Escobar v. Brewer et al

Filing 62

RESPONSE re 59 Status Report by Defendant Jan Brewer. (Bouma, John)

Escobar v. Brewer et al

Doc. 62

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 [phone]

John J. Bouma (#001358) Robert A. Henry (#015104) Joseph G. Adams (#018210) SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. One Arizona Center 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] [e-mail] Joseph A. Kanefield (#015838) Office of Governor Janice K. Brewer 1700 W. Washington, 9th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT 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, Defendants. The City of Tucson, Cross-plaintiff, v. The State of Arizona, a body politic; and Jan Brewer, in her capacity as Governor of the State of Arizona, Cross-defendants. /// Case No. CV10-00249-TUC-SRB GOVERNOR BREWER'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF ESCOBAR'S STATUS REPORT ON PENDING MOTIONS

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

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 [phone]

In response to the Court's order (doc. 58) directing plaintiff to file a notice "listing all motions pending in each case and the briefing status of those motions," plaintiff instead filed Plaintiff Escobar's Status Report on Pending Motions (doc. 59) ("Status Report") that contained a lengthy recitation of his arguments in support of his preliminary injunction motion. Defendant Governor Janice K. Brewer ("Governor Brewer") responds to the Status Report for the sole purpose of correcting the record regarding her positions and the status of the pending motions. First, plaintiff incorrectly states that Governor Brewer objected to plaintiff's motion to exceed the page limitations for his motion for preliminary injunction. (Status Report at 2:11-12.) In truth, Governor Brewer's counsel informed plaintiff's counsel that they did not object to the motion (doc. 25). Second, plaintiff correctly points out that two motions in this case are lodged, not filed, because the parties chose to submit oversize briefs without first obtaining leave of Court.1 See LRCiv 7.2(e). Plaintiff states that such motions have been "pending" for as long as 28 days. Because these motions have not yet been filed, they are not currently pending. No response to these motions is yet due. Third, plaintiff asserts that there has been no ruling on requests for an evidentiary hearing. (Status Report at 5:26-28.) In fact, no party has filed a request for an evidentiary hearing and there is no such request before the Court. The "joinder" filed by the City of Tucson (doc. 45) apparently referred to the terse request for an "Expedited Evidentiary Hearing" in the caption of plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction that he lodged with the Court (doc. 17). The motion did not otherwise mention any evidentiary hearing, explain why such a hearing would be necessary, or describe the evidence that plaintiff would present at a hearing.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

The motions in this case that are lodged, rather than filed, are plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (doc. 17) and the City of Tucson's motion for preliminary injunction (doc. 22). The Cities of Flagstaff, Tolleson, San Luis, and Somerton also lodged a complaint in connection with their motion to intervene (doc. 33). Governor Brewer filed her opposition to the motion to intervene on June 28, 2010 (doc. 60).
-2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 [phone]

Finally, plaintiff misstates the response date for the pending motion to dismiss Governor Brewer in her individual capacity (doc. 56). The motion was filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on June 23, 2010. Under LRCiv 7.2(c), plaintiff's responsive memorandum is due fourteen days after service. Accordingly, plaintiff's response is due on July 12, 2010, not July 26, 2010. Respectfully submitted this 29th day of June, 2010. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. By s/John J. Bouma John J. Bouma Robert A. Henry Joseph G. Adams One Arizona Center 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 and By s/Joseph A. Kanefield with permission Joseph A. Kanefield Office of Governor Janice K. Brewer 1700 W. Washington, 9th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007 Attorneys for Defendant Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona

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

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

-3-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 [phone]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 29, 2010, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the CM/ECF registrants on record: s/John J. Bouma
11685297

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-4-

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.