8:12-cv-01137 #13
-
Upload
equality-case-files -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of 8:12-cv-01137 #13
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
1/31
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
CENTER FORHUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAWPeter A. Schey (Cal. Bar No. 58232)Carlos R. Holgun (Cal. Bar No. 90754)256 S. Occidental Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90057Telephone: (213) 388-8693 (Schey Ext. 304, Holgun ext. 309)
Facsimile: (213) [email protected]@centerforhumanrights.org
Additional counsel listed next page
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION
Martin R. ARANAS,Irma RODRIGUEZ, andJane DELEON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Janet NAPOLITANO, Secretary of theDepartment of Homeland Security;Alejandro MAYORKAS, Director, UnitedStates Citizenship & ImmigrationServices;UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP &IMMIGRATION SERVICES; andDEPARTMENT OF HOMELANDSECURITY,
Defendants.________________________________
)))))))))))
)))))))))))))))
SACV12-01137 CBM (AJWx)
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTIONFORPROVISIONAL CLASSCERTIFICATION.
Hearing: September 24, 2012Time: 10:00 a.m.Hon. Consuelo B. MarshallSpring St., Courtroom No. 2
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13 Filed 08/23/12 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:134
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
2/31
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion for Class Certification- 2 -
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law
256 S. Occidental Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90057
-
Additional counsel for plaintiff Aranas:
PUBLIC LAW CENTERJulie Greenwald (Cal. Bar No. 233714)
Monica Ashiku (Cal. Bar No. 263112)601 Civic Center Drive WestSanta Ana, CA 92701Telephone: (714) 541-1010 (Greenwald Ext. 263, Ashiku Ext. 249)Facsimile: (714) 541-5157
[email protected]@publiclawcenter.org
ASIAN LAW ALLIANCEBeatrice Ann M. Pangilinan (Cal. Bar No. 271064)184 Jackson Street, San Jose, CA 95112Telephone: (408) 287-9710Facsimile: (408) 287-0864Email: [email protected]
Additional counsel for plaintiffs Rodriguez and DeLeon:
LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN &BENNETTGary H. Manulkin (Cal. Bar No.41469)Reyna M. Tanner (Cal. Bar No.197931)10175 Slater Avenue, Suite 111Fountain Valley, CA 92708Telephone: 714-963-8951Facsimile: [email protected]@yahoo.com
/ / /
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13 Filed 08/23/12 Page 2 of 21 Page ID #:135
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
3/31
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion for Class Certification- 3 -
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law
256 S. Occidental Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90057
-
To defendants and their attorneys of record:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 24, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon
thereafter as counsel may be heard, plaintiffs will and do hereby move the Court for
an order provisionally certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the following classes of
similarly situated persons:
All members of lawful same-sex marriages whom the Department of
Homeland Security, pursuant to 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C.
7, has refused or will refuse to recognize as spouses for purposes of
conferring lawful status and related benefits under the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.
/ / /
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13 Filed 08/23/12 Page 3 of 21 Page ID #:136
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
4/31
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion for Class Certification- 4 -
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law
256 S. Occidental Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90057
-
This motion is based upon the accompanying memorandum of law and
exhibits, and upon all other matters of record herein. A proposed order is lodged
concurrently herewith.
This motion is made following conferences of counsel pursuant to Local Rule
7-3 which took place on July19 and 26, and August 2, 9, and 13, 2012. Defendants
stated they decline to take a position on this motion until after they have had an
opportunity to review plaintiffs moving papers.
Dated: August 23, 2012. CENTER FORHUMAN RIGHTS ANDCONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Peter A. ScheyCarlos R. Holgun
PUBLIC LAW CENTERJulie Greenwald MarzoukMonica Ashiku
ASIAN LAW ALLIANCEBeatrice Ann M. Pangilinan
LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN &
BENNETTGary H. ManulkinReyna M. Tanner
/s/ Peter A. Schey________________
/s/ Carlos R. Holgun _____________
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13 Filed 08/23/12 Page 4 of 21 Page ID #:137
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
5/31
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion for Class Certification- 5 -
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law
256 S. Occidental Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90057
-
Certificate of Service
SACV12-01137CBM(AJWX)
I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of August, 2012, I electronically filed the
foregoing NOTICE OF MOTION FORCLASS CERTIFICATION with the Clerk of Court
by using the CM/ECF system, which provided an electronic notice and electronic
link of the same to all attorneys of record through the Courts CM/ECF system.
Dated: August 23, 2012. /s/ Karena Heredia ______________
/ / /
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13 Filed 08/23/12 Page 5 of 21 Page ID #:138
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
6/31
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CENTER FORHUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAWPeter A. Schey (Cal. Bar No. 58232)Carlos R. Holgun (Cal. Bar No. 90754)256 S. Occidental Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90057Telephone: (213) 388-8693 (Schey Ext. 304, Holgun ext. 309)
Facsimile: (213) [email protected]@centerforhumanrights.org
Additional counsel listed next page
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION
Martin R. ARANAS,Irma RODRIGUEZ, andJane DELEON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Janet NAPOLITANO, Secretary of theDepartment of Homeland Security;Alejandro MAYORKAS, Director, UnitedStates Citizenship & ImmigrationServices;UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP &IMMIGRATION SERVICES; andDEPARTMENT OF HOMELANDSECURITY,
Defendants.________________________________
)))))))))))
)))))))))))))))
SACV12-01137 CBM (AJWx)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS ANDAUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OFMOTION FORCLASSCERTIFICATION.
Hearing: September 24, 2012Time: 10:00 a.m.Hon. Consuelo B. MarshallSpring St., Courtroom No. 2
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13 Filed 08/23/12 Page 6 of 21 Page ID #:139
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
7/31
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion for Class Certification- II -
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law
256 S. Occidental Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90057
-
Additional counsel for plaintiff Aranas:
PUBLIC LAW CENTERJulie Greenwald (Cal. Bar No. 233714)Monica Ashiku (Cal. Bar No. 263112)601 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701Telephone: (714) 541-1010 (Greenwald Ext. 263, Ashiku Ext. 249)Facsimile: (714) 541-5157
[email protected]@publiclawcenter.org
ASIAN LAW ALLIANCEBeatrice Ann M. Pangilinan (Cal. Bar No. 271064)184 Jackson Street, San Jose, CA 95112Telephone: (408) 287-9710
Facsimile: (408) 287-0864Email: [email protected]
Additional counsel for plaintiffs Rodriguez and DeLeon:
LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN &BENNETTGary H. Manulkin (Cal. Bar No.41469)Reyna M. Tanner (Cal. Bar No.197931)10175 Slater Avenue, Suite 111Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Telephone: 714-963-8951Facsimile: [email protected]@yahoo.com
/ / /
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13 Filed 08/23/12 Page 7 of 21 Page ID #:140
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
8/31
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion for Class Certification- III -
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law
256 S. Occidental Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90057
-
OUTLINE OF CONTENTS
I Introduction............................................................................................................ 1
II Proposed class definition. ..................................................................................... 3
III This action satisfies the requirements of rule 23(a). ............................................ 4
A Numerosity and impracticality of joinder. ................................................. 5
B Common questions of law or fact. .............................................................. 6
C Typicality of claims. ................................................................................... 7
D Adequacy of representation........................................................................ 8
IV This action satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2)....................................... 9
V Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 11
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases
Adashunas v. Negley, 626 F.2d 600 (7th Cir. 1980)....................................................4American Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union, 44 F.R.D. 47
(N.D. Okla. 1968)...................................................................................................6
Arkansas Education Association v. Board of Education, 446 F.2d 763(8th Cir. 1971) ........................................................................................................4
Carey v. Greyhound Bus Co., 500 F.2d 1372 (5th Cir. 1974) .....................................4Catholic Social Services, Inc. v. Reno, Civ. S-86-1343 LKK (E.D.
Cal.) ........................................................................................................................9Cullen v. New York State Civil Service Commission, 435 F. Supp. 546
(E.D.N.Y. 1977) .....................................................................................................6Eisen v. Carlisle and Jacqueline, 391 F.2d 555 (2nd Cir. 1968) ................................5Haitian Refugee Center v. Smith, 676 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 1982) ...............................7Illinois Migrant Council v. Pilliod, 540 F.2d 1062 (7th Cir. 1976),
modified, 548 F.2d 715 (7th Cir. 1977) ..................................................................9In re U.S. Financial Securities Litigation, 69 F.R.D. 24 (S.D.Cal.
1975).......................................................................................................................5Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 417 F.2d 1122 (5th Cir.
1969).......................................................................................................................7Jordan v. County of Los Angeles, 669 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1982) ...............................4League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13 Filed 08/23/12 Page 8 of 21 Page ID #:141
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
9/31
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion for Class Certification- IV -
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law
256 S. Occidental Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90057
-
(9th Cir. 1997) ........................................................................................................8Mendez v. INS, 563 F.2d 956 (9th Cir. 1977) ..............................................................7Immigrant Assistance Project v. INS, 709 F. Supp. 998 (W.D.Wa.
