Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

Case: 3:20-cv-00023-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/02/20 Page: 1 of 10 - Page ID#: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT COVINGTON

ALLISON S. ALESSANDRO : Case No. ______________________


c/o Santen & Hughes, LPA :
600 Vine Street, Suite 2700 : Judge _________________________
Cincinnati, OH 45202 :
:
Plaintiff, : VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
: INJUNCTIVE, DECLARATORY
vs. : RELIEF, AND ATTORNEY FEES
:
ANDREW BESHEAR, :
in his official capacity as :
Governor of Kentucky, :
700 Capitol Avenue, Suite 100 :
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 :
:
and :
:
DANIEL CAMERON, :
in his official capacity as :
Attorney General of Kentucky, :
700 Capital Avenue, Suite 118 :
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601, :
:
Defendants. :

Now comes the Plaintiff, Allison S. Alessandro, by and through her counsel, Santen &

Hughes, LPA, and for her Complaint against Governor Andrew Beshear and Attorney General

Daniel Cameron hereby alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This emergency action seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against Governor

Andrew Beshear and Attorney General Daniel Cameron for the unconstitutional infringement on

the right of every Kentuckian to travel to other states in the United States of America.

2. As explained below, the right to interstate travel is a fundamental right firmly

embedded in this nation’s jurisprudence.


Case: 3:20-cv-00023-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/02/20 Page: 2 of 10 - Page ID#: 2

3. On March 30, 2020, the Governor of Kentucky, Andrew Beshear, signed and issued

Executive Order 2020-258 (“the Travel Ban”), an unprecedented and illegal order that prohibits

residents of Kentucky from travelling outside of the Commonwealth of Kentucky except for

certain enumerated reasons. The Travel Ban further requires Kentuckians who were physically

located outside of the Commonwealth of Kentucky on March 30, 2020 to undergo a 14-day

quarantine upon their return to the Commonwealth.

4. By this Complaint, Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of the Travel Ban (both

on its face and as applied to her) as infringing on individuals’ fundamental rights to travel and to
procedural due process. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Travel Ban is unconstitutional, as

well as preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting its enforcement.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Because this matter presents a claim under a federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and

raises issues over rights arising out of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, this

Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331.

2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all of the parties. All parties reside in the

Commonwealth of Kentucky. Governor Andrew Beshear and Attorney General Daniel Cameron

hold political offices and transact business in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 in that a substantial

part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this district, and the Defendants are domiciled

and have their official office in this district.

THE PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is a citizen of Campbell County, Kentucky. Plaintiff has family members

who resides in states other than Kentucky, including Ohio.

2
Case: 3:20-cv-00023-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/02/20 Page: 3 of 10 - Page ID#: 3

5. Defendant Governor Andrew Beshear is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint

was, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. In his capacity as Governor of the

Commonwealth of Kentucky, Governor Beshear is the commander-in-chief of Kentucky’s forces

and he is empowered to enforce all laws of the state.

6. Defendant Governor Andrew Beshear is sued in his official capacity as the

Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

7. Defendant Attorney General Daniel Cameron is, and at all times relevant to this

Complaint was, the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. In his capacity as

Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Attorney General Cameron is empowered

to enforce all laws of the state.

8. Defendant Attorney General Daniel Cameron is sued in his official capacity as the

Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

9. On March 20, 2020, Attorney General Cameron stated that his office is pursuing

and prosecuting persons suspected of violating Executive Orders “during these challenging times

for the Commonwealth and the nation.”

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

10. Following the introduction of COVID-19 into the United States, both state and

federal governments have enacted various measures regarding the spread of the virus.

11. While the federal government has issued restrictions on international travel and

taken other action to combat the spread of COVID-19, the federal government has not banned

interstate travel. See Government Information and Services, Government Response to

Coronavirus, COVID-19, https://www.usa.gov/coronavirus (accessed April 1, 2020).

3
Case: 3:20-cv-00023-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/02/20 Page: 4 of 10 - Page ID#: 4

12. On March 30, 2020, the Governor of Kentucky, Defendant Andrew Beshear, signed

and issued the Executive Order referred to herein as the Travel Ban. A true and correct copy is

attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A.

13. The Travel Ban imposes the following restrictions:

a. Kentuckians are prohibited from traveling to any other state, except (1) when

required by employment; (2) to obtain groceries, medicine, or other necessary

supplies; (3) to seek or obtain care by a licensed healthcare provider; (4) to provide

care for the elderly, minors, dependents, persons with disabilities, or other

vulnerable persons; or (5) when required by court order.

b. Kentuckians who were physically located outside of the Commonwealth of

Kentucky on March 30, 2020 were ordered to undergo a 14-day quarantine upon

their return to the Commonwealth.

14. Governor Beshear imposed the Travel Ban as a state of emergency declaration

pursuant to his executive powers under the Constitution of Kentucky and Chapter 39A of the

Kentucky Revised Statutes.

15. The Travel Ban has the force and effect of law.

16. The Travel Ban makes no mention of the United States Constitution or federal

statutes or regulations.

17. The Travel Ban provides no right or opportunity for the individual Kentuckian to

be heard if the individual is ordered to be quarantined, or detained, or otherwise punished for

violating the Travel Ban.

4
Case: 3:20-cv-00023-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/02/20 Page: 5 of 10 - Page ID#: 5

18. The Travel Ban does not provide the individual Kentuckian with a right to be heard

by a fair and independent tribunal if the citizen is ordered to be quarantined, or detained, or

otherwise punished for violating the Travel Ban.

19. The Travel Ban provides no right to appeal a quarantine, detention, or punishment

pursuant to the Travel Ban, or to appeal an order to quarantine pursuant to the Travel Ban.

20. During the COVID-19 outbreak, Governor Beshear and Attorney General Cameron

have actively enforced the Governor’s Executive Orders, including ordering sheriff’s deputies to

forcibly quarantine at least one Kentuckian who attempted to travel.

THE EFFECT OF THE TRAVEL BAN ON THE PLAINTIFF

21. Plaintiff is a citizen of Kentucky who regularly travels to Ohio and visits friends

and family in Ohio.

22. As a result of the Travel Ban, Plaintiff has been unable to travel to the State of Ohio

for the purpose of associating at a safe distance with her friends and family who reside there.

23. As a result of the Travel Ban, Plaintiff has been unable to travel to the State of Ohio

to enjoy Ohio’s parks and other public areas in a manner permitted under current Ohio and local

government law while maintaining social distancing recommendations.

24. Plaintiff fears and has curtailed travel to Ohio due to uncertainty over whether she

will be detained or otherwise punished as a result of the Travel Ban.

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL

25. Despite political currents or even pandemics, American courts have long

recognized the right to interstate travel is a fundamental right embedded in the U.S. Constitution.

5
Case: 3:20-cv-00023-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/02/20 Page: 6 of 10 - Page ID#: 6

26. The United States Supreme Court held that the “constitutional right to travel from

one State to another” is firmly embedded in this nation’s jurisprudence. Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S.

489, 498 (1999) (citing U.S. v. Guest, 383 U.S. 747, 757 (1966)).

27. In 1958, the United States Supreme Court found that “The right to travel is a part

of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth

Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958).

28. “The constitutional right of interstate travel is virtually unqualified.” Califano v.

Aznavorian, 439 U.S. 170, 176 (1978) (citing United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757-758

(1966); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 105-106 (1971)).

29. “[T]he constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to

use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a

position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union.” United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745,

748 n.1 (1966).

30. “For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are

one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States; and, as members

of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without

interruption, as freely as in our own States.” Smith v. Turner, 48 U.S. 283, 492 (1849) (Taney,

C.J., dissenting).

COUNT I – 42 U.S.C. § 1983


VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL

31. Plaintiff incorporates all of the preceding allegations as if fully restated herein.

32. The Travel Ban violates the right to substantive due process as guaranteed by the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that the Travel Ban, both on its face

6
Case: 3:20-cv-00023-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/02/20 Page: 7 of 10 - Page ID#: 7

and as it would be applied to Plaintiff, and impinges upon the fundamental liberty interest in one’s

right to interstate travel. See U.S. v. Guest, 383 U.S. 747 (1966).

33. The rights of adults to engage in interstate travel is a fundamental liberty interest.

That right is one that is, objectively speaking, deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition

and one that is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.

34. The Travel Ban is not narrowly tailored, nor is it the least restrictive means for

advancing whatever governmental interest that the Defendant may clam the law advances.

35. The Travel Ban significantly hinders, if not deprives, many individuals from their

ability and right to interstate travel.

36. The Travel Ban has and will cause a chilling effect on interstate travel.

37. By issuing and enforcing the Travel Ban, Governor Beshear and Attorney General

Cameron, each acting under color of state law, are depriving and will continue to deprive Plaintiff

and other similarly situated Kentuckians of rights secured by the United States Constitution,

including the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in violation of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983.

38. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to a declaration of unconstitutionality, both on its face

and as applied, and injunctive relief prohibiting the enforcement of the Travel Ban.

COUNT II – 42 U.S.C. § 1983


VIOLATION OF FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

39. Plaintiff incorporates all of the preceding allegations as if fully restated herein.

40. “[T]here can be no doubt that at a minimum [procedural due process] require[s]

that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by notice and opportunity

7
Case: 3:20-cv-00023-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/02/20 Page: 8 of 10 - Page ID#: 8

for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,

339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950).

41. “A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.” In re

Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955).

42. “Procedural due process rules are meant to protect persons not from the deprivation,

but from the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property. Thus, in deciding what

process constitutionally is due in various contexts, the Court repeatedly has emphasized that

"procedural due process rules are shaped by the risk of error inherent in the truth-finding

process…." Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259 (1978) (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S.

319, 344 (1976)).

43. By issuing and enforcing the Travel Ban, Governor Beshear and Attorney General

Cameron, each acting under color of state law, are depriving and will continue to deprive Plaintiff

and other similarly situated Kentuckians of the right to procedural due process secured by the Fifth

and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

thereby causing them harm.

44. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to a declaration of the unconstitutionality of the Travel

Ban, both on its face and as applied, and injunctive relief prohibiting the enforcement of the Travel

Ban.

IRREPARABLE INJURY

45. Plaintiff incorporates all of the preceding allegations as if fully restated herein.

46. Plaintiff is now severely and irreparably injured by the Travel Ban, a state law that

violates the right to travel and the right to procedural due process. By way of example only,

Plaintiff’s injury includes the deprivation of rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and

8
Case: 3:20-cv-00023-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/02/20 Page: 9 of 10 - Page ID#: 9

the severe emotional distress, suffering, and psychological harm caused by the Commonwealth of

Kentucky’s restrictions on Plaintiff’s ability to travel interstate to enjoy public facilities and meet

friends and family in a safe manner. Plaintiff’s injuries will be redressed only if this Court declares

the Travel Ban unconstitutional and enjoins Governor Beshear and Attorney General Cameron

from enforcing it.

47. An actual and judicially cognizable controversy exists between Plaintiff and

Defendants regarding whether the Travel Ban violates Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for final judgment as follows:

1. A declaration that Kentucky’s Travel Ban, Executive Order 2020-258, is

unconstitutional, both facially and as it may be applied against Plaintiff;

2. Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from enforcing

Executive Order 2020-258;

3. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

4. Any other such award or relief that the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Brian P. O’Connor


Brian P. O’Connor
H. Louis Sirkin
SANTEN & HUGHES
600 Vine Street, Suite 2700
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 721-4450 (t)
(513) 721-0109 (f)
bpo@santenhughes.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff

9
Case: 3:20-cv-00023-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/02/20 Page: 10 of 10 - Page ID#: 10

VERIFICATION

I, Allison S. Alessandro, based on my personal knowledge and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §


1746, declare that I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint, and that the factual allegations
contained therein are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on April 2, 2019 _/s/ Allison S. Alessandro______________


at Fort Thomas, Kentucky Allison S. Alessandro

669200.3

10
Case: 3:20-cv-00023-GFVT Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 04/02/20 Page: 1 of 2 - Page ID#: 11
Case: 3:20-cv-00023-GFVT Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 04/02/20 Page: 2 of 2 - Page ID#: 12
Case: 3:20-cv-00023-GFVT Doc #: 1-2 Filed: 04/02/20 Page: 1 of 2 - Page ID#: 13
-6 5HY CIVIL COVER SHEET
7KH-6FLYLOFRYHUVKHHWDQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQFRQWDLQHGKHUHLQQHLWKHUUHSODFHQRUVXSSOHPHQWWKHILOLQJDQGVHUYLFHRISOHDGLQJVRURWKHUSDSHUVDVUHTXLUHGE\ODZH[FHSWDV
SURYLGHGE\ORFDOUXOHVRIFRXUW7KLVIRUPDSSURYHGE\WKH-XGLFLDO&RQIHUHQFHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVLQ6HSWHPEHULVUHTXLUHGIRUWKHXVHRIWKH&OHUNRI&RXUWIRUWKH
SXUSRVHRILQLWLDWLQJWKHFLYLOGRFNHWVKHHW(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS


Allison S. Alessandro Andrew Beshear
Daniel Cameron

(b)&RXQW\RI5HVLGHQFHRI)LUVW/LVWHG3ODLQWLII Campbell &RXQW\RI5HVLGHQFHRI)LUVW/LVWHG'HIHQGDQW Franklin


(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
127( ,1/$1'&21'(01$7,21&$6(686(7+(/2&$7,212)
7+(75$&72)/$1',192/9('

(c)$WWRUQH\V(Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) $WWRUQH\V(If Known)
Brian P. O'Connor, Esq.
Santen & Hughes
600 Vine Street, Suite 2700, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION(Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
u  86*RYHUQPHQW u  )HGHUDO4XHVWLRQ PTF DEF PTF DEF
3ODLQWLII (U.S. Government Not a Party) &LWL]HQRI7KLV6WDWH u  u  ,QFRUSRUDWHGor3ULQFLSDO3ODFH u  u 
RI%XVLQHVV,Q7KLV6WDWH

u  86*RYHUQPHQW u  'LYHUVLW\ &LWL]HQRI$QRWKHU6WDWH u  u  ,QFRUSRUDWHGand3ULQFLSDO3ODFH u  u 


'HIHQGDQW (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) RI%XVLQHVV,Q$QRWKHU6WDWH

