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

1

Stipulation and Order 17-CV-00485/17-CV-00574-WHO

JAMES R. WILLIAMS, County Counsel (S.B. #271253)

GRETA S. HANSEN (S.B. #251471)

L. JAVIER SERRANO (S.B. #252266)

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL

70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, Ninth Floor

San José, California 95110-1770

Telephone: (408) 299-5900

Facsimile: (408) 292-7240

Attorneys for Plaintiff

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., 

Defendants.

STIPULATION AND 

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-cv00574-WHO), hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Litigation,” asserting claims 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;

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 235 Filed 08/15/19 Page 1 of 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

2

Stipulation and Order 17-CV-00485/17-CV-00574-WHO

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;

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 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 235 Filed 08/15/19 Page 2 of 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

3

Stipulation and Order 17-CV-00485/17-CV-00574-WHO

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 235 Filed 08/15/19 Page 3 of 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

4

Stipulation and Order 17-CV-00485/17-CV-00574-WHO

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 235 Filed 08/15/19 Page 4 of 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

5

Stipulation and Order 17-CV-00485/17-CV-00574-WHO

ORDER

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

ORDRED 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: August 15, 2019 _____________________________

Hon. William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 235 Filed 08/15/19 Page 5 of 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

6

Stipulation and Order 17-CV-00485/17-CV-00574-WHO

ATTESTATION OF SIGNATURES

I, Javier Serrano, 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/ Javier Serrano

 JAVIER SERRANO (CA Bar #252266)

 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

2064573

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 235 Filed 08/15/19 Page 6 of 6