1989).......................................................................................................................7Mersay v. First Republic Corp., 43 F.R.D. 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)...............................6National Center for Immigrants' Rights, Inc. v. INS, Civ. No. 83-
7927-KN (C.D. Cal.) ..............................................................................................9Newman, et al., v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, et al., No.CV 87-4757-WDK (C.D. Cal.)............................................................................... 9
Norwalk CORE v. Norwalk Redevelopment Agency, 395 F.2d 920(2nd Cir. 1968) .......................................................................................................6
Orantes-Hernandez v. Smith, 541 F. Supp. 351 (C.D. Cal. 1982) ......................5, 6, 7Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202; 102 S. Ct. 2382; 72 L. Ed. 2d 786 (1982) .....................7Ramon Sepulveda v. INS, 863 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1988)............................................7Reno v. Catholic Social Services, 509 U.S. 43; 113 S. Ct. 2485; 125 L.
Ed. 2d 38 (1993) .....................................................................................................8
Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292; 113 S. Ct. 1439; 123 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1993) .....................8Senter v. General Motors Corp., 532 F.2d 511 (6th Cir. 1976), cert.denied, 429 U.S. 870 (1976)................................................................................... 5
Thomas & Thomas Rodmakers, Inc. v. Newport Adhesives &Composites, Inc., 209 F.R.D. 159 (C.D. Cal. 2002)...............................................3
Yaffe v. Powers, 454 F.2d 1362 (1st Cir. 1972).......................................................3, 5
Statutes, Rules and Regulations
Rule 23, Fed.R.Civ.Proc. ....................................................................................passim
Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. 104-199, 3(a), 110 Stat. 2419,codified at1 U.S.C. 7..................................................................................................18 U.S.C. 1101, et seq ................................................................................................1
Other Authorities
7A Wright & Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 1775.........................87A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure 1760.............................3
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13 Filed 08/23/12 Page 9 of 21 Page ID #:142
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
10/31
- 1 -
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
26
27
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FORCLASS CERTIFICATION
I INTRODUCTION
This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging
discrimination in the conferring of benefits under the Immigration and Nationality
Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101, et seq. (INA), against members of lawful marriages solely
because the spouses are of the same sex.
Plaintiffs contend that members of marriages lawful under the law of the state
of celebration are entitled to recognition as spouses under the INA regardless of
their members sex or sexual orientation. Defendant U.S. Citizenship &
Naturalization Services (CIS) declines to recognize these marriages in accord with
3(a) of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. 104-199, 3(a), 110 Stat. 2419,
codified at1 U.S.C. 7 (DOMA),1 though the agency concedes the statute is
unconstitutional.
As applied to plaintiffs and those similarly situated, the DOMA takes a unitary
class of married couples and divides it in two: opposite-sex couples who are treated
as married and have access to interim and final benefits under the INA, and same-
1 DOMA 3 provides:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agenciesof the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13 Filed 08/23/12 Page 10 of 21 Page ID #:143
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
11/31
- 2 -
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
26
27
sex couples whose marriages do not exist insofar as conferring interim or permanent
lawful status under the INA. Denied lawful status solely on account of their sex and
sexual orientation, immigrant spouses of U.S. citizens and lawfully present aliens
(and their immigrant children, as in the case of plaintiff Aranas), unlike their
heterosexual counterparts, are often consigned to the undocumented underground
where they are subject to detention and removal, denied the right to work lawfully in
the United States so they may survive and support their families, face a range of
exploitative situations, and are treated by the Government as being in unauthorized
status which triggers future bars to admission as lawful permanent residents.
As shown in plaintiffs concurrently filed motion for preliminary injunction,
this discrimination and sundering of families denies both substantive due process and
equal protection in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. DOMA 3 must survive heightened scrutiny because it discriminates
based on sex and sexual orientation, intimate matters which lie at the heart of
individual autonomy and liberty, and as such, are not proper bases for governmental
classification absent an important reason for making them so. As plaintiffs motion
for preliminary injunction demonstrates, the Government has no important, nor even
rational, basis for discriminating against same-sex couples.
