University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
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 and/or the Border
Presidential Authority
Special Collection Civil Rights Challenges to Trump Immigration Enforcement Orders
Case Summary
This 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 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." Thus plaintiff alleged that the executive order violated the Tenth Amendment. The complaint addressed 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 non-compliant cities as sanctuary cities and that San Francisco had been designated as such. The complaint asserted that §1373 unconstitutionally regulated 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, 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 (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.

After an Apr. 14 hearing, 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, 250 F. Supp. 3d 497 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2017).

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 moved to dismiss on June 6; plaintiff responded on June 20; defendants replied on June 29. On July 6, plaintiff Santa Clara (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 contradicted assertions in defendants' reply brief. On July 12, plaintiff also filed a supplemental request for judicial notice of recent statements by AG Sessions.

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.

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 (in all three related cases) 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. County of Santa Clara v. Trump, 2017 WL 3086064 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2017).

On Aug. 15 and 17, plaintiff in an administrative motion and supplemental statement asked the court to relate City and County of San Francisco v. Trump to City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions. Plaintiff argued that both cases concerned substantially the same parties and challenged the President's withholding of federal funds from sanctuary cities. On Aug. 18, defendants responded, arguing that the cases should not be related because the first challenged an EO and the latter an AG program. On Aug. 23, Judge Orrick granted plaintiff's request to relate this case to City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions. Then on Aug. 25, he found State of California v. Sessions to be a related case, and reassigned it to himself. That case also challenges DOJ's immigration-related conditions on law enforcement funding.

On Aug. 30, San Francisco and Santa Clara moved for summary judgment. San Francisco argued that the EO was unconstitutional because it violated the separation of powers, the Spending Clause, and the Tenth Amendment. Consequently, San Francisco argued, the court should permanently enjoin the EO's implementation. Defendants, in their Sept. 27 response, argued that the Constitution authorized their broad immigration enforcement powers as implemented in the EO and § 1373. Plaintiffs replied on Oct. 4.

On Sept. 18, defendants appealed, to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Orrick's Apr. 25 preliminary injunction and July 20 order denying defendants' motions to dismiss and motion for reconsideration. The Ninth Circuit has opened a docket for the appeal, No. 17-16886. Defendants will file their opening brief by Dec. 18; plaintiffs will answer by Jan. 16; and defendants may reply 21 days after that.

In the district court, Judge Orrick held an Oct. 23 hearing on plaintiffs' Aug. 30 motion for summary judgment. On Nov. 20, he granted summary judgment for plaintiffs, permanently enjoining defendants from enforcing Section 9(a) of the EO against all jurisdictions deemed as "sanctuary jurisdictions." The injunction applied nationwide because Section 9(a) was facially unconstitutional.

In his opinion, Judge Orrick held that the EO had caused and would continue to cause constitutional injuries, by violating the separation of powers doctrine and depriving plaintiffs of their Fifth and Tenth Amendment rights. Judge Orrick first stated that the EO's plain language impermissibly empowers the President to place new conditions on all federal funds -- a power properly reserved to Congress under the Spending Clause. The President's and AG's subsequent comments on the EO had confirmed, rather than narrowed, this broad scope. Further, the Fifth and Tenth Amendments forbid funding conditions that are vague, unrelated to the funds at issue, and 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."

On Nov. 29 the parties jointly requested that the Court dismiss San Francisco's claim for declaratory judgment (that it did not violate § 1373), which the Court would consider instead in San Francisco v. Sessions. The next day, Judge Orrick granted this request.

This case is ongoing in both the district court and Ninth Circuit.

Ava Morgenstern - 12/01/2017
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
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Federalism
Content of Injunction
Discrimination Prohibition
Preliminary relief granted
Defendant-type
Law-enforcement
General
Funding
Government Services (specify)
Over/Unlawful Detention
Placement in detention facilities
Public assistance grants
Immigration/Border
Border police
Constitutional rights
Criminal prosecution
Deportation - criteria
Deportation - procedure
Detention - criteria
Detention - procedures
ICE/DHS/INS raid
Sanctuary city/state
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Undocumented immigrants - state and local regulation
Plaintiff Type
City/County Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Defendant(s) U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Justice
United States
Plaintiff Description City of San Francisco
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
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.)
IM-CA-0094 : State of California v. Sessions (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0093 : City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions (N.D. Cal.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Memorandum on Rescission Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
www.dhs.gov
Date: Sep. 5, 2017
By: Department of Homeland Security (Department of Homeland Security)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Sanctuary Cities
www.sfcityattorney.org
Date: Aug. 30, 2017
By: San Francisco City Attorney
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  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: 11/20/2017
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] (250 F.Supp.3d 497) (S.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0085-0041.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | 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] (250 F.Supp.3d 497) (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0085-0040.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | 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] (2017 WL 3086064) (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0085-0049.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 07/20/2017
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# 149]
IM-CA-0085-0050.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/15/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Supplemental Statement in Support of Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 3-12(B) [ECF# 153]
IM-CA-0085-0051.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/17/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Response to Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 3-12(B) [ECF# 155]
IM-CA-0085-0052.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/18/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco's Notice of Motion and Motion For Summary Judgment, or In the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment [ECF# 158]
IM-CA-0085-0053.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/30/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment Or, In the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment [ECF# 172]
IM-CA-0085-0054.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/27/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco's Reply to Opposition to Motion For Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment [ECF# 177]
IM-CA-0085-0055.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/04/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco's Administrative Motion to Consider Post-Hearing Developments [ECF# 193]
IM-CA-0085-0056.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/02/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Motion For Summary Judgment [ECF# 200] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0085-0057.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/20/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order for Voluntary Dismissal of Count One of San Francisco's Second Amended Complaint Without Prejudice [ECF# 201]
IM-CA-0085-0058.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Errata to Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF# 203]
IM-CA-0085-0059.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/07/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Orrick, William Horsley III (N.D. Cal.)
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-0085-0057 | IM-CA-0085-0059 | 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-0085-0055 | IM-CA-0085-0056 | 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-0085-0050 | IM-CA-0085-0055 | IM-CA-0085-0056 | 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-0085-0055 | IM-CA-0085-0056 | 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 | IM-CA-0085-0050 | IM-CA-0085-0051 | IM-CA-0085-0053 | IM-CA-0085-0055 | IM-CA-0085-0056 | IM-CA-0085-0058
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-0085-0055 | IM-CA-0085-0056 | IM-CA-0085-9000
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-0085-0050 | IM-CA-0085-0051 | IM-CA-0085-0053 | IM-CA-0085-0055 | IM-CA-0085-0056 | IM-CA-0085-9000
McGrath, Aileen M. (California)
IM-CA-0085-0050 | IM-CA-0085-0055 | IM-CA-0085-0056 | IM-CA-0085-0058 | 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-0085-0050 | IM-CA-0085-0055 | IM-CA-0085-0056 | 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 | IM-CA-0085-0050 | IM-CA-0085-0055 | IM-CA-0085-0056
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-0085-0050 | IM-CA-0085-0055 | IM-CA-0085-0056 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Taylor, Jennifer Lee (California)
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-0085-0050 | IM-CA-0085-0055 | IM-CA-0085-0056 | 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 | IM-CA-0085-0052 | IM-CA-0085-0054 | IM-CA-0085-0058
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-0085-0052 | IM-CA-0085-0054 | IM-CA-0085-0058 | 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 | IM-CA-0085-0052 | IM-CA-0085-0054
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 | IM-CA-0085-0052 | IM-CA-0085-0054
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
Axelrod, Julie B. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0085-9000
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
O'Leary, Ann Margaret (California)
IM-CA-0085-9000
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, Daniel Edward (California)
IM-CA-0085-0002
Purcell, Annasara G. (Washington)
IM-CA-0085-0022 | IM-CA-0085-9000
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
Shih, Daniel Jeffrey (Washington)
IM-CA-0085-9000
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
Whelan, Amy (California)
IM-CA-0085-9000
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
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -