1 CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 Peter A. Schey (Cal. Bar No. 58232) 3 Carlos R. Holguín (Cal. Bar No. 90754)
256 S. Occidental Blvd. 4 Los Angeles, CA 90057 5 Telephone: (213) 388-8693 (Schey ext. 304; Holguín ext. 309)
Facsimile: (213) 386-9484 6 pschey@centerforhumanrights.org 7 crholguin@centerforhumanrights.org
Counsel for Plaintiffs
8
Additional counsel for plaintiffs listed next page
9

(FILED 7-12-12)

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

12

13

14 MARTIN R. ARANAS, IRMA RODRIGUEZ, AND

) ) )

15 JANE DELEON,

)

)

16

)

)

17

Plaintiffs,

) )

18

)

-vs-

)

19

)

20

JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security;

) ) )

21 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; )

22

ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration

) ) )

23 Services; and

)

24 UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP &

) )

IMMIGRATION SERVICES,

)

25

)

)

26

Defendants.

)

27 __________________________________)

Case No: SACV12-1137-JVS(MLGx) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(CLASS ACTION)

28

1 Additional counsel for plaintiff Martin R. Aranas:
2 PUBLIC LAW CENTER 3 Julie Greenwald (Cal. Bar No. 233714) 4 Monica Ashiku (Cal. Bar No. 263112)
601 Civic Center Drive West 5 Santa Ana, CA 92701 6 Telephone: (714) 541-1010 (Greenwald Ext. 263, Ashiku Ext. 249)
Facsimile: (714) 541-5157 7 jgreenwald@publiclawcenter.org 8 mashiku@publiclawcenter.org
9 ASIAN LAW ALLIANCE 10 Beatrice Ann M. Pangilinan (Cal. Bar No. 271064)
184 Jackson Street, San Jose, CA 95112 11 Telephone: (408) 287-9710 12 Facsimile: (408) 287-0864 13 Email: bpangilinan@asianlawalliance.org
14
15
Additional counsel for plaintiffs Irma Rodriguez and Jane DeLeon:
16
17 LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN & BENNETT Gary H. Manulkin (Cal. Bar No. 41469)
18 Reyna M. Tanner (Cal. Bar No. 197931) 19 10175 Slater Avenue, Suite 111
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
20
Telephone: 714-963-8951 21 Facsimile: 714-968-4948 22 gmanulkin@mgblaw.com
reynatanner@yahoo.com
23
24
25 / / /
26
27
28
- 2 -

1 Plaintiffs allege as follows:

2

I

3
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
4

5

1. Plaintiffs Irma Rodriguez and Jane DeLeon are married and of the same sex.

6 Plaintiff Rodriguez is a U.S. citizen and resident of California. Plaintiff DeLeon is a
7
8 Filipino national and a resident of California. Plaintiff Martin Aranas is the son of

9 plaintiff DeLeon and at all relevant times was eligible for lawful permanent resident
10
status as a derivative beneficiary of the application to confer lawful permanent residence
11

12 on his mother. Defendants denied plaintiff DeLeon’s Form I-601 Application for Waiver

13
of Grounds of Inadmissibility solely because DeLeon is married to a person of the same
14
15 sex, and § 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. § 7, defines “marriage” under

16 federal law as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and
17
wife.”
18

19

2. Plaintiffs Rodriquez and DeLeon have been partners for 20 years. They were

20
lawfully married in California in 2008. They reside together as legally married spouses
21
22 and plan to remain together for the rest of their lives. They accept all of the duties and

23 responsibilities that are commonly associated with marriage. Plaintiff Martin Aranas,
24
25 now 25 years old, is the son of plaintiff DeLeon, has lived in the United States since the

26 age of nine years; he will qualify for adjustment of status if plaintiff DeLeon is granted
27
adjustment of status.
28

- 3 -

1

3. Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ refusal to grant immigration benefits,

2
including lawful permanent residence, to the spouses of U.S. citizen petitioners solely
3
4 because their spouses are the same sex violates the substantive due process and equal

5 protection guarantees of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 8
6
7 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(2), which prohibits discrimination in the issuance of visas based upon a

8 petitioner’s or an immigrant visa beneficiary’s “sex.”
9
4. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
10

11 §§ 2201-2202 and Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 57, and for review of agency action pursuant to

12
the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that
13
14 DOMA § 3, 1 U.S.C. § 7, violates the United States Constitution, as applied to plaintiffs

15 and those similarly situated, by refusing to recognize their lawful marriages for purposes
16
of conferring family-based immigration waivers and benefits. As a direct and proximate
17

18 result of the violations of the Constitution alleged herein, plaintiffs have been denied, and

19
will continue to be denied, legal protections and benefits under the Immigration and
20
21 Nationality Act that would be available to them were they spouses of different sexes.

22

II

23

24

JURISDICTION

25

5. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to U.S. Const. Art. III; 28 U.S.C. § 1331

26
(federal question jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus jurisdiction), and 28 U.S.C.
27

28 § 2241 (habeas corpus jurisdiction).

- 4 -

1

6. Plaintiffs’ prayer for declaratory relief is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201

2
and 2202.
3

4

7. Venue is properly in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (e)(1), (2),

5 and (4), because acts complained of occurred in this district, the plaintiffs reside in this
6
7 district, defendants have offices in this district, and no real property is involved in this

8 action.
9
III
10

11

PARTIES

12
8. Plaintiff, Irma Rodriguez is a U.S. citizen, a resident of California, and is the
13
14 lawful spouse of plaintiff Jane DeLeon.

15

9. Plaintiff Jane DeLeon is a citizen of the Philippines, the lawful spouse of

16

Plaintiff Rodriquez, a resident of California, and the beneficiary of an approved
17

18 employment-based immigrant visa petition.

19
10. Plaintiff Martin R. Aranas is the biological son of plaintiff DeLeon, a citizen
20
21 of the Philippines, a resident of California, and would qualify for lawful permanent

22 resident status were his mother is granted lawful permanent resident status.

23

24

11. Defendant Janet Napolitano is the Secretary of the United States Department

25 of Homeland Security. Defendant Napolitano is charged with the administration of the
26
United States Department of Homeland Security. Defendant United States Citizenship
27

28 and Immigration Services is a subordinate agency within the Department of Homeland

- 5 -

1 Security, and as such is under the authority and supervision of defendant Napolitano. She

2
is sued in her official capacity.
3

4

12. Defendant Alejandro Mayorkas is the Director of defendant the United

5 States Citizenship and Immigration Services, an entity within the Department of
6
7 Homeland Security with statutory responsibility for adjudicating petitions filed by United

8 States citizens and lawful permanent residents for benefits to “immediate relative”
9
immigrant family members, including lawful spouses of United States citizens and lawful
10

11 permanent residents. He is sued in his official capacity.

12
13. Defendant the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service
13
14 (“USCIS”) is an entity within the Department of Homeland Security with statutory

15 responsibility for the constitutional and lawful adjudication of petitions and applications
16
filed by United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to grant benefits to
17

18 immigrant family member beneficiaries, including lawful spouses of United States

19
citizens and lawful permanent residents.
20

21

IV

22

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

23

24

14. Pursuant to Rules 23(a)(1)-(4) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

25 Procedure, plaintiffs bring this action as a class action on behalf of the following
26
proposed class:
27

28

All members of lawful marriages whom the Department of Homeland Security,

- 6 -

1

pursuant to § 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. § 7, refuses to recognize

2
as spouses for purposes of conferring lawful status and related benefits under the
3

4

Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.

5

15. The size of the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is

6

7 impracticable.

8

16. The claims of plaintiffs and those of the proposed class members raise

9
common questions of law and fact concerning the constitutionality of DOMA as
10

11 applied to deny family-based immigration benefits under the INA. This question is

12
common to the named parties and to the members of the proposed class because
13
14 defendants have acted or will act on grounds generally applicable to both the named

15 parties and proposed class members. Plaintiffs’ claims are also typical of the class
16
claims.
17

18

17. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class

19
would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications establishing incompatible
20
21 standards of conduct for defendants. Prosecution of separate actions would also

22 create the risk that individual class members will secure court orders that would as a
23
24 practical matter be dispositive of the claims of other class members not named parties

25 to this litigation, thereby substantially impeding the ability of unrepresented class
26
members to protect their interests.
27

28

- 7 -

1

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

2
office have acted or refused to act, or will act or refuse to act, on grounds generally
3
4 applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate injunctive relief or corresponding

5 declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. Plaintiffs will vigorously represent
6
7 the interests of unnamed class members. All members of the proposed class will benefit

8 by the action brought by plaintiffs. The interests of the named plaintiffs and those of the
9
proposed class members are identical. Plaintiffs’ counsel include attorneys highly
10

11 experienced in federal class action litigation and litigation involving the INA and the

12
Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
13

14

V

15

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

16

19. Plaintiff DeLeon was born on August 21, 1964 in the Philippines. She is a
17

18 citizen of the Philippines. From about 1984 to 1989 plaintiff DeLeon lived in a common-

19
law “marriage” with Joseph Randolph Aranas. They have two sons born in the
20
21 Philippines, Mikkel R. Aranas, born in 1985, and plaintiff Martin Aranas, born in 1986.

22

20. Plaintiff DeLeon was admitted to the United States on or about December

23

24 18, 1989, on a B-2 visitor’s visa and has resided here continuously since that time.

25

21. When plaintiff DeLeon left the Philippines the country was in turmoil,

26
poverty was endemic, armed opposition groups were confronting the government, and
27

28 sexual discrimination and repression of women were rampant.

- 8 -

1

22. When plaintiff DeLeon entered the United States in 1989, her passport listed

2
her occupation as “housewife” and her name as Jane Francis L. Aranas, although she was
3
4 not legally married to Joseph Aranas. So-called common-law “marriages” are not unusual

5 in the Philippines and are governed by Article 147 of the Family Code which reads in
6
7 part, for example, that “[w]hen a man and a woman … live exclusively with each other as

8 husband and wife without the benefit of marriage …, their wages and salaries shall be
9
owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their
10

11 work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.”

12
23. In the Philippines, plaintiff DeLeon used the name Jane Francis L. Aranas,
13
14 Francis being her middle name and the “L” standing for DeLeon, her maiden name. It is

15 common in the Philippines for women to adopt the names of their husbands with whom
16
they live exclusively as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage.
17

18

24. Joseph Randolph Aranas followed plaintiff DeLeon to the United States

19
shortly after her entry. Plaintiff DeLeon and Mr. Aranas resided together in the United
20
21 States until in or about 1991.

22

25. Plaintiffs Rodriquez and DeLeon met in Westminster, California, in 1992.

23

24 They have resided together in a committed life-long relationship for 20 years. They were

25 lawfully married under the laws of California on August 22, 2008. They continue to
26
reside together as a married couple and plan to do so for the rest of their lives.
27

28

- 9 -

1

26. On or about March 2, 2006, plaintiff DeLeon’s employer applied for

2
permanent resident status on her behalf. The visa petition was approved on or about May
3
4 22, 2006. Her “priority date” (date in line for a visa) was March 2, 2006. On or about

5 August 16, 2007, plaintiff DeLeon filed an application for adjustment of status under §
6
7 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (“INA”). At the time she applied

8 for adjustment of status her priority date was current (there were visa numbers available
9
for the quota under which her employment-based visa was approved). Plaintiff Martin
10

11 Aranas also applied for adjustment of status as a derivative beneficiary of his mother.

12
27. On April 14, 2011, defendants notified plaintiff DeLeon that she appeared to
13
14 be inadmissible to the United States because she had entered the United States in 1989 as

15 a “housewife,” under the name Jane L. Aranas, but was not legally married to Mr. Aranas
16
at the time. The notice alleged that plaintiff DeLeon had entered the U.S. in 1989 by
17

18 misrepresenting her name and marital status, and was therefore inadmissible under INA §

19
212(a)(6)(C), which makes inadmissible anyone who obtains a visa or admission to the
20
21 U.S. by misrepresenting a material fact.

22

28. Defendants nevertheless provided plaintiff DeLeon specific instructions on

23

24 how to apply for a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to INA § 212(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i),

25 which requires a showing that her removal or denial of adjustment of status would “result
26
in extreme hardship to [her] citizen … spouse or parent …” Id.
27

28

- 10 -

1

29. Plaintiffs did not believe plaintiff DeLeon was eligible for a waiver of

2
inadmissibility based upon hardship to plaintiff Rodriguez. On July 5, 2011, plaintiff
3
4 DeLeon instead filed an Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility, Form I-

5 601, based on the hardship her removal would cause her 92-year old citizen father, who
6
7 resides both in the U.S. and in the Philippines.

8

30. On September 1, 2011, defendants denied plaintiff DeLeon’s applications

9
for a waiver of inadmissibility and adjustment of status. Defendants denied plaintiff
10

11 DeLeon’s I-601 waiver application on the ground she had failed to establish that denial of

12
lawful permanent resident status would cause extreme hardship to her citizen father. The
13
14 waiver denial automatically resulted in a denial of the application for adjustment of

15 status.
16
31.
17

After consulting counsel, plaintiffs Rodriquez and DeLeon then determined

18 that pursuant to INA § 212(i) they could renew the I-601 waiver application based upon

19
extreme hardship that plaintiff Rodriquez would suffer if plaintiff DeLeon were denied
20
21 lawful resident status and required to depart the country.

22

32. On or about September 27, 2011, plaintiff DeLeon submitted a timely

23

24 Motion to Reopen/Reconsider I-601 Denial (“I-601 Motion to Reopen”) on the ground

25 that denying her lawful permanent residence and requiring her departure from the United
26
States would cause extreme hardship to her U.S. citizen spouse, plaintiff Rodriquez.
27

28

- 11 -

1

33. If plaintiff DeLeon is forced to depart the United States, plaintiff Rodriquez

2
will be forced to leave the United States and relocate to the Philippines, abandon her
3
4 employment, and leave her immediate family members, or end a 20-year committed

5 lifetime relationship and effectively end her marriage.

6

7

34. Factors typically considered by defendants to determine extreme hardship

8 needed to approve a waiver of inadmissibility are (1) presence of U.S. citizen family
9
member, (2) ties to the U.S., (3) qualifying relatives, (4) ties outside the U.S., (5)
10

11 conditions in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate, (6) the financial

12
impact of departure, and (7) significant issues of health “particularly when tied to the
13
14 unavailability of suitable medical care in a country to which the qualifying relocating

15 relative would relocate.” In re Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I&N Dec. 560 (BIA 1999) (en
16
banc).
17

18

35. Applying these standards to this case:

19
(1) Plaintiff DeLeon has a U.S. citizen spouse,
20

21

(2) Both plaintiff Rodriguez and plaintiff DeLeon have a wide range of ties in the

22 U.S. through their gainful employment, extended family, friends and community ties they
23
24 have developed over the course of their twenty years together in the U.S.

25

(3) Plaintiff DeLeon has two sons who reside in the United States. Her sister and a

26
niece also reside in the United States as lawful permanent residents. Plaintiff Rodriguez’s
27

28

- 12 -

1 father, mother, three sisters and one brother all are U.S. citizens and reside permanently

2
in the United States.
3

4

(4) Plaintiff Rodriguez has no immediate relatives living in the Philippines. She

5 has no social, economic, or community ties in the Philippines.

6

7

(5) The conditions in the Philippines continue to be marked by rampant

8 discrimination against women in general and lesbians in particular, criminalization of
9
lesbians and gay men who show public affection, endemic poverty, substandard housing,
10

11 and armed insurgency. Under Article 200 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines,

12
homosexual displays of affection may be penalized by “arresto mayor and public
13
14 censure,” as it is subject to the “grave scandal” prohibition. Article 27 of the Revised

15 Penal Code of the Philippines provides for incarceration for one month and one day to six
16
months for a violation of Article 200. The U.S. State Department reports that treatment of
17

18 women in the Philippines is highly discriminatory with respect to employment and public

19
safety. Fifteen percent of women in the Philippines have been raped. http:www.state.gov
20
21 (Philippines Report Release April 8, 2011). The State Department reports that women in

22 police custody are frequently raped, particularly women from marginalized groups, such
23
24 as lesbians. The report also notes that the Philippines “has yet to even approve any anti-

25 discrimination legislation” to protect gay and lesbian citizens. Id. The married life shared
26
by plaintiffs Rodriquez and DeLeon would more likely than not result in their persecution
27

28 and possible prosecution were they forced to relocate to the Philippines.

- 13 -

1

(6) Plaintiffs’ relocating to the Philippines would have a catastrophic impact on

2
plaintiff Rodriguez’s economic situation inasmuch as she would have to abandon her
3
4 employment in the United States and seek employment in the Philippines where

5 joblessness is endemic and wages perhaps 10-20 percent of what they are in the United
6
7 States.

8

(7) Plaintiffs’ relocating to the Philippines could significantly and adversely impact

9
plaintiff Rodriguez’s medical condition because of inadequate available care there and
10

11 the unavailability of prescription medications she is required to take. Plaintiff Rodriguez

12
suffers from stenosis of the left brain that causes extreme pain, disorientation, and
13
14 numbness. She also suffers hypertension. She may require surgery in the future to address

15 her stenosis, and if her condition worsens rapidly, surgery may be required immediately.
16
Due to her illnesses, plaintiff Rodriguez is required to take several prescription
17

18 medications. Large areas of the Philippines have no routine access to pharmacies, and

19
one of the prescription medications she is required to take for pain control, Ultram, is not
20
21 available in the Philippines. The provision of health services in the Philippines is

22 extremely poor for the vast majority of people. Relocating there may well cause plaintiff
23
24 Rodriguez’s medical condition to deteriorate and, if brain surgery is needed, it is unlikely

25 she will receive the medical care possibly needed to save her life, which she would be
26
able to obtain if she remained in the U.S.
27

28

- 14 -

1

36. The facts presented in plaintiff DeLeon’s motion to reopen her I-601

2
Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility would in any similar case (not
3
4 involving a same sex marriage) result in approval of a waiver of inadmissibility. On

5 information and belief, defendants routinely approve waiver applications based on far
6
7 less compelling facts than those underlying plaintiff’s application.

8

37. On November 9, 2011, defendants denied the Motion to Reopen and waiver

9
not because the application failed to show that plaintiff DeLeon’s departure from the
10

11 country would cause plaintiff Rodriquez extreme hardship, but solely because, under

12
DOMA § 3, plaintiff DeLeon was married to someone of the “wrong” sex. The denial
13
14 states that under the DOMA “Jane DeLeon’s ‘same-sex spouse’ does not qualify as a

15 relative for purposes of establishing hardship.” Defendants also informed plaintiff
16
DeLeon that she was no longer authorized for employment. She was further advised that
17

18 she was now accruing “unlawful presence” in this country; that if she accrues more than

19
six months of unlawful presence she will be barred from the United States for three years;
20
21 and that if she remains for more than one year she will be barred from the United States

22 for ten years.

23

24

38. Plaintiff Martin Aranas’s immigration status is wholly dependent on that of

25 his mother. He is a derivative beneficiary of plaintiff De Leon’s visa petition and
26
application to adjust status. A child under the age of 21 receives the same priority date as
27

28 his or her parent. 22 C.F.R. § 42.53(a). Sons and daughters who are derivative

- 15 -

1 beneficiaries of a parent’s priority date in employment-based categories remain eligible

2
for derivative immigration benefits so long as they are under 21 at the time a visa
3
4 becomes immediately available. INA § 203(h). Child Status Protection Act, Pub. L. 107-

5 208, 116 Stat. 927 (Aug. 6, 2002) (“CSPA of 2000”).

