Melendres, et al. v. Arpaio, et al

Filing 482

ORDER, A hearing on motions 413 , 416 , 420 , 421 , 469 is scheduled for Thursday, December 22, at 10:00 a.m. This Order supplements the Court's previous order discussing issues are to be the subject of oral argument Doc. 477 The parties should be prepared to discuss, or address in their supplemental briefing, the following two issues: 1) Defendants have argued that the class should not be certified in part because it is overbroad. Parties have been asked to discuss whether Martinez -Medina v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___ 2011 WL 855791 at *6 (9th Cir. 2001) suggests that Defendants would receive qualified immunity for any Fourth Amendment damages claim prior to the issuance of the decision. Parties are hereby further asked to b e prepared to discuss whether civilians stopped after the decision in Martinez-Medina would be able to make valid Fourth Amendment claims for damages. If they believe such claims would not be barred by qualified immunity, parties should be prepared to discuss whether certifying a class as to the Fourth Amendment claims would deny those potential Plaintiffs the right to recover such damages. 2) Further, parties are asked to address whether, should no Fourth Amendment class be certified, the Court may issue injunctive relief for the Fourth Amendment claims in light of United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 12/9/2011. (KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al.,)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Joseph M. Arpaio, in his individual)
capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County,)
)
Arizona,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS
ORDER

16
17
18

Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 413),

19

Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Sanctions, (Doc. 416), Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Class

20

Certification (Doc. 420), Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 421), and

21

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. (Doc. 469). A hearing on these motions is

22

scheduled for Thursday, December 22, at 10:00 a.m. This Order supplements the Court’s

23

previous order discussing issues are to be the subject of oral argument. (Doc. 477). The

24

parties should be prepared to discuss, or address in their supplemental briefing, the following

25

two issues:

26

1) Defendants have argued that the class should not be certified in part because it is

27

overbroad. Parties have been asked to discuss whether Martinez-Medina v. Holder, ___ F.3d

28

___, ___ 2011 WL 855791 at *6 (9th Cir. 2001) suggests that Defendants would receive

1

qualified immunity for any Fourth Amendment damages claim prior to the issuance of the

2

decision. Parties are hereby further asked to be prepared to discuss whether civilians stopped

3

after the decision in Martinez-Medina would be able to make valid Fourth Amendment

4

claims for damages. If they believe such claims would not be barred by qualified immunity,

5

parties should be prepared to discuss whether certifying a class as to the Fourth Amendment

6

claims would deny those potential Plaintiffs the right to recover such damages.

7

2) Further, parties are asked to address whether, should no Fourth Amendment class

8

be certified, the Court may issue injunctive relief for the Fourth Amendment claims in light

9

of United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011).

10

Dated this 9th day of December, 2011.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-