United States of America v. State of California et al

Filing 9

NOTICE of RELATED CASE 18-322 by United States of America. (Reuveni, Erez)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
MCGREGOR SCOTT
United States Attorney
AUGUST FLENTJE
Special Counsel
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
Director
EREZ REUVENI
Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Tel. [phone]
[e-mail]
DAVID SHELLEDY
Civil Chief, Assistant United States Attorney
LAUREN C. BINGHAM
JOSEPH A. DARROW
JOSHUA S. PRESS
Trial Attorneys
Attorneys for the United States

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
No. 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN
Plaintiff,
v.
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE CONCERNING
POSSIBLY RELATED CASE

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA;
EDMUND GERALD BROWN JR.,
Governor of California, in his Official
Capacity; and XAVIER BECERRA,
Attorney General of California, in his
Official Capacity,
Defendants.

25
26

Pursuant to Local Rule 123, Plaintiff, the United States, informs the Court of a case,

27
28

Brosnan v. Becerra, et al., No. 2:18-cv-00322-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal.), also filed in this district, that

Plaintiff’s Notice of Possibly Related Case

1

1
2

recently came to Plaintiff’s attention and may be related to this matter pursuant to Local Rule
123(a)(3) or (4).

3

The United States’ complaint and motion for preliminary injunction raise a constitutional

4

preemption challenge to portions of three provisions of California law, Assembly Bill 103 (“AB

5
6

103”), Assembly Bill 450 (“AB 450”), and Senate Bill 54 (“SB 54”). See Complaint, ECF 1; Mem.

7

in Support of Mot. for Preliminary Injunction, ECF 2-1, at 1-2. More specifically, the United States

8

alleges that eight specific provisions in these three state laws, Sections 7285.1, 7285.2,

9

7284.6(a)(1)(C) & (D), 7284.6(a)(4), and 12532 of the California Government Code and Sections

10

90.2 and 1019.2 of the California Labor Code, violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.

11
12

Constitution, art. VI, cl. 2, because each provision “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment

13

and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,’” Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 732

14

F.3d 1006, 1023 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 399 (2012)),

15

because they “‘regulate the United States directly’” or “‘discriminate against the Federal

16

Government or those with whom it deals.’” Boeing Co. v. Movassaghi, 768 F.3d 832, 839 (9th Cir.

17
18
19
20
21

2014) (quoting North Dakota v. United States, 495 U.S. 423, 435 (1990) (plurality op.) (brackets
omitted)). See ECF 1 ¶¶ 1-65; ECF 2-1 at 1-4.
The complaint in Brosnan challenges one of those three statutes, AB 450, seeking a
declaration that AB 450 is invalid as applied to him and his business under the Supremacy Clause.

22
23

Brosnan, 18-cv-322, Complaint, ECF 1 at 11. More specifically, plaintiff in Brosnan alleges that
24

he cannot comply with both AB 450, which penalizes consensual cooperation with federal

25

immigration officers, and federal law, which he states criminalizes failure to convey knowledge

26

of ongoing criminality, like unlawful employment of aliens, to the federal government. See id. ¶¶

27

19-48, 49-61. Plaintiff alleges that this conflict of laws is preempted under the Supremacy Clause.

28

Plaintiff’s Notice of Possibly Related Case

2

1

See id. ¶¶ 49-61.

2

Because both the United States and plaintiff in Brosnan challenge AB 450 under the

3

Supremacy Clause, the United States believes it is obligated by local rule to call this matter to the

4

Court’s attention See E.D. Cal. L. R. 123(b) (“Counsel who has reason to believe that an action on

5
6

file or about to be filed may be related to another action on file (whether or not dismissed or

7

otherwise terminated) shall promptly file in each action and serve on all parties in each action a

8

Notice of Related Cases.”).

9
10

Accordingly, the United States, pursuant to its obligation under the Local Rule 123, hereby
informs the Court of the pending litigation in Brosnan v. Becerra, et al., No. 2:18-cv-00322-MCE-

11
12

AC (E.D. Cal.) challenging AB 450 on constitutional grounds.

13

//

14

//

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s Notice of Possibly Related Case

3

1

DATED: March 8, 2018

CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General

2
MCGREGOR SCOTT
United States Attorney

3
4

AUGUST FLENTJE
Special Counsel

5
6

WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
Director

7

/s/ Erez Reuveni
EREZ REUVENI
Assistant Director
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division
Office of Immigration Litigation
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

DAVID SHELLEDY
Civil Chief, Assistant United States
Attorney

15
16
17

19

LAUREN C. BINGHAM
JOSEPH A. DARROW
JOSHUA S. PRESS
Trial Attorneys

20

Attorneys for Plaintiff

18

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s Notice of Possibly Related Case

4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1
2
3
4

I hereby certify that on March 8, 2018, I electronically transmitted the attached document
to the Clerk’s Office using the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California’s
Electronic Document Filing System (ECF) and will include this motion with the summons and

5
6

Complaint to be served on Defendants in this case.

7

/s/ Erez Reuveni
EREZ REUVENI
Assistant Director

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s Notice of Possibly Related Case

5