United States of America v. State of California et al

Filing 198

ANSWER by Xavier Becerra, Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr, State of California.(Sherman, Lee)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
THOMAS S. PATTERSON
Senior Assistant Attorney General
ANTHONY HAKL
MICHAEL NEWMAN
SATOSHI YANAI
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
CHRISTINE CHUANG
CHEROKEE DM MELTON
LEE I. SHERMAN
Deputy Attorneys General
State Bar No. 272271
300 S. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants

11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

14
15
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

v.

Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES’
COMPLAINT

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; EDMUND
Judge:
GERALD BROWN JR., Governor of
Trial Date:
California, in his official capacity; and
Action Filed:
XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General of
California, in his official capacity,

Honorable John A. Mendez
None set
March 6, 2018

Defendants.

23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff United States’ Complaint

(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

Defendants State of California, Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor of California, in his

2

official capacity, and Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California, in his official capacity

3

(“California” or “Defendants”), answer and otherwise respond to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff

4

United States of America (“Plaintiff” or “United States”) on March 6, 2018 as follows.

5

California’s responses are made without waiving, and expressly reserving, all rights that

6

California has to file dispositive motions addressed to the Plaintiff’s remaining claims asserted in

7

the Complaint. California also does not respond to, and is not obligated to respond to, allegations

8

pertaining to claims that have been dismissed without leave to amend pursuant to the Court’s July

9

9, 2018 Order, ECF No. 197, namely the portion of Plaintiff’s first cause of action against

10

California Labor Code section 90.2 and Plaintiff’s second and third causes of action in their

11

entirety, as those claims are no longer part of this lawsuit. Except as expressly admitted herein,

12

all allegations in the Complaint are denied.

13

RESPONSES TO ALLEGATIONS

14

The allegations contained in the first unnumbered paragraph of the Complaint are

15

introductory and conclusory in nature, and therefore no response is required. To the extent a

16

response is required, California admits that Plaintiff purports to assert certain claims in its

17

Complaint and seeks certain remedies in connection with those claims, and denies that Plaintiff is

18

entitled to any relief. To the extent any of the allegations in this paragraph pertain to Plaintiff’s

19

claim against California Labor Code section 90.2 or Plaintiff’s second and third causes of action,

20

California responds that those claims are no longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF No. 197), and

21

accordingly, no response is required as to allegations directed at those causes of action.

22
23

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.

The allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 1 describe the relief

24

Plaintiff seeks and are conclusory in nature, and therefore no response is required. To the extent a

25

response is required, California admits that Plaintiff purports to assert certain claims in its

26

Complaint and seeks certain remedies in connection with those claims, denies the remaining

27

allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 1, and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to

28

any relief. The allegations contained in the second sentence of Paragraph 1 state legal
1
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff United States’ Complaint

(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

conclusions, and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required,

2

California denies the allegations contained in the second sentence of Paragraph 1. Further

3

responding, to the extent any of the allegations in Paragraph 1 pertain to Plaintiff’s claim against

4

California Labor Code section 90.2 or Plaintiff’s second and third causes of actions, California

5

responds that those claims are no longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF No. 197), and accordingly,

6

no response is required as to allegations directed at those causes of action.

7

2.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 2 state legal conclusions, and therefore no

8

response is required. To the extent a response is required, California answers that the United

9

States Constitution and the “numerous acts of Congress” described in the second sentence of

10

Paragraph 2 speak for themselves, denies anything beyond the face of the United States

11

Constitution or acts of Congress described in Paragraph 2, and further denies that California's

12

laws obstruct, conflict with, or discriminate against, federal immigration enforcement efforts.

13

Further responding, to the extent any of the allegations in Paragraph 2 pertain to Plaintiff’s claim

14

against California Labor Code section 90.2 or Plaintiff’s second and third causes of actions,

15

California responds that those claims are no longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF No. 197), and

16

accordingly, no response is required as to allegations directed at those causes of action.

