United States of America v. State of California et al

Filing 197

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 7/9/2018 GRANTING-IN-PART and DENYING-IN-PART 77 Motion to Dismiss. The Court GRANTS the 77 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Supremacy Clause claims against AB 103, SB 54, and California Labor Code Section 90.2 (added by AB 450) WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Court DENIES the 77 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Supremacy Clause claim with respect to California Government Code Sections 7285.1 and 7285.2 and California Labor Code Section 1019.2 (added by AB 450). Amended Joint Status Report due 7/31/2018. The parties should specifically address how they anticipate the case will proceed in this Court and suggest dates for discovery cut-off, expert witness disclosure, filing of dispositive motions, pretrial conference and trial. (Donati, J)

Case 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN Document 197 Filed 07/09/18 Page 1 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

14

No.

2:18-cv-490-JAM-KJN

Plaintiff,

15

v.

16

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

17

ORDER RE: STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S
MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants.

18
19

In response to the United States of America’s (“Plaintiff”

20

or “United States”) allegations that California overstepped its

21

authority and violated the Supremacy Clause, the State of

22

California (“Defendant” or “California”)1 moves to dismiss the

23

Complaint in its entirety.

24

opposes dismissal.

25

///

26
27
28

ECF No. 77.

The United States

ECF No. 166.

Because Edmund Gerald Brown Jr., Governor of California, and
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California, are sued in their
official capacities only, the Court will address all three named
defendants as “California” or “Defendant.”
1
1

Case 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN Document 197 Filed 07/09/18 Page 2 of 7
1

The parties appeared before the Court on June 20, 2018, and

2

argued the merits of the United States’ claims as they related to

3

the United States’ pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction and

4

California’s pending Motion to Dismiss.

5

Order Re: The United States of America’s Motion for Preliminary

6

Injunction on July 5, 2018, in which the Court set forth, in

7

detail, its evaluation of the United States’ claims and the

8

challenged state laws.

9

United States is not likely to succeed on the merits of its

ECF No. 193.

The Court filed its

The Court concluded the

10

Supremacy Clause claims against SB 54, AB 103, and the notice

11

requirement provision of AB 450.

12

has shown a likelihood of success on its claim against the

13

remaining provisions of AB 450, as those provisions apply to

14

private employers.

15

It also found the United States

For the reasons set forth in the Court’s Preliminary

16

Injunction Order, and as explained further below, Defendant’s

17

motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.

18
19

I.

OPINION

20

A.

Legal Standard

21

Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule

22

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

In reviewing such motion, the Court

23

“inquire[s] whether the complaint’s factual allegations, together

24

with all reasonable inferences, state a plausible claim for

25

relief.”

26

637 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2011).

27

the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of

28

sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.”

Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc.,

2

“Dismissal can be based on

Case 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN Document 197 Filed 07/09/18 Page 3 of 7
1

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

2

1988).

3

B.

Assembly Bill 103

4

AB 103 directs the California Attorney General’s attention

5

to civil immigration detention facilities within the State and

6

establishes a review and reporting requirement with respect to

7

those facilities.

8

notion that federal law preempts that new requirement and that

9

the new requirement conflicts with 8 C.F.R. § 236.6.

Plaintiff’s theory of liability rests on the

Opp’n at 9.

10

Additionally, Plaintiff argues that AB 103 violates the

11

intergovernmental immunity doctrine.

12

Id. at 10.

The Court finds AB 103 does not violate the Supremacy

13

Clause.

14

Court does not find any indication in the cited federal statutes

15

that Congress intended for States to have no oversight over

16

detention facilities operating within their borders.

17

12–19.

18

California a role in determining whether an immigrant should be

19

detained or removed from the country, nor does it place any

20

substantive requirements or burdens on these detention facilities

21

apart from providing access.

22

conflict between AB 103 and 8 C.F.R. § 236.6; on its face, AB 103

23

only requires disclosure of records to the Attorney General and

24

does not contemplate the release of detainee information to the

25

public.

26

burden the reviews place on the facilities does not violate the

27

intergovernmental immunity doctrine.

28

As explained in the Preliminary Injunction Order, the

Order at

AB 103’s review and reporting requirement does not give

Id. at 17–18.

Id. at 14–16.

The Court finds no

Finally, the Court finds that the minimal

Id. at 19.

For these reasons and those stated in this Court’s
3

Case 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN Document 197 Filed 07/09/18 Page 4 of 7
1

Preliminary Injunction Order, at 12–19, Plaintiff’s Supremacy

2

Clause claim against AB 103 is dismissed.

3

C.

4
5

Assembly Bill 450 – Consent, Access, and
Reverification Provisions

AB 450 added several provisions to California law.

It added

6

sections to the California Government Code that prohibit

7

employers from providing voluntary consent to an immigration

8

enforcement agent to enter nonpublic areas of a place of labor or

9

to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records.

10

Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 7285.1, 7285.2.