There is no dispute that defendants have applied and will continue to apply
DOMA 3 to deny recognition to same-sex marriages when implementing the INA.
one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refersonly to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13 Filed 08/23/12 Page 11 of 21 Page ID #:144
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
12/31
- 3 -
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
26
27
It is equally clear that whether their doing so comports with the constitutional
guarantees of due process and equal protection is a question of law common to all
members of same-sex marriages refused immigration benefits under the INA solely
because of DOMA 3. This is a question of law that effects immigrants and their
U.S. citizen and lawful resident spouses throughout the country and should be settled
in a single proceeding: if any such marriages are entitled to recognition under the
INA, all are. Furthermore, and importantly in this case, what temporary protection
plaintiffs and their proposed class members receive while the courts address
DOMAs constitutionality should be uniform and its availability known to plaintiffs
and putative class members. This action is a paradigmatic candidate for class
treatment; it should accordingly be certified pursuant to Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. Proc.2
II PROPOSED CLASS DEFINITION.
Rule 23 contains an implicit requirement that the class be defined so that the
class membership is ascertainable. Thomas & Thomas Rodmakers, Inc. v. Newport
Adhesives & Composites, Inc., 209 F.R.D. 159, 163 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
A Rule 23(b)(2) class, is adequately defined so long as the general outlines of
2 Rule 23 provides that class certification should be sought as soon as practicable.
Plaintiffs recognize this motion is made early in these proceedings, but proposedclass members are suffering irreparable injury as a result of defendants applying theDOMA 3 to deny them lawful status and the right to work in the United States.Class certification, even if provisional, should be granted in order to protect absentclass members from irreparable injury.Zepeda v. United States Immigration &
Naturalization Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983) (class-wide preliminaryinjunctive relief may only be granted if the court has certified or provisionallycertified a class).
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13 Filed 08/23/12 Page 12 of 21 Page ID #:145
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
13/31
- 4 -
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
26
27
the membership of the class are determinable at the outset of the litigation, 7A
Wright, Miller & Kane, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1760 at 118, and
it is administratively feasible for the court to determine whether a particular
individual is a member.Id. at 121.
Plaintiffs seek provisional certification under Rule 23(b)(2) of the following
class:
All members of lawful same-sex marriages whom the Department of
Homeland Security, pursuant to 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C.
7, has refused or will refuse to recognize as spouses for purposes of
conferring lawful status and related benefits under the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.
As proposed, the class definition comprises a group whose path to lawful
status defendants uniformly block pursuant to DOMA 3. These proposed class
members have all suffered [] statutory violations warranting some relief.Adashunas
v. Negley, 626 F.2d 600, 604 (7th Cir. 1980). Class members may be readily
identified by whether they have suffered the specified injury. Defendants apply
DOMA 3 uniformly to every immigrant who is married to a person of the same
sex. Defendants uniformly deny recognition they would otherwise grant if only the
proposed class members were married to someone of a different sex.
The proposed class definition accordingly satisfies Rule 23.
III THIS ACTION SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 23(a).
To receive class treatment an action must also satisfy the four requirements of
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13 Filed 08/23/12 Page 13 of 21 Page ID #:146
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
14/31
- 5 -
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
26
27
Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The instant action does so.
A Numerosity and impracticality of joinder.
Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be so numerous that joinder is
impractical.
Courts generally find the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) satisfied
when relatively few class members are involved. See, e.g., Jordan v. County of Los
Angeles, 669 F.2d 1311, 1319 (9th Cir. 1982); Carey v. Greyhound Bus Co., 500
F.2d 1372, 1381 (5th Cir. 1974) (number of class members assumed to be 28);
Arkansas Education Association v. Board of Education, 446 F.2d 763, 765-66 (8th
Cir. 1971) (class membership of 20 persons).
It is not necessary to determine the exact size of the class in order to satisfy
Rule 23(a)(1), especially where it would do no practical good to identify all
individual class members when ruling on a certification motion.In re U.S. Financial
Securities Litigation, 69 F.R.D. 24, 34 (S.D.Cal. 1975).
Rather, the conduct complained of is the benchmark for determining whether
a subdivision (b)(2) class exists, making it uniquely suited to civil rights actions in
which the members of the class are often incapable of specific enumeration. Yaffe,
supra, 454 F.2d at 1366 (emphasis supplied). Where the exact size of the class is
unknown but general knowledge and common sense indicate that it is large, the
numerosity requirement is satisfied. Orantes-Hernandez v. Smith, 541 F. Supp. 351,
371 (C.D. Cal. 1982).
The numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) is satisfied here. Plaintiffs
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13 Filed 08/23/12 Page 14 of 21 Page ID #:147
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
15/31
- 6 -
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
26
27
challenge a statute that is uniformly applied against a constantly increasing number
of lawfully married same-sex couples and their immigrant children. This action
accordingly satisfies the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1).
B Common questions of law or fact.
Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there be questions of law or fact common to the
class.
Even where there are individual variations in the facts or legal issues as they
relate to a particular named plaintiff or proposed class member, the commonality
requirement is satisfied so long as the class shares some common question of law or
fact. See, e.g., Eisen v. Carlisle and Jacqueline, 391 F.2d 555, 562 (2nd Cir. 1968)
(class certification granted notwithstanding varying fact patterns underlying each
individual ... transaction ...); Senter v. General Motors Corp., 532 F.2d 511, 524
(6th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 870 (1976) (class certification granted in
employment discrimination action brought on behalf of Black employees even
though it was manifest that every decision to hire, fire or discharge an employee
may involve individual considerations);Norwalk CORE v. Norwalk Redevelopment
Agency, 395 F.2d 920, 937 (2nd Cir. 1968) (class certified in challenge to relocation
practices of urban renewal project despite the different treatment suffered by each
tenant during the relocation process); Cullen v. New York State Civil Service
Commission, 435 F. Supp. 546, 559 (E.D.N.Y. 1977) (class certification granted in
lawsuit challenging coercive practices in obtaining political contributions from
public employees even though fact questions specific to each instance of the alleged
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13 Filed 08/23/12 Page 15 of 21 Page ID #:148
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
16/31
- 7 -
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
26
27
coercion will remain).
Common questions of law presented in this proposed class action include
whether defendants applying DOMA 3 to deny recognition to same-sex marriages
under the INA denies plaintiffs and their proposed class members due process or
equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.
It is clear that the claims plaintiffs present here raise questions of law (due
process and equal protection) and fact (same-sex marriages) common to all proposed
class members.
C Typicality of claims.
Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims of the named plaintiffs be typical of the
claims ... of the class. Meeting this requirement usually follows from the presence
of common questions of law, and courts have thus construed subdivisions (a)(2) and
(a)(3) as largely duplicative. Orantes-Hernandez v. INS,supra, 541 F. Supp. at 371;
American Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union, 44 F.R.D. 47, 48 (N.D. Okla.
1968) (holding (a)(3) met by representatives sharing common with the class any
claim or defense it has);Mersay v. First Republic Corp., 43 F.R.D. 465, 468-69
(S.D.N.Y. 1968) (allegation that defendants engage in scheme common to all
members of class held to support finding that claims of representative party typical).
As has been seen, the case at bar presents only common questions. Plaintiff DeLeon
has applied for an immigration benefit under the INA based upon her same-sex
marriage to plaintiff Rodriguez, and her application has been denied solely based
upon DOMA. Her son, plaintiff Aranas, is eligible for accompanying relative status
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13 Filed 08/23/12 Page 16 of 21 Page ID #:149
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
17/31
- 8 -
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
26
27
but his eligibility is strictly linked to the eligibility of his mother, plaintiff DeLeon.
Plaintiffs claims are clearly typical of those of the proposed class.
D Adequacy of representation.
The final requirement for class certification set out in Rule 23(a)(4), is that the
named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class. The two
principal elements of this requirement are (1) that the class representatives interests
are co-extensive and not antagonistic to the class members; and (2) that counsel for
the named representatives are qualified.Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.,
417 F.2d 1122, 1124-25 (5th Cir. 1969).
Plaintiffs here have no interests in conflict with those of the proposed class
members. The named plaintiffs seek the same injunctive and declaratory relief for
the class as they do for themselves. Plaintiffs seek to vindicate rights that are violated
through the uniform application of the DOMA. Their goal is to declare defendants
applying DOMA 3 against members of same-sex couples unlawful and to enjoin
further application of DOMA 3 when defendants adjudicate applications for
benefits available under the INA.
Plaintiffs lead counsel are employed by a non-profit organization specializing
in complex federal litigation on behalf of immigrants and refugees. They have
successfully litigated numerous class actions and individual cases in the federal
courts involving the rights of immigrants. See, e.g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202
(1982);Ramon Sepulveda v. INS, 863 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1988);Haitian Refugee
Center v. Smith, 676 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 1982);Mendez v. INS, 563 F.2d 956 (9th
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13 Filed 08/23/12 Page 17 of 21 Page ID #:150
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
18/31
- 9 -
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
26
27
Cir. 1977);Immigrant Assistance Project v. INS, 709 F. Supp. 998 (W.D.Wa. 1989);
Orantes-Hernandez v. Smith, 541 F. Supp. 351 (C.D. Cal. 1982);League of United
Latin American Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297 (9th Cir. 1997);Reno v. Catholic
Social Services, 509 U.S. 43 (1993);Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993);Perez-
Olano v. Gonzalez, 248 F.R.D. 248 (C.D. Cal. 2008).
