J.L. et al v. Lee Francis Cissna et al, No. 5:2018cv04914 - Document 228 (N.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. Re: Dkt. No. 222 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2019)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
J.L. et al v. Lee Francis Cissna et al Doc. 228 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 Case No. 18-cv-04914-NC J.L., et al., United States District Court Northern District of California Plaintiffs, 12 v. 13 14 KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, et al., ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Re: Dkt. No. 222 Defendants. 15 16 Before the Court is the Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of a class action 17 18 settlement between a class of immigrant juveniles seeking immigration relief and the 19 United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States Citizenship and 20 Immigration Services, and associated officers. See Dkt. No. 222. The terms of the 21 settlement are set forth in the Settlement Agreement filed on October 25, 2019 (see Dkt. 22 No. 211-2, Ex. A) and were preliminarily approved by the Court (see Dkt. No. 218). 23 Because the Settlement Agreement satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil 24 Procedure 23(e) and due process, the Court GRANTS final approval of the settlement. 25 I. 26 Factual and Procedural Background The factual background and legal framework for this case has been summarized in 27 greater detail in the Court’s prior orders. See Dkt. Nos. 49, 112, 142. The Court will 28 briefly recount those facts and the procedural history of this case here. Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 alleging that USCIS implemented a blanket policy denying petitions for Special Immigrant 3 Juvenile (“SIJ”) status under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J). See Dkt. No. 1. Under that 4 statute, unmarried immigrants under the age of 21 may apply for SIJ status if they were 5 declared dependent on a state juvenile court, could not be reunited with one or both of their 6 parents, and it would not be in their best interest to be returned to their previous country of 7 residence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i)–(ii). If granted, SIJ status provided a pathway 8 to permanent residency and citizenship. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1255, 1427. 9 United States District Court Northern District of California In August 2018, individual plaintiffs J.L., M.D.G.B., and J.B.A. filed this lawsuit According to Plaintiffs, USCIS believed that California courts did not have 10 jurisdiction to make the required findings to establish SIJ eligibility because California 11 courts could not reunite individuals over the age of 18 with their parents. USCIS thus 12 began denying SIJ applications based on California court dependency orders. Plaintiffs 13 argued that this practice was contrary to law because California explicitly granted its 14 courts the power to make the necessary findings for SIJ status. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 15 § 155; Cal. Prob. Code § 1510.1. 16 On October 24, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary 17 injunction and enjoined Defendants from denying SIJ status on the grounds that a 18 California Probate Court does not have jurisdiction or authority to “reunify” an 18- to 20- 19 year-old with his or her parents. See Dkt. No. 49. 20 21 Following that order, Plaintiffs amended their complaint and moved for class certification. See Dkt. Nos. 70, 71. On February 1, 2019, the Court certified a class of 22 Children who have received or will receive guardianship orders pursuant to 23 California Probate Code § 1510.1(a) and who have received or will receive 24 denials of their SIJS petitions on the grounds that the state court that issued 25 the SIJ Findings lacked jurisdiction because the court did not have the 26 authority to reunify the children with their parents. 27 See Dkt. No. 112. The Court found that the class met the requirements of Federal Rule of 28 Civil Procedure 23(a) and that certification under Rule 23(b)(2) was appropriate because 2 1 “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on the grounds that apply 2 generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is 3 appropriate respecting the class as a whole . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). After further motion practice and discovery disputes, the parties participated in 4 5 several settlement discussions with Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. See Dkt. Nos. 199, 6 202, 203. On October 25, 2019, the parties settled and moved for preliminary approval of 7 the Settlement Agreement. See Dkt. Nos. 210, 211. The Court granted preliminary 8 approval of the Settlement Agreement on October 30, 2019. See Dkt. Nos. 217, 218. 9 II. United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Settlement Agreement The parties’ Settlement Agreement provides that: 11 1. USCIS will no longer require state courts to have the authority to place into 12 custody or order reunification of a SIJ applicant with his or her parents in 13 order to determine whether the reunification with one or both of their parents 14 is not viable for the purposes of SIJ eligibility; 15 2. Pursuant to Cal. Prob. Code § 1510.1 and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 155, the 16 Probate Division of the California Superior Court is a “juvenile court” for the 17 purpose of making findings and issuing orders for SIJ purposes; 18 3. An individual is not disqualified from SIJ status if (a) state law confers upon 19 a state court the jurisdiction to declare her dependent, legally commit her to 20 an individual or entity, or place her under the custody of another individual 21 or entity regardless of her age; and (b) she is unmarried and under the age of 22 21 when she petitions for SIJ status; 23 4. A “child” as defined by Cal. Prob. Code § 1510.1 is not disqualified from SIJ 24 status, despite having reached California’s age of majority before obtaining a 25 custodial placement or legal commitment as required for SIJ eligibility 26 because California Probate Courts have jurisdiction over such “child” as a 27 “juvenile” for purposes of SIJ status under § 1510.1. 28 See Dkt. No. 211-2, Ex. A (“Settlement Agreement”) at 6. 3 1 2 settlement to potential class members no later than November 1, 2019. See id. at 6–9; see 3 also Dkt. No. 218 at 4. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ counsel were required to notify class 4 members through their websites, reach out to identified class members, and distribute the 5 class notice through relevant mailing lists. Settlement Agreement at 6–7. USCIS was 6 required to post the notice on their website and email the notice to its Office of Public 7 Affairs’ subscribed users. Id. at 7. 8 United States District Court Northern District of California Under the Settlement Agreement, both parties were required to provide notice of the The Settlement Agreement requires USCIS to adjudicate SIJ petitions in accordance 9 with an agreed-upon timeline and procedures. See id. at 9–12. It also requires USCIS to 10 preserve records and provide the Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel with compliance reports. 11 See id. at 12–13. The Settlement Agreement provides that the Court would retain 12 jurisdiction over this lawsuit for the purpose of enforcing the terms of the Settlement 13 Agreement. See id. at 15. 14 Next, the Settlement Agreement releases Defendants from the claims asserted in the 15 Plaintiffs’ complaint. Specifically, Class Members agree to release all claims for 16 declaratory or injunctive relief based on allegations that USCIS imposed a new 17 requirement that state courts must have the authority to place into custody or order 18 reunification of a SIJ applicant with his or her parents in order to determine whether the 19 reunification with one or both of their parents is not viable for the purposes of SIJ 20 eligibility. See id. at 5, 14. Class Members also release Defendants from all claims arising 21 from the facts and circumstances giving rise to this lawsuit. See id. at 14. Class Members 22 also waive the provisions, rights, and benefits of Cal. Civ. Code § 1542, or other similar 23 laws. See id. However, Class Members reserve the right to challenge the adjudication of 24 their individual immigration petitions or removal orders. See id. Defendants do not admit 25 wrongdoing under the Settlement Agreement. Id. at 15. 26 27 Finally, the Settlement Agreement does not award attorneys’ fees and costs, but leaves open a process for Plaintiffs’ counsel to seek fees and costs. See id. at 16. 28 4 1 2 Having considered all matters submitted to it at the hearing on the motion and 3 otherwise, including the complete record of this action, and good cause appearing 4 therefore, the Court hereby finds as follows: 5 6 7 8 United States District Court Northern District of California III. Findings and Conclusions 1. The capitalized terms used in this Order have the same meaning as defined in the Settlement Agreement except as otherwise expressly provided. 2. The Court previously certified a Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) consisting of: 9 Children who have received or will receive guardianship orders 10 pursuant to California Probate Code § 1510.1(a) and who have 11 received or will receive denials of their SIJS petitions on the grounds 12 that the state court that issued the SIJ Findings lacked jurisdiction 13 because the court did not have the authority to reunify the children 14 with their parents. 15 See Dkt. No. 112. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, 16 individuals who file their SIJ petition with USCIS on or before December 15, 17 2019, may benefit from the agreement. See Settlement Agreement § II. 18 19 3. On December 18, 2019, the Court held a final approval hearing to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement Agreement. 20 4. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in 21 the best interests of the Class considering the relevant factors under Churchill Vill., 22 LLC v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004). 23 a. The first and second Churchill factors weigh in favor of final approval. The 24 Plaintiffs’ case was strong, as demonstrated by their success on the motions 25 for preliminary injunction, class certification, and dismissal. Indeed, the 26 Settlement Agreement provides the Class their requested relief. In addition, 27 the high complexity, expense, and likely duration of the lawsuit further 28 weighs in favor of final approval. 5 1 2 status would be dissolved during the pendency of this lawsuit, Class 3 Members are at risk of removal or other adverse adjustments to their 4 immigration status. See Dkt. Nos. 223, 224. 5 6 c. The fourth Churchill factor is irrelevant. No monetary amount was offered in settlement as this lawsuit proceeded as a Rule 23(b)(2) class. 7 d. The fifth Churchill factor weighs in favor of final approval. The Settlement 8 Agreement was reached on the eve of the hearing for the parties’ cross- 9 motions for summary judgment and significant discovery of the 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California b. The third Churchill factor is neutral. Although it is unlikely that class action administrative record had been completed. e. The sixth Churchill factor also weighs in favor of final approval as the 12 Parties and their counsel all agree that the Settlement Agreement should be 13 approved. 14 f. The seventh Churchill factor weighs in favor of final approval. Various 15 agencies and officers of the United States government are the Defendants 16 and Defendants approve of the Settlement Agreement. 17 18 19 g. Finally, the eighth Churchill factor weighs in favor of final approval. No Class Members have objected to the Settlement Agreement. 5. The Settlement also complies with the Northern District of California’s Procedural 20 Guidance for Class Action Settlements, 21 https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidance. 22 6. The Court also finds that the Class Notice described in the Settlement Agreement 23 was distributed to Class Members in the manner approved by the Court’s October 24 30, 2019, order granting preliminary approval. See Dkt. No. 218. The Class Notice 25 was reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties about the pendency of this 26 lawsuit, the nature of their claims, the definition of the Class, and their opportunities 27 to object to the Settlement Agreement. 28 7. As explained above, there were no objections to the Settlement Agreement. 6 1 2 “opt-out” of the Settlement Agreement. In any case, because the Class was certified 3 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), there were no rights to “opt-out” of 4 the Settlement Agreement and the agreement binds all Class Members. 5 6 9. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS final approval of the Settlement Agreement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2). 7 10. The terms of the Settlement Agreement, including all exhibits to the Settlement 8 Agreement, this Order, and the Judgment, shall forever be binding on the class. 9 United States District Court Northern District of California 8. Likewise, Class Counsel, Defendants, and the Court did not receive any requests to 11. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, all parties must provide an “Updated Notice” 10 to all individuals on the Class List. See Settlement Agreement §§ II, IV.G; see also 11 Dkt. No. 222-2, Ex. A (“Updated Notice”). 12 12. The Court retains jurisdiction over the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of 13 enforcing any of its provisions and terms. The Court’s jurisdiction over the 14 Settlement Agreement will terminate one year after further Court order approving 15 Defendants’ certification that they have fully adjudicated the Class Members’ 16 petitions in compliance with Sections III and V of the Agreement. 17 13. The Court’s October 24, 2018, preliminary injunction order (see Dkt. No. 49) shall 18 terminate upon entry of judgment. See U.S. Philips Corp. v. KBC Bank N.V., 590 19 F.3d 1091, 1093 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court retains jurisdiction to address any 20 violations of that order before judgment and to adjudicate the Court’s December 16, 21 2019, order to show cause for: (1) one year following entry of judgment or (2) until 22 such time that removed Class Members have confirmed that they do not wish to be 23 returned to the United States or are returned to the United States if so requested, 24 whichever is later. 25 14. This order does not award fees or costs to any party. If the parties are unable to 26 reach an agreement as to fees or costs, Class Counsel must file a motion for fees or 27 costs within 30 days following entry of judgment. 28 7 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 4 Dated: December 18, 2019 _____________________________________ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
