The Children's Advocacy Institute v. Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families

S.D. California

The Children's Advocacy Institute v. Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families

District Court, S.D. California·Decided March 2, 2020·No. 3:19-cv-00462·Unknown

Opinion

THE CHILDREN’S ADVOCACY Case No.: 19-CV-462-GPC-BGS INSTITUTE,

Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING JOINT STIPULATION v. OFFICE OF REFUGEE (ECF No. 16.) RESETTLEMENT, AND FAMILIES, United States Department of Health and Human Services; UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, United States Department of Homeland Security; UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, United States Department of Homeland Security; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

Defendants. On February 18, 2020, Plaintiff the Children’s Advocacy Institute and Defendants United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”’) (collectively “the Parties”) filed a joint stipulation and requested an order from the Court recognizing that stipulation. (ECF No. 16.) A district court may recognize stipulations submitted by the Parties in advance of trial by order. See Labotest, Inc. v. Bonta, 297 F.3d 892, 894 (9th Cir. 2002) (reversing decision to deny attorney fees pursuant to the language of a stipulation between the parties “because the district court placed its stamp of approval on the relief obtained” in that stipulation when ] it recognized the stipulation in an order). Here, as in Labotest, the Parties’ joint stipulation seeks to limit the scope of the pending lawsuit. The stipulation provides: Without admitting liability or fault, the Parties stipulate and agree that, with regards to the FOIA requests at issue in this case and which have been produced in the course of this litigation from Plaintiff to Defendants ICE and CBP (Compl. Exs. B and C) (“the FOJA requests”), Plaintiff does not challenge or dispute the adequacy of ICE’s and CBP’s search for records during this litigation, and Plaintiff does not challenge or dispute ICE’s and CBP’s application of exemptions or withholdings to the production of records during this litigation. Plaintiff does not challenge or dispute that ICE and CBP have now satisfied their obligations to respond to the FOIA requests. (ECF No. 16.) As in Labotest, and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS the Parties’ joint motion for order on the stipulation and recognizes it as binding upon this matter. The stipulation is ENTERED. (/d.) Dated: March 2, 2020 / 3 aptho CxS / Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 38 United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE CHILDREN’S ADVOCACY Case No.: 19-CV-462-GPC-BGS INSTITUTE,

Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING JOINT STIPULATION v. OFFICE OF REFUGEE (ECF No. 16.) RESETTLEMENT, AND FAMILIES, United States Department of Health and Human Services; UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, United States Department of Homeland Security; UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, United States Department of Homeland Security; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

Defendants. On February 18, 2020, Plaintiff the Children’s Advocacy Institute and Defendants United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”’) (collectively “the Parties”) filed a joint stipulation and requested an order from the Court recognizing that stipulation. (ECF No. 16.) A district court may recognize stipulations submitted by the Parties in advance of trial by order. See Labotest, Inc. v. Bonta, 297 F.3d 892, 894 (9th Cir. 2002) (reversing decision to deny attorney fees pursuant to the language of a stipulation between the parties “because the district court placed its stamp of approval on the relief obtained” in that stipulation when ] it recognized the stipulation in an order). Here, as in Labotest, the Parties’ joint stipulation seeks to limit the scope of the pending lawsuit. The stipulation provides: Without admitting liability or fault, the Parties stipulate and agree that, with regards to the FOIA requests at issue in this case and which have been produced in the course of this litigation from Plaintiff to Defendants ICE and CBP (Compl. Exs. B and C) (“the FOJA requests”), Plaintiff does not challenge or dispute the adequacy of ICE’s and CBP’s search for records during this litigation, and Plaintiff does not challenge or dispute ICE’s and CBP’s application of exemptions or withholdings to the production of records during this litigation. Plaintiff does not challenge or dispute that ICE and CBP have now satisfied their obligations to respond to the FOIA requests. (ECF No. 16.) As in Labotest, and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS the Parties’ joint motion for order on the stipulation and recognizes it as binding upon this matter. The stipulation is ENTERED. (/d.) Dated: March 2, 2020 / 3 aptho CxS / Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 38 United States District Judge

The Children's Advocacy Institute v. Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families, (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

The Children's Advocacy Institute v. Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families (The Children's Advocacy Institute v. Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related