Counsel will adequately represent the proposed class. The requirements of
Rule 23(a)(4) are accordingly satisfied.
IV THIS ACTION SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 23(b)(2).
In addition to satisfying the four requirements of Rule 23(a), a class action
must meet one of the requirements of Rule 23(b).
This action meets the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2): i.e., the party opposing
the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class
thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief
with respect to the class as a whole ...
In a (b)(2) class action the party opposing the class does not have to act
directly against each member of the class. As long as his actions would affect all
persons similarly situated, his acts apply generally to the whole class. 7A Wright &
Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 1775, at 19.
In this case defendants uniformly apply DOMA 3 to deny lawfully married
couples and their immigrant children immigration benefits. Plaintiffs allege they do
so in violation of the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. The proposed class in this case is
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13 Filed 08/23/12 Page 18 of 21 Page ID #:151
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
19/31
- 10 -
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
26
27
created by the policies and practices at issue.
Courts have repeatedly certified classes consisting of immigrants subject to
challenged statutes, regulations, practices or policies. See, e.g., Catholic Social
Services, Inc. v. Reno, Civ. S-86-1343 LKK (E.D. Cal.);Newman, et al., v.
Immigration & Naturalization Service, et al., No. CV 87-4757-WDK (C.D. Cal.);
Immigrant Assistance Project v. INS, Civil No. C-88-379R (W.D. Wa.);National
Center for Immigrants' Rights, Inc. v. INS, Civ. No. 83-7927-KN (C.D. Cal.) (order
issued July 9, 1985, certifying a nationwide class of all persons subjected to an INS
regulation under challenge);see generallyIllinois Migrant Council v. Pilliod, 540
F.2d 1062, 1072 (7th Cir. 1976), modified, 548 F.2d 715 (7th Cir. 1977).
The requirements of subsection (b)(2) have accordingly been met.
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13 Filed 08/23/12 Page 19 of 21 Page ID #:152
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
20/31
- 11 -
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
26
27
V CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this action should be certified as a class action
pursuant to Rule 23(b), Fed.R.Civ.Proc.
Dated: August 23, 2012. CENTER FORHUMAN RIGHTS ANDCONSTITUTIONAL LAWPeter A. ScheyCarlos R. Holgun
PUBLIC LAW CENTERJulie Greenwald MarzoukMonica Ashiku
ASIAN LAW ALLIANCEBeatrice Ann M. Pangilinan
LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN &BENNETTGary H. ManulkinReyna M. Tanner
/s/ Peter A. Schey________________
/s/ Carlos R. Holgun _____________
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/ / /
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13 Filed 08/23/12 Page 20 of 21 Page ID #:153
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
21/31
- 12 -
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
26
27
CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
SACV12-01137CBM(AJWX)
I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of August, 2012, I electronically filed the
foregoing MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF CLASS
CERTIFICATION with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which
provided an electronic notice and electronic link of the same to all attorneys of
record through the Courts CM/ECF system.
Dated: August 23, 2012. /s/ Karena Heredia ______________
///
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13 Filed 08/23/12 Page 21 of 21 Page ID #:154
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
22/31
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CENTER FORHUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAWPeter A. Schey (Cal. Bar No. 58232)Carlos R. Holgun (Cal. Bar No. 90754)256 S. Occidental Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90057Telephone: (213) 388-8693 (Schey ext. 304; Holgun ext. 309)
Facsimile: (213) [email protected]@centerforhumanrights.org
Counsel for PlaintiffsAdditional counsel for plaintiffs listed next page
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
Martin R. ARANAS,Irma RODRIGUEZ, andJane DELEON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Janet NAPOLITANO, Secretary of theDepartment of Homeland Security;Alejandro MAYORKAS, Director, UnitedStates Citizenship & ImmigrationServices;
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP &IMMIGRATION SERVICES; andDEPARTMENT OF HOMELANDSECURITY,
Defendants._______________________________
)))))
))))))))))))))
)))))))))
SACV12-01137 CBM (AJWx)
[PROPOSED]ORDER
PROVISIONALLY CERTIFYINGCLASS ACTION.
Hearing: Sept. 24, 2012Time: 10:00 a.m.Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13-1 Filed 08/23/12 Page 1 of 10 Page ID#:155
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
23/31
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[Proposed] Order re: Class Certification
- -
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law
256 S. Occidental Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90057
-
Additional counsel for plaintiff Aranas:
PUBLIC LAW CENTERJulie Greenwald (Cal. Bar No. 233714)Monica Ashiku (Cal. Bar No. 263112)601 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701Telephone: (714) 541-1010 (Greenwald Ext. 263, Ashiku Ext. 249)Facsimile: (714) 541-5157
[email protected]@publiclawcenter.org
ASIAN LAW ALLIANCEBeatrice Ann M. Pangilinan (Cal. Bar No. 271064)184 Jackson Street, San Jose, CA 95112Telephone: (408) 287-9710
Facsimile: (408) 287-0864Email: [email protected]
Additional counsel for plaintiffs Rodriguez and DeLeon:
LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN &BENNETTGary H. Manulkin (Cal. Bar No.41469)Reyna M. Tanner (Cal. Bar No.197931)10175 Slater Avenue, Suite 111Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Telephone: 714-963-8951Facsimile: [email protected]@yahoo.com
/ / /
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13-1 Filed 08/23/12 Page 2 of 10 Page ID#:156
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
24/31
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[Proposed] Order re: Class Certification
- -
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law
256 S. Occidental Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90057
-
This matter came on regularly for hearing on the plaintiffs motion for class
certification. The Court has considered the briefs, evidence, and argument in support
of and in opposition to plaintiffs motion and now rules on plaintiffs motion as
follows:
In this action plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief barring
defendants Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) from discriminating against
lawfully married couples applying for benefits under the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) on the basis of sex or sexual orientation.
Plaintiffs contend that 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. 104-199,
3(a), 110 Stat. 2419, codified at1 U.S.C. 7 (DOMA), as CIS applies it against
same-sex couples, is irrational, serves no cognizable governmental interest, and
accordingly denies due process and equal protection in violation of the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Plaintiffs move the Court to certify this case as a class action pursuant to Rule
23(b)(2), Fed.R.Civ.Proc., on behalf of the following class of similarly situated
persons:
All members of lawful same-sex marriages whom the Department of
Homeland Security, pursuant to 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C.
7, has refused or will refuse to recognize as spouses for purposes of
conferring lawful status and related benefits under the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13-1 Filed 08/23/12 Page 3 of 10 Page ID#:157
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
25/31
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[Proposed] Order re: Class Certification
- -
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law
256 S. Occidental Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90057
-
The question before the Court is whether this action meets the requirements
for class treatment under Rule 23, Fed.R.Civ.Proc.
Rule 23 outlines a two-step process for determining whether class certification
is appropriate. First, Rule 23(a) sets forth four prerequisites that must be met for any
class: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2)
there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of
the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4)
the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Fed.R.Civ. Proc. 23(a).Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir.
1992).
Second, the party seeking class certification must demonstrate that the action
falls within one of the three kinds of actions permitted under Rule 23(b).Id. at 153.
Rule 23 includes an implicit requirement that the class be adequately defined
so that the class membership is ascertainable. Thomas & Thomas Rodmakers, Inc. v.
Newport Adhesives & Composites, Inc., 209 F.R.D. 159, 163 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
Defining a class as consisting of all persons who have been or will be affected by
the conduct charged to the defendants is entirely appropriate where only injunctive
or declaratory relief is sought. Indeed, the principal beneficiaries of an injunctive
decree would seem likely to be those class members whose rights have not yet been
violated.Fischer v. Dallas Federal Sav. & Loan Asso., 106 F.R.D. 465, 470 (N.D.
Tx. 1985), affd, 835 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1988).
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13-1 Filed 08/23/12 Page 4 of 10 Page ID#:158
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
26/31
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
27/31
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[Proposed] Order re: Class Certification
- -
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law
256 S. Occidental Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90057
-
requirement is satisfied so long as the class shares some common question of law or
fact. See, e.g., Eisen v. Carlisle and Jacqueline, 391 F.2d 555, 562 (2nd Cir. 1968).
The common questions of fact presented in this action include whether CIS
denies immigration benefits to the foreign born spouses of U.S. citizens and lawful
permanent residents solely because they are of the same sex as their spouses.
Common questions of law presented in this proposed class action include
whether the DOMA, as applied to deny immigration benefits to bi-national same-sex
couples, denies due process or equal protection in violation of the Fifth Amendment
to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs accordingly satisfy the commonality
requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).
Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims of the named plaintiffs be typical of the
claims ... of the class. Meeting this requirement usually follows from the presence
of common questions of law.Mersay v. First Republic Corp., 43 F.R.D. 465, 468-69
(S.D.N.Y. 1968). Where an action challenges a policy or practice, named plaintiffs
that suffer one specific injury from the practice may represent a class suffering
additional injuries, so long as all the injuries are shown to result from the practice.
General Tel. Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 157-59, 102 S. Ct. 2364, 72
L. Ed. 2d 740 (1982). As set forth above, plaintiffs claims present common
questions of law and fact surrounding the constitutionality of the DOMA.
Furthermore, plaintiffs claims are typical of the proposed class. They are legally
married, their spouses are of the same sex, they have applied for benefits under the
INA based upon their marriage, and they have been denied benefits under the INA
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13-1 Filed 08/23/12 Page 6 of 10 Page ID#:160
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
28/31
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[Proposed] Order re: Class Certification
- -
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law
256 S. Occidental Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90057
-
solely because they are in a same sex marriage. The typicality requirement of Rule
23(a)(3) is therefore satisfied.
The final requirement for class certification is that the named plaintiff will
fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class. Rule 23(a)(4), Fed.R.Civ.Proc.
This requirement is satisfied where (1) the class representatives interests are not
antagonistic to the class members; and (2) counsel for the named representatives are
qualified to represent the proposed class.Burkhalter Travel Agency v. MacFarms
Int'l. Inc., 141 F.R.D. 144, 153 (N.D. Cal. 1991).
Here the interests of the class representatives are not antagonistic to those of
the proposed class members. Their mutual goal is to declare the DOMA unlawful
and to enjoin its further application.
Class counsel are also qualified to prosecute this action on behalf of the class.
Plaintiffs lead counsel are employed by a non-profit organization specializing in
federal litigation on behalf of immigrants and refugees. They have litigated
numerous class actions in the federal courts involving the rights of immigrants.E.g.,
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982);Reno v. Catholic Social Services, 509 U.S. 43
(1993);Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993);League of United Latin American
Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297 (9th Cir. 1997);Perez-Olano v. Gonzalez, 248
F.R.D. 248 (C.D. Cal 2008).
Rule 23(a)(4) is accordingly satisfied in this case.
In addition to satisfying the four requirements of Rule 23(a), a proposed class
action must meet one of the requirements of Rule 23(b).
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13-1 Filed 08/23/12 Page 7 of 10 Page ID#:161
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
29/31
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[Proposed] Order re: Class Certification
- -
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law
256 S. Occidental Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90057
-
Plaintiffs contend this action meets the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2): i.e., that
the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally
applicable to the class thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or
corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole ...
An action may be certified under subsection (b)(2) where the defendants acts
apply generally to the whole class. See generallyIllinois Migrant Council v. Pilliod,
540 F.2d 1062, 1072 (7th Cir. 1976), modified, 548 F.2d 715 (7th Cir. 1977).
Here the DOMA directs defendants to deny immigration benefits under the
INA to all who seek them based upon a same-sex marriage. This does not depend on
individual differences, but is rather a universal directive where individuals seek
immigration benefits based on a same-sex marriage. Certification under Rule
23(b)(2) is accordingly appropriate.Perez-Olano v. Gonzalez,supra, 248 F.R.D. at
258-59.
* * * * *
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is
provisionally certified as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b), Fed.R.Civ.Proc. The
class shall be defined as set forth above.
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13-1 Filed 08/23/12 Page 8 of 10 Page ID#:162
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
30/31
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[Proposed] Order re: Class Certification
- -
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law
256 S. Occidental Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90057
-
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Rule 23(g), Fed.R.Civ.Proc., that Peter
A. Schey and Carlos R. Holguin of the Center for Human Rights & Constitutional
Law, Julie Greenwald and Monica Ashiku of the Public Law Center, Beatrice Ann
M. Pangilinan of the Asian Law Alliance, and Gary H. Manulkin and Reyna M.
Tanner, of the Law Offices of Manulkin & Bennett, be appointed class counsel.
Dated: _________________, 2012 _____________________________United States District Judge
Presented by:
/s/_ Peter Schey_________/s/_ Carlos Holgun_________Attorneys for plaintiffs
/ / /
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13-1 Filed 08/23/12 Page 9 of 10 Page ID#:163
-
7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #13
31/31
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
SACV12-01137 CBM (AJWx)
I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of August 2012, I electronically filed the
foregoing [PROPOSED]ORDERCERTIFYING CLASS with the Clerk of Court by using
the CM/ECF system, which provided an electronic notice and electronic link of the
same to all attorneys of record through the Courts CM/ECF system.
/s/ Karena Heredia ______________
Dated: August 23, 2012.
/ / /
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 13-1 Filed 08/23/12 Page 10 of 10 Page ID#:164