6

7

39. Defendants approved plaintiff De Leon’s I-140 Petition in 2006, and an

8 immigrant visa became immediately available to her in July 2007. In August 2007
9
plaintiff De Leon timely filed an I-485 application for adjustment of status seeking lawful
10

11 permanent residence for plaintiff Martin Aranas as a derivative beneficiary. Plaintiff

12
Martin Arana was 20 years old at the time of the I-485 filing. His reaching the age of 21
13
14 after the date a visa became available to his mother does not bar him from derivative

15 immigration status. However, defendants’ denying plaintiff DeLeon’s application for
16
adjustment of status disqualifies plaintiff Martin Arana from receiving derivative
17

18 immigration benefits through any future application for immigration benefits filed on his

19
mother’s behalf and strips him of his protection under CSPA of 2000 against aging-out.
20

21

40. Plaintiffs seek preliminary relief to save plaintiff DeLeon and Aranas from

22 forced unemployment or illegal employment and the forced separation of the plaintiffs’
23
24 family or involuntary relocation to the Philippines pendent lite. They seek permanent

25 relief restoring plaintiffs DeLeon and Aranas to the position they would now be in but for
26
the constitutional violations alleged herein.
27

28 / / /

- 16 -

1

Application of the INA

2
41. The purpose of INA § 212(i) is to keep families together when the departure
3
4 of an immediate family member would cause extreme hardship to a United States citizen

5 or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent. Defendants routinely apply INA 212(i) so
6
7 as to preserve family units in cases in which refusal to grant an inadmissible immigrant a

8 waiver leading to denial of adjustment of status would cause extreme hardship to a U.S.
9
citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent.
10

11

42. The INA nowhere limits the term “spouse” to only include a union between

12
“one man and one woman.” The INA does not exclude from its definition of “spouse”
13
14 those spouses who are the same sex as one another. To the contrary, the INA disallows

15 discrimination in the issuance of visas on the basis of sex. 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(2).
16
43. In 1990, Congress amended the INA to provide that immigrants could not be
17

18 denied visas or admission to the United States based on sexual orientation. Immigration

19
Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (1990).
20

21

44. A marriage is usually valid for immigration purposes if it is recognized by

22 the law of the state where it occurs. Matter of Lovo-Lara, 23 I&N Dec. 746, 748 (BIA
23
24 2005). Historically, as long as two people intend to establish a life together at the time of

25 the marriage, the marriage is valid for immigration purposes. Bark v. INS, 511 F.2d 1200
26
(9th Cir. 1975). Under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, states reserve all
27

28 powers not assigned to the federal government, including the classification of a person’s

- 17 -

1 sex and determining the lawfulness of marriages. Matter of Lovo-Lara, 23 I&N Dec. at

2
748.
3

4

DOMA’s Enactment

5

45. DOMA’s legislative history identifies several interests that Congress

6

7 purportedly sought to advance through the law’s enactment. The House Report

8 acknowledged that federalism constrained Congress’s power, and that “[t]he
9
determination of who may marry in the United States is uniquely a function of state law.”
10

11 H.R. Rep. No. 104-664, at 3 (1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News

12
2905, 2906-07 (“H. Rep.”). Nonetheless, the Report stated that Congress was not
13
14 “supportive of (or even indifferent to) the notion of same-sex ‘marriage’.” Id. at 12. The

15 authoritative House Report provides several purported reasons for the enactment of
16
DOMA: (1) defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage;
17

18 (2) defending traditional notions of morality; (3) protecting state sovereignty and

19
democratic self-governance; and (4) preserving scarce government resources. Id. The
20
21 Report also claimed interests in “encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing,”

22 and conserving scarce resources. Id. at 13, 18.

23

24

46. Although DOMA amended the eligibility criteria for a vast number of

25 federal benefits, rights, and privileges dependent upon marital status either directly under
26
federal law or controlled in some fashion by federal law, the relevant committees did not
27

28

- 18 -

1 engage in any meaningful examination of the scope or effect of the law, much less detail

2
the ways in which federal interests underlying numerous programs would be affected.
3

4

47. The interests identified by Congress and all other interests that might be

5 advanced to justify DOMA’s constitutionality are inapposite in the context of federal
6
7 immigration benefits, and/or are not rationally related to discriminating against married

8 same-sex couples.
9
48. Procreation, which Congress erroneously deemed the unique province of
10

11 “traditional, heterosexual marriage[s],” is not a precondition of marriage, of receipt of

12
federal marital protections, or of the issuance of a family-based immigrant benefits. The
13
14 federal government’s refusal to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples does not

15 nurture, improve, stabilize or enhance the marriages of other married couples. Nor would
16
the federal government’s recognition of the marriage of plaintiffs Rodriguez and DeLeon
17

18 or of other married, same-sex couples degrade, destabilize or have any other deleterious

19
effect on the marriages of other married couples. The claimed federal “interest” in
20
21 “defending” “traditional heterosexual marriage” simply states the government’s intent to

22 discriminate against same-sex couples and provides no independent justification for such
23
24 discrimination.

25

49. The INA sets out several acts involving immoral conduct that make

26
immigrants inadmissible for visas and adjustment of status. E.g. INA§ 212(a) (2)(D)
27

28 (excluding aliens who “has engaged in prostitution within 10 years of the date of the

- 19 -

1 application”); INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) (excluding aliens who have committed a crime

2
involving moral turpitude); INA § 212(a)(2)(D)(iii) (excluding aliens who enter the
3
4 United States “to engage in any other unlawful commercialized vice”). Nowhere has

5 Congress made a finding that granting visas only to heterosexual immigrants protects the
6
7 institution of “traditional heterosexual marriage” or “traditional notions of morality.”

8

50. The INA does not require defendants to deny visas or adjustment of status

9
based upon an immigrant’s sex or sexual orientation. There is no credible evidence that
10

11 lesbian and gay married couples in any way increase the immorality of the communities

12
or countries in which they reside. There is no evidence or rational basis to believe that
13
14 granting plaintiff DeLeon or similarly situated immigrants adjustment of status will in

15 any way negatively impact “traditional notions of morality.”
16
51. Nor does DOMA advance any interest in protecting states’ sovereignty over
17

18 marriage; instead, it negates and disregards states’ decisions regarding the institution of

19
marriage. The INA and federal immigration authorities fully embrace the myriad of state
20
21 marriage laws by recognizing as valid for federal immigration purposes heterosexual

22 marriages that have been declared valid pursuant to state law, notwithstanding that the
23
24 requirements for a valid marriage differ from state to state.

25

52. Application of DOMA to prevent plaintiffs from obtaining immigration

26
benefits does nothing to preserve the resources of the federal Government. The
27

28 Congressional Budget Office has correctly found that enforcing the DOMA saves the

- 20 -

1 federal government no money, but to the contrary, results in net costs. Cong. Budget

2
Office, U.S. Cong., The Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages
3
4 1 (June 21, 2004), http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5 5

5 59/06-2 l-samesexmarriage.pdf.

6

7

53. DOMA and its application to plaintiffs Rodriquez and DeLeon and their

8 proposed class members deprives plaintiffs and putative class members of substantive
9
due process by burdening the integrity of their lawful marriages and their most intimate
10

11 family relationships.

12
54. DOMA on its face discriminates on the basis of sex and implicitly on the
13
14 basis of sexual orientation. Such a law requires heightened scrutiny. A classification

15 triggers heightened scrutiny when (1) the target group has suffered a history of invidious
16
discrimination, and (2) the characteristics that distinguish the group’s members bear no
17

18 relation to their ability to perform or contribute to society. In applying heightened

19
scrutiny courts also have considered the group’s minority status and/or relative lack of
20
21 political power, and whether group members have obvious, immutable, or distinguishing

22 characteristics that define them as a discrete group.

23

24

55. The target group in this case has clearly suffered a history of invidious

25 discrimination. “[F]or centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual
26
conduct as immoral,” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 571 (2003), and “state-
27

28 sponsored condemnation” of homosexuality has led to “discrimination both in the public

- 21 -

1 and in the private spheres.” Id. at 575. To this day, lesbians and gay men remain the

2
subjects of public opprobrium, face the ever-present threat of anti-gay violence, and
3
4 remain vulnerable to discrimination in employment, housing, and public

5 accommodations.

6

7

56. The characteristics that distinguish the group’s members, including plaintiffs

8 DeLeon and Rodriquez, bear no relation to their ability to perform or contribute to
9
society. There exists no credible evidence that sexual orientation bears any relation to
10

11 one’s ability to perform or contribute to society. The psychological and medical

12
community has long confirmed that homosexuality per se entails no impairment in
13
14 judgment, stability, reliability or general social or vocational capabilities. Gay men and

15 lesbians serve in Congress, in the federal judiciary, and in the Executive Branch of
16
government. Empirical studies have consistently found that lesbians and gay men are as
17

18 able as heterosexuals to form loving, committed relationships. Plaintiffs Rodriguez and

19
DeLeon illustrate this: They have had a relationship of almost 20 years. They were
20
21 married as soon as they were legally permitted to do so. They have made a commitment

22 to live together as a family. Like millions of their fellow lesbians and gay men, they are
23
24 woven into the fabric of everyday America, leading productive lives as spouses, family

25 members, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.
26
57. The obstacles to political power for gay men and lesbians are well known.
27

28 Gay men and lesbians are, both nationally and locally, a minority, comprising about 3.5

- 22 -

1 percent of the population. They are geographically dispersed, and, unlike many

2
minorities, may go unidentified out of fear of ostracism and even violence, further
3
4 eroding the potential for political mobilization. Political opposition to legal protections

5 and benefits for gay men and lesbians is powerful, mobilized, and well-funded. There is
6
7 no federal prohibition against discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment,

8 housing, public accommodations, or education, nor any such protection in 29 states.
9
Openly gay officials are significantly underrepresented in political office in proportion to
10

11 the gay and lesbian population.

12
58. Although not essential to heightened scrutiny, laws that discriminate based
13
14 on obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define persons as a discrete

15 group may trigger heightened scrutiny. Sexual orientation and sexual identity are entirely
16
or largely immutable; they are so fundamental to one’s identity that a person should not
17

18 be required to abandon them. Sexual orientation is inherent to one's very identity as a

19
person. It would work a fundamental injustice to require gay men and lesbians to chose
20
21 between retaining their identity and somehow changing (if that were even possible) to

22 gain parity with their heterosexual brethren.

23

24

59. Heightened scrutiny is also warranted because DOMA unequally burdens

25 plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected interest in the integrity of their families. By its
26
sweeping reclassification of the plaintiffs as “single” or “unmarried” for all federal
27

28 purposes, DOMA erases their marriages under federal law. By throwing plaintiffs’

- 23 -

1 marriages into a confusing legal status in which their marriages “count” for some

2
purposes but not others, DOMA erases much of the meaning their marriages would
3
4 otherwise have—in both public and private settings—and relegates them to second-class

5 status. The right to maintain family relationships free from undue government restrictions
6
7 is a long-established and fundamental liberty interest.

8

60. Heightened scrutiny is also warranted because DOMA intrudes into an area

9
of traditional state prerogative—regulation of marriage and family—and accordingly
10

11 raises federalism concerns. DOMA represents the first time that the federal government

12
has attempted to mandate a uniform definition of marriage. The absence of precedent for
13
14 this legislative classification demonstrates an impermissible animus and hostility toward

15 same-sex couples and individuals based upon their sexual orientation.
16
61. There exists no fairly conceivable set of facts that could ground a substantial
17

18 or rational relationship between DOMA and a legitimate government objective in this

19
case. Congress has yet to identify a reason why gay and lesbian individuals who have met
20
21 their obligations as taxpaying citizens and who are married to someone of the same sex

22 must be denied family benefits available to persons who are married to someone of a
23
24 different sex. Singling out same-sex couples that are married among all married persons

25 for denial of waivers of inadmissibility is simply an expression of the intent to
26
discriminate against gay people. At bottom, DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 7, is motivated by
27

28

- 24 -

1 disapproval of gay men and lesbians and their relationships, an illegitimate federal

2
interest.
3

4

62.

On February 23, 2011, the Attorney General notified congressional

5 leadership that the Administration had determined that § 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional
6
7 as applied to same-sex couples whose marriages are legally recognized under state law

8 and that the Department of Justice would no longer defend DOMA § 3 before the federal
9
courts. The Department of Justice believes that discrimination on the basis of sexual
10

11 orientation must withstand heightened scrutiny and that DOMA § 3 fails to do so.

12
63. While defendants rely on DOMA § 3 to deny U.S. citizen plaintiff
13
14 Rodriquez the right to reside in her own country with her spouse who has an approved

15 visa petition, and to deny plaintiff DeLeon a waiver of inadmissibility, defendants permit
16
a range of non-citizen temporary visitors (students, temporary employees, investors, etc.)
17

18 to have their spouses live with them through the issuance of “accompanying” relative

19
visas. See, e.g., INA §§ 101(a)(15)(E) (Treaty Investor Spouse), 101(a)(15)(F) (student
20
21 spouse); 101(a)(15)(H)(temporary worker spouse). There is no rational basis for

22 permitting non-citizen visiting immigrants to live with their different-sex spouses in the
23
24 U.S., while not permitting U.S. citizens to live with their spouses simply because they are

25 of the same sex.
26
64. While defendants rely on DOMA § 3 to deny Rodriguez—a U.S. citizen in a
27

28 20 year relationship (and three year marriage)—the ability to live here with her spouse,

- 25 -

1 defendants approve otherwise identical waiver applications sought by different-sex

2
married couples who may have met only a handful of weeks ago over the internet.
3

4

65. At the same time as defendants automatically deny immigration benefits to

5 plaintiffs and their putative class members, defendants have granted and continue to grant
6
7 family based petitions and waivers to, inter alia, different-sex married couples who

8 remain childless for whatever reason, immigrant beneficiaries convicted of crimes or who
9
have engaged in other conduct involving moral turpitude, fiancés of U.S. citizens who are
10

11 not even married, and different-sex married couples who met over the internet and have

12
been married for only a few days or weeks.
13

14

66. Despite the willingness of plaintiffs Rodriguez and DeLeon to assume the

15 legally imposed responsibilities of marriage at the federal level, just as they do at the state
16
level, and plaintiff DeLeon’s willingness to accept all of the responsibilities associated
17

18 with becoming a lawful permanent resident of the United States, plaintiffs are prevented

19
from doing so by defendants’ implementation of the DOMA § 3, 1 U.S.C. § 7.
20

21

VI

22

IRREPARABLE INJURY

23

24

67. Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm because

25 of defendants’ applying DOMA § 3 as alleged herein. Defendants’ policies and practices
26
have deprived and will continue to deprive plaintiffs of substantive due process and equal
27

28 protection in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

- 26 -

1

68. As a result of defendants’ applying DOMA § 3 as alleged herein, plaintiffs

2
Rodriguez and DeLeon imminently face either living apart in different countries, or U.S.
3
4 citizen plaintiff Rodriquez having to abandon the United States in order to maintain her

5 family life with plaintiff DeLeon. The denial of plaintiff DeLeon’s waiver also
6
7 terminated her and plaintiff Martin Aranas’s temporary lawful status and employment

8 authorization of many years, effectively placing in immediate jeopardy their right to
9
continue to be employed, and to remain here other than in “illegal” status pending entry
10

11 of judgment in this case.

12
VII
13

14

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

15

[Fifth Amendment Equal Protection]

16

69. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference ¶¶ 1-68 of this Complaint as
17

18 though fully set forth herein.

19
70. Defendants’ applying DOMA § 3 to deny family-based immigration waivers
20
21 and petitions solely based upon a married couples’ sexual orientation, and/or the fact that

22 the petitioning party and the immigrant beneficiary are of the same sex, violate the equal
23
24 protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment inasmuch as DOMA treats identically

25 situated married persons differently based on their sexual orientation and sex, with no
26
permissible or constitutionally adequate justification.
27

28

/ / /

- 27 -

1

VIII

2
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
3

4

[Denial of substantive due process]

5

71. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference ¶¶ 1-68 of this Complaint as

6

7 though fully set forth herein.

8

72. DOMA and its application to plaintiffs deprives plaintiffs Rodriquez and

9
DeLeon of substantive due process by burdening the integrity of their lawful marriage
10

11 and their most intimate family relationships. The right to maintain family relationships

12
and personal choice in matters of marriage and family life free from undue government
13
14 restrictions is a fundamental liberty interest. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

15 DOMA substantially burdens plaintiffs’ fundamental interest in their existing familial
16
relationships without a rational, substantial, or compelling reason for doing so.
17

18

73. When the government intrudes upon the personal and private lives of

19
lesbians and gay men in a manner that implicates the rights identified in Lawrence v.
20
21 Texas, supra, the government must advance an important governmental interest, which it

22 has not done in this case; the government must show that the intrusion significantly
23
24 furthers that interest, which has not been shown in this case; and the government must

25 show that the intrusion is necessary to further that interest, which it has not shown in this
26
case. Witt v. Dep’t of the Airforce, 527 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2008).
27

28 / / /

- 28 -

1

X

2
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
3

4

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court —

5

1. assume jurisdiction of this cause;

6

7

2. certify a class of similarly situated same-sex married couples as proposed

8 herein;
9
3. enter declaratory judgment that defendants’ applying DOMA § 3 in this and
10

11 similar cases, and defendants’ regulations, policies and practices applying DOMA § 3

12
against plaintiffs and those similarly situated are unlawful;
13

14

4. issue a temporary injunction enjoining defendants—

15

a) from removing or detaining plaintiffs DeLeon and Arenas and those similarly

16

situated;
17

18

b) from revoking or denying employment authorization to plaintiffs DeLeon and

19
Arenas and those similarly situated; and
20

21

c) from deeming plaintiffs DeLeon and Arenas and those similarly situated

22

inadmissable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i), where such persons would

23

24

not have accrued more than six months in unlawful status but for DOMA § 3;

25

5. issue a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from denying United States

26
citizen petitioners and their immigrant spouses approvals of benefits under the INA solely
27

28

- 29 -

1 because the lawfully married U.S. citizens and immigrant beneficiaries are of the same

2
sex;
3

4

7. award plaintiffs their costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to

5 Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and

6

7

8. issue such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

8 Dated: July 12, 2012.
9 10 11 12 13

CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Peter A. Schey Carlos R. Holguín
PUBLIC LAW CENTER Julie Greenwald Monica Ashiku

14

ASIAN LAW ALLIANCE

15

Beatrice Ann M. Pangilinan

16

LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN & BENNETT

17

Gary H. Manulkin

Reyna M. Tanner

18

19

20

21

22

Peter A. Schey

23

/s/ Carlos R. Holguín

24

25

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

26

27 / / /
28

- 30 -

 
 Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 126 Filed 04/19/13 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:2837

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 12

Martin R. ARANAS, Irma

)

RODRIGUEZ, and Jane DELEON; )

)

Plaintiffs, )

SACV 12-1137 CBM (AJWx) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO

13

v.

