University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name County of Santa Clara v. Trump IM-CA-0089
Docket / Court 3:17-cv-00574 ( 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 action, filed Feb. 3, 2017 by the County of Santa Clara, challenged President Trump’s Jan. 25, 2017 Executive Order on immigration enforcement, which, plaintiff alleged, "direct[s] reprisals against state, local, and municipal governments that he deems to be so-called 'sanctuary ... read more >
This action, filed Feb. 3, 2017 by the County of Santa Clara, challenged President Trump’s Jan. 25, 2017 Executive Order on immigration enforcement, which, plaintiff alleged, "direct[s] reprisals against state, local, and municipal governments that he deems to be so-called 'sanctuary jurisdictions.'" The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; Santa Clara is represented by John Keker, of Keker & Van Nest. The case was randomly assigned to Judge Lucy H. Koh.

According to the complaint, the EO purported to allowed the federal government to deny these localities federal funding without stipulating qualifications for the federal government to use in designating a jurisdiction as being a "sanctuary." Further, the EO did not grant the right for judicial review or require the federal government to issue notice to such jurisdiction. The complaint alleged that the EO is a "grab for power that never has, does not, and cannot belong to the President or the executive branch" and as such it violated constitutional separation of powers, the Fifth Amendment due process right, and the Tenth Amendment. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

The case was reassigned on Feb. 8 to Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. However, on Feb. 10, Judge William H. Orrick signed a related case order, connecting this case with a similar one brought by the County and City of San Francisco, IM-CA-0085 in this Clearinghouse; both were assigned to him going forward.

Santa Clara moved on Feb. 23, with accompanying declarations, that the court enter a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the government from: 1) enforcing Section 9 of the Jan. 25 Executive Order; 2) taking any action in furtherance of any withholding or conditioning of federal funds pursuant to the EO; and 3) taking any action pursuant to the EO to declare any jurisdiction ineligible for federal funds or deprive any jurisdiction of funds already appropriated or allocated by Congress. The motion hearing was set for Apr. 5 before Judge Orrick, with responses due by Mar. 9.

Next, on Mar. 1, the YWCA of Silicon Valley filed a motion to intervene. Represented by the ACLU Foundation of Southern California and the national ACLU Foundation's Immigrants' Rights Project, the YWCA argued that a loss of federal funds would harm its work.

Defendants then, on Mar. 9, filed their opposition to plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. Defendants argued that plaintiff could not show immediate, concrete irreparable harm, because it had no evidence of any imminent threat to its federal funding. Next, defendants argued that plaintiff could not show a likelihood of success on the merits because its pre-enforcement challenge was non-justiciable. Furthermore, defendants argued that the public interest weighed against an injunction. Finally, according to defendants, no injunction should issue against the President and even if there were an injunction it should be limited to the plaintiff.

Defendants also moved, on Mar. 15, to oppose the the YWCA's Mar. 1 motion to intervene.

Plaintiff replied on Mar. 16 to defendants' Mar. 9 opposition to plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. In this reply, plaintiff argued that it had established irreparable harm even prior to the implementation of the Executive Order, because the Executive Order was coercive and unconstitutional, and plaintiff had already suffered financial harm in preparing for its effect. Furthermore, plaintiff alleged that the balance of harms and the public interest weighed in its favor, and that its claims were justiciable because it was currently suffering real and immediate injury-in-fact and its claims were prudentially ripe. Plaintiff repeated its request for a nationwide preliminary injunction, and argued that this injunction could issue against the President.

On Mar. 22, many entities moved to file amici briefs in support of plaintiff. These included the State of California; cities and counties in California and nationwide; individual sheriffs and police chiefs nationwide; technology companies in California; social service, labor, and civil rights organizations including the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League, and local organizations in Santa Clara County; and legal scholars. The superintendent of California's public schools also filed an amicus brief. (Also on Mar. 22, the YWCA of Silicon Valley responded to defendants' Mar. 15 motion to oppose the YWCA's intervention.)

Defendants on Mar. 23 moved to combine oral arguments on the preliminary injunction motions in this case and in the related case City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, requesting an Apr. 12 combined hearing. Plaintiff opposed this motion on Mar. 24.

