U.S. permanent residents; (2) whether Northwestern Mutual's policy as set forth above deprives Plaintiff and the Class of the right to contract for work in violation of 42 U.S.C. $ 1981; (3) whether Plaintiff and the Class suffered harm by reason of Defendant's
unlawful policy; (4) whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to back pay relief; (5) whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to compensatory damages; (6) whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to punitive damages; (7) what equitable and injunctive relief for the Class is
warranted; and (8) the scope of a resulting permanent injunction.

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 2 Filed 07/09/14 Page 8 of 12

36. Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the Class: (l) Plaintiff was within the
jurisdiction of the United States and not a citizen of the United States; (2) Plaintiff was legally authorized to work within the United States; (3) Plaintiff applied for a position at Northwestern Mutual; and (4) Plaintiff was rejected because he was not a citizen or permanent resident of the United States. All of these claims are substantially shared by each and every class member. All of the claims arise from the same course of conduct by Defendant, and the relief sought is

common.
37. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the Class. Plaintiff has no conflict with any class member. Plaintiff is committed to the goal of having Northwestern Mutual revise its hiring requirements to stop discriminating
against Plaintiff and others who are immigrants, but legally authorized to work in the United

States.
38.

Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex employment

discrimination class actions.
39. The universe of people affected by Northwestern Mutual's unlawful policy is
ascertainable through Defendant's records and therefore the proposed class is ascertainable.
40. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because
Northwestern Mutual has acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff and the Class as a whole. Northwestern Mutual has refused to hire and/or terminated anyone who is not a citizen or
green card holder with at least three years of continuous U.S. residency, i.e., the Class. The Class
members are entitled to injunctive relief to end Northwestern Mutual's common, uniform, unfair, and discriminatory policy and/or practice including priority instatement and other make-whole

relief.

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 2 Filed 07/09/14 Page 9 of 12
41. Class ceitification is also appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) because common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class, and because a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation since joinder of all members is impracticable. The Class Members have been damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of
Northwestern Mutual's common, uniform, unfair, and discriminatory policies and practices.
Damages are capable of measurement on a classwide basis and will be calculated based on the wages lost due to Northwestern Mutual's unlawful practices. The propriety and amount of
punitive damages are based on Northwestern Mutual's conduct, making these issues common to the Class. Plaintiff and the Class will rely on common evidence to resolve their legal and factual questions. There are no pending actions raising similar claims. The proposed representative for the Class is a New York resident. Defendant engages in continuous, permanent, and substantial
activity in New York. There will be no undue difficulty in the management of this litigation as a
class action.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Alienage Discrimination)
42 U.S.C g 1981 42. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in all preceding paragraphs. 43. Plaintiff brings this claim on his own behalf and on behalf of the Class. 44, Plaintiff is a person within the jurisdiction of the United States. 45. Plaintiff is an alien. 46. Plaintiff is legally authorized to work in the United States, 47. Northwestern Mutual intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff and the Class on the basis of alienage by rescinding or denying them contracts to work or deterring them from work opportunities because they are neither citizens of the United States nor permanent residents

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 2 Filed 07/09/14 Page 10 of 12

and do not have at least three years of continuous U.S. residency. 48. Northwestern Mutual's intentional discrimination against Plaintiff and the Class

interfered with their right to make and enforce work contracts.
49. Defendant's policy and practice of denying work opportunities based on Plaintiff's
and the Class's alienage despite being legally authorized to work within the United States harmed Plaintiff and the Class and constitutes unlawful alienage discrimination in the making and
enforcing of contracts in violation of 42 U.S.C. $ 1981. 50. Plaintiff and the Class have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to
redress the wrongs alleged herein, and the injunctive relief sought in this action is the only means
of securing complete and adequate relief. Plaintiff and the Class he seeks to represent are now
suffering, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury from Defendant's discriminatory acts and

omissions.
51.

Defendant's conduct has caused, and continues to cause, Plaintiff and the

members of the Class substantial losses in earnings and other work benefits, PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the Class pray for relief as follows: 52. Certification of the case as a class action on behalf of the proposed Class; 53. Designation of Plaintiff Ruben Juarez as a representative on behalf of the Class; 54. Designation of Plaintiff's counsel of record as Class counsel; 55. A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and

violate 42 U.S.C. ( 1981;
56. A preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendant and its officers, agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in each of the unlawful policies, practices, customs and usages set forth herein; an order

10

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 2 Filed 07/09/14 Page 11 of 12

restoring Plaintiff and Class members to their rightful positions at Northwestern Mutual, as
applicants, contractors, or employees, or in lieu of instatement or reinstatement, an order for front

pay (including interest) and benefits;
57. Back pay (including interest and benefits) for the Plaintiff and Class Members; 58. All damages sustained as a result of Northwestern Mutual's conduct, including
damages for emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and anguish, according to proof;
59. Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount commensurate with Northwestern

Mutual's ability to pay and to deter future conduct;
60. Costs incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys'ees to the extent allowable

by law;
61.
62.

Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and Such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems necessary,

just, and proper.

11

Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 2 Filed 07/09/14 Page 12 of 12

Dated: New York, NY July 9, 2014

Respectfully submitte
By:
OUTTEN A COLDEN LLP Adam T. plein
Ossai Miazad Lewis M. Steel Michael N. Litrownik
Olivia J. Quinto*
3 Park Avenue, 29'loor
New York, New York 10016 Telephone: 212-245-1000
THE MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEI ENSE AND
FDUCATION FUND
Thomas A. Saenz" Victor Viramontes~
634 S. Spring St., 11"Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: 213-629-2512
Maribel Hernandez Rivera
1016 16th Street N.W., Suite 100, Washington, D,C., 20036 Telephone: 202-572-0836
*pro hac vice motion forthcoming
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class

12

 
 Case: 1:14-cv-5107 As of: 09/24/2017 08:43 AM EDT 1 of 11
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:14−cv−05107−KBF

CLOSED,ECF

Juarez v. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc. Assigned to: Judge Katherine B. Forrest Cause: 42:1981 Equal Rights Under the Law
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/09/2014 Date Terminated: 05/26/2015 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Ruben Juarez on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated

represented by Adam T Klein Outten & Golden, LLP (NYC) 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 212 245−1000 Fax: 212 977−4005 Email: atk@outtengolden.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lewis M. Steel Outten & Golden,LLP (NYC) 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 (646) 825−9835 Fax: (212) 245−4005 Email: ls@outtengolden.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Noah Litrownik Outten & Golden,LLP (NYC) 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 (212)−245−1000 Fax: (646)−509−2091 Email: mlitrownik@outtengolden.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ossai Miazad Outten & Golden, LLP (NYC) 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 (212)−245−1000 Fax: (646)−509−2060 Email: omiazad@outtengolden.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Andrew Saenz Maldef 634 S Spring Street, 11th Fl Los Angeles, CA 90014 (213)−629−2512 Email: opaniagua@maldef.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katrina L. Eiland

Case: 1:14-cv-5107 As of: 09/24/2017 08:43 AM EDT 2 of 11
Outten & Golden LLP One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 (415)−638−8800 Fax: (646)−509−2053 Email: keiland@outtengolden.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Olivia J. Quinto Outten & Golden,LLP (NYC) 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 (212) 245−1000 Fax: (212) 977−4005 Email: ojq@outtengolden.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Veronica Cortez Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 11 East Adams St. Suite 700 Chicago, IL 60603 (312)−427−0701 Fax: (312)−427−0691 Email: vcortez@maldef.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Viramontes Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 634 S. Spring Street, 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 213−629−0266 213−629−2512 Fax: 213−629−0266 Email: vviramontes@maldef.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc.

