Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 1 of 61

1 Omar C. Jadwat (admitted pro hac vice)

Lucas Guttentag (admitted pro hac vice)

2 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’

3 RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor

4 New York, New York 10004

Telephone: (212) 549-2660

5 Facsimile: (212) 549-2654

ojadwat@aclu.org

6 lguttentag@aclu.org

Thomas A. Saenz (admitted pro hac vice)

Victor Viramontes (admitted pro hac vice)

7 Linton Joaquin (admitted pro hac vice) Nicholás Espíritu (admitted pro hac vice)

Karen C. Tumlin (admitted pro hac vice) MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL

8 Nora A. Preciado (admitted pro hac vice) DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND Melissa S. Keaney (admitted pro hac vice) 634 S. Spring Street, 11th Floor

9 NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW

Los Angeles, California 90014

CENTER

Telephone: (213) 629-2512

10 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2850

Facsimile: (213) 629-0266

Los Angeles, California 90010

tsaenz@maldef.org

11 Telephone: (213) 639-3900

vviramontes@maldef.org

Facsimile: (213) 639-3911

nespiritu@maldef.org

12 joaquin@nilc.org

tumlin@nilc.org

13 preciado@nilc.org

keaney@nilc.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14

Additional Co-Counsel on Subsequent Pages

15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
17

18 FRIENDLY HOUSE; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL

No. CV-10-1061-PHX-SRB

19 20 21

UNION; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 5; UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION; ARIZONA SOUTH ASIANS FOR SAFE

[Related Cases: 10-CV-00926-PHX-SRB, 10-CV-0249-TUC-SRB, 10-CV-0943-PHXSRB, 10-CV-0951-PHX-SRB, and 10-CV01413 PHX-SRB]

FAMILIES; SOUTHSIDE

22 PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH; ARIZONA FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

HISPANIC CHAMBER OF 23 COMMERCE; ASIAN CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE OF ARIZONA; BORDER

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

24 ACTION NETWORK; TONATIERRA

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 25 INSTITUTE; MUSLIM AMERICAN

CLASS ACTION

SOCIETY; JAPANESE AMERICAN

26 CITIZENS LEAGUE; VALLE DEL SOL,

INC.; COALICÍON DE DERECHOS

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 2 of 61

1 HUMANOS; PEDRO ESPINOZA; C.M., a minor; LUZ SANTIAGO; JIM SHEE;
2 JOSE ANGEL VARGAS; MAURA CASTILLO; MARIA MORALES; JOHN
3 DOE #1; and JANE DOE #3,

4

Plaintiffs,

v.

5

MICHAEL B. WHITING, Apache County

6 Attorney, in his official capacity;

EDWARD G. RHEINHEIMER, Cochise

7 County Attorney, in his official capacity;

DAVID W. ROZEMA, Coconino County

8 Attorney, in his official capacity; DAISY

FLORES, Gila County Attorney, in her

9 official capacity; KENNY ANGLE,

Graham County Attorney, in his official

10 capacity; DEREK D. RAPIER, Greenlee

County Attorney, in his official capacity;

11 SAM VEDERMAN, La Paz County

Attorney, in his official capacity;

12 RICHARD M. ROMLEY, Maricopa

County Attorney, in his official capacity ;

13 MATTHEW J. SMITH, Mohave County

Attorney, in his official capacity;

14 BRADLEY CARLYON, Navajo County

Attorney, in his official capacity;

15 BARBARA LAWALL, Pima County

Attorney, in her official capacity; JAMES

16 P. WALSH, Pinal County Attorney, in his

official capacity; GEORGE SILVA, Santa

17 Cruz County Attorney, in his official

capacity; SHEILA S. POLK, Yavapai

18 County Attorney, in her official capacity;

JON R. SMITH, Yuma County Attorney, in

19 his official capacity; JOSEPH DEDMAN

JR., Apache County Sheriff, in his official

20 capacity; LARRY A. DEVER, Cochise

County Sheriff, in his official capacity;

21 BILL PRIBIL, Coconino County Sheriff, in

his official capacity; JOHN R. ARMER,

22 Gila County Sheriff, in his official

capacity; PRESTON J. ALLRED, Graham

23 County Sheriff, in his official capacity;

STEVEN N. TUCKER, Greenlee County

24 Sheriff, in his official capacity; DONALD

LOWERY, La Paz County Sheriff, in his

25 official capacity; JOSEPH ARPAIO,

Maricopa County Sheriff, in his official

26 capacity; TOM SHEAHAN, Mohave

County Sheriff, in his official capacity;

-2-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 3 of 61

1 KELLY CLARK, Navajo County Sheriff, in his official capacity; CLARENCE W.
2 DUPNIK, Pima County Sheriff, in his official capacity; PAUL BABEU, Pinal
3 County Sheriff, in his official capacity; TONY ESTRADA, Santa Cruz County
4 Sheriff, in his official capacity; STEVE WAUGH, Yavapai County Sheriff, in his
5 official capacity; and RALPH OGDEN, Yuma County Sheriff, in his official
6 capacity,

7

Defendants.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

-3-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 4 of 61

1 Daniel J. Pochoda (SBA No. 021979) ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
2 3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235 Phoenix, Arizona 85014
3 Telephone: (602) 650-1854 Facsimile: (602) 650-1376
4 dpochoda@acluaz.org 5 6

Cecillia D. Wang (admitted pro hac vice) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 343-0775 Facsimile: (415) 395-0950 cwang@aclu.org

7 Nina Perales (admitted pro hac vice)
8 MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL
9 FUND 110 Broadway Street, Suite 300
10 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Telephone: (210) 224-5476
11 Facsimile: (210) 224-5382

Yungsuhn Park (admitted pro hac vice) Connie Choi (admitted pro hac vice) Carmina Ocampo (admitted pro hac vice) ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER, a member of Asian American Center for Advancing Justice

nperales@maldef.org 12

1145 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, California 90017

13

Telephone: (213) 977-7500 Facsimile: (213) 977-7595

14

Chris Newman (admitted pro hac vice) Lisa Kung (admitted pro hac vice)

ypark@apalc.org cchoi@apalc.org

15

NATIONAL DAY LABOR ORGANIZING NETWORK

cocampo@apalc.org

16

675 S. Park View Street, Suite B Los Angeles, California 90057

17

Telephone: (213) 380-2785 Facsimile: (213) 380-2787

18

newman@ndlon.org kung@ndlon.org

19 Daniel R. Ortega, Jr. (SBA No. 005015)

20 ORTEGA LAW FIRM 361 E. Coronado Road, Suite 101

21 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-1525 Telephone: (602) 386-4455

22

Facsimile: (602) 386-4480 danny@rmgmo.com

23 Facsimile: (602) 340-1896

Laura D. Blackburne (admitted pro hac vice) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE (NAACP) 4805 Mt. Hope Drive Baltimore, Maryland 21215 Telephone: (410) 580-5700 lblackburne@naacpnet.org

24

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

25

26

-4-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 5 of 61

1

Bradley S. Phillips+(admitted pro hac

Aaron G. Leiderman+ (admitted pro hac

2 vice)

vice)

Paul J. Watford+(admitted pro hac vice) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP+

3 Joseph J. Ybarra+ (admitted pro hac vice) 560 Mission Street

Lika C. Miyake+(admitted pro hac vice) Twenty-Seventh Floor

4 Benjamin J. Maro+(admitted pro hac vice) San Francisco, CA 94105-2907

Margaret G. Ziegler+(admitted pro hac

Telephone: (415) 512-4000

5 vice)

Facsimile: (415) 512-4077

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP+

Aaron.Leiderman@mto.com

6 355 South Grand Avenue

Thirty-Fifth Floor

7 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560

Telephone: (213) 683-9100

8 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702

Brad.Phillips@mto.com

9 Paul.Watford@mto.com

Joseph.Ybarra@mto.com

10 Lika.Miyake@mto.com

Benjamin.Maro@mto.com

11 Margaret.Ziegler@mto.com

12

Stephen P. Berzon++ (admitted pro hac

13 vice)

Jonathan Weissglass++ (admitted pro hac

14 vice)

ALTSHULER BERZON LLP++

15 177 Post Street, Suite 300

San Francisco, CA 94108

16 Telephone: (415) 421-7151

Facsimile: (415) 362-8064

17 sberzon@altshulerberzon.com

jweissglass@altshulerberzon.com

18

+Attorneys for all plaintiffs except Service Employees International Union, Service

19

Employees International Union, Local 5, United Food and Commercial Workers

International Union, and Japanese American Citizens League

20

++Attorneys for Service Employees International Union, Service

21

Employees International Union, Local 5, United Food and Commercial Workers

International Union

22

23

24

25

26

-5-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 6 of 61

1

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

2

1. This action challenges Arizona Senate Bill 1070, as amended (“SB 1070”), a

3 comprehensive set of state immigration laws expressly intended to “discourage and deter

4 the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully

5 present in the United States.” SB 1070 proclaims and implements an immigration policy

6 of “attrition through enforcement” for the State of Arizona. The legislation creates an

7 array of new state-law criminal offenses relating to immigration and imposes sweeping

8 requirements on state and local law enforcement officers to investigate alleged

9 immigration violations and to arrest and detain persons suspected of immigration

10 violations. The law was signed by Governor Janice Brewer on April 23, 2010, and is

11 scheduled to go into effect on July 28, 2010.

12

2. SB 1070 attempts to create a legal regime regulating and restricting

13 immigration and punishing those whom Arizona deems to be in violation of immigration

14 laws. It is an impermissible encroachment into an area of exclusive federal authority and

15 will interfere and conflict with the comprehensive federal immigration system enacted by

16 Congress and implemented through a complex web of federal regulations and policies.

17 According to law enforcement officials in Arizona and elsewhere, SB 1070 will cause

18 widespread racial profiling and will subject many persons of color—including countless

19 U.S. citizens, and non-citizens who have federal permission to remain in the United

20 States—to unlawful interrogations, searches, seizures and arrests.

21

3. SB 1070 is unconstitutional. It violates the Supremacy Clause and core civil

22 rights and civil liberties secured by the United States Constitution, including the First

23 Amendment right to freedom of speech and expressive activity, the Fourth Amendment

24 right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Equal Protection

25 Clause guarantee of equal protection under the law.

26

-6-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 7 of 61

1

4. The plaintiffs in this action will suffer serious violations of their constitutional

2 rights and civil liberties if SB 1070 goes into effect. The named plaintiffs bring this

3 action on behalf of themselves and a class of all others similarly situated to obtain

4 preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and a declaration that SB 1070 violates the

5 U.S. and Arizona Constitutions.

6

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343

8 over Plaintiffs’ claims under the U.S. Constitution, as well as under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981

9 and 1983. The Court has authority to grant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201

10 and 2202. The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claim under 28 U.S.C. §

11 1367.

12

6. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). All Defendants are

13 sued in their official capacity and their official places of business are all located within

14 this District. All of the events giving rise to this Complaint occurred within this District.

15

PARTIES

16

Organizational Plaintiffs

17

7. Plaintiff Friendly House is a non-profit organization whose mission is to foster

18 excellence in the community by serving the educational and human service needs of its

19 residents. It provides comprehensive services to about 40,000 families, youth, and

20 children each year and numerous direct services in several program areas, including

21 immigration, family, youth, and adult services, workforce development, home care

22 services, and charter school education. Among other immigration services, Friendly

23 House assists applicants for asylum and victims and witnesses of crime who are eligible

24 for visas. The clients served by Friendly House include citizens, non-citizens, and racial

25 minorities, including Latinos. SB 1070 will force Friendly House to divert scarce

26 resources from critical programs in order to educate and assist individuals affected by SB

-7-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 8 of 61

1 1070. Friendly House’s mission and organizational goals will also be negatively impacted

2 by SB 1070 because its staff will have a harder time encouraging clients to seek services

3 in its various program areas to the extent that they involve interacting with government

4 agencies and police. Friendly House also fears that its current and prospective clients will

5 be deterred from seeking immigration relief because local law enforcement will continue

6 to stop and detain them, notwithstanding their application for relief, on the basis that they

7 do not have any registration documents that are acceptable under SB 1070.

