MVM also argued that the federal government’s involvement in the case was required for the lawsuit to proceed. However, the father and son pushed back, asserting that joint tortfeasors are not mandatory parties, and pointed out that the government has shown no interest in the litigation. They emphasized that a judgment against MVM would not interfere with the government’s immigration duties.
The plaintiffs also argued that any monetary judgment against MVM would not breach its contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as the company is bound by federal law and policies that prohibit unlawful family separations. A judgment for mental health, child development, and other rehabilitative services would not conflict with MVM’s obligations, they said.
Representatives for MVM were unavailable for comment, but Scott Gilmore, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, expressed confidence that the merits of the case would prevail. “We believe our papers underscore the merits of the case, and we look forward to our clients having their day in court,” Gilmore stated.