Mohr et al v. Murphy Elementary School District 21 of Maricopa County, et al.

Filing 10

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 8 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/1/2010.(NVO)

Download PDF
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 Paul B. Mohr, Jr. and Lydia Bustamante- ) ) Mohr, husband and wife, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) Murphy Elementary School District 21 ) of Maricopa County; William E. Grimes ) ) and Theresa M. Grimes; and Terri ) Swanson and John Doe Swanson, ) ) Defendants. ) ) No. CV-10-153-PHX-DGC ORDER Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants in state court on November 9, 2009. Dkt. #1-1 at 8-13. The complaint sought declaratory relief based on contract and the Arizona Constitution. Id. 20-24. The amended complaint, filed in state court on January 14, 2010, asserts five claims: violation of Arizona's open meeting law, declaratory judgement based on contract, declaratory judgment based on Arizona statutory rights and federal due process rights, federal civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and tortious interference with contract. Dkt. #1-3 at 75-88. On January 25, 2010, Defendants removed the action to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction. Dkt. #1. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand, arguing that removal was improper because Defendants did not remove the case within 30 days of when they were first on notice of a federal question. Dkt. #7. Plaintiffs also have filed a motion for temporary restraining order and order to show cause. Dkt. #8. The Court will deny that motion to the extent it seeks a 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 temporary restraining order. Plaintiffs request an expedited ruling on the motion to remand, not injunctive relief. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of the remand issue. See Am. Trucking Ass'n, Inc. v. City of L.A., 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard for injunctive relief). The Court will grant Plaintiffs' motion (Dkt. #8) to the extent they request an expedited ruling on the motion to remand. Defendant shall file a response to the motion to remand by February 5, 2010. Plaintiffs shall file a reply by February 10, 2010. The Court will then issue a prompt ruling on the motion. The Court will set the matter for a hearing only if oral argument will aid the Court's decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991); Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998). IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order and order to show cause (Dkt. #8) is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is denied as to the request for a temporary restraining order and granted to the extent Plaintiffs seek an expedited ruling on the motion to remand (Dkt. #7). 2. Defendants shall file a response to the motion to remand by February 5, 2010, and Plaintiffs shall file a reply by February 10, 2010. Plaintiffs shall call the Court once the reply has been filed and the Court will then issue a prompt ruling. DATED this 1st day of February, 2010. -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?