8

8. Plaintiff Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”) is one of the largest

9 labor organizations in the world, representing 2.2 million working men and women who

10 work primarily in the public sector and in the janitorial, health services, long-term care,

11 and security industries. Many of SEIU’s members are recent immigrants to the United

12 States and many of its members come from racial minority groups. SEIU has long called

13 for and worked toward comprehensive reform of U.S. immigration laws. Another priority

14 for SEIU is fighting discrimination against minorities, women and other groups in the

15 workplace and in society in general. In Arizona, SEIU has three affiliates: SEIU/Workers

16 United Western Regional Joint Board; National Association of Government Employees;

17 and Plaintiff Service Employees International Union, Local 5 (“SEIU Arizona”).

18 Together, these three affiliates have approximately 2,300 members spanning every county

19 in the state, about 40 percent of whom are Latino and some of whom are other racial

20 minorities. SEIU works in partnership with SEIU Arizona and other groups to combat

21 discrimination and mobilize for immigration reform at the national level. SB 1070’s

22 impact on already distressed county and municipal budgets will harm SEIU’s members to

23 the extent that it will result in further pay cuts, furloughs, and layoffs. Furthermore, some

24 of SEIU’s Latino members or their families have already been subjected to stops by local

25 law enforcement where they have been asked to produce proof of immigration status.

26 SEIU is concerned that its minority members will be even more likely to be stopped,

-8-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 9 of 61

1 detained, arrested, and questioned by state and local police after SB 1070 goes into effect.

2 This will cause hardship for members of SEIU. In addition, SEIU is concerned that

3 members and potential members will be fearful to attend rallies, demonstrations, and

4 union meetings or to engage in leafleting or other traditional labor activities because of the

5 possibility of being stopped by the police under SB 1070. This will significantly impact

6 the ability of SEIU to protect its existing members and to organize new members. SEIU

7 joins this lawsuit to preserve its ability to organize new members and to protect the rights

8 and interests of its members and prospective members.

9

9. Plaintiff Service Employees International Union, Local 5 (“SEIU Arizona”), is

10 a labor union and an affiliate of Plaintiff SEIU. SEIU Arizona represents state, county,

11 and municipal public service employees and has 1,800 members in Arizona, including

12 members in every county throughout the state. Approximately one-quarter of SEIU

13 Arizona’s membership is Latino, and its membership also includes other racial minorities.

14 The primary mission of SEIU Arizona is to organize, represent, and empower employees

15 in Arizona. In addition, SEIU Arizona works in partnership with SEIU and other groups

16 to combat discrimination and mobilize for immigration reform at the national level. SB

17 1070’s impact on already distressed county and municipal budgets will harm SEIU

18 Arizona’s members to the extent that it will result in further pay cuts, furloughs, and

19 layoffs. Furthermore, some of SEIU Arizona’s Latino members or their families have

20 already been subjected to stops by local law enforcement where they have been asked to

21 produce proof of immigration status. SEIU Arizona is concerned that its minority

22 members will be even more likely to be stopped, detained, arrested, and questioned by

23 state and local police after SB 1070 goes into effect. This will cause hardship for

24 members of SEIU Arizona. In addition, SEIU Arizona is concerned that members and

25 potential members will be fearful to attend rallies, demonstrations, and union meetings or

26 to engage in leafleting or other traditional labor activities because of the possibility of

-9-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 10 of 61

1 being stopped by the police under SB 1070. This will significantly impact the ability of

2 SEIU Arizona to protect its existing members and to organize new members. SEIU

3 Arizona joins this lawsuit to preserve its ability to organize new members and to protect

4 the rights and interests of its members and prospective members.

5

10. Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers International Union

6 (“UFCW”) represents more than 1.3 million workers, primarily in the retail, meatpacking,

7 food processing, and poultry industries. Within the State of Arizona there are more than

8 21,000 UFCW-represented workers, whose employers include retail food and non-food

9 retail, hospital services, meat packing and food processing, parking services, and legal aid

10 services. The UFCW represents workers who comprise a range of races and ethnicities,

11 with varying degrees of English proficiency, including substantial numbers of Latinos.

12 The UFCW’s mission is to better the terms and conditions of employment for all workers

13 it represents and thereby better the lives of their families and communities. The UFCW

14 accomplishes its mission through organizing, collective bargaining, and representation of

15 employees. These core activities require freedom of association and communication

16 between the union and the employees and among the employees at the worksite and in the

17 community, activities protected by the United States Constitution and federal labor law.

18 If SB 1070 is allowed to go into effect it will impose direct harm to UFCW’s core mission

19 and representational obligations by subjecting UFCW members to unlawful questioning,

20 arrest and detention by state and local law enforcement officers; deterring UFCW-

21 represented workers from attending and participating in UFCW activities; and reducing

22 UFCW’s ability to effectively advocate on behalf of the employees it represents.

23

11. Plaintiff Arizona South Asians For Safe Families (“ASAFSF”) is an

24 organization based in Scottsdale, Arizona whose mission is to increase awareness of

25 domestic violence and provide support services to victims of domestic violence in the

26 South Asian community in Arizona. Established in 2004, ASAFSF’s services include

-10-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 11 of 61

1 providing family advocacy and safety-planning support to domestic violence victims

2 through a toll-free helpline as well as direct services to victims in the form of financial

3 assistance for child care, rent, lawyers’ fees, transportation, and emergent personal needs.

4 ASAFSF’s family advocates often transport victims to court and to medical and legal

5 appointments. ASAFSF also engages in community education, which includes hosting

6 small group meetings with community members. The majority of ASAFSF’s clients are

7 immigrant women, many of whom are eligible for federal immigration relief through the

8 Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”), the Trafficking and Violence Protection Act

9 (“TVPA”), or asylum procedures. SB 1070 will interfere with the organization’s essential

10 mission of providing support services to victims of domestic violence. First, ASAFSF

11 staff and volunteers will be at imminent risk of prosecution under SB 1070’s transporting

12 provisions. Second, ASAFSF will have to re-allocate its very limited resources to ensure

13 that its clients feel safe reporting their experiences to law enforcement or while being

14 transported by ASAFSF advocates. Third, people will not come to its community

15 meetings for fear of being stopped, interrogated, and arrested under SB 1070. ASAFSF

16 believes its clients will be afraid of approaching law enforcement to report crimes or

17 interact with government officials because their appearance, limited English ability, and

18 accents could be used by the police to question their authorization to be in the United

19 States. Plaintiff ASAFSF also fears that local law enforcement will stop and detain clients

20 who have applied for immigration relief under the VAWA, the TVPA, or through the

21 asylum procedures, because they do not have any registration documents that are

22 acceptable under SB 1070, and that potential clients will be discouraged from seeking

23 these services. ASAFSF’s clients and potential clients will be placed at greater risk of

24 physical and mental injury due to SB 1070.

25

12. Plaintiff Southside Presbyterian Church (“Southside”) is a religious institution

26 based in Tucson, Arizona, whose mission is to serve God through worship and sacrament,

-11-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 12 of 61
1 and by following the Bible's admonition to “do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with 2 . . . God.” Southside’s members and leaders believe that the church has been called—in 3 fact, commanded—by God to welcome and serve all people. Southside follows the 4 admonition in Hebrews 13:2: “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers, for by this some 5 have entertained angels unawares.” Southside serves the homeless, the day laborers, its 6 low income neighbors, its own parishioners, and others without regard to race, gender, 7 national origin, religion, or immigration status. Southside’s community is largely 8 comprised of low-income Latino and Native Americans families, although it also includes 9 Caucasians and African Americans. Southside operates a homeless program, a Samaritan 10 program through which parishioners provide assistance for individuals who are in distress 11 in the desert, and an on-premises day laborer center. The day laborers who participate in 12 Southside’s program help run the center and solicit temporary employment by visibly 13 gathering at a public sidewalk outside the church and signaling their availability for work 14 to potential employers. In addition, some of Southside’s religious leaders, staff, and 15 volunteers frequently—and without knowledge of, or regard to, immigration status— 16 transport parishioners and others to religious activities and to medical facilities; they 17 would thus be at risk of being prosecuted pursuant to SB 1070’s transporting and 18 harboring provisions. SB 1070’s criminal prohibitions infringe on Southside’s ability to 19 carry out its religious mission to serve all God's people. Furthermore, Southside depends 20 on its good relationships with police, social workers, and other city and state employees to 21 safeguard church premises and its parishioners, but Southside staff and volunteers fear 22 that these relationships will change after SB 1070 goes into effect. Southside staff and 23 volunteers will be hesitant to approach law enforcement and other authorities to report 24 crimes or speak out as witnesses to crimes because the appearance, native language, and 25 limited English ability of the community members served by Southside can be used by the 26 police to question their authorization to be in the United States and to investigate
-12-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 13 of 61

1 Southside staff and volunteers for potential violations of SB 1070. SB 1070 will frustrate

2 the mission of Southside and divert limited resources to educating and assisting

3 community members who will be affected by SB 1070.

4

13. Plaintiff Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (“AZHCC”) is an

5 association of Latino-owned businesses located throughout the state of Arizona that seek

6 to support, promote, and foster business, cultural, and educational relationships between

7 chamber members and the general public. In addition to serving as a public advocate for

8 its members, AZHCC offers seminars, workshops, marketing, and promotions, as well as

9 networking and sponsorship opportunities for its corporate and community partners.

10 AZHCC has more than 350 business members with employees, many of whom are

11 Latinos, including U.S. citizens, non-citizens, monolingual Spanish speakers, limited

12 English-proficient speakers and individuals who speak English with Mexican and other

13 Spanish-language accents. Because of their appearance, traditional cultural practices, and

14 limited English proficiency, some members of AZHCC and/or their employees fear they

15 will be subject to investigation or unwarranted arrest under Arizona SB 1070. AZHCC

16 members, like all small business owners in Arizona and nationwide, rely on local and state

17 law enforcement to keep their companies safe and some AZHCC members would be

18 deterred from approaching law enforcement to report criminal activity committed against

19 them or others out of fear that the provisions of SB 1070 would subject AZHCC members

20 to unwarranted questioning, detention or arrest. AZHCC members also include non-profit

21 organizations who serve immigrant populations, including noncitizens that do not have

22 federal authorization to be in the United States. The provisions of SB 1070 create new

23 criminal penalties for certain immigrants and non-immigrants associating with immigrants

24 and will cause considerable confusion for AZHCC’s members and other members of the

25 general business community about their potential criminal liability under SB 1070.

26 AZHCC will suffer financial hardship because it will have to divert already limited

-13-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 14 of 61

1 resources from the association's normal activities to educate and inform these groups

2 resulting from the confusion surrounding SB 1070. Finally, since many of AZHCC’s

3 members heavily rely on a U.S.-born minority consumer base that will be reluctant to

4 patronize businesses for fear that they could be harassed by local law enforcement,

5 AZHCC will have to divert resources from other activities to inform and educate this

6 group as well to counter the economic harm caused by SB 1070.

7

14. Plaintiff Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona (“ACC”) is an Arizona

8 organization that brings together a network of Asian-owned businesses throughout the

9 state that seek to support, promote and foster business, cultural and educational

10 relationships between chamber members and the general public. ACC has over 90

11 organizational members. ACC members and their employees, many of whom are also of

12 Asian descent, include U.S. citizens and non-citizens, individuals born in the U.S. and

13 recent immigrants, monolingual non-English speakers, limited English-proficient

14 speakers, and individuals that speak English with an accent. ACC members also include

15 non-profit organizations who serve immigrant populations, including non-citizens who do

16 not have federal authorization to remain in the United States. ACC members often rely on

17 law enforcement to keep their businesses safe and would be deterred from approaching

18 law enforcement to report criminal activity committed against them or others out of fear

19 that SB 1070 would subject ACC members to detention, questioning, or arrest. The

20 provisions of SB 1070 that create new criminal penalties for certain immigrants and

21 persons associating with immigrants will cause considerable confusion for ACC’s

22 members and other members of the general business community about their potential

23 criminal liability under SB 1070. ACC will have to divert its limited resources to

24 addressing this confusion and fear. Finally, since many of its member organizations rely

25 heavily on a minority consumer base that will become reluctant to patronize businesses

26 for fear that they could be harassed by local law enforcement, ACC will have to divert

-14-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 15 of 61

1 resources from other activities to address the considerable confusion and complaints

2 surrounding SB 1070.