represented by Christopher Alan Parlo Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (New York) 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 212−309−6000 Fax: 212−309−6273 Email: cparlo@morganlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan Thomas Killeen Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (New York) 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 (212)−309−6712 Fax: (212)−309−6001 Email: brendan.killeen@morganlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A Haase

Case: 1:14-cv-5107 As of: 09/24/2017 08:43 AM EDT 3 of 11
Godfrey & Kahn, S.C 200 S. Washington St. Suite 100 Green Bay, WI 54301 (920) 432−9300 Fax: (920) 436−7988 Email: jhaase@gklaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul F. Heaton Godfrey & Kahn, S.C 200 S. Washington St. Suite 100 Green Bay, WI 54301 414−273−3500 Fax: 414−273−5198 Email: pheaton@gklaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/09/2014 07/09/2014 07/09/2014 07/09/2014 07/09/2014
07/09/2014 07/14/2014 07/18/2014 07/28/2014 07/31/2014

# Docket Text
1 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed. (lcu) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
2 COMPLAINT against The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc. (Filing Fee $ 350.00.)Document filed by Ruben Juarez.(lcu) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
SUMMONS ISSUED as to The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc. (lcu) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
Case Designated ECF. (lcu) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
3 STANDING ORDER IN RE PILOT PROJECT REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR COMPLEX CIVIL CASES IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (See M−10−468 Order filed November 1, 2011). This case is hereby designated for inclusion in the Pilot Project Regarding Case Management Techniques for Complex Civil Cases in the Southern District of New York (the Pilot Project), unless the judge to whom this case is assigned determines otherwise. This case is designated for inclusion in the Pilot Project because it is a class action, an MDL action, or is in one of the following Nature of Suit categories: 160, 245, 315, 355, 365, 385, 410, 830, 840, 850, 893, or 950. The presiding judge in a case that does not otherwise qualify for inclusion in the Pilot Project may nevertheless designate the case for inclusion in the Pilot Project by issuing an order directing that the case be included in the Pilot Project. The description of the Pilot Project, including procedures to be followed, is attached to this Order. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 10/31/2011) (lcu) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
Magistrate Judge Frank Maas is so designated. (laq) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
4 ORDER: Initial Conference set for 9/4/2014 at 02:30 PM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 7/14/2014) (ajs) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of the Order scheduling the IPTC and Judge Forrest's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases served on Nyann Cox, Legal Process Specialist at Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co. on July 17, 2014. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by Ruben Juarez. (Klein, Adam) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
6 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Complaint. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc. served on 7/16/2014, answer due 8/6/2014. Service was accepted by Nyann Cox, Legal Process Specialist at Northwestern Mutual Life Ins.. Document filed by Ruben Juarez. (Klein, Adam) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
7 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Christopher Alan Parlo on behalf of The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc.. (Parlo, Christopher) (Entered: 07/31/2014)

Case: 1:14-cv-5107 As of: 09/24/2017 08:43 AM EDT 4 of 11

08/01/2014 08/01/2014 08/08/2014 08/11/2014
08/15/2014 08/15/2014 08/20/2014 08/20/2014
08/21/2014 08/21/2014 08/22/2014
08/22/2014
08/25/2014 08/25/2014

8 FIRST LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Christopher Parlo dated 08−01−14 re: Extension of Time to Answer Complaint. Document filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc..(Parlo, Christopher) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
9 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 8 Letter filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc. answer due 9/5/2014. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 8/1/2014) (tn) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
Pro Hac Vice Fee Payment: Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−9983382.(Viramontes, Victor) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
10 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − MOTION for VICTOR VIRAMONTES to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Ruben Juarez. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing − Victor Viramontes)(Viramontes, Victor) Modified on 8/25/2014 (wb). (Entered: 08/11/2014)
11 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: 2 Complaint addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Christopher A. Parlo dated August 15, 2014. Document filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc..(Parlo, Christopher) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
12 ORDER denying 11 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Application denied. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 8/15/2014) (lmb) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
13 MOTION for Olivia J. Quinto to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10017882. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Ruben Juarez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Quinto, Olivia) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 13 MOTION for Olivia J. Quinto to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10017882. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (bcu) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
14 MEMO ENDORSEMENT granting 13 Motion for Olivia J. Quinto to Appear Pro Hac Vice. ENDORSEMENT: ORDERED: Application granted. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 8/21/2014) (tn) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
15 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Brendan Thomas Killeen on behalf of The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc.. (Killeen, Brendan) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
16 MOTION for Paul F. Heaton to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Heaton, Paul) (Entered: 08/22/2014)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 16 MOTION for Paul F. Heaton to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (wb) (Entered: 08/22/2014)
17 MEMO ENDORSEMENT granting 16 Motion for Paul F. Heaton to Appear Pro Hac Vice. ENDORSEMENT: ORDERED: Application granted. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 8/25/2014) (tn) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING DEFICIENT MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE. Notice regarding Document No. 10 MOTION for VICTOR VIRAMONTES to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): Missing Certificate of Good Standing.Missing Proposed Order.

Case: 1:14-cv-5107 As of: 09/24/2017 08:43 AM EDT 5 of 11

08/26/2014
08/26/2014
08/26/2014 08/27/2014 08/29/2014 08/29/2014 09/04/2014 09/04/2014 09/04/2014 09/04/2014 09/04/2014 09/08/2014
09/08/2014

Certificate of Good Standing Must be issued from Supreme Court of California with a Clerk of Court Signature. Re−file the document as a Corrected Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice and attach a valid Certificate of Good Standing, issued within the past 30 days.Re−file the document as a Corrected Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice and attach a Proposed Order. (wb) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
18 MOTION for John A. Haase to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10038090. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Haase, John) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 18 MOTION for John A. Haase to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10038090. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (bcu) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
Pro Hac Vice Fee Payment: for 16 MOTION for Paul F. Heaton to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10038352.(Heaton, Paul) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
19 MEMO ENDORSEMENT granting 18 Motion for John A. Haase to Appear Pro Hac Vice. ENDORSEMENT: ORDERED: Application granted. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 8/27/2014) (tn) (Entered: 08/27/2014)
20 ORDER: In light of the Court's schedule, the initial pretrial conference scheduled for Thursday, 9/4/2014 at 2:30 p.m. is now rescheduled to 9/4/2014 at 03:30 PM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 8/29/2014) (tn) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
21 ORDER: The Clerk of Court shall remove this action from the Pilot Project Regarding Case Management Techniques for Complex Civil Cases in the Southern District of New York. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 8/29/2014) (ja) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
22 MOTION to Dismiss . Document filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc..(Parlo, Christopher) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
23 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 22 MOTION to Dismiss . . Document filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc.. (Parlo, Christopher) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
24 LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Christopher A. Parlo dated September 4, 2014 re: Request for Partial Stay of Discovery. Document filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc..(Parlo, Christopher) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
25 LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Michael Litrownik dated September 4, 2014 re: In response to Defendant's Request for Partial Stay of Discovery 24 . Document filed by Ruben Juarez.(Litrownik, Michael) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Katherine B. Forrest: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 9/4/2014. (jp) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
26 ORDER: As discussed at the initial pretrial conference, parties shall meet and confer regarding the briefing schedule for the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22). Parties shall jointly propose a briefing schedule no later than Thursday, September 11, 2014. The next status conference in this matter is scheduled for Friday, November 7, 2014, at 2 p.m. The conference will be telephonic. Parties shall call Chambers (202−805−0276) from one line at the designated time., ( Status Conference set for 11/7/2014 at 02:00 PM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 9/8/2014) (lmb) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
27 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 24 Letter filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc. ENDORSEMENT: Denied; limited discovery shall proceed. Otherwise, as discussed at conference. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on

