DeSantis, Others File Motion to Dismiss Immigration Flight Lawsuit

Tampa, Florida (WFLA) — Legal battle over Florida Immigration migration flights to Martha’s Vineyard Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Massachusetts Defendants, including State, Massachusetts, Massachusetts Governor Ron DeSantis, Public Safety Officer Larry Keef, and Vertol Systems owner James Montgomery, have filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, and the lawsuit is pending. is still in progress.

Separately, state officials and defendants have moved to move the case from Massachusetts federal court to Florida. Perla Huerta in Tampa It argues that the current court proceedings lack jurisdiction.

Huerta was a contractor paid by Florida to recruit immigrants moving from San Antonio, Texas to Martha’s Vineyard, and made a brief stop in Florida.

Huerta and Keef Added to class action lawsuit In November 2022, as a defendant along with Montgomery. Vertol, owned by Montgomery, Transported nearly 50 migrants From Texas to Massachusetts last September spend taxpayer dollars. of defended by the governor He said policy reforms needed to be pushed forward to address the immigration and border security crises.

Governors and state legislators moved to change the program, repealing the version passed in Florida in 2022, Proposal for a special session in February.

The plaintiffs and the lawyers representing them reportedly received death threats after filing their lawsuit.

Montgomery has requested that the lawsuit be dismissed for what his attorneys call a default by the plaintiff. They demand oral argument on this motion.

Separately, Huerta has filed to dismiss plaintiffs’ action on the grounds that, in addition to more direct personal allegations, the venue for the legal battle is outside proper jurisdiction. Huerta’s court filings say the case will not stand because Huerta “is not a state entity or is protected by a qualified exemption.” Her filing also argues that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the plaintiffs have neither claimed constitutional damages nor made separate legal claims.

A third motion to dismiss the action was filed by a state official in his capacity. The motion argues that the passage of the new migrant transfer program at a special legislative session in February invalidates the lawsuit because the previous program no longer exists.

in particular, Special Session Senate Bill 6B I retired the program and created a new one. The new version of the bill has virtually the same purpose, but changes the allocation to state funds and moves the program under the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Emergency Management. The former program operated through the Florida Department of Transportation, whose secretary is a named defendant in a class action lawsuit.

Further, the officer named as the defendant argues that the plaintiff is baseless for all claims, has shown no damages resulting from the defendant’s conduct, and cannot remedy it by the consequences required by the court. He also says he can’t.

Plaintiffs are seeking to block the immigration program from being enacted, and state officials say immigrants and their attorneys can prove that future implementation will be harmed in the future.

According to state filings, “Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege injury recoverable by future relief against any of the named plaintiffs.” Or if there is a ‘substantial risk’ of harm occurring, a future injury claim may suffice.”

Florida officials also submitted to the court that plaintiffs cannot claim further injury because there is no substantial risk that they will be transferred again.

“Given their knowledge of the program and this case, it would be strange for plaintiffs to suggest that Florida might transport them again,” the court files said. It claims only past injuries.”

Further, the state rejected the contention that the overall lawsuit represented immigrants as a group and therefore lacked a position to assert legal damages.

A federal court has yet to rule on various motions to dismiss.