3

15. Plaintiff Border Action Network (“BAN”) is a statewide membership

4 organization devoted to protecting the human rights and dignity of immigrant and border

5 communities. BAN builds the political and social capacity of its constituency through

6 grassroots organizing, leadership development, policy advocacy, and educational

7 activities. BAN has over 1,000 members distributed across 6 Arizona counties. The great

8 majority of BAN’s membership is Latino. In addition, BAN has some members who are

9 day laborers who solicit work on public sidewalks and corners. Some of BAN’s

10 members, including its day laborer members, do not have permission to work or remain in

11 the United States. Other BAN members are legal residents or U.S. citizens, and some live

12 in families of mixed immigration status and nationality. BAN is concerned that its

13 members will be stopped, detained, or arrested under SB 1070 due to their appearance or

14 lack of acceptable documents. BAN’s own mission will be frustrated by SB 1070. Its

15 staff frequently buses members to events and organizational functions without regard to

16 their passengers’ immigration status, and they are concerned that this could subject them

17 to prosecution under SB 1070. In addition, BAN will have to divert significant resources

18 to a public education campaign to inform its members about their rights and

19 responsibilities under the new law and address their fears and concerns. Finally, some of

20 BAN’s members have already expressed a desire to leave the state; SB 1070 will make it

21 harder for its staff to maintain its membership base and to recruit new members.

22

16. Plaintiff Tonatierra Community Development Institute (“Tonatierra”) is a

23 nonprofit community-based organization in Phoenix, Arizona that advocates for the

24 cultural, educational, and economic development needs of the indigenous community in

25 Arizona. Some of the families it works with are members of indigenous American Indian

26 tribes who fear that they will be stopped and questioned under SB 1070 if they are not

-15-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 16 of 61

1 carrying tribal identification cards. In addition, Tonatierra operates a day laborer center

2 called Centro Macehualli. The mission of Centro Macehualli is to empower workers and

3 protect them from exploitation. Day laborers who gather at Centro Macehualli are hired

4 by homeowners, small businesses, and construction contractors as independent contractors

5 or employees for temporary work such as gardening, cleaning, child care, moving, and

6 construction. Centro Macehualli does not condition membership and access to its services

7 on immigration status. As such, the Center is open to both citizen and non-citizen day

8 laborers. SB 1070 would frustrate Centro Macehualli’s mission by criminalizing the

9 expressive activity of members who are not authorized by the federal government to work

10 in the United States and chilling the expressive activity of members who are authorized to

11 work. Due to SB 1070, members of Centro Macehualli are refraining, out of fear of

12 prosecution, from indicating their need and availability for work in public areas.

13

17. Plaintiff Muslim American Society (“MAS”) is a charitable, religious, social,

14 cultural, and educational organization with an advocacy arm called the MAS Freedom

15 Foundation (“MASF”). Part of MAS’s mission is to protect the civil rights and liberties of

16 American Muslims. The mission of MASF is to integrate and empower the American

17 Muslim community through civic education, participation, community outreach, and

18 coalition building. MAS and MASF have an office and chapter in Phoenix, Arizona, with

19 over 30 members (“MAS-AZ”), who are also members of MAS. Some of MAS-AZ’s

20 members are immigrants who will be subjected to profiling based on their foreign

21 appearance and clothing, such as headscarves. SB 1070 will thwart the organizational

22 mission of MAS, as MAS-AZ members have already indicated that they will be afraid to

23 attend town hall meetings and its immigration clinic after SB 1070. MAS’s mission to

24 provide community education to the Muslim American community in Arizona will also be

25 thwarted because its target audience will be too afraid to attend meetings and organized

26 activities and events. In addition, MAS-AZ will have to shift scarce organizational

-16-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 17 of 61

1 resources to create new educational materials to protect its members from SB 1070, rather

2 than spend these resources on other areas.

3

18. Plaintiff Japanese American Citizens League (“JACL”) is a membership

4 organization founded in 1929 that works to advance the civil rights of Japanese

5 Americans and others who are victimized by injustice and bigotry. JACL's Arizona

6 chapter ("JACL AZ") has over 300 members, including non-citizen immigrants as well as

7 U.S. citizens and racial minorities. To advance its mission, JACL AZ sponsors public

8 education events, holds membership meetings, conducts outreach to teachers and schools,

9 and works to preserve the history of the Gila and Poston WWII Japanese American

10 concentration camps. JACL AZ collaborates with local city and community agencies to

11 host a monthly senior center. Some JACL AZ members who seek assistance through or

12 participate in its programs lack authorization to remain in the United States; others have

13 only an H1-B visa. JACL believes that even its U.S. citizen members will be profiled

14 under SB 1070. JACL fears that SB 1070 will create fear and confusion, especially for its

15 elderly who were imprisoned in Japanese internment camps. In addition, JACL AZ will

16 need to spend its scarce organizational resources and employ its mostly volunteer staff to

17 create new educational materials to respond to SB 1070.

18

19. Plaintiff Valle del Sol, Inc. is a non-profit organization that has served the

19 Maricopa County community since 1970. Valle del Sol helps thousands of individuals

20 each year by providing extensive behavioral health and social services. The agency

21 provides counseling, substance abuse treatment, prevention services, case management,

22 adult education, advocacy, leadership development, and services for seniors. Valle del

23 Sol’s programs address the increasing social and community needs related to family,

24 substance abuse, civic engagement, cultural diversity, and behavioral health problems. As

25 one of the largest Latino behavioral health and social service organizations in Maricopa

26 County, Valle del Sol’s culturally diverse, bilingual staff provides a wide array of

-17-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 18 of 61

1 programs and services for the entire family. Its mission and the people it serves will be

2 directly affected by SB 1070. Valle del Sol serves a diverse mixture of populations a

3 majority of whom are Latinos. SB 1070 will force Valle del Sol to divert scarce resources

4 from critical programs in order to educate and assist individuals affected by SB 1070.

5 Furthermore, SB 1070 will thwart the mission and organizational goals of Valle del Sol by

6 deterring its clients from seeking the organization’s services because the clients fear

7 interrogation, detention, and arrest under the provisions of SB 1070. Because the

8 agency’s name is in Spanish, there exists a fear by staff that on that basis alone, Valle del

9 Sol may be a target under the provisions of SB 1070.

10

20. Coalición de Derechos Humanos (“Derechos Humanos”) is a grassroots

11 community-service organization based in Tucson, Arizona, whose mission is to promote

12 human rights in the U.S.-Mexico border region. Since 1992, Derechos Humanos has

13 furthered its mission by organizing public education campaigns on issues related to

14 immigration, conducting citizenship workshops for lawful permanent residents and

15 immigrant refugees, and hosting intake clinics through which the organization assists

16 community members—including racial minorities and non-citizen immigrants—who

17 experience law enforcement, workplace, landlord/tenant, and housing discrimination

18 problems. Derechos Humanos offers its services without regard to whether the person is

19 authorized by the federal government to be present in the United States. Derechos

20 Humanos has already been forced to suspend most of its work relating to community

21 education on border deaths and leadership development to respond to inquiries from the

22 community about SB 1070. The fear and confusion created by SB 1070 has also resulted

23 in a dramatic drop in attendance at workshops and events. Community members served

24 by Derechos Humanos are afraid to take steps to protect their rights when it means any

25 interaction with government officials, including trying to protect their rights through the

26 state courts. SB 1070 will frustrate the mission of Derechos Humanos and divert limited

-18-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 19 of 61

1 resources to educating and assisting community members who will be affected by SB

2 1070.

3

Individual Plaintiffs

4

21. Plaintiff Pedro Espinoza is a resident of Tucson, Arizona and a senior in high

5 school. Pedro was brought to the United States by his father, who had a work visa, when

6 Pedro was only a few months old. He has lived in Arizona ever since. When Pedro was

7 four years old, his father, who had been petitioning for Pedro to become a legal resident,

8 passed away. His grandmother then took over the immigration petition process, but she

9 eventually passed away too before the application could be approved. In November 2010,

10 when Pedro was riding his bicycle home from his girlfriend’s house, he was pulled over

11 by police officers for not having a bicycle light. The officers started to ask questions

12 about his identity and, when he could only produce a student ID, they arrested him and

13 took him to jail. At the jail, detention officers interrogated him about his immigration

14 status. He was held there for two days before being transferred to Immigration and

15 Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody and placed in deportation proceedings. Pedro is a

16 model student who hopes to go to college and study medicine one day. He is active in his

17 community, volunteers with the Salvation Army and attends church each Sunday. Many

18 community members helped raise money to pay for Pedro’s bond so that he could be

19 released from detention while his deportation proceedings are underway. He is now back

20 home, but does not have any identification (other than his student ID) or registration

21 document. Because of SB 1070, Pedro fears that he could be stopped by state or local law

22 enforcement officers and would be detained all over again because he does not have an

23 identification or registration document that local law enforcement officials would

24 recognize, even though the federal government is already aware of his presence in the

25 United States and he is currently in deportation proceedings.

26

-19-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 20 of 61

1

22. Plaintiff C.M., a minor,1 is a resident of Gilbert, Arizona and a freshman in

2 high school. She is originally from Haiti and, due to the recent earthquake there, has been

3 granted Temporary Protected Status in the United States. C.M. is 15 years old but is often

4 told that she looks 18. C.M. does not carry any documents proving that she has

5 permission to be in the United States. However, she recently asked her mother to obtain

6 an Arizona non-driver’s identification for her after she learned about SB 1070. She was

7 afraid that she would be stopped and questioned about her immigration status due to her

8 dark skin and the fact that she speaks a foreign language. She is nervous about speaking

9 Haitian Creole with her friends and believes that it could get her in trouble with the police

10 under SB 1070.

11

23. Plaintiff Luz Santiago is a pastor for a church in Mesa, Arizona. She is a U.S.

12 citizen, Latina, and fluent in Spanish. Approximately 80 percent of her congregation

13 lacks authorization by the federal government to remain in the United States. In her role

14 as a pastor, Ms. Santiago provides transportation and shelter to members of her

15 congregation on a daily basis, including those members who are not authorized by the

16 federal government to remain in the United States. Ms. Santiago assists members of her

17 congregation by driving them to court, doctor’s appointments, urgent care, the grocery

18 store, and school. Once a month, she also transports the youth in her congregation to

19 spiritual outings. Ms. Santiago also provides shelter to persons who seek sanctuary in her

20 church and runs a food bank that does not screen for authorization by the federal

21 government to remain in the United States. Ms. Santiago fears for the well-being of

22 vulnerable congregation members who could be stopped, detained, arrested, and

23 questioned under SB 1070. In addition, she believes that people will stop seeking help

24 from the food bank because of SB 1070. Ms. Santiago is concerned that she could be

25

26

1 C.M. is a minor and does not waive the protection of Rule 5.2(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, only her initials shall be listed in any filing made in

connection with this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(3).

-20-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 21 of 61

1 subject to prosecution under the transporting and harboring provisions of SB 1070 for

2 performing work that is central to her role as a religious leader.

3

24. Plaintiff Jim Shee is an elderly resident of Litchfield Park, Arizona. He is a

4 U.S. citizen of Spanish and Chinese descent, is fluent in Spanish, and has lived in Arizona

5 his entire life. Over the past month, Mr. Shee has been stopped twice by local police in

6 Arizona and asked to produce identification documents. On or about April 6, 2010, Mr.

7 Shee was stopped and questioned on the way to his birthday party by a City of Phoenix

8 police officer who demanded to see his “papers.” He was not given a citation. On or

9 about April 16, 2010, Mr. Shee was stopped by a highway patrol officer with the Arizona

10 Department of Public Safety in Yuma, Arizona. The officer made a U-turn, activated his

11 emergency lights, stopped Mr. Shee and asked to see his “papers.” If SB 1070 goes into

12 effect, Mr. Shee fears that he will be at even greater risk of being stopped and questioned

13 by Arizona law enforcement officials based on his appearance. He fears that he will be

14 detained because he will be unable to prove to an officer that he is a U.S. citizen. Mr.

15 Shee does not wish to carry his passport with him at all times because he is afraid of

16 losing it.

17

25. Plaintiff Jose Angel Vargas is a resident of Phoenix, Arizona and is a lawful

18 permanent resident of the United States. He speaks Spanish fluently but not English. Mr.

19 Vargas is a member of Tonatierra’s Centro Macehualli. He has lawfully and peacefully

20 solicited work at Centro Macehualli and on public street corners. Mr. Vargas would like

21 to continue soliciting work in public places; however, he is very worried that he will be

22 detained by the police under SB 1070 due to his Latino appearance, the fact that he cannot

23 communicate with a police officer in English, and because he solicits work alongside

24 others who do not have authorization to work in the United States. He was already

25 arrested for trespassing once before in Arizona, in March 2009, while soliciting work on a

26

-21-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 22 of 61

1 corner near 25th Street and Bell Road in North Phoenix. While the charges were dropped

2 shortly thereafter, Mr. Vargas continues to be fearful of encounters with the police.

3

26. Plaintiff Maura Castillo is a resident of Chandler, Arizona and a lawful

4 permanent resident of the United States. She speaks Spanish and can understand some

5 English; however, she speaks very little English. Ms. Castillo is originally from Mexico

6 and appears Latina. On August 10, 2010, Ms. Castillo was driving with a friend on

7 Interstate 10 when she was stopped by an officer with the Arizona Department of Public

8 Safety. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer asked Ms. Castillo for her driver’s

9 license, registration and insurance. He also asked Ms. Castillo for a “passport or visa.”

10 He did not inform Ms. Castillo why she had been stopped. Because Ms. Castillo had

11 recently had her Arizona driver’s license stolen, she presented a driver’s license from

12 Mexico. When she failed to provide the immigration documents and instead asked the

13 officer if he was from “immigration,” the officer arrested Ms. Castillo by forcefully

14 wrestling her out of her vehicle. The officer pushed Ms. Castillo to the ground, injuring

15 her shoulder. Later, when Ms. Castillo was in handcuffs in the back of the patrol vehicle,

16 the officer learned that Ms. Castillo’s license had been suspended in connection with a

17 civil traffic proceeding (this was also the first time Ms. Castillo learned of the

18 suspension). Ms. Castillo was booked into the Maricopa County Jail for driving on a

19 suspended license and resisting arrest. At the Jail, however, after officials confirmed that

20 she was lawfully in the country, the arresting officer told Ms. Castillo that he would not

21 have arrested her if she had just cooperated and “shown him her documents.” Shortly

22 thereafter, Ms. Castillo’s case was scratched because no criminal complaint was ever

23 filed. Plaintiff Castillo experienced great trauma from this incident and fears that SB

24 1070 puts her at greater risk of being stopped and questioned about her immigration status

25 again due to her appearance and limited English ability.

26

-22-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 23 of 61

1

27. Plaintiff Maria Morales is a resident of Casa Grande, Arizona. She is lawful

2 permanent resident of the United States. Ms. Morales lives in a neighborhood that is

3 predominantly Mexican and speaks English with a heavy accent. On November 15, 2010,

4 while returning home to meet her son after school, she was pulled over by an officer with

5 the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office, apparently for rolling through a stop sign (Ms. Morales

6 denies this and remembers having made a complete stop at the intersection). However,

7 when Ms. Morales asked the officer why she had been pulled over, he refused to tell her.

8 The officer simply demanded that she produce identification. Ms. Morales reached into

9 her wallet and pulled out an Arizona Identification Card so that it was visible to the officer

10 and asked again why she had been stopped. At that point, the officer removed Ms.

11 Morales from her vehicle and placed her under arrest. He confiscated her ID and cell

12 phone, and searched her car. Even though the officer was able to verify that her ID was

13 valid, he had her vehicle towed and transported her to jail anyway. Only after the tow

14 truck had left did he allow Ms. Morales to call her husband to make alternative

15 arrangements to pick up her son. At the jail, a 287g certified officer confirmed that Ms.

16 Morales was a legal resident. He asked her why she didn’t tell the arresting officer she

17 was resident and admonished her for not carrying her resident alien card. Ms. Morales

18 was not released until the next day. Her criminal case was dismissed and she was never

19 cited for any stop sign violation. Ms. Morales should not have been arrested. She fears

20 that this kind of harassment and endless investigations into her legal status will occur

21 under SB 1070 because of where she lives, her Hispanic appearance, and her limited

22 English ability.

23

28. Plaintiff John Doe #1 is a resident of Phoenix, Arizona. He is Chinese and a

24 lawful permanent resident of the United States. He received his permanent resident status

25 in 2008 after being granted asylum on the basis of political persecution by the government

26 of the People’s Republic of China. John Doe #1 has spent the last three years building a

-23-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 24 of 61

1 new life here and currently works as a waiter in a Chinese restaurant. John Doe #1 speaks

2 Chinese and his English is very limited. If SB 1070 goes into effect, he fears that he will

3 be stopped by state or local law enforcement officers and questioned about his

4 immigration status on the basis of his Asian appearance and accent. John Doe #1 is afraid

5 of interacting with government officials in his native language because it could prompt

6 them to question him about his authorization to be in the United States. John Doe #1 also

7 understands that he will be detained if he is stopped without his green card. Due to his

8 experience as a victim of official persecution, this possibility is extremely distressing to

9 John Doe #1.

10

29. Plaintiff Jane Doe #3 is a resident of Tucson, Arizona. She is of Mexican

11 descent, and speaks Spanish and very limited English. She has two children to whom she

12 provides economic and housing support; a daughter who is 21 years old, and a son that is

13 18 years old. In 2009, Jane Doe #3 started spending time with a man who mentally

14 abused her during their relationship. When she tried to end the relationship, he slashed

15 her tires, and later broke into her apartment several times and destroyed her furniture, her

16 clothes, and defaced the apartment walls. Due to his violent acts, she became afraid for

17 her life and for her two children. Jane Doe #3 has recently filed her application for a U-

18 Visa based on her status as a violent crime victim, but she does not currently have a

19 registration document that would satisfy the registration provisions of SB 1070. Because

20 she has filed her U-Visa application with the federal government, immigration authorities

21 are aware of her presence in the country, but are not moving to initiate removal

22 proceedings against her. Although Jane Doe #3 does have a copy of her U-Visa filing

23 receipt, she is fearful that state or local law enforcement would not understand the

24 importance of the document. Plaintiff Jane Doe #3 fears that, were the enjoined

25 provisions of SB 1070 to take effect, she would be stopped, detained, and arrested by a

26

-24-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 25 of 61

1 state or local law enforcement officer due to her Latino appearance and the fact that she

2 speaks limited English, and only with an accent.

3

Defendants

4

30. Defendant Michael B. Whiting is the County Attorney of Apache County,

5 Arizona. According to Arizona law, the “county attorney is the public prosecutor of the

6 county and shall . . . conduct, on behalf of the state, all prosecutions for public offenses.”

7 Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 11-532(A). As such, Defendant Whiting is

8 responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070 within Apache County. Defendant Whiting is

9 sued in his official capacity.

10

31. Defendant Edward G. Rheinheimer is the County Attorney of Cochise County,

11 Arizona. As such, Defendant Rheinheimer is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070

12 within Cochise County. Defendant Rheinheimer is sued in his official capacity.

13

32. Defendant David W. Rozema is the County Attorney of Coconino County,

14 Arizona. As such, Defendant Rozema is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070

15 within Coconino County. Defendant Rozema is sued in his official capacity.

16

33. Defendant Daisy Flores is the County Attorney of Gila County, Arizona. As

17 such, Defendant Flores is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070 within Gila County.

18 Defendant Flores is sued in her official capacity.

19

34. Defendant Kenny Angle is the County Attorney of Graham County, Arizona.

20 As such, Defendant Angle is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070 within Graham

21 County. Defendant Angle is sued in his official capacity.

22

35. Defendant Derek D. Rapier is the County Attorney of Greenlee County,

23 Arizona. As such, Defendant Rapier is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070 within

24 Greenlee County. Defendant Rapier is sued in his official capacity.

25

26

-25-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 26 of 61

1

36. Defendant Sam Vederman is the County Attorney of La Paz County, Arizona.

2 As such, Defendant Vederman is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070 within La

3 Paz County. Defendant Vederman is sued in his official capacity.

4

37. Defendant Richard M. Romley is the County Attorney of Maricopa County,

5 Arizona. As such, Defendant Romley is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070

6 within Maricopa County. Defendant Romley is sued in his official capacity.

7

38. Defendant Matthew J. Smith is the County Attorney of Mohave County,

8 Arizona. As such, Defendant Matthew Smith is responsible for the enforcement of SB

9 1070 within Mohave County. Defendant Matthew Smith is sued in his official capacity.

10

39. Defendant Bradley Carlyon is the County Attorney of Navajo County,

11 Arizona. As such, Defendant Carlyon is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070

12 within Navajo County. Defendant Carlyon is sued in his official capacity.

13

40. Defendant Barbara LaWall is the County Attorney of Pima County, Arizona.

14 As such, Defendant LaWall is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070 within Pima

15 County. Defendant LaWall is sued in her official capacity.

16

41. Defendant James P. Walsh is the County Attorney of Pinal County, Arizona.

17 As such, Defendant Walsh is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070 within Pinal

18 County. Defendant Walsh is sued in his official capacity.

19

42. Defendant George Silva is the County Attorney of Santa Cruz County,

20 Arizona. As such, Defendant Silva is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070 within

21 Santa Cruz County. Defendant Silva is sued in his official capacity.

22

43. Defendant Sheila S. Polk is the County Attorney of Yavapai County, Arizona.

23 As such, Defendant Polk is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070 within Yavapai

24 County. Defendant Polk is sued in her official capacity.

25

26

-26-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 27 of 61

1

44. Defendant Jon R. Smith is the County Attorney of Yuma County, Arizona. As

2 such, Defendant Smith is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070 within Yuma

3 County. Defendant Jon Smith is sued in his official capacity.

4

45. Defendant Sheriff Joseph Dedman, Jr. is the County Sheriff of Apache County,

5 Arizona. According to Arizona law, the “sheriff shall . . . arrest and take before the nearest

6 magistrate for examination all persons who attempt to commit or who have committed a

7 public offense.” A.R.S. § 11-441. As such, Defendant Dedman is responsible for the

8 enforcement of SB 1070 within Apache County. Defendant Dedman is sued in his official

9 capacity.

10

46. Defendant Sheriff Larry A. Dever is the County Sheriff of Cochise County,

11 Arizona. As such, Defendant Dever is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070 in

12 Cochise County. Defendant Dever is sued in his official capacity.

13

47. Defendant Sheriff Bill Pribil is the County Sheriff of Coconino County,

14 Arizona. As such, Defendant Pribil is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070 within

15 Coconino County. Defendant Pribil is sued in his official capacity.

16

48. Defendant Sheriff John R. Armer is the County Sheriff of Gila County,

17 Arizona. As such, Defendant Armer is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070 within

18 Gila County. Defendant Armer is sued in his official capacity.

19

49. Defendant Sheriff Preston J. Allred is the County Sheriff of Graham County,

20 Arizona. As such, Defendant Allred is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070 within

21 Graham County. Defendant Allred is sued in his official capacity.

22

50. Defendant Sheriff Steven N. Tucker is the County Sheriff of Greenlee County,

23 Arizona. As such, Defendant Tucker is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070 within

24 Greenlee County. Defendant Tucker is sued in his official capacity.

25

26

-27-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 28 of 61

1

51. Defendant Sheriff Donald Lowery is the County Sheriff of La Paz County,

2 Arizona. As such, Defendant Lowery is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070

3 within La Paz County. Defendant Lowery is sued in his official capacity.

4

52. Defendant Sheriff Joseph Arpaio is the County Sheriff of Maricopa County,

5 Arizona. As such, Defendant Arpaio is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070 within

6 Maricopa County. Defendant Arpaio is sued in his official capacity.

7

53. Defendant Sheriff Tom Sheahan is the County Sheriff of Mohave County,

8 Arizona. As such, Defendant Sheahan is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070

9 within Mohave County. Defendant Sheahan is sued in his official capacity.

10

54. Defendant Sheriff Kelly Clark is the County Sheriff of Navajo County,

11 Arizona. As such, Defendant Clark is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070 within

12 Navajo County. Defendant Clark is sued in his official capacity.

13

55. Defendant Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik is the County Sheriff of Pima County,

14 Arizona. As such, Defendant Dupnik is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070 in

15 Pima County. Defendant Dupnik is sued in his official capacity.

16

56. Defendant Sheriff Paul Babeu is the County Sheriff of Pinal County, Arizona.

17 As such, Defendant Babeu is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070 within Pinal

18 County. Defendant Babeu is sued in his official capacity.

19

57. Defendant Sheriff Tony Estrada is the County Sheriff of Santa Cruz County,

20 Arizona. As such, Defendant Estrada is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070 in

21 Santa Cruz County. Defendant Estrada is sued in his official capacity.

22

58. Defendant Sheriff Steve Waugh is the County Sheriff of Yavapai County,

23 Arizona. As such, Defendant Waugh is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070 within

24 Yavapai County. Defendant Waugh is sued in his official capacity.

25

26

-28-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 29 of 61

1

59. Defendant Sheriff Ralph Ogden is the County Sheriff of Yuma County,

2 Arizona. As such, Defendant Ogden is responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070 within

3 Yuma County. Defendant Ogden is sued in his official capacity.

4

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

5

History and Intent of SB 1070

6

60. On April 19, 2010, the Arizona Legislature enacted SB 1070, a comprehensive

7 system of state laws whose purpose is to “make attrition through enforcement the public

8 policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona” and to deter and punish “the

9 unlawful entry and presence of aliens.” SB 1070 creates several new state criminal

10 immigration offenses as well as criminal procedures relating to the investigation, seizure,

11 and detention of persons suspected of federal immigration violations. The full text of SB

12 1070 is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference.

13

61. In enacting SB 1070, Arizona decided to express its dissatisfaction with federal

14 immigration policy by legislating in an area reserved for the federal government.

15

62. On April 23, 2010, Governor Janice Brewer signed SB 1070 into law. In her

16 signing statement, the Governor said that SB 1070 “represents another tool for our state to

17 use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused

18 to fix.” Statement by Governor Janice K. Brewer (Apr. 23, 2010), available at

19 http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_042310_StatementByGovernorOnSB1070.pdf.

20 Governor Brewer also criticized “decades of federal inaction and misguided policy....” Id.

21

63. On April 30, 2010, Governor Brewer signed into law House Bill 2162 (“HB

22 2162”), which further amends sections of the A.R.S. created by SB 1070. The full text of

23 HB 2162 is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated by reference.

24

64. In her signing statement on HB 2162, the Governor again indicated that SB

25 1070 is intended to empower the State of Arizona to take the place of the federal

26 government in regulating immigration, stating that “[t]he federal government’s failure

-29-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 30 of 61

1 requires us to act.” Statement by Governor Janice K. Brewer (Apr. 30, 2010), available

2 at http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_043010_StatementGovBrewer.pdf.

3

65. The sponsors of SB 1070 intended for it to create a statewide regulation of

4 immigration. SB 1070’s author, State Senator Russell Pearce, has touted SB 1070 as a

5 means to achieve the “self-deportation” of undocumented immigrants in the state.

6 Lawmaker Wants Special Session to Enact AZ Style Immigration Law, KLAS-TV-CBS

7 NEWS, May 3, 2010, available at http://www.8newsnow.com/Global/story.asp?

8 S=12419197. Another sponsor of SB 1070, State Representative David Gowan, stated

9 that SB 1070 was needed because “[t]he federal government has failed in helping this

10 state seal its borders.” Jeffrey Kaye, U.S. Congress and Arizona Deliver One-Two Punch

11 to Immigrants, THE HUFFINGTON POST, Apr. 15, 2010, available at http://www.

12 huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-kaye/us-congress-and-arizona-d_b_538369.html.

13

66. The enactment of SB 1070 was surrounded by a racially charged debate over

14 the wisdom of adopting such a law. In the weeks leading up to passage of the bill,

15 protestors and advocates on both sides of the issue held rallies, issued statements, debated

16 in national media, and bombarded the Governor’s office with e-mails and phone calls.

17 Alia Beard Rau and Ginger Rough, Ariz. Lawmakers Pass Toughest Illegal Immigration

18 Law in U.S., ARIZ. REPUBLIC, Apr. 19, 2010, available at http://www.azcentral.com/

19 news/articles/2010/04/19/20100419arizona-immigration-bill-passes.html

20 #ixzz0njXHPCzs.

21

67. “We are going to look like Alabama in the ’60s,” declared State Representative

22 Bill Konopnicki, Republican of Yuma. Randal Archibold, Immigration Bill Reflects a 23 Firebrand’s Impact, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 19, 2010, available at http://www.nytimes.com/

24 2010/04/20/us/20immig.html.

25

68. Arizona State Senator Richard Miranda asserted, “This bill . . . leads to a

26 greater possibility of racial profiling. This is not just if you are Latino or Hispanic —

-30-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 31 of 61

1 anyone of color may be subject to racial profiling.” Robert Miranda, Ariz. Law Unfair to

2 Latinos, Hispanics, DAILY 49ER, May 2, 2010, available at http://www.daily49er.com/

3 opinion/ariz-law-unfair-to-latinos-hispanics-1.2256742.

4

69. The sponsor of SB 1070, Senator Russell Pearce, has sponsored legislation

5 across a broad range of subjects that are related to issues of race and national origin in

6 Arizona, including a recently-enacted bill intended to ban the Raza Studies program in the

7 Tucson Unified School District. Mary Jo Pitzl, Arizona Bill Targets Ban on Ethnic

8 Studies, ARIZ. REPUBLIC, May 1, 2010, available at http://www.azcentral.com/news/

9 articles/2010/05/01/20100501arizona-bill-bans-ethnic-studies.html. In 2006, Senator

10 Pearce drew fire for racially insensitive remarks and distributing an article from a white

11 separatist group and a link to that group’s website. To his supporters, Mr. Pearce

12 forwarded an email that accused the media of promoting “a world in which every voice

13 proclaims the equality of the races [and] the wickedness of attempting to halt the flood of

14 nonwhite aliens pouring across the borders.” Ariz. Lawmaker In Hot Water Over Article,

15 CHARLESTON GAZETTE & DAILY MAIL, Oct. 12, 2006.

16

70. Senator Pearce has called for reinstatement of a program of mass deportation

17 of Mexicans and Mexican Americans, declaring: “We know what we need to do. In

18 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower put together a task force called ‘Operation Wetback.’ He

19 removed, in less than a year, 1.3 million illegal aliens. They must be deported.” Sarah

20 Lynch, Pearce calls on Operation Wetback for Illegals, EAST VALLEY TRIBUNE, Sept. 29,

21 2006. Mr. Pearce has admitted feeling uncomfortable with the way society is changing in

22 Arizona, and attributed a rise in violent crime to Mexicans’ and Central Americans’ “way

23 of doing business.” He described the arrival of immigrants in Arizona as an attack by

24 foreigners: “I will not back off until we solve the problem of this illegal invasion.

25 Invaders, that’s what they are. Invaders on the American sovereignty and it can’t be 26 tolerated.” Ted Robbins, The Man Behind Arizona’s Toughest Immigrant Laws,

-31-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 32 of 61

1 NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, May 19, 2008, available at http://www.npr.org/templates/

2 story/story.php?storyId=88125098.

3

71. Following signing of the bill by Governor Brewer, the largest newspaper in

4 Tucson lamented that SB 1070 was “a law that portrays the state as a place hostile to any

5 kind of non-white person.” Editorial, Law Creates Fear, Undermines Public Safety, Ariz.

6 Daily Star, May 7, 2010, available at http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/editorial/

7 article_59a4769c-cc60-5618-873a-9e083c643e99.html.

8

72. SB 1070 has caused racial tensions because it is widely understood that it is

9 motivated by and will result in discrimination against Latinos and other racial minorities

10 in Arizona on the basis of their race and national origin.

11

Key Provisions of SB 1070

12 Requirement to investigate, determine, and punish status

13

73. SB 1070’s numerous provisions create a comprehensive state-law system of

14 immigration regulation and enforcement that will: (1) require police to investigate and

15 determine who may remain in the United States; (2) erect a state immigration registration

16 and punishment scheme by creating state crimes and criminal penalties relating to alien

17 registration, immigration status, and work authorization; and (3) require police to arrest

18 and detain individuals and transfer them to federal authorities based merely on a belief

19 that they have violated federal civil immigration laws, when state and local officers are

20 not competent to make such a determination or authorized to make it under federal law.

21

74. SB 1070 requires Arizona police, Arizona jails, and Arizona courts to detect,

22 adjudge, punish, and facilitate the deportation of individuals who, in Arizona’s view, are

23 not entitled to remain in the United States. SB 1070 makes Arizona a legal island within

24 the United States with separate immigration rules that do not apply in the other 49 states

25 and that are contrary to and inconsistent with the federal Immigration and Nationality Act

26

-32-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 33 of 61

1 (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq., and federal implementing regulations and policies, 8

2 C.F.R. §§ 100.1 et seq.

3

75. SB 1070’s attempt to create Arizona-specific laws and enforcement

4 mechanisms relating to immigration is an impermissible attempt to regulate immigration.

5

76. SB 1070’s immigration regime also fundamentally conflicts with federal

6 immigration law and legislates in fields occupied by such law.

7

77. SB 1070 as amended compels police officers to make immigration status

8 determinations and to detain individuals based on a “reasonable suspicion” standard that is

9 unworkable and cannot be applied by state and local officers; that requires impermissible

10 reliance on race, national origin, and language; and that impermissibly burdens and

11 interferes with the rights of lawful permanent resident immigrants and citizens in the State

12 of Arizona.

13

78. As amended by HB 2162, Section 2 of SB 1070 creates a new section of the

14 A.R.S., § 11-1051, which requires a police officer who has conducted a “lawful stop,

15 detention or arrest . . . in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city

16 or town or [the State of Arizona]” to make a “reasonable attempt” to determine the

17 immigration status of the person who has been stopped, detained or arrested, whenever

18 “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present.” A.R.S.

19 § 11-1051(B).

20

79. The new statute, as amended by HB 2162, also requires that “[a]ny person who

21 is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is

22 released.” A.R.S. § 11-1051(B). This section requires the continued detention of an

23 individual even if the sole reason for detention is status verification.

24

80. Section 2 of SB 1070 also authorizes officers to detain and transport a person

25 who is determined by the officer to be an unauthorized immigrant to a federal facility,

26 including a facility outside the officers’ jurisdiction, upon receiving verification from

-33-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 34 of 61

1 federal authorities that the person is “unlawfully present.” A.R.S. § 11-1051(D). This

2 section does not require an officer to have any other justification under state law to detain

3 the individual.

4

81. Section 2 of SB 1070 imposes a standard that is unworkable and preempted by

5 federal law. The law requires state or local officers to attempt to determine immigration

6 status, which must be determined through a federal administrative system applying

7 complex federal statutes and regulations, and which is based upon historical facts about an

8 individual that are not observable by an officer in the field.

9

82. Section 2 imposes an impermissible restriction and burden on speech by

10 chilling the usage of words, accents, gestures, and other expressive speech.

11

83. Specifically, Section 2 restricts, suppresses, burdens, and chills speech,

12 expressive conduct, and the right to petition the government—including particularly the

13 courts and law enforcement authorities—because the law exposes speakers to scrutiny,

14 detention, and/or arrest based on the identity of the speakers and the content of their

15 speech, including the speaker's appearance, associations, and the language or accent being

16 used by the speaker, for purposes of determining whether the speaker is “unlawfully

17 present” or has committed a “public offense that makes [him or her] removable.” Both

18 citizens and non-citizens may be chilled from communicating with the courts and law

19 enforcement officials out of fear that they will be detained and/or arrested pursuant to SB

20 1070.

21

84. For example, Plaintiff John Doe #1 is a resident of Phoenix, Arizona, and a

22 legal permanent resident. His English proficiency is extremely limited and he speaks

23 English with a noticeable accent. He fears that he will be targeted pursuant to SB 1070

24 based on the language in which he expresses himself.

25

85. Section 2 impermissibly vests in police officers unbridled discretion to base

26 their “reasonable suspicion” that a “person is an alien and is unlawfully present” on the

-34-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 35 of 61

1 content of the person’s expressive conduct. Nothing in Section 2 forbids a police officer

2 from developing a “reasonable suspicion” that a person “is an alien” and/or “is unlawfully

3 present” based solely on that person’s gestures, language, accent, clothing, English-word

4 selection, failure to communicate in English, and/or other expressive conduct—all of

5 which is pure speech protected by the First Amendment. Indeed, Section 2 invites a

6 police officer to decide that a person is “an alien” because the person “acts” foreign or

7 fails to “act” American—or to decide that a person is “unlawfully present” because the

8 person “acts” like someone from a country the officer believes to be a source of

9 “unlawfully present” immigrants.

