Arias v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Background

The plaintiffs moved to withdraw Stephen Kelly as a named plaintiff, add Reverend Juan Carlos Ruiz as a named plaintiff, and appoint Kelly as interim counsel for the proposed class and later as class counsel if a class were certified. The defendants took no position on Kelly’s withdrawal but opposed adding Ruiz and appointing Kelly as interim counsel.

Adding Ruiz

The court explained that an amendment adding a party is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Because the plaintiffs were represented by counsel, Local Civil Rule 15.1 required their motion to include both a clean proposed amended complaint and a version showing the changes from the existing complaint. The plaintiffs submitted neither. Ruiz’s declaration was not a pleading and did not identify in pleading form the claims, defendants, supporting facts, or requested relief. Without the proposed complaint, the court could not evaluate whether the amendment complied with Rules 15, 20, and 21.

The request to add Ruiz was therefore denied without prejudice to a properly supported motion complying with Local Civil Rule 15.1. The court also stated that Ruiz would not become a party until an approved amended complaint was filed. If the plaintiffs later propose Ruiz as a class representative, he must first become a party through an operative pleading.

Appointment of class counsel

The plaintiffs asked the court to appoint Kelly as interim counsel for the proposed class and prospectively as class counsel if a class were certified. The court denied without prejudice both requests.

Under Rule 23(g)(3), interim counsel may be appointed before class certification when necessary to protect the proposed class. The court found no present need because the earlier class-certification motion had been denied without prejudice, no renewed certification motion was pending, and the plaintiffs identified no competing class action, competing appointment request, proposed settlement, or other circumstance requiring formal counsel for absent class members. Kelly could continue representing the named plaintiffs, conduct appropriate discovery, and prepare a renewed certification motion without formal interim appointment.

The court also found that the current submission did not provide enough information to evaluate all factors relevant to appointing class counsel, including counsel’s investigative work, class-action and complex-litigation experience, knowledge of the applicable law, and available staffing and resources. The court noted that Kelly had not previously represented a certified class in federal court, but said that fact alone did not disqualify him. The court found his description of other litigation experience and available resources too general to support appointment. Prospective appointment was premature because no class had been certified and no renewed certification motion was pending.

Kelly’s withdrawal

The court treated the three requests as parts of a single proposal: Kelly would withdraw as a named plaintiff, Ruiz would replace him as a named plaintiff and proposed class representative, and Kelly would become class counsel. Because the court did not add Ruiz or appoint Kelly as class counsel, it declined to grant Kelly’s withdrawal by itself. Withdrawal alone would remove Kelly as a plaintiff and from the protection provided to named plaintiffs by the preliminary injunction, without the proposed replacement or counsel appointment.

The court did not understand the motion to say that Kelly wanted to give up his individual claims and preliminary-injunction protection regardless of the other requests. It stated that Kelly could file a separate motion under Rule 21 if he wished to withdraw unconditionally. The order did not prevent Kelly from continuing to represent the existing named plaintiffs in their individual capacities.

July 17 letter

The plaintiffs also submitted a letter seeking permission either to address recently issued agency guidance in a second amended complaint or to file a separate memorandum about it. The court said its June 22 opinion had already allowed the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint by July 22, 2026, so they did not need additional permission to include factual allegations about the new guidance. Any amendments beyond the previously authorized scope would require identification of the proposed changes and compliance with Local Civil Rule 15.1. The court stated that the letter was neither granted nor denied, and that no further action on it was required.

Disposition

The court denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ motion at Docket Number 73. The plaintiffs may renew the request to add Ruiz with the materials required by Local Civil Rule 15.1. Any renewed request concerning class certification or appointment of class counsel must comply with Rule 23 and the requirements identified in the June 22 opinion. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and, if the July 17 letter had been docketed as a motion, terminate that motion event as well.