17

3.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 3 state legal conclusions, and therefore no

18

response is required. To the extent a response is required, California admits that Plaintiff purports

19

to assert certain claims in its Complaint, and denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph

20

3. Further responding, to the extent any of the allegations in Paragraph 3 pertain to Plaintiff’s

21

claim against California Labor Code section 90.2 or Plaintiff’s second and third causes of actions,

22

California responds that those claims are no longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF No. 197), and

23

accordingly, no response is required as to allegations directed at those causes of action.

24

4.

In response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 4, California states that the

25

statute, Assembly Bill (AB) 450, speaks for itself. Further answering, California admits that AB

26

450 regulates private employers’ discretion to voluntarily consent to requests from immigration

27

enforcement agents to enter the nonpublic areas of places of labor and to access an employer’s

28

employee records, and denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4. To the extent any of the
2
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff United States’ Complaint

(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

allegations in Paragraph 4 pertain to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code section 90.2,

2

California responds that this claim is no longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF No. 197), and

3

accordingly, no response is required as to allegations directed at this cause of action.

4

5.

Paragraph 5 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

5

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

6

paragraph.

7

6.

Paragraph 6 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

8

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

9

paragraph.

10

7.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 7 state legal conclusions, and therefore no

11

response is required. To the extent a response is required, California answers that the state laws

12

at issue, the Supremacy Clause, and the United States Constitution described in Paragraph 7

13

speak for themselves. California denies anything beyond the face of the state laws at issue, the

14

Supremacy Clause, and the United States Constitution, and further denies that California’s laws

15

obstruct the United States’ ability to enforce laws that Congress has enacted or to perform its

16

duties under the Constitution. Further responding, to the extent any of the allegations in

17

Paragraph 7 pertain to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code section 90.2 or Plaintiff’s

18

second and third causes of actions, California responds that those claims are no longer part of this

19

lawsuit (see ECF No. 197), and accordingly, no response is required as to allegations directed at

20

those causes of action.

21
22

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8.

California states that the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 state conclusions of law

23

to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, California admits only that

24

the Court has jurisdiction over the portions of the first cause of action that have not been

25

dismissed from the Complaint, and to the extent any of the allegations in Paragraph 8 pertain

26

to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code section 90.2 or Plaintiff’s second and third

27

causes of actions, California responds that those claims are no longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF

28
3
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff United States’ Complaint

(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

No. 197), and accordingly, no response is required as to allegations directed at those causes of

2

action.

3

9.

California states that the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 state conclusions of law

4

to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, California admits only that

5

it has offices within the Eastern District of California, and denies the remaining allegations in

6

Paragraph 9. Further responding, to the extent any of the allegations in Paragraph 9 pertain

7

to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code section 90.2 or Plaintiff’s second and third

8

causes of actions, California responds that those claims are no longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF

9

No. 197), and accordingly, no response is required as to allegations directed at those causes of

10
11

action.
10.

California states that the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 state conclusions of

12

law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, California denies the

13

allegations in Paragraph 10. Further responding, to the extent any of the allegations in Paragraph

14

10 pertain to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code section 90.2 or Plaintiff’s second and

15

third causes of actions, California responds that those claims are no longer part of this lawsuit

16

(see ECF No. 197), and accordingly, no response is required as to allegations directed at those

17

causes of action.

18
19

PARTIES
11.

California states that the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 state conclusions of

20

law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, California admits

21

only, on information and belief, that the United States enforces the immigration laws through its

22

Executive agencies including the Department of Homeland Security and its component agencies,

23

and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 11. Further responding, to the extent any of the

24

allegations in Paragraph 11 pertain to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code section 90.2

25

or Plaintiff’s second and third causes of actions, California responds that those claims are no

26

longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF No. 197), and accordingly, no response is required as to

27

allegations directed at those causes of action.

28

12.

California admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 12.
4

Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff United States’ Complaint

(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

13.

California admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 13, except to the extent any

2

of the allegations in Paragraph 13 pertain to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code

3

section 90.2 or Plaintiff’s second and third causes of actions, California responds that those

4

claims are no longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF No. 197), and accordingly, no response is

5

required as to allegations directed at those causes of action.

