Case: State of California v. Department of Homeland Security

3:17-cv-05235 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: Sept. 11, 2017

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On September 11, 2017, several states initiated this action in the District Court for the Northern District of California, challenging President Trump’s attempted revocation of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The plaintiffs alleged that DACA provided invaluable protections to young people across their states and allowed them to pursue education and employment. In turn, DACA recipients have contributed to state economies and the educational experiences of all students in state school systems. The complaint argued that the proposed revocation violated Fifth Amendment Due Process and Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The plaintiffs sought equitable estoppel to prevent the government from divulging the personal information of DACA recipients, as well as an order from the court enjoining the government from rescinding the program.

In 2012, the Obama administration created the DACA program via Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy statements. The program offered work permits and temporary protection from deportation to undocumented immigrants who had been brought to the United States as children (and who meet some additional requirements). As of 2017, there were an estimated 800,000 DACA recipients. On September 5, 2017, President Trump announced that he was ending the program in March unless Congress acted within the next six months. As the plaintiffs' complaint highlights, the Obama administration made key promises to applicants when it promoted DACA: that any information they provided in the application process would not be used for immigration enforcement purposes, and that, barring criminal activity or fraud in their DACA applications, DACA recipients would be able to renew their status and keep their benefits.

The plaintiffs were the states of California, Maine, Minnesota, and Maryland. The complaint noted that California in particular was home to more DACA recipients than any other state in the country (over 200,000). The states argued that rescinding DACA "violates fundamental notions of justice" by leaving recipients without access to jobs and making them vulnerable to deportation. The complaint also alleged that DACA recipients were required to divulge confidential information in order to apply for the program, including information about their immigration status and address. Recipients were previously assured that the information would be kept confidential. By revoking DACA, the plaintiffs argued that the government created a "confusing and threatening situation" in which that private information was at risk of being used against recipients in future immigration proceedings.

The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on Sept. 11, 2017, and reassigned to Judge William Alsup on Sept. 18, after it was related to Regents of University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security(No. 17-cv-05211). The cases were subsequently related to Garcia v. United States of America (No. 17-cv-5380), a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=16156">City of San Jose v. Trump, (No. 17-cv-5329), and County of Santa Clara v. Trump (No. 17-cv-5823).

On October 6, in a related challenge led by Regents of University of California before this judge, the government filed the administrative record, available here, which included a series of government documents pertaining to DACA from its inception up to the decision to rescind it. On October 17, after the University in the related case moved to compel the defendants to complete the administrative record, the court ordered them to do so in all related cases, including this one. The court found that the defendants did not produce all documents leading to the rescission: specifically, they failed to produce related documents that Acting DHS Secretary Duke did not directly review.

The defendants moved to stay further proceedings at this court on October 18 in light of their intent to appeal this ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court denied the requested stay on October 19, and the defendants appealed the next day by filing a petition for a writ of mandamus to the District Court and an emergency motion for stay. On October 23, the District Court replied to the Ninth Circuit's invitation to answer the government's petition, stating it would not stay proceedings in light of the narrow window of time until DACA was intended to end (March 5, 2018).

On November 16, the Ninth Circuit denied the defendants' motion for a writ of mandamus and vacated the stay of discovery and record expansion that had been entered, and the District Court immediately ordered the federal government to file an augmented administrative record by November 22. On November 17, the federal government filed an emergency motion that it intended to file an application for mandamus with the US Supreme Court no later than November 20. The government requested that the Ninth Circuit stay its order pending the Supreme Court's resolution of that petition. On November 21, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the federal government's motion, noting that jurisdiction was with the District Court and instructing the federal government that further relief must be sought in a new petition for mandamus.

Meanwhile, in the District Court, Judge Alsup on November 20 agreed to stay all discovery until December 22 when the augmented administrative record would be due.

On December 1, 2017, the government filed notice that it appealed the Ninth's Circuit denial of mandamus relief and applied for a stay to the Supreme Court. On December 20 in a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's denial and remanded the case, arguing that the District Court should have stayed implementation of the October 17 order compelling the government to complete the administrative record. The Supreme Court stated that the lower court should have "first resolved the Government’s threshold arguments" (that the Acting Secretary’s determination to rescind DACA is unreviewable because it is “committed to agency discretion,” 5 U. S. C. §701(a)(2), and that the Immigration and Nationality Act deprives the District Court of jurisdiction). Either of those arguments, if accepted, likely would eliminate the need for the District Court to examine a complete administrative record. 138 S.Ct. 443 (2017). The same day, the District Court stayed the order compelling the government to complete the administrative record. 138 S.Ct. 371 (2017).

On January 9, 2018, the court denied the government's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and provided provisional relief to the plaintiffs. The order indicated the court would separately dismiss the government's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court ordered a nationwide preliminary injunction, ordering that DACA remain in effect on the same terms and conditions that existed prior to the rescission. However, the government did not need to process new applications from individuals who had never before received deferred action. 279 F. Supp. 3d 1011. The court then granted in part and denied in part the government's motion to dismiss on January 12, dismissing the plaintiffs' Regulatory Flexibility Act and equitable estoppel claims as well as the individual plaintiffs' declaratory relief claims. The court sustained the plaintiffs' APA, due process, and equal protection claims (with a few exceptions from the various complaints of the related cases). 298 F. Supp.3 d 1304.

The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit on January 16, 2018. The government also sought certiorari from the US Supreme Court on January 18 while the Ninth Circuit appeal was pending, arguing that the Supreme Court's immediate review was warranted because of how long the appeal would take in the Ninth Circuit and how time-sensitive the issue was. The Supreme Court denied cert without prejudice on February 26, 2018, indicating the justices assumed "that the Court of Appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case." 138 S.Ct. 1182.

The related cases were consolidated in the Ninth Circuit for the purposes of appeal. In February and March 2018, the parties and amici filed their briefs, which can be found here.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings on November 8, 2018. The panel held that the government's decision to rescind DACA was reviewable because the government was not exercising discretion in rescinding the program, but rather acting out of a belief that DHS lacked the authority to issue DACA in the first place, and so rescission was necessary. The panel further concluded the decision was reviewable because it did not fall within one of the three discrete occasions when the INA bars judicial review of DHS decisions. 2018 WL 5833232.

As to the merits of a preliminary injunction, the panel held that "DACA was a permissible exercise of executive discretion," and that the government's belief that DACA was illegal was wrong. Thus, the panel concluded the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the rescission was arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The panel also held that a nationwide injunction was appropriate because it "promotes uniformity in immigration enforcement, and is necessary to provide the plaintiffs here with complete redress." Id.

The defendants petitioned the Supreme Court of the U.S. for a writ of certiorari on Nov. 5, 2018.

On June 28, 2019, the Supreme Court granted writs of certiorari in three DACA cases: Regents of University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen, and NAACP v. Trump, all of which were pending before different circuit courts of appeal. The Court consolidated the three cases (No. 18-587).

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 12, 2019, on the issues of whether DHS's decision to wind down the DACA policy is judicially reviewable and whether DHS’s decision to rescind DACA is lawful. On June 18, 2020, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor), the Court held that the DACA rescission was subject to judicial review under the APA, that the DHS secretary had offered insufficient justification to rescind the program, and that the rescission was unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious in violation fo the APA. 140 S. Ct. 1891.

Following the Supreme Court's decision, in another case challenging the DACA recession, Casa De Maryland v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Fourth Circuit issued a mandate to reinstate DACA and set aside the recession memo on a nationwide basis on June 30, 2020. On July 17, 2020, the District Court of Maryland ordered DHS to reinstate DACA as it existed before the issuance of the recession memo and ordered DHS to resume accepting initial DACA applications.

However, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf instead issued a memorandum entitled "Reconsideration of the June 15, 2012 Memorandum Entitled 'Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children" on July 28, 2020 ("Wolf Memorandum"). In this memo, Acting Secretary Wolf stated that he would reconsider DACA's future in light of the Supreme Court's decision. In the interim, the memo instructed USCIS to reject all initial requests for DACA, to only grant advance parole to current DACA beneficiaries in exceptional circumstances, and grant DACA renewals for only one-year, rather than two-year, periods. Later in August, Deputy Director for Policy for USCIS Joseph Edlow issued a memorandum implementing the Wolf Memorandum.

On August 4, 2020, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further action consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.

In response to the Wolf Memorandum, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 2, 2020. In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs substituted some of the defendants to reflect new individuals occupying the relevant roles and to add additional responsible officials, including Deputy Director for Policy Edlow. The amended complaint argued that the Acting Secretary Wolf actions were invalid under the Federal Vacancies Reform Action, Homeland Security Act, and the Appointments Clause of the Constitution because he lacked proper authority to issue the Wolf Memorandum. In addition, the plaintiffs argued that the Wolf Memorandum and Edlow Memorandum violated the APA because Wolf and Edlow acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and an injunction preventing the defendants from altering or limiting DACA program and vacating the Wolf and Edlow Memoranda.

Before any additional activity on the amended complaint in this case, on December 4, the court in another case challenging the Wolf Memorandum,Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen and State of New York v. Trump, ordered DHS to fully reinstate DACA as it existed prior to the attempted recession in September 2017 after it found that Acting Secretary Wolf was not lawfully serving as Acting Secretary. The order required DHS to accept initial DACA applications, accept advance parole applications, and grant DACA renewals for two-years. On December 7, 2020 USCIS updated their website and indicated that effective that day, USCIS would accept initial applications, extend one-year DACA renewals to two-years, and accept applications for advance parole.

Then, in early 2021, President Biden took office. On the day of his inauguration (January 20, 2021), President Biden signed a memorandum directing DHS and the Attorney General “to preserve and fortify DACA.” In light of potential additional agency action to implement the memorandum, the parties filed a joint stipulation to stay further proceedings and vacate pending deadlines on March 22, 2021. They agreed to provide the court with status updates every 60 days. The first is due May 24, 2021. This case is ongoing.

	Document
3:17-cv-05235	Docket [PACER]	July 3, 2019	July 3, 2019 Docket
1 3:17-cv-05235	Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief	Sept. 11, 2017	Sept. 11, 2017 Complaint
18 3:17-cv-05235	Order Relating Cases Regents of University of California v. Department of Homeland Security	Sept. 18, 2017	Sept. 18, 2017 Order/Opinion
23 3:17-cv-05235	Order Relating Cases The Regents of University of California v. Department of Homeland Security	Sept. 20, 2017	Sept. 20, 2017 Order/Opinion
22 3:17-cv-05235	Order Relating Cases The Regents of University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security	Sept. 20, 2017	Sept. 20, 2017 Order/Opinion
39 3:17-cv-05235	Order Re Motion to Complete Administrative Record The Regents of the University of California v. United States Department of Homeland Security	Oct. 17, 2017	Oct. 17, 2017 Order/Opinion 2017 WL 4642324
42 3:17-cv-05235	Order Re Motion to Stay Proceedings The Regents of the University of California v. United States Department of Homeland Security	Oct. 19, 2017	Oct. 19, 2017 Order/Opinion
46 3:17-cv-05235	Order re Deposition of Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Duke UC Regents v. Department of Homeland Security	Oct. 24, 2017	Oct. 24, 2017 Order/Opinion
80 3:17-cv-05235 17-00801	Opinion [Supreme Court] re United States, et al. Supreme Court of the United States	Dec. 21, 2017	Dec. 21, 2017 Order/Opinion 86 U.S. 4009
83 3:17-cv-05235	Order Denying FRCP 12(b)(1) Dismissal and Granting Provisional Relief The Regents of the University of California v. United States Department of Homeland Security	Jan. 9, 2018	Jan. 9, 2018 Order/Opinion

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
Preserving and Fortifying Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Executive Office of the President	In 2012, during the Obama-Biden Administration, the Secretary of Homeland Security issued a memorandum outlining how, in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, the Department of Homeland Security…	Jan. 25, 2021	Jan. 25, 2021 https://www.federalregister.gov/...
Memorandum on Rescission Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Department of Homeland Security	"This memorandum rescinds the June 15, 2012 memorandum entitled 'Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children,' which established the prog…	Sept. 5, 2017	Sept. 5, 2017 https://www.dhs.gov/...
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California Oyez	In 2012, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) adopted a program—known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)—to postpone the deportation of undocumented immigrants who had bee…	June 18, 2020	June 18, 2020 https://www.oyez.org/...
Executive Order 13768: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States President Donald Trump		Jan. 25, 2017	Jan. 25, 2017 https://www.gpo.gov/...
Re: Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest (Final, 2/20/2017) DHS Secretary John Kelly		Feb. 20, 2017	Feb. 20, 2017 https://www.dhs.gov/...
Executive Order 13767: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements President Donald Trump		Jan. 27, 2017	Jan. 27, 2017 https://www.govinfo.gov/...

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-11704330.). Filed byState of Minnesota, State of California, State of Maryland, State of Maine. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P)(Zahradka, James) (Filed on 9/11/2017) (Entered: 09/11/2017) 1 Exhibit A View on PACER 2 Exhibit B View on PACER 3 Exhibit C View on PACER 4 Exhibit D View on PACER 5 Exhibit E View on PACER 6 Exhibit F View on PACER 7 Exhibit G View on PACER 8 Exhibit H View on PACER 9 Exhibit I View on PACER 10 Exhibit J View on PACER 11 Exhibit K View on PACER 12 Exhibit L View on PACER 13 Exhibit M View on PACER 14 Exhibit N View on PACER 15 Exhibit O View on PACER 16 Exhibit P View on PACER	Sept. 11, 2017	Sept. 11, 2017 RECAP
2	Civil Cover Sheet by State of California, State of Maine, State of Maryland, State of Minnesota . (Zahradka, James) (Filed on 9/11/2017) (Entered: 09/11/2017)	Sept. 11, 2017	Sept. 11, 2017 PACER
3	Proposed Summons. (Zahradka, James) (Filed on 9/11/2017) (Entered: 09/11/2017)	Sept. 11, 2017	Sept. 11, 2017 PACER
4	Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 9/25/2017. (haS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2017) (Entered: 09/11/2017)	Sept. 11, 2017	Sept. 11, 2017 PACER
5	Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 12/7/2017. Initial Case Management Conference set for 12/14/2017 10:00 AM. (hdjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2017) (Entered: 09/12/2017)	Sept. 11, 2017	Sept. 11, 2017 PACER
6	Summons Issued as to Department of Homeland Security, Elaine C. Duke, United States of America, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (hdjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2017) (Entered: 09/12/2017)	Sept. 12, 2017	Sept. 12, 2017 PACER
7	MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-11712273.) filed by State of Minnesota. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Passe, Julianna) (Filed on 9/13/2017) (Entered: 09/13/2017) 1 Exhibit View on PACER	Sept. 13, 2017	Sept. 13, 2017 PACER
8	MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-11712322.) filed by State of Maine. (Herman, Susan) (Filed on 9/13/2017) (Entered: 09/13/2017)	Sept. 13, 2017	Sept. 13, 2017 PACER
9	ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James granting 7 Motion for Pro Hac Vice re: Julianna F. Passe. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2017) (Entered: 09/13/2017)	Sept. 13, 2017	Sept. 13, 2017 PACER
10	ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James granting 8 Motion for Pro Hac Vice re: Susan P. Herman. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2017) (Entered: 09/13/2017)	Sept. 13, 2017	Sept. 13, 2017 PACER
11	MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-11715886.) filed by State of Maryland. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Sullivan, Steven) (Filed on 9/14/2017) (Entered: 09/14/2017) 1 Certificate of Good Standing View on PACER	Sept. 14, 2017	Sept. 14, 2017 PACER
12	ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James granting 11 Motion for Pro Hac Vice re: Steven M. Sullivan.(rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2017) (Entered: 09/14/2017)	Sept. 14, 2017	Sept. 14, 2017 PACER
13	NOTICE of Appearance by Christine Chuang (Chuang, Christine) (Filed on 9/14/2017) (Entered: 09/14/2017)	Sept. 14, 2017	Sept. 14, 2017 PACER
14	NOTICE of Appearance by Ronald Hak King Lee (Lee, Ronald) (Filed on 9/14/2017) (Entered: 09/14/2017)	Sept. 14, 2017	Sept. 14, 2017 PACER
15	NOTICE of Appearance by Steven Marshall Sullivan (Sullivan, Steven) (Filed on 9/14/2017) (Entered: 09/14/2017)	Sept. 14, 2017	Sept. 14, 2017 PACER
16	NOTICE of Appearance by Shubhra Shivpuri COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Shivpuri, Shubhra) (Filed on 9/14/2017) (Entered: 09/14/2017)	Sept. 14, 2017	Sept. 14, 2017 PACER
17	NOTICE of Appearance by Brad Prescott Rosenberg (Rosenberg, Brad) (Filed on 9/15/2017) (Entered: 09/15/2017)	Sept. 15, 2017	Sept. 15, 2017 PACER
18	ORDER RELATING CASE. Signed by Judge Alsup on 9/18/2017. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2017) (Entered: 09/18/2017)	Sept. 18, 2017	Sept. 18, 2017 RECAP
	Set/Reset Hearings	Sept. 18, 2017	Sept. 18, 2017 PACER
19	NOTICE RE SEPTEMBER 21 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Signed by Judge Alsup on 9/18/2017. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2017) (Entered: 09/18/2017)	Sept. 18, 2017	Sept. 18, 2017 RECAP
	Set/Reset Hearing re 19 Order Initial Case Management Conference set for 9/21/2017 10:30 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Judge William Alsup. (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2017)	Sept. 18, 2017	Sept. 18, 2017 PACER
20	Case Reassigned to Judge Hon. William Alsup. Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James no longer assigned to the case. This case is assigned to a judge who participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2017) (Entered: 09/18/2017)	Sept. 18, 2017	Sept. 18, 2017 PACER
	Related cases: Create association to 3:17-cv-05211-WHA. (sxbS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2017)	Sept. 19, 2017	Sept. 19, 2017 PACER
	Create Case Relationship	Sept. 19, 2017	Sept. 19, 2017 PACER
21	NOTICE of Appearance by Brett A. Shumate (Shumate, Brett) (Filed on 9/20/2017) (Entered: 09/20/2017)	Sept. 20, 2017	Sept. 20, 2017 PACER
22	ORDER RELATING CASES by Hon. William Alsup granting (39) Motion to Relate Case in case 3:17-cv-05211-WHA.Associated Cases: 3:17-cv-05211-WHA, 3:17-cv-05235-WHA(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2017) (Entered: 09/20/2017)	Sept. 20, 2017	Sept. 20, 2017 PACER
23	ORDER RELATING CASES by Judge Alsup granting (38) Motion to Relate Case; granting (42) Stipulation in case 3:17-cv-05211-WHA (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2017) (Entered: 09/20/2017)	Sept. 20, 2017	Sept. 20, 2017 PACER
24	CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER FOR ALL DACA ACTIONS IN THIS DISTRICT: Bench Trial set for 2/5/2018 07:30 AM before Hon. William Alsup. Motion Hearing set for 12/20/2017 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. Pretrial Conference set for 1/24/2018 02:00 PM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup.. Signed by Judge Alsup on 9/22/2017. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2017) (Entered: 09/22/2017)	Sept. 22, 2017	Sept. 22, 2017 PACER
	Set/Reset Hearings	Sept. 22, 2017	Sept. 22, 2017 PACER
	Set/Reset Hearing Tutorial Hearing set for 10/3/2017 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2017)	Sept. 22, 2017	Sept. 22, 2017 PACER
25	Letter from State of California, Office of the Attorney General RE EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL. (Zahradka, James) (Filed on 9/22/2017) (Entered: 09/22/2017)	Sept. 22, 2017	Sept. 22, 2017 PACER
26	Transcript of Proceedings held on 9/21/17, before Judge William H. Alsup. Court Reporter Jo Ann Bryce, telephone number 510-910-5888, joann_bryce@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction after 90 days. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re (45 in 3:17-cv-05211-WHA) Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/21/2017. (jabS, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2017) (Entered: 09/22/2017)	Sept. 22, 2017	Sept. 22, 2017 PACER
27	FURTHER NOTICE RE TUTORIAL re (12 in 3:17-cv-05380-WHA) Case Management Scheduling Order, Signed by Judge Alsup on 9/25/2017. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2017) (Entered: 09/25/2017)	Sept. 25, 2017	Sept. 25, 2017 PACER
28	NOTICE OF REFERRAL FOR DISCOVERY. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim on 9/25/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Magistrate Judge Kim's Standing Order)(mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2017) (Entered: 09/25/2017) 1 Standing Order View on PACER	Sept. 25, 2017	Sept. 25, 2017 PACER
29	Minute Entry for proceedings held before William Alsup: Initial Case Management Conference held on 9/21/2017. Motion(s) hearing set for 12/20/2017 at 8:00 AM. Tutorial set for 10/3/2017 at 8:00 AM. Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/24/2018 at 2:00 PM. Bench Trial set for 2/5/2018 at 7:30 AM. Case referred to Magistrate Sallie Kim for Discovery.Total Time in Court: 1:22. Court Reporter: Jo Ann Bryce. Plaintiff Attorney: Jeffrey Davidson; Alexander Berengaut; Alex Covington; Mark Lynch; James Zahradka; Nancy Fineman; Mark Rosenbaum; Ethan Dettmer. Defendant Attorney: Brad Rosenberg; Sara Winslow; Brett Shumate. Attachment: Civil Minutes. (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/25/2017) (Entered: 09/25/2017)	Sept. 25, 2017	Sept. 25, 2017 PACER
	CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim for Discovery (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2017)	Sept. 26, 2017	Sept. 26, 2017 PACER
	Case Referred to Magistrate Judge for Discovery	Sept. 26, 2017	Sept. 26, 2017 PACER
30	NOTICE of Appearance by Kathleen Vermazen Radez (Radez, Kathleen) (Filed on 9/27/2017) (Entered: 09/27/2017)	Sept. 27, 2017	Sept. 27, 2017 PACER
31	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 24 Case Management Scheduling Order, filed by Department of Homeland Security, Elaine C. Duke, United States of America. (Rosenberg, Brad) (Filed on 9/29/2017) (Entered: 09/29/2017)	Sept. 29, 2017	Sept. 29, 2017 PACER
32	ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER by Judge William Alsup granting (57) Stipulation in case 3:17-cv-05211-WHA.Associated Cases: 3:17-cv-05211-WHA, 3:17-cv-05235-WHA, 3:17-cv-05329-WHA, 3:17-cv-05380-WHA(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2017) (Entered: 09/29/2017)	Sept. 29, 2017	Sept. 29, 2017 PACER

Case: State of California v. Department of Homeland Security

3:17-cv-05235 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details