Case: 1:14-cv-5107 As of: 09/24/2017 08:43 AM EDT 6 of 11

09/09/2014
09/09/2014
09/11/2014 09/11/2014 09/15/2014 09/15/2014 09/15/2014 09/16/2014 09/16/2014 09/16/2014 09/30/2014 10/06/2014 10/08/2014

9/8/2014) (lmb) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
28 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 9/4/2014 before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Shari Riemer, (518) 581−8973. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/3/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/14/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/11/2014.(ca) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
29 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a Initial Pretrial Conference proceeding held on 09/04/2014 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(ca) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
30 LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Michael N. Litrownik dated September 11, 2014 re: Joint Briefing Schedule. Document filed by Ruben Juarez.(Litrownik, Michael) (Entered: 09/11/2014)
31 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 30 Letter filed by Ruben Juarez. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered., ( Responses due by 9/30/2014., Replies due by 10/10/2014.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 9/11/2014) (lmb) (Entered: 09/11/2014)
32 MOTION for Thomas Andrew Saenz to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10101075. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Ruben Juarez. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Proposed Order)(Saenz, Thomas) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 32 MOTION for Thomas Andrew Saenz to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10101075. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (bcu) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
33 MOTION for Victor Viramontes to Appear Pro Hac Vice CORRECTED. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Ruben Juarez. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing − VV, # 2 Order for Admission Pro Hac Vice − VV)(Viramontes, Victor) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 33 MOTION for Victor Viramontes to Appear Pro Hac Vice CORRECTED. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (wb) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
34 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 32 Motion for Thomas A. Saenz to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 9/16/2014) (lmb) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
35 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 33 Motion for Victor Viramontes to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 9/16/2014) (lmb) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
36 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 22 MOTION to Dismiss . . Document filed by Ruben Juarez. (Klein, Adam) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
37 ORDER re: 22 MOTION to Dismiss filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc.: The parties shall appear for oral argument on the pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22) on Wednesday, October 15, 2014, at 10:30 a.m. (Oral Argument set for 10/15/2014 at 10:30 AM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 10/6/2014) (tn) (Entered: 10/06/2014)
38 LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Chris Parlo dated October 8, 2014. Document filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc..(Parlo, Christopher) (Entered: 10/08/2014)

Case: 1:14-cv-5107 As of: 09/24/2017 08:43 AM EDT 7 of 11

10/09/2014 10/10/2014 11/03/2014
11/03/2014 11/07/2014 11/11/2014 11/14/2014 11/17/2014
11/17/2014
11/24/2014 11/24/2014 11/25/2014 11/25/2014

39 ORDER granting 38 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Oral argument rescheduled to 11/3/14 at 10 am. Oral Argument set for 11/3/2014 at 10:00 AM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 10/9/2014) (lmb) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
40 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 22 MOTION to Dismiss . . Document filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc.. (Heaton, Paul) (Entered: 10/10/2014)
41 ORDER: The Court heard oral argument today on the pending motion to dismiss the Complaint. The telephonic status conference scheduled for November 7, 2014 is hereby ADJOURNED. The next status conference will be on Friday, January 9, 2015, at 4 p.m. The conference will be telephonic unless the Court informs the parties otherwise., ( Status Conference set for 1/9/2015 at 04:00 PM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 11/3/2014) (lmb) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Katherine B. Forrest: Oral Argument held on 11/3/2014 re: 22 MOTION to Dismiss . filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc. (jp) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
42 LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Paul F. Heaton dated November 7, 2014 re: Correspondence responding to the Court's inquiries at hearing. Document filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc..(Heaton, Paul) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
43 LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Michael N. Litrownik dated November 11, 2014 re: Response to Defendant's November 7, 2014 Letter. Document filed by Ruben Juarez.(Litrownik, Michael) (Entered: 11/11/2014)
44 OPINION & ORDER #104969 re: 22 MOTION to Dismiss . filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc. For the reasons set forth above, defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 22. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 11/14/2014) (lmb) Modified on 11/18/2014 (ca). (Entered: 11/14/2014)
45 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: conference held on 11/3/2014 before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Lisa Picciano Fellis, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 12/11/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/22/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/20/2015.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
46 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a conference proceeding held on 11/3/2014 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
47 MOTION to Certify the Court's November 14, 2014 Decision for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 re: 44 Memorandum & Opinion, . Document filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc..(Heaton, Paul) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
48 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 47 MOTION to Certify the Court's November 14, 2014 Decision for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 re: 44 Memorandum & Opinion, . . Document filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc.. (Heaton, Paul) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
49 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Michael N. Litrownik dated November 25, 2014. Document filed by Ruben Juarez.(Litrownik, Michael) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
50 ORDER granting 49 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 47 MOTION to Certify the Court's November 14, 2014 Decision for Interlocutory