) )

DISMISS

)

14

)

15

Janet NAPOLITANO, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security;

) ) )

16 Alejandro MAYORKAS, Director,

)

17

United States Citizenship & Immigration Services;

) ) )

18 UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP &

)

19

IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT

SERVICES; and OF HOMELAND

) SECURITY;))

20

Defendants.

) )

21

22

Plaintiffs Martin R. Aranas (“Aranas”), Irma Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”), and

23 Jane DeLeon (“DeLeon”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) challenge the

24 constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C.

25 § 7, as applied to preclude Plaintiffs from receiving certain immigration benefits

26 that are available to heterosexual spouses. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and

27 injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 57 as

28 well as review of agency action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706. [Docket No. 1.]

1

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 126 Filed 04/19/13 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:2838

1

The matters before the Court, the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall, United

2 States District Judge presiding, are (1) Defendants Janet Napolitano, Alejandro

3 Mayorkas, United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (“USCIS”), and

4 Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) (collectively “Defendants”) 5 Procedural Motion to Dismiss (“Procedural MTD”)1 and Partial Motion to

6 Dismiss (“Partial MTD”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); and

7 (2) Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of

8 Representatives’ (“Intervenor”) Motion to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) and

9 12(b)(6) (“Intervenor MTD”). [Docket Nos. 46, 62.]

10

JURISDICTION

11

The Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

12

BACKGROUND

13

Plaintiff Jane DeLeon (“DeLeon”) is a citizen of the Philippines. (Compl.

14 at ¶ 19.) From 1984 to 1989, DeLeon lived with non-party Joseph Randolph

15 Aranas in a relationship that is recognized under Philippine law as common-law

16 marriage. (Id.) DeLeon has two sons from this relationship, both born in the

17 Philippines: non-party Mikkel R. Aranas and plaintiff Martin R. Aranas

18 (“Aranas”). (Id.) DeLeon was admitted to the United States on or about

19 December 19, 1989, on a B-2 visitor’s visa and has resided in the United States

20 continuously since that time. (Id. at ¶ 20.) Non-party Joseph Randolph Aranas

21 followed DeLeon to the United States shortly after DeLeon’s arrival, and he and

22 DeLeon lived together until approximately 1991. (Id. at ¶ 24.)

23

1

Defendants’ Procedural MTD is intended to take “the procedural steps necessary to

24 enable [Intervenor] to present arguments in support of the constitutionality of . . . DOMA.”

25

(Partial MTD at 3:3–5.) Defendants take the position that only the “continuing role of the Executive Branch in this litigation ensures the existence of a justiciable case or controversy.”

26 (Id. at 3:1–2.) Intervenor argues that Defendants may not “act as a ‘procedural gatekeeper,’”
and that Intervenor is a party to the case with the same rights and obligations as any other party

27 with no need to rely on Defendants’ “procedural steps.” (Intervenor’s Response to Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss (“Intervenor Resp.”) at 10:2–14, Docket No. 58.) As Intervenor has also
28 moved to dismiss, Defendants’ Procedural Motion is DENIED as moot.

2

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 126 Filed 04/19/13 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:2839

1

In 1992, DeLeon and Plaintiff Irma Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) met in

2 California. (Id. at ¶ 25.) Since then DeLeon and Rodriguez have lived together

3 and were married under California law on August 22, 2008. (Id.)

4

Two years earlier, on or around March 2, 2006, DeLeon’s employer applied

5 for permanent resident status on her behalf. (Id. at ¶ 26.) Her visa petition was

6 approved on or around May 22, 2006. (Id.) DeLeon then filed an application for

7 adjustment of status. (Id.) DeLeon also filed an I-485 application for adjustment

8 of status for her son Aranas (as a derivative beneficiary of DeLeon). (Id. at ¶ 39.)

9 On April 14, 2011, Defendants notified DeLeon that she (and by extension Aranas

10 as well) was inadmissible because she misrepresented her name and marital status

11 when she first entered the United States in 1989. (Id. at ¶ 27.) At the time,

12 DeLeon had entered as a “housewife” with the name Jane L. Aranas. (Id.)

13

Defendants provided DeLeon with instructions to apply for a “waiver of

14 inadmissibility,” which requires a showing that DeLeon’s removal from the

15 United States would result in extreme hardship to her U.S. citizen spouse or

16 parent. (Id. at ¶ 28.) Initially, DeLeon applied for a waiver of inadmissibility

17 based on the hardship her removal would cause to her elderly father, a U.S.

18 citizen. (Id. at ¶ 29.) This application was denied on September 1, 2011. (Id. at ¶

19 30.) Subsequently, on advice from counsel, DeLeon then applied for

20 reconsideration of her waiver of inadmissibility based on the hardship her removal

21 would cause her spouse, Rodriguez, also a U.S. citizen. (Id. at ¶ 31.) This

22 application was also denied on November 9, 2011, because DeLeon’s same-sex

23 spouse does not qualify as a relative for purposes of establishing hardship pursuant

24 to Section 3 of DOMA. 1 U.S.C. § 7. (Id. at ¶ 37.)

25

Defendants move for partial dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Complaint on the

26 grounds that Plaintiffs Aranas and Rodriguez lack standing and Plaintiffs have

27 failed to state a claim for either violation of their substantive due process rights

28 under the Fifth Amendment or for sex discrimination under 8 U.S.C. §

3

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 126 Filed 04/19/13 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:2840

1 1152(a)(1)(A). Intervenor does not oppose Defendants’ motion for partial

2 dismissal but moves for dismissal of the entire Complaint for failure to state a

3 claim.

4

STANDARD OF LAW

5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

6

A party may bring a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule

7 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if the court lacks “jurisdiction

8 over the subject matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). An attack on jurisdiction may

9 be either facial or factual. White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000). In a facial

10 attack, the court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true and the

11 evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Warren v.

12 Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 171 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (C.D. Cal. 2001). In a factual

13 attack, the court may rely on extrinsic evidence and there is no presumption of

14 truth given to the factual allegations in the complaint. Thornhill Publishing Co.

15 Inc., General Telephone & Electronics Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979).

16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

17

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a court to dismiss a

18 complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

19 Dismissal of a complaint can be based on either a “lack of a cognizable legal

20 theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.”

21 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). On a

22 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court accepts as true all well-

23 pleaded allegations of material fact and construes them in light most favorable to

24 non-moving party. Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025,

25 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must contain

26 “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is

27 plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663, 129 S. Ct. 1937,

28 1940, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

4

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 126 Filed 04/19/13 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:2841

1 544, 570 (2007)). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will

2 not suffice. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).

3

DISCUSSION

4

When presented with motions to dismiss pursuant to both Fed. R. Civ. P.

5 12(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Court must first resolve Defendants’ and

6 Intervenor’s motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and satisfy itself that it

7 has subject matter jurisdiction. See Alliance For Envtl. Renewal, Inc. v. Pyramid

8 Crossgates Co., 436 F.3d 82, 85 (2d Cir. 2006) (“A district court must generally

9 resolve material factual disputes and establish that it has federal constitutional

10 jurisdiction, including a determination that the plaintiff has Article III standing,

11 before deciding a case on the merits”). Only after the Court is satisfied as to its

12 subject matter jurisdiction may it reach the substance of Plaintiffs’ claims. See

13 Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 101, 118 S.Ct. 1003,

14 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998).

15

I. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(1)

16 A. Standing

17

“[T]o satisfy Article III’s standing requirements, a plaintiff must show

18 (1)[he] has suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and

19 (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly

20 traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed

21 to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”

22 Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180–

23 81, 120 S. Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000). “The general rule applicable to

24 federal court suits with multiple plaintiffs is that once the court determines that

25 one of the plaintiffs has standing, it need not decide the standing of the others.”

26 Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1993). Where it appears that each

27 plaintiff’s rights or obligations may differ, however, the court may continue the

28 standing inquiry individually. Id. (determining standing for each plaintiff in First

5

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 126 Filed 04/19/13 Page 6 of 16 Page ID #:2842

1 Amendment case where one plaintiff had waived First Amendment rights by

2 signing agreement); 13A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL

3 PRACTICE AND PROECEDURE § 3531 (3d ed.) (“a claim as to which one party has

4 standing may lie beyond the standing of another party”).

5

1. DeLeon

6

Intervenor argues that Plaintiff DeLeon lacks standing because she

7 challenges only DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 7, and fails to challenge the Immigration and

8 Naturalization Act (“INA”) § 212(i)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i)(1), which also restricts

9 marriage to heterosexual couples. Thus even if DeLeon is successful in this

10 litigation, her injury will not be redressed. (Intervenor’s Response to Defendants’

11 Motion to Dismiss (“Intervenor Resp.”) at 12:9–14:2, Docket No. 58.)

12 Redressability is distinct, however, from the ultimate relief sought by Plaintiffs

13 “[Redressability] focuses, as it should, on whether the injury that a plaintiff alleges

14 is likely to be redressed through the litigation—not on what the plaintiff ultimately

15 intends to do [with his recovery.]” Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P. v. APCC Servs.,

16 Inc., 554 U.S. 269, 287, 128 S. Ct. 2531, 2542, 171 L. Ed. 2d 424 (2008); see also

17 Bond v. U.S., 131 S. Ct. 2355, 2362, 180 L. Ed. 2d 269 (2011). It is undisputed

18 that DeLeon’s application for an I-601 waiver of inadmissibility was denied solely

19 due to DOMA. (Compl. at ¶ 1; Reply at n.1, Docket No. 64) It is also undisputed

20 that whether DeLeon ultimately receives a waiver is beyond the scope of this

21 litigation. (Compl. at ¶¶ 69-73.) The Court thus finds that Plaintiff DeLeon has

22 standing.

23

2. Aranas

24

Defendants argue that Plaintiff Aranas lacks standing to challenge

25 Defendants’ denial of his mother’s I-601 waiver of inadmissibility. A party

26 ordinarily “cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third

27 parties.” Sec’y of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U.S. 947, 955

28 (1984). While the parties have not provided, and the Court has not found, any

6

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 126 Filed 04/19/13 Page 7 of 16 Page ID #:2843

1 authority that is wholly congruent with the facts alleged here, this principle

2 appears to extend to the beneficiaries of immigration petitions. “[D]istrict courts

3 have held that an alien lacks Article III standing to challenge the denial of an

4 immigration petition where the alien is not the petitioner but merely the

5 beneficiary.” Andros, Inc. v. United States, C10-303Z, 2010 WL 4983566, at n.6

6 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 2, 2010) (collecting cases); see also George v. Napolitano, 693

7 F. Supp. 2d 125, 130 (D.D.C. 2010) (employer was sole party with standing to

8 seek review of denial of I-140 work visa, rather than beneficiary employee);

9 Costelo v. Chertoff, 258 F.R.D. 600, 609 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (Selna, J.) (stating that

10 the law is unclear whether children of aliens have standing as derivative

11 beneficiaries); Blacher v. Ridge, 436 F. Supp. 2d 602, 606 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

12 (employer was the only party with standing to seek review of denial of H1-B visa,

13 rather than beneficiary employee).

14

As in the cases cited, Aranas is not a petitioner but merely a derivative

15 beneficiary of the immigration benefits sought by his mother. (See, e.g., Compl.

16 at ¶¶ 26, 38-39.) First, this litigation arises from the denial of an I-601 waiver of

17 inadmissibility to DeLeon, not Aranas. (Id. at 1.) Second, Plaintiffs admit in their

18 allegations that “Aranas’ immigration status is wholly dependent on that of his

19 mother. He is a derivative beneficiary of plaintiff DeLeon’s visa petition and

20 application to adjust status.” (Id. at ¶ 38.) DeLeon’s visa petition is an I-140

21 immigrant worker petition filed by DeLeon’s employer on her behalf. (Id. at ¶¶

22 26, 39.) Aranas’ application to adjust status is an I-485 petition made by his 23 mother on his behalf.2 (Id.) Aranas is not the petitioner bringing either of these 24 petitions.3 The Court finds that Aranas lacks standing to challenge the

25 2

At the time the I-485 application was filed, Plaintiff Aranas was twenty years old. (Id.)

3
26

Plaintiffs argue in opposition that Coleman v. United States held that the plaintiff therein

had standing to seek an injunction against his mother’s removal from the United States. 454 F.

27 Supp. 2d 757, 763–65 (N.D. Ill. 2006). Coleman is inapposite. The plaintiff in Coleman was an

eight year old U.S. citizen arguing that his mother’s deportation would effectively force his self-
28 deportation as well. (Id.)

7

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 126 Filed 04/19/13 Page 8 of 16 Page ID #:2844

1 constitutionality of DOMA § 3 as applied to deny a waiver of inadmissibility to

2 his mother. The Court hereby dismisses Plaintiff Aranas from this action.

3

3. Rodriguez

4

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff Rodriguez lacks standing. U.S. citizens

5 generally have “no constitutional right to have his or her alien spouse enter or

6 remain in the U.S.” See Singh v. Magee, 165 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 1998) (agreeing

7 with cases in other circuits that “broadly reject any challenge to a deportation

8 based upon the rights of affected family members”); Bright v. Parra, 919 F.2d 31,

9 33 (5th Cir. 1990) (“the United States citizen spouse has no constitutional right to

10 keep her alien spouse from being deported”); Almario v. Attorney Gen., 872 F.2d

11 147, 151 (6th Cir. 1989) (“[T]he Constitution does not recognize the right of a

12 citizen spouse to have his or her alien spouse remain in this country.”); Burrafato

13 v. U.S. Dept. of State, 523 F.2d 554, 555 (2d Cir. 1975) (“[N]o constitutional right

14 of a citizen spouse is violated by deportation of his or her alien spouse.”). The

15 sole immigration case cited by Plaintiffs in their opposition is distinguishable

16 because the petitioner in that case was the citizen spouse. Revelis v. Napolitano,

17 844 F. Supp. 2d 915, 920–21 (N.D. Ill. 2012). The Court finds that Plaintiff

18 Rodriguez lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of DOMA § 3 as

19 applied to deny a waiver of inadmissibility to her spouse. The Court hereby

20 dismisses Plaintiff Rodriguez from this action.

21

II. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(6)

22 A. First Cause of Action for Violation of Equal Protection

23

(1) Whether Precedent Requires Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Equal

24

Protection Claim

(a) Baker v. Nelson 25
In Baker v. Nelson, two men challenged a state law that barred them from 26
marrying, arguing that the statute violated Fourteenth Amendment equal 27
protection. Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971). “[T]he 28

8

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 126 Filed 04/19/13 Page 9 of 16 Page ID #:2845

1 Court ‘dismissed for want of a substantial federal question’ an appeal from the

2 Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision to uphold [the] state statute that did not

3 permit marriage between two people of the same sex.” Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d

4 1052, 1082 n.14 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 133 S. Ct. 786, 184 L. Ed. 2d 526

5 (2012) (quoting Baker, 409 U.S. 810, 810 (1972)). This dismissal only

6 “prevent[s] lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise

7 issues presented and necessarily decided by [the summary dismissal].” Mandel v.

8 Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176, 97 S. Ct. 2238, 2240, 53 L. Ed. 2d 199 (1977).

9

The First and Second Circuits “have . . . concluded that Baker does not

10 control equal protection review of DOMA.” Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d

11 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 133 S. Ct. 786 (2012); Massachusetts v.

12 U.S. Dep’t of HHS, 682 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2012). While the Ninth Circuit has not

13 considered this issue in the context of a challenge to DOMA, district courts in the

14 Ninth Circuit have agreed with the First and Second Circuits that Baker does not

15 foreclose equal protection review of DOMA. 4 The Court finds that “the precise

16 issues presented and necessarily decided” in Baker are not presented here and

17 Baker does not foreclose consideration of this equal protection challenge to

18 DOMA.

19

(b) Adams v. Howerton

20

In Adams v. Howerton, two men challenged the Immigration and

21 Naturalization Service’s (“INS”) determination that their state marriage did not

22 qualify petitioner’s same sex spouse for immigration status as an immediate

23 relative of an American citizen. 673 F.2d 1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 1982). The Ninth

24 Circuit’s decision in Adams v. Howerton held the term “spouse” for purposes of

25 INA § 212(i)(1) was limited to heterosexual spouses. (Id.) In reaching its

26

27 4

See, e.g., Golinski v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 824 F. Supp. 2d 968, n.5 (N.D. Cal.

2012) (White, J.), initial hearing en banc denied, 680 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012); Dragovich v.

28 U.S. Dept. of Treasury, 872 F. Supp. 2d 944, 952 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (Wilken, J.).

9

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 126 Filed 04/19/13 Page 10 of 16 Page ID #:2846

1 decision, the Ninth Circuit assumed that the same-sex marriage was valid but

2 found that same-sex spouses did not qualify for immigration benefits for four

3 reasons. First, the Ninth Circuit noted that “we must be mindful that the INS . . .

4 has interpreted the term ‘spouse’ to exclude a person entering a homosexual

5 marriage.” Id. at 1040. Second, the Ninth Circuit found nothing in the INA to

6 suggest that “spouse” should be construed to include homosexual spouses and thus

7 used the “ordinary, contemporary, common meaning” of spouse as a heterosexual

8 status only. Id. Third, the Ninth Circuit found that the only way to reconcile the

9 then-existing exclusion on homosexual immigrants and the definition of “spouse”

10 in the immigration benefits context was to interpret “spouse” to exclude same-sex

11 spouses. Id. at 1040–41. Finally, the Ninth Circuit held that the INA’s exclusion

12 of same-sex spouses satisfied rational basis review because homosexual marriages

13 did not produce offspring, were not recognized in most states, and violated 14 traditional and prevailing social mores. 5 Id. at 1043.

15

Approximately thirty-one years later, these bases for the Adams decision are

16 irreconcilable with intervening statutory and policy changes. “A district court

17 bound by circuit authority . . . has no choice but to follow it, even if convinced

18 that such authority was wrongly decided.” Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155,

19 1175 (9th Cir. 2001). If, however, a new or amended statute “so recast[s] the

20 statutory landscape that the rationale for [the prior circuit authority] has been

21 eliminated,” then that prior authority “is no longer the law of the circuit.”

22 Zazueta-Carrillo v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 1166, 1170, 1175 (9th Cir. 2003). First,

23 Defendant DHS, successor agency to the INS, concedes that DeLeon would

24 qualify as a spouse under the INA but for DOMA. (Notice to the Court, Exs. 1–3,

25 5

The Ninth Circuit has since disapproved these justifications in Perry v. Brown, holding

26 that a California constitutional amendment restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples,
following a California Supreme Court decision that permitted such marriages, did not “(1)

27 further[] California’s interest in childrearing and responsible procreation, [or] (2) [California’s

interest in] proceeding with caution before making significant changes to marriage.” Perry, 671
28 F.3d 1052 at 1086.

10

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 126 Filed 04/19/13 Page 11 of 16 Page ID #:2847

1 Docket No. 5; see also Combined Exhibits in Support of Motions for Preliminary

2 Injunction and Class Certification (“Combined Exhibits”) at Ex. 1 (USCIS denial

3 letter citing only DOMA and not INA), Docket No. 89.) Second, dictionary

4 definitions of the term “spouse,” which the Adams decision referenced, now

5 include gender-neutral definitions of “spouse.” See, e.g., Black’s Law Dictionary

6 (9th ed. 2009); Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1135 (10th ed. 2001).

