United States of America v. State of California et al
Filing
39
ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/29/2018 DENYING 18 Motion to Transfer Case to the Northern District of California. (Donati, J)
Case 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN Document 39 Filed 03/29/18 Page 1 of 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
12
2:18-cv-490-JAM-KJN
Plaintiff,
13
14
No.
v.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO TRANSFER
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et
al.,
15
Defendants.
16
The United States filed this action on March 6, 2018, ECF
17
18
No. 1, and Defendants’ request to transfer the suit to the
19
Northern District of California (“NDCA”) quickly followed, ECF
20
No. 18. 1
21
a lawsuit concerning one arguably similar issue and similar
22
parties is already pending.
23
Judicial Notice (“RFJN”), ECF No. 19, Exh. A.
24
Defendants’ motion.
25
below, Defendants’ motion is DENIED.
Defendants seek to litigate this case in the NDCA where
Defendants’ First Request for
ECF No. 25.
Plaintiff opposes
For the reasons set forth
26
27
1
28
This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).
1
Case 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN Document 39 Filed 03/29/18 Page 2 of 10
1
I.
OPINION
2
A.
Legal Standard
3
For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the
4
interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil
5
action to any other district or division where it might have been
6
brought.
7
dispute that this action might have been brought in the NDCA.
8
The Court agrees: because the laws in question apply throughout
9
the state of California, this case might have been brought in any
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
The United States does not
10
of its districts.
11
be brought in . . . a judicial district in which a substantial
12
part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
13
occurred[.]”).
See 28. U.S.C. § 1391(b) (“A civil action may
14
The law governing transfer motions instructs district courts
15
to consider a number of factors related to both “convenience” and
16
the “interests of justice” in determining whether to transfer the
17
case. See Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d
18
834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986).
19
20
21
22
23
These factors include:
(1) the location where the relevant agreements were
negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most
familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s
choice of forum, (4) the respective parties’ contacts
with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the
plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen forum,
(6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the
two forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process
to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses,
and (8) the ease of access to sources of proof.
24
25
Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498–499 (9th Cir.
26
2000).
27
factors on an individualized, case-by-case basis.
28
Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988).
District courts have broad discretion to weigh these
2
Stewart Org.,
The pendency of an
Case 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN Document 39 Filed 03/29/18 Page 3 of 10
1
action in another district is an important consideration, as is
2
the feasibility of subsequent consolidation.
3
v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for C. D. of Cal., 503 F.2d 384, 389 (9th Cir.
4
1974); Am. Canine Found. v. Sun, No. CIV. S-06-654 LKK DAD, 2006
5
WL 2092614, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 27, 2006).
A. J. Indus., Inc.
6
B.
7
Because the weight of Defendants’ motion rests on the
8
“interests of justice,” the Court will address the factors
9
related to convenience only briefly. 2
10
Convenience to the Parties and Witnesses
The convenience factors do not heavily favor or disfavor
11
transfer.
12
United States’ choice of forum and this choice weighs against
13
transfer.
14
entirety of the state, the evidence appears to be readily
15
accessible from either forum, and, should the case be
16
transferred, there will be little additional burden on the United
17
States’ witnesses and counsel in terms of travel and expense.
18
The fact that ICE’s San Francisco ERO Field Office is located in
19
the Northern District, see Homan Decl., ECF No. 2-2, ¶ 21,
20
counterbalances any weight this Court might afford to the EDCA’s
21
ties to the legislative process.
22
The Eastern District of California (“EDCA”) is the
However, the challenged laws apply to and affect the
In sum, the Court finds the convenience factors are not
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the Court takes
judicial notice of the court records attached to Defendants’
Requests for Judicial Notice, ECF Nos. 19-1, 30-1. See Harris v.
Cty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012). The Court
also takes notice of the United States District Courts’ Judicial
Caseload Profile data, the accuracy and authenticity of which
Plaintiff does not dispute. See Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ.
Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir. 2010).
3
Case 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN Document 39 Filed 03/29/18 Page 4 of 10
1
determinative and that the United States’ choice of forum tilts
2
the scale against transfer.
3
C.
Interests of Justice
4
If the interests of justice favor transfer, the United
5
States’ choice may still be uprooted.
See Am. Canine Found.,
6
2006 WL 2092614, at *3 (“The interests of justice can be decisive
7
even if witness and party convenience weigh against transfer.”).
8
“To permit a situation in which two cases involving precisely the
9
same issues are simultaneously pending in different District
10
Courts leads to the wastefulness of time, energy and money that
11
[§] 1404(a) was designed to prevent.”
12
FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 26 (1960).
13
conducive to a race of diligence among litigants for a trial in
14
the District Court each prefers.”
Cont’l Grain Co. v. The
“Moreover, such a situation is
Id.
15
This lawsuit and the pending NDCA case, State ex rel.
16
Becerra v. Sessions (“Becerra”), both involve the relationship
17
between the California Values Act (“SB 54”) and 8 U.S.C. § 1373
18
(“Section 1373”).