Case: 1:14-cv-5107 As of: 09/24/2017 08:43 AM EDT 8 of 11

11/26/2014 11/26/2014 12/03/2014 12/03/2014 12/05/2014 12/10/2014 12/11/2014 12/12/2014
12/17/2014 12/30/2014 12/30/2014

Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 re: 44 Memorandum & Opinion: ORDERED: Application granted. Responses due by 12/10/2014, Replies due by 12/17/2014. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 11/25/2014) (tn) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
51 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: 2 Complaint addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Christopher A. Parlo dated November 26, 2014. Document filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc..(Parlo, Christopher) (Entered: 11/26/2014)
52 ORDER granting 51 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Application granted. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc. answer due 12/3/2014. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 11/26/2014) (lmb) (Entered: 11/26/2014)
53 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc..(Parlo, Christopher) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
54 ANSWER to 2 Complaint with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc..(Parlo, Christopher) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
55 ORDER: The parties shall submit a jointly proposed schedule to govern the remainder of this action not later than Thursday, December 11, 2014. If the parties cannot agree on a schedule, they shall set forth their respective positions by that date. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 12/5/2014) (lmb) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
56 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 47 MOTION to Certify the Court's November 14, 2014 Decision for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 re: 44 Memorandum & Opinion, . . Document filed by Ruben Juarez. (Klein, Adam) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
57 LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Ossai Miazad dated December 11, 2014 re: jointly proposed schedule. Document filed by Ruben Juarez.(Miazad, Ossai) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
58 ORDER: The following schedule shall govern the remainder of this action: 1. Plaintiff's expert identification/disclosures are due March 17, 2015. 2. Defendant's expert identification/disclosures are due April 16, 2015. 3. Plaintiff's rebuttal expert identification/disclosures are due April 30, 2015. 4. Close of fact discovery: June 1, 2015. 5. Close of expert discovery: June 15, 2015. 6. Class certification briefing schedule: a. Opening: June 15, 2015. b. Opposition: July 15, 2015. c. Reply: July 29, 2015. 7. Summary judgment briefing schedule: a. Openings: August 31, 2015. b. Oppositions: September 21, 2015. c. Replies: September 28, 2015. 8. Pretrial materials, including the Joint Pretrial Order ("JPTO"), are due November 6, 2015. 9. The Final Pretrial Conference ("FPTC") is set for November 12, 2015, at 1 p.m. 10. Trial shall commence on November 16, 2015. (Motions due by 8/31/2015. Responses due by 9/21/2015 Replies due by 9/28/2015. Fact Discovery due by 6/1/2015. Expert Discovery due by 6/15/2015. Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/12/2015 at 01:00 PM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. Pretrial Order due by 11/6/2015.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 12/12/2014) (mro) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
59 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 47 MOTION to Certify the Court's November 14, 2014 Decision for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 re: 44 Memorandum & Opinion, . . Document filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc.. (Heaton, Paul) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
60 MOTION for Katrina L. Eiland to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10451378. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Ruben Juarez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Eiland, Katrina) (Entered: 12/30/2014)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 60 MOTION for Katrina L. Eiland to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10451378. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (sdi) (Entered: 12/30/2014)