7 Third, in 1990, eight years after Adams, Congress eliminated the bar to

8 homosexual immigration cited by the Adams decision. (Pub. L. No. 101-649, §

9 601, 104 Stat. 4978 (1990) (amending 8 U.S.C. § 1182); Dragovich, 872 F. Supp.

10 2d at n.6; see also Defendants’ Opposition to Intervenor MTD (“Dfdts. Opp’n to

11 Intervenor MTD”) at n.4, Docket No. 51.)

12

The Court finds that INA § 212(i)(1), as interpreted by the Adams decision,

13 does not foreclose its consideration of this equal protection challenge to DOMA.6

14

(2) Level of Scrutiny

15

The rule in the Ninth Circuit is that homosexuality is not a suspect or quasi-

16 suspect classification requiring heightened scrutiny. See High Tech Gays v. Def.

17 Indus. Sec. Clearance Office, 895 F.2d 563, 571 (9th Cir. 1990) (“We . . . hold

18 that the district court erred in applying heightened scrutiny . . . and that the proper

19 standard is rational basis review.”) In 2008, the Ninth Circuit clarified that

20 rational basis review applies to equal protection challenges concerning

21 homosexuality. Witt v. Dep’t of Air Force, 527 F.3d 806, 821 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[A

22 prior case] clearly held that [the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy] does not

23 violate equal protection under rational basis review . . . and that holding was not

24 disturbed by [Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)].”). See also Diaz v.

25 6

Accord Dragovich v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, 872 F. Supp. 2d 944, 952 (N.D. Cal. 2012)

26 (Wilken, J.); Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Dep’t of HHS, 698 F.Supp. 234 (D. Mass
2010). But see Lui v. Holder, No: 2:11-CV-01267, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155909 (C.D. Cal.

27 Sept. 28, 2011) (Wilson, J.) (appeal dismissed by parties); Barragan v. Holder, No CV 09-

08564, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144791 (C.D. Cal. April 30, 2010) (Klausner, J.) (appeal
28 dismissed by parties).

11

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 126 Filed 04/19/13 Page 12 of 16 Page ID #:2848

1 Brewer, 656 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming district court’s use of

2 rational basis review to find Nevada’s state employee benefits program 3 unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples).7

4

(3) Whether DOMA § 3 Survives Rational Basis Review

5

When a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class,

6 a court shall uphold the legislative classification “if there is a rational relationship

7 between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose.”

8 Armour v. City of Indianapolis, Ind., 132 S. Ct. 2073, 2080, 182 L. Ed. 2d 998

9 (2012) (citations omitted). “A statute is presumed constitutional . . . and ‘[t]he

10 burden is on the one attacking the legislative arrangement to negative every

11 conceivable basis which might support it.’” Heller v. Doe by Doe, 509 U.S. 312,

12 320, 113 S. Ct. 2637, 2643, 125 L. Ed. 2d 257 (1993). Nonetheless, “[t]he State

13 may not rely on a classification whose relationship to an asserted goal is so

14 attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational.” City of Cleburne,

15 Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 446, 105 S. Ct. 3249, 3258, 87 L. Ed.

16 2d 313 (1985).

17

Intervenor contends that DOMA is supported by six rationales, all of which

18 independently justify the legislation under rational basis review. (Intervenor MTD

19 at 17:21–29:14.) These are (1) maintaining a uniform federal definition of

20 marriage, (2) preserving the public fisc and respecting prior legislative judgments,

21 (3) exercising caution, (4) recognizing opposite-sex couples’ unique ability to

22 7

But see In re Levenson, 587 F.3d 925, 931 (9th Cir. 2009) (declining to determine

23 whether rational basis or heightened scrutiny review should be used because even under rational

basis review, “the application of DOMA . . . violate[d] the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
24 Amendment,” but noting that heightened scrutiny could be appropriate); Golinski v. U.S. Office

25

of Pers. Mgmt., 824 F. Supp. 2d 968, 289 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (White, J), initial hearing in banc denied, 680 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he appropriate level of scrutiny to use when

26 reviewing statutory classifications based on sexual orientation is heightened scrutiny.”) None of
the Ninth Circuit authorities cited by Plaintiffs and Defendants are to the contrary because none

27 were decided after the Ninth Circuit’s 2008 decision in Witt. (See, e.g., Pls.’ Opp’n to

Intervenor MTD at 17–24, Docket No. 71; Defs.’ Opp’n to Intervenor MTD at 8–10, Docket
28 No. 75.)

12

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 126 Filed 04/19/13 Page 13 of 16 Page ID #:2849

1 procreate, (5) incentivizing the raising of children by their biological parents, and

2 (6) encouraging childrearing in a setting with both a mother and a father.

3

The Ninth Circuit has recently disapproved or rejected all but the first

4 justification.8 See Perry, 671 F.3d at 1088 (“There is no rational reason to think

5 that taking away the designation of ‘marriage’ from same-sex couples would

6 advance the goal of encouraging California’s opposite-sex couples to procreate

7 more responsibly”); Diaz v. Brewer, 656 F.3d 1008, 1014 (9th Cir. 2011)

8 (“[D]enial of benefits to same-sex domestic partners cannot promote marriage

9 [and] . . . [cost] savings depend upon distinguishing between homosexual and

10 heterosexual employees, similarly situated, and such a distinction cannot survive

11 rational basis review.”) This Court will focus on Intervenor’s remaining argument

12 that DOMA is rationally related to maintaining a uniform federal definition of

13 marriage.

14

Other courts to consider Intervenor’s uniformity argument have expressed

15 doubt that DOMA § 3 is rationally related to ensuring uniformity. State law

16 traditionally governs marriage recognition, and DOMA “disrupted the long-

17 standing practice of the federal government deferring to each state’s decisions as

18 to the requirements for a valid marriage.” In re Levenson, 587 F.3d at 933; see

19 also Golinski, 824 F. Supp. 2d at 1002 (“DOMA actually undermined

20 administrative consistency by requiring that the federal government . . . discern

21 which state definitions of marriage are entitled to federal recognition.”);

22 Dragovich, 872 F. Supp. 2d at 958 (“DOMA undermines uniform recognition of

23

8

But the First and Second Circuits have both stated that DOMA likely survives rational

24 basis review. See, e.g., Windsor v. United States, 12-2335-CV L, 2012 WL 4937310, at *180

25

(2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2012) (“So a party urging the absence of any rational basis takes up a heavy load. . . . [T]he law was passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both houses of

26 Congress; it has varying impact on more than a thousand federal laws; and the definition of
marriage it affirms has been long-supported and encouraged.”); Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. of

27 Health & Human Servs., 682 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2012) (“Under such a rational basis standard,

the . . . plaintiffs cannot prevail. . . . Congress could rationally have believed that DOMA would
28 reduce costs.”).

13

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 126 Filed 04/19/13 Page 14 of 16 Page ID #:2850

1 marriage, by requiring federal agencies to discern which state law marriages are

2 acceptable for federal recognition and which are not.”); Gill v. Office of Pers.

3 Mgmt., 699 F. Supp. 2d 374, 394 (D. Mass. 2010), aff’d sub nom. Massachusetts

4 v. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 682 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (“DOMA does

5 not provide for nationwide consistency in the distribution of federal benefits

6 among married couples. Rather, it denies to same-sex married couples the federal

7 marriage-based benefits that similarly situated heterosexual couples enjoy.”). But

8 see Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169, 202 (2d Cir. 2012) (Straub, J.,

9 dissenting) (“That the federal government often defers to state determinations

10 regarding marriage does not obligate it to do so. . . . [W]hen people marry for

11 immigration purposes, the federal government may validly deem the marriage

12 ‘fraudulent,’ even though it remains valid under state law.”).

13

This Court finds that the broad distinction created by DOMA § 3 is not

14 rationally related to Congress’ interest in a uniform federal definition of marriage.

15 See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633, 116 S. Ct. 1620, 1627, 134 L. Ed. 2d 855

16 (1996); Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 374–75, 94 S. Ct. 1160, 1169, 39 L.

17 Ed. 2d 389 (1974) (“A classification ‘must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must

18 rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the

19 object of the legislation, so that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be

20 treated alike.”). Contrary to Intervenor’s argument, DOMA § 3 does not “ensur[e]

21 that similarly situated couples will be eligible for the same federal marital status

22 regardless of the state in which they live.” (Intervenor MTD at 17:21–22.)

23 Opposite-sex couples may receive federal marriage-based benefits if joined in a

24 valid state marriage. Same-sex couples will not, even if like Plaintiffs, they are

25 joined in a valid state marriage. The Court further finds that Plaintiffs have stated

26 a claim that DOMA § 3 violates their equal protection rights.

27 B. Second Cause of Action for Denial of Substantive Due Process

28

To sustain a due process challenge, Plaintiff DeLeon must show that her

14

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 126 Filed 04/19/13 Page 15 of 16 Page ID #:2851

1 “right to maintain family relationships and personal choice in matters of marriage

2 and family life free from undue government restrictions” is a qualifying liberty

3 interest of which she was deprived. (Compl. at ¶ 72; Hernandez-Mezquita v.

4 Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2002).) There is little question that

5 DeLeon has a liberty interest in “autonomy . . . in [her] personal decisions relating

6 to marriage, procreation, . . .family relationships, [and] child rearing” (Opp’n to

7 Partial MTD at 13:11-23 (citing to Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)).) It is

8 not readily apparent, however, how DOMA infringes on DeLeon’s liberty

9 interests. Compare Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 575-579 (criminal penalties for certain

10 sexual conduct are unconstitutional as applied to consenting adults at home); Witt

11 v. Dep’t of Air Force, 527 F.3d 806, 809 (9th Cir. 2008) (unconstitutional to

12 discharge of members of armed forces for homosexual activity). Unlike the

13 statute at issue in Lawrence and the policy at issue in Witt, DOMA has not

14 imposed any penalty on DeLeon based on her homosexuality. Plaintiff DeLeon’s

15 substantive due process rights thus are not implicated by DOMA. The Court

16 hereby dismisses Plaintiffs’ Second Cause of Action with prejudice.

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

15

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 126 Filed 04/19/13 Page 16 of 16 Page ID #:2852

1

CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Partial

3 Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and DENIES

4 Intervenor’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

5 The Court hereby DISMISSES Plaintiffs Aranas and Rodriguez and Plaintiff’s 6 Second Cause of Action.9

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

9

10 DATED: April 19, 2013 11 12

By CONSUELO B. MARSHALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 9

It is unclear to the Court whether Plaintiffs also seek relief for sex discrimination

26 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(2). (Compl. at ¶¶ 3, 42.) Although § 1152(a)(2) is briefly
referenced in the Complaint, Plaintiffs did not include this cause of action in their Prayer for

27 Relief and did not oppose Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss this cause of action. (See

Partial MTD at 10:3–19.) The Court assumes Plaintiffs did not intend to bring a claim for sex
28 discrimination.

16

 
 Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 127 Filed 04/19/13 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:2853

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 12

Martin R. ARANAS, Irma

)

RODRIGUEZ, and Jane DELEON; )

)

Plaintiffs, )

SACV 12-1137 CBM (AJWx) ORDER GRANTING PROVISIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION

)

13

v.

)

)

14

)

15

Janet NAPOLITANO, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security;

) ) )

16 Alejandro MAYORKAS, Director,

)

17

United States Citizenship & Immigration Services;

) ) )

18 UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP &

)

19

IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT

SERVICES; and OF HOMELAND

) SECURITY;))

20

Defendants.

) )

21

22

Plaintiff Jane DeLeon (“Plaintiff” or “DeLeon”) challenges the

23 constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C.

24 § 7, as applied to preclude her from receiving certain immigration benefits that are

25 available to immigrants in heterosexual marriages. DeLeon seeks declaratory and

26 injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 and Fed. R. Civ. R. 57 as

27 well as review of agency action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. (Complaint

28 (“Compl.”) at ¶ 4, Docket No. 1.)

1

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 127 Filed 04/19/13 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:2854

1

The matter before the Court, the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall, United

2 States District Judge presiding, is Plaintiff DeLeon’s Motion for Provisional Class

3 Certification (“Motion”). [Docket No. 13.]

4

JURISDICTION

5

The Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

6

BACKGROUND

7

The facts of this case were recited in the Court’s April 19, 2013 Order

8 Granting In Part and Denying In Part Motions to Dismiss and will not be repeated

9 herein except as necessary to clarify the decision.

10

This case concerns Defendants’ November 9, 2011 denial of Plaintiff Jane

11 DeLeon’s I-601 waiver of inadmissibility due to Section 3 of the Defense of

12 Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7. A I-601 waiver of inadmissibility

13 requires a showing that DeLeon’s removal from the United States would result in

14 extreme hardship to her U.S. citizen spouse or parent. (Compl. at ¶ 28.) Pursuant

15 to DOMA § 3, DeLeon’s same-sex spouse Irma Rodriguez does not qualify as a

16 “spouse” for purposes of establishing the requisite hardship. 1 U.S.C. § 7.

17

Plaintiff DeLeon moves to provisionally certify the following class under

18 Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2):

19

All members of lawful same-sex marriages whom the Department

20

of Homeland Security, pursuant to § 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. § 7, has refused or will refuse to recognize as

21

spouses for purposes of conferring lawful status and related

22

benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.

23 (Motion at 4:8-14; Proposed Order at 3.)1

24

25

1

In Plaintiff’s moving brief and at oral argument, Plaintiff’s counsel refer to a proposed

class composed of individuals “refused immigration benefits under the INA solely because of

26 DOMA § 3.” (Mem. of Points and Authorities In Support of Motion (“Mem.”) at 3:1-5
(emphasis added); see also Reply to Opposition to Motion (“Reply”) at n.1 ([Defendants] would

27 have no reason to evaluate an applicant’s eligibility . . . where DOMA § 3 is fatal.”)) While this

is not clearly stated in Plaintiff’s proposed class definition, the Court will exercise its “broad
28 discretion” to amend Plaintiff’s proposed class definition accordingly. Armstrong v. Davis, 275

2

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 127 Filed 04/19/13 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:2855

1

Non-Parties Edwin Blesch, Timothy Smulian, Frances Herbert, Takako

2 Ueda, Santiago Ortiz, Pablo Garcia, Kelli Ryan, Lucy Truman, Heather Morgan,

3 and Maria del Mar Verdugo filed a Memorandum in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion

4 for Class Certification, asking the Court to keep the non-parties listed informed as

5 to any proceeding relating to this Motion because they are potential class

6 members. [Docket No. 70] The Court granted the non-parties’ request. [Docket

7 No. 111.]

8

STANDARD OF LAW

9

Motions for class certification require a two-part analysis pursuant to Fed.

10 R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 23.

11

First, Rule 23(a) requires Plaintiffs to demonstrate (1) numerosity; (2)

12 commonality; (3) typicality; and (4) adequacy of representation. Amchem Prods.,

13 Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 613, 117 S. Ct. 2231, 2245, 138 L. Ed. 2d 689

14 (1997).

15

Second, and in addition to meeting the four conjunctive requirements of

16 Rule 23(a), a class action must also qualify under one of the three subdivisions of

17 Rule 23(b). Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 163-64, 94 S. Ct. 2140,

18 2146, 40 L. Ed. 2d 732 (1974). Here, Plaintiffs argue that the proposed class

19 qualifies for certification under Rule 23(b)(2), permitting certification where “the

20 party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply

21 generally to the class,” thereby making broad injunctive and/or declaratory relief

22 appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2); Molski v. Gleich, 318 F.3d 937, 947 (9th

23 Cir. 2003).

24

The party seeking certification must provide facts sufficient to satisfy the

25 requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b). Doninger v. Pac. Nw. Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d

26 1304, 1308-09 (9th Cir. 1977). A district court may certify classes only if, after

27
F.3d 849, 871, n.28 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Wang v. Chinese Daily
28 News, Inc., 709 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2013). See infra.

3

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 127 Filed 04/19/13 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:2856

1 “rigorous analysis,” it determines the party seeking certification has met its burden

2 of establishing by sufficient evidence that all the requirements for a class action

3 under Rule 23 are satisfied. Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 158-

4 61, 102 S. Ct. 2364, 2372-73, 72 L. Ed. 2d 740 (1982). In determining whether an

5 action warrants class treatment under Rule 23, “the question is not whether the

6 plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but

7 rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met.” Eisen, 417 U.S. at 178.

8

While the Court’s analysis must be rigorous, Rule 23 confers “broad

9 discretion to determine whether a class should be certified, and to revisit that

10 certification throughout the legal proceedings before the court.” Armstrong v.

11 Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 872, n.28 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by

12 Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 709 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2013).

13

DISCUSSION

14

Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Class Certification,

15 arguing that Plaintiff’s proposed class definition is “defective” and “overly broad”

16 and that Plaintiff fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23. (Opp’n at 2:21-23.)

17 The Court will consider each argument in turn.

18 A. Class Definition

19

1. Article III Standing

20

The Court is not persuaded by Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff

21 DeLeon’s Motion should be denied solely because her proposed class definition

22 includes potential class members who lack Article III standing because they will 23 be harmed, if at all, at some future date.2 With regard to class standing, “our law

24 keys on the representative party, not all of the class members.” Stearns v.

25 Ticketmaster Corp., 655 F.3d 1013, 1021 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct.

26 1970, 182 L. Ed. 2d 819 (2012). “In a class action, standing is satisfied if at least

27

2

The Court’s analysis considers Plaintiff’s proposed class definition as amended by

28 Plaintiff’s argument in the briefs and at oral argument. See supra note 1.

4

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 127 Filed 04/19/13 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:2857

1 one named plaintiff meets the requirements.” Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.,

2 511 F.3d 974, 985 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). Defendants concede that Plaintiff

3 DeLeon has standing. (See, e.g., Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss at 7:19-

4 23, Docket No. 46-1.)

5

The Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co. is not to the

6 contrary. 666 F.3d 581, 594 (9th Cir. 2012). In Mazza, the Ninth Circuit quoted

7 the Second Circuit’s opinion in Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG, 443 F.3d 253, 264

8 (2d Cir. 2006) for the proposition that “[n]o class may be certified that contains

9 members lacking Article III standing.” Id. The Second Circuit, however, was

10 concerned with “definition[s] of the class . . . ‘so amorphous and diverse’ that it

11 [is] not ‘reasonably clear that the proposed class members have all suffered a

12 constitutional or statutory violation warranting some relief.’” Denney, 443 F.3d at

13 264 (citations omitted). The Second Circuit went on to agree with a well-known

14 treatise that “[i]f plaintiff can show that there is a possibility that defendant’s

15 conduct may have a future effect, even if injury has not yet occurred, the court

16 may hold that standing has been satisfied.” Id. at 265 (citations omitted). Both

17 the Ninth and the Second Circuits in Mazza and Denney ultimately concluded the

18 respective class definitions at issue were proper even though both definitions

19 concededly included class members who might be unable to satisfy “particularized

20 proof of injury and causation.” Mazza, 666 F.3d at 595.

21

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s proposed class definition is not improper

22 solely because some potential class members have not yet been harmed. See also

23 Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1118 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The inclusion of future

24 class members in a class is not itself unusual or objectionable.”)

