State of California et al v. Trump et al

Filing 277

Consent ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related filed by State of California. Responses due by 3/9/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration and Exhibits A-B)(Sherman, Lee) (Filed on 3/3/2020)

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

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
ROBERT W. BYRNE
MICHAEL L. NEWMAN
Senior Assistant Attorneys General
MICHAEL P. CAYABAN
CHRISTINE CHUANG
EDWARD H. OCHOA
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
BRIAN J. BILFORD
SPARSH S. KHANDESHI
HEATHER C. LESLIE
JANELLE M. SMITH
JAMES F. ZAHRADKA II
LEE I. SHERMAN (SBN 272271)
Deputy Attorneys General
300 S. Spring St., Suite 1702
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of California

13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

OAKLAND DIVISION

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al.;

Case No. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG

Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFF STATES’
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSENT
v.
MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity
Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam,
as President of the United States of America Judge:
Jr.
et al.;
Trial Date:
None Set
Action Filed: February 18, 2019
Defendants.

24
25
26
27
28
Pl. States’ Admin. Mot. To Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

I.

INTRODUCTION

2

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-12(b) and 7-11, Plaintiff States respectfully request that the

3

Court relate the action State of California et al. v. Trump et al., Case No. 20-cv-1563 (California

4

v. Trump II) filed on March 3, 2020 in the Northern District of California to California et al. v.

5

Trump et al., Case No. 19-cv-872 (California v. Trump I, with California v. Trump II, the

6

“Actions”).1 Like California v. Trump I, California v. Trump II involves the legality of

7

Defendants’ decision to divert billions of dollars appropriated by Congress for other purposes

8

toward the construction of a wall on the United States and Mexico border.

9

“An action is related to another when: (1) The actions concern substantially the same

10

parties, property, transaction or event; and (2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly

11

burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted

12

before different Judges.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-12(a). Defendants have agreed to relate the

13

Actions as requested by the Plaintiff States in this motion. Sherman Decl. ¶ 5. On February 20,

14

2020, this Court indicated that it would relate this new action to California v. Trump I. ECF No.

15

275.

16

II.

17

DISCUSSION
The Actions contain substantially the same parties and events. In California v. Trump I,

18

this Court considered whether 10 U.S.C. § 2808, 10 U.S.C. § 284, and §§ 8005 and 9002 of the

19

Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019, Pub. L. No. 115-245 authorized Defendants to

20

divert billions of Department of Defense (DOD) funds toward the construction of a border wall in

21

fiscal year (FY) 2019. See generally ECF Nos. 185, 257 (orders on plaintiffs’ motions for

22

summary judgment). In California v. Trump II, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants seek to use the

23

same or equivalent statutory authority to again divert billions of DOD funds towards of the

24

construction of a border wall in FY 2020. See, e.g., Ex B ¶¶ 218-229.

25
26
1

27
28

The operative complaints in California v. Trump I and California v. Trump II re attached
as Exhibits A and B respectively, to the Declaration of Lee I. Sherman (“Sherman Decl.”) filed
herewith.
1
Pl. States’ Admin. Mot. To Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

Both California v. Trump I and II involve overlapping legal issues surrounding the

2

constitutionality and lawfulness of Defendants’ actions to divert billions of dollars that Congress

3

appropriated to DOD for other purposes toward the construction of a border wall. Both

4

complaints contain the same causes of action alleging that Defendants’ actions: (a) violate

5

separation of powers principles, including the Presentment Clause; (b) violate the Appropriations

6

Clause; (c) are ultra vires; (d) violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for exceeding

7

congressional authority and violating the Constitution; (e) violate the APA’s prohibition on

8

arbitrary and capricious actions; and (f) violate the National Environmental Policy Act. Compare

9

Ex. A ¶¶ 363-399 with Ex. B ¶¶ 295-336.

10

Both cases involve substantially the same parties. They both involve as plaintiffs the same

11

nineteen states that allege to be injured by Defendants’ actions. They both involve President

12

Trump, the DOD, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Interior, and the

13

relevant officials in each of those agencies as defendants. There is substantial factual overlap, as

14

both cases involve Congress’s actions with respect to border barriers and Defendants’ past actions

15

and statements surrounding border barriers. And as in California v. Trump I, the Plaintiff States

16

in California v. Trump II are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

17

Granting this motion to relate is appropriate to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort

18

given the overlap in parties, factual and legal issues involved, and the relief sought in both cases.

19

Defendants agree to relate these cases. Sherman Decl. ¶ 5. During the February 20 status

20

conference in California v. Trump I, this Court also indicated that it would relate these cases once

21

a new action was on file. ECF No. 275.

22

III. CONCLUSION

23
24

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff States respectfully request that the Court relate
California v. Trump II to California v. Trump I.

25
26
27
28
2
Pl. States’ Admin. Mot. To Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

Dated: March 3, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

2

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
ROBERT W. BYRNE
MICHAEL L. NEWMAN
Senior Assistant Attorneys General
MICHAEL P. CAYABAN
CHRISTINE CHUANG
EDWARD H. OCHOA
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
BRIAN J. BILFORD
SPARSH S. KHANDESHI
HEATHER C. LESLIE
JANELLE M. SMITH
JAMES F. ZAHRADKA II

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

/s/ Lee I. Sherman

10

LEE I. SHERMAN
Deputy Attorneys General
Attorneys for Plaintiff

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

Pl. States’ Admin. Mot. To Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)