Case: 1:14-cv-5107 As of: 09/24/2017 08:43 AM EDT 9 of 11

12/30/2014 12/30/2014
12/31/2014 01/02/2015 01/05/2015 01/05/2015 03/17/2015
03/17/2015 03/27/2015 03/30/2015

61 MEMORANDUM & DECISION granting 47 Motion. For the reasons set forth above, defendant's motion is GRANTED. The Court hereby amends the November 14, 2014 Opinion & Order to include certification for interlocutory appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 5(a)(3). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 47. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 12/30/2014) (lmb) (Entered: 12/30/2014)
62 ORDER: This action is hereby STAYED pending the Second Circuit's decision whether or not to accept defendant's interlocutory appeal from the November 14, 2014 Opinion & Order. If the Second Circuit takes the appeal, the action will be stayed until the appeal is decided. Otherwise, the schedule will resume. The January 9, 2015 telephonic status conference is ADJOURNED. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 12/30/2014) (lmb) (Entered: 12/30/2014)
63 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 60 Motion for Katrina L. Eiland to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 12/31/2014) (tn) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
64 MOTION for Veronica Cortez to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10455313. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Ruben Juarez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Exhibit Text of Proposed Order)(Cortez, Veronica) (Entered: 01/02/2015)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 64 MOTION for Veronica Cortez to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10455313. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (sdi) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
65 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 64 Motion for Veronica Cortez to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 1/5/2015) (tn) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
66 TRUE COPY ORDER of USCA. USCA Case Number 15−0136. Petitioner moves, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1292(b), for leave to appeal an interlocutory order of the district court and for permission to file a reply. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the § 1292(b) petition is GRANTED and the motion to file a reply is DENIED as moot. Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Certified: 03/17/2015. (nd) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
APPEAL FEE DUE. $505.00 APPEAL FILING FEE DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS. re: 66 USCA Order granting leave to appeal an interlocutory order. Petition filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc.. (nd) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
USCA Appeal Fees received $ 505.00 receipt number 465401121009 on 03/27/2015 re: 66 USCA Order granting leave to appeal an interlocutory order. Petition filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc. [USCA Case No. 15−0790−cv.] (nd) (Entered: 03/27/2015)
Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files for 52 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer, 50 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, 59 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc., 29 Notice of Filing Transcript,, 58 Scheduling Order,,,,, 23 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc., 12 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer, 24 Letter filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc., 9 Memo Endorsement, Set Deadlines,, 54 Answer to Complaint filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc., 47 MOTION to Certify the Court's November 14, 2014 Decision for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 re: 44 Memorandum & Opinion, . filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc., 28 Transcript,, 16 MOTION for Paul F. Heaton to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc., 26 Order, Set Hearings,,,, 8 Letter filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc., 66 USCA Order, 41 Order, Set Hearings,, 38 LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Chris Parlo dated October 8, 2014. filed by The