&LWL]HQRU6XEMHFWRID u  u  )RUHLJQ1DWLRQ u  u 
)RUHLJQ&RXQWU\
IV. NATURE OF SUIT(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
u ,QVXUDQFH  PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY u 'UXJ5HODWHG6HL]XUH u $SSHDO86& u )DOVH&ODLPV$FW
u 0DULQH u $LUSODQH u 3HUVRQDO,QMXU\ RI3URSHUW\86& u :LWKGUDZDO u 6WDWH5HDSSRUWLRQPHQW
u 0LOOHU$FW u $LUSODQH3URGXFW 3URGXFW/LDELOLW\ u 2WKHU 86& u $QWLWUXVW
u 1HJRWLDEOH,QVWUXPHQW /LDELOLW\ u +HDOWK&DUH u %DQNVDQG%DQNLQJ
u 5HFRYHU\RI2YHUSD\PHQW u $VVDXOW/LEHO 3KDUPDFHXWLFDO PROPERTY RIGHTS u &RPPHUFH
 (QIRUFHPHQWRI-XGJPHQW 6ODQGHU 3HUVRQDO,QMXU\ u &RS\ULJKWV u 'HSRUWDWLRQ
u 0HGLFDUH$FW u )HGHUDO(PSOR\HUV¶ 3URGXFW/LDELOLW\ u 3DWHQW u 5DFNHWHHU,QIOXHQFHGDQG
u 5HFRYHU\RI'HIDXOWHG /LDELOLW\ u $VEHVWRV3HUVRQDO u 7UDGHPDUN &RUUXSW2UJDQL]DWLRQV
6WXGHQW/RDQV u 0DULQH ,QMXU\3URGXFW u &RQVXPHU&UHGLW
 ([FOXGHV9HWHUDQV u 0DULQH3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY u &DEOH6DW79
u 5HFRYHU\RI2YHUSD\PHQW /LDELOLW\  PERSONAL PROPERTY u )DLU/DERU6WDQGDUGV u +,$ II u 6HFXULWLHV&RPPRGLWLHV
RI9HWHUDQ¶V%HQHILWV u 0RWRU9HKLFOH u 2WKHU)UDXG $FW u %ODFN/XQJ  ([FKDQJH
u 6WRFNKROGHUV¶6XLWV u 0RWRU9HKLFOH u 7UXWKLQ/HQGLQJ u /DERU0DQDJHPHQW u ',:&',::  J u 2WKHU6WDWXWRU\$FWLRQV
u 2WKHU&RQWUDFW 3URGXFW/LDELOLW\ u 2WKHU3HUVRQDO 5HODWLRQV u 66,'7LWOH;9, u $JULFXOWXUDO$FWV
u &RQWUDFW3URGXFW/LDELOLW\ u 2WKHU3HUVRQDO 3URSHUW\'DPDJH u 5DLOZD\/DERU$FW u 56,  J u (QYLURQPHQWDO0DWWHUV
u )UDQFKLVH ,QMXU\ u 3URSHUW\'DPDJH u )DPLO\DQG0HGLFDO u )UHHGRPRI,QIRUPDWLRQ
u 3HUVRQDO,QMXU\ 3URGXFW/LDELOLW\ /HDYH$FW $FW
0HGLFDO0DOSUDFWLFH u 2WKHU/DERU/LWLJDWLRQ u $UELWUDWLRQ
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS u (PSOR\HH5HWLUHPHQW FEDERAL TAX SUITS u $GPLQLVWUDWLYH3URFHGXUH
u /DQG&RQGHPQDWLRQ u 2WKHU&LYLO5LJKWV Habeas Corpus: ,QFRPH6HFXULW\$FW u 7D[HV 863ODLQWLII $FW5HYLHZRU$SSHDORI
u )RUHFORVXUH u 9RWLQJ u $OLHQ'HWDLQHH RU'HIHQGDQW $JHQF\'HFLVLRQ
u 5HQW/HDVH (MHFWPHQW u (PSOR\PHQW u 0RWLRQVWR9DFDWH u ,56²7KLUG3DUW\ u &RQVWLWXWLRQDOLW\RI
u 7RUWVWR/DQG u +RXVLQJ 6HQWHQFH 86& 6WDWH6WDWXWHV
u 7RUW3URGXFW/LDELOLW\ $FFRPPRGDWLRQV u *HQHUDO
u $OO2WKHU5HDO3URSHUW\ u $PHUZ'LVDELOLWLHV u 'HDWK3HQDOW\ IMMIGRATION
(PSOR\PHQW Other: u 1DWXUDOL]DWLRQ$SSOLFDWLRQ
u $PHUZ'LVDELOLWLHV u 0DQGDPXV 2WKHU u 2WKHU,PPLJUDWLRQ
2WKHU u &LYLO5LJKWV $FWLRQV
u (GXFDWLRQ u 3ULVRQ&RQGLWLRQ
u &LYLO'HWDLQHH
&RQGLWLRQVRI
&RQILQHPHQW
V. ORIGIN(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
u  2ULJLQDO u  5HPRYHGIURP u  5HPDQGHGIURP u  5HLQVWDWHGRU u  7UDQVIHUUHGIURP u  0XOWLGLVWULFW
3URFHHGLQJ 6WDWH&RXUW $SSHOODWH&RXUW 5HRSHQHG $QRWKHU'LVWULFW /LWLJDWLRQ
(specify)
&LWHWKH86&LYLO6WDWXWHXQGHUZKLFK\RXDUHILOLQJ(Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity)
42 USC 1983
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION %ULHIGHVFULSWLRQRIFDXVH
Violation of constitutional right to interstate travel and due process
VII. REQUESTED IN u &+(&.,)7+,6,6$CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ &+(&.<(6RQO\LIGHPDQGHGLQFRPSODLQW
COMPLAINT: 81'(558/()5&Y3 JURY DEMAND: u <HV u 1R
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY -8'*( '2&.(7180%(5
'$7( 6,*1$785(2)$77251(<2)5(&25'
04/02/2020 Brian P. O'Connor
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

5(&(,37 $02817 $33/<,1*,)3 -8'*( 0$*-8'*(


Case: 3:20-cv-00023-GFVT Doc #: 1-2 Filed: 04/02/20 Page: 2 of 2 - Page ID#: 14
-65HYHUVH 5HY

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44


$XWKRULW\)RU&LYLO&RYHU6KHHW

7KH-6FLYLOFRYHUVKHHWDQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQFRQWDLQHGKHUHLQQHLWKHUUHSODFHVQRUVXSSOHPHQWVWKHILOLQJVDQGVHUYLFHRISOHDGLQJRURWKHUSDSHUVDV
UHTXLUHGE\ODZH[FHSWDVSURYLGHGE\ORFDOUXOHVRIFRXUW7KLVIRUPDSSURYHGE\WKH-XGLFLDO&RQIHUHQFHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVLQ6HSWHPEHULV
UHTXLUHGIRUWKHXVHRIWKH&OHUNRI&RXUWIRUWKHSXUSRVHRILQLWLDWLQJWKHFLYLOGRFNHWVKHHW&RQVHTXHQWO\DFLYLOFRYHUVKHHWLVVXEPLWWHGWRWKH&OHUNRI
&RXUWIRUHDFKFLYLOFRPSODLQWILOHG7KHDWWRUQH\ILOLQJDFDVHVKRXOGFRPSOHWHWKHIRUPDVIROORZV

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants.(QWHUQDPHV ODVWILUVWPLGGOHLQLWLDO RISODLQWLIIDQGGHIHQGDQW,IWKHSODLQWLIIRUGHIHQGDQWLVDJRYHUQPHQWDJHQF\XVH


RQO\WKHIXOOQDPHRUVWDQGDUGDEEUHYLDWLRQV,IWKHSODLQWLIIRUGHIHQGDQWLVDQRIILFLDOZLWKLQDJRYHUQPHQWDJHQF\LGHQWLI\ILUVWWKHDJHQF\DQG
WKHQWKHRIILFLDOJLYLQJERWKQDPHDQGWLWOH
(b) County of Residence.)RUHDFKFLYLOFDVHILOHGH[FHSW86SODLQWLIIFDVHVHQWHUWKHQDPHRIWKHFRXQW\ZKHUHWKHILUVWOLVWHGSODLQWLIIUHVLGHVDWWKH
WLPHRIILOLQJ,Q86SODLQWLIIFDVHVHQWHUWKHQDPHRIWKHFRXQW\LQZKLFKWKHILUVWOLVWHGGHIHQGDQWUHVLGHVDWWKHWLPHRIILOLQJ 127(,QODQG
FRQGHPQDWLRQFDVHVWKHFRXQW\RIUHVLGHQFHRIWKHGHIHQGDQWLVWKHORFDWLRQRIWKHWUDFWRIODQGLQYROYHG
(c) Attorneys.(QWHUWKHILUPQDPHDGGUHVVWHOHSKRQHQXPEHUDQGDWWRUQH\RIUHFRUG,IWKHUHDUHVHYHUDODWWRUQH\VOLVWWKHPRQDQDWWDFKPHQWQRWLQJ
LQWKLVVHFWLRQ VHHDWWDFKPHQW 

II. Jurisdiction.7KHEDVLVRIMXULVGLFWLRQLVVHWIRUWKXQGHU5XOH D )5&Y3ZKLFKUHTXLUHVWKDWMXULVGLFWLRQVEHVKRZQLQSOHDGLQJV3ODFHDQ;


LQRQHRIWKHER[HV,IWKHUHLVPRUHWKDQRQHEDVLVRIMXULVGLFWLRQSUHFHGHQFHLVJLYHQLQWKHRUGHUVKRZQEHORZ
8QLWHG6WDWHVSODLQWLII  -XULVGLFWLRQEDVHGRQ86&DQG6XLWVE\DJHQFLHVDQGRIILFHUVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDUHLQFOXGHGKHUH
8QLWHG6WDWHVGHIHQGDQW  :KHQWKHSODLQWLIILVVXLQJWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVLWVRIILFHUVRUDJHQFLHVSODFHDQ;LQWKLVER[
)HGHUDOTXHVWLRQ  7KLVUHIHUVWRVXLWVXQGHU86&ZKHUHMXULVGLFWLRQDULVHVXQGHUWKH&RQVWLWXWLRQRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDQDPHQGPHQW
WRWKH&RQVWLWXWLRQDQDFWRI&RQJUHVVRUDWUHDW\RIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV,QFDVHVZKHUHWKH86LVDSDUW\WKH86SODLQWLIIRUGHIHQGDQWFRGHWDNHV
SUHFHGHQFHDQGER[RUVKRXOGEHPDUNHG
'LYHUVLW\RIFLWL]HQVKLS  7KLVUHIHUVWRVXLWVXQGHU86&ZKHUHSDUWLHVDUHFLWL]HQVRIGLIIHUHQWVWDWHV:KHQ%R[LVFKHFNHGWKH
FLWL]HQVKLSRIWKHGLIIHUHQWSDUWLHVPXVWEHFKHFNHG. 6HH6HFWLRQ,,,EHORZ; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties.7KLVVHFWLRQRIWKH-6LVWREHFRPSOHWHGLIGLYHUVLW\RIFLWL]HQVKLSZDVLQGLFDWHGDERYH0DUNWKLV


