Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jewish Family Service v. Trump

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

November 29, 2017

JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE, et al., Plaintiffs,
DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants.

          David Burman, Lauren Watts Staniar, Tyler Roberts, Perkins Coie LLP, Mariko Hirose, Pro Hac Vice Deepa Alagesan, Pro Hac Vice Linda Evarts, Pro Hac Vice Kathryn C. Meyer, Pro Hac Vice, Elizabeth Sweet, Pro Hac Vice Mark Hetfield, Pro Hac Vice HIAS, Inc., Justin B. Cox, Pro Hac Vice Karen C. Tumlin, Pro Hac Vice, Melissa S. Keaney, Pro Hac Vice, Esther H. Sung, Pro Hac Vice, Lauren E. Aguiar, Pro Hac Vice Mollie M. Kornreich, Pro Hac Vice Abigail E. Davis, Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          CHAD A. READLER Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, JENNIFER D. RICKETTS Director, Federal Programs Branch, JOHN R. TYLER Assistant Director, Federal Programs MICHELLE R. BENNETT DANIEL SCHWEI KEVIN SNELL JOSEPH C. DUGAN Senior Trial Counsel / Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Attorneys for Defendants



         On November 21, 2017, the Court directed the parties in Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707JLR (W.D. Wash.), and Doe v. Trump, No. 2;17-cv-00178 (W.D. Wash.), to show cause why the actions should not be consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The parties have met and conferred and now agree and stipulate to the following:

         1. The cases may be consolidated for further proceedings, provided that (1) the actions retain their separate character, (2) parties to one action will not be designated as parties to the other, (3) parties may continue to file separate briefing so long as it is not duplicative, and (4) consolidation will not affect the page limits to which parties are entitled under the Local Rules, except as provided in this stipulation or by subsequent Court order.[1]Because Doe was filed first, it shall be the lead case for all future filings.

         2. The preliminary injunction hearing in Doe presently scheduled for December 11, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. PST should be vacated, and a new consolidated hearing to address the issues raised in the preliminary injunction motions filed in both Doe and Jewish Family Service should be set at a date and time convenient for the Court following the completion of briefing in Jewish Family Service. The parties respectfully propose a consolidated hearing during the week of December 18, 2017, preferably during the early part of that week in view of the approaching federal holidays.

         3. Each set of Plaintiffs may file a short notice joining the motion of the other Plaintiffs and addressing issues raised in the opening preliminary injunction brief filed by the other set of Plaintiffs, provided that Plaintiffs will not use these short notices to raise new claims or merits arguments not previously raised by one set or the other. Thus, the parties agree that, on or before November 29, 2017, the Doe Plaintiffs and the Jewish Family Service Plaintiffs may each file a notice no longer than three pages addressing relevant issues raised in the other set of Plaintiffs' opening brief. The Government may respond to these supplemental arguments in its response in opposition to the Jewish Family Service Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, and may file an over-length brief in order to do so. Specifically, the Government's response brief in Jewish Family Service may exceed the twenty-four pages allowable under the Local Rules by five pages.


         Upon consideration of the above stipulation and the record in this matter, the Court approves the stipulation and all dates, page limits, and deadlines specified therein. A hearing to address issues raised in both Jewish Family Service and Doe is set for December 21, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.



[1] Plaintiffs believe that JFS and Doe should maintain their separate characters in light of the overlapping but differing. legal claims and classes (e.g., the JFS Plaintiffs' complaint seeks nationwide relief for refugees whereas the Doe Plaintiffs' complaint focuses on Washington State and challenges additional policies). See 9A Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure Civ. § 2382 (3d ed. 2017) (describing consolidation that "does riot merge the suits into a single action"). As consolidated but not merged actions, parties in JFS and Do ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.