Faour Abdallah Fraihat v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

REPLY in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration re Transferring Case purs GO 19-03

C.D. Cal.February 10, 2020

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 28 JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section JEFFREY S. ROBINS Deputy Director LINDSAY M. VICK (MA 685569) 450 5th Street, N.W., Rm 5223 Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 532-4023 Facsimile: (202) 305-7000 lindsay.vick@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FAOUR ABDALLAH FRAIHAT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 5:19-CV-01546 JGB (SHKx) DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Before The Honorable Jesus G. Bernal Hearing Date: February 24, 2020 Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m. Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 73 Filed 02/10/20 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:677 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 28 ARGUMENT This Court should reconsider its Order Re Transfer Pursuant to General Order 19-03 (“Order”), ECF No. 20, because the instant case is not related to Torres v. DHS, 5:18-CV-02604 JGB(SHKx), and Defendants never had an opportunity to respond to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Related Cases, ECF No. 4, pursuant to Local Rule 83-1.3.3. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 59(e). Torres and the present case do not arise from related events, require analysis of similar factual or legal issues, or result in a duplication of labor if heard by a different judge. See ECF No. 20; Local Rule 83-1.3.1. While Torres is also a putative class action brought by immigration detainees for declaratory and injunctive relief, that is where the similarities end. See generally, 411 F. Supp. 3d 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2019). Unlike the present case, Torres involves claims concerning immigration detainees’ conditions of confinement related to access to counsel and is limited to immigration detention facilities within the Central District of California. See id. Further, the plaintiffs in Torres brought claims under procedural and substantive Due Process as well as under the First Amendment. See id. In the present case, Plaintiffs bring a putative class action on behalf of all immigration detainees nationwide for declaratory and injunctive relief involving Due Process. More specifically, this case involves claims of constitutionally inadequate medical and mental health care, as well as claims under the Rehabilitation Act. Notably, this case involves claims arising out of detention centers located in multiple judicial circuits, and therefore, involves claims that are subject to different legal standards depending upon the judicial circuit in which a plaintiff is detained. Compl. ¶¶ 600-01. Even though both Torres and the present case involve Due Process claims concerning conditions of confinement, the basis for Due Process in each case is entirely different—Torres is an access to counsel case and, conversely, the present case concerns medical and mental health care, Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 73 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:678 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 28 administrative segregation, and issues related to detainees with disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act. Such claims involve different legal standards and analysis and lack factual overlap. The many differences between the present case and Torres also support Defendants’ position in other pending motions before this Court that Plaintiffs’ claims should be severed, dismissed or transferred, or stricken. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention, Defendants do not argue that “two cases must be the same in each and every possible way” for them to be related cases under the Local Rules. Pls.’ Opp. to Defs.’ Mot. to Reconsider (“Pls. Opp.”) 4, ECF No. 70. But the cases must still satisfy the standard for relating cases under Local Rule 83-1.3, and Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the standard is met in this case. Further, Plaintiffs’ argument that having the two cases heard by different judges would result in duplication of labor is unconvincing. Plaintiffs contend that because the parties in each case have raised the same legal arguments at the motion to dismiss stage, a duplication of efforts would result if the two cases were not related and heard by one judge. However, that the same legal arguments were made at the motion to dismiss stage in each case is more a consequence of the type of arguments generally made at this stage of the litigation rather than the similarity between the two cases. Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider is not based on “mere disagreement” with the Court’s decision, and the implication that Defendants have made “no attempt” to comply with the Local Rules is false. See Pls.’ Opp. 3. Defendants were deprived of the opportunity to oppose Plaintiffs’ Notice of Related Case Order under Local Rule 83-1.3.3 and request the opportunity to be heard on that issue. Defendants met and conferred with Plaintiffs on this Motion as well as on their other Motions and submit this Motion in good faith. Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 73 Filed 02/10/20 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:679 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 28 Plaintiffs’ cases cited in support of their argument that Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider is untimely are inapposite. In Selectron Indus. Co., Inc. v. Selectron Int’l., the court denied a motion to reconsider the denial of a motion to enforce a settlement agreement after a four month delay during which the parties took part in arbitration and the movant changed its position on settlement based upon the subsequent arbitration. See No. CV 04-4146-PLA, 2007 WL 5193735, *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2007). In Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., the defendant waited two months before requesting reconsideration of a court order, and the court found the request untimely. See 782 F. Supp. 2d 911, 960 (C.D. Cal. 2011). In Mattel, the court order came after “extensive briefing and oral argument” such that defendant had already been heard on the issues and no new facts or changes in law had occurred in the two-month interim. Id. Further, in Honeywell Int’l., Inc. v. W. Support Grp., the court denied a motion to reconsider the denial of a second summary judgment motion where defendants were not given an opportunity to file a reply before the court’s denial. See No. CV 12-00645-PHX-JAT, 2013 WL 2369919, *3 (D. Ariz. May 29, 2013). In each of those cases, the litigation was well underway and the party requesting reconsideration had previously been heard on the relevant issues. Here, not only were Defendants never heard on the Notice of Related Case Order, Defendants had not even been served with the Complaint before the Court entered its order transferring this case. See ECF No. 37. Moreover, Defendants’ request for reconsideration comes at the earliest stages of this litigation where the parties have not yet been heard on Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. All of these factors weigh in favor of granting the instant Motion. Accordingly, the Court should find that Torres is not related to the present case and grant Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider. Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 73 Filed 02/10/20 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:680 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 28 Dated: February 10, 2020 Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director JEFFREY S. ROBINS Deputy Director /s/ Lindsay M. Vick LINDSAY M. VICK Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section Attorneys for Defendants Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 73 Filed 02/10/20 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:681