Plaintiff then on Mar. 28 asked the court for permission to attach four exhibits to its Feb. 23 motion for preliminary injunction. These exhibits included recent comments by the White House Press Secretary and recently published detainer reports from ICE, all of which plaintiff argued contained threats and current policies penalizing sanctuary cities. Because of this threat, plaintiff alleged it had standing and its case was ripe.

Judge Orrick on Apr. 7 granted the parties' stipulation that defendants respond to plaintiff's complaint by May 1.

Substantively, the plaintiffs argued that the power to condition funds on specified action by local government employees is Congress's, not the President's. An 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, 2017, Trump Administration Attorney General Jeff Sessions confirmed this approach in a letter.

After a hearing on Apr. 14, 2017, 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 ---.

After the injunction, on Apr. 28, the parties jointly stipulated that the deadline for defendants' response to plaintiff's complaint would be May 8. Judge Orrick on May 1 granted the stipulation.

Following a May 2 status conference, Judge Orrick vacated the hearing on plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, and instead put the case on a path for trial. Discovery will close on Oct. 31, 2017; dispositive motions will be heard by Jan. 10, 2018; a pretrial conference is scheduled for Apr. 2, 2018; and a bench trial is scheduled for Apr. 23, 2018. Judge Orrick on May 9 granted the parties' joint stipulation that defendants' response to the complaint would be due June 7.

Revisiting the YWCA's Mar. 1 motion to intervene, Judge Orrick on May 22 denied that motion, holding that the YWCA's participation as a party was not fully necessary to develop the case's legal and factual issues.

Defendants on May 22 moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's Apr. 25 injunction. According to defendants, the Attorney General had (after oral argument in this case) issued a memorandum on the EO, specifying that the EO's Section 9(a) could only revoke federal grants administered by DOJ or DHS with grant-eligibility terms that expressly conditioned the funding on compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Thus, defendants argued that in light of this new authority, the Court should reconsider the preliminary injunction because plaintiffs' claims were not justiciable and its success on the merits was unlikely. Plaintiffs then opposed defendants' motion for leave.

The next day, however, Judge Orrick granted leave to file the motion for reconsideration, which defendants immediately did. In addition to the argument summarized above, defendants added that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits because the new AG Memorandum alleviated the Court's concerns as to the separation of powers, Spending Clause, Tenth Amendment, vagueness, and Due Process Clause. Plaintiffs responded on June 6, arguing that the AG Memorandum advanced the same interpretation of the EO already rejected by the Court.

Defendants on June 7 filed a motion to dismiss. Defendants argued that plaintiff lacked standing and its claims were unripe or non-justiciable; and that plaintiff failed to state a claim regarding the EO (which defendants claimed was an internal directive not affecting plaintiff), and regarding the AG Memorandum. Plaintiff responded on June 21. The parties on June 23 stipulated that defendants will file a reply in support of the motions to dismiss, in all three related cases, by June 29. A motion hearing (on the motions to dismiss in this case, San Francisco, and Richmond) is scheduled for July 12.

Defendants on June 13 replied to plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion for reconsideration. Defendants argued that the AG Memorandum provided new authority, not just interpretation, on the EO's Section 9, and thus provided a basis for reconsideration.

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 are due June 30 and replies July 7.

This case is ongoing.

Virginia Weeks - 02/04/2017
Julie Aust - 02/24/2017
Ava Morgenstern - 06/24/2017


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Federalism
General
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Immigration
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Undocumented immigrants - state and local regulation
Plaintiff Type
City/County Plaintiff
Causes of Action Bivens
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Defendant(s) United States
Plaintiff Description County of Santa Clara
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief Litigation
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing IM-CA-0085 : City and County of San Francisco v. Trump (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0090 : City of Richmond v. Trump (N.D. Cal.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Links Executive Order 13767: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements
Federal Register
Written: Jan. 27, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (Office of the President)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ]

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

  Federal Defunding Lawsuit
Written: Feb. 23, 2017
By: County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Counsel (County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Counsel)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

