USA v. State of Arizona, et al

Filing 14

Filed (ECF) Appellants Janice K. Brewer and State of Arizona Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 08/05/2010. [7429200] (JB)

Case: 10-16645

07/29/2010

Page: 1 of 3

ID: 7422235

DktEntry: 7-2

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Circuit Mediation Office Phone [phone] Fax [phone] http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/mediation

MEDIATION QUESTIONNAIRE
The purpose of this questionnaire is to help the court's mediators provide the best possible mediation service in this case; it serves no other function. Responses to this questionnaire are not confidential. Appellants/Petitioners must electronically file this document within 7 days of the docketing of the case. 9th Cir. R. 3-4 and 15-2. Appellees/Respondents may file the questionnaire, but are not required to do so. Any party may provide additional information in confidence directly to the Circuit Mediation Office at [e-mail]. Please provide the case name and Ninth Circuit case number in your message. Additional information might include interest in including this case in the mediation program, the case's settlement history, issues beyond the litigation that the parties might address in a settlement context, or future events that might affect the parties' willingness or ability to mediate the case. 9th Circuit Case Number(s): 10-16645 District Court/Agency Case Number(s): CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB District Court/Agency Location: Case Name: United States of America
District of Arizona

v.

State of Arizona, et al.

Please briefly describe the dispute that gave rise to this lawsuit.
The plaintiff-appellee challenged the validity of Senate Bill 1070, as amended, an enactment of the Arizona Legislature signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer. The various provisions of Senate Bill 1070 provide for the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws by state and local government agencies in Arizona.

(Please continue to next page.)

Case: 10-16645

07/29/2010

Page: 2 of 3

ID: 7422235

DktEntry: 7-2

Briefly describe the procedural history, the result below, and the main issues on appeal.
Plaintiff-appellee filed its complaint on July 6, 2010, as well as a motion for preliminary injunction that sought to enjoin the enforcement of Senate Bill 1070. Defendants-appellants filed their response to the motion on July 20, 2010. The district court held oral argument on the motion on July 22, 2010. On July 28, 2010, the district court entered an order that granted in part and denied in part plaintiff-appellee's motion for preliminary injunction, and which enjoined certain provisions of Senate Bill 1070. Defendants-appellants filed their notice of appeal on July 29, 2010. The main issue on appeal is whether the district court relied on erroneous legal premises or abused its discretion in enjoining certain provisions of Senate Bill 1070.

Describe any proceedings remaining below or any related proceedings in other tribunals.
On July 26, 2010, defendants-appellants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint. That motion remains pending before the district court. There are no other proceedings currently scheduled at this time. There are six related cases pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona that also challenge, in whole or in part, Senate Bill 1070. These proceedings include the following: Frisancho v. Brewer, et al., Case No. CV10-0926-PHX-SRB Escobar v. Brewer, et al., Case No. CV10-0249-TUC-SRB National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders v. Arizona, et al., Case No. CV10-0943-PHX-SRB Salgado v. Brewer, Case No. CV10-0951-PHX-SRB Friendly House v. Whiting, et al., Case No. CV10-1061-PHX-SRB League of United Latin American Citizens v. Arizona, et al., Case No. CV10-1453-PHX-NVW

(Please continue to next page.)

Case: 10-16645

07/29/2010

Page: 3 of 3

ID: 7422235

DktEntry: 7-2

Provide any other information that might affect the suitability of this case for mediation.
Defendants-appellants do not believe that this case is suitable for mediation.

CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL I certify that:

a current service list with telephone and fax numbers and email addresses is attached (see 9th Circuit Rule 3-2). I understand that failure to provide the Court with a completed form and service list may result in sanctions, including dismissal of the appeal.
Signature s/ John Bouma
("s/" plus attorney name may be used in lieu of a manual signature on electronically-filed documents.)

Counsel for Defendants/Appellants
Note: Use of the Appellate ECF system is mandatory for all attorneys filing in this Court, unless they are granted an exemption from using the system. File this document electronically in Appellate ECF by choosing Forms/Notices/Disclosure > File a Mediation Questionnaire.