We Are America/Somos America Coalition of Arizona et al v.Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, et al.

Filing 53

ORDERED that defendants file and serve, within 10 days from the date of entry of this Order, a response to plaintiffs' supplemental memorandum as more fully described in the attached Order. Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 11/10/08. (RCB)(.pdf document is attached)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

We Are America/Somos America Coalition of Arizona, et al. Plaintiff, vs. Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, et al. Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CIV-06-2816-PHX-RCB ORDER

On October 18, 2008, as directed by this court, plaintiffs filed their "Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities Re: Preemption" (doc. 52). In that memorandum, plaintiffs note that

since We Are America/Somos America Coalition of Arizona v. Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, 2007 WL 2775134 (D.Ariz. Sept. 21, 2007), they have amended their complaint. The purpose of that

amendment was, in plaintiffs' words, to "make clear that they seek no relief that would interfere with state proceedings filed before this action." Supp. Mem. (doc. 52) at 5 n.5. In light of that

amended complaint, plaintiffs assert that "the threshold condition for . . . abstention" under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-- the existence of ongoing state judicial proceedings ­ "no longer exists[.]" Id. Therefore, plaintiffs urge this court to "go

forward" with this action "regardless of whether preemption is readily apparent under any of the De Canas [v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976)] tests." Id.

The court hereby ORDERS defendants to file and serve, within ten (10) days from the date of entry of this order, a response to plaintiffs' supplemental memorandum. Such response shall be

limited to the issues of (1) whether there is an ongoing stateinitiated proceeding; and (2) whether this "federal court action would enjoin the [state-initiated] proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere with the state proceeding in a way that Younger disapproves[,]" so as to mandate abstention under Younger. See San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce

Political Action Committee v. City of San Jose, 2008 WL 455031, at *3 (9th Cir. Oct. 14, 2008) (citations omitted). DATED this 10th day of November, 2008.

Copies to counsel of record

-2-