MOTION for CLASS CERTIFICATION Plaintiffs, 13 NOTING DATE: by STIPULATION1 V
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 19 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 32 1 The Honorable James L. Robart 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 John Doe, Jane Doe, Jack Doe, Jason Doe, Julia Doe, Joseph Doe and James Doe, individually, 10 and on behalf of all others similarly situated; the No. 2:17-cv-00178-JLR 11 Episcopal Diocese of Olympia, and the Council on American Islamic Relations-Washington, 12 MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Plaintiffs, 13 NOTING DATE: BY STIPULATION1 v. 14 ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED Donald Trump, President of The United States; 15 U.S. Department of State; Rex Tillerson, 16 Secretary of State; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; John Kelly, Secretary of 17 Homeland Security; U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Kevin McAleenan, Acting 18 Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; and Michele James, Field Director 19 of the Seattle Field Office of U.S. Customs and 20 Border Protection, 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 25 1 The parties have stipulated, and the Court has ordered, that Defendants shall file a response to this motion within 26 fourteen (14) days of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Hawai‘i v. Trump, and that Plaintiffs shall file a reply in support of class certification within seven (7) days after Defendants file their response. See Dkt. No. 18. MOTION FOR CLASS AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION K ELLER RO H RB AC K L. L. P. CERTIFICATION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630 (2:17-cv-00178-JLR) i TELEPHONE: (206) 623-1900 Seattle, Washington 98164 FACSIMILE: (`206) 623-3384 TELEPHONE: (206) 624-2184 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 19 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 32 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 3 II. PROPOSED CLASS DEFINITIONS ........................................................................... 2 4 5 III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 3 6 A. Executive Order 13769 (EO-1) .......................................................................... 3 7 B. Executive Order 13780 (EO-2) .......................................................................... 4 8 C. Proposed Class Representatives ........................................................................ 5 9 1. Non-Immigrant Class: Plaintiffs’ Factual Backgrounds.......................... 5 10 2. Refugee Class: Plaintiffs’ Factual Claims .............................................. 6 11 IV. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................... 7 12 A. Legal Standard .................................................................................................. 7 13 B. Plaintiffs’ Action Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23(a). .............................. 7 14 1. The Proposed Classes Are So Numerous That Joinder Is 15 Impracticable. ........................................................................................ 7 16 2. Plaintiffs’ Claims Present Common Questions of Law and Fact. .................................................................................................... 12 17 18 3. The Claims of the Class Plaintiffs Are Typical of the Claims of the Members of the Proposed Classes. ................................. 16 19 4. The Class Plaintiffs Will Adequately Protect the Interests 20 of the Proposed Class Members, and Counsel Are Qualified to Litigate this Action. ......................................................................... 18 21 a. Class Plaintiffs ......................................................................... 18 22 b. Class Counsel .......................................................................... 19 23 24 C. Plaintiffs’ Action Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). ....................... 20 25 D. Plaintiffs’ Action Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(1). ....................... 23 26 V. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 23 MOTION FOR CLASS AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION K ELLER RO H RB AC K L. L. P. CERTIFICATION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630 (2:17-cv-00178-JLR) i TELEPHONE: (206) 623-1900 Seattle, Washington 98164 FACSIMILE: (`206) 623-3384 TELEPHONE: (206) 624-2184 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 19 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 32 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page(s) 3 Cases 4 A.D. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 5 No. 15-180, 2016 WL 3882919 (W.D. Wash. July 18, 2016) ............................................... 23 6 Amchem Prod. Inc., v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) ........................................................................................................ 1, 20 7 Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 8 133 S.Ct. 1184 (2013) ......................................................................................................... 11 9 Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Johnson v. 10 California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005) .................................................................................... 15, 17 11 Aziz v. Trump, 12 No. 17-116, 2017 WL 580855 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017) ........................................................ 3 13 Baby Neal for & by Kanter v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48 (3d Cir. 1994) .................................................................................................... 21 14 Bustamante v. Mukasey, 15 531 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................. 13 16 In re Cooper Co. Inc., Sec. Litig., 17 254 F.R.D. 628 (C.D. Cal. 2009) ........................................................................................... 8 18 Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 533 U.S. 181 (2008) .............................................................................................................. 9 19 Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 20 657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................... 11 21 Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., 22 141 F. Supp. 2d 1266 (W.D. Wash. 2001) ........................................................................... 19 23 Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2012) ....................................................................................... 12, 18 24 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 25 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir.1998) .............................................................................................. 12 26 MOTION FOR CLASS AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION K ELLER RO H RB AC K L. L. P. CERTIFICATION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630 (2:17-cv-00178-JLR) ii TELEPHONE: (206) 623-1900 Seattle, Washington 98164 FACSIMILE: (`206) 623-3384 TELEPHONE: (206) 624-2184 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 19 Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 32 1 Harris v. Palm Springs Alpine Est., Inc., 329 F.2d 909 (9th Cir. 1964) ................................................................................................. 8 2 Hawai‘i v. Trump, 3 No. 17–50, 2017 WL 1167383 (D. Hi. Mar. 15, 2017) ....................................................... 4, 5 4 Hickey v. City of Seattle, 5 236 F.R.D. 659 (W.D. Wash. 2006) ..................................................................................... 15 6 Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, No. 17-361, 2017 WL 1018235 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2017) ........................................................ 4 7 Jordan v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 8 669 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1982), vacated on other grounds, 459 U.S. 810 (1982) ............... 8, 18 9 Just Film, Inc. v. Buono, 10 847 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................. 16 11 Khoury v. Asher, 3 F. Supp. 3d 877 (W.D. Wash. 2014) ................................................................................. 21 12 Krzesniak v. Cendant Corp., 13 No. C 05-5156, 2007 WL 1795703 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2007) ............................................. 17 14 LaDuke v. Nelson, 15 762 F.2d 1318 (9th Cir. 1985), amended, 796 F.2d 309 (9th Cir. 1986) ............................... 17 16 Lynch v. Rank, 604 F. Supp. 30 (N.D. Cal. 1984), aff’d, 747 F.2d 528 (9th Cir. 1984), opinion 17 amended on reh’g, 763 F.2d 1098 (9th Cir. 1985).................................................................. 8 18 Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................... 12 19 McCluskey v. Trs. Of Red Dot Corp. Employee Stock Ownership Plan & Trust, 20 268 F.R.D. 670 (W.D. Wash. 2010) ....................................................................................... 8 21 Michery v. Ford Motor Co., 22 650 F. App’x 338 (9th Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................... 9 23 Nw. Immigrant Rights Project v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs., No. C15-0813, 2016 WL 5817078 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 5, 2016) .............................................. 8 24 Parsons v. Ryan, 25 754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................ passim 26 MOTION FOR CLASS AMERICAN