VHFWLRQIRUHDFKSULQFLSDOSDUW\

IV. Nature of Suit.3ODFHDQ;LQWKHDSSURSULDWHER[,IWKHQDWXUHRIVXLWFDQQRWEHGHWHUPLQHGEHVXUHWKHFDXVHRIDFWLRQLQ6HFWLRQ9,EHORZLV


VXIILFLHQWWRHQDEOHWKHGHSXW\FOHUNRUWKHVWDWLVWLFDOFOHUN V LQWKH$GPLQLVWUDWLYH2IILFHWRGHWHUPLQHWKHQDWXUHRIVXLW,IWKHFDXVHILWVPRUHWKDQ
RQHQDWXUHRIVXLWVHOHFWWKHPRVWGHILQLWLYH

V. Origin.3ODFHDQ;LQRQHRIWKHVL[ER[HV
2ULJLQDO3URFHHGLQJV  &DVHVZKLFKRULJLQDWHLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVGLVWULFWFRXUWV
5HPRYHGIURP6WDWH&RXUW  3URFHHGLQJVLQLWLDWHGLQVWDWHFRXUWVPD\EHUHPRYHGWRWKHGLVWULFWFRXUWVXQGHU7LWOH86&6HFWLRQ
:KHQWKHSHWLWLRQIRUUHPRYDOLVJUDQWHGFKHFNWKLVER[
5HPDQGHGIURP$SSHOODWH&RXUW  &KHFNWKLVER[IRUFDVHVUHPDQGHGWRWKHGLVWULFWFRXUWIRUIXUWKHUDFWLRQ8VHWKHGDWHRIUHPDQGDVWKHILOLQJ
GDWH
5HLQVWDWHGRU5HRSHQHG  &KHFNWKLVER[IRUFDVHVUHLQVWDWHGRUUHRSHQHGLQWKHGLVWULFWFRXUW8VHWKHUHRSHQLQJGDWHDVWKHILOLQJGDWH
7UDQVIHUUHGIURP$QRWKHU'LVWULFW  )RUFDVHVWUDQVIHUUHGXQGHU7LWOH86&6HFWLRQ D 'RQRWXVHWKLVIRUZLWKLQGLVWULFWWUDQVIHUVRU
PXOWLGLVWULFWOLWLJDWLRQWUDQVIHUV
0XOWLGLVWULFW/LWLJDWLRQ  &KHFNWKLVER[ZKHQDPXOWLGLVWULFWFDVHLVWUDQVIHUUHGLQWRWKHGLVWULFWXQGHUDXWKRULW\RI7LWOH86&6HFWLRQ
:KHQWKLVER[LVFKHFNHGGRQRWFKHFN  DERYH

VI. Cause of Action.5HSRUWWKHFLYLOVWDWXWHGLUHFWO\UHODWHGWRWKHFDXVHRIDFWLRQDQGJLYHDEULHIGHVFULSWLRQRIWKHFDXVHDo not cite jurisdictional


statutes unless diversity. ([DPSOH86&LYLO6WDWXWH86&%ULHI'HVFULSWLRQ8QDXWKRUL]HGUHFHSWLRQRIFDEOHVHUYLFH

VII. Requested in Complaint.&ODVV$FWLRQ3ODFHDQ;LQWKLVER[LI\RXDUHILOLQJDFODVVDFWLRQXQGHU5XOH)5&Y3


'HPDQG,QWKLVVSDFHHQWHUWKHDFWXDOGROODUDPRXQWEHLQJGHPDQGHGRULQGLFDWHRWKHUGHPDQGVXFKDVDSUHOLPLQDU\LQMXQFWLRQ
-XU\'HPDQG&KHFNWKHDSSURSULDWHER[WRLQGLFDWHZKHWKHURUQRWDMXU\LVEHLQJGHPDQGHG

VIII. Related Cases.7KLVVHFWLRQRIWKH-6LVXVHGWRUHIHUHQFHUHODWHGSHQGLQJFDVHVLIDQ\,IWKHUHDUHUHODWHGSHQGLQJFDVHVLQVHUWWKHGRFNHW


QXPEHUVDQGWKHFRUUHVSRQGLQJMXGJHQDPHVIRUVXFKFDVHV

Date and Attorney Signature.'DWHDQGVLJQWKHFLYLOFRYHUVKHHW

Оценить