Tiwari et al v. Mattis

Filing 193

ORDER amending its previous 192 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment consistent with the prior Order, docket no. 192 . Signed by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (PM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 4 5 KIRTI TIWARI, et al., 6 Plaintiffs, 7 v. 8 C17-242 TSZ PATRICK M. SHANAHAN, Acting Secretary, United States Department of Defense, in his official capacity, 9 10 Defendant. 11 12 Upon reconsideration sua sponte, the Court hereby AMENDS its previous Order entered January 31, 2019, docket no. 192, as follows: 13 14 Paragraph 7 and footnote 29 in the “Conclusion,” on page 31 of the Order, are AMENDED to read: 15 16 17 18 19 ORDER (7) The Court ENTERS the following permanent injunction: Defendant and the United States Department of Defense are hereby ENJOINED from requiring, in the absence of individualized suspicion, a biennial series of National Intelligence Agency Checks for continuous monitoring or security clearance eligibility purposes with respect to any plaintiff;29 and 20 21 29 The Court DECLINES to certify a class because the Court is satisfied that entry of this permanent injunction will operate in favor of all MAVNI personnel who are similarly situated to 22 plaintiffs, namely any citizen affiliated with the DoD who accessed into the United States Army 23 ORDER - 1 1 With the changes indicated above, the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment 2 consistent with the prior Order, docket no. 192, to send a copy of this Order and the 3 Judgment to all counsel of record, and to CLOSE this case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated this 14th day of February, 2019. 6 A 7 8 Thomas S. Zilly United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 through the MAVNI program after February 12, 2012, and before September 30, 2016. See DiFrancesco v. Fox, 2019 WL 145627 at *2-*3 (D. Mont. Jan. 9, 2019) (ruling that, because “all 20 potential class members . . . would benefit from an injunction issued on behalf of the individually named plaintiffs,” certification of a class would serve “[n]o useful need or purpose,” and that 21 “[t]he costs and complexities associated with maintaining a class action outweigh the benefits class certification is intended to provide” (citing James v. Ball, 613 F.2d 180, 186 (9th Cir. 1979), rev’d on other grounds, 451 U.S. 355 (1981))); see also Davis v. Smith, 607 F.2d 535, 22 540 (2d Cir. 1978). 23 ORDER - 2

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?