State of Washington, et al., v. Trump., et al

Filing 194

MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiffs Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of California, State of Maryland, State of New York, State of Washington, Intervenor Plaintiff State of Oregon. (Attachments: # 1 Complaint 3rd Amended, # 2 Index of Exhibits, # 3 Index of Declarations, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Exhibit H, # 12 Exhibit I, # 13 Exhibit J, # 14 Exhibit K, # 15 Exhibit L, # 16 Exhibit M, # 17 Exhibit N, # 18 Decl of Joint Former National Security Officials, # 19 Decl of Nima Ala, # 20 2nd Decl of Rabyaah Althaibani, # 21 Decl of Alireza Ayoubi, # 22 Decl of Shervin Beygi, # 23 Decl of Bahareh Bina, # 24 Decl of Ethan Devenport, # 25 Decl of Yasaman Esmaili, # 26 Decl of Mahdi Hajiaghayi, # 27 Decl of Mojdeh Jalali Heravi, # 28 Decl of Vahid Jazayeri, # 29 Decl of Mohammad Shafiei Khadem, # 30 Decl of Ahmad Moghaddam, # 31 Decl of Younes Nouri, # 32 Decl of Proshat Parsimoghadam, # 33 Decl of Emad Soroush, # 34 Decl of Tannaz Sattari Tabrizi, # 35 Decl of Seyed Danial Vaezi, # 36 Decl of Banafsheh Samareh Abolhasani, # 37 Decl of Armin Alaghi, # 38 Decl of Pegah Jalali Asheghabadi, # 39 3rd Decl of Rovy Branon, # 40 5th Decl of Asif Chaudhry, # 41 Decl of Maryam Dadkhahan, # 42 Decl of Jason Detwiler, # 43 2nd Decl of David Eaton, # 44 Decl of Kiana Ehsani, # 45 Decl of Ali Farhadi, # 46 Decl of Hoda Farhadi, # 47 Decl of Maryam Fayazi, # 48 Decl of Mohammad Ghaedi, # 49 Decl of Anne Greenbaum, # 50 Decl of Hannaneh Hajishirzi, # 51 2nd Decl of Deirdre Heatwole, # 52 Decl of Parisa Hosseinzadeh, # 53 Decl of Adam Mokhalalati, # 54 Decl of Shima Nofallah, # 55 4th Decl of Jeffrey Riedinger, # 56 Decl of Solmaz Shakerifard, # 57 Decl of Khadijeh Sheikhan, # 58 Decl of Ali Shojaie, # 59 Decl of Hema Yoganarasimhan, # 60 2nd Decl of Kathy Oline, # 61 2nd Decl of Dave Soike, # 62 2nd Decl of Rita Zawaideh, # 63 2nd Decl of Mitra Akhtari, # 64 2nd Decl of Melanie de Leon, # 65 Decl of Payam Fotouhiyehpour, # 66 2nd Decl of Marc Overbeck, # 67 2nd Decl of Sana Parsian, # 68 Decl of Sahar Z. Zangenah, # 69 2nd Decl of Dennis Galvan, # 70 Proposed Order) Noting Date 10/16/2017, (Melody, Colleen)

1

THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9
STATE OF WASHINGTON; STATE
10 OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF
MARYLAND; COMMONWEALTH
11 OF MASSACHUSETTS; STATE OF
NEW YORK; and STATE OF
12 OREGON,
13
14

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs,
Motion Noted: October 16, 2017

v.

15 DONALD TRUMP, in his official
capacity as President of the United
16 States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; ELAINE
17 C. DUKE, in her official capacity as
Acting Secretary of the Department of
18 Homeland Security; REX
TILLERSON, in his official capacity
19 as Secretary of State; and the UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,
20
Defendants.
21
22

I.

INTRODUCTION

23

On September 24, 2017, President Trump issued a Presidential Proclamation titled,

24

“Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United

25

States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats,” 82 Fed. Reg. 45,161 (Sept. 27, 2017)

26

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

Attorney General of Washington
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3176
[phone]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

(“EO3”). Like its predecessors, EO3 again suspends or restricts immigration by hundreds of
millions of people. EO3’s provisions take effect October 18, 2017, and apply indefinitely.
The States of Washington, California, Maryland, New York, Oregon, and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (“States”) request leave to amend their complaint to assert
that EO3 injures the States and their residents. The States also seek to allege that EO3 suffers
from many of the same constitutional and statutory deficiencies as the first and second
Executive Orders. The States have conferred with the Defendants, and they do not oppose this
motion. The States respectfully request that the Court grant leave to file the accompanying
proposed Third Amended Complaint.

10
II.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The State of Washington first filed this lawsuit challenging President Trump’s issuance
of Executive Order No. 13769 (“EO1”) on January 30, 2017. ECF 1. On February 3, 2017, this
Court granted the State’s motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and enjoined
enforcement of several provisions of EO1. ECF 52. The Ninth Circuit denied Defendants’
emergency motion for a stay of the injunction. Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir.
2017). Defendants chose not to seek review by the Supreme Court.
On March 6, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 13780 (“EO2”), which
revoked EO1. Two days later, Defendants withdrew their Ninth Circuit appeal in this case.
ECF 111. Following the issuance of EO2, Washington, California, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New York, and Oregon (“States”)1 filed an amended complaint challenging EO2. ECF 152.
The States moved for a TRO to enjoin sections 2(c) and 6(a) of EO2. ECF 148.
On March 15, 2017, in a separate suit against EO2, the district court in Hawai‘i
enjoined Sections 2 and 6 nationwide. Hawai‘i v. Trump, 241 F. Supp. 3d 1119, 1140 (D. Haw.

24
25
1

26

The Court had previously granted Oregon’s motion to intervene on March 9, 2017.
ECF 112.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT

2

Attorney General of Washington
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3176
[phone]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

2017). The next day, in a third lawsuit, the district court in Maryland issued a nationwide
injunction against Section 2(c). Int’l Refugee Assistance Project (“IRAP”) v. Trump, 241 F.
Supp. 3d 539, 566 (D. Md. 2017). In light of the Hawai‘i ruling, this Court stayed
consideration of the States’ motion for a TRO. ECF 164. The Court then granted Defendants’
request for a stay of this case pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the Hawai‘i appeal.
ECF 175, 189.
The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Hawai‘i on June 12, 2017, largely affirming the
injunction. Hawai‘i v. Trump, 859 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curium). Defendants
petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, applied for a stay pending appeal, and
requested that the Hawai‘i case be consolidated with IRAP, where the Fourth Circuit had
largely affirmed the injunction entered by the district court. 857 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2017) (en
banc). The Supreme Court granted certiorari, granted the stay application “to the extent the
injunctions prevent enforcement of § 2(c) with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona
fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” consolidated the two cases, and
set the case for argument. Trump v. IRAP, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2087 (2017). The parties in this
case agreed that the stay should remain in place pending the outcome of the Supreme Court
proceedings, but that any party could move to lift the stay if circumstances changed. ECF 192.
On June 28, 2017, Defendants began to enforce the non-enjoined parts of EO2 and
published guidance interpreting the Supreme Court’s definition of “bona fide relationship” to
exclude many family members and most refugees. See Hawai‘i v. Trump, --- F. Supp. 3d ----,
No. CV 17-00050 DKW-KSC, 2017 WL 2989048, at *5-6 (D. Haw. July 13, 2017)
(summarizing guidance). Plaintiffs in the Hawai‘i litigation successfully challenged
Defendants’ interpretation of “bona fide relationship,” and the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower
court’s injunction preventing Defendants from enforcing EO2 against grandparents and other
family members or refugees who have formal assurances from resettlement agencies or are in

26

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT

3

Attorney General of Washington
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3176
[phone]

1
2
3
4

the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. Hawai‘i v. Trump, --- F.3d ----, No. 17-16426, 2017
WL 3911055, at *14 (9th Cir. Sep. 7, 2017). The Supreme Court stayed the Ninth Circuit
mandate with respect to refugees covered by a formal assurance. Trump v. Hawai‘i, --- S. Ct. ---, Nos. 17A275, 16-1540, 2017 WL 4014838, at *1 (U.S. Sept. 12, 2017).