25

2. Geographic Scope

26

The lack of a limit on the geographic scope of the class is also not enough

27 to defeat class certification. Defendants rely on Califano v. Yamasaki to argue

28 that nationwide class actions should be denied because they may “interfere with

5

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 127 Filed 04/19/13 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:2858

1 the litigation of similar issues in other judicial districts.” 442 U.S. 682, 702, 99 S.

2 Ct. 2545, 2558, 61 L. Ed. 2d 176 (1979; (Opp’n at 7:24-28; 8:1-7.) The portion of

3 Califano that Defendants quote is dicta. The Supreme Court in Califano

4 ultimately refused to limit the geographic scope of the class, holding that

5 “[n]othing in Rule 23 . . . limits the geographical scope of a class action that is

6 brought in conformity with that Rule.” Califano, 442 U.S. at 702, 706. The Court

7 finds that Plaintiff’s proposed class definition is not improper solely because the

8 proposed class encompasses the entire country.

9 B. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)

10

1. Numerosity

11

The class must be “so numerous that joinder of all members is

12 impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). “[G]eographical diversity of class

13 members, the ability of individual claimants to institute separate suits, and

14 whether injunctive or declaratory relief is sought, should be considered in

15 determining impracticability of joinder.” Jordan v. County of Los Angeles, 669

16 F.2d 1311, 1319 (9th Cir. 1982), vacated on other grounds, 459 U.S. 810, 103 S.

17 Ct. 35, 74 L. Ed. 2d 48 (1982). Even if the exact class size is unknown, the

18 numerosity requirement is satisfied if general knowledge and common sense

19 indicate that the class is large. Cervantez v. Celestica Corp., 253 F.R.D. 562, 569

20 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (Phillips, J.). See also Celano v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 242 F.R.D.

21 544, 549 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (Hamilton, J.) (using Census statistics to show the

22 possible number of people involved).

23

Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that joinder of all

24 potential class members is impracticable.3 Plaintiff cites empirical data, including

25 2010 Census Bureau estimates of as many as 42,000 American households that

26

27 3

Indeed, counsel for Defendants conceded at oral argument that “if we’re talking about I-

130 as well as I-601 [immigration benefits applications], there probably is no reason to dispute

28 numerosity.”

6

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 127 Filed 04/19/13 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:2859

1 include same-sex spouses. See Daphne Lofquist, Same-Sex Couple Households,

2 U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey Briefs (Sept. 2011), available

3 at http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-03.pdf. Plaintiff also provides

4 evidence of the large number of same-sex couples seeking immigration benefits in

5 the U.S. (See Combined Exhibits in Support of Motions for Preliminary

6 Injunction and Class Certification (“Combined Exhibits”), Exs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 11;

7 Supplemental Exhibits 21-22 In Support of Motions for Class Certification and

8 Preliminary Injunction, Ex. 22.) One of Plaintiff’s declarants, an immigration

9 attorney, estimates that she has counseled “over 100 . . . couples . . . . seeking

10 lawful immigration status for foreign-born spouses [who] . . .[i]n the main, [were]

11 . . . lawfully married under the laws of the states in which they are domiciled.”

12 (Declaration of Gloria Curiel at ¶ 3.)

13

The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the numerosity requirement of

14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).

15

2. Commonality

16

Commonality is satisfied if there are “questions of law or fact common to

17 the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). Class members only need to share a common

18 issue of law or fact. Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168,

19 1172 (9th Cir. 2010) (emphasis added); see also Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d

20 1105, 1123 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding a common constitutional question in the center

21 of all the class’s claims is enough to meet commonality). This Court is also

22 guided by the Supreme Court’s instruction: there must be “a common answer to

23 the crucial question why was I disfavored.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131

24 S. Ct. 2541, 2552, 180 L. Ed. 2d 374 (2011) (emphasis in original). The members

25 of the proposed class have all been “disfavored” by DOMA’s denial of their state-

26 recognized same-sex marriages. See also Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 709

27 F.3d 829, 834 (9th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted) (“[T]he district court must

28 determine whether the claims of the proposed class ‘depend on a common

7

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 127 Filed 04/19/13 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:2860

1 contention . . . that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is

2 central to the validity of each of the claims in one stroke.’”).

3

Defendants argue that an I-601 waiver of inadmissibility, which Plaintiff

4 DeLeon seeks, is discretionary and DeLeon may not receive the waiver even if

5 DOMA § 3 is deemed unconstitutional. (Opp’n at 10:22-11:17.) Defendants’

6 argument concentrates on the ultimate immigration benefits that DeLeon and the

7 proposed class members seek. (Id. at 11:18-20.) That is not at issue in this case.

8 Certainly other members of the proposed class may seek different types of

9 immigration benefits, but DeLeon and all proposed class members are foreclosed

10 from any consideration for immigration benefits by DOMA § 3. See, e.g., Wal-

11 Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2553 (considering the hypothetical “use[] [of] a biased testing

12 procedure to evaluate both applicants for employment and incumbent employees”

13 and stating “a class action on behalf of every applicant or employee who might

14 have been prejudiced by the test clearly would satisfy the commonality and

15 typicality requirements of Rule 23(a).”). Like the hypothetical biased testing

16 discussed in Wal-Mart, DOMA § 3 is an allegedly unconstitutional, and absolute,

17 initial threshold foreclosing consideration for the immigration benefits sought.

18

The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the commonality requirement of

19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).

20

3. Typicality

21

To demonstrate typicality, the proposed class must show that the named

22 parties’ claims are typical of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a)(3). “The typicality

23 requirement looks to whether ‘the claims of the class representatives [are] typical

24 of those of the class, and [is] satisfied when each class member’s claim arises

25 from the same course of events, and each class member makes similar legal

26 arguments to prove the defendant’s liability.’” Rodriguez, 591 F.3d at 1124; see

27 also Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 741 F.2d 1332, 1337 (11th Cir.

28 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1004, 105 S. Ct. 1357, 84 L. Ed. 2d 379 (1985)

8

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 127 Filed 04/19/13 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:2861

1 (typicality is satisfied where the named plaintiffs’ claims “arise from the same

2 event or pattern or practice and are based on the same legal theory” as the claims

3 of the class). Plaintiff’s and proposed class members’ claims revolve solely

4 around the issue of whether DOMA § 3 is constitutional when applied to deny

5 immigration benefits to same-sex spouses.

6

Although Defendants argue that the facts concerning Plaintiff DeLeon’s

7 immigration status are unique, it is undisputed that Plaintiff DeLeon was denied a

8 I-601 waiver of inadmissibility solely due to DOMA §3. (Compl. at ¶ 1; Dfts’

9 Opp’n at 15:8-20; see also Rodriguez, 591 F.3d at 1124 (finding typicality where

10 “the determination of whether Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing will rest

11 largely on interpretation of the statute authorizing his detention”).) While Plaintiff

12 DeLeon’s I-601 waiver of inadmissibility will ultimately depend on a

13 discretionary weighing of facts and circumstances peculiar to her, that decision is

14 not before this Court. (Compl. at ¶¶ 69-73.) Plaintiff is thus not “likely to be

15 preoccupied with litigating the defense to the detriment of the class as a whole.”

16 Cholakyan v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 281 F.R.D., 534, 557 (C.D. Cal. 2012)

17 (Morrow, J.) (quoting J.H. Cohn & Co. v. Am. Appraisal Assocs., Inc., 628 F.2d

18 994, 999 (7th Cir. 1980)).

19

The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the typicality requirement of Fed.

20 R. Civ. P. 23(a).

21

4. Adequacy

22

The named plaintiffs must “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the

23 class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). In making this determination, courts must

24 consider two questions: “(1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any

25 conflicts of interest with other class members and (2) will the named plaintiffs and

26 their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?” Evon v. Law

27 Offices of Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015, 1031 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).

28 Only the first question is in dispute here.

9

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 127 Filed 04/19/13 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:2862

1

Defendants argue that Plaintiff DeLeon is not an adequate class

2 representative because her interests may conflict with those of other class

3 members. Defendants recycle their argument that Plaintiff DeLeon does not

4 allege legal claims typical of the class (and thus is not an adequate class

5 representative) because “[e]ven if Ms. DeLeon prevails in striking down DOMA, 6 the relief she seeks is entirely discretionary.”4 (Opp’n at 15:23-25.) “Whether the

7 class representatives satisfy the adequacy requirement depends on ‘the

8 qualifications of counsel for the representatives, an absence of antagonism, a

9 sharing of interests between representatives and absentees, and the unlikelihood

10 that the suit is collusive.’” Rodriguez, 591 F.3d at 1125 (citations omitted). As

11 discussed already, Defendants’ argument focuses solely on the ultimate

12 immigration benefit sought, and ignores the substantial shared interest among

13 Plaintiff DeLeon and the class members in a declaration of DOMA’s

14 constitutionality. Whether Plaintiff DeLeon ultimately receives a waiver of

15 inadmissibility is beyond the scope of this action. The Court finds that Plaintiff

16 DeLeon is an adequate class representative.

17 C. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)

18

Defendants concede that Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) applies. (See Opp’n at

19 16:12-20; 18:25-26.) Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) permits class action certification

20 where “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that

21

22

4

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff DeLeon is not an adequate class representative

because she may abandon this action to pursue other relief and because other class members

23 may prefer to seek special relief available only after commencement of removal proceedings.

(Opp’n at 15:21-16:11.) As to the first argument, it is well-established that once certified, the
24 class acquires separate legal status and may separately qualify for such relief. See LaDuke v.

25

Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1325 (9th Cir. 1985), amended 796 F.2d 309 (9th Cir. 1986). As to the second argument, counsel for Plaintiff clarified at oral argument that Plaintiff seeks to enjoin

26 only deportation, detention, or termination of work authorization based on a denial of
immigration benefits due to DOMA. (Pltfs. Supplemental Ex. 23 at 71:17-72:4.) Counsel for

27 Plaintiff further clarified that Defendants could continue to issue denials of petitions for

immigration benefits due to DOMA. (Id.) Thus narrowed, the injunctive relief sought by
28 Plaintiffs is unlikely to conflict with the interests of the proposed class members.

10

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 127 Filed 04/19/13 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #:2863

1 apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding

2 declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Id. The Court

3 finds that Plaintiff satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).

4 D. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) governs appointment of class counsel. Rule 23(g)

6 provides, inter alia, that courts must consider the following factors in appointing

7 class counsel:

8

(i) the work counsel has done i n identifying or investigating potential

9

claims in the action;

(ii) counsel’s experience in hand ling class acti ons, other complex

10

litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action;

11

(iii) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and

(iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class. 12

13

Plaintiff requests that Peter A. Schey and Carlos R. Holguin of the Center

14 for Human Rights & Constitutional Law be appointed interim class counsel.5 The

15 Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law is a non-profit organization

16 specializing in complex federal litigation on behalf of immigrants and refugees.

17 (Mem. at 8:21-22.) Mssrs. Schey and Holguin are, respectively, the Executive

18 Director and General Counsel for the Center. Mssrs. Schey and Holguin have

19 extensive experience litigating class actions on behalf of immigrants and refugees.

20 See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982); Reno v. Catholic Soc. Servs., 509 U.S. 43

21 (1993) (on briefs); Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993); League of United Latin

22 Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297 (9th Cir. 1997). They have actively

23 litigated this case on behalf of Plaintiff, including filing and responding to several

24 motions. [See, e.g., Docket Nos. 12, 13, 56, 59, 71, 94, 115.] The Court finds that

25

5
26

Plaintiff’s [Proposed] Order Provisionally Certifying Class Action lists additional

attorneys as class counsel. These attorneys are not referenced in Plaintiff’s briefing and the

27 Court has not been provided with any information about these attorneys. (See, e.g., Mem. at

8:21-9:6; Reply.) The Court is thus unable to evaluate these attorneys’ fitness to serve as class
28 counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

11

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 127 Filed 04/19/13 Page 12 of 12 Page ID #:2864

1 Peter A. Schey and Carlos R. Holguin of the Center for Human Rights &

2 Constitutional Law satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) and are

3 qualified to serve as interim class counsel. Accordingly, the Court hereby

4 appoints Peter A. Schey and Carlos R. Holguin to serve as interim class counsel.

5

CONCLUSION

6

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s

7 Motion for Provisional Class Certification. It is hereby ordered that this

8 action is provisionally certified as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

9 P. 23. The class shall be defined as:

10

All members of lawful same-sex marriages who have been denied

11

or will be denied lawful status or related benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq. by the

12

Department of Homeland Security solely due to § 3 of the

13

Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. § 7

14 15 DATED: April 19, 2013
16

By CONSUELO B. MARSHALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

 
 Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 174 Filed 02/12/14 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:3670

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 12

Martin R. ARANAS, Irma RODRIGUEZ, )

and Jane DELEON;

)

)

SACV 12-1137 CBM (AJWx) ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO

13 14

Plaintiffs, ) MODIFY STAY AND TO

v.

) ) )

RECONSIDER THE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND

15 Janet NAPOLITANO, Secretary of the 16 Department of Homeland Security;

) ISSUE CLASS-WIDE PRELIMINARY

) )

INJUNCTION, MOTION TO

) INTERVENE, AND MOTION FOR

17

Alejandro MAYORKAS, Director, United States Citizenship &

18 Immigration Services;

) )

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

)

)

19 20

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP &

)

IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT

SERVICES; and OF HOMELAND

) SECURITY;))

21

Defendants.

) )

22

The matters before the Court are (1) Motion to Modify Stay, Reconsider,

23 and Issue Class-Wide Preliminary Injunctions; (2) Motion to Intervene; (3)

24 Motion to Modify Stay and for Preliminary Injunction Re: Class members

25 Alexander Bustos Garcia and Holga Martinez; and (4) Motion for Summary

26 Judgment. [Docket Nos. 132, 133, 134, 144.] 27

28

1

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 174 Filed 02/12/14 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:3671

1

The Court grants the Motion to Modify the Stay. See, e.g., Boyle v. Cnty. of

2 Kern, No. 103-CV-05162-OWW-GSA, 2008 WL 220413, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Jan.

3 25, 2008) (reasoning that the analogue to the power to stay proceedings is lifting a

4 previously imposed stay).

5

I. JURISDI CTION

6

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, since

7 the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor and the Defendant’s

8 actions, Defendants argue that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to a

9 lack of case or controversy. See 133 S. Ct. 2675, 186 L. Ed. 2d 808, 118 F.E.P.

10 Cases 1417 (2013).

11

“Article III requires that a live controversy persist throughout all stages of

12 the litigation.” Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1128-29 (9th

13 Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). “Where this condition is not met, the case has

14 become moot, and its resolution is no longer within our constitutional purview.”

15 Id. at 1129. “[T]he central question before us is whether changes in the

16 circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of litigation have forestalled any

17 occasion for meaningful relief. Id. (citation and quotation omitted). “[A] case

18 may become moot if ‘(1) it can be said with assurance that there is no reasonable

19 expectation . . . that the alleged violation will recur, and (2) interim relief or events

20 have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.’”

21 Lindquist v. Idaho State Bd. of Corr., 776 F.2d 851, 854 (9th Cir. 1985) (quoting

22 Cnty. of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979)). However, “there is a

23 heavy burden of proof to demonstrate mootness.” Id.

24

A. Plaintiff’s Requested Relief

25

Aranas Plaintiffs claim that they will not be provided the relief they seek

26 because they suffer harm pendente lite. Plaintiffs request the following relief: (1)

27 assume jurisdiction of this case; (2) certify a class of similarly situated same-sex

28 married couples as proposed herein; (3) enter declaratory judgment that

2

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 174 Filed 02/12/14 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:3672

1 Defendants’ application of DOMA § 3 in this and similar cases, and Defendants’

2 regulations, policies and practices applying DOMA § 3 against Plaintiffs and those

3 similarly situated, are unlawful; (4) issue a temporary injunction enjoining

4 Defendants from—a) removing or detaining Plaintiffs DeLeon and Aranas and

5 those similarly situated; b) revoking or denying employment authorization to

6 Plaintiffs DeLeon and Aranas and those similarly situated; and c) deeming

7 Plaintiffs DeLeon and Aranas and those similarly situated inadmissible pursuant to

8 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i), where such persons would not have accrued more

9 than six months in unlawful status but for DOMA § 3; (5) issue a permanent

10 injunction enjoining Defendants from denying U.S. citizen petitioners and their

11 immigrant spouses approvals of benefits under the Immigration and Nationality

12 Act (“INA”) solely because the lawfully married U.S. citizens and immigrant

13 beneficiaries are of the same sex. (Complaint at pp. 29-30.)

14

Defendants argue that the relief sought by Plaintiffs regarding the

15 constitutionality of DOMA has been determined by Windsor, which is binding

16 precedent that renders moot Plaintiffs’ arguments. (Opp’n to Motion for

17 Summary Judgment at 6:3-9.) Defendants also argue that it is no longer denying

18 immigration benefits solely because “lawfully married U.S. citizens and

19 immigrant beneficiaries are of the same sex” and is in the process of reopening

20 cases previously denied solely due to DOMA. (Id. at 6:3-20.)

21

B. Relief Provided by Defendants after Windsor

22

In support of their argument that Defendants have already provided the

23 relief requested, or are in the process of doing so, Defendants provide a document

24 known as the Frequently Asked Questions on Same-Sex Marriages (“FAQ”). See

25 Same-Sex Marriages, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES,

26 http://www.uscis.gov/family/same-sex-marriages (last updated Sept. 26, 2013);

27 see also Docket No. 149-1. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

28 issued the FAQ one week after the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision and it

3

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 174 Filed 02/12/14 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:3673

1 outlines USCIS’ response to the decision, including procedures for the USCIS’

2 handling of previously denied applications and petitions solely based on DOMA

3 and future applications.

4

In the Motions before the Court, Plaintiffs express concern regarding

5 whether Defendants have addressed, or are in the process of addressing, prior

6 denials. The Court ordered that the action be stayed on April 24, 2013 and that the

7 parties file quarterly status reports commencing on August 1, 2013. [See Docket

8 Nos. 129, 130.] Six status reports have been filed. In the most recent status

9 report, filed on February 3, 2014, the USCIS states that they are aware of 152 total

10 matters involving denials of immigration petitions or applications based solely on

11 Section 3 of DOMA, 26 of which were denied prior to February 22, 2011. [See

12 Docket No. 173 (“Sixth Status Report”).] The following table summarizes the

13 status of each of these matters:

14

15 Number of Status of Application or Petition

16 Matters 17 139 Reopened

by USCIS1

18  113 of Petition/applications granted by USCIS

19

139

20  6 of 139 Denied by USCIS for reasons unrelated to DOMA

21  20 of Reopened by USCIS but not yet acted upon (pending)

22

139

23 4

Involved aliens already adjusted by other means, rendering moot any

24

earlier petitions/applications

25 5

Withdrawn by petitioner/applicant

26 2

Petitioners/applicants opted to file a new petition/application2

27
1 When USCIS reopens a previously denied I-130 petition, it also reopens the I-485 and any
28 associated applications.

4

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 174 Filed 02/12/14 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:3674

1 Number of Status of Application or Petition

2 Matters

3 1

Resulted in a final decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

4

adverse to the petitioner in 2010, which USCIS lacks the authority to

5

reopen

6 1

Not yet reopened because USCIS was notified of the matter on

7

January 21, 2014. USCIS has requested the file and will promptly

8

reopen the petition upon its receipt.

