Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. McAleenan
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs moved for relief from a 2022 permanent injunction, arguing that changed circumstances rendered the affirmative requirements to identify and re-adjudicate class members inequitable. The court denied the request for an indicative ruling as moot and granted the motion to vacate the specific injunction requirements.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiffs' Request for Indicative Ruling“Plaintiffs’ Request for Indicative Ruling is DENIED as moot because an appeal is no longer pending in this case.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1(a)(3), which limits indicative rulings to situations where a court lacks authority due to a pending appeal. Since the Ninth Circuit had issued its final mandate, the district court retained jurisdiction, making the request moot. |
Grant of Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Judgment“The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion for Relief from Judgment and VACATES the Permanent Injunction’s requirements that the parties identify new class members.” | agree with court The court applied Rule 60(b)(5), which allows relief if applying a judgment prospectively is no longer equitable. The record indicates that the underlying policies were rescinded, the affirmative relief was burdensome, and it had yielded minimal results (fewer than ten class members identified). Additionally, the defendants did not oppose the vacatur. This satisfies the equitable standard for relief from a continuing decree. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the jurisdictional status following the issuance of the mandate and applies the correct legal standard (Rule 60(b)(5)) for the motion. The court relies on the specific facts of the case (rescinded policies, low success rate of identification, lack of opposition) to support its equitable determination.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AL OTRO LADO, INC., et al., Case No. 17-cv-2366-BAS-KSC 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER: 13 v. 1. DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR INDICATIVE 14 CHAD F. WOLF, et al., RULING, 15 Defendants. 2. GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 16 JUDGMENT 17 (ECF No. 842) 18 19 20 Before this Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Judgement and Request for 21 Indicative Ruling. (ECF No. 842.) 22 Now that the Ninth Circuit has issued its final mandate (ECF No. 852), this Court 23 once again retains jurisdiction over the action, Mariscal-Sandoval v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 24 851, 856 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Until the mandate issues, [the circuit court] retain[s] 25 jurisdiction.”). Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Request for Indicative Ruling is DENIED as moot 26 because an appeal is no longer pending in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a)(3) 27 (authorizing indicative rulings when “the court lacks authority” because of a “pending” 28 appeal). 1 As to the Motion for Relief from Judgment, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 2 60(b)(5) permits a court to relieve a party from a final judgment or order if the court finds 3 “the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment 4 that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable.” This 5 Rule “codifies the long-established principle of equity practice that a court may, in its 6 discretion, take cognizance of changed circumstances and relieve a party from a continuing 7 decree.” Gilmore v. California, 220 F.3d 987, 1007 (9th Cir. 2000). 8 The Permanent Injunction at issue here was entered on August 5, 2022, nearly three 9 years ago. (ECF No. 816.) Plaintiffs seek relief from judgment because “facts on the ground 10 have changed since then” with the formalized metering policies being rescinded. (ECF No. 11 842 at 4.) Plaintiffs seek relief from the affirmative part of the injunction that requires the 12 Government to take specific steps to identify class members, notify them of the injunction, 13 and then take steps to re-open and re-adjudicate certain of the class members’ asylum 14 claims. Al Otro Lado v. Exec. Off. for Immigr. Rev., No. 22-55988, 2024 WL 5692756, at 15 *14 (9th Cir. May 14, 2025). Plaintiffs and their counsel were also ordered to facilitate this 16 process. (ECF No. 605 at 22.) Plaintiffs seek relief from this portion of the injunction 17 because the parties have struggled to identify class members since the injunction was 18 entered, have identified very few since implementing screening procedures (fewer than 19 ten), and the chances of identifying class members are diminishing as time passes (the most 20 recently identified class member was found in May 2023). (ECF No. 842 at 4–5; ECF No. 21 847 at 2.) Bearing the burden to show relief from judgment is warranted, Harvest v. Castro, 22 531 F.3d 737, 748 (9th Cir. 2008), Plaintiffs argue the purposes of the Permanent 23 Injunction have been satisfied and it is no longer equitable to apply the injunction 24 prospectively given that the circumstances on the ground have changed so much, (ECF No. 25 842 at 6–10). Defendants do not oppose vacatur of the Court’s Permanent Injunction. (ECF 26 No. 846 at 2.) 27 The Court finds that Plaintiffs have made the required showing under Rule 60(b)(5), 28 and that the purposes of the Permanent Injunction have been satisfied and applying it 1 || prospectively is no longer equitable given the burdens on the parties and the minimal 2 ||success of screening procedures in identifying additional potential class members. The 3 ||Court therefore GRANTS the Motion for Relief from Judgment and VACATES the 4 Permanent Injunction’s requirements that the parties identify new class members. (ECF 5 || No. 842.) 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 g || DATED: June 4, 2025 yatta Bahar be 9 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 10 United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 48