10

86. SB 1070 functions as an impermissible prior restraint on speech because a

11 speaker wishing to avoid being stopped, questioned, detained, arrested, jailed, and/or

12 threatened with civil or criminal liability must be prepared to prove that he or she is not

13 “unlawfully present” or cease engaging in protected speech and expressive conduct.

14

87. Section 2 permits warrantless seizures of individuals without probable cause

15 that they have committed crimes.

16

88. Section 2 authorizes the warrantless search of an individual in any setting,

17 including the individual’s home.

18

89. Section 2 furthermore permits local and state law enforcement officials to seize

19 and detain individuals, pending determination of their immigration status, without

20 providing for any process to ensure the constitutionality of the detention and seizure.

21

22 Arrest, detention, and transfer provisions

23

90. Section 6 of SB 1070 amends Arizona’s state law on warrantless arrests,

24 A.R.S. § 13-3883, to allow for the warrantless arrest of a person when an officer has

25 probable cause to believe that the person has committed “any public offense that makes

26 the person removable from the United States.” A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5). This provision

-35-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 36 of 61

1 requires local law enforcement officers to do what they are not equipped or authorized to

2 do: make determinations about which “public offenses” make immigrants “removable”

3 from the United States, determine an alleged offender’s immigration status, and make

4 warrantless arrests solely for suspected violations of civil immigration laws, without

5 regard to whether the federal government has authorized any such arrest or detention.

6

91. Section 6 of SB 1070 permits warrantless arrests by a state or local officer

7 based on a standard that is unworkable and preempted by federal law. Whether an

8 individual is “removable from the United States” is determined through a federal

9 administrative system and application of complex federal statutes and regulations, and is

10 based upon historical facts about an individual. This determination cannot be made by a

11 state or local law enforcement officer.

12

92. Section 6 provides no explanation or other sufficient guidance for individuals

13 as to the meaning of “public offense that makes the person removable from the United

14 States.” This provision will cause warrantless seizures of individuals without probable

15 cause that they have committed crimes.

16

93. The broad sweep of Section 6 which allows for warrantless arrests of any

17 person whom a law enforcement officer suspects of having committed a “public offense

18 that makes the person removable from the United States” fails to provide minimal

19 guidelines to govern law enforcement in who they can and cannot arrest.

20

94. Section 6 authorizes the warrantless arrest of an individual in any setting,

21 including the individual’s home.

22

95. Section 6 furthermore permits local and state law enforcement officials to

23 detain and transport individuals to federal facilities in the state, without providing for any

24 process to ensure the constitutionality of the detention.

25 New state criminal provisions relating to immigration status and to work authorization

26

-36-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 37 of 61

1

96. Section 3 of SB 1070, as amended by HB 2162, enacts a state immigration

2 registration and penalty scheme in an area that Congress has exclusively regulated. SB

3 1070 conflicts with federal law and enforcement priorities, burdens the enforcement of

4 federal law and is an obstacle to federal immigration enforcement and prosecution

5 policies. Specifically, SB 1070 creates a new state criminal offense of “willful failure to

6 complete or carry an alien registration document.” A.R.S. § 13-1509. The primary

7 element of the offense is that the person “is in violation of 8 United States Code section

8 1304(e) or 1306(a),” federal statutes that impose certain requirements that non-citizens

9 register with the federal government and carry registration documents. Under SB 1070,

10 the first offense is deemed a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $100 and

11 up to 20 days of jail time. A.R.S. § 13-1509(H). Subsequent offenses are punishable by

12 up to 30 days of jail time. Id.

13

97. The purpose of the state registration provision is to punish immigrants with

14 incarceration or to compel the initiation of federal immigration removal proceedings

15 without regard to federal determinations and policies. State Senator Russell Pearce, chief

16 sponsor of SB 1070, has stated that this provision of SB 1070 is intended to give law

17 enforcement officers an additional means by which to “hold an illegal alien under state

18 law if need be or just call ICE and turn them over to ICE.” See Message From Sen.

19 Russell Pearce (Mar. 24, 2010), available at http://www.maricopagop.org/2010/03/

20 24/legislative-alert-hb-2632-and-sb1070/#more-1962.

21

98. Section 5 of SB 1070 defines new state crimes based on the solicitation and

22 performance of work by individuals who lack federal work authorization. A.R.S. § 13-

23 2928. This section makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor for anyone who attempts to hire or

24 pick up day laborers to work at a different location, if the driver is impeding the normal

25 flow of traffic. A.R.S. § 13-2928(A). This section also makes it a misdemeanor offense

26 for a worker to get into a car if it is impeding traffic. A.R.S. § 13-2928(B). The statute

-37-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 38 of 61

1 also makes it a state crime for a person who “is unlawfully present in the United States

2 and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public

3 place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in this state.” A.R.S. §

4 13-2928(C).

5

99. Section 5 of SB 1070 creates a content-based regulation of protected speech.

6

100. Section 5 prohibits and regulates speech soliciting “work in a public place”

7 (emphasis added) through verbal or nonverbal communication by a gesture or nod,

8 making it a crime for certain individuals to do so, while speech of a different content, even

9 if expressed in the same time, place, and manner, is not so proscribed.

10

101. Section 5 prohibits the expression of availability to work in any “public place,”

11 including traditional public fora such as public streets, sidewalks, and parks.

12

102. Section 5 fails to define what constitutes “work,” covering such innocuous

13 activity as artists offering to paint portraits in a public park and students conducting a car-

14 wash. Section 5 contains an impermissibly vague definition of “solicit” as it includes all

15 verbal communication without qualification and brings within its reach “nonverbal

16 communication by a gesture or nod.” Section 5 also requires that the “communication . . .

17 indicate to a reasonable person that a person is willing to be employed,” which is so vague

18 as to be unenforceable, and could criminalize conduct, such as waving to a friend, which

19 is not, in fact, soliciting work.

20

103. Arizona does not have a compelling or significant governmental interest in

21 regulating speech and expression in the content-based manner employed by SB 1070. Nor

22 is SB 1070 the least restrictive means to further any such interest.

23

104. Section 5 also makes it unlawful for a person who is “unlawfully present” in

24 the United States and who is unauthorized to work to solicit work in a public place or to

25 knowingly apply for work regardless of whether any employment or business relationship

26 is entered into.

-38-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 39 of 61

1

105. Since the work of day laborers is by definition temporary and informal, day

2 laborers and the contractors who hire them do not find each other through conventional

3 advertising of availability. Rather, day laborers signal their availability for work by

4 visibly gathering in public areas such as sidewalks or parking lots and gesturing to

5 potential employers.

6

106. Many persons, including members of Tonatierra’s Centro Macehualli, persons

7 who participate in Southside’s day laborer program, members of Border Action Network,

8 and Plaintiff Jose Vargas have previously expressed their desire, need, and availability for

9 employment to persons in vehicles on the street, while peacefully standing on a public

10 way, and have obtained lawful employment performing services such as gardening,

11 moving, and light construction. These individuals and other day laborers wish to continue

12 to engage in such expressive activity on sidewalks and other public areas in Arizona to

13 indicate their need and availability to work. Indeed, for many, day labor is a critical, and

14 oftentimes the only available means to obtain work. However, individuals fear doing so

15 in the same manner as they have in the past because A.R.S. §§ 13-2928(C) and (D)

16 subject them to the danger of arrest, fines, and other penalties should they engage in such

17 expression.

18

107. Section 5 of SB 1070 also creates several new state criminal laws prohibiting

19 the transporting, moving, concealing or harboring of unauthorized immigrants. A.R.S. §§

20 13-2929(A)(1) and (2). This section also makes it a crime to “encourage or induce an

21 alien to come to or reside in [Arizona]” with knowledge or reckless disregard of the fact

22 that “such coming to, entering or residing in this state is or will be in violation of law.”

23 A.R.S. § 13-2929(A)(3). A person who violates these provisions would be subject to a

24 class 1 misdemeanor and a fine of at least $1,000 with additional penalties where the

25 offense involves ten or more immigrants. A.R.S. § 13-2929(D).

26

-39-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 40 of 61

1

108. In addition, under section 10 of SB 1070, any means of transportation will be

2 impounded if it is deemed to have been used in connection with violations of the

3 harboring statute. A.R.S. § 13-2929(B).

4

109. The transportation, harboring, and encouragement provisions of SB 1070

5 provide no explanation or other sufficient guidance for individuals as to what actions will

6 be deemed “in furtherance of illegal presence” or “that the immigrant has entered or

7 remained in the United States illegally.”

8 Coercion of state and local police

9

110. Section 2 of SB 1070, as amended, creates a private right of action for any

10 person to sue a city, town, or county “that adopts or implements a policy that limits or

11 restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted

12 by federal law.” This provision requires state and local law enforcement agencies to

13 prioritize immigration over many competing law enforcement activities and thus strips

14 agencies of their discretion to exercise considered judgment about how best to ensure

15 public safety.

16

Comprehensive Federal Immigration System

17

111. The federal government has exclusive power over immigration matters. The

18 U.S. Constitution grants the federal government the power to “establish a uniform Rule of

19 Naturalization,” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4, and to “regulate Commerce with foreign

20 Nations,” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. In addition, the Supreme Court has held that the

21 Federal government’s power to control immigration is inherent in the nation’s

22 sovereignty.

23

112. The U.S. Congress has created a comprehensive system of federal laws

24 regulating and enforcing immigration in the INA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. This

25 extensive statutory scheme leaves no room for supplemental state laws.

26

-40-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 41 of 61

1

113. The federal government has also issued numerous regulations, policies, and

2 procedures interpreting the provisions of the INA and has established a large and complex

3 administrative apparatus to carry out its mandates.

4

114. The INA carefully calibrates the nature (criminal or civil) and degree of

5 penalties applicable to each possible violation of its terms.

6

115. The INA contains complex and exclusive procedures for determining

7 immigration and citizenship status, deciding whether the civil provisions of the

8 immigration laws have been violated, and determining whether an individual may

9 lawfully be removed from the United States.

10

116. Under federal law, there is no single, readily ascertained category or

11 characteristic that establishes whether a particular person may or may not remain in the

12 United States. The answer to that question is a legal conclusion that can only be reached

13 through the processes set forth in the INA and may depend on the discretionary

14 determinations of federal officials.

15

117. There are many non-citizens who are present in the United States without

16 formal permission who lack the “registration document” mandated by SB 1070, yet would

17 not be removed if placed in federal removal proceedings. For example, an individual may

18 be eligible for some form of immigration relief, such as asylum, adjustment of status, or

19 withholding of removal. Some of these individuals are known to the federal government;

20 others will not be identified until they are actually placed in proceedings by the federal

21 government and their cases are adjudicated.

22

118. Federal immigration agencies such as ICE or U.S. Customs and Border

23 Protection do not and cannot determine whether a particular person may remain in the

24 United States, or whether a particular person has committed a “public offense” that would

25 make the person “removable,” without going through the procedures set forth in the INA.

26 Federal agencies similarly do not and cannot determine definitively, in response to a

-41-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 42 of 61

1 demand from a state or local official, whether an individual is “unlawfully present” or has

2 “authorization to remain in the United States” as those phrases are used in SB 1070. The

3 databases searched in response to these queries are not set up to make final determinations

4 of whether an individual has federally authorized immigration status. These agencies can

5 only determine whether they believe a non-citizen may be charged with deportability.

6 Such a prosecutorial decision is not a determination of the individual’s “immigration

7 status,” which entails a complex administrative process. The phrase “immigration status”

8 is usually used to refer to a number of categories defined by the INA for classifying

9 individuals, not the ultimate question of whether an individual may remain in the United

10 States.

11

119. Furthermore, determining whether or not a person is a citizen of the United

12 States can be a complex and counterintuitive process. U.S. citizens are not required to

13 carry documentary proof of their citizenship. There is no national database that contains

14 information on every U.S. citizen. Some people are actually unaware of their U.S.

15 citizenship because they may have acquired U.S. citizenship at birth by operation of law

16 due to their parents’ citizenship, despite not being born in the United States. See, e.g.,

17 INA § 322, 8 U.S.C. § 1433. Others automatically obtained citizenship when their parents

18 became naturalized U.S. citizens. See, e.g., INA § 320, 8 U.S.C. § 1431.