9 152 Total

10

Id.

11

Plaintiffs also request temporary injunctive relief to prevent Defendants

12 from removing, revoking or denying employment authorization, and from

13 deeming Plaintiffs and class members inadmissible. In the status reports,

14 Defendants provide an update on the employment authorization of class members

15 identified by USCIS, including those individuals identified by Plaintiffs’ counsel.

16 The following table summarizes the work authorization status of applicants of

17 which Defendant is aware.

18

19 Number of Status of Work Authorization

20 Matters

21 114

Sought and potentially eligible for authorization to work

22  108 of Able to lawfully work, including those Plaintiffs and individuals

23

114

specifically identified by Plaintiffs’ counsel [See Doc. No. 171 at

24

4:10-5:4.]

25  6 of 114 Actively processing employment authorization applications

26 38

Not eligible or did not seek employment authorization

27
2 USCIS states that it has refunded the fees associated with the prior denials. [See Doc. No. 171
28 at 3:6-7.]

5

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 174 Filed 02/12/14 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:3675

1 Number of Status of Work Authorization

2 Matters

3  27 of 38 Have not applied for initial or renewed work authorization

4  5 of 38 Not eligible for Employment Authorization due to withdrawal of

5

petition or application

6  6 of 38 USCIS denied application due to reasons unrelated to DOMA

7 152 Total 8

9

Plaintiffs also express concern regarding whether those with outstanding

10 petitions or applications would accrue unlawful presence once a previously denied

11 application is reopened. Defendants respond that in the Neufeld Memorandum,3 if

12 USCIS reopens a previously denied but properly filed I-485 application, the

13 application is deemed pending from the date of its initial filing, and during its

14 pendency, the alien does not accrue unlawful presence. [Doc. No. 166-1 at 33-34

15 of 51.] If the application is granted, then the alien is lawfully admitted for

16 permanent residency and the unlawful presence bars do not apply. (Id.) If it is

17 denied, then the accrual of unlawful presence, which has been tolled until the date

18 of denial, begins the day after the denial. (Id.) Section (a)(3)(A) of the

19 Memorandum does not distinguish between immigrants and non-immigrants, and

20 therefore the Court concludes that it applies to any alien. (Id.)

21

Plaintiffs request additional limited discovery in their Supplement to

22 Motion for Summary Judgment, possibly limited to a deposition of a “USCIS

23 employee most familiar with the steps the agency has taken to identify class

24 members, and the presentation of the results of such discovery to this Court.”

25 [Doc. No. 167 at 3:10-11.] This stems from Plaintiffs’ concerns regarding the

26 3 The Memorandum was issued on May 6, 2009 and provides guidance concerning “unlawful 27 presence” for purposes of sections 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i) and 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I). [Doc.
No. 166-1.] These two sections address under what circumstances Aliens are considered
28 unlawfully present for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

6

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 174 Filed 02/12/14 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:3676

1 number of class members and whether USCIS has made an adequate effort to

2 identify those class members. Plaintiffs estimate that there are 570 same-sex

3 couples that may apply for lawful permanent residency status annually, based on

4 statistical evidence extrapolated from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Office of

5 Immigration Statistics. [Doc. No. 87 at 9:22-28.] At oral argument, Plaintiffs’

6 counsel advised the Court that there are approximately 7,000 to 10,000 bi-national

7 same-sex couples that have been denied immigration benefits solely due to

8 DOMA. There is a large discrepancy between Plaintiffs’ estimates and the

9 number provided by USCIS.

10

In response, Defendants provide evidence from national advocacy

11 organizations discouraging same-sex couples from applying for immigration

12 benefits prior to the issuance of Windsor. This includes a March 31, 2011 13 publication by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (“AILA”),4 the

14 professional bar association for attorneys and law professors who specialize in

15 immigration law, and a January 2013 notice from the Gay & Lesbian Advocates 16 and Defenders.5 [Docket Nos. 166-2, 166-3.] This evidence makes it less likely

17 that same-sex bi-national couples applied for lawful permanent residency in the

18 range of 570 per year, given that advocates provided guidance not to apply for

19 those benefits in the years before Windsor. Additionally, to notify those who

20 previously applied, Defendants have contacted over 18,000 stakeholders who 21 subscribe to USCIS’ email list serve6 regarding the ability to reopen prior denials

22 based solely on DOMA. [See Docket No. 166 at 3:27-28.]

23
4 The notice advises bi-national same-sex couples not to apply for immigration benefits as their
24 applications could be denied, could place an undocumented spouse under the “radar” of DHS

25

and its enforcement arm, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), cause them to be placed in removal proceedings, could make it difficult for a spouse with a tourist or student visa

26 to enter the United States in the future under the same status, and could jeopardize the ability of
a fiancée to obtain a student or tourist visa since the likelihood is that a fiancée visa would be

27 denied. [Doc. No. 166-2.]
5 This notice provides the same advice as the AILA publication. [Doc. No. 166-3.]
28 6 A list serve is an application that distributes messages on an electronic mailing list.

7

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 174 Filed 02/12/14 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:3677

1

The Court finds that even if USCIS is not currently aware of all same-sex

2 bi-national couples that applied and were denied immigration relief due solely to

3 DOMA, this Court expects that USCIS would reopen a petitioner’s application

4 once it became aware of the denial. The Court therefore finds that Defendants’

5 actions are adequate for purposes of this lawsuit, and denies Plaintiffs’ request for

6 additional discovery.

7

Plaintiffs also request that the USCIS adjudicate all applications for

8 employment within thirty (30) days. Plaintiffs’ concerns on this issue are already

9 addressed as all named or identified Plaintiffs’ papers are currently authorized to

10 work. Plaintiffs’ request is therefore denied due to mootness.

11

C. Plaintiffs’ Motions

12

There are two motions requesting preliminary injunctions. [See Docket

13 Nos. 132, 134.] Collectively, the Motions request injunctive relief restraining

14 Defendants (1) from deeming class members’ and proposed interveners’ Plaintiffs

15 Bustos Garcia’s and/or Holga Martinez’ presence in the United States authorized

16 for purposes of accruing time towards the bars to admission pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §

17 1182(a)(9)(B), and (2) to vacate denials of employment authorizations issued to

18 Plaintiffs, class members, and proposed interveners Plaintiffs Bustos Garcia

19 and/or Holga Martinez and to grant them temporary work authorization.

20

Certain Plaintiffs also request to intervene on the basis that Plaintiff DeLeon

21 does not adequately represent the class and that they present issues of irreparable

22 injury qualitatively different than Plaintiff DeLeon. [Docket No. 133.]

23

Plaintiffs also move for summary judgment that on the basis of Windsor,

24 Plaintiff and proposed interveners are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

25 [Docket No. 144.]

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

8

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 174 Filed 02/12/14 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:3678

1

There is no “reasonable expectation” that USCIS will deny applications

2 solely on the basis of DOMA because of the decision in Windsor. Therefore,

3 “interim relief or events have completely . . . eradicated the effects of the alleged

4 violation.” Lindquist, 776 F.2d at 854; see also Gator.com Corp., 398 F.3d at

5 1129. The Court grants the Motion to Modify the Stay for purposes of

6 considering the arguments raised by the Parties. The Court lacks Article III

7 jurisdiction as there is no case or controversy and the Defendants have already

8 provided the requested relief. Therefore, the Court denies the reconsideration of

9 the preliminary injunction, the motion to intervene, and the motion for summary

10 judgment. The Court dismisses this lawsuit due to mootness.

11

12 IT IS SO ORDERED

13 DATED: February 12, 2014 14 15

By CONSUELO B. MARSHALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

 
 Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 1 of 28
(AJWx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY,MANADR,RELATED−G
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Southern Division − Santa Ana)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:12−cv−01137−CBM−AJW

Martin R Aranas et al v. Janet Napolitano et al Assigned to: Judge Consuelo B. Marshall Referred to: Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich Related Case: 2:12−cv−00887−CBM−AJW Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Date Terminated: 02/12/2014 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Martin R Aranas

represented by Anthony Christian Abasto Public Law Center 601 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701 714−6199277 Email: cabasto@publiclawcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beatrice Ann M. Pangilinan Asian Law Alliance 184 Jackson Street San Jose, CA 95112 408−287−9710 Fax: 408−287−0864 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carlos Holguin Center For Human Rights and Constitutional Law 256 South Occidental Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90057 213−388−8693 Fax: 213−386−9484 Email: crholguin@centerforhumanrights.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie Greenwald Marzouk Public Law Center 601 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701 714−541−1010 Fax: 714−541−5157 Email: marzouk@chapman.edu TERMINATED: 07/22/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Nikole Ashiku Public Law Center 601 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701 714−541−1010 x 249 Fax: 714−541−5157 Email: mashiku@publiclawcenter.org TERMINATED: 07/31/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter A Schey Center For Human Rights and Constitutional Law 256 South Occidental Boulevard

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 2 of 28

Los Angeles, CA 90057 213−388−8693 Fax: 213−386−9484 Email: pschey@centerforhumanrights.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Irma Rodriguez

represented by Carlos Holguin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gary H Manulkin Manulkin Glaser and Bennett 10175 Slater Avenue Suite 111 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 714−963−8951 Fax: 714−968−4948 Email: mgblaw@mail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Reyna Manulkin Tanner Law Offices of Manulkin and Bennett 10175 Slater Avenue Suite 111 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 714−963−8951 Fax: 714−968−4948 Email: reynatanner@yahoo.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jane DeLeon

represented by Carlos Holguin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gary H Manulkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Reyna Manulkin Tanner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Movant Edwin Blesch

represented by Daralyn J Durie Durie Tangri LLP 217 Leidesdorff Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415−362−6666 Fax: 415−362−6300 Email: ddurie@durietangri.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 3 of 28

Movant Timothy Smulian

Eric Alan Stone Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton and Garrison LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019−6064 212−373−3000 Fax: 212−757−3990 Email: estone@paulweiss.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie E Fink Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton and Garrison LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 212−373−3721 Fax: 212−492−0721 Email: jfink@paulweiss.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Roy Plummer Immigration Equality 40 Exchange Place Sutie 1300 New York, NY 10005 212−714−2904 Fax: 212−714−2973 Email: tplummer@immigrationequality.org TERMINATED: 01/06/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victoria F Neilson Immigration Equality 40 Exchange Place Sutie 1300 New York, NY 10005 212−714−2904 Fax: 212−714−2973 Email: vneilson@immigrationequality.org TERMINATED: 01/06/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daralyn J Durie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric Alan Stone (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie E Fink (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Roy Plummer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 4 of 28

Victoria F Neilson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Frances Herbert

represented by Daralyn J Durie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric Alan Stone (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie E Fink (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Roy Plummer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victoria F Neilson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Takako Ueda

represented by Daralyn J Durie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric Alan Stone (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie E Fink (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Roy Plummer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victoria F Neilson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Santiago Ortiz

represented by Daralyn J Durie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 5 of 28

Eric Alan Stone (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie E Fink (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Roy Plummer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victoria F Neilson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Pablo Garcia

represented by Daralyn J Durie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric Alan Stone (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie E Fink (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Roy Plummer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victoria F Neilson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Kelli Ryan

represented by Daralyn J Durie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric Alan Stone (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie E Fink (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Roy Plummer (See above for address)

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 6 of 28

TERMINATED: 01/06/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victoria F Neilson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Lucy Truman

represented by Daralyn J Durie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric Alan Stone (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie E Fink (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Roy Plummer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victoria F Neilson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Heather Morgan

represented by Daralyn J Durie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric Alan Stone (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie E Fink (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Roy Plummer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victoria F Neilson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Maria del Mar Verdugo

represented by

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 7 of 28

Daralyn J Durie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric Alan Stone (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie E Fink (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Roy Plummer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victoria F Neilson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Alexander Bustos Garcia

represented by Beatrice Ann M. Pangilinan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carlos Holguin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Movant Richard L Fitch

represented by Beatrice Ann M. Pangilinan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carlos Holguin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Movant Holga Martinez

represented by Carlos Holguin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gary H Manulkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 8 of 28

Movant Martha Reyes

Reyna Manulkin Tanner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carlos Holguin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary H Manulkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter A Schey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Reyna Manulkin Tanner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Janet Napolitano Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security

represented by Aaron S Goldsmith United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P O Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−532−4107 Fax: 202−616−8962 Email: aaron.goldsmith@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesi J Carlson United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−305−7037 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: jesi.j.carlson@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 08/30/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
August E Flentje United States Department of Justice Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530−0009 202−514−1278 Email: august.flentje@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Helen L Gilbert United States Department of Justice Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Room 7261 Washington, DC 20530

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 9 of 28

202−514−4862 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine E Melloy Goettel Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation − Civil Division PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−532−4115 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: kate.goettel@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lana L Vahab US Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation − Civil Division P O Box 868 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−532−4067 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: lana.vahab@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy Michael Belsan US Department of Justice Civil Division − Immigration Litigation PO Box 868 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−532−4596 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: timothy.m.belsan@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Department of Homeland Security

represented by Aaron S Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jesi J Carlson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

August E Flentje (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Helen L Gilbert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine E Melloy Goettel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lana L Vahab (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 10 of 28

Timothy Michael Belsan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Alejandro Mayorkas Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

represented by Aaron S Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jesi J Carlson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

August E Flentje (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Helen L Gilbert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine E Melloy Goettel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lana L Vahab (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy Michael Belsan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

represented by Aaron S Goldsmith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jesi J Carlson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

August E Flentje (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Helen L Gilbert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine E Melloy Goettel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lana L Vahab (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 11 of 28

Timothy Michael Belsan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives TERMINATED: 07/12/2013

represented by Christine Davenport Office of the General Counsel US House of Representatives 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 202−225−9700 Fax: 202−226−1360 Email: christine.davenport@mail.house.gov TERMINATED: 07/12/2013 PRO HAC VICE

H Christopher Bartolomucci Bancroft PLLC 1919 M Street NW Suite 470 Washington, DC 20036 202−234−0090 Fax: 202−234−2806 Email: cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kerry W Kircher Office of the General Counsel US House of Representatives 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515−6532 202−225−9700 Fax: 202−226−1360 Email: Kerry.Kircher@mail.house.gov PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Beth Walker Office of General Counsel US House of Representatives 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 202−225−9700 Fax: 202−226−1360 TERMINATED: 07/12/2013 PRO HAC VICE

Nicholas J Nelson Bancroft PLLC 1919 M Street NW Suite 470 Washington, DC 20036 202−234−0090 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul D Clement Bancroft PLLC 1919 M Street NW Suite 470 Washington, DC 20036 202−234−0090 Fax: 202−234−2806 Email: pclement@bancroftpllc.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 12 of 28

Todd B Tatelman Office of General Counsel US House of Representatives 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 202−225−9700 Fax: 202−226−1360 Email: Todd.Tatelman@mail.house.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B Pittard , IV Office of the General Counsel US House of Representatives 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 202−225−9700 Fax: 202−226−1360 Email: william.pittard@mail.house.gov PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/12/2012
07/12/2012 07/12/2012 07/12/2012 07/18/2012 07/25/2012 08/07/2012 08/07/2012
08/08/2012

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Case assigned to Judge James V. Selna for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Marc L. Goldman.(Filing fee $350 Paid). Filed by Plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon and Irma Rodriguez.(lwag) (lwag). (Entered: 07/13/2012)
60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 as to Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (lwag) (Entered: 07/13/2012)
2 CERTIFICATION and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon and Irma Rodriguez. (lwag) (lwag). (Entered: 07/13/2012)
3 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT−DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed.(lwag) (Entered: 07/13/2012)
4 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Jesi J Carlson on behalf of Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (Carlson, Jesi) (Entered: 07/18/2012)
5 NOTICE Notice to the Court filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 1, # 2 Exhibit Attachment 2, # 3 Exhibit Attachment 3)(Carlson, Jesi) (Entered: 07/25/2012)
6 First STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to All Defendants, re Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 filed by Defendants Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.(Carlson, Jesi) (Entered: 08/07/2012)
8 ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 08−05 −Related Case− filed. Related Case No: CV12−00887 CBM (AJWx). Case transferred from Magistrate Judge Marc L. Goldman and Judge James V. Selna to Judge Consuelo B. Marshall and Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge SACV12−01137 CBM (AJWx). Signed by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (rrp) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
7 INITIAL ORDER FOLLOWING FILING OF COMPLAINT ASSIGNED TO JUDGE SELNA. (jlen) (Entered: 08/08/2012)

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 13 of 28

08/08/2012 08/09/2012 08/09/2012
08/09/2012 08/23/2012
08/23/2012 08/23/2012 08/23/2012 08/23/2012 08/23/2012 08/23/2012 08/23/2012 08/24/2012

9 STANDING ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, (see Standing Order for details) 1 (jl) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
10 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez of return of summons and proof of service of summons and complaint. (Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
11 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez, upon Defendant All Defendants. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Frank B. Kawano. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to illegible. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy to unknown. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. Original Summons returned. receipts for USAG & US Atty only. (Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
27 ORIGINAL SUMMONS RETURNED filed by Plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. (Proof of Service 11 filed on 8/9/12.) (lom) (Entered: 09/04/2012)
12 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Temporary protection from arrest and deportation, etc... If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday through Friday, on a weekend or holiday, and need immediate judicial review, please call 213−894−2485 to advise that a Preliminary Injunction has been electronically filed. Failure to call the courtroom deputy, or the after hours filing contact number, may result in a delay of judicial review. Motion filed by plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. Motion set for hearing on 9/24/2012 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order re Preliminary Injunction)(Schey, Peter) (Entered: 08/23/2012)
13 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class filed by plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. Motion set for hearing on 9/24/2012 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order re Motion for Class certification)(Schey, Peter) (Entered: 08/23/2012)
18 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Leave to Intervene filed by Movant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. Motion set for hearing on 9/24/2012 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Lodged [Prop] Order. (lom) (Entered: 08/30/2012)
19 MEMORANDUM of Points of Authorities in Support of MOTION to Intervene 18 filed by Movant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. (lom) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/30/2012: # 1 Part 2) (lom). (Entered: 08/30/2012)
20 NOTICE of Appearance of Kerry W Kircher filed on behalf of Movant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. (lom) (Entered: 08/30/2012)
21 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney H Christopher Bartolomucci on behalf of Movant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. (lom) (Entered: 08/30/2012)
22 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Paul D Clement on behalf of Movant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. (lom) (Entered: 08/30/2012)
23 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Nicholas J Nelson on behalf of Movant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. (lom) (Entered: 08/30/2012)
14 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Timothy Michael Belsan on behalf of Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (Belsan, Timothy) (Entered: 08/24/2012)

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 14 of 28

08/24/2012
08/26/2012 08/27/2012
08/30/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012 09/07/2012 09/07/2012 09/10/2012 09/10/2012 09/10/2012 09/10/2012 09/13/2012
09/14/2012