5
6
7
8
9
10

On September 24, 2017, EO2 expired, and President Trump issued EO3. EO3 suspends
all immigration from six Muslim-majority countries, and applies “additional scrutiny” to
immigrants from Iraq, another Muslim-majority country. EO3 §§ 1(g), 2(a)–(c), (e), (g)-(h).2
The order also suspends entry by large classes of non-immigrants like students,
businesspeople, and tourists. EO3 §§ 2(a)-(h). The non-immigrant restrictions vary by country
and by type of visa. EO3 takes effect October 18, 2017, and applies indefinitely.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Following the issuance of EO3, the Supreme Court removed the Hawai‘i and IRAP
cases from the oral argument calendar and directed the parties to file letter briefs addressing
whether, or to what extent, EO3 rendered the cases moot. Trump v. Hawai‘i, --- S. Ct. ----, No.
16-1540, 2017 WL 2734554, at *1 (U.S. Sept. 25, 2017). On October 10, 2017, the Supreme
Court dismissed IRAP as moot and directed the Fourth Circuit to vacate its opinion, finding
that there was no longer a live controversy because the only section of EO2 enjoined in IRAP
had “expired by its own terms on September 24, 2017.” Trump v. IRAP, --- S. Ct. ----, No. 161436, 2017 WL 4518553 (U.S. Oct. 10, 2017). The Court “express[ed] no view on the merits.”
Id.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2

The order also suspends all entry by North Koreans and entry by certain nonimmigrants from Venezuela. EO3 §§ 2(d)(ii), 2(f)(ii). These provisions will affect very few
travelers. In 2015, for example, 55 immigrants were admitted from North Korea, compared to
13,114 immigrants from Iran. 3d Am. Compl. ¶ 204. The provision affected Venezuelans
applies only to certain government officials and their families.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT

4

Attorney General of Washington
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3176
[phone]

1
2

III.
A.

ARGUMENT

Leave to Amend is Proper

3

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow parties to seek leave to amend their

4

pleadings before trial, and “[t]he Court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed.

5

R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Indeed, “[f]ederal policy favors freely allowing amendment so that cases

6

may be decided on their merits.” Wizards of the Coast LLC v. Cryptozoic Entm’t LLC, 309

7

F.R.D. 645, 649 (W.D. Wash. 2015) (citing Martinez v. Newport Beach City, 125 F.3d 777,

8

785 (9th Cir. 1997)). “This policy is ‘to be applied with extreme liberality.’ ” Eminence

9

Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser

10

Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (additional citation omitted)).

11

When leave to amend is sought before the defendants have filed a responsive pleading,

12

as here3, the presumption in favor of granting leave is at its highest. “Under Rule 15(a), leave

13

to amend should be granted freely until the defendant files a responsive pleading.” 4 Martinez v.

14

Newport Beach City, 125 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Johnson v. Mammoth

15

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Under Rule 15(a), leave to amend

16

should be granted as a matter of course, at least until the defendant files a responsive

17

pleading.”); Eminence Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052 (holding that, in circumstances like

18

these, “there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend”)

19

(emphasis in original)). The party opposing amendment bears the “burden of showing that

20
21
3

22
23
24
25
26

The Court previously granted Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to file a
response to the Second Amended Complaint until 10 days after the Court resolved Defendants’
Motion to Stay. ECF 183. The Court subsequently granted the Motion to Stay. ECF 189.
Defendants have never filed a response to the Complaint, First Amended Complaint or the
Second Amended Complaint.
4
“After that point, leave to amend should be granted unless amendment would cause
prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue delay.”
Martinez, 125 F.3d at 785 (citing Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160
(9th Cir. 1989)); Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607 (same).

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT

5

Attorney General of Washington
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3176
[phone]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

amendment is not warranted.” Wizards of the Coast, 309 F.R.D. at 649 (citing DCD Programs,
Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987)).
Here, the States have promptly sought leave to amend prior to the effective date of
EO3, October 18, 2017, and seventeen days after the issuance of the EO3, which shares
constitutional and statutory infirmities of its predecessors and will begin to harm the States as
soon as it is implemented.
Defendants do not oppose the States’ motion, and have requested that the States
represent their position as follows: “The Government does not object to Plaintiffs’ motion to
amend their complaint on the condition that the Court extends the Government’s deadline to
respond to the amended complaint until after Plaintiffs’ TRO motion, and any subsequent
motion for a preliminary injunction, is resolved.” This position is consistent with Defendants’
in related litigation challenging EO3 in the Districts of Maryland and Hawai‘i, where
Defendants did not oppose plaintiffs’ motions for leave to amend their complaints to include
claims challenging EO3. See Plaintiff’s Request for Pre-Motion Conference at 2, Hawai’i v.
Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC (D. Haw. Sept. 29, 2017), ECF 198; Order at 2, IRAP
v. Trump, No. TDC-17-0361 (D. Md. Oct. 4, 2017), ECF 201 (granting leave to amend).
Likewise, the Solicitor General informed the Supreme Court that the Defendants expects that
challenges to EO3 will proceed in the district courts. Letter Brief of Petitioner at 5, Trump v.
IRAP, No. 16-1436 (U.S. Oct. 5, 2017) (“The lower courts should be considering challenges to
[EO3] . . . based on its text, operation and findings”).
For these reasons, the Court should grant the request for leave to file the accompanying
Third Amended Complaint.

23
24
25
26

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT

6

Attorney General of Washington
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3176
[phone]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

B.

The States Should Be Granted Leave to Seek Redress for Their Ongoing Harms
Defendants’ continuing course of conduct, and the course of conduct mandated by

EO3, harms the States. Like EO1 and EO2, EO3 harms the States’ families, educational
institutions, economy, businesses, and health care systems.
EO3 will again result in our States’ residents being separated from their families, often
in heartbreaking situations—and, this time, indefinitely. See, e.g., ECF 194-23 (Decl. Bina) ¶¶
4, 6 (WA resident with rare form of cancer cannot travel and EO3 will prevent Iranian parents
from coming to care for her); ECF 194-21 (Decl. Ayoubi) ¶ 10 (WA resident’s wife unable to
move to United States if EO3 is implemented); ECF 118-4 (Decl. Althaibani) ¶¶ 8-12 (NY
resident prevented from living with husband).
EO3 will also damage our States’ public universities and colleges. The States’ public
universities and colleges have hundreds of students and faculty members from the targeted
countries. See, e.g., ECF 194-40 (5th Decl. Chaudhry) ¶ 5 (140 students and 9 faculty members
at WSU); ECF 194-43 (2d Decl. Eaton) ¶ 4 (105 graduate students at UW); ECF 194-51 (2d
Decl. Heatwole) ¶¶ 4-5, 10 (180 students and 25 employees at University of Massachusetts);
3d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 53, 58 (529 students in the University of California system); id. ¶ 75
(University System of Maryland has employees from EO3 targeted countries). Like with the
first two executive orders, the universities again risk losing current and future students from
the targeted countries, along with the associated tuition revenue. See, e.g., ECF 194-40 (5th
Decl. Chaudhry) ¶ 11; ECF 194-39 (3d Decl. Branon) ¶¶ 4-6; ECF 194-43 (2d Decl. Eaton) ¶
5; ECF 194-59 (Decl. Yoganarasimhan) ¶¶ 5-7; ECF 194-42 (Decl. Detwiler) ¶ 5; ECF 194-44
(Decl. Ehsani) ¶ 11; ECF 194-54 (Decl. Nofallah) ¶ 8. They also risk losing talented faculty
members, as several faculty members have already indicated that they are considering
positions in other countries to avoid indefinite separation from their families under EO3. See,
e.g., ECF 194-26 (Decl. Hajishirzi) ¶¶ 9-10; ECF 194-37 (Decl. Alaghi) ¶ 9; ECF 194-52

26

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT

7

Attorney General of Washington
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3176
[phone]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Decl. Hosseinzadeh) ¶ 8. The departure of such faculty members, many of whom teach or
conduct research in highly specialized fields and bring in substantial research grants to the
universities, will injure the universities’ reputations and educational programs. See, e.g., ECF
194-55 (4th Decl. Riedinger) ¶¶ 3-4.
States’ businesses will also suffer injuries. The State of Washington’s technology
industry, for example, heavily relies on immigrants and nonimmigrants from the banned
countries to serve as data scientists and software engineers. See e.g., Ex. 194-33 (Decl.
Soroush) ¶¶ 1-6 (Apple software engineer); Ex. 194-28 (Decl. Jazayeri) ¶ 2-6 (Facebook
software engineer); Ex. 194-35 (Decl. Vaezi) (Microsoft data scientist) ¶¶ 2-6. Washington
companies, including Amazon, Expedia, and Starbucks, employ many people originally from
the banned countries. See, e.g., ECF 6 (Decl. Blackwell-Hawkins) ¶¶ 3, 7; ECF 7 (Decl.
Dzielak) ¶¶ 4, 18. Small businesses have also sustained cumulative, irreparable harm with each
successive EO. See, e.g., ECF 194-62 (2d. Decl. Zawaideh) ¶¶ 2-8; see also 3d Am. Comp. ¶¶
74, 86. EO3 also will negatively impact the States’ coffers by reducing tourism tax revenue.
See, e.g., ECF 194-60 (2d. Decl. Oline) ¶¶ 10-15; ECF 194-61 (2d. Decl. Soike) ¶¶ 2-14; 3d
Am. Comp. ¶ 121 (economic injury to Oregon).
Finally, EO3 will also cause lasting harm to the States’ health care systems. Physicians
from the banned countries provide health care for our residents. ECF 194-64 (2d Decl. de
Leon) ¶¶ 5-7; ECF 118-46 (Decl. Johnson) ¶ 11; ECF 194-66 (2d Decl. Overbeck) ¶ 6 (Oregon
Health Authority); ECF 194-64 (2d Decl. Akhtari) ¶¶ 13, 18. Like its predecessors, the order
will impede the States’ efforts to recruit and retain providers of primary care, dental health, and
mental health services, particularly in underserved areas of our States. See ECF 118-32 (Decl.
Fullerton) ¶¶ 5-7, 14-19; ECF 118-43 (Decl. Akhtari) ¶¶ 14, 16-17; ECF 100 (Decl. Overbeck)
¶¶ 3-6. EO3 will negatively affect physicians who perform critical public health work. See
ECF 194-67 (2d Decl. Parsian) ¶¶ 5-16 (cancer radiologist); ECF 194-68 (Decl. Zangeneh) ¶¶

26

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT

8

Attorney General of Washington
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3176
[phone]

1
2
3
4
5
6

3-8 (HIV prevention research). Our medical schools, and particularly those that participate in
the National Resident Matching Program, will be unable to offer residency to students from
restricted or banned countries. See ECF 118-47 (Decl. Scherzer) ¶¶ 15-17 (New York); 3d
Amend. Compl. ¶ 60 (California), id. ¶ 127 (Oregon). These harms, which undermine the
depth and strength of our health care systems, will have lasting effects for the provision of
healthcare in our States.

7
IV.
8
9

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Washington respectfully requests that the Court grant leave
to file the Third Amended Complaint submitted concurrently herewith.

10
11

DATED this 11th day of October, 2017.

12

Respectfully submitted,

13

BOB FERGUSON, WSBA #26004
Attorney General of Washington

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

/s/ Noah G. Purcell________________
NOAH G. PURCELL, WSBA #43492
Solicitor General
COLLEEN M. MELODY, WSBA #42275
Civil Rights Unit Chief
ANNE E. EGELER, WSBA #20258
Deputy Solicitor General
MARSHA CHIEN, WSBA #47020
PATRICIO A. MARQUEZ, WSBA #47693
Assistant Attorneys General
Office of the Attorney General
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
Angela Sierra
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Douglas J. Woods
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Tamar Pachter
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
/s/ Alexandra Robert Gordon_________
Alexandra Robert Gordon
Deputy Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]

24
25
26

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT

9

Attorney General of Washington
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3176
[phone]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

BRIAN E. FROSH
Attorney General of Maryland
/s/ Steven M. Sullivan_______________
STEVEN M. SULLIVAN
Solicitor General
Federal Bar No. 24930
ROBERT A. SCOTT
Assistant Attorney General
Federal Bar No. 24613
MEGHAN K. CASEY
Assistant Attorney General
Federal Bar No. 28958
Office of the Attorney General of Maryland
200 St. Paul Place, 20th Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

MAURA HEALEY
Attorney General of Massachusetts
/s/ Jesse M. Boodoo
ELIZABETH N. DEWAR
State Solicitor
GENEVIEVE C. NADEAU
Chief, Civil Rights Division
JESSE M. BOODOO
Assistant Attorney General
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
617-727-2200
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of the State of New York

ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM
Attorney General of Oregon

/s/ Lourdes M. Rosado_______________
LOURDES M. ROSADO
Bureau Chief, Civil Rights Bureau
ANISHA DASGUPTA
Deputy Solicitor General
Office of the New York State Attorney General
120 Broadway
New York, New York 10271
[phone]
[e-mail]

/s/ Scott J. Kaplan________________
SCOTT J. KAPLAN, WSBA #49377
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Oregon Department of Justice
100 Market Street
Portland, OR 97201
971-673-1880
[e-mail]

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

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT

10

Attorney General of Washington
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3176
[phone]

1
2
3
4
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing document was electronically filed with the United
States District Court using the CM/ECF system. I certify that all participants in the case are
registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF
system.

6
7

October 11, 2017

/s/ Noah G. Purcell
NOAH G. PURCELL, WSBA 43492

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

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT

11

Attorney General of Washington
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3176
[phone]