Escobar v. Brewer et al

Filing 99

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Tucson, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McCrory, Michael)

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

MICHAEL G. RANKIN City Attorney Michael W.L. McCrory Principal Assistant City Attorney P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, AZ 85726-7210 Telephone: [phone] State Bar 3899 PCC No. 37268 Attorneys for City of Tucson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA MARTIN H. ESCOBAR, ) ) 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. ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV10-00249-TUC-SRB
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

{A0030059.DOC/}

1

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 ... ... ...

The City of Tucson ("Tucson") submits the following response to the Court's order to show cause why the entire case, including Tucson's cross-claim, should not be dismissed in light of the Court's ruling that Plaintiff Martin Escobar lacks standing to pursue his claims against the defendants (Dkt 96). As a result, Tucson no longer is in a position where it is required to defend the implementation of SB 1070 in this litigation. Tucson's cross-claim against Governor Brewer also sought an injunction against the implementation of SB 1070 based upon independent jurisdiction. The principal issues raised by that claim, however, have been resolved by this Court's issuance of a preliminary injunction on July 28, 2010 in United States of America v. State of Arizona, et. al., Civ. No. 10-01413 (Dkt 87). Tucson is subject to that preliminary injunction as a political subdivision of the state and those portions of Tucson's cross-claim are now moot. Tucson does not seek to independently pursue the additional issues raised in its cross-claim in this litigation at this time. Tucson notes that both orders have been appealed to the Ninth Circuit. If Plaintiff Escobar is successful on appeal, the City will once again be required to defend itself in this litigation. If the State of Arizona is successful, SB 1070 will once again be subject to implementation.

{A0030059.DOC/}

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

Tucson therefore requests that the Court dismiss the cross-claim without prejudice to Tucson's rights to reassert claims in the event there is a successful appeal of the other orders.

Respectfully submitted this 13th day of September, 2010. MICHAEL G. RANKIN City Attorney By s/Michael W.L. McCrory Michael W.L. McCrory Principal Assistant City Attorney P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, AZ 85726-7210 Attorneys for City of Tucson CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 13, 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/Michelle Gensman

{A0030059.DOC/}

3