Raymond v. Howard

Filing 26

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 5/3/2013 DENYING defendant's 16 Motion for Compulsory Joinder. However, since California is currently litigating constitutionality of same election laws that are at issue in these related cases through its Secretary and Attorney General in Libertarian Party, each party shall SHOW CAUSE, in a filing due no later than 5/20/2013, why all of related cases should not be stayed until decision is issued in Libertarian Party. (Marciel, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 Robert RAYMOND, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 v. Barbara HOWARD, Sheldon D. Johnson, Jim McCauley, Kammi Foote, Lee Lundigran, Ken Baird, Sheryl Thur, Austin Erdman, Kathy Darling Allen, Beverly Ross, Freddie Oakley, and Kathleen Williams, Defendants. 15 16 17 ________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:12-cv-02215-GEB-EFB and related cases: 2:12-cv-02217-GEB-EFB 2:12-cv-02219-GEB-EFB 1:12-cv-01407-GEB-EFB 1:12-cv-01408-GEB-EFB 1:12-cv-01412-GEB-EFB 2:12-cv-02220-GEB-EFB 2:12-cv-02221-GEB-EFB 2:12-cv-02222-GEB-EFB 2:12-cv-02223-GEB-EFB 2:12-cv-02225-GEB-EFB 2:12-cv-02259-GEB-EFB ORDER DENYING EACH MOVANT’S MOTION FOR COMPULSORY JOINDER; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY RELATED ACTIONS SHOULD NOT BE STAYED 18 Defendants Howard, Johnson, McCauley, Foote, Lundigran, Thur, 19 Erdman, Allen, Ross, Oakley, and Williams (hereinafter “Defendants”) 20 each move to compel the joinder of the California Secretary of State 21 (“Secretary”) and California Attorney General (“Attorney General”) as 22 defendants. Each movant argues these state officers are required parties 23 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 19. Plaintiff opposes 24 each motion, arguing compulsory joinder is inappropriate because “the 25 state non-party defendants refuse to join the action, have not requested 26 joinder, and . . . the present parties can adequately represent the 27 interest of the state . . . .” (E.g., Pl.’s Opp’n to Def. Williams’ Mot. 28 1 1 for Compulsory Joinder, Raymond v. Williams, No. 2:12-cv-02259, at 2 1:25–28, ECF No. 16.) 3 I. BACKGROUND 4 Plaintiff seeks, in each related case, declaratory and 5 injunctive relief against various county clerk-registrars to prevent 6 them from enforcing certain California election laws that preclude non- 7 residents from circulating state initiative petitions. An order issued 8 in each case, certifying under 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b) that Plaintiff is 9 challenging the constitutionality of state statutes. The Attorney 10 General was served a copy of the certifications, and the hearing on each 11 Defendant’s joinder motion was continued since it was unclear whether 12 the Attorney General would elect to intervene. The Attorney General did 13 not intervene within the time period anticipated in that order. 14 II. LEGAL STANDARD 15 “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 governs compulsory party 16 joinder in federal district courts.” E.E.O.C. v. Peabody W. Coal Co., 17 610 F.3d 1070, 1077 (9th Cir. 2010). Rule 19 provides in relevant part1: 18 19 (a) Persons Required to Be Joined if Feasible. 20 (1) 22 Required Party. A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if: 23 (A) 21 24 in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or 25 26 27 28 1 Rule 19 was revised in 2007, and the “Rules Committee advised the changes were stylistic only . . . . [T]he word ‘required’• replaced the word ‘necessary’•in [Rule 19](a).” Republic of Phil. v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851, 855 (2008). Therefore, the terms “required” and “necessary” are used interchangeably in this order. 2 1 (B) 2 3 that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person’s absence may: 4 (i) 5 6 7 as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest; or (ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest. 8 9 10 (2) 11 12 13 14 . . . . 15 (b) Joinder by Court Order. If a person has not been joined as required, the court must order that the person be made a party. A person who refuses to join as a plaintiff may be made either a defendant or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff. 18 When Joinder Is Not Feasible. If a person who is required to be joined if feasible cannot be joined, the court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed. . . . 19 “A Rule 19 motion poses three successive inquiries.” Peabody 16 17 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 W. Coal, Co., 610 F.3d at 1078 (internal quotation marks omitted). First, the court must determine whether a nonparty should be joined under Rule 19(a). That nonparty (or “absentee”) is now referred to as a “person required to be joined if feasible.” If an absentee meets the requirements of Rule 19(a), the second stage is for the court to determine whether it is feasible to order that the absentee be joined. Finally, if joinder is not feasible, the court must determine at the third stage whether the case can proceed without the absentee or whether the action must be dismissed. Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 28 3 1 “[T]he burden . . . rest[s] upon the party asserting the 2 necessity of joining absent parties.” Sierra Club v. Watt, 608 F. Supp. 3 305, 320 (E.D. Cal. 1985) (Karlton, C.J.), cited with approval in Makah 4 Indian Tribe v. Verity, 910 F.2d 555, 558 (9th Cir. 1990). 5 6 7 III. DISCUSSION Defendants seek compulsory joinder of the Secretary and Attorney General in these related cases on, in essence, three grounds. 8 First, Defendants argue: “Given the Secretary of State and 9 Attorney General’s obligations with regard to the interpretation and 10 enforcement of the Election Code, the court cannot accord complete 11 relief to Plaintiff . . . on his claims without including these state 12 officers as defendants.” (Id. at 5:20–22.) Defendants contend: “It is 13 the [Secretary’s] duty to see . . . that election laws are enforced,” 14 and “[t]he Attorney [G]eneral is the chief law enforcement officer of 15 the [S]tate and has the duty ‘to see that the laws of the State are 16 uniformly and adequately enforced.’” (E.g., Def. Howard’s Mot. for 17 Compulsory Joinder, Raymond v. Howard, No. 2:12-cv-02215, (“Mot.”) 18 5:11–12, 5:15–17, ECF No. 16 (quoting Cal. Const. art. V, § 13) (citing 19 Cal. Gov’t Code § 12172.5).) Plaintiff counters that his “case[s] seek[] 20 relief against the county [clerk registrars]; [they] do[] not seek 21 relief against anyone else” or “all possible relief against all possible 22 government actors, nor is that necessary to obtain the relief sought.” 