6

14.

California admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 14, except to the extent any

7

of the allegations in Paragraph 14 pertain to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code

8

section 90.2 or Plaintiff’s second and third causes of actions, California responds that those

9

claims are no longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF No. 197), and accordingly, no response is

10

required as to allegations directed at those causes of action.

11
12

FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW
15.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 15 state legal conclusions, and therefore no

13

response is required. To the extent a response is required, California answers that the articles of

14

the United States Constitution described in Paragraph 15 speak for themselves and denies

15

anything beyond the face of the United States Constitution. Further responding, to the extent any

16

of the allegations in Paragraph 15 pertain to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code

17

section 90.2 or Plaintiff’s second and third causes of actions, California responds that those

18

claims are no longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF No. 197), and accordingly, no response is

19

required as to allegations directed at those causes of action.

20

16.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 16 state legal conclusions, and therefore no

21

response is required. To the extent a response is required, California answers that the United

22

States Constitution described in the first sentence of Paragraph 16 and the cases quoted in the

23

second sentence of Paragraph 16 speak for themselves and denies anything beyond the face of the

24

United States Constitution and text of the cases described in Paragraph 16. Further responding, to

25

the extent any of the allegations in Paragraph 16 pertain to Plaintiff’s claim against

26

California Labor Code section 90.2 or Plaintiff’s second and third causes of actions, California

27

responds that those claims are no longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF No. 197), and accordingly,

28

no response is required as to allegations directed at those causes of action.
5
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff United States’ Complaint

(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

17.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 17 state legal conclusions, and therefore no

2

response is required. To the extent a response is required, California states that the cases cited in

3

Paragraph 17 speak for themselves, and denies anything beyond the text of the cases described in

4

Paragraph 17. Further responding, to the extent any of the allegations in Paragraph 17 pertain

5

to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code section 90.2 or Plaintiff’s second and third

6

causes of actions, California responds that those claims are no longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF

7

No. 197), and accordingly, no response is required as to allegations directed at those causes of

8

action.

9

18.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 18 state legal conclusions, and therefore no

10

response is required. To the extent a response is required, California admits that Congress has

11

enacted various provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Immigration

12

Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), states that the INA and IRCA speak for themselves, and

13

denies anything beyond the face of the INA and IRCA. Further responding, to the extent any of

14

the allegations in Paragraph 18 pertain to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code section

15

90.2 or Plaintiff’s second and third causes of actions, California responds that those claims are no

16

longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF No. 197), and accordingly, no response is required as to

17

allegations directed at those causes of action.

18

19.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 19 state legal conclusions, and therefore no

19

response is required. To the extent a response is required, California states that the laws

20

described in Paragraph 19 speak for themselves and denies anything beyond the face of the laws

21

described in Paragraph 19. Further responding, to the extent any of the allegations in Paragraph

22

19 pertain to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code section 90.2 or Plaintiff’s second and

23

third causes of actions, California responds that those claims are no longer part of this lawsuit

24

(see ECF No. 197), and accordingly, no response is required as to allegations directed at those

25

causes of action.

26

20.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 20 state legal conclusions, and therefore no

27

response is required. To the extent a response is required, California states that the laws

28

described in Paragraph 20 speak for themselves and denies anything beyond the face of the laws
6
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff United States’ Complaint

(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

described in Paragraph 20. Further responding, to the extent any of the allegations in Paragraph

2

20 pertain to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code section 90.2 or Plaintiff’s second and

3

third causes of actions, California responds that those claims are no longer part of this lawsuit

4

(see ECF No. 197), and accordingly, no response is required as to allegations directed at those

5

causes of action.

6

21.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 21 state legal conclusions, and therefore no

7

response is required. To the extent a response is required, California states that the case quoted in

8

the first sentence of Paragraph 21 and the laws described in the remainder of Paragraph 21 speak

9

for themselves and denies anything beyond the text of the case and the face of the laws described

10

in Paragraph 21. Further responding, to the extent any of the allegations in Paragraph 21 pertain

11

to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code section 90.2 or Plaintiff’s second and third

12

causes of actions, California responds that those claims are no longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF

13

No. 197), and accordingly, no response is required as to allegations directed at those causes of

14

action.