15 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue September 24, 2012 Hearing from September 24, 2012 to October 29, 2012 filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Belsan, Timothy) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
16 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Opposition (partial) Re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue September 24, 2012 Hearing from September 24, 2012 to October 29, 2012 15 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Declaration (Exhibit 3))(Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 08/26/2012)
17 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting 15 Ex Parte Application to Continue. The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions in this matter. Accordingly, the Court hereby orders the September 24, 2012 hearing on Plaintiffs Motion to Certify Class and Motion for Preliminary Injunction be continued until October 9, 2012 at 10 AM. Defendants must file their oppositions to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class and Motion for Preliminary Injunction no later than September 14, 2012. Plaintiffs must file their replies no later than September 21, 2012. (lom) (Entered: 08/28/2012)
24 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR Due to clerical error Re Memorandum in Support of Motion 19 : Inadvertently, Part II did not get attached to the docket entry no. 19. Part II has been re−attached to docket entry no. 19 as well as to this Notice. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2) (lom) (Entered: 08/30/2012)
25 NOTICE OF NON−OPPOSITION to MOTION to Intervene 18 filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Belsan, Timothy) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
26 NOTICE OF NON−OPPOSITION to MOTION to Intervene 18 filed by Plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. (Schey, Peter) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
28 REPLY to Plaintiffs In Support of MOTION to Intervene 18 filed by Movant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. (Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 09/07/2012)
29 REPLY to Executive Branch Defendants in support of MOTION to Intervene 18 filed by Movant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. (Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 09/07/2012)
30 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Movant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. correcting Reply (Motion related) 29 (Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 09/10/2012)
31 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Movant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. Exhibit as to Reply (Motion related) 29 . (Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 09/10/2012)
32 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Lana L Vahab on behalf of Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (Vahab, Lana) (Entered: 09/10/2012)
33 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Katherine E Melloy Goettel on behalf of Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (Goettel, Katherine) (Entered: 09/10/2012)
34 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Exceed Page Limitation in a Consolidated Memorandum filed by Proposed Intervenor−Defendant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. Motion set for hearing on 10/15/2012 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Memorandum)(Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
35 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Certify Class 13 filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Carlson, Jesi) (Entered: 09/14/2012)

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 15 of 28

09/14/2012 09/14/2012 09/14/2012 09/14/2012
09/19/2012 09/19/2012 09/21/2012 09/24/2012 09/26/2012 09/26/2012

36 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Proposed Intervenor−Defendant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. Motion set for hearing on 10/15/2012 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 09/14/2012)
37 MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION to Dismiss Case 36 and in Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 12 filed by Movant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 09/14/2012)
38 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Exceed Page Limitation of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Vahab, Lana) (Entered: 09/14/2012)
39 OPPOSITION to MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Temporary protection from arrest and deportation, etc... If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday 12 filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Proposed Order)(Vahab, Lana) (Entered: 09/14/2012)
42 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE 38 APPLICATION for enlargement of page limit by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Plaintiffs take no position on Defendants' Application. The Court hereby GRANTS Ex Parte Application. Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for preliminary injunction may be no more than twenty−eight pages in length, excluding indices and exhibits. (ys) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
45 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Court DENIES Intervenor−Defendant The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House ofRepresentatives MOTION to Exceed Page Limitation in a Consolidated Memorandum 34 .The hearing set for October 15, 2012 is taken off calendar and no appearance is necessary. (lc) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
40 First STIPULATION to Reschedule briefing on motions and hearing dates filed by plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives, Jane DeLeon, Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, Irma Rodriguez, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order re Briefing and Hearing Dates)(Schey, Peter) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
41 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The matter before the Court is the Unopposed Motion for Leave to Intervene by Proposed Intervenor−Defendant The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (the "Motion") 18 . On the Court's own motion, the hearing on this Motion previously scheduled for September 24, 2012 at 11:00AM has been rescheduled for October 9, 2012 at 10:00 AM. (lom) (Entered: 09/24/2012)
43 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting 18 Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S.House of Representatives' (hereinafter, "BLAG") Unopposed Motion for Leave to Intervene. It is hereby ordered that BLAG is permitted to intervene to defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (1 U.S.C. § 7). The hearing set for October 9, 2012 is taken off calendar and no appearance is necessary. (lom) (Entered: 09/26/2012)
44 ORDER Granting Stipulation 40 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the briefing and hearing schedule shall be: Proposed Intervenor−Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 36 (MTD): Filed September 14, 2012; Opposition(s) to Proposed Intervenor−Defendants MTD: Due October 9, 2012; Proposed Intervenor−Defendant's Reply: Due October 22, 2012; Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss: Due September 28, 2012; Opposition(s) to Defendants' Partial MTD: Due October 15, 2012; Defendants' Reply: Due October 22, 201; Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification 13 : Filed August 23, 2012;

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 16 of 28

09/28/2012 10/02/2012 10/04/2012
10/09/2012 10/09/2012 10/09/2012 10/09/2012 10/10/2012
10/11/2012 10/11/2012

Opposition(s) to Plaintiffs' Motions for PI/Class Cert: Filed September 14, 2012; Plaintiffs' Reply: Due October 22, 2012. The September 24, 2012 hearing on the proposed intervenor−defendant's motion to The proposed intervenor−defendant's motion to dismiss, defendants' planned motion for partial dismissal, and plaintiffs' motions for class certification and a preliminary injunction will be heard on November 6, 2012, at 10 AM. (lom) (Entered: 09/26/2012)
46 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss (Procedural Motion to Dismiss and Partial Motion to Dismiss) filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Motion set for hearing on 11/6/2012 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Proposed Order)(Carlson, Jesi) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
47 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, 45 filed by Intervenor−Defendant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. (Attachments: # 1 Revised Consolidated Memorandum, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Proposed Order, # 6 Proposed Order)(Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 10/02/2012)
48 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: DENYING 47 Unopposed Ex Parte Application of Intervenor−Defendant The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives ("BLAG") for Reconsideration of this Court's September 19, 2012 Order re: Leave to File a Consolidated Memorandum in Excess of Twenty−Five Pages (the "Application"). The Court would find it more helpful to have the benefit of briefing on BLAG's Motion to Dismiss and separate briefing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (lom) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
49 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Exceed Page Limitation Defendants' Opposition to BLAG's Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Carlson, Jesi) (Entered: 10/09/2012)
50 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Exceed Page Limitation for Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Intervenor−Defendant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. (Attachments: # 1 Tab 1, # 2 Tab 2, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Tab 3, # 5 Exhibit A, # 6 Exhibit B, # 7 Exhibit C, # 8 Proposed Order)(Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 10/09/2012)
51 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss Case 36 (filed by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group) filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Carlson, Jesi) (Entered: 10/09/2012)
52 First EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue intervenor's motion to dismiss from November 6, 2012 to per court's order Re: MOTION to Dismiss Case 36 filed by plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 10/09/2012)
53 OPPOSITION to First EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue intervenor's motion to dismiss from November 6, 2012 to per court's order Re: MOTION to Dismiss Case 36 First EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue intervenor's motion to dismiss from November 6, 2012 to per court's order Re: MOTION to Dismiss Case 36 52 filed by Intervenor Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kerry W. Kircher, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2)(Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
54 IN CHAMBER MINUTE ORDER. The hearing on the MOTION to Dismiss Case 36 previously scheduled for 10/15/2012 at 10:00 AM has been rescheduled on the Courts own motion. The Motion is now set for hearing on November 6, 2012, at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (cs) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/11/2012)
55 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting in part and denying in part 49 , 50 , 52 Ex Parte Application. The Court denies in part and grants

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 17 of 28

10/12/2012 10/15/2012 10/15/2012 10/17/2012
10/17/2012 10/18/2012 10/22/2012 10/22/2012

in part Defendants' Application, BLAG's Application, and Plaintiffs Application. BLAG shall file on or before October 22, 2012 a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion to Dismiss that is no more than 30 pages in length, excluding exhibits and indices. Defendants and Plaintiffs shall file their Oppositions to BLAG's Motion to Dismiss on or before October 30, 2012 and each Opposition shall be no more than 30 pages in length, excluding exhibits and indices. BLAG shall file its Reply, if any, on or before November 6, 2012. Argument on BLAG's Motion to Dismiss, Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification will be heard on November 20, 2012 at 10AM. The November 6, 2012 hearings are hereby vacated. (lom) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
57 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART BLAG's Application. BLAG's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction may be no more than twenty−eight pages in length, excluding indices and exhibits. (Cf. September 19, 2012 Minute Order (permitting Defendants to file an Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction of not more than twenty−eight pages) re 42 , 50 , 55 . (lom) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
56 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss (Procedural Motion to Dismiss and Partial Motion to Dismiss) MOTION to Dismiss (Procedural Motion to Dismiss and Partial Motion to Dismiss) 46 filed by Plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. (Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
58 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss (Procedural Motion to Dismiss and Partial Motion to Dismiss) MOTION to Dismiss (Procedural Motion to Dismiss and Partial Motion to Dismiss) 46 and in Support insofar as Defendants' Motion Constitutes Partial Motion to Dismiss filed by Intervenor Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. (Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
59 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel appearance at 30(b)(6) depositions, responses to interrogatories, requests for documents, and requests for admissions, First MOTION to Compel Answers to Interrogatories of US Citizneship & Immig Service and Department of Homeland Security, First MOTION to Compel Deposition of 30(b)(6) depo of USCIS and Department of Homeland Security filed by plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. Motion set for hearing on 11/19/2012 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Local Rule 37 Stipulation re Discovery Disputes, # 2 Exhibit Ex. i to Stipulation re Discovery Disputes, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 2 to Stipulation re Discovery Disputes, # 4 Exhibit Ex. 3 to Stipulation re Discovery Disputes, # 5 Exhibit Ex. 4 to Stipulation re Discovery Disputes, # 6 Exhibit Ex. 5 to Stipulation re Discovery Disputes, # 7 Exhibit Ex.6 to Stipulation re Discovery Disputes, # 8 Exhibit Ex. 7 to Stipulation re Discovery Disputes, # 9 Exhibit Ex. 8 to Stipulation re Discovery Disputes)(Schey, Peter) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
60 First EX PARTE APPLICATION to Expedite Plaintiffs' motion compel discovery filed by plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order Expediting Motion to Compel Discovery)(Schey, Peter) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
61 RESPONSE filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Servicesto First EX PARTE APPLICATION to Expedite Plaintiffs' motion compel discovery 60 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Vahab, Lana) (Entered: 10/18/2012)
62 MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION to Dismiss Case 36 filed by Intervenor Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 10/22/2012)
63 OPPOSITION to MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Temporary protection from arrest and deportation, etc... If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday 12 filed by Intervenor Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Kircher, Kerry)

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 18 of 28

10/22/2012 10/23/2012
10/24/2012 10/27/2012 10/29/2012
10/29/2012 10/29/2012 10/30/2012 10/30/2012 10/31/2012 11/01/2012

(Entered: 10/22/2012)
64 REPLY Reply in Support of Procedural Motion to Dismiss and Partial Motion to Dismiss MOTION to Dismiss (Procedural Motion to Dismiss and Partial Motion to Dismiss) MOTION to Dismiss (Procedural Motion to Dismiss and Partial Motion to Dismiss) 46 filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Carlson, Jesi) (Entered: 10/22/2012)
65 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion) 61 . The following error(s) was found: Case number is incorrect or missing.Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below. Other error(s) with document(s): Docket entry does not match the title of the document.. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (mz) (Entered: 10/23/2012)
66 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXPEDITE HEARING AND RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: denying 60 Ex Parte Application to Expedite. The ex parte application is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mz) (Entered: 10/25/2012)
67 Joint Rule 26(f) Report REPORT of Joint Rule 26(f) Report filed by Plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. (Schey, Peter) (Entered: 10/27/2012)
68 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Stay Discovery Proceedings filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Motion set for hearing on 11/26/2012 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Exhibit 1−6, # 3 Proposed Order)(Carlson, Jesi) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/30/2012: # 4 Notice of Motion) (lom). (Entered: 10/29/2012)
69 NOTICE OF MOTION for Notice Pursuant to Fed.R.CIV.P. 23(D)(1)(B) re Certify Class filed by Non−Parties Edwin Blesch, Timothy Smulian, Frances Herbert, Takako Ueda, Santiago Ortiz, Pablo Garcia, Kelli Ryan, Lucy Truman, Heather Morgan, Maria del Mar Verdugo. Motion set for hearing on 11/20/2012 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (lom) (lom). Modified on 12/3/2012 (lom). (Entered: 10/30/2012)
70 MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION for Notice to Certify Class 69 filed by Movants Edwin Blesch, Pablo Garcia, Frances Herbert, Heather Morgan, Santiago Ortiz, Kelli Ryan, Timothy Smulian, Lucy Truman, Takako Ueda, Maria del Mar Verdugo. (lom) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/30/2012: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (lom). (Entered: 10/30/2012)
71 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss Case 36 by defendant−intervenor (Dkt #62) filed by Plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. (Schey, Peter) (Entered: 10/30/2012)
72 EXPARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Response to BLAG's Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Belsan, Timothy) (Entered: 10/30/2012)
73 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall granting defendants ex parte application to respond to BLAG's motion to dismiss by November 1, 2012: granting 72 Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to File (pg) (Entered: 10/31/2012)
74 NOTICE filed by Intervenor−Defendant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. of Pertinent Supreme Court Conference (Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 11/01/2012)

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 19 of 28

11/01/2012 11/01/2012 11/01/2012
11/01/2012
11/01/2012
11/05/2012 11/05/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012

75 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss Case 36 filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Belsan, Timothy) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
76 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Daralyn J Durie on behalf of Movants Edwin Blesch, Pablo Garcia, Frances Herbert, Heather Morgan, Santiago Ortiz, Kelli Ryan, Timothy Smulian, Lucy Truman, Takako Ueda, Maria del Mar Verdugo (Durie, Daralyn) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
77 APPLICATION for attorney Julie E. Fink to Appear Pro Hac Vice(PHV Fee of $325 receipt number 0973−11198110 paid.) filed by Non Party Edwin Blesch, Pablo Garcia, Frances Herbert, Heather Morgan, Santiago Ortiz, Kelli Ryan, Timothy Smulian, Lucy Truman, Takako Ueda, Maria del Mar Verdugo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Durie, Daralyn) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
78 APPLICATION for attorney Eric Alan Stone to Appear Pro Hac Vice(PHV Fee of $325 receipt number 0973−11198177 paid.) filed by Non Party Edwin Blesch, Pablo Garcia, Frances Herbert, Heather Morgan, Santiago Ortiz, Kelli Ryan, Timothy Smulian, Lucy Truman, Takako Ueda, Maria del Mar Verdugo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Durie, Daralyn) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
79 APPLICATION for attorney Victoria F. Neilson to Appear Pro Hac Vice(PHV Fee of $325 receipt number 0973−11198207 paid.) filed by Non Party Edwin Blesch, Pablo Garcia, Frances Herbert, Heather Morgan, Santiago Ortiz, Kelli Ryan, Timothy Smulian, Lucy Truman, Takako Ueda, Maria del Mar Verdugo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Durie, Daralyn) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
80 SUPPLEMENT Brief Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Carlson, Jesi) (Entered: 11/05/2012)
81 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Stay Discovery Proceedings 68 filed by Plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. (Schey, Peter) (Entered: 11/05/2012)
82 SUPPLEMENT of Authority Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum dated October 5, 2012)(Carlson, Jesi) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
83 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Aaron S Goldsmith on behalf of Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (Goldsmith, Aaron) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
84 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Thomas Roy Plummer on behalf of Movants Edwin Blesch, Pablo Garcia, Frances Herbert, Heather Morgan, Santiago Ortiz, Kelli Ryan, Timothy Smulian, Lucy Truman, Takako Ueda, Maria del Mar Verdugo (Plummer, Thomas) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
85 REPLY to Plaintiffs' Opposition and in Support of MOTION to Dismiss Case 36 filed by Intervenor Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
86 REPLY to Executive Branch defendants' Opposition and in Support of MOTION to Dismiss Case 36 filed by Intervenor Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. (Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
87 REPLY in support MOTION to Certify Class 13 filed by Plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. (Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
88 REPLY in support MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Temporary protection from arrest and deportation, etc... If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday 12 filed by Plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. (Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 11/06/2012)

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 20 of 28

11/06/2012
11/07/2012
11/08/2012 11/08/2012 11/08/2012
11/08/2012 11/09/2012 11/09/2012 11/09/2012 11/09/2012 11/09/2012 11/09/2012 11/09/2012 11/14/2012

89 EXHIBIT 1−17 to MOTION to Certify Class 13 , MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Temporary protection from arrest and deportation, etc... If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday 12 filed by Plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. (Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
90 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Hearing from November 20, 2012 to December 4, 2012 filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Goldsmith, Aaron) (Entered: 11/07/2012)
91 NOTICE OF NON−OPPOSITION and Response to Non−Parties' Motion for Notice filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Goldsmith, Aaron) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
92 REPLY In Support Of MOTION to Stay Discovery Proceedings 68 filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Belsan, Timothy) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
93 EXHIBIT 18−19 to MOTION to Certify Class 13 , EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Hearing from November 20, 2012 to December 4, 2012 90 , MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Temporary protection from arrest and deportation, etc... If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday 12 filed by Plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. (Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
94 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Hearing from November 20, 2012 to December 4, 2012 90 filed by Plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. (Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
95 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Hearing from November 20, 2012 to December 4, 2012 90 (corrected) filed by Plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. (Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
96 NOTICE filed by plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. of filing corrected opposition to ex parte application (Dkt.90) (Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
97 REPLY in support of Ex Parte Application to Postpone Hearing filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Goldsmith, Aaron) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
98 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall DENYING Defendant's Ex Parte Application to Continue Hearing: denying 90 Ex Parte Application to Continue. (pg) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
100 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting 77 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Julie E. Fink on behalf of Movants, designating Daralyn J. Durie as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
101 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting 78 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Eric A. Stone on behalf of Movants, designating Daralyn J. Durie as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
102 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting 79 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Victoria Neilson on behalf of Movants, designating Daralyn J. Durie as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
99 NOTICE to Court Regarding Rescheduling of Supreme Court Conference Date filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Carlson, Jesi) (Entered: 11/14/2012)

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 21 of 28

11/16/2012 11/16/2012 11/16/2012 11/16/2012 11/16/2012
11/19/2012 11/20/2012 11/21/2012 11/27/2012 12/06/2012

