Escobar v. Brewer et al

Filing 70

ORDER, denying Plaintiff Intervenors' 63 Motion for Leave to File Their Motion for Preliminary Injunction and to Exceed the Page Limitation as premature; granting Plaintiff's 13 Motion to Exceed Page Limitation and Cross-Plaintiff's 21 Motion to Exceed Page Limitation; Plaintiff's Motion lodged at Document 17 and Cross-Plaintiff's Motion lodged at Document 22 shall be filed as of this date; deeming moot Cross-Plaintiff City of Tucson's 66 Joint Motion for Proposed Briefing Schedule on Tucsons Cross-Claim (see order for full details). Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/8/10.(REW)

Escobar v. Brewer et al

Doc. 70

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, ) ) vs. ) ) 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, a municipal) corporation, ) ) Cross-Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) The State of Arizona, a body politic; and) Jan Brewer, in her capacity as Governor of) the State of Arizona, ) ) Cross-Defendants. ) ) Martin H. Escobar, No. CV 10-249-TUC-SRB ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Intervenors' Motion for Leave to File Their Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Support of Their Complaint and to Exceed the Page Limitation [doc. 63], Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed Page Limitation in Memorandum of Points and Authorities to Motion for Preliminary Injunction [doc. 13] and Cross-Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed Page Limitation [doc. 21].

Dockets.Justia.com

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

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff Intervenors' Motion for Leave to File Their Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Support of Their Complaint and to Exceed the Page Limitation [doc. 63] as premature. The Motion to Intervene [doc. 32] is opposed and not yet ready for ruling because Plaintiff Intervenors have not yet filed their reply. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed Page Limitation in Memorandum of Points and Authorities to Motion for Preliminary Injunction [doc. 13] and Cross-Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed Page Limitation [doc. 21]. Plaintiff's Motion lodged at Document 17 and Cross-Plaintiff's Motion lodged at Document 22 shall be filed as of this date. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff and Cross-Plaintiff City of Tucson have not been responded to but Cross-Plaintiff and Cross-Defendants have proposed a briefing schedule wherein the final briefs on Cross-Plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion and a recently filed Cross-Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings would be filed on July 20, 2010. No briefing schedule has been proposed on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction or Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. These motions will not be heard before July 29, 2010. Argument will not be set until the Motion to Intervene has been decided and all the pending Preliminary Injunction Motions and Motions to Dismiss or for Judgment on the Pleadings are fully briefed. The expedited briefing schedule is therefore moot and each side shall have the time allowed under the rules to respond and reply unless the parties agree to some extended response or reply time. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED deeming moot Cross-Plaintiff City of Tucson's Joint Motion for Proposed Briefing Schedule on Tucson's Cross-Claim [doc. 66]. DATED this 8th day of July, 2010.

-2-