11

the Labor Code that prohibits employers from reverifying the

12

employment eligibility of current employees when not required by

13

federal law.

14

It also added a provision to

Cal. Lab. Code § 1019.2.

The Court preliminarily enjoined these three laws.

Order at

15

60.

Suffice it to say, the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated

16

a plausible claim for relief with respect to these provisions.

17

The Court denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim

18

as to California Government Code Sections 7285.1 and 7285.2 and

19

California Labor Code Section 1019.2.

20

D.

Assembly Bill 450 – Notice Requirement

21

AB 450 also added a provision to the California Labor Code

22

that requires employers to provide notice to their employees “of

23

any inspections of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms

24

or other employment records conducted by an immigration agency

25

within 72 hours of receiving notice of the inspection.”

26

Lab. Code § 90.2(a)(1).

27

provide affected employees with the results of the inspection.

28

Id. § 90.2(b).

Cal.

The law also requires employers to

Plaintiff argues this law is impermissible
4

Case 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN Document 197 Filed 07/09/18 Page 5 of 7
1

because “it would be unthinkable for a state to require that

2

suspects be warned of upcoming criminal investigations by the

3

Federal Bureau of Investigation, or that suspects be kept up to

4

date on the results of investigative work done by the Bureau.”

5

Opp’n at 8.

6

The Court does not agree with Plaintiff’s characterization

7

of this provision.

Order at 27–28.

The law does no more than

8

extend the notice afforded employers—the primary targets of IRCA

9

enforcement actions—to employees. Id.

Further, because employer

10

liability is based on an employer’s failure to communicate

11

information to its employees, and not on the employer’s choice to

12

“deal with” immigration enforcement, the provision does not

13

violate the intergovernmental immunity doctrine.

14

Id.

For these reasons and those stated in this Court’s

15

Preliminary Injunction Order, at 27–28, Plaintiff’s Supremacy

16

Clause claim against California Labor Code Section 90.2 is

17

dismissed.

18

E.

Senate Bill 54

19

Senate Bill 54 (“SB 54”) added several provisions to the

20

government code that Plaintiff challenges.

21

California law enforcement agencies from sharing an individual’s

22

release dates and personal information (i.e. home and work

23

addresses) for immigration enforcement purposes.

24

§ 7284.6(a)(1)(C) & (D).

25

from transferring individuals to immigration authorities.

26

Gov’t Code § 7284.6(a)(4).

27
28

SB 54 restricts

Cal. Gov’t Code

It further restricts those agencies
Cal.

The Court finds that the challenged provisions of SB 54 do
not violate the Supremacy Clause.
5

See Order at 32–57.

Because

Case 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN Document 197 Filed 07/09/18 Page 6 of 7
1

“information regarding immigration or citizenship status” does

2

not include an immigrant’s release date or home and work

3

addresses, SB 54 does not directly conflict with 8 U.S.C. § 1373.

4

Id. at 32–41.

5

the Preliminary Injunction Order, the Court also finds that the

6

INA does not preempt SB 54.

7

finds SB 54 does not violate the doctrine of intergovernmental

8

immunity because it falls outside of the doctrine’s scope or,

9

alternatively, because California’s reasons for enacting the law

10
11

For the reasons set forth in Part III.A.3.b. of

Id. at 42–55.

justify the differential treatment, if any.

Finally, the Court

Id. at 55–57.

For these reasons and those stated in this Court’s

12

Preliminary Injunction Order, at 32–57, Plaintiff’s Supremacy

13

Clause claim against SB 54 is dismissed.

14

F.

Leave to Amend

15

Neither party addressed whether the Court should grant

16

Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint.

17

court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the

18

pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could

19

not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.”

20

Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d

21

242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990).

22

However, “a district

Cook,

Given the nature of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court finds

23

amendment would be futile.

Plaintiff challenges the

24

constitutional validity of the state laws and resolution of its

25

claims turns on questions of law.

26

litigated these issues over the past several months.

27

finds new allegations will not cure the deficiencies in

28

Plaintiff’s Complaint and leave to amend is therefore denied.
6

The parties have extensively
The Court

Case 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN Document 197 Filed 07/09/18 Page 7 of 7
1
2
3

II.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, and incorporated by

4

reference herein, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss

5

Plaintiff’s Supremacy Clause claims against AB 103, SB 54, and

6

California Labor Code Section 90.2 (added by AB 450) without

7

leave to amend.

8

Plaintiff’s Supremacy Clause claim with respect to California

9

Government Code Sections 7285.1 and 7285.2 and California Labor

10

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss

Code Section 1019.2 (added by AB 450).

11

The parties shall file an amended Joint Status Report no

12

later than July 31, 2018. The parties should specifically address

13

how they anticipate the case will proceed in this Court and

14

suggest dates for discovery cut-off, expert witness disclosure,

15

filing of dispositive motions, pretrial conference and trial.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 9, 2018

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7