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

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

Docket(s)
5:17-cv-574 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0089-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 1]
IM-CA-0089-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/03/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines [ECF# 10] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0089-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/06/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeffrey F. Rosen [ECF# 33]
IM-CA-0089-0010.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/15/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Robert Menicocci, Director of Santa Clara Social Services Agency [ECF# 30]
IM-CA-0089-0007.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/17/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Carl Neusel, Undersheriff of Santa Clara County [ECF# 31]
IM-CA-0089-0008.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/17/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Laurie Smith, Sheriff of Santa Clara County [ECF# 35]
IM-CA-0089-0012.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/17/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Dana Reed, Director of Emergency Management for the County of Santa Clara [ECF# 32]
IM-CA-0089-0009.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/21/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Santa Clara County Executive Jeffrey V. Smith [ECF# 34]
IM-CA-0089-0011.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/21/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Sara H. Cody M.D., Director of Santa Clara County Public Health Department [ECF# 27]
IM-CA-0089-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
FAQs on County of Santa Clara Lawsuit Challenging Executive Order on "Sanctuary Jursidictions"
IM-CA-0089-0016.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 02/23/2017
County of Santa Clara's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 26]
IM-CA-0089-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Paul E. Lorenz, Chief Executive Officer of Santa Clara Valley Medical Center [ECF# 28]
IM-CA-0089-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Santa Clara County Chief Operating Officer Miguel Marquez [ECF# 29]
IM-CA-0089-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Cody S. Harris in Support of County of Santa Clara's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 36]
IM-CA-0089-0013.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Notice of Motion and Motion for Permissive Intervention of Young Women's Christian Association of Silicon Valley; Memorandum of Points and Authorities [ECF# 43]
IM-CA-0089-0014.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/01/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 46]
IM-CA-0089-0015.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/09/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff County of Santa Clara's Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 52]
IM-CA-0089-0017.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/16/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff-Intervenor Young Women’s Christian Association of Silicon Valley’s Reply in Support of Motion for Permissive Intervention [ECF# 62]
IM-CA-0089-0018.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief of Amicus Curiae State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson [ECF# 75]
IM-CA-0089-0019.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Administrative Motion to Combine Oral Arguments on Preliminary Injunction Motions [ECF# 79]
IM-CA-0089-0020.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Administrative Motion to Combine Oral Arguments on Preliminary Injunction Motions [ECF# 81]
IM-CA-0089-0021.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/24/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Request for Court Approval to Supplement Record Under Local Rule 7-3(D) [ECF# 82]
IM-CA-0089-0022.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/28/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation and Order [ECF# 89] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0089-0023.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# 98] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0089-0024.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/25/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order [ECF# 100]
IM-CA-0089-0025.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/28/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Denying Motion to Intervene [ECF# 109] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0089-0026.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration [ECF# 112] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0089-0027.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion for Reconsideration [ECF# 113]
IM-CA-0089-0028.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff County of Santa Clara's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration [ECF# 114]
IM-CA-0089-0029.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/06/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss; Memorandum of Point and Authorities [ECF# 115]
IM-CA-0089-0030.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/07/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration, or in the Alternative, Clarification of the Court's Order of April 25, 2017 [ECF# 117]
IM-CA-0089-0031.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/13/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Motion for Leave to File Brief Amici Curiae [ECF# 118]
IM-CA-0089-0032.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/16/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Proposed Brief of Amici Curiae [ECF# 118-1]
IM-CA-0089-0033.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/16/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Proposed Order [ECF# 118-2] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0089-0034.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/16/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff County of Santa Clara's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF# 119]
IM-CA-0089-0035.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/21/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Cousins, Nathanael M. (N.D. Cal.) [Magistrate]
IM-CA-0089-9000
Orrick, William Horsley III Court not on record
IM-CA-0089-0023 | IM-CA-0089-0024 | IM-CA-0089-0026 | IM-CA-0089-0027 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Amdur, Spencer (New York)
IM-CA-0089-0014 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Bayley, Edward Andrew (California)
IM-CA-0089-0003 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Benedict, Adriana Lee (California)
IM-CA-0089-0003 | IM-CA-0089-0004 | IM-CA-0089-0005 | IM-CA-0089-0006 | IM-CA-0089-0007 | IM-CA-0089-0008 | IM-CA-0089-0009 | IM-CA-0089-0010 | IM-CA-0089-0011 | IM-CA-0089-0012 | IM-CA-0089-0013 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Dineva, Ralitza (California)
IM-CA-0089-0014 | IM-CA-0089-0018 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Eliasberg, Peter J. (California)
IM-CA-0089-0014
Freeman, William S. (California)
IM-CA-0089-0014 | IM-CA-0089-0018 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Goldberg, Nicholas Samuel (California)
IM-CA-0089-0004 | IM-CA-0089-0005 | IM-CA-0089-0006 | IM-CA-0089-0007 | IM-CA-0089-0008 | IM-CA-0089-0009 | IM-CA-0089-0010 | IM-CA-0089-0011 | IM-CA-0089-0012 | IM-CA-0089-0013 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Goldstein, Danielle Luce (California)
IM-CA-0089-0003 | IM-CA-0089-0004 | IM-CA-0089-0007 | IM-CA-0089-0008 | IM-CA-0089-0009 | IM-CA-0089-0010 | IM-CA-0089-0011 | IM-CA-0089-0012 | IM-CA-0089-0013 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Hansen, Greta Suzanne (California)
IM-CA-0089-0003 | IM-CA-0089-0004 | IM-CA-0089-0005 | IM-CA-0089-0006 | IM-CA-0089-0007 | IM-CA-0089-0008 | IM-CA-0089-0009 | IM-CA-0089-0010 | IM-CA-0089-0011 | IM-CA-0089-0012 | IM-CA-0089-0013 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Harris, Cody Shawn (California)
IM-CA-0089-0005 | IM-CA-0089-0007 | IM-CA-0089-0008 | IM-CA-0089-0009 | IM-CA-0089-0010 | IM-CA-0089-0011 | IM-CA-0089-0012 | IM-CA-0089-0013 | IM-CA-0089-0025 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Jadwat, Omar C. (New York)
IM-CA-0089-0014 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Keker, John Watkins (California)
IM-CA-0089-0001 | IM-CA-0089-0003 | IM-CA-0089-0004 | IM-CA-0089-0005 | IM-CA-0089-0006 | IM-CA-0089-0007 | IM-CA-0089-0008 | IM-CA-0089-0009 | IM-CA-0089-0010 | IM-CA-0089-0011 | IM-CA-0089-0012 | IM-CA-0089-0013 | IM-CA-0089-0017 | IM-CA-0089-0021 | IM-CA-0089-0022 | IM-CA-0089-0023 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Loy, John David (California)
IM-CA-0089-0014 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Mass, Julia Harumi (California)
IM-CA-0089-0014 | IM-CA-0089-0018 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Miller, Ava R. (California)
IM-CA-0089-0014 | IM-CA-0089-0018 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Moreno, Catherine Eugenia (California)
IM-CA-0089-0014 | IM-CA-0089-0018 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Narayan, Kavita Kandala (California)
IM-CA-0089-0003 | IM-CA-0089-0004 | IM-CA-0089-0006 | IM-CA-0089-0007 | IM-CA-0089-0008 | IM-CA-0089-0009 | IM-CA-0089-0010 | IM-CA-0089-0011 | IM-CA-0089-0012 | IM-CA-0089-0013 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Pasquarella, Jennifer (California)
IM-CA-0089-0014
Petrocelli, Michael Roland (California)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Purcell, Daniel Edward (California)
IM-CA-0089-0003 | IM-CA-0089-0004 | IM-CA-0089-0005 | IM-CA-0089-0006 | IM-CA-0089-0007 | IM-CA-0089-0008 | IM-CA-0089-0009 | IM-CA-0089-0010 | IM-CA-0089-0011 | IM-CA-0089-0012 | IM-CA-0089-0013 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Salceda, Angelica H. (California)
IM-CA-0089-0014 | IM-CA-0089-0018 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Segura, Andre Ivan (New York)
