University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name City and County of San Francisco v. Trump IM-CA-0085
Docket / Court 3:17-cv-00485-WHO ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Immigration
Presidential Authority
Special Collection Civil Rights Challenges to Trump Immigration Enforcement Orders
Case Summary
This federal lawsuit, filed by the City of San Francisco on Jan. 31, 2017, challenges President Trump’s Jan. 25, 2017 Executive Order on immigration enforcement, which threatened to withhold federal funds from "sanctuary ... read more >
This federal lawsuit, filed by the City of San Francisco on Jan. 31, 2017, challenges President Trump’s Jan. 25, 2017 Executive Order on immigration enforcement, which threatened to withhold federal funds from "sanctuary jurisdictions" and take enforcement action against any locality that impedes the federal government's immigration law. The City filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint argued that this issue was one of "state sovereignty and a local government’s autonomy to devote resources to local priorities and to control the exercise of its own police powers, rather than being forced to carry out the agenda of the Federal government." The City alleged that the executive order violated the Tenth Amendment. The complaint addresses 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which provides that a local government entity cannot prohibit or restrict communication between government entities or officials and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. After asserting its compliance with the statute, the complaint alleged that the U.S. had begun to designate noncompliant cities as sanctuary cities and that San Francisco had been designated as such. The complaint asserted that §1373 unconstitutionally regulates state governments and that San Francisco stood to be harmed by the executive order.

The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, plaintiff asked for a declaration that San Francisco complies with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, that 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a) violates the Tenth Amendment, and that the executive order's enforcement directive violates the Tenth Amendment.

The case was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu, but on Feb. 10, Judge William Orrick granted a motion to relate this case to County of Santa Clara v. Trump (3:17-cv-00485), IM-CA-0089 in this Clearinghouse, and reassigned this case to himself.

On Feb. 27, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint added that San Francisco seeks declaratory relief that the EO's funding restrictions violate the Tenth Amendment, the Spending Clause, and Article I, sec. 1 of the Constitution.

On Mar. 8, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. In the motion, plaintiff requested that the court enter a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from enforcing the executive order. Plaintiff also sought to enjoin defendants from taking any action that would declare San Francisco a sanctuary city, thereby making the city ineligible for federal funds. Defendants filed their opposition on Mar. 22; plaintiff replied later that month.

On Mar. 23, the city of Richmond moved to relate this case to Richmond v. Trump (Case No. 3:17-cv-01535-SK, IM-CA-0090 in this Clearinghouse), which had been filed on Mar. 21 in the same court. The court granted the motion on Mar. 23. Several individuals and organizations have filed amici briefs in support of plaintiff including the State of California, a local chapter of the NAACP, and several Silicon Valley technology companies.

The court ordered defendants to respond to the amended complaint by Apr. 28.

Substantively, plaintiff argued that the power to condition funds on specified action by local government employees is Congress's, not the Presidents. The existing statute, 8 U.S.C. 1373 forbids local and state governments from imposing a "gag rule" on their employees that purports to forbid the employees from speaking with federal immigration authorities about the immigration status of any individual. In 2016, the Obama administration had announced that several small immigration-related grant programs would, going forward, be available only to jurisdictions that certified their compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373; on Apr. 21, Trump Administration Attorney General Jeff Sessions confirmed this approach in a letter.

After a hearing on Apr. 14, the Court on Apr. 25 entered a nationwide injunction against operation of the Order. The Court explained that the federal government at the hearing had disavowed a robust reading of the Executive Order:
It explained for the first time at oral argument that the Order is merely an exercise of the President’s “bully pulpit” to highlight a changed approach to immigration enforcement. Under this interpretation, Section 9(a) applies only to three federal grants in the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security that already have conditions requiring compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373. This interpretation renders the Order toothless; the Government can already enforce these three grants by the terms of those grants and can enforce 8 U.S.C. 1373 to the extent legally possible under the terms of existing law. Counsel disavowed any right through the Order for the Government to affect any other part of the billions of dollars in federal funds the Counties receive every year.
The Court held, however, that the Executive Order "is not reasonably susceptible to the new, narrow interpretation offered at the hearing." Yet a broader reading was, Judge Orrick explained, unconstitutional: "The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds. Further, the Tenth Amendment requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; and that the total financial incentive not be coercive. Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves." Accordingly, the Court granted a preliminary injunction against any broader implementation of the order, although it emphasized that the preliminary injunction "does not affect the ability of the Attorney General or the Secretary to enforce existing conditions of federal grants or 8 U.S.C. 1373, nor does it impact the Secretary’s ability to develop regulations or other guidance defining what a sanctuary jurisdiction is or designating a jurisdiction as such." County of Santa Clara v. Trump, 2017 WL 1459081, --- F.Supp.3d ---.

The government moved for reconsideration pursuant to a May 22 memorandum from the Attorney General regarding the implementation of the EO. The memo specified that "the Department of Justice will require jurisdictions applying for certain Department grants to certify their compliance with federal law, including 8 U.S.C. § 1373, as a condition for receiving an award...This certification requirement will apply to any existing grant administered by the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services that expressly contains this certification condition and to future grants for which the Department is statutorily authorized to impose such a condition. All grantees will receive notice of their obligation to comply with section 1373." Further, "the term 'sanctuary jurisdiction' will refer only to jurisdictions that 'willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373.'"

On May 23, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Defendants on June 6 filed a motion to dismiss; plaintiff responded on June 20; defendants replied on June 29. Plaintiff Santa Clara on July 6 (followed by joinders from San Francisco and Richmond on July 7) moved for leave to file a surreply in opposition to the motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs argued that recent statements by President Trump and DHS officials contradict assertions in defendants' reply brief. Plaintiff on July 12 also filed a supplemental request for judicial notice of recent statements by AG Sessions.

A motion hearing (on the motions to dismiss in this case, Santa Clara, and Richmond) was scheduled for July 12, though the parties unsuccessfully stipulated (on July 3) to reschedule it to July 19.

On June 16, the states of West Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas moved for leave to file an amicus brief in support of defendants' motion to dismiss. Responses were due June 30 and replies July 7.

On June 28, many organizations, including labor unions, civil rights groups, and public schools, as well as individual sheriffs and police chiefs, moved to file amici briefs in support of plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion to discuss.

On July 12, Judge Orrick held a hearing on defendants' motions to dismiss and motion for reconsideration. He issued an order on July 20, denying defendants' motions. He denied the motion for reconsideration because the AG Memorandum did not change the analysis from the preliminary injunction order. Additionally he denied the motion to dismiss because the AG Memorandum did not change his findings of plaintiff's standing and their claims' ripeness and likelihood of success. Finally, he concluded that plaintiff had adequately stated a claim for declaratory relief.

On Aug. 16, defendants answered plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.

This case is ongoing.

Ava Morgenstern - 08/17/2017
Jamie Kessler - 05/29/2017
Virginia Weeks - 05/23/2017
Julie Aust - 06/12/2017


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Benefit Source
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Content of Injunction
Discrimination Prohibition
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
Discrimination-basis
Immigration status
National origin discrimination
General
Terrorism/Post 9-11 issues
Watchlist
Immigration
Asylum - criteria
Asylum - procedure
Deportation - criteria
Deportation - procedure
ICE/DHS/INS raid
Legalization/Amnesty
Refugees
Medical/Mental Health
Skin Infections
National Origin/Ethnicity
Arab/Afgani/Middle Eastern
Plaintiff Type
City/County Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Defendant(s) United States
Plaintiff Description City of San Francisco
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief Litigation
Order Duration 2017 - n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing IM-CA-0089 : County of Santa Clara v. Trump (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0090 : City of Richmond v. Trump (N.D. Cal.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Implementation of Executive Order 13768, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States
The Washington Post
Date: May 22, 2017
By: Jefferson Sessions (U.S. Department of Justice)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Re: Implementing the President's Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies (Final, 2/20/2017)
dhs.gov
Date: Feb 20, 2017
By: DHS Secretary John Kelly (United States Department of Homeland Security)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Re: Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest (Final, 2/20/2017)
dhs.gov
Date: Feb 20, 2017
By: DHS Secretary John Kelly (United States Department of Homeland Security)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Executive Order 13767: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements
Federal Register
Date: Jan 27, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (Office of the President)
Citation: 82 Fed. Reg. Presidential Documents 8793 (Jan. 27, 2017)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ]

  Executive Order 13768: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States
Federal Register
Date: Jan 25, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (Office of the President)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
4:17-cv-00485-DMR (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0085-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/18/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 1]
IM-CA-0085-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/31/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 3-12(B) [ECF# 11]
IM-CA-0085-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/07/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Statement of Support Regarding Santa Clara's Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related [ECF# 12]
IM-CA-0085-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/07/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Statement of Support Regarding Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related [ECF# 18]
IM-CA-0085-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/10/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Related Case Order [ECF# 19] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0085-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/10/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 20]
IM-CA-0085-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/27/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
City and County of San Francisco's Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof [ECF# 21]
IM-CA-0085-0007.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/08/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Ben Rosenfield in Support of City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 22]
IM-CA-0085-0008.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/08/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Melissa Whitehouse in Support of City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 23]
IM-CA-0085-0009.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/08/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Sheriff Vicki Hennessy in Support of City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 24]
IM-CA-0085-0010.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/08/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Commander Peter Walsh in Support of City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 25]
IM-CA-0085-0011.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/08/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Tomas Aragon, MD, PhD, in Support of City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 26]
IM-CA-0085-0012.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/08/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Colleen Chawla in Support of City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 27]
IM-CA-0085-0013.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/08/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Sara J. Eisenberg in Support of City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 28]
IM-CA-0085-0014.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/08/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Request for Judicial Notice in Support of City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 29]
IM-CA-0085-0015.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/08/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Letter to the Court Re: CCSG v. Trump, et al.; Case No. 3:17-CV-00485-WHO [requesting guidance for amicus procedures] [ECF# 30]
IM-CA-0085-0016.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/20/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
[Proposed] Brief Amici Curiae (and Administrative Motion for Leave to File Brief Amici Curiae Supporting Plaintiff) [ECF# 33]
IM-CA-0085-0018.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order [ECF# 34]
IM-CA-0085-0019.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Amici Curiae Brief of Professors of Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Immigration Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motions for Preliminary Injunction (and Administrative Motion for Leave to File) [ECF# 36]
IM-CA-0085-0020.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief of Amicus Curiae Southern Poverty Law Center and Other Amici in Support of County of Santa Clara and City and County of San Francisco’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 38]
IM-CA-0085-0021.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief of Amici Curiae Technology Companies in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Injunction (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 39]
IM-CA-0085-0022.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief of Amici Curiae California Cities and Counties – County of Alameda, City of Berkeley, City of Davis, City of East Palo Alto, City of Fremont, County of Marin, County of Monterey, City of Mountain View, City of Oakland (...) [ECF# 40]
IM-CA-0085-0023.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Proposed Brief for Tahirih Justice Center, Et Al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motions for Preliminary Injunctions (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 41]
IM-CA-0085-0024.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Administrative Motion of City of Richmond to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12(B) and Notice of Related Case Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-13 [ECF# 43]
IM-CA-0085-0025.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief of Amicus Curiae the International Municipal Lawyers Association in Support of Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 47]
IM-CA-0085-0026.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Statement of Support Regarding City of Richmond's Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related [ECF# 52]
IM-CA-0085-0027.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/24/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Related Case Order [ECF# 53] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0085-0028.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/24/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
[Proposed] Brief of Amici Curiae Public Schools, School Districts, and Associations of Educators (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 58]
IM-CA-0085-0029.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief Amici Curiae of Individual Sheriffs and Police Chiefs in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 59]
IM-CA-0085-0030.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
City and County of San Francisco's Reply and Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 60]
IM-CA-0085-0031.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice in Support of City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 61]
IM-CA-0085-0032.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Amicus Brief of 36 Cities and Counties in Support of City and County of San Francisco’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 62]
IM-CA-0085-0033.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief of Amici Curiae Constitutional Law Scholars in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 63]
IM-CA-0085-0034.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
The State Superintendent of Public Instruction’s Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 64]
IM-CA-0085-0035.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
State of California’s Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 66]
IM-CA-0085-0036.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief of Amicus Curiae Anti-Defamation League in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 67]
IM-CA-0085-0037.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief of Nonprofit Associations as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 68]
IM-CA-0085-0038.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation and Order [ECF# 72] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0085-0039.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/07/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting the County of Santa Clara's and City and County of San Francisco's Motions to Enjoin Section 9(a) of Executive order 13768 [ECF# 82] (2017 WL 1459081) (S.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0085-0041.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 04/25/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting the County of Santa Clara's and City and County of San Francisco's Motions to Enjoin Section 9(a) of Executive Order 13768 [ECF# 98] (2017 WL 1459081) (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0085-0040.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 04/25/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Case Management Statement [ECF# 83]
IM-CA-0085-0042.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/02/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Reconsideration Or, in the Alternative, Clarification of the Court’s Order of April 25, 2017; Memorandum of Points and Authorities (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 102]
IM-CA-0085-0043.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 105]
IM-CA-0085-0044.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss; Memorandum of Point and Authorities [ECF# 111]
IM-CA-0085-0045.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/06/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco's Opposition to Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss [ECF# 115]
IM-CA-0085-0046.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/20/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Reply in Support of Defendants' Motions to Dismiss [ECF# 133]
IM-CA-0085-0047.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Second Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF# 139]
IM-CA-0085-0048.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/12/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Denying the Government's Motions for Reconsideration and To Dismiss With Regards To the City and County of San Francisco and the County of Santa Clara [ECF# 146] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0085-0049.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/20/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Orrick, William Horsley III Court not on record
IM-CA-0085-0005 | IM-CA-0085-0028 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0040 | IM-CA-0085-0041 | IM-CA-0085-0049 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Eisenberg, Sara J. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0001 | IM-CA-0085-0003 | IM-CA-0085-0006 | IM-CA-0085-0007 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0027 | IM-CA-0085-0031 | IM-CA-0085-0032 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0044 | IM-CA-0085-0046 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Flynn, Robert Michael (California)
IM-CA-0085-0003 | IM-CA-0085-0039
Flynn, Ronald P. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0006 | IM-CA-0085-0007 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0027 | IM-CA-0085-0031 | IM-CA-0085-0032 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0044 | IM-CA-0085-0046 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Gupta, Neha (California)
IM-CA-0085-0003 | IM-CA-0085-0006 | IM-CA-0085-0007 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0027 | IM-CA-0085-0031 | IM-CA-0085-0032 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0046 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Herrera, Dennis J. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0001 | IM-CA-0085-0003 | IM-CA-0085-0006 | IM-CA-0085-0007 | IM-CA-0085-0016 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0027 | IM-CA-0085-0031 | IM-CA-0085-0032 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0044 | IM-CA-0085-0046 | IM-CA-0085-0048
Lee, Mollie M. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0001 | IM-CA-0085-0003 | IM-CA-0085-0006 | IM-CA-0085-0007 | IM-CA-0085-0016 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0032 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0044 | IM-CA-0085-0046 | IM-CA-0085-0048 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Lee, Matthew S. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0003 | IM-CA-0085-0006 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0027 | IM-CA-0085-0031 | IM-CA-0085-0032 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0046 | IM-CA-0085-9000
McGrath, Aileen M. (California)
IM-CA-0085-9000
Mere, Yvonne Rosil (California)
IM-CA-0085-0003 | IM-CA-0085-0006 | IM-CA-0085-0007 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0027 | IM-CA-0085-0031 | IM-CA-0085-0032 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0044 | IM-CA-0085-0046 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Smith, Jesse C. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0003 | IM-CA-0085-0006 | IM-CA-0085-0007 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0027 | IM-CA-0085-0031 | IM-CA-0085-0032 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0044 | IM-CA-0085-0046
Steeley, Tara M. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0006 | IM-CA-0085-0007 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0027 | IM-CA-0085-0031 | IM-CA-0085-0032 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0046 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Van Aken, Christine (California)
IM-CA-0085-0003 | IM-CA-0085-0006 | IM-CA-0085-0007 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0027 | IM-CA-0085-0031 | IM-CA-0085-0032 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0046 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Buckingham, Stephen J. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0085-0043
Readler, Chad A. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0085-0004 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0043 | IM-CA-0085-0045 | IM-CA-0085-0047
Simpson, W. Scott (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0085-0004 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0043 | IM-CA-0085-0045 | IM-CA-0085-0047 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Stretch, Brian (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0085-0004 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0043 | IM-CA-0085-0045 | IM-CA-0085-0047
Tyler, John Russell (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0085-0004 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0043 | IM-CA-0085-0045 | IM-CA-0085-0047
Other Lawyers Aguilar, Edmundo (California)
IM-CA-0085-0035
Alger, Maureen P. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0038 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Artiga-Purcell, Jose Camilo (California)
IM-CA-0085-0025
Badlani, Chirag (Illinois)
IM-CA-0085-0030
Baker, Andrew H. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0018
Benedict, Adriana Lee (California)
IM-CA-0085-0002
Bergeron, Claire M. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0085-0024
Berner, Nicole (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0085-0018 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Burrichter, Christopher S. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0021 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Cabraser, Elizabeth J. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0033
Carroll, Catherine M.A. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0085-0024
Carter, Margaret L. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0033
Chatterjee, Neel (California)
IM-CA-0085-0026 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Cotchett, Joseph W. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0025
Dermody, Kelly M. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0033 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Dietz, Rebecca H (Louisiana)
IM-CA-0085-0033
Ehrlich, Lisa Catherine (California)
IM-CA-0085-0036 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Escamilla, David A. (Texas)
IM-CA-0085-0033
Fineman, Nancy L. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0025 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Foxx, Kimberly M. (Illinois)
IM-CA-0085-0033
Fritz, Kathryn J. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0022 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Gertner, Leo (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0085-0018 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Gewertz, Nevin M (Illinois)
IM-CA-0085-0034 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Ghassemi-Vanni, Sheeva June (California)
IM-CA-0085-9000
Goldberg, Nicholas Samuel (California)
IM-CA-0085-0002
Goldstein, Danielle Luce (California)
IM-CA-0085-0002
Goodmiller, Bruce Reed (California)
IM-CA-0085-0025
Gorelick, Jamie S. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0085-0024 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Hansen, Greta Suzanne (California)
IM-CA-0085-0002
Harris, Cody Shawn (California)
IM-CA-0085-0002 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Harvey, Dean M. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0033
Hernandez, Philip M. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0033
Holloway, Amy Bisson (California)
IM-CA-0085-0035
Holtzman, Jonathan V. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0023
Hyde, Hayes P. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0026 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Johnson, Thomas Michael Jr. (West Virginia)
IM-CA-0085-9000
Jones, Lauren A. (New York)
IM-CA-0085-0037
Kazantzis, Kyra A. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0038
Keker, John Watkins (California)
IM-CA-0085-0002
Lamy, Michelle A. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0033
Lederer, Caryn C (Illinois)
IM-CA-0085-0030
Li, Jun (California)
IM-CA-0085-0020
Lin, James (California)
IM-CA-0085-0026
Lubin, Katherine Collinge (California)
IM-CA-0085-0033
Magaziner, Fred T. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0021 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Malkani, Latika (California)
IM-CA-0085-0018
McClellan, Nathan M. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0021 | IM-CA-0085-9000
McKee, Charles J (California)
IM-CA-0085-0033
McRae, Dana (California)
IM-CA-0085-0033
Menz, Sheila E. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0085-0024
Narayan, Kavita Kandala (California)
IM-CA-0085-0002
Perrin, Robert Ward (California)
IM-CA-0085-0037 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Piers, Matthew J. (Illinois)
IM-CA-0085-0030 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Premo, Patrick E. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0022 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Prestel, Claire (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0085-0018 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Prouty, Thomas Howard (California)
IM-CA-0085-0035 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Purcell, Annasara G. (Washington)
IM-CA-0085-0022 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Purcell, Daniel Edward (California)
IM-CA-0085-0002
Reider, Nicholas A. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0026 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Renne, Louise H. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0023
Rhea, Meghan (California)
IM-CA-0085-0022 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Ross, Linda Margaret (California)
IM-CA-0085-0023 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Salahi, Yaman (California)
IM-CA-0085-0033
Schuman, Brett M. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0026 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Serrano, Lawrence Javier (California)
IM-CA-0085-0002
Sherman, Monique R (California)
IM-CA-0085-0038
Siegel, Jonathan H. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0018
Smith, Deborah L. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0085-0018 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Sokol, William A. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0018
Sommovilla, Rachel Hanna (California)
IM-CA-0085-0025
Spiegel, Julia Blau (California)
IM-CA-0085-0002
Summer, Alexandra P. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0025
Teshima, Darren S. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0029 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Van Nest, Robert A. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0002
Washington, Brian E. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0033
Williams, James R. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0002
Winner, Sonya (California)
IM-CA-0085-0020 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Wright, Franklin H. (California)
IM-CA-0085-9000
Wright, H. Kevin (Washington)
IM-CA-0085-0033
Zane, Shirlee (California)
IM-CA-0085-0033
Ziegler, Donna Raylene (California)
IM-CA-0085-0033
Zimmerman, Mitchell (California)
IM-CA-0085-0022 | IM-CA-0085-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -