University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Aranas v. Napolitano IM-CA-0062
Docket / Court 8:12-cv-01137 ( C.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Immigration
Special Collection Same-Sex Marriage
Case Summary
On July 12, 2012, an American woman and a Filipina, residents of California and married under California law, and their son, the biological child of the Filipina spouse, filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the U.S. Department of ... read more >
On July 12, 2012, an American woman and a Filipina, residents of California and married under California law, and their son, the biological child of the Filipina spouse, filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its component, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The plaintiffs, represented by the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, the Public Law Center, the Asian Law Alliance, and private counsel, brought suit under 42 U.S.C § 1983; the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.; and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, challenging the defendants' denial of the Filipina spouse's application to waive grounds of inadmissibility for permanent resident status. While an opposite-sex spouse can have grounds of inadmissibility waived under Section 212(i) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i), if denial of permanent resident status would "result in extreme hardship to [his or her] citizen...spouse," Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. § 7, which defines "marriage" under federal law as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife," renders such a waiver unobtainable for a similarly situated same-sex spouse. Plaintiffs claimed that Section 3 of DOMA thus violates the equal protection and substantive due process protections of the Fifth Amendment, and asked the Court for a declaratory judgment that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and an injunction barring the defendants from applying Section 3 to remove, detain or deny immigration benefits to the Filipina spouse, her son (who is eligible for lawful permanent resident status as a derivative beneficiary of his mother's application), or others similarly situated.

Class certification was provisionally granted, but the case was stayed pending the decision of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307. Following the decision in Windsor, defendants maintained that they were reconsidering applications delayed or denied under DOMA. Accepting this as true, the court dismissed the case as moot.

Christopher Schad - 07/16/2012
Nadji Allan - 10/15/2014


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Equal Protection
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
Discrimination-basis
Sex discrimination
Sexual orientatation
General
Gay/lesbian/transgender
Marriage
Immigration
Constitutional rights
Deportation - criteria
Family
Status/Classification
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Mandamus, 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Plaintiff Description An American woman and a Filipina married under California law and their son, the biological child of the Filipina spouse.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Mixed
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement Conditional Dismissal
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Limited Partnership
http://www.limitedpartnershipmovie.com/
By: Thomas G. Miller
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Threats to the Future of the Immigration Class Action
Washington University Journal of Law and Policy
By: Jill E. Family (Widener University School of Law)
Citation: 27 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 71 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  United States Government says L.A. Gay Couple’s 1975 Marriage is Valid
The Pride L.A.
Written: Jun. 07, 2016
By: Troy Masters
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
8:12-cv-01137-JVS-MLG (C.D. Cal.) 02/12/2014
IM-CA-0062-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Class Action) 07/12/2012
IM-CA-0062-0001 PDF | Detail
Order Granting In Part And Denying In Part Motions To Dismiss 04/19/2013 (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0062-0002 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Provisional Class Certification 04/19/2013 (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0062-0003 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Regarding Motions (Final Dismissal) 02/12/2014 (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0062-0004 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Marshall, Consuelo Bland (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0062-0002 | IM-CA-0062-0003 | IM-CA-0062-0004 | IM-CA-0062-9000
Wistrich, Andrew J. (C.D. Cal.) [Magistrate]
IM-CA-0062-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Ashiku, Monica (California)
IM-CA-0062-0001 | IM-CA-0062-9000
Greenwald, Julie (California)
IM-CA-0062-0001 | IM-CA-0062-9000
Holguín, Carlos R. (California)
IM-CA-0062-0001 | IM-CA-0062-9000
Manulkin, Gary H. (California)
IM-CA-0062-0001 | IM-CA-0062-9000
Pangilinan, Beatrice Ann M. (California)
IM-CA-0062-0001 | IM-CA-0062-9000
Schey, Peter A. (California)
IM-CA-0062-0001 | IM-CA-0062-9000
Tanner, Reyna Manulkin (California)
IM-CA-0062-0001 | IM-CA-0062-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Belsan, Timothy Michael (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0062-9000
Carlson, Jesi J. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0062-9000
Flentje, August E. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0062-9000
Gilbert, Helen L (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0062-9000
Goldsmith, Aaron S. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0062-9000
Melloy Goettel, Katherine E. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0062-9000
Vahab, Lana (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0062-9000
Other Lawyers Bartolomucci, H. Christopher (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0062-9000
Clement, Paul D. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0062-9000
Davenport, Christine (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0062-9000
Durie, Daralyn J. (California)
IM-CA-0062-9000
Fink, Julie E. (New York)
IM-CA-0062-9000
Kircher, Kerry W. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0062-9000
Neilson, Victoria (New York)
IM-CA-0062-9000
Nelson, Nicholas J. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0062-9000
Pittard, William (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0062-9000
Plummer, Thomas R. (New York)
IM-CA-0062-9000
Stone, Eric Alan (New York)
IM-CA-0062-9000
Tatelman, Todd B. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0062-9000
Walker, Mary Beth (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0062-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -