Stipulation and [Proposed] Order 

No. 3:17-cv-00485/00574-WHO 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

DENNIS J. HERRERA (CA Bar #139669)

City Attorney 

JESSE C. SMITH (CA Bar #122517) 

Chief Assistant City Attorney 

RONALD P. FLYNN (CA Bar #184186) 

Chief Deputy City Attorney 

YVONNE R. MERÉ (CA Bar #173594) 

Chief of Complex and Affirmative Litigation 

SARA J. EISENBERG (CA Bar #269303) 

TARA M. STEELEY (CA Bar #231775) 

AILEEN M. McGRATH, (CA Bar #280846) 

Deputy City Attorneys 

City Hall, Room 234 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, California 94102-4602 

Telephone: (415) 554-4748 

Facsimile: (415) 554-4715 

E-Mail: sara.eisenberg@sfcityatty.org 

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., 

 Defendants. 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER 

No. 3:17-cv-00485-WHO 

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., 

 Defendants. 

No. 3:17-cv-00574-WHO 

 WHEREAS, the underlying actions commenced as cases styled City and County of San 

Francisco v. Trump (No. 3:17-cv-00485-WHO) and County of Santa Clara v. Trump (No. 3:17-

cv-00574-WHO), hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Litigation,” asserting claims 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 234 Filed 08/13/19 Page 1 of 6
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order

No. 3:17-cv-00485/00574-WHO 

2

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

challenging the constitutionality of Section 9 of Executive Order Number 13768, entitled 

“Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” (“Section 9”); 

 WHEREAS, on November 20, 2017, the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on these claims and 

entered a permanent, nationwide injunction barring enforcement of Section 9; 

 WHEREAS, on August 1, 2018, in the Litigation upon appeal, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgement and 

injunction as to the Executive Order’s effect in California but vacated the nationwide injunction 

for further consideration by the District Court (see City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, 

897 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2018)); and 

WHEREAS, the constitutionality of Section 9 is not currently being actively litigated 

elsewhere in the nation and the Parties wish to avoid the need to expend further resources on 

resolving these issues, 

WHEREAS, assuming approval by the Court of the joint Stipulation and Final Judgment, 

the pending Case Management Conference scheduled for August 20, 2019 may be cancelled as 

moot, 

 NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby jointly stipulate to the following: 

1. Final Judgment is hereby entered in favor of the Plaintiffs on the merits for the reasons set 

forth in City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, 897 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2018); 

2. All Parties agree that the deadline for further review of the Ninth Circuit’s August 1, 2018 

decision has passed. Out of an abundance caution, however, the Parties agree that 

Defendants shall not seek to pursue any further review from (1) the Ninth Circuit’s 

decision of August 1, 2018, or (2) the final judgments entered in these cases. 

3. The enforcement of Section 9 within the State of California is hereby enjoined; 

4. Plaintiffs withdraw, without prejudice, their request for injunctive relief that would reach 

outside the State of California; 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 234 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 6
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order

No. 3:17-cv-00485/00574-WHO 

3

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5. For the sake of clarity, nothing in this dismissal precludes Plaintiffs from seeking to renew 

their request for injunctive relief outside of the State of California by reopening this 

matter. In the event that Plaintiffs seek to re-open the above referenced cases, Defendants 

agree that any statute of limitations, statute of repose, or other time-related defense based 

on federal, state or any other law (including, but not limited to, defenses based on the 

doctrines of waiver, laches, acquiescence, or estoppel) that may be applicable to any of 

the claims asserted by Plaintiffs will be deemed tolled. However, nothing in this 

dismissal precludes the United States from defending the merits of such a request; and 

6. Each party in these actions will bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 234 Filed 08/13/19 Page 3 of 6
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order

No. 3:17-cv-00485/00574-WHO 

4

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Respectfully submitted, 

DENNIS J. HERRERA (CA Bar #139669)

City Attorney 

JESSE C. SMITH (CA Bar #122517) 

Chief Assistant City Attorney 

RONALD P. FLYNN (CA Bar #184186) 

Chief Deputy City Attorney 

YVONNE R. MERÉ (CA Bar #173594) 

Chief of Complex and Affirmative Litigation 

 /s/ Sara J. Eisenberg SARA J. EISENBERG (CA Bar #269303) 

TARA M. STEELEY (CA Bar #231775) 

AILEEN M. McGRATH, (CA Bar #280846) 

Deputy City Attorneys 

City Hall, Room 234 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, California 94102-4602 

Telephone: (415) 554-4748 

Facsimile: (415) 554-4715 

E-Mail: brittany.feitelberg@sfgov.org 

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO 

* * * 

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL, 

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 

JAMES R. WILLIAMS 

County Counsel 

 /s/ Javier Serrano JAVIER SERRANO (CA Bar #252266) 

Deputy County Counsel 

70 West Hedding Street 

East Wing, Ninth Floor 

San Jose, CA 95110-1770 

Telephone: (408) 299-5900 

Facsimile: (408) 292-7240 

E-mail: javier.serrano@cco.sccgov.org

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 

JOSEPH H. HUNT 

Assistant Attorney General 

DAVID L. ANDERSON 

United States Attorney 

JOHN R. TYLER 

Assistant Director 

/s/ Daniel D. Mauler 

DANIEL D. MAULER 

(Va. Bar #73190) 

Trial Attorney 

Department of Justice, Civil Division 

P.O. Box 883 

Washington, DC 20044 

Telephone: (202) 616-0773 

Facsimile: (202) 616-8470 

E-mail: dan.mauler@usdoj.gov 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS 

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the 

United States; UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA; KEVIN K. McALEENAN, 

Acting Secretary of Homeland Security; 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of 

the United States in City & County of San 

Francisco v. Trump, et al., No. 3:17-cv00485-WHO 

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the 

United States; KEVIN K. McALEENAN, 

Acting Secretary of Homeland Security; 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of 

the United States; MICK MULVANEY, 

Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget in County of Santa Clara v. Trump, 

et al., No. 3:17-cv-00574-WHO 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 234 Filed 08/13/19 Page 4 of 6
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order

No. 3:17-cv-00485/00574-WHO 

5

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

ORDER 

It appearing to the Court that the parties jointly request the following relief, it is hereby 

ORDERED as follows: 

1. Final Judgment is hereby entered in favor of the Plaintiffs on the merits for the reasons set 

forth in City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, 897 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2018); 

2. All Parties agree that the deadline for further review of the Ninth Circuit’s August 1, 2018 

decision has passed. Out of an abundance caution, however, the Parties agree that 

Defendants shall not seek to pursue any further review from (1) the Ninth Circuit’s 

decision of August 1, 2018, or (2) the final judgments entered in these cases. 

3. The enforcement of Section 9 within the State of California is hereby ENJOINED; 

4. Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief that would reach outside the State of California is 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 

5. For the sake of clarity, this dismissal does not Plaintiffs’ rights to seek to renew their 

request for injunctive relief outside of the State of California by reopening this matter. 

In the event that Plaintiffs seek to re-open the above referenced cases, Defendants agree 

that any statute of limitations, statute of repose, or other time-related defense based on 

federal, state or any other law (including, but not limited to, defenses based on the 

doctrines of waiver, laches, acquiescence, or estoppel) that may be applicable to any of 

the claims asserted by Plaintiffs will be deemed tolled. However, nothing in this 

dismissal precludes the United States from defending the merits of such a request; and 

6. Each party in these actions shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: _________________, 2019 _____________________________ Hon. William H. Orrick 

 United States District Judge 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 234 Filed 08/13/19 Page 5 of 6
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order

No. 3:17-cv-00485/00574-WHO 

6

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

ATTESTATION OF SIGNATURES 

 I, Sara J. Eisenberg, hereby attest, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5-1(i)(3) of the Northern 

District of California, that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each 

signatory hereto. 

 /s/ Sara J. Eisenberg 

 

 SARA J. EISENBERG (CA Bar #269303) 

 

 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 234 Filed 08/13/19 Page 6 of 6