University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Centro de la Comunidad Hispana v. Town of Oyster Bay IM-NY-0049
Docket / Court 2:10-cv-02262-DRH-ARL ( E.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Immigration
Attorney Organization ACLU Chapters (any)
Case Summary
On May 18, 2010, two organizations comprised of day laborers and/or predominately Latino immigrant workers filed a class action lawsuit in the Eastern District Court of New York under the First and Fourteenth Amendments against the Town of Oyster Bay. The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU and ... read more >
On May 18, 2010, two organizations comprised of day laborers and/or predominately Latino immigrant workers filed a class action lawsuit in the Eastern District Court of New York under the First and Fourteenth Amendments against the Town of Oyster Bay. The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU and LatinoJustice PRLDEF, sought injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs, claiming that the defendants, through the passage of an ordinance prohibiting the solicitation of labor from the town's streets and sidewalks, unlawfully prohibited speech related to employment and had a discriminatory animus against predominately Latino immigrant day laborers.

In September 2009, the Town Board enacted the ordinance in question. It prohibited any person from standing on a street corner stopping or attempting to stop a passing car for employment-related purposes. It also prohibited drivers from stopping their cars for the same purposes. The proposed purpose of the ordinance was to promote the health, safety, and welfare of motorists and pedestrians on the streets of the town. However, the supervisor referenced the ordinance as a temporary solution to dealing with those who were not on the path to citizenship. Comments from the public showed that town residents feared groups of men unfamiliar to them standing on the streets. There was also proof of animosity towards immigrant day laborers, such as town residents saying they were unsightly, illegal, and not wanted in that town. Plaintiffs argued that since New York laws already addressed health and safety concerns on the streets, this animus against predominantly Latino immigrant day laborers was what actually motivated the passing of the ordinance and that this violated the First Amendment right to free speech and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. They also argued that the law was unconstitutionally vague in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result of the ordinance, day laborers had suffered a significant loss of wages and harassment from police officers and people driving by them.

Two days after the complaint was filed, on May 20, 2010, the District Court (Judge Denis Reagan Hurley) granted the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order preventing the town from enforcing the ordinance at issue. Then, on June 1, 2010, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the ordinance at issue, pending final resolution of the First Amendment claims. In response to this order, the defendants filed a notice of appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on June 21, 2010. Little docket activity occurred until May 17, 2011, when the Second Circuit (Judges Barrington D. Parker, Gerard E. Lynch, and Raymond J. Lohier, Jr.) affirmed the District Court's order granting a preliminary injunction and remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings.

After a few months of discovery, on September 29, 2011, the plaintiffs' filed an amended complaint. The parties continued through the discovery process. On March 30, 2012, the District Court (Magistrate Judge Arlene Rosario Lindsay) granted the plaintiffs' motion for a protective order regarding their ability to withhold from discovery certain privileged documents and the identification documents and/or immigration status of the individual day laborers known to the plaintiffs. The parties then continued to go through more discovery litigation.

On June 18, 2013, the District Court (Judge Hurley) denied the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the defendants' counterclaims, and affirmed Magistrate Judge Lindsay's protective order. The District Court rejected the defendants' arguments that one of the organization plaintiffs lacked standing and that they had met their burden of showing the need for the discovery protected under the protective order.

As of March 24, 2014, the case is ongoing. The end of discovery has been set for April 18, 2014.

Perry Miska - 03/24/2014


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Equal Protection
Freedom of speech/association
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
Discrimination-basis
Immigration status
National origin discrimination
Race discrimination
General
Racial profiling
Immigration
Constitutional rights
Employment
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Undocumented immigrants - state and local regulation
National Origin/Ethnicity
Hispanic
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Race
Race, unspecified
Causes of Action Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Defendant(s) Town of Oyster Bay
Plaintiff Description Plaintiffs are two organizations on behalf of immigrant workers and day laborers, who, because of the Town of Oyster Bay Ordinance, are prohibited from soliciting work on streets and sidewalks allegedly because of their race and national origin.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Chapters (any)
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted Moot
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None yet
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief None yet
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies 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 ]

Docket(s)
2:10−cv−02262 (E.D.N.Y.) 01/17/2014
IM-NY-0049-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 05/18/2010
IM-NY-0049-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order 05/20/2010 (E.D.N.Y.)
IM-NY-0049-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Preliminary Injunction 06/01/2010 (E.D.N.Y.)
IM-NY-0049-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Summary Order [USCA Affirming District Court's Grant of a Preliminary Injunction] 05/17/2011 (420 Fed.Appx. 97)
IM-NY-0049-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Amended Complaint 09/28/2011
IM-NY-0049-0005.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order] 03/30/2012 (E.D.N.Y.)
IM-NY-0049-0006.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum and Order [Denying Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment] 06/18/2013 (954 F.Supp.2d 127) (E.D.N.Y.)
IM-NY-0049-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Hurley, Denis Reagan (E.D.N.Y.)
IM-NY-0049-0002 | IM-NY-0049-0004 | IM-NY-0049-0007 | IM-NY-0049-9000
Lindsay, Arlene Rosario (E.D.N.Y.) [Magistrate]
IM-NY-0049-0006 | IM-NY-0049-9000
Lohier, Raymond Joseph Jr. (Second Circuit)
IM-NY-0049-0003
Lynch, Gerard E. (S.D.N.Y., Second Circuit)
IM-NY-0049-0003
Parker, Barrington Daniels Jr. (S.D.N.Y., Second Circuit)
IM-NY-0049-0003
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Anello, Farrin R (New York)
IM-NY-0049-0001
Eisenberg, Arthur (New York)
IM-NY-0049-0001 | IM-NY-0049-0005 | IM-NY-0049-9000
Fredrickson, Samantha (New York)
IM-NY-0049-0001
Gelernt, Lee (New York)
IM-NY-0049-0001 | IM-NY-0049-0005 | IM-NY-0049-9000
Harrist, Erin Beth (New York)
IM-NY-0049-9000
Huizar, Laura (New York)
IM-NY-0049-9000
Iturralde, Christina (New York)
IM-NY-0049-0001 | IM-NY-0049-0005 | IM-NY-0049-9000
Joynes, Elizabeth (New York)
IM-NY-0049-9000
Levine, Alan (New York)
IM-NY-0049-0001 | IM-NY-0049-0005 | IM-NY-0049-9000
Pinon, Adriana (Texas)
IM-NY-0049-0001 | IM-NY-0049-0005 | IM-NY-0049-9000
Stoughton, Corey (New York)
IM-NY-0049-0001 | IM-NY-0049-0005 | IM-NY-0049-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Hill, Timothy F. (New York)
IM-NY-0049-9000
Kendric, Christopher (New York)
IM-NY-0049-9000
Sinnreich, Jonathan Halsby (New York)
IM-NY-0049-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -