University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement IM-CA-0121
Docket / Court 3:18-cv-00428 ( S.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Special Collection Civil Rights Challenges to Trump Immigration Enforcement Orders
Civil Rights Challenges to Trump Refugee/Visa Order
Attorney Organization ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project
ACLU National (all projects)
Juvenile Law Center
Case Summary
On February 26, 2018, an asylum seeker from the Democratic Republic of Congo (Ms. L.) filed this lawsuit and a writ for habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. 2018 WL 1310160. The plaintiff sued the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and its ... read more >
On February 26, 2018, an asylum seeker from the Democratic Republic of Congo (Ms. L.) filed this lawsuit and a writ for habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. 2018 WL 1310160. The plaintiff sued the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and its parent agency, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and several other government entities all under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, federal asylum statutes, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Represented by the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, the plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The case was assigned to Judge Dana M. Sabraw.

This immigration case involved the United States government’s forcible separation of over 2,000 asylum-seeking families who arrived at the southern border without documentation. The plaintiff and her seven-year-old daughter were victims of this policy. Since their arrival on November 1, the plaintiff and her daughter had been detained. For the first 4 days upon arriving, they were detained together until the plaintiff was then sent to the Otay Mesa Detention Center in the San Diego area where she remained for nearly four months without her daughter.

Ms. L asserted violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the federal asylum statute at 8 U.S.C. § 1158 which provides that all non-citizens with a well-founded fear of persecution shall have the opportunity to seek asylum, and APA violations for arbitrary and capricious ICE practices and failure by ICE to consider paroling detained asylum seekers as per its own parole directive.

When the officers separated them, the plaintiff could hear her daughter in the next room frantically screaming that she wanted to remain with her mother. No one explained to the plaintiff why they were taking her daughter away from her or where her daughter was going or even when she would next see her daughter. The plaintiff claimed that by forcibly taking a 7-year-old child from her mother, without justification or even a hearing, the defendants were in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

On March 2, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction and a motion to expedite resolution of said motion. The plaintiff asked the court to enjoin the defendants from continuing to separate her from her daughter and argued that expedition was necessary to remedy the devastating harms that this separation was inflicting with each passing day. In support of this argument, the plaintiff offered testimony from nine medical experts who asserted that the trauma of forced separation from a parent imposes severe and long-lasting psychological and emotional damage on young children, especially children who are incarcerated and have already suffered the trauma of fleeing their home country.

For reasons not apparent from the docket, on March 8, 2018, Judge Sabraw granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motion to expedite. She also required the plaintiff to provide a DNA sample to verify her maternity to her daughter. When the results of the DNA test came back on March 12, 2018, they showed a 99.99999% probability of maternity.

On March 9, 2018, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint to modify this lawsuit into a class action and adding a new named plaintiff, Ms. C. 2018 WL 3155677. That same day, the plaintiff moved for class certification, asking that the court certify a class defined as “[a]ll adult parents nationwide who (1) are or will be detained in immigration custody by the Department of Homeland Security, and (2) have a minor child who is or will be separated from them by DHS and detained in ORR custody, absent a demonstration in a hearing that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child.”

On March 19, 2018, the plaintiff moved for preliminary injunction for classwide relief that would order the defendants to reunite the class members with their children and to discontinue their family separation practice. Given this motion, the court denied as moot the plaintiff’s motion for individual preliminary relief.

On April 6, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. First, they argued that the original plaintiff’s claims were moot because she has been released from ICE detention and reunited with her daughter. Second, the defendants asserted that the court lacked jurisdiction over Ms. C.’s habeas claim and that venue was improper for Ms. C.’s other claims. Third, the defendants claimed the court lacked jurisdiction to review ICE’s decision to detain rather than parole the plaintiffs, and also lacked jurisdiction to review ICE’s decision about where to detain the plaintiffs or to order ICE to detain them in a particular facility. Fourth, they contended that separation of the plaintiffs from their children did not violate the Fifth Amendment. Fifth, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim under both the APA and the Asylum Act.

Partially agreeing with the defendants, Judge Sabraw granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss on June 6, 2018. 302 F.Supp.3d. Specifically, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under the APA and relating to the federal asylum statute but retained the plaintiffs’ due process claim.