103 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Timothy Michael Belsan on behalf of Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (Belsan, Timothy) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
104 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Timothy Michael Belsan on behalf of Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (Belsan, Timothy) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
105 NOTICE OF LODGING filed and Proposed Order re Memorandum in Support of Motion, 70 , MOTION to Certify Class 69 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Durie, Daralyn) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
106 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Waive Oral Argument filed by Non−Parties Edwin Blesch, Pablo Garcia, Frances Herbert, Heather Morgan, Santiago Ortiz, Kelli Ryan, Timothy Smulian, Lucy Truman, Takako Ueda, Maria del Mar Verdugo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Durie, Daralyn) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
107 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: re: MOTION to Compel appearance at 30(b)(6) depositions, responses to interrogatories, requests for documents, and requests for admissionsFirst MOTION to Compel Answers to Interrogatories of US Citizneship & Immig Service and Department of Homeland SecurityFirst MOTION to Compel Deposition of 30(b)(6) depo of USCIS and Department of Homeland Security MOTION to Compel appearance at 30(b)(6) depositions, responses to interrogatories, requests for documents, and requests for admissions First MOTION to Compel Deposition of 30(b)(6) depo of USCIS and Department of Homeland Security MOTION to Compel appearance at 30(b)(6) depositions, responses to interrogatories, requests for documents, and requests for admissions First MOTION to Compel Deposition of 30(b)(6) depo of USCIS and Department of Homeland Security MOTION to Compel appearance at 30(b)(6) depositions, responses to interrogatories, requests for documents, and requests for admissions First MOTION to Compel Deposition of 30(b)(6) depo of USCIS and Department of Homeland Security MOTION to Compel appearance at 30(b)(6) depositions, responses to interrogatories, requests for documents, and requests for admissionsFirst MOTION to Compel Deposition of 30(b)(6) depo of USCIS and Department of Homeland Security 59 . ORDER by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. The hearing has been rescheduled from November 19, 2012, to December 10, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. (yb) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
108 NOTICE Supplemental Authority filed by Intervenor−Defendant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. (Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 11/19/2012)
109 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court takes the matters under submission 12 , 13 , 36 , 46 , 69 .Court Reporter: Maria Bustillo. (lom) (Entered: 11/21/2012)
110 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Non Parties Edwin Blesch, Pablo Garcia, Frances Herbert, Heather Morgan, Santiago Ortiz, Kelli Ryan, Timothy Smulian, Lucy Truman, Takako Ueda, Maria del Mar Verdugo Court Reporter. Court will contact Janelle at jcotton@durietangri.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Other: Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Durie, Daralyn) (Entered: 11/21/2012)
111 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting 69 Motion. This Court, hereby Orders that the Court will provide notice consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(1)(B) to the plaintiffs in Blesch, et al. v. Holder et al., No. 12−cv−1578 (E.D.N.Y.) of any motions or proceedings relating to non−provisional certification of a class. (lom) (Entered: 12/03/2012)
112 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: re: MOTION to Compel appearance at 30(b)(6) depositions, responses to interrogatories, requests for documents, and requests for admissions 59 . ORDER TAKING OFF CALENDAR PLAINTIFF'S MOTION ON CALENDAR DECEMBER 10, 2012. The motion is taken off calendar. After the motion to stay (#68) has been decided by Judge

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 22 of 28

12/10/2012 12/27/2012
01/07/2013 01/14/2013 01/25/2013
02/19/2013 03/18/2013 03/18/2013 03/28/2013
04/01/2013 04/02/2013 04/04/2013
04/13/2013

Marshall, plaintiff's counsel may contact the clerk to request that the motion to compel be scheduled for hearing. (yb) (Entered: 12/06/2012)
113 NOTICE Regarding Supreme Court's Grant of Writ of Certiorari in a Related Case filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Belsan, Timothy) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
114 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Stay Case pending Pending Decision of the Supreme Court filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Motion set for hearing on 1/28/2013 at 11:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Order)(Goldsmith, Aaron) (Entered: 12/27/2012)
115 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Stay Case pending Pending Decision of the Supreme Court 114 filed by Plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. (Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
116 REPLY MOTION to Stay Case pending Pending Decision of the Supreme Court 114 filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Goldsmith, Aaron) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
117 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS − ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court finds that defendant's motion to stay proceedings, filed on December 27, 2012 114 and currently set for hearing on January 28, 2013, is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, this motion is taken UNDER SUBMISSION as of January 28, 2013 and the hearing is vacated. No appearances are necessary on January 28, 2013. (lom) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
118 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Stay Case pending Pending Decision of the Supreme Court 114 in opposition filed by Plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. (Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 02/19/2013)
119 EXHIBIT 21−22 to MOTION to Certify Class 13 , MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Temporary protection from arrest and deportation, etc... If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday 12 filed by Plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. (Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
120 NOTICE filed by plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. of filing Exhibits 21−22 (Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
121 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez Court Reporter. Court will contact Carlos Holguin at crholguin@centerforhumanrights.org with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Other: November 20, 2012. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 03/28/2013)
122 REQUEST for Ruling motions submitted 11/20/12 filed by plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. (Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
123 STATEMENT in Response to Local Rule 83−9.2 Request re: REQUEST for Ruling motions submitted 11/20/12 122 . (Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 04/02/2013)
124 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS)re Request for Decision on Motions for Preliminary Injunction 122 ; Intervenor−Defendant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives' Local Rule 83−9.2 Submission 123 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court having considered the documents filed by counsel, the Court notes for the record that a ruling on the pending motions will be filed on or before April 22, 2013. (lom) (Entered: 04/04/2013)
125 First REQUEST for Ruling Motions to dismiss and for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs Martin R Aranas, Jane DeLeon, Irma Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs Exhibits 23−33)(Schey, Peter) (Entered: 04/13/2013)

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 23 of 28

04/19/2013 04/19/2013
04/19/2013 04/24/2013 04/24/2013 04/26/2013 07/08/2013
07/08/2013 07/08/2013
07/08/2013

126 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting in part and denying in part 46 Motion to Dismiss: the Court GRANTS Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss and DENIES Intervenor's Motion to Dismiss. The Court hereby DISMISSES Plaintiffs Aranas and Rodriguez and Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action. (jl) Modified on 4/19/2013 (lom). (Entered: 04/19/2013)
127 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting 13 Motion to Certify Class Action. It is ordered that this action is provisionally certified as a class action pursuant to Fed.R. Civ P.23. The class shall be defined as: All members of lawful same−sex marriages who have been denied or will be denied lawful status or related benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. by the Department of Homeland Security solely due to Sec. 3 of the Defense of Marraige Act, 1 U.S.C. Sec. 7. (jl) Modified on 4/19/2013 (lom). (Entered: 04/19/2013)
128 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: denying 12 Motion for Preliminary Injunction (jl) Modified on 4/19/2013 (lom). (Entered: 04/19/2013)
129 MINUTES ORDER(IN CHAMBERS)by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting 114 Motion to Stay Proceedings pending the decision of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor, No. 12−307. (jl) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
130 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Ordered that counsel shall file quarterly status reports commencing August 1, 2013. 129 . (jl) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
131 NOTICE filed by Defendants' Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Goldsmith, Aaron) (Entered: 04/26/2013)
132 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction 128 , Order on Motion to Stay Case 129 ( Motion set for hearing on 8/5/2013 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall.), MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re work authorization and accrual of unauthorized presence .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday through Friday, on a weekend or holiday, and need immediate judicial review, please call 213−894−2485 to advise that a Preliminary Injunction has been electronically filed. Failure to call the courtroom deputy, or the after hours filing contact number, may result in a delay of judicial review. Motion, MOTION to Lift Stay re all proceedings ( Motion set for hearing on 8/5/2013 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall.) filed by plaintiff Jane DeLeon. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in support of motion, # 2 Proposed Order preliminary injunction)(Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
133 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Intervene filed by intervenors Martin R Aranas. Motion set for hearing on 8/5/2013 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in support of motion, # 2 Supplement complaint−in−intervention)(Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
134 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re work authorization and accrual of unauthorized presence .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday through Friday, on a weekend or holiday, and need immediate judicial review, please call 213−894−2485 to advise that a Preliminary Injunction has been electronically filed. Failure to call the courtroom deputy, or the after hours filing contact number, may result in a delay of judicial review. Motion filed by intervenors Martin R Aranas. Motion set for hearing on 8/5/2013 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Order)(Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
135 EXHIBIT 34−61 to MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Temporary protection from arrest and deportation, etc... If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday 12 , MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction 128 , Order on Motion to Stay Case 129 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re work authorization and accrual of unauthorized presence .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 MOTION to Lift Stay

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 24 of 28

07/09/2013 07/10/2013 07/10/2013 07/11/2013
07/11/2013 07/12/2013 07/12/2013
07/18/2013

re all proceedings 132 , MOTION to Intervene 133 , MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re work authorization and accrual of unauthorized presence .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 134 filed by Plaintiff Martin R Aranas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit part 2 of 4, # 2 Exhibit part 3a of 4, # 3 Exhibit part 3b of 4, # 4 Exhibit part 3c of 4, # 5 Exhibit paret 4 of 4)(Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
136 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Status Conference and Suspension of Briefing Schedule filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Goldsmith, Aaron) (Entered: 07/09/2013)
137 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Withdraw as Intervenor−Defendant filed by Intervenor−Defendant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the US House of Representatives. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kerry W. Kircher, # 2 Proposed Order)(Kircher, Kerry) (Entered: 07/10/2013)
140 Notice of Electronic Filing re EX PARTE APPLICATION to Withdraw as Intervenor−Defendant 137 e−mailed to Julie G Marzouk bounced due to invalid e−mail address. Primary e−mail address corrected. Notice of Electronic Filing resent addressed to marzouk@chapman.edu. Pursuant to Local Rules it is the attorneys obligation to maintain all personal contact information including e−mail address in the CM/ECF system. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(rrey) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/12/2013)
138 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS)AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The Court is in receipt of Defendant's Ex parte application for a status conference and suspension of briefing schedule, filed on July 9, 2013 136 . The Court having read and considered said application, hereby sets a Telephonic Status Conference for Friday, July 12, 2013 at 8:00 a.m. PST. A telephone conference line has been set up for this hearing. Parties that will be participating in this telephonic status conference are to contact the Courtroom Deputy, Yolanda Skipper at (213) 894−5288 for the call in number. (ys) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
139 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Opposition Re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Status Conference and Suspension of Briefing Schedule 136 (Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
141 ORDER 137 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: UPON CONSIDERATION OF the Unopposed Ex Parte Application of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives to Withdraw as Intervenor−Defendant ("Application"), and the entire record herein, it is by the Court this 12th day of July, 2013, ORDERED That the Application is GRANTED. (bp) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
142 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Defendant's Ex Parte application for suspension of briefing schedule, fld 7/9/13 136 Telephone Conference held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Following discussions with the parties, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Ex Parte application and sets a briefing schedule on Plaintiff's pending motions as follows: opposition is due no later than July 29, 2013, reply, if any, is due no later than August 5, 2013 with a tentative hearing of August 19, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. The Court further orders the unopposed Ex parte application of Intervenor−Defendant is GRANTED. The parties shall meet and confer re the temporary employment issue. Court Reporter: Leandra Amber. (bp) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
143 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF COURT ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: On the Court's own motion, the Plaintiff's Motion to Intervene 133 ; Plaintiff's Motion to modify stay, reconsideration motion for preliminary injunction, and issue class−wide preliminary injunction, 132 and Plaintiff's Motion to modify stay and for preliminary injunction re; class members Alexander Bustos Garcia and Holga Martinez 134 , currently scheduled for August 5, 2013, are hereby ordered continued to August 19, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. Oppositions are due no later than July 29, 2013 and replies, if any, are due no later than July 29, 2013 and replies, if any, are due no later than August 5, 2013. (bp) (Entered: 07/18/2013)

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 25 of 28

07/19/2013
07/22/2013
07/29/2013 07/29/2013 07/29/2013 07/29/2013 07/31/2013 08/01/2013 08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/05/2013
08/05/2013 08/05/2013

144 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims filed by Plaintiff and proposed plaintiff intervenors Jane DeLeon, Richard L Fitch, Alexander Bustos Garcia, Holga Martinez, Martha Reyes. Motion set for hearing on 8/19/2013 at 10:00 AM before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law, # 2 Proposed Order Summ Judg Proposed Order and Findings)(Schey, Peter) (Entered: 07/19/2013)
145 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Anthony Christian Abasto counsel for Plaintiff Martin R Aranas. Julie Greenwald will no longer receive service of documents from the Clerks Office for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice.Julie Greenwald is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Martin Aranas. (Abasto, Anthony) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
146 OPPOSITION to Motion for Reconsideration filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Guidance Regarding Reopening)(Goldsmith, Aaron) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
147 OPPOSITION to Motion to Intervene filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Goldsmith, Aaron) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
148 OPPOSITION to Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Proposed Intervenors filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Goldsmith, Aaron) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
149 OPPOSITION to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Guidance Regarding Reopening)(Goldsmith, Aaron) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
150 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Anthony Christian Abasto counsel for Plaintiff Martin R Aranas. Monika Ashiku will no longer receive service of documents from the Clerks Office for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Martin Aranas. (Abasto, Anthony) (Entered: 07/31/2013)
151 NOTICE Status Report filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Goldsmith, Aaron) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
152 REPLY in support MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re work authorization and accrual of unauthorized presence .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 134 filed by Movants Richard L Fitch, Alexander Bustos Garcia, Holga Martinez, Martha Reyes. (Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
153 REPLY in support MOTION to Intervene 133 filed by Movants Richard L Fitch, Alexander Bustos Garcia, Holga Martinez, Martha Reyes. (Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
154 REPLY in support MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction 128 , Order on Motion to Stay Case 129 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re work authorization and accrual of unauthorized presence .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 MOTION to Lift Stay re all proceedings 132 filed by Plaintiff Jane DeLeon. (Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
155 REPLY in support of motion MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims 144 filed by Plaintiff Jane DeLeon. (Schey, Peter) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
156 Notice of Electronic Filing re Reply (Motion related),, 154 , Reply (Motion related) 155 , Reply (Motion related) 153 , Reply (Motion related), 152 e−mailed to kheredia@centerforhumanrights.org bounced due to unknown user:

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 26 of 28

08/14/2013 08/14/2013 08/14/2013
08/19/2013 09/03/2013 09/09/2013 09/09/2013
09/09/2013
09/10/2013

"kheredia@centerforhumanrights.org". The primary e−mail address associated with the attorney record has been deleted. Pursuant to Local Rules it is the attorneys obligation to maintain all personal contact information including e−mail address in the CM/ECF system. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sn) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/06/2013)
157 MINUTES − IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Pursuant to Defendants' Status Report filed 8/1/2013 151 . case shall be reopened. (Case reopened. MD JS−5.) Court Reporter: N/A. (gk) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
158 PROPOSED DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims 144 filed by Plaintiff Jane DeLeon. (Schey, Peter) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
159 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS)NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF COURT ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. On the Court's own motion, the Plaintiff's motion for modify stay, reconsider motion forpreliminary; injunction 132 ; Plaintiff's motion to intervene 133 ; Plaintiff's motion to modify stay and for preliminary injunction re class members Alexander Bustos Garcia and Hola Martinez 134 ; and Plaintiff Jane Deleon's motion for summary judgment 144 , currently scheduled for August 19, 2013, are hereby ordered continued to 9/10/2013 at 10:00 AM (ys) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
160 NOTICE Supplemental Status Report filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Goldsmith, Aaron) (Entered: 08/19/2013)
161 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Jesi J Carlson counsel for Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Jesi J. Carlson is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendants Jesi J. Carlson. (Carlson, Jesi) (Entered: 09/03/2013)
162 NOTICE Second Supplemental Status Report filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Goldsmith, Aaron) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
163 EXHIBIT 62−66 to MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims 144 , MOTION to Intervene 133 , MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction 128 , Order on Motion to Stay Case 129 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re work authorization and accrual of unauthorized presence .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 MOTION to Lift Stay re all proceedings 132 , MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re work authorization and accrual of unauthorized presence .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 134 filed by Plaintiff Jane DeLeon. (Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
164 STATEMENT of status report MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims 144 , MOTION to Intervene 133 , MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction 128 , Order on Motion to Stay Case 129 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re work authorization and accrual of unauthorized presence .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 MOTION to Lift Stay re all proceedings 132 , MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re work authorization and accrual of unauthorized presence .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 134 filed by Plaintiff Jane DeLeon. (Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
165 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court invites counsel to respond to the oral tentative rulings. Following discussions with the parties, the Court grants the stay to be lifted and advises counsel that Plaintiff's Motion to Intervene 133 ; Plaintiff's Motion to modify stay, reconsider motion for preliminary

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 27 of 28

09/13/2013
09/19/2013
09/27/2013 11/01/2013 11/13/2013 01/03/2014 01/06/2014 02/03/2014 02/12/2014

injunction, and issue class−wide preliminary injunction 132 ; Plaintiff's Motion to modify stay and for preliminary injunction re; class members Alexander Bustos Garcia and Holga Martinez 134 ; and Plaintiff Jane Deleon's Motion for Summary Judgment 144 are taken under submission. A written order will issue. Defendants shall provide the court with further information as to the unlawful presence issue no later than 9/13/2013. Court Reporter: Kathie Thibodeaux. (gk) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
166 NOTICE Pursuant to the Court's September 11 Order filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Neufeld Memorandum dated May 6, 2009, # 2 Memorandum Memorandum of American Immigration Lawyers Association and Immigration Equality dated March 31, 2011, # 3 Memorandum Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders' Memorandum dated January 2013)(Goldsmith, Aaron) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
167 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims 144 , MOTION to Intervene 133 , MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction 128 , Order on Motion to Stay Case 129 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re work authorization and accrual of unauthorized presence .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 MOTION to Lift Stay re all proceedings 132 , MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re work authorization and accrual of unauthorized presence .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 134 filed by Plaintiff Jane DeLeon, Movants Richard L Fitch, Alexander Bustos Garcia, Holga Martinez, Martha Reyes. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re: class−wide preliminary injunction, # 2 Proposed Order re: preliminary injunction for intervenor)(Holguin, Carlos) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
168 STATUS REPORT filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Belsan, Timothy) (Entered: 09/27/2013)
169 STATUS REPORT filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Belsan, Timothy) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
170 REQUEST to Substitute Request for Withdrawal of Counsel − Victoria F. Neilson and Thomas R. Plummer filed by Non−Party Plaintiff Edwin Blesch, Pablo Garcia, Frances Herbert, Heather Morgan, Santiago Ortiz, Kelli Ryan, Timothy Smulian, Lucy Truman, Takako Ueda, Maria del Mar Verdugo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Durie, Daralyn) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
171 STATUS REPORT filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Belsan, Timothy) (Entered: 01/03/2014)
172 ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall granting Request for Approval of Substitution of Attorney Daralyn J. Durie for Non−Party Blesch Plaintiffs in place of Attorneys Victoria F. Neilson and Thomas R. Plummer, Immigration Equality 170 . (gk) (Entered: 01/07/2014)
173 STATUS REPORT filed by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Janet Napolitano, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Belsan, Timothy) (Entered: 02/03/2014)
174 ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO MODIFY STAY AND TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ISSUE CLASS−WIDE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, MOTION TO INTERVENE, AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The matters before the Court are (1) Motion to Modify Stay, Reconsider, and Issue Class−Wide Preliminary Injunctions 132 ; (2) Motion to Intervene 133 ; Motion to Modify Stay and for Preliminary Injunction Re: Class members Alexander Bustos Garcia and Holga Martinez 134 ; and (4) Motion for Summary Judgment 144 . The Court grants the Motion to Modify the Stay for purposes of considering the arguments raised by the Parties. The Court lacks Article III jurisdiction as there is no case or controversy and

Case: 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW As of: 10/15/2014 05:26 PM PDT 28 of 28
the Defendants have already provided the requested relief. Therefore, the Court denies the reconsideration of the preliminary injunction, the motion to intervene, and the motion for summary judgment. The Court dismisses this lawsuit due to mootness. (gk) (Entered: 02/13/2014)