19
two cases are familiar to the parties; the Court will briefly
20
summarize the relevant portions of the two cases here:
21
The factual and procedural backgrounds of the
In Becerra, California challenges a condition the United
22
States Department of Justice (USDOJ) placed on JAG awards
23
requiring recipient jurisdictions to comply with Section 1373.
24
RFJN, Exh. B, ¶ 5. 3
25
Community Oriented Policing Services (“COPS”) grant.
26
3
27
28
The same condition has been placed on the
Id.
The State also challenges two additional conditions placed on
JAG recipients, one requiring notice of the scheduled release of
certain individuals and one requiring access to local detention
facilities (“notice and access conditions”). Id. at ¶ 6.
4
Case 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN Document 39 Filed 03/29/18 Page 5 of 10
1
California is concerned it will be denied access to these grants
2
because the USDOJ will find that the TRUST Act (Cal. Gov. Code
3
§ 7282 et seq.), the TRUTH Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 7283 et seq.),
4
SB 54 (Cal. Gov. Code § 7284 et seq. and other amendments), and
5
California’s Shield Confidentiality Statutes (Cal. Penal Code
6
§§ 422.93, 679.10, 679.11; Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 831; Cal. C.
7
Civ. P. § 155) violate Section 1373.
8
alleges the Section 1373 condition on the JAG awards violates the
9
Spending Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Id. at ¶ 10.
California
Id. at
10
¶¶ 127–144.
11
and the other statutes comply with Section 1373 as properly
12
interpreted and construed.
13
California seeks a declaration that Section 1373 cannot be
14
constitutionally enforced against those acts under the Tenth
15
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
16
California seeks a judicial declaration that SB 54
Id. at ¶ 152.
Alternatively,
Id. at ¶ 153.
In this lawsuit, the United States challenges three recently
17
enacted state laws.
Complaint, ECF No. 1.
The first cause of
18
action challenges changes made to the California Government Code
19
and California Labor Code by Assembly Bill 450 (“AB 450”), the
20
Immigrant Worker Protection Act, which, inter alia, allegedly
21
restricts employer cooperation with immigration enforcement.
22
at ¶¶ 27–35, 61.
23
section of the California Government Code (Section 12532, added
24
by AB 103) that provides for state review of county, local, or
25
private locked detention facilities being used to house or detain
26
noncitizens for civil immigration proceedings in California.
27
at ¶¶ 36–49, 63.
28
claims that several subsections amended by SB 54 violate the
Id.
The second cause of action challenges a new
Id.
In its third cause of action, the United States
5
Case 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN Document 39 Filed 03/29/18 Page 6 of 10
1
Supremacy Clause and Section 1373.
2
seeks a judgment declaring that each of these contested code
3
sections violate the Supremacy Clause—and are therefore invalid—
4
and a preliminary and permanent injunction that prohibits
5
California from enforcing these new laws.
6
for Relief).
Id. at ¶¶ 50–59, 65.
It
Id. at 17–18 (Prayer
7
Becerra and the case at bar have obvious differences.
8
Becerra concerns USDOJ grant conditions that implicate the
9
Spending Clause and the APA, which are not at issue in this
10
litigation.
11
exceeded its authority or acted arbitrarily and capriciously in
12
imposing the Section 1373 condition on funding.
13
in that lawsuit are Attorney General Sessions, Acting Assistant
14
Attorney General Alan R. Hanson, and the United States Department
15
of Justice.
16
54, there are also distinct laws at issue in each case: Becerra
17
also concerns the TRUST Act, TRUTH Act, and California Shield
18
Confidentiality Statutes; this case concerns AB 450 (specifically
19
Cal. Gov. Code Sections 7285.1 and 7285.2, and Cal. Labor Code
20
Sections 90.2 and 1019.2) and AB 103 (Cal. Gov. Code 12532).
21
Additionally, the Becerra suit challenges notice and access
22
conditions placed on the JAG awards.
That case may primarily turn on whether the USDOJ
Plaintiff here is the United States.
The defendants
Apart from SB
23
There is one important similarity between the lawsuits.
24
Both lawsuits implicate the potential conflict between SB 54 and
25
Section 1373.
26
that SB 54 violates Section 1373, this Court will likely be
27
called upon to interpret that Section.
28
undoubtedly raise Tenth Amendment defenses in this litigation.
Because the United States has taken the position
6
Defendants will
Case 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN Document 39 Filed 03/29/18 Page 7 of 10
1
See Mot. at 9 (“[T]his matter, at its core, involves the same
2
fundamental legal issue as [Becerra] v. Sessions: ‘the contours
3
of the State’s broad constitutional police powers under the Tenth
4
Amendment and the federal government’s broad, undoubted power
5
over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.’”)
6
(quoting the Preliminary Injunction Order, RFJN, Exh. E).
7
despite the United States’ and its attorneys’ efforts to separate
8
the issues in Becerra from the Tenth Amendment, see Opp. at 11
9
(“These questions are entirely distinct from . . . the defenses
And
10
that California might raise under the Tenth Amendment, which are
11
not implicated in Spending Clause cases.”); Pl. Exh. A, ECF No.
12
25-1, at 12 (“With respect to the 1373 provision, as a matter of
13
law the governing analysis here is the Spending Clause line of
14
cases; not the Tenth Amendment line of cases.”), Judge Orrick has
15
clearly homed in on the Tenth Amendment as a central issue in
16
that case, see State ex rel. Becerra v. Sessions, No. 17-cv-
17
04701-WHO, 2018 WL 1156774 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (Preliminary
18
Injunction Order).
19
resolved by challenges under the Spending Clause or the APA, the
20
declaratory relief claim related to the Section 1373 condition on
21
the COPS grant remains in play.
22
Orrick, at some point, may need to reach the more direct
23
challenges to an interpretation of Section 1373 that conflicts
24
with California law.
25
Order in Becerra certainly bears this out.
26
1156774, at *14–16.
Furthermore, even if the JAG conditions are
It appears likely that Judge
The recently issued Preliminary Injunction
See Becerra, 2018 WL
27
Although the cases have this one important issue in common,
28
the Court nevertheless finds that Defendants have not adequately
7
Case 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN Document 39 Filed 03/29/18 Page 8 of 10
1
demonstrated that the interests of justice warrant transfer.
2
thrust of this lawsuit concerns the Supremacy Clause, which has
3
not arisen in the Becerra case.
4
conflict between SB 54 and Section 1373, the lawsuits present
5
distinct legal questions, statutes, and factual circumstances to
6
review and resolve.
7
on time, energy, and resources for the district courts and the
8
parties appears minimal.
9
challenges that accompany transfer would likely be more
The
Apart from the potential
Given these differences, the actual savings
The administrative and logistical
10
burdensome than any marginal gains in efficiency.
11
already devoted time and resources to this case, which would need
12
to be replicated in the NDCA following transfer.
13
feasibility of consolidation is not necessary to warrant
14
transfer, the Court notes that such post-transfer consolidation
15
could prove difficult given the distinct posture of each case.
16
This Court has
Finally, while
Defendants’ remaining concerns are also insufficient to
17
warrant transfer.
18
greater than that of the NDCA, both districts have figures that
19
exceed the national average. 4
20
to disposition do not significantly differ between the two
21
districts.
22
efficient courts in terminations of actions-923 cases per
23
judgeship.
24
EDCA in resolving lawsuits despite the obvious need for
25
4
26
27
28
Although the EDCA’s weighted caseload is
And the median times from filing
Moreover, the EDCA remains among the nation’s most
Indeed, few districts can match the efficiency of the
Nationally, the average number of weighted filings per
judgeship is 489. The number in the Northern District is 556 and
in the Eastern District is 764. See U.S. District Court –
Judicial Caseload Profile, available at
http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/fcms_na_d
istprofile1231.2017.pdf.
8
Case 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN Document 39 Filed 03/29/18 Page 9 of 10
1
2
additional judgeships.
The Court is also not persuaded that the possibility of
3
inconsistent judgments warrants transfer.
In the instant case,
4
the United States seeks, in part, a judicial declaration that
5
Sections 7284.6(a)(1)(C) & (D) and 7283.6(a)(4)—three subsections
6
amended by SB 54—of the California Government Code violate the
7
Supremacy Clause and seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction
8
prohibiting Defendants from enforcing these provisions.
9
Complaint at 17–18.
In Becerra, California seeks a declaration
10
that SB 54 complies with Section 1373 and thus should not be a
11
basis for withholding and terminating federal funding.
12
Exh. B, at ¶ 152.
13
that Section 1373 cannot be constitutionally enforced against SB
14
54 under the Tenth Amendment, and should not be a basis for
15
withholding and terminating federal funding.
16
There is a possibility—though it depends upon contingencies in
17
each case—that this Court could reach a determination that
18
conflicts with Judge Orrick’s findings and conclusions in some
19
future motion.
20
see how such circumstances would impose conflicting obligations
21
on the State.
22
important one at that—but such a question may be appropriately
23
resolved by an appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
24
at the trial court level are sometimes a part of the judicial
25
process. This does not, however, justify concentrating multiple
26
cases of considerable magnitude and distinct legal issues before
27
one district judge with an already overloaded caseload.
28
RFJN,
Alternatively, California seeks a declaration
Id. at ¶ 153.
But, given the relief sought, the Court does not
It may result in a disputed legal question—and an
Conflicting findings
All of these factors require this Court to conclude that
9
Case 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN Document 39 Filed 03/29/18 Page 10 of 10
1
Defendants have not shown the interests of justice overcome the
2
United States’ forum choice.
3
between the claims, parties, and subject matter of each case, the
4
Court further finds the “first-to-file” rule does not apply to
5
this action.
6
remain in the Eastern District of California.
Due to the noted differences
As a matter of law, this case should, and will,
7
8
9
10
11
12
II.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES
Defendants’ Motion to Transfer.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
March 29, 2018
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
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?