Case: 1:14-cv-5107 As of: 09/24/2017 08:43 AM EDT 10 of 11

05/13/2015 05/26/2015 06/01/2015

Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc., 42 Letter filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc., 3 Standing Order re Complex Civil Cases,,,, 65 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 55 Order, 30 Letter filed by Ruben Juarez, 14 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 46 Notice of Filing Transcript,, 33 MOTION for Victor Viramontes to Appear Pro Hac Vice CORRECTED. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. filed by Ruben Juarez, 56 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion, filed by Ruben Juarez, 20 Order for Initial Pretrial Conference, 25 Letter filed by Ruben Juarez, 19 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 63 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 49 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Michael N. Litrownik dated November 25, 2014. filed by Ruben Juarez, 11 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: 2 Complaint addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Christopher A. Parlo dated August 15, 2014. filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc., 57 Letter filed by Ruben Juarez, 61 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 60 MOTION for Katrina L. Eiland to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10451378. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. filed by Ruben Juarez, 27 Memo Endorsement, 13 MOTION for Olivia J. Quinto to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10017882. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. filed by Ruben Juarez, 37 Order, Set Hearings,, 64 MOTION for Veronica Cortez to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10455313. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. filed by Ruben Juarez, 21 Order Vacating Designation re Complex Civil Case, 4 Order for Initial Pretrial Conference, 44 Memorandum & Opinion, 43 Letter filed by Ruben Juarez, 34 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 22 MOTION to Dismiss . filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc., 62 Order Staying Case, Terminate Hearings,, 2 Complaint filed by Ruben Juarez, 5 Certificate of Service Other, filed by Ruben Juarez, 6 Affidavit of Service Complaints, filed by Ruben Juarez, 18 MOTION for John A. Haase to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10038090. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc., 45 Transcript,, 36 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion filed by Ruben Juarez, 35 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 32 MOTION for Thomas Andrew Saenz to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−10101075. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. filed by Ruben Juarez, 39 Order on Motion to Adjourn Conference, 40 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc., 51 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: 2 Complaint addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Christopher A. Parlo dated November 26, 2014. filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc., 53 Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc., 17 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 48 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc., 7 Notice of Appearance filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc., 31 Memo Endorsement, Set Deadlines, 15 Notice of Appearance filed by The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc. were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (nd) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
67 MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) USCA Case Number 15−136. Petitioner moves, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1292(b), for leave to appeal an interlocutory order of the district court and for permission to file a reply. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the § 1292(b) petition is GRANTED and the motion to file a reply is DENIED as moot. Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 05/13/2015. (nd) (Entered: 05/13/2015)
68 STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties and/or their respective counsel(s) that the above−captioned action is voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice against the defendant(s) The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc. pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Document filed by Ruben Juarez.(Klein, Adam) (Entered: 05/26/2015)
69 STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL: The parties, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), through their respective, authorized counsel, hereby stipulate to the

Case: 1:14-cv-5107 As of: 09/24/2017 08:43 AM EDT 11 of 11

06/01/2015 06/04/2015

dismissal of this action with prejudice, and with each of the parties to bear their own fees, costs, and expenses. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 6/01/2015) (ama) (Entered: 06/01/2015)
Terminate Transcript Deadlines (ama) (Entered: 06/01/2015)
70 MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) USCA Case Number 15−790. The parties in the above−referenced case have filed a stipulation withdrawing this appeal pursuant to FRAP 42. The stipulation is hereby "So Ordered". Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 06/04/2015. (nd) (Entered: 06/04/2015)

 
 Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 69 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 1 Case 1:14-cv-05107-KBF Document 68 Filed 05/26/15 Page 1of1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RUBEN JUAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant.

Case No.: 14-cv-5107 (KBF)
USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC#: DATE F-,L-E-D:--tJi.t!UNH-a-o-r1---,,.20-1-,~..

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL

The parties, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4l(a)(l)(A)(ii), through their respective,

authorized counsel, hereby stipulate to the dismissal of this action with prejudice, and with each

of the parties to bear their own fees, costs, and expenses.
DATED this~-dlkay of May, 2015.

GODFREY & KAHN, S. C.
By~ad'~-PaulF.H~atOD 780 No1th Water Street Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 Tel: (414) 287-9601 Fax: (414) 273-5198 Email: pheaton@gklaw.com

Adam T. Klein 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, New York 10016 Tel: (212) 245-1000 Fax: (646) 509-2067 Email: atk@outtengolden.com

Attorneys for The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee, Ruben Juarez

13612805.1

:;i;z> o~~.

le;___ 0.~

o----- (, ( I {

T <-<..S J)