A.O. v. Cuccinelli
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:19-cv-06151
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In A. O. v. Cuccinelli, Judge Van Keulen outlined issues for a preliminary-injunction hearing but did not decide the motion.
The plaintiffs, the defendants including Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, and potential members of the proposed class could be affected by the preliminary-injunction proceedings; this order did not decide the motion.
What happened
A. O. v. Cuccinelli involved plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, a temporary court order, against Kenneth T. Cuccinelli and other defendants. The hearing was scheduled for March 24, 2020.
Before the hearing, the court asked the parties to address how three earlier cases compared with this one, whether the court should wait for a related settlement to be fully resolved, and what the injunction’s scope should be if one were granted. The court specifically asked about requiring the government to notify potential class members about immigration actions.
Judge Susan Van Keulen did not grant or deny the preliminary-injunction motion in this order. She directed the parties’ attention to those issues and ordered that the hearing be held by telephone because of the public-health crisis.
The detailed version
- A.O. v. Cuccinelli · No. 5:19-cv-06151
- Susan Van Keulen
- Mar. 18, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs had filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which is a temporary order intended to preserve rights or prevent harm while a case proceeds. The court had scheduled a hearing on that motion for March 24, 2020.
Issues Identified by the Court
In preparation for the hearing, the court directed the parties to address three subjects:
- How the facts of this case compared with White v. Lee, Rosebrock v. Mathis, and Fikre v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, and how those comparisons should affect the court’s decision.
- Whether the court should wait to decide the motion until a settlement in J.L. was fully adjudicated, given that the class representatives’ claims had been adjudicated and considering the then-current COVID-19 public-health crisis.
- If a preliminary injunction were warranted, what its proper scope should be, including whether the government should be required to notify any potential class member about an immigration action.
Order
Judge Susan Van Keulen did not decide the preliminary-injunction motion in this order. The order only identified issues for the parties to address at the upcoming hearing. It also directed that the hearing be conducted by telephone under General Order 72, using Court Call.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.