On June 26, 2018, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, finding that the class was sufficiently numerous, that there were common questions of law among the class, that the plaintiffs are typical of the class as a whole, and that the plaintiffs would represent the class adequately.

On that same day, Judge Sabraw granted the plaintiffs’ motion for classwide preliminary injunction, requiring much from the government to remedy the harm. 310 F.Supp.3d 1133. Specifically, the court enjoined the defendants, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all those who are in active concert or participation with them, from detaining class members in DHS custody without and apart from their minor children, absent a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child, unless the parent affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily declines to be reunited with the child in DHS custody. Second, if the defendants chose to release class members from DHS custody, the defendants, were preliminarily enjoined from continuing to detain the minor children of the class members and had to release the minor children to the custody of their respective class members. Third, the court required that the defendants must reunify all class members with their minor children who were under the age of five within fourteen days of the entry of this order and that the defendants must reunify all class members with their minor children that were age five and over within thirty days of the entry of this order. Fourth, the defendants were required to immediately take all steps necessary to facilitate regular communication between class members and their children who remained in DHS custody. Fifth, the defendants were required to immediately take all steps necessary to facilitate regular communication between and among all executive agencies responsible for the custody, detention or shelter of class members and the custody and care of their children. Sixth, the defendants were preliminarily enjoined from removing any class members without their child, unless the class member affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily declined to be reunited with the child prior to the class member’s deportation, or there was a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child. Finally, the court retained jurisdiction to entertain such further proceedings and to enter such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate to implement and enforce the provisions of this order and preliminary injunction.

On July 3, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint claiming that the government had separated thousands of migrant families over the past year without a legitimate purpose 2018 WL 3575383. It forwarded the idea that the government's true purpose in separating these families was to deter future families from seeking refuge (i.e., asylum) in the United States. It referenced Attorney General Jeff Session's May 2018 announcement announced “a new initiative” to refer “100 percent” of immigrants who cross the Southwest border for criminal immigration prosecutions, also known as the “zero-tolerance policy," by which all parents who are prosecuted would be separated from their children. The complaint asserted that the true purpose of this new policy was to separate families in the hope that it would deter other families from seeking refuge in the United States. It also referenced President Trump's Executive Order (EO) of June 20, 2018 which purported to end the practice of family separation but allowed DHS to separate families for "the child's welfare" without setting forth how that standard would be applied. The complaint highlighted that this EO made no provision for reunifying families separated prior to its issuance or for returning children to parents who had already been deported.

The plaintiffs moved for a stay of removal and a temporary restraining order (TRO) on July 16, 2018. 2018 WL 3575386. The plaintiffs requested that the court order the government not to remove parents until one week after they have been reunited with their children given rumors that the government was planning mass deportations to be carried out imminently and immediately upon reunification. The plaintiffs claimed that class members were at imminent risk of deportation without being advised of their rights under the injunction or the effect of waiving their children's rights against prolonged detention under the Flores settlement.

That same day, constitutional law scholars including Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of Berkeley Law filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff's arguments regarding the district court's authority to grant the TRO. The scholars asserted that the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution forbids the government from delaying reunification of class members and their children until the eve of physical removal from the country; they said that this was because doing so would deny the plaintiffs and their families an effective means to fairly consider and present valid grounds for asylum and other relief from deportation.

In opposition to the TRO, the government argued that the district court lacked the authority from staying the deportation of class members who had final orders of expedited removal (because in the procedural posture of their individual immigration cases, many had not passed an asylum screening and so did not have the right under federal law to present their asylum claims before an immigration judge).

The parties filed a joint status report on July 19, 2018, in which the government stated that they had identified 2551 separated children from age 5 to 17 but that only 848 had been interviewed and cleared for reunification. 2018 WL 3575388. Many of these families were united but kept detained, mostly at two private family detention facilities in Texas. The plaintiffs noted that the government had failed to provide them a list of class members who had been released from ICE custody, a list of those who had been deported, as well as a list of parents with final removal orders, who needed to be counseled on their options and their children's options immediately.

The next week in July 2018, Judge Sabraw ordered the government to provide the plaintiffs with a list of all class members who had been deported and of all who had been released into the interior of the country. She also ordered the plaintiffs and the government to produce a written plan for reuniting parents who had been deported but whose children remained in the United States; she later ordered each to appoint people to implement those plans. On August 3, 2018, she ordered the government to provide information regarding class members who the defendants found ineligible for reunification with their children because of alleged criminal histories.

