#63 – Immigrant Rights Defense Council LLC v. Roderico Palencia (BC679387)
In its order the court had noted that in each of the 90 essentially identical seven-page complaints, plaintiff pleads that it is a non-governmental organization bringing an action on behalf of the people of the State of California under the Immigration Consultants Act (“ICA”) to shut down illegally operated immigration consultant businesses in the state and alleges that the named defendant – along with Doe defendants – acted as immigration consultants and thus the defendants are regulated by the ICA. In each case, plaintiff pleads a sole cause of action for injunctive relief against the defendants based on plaintiff’s information and belief that the defendants have violated each and every enumerated provision of the ICA, and plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction and recovery of attorney fees and costs.
Based on this, the court had found that judicial economy would be promoted, and the potential for inconsiste
Hearing Date
February 22, 2018
Type
Other Intentional Tort-notPI/WD/PD (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
#63 – Immigrant Rights Defense Council LLC v. Roderico Palencia (BC679387)
In its order the court had noted that in each of the 90 essentially identical seven-page complaints, plaintiff pleads that it is a non-governmental organization bringing an action on behalf of the people of the State of California under the Immigration Consultants Act (“ICA”) to shut down illegally operated immigration consultant businesses in the state and alleges that the named defendant – along with Doe defendants – acted as immigration consultants and thus the defendants are regulated by the ICA. In each case, plaintiff pleads a sole cause of action for injunctive relief against the defendants based on plaintiff’s information and belief that the defendants have violated each and every enumerated provision of the ICA, and plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction and recovery of attorney fees and costs.
Based on this, the court had found that judicial economy would be promoted, and the potential for inconsiste