National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders et al v. Arizona, State of et al

Filing 35

First MOTION to Amend/Correct 13 Amended Complaint, by Carmen Galindo, Moises Herrera, Fermin Leon, Laura Madera, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Joe Rivera, Manuel Siguenza, Unknown Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit - Proposed Second Amended Complaint (Redlined), # 2 Exhibit - Proposed Second Amended Complaint (Clean Copy))(Galloni, Tania)

Download PDF
National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders et al v. Arizona, State of et al Doc. 35 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 Tania Galloni Fla. Bar. No. 619221 FLORIDA IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY CENTER 3000 Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 400 Miami, Florida 33137 Telephone: 305.573-1106 Facsimile: 305.576.6273 Email: Ben R. Miranda Arizona Bar No. 9515 LAW OFFICE OF BEN R. MIRANDA 826 West 3rd Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Telephone: 603.252.7555 William J. Sanchez Fla. Bar No. 749060 SANCHEZ LAW, LLC Lakeside Corporate Park 12915 Southwest 132nd Street, Suite 5 Miami, Florida 33186 Telephone: 305.232.8889 Facsimile: 305.232.8819 Email: ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA NATIONAL COALITION OF LATINO CLERGY ) AND CHRISTIAN LEADERS ("CONLAMIC"), ) PHOENIX, ARIZONA, ET AL., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) STATE OF ARIZONA, ET AL., ) ) Defendants. ) ) __________________________________________) CASE NO. 2:10-CV-00943-SRB PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby file this Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. In accordance with the Local Rules, Plaintiffs attach the proposed filing, with the revisions marked in the text, as Exhibit 1. For ease of review, Plaintiffs further attach a "clean" version of the proposed Second Amended Complaint as Exhibit 2. 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 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders ("CONLAMIC"), joined by Latino parishioners, small business owners and other members of the Arizonan Latino community, brings this action to challenge the legality of provisions of Arizona's recentlyenacted immigration law, commonly known as "S.B.1070." In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that S.B. 1070 violates the Supremacy Clause, is preempted by federal law, and inherently leads to discrimination and civil rights violations on the basis of race, national origin and alienage. Plaintiffs allege that the imminent enforcement of S.B.1070 has already caused them economic and other harm, as countless Latino individuals and families have begun to leave the State of Arizona out of fear of the law's implementation. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiffs filed this action on April 29, 2010. (DE 1.) Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint on June 6, 2010. (DE 13.) On or about July 14, 2010, Plaintiffs served the Amended Complaint on all Defendants. On July 15, 2010 Defendant Sheriff Arpaio moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. (DE 26.) On August 4, 2010, Defendant Governor Brewer and the State of Arizona also moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. (DE 30.) Their motion was joined by the remaining Defendants, Terry Goddard and Richard M. Romley. (DE 31, 33.) Among other things, Defendants' motions asserted that the allegations in the Amended Complaint were vague, confusing and/or insufficient to establish standing to challenge provisions of S.B. 1070. On July 29, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their response in opposition to Defendant Sheriff Arpaio's Motion to Dismiss. (DE 28.) On August 23, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the other Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (DE 34.) Plaintiffs have asked that Defendants' motions to dismiss be denied in their entirety, or, in the alternative, that Plaintiffs be granted leave to amend to cure any deficiencies in the pleading. Plaintiffs now move affirmatively for leave to amend for the reasons stated below. -2- 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 III. ARGUMENT The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the Court "should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). To determine whether leave to amend is appropriate, "the district court considers the presence of four factors: `bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and or/futility.'" Fournier v. Johnson, 677 F.Supp. 2d 1172, 1173 (D.Ariz. 2009) (citing Griggs v. Pace American Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir.1999)). In making this determination "all inferences [are made] in favor of granting the motion." Id. Plaintiffs move to amend for the purpose of (1) adding a claim for violations of the First Amendment freedoms of religion and association; (2) stating a separate claim under the Equal Protection Clause based on allegations already in the Amended Complaint; (3) consolidating and clarifying their claims under the Supremacy Clause (Counts II and IV) and Fourteenth Amendment (Counts I, VI, and VI); (4) withdrawing Plaintiff Fermin Leon, one of the Jane Doe Plaintiffs, and all class allegations; and (5) supplementing the factual allegations throughout the complaint in support of Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs' proposed Second Amended Complaint significantly streamlines the factual allegations, and reduces the claims for relief from six to four. As to Count I, Plaintiffs add and clarify allegations regarding the unconstitutional vagueness of the challenged provisions of S.B. 1070. As to Count II, Plaintiffs add and clarify allegations regarding the federal preemption of the challenged provisions. As to Count III, Plaintiffs withdraw all allegations based on A.R.S. 13-2928 (related to day laborers). In its place, Plaintiffs assert a First Amendment Claim under Count III, alleging that the "transportation" and "harboring" provisions of S.B. 1070 interfere with their freedoms of religion and association. Plaintiffs strike the original Counts IV, V, and VI. The revised Count IV asserts a claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause. In addition, in their proposed Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs address many of the concerns raised in Defendants' motions to dismiss. These include updating the caption, specifying the sections of S.B. 1070 which Plaintiffs are challenging, streamlining and clarifying the factual allegations, and correcting inadvertent errors that may have caused confusion. -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 As relates to concerns raised by Defendants, the proposed amendments would: Caption: Add La Hermosa Church as a named plaintiff; Preliminary Statement ( 1-8): Specify which sections of S.B. 1070 Plaintiffs are challenging; strike references to the Fair Housing Act, Section 1981, and federal immigration ; Jurisdiction and Venue ( 9-10): Strike references to mandamus relief; Standing ( 11-13): Clarify basis for standing, also in the ensuing allegations regarding the individual and organizational Plaintiffs. Parties ( 14-53): Clarify individual plaintiffs' allegations; supplement the organizational plaintiffs' allegations regarding their purpose, mission, and activities, as well as the harms to them caused by S.B. 1070; and strike allegations related to plaintiff Miranda, who was not named in the caption. In light of the Rule 15 standard, Plaintiffs' motion to file the Second Amended Complaint 12 should be granted. Plaintiffs' request to amend is made without bad faith or undue delay. This is 13 Plaintiffs' first motion to amend. It is being made at the earliest stage of the litigation, before any 14 defendant has answered the complaint. Plaintiffs request leave of Court because they amended 15 the Complaint once prior to serving the defendants. Also, given the early stage of the litigation, 16 Defendants will not be prejudiced by amendment. To the contrary, Plaintiffs' proposed 17 amendments address many of the concerns Defendants raised in their motions to dismiss. Lastly, 18 Plaintiffs' amendments supplement and clarify Plaintiffs' factual allegations, the harms caused 19 by S.B. 1070, and Plaintiffs' claims for relief. Plaintiffs' amendments, therefore, are not futile. 20 IV. CONCLUSION 21 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant the Motion for 22 Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. 23 Dated: 24 25 26 27 28 /s/ Ben R. Miranda -4RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, /s/ Tania Galloni FLORIDA IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY CENTER August 25, 2010 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 LAW OFFICE OF BEN R. MIRANDA /s/ William J. Sanchez SANCHEZ LAW, LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August 25, 2010 I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF system for filing and for transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Thomas P. Liddy Maria R. Brandon MARICOPA COUNTY OFFICE OF SPECIAL LITIGATION SERVICES 234 North Central Avenue, Suite 4400 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Telephone No. (602) 372-3859 Facsimile No. (602) 506-1416 Attorneys for Defendant Joseph Arpaio John J. Bouma, Esq. Robert A. Henry, Esq. Joseph G. Adams, Esq. SNELL & WILMER, L.L.P. 1 Arizona Center 400 East Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-0001 Joseph A. Kanefield OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR State of Arizona 1700 West Washington Street, 9th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Attorneys for Defendant Governor Janice K. Brewer -5- 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 -6/s/ Tania Galloni FLORIDA IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY CENTER Christopher Arthur Munns Office of the Attorney General 1275 W. Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Email: Mary Ruth O'Grady Office of the Attorney General 1275 W. Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Email: Attorneys for Defendants Richard M. Romley and Terry Goddard

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?