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