United States of America v. Maricopa, County of et al

Filing 64

RESPONSE to Motion re 63 MOTION to Dismiss Case without prejudice filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Popolizio, Joseph)

E,XHIBiT

i

trÆ

Joxãs, SrcEmox

t HocruuLl, PL.C.
29flI

NOBTH CENTBAI AVENOE

WIITIAM B. JONES, JR,
TET.EPH0NE: (602)

SUITE

2t3.1714

8(lfl

PHoEN¡x, ARrzoilA 8501 2

F¡x: (602Ì 200.780.|

Pro¡¡r:

E.MArt : [e-mail]

(0021 283-1700

Fax: [phone]s9
WWW,JS

fI TIRM.CO M

JOHN T, MASTEßSON
TETEPHoNE: {6021 263.7330

F¡x: (0021200'7848
E'MAr[: JMASTERS0N@Jsfi fl RM.c0tul
JoSEPH

J. Popottzro

Tereprorue: {602) 263'l 741

F¡x: [phone]
E.MArt: [e-mail]

July 28, 2011

Mr. Sergio Percz
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
Special Litigation Section
Patrick Hetry Building
601 D Street, N'W
Washington, D.C. 2057 9-0001

Re:

U.S. v. MCSO, et al.

CV10.10878-PHX-GMS
Dear Mr. Perez:

I have received your July 27,2011 letter in which you indicated that the Maricopa
County Sheriff s Office (MCSO) is in substantial compliance under the June 2,2011 Agreement.
Thank you for your cooperation throughout this process and your acknowledgment of substantial
compliance under the Agreement, As the parties to the Agreement are the United States and
Sheriff Joseph M, Arpaio, the United States' acknowledgment of the MCSO's substantial
compliance under the Agreement is, in fact, an acknowledgment that Sheriff Arpaio is in
substantial compliance under the Agreement,
As you are aware, the parties agreed that substantial compliance, as defined in the
Agreement, is the prerequisite for the dismissal of the above-referenced action. Judge Snow's
June 6,2011 Order changed the parties'agreed mechanism of dismissal, as you well know.
Under his Order, Judge Snow witt dismiss the action on August 2,2011 unless the United States
files a motion to set aside dismissal. With its acknowledgement of substantial compiiance,
however, no basis exists for the United States to prevent dismissal of the action. The
acknowledgement of substantial compliance is, therefore, an acknowledgment that the United
States will not be filing a motion to posþone the dismissal of the action pursuant to Judge
Snow's Order, Accordingly, we look forward to Judge Snowos order dismissing this action on
August 2,2011,

2602'784.t

/oxns, SxELTot{

€¡

HocuuLI, PL.C.

Mr. Sergio Percz
July 28, 2011
Page2

In addition, your letter refers to the "Settlement Agreement." Please note that the
June 2, 2011 Agreement to which you refer, and under which Sheriff Arpaio has substantially
complied, is neither entitled "settlement agreement," nor does the word "settlement" appear
anywhere in the Agreement.

Moreover, although we concur that the substantial compliance under the
Agreement resolves the claims in the instant action, the resolution of those claims is not a
resolution on the merits, but rather a dismissal of disputed claims, short of their adjudication. No
flat refusal of access to documents, facilities, and/or staff occurred. Rather, any initial limitation
of access to documents, facilities and staff resulted from the rightful questioning of the scope and
propriety of the United States' investigation.
Nevertheless, despite the parties' differences, we are delighted that substantial
will occur shortly. We look forward to
the swift conclusion of the United States' underlying Title VI investigation.
compliance has occurred, and that dismissal of this action

Please call me

IIPljas

2602784,1

with any questions or comments. Thanks again.