cover image: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20.500.12592/1ahx4v3

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 Oct 2024

“[W]hen the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction is intertwined with an element 20 of the merits of the plaintiff’s claim,” “a court must leave resolution of material factual 21 disputes to the trier of fact.” Leite v. [...] 10 A plaintiff invoking offensive collateral estoppel must prove that: “(1) there was a 11 full and fair opportunity to litigate the identical issue in the prior action,” “(2) the issue was 12 actually litigated in the prior action,” “(3) the issue was decided in a final judgment,” and 13 “(4) the party against whom issue preclusion is asserted was a party or in privity with a 14 party to the prio. [...] 13 III 14 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 15 With the foregoing rulings in mind, the Court turns to the remaining aspects of the 16 government’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. [...] Zone of Interests 22 The government argues that the organizational plaintiffs must be dismissed because 23 “their claimed resource-diversion injuries are not within the zone of interests sought to be 24 protected by the relevant immigration statutes.” (ECF 68-1, at 27.) Specifically, the 25 government contends that none of the relevant immigration laws “suggest that Congress 26 intended to permit. [...] “This is sufficient for the Court’s lenient APA test: at the very least, the 15 Organizations’ interests are ‘marginally related to’ and ‘arguably within’ the scope of the 16 statute.” Id.

Authors

Jenelynn Jocson

Pages
23
Published in
United States of America

Table of Contents