23 (Pl.’s Opp’n to Def. Howard’s Mot., Raymond v. Howard, No. 2:12-cv- 24 02215, (“Opp’n”) 9:2–13, ECF No. 18.) 25 Second, Defendants assert the Secretary and Attorney General’s 26 interests in the conduct of state elections and the enforcement of the 27 state elections code will, in their absence, be impaired. Specifically, 28 Defendants contend: “The absence of the Secretary of State in th[ese] 4 1 matter[s] would impair or impede the Secretary’s ability to protect 2 enforcement of the Elections Code should Plaintiff reach stipulated 3 settlements in th[ese] matter[s], or choose not to enforce the Elections 4 Code,” and “[t]he California Attorney General likewise has weighty 5 interests at stake, and is no less necessary for its resolution.” (Mot. 6 7:6–9.) Plaintiff counters that the fact that “[n]either non-party 7 government [official] expressed any interest in joining th[ese] case[s], 8 [is] 9 joinder.” (Opp’n 4:25–27.) itself sufficient for denial of the motions for compulsory 10 Third, Defendants assert that in the absence of the Secretary 11 and Attorney General, Defendants will be subject to a substantial risk 12 of 13 contend: “If all or some of the Defendants in th[ese] matter[s] reach a 14 settlement with Plaintiff in which they agree not to enforce the laws in 15 question, then the Secretary . . . or Attorney General may use their 16 enforcement powers to require Defendants to enforce those law [in 17 violation of] any such resolution.” (Mot. at 8:9–11 (citing People ex 18 rel. Lockyer v. Cnty. of Santa Cruz, 416 F. Supp. 2d 797 (N.D. Cal. 19 2006)).) Plaintiff rejoins that this argument “speculates on future 20 events without any actual evidence of any intention by the non-party and 21 unwilling government officials] to take any action . . . .” (Id. at 22 5:10–19 (citing Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agric. & Power Dist., 23 276 F.3d 1150, 1155 n.5 (9th Cir. 2002)).) multiple 24 or inconsistent “There is no obligations. precise formula Specifically, for determining Defendants whether a 25 particular nonparty should be joined under Rule 19(a).” 26 Cnty., 687 F.2d 299, 301 (9th Cir. 1982). “The determination is heavily 27 influenced 28 Considerations “include plaintiff’s right to decide whom he shall sue, by the facts and circumstances 5 of each Bakia v. L.A. case.” Id. 1 avoiding multiple litigation, providing the parties with complete and 2 effective relief in a single action, protecting the absentee, and 3 fairness to the [moving] party.” Id. 4 Plaintiff’s right to decide whom to sue weighs against 5 compelling joinder, since Plaintiff opposes joinder and asserts that he 6 does not seek relief from the Secretary or the Attorney General. 7 Nor have the Defendants shown that the factor concerning 8 avoiding multiple litigation favors compelling joinder, in light of 9 Defendant Jim McCauley’s request for judicial notice filed in Case No. 10 12-cv-2219 on February 15, 2013, which is granted. 11 judicial notice request are cases evincing that multiple other lawsuits 12 are pending on the same California election laws at issue in these 13 related cases. Specifically, the same California election laws are the 14 subject of pending litigation in the Central District of California case 15 captioned Libertarian Party of L.A. Cnty. v. Bowen, Case No. 11-55316 16 (2011) (“Libertarian Party”). The Secretary is a party in Libertarian 17 Party, and is represented by the Attorney General. The judicially 18 noticed documents also show that Plaintiff is seeking the identical 19 relief sought in these related cases in several pending cases in the 20 Northern District of California. See Raymond v. Arntz, Case No. CV-12- 21 4472 JCS (N.D. Cal.). 22 Attached to that Further, the movants have not shown that the factor concerning 23 protection of the absent California officials favors joinder. Those 24 officials are currently litigating the constitutionality of the same 25 California Election laws involved in these related case in Libertarian 26 Party, and the Ninth Circuit recently issued a decision reversing and 27 remanding a matter to the district court in that case. See Libertarian 28 Party of L.A. Cnty. v. Bowen, 709 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2013). Since the 6 1 Secretary, represented by the Attorney General, is defending against the 2 same constitutional claims involved here in Libertarian, the movants 3 have not shown that their absence from these actions would impair or 4 impede their interests. 5 Defendants’ contention that absent joinder, they risk the 6 threat of inconsistent obligations weighs in favor of joinder; some 7 Defendants could reach a settlement with Plaintiff that is contrary the 8 position of the Secretary, and the Attorney General could then use her 9 enforcement powers to require Defendants to enforce the subject election 10 laws as the Secretary opines they should be enforced. However, this 11 factor does not cause the balance of all factors to favor joinder at 12 this stage of the proceeding. 13 For the stated reasons, each Defendant’s motion for compulsory 14 joinder is DENIED. However, since California is currently litigating the 15 constitutionality of the same election laws that are at issue in these 16 related cases through its Secretary and Attorney General in Libertarian 17 Party, each party shall show cause in a filing due no later than May 20, 18 2013, why all of the above-captioned related cases should not be stayed 19 until a decision is issued in Libertarian Party. 20 Dated: May 3, 2013 21 22 23 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. Senior United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 7

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?