IM-CA-0089-0014 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Serrano, Lawrence Javier (California)
IM-CA-0089-0003 | IM-CA-0089-0004 | IM-CA-0089-0005 | IM-CA-0089-0006 | IM-CA-0089-0007 | IM-CA-0089-0008 | IM-CA-0089-0009 | IM-CA-0089-0010 | IM-CA-0089-0011 | IM-CA-0089-0012 | IM-CA-0089-0013 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Spiegel, Julia Blau (California)
IM-CA-0089-0003 | IM-CA-0089-0004 | IM-CA-0089-0005 | IM-CA-0089-0006 | IM-CA-0089-0007 | IM-CA-0089-0008 | IM-CA-0089-0009 | IM-CA-0089-0010 | IM-CA-0089-0011 | IM-CA-0089-0012 | IM-CA-0089-0013 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Stretch, Brian (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0089-0020 | IM-CA-0089-0023 | IM-CA-0089-0025 | IM-CA-0089-0028 | IM-CA-0089-0030 | IM-CA-0089-0031
Tyler, John Russell (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0089-0020 | IM-CA-0089-0023 | IM-CA-0089-0025 | IM-CA-0089-0028 | IM-CA-0089-0030 | IM-CA-0089-0031
Van Nest, Robert A. (California)
IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-9000
White, Lauren Gallo (California)
IM-CA-0089-0014 | IM-CA-0089-0018 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Wilensky, Julie H. (California)
IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Williams, James R. (California)
IM-CA-0089-0001 | IM-CA-0089-0003 | IM-CA-0089-0004 | IM-CA-0089-0005 | IM-CA-0089-0006 | IM-CA-0089-0007 | IM-CA-0089-0008 | IM-CA-0089-0009 | IM-CA-0089-0010 | IM-CA-0089-0011 | IM-CA-0089-0012 | IM-CA-0089-0013 | IM-CA-0089-0017 | IM-CA-0089-0021 | IM-CA-0089-0022 | IM-CA-0089-0023 | IM-CA-0089-0025 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0032 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Wofsy, Cody H. (California)
IM-CA-0089-0014 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Brasher, Andrew L. (Alabama)
IM-CA-0089-0032
Keller, Scott A. (Texas)
IM-CA-0089-0032
Landry, Jeff (Louisiana)
IM-CA-0089-0032 | IM-CA-0089-0033
Lindstrom, Aaron D. (Michigan)
IM-CA-0089-0032
Mansinghani, Mithun (Oklahoma)
IM-CA-0089-0032
Morrisey, Patrick (West Virginia)
IM-CA-0089-0032 | IM-CA-0089-0033
Murphy, Eric E (Ohio)
IM-CA-0089-0032
Ou-Young, Kuang-Bao P. (California)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Readler, Chad A. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0089-0020 | IM-CA-0089-0023 | IM-CA-0089-0025 | IM-CA-0089-0028 | IM-CA-0089-0030 | IM-CA-0089-0031
Rudofsky, Lee (Arkansas)
IM-CA-0089-0032
Simpson, W. Scott (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0089-0015 | IM-CA-0089-0020 | IM-CA-0089-0025 | IM-CA-0089-0028 | IM-CA-0089-0030 | IM-CA-0089-0031 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Smith, James Emory Jr. (South Carolina)
IM-CA-0089-0032
VanDyke, Lawrence (Nevada)
IM-CA-0089-0032
Other Lawyers Aguilar, Edmundo (California)
IM-CA-0089-0019
Alger, Maureen P. (California)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Berner, Nicole (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Buckingham, Stephen J. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0089-0028
Burrichter, Christopher S. (California)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Dermody, Kelly M. (California)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Ehrlich, Lisa Catherine (California)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Fritz, Kathryn J. (California)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Gertner, Leo (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Gewertz, Nevin M (Illinois)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Ghassemi-Vanni, Sheeva June (California)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Gorelick, Jamie S. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Holloway, Amy Bisson (California)
IM-CA-0089-0019
Johnson, Thomas Michael Jr. (West Virginia)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Johnson, Veronica (Missouri)
IM-CA-0089-0032
Magaziner, Fred T. (California)
IM-CA-0089-9000
McClellan, Nathan M. (California)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Perrin, Robert Ward (California)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Piers, Matthew J. (Illinois)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Premo, Patrick E. (California)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Prestel, Claire (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Purcell, Annasara Guzzo (California)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Rhea, Meghan (California)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Ross, Linda Margaret (California)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Smith, Todd Michael (California)
IM-CA-0089-0019 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Smith, Deborah L. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Srikantiah, Jayashri (California)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Teshima, Darren S. (California)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Winner, Sonya (California)
IM-CA-0089-9000
Zimmerman, Mitchell (California)
IM-CA-0089-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -