ORDER RE: STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S MOTION TO DISMISS
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
In response to the United States of America's ("Plaintiff" or "United States") allegations that California overstepped its authority and violated the Supremacy Clause, the State of California ("Defendant" or "California")1 moves to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety. ECF No. 77. The United States opposes dismissal. ECF No. 166.
The parties appeared before the Court on June 20, 2018, and argued the merits of the United States' claims as they related to the United States' pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction and California's pending Motion to Dismiss. The Court filed its Order Re: The United States of America's Motion for Preliminary Injunction on July 5, 2018, in which the Court set forth, in detail, its evaluation of the United States' claims and the challenged state laws. ECF No. 193. The Court concluded the United States is not likely to succeed on the merits of its Supremacy Clause claims against SB 54, AB 103, and the notice requirement provision of AB 450. It also found the United States has shown a likelihood of success on its claim against the remaining provisions of AB 450, as those provisions apply to private employers.
For the reasons set forth in the Court's Preliminary Injunction Order, and as explained further below, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
I. OPINION
A. Legal Standard
Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In reviewing such motion, the Court "inquire[s] whether the complaint's factual allegations, together with all reasonable inferences, state a plausible claim for relief." Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2011). "Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
B. Assembly Bill 103
AB 103 directs the California Attorney General's attention to civil immigration detention facilities within the State and establishes a review and reporting requirement with respect to those facilities. Plaintiff's theory of liability rests on the notion that federal law preempts that new requirement and that the new requirement conflicts with 8 C.F.R. § 236.6. Opp'n at 9. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that AB 103 violates the intergovernmental immunity doctrine. Id. at 10.
The Court finds AB 103 does not violate the Supremacy Clause. As explained in the Preliminary Injunction Order, the Court does not find any indication in the cited federal statutes that Congress intended for States to have no oversight over detention facilities operating within their borders. Order at 12-19. AB 103's review and reporting requirement does not give California a role in determining whether an immigrant should be detained or removed from the country, nor does it place any substantive requirements or burdens on these detention facilities apart from providing access. Id. at 14-16. The Court finds no conflict between AB 103 and 8 C.F.R. § 236.6; on its face, AB 103 only requires disclosure of records to the Attorney General and does not contemplate the release of detainee information to the public. Id. at 17-18. Finally, the Court finds that the minimal burden the reviews place on the facilities does not violate the intergovernmental immunity doctrine. Id. at 19.
For these reasons and those stated in this Court's Preliminary Injunction Order, at 12-19, Plaintiff's Supremacy Clause claim against AB 103 is dismissed.
C. Assembly Bill 450 — Consent, Access, and Reverification Provisions
AB 450 added several provisions to California law. It added sections to the California Government Code that prohibit employers from providing voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to enter nonpublic areas of a place of labor or to access, review, or obtain the employer's employee records. Cal. Gov't Code §§ 7285.1, 7285.2. It also added a provision to the Labor Code that prohibits employers from reverifying the employment eligibility of current employees when not required by federal law. Cal. Lab. Code § 1019.2.
The Court preliminarily enjoined these three laws. Order at 60. Suffice it to say, the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for relief with respect to these provisions. The Court denies Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim as to California Government Code Sections 7285.1 and 7285.2 and California Labor Code Section 1019.2.
D. Assembly Bill 450 — Notice Requirement
AB 450 also added a provision to the California Labor Code that requires employers to provide notice to their employees "of any inspections of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records conducted by an immigration agency within 72 hours of receiving notice of the inspection." Cal. Lab. Code § 90.2(a)(1). The law also requires employers to provide affected employees with the results of the inspection. Id. § 90.2(b). Plaintiff argues this law is impermissible because "it would be unthinkable for a state to require that suspects be warned of upcoming criminal investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or that suspects be kept up to date on the results of investigative work done by the Bureau." Opp'n at 8.
The Court does not agree with Plaintiff's characterization of this provision. Order at 27-28. The law does no more than extend the notice afforded employers—the primary targets of IRCA enforcement actions—to employees. Id. Further, because employer liability is based on an employer's failure to communicate information to its employees, and not on the employer's choice to "deal with" immigration enforcement, the provision does not violate the intergovernmental immunity doctrine. Id.
For these reasons and those stated in this Court's Preliminary Injunction Order, at 27-28, Plaintiff's Supremacy Clause claim against California Labor Code Section 90.2 is dismissed.
E. Senate Bill 54
Senate Bill 54 ("SB 54") added several provisions to the government code that Plaintiff challenges. SB 54 restricts California law enforcement agencies from sharing an individual's release dates and personal information (i.e. home and work addresses) for immigration enforcement purposes. Cal. Gov't Code § 7284.6(a)(1)(C) & (D). It further restricts those agencies from transferring individuals to immigration authorities. Cal. Gov't Code § 7284.6(a)(4).
The Court finds that the challenged provisions of SB 54 do not violate the Supremacy Clause. See Order at 32-57. Because "information regarding immigration or citizenship status" does not include an immigrant's release date or home and work addresses, SB 54 does not directly conflict with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Id. at 32-41. For the reasons set forth in Part III.A.3.b. of the Preliminary Injunction Order, the Court also finds that the INA does not preempt SB 54. Id. at 42-55. Finally, the Court finds SB 54 does not violate the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity because it falls outside of the doctrine's scope or, alternatively, because California's reasons for enacting the law justify the differential treatment, if any. Id. at 55-57.
For these reasons and those stated in this Court's Preliminary Injunction Order, at 32-57, Plaintiff's Supremacy Clause claim against SB 54 is dismissed.
F. Leave to Amend
Neither party addressed whether the Court should grant Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint. However, "a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts." Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990).
Given the nature of Plaintiff's claims, the Court finds amendment would be futile. Plaintiff challenges the constitutional validity of the state laws and resolution of its claims turns on questions of law. The parties have extensively litigated these issues over the past several months. The Court finds new allegations will not cure the deficiencies in Plaintiff's Complaint and leave to amend is therefore denied.
II. ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, and incorporated by reference herein, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Supremacy Clause claims against AB 103, SB 54, and California Labor Code Section 90.2 (added by AB 450) without leave to amend. The Court DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Supremacy Clause claim with respect to California Government Code Sections 7285.1 and 7285.2 and California Labor Code Section 1019.2 (added by AB 450).
The parties shall file an amended Joint Status Report no later than July 31, 2018. The parties should specifically address how they anticipate the case will proceed in this Court and suggest dates for discovery cut-off, expert witness disclosure, filing of dispositive motions, pretrial conference and trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
