Escobar v. Brewer et al

Filing 46

REPLY in Support re 20 First MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Martin H Escobar. (Martinez, Richard)

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

RICHARD M. MARTINEZ, SBA No. 7763 307 South Convent Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701 [phone] phone [phone] fax [e-mail] Stephen Montoya, SBA No. 11791 Augustine B. Jimenez III, SBA No. 12208 Montoya Jimenez, P.A. The Great American Tower 3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 2550 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 [phone] [phone] (fax) [e-mail] [e-mail] Counsel for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA

MARTIN H. ESCOBAR

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) JAN BREWER, Governor of ) the State of Arizona, in her ) Official and Individual ) Capacity, the City of Tucson, ) a municipal corporation, and ) Barbara LaWall, County ) Attorney, Pima County, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) DAVID SALGADO and ) Chicanos Por la Causa, Inc., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) JAN BREWER, individually ) and in her capacity as ) Governor of Arizona, and ) Capacity, the City of Phoenix, ) an Arizona municipal ) corporation, ) ) Defendants. ) )

No. CIV 10-249 TUC DCB REPLY TO BREWER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATION

No. CIV 10-951 PHX ROS

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

Plaintiff, through his undersigned counsel, hereby replies to the response of Defendant Brewer to plaintiff's request for transfer of his case to the Phoenix Division to be consolidated with the Salgado, et. al. v. Brewer, et al., CIV 10-951 PHX ROS and urges both transfer to the Phoenix Division and consolidation. These decisions are by the applicable Rule properly before this court. Defendant Brewer does not object to transfer. In this regard she remains consistent with her own request for the same that is pending before Judge Bolton. With respect to consolidation, Defendant Brewer apparently seeks delay and deferral of that decision to Judge Bolton. No substantive reason for requesting such is identified. What is clear is that Defendant Brewer seeks to delay all aspects of this case from timely briefing, a hearing or consideration of the pending motions for preliminary injunction. This approach, while not unusual, does not serve the interests of justice or promote judicial efficiency. Since the filing of the instant motion, Judge Silver has issued a briefing schedule for the motion for preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiffs and a separate order setting a schedule for the briefing of Defendant Brewer's motion to dismiss. Both orders provide all parties a set schedule that allows for the completion of briefing, an evidentiary hearing and time for consideration of the parties positions concerning standing and the need to enjoin SB 1070, as amended. Consolidation of Escobar and Salgado as allowed by Rule 42, F.R.C.P. and LRCiv. 42.1 undisputedly promotes judicial economy and efficiency, and allows for consistent judicial rulings. The factors relevant to plaintiff's request, (1) whether substantive matters have been considered in a case; (2) which Judge has the most familiarity with issues involved in the cases; (3) whether a case is reasonably viewed as the lead or principal case; (4) any other factor serving the interest of judicial economy, were never addressed by Defendant Brewer in any meaningful way. Review of the relevant dockets demonstrates that Salgado has evolved into the lead case within the District. Consolidation of Escobar and Salgado only bolsters this conclusion.
-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

For the reasons noted, it is respectfully requested that CIV 10-249 TUC DCB be transferred to the Phoenix Division of the Federal District Court for the District of Arizona and that it be consolidated with CIV 10-951 PHX ROS. Respectfully submitted this 18th day of June 2010. s/Richard M. Martinez, Esq. Richard M. Martinez, Esq. Stephen Montoya, SBA No. 11791 Augustine B. Jimenez III, SBA No. 12208 Montoya Jimenez, P.A. Counsel for Plaintiff

Copy electronically transmitted this 18th day of June 2010 via the USDC Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal to: Michael Rankin, City Attorney City of tucson Michael W.L. McCory Principal Assistant City Attorney P.O. Box 2710 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 Attorneys for the City of Tucson Noel Fidel MARISCAL, WEEKS, McINTYRE & FRIEDLANDER, P.A. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 200 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Jose de Jesus Rivera Robert Pastor Nathan Fidel HARALSON, MILLER, PITT FELDMAN & McNALLY 2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 840 Phoenix, Arizona 85006 Stanley Feldman Rebecca A. Reed Jeffery A. Imig HARALSON, MILLER, PITT FELDMAN & McNALLY 1 South Church Avenue, Suite 900 Tucson, Arizona 85701

-3-

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

David L. Abney LAW OFFICE OF DAVID ABNEY 414 East Southern Avenue Mesa, Arizona 85204 Counsel for Plaintiff-Intervenors John J. Bouma Robert A. Henry Joseph G. Adams SNELL & WILLMER, LLC One Arizona Center 400 East Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 Joseph A. Kanfield Office of Governor Janice tK. Brewer 1700 West Washington, 9 h Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Attorneys for Defendant Governor Janice K. Brewer Mary R. O'Grady, Solicitor General Christopher A. Munns, Assistant Attorney General 1275 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 Attorneys for the State of Arizona COPY tof the foregoing e-mailed this 18 h day of June 2010 to: Barbara LaWall County Attorney-Pima County c/o Regina Nassen & Amelia Cramer 32 North Stone, Suite 1400 Tucson, Arizona 85701 s/Richard M. Martinez, Esq.

-4-