Judge Sabraw issued an order clarifying the scope of the injunction on August 16, 2018. She ordered that the injunctive relief did not limit DHS's authority to detain adults in its custody and that reunification did not give a parent a right to release if their detention was lawful. She ordered that if DHS was trying to reunify a detained adult in its custody with their child, the parent could either (i) waive the child's rights under the Flores settlement so that the family could be detained together in DHS custody or (ii) waive his or her right not to be separated from his or her child under this court's injunction and allow the child to be detained in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and treated as an unaccompanied minor.

That same day, the government informed the court of a "disturbance" at the ICE family detention center in Karnes County, Texas between adult male class members who were being held there with their children. They said that the whole group of men were separated from their children again overnight but would be returned to Karnes.

The TRO was denied as moot after Judge Sabraw granted a TRO for the plaintiffs in M.M.M et al v. Sessions (3:18-cv-01832-DMS-MDD, ECF No. 55), a family separation lawsuit filed by private counsel on August 3, 2018. The plaintiffs in M.M.M. are the children of class member parents in this case and the complaint raised issues surrounding the asylum process for families that had been separated at the border. The TRO granted for M.M.M. on August 16, 2018 stayed the deportation orders of Ms. L. class member parents pending the resolution of their children's asylum claims, in order to maintain family unity. In that order, Judge Sabraw ordered the parties in both cases to meet and confer with the government and to propose a solution.

On August 23, 2018, the parties filed a new joint status report. 2018 WL 4144367. The government reported that they had identified 2,654 separated children ages 0-5 of which 1,923 had been reunited with a separated parent and 203 had been discharged to a sponsor (i.e., another family member or adult friend of the family) or had turned 18. 528 separated children remained in ORR custody; parents of 343 children of that group had been deported. The plaintiffs had received information from the government of 412 parents who had been deported. 231 parents had been reached by the plaintiffs and NGOs but 140 had not; of that group, neither party had a phone number for 41 parents and the phone numbers of 38 parents were inoperable or ineffective. The plaintiffs noted that they were investigating reports from deported parents who appeared to have been coerced or misled by U.S. government actions that deprived them of their right to seek asylum. These incidents include parents who were told that they needed to accept removal and not pursue asylum in order to be reunited with their children, and parents who were required to sign documents they did not understand, in languages they do not speak, that had the effect of waiving their right to seek asylum.

The government appealed the court's order granting class certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in August 2018 (see 18-56151). Those proceedings were stayed in November 2018 before the parties had briefed the issues. As of March 23, 2019, the briefing schedule had not been reset.

On August 30, 2018, the parties filed another joint status report in which the plaintiffs identified discrepancies between lists it provided of parents and children. They also flagged that they had learned of separated children through legal service providers and NGOs who did not appear on government lists.

The parties continued to file approximately weekly joint reports in September and October 2018 and less frequent reports in November 2018. As of September 23, 2018, 1,977 children had been reunited with their parents. Over 100 deported parents had not been reached in spite of significant NGO support.

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on October 9, 2018. It added two named plaintiffs who were separated from their children at the time of the credible fear interviews (i.e., asylum screening) and who had received a negative determination. One of the women's negative determination had been affirmed by an immigration judge such that she had exhausted all administrative remedies and could be deported at any time. This complaint also added a right to family integrity under the Due Process Clause and asserted more robust violations under the federal asylum statute.

That same day, Judge Sabraw granted the parties' motion for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement, in which she approved classes in this case and in M.M.M. for the purposes of settlement only. A key component of that agreement allowed parents to have a new credible fear screening in "good faith" to determine whether a positive determination is warranted; with a positive determination, an asylum seeker may submit an asylum application and present their claim before an immigration judge. This was important because many parents had received negative determinations due in part to the trauma they were experiencing while separated from their children.

On October 16, 2018, Judge Sabraw granted the plaintiff's motion to require immediate implementation of the settlement agreement. This required the government to allow 60+ class members in detention who had elected to take advantage of the asylum procedures set out in the settlement agreement but who the government had refused to orient until final approval of the settlement. She noted that it was the government's statutory obligation to allow people asserting a fear of persecution access to an asylum screening.