15

22.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 22 state legal conclusions, and therefore no

16

response is required. To the extent a response is required, California states that the laws

17

described in Paragraph 22 speak for themselves and denies anything beyond the face of the laws

18

described in Paragraph 22. Further responding, to the extent any of the allegations in Paragraph

19

22 pertain to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code section 90.2 or Plaintiff’s second and

20

third causes of actions, California responds that those claims are no longer part of this lawsuit

21

(see ECF No. 197), and accordingly, no response is required as to allegations directed at those

22

causes of action.

23

23.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 23 state legal conclusions, and therefore no

24

response is required. To the extent a response is required, California states that the regulation

25

described in Paragraph 23 speaks for itself and denies anything beyond the face of the regulation

26

described in Paragraph 23. Further responding, to the extent any of the allegations in Paragraph

27

23 pertain to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code section 90.2 or Plaintiff’s second and

28

third causes of actions, California responds that those claims are no longer part of this lawsuit
7
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff United States’ Complaint

(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

(see ECF No. 197), and accordingly, no response is required as to allegations directed at those

2

causes of action.

3

24.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 24 state legal conclusions, and therefore no

4

response is required. To the extent a response is required, California states that the case quoted in

5

the first sentence of Paragraph 24 and the laws described in the remainder of Paragraph 24 speak

6

for themselves and denies anything beyond the text of the case and the face of the laws described

7

in Paragraph 24. Further responding, to the extent any of the allegations in Paragraph 24 pertain

8

to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code section 90.2 or Plaintiff’s second and third

9

causes of actions, California responds that those claims are no longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF

10

No. 197), and accordingly, no response is required as to allegations directed at those causes of

11

action.

12

25.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 25 state legal conclusions, and therefore no

13

response is required. To the extent a response is required, California states that the laws

14

described in Paragraph 25 speak for themselves and denies anything beyond the face of the laws

15

described in Paragraph 25. Further responding, to the extent any of the allegations in Paragraph

16

25 pertain to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code section 90.2 or Plaintiff’s second and

17

third causes of actions, California responds that those claims are no longer part of this lawsuit

18

(see ECF No. 197), and accordingly, no response is required as to allegations directed at those

19

causes of action.

20

26.

In response to Paragraph 26, California admits, on information and belief, only that

21

Customs Border Protection enforces the immigration laws at ports of entry and near the border in

22

California, and otherwise lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the truth of

23

the remaining allegations in Paragraph 26, and so denies them. Further responding, to the extent

24

any of the allegations in Paragraph 26 pertain to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code

25

section 90.2 or Plaintiff’s second and third causes of actions, California responds that those

26

claims are no longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF No. 197), and accordingly, no response is

27

required as to allegations directed at those causes of action.

28
8
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff United States’ Complaint

(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

CALIFORNIA PROVISIONS

2

Restrictions on Cooperation with Workplace Immigration Enforcement (AB 450)

3

27.

In response to the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 27,

4

California admits that on October 5, 2017, Governor Brown signed into law AB 450, which

5

became effective on January 1, 2018. In response to the allegations contained in the second

6

sentence of Paragraph 27, California answers that they state legal conclusions, and therefore

7

no response is required, and AB 450 speaks for itself. To the extent a response is required,

8

California admits that AB 450 regulates some private employers’ interactions with immigration

9

enforcement agents. Except as specifically admitted herein, California denies all allegations

10

contained in Paragraph 27. Further responding, to the extent any of the allegations in Paragraph

11

27 pertain to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code section 90.2, California responds

12

that this claim is no longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF No. 197), and accordingly, no response is

13

required as to allegations directed at this cause of action.

14

28.

In response to the allegations in Paragraph 28, California answers that they state legal

15

conclusions, and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required,

16

California admits that AB 450 added Section 7285.1(a) of the California Government Code,

17

which speaks for itself. Further responding, California admits that Section 7285.1(a)

18

permits private employers to allow immigration enforcement agents access to nonpublic areas of

19

places of labor when agents provide a judicial warrant or when employers are required to allow

20

access under federal law. Except as specifically admitted herein, California denies all allegations

21

contained in Paragraph 28.

22

29.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 29 state legal conclusions, and therefore no

23

response is required. To the extent a response is required, California states that Section

24

7285.2(a)(1) of the California Government Code speaks for itself and denies anything beyond the

25

face of Section 7285.2(a)(1).

26

30.

In response to the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 30,

27

California answers that they state legal conclusions, and therefore no response is required. To the

28

extent a response is required, California states that Section 7285.2(a)(2) of the California
9
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff United States’ Complaint

(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

Government Code speaks for itself. Further responding, California admits that Section

2

7285.2(a)(2) allows private employers to provide immigration enforcement agents access to and

3

the ability to review and obtain an employer’s employee records as part of an I-9 Employment

4

Eligibility Verification or as otherwise identified in a Notice of Inspection. Except as specifically

5

admitted herein, California denies all allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph

6

30. In response to the remaining allegations of Paragraph 30, California states that they pertain to

7

Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code section 90.2, which is no longer part of this

8

lawsuit (see ECF No. 197), and accordingly, no response is required as to allegations directed at

9

this cause of action.

10

31.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 31 state legal conclusions, and therefore no

11

response is required. To the extent a response is required, California states that California

12

Government Code Sections 7285.1(b) and 7285.2(b) speak for themselves and denies anything

13

beyond the face of Sections 7285.1(b) and 7285.2(b). Further responding, to the extent any of the

14

allegations in Paragraph 31 pertain to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code section

15

90.2, California responds that this claim is no longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF No. 197), and

16

accordingly, no response is required as to allegations directed at this cause of action.

17

32.

In response to the allegations in Paragraph 32, California answers that they state legal

18

conclusions, and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required,

19

California admits that AB 450 added Section 1019.2(a) of the California Labor Code, which

20

speaks for itself. Further responding, California admits that Section 1019.2(a) permits private

21

employers to re-verify the employment eligibility of a current employee where required to do so

22

under Section 1324a(b) of Title 8 of the United States Code. Except as specifically admitted

23

herein, California denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 32.

24

33.

In response to the allegations in Paragraph 33, California answers that they state legal

25

conclusions, and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required,

26

California denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 33. Further responding, to the extent any

27

of the allegations in Paragraph 33 pertain to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code

28
10
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff United States’ Complaint

(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

section 90.2, California responds that this claim is no longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF No.

2

197), and accordingly, no response is required as to allegations directed at this cause of action.

3

34.

California states that it lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny

4

the allegations in Paragraph 34, and so denies them. To the extent any of the allegations in

5

Paragraph 34 pertain to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code section 90.2, California

6

responds that this claim is no longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF No. 197), and accordingly, no

7

response is required as to allegations directed at this cause of action.

8
9

35.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 35 state legal conclusions, and therefore no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, California denies the allegations

10

contained in Paragraph 35, and denies that California’s laws protect unauthorized workers or

11

shield employers who have violated federal immigration laws. Further responding, to the extent

12

any of the allegations in Paragraph 35 pertain to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code

13

section 90.2, California responds that this claim is no longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF No.

14

197), and accordingly, no response is required as to allegations directed at this cause of action.

15
16

Inspection and Review of Immigration Detention Facilities (AB 103)
36.

Paragraph 36 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

17

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

18

paragraph.

19

37.

Paragraph 37 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

20

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

21

paragraph.

22

38.

Paragraph 38 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

23

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

24

paragraph.

25

39.

Paragraph 39 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

26

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

27

paragraph.

28
11
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff United States’ Complaint

(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

40.

Paragraph 40 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

2

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

3

paragraph.

4

41.

Paragraph 41 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

5

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

6

paragraph.

7

42.

Paragraph 42 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

8

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

9

paragraph.

10

43.

Paragraph 43 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

11

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

12

paragraph.

13

44.

Paragraph 44 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

14

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

15

paragraph.

16

45.

Paragraph 45 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

17

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

18

paragraph.

19

46.

Paragraph 46 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

20

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

21

paragraph.

22

47.

Paragraph 47 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

23

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

24

paragraph.

25

48.

Paragraph 48 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

26

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

27

paragraph.

28
12
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff United States’ Complaint

(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

49.

Paragraph 49 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

2

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

3

paragraph.

4
5

Restrictions on State and Local Cooperation with Federal Officials (SB 54)
50.

Paragraph 50 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

6

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

7

paragraph.

8
9
10
11

51.

Paragraph 51 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this
paragraph.
52.

Paragraph 52 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

12

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

13

paragraph.

14

53.

Paragraph 53 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

15

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

16

paragraph.

17

54.

Paragraph 54 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

18

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

19

paragraph.

20

55.

Paragraph 55 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

21

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

22

paragraph.

23

56.

Paragraph 56 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

24

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

25

paragraph.

26

57.

Paragraph 57 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

27

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

28

paragraph.
13
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff United States’ Complaint

(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

58.

Paragraph 58 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

2

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

3

paragraph.

4

59.

Paragraph 59 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

5

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

6

paragraph.

7

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

8

COUNT ONE – Restrictions on Cooperation with Workplace Immigration Enforcement

9
10
11

60.

California incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, its answers and

responses in Paragraphs 1-35, inclusive.
61.

California answers that the allegations contained in Paragraph 61 state legal

12

conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, California

13

denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 61. Further responding, to the extent any of the

14

allegations in Paragraph 61 pertain to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code section

15

90.2, California responds that this claim is no longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF No. 197), and

16

accordingly, no response is required as to allegations directed at this cause of action.

17
18
19
20

COUNT TWO – Inspection and Review of Detention Facilities
62.

California incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, its answers and

responses in Paragraphs 1-26 and 36-49, inclusive.
63.

Paragraph 63 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

21

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

22

paragraph.

23
24
25
26

COUNT THREE – Restrictions on State and Local Cooperation
64.

California incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, its answers and

responses in Paragraphs 1-26 and 50-59, inclusive.
65.

Paragraph 65 concerns a claim that is no longer a cause of action in this lawsuit. (See

27

ECF No. 197.) Accordingly, no response is required to the allegations contained in this

28

paragraph.
14
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff United States’ Complaint

(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

California denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief, including but not limited to, the

3

relief sought in subparts 1-8 of the “Prayer for Relief.” Further responding, to the extent any of

4

the prayers for relief pertain to Plaintiff’s claim against California Labor Code section 90.2

5

or Plaintiff’s second and third causes of actions, California responds that those claims are no

6

longer part of this lawsuit (see ECF No. 197), and accordingly, no response is required as to

7

allegations directed at those causes of action.

8

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

9

California asserts the following affirmative defenses with respect to the claims that have not

10

been dismissed, without admitting that it bears the burden of proof or the burden of persuasion on

11

any of them:

12
13
14

FIRST DEFENSE
California relies on and reasserts all defenses contained in its prior pleadings in this action,
including the motion to dismiss it previously filed.

15

SECOND DEFENSE

16

Plaintiff’s First Claim for Relief fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

17

THIRD DEFENSE

18

California reserves its right to assert any additional or different defenses and affirmative

19

defenses in response to the Complaint based on information and knowledge obtained during

20

future discovery or investigation.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff United States’ Complaint

(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

Dated: July 23, 2018

Respectfully Submitted,

2

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
THOMAS S. PATTERSON
Senior Assistant Attorney General
ANTHONY HAKL
MICHAEL NEWMAN
SATOSHI YANAI
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
CHRISTINE CHUANG
CHEROKEE DM MELTON

3
4
5
6
7
8

/s/ Lee I. Sherman
LEE I. SHERMAN
Deputy Attorneys General
Attorneys for the State of California

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff United States’ Complaint

(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)