19

120. SB 1070’s creation of a state immigration system fundamentally conflicts with

20 the INA’s statutory scheme, impermissibly encroaches on the federal government’s

21 exclusive power to regulate immigration, and will lead to erroneous determinations by

22 state and local officials.

23

121. Moreover, SB 1070 conflicts with and is preempted by provisions of the INA

24 that set forth comprehensive federal schemes addressing: (1) alien registration; (2)

25 transportation and harboring; (3) work authorization and sanctions for unauthorized work;

26 and (4) arrest authority for immigration violations.

-42-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 43 of 61

1 Federal registration system

2

122. The INA includes a national alien registration system that displaces and

3 preempts state alien registration laws.

4

123. The federal alien registration scheme requires certain non-citizens to register

5 with the federal government and to carry proof of this registration with them. 8 U.S.C. §§

6 1302, 1306(a), and 1304(d)-(e). Specifically, the INA requires every non-citizen in the

7 United States over the age of 14 who has been in the United States for over 30 days to

8 apply for registration with the federal government. 8 U.S.C. § 1302(a). Once registered,

9 non-citizens are given a “certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt

10 card,” the form and issuance of which are to be prescribed in “regulations issued by the

11 Attorney General.” 8 U.S.C. § 1304(d). Non-citizens over the age of 18 who willfully

12 fail to carry these documents face fines or prison time of up to 30 days. 8 U.S.C. §

13 1304(e). Non-citizens who willfully fail to register face fines or prison time of up to six

14 months. 8 U.S.C. § 1304(a).

15

124. The federal registration scheme has been in place since 1940 and was designed

16 to create a single, uniform, national scheme.

17

125. The preemptive effect of the federal alien registration scheme was expressly

18 recognized by the President of the United States when the scheme was created and has

19 been expressly upheld by the Supreme Court.

20

126. The federal regulation implementing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1302, 1304, and 1306

21 prescribes as “evidence of registration” specific forms for compliance. See 8 C.F.R. §

22 264.1. The list, however, has not been kept up to date with current federal forms and

23 procedures. As a result, there are categories of noncitizens who have applied for

24 immigration benefits or whose presence in the United States is otherwise known to federal

25 immigration agencies but who do not have registration documents that are valid under the

26 regulation.

-43-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 44 of 61

1

127. Many of the changes that have been made to the INA since the enactment of

2 the registration provisions reflect Congress’s decision to focus on and prioritize

3 immigration enforcement against those immigrants who commit serious criminal offenses.

4 Targeting immigrants convicted of serious crimes, rather than those who may be in

5 violation of the registration provisions, is the principal priority of federal immigration

6 officers.

7 Federal transportation provision

8

128. The INA also establishes criminal penalties for the transporting and harboring

9 of certain non-citizens. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)-(2). Violations of these provisions

10 carry fines and prison terms ranging from five years to life. Id.

11

129. The federal courts are engaged in an ongoing process of interpreting the

12 statutory language in 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a) and determining the reach of the federal

13 prohibitions therein. Arizona law enforcement officers are neither trained nor equipped to

14 have a detailed and current understanding of these interpretations.

15

130. Arizona courts are not required to interpret the language in SB 1070 regarding

16 transportation and harboring consistently with the federal courts’ interpretation of similar

17 language in federal law.

18

131. SB 1070’s transportation and harboring provisions require Arizona’s courts, as

19 a prerequisite to finding a violation, to determine whether an alien “has come to, entered,

20 or remains in the United States in violation of the law” or whether an alien’s entry “will

21 be in violation of law” as those terms are used in 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a).

22 //

23 Federal employment authorization and sanctions system

24

132. The INA contains a comprehensive scheme to regulate the employment of

25 aliens that reflects a careful balance between multiple objectives, including the desire to

26 reduce unauthorized employment, to protect workers against discrimination, and to

-44-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 45 of 61

1 impose manageable standards on employers and workers. The comprehensiveness of that

2 federal scheme has been recognized by the Supreme Court.

3

133. Congress chose to regulate alien employment in the INA by focusing on

4 employers. Employers are required to verify the employment authorization of applicants

5 on Form I-9, and employers who knowingly employ unauthorized workers are subject to

6 civil penalties or criminal penalties if the violation is sufficiently severe. Federal law does

7 not impose fines or criminal penalties on unauthorized workers simply for working

8 without authorization.

9

134. Arizona’s decision to criminalize unauthorized employment despite

10 Congress’s choice of other means to address such conduct directly conflicts with federal

11 law.

12 Federal restrictions on arrest authority

13

135. State and local police have no general authority to enforce federal immigration

14 law. Federal law specifically authorizes state officers to assist in immigration

15 enforcement only in narrowly defined circumstances and otherwise reserves immigration

16 enforcement authority to the federal government.

17

136. Section 1357(g) of Title 8 of the U.S. Code allows the federal government to

18 “enter into a written agreement with a State, or any political subdivision” to carry out

19 “function[s] of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or

20 detention of aliens in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g). These agreements are

21 commonly referred to as “287(g) agreements” after the section of the INA in which they

22 are codified. However, such agreements may be entered into only if the federal

23 government determines the state officers are “qualified to perform a function of an

24 immigration officer,” id., and the federal government must train and supervise officers

25 who are authorized under such an agreement. Nine agencies in Arizona have current

26 agreements pursuant to this statutory provision.

-45-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 46 of 61

1

137. SB 1070 explicitly grants state and local law enforcement officers authority to

2 make immigration determinations, arrests, and investigations without and outside of the

3 authority provided by a 287(g) agreement, even with respect to those agencies in Arizona

4 that have a 287(g) agreement.

5

138. The other provisions in federal law authorizing state or local immigration

6 enforcement are also carefully constrained. State and local police are authorized to make

7 arrests for certain immigration crimes—smuggling, transporting, or harboring criminal

8 aliens, and illegal entry by a previously deported felon. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1103(a)(10), 1252c.

9 Another provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(10), allows the Attorney General to authorize “any

10 State or local law enforcement officer” to enforce immigration laws upon certification of

11 “an actual or imminent mass influx of aliens,” but no such certification has occurred.

12

139. Congress’s intent that state and local officers are generally prohibited from

13 enforcing immigration laws is clear both from the statutory scheme and from the

14 statements of its members.

15

140. Even as to federal immigration officers, the INA and associated regulations

16 contain significant restrictions on the circumstances in which warrantless arrests may be

17 made and the procedures that are required following such arrests. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1357(a),

18 (d); 8 C.F.R. §§ 287.1-287.3, 287.5, 287.8, 287.10.

19

SB 1070 Interferes with Federal Interests

20

141. Federal officials at the very highest levels oppose SB 1070 as interfering with

21 federal governmental interests.

22

142. Janet Napolitano, the immediate past governor of Arizona and current U.S.

23 Secretary of Homeland Security, said, “The Arizona immigration law will likely hinder

24 federal law enforcement from carrying out its priorities of detaining and removing

25 dangerous criminal aliens.” Divisive Ariz. Immigration Bill Signed Into Law, CBS/AP,

26

-46-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 47 of 61

1 Apr. 23, 2010, available at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/23/politics/

2 main6426125.shtml.

3

143. SB 1070 also has created serious foreign relations issues for the U.S.

4 government. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted that the government of Mexico

5 issued a travel advisory for its citizens traveling in Arizona and that SB 1070 had the

6 potential to upset U.S.-Mexico diplomatic efforts on drug enforcement in the border

7 region. Alicia Mundy, Hillary Clinton Migrates into Arizona Law Controversy, WALL

8 STREET J. (online edition), May 2, 2010, available at http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/

9 05/02/hillary-clinton-migrates-into-arizona-law-controversy/. Mexican President Felipe

10 Calderón stated that SB 1070 will “seriously affect[ ]” trade and political ties with

11 Arizona. FCH Condemns Anti-Immigrant Law, THE NEWS, Apr. 27, 2010, available at

12 http://thenews.com.mx/articulo/fch-condemns-anti-immigrant-law-10427. The Foreign

13 Secretary of Mexico, Patricia Espinosa, also said that SB 1070 will affect U.S.-Mexico

14 relations and “obligates the Mexican government to reconsider the viability and

15 usefulness of cooperation agreements that have been developed with Arizona.” Erin

16 Kelly, Arizona Immigration Law Revives Calls for Federal Action on Reform, ARIZ.

17 REPUBLIC, Apr. 24, 2010, available at http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/

18 articles/2010/04/24/20100424arizona-immigration-bill-federal-action.html.

19

144. Like Mexico, the government of El Salvador has issued a travel advisory for its

20 nationals traveling to Arizona. See Jonathan Cooper & Paul Davenport, Lawsuits Target

21 New Arizona Immigration Law, ASSOCIATED PRESS, Apr. 29, 2010, available at

22 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36853483/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/.

23

145. Guatemala’s Foreign Relations Department decried SB 1070 in a statement

24 saying “it threatens basic notions of justice.” See Civil Rights Groups Fight Ariz.

25 Immigration Law, ASSOCIATED PRESS, Apr. 24, 2010, available at http://www.

26 msnbc.msn.com/id/36735281.

-47-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 48 of 61

1

SB 1070 Promotes Racial Profiling and Endangers Minority Communities

2

146. Janet Napolitano stated that SB 1070 “is a very difficult bill to enforce in a

3 racially neutral way.” Eric Zimmerman, Justice Dept. May Challenge Arizona Law, THE

4 HILL, Apr. 27, 2010, available at http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-

5 room/news/94631-justice-dept-may-challenge-to-ariz-law-in-court. According to

6 Napolitano, “I think it does and can invite racial profiling.” Jake Tapper, Napolitano: 7 Arizona Law “Bad for Law Enforcement”, ABC NEWS: POLITICAL PUNCH, May 2, 2010,

8 available at http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/napolitano-arizona-law-

9 bad-for-law-enforcement.html.

10

147. Attorney General Eric Holder further criticized SB 1070, saying, “I think we

11 could potentially get on a slippery slope where people will be picked on because of how

12 they look as opposed to what they have done, and that is, I think, something that we have

13 to try to avoid at all costs.” Holder: Feds May Sue Over Arizona Immigration Law, CNN,

14 May 9, 2010, available at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/09/holder.arizona.

15 immigration/index.html. Attorney General Holder also stated that implementation of SB

16 1070 will lead to “a situation where people are racially profiled, and that could lead to a

17 wedge drawn between certain communities and law enforcement, which leads to the

18 problem of people in those communities not willing to interact with people in law

19 enforcement, not willing to share information, not willing to be witnesses where law

20 enforcement needs them.” Id.

21

148. Many prominent law enforcement and elected officials in Arizona have

22 condemned SB 1070 on the grounds that it will lead to rampant racial profiling, divert

23 resources from law enforcement work, keep immigrants and other people of color from

24 reporting crimes to police, and ultimately diminish community safety.

25

149. Former Governor Napolitano said, “With the strong support of state and local

26 law enforcement, I vetoed several similar pieces of legislation as governor of Arizona

-48-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 49 of 61

1 because they would have diverted critical law enforcement resources from the most

2 serious threats to public safety and undermined the vital trust between local jurisdictions

3 and the communities they serve.” Divisive Ariz. Immigration Bill Signed Into Law,

4 CBS/AP, Apr. 23, 2010, available at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/23/

5 politics/main6426125.shtml.

6

150. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposed SB 1070, stating that SB

7 1070 “will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to

8 fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner.” See Press Release, Arizona

9 Association of Chiefs of Police, AACOP Statement on Senate Bill 1070, available at

10 http://www.leei.us/main/media/AACOP_STATEMENT_ON_SENATE_bILL_1070.pdf.

11

151. Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik has warned that the law will lead to

12 racial profiling. He stated, “[i]f I tell my people to go out and look for A, B, and C,

13 they're going to do it. They’ll find some flimsy excuse like a tail light that’s not

14 working as a basis for a stop, which is a bunch of baloney.” See The Dupnik Rebellion: 15 Pima’s Top Cop Says ‘No’ to SB 1070, KGUN-ABC NEWS, Apr. 27, 2010, available at

16 http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=12386648.