The government informed the court on October 25, 2018 that it had released a total of 2,404 children and was working towards release of an additional 47.

Together and Free, a grassroots organization that provides assistance to separated families, filed a notice of objection on November 6, 2018 to the fairness and adequacy of the proposed settlement agreement. It noted that many families which were treated as reunified were not in fact, as many parents remained in ICE custody while their children had been released to friends or extended family members. It also highlighted that deported family members did not receive adequate relief, as the settlement only would allow a reopening of their cases and a new asylum screening in "rare and unusual" instances.

The court certified the settlement classes and granted final approval of the class action settlement on November 15, 2018, in response to the plaintiff's motion filed the week prior. 2018 WL 7075890. Separate counsel were appointed for each of three groups: nonprofit organizations for members of the parent class who remained physically present in the United States, the ACLU for members of the parent class who had been physically removed from the United States, and private counsel for the child class. It provides that class members with expedited removal orders are entitled to a sua sponte review of their negative credible fear determinations and the opportunity to present additional evidence to an asylum officer.

On December 14, 2018, the ACLU requested that the court clarify that the scope of the Ms. L class included parents whose children were separated from them before June 26, 2018, which was the date when the court granted the preliminary injunction. The government filed their opposition to this motion on February 6, 2019 (the deadline was extended because of a government shut down), arguing that this backward-looking definition conflicted with the forward-looking language of the settlement. 2019 WL 927180. The government granted this motion on March 8, 2019 and modified the class definition to include parents who entered on or before June 1, 2017; she noted that there was no dispute that they were subjected to the same family separation policies as the parents who indisputably fit into the scope of the class.

On February 8, 2019, the court issued an order further clarifying the settlement agreement. It states that where a child was issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) in immigration court but a parent had not because they had received a negative CFI determination, the parent's case would be reviewed again so that both parent and child were deported or both placed in immigration court proceedings.

On February 22, 2019, the court issued an order on the plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement agreement for class members who had not submitted executed waiver forms, after the plaintiffs filed their reply in support of this motion on February 13. 2019 WL 259140. Judge Sabraw did not outright grant the motion but ordered the government to provide plaintiff's counsel with a list of names of people subject to removal for failure to execute these forms. She also required that the government advise ICE to not remove class members until they were advised of their rights under the settlement agreement and an opportunity to execute the relevant forms.

On April 5, 2019, the government filed a proposed plan to identify additional Ms. L class member through statistical analysis of ORR records of 47,000 children who were released from its custody on or after June 1, 2017. From there, the government says they will manually review the case records of children who appeared to have the highest probability of having been separated, a process that they estimate will take 2 years to complete.

The case is ongoing in the district court and the proceedings in the Ninth Circuit remain stayed as of January 11, 2019.

Jake Parker - 06/28/2018
Veronica Portillo Heap - 04/07/2019


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Content of Injunction
Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)
Preliminary relief granted
Reporting
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
General
Confinement/isolation
Family reunification
Habeas Corpus
Placement in detention facilities
Youth / Adult separation
Immigration/Border
Asylum - procedure
Constitutional rights
Deportation - judicial review
Deportation - procedure
Detention - procedures
Family
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Special Case Type
Habeas
Type of Facility
Government-run
Non-government for profit
Non-government non-profit
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Defendant(s) United States
Plaintiff Description All adult parents nationwide who (1) are or will be detained in immigration custody by the Department of Homeland Security, and (2) have a minor child who is or will be separated from them by DHS and detained in ORR custody, absent a demonstration in a hearing that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project
ACLU National (all projects)
Juvenile Law Center
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief Litigation
Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Filing Year 2018
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing IM-CA-0128 : N.T.C. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (S.D. Cal.)
IM-DC-0053 : M.G.U. v. Nielsen (D.D.C.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
  Ms. L v. ICE: Case Documents and Resources
ACLU
Date: February 21, 2019
(ACLU)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Attorney General Sessions' Delivers Remarks to the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies 2018 Spring Conference
Department of Justice
Date: May 7, 2018
By: Attorney General Jeff Sessions (Department of Justice)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Presidential Executive Order on Resuming the United States Refugee Admissions Program with Enhanced Vetting Capabilities
White House
Date: Oct. 24, 2017
By: United States
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats
www.whitehouse.gov
Date: Sep. 24, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (Office of the President)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Implementing Executive Order 13780 Following Supreme Court Ruling -- Guidance to Visa-Adjudicating Posts
Reuters
Date: Jun. 28, 2017
By: U.S. Department of State
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence
The White House
Date: Jun. 14, 2017
By: Donald Trump (White House)
[ 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 ]

  Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States
Date: Mar. 6, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (President of the United States)
[ 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 ]

  Memorandum to the Acting Secretary of State, the Acting Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security
The White House
Date: Feb. 1, 2017
By: Donald F. McGahn II, Counsel to the President (The White House)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Statement by Acting Attorney General Sally Yates
https://www.nytimes.com/
Date: 1/30/2017
By: Acting Attorney General Sally Yates (Department of Justice)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Statement By Secretary John Kelly on the Entry of Lawful Permanent Residents into the United States
https://www.dhs.gov/
Date: 1/29/2017
By: DHS Secretary John Kelly (Department of Homeland Security)
Citation: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/statement-secretary-john-kelly-entry-lawful-permanent-residents-united-states
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  OLC Memo Re: Proposed Executive Order Entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States"
Date: Jan. 27, 2017
By: Curtis Gannon (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel)
[ 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: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States
Federal Register
Date: Jan. 27, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (Office of the President)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  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)
3:18-cv-428 (S.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0121-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/08/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 1]
IM-CA-0121-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/26/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief with Class Action Allegations [ECF# 32]
IM-CA-0121-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/09/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF# 71] (302 F.Supp.3d 1149) (S.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0121-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 06/06/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification [ECF# 82] (S.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0121-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/26/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Classwide Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 83] (2018 WL 3129486) (S.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0121-0005.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 06/26/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 85]
IM-CA-0121-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/03/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Application of Scholars of Habeas Corpus and Constitutional Law to File Brief Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs'Motion for Stay of Removal and Emergency Tro Pending Ruling on the Stay Motion [ECF# 111]
IM-CA-0121-0007.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/16/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Status Report [ECF# 124]
IM-CA-0121-0008.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/19/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Status Report [ECF# 204]
IM-CA-0121-0009.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/23/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Third Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 250]
IM-CA-0121-0010.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/09/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Sabraw, Dana Makoto (S.D. Cal.) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0121-0003 | IM-CA-0121-0004 | IM-CA-0121-0005 | IM-CA-0121-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Amdur, Spencer E. W. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0121-0001 | IM-CA-0121-0002 | IM-CA-0121-0006 | IM-CA-0121-0008 | IM-CA-0121-0009 | IM-CA-0121-0010 | IM-CA-0121-9000
Balakrishnan, Anand V. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0121-0001 | IM-CA-0121-0002 | IM-CA-0121-0006 | IM-CA-0121-0008 | IM-CA-0121-0009 | IM-CA-0121-0010 | IM-CA-0121-9000
Gelernt, Lee (New York) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0121-0001 | IM-CA-0121-0002 | IM-CA-0121-0006 | IM-CA-0121-0008 | IM-CA-0121-0009 | IM-CA-0121-0010 | IM-CA-0121-9000
Kang, Stephen B. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0121-0006 | IM-CA-0121-0008 | IM-CA-0121-0009 | IM-CA-0121-0010 | IM-CA-0121-9000
Rabinovitz, Judy (New York) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0121-0001 | IM-CA-0121-0002 | IM-CA-0121-0006 | IM-CA-0121-0008 | IM-CA-0121-0009 | IM-CA-0121-0010 | IM-CA-0121-9000
Vakili, Bardis (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0121-0001 | IM-CA-0121-0002 | IM-CA-0121-0006 | IM-CA-0121-0008 | IM-CA-0121-0009 | IM-CA-0121-0010 | IM-CA-0121-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Bettwy, Samuel William (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0121-0008 | IM-CA-0121-0009 | IM-CA-0121-9000
Fabian, Sarah B. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0121-0008 | IM-CA-0121-0009 | IM-CA-0121-9000
Murley, Nicole N. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0121-0008 | IM-CA-0121-0009 | IM-CA-0121-9000
Other Lawyers Casamassima, Christopher T. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0121-0007
Shipley, Michael (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0121-9000
Wynn, Summer J. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0121-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -