A.O. v. Cuccinelli ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 A. O., et al., Case No. 19-cv-06151-SVK 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER IN PREPARATION FOR 9 v. HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 10 KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 10 11 Defendants. 12 The parties are set for hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on March 13 24, 2020. Dkt. 10. In advance of the hearing, the Court identifies the following issues on which it 14 would like the parties to focus: 15 1. The Court has considered carefully the cases of White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 16 2000); Rosebrock v. Mathis, 745 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2014); and Fikre v. Federal Bureau 17 of Investigation, 904 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2018). How do the facts of the instant case 18 compare with White and Rosebrock, and how should those comparisons guide this 19 Court’s decision? 20 2. Given that the class representatives’ claims have been adjudicated, and in light of the 21 current COVID-19 public health crisis, should the Court wait until the J.L. settlement 22 is fully adjudicated to issue a decision on the instant motion? 23 3. If the Court finds that a preliminary injunction is warranted, what is the appropriate 24 scope of the injunction, particularly, but not exclusively, with regards to an obligation 25 on the Government to provide notification of an immigration action against any 26 putative class member? 27 //// 1 Additionally, in accordance with General Order 72, this hearing will be conducted 2 || telephonically. To ensure adequate connectivity, this hearing will be conducted via Court Call. 3 || Counsel are instructed to contact Court Call at 1-866-582-6878 to arrange for their telephonic 4 || appearances. 5 SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: March 18, 2020 Sess vel DUM Ve SUSAN VAN KEULEN 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28