17

152. Chief John Harris of the Sahuarita Police Department, who is the current

18 president of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, cautioned that “victims may not

19 report crimes to his officers” as a result of SB 1070. See Dan Whitcomb, Arizona Police

20 Chief Criticizes Immigration Law, REUTERS, Apr. 30, 2010, available at

21 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63T5G220100430; see also Nathan Thornburg,

22 Arizona Police Split on Immigration Crackdown, TIME.COM, Apr. 30, 2010, available at

23 http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1986080,00.html

24

153. Phil Gordon, the Mayor of Phoenix, stated that SB 1070 “unconstitutionally

25 co-opts our police force to enforce immigration laws that are the rightful jurisdiction of 26 the federal government.” Phil Gordon, Not in My State: Anti-Immigration Law Doesn’t

-49-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 50 of 61

1 Reflect the Beliefs of Arizona’s People, WASH. POST, Apr. 24, 2010, available at

2 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/23/

3 AR2010042304469.html.

4

154. The policies and practices of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”)

5 demonstrate that SB 1070 cannot be enforced without improperly singling out racial and

6 ethnic minorities, including many U.S. citizens and persons authorized by the federal

7 government to be present in the U.S., for stops, interrogations, arrests, and detentions.

8

155. Maricopa County Sheriff Arpaio has publicly stated that his own agency has

9 been doing what he believes SB 1070 mandates. MSNBC NEWS, April 26, 2010,

10 available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHfOBUDzoPo. Three years ago, Sheriff

11 Arpaio announced that MCSO was becoming “a full fledged anti-illegal immigration

12 agency.” Judi Villa and Yvonne Wingett, Sheriff Unveils Migrant Hotline, ARIZ.

13 REPUBLIC, Jul. 21, 2007, available at http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/

14 local/articles/0721hotline0721.html.

15

156. According to MCSO training materials, the fact that an individual has no

16 English skills or speaks English poorly is a factor indicating that an individual is not

17 “lawfully present” in the United States. Alia Beard Rau and Mary Jo Pitzl, Momentum

18 Built Over Years Led to Immigration Law, ARIZ. REPUBLIC, May 9, 2010, available at

19 http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/05/09/20100509immigratio

20 n-law-momentum.html (training video on right hand panel); see also J.J. Hensley, New

21 Law Could Encourage Immigration Sweeps, ARIZ. REPUBLIC, May 1, 2010, available at

22 http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/05/01/20100501phoenix-

23 joe-arpaio-crime-sweep.html (describing training video).

24

157. As part of its focus on immigration enforcement, MCSO has systematically

25 used pretextual stops to investigate immigration, targeting Latinos. Since 2007, the

26 agency has instituted a policy of identifying day laborers and persons appearing to be

-50-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 51 of 61

1 Latino whom deputies should investigate for potential immigration violations, and then

2 developing probable cause for a traffic violation to stop them.

3

158. A comprehensive investigation by the Arizona Republic found that during

4 eight MCSO so-called “crime suppression operations” studied, MCSO deputies engaged

5 in selective enforcement of the traffic law, and that the majority of drivers and passengers 6 arrested were Latino even in predominantly White areas. Daniel Gonzalez, Sheriff’s

7 Office Says Race Plays No Role in Who Gets Pulled Over, ARIZ. REPUBLIC, Oct. 5, 2008,

8 available at http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/10/05/20081005arpaio-

9 profiling1005.html.

10

159. As a result of evidence of a pattern and practice of civil rights violations,

11 MCSO is currently the subject of a civil rights investigation by the U.S. Department of

12 Justice.

13

160. Demonstrating that the intent of SB 1070, as amended by HB 2162, is to

14 enable pretextual stops and arrests for the purpose of immigration enforcement, State

15 Senator Russell Pearce inadvertently circulated an email on April 28, 2010 which

16 explained one provision of HB 2162 as follows: “When we drop out ‘lawful contact’ and

17 replace it with ‘a stop, detention, or rest [sic], in the enforcement a violation of any title or

18 section of the Arizona code’ we need to add ‘or any county or municipal ordinance.’ This

19 will allow police to use violations of property codes (i.e. cars on blocks in the yard) or

20 rental codes (too many occupants of a rental accommodation) to initiate queries as well.”

21 Gabriel Winant, E-Mail Reveals Arizona Law Was Designed To Maximize Harassment,

22 SALON, May 3, 2010, available at http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/

23 2010/05/03/arizona_kobach_profiling. SB 1070 was intended to create opportunities for

24 officers to determine which members of the community should be investigated as to their

25 immigration status first, and then to develop a pretextual reason to stop them for some

26 other violation of state or local law second.

-51-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 52 of 61

1

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

2

161. The Individual Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other

3 persons similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2).

4 The class, as proposed by Plaintiffs, consists of all persons:

5

(a) who as a result of their race or national origin are or will be subject to

6

stop, detention, arrest or questioning about their immigration or

7

nationality status or required to produce documentation of that status,

8

pursuant to a provision of SB 1070; or

9

(b) who are or will be deterred from soliciting employment in a public place

10

or performing work as an employee or independent contractor by § 5 of

11

SB 1070; or

12

(c) who are or will be deterred from using their customary language, accent,

13

or other expressive conduct, or from approaching government officials to

14

obtain redress because of the provisions of SB 1070; or

15

(d) who are or will be deterred from living, associating, worshiping, or

16

traveling with immigrants in Arizona because of the provisions of SB

17

1070; or

18

(e) who are or will be deterred from traveling into or through the State of

19

Arizona because of the provisions of SB 1070.

20

162. The requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) are

21 met in that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

22

163. There are questions of law and fact common to the proposed class, including:

23 (1) whether SB 1070 is preempted by the U.S. Constitution and federal law; (2) whether

24 SB 1070 deprives racial and national origin minorities of the equal protection of the laws

25 within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; (3) whether

26 SB 1070 violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; (4) whether SB 1070

violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 2, Section 8 of the

-52-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 53 of 61

1 Arizona Constitution; and (5) whether SB 1070 is impermissibly vague and violates due

2 process of law. These questions predominate over any questions affecting only the

3 Individual Plaintiffs.

4

164. The claims of the Individual Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the proposed

5 class.

6

165. All of the Individual Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests

7 of all members of the proposed class because they seek relief on behalf of the class as a

8 whole and have no interests antagonistic to other members of the class. The Individual

9 Plaintiffs are also represented by pro bono counsel, including the ACLU of Arizona, the

10 ACLU Foundation Immigrants’ Rights Project, the Mexican American Legal Defense and

11 Educational Fund, the National Immigration Law Center, the Asian Pacific American

12 Legal Center (a member of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice), the

13 National Day Laborer Organizing Network, the National Association for the

14 Advancement of Colored People, Altshuler Berzon LLP, and Munger, Tolles & Olson

15 LLP, who have extensive expertise in class action litigation, including litigation regarding

16 the rights of immigrants. Finally, Defendants have acted and will act on grounds

17 generally applicable to the class in executing their duties to enforce SB 1070, thereby

18 making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.

19 //

20 //

21

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ALLEGATIONS

22

166. An actual and substantial controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants

23 as to their respective legal rights and duties. Plaintiffs contend that they face an imminent

24 threat of harm if SB 1070 is enforced, and that SB 1070 violates the U.S. Constitution,

25 federal law, and state law. Defendants are obligated to enforce SB 1070 unless it is found

26 to be illegal.

-53-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 54 of 61

1

167. In violating Plaintiffs’ rights under the U.S. Constitution, federal law, and state

2 law, Defendants have acted and will be acting under color of law.

3

168. If allowed to go into effect, SB 1070 will cause irreparable injury to Plaintiffs.

4

169. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law against SB 1070

5 other than the relief requested in this Complaint.

6

170. Article IV, part 1, § 1(3) of the Arizona Constitution provides that “no act

7 passed by the legislature shall be operative for ninety days after the close of the session of

8 the legislature enacting such measure,” except certain specifically designated “emergency

9 measures.” The legislative session during which SB 1070 and HB 2162 were enacted

10 ended on April 29, 2010. Accordingly, the effective date of SB 1070 is July 28, 2010.

11

171. If SB 1070 goes into effect and is not enjoined, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable

12 harm as alleged above.

13

172. SB 1070 will require persons in the state to carry immigration registration

14 documents under state law to avoid detention, arrest, and possible prosecution. In

15 addition, SB 1070 will cause the investigation, detention, harassment, and arrest of

16 numerous persons of color in Arizona, including members of Plaintiffs UFCW, BAN,

17 Tonatierra, SEIU, SEIU Arizona, MAS, and JACL, as well as Individual Plaintiffs Pedro

18 Espinoza, C.M., Luz Santiago, Jim Shee, Jose Vargas, Maura Castillo, Maria Morales,

19 John Doe #1, Jane Doe #3, and members of the plaintiff class.

20

173. In addition, SB 1070 will thwart the mission of and subject to criminal

21 prosecution numerous service and business organizations, including Plaintiffs Friendly

22 House, ASASF, AZHCC, Valle del Sol, and Derechos Humanos.

23

174. In doing the things alleged in this Complaint, defendants will deny plaintiffs’

24 rights secured by the U.S. Constitution, federal law, and state law.

25

175. Defendants’ implementation of SB 1070 will constitute an official policy of

26 their respective jurisdictions.

-54-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 55 of 61

1

176. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that SB 1070 is unconstitutional on its

2 face and to an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining its enforcement.

3

CAUSES OF ACTION

4

COUNT ONE

5

SUPREMACY CLAUSE; 42 U.S.C. § 1983

6

177. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set

7 forth herein.

8

178. The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution

9 provides:

10

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made

in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under

11

the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the

12

Constitution of Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

13 179. The Supremacy Clause mandates that federal law preempts state law in any
14 area over which Congress expressly or impliedly has reserved exclusive authority or
15 which is constitutionally reserved to the federal government, or where state law conflicts
16 or interferes with federal law.
17 180. SB 1070 is void in its entirety because it attempts to bypass federal
18 immigration law and to supplant it with a state policy of “attrition through enforcement,”
19 in violation of the prohibition on state regulation of immigration.
20 181. SB 1070 conflicts with federal laws and policies, usurps powers
21 constitutionally vested in the federal government exclusively, attempts to legislate in
22 fields occupied by the federal government, imposes burdens and penalties on legal
23 residents not authorized by and contrary to federal law, and unilaterally imposes burdens
24 on the federal government’s resources and processes, each in violation of the Supremacy
25 Clause.
26

-55-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 56 of 61

1

182. Plaintiffs move for declaratory and injunctive relief on this claim directly

2 under the Constitution, and as an action seeking redress of the deprivation of statutory

3 rights under the color of state law, and also under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

4

COUNT TWO

5

EQUAL PROTECTION; 42 U.S.C. § 1983

6

183. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set

7 forth herein.

8

184. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “No State

9 shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

10

185. SB 1070 was enacted with the purpose and intent to discriminate against racial

11 and national origin minorities, including Latinos, on the basis of race and national origin.

12

186. SB 1070 impermissibly and invidiously targets Plaintiffs who are racial and

13 national origin minorities, including Latinos, residing or traveling in Arizona and subjects

14 them to stops, detentions, questioning, and arrests because of their race and/or national

15 origin.

16

187. SB 1070 impermissibly deprives Plaintiffs who are racial and national origin

17 minorities, including Latinos, residing or traveling in Arizona of the equal protection of

18 the laws within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

19

188. Section 3 of SB 1070 impermissibly discriminates against non-citizen

20 Plaintiffs on the basis of alienage and deprives them of the equal protection of the laws

21 within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

22

23

24

25

26

-56-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 57 of 61

1

COUNT THREE

2

FIRST AMENDMENT; 42 U.S.C. § 1983

3

[COUNT THREE HAS BEEN DISMISSED IN PART PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER. PLAINTIFFS THUS DELETE THE RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS BUT PRESERVE THEIR APPEAL

4

RIGHTS.]

5

189. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set

6 forth herein.

7

190. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “Congress shall

8 make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people peaceably

9 to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The First

10 Amendment’s guarantees are applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

11

191. Sections 5(A) and (B) of SB 1070 are unconstitutional restrictions of rights

12 guaranteed by the First Amendment.

13

COUNT FOUR

14

FOURTH AMENDMENT; 42 U.S.C. § 1983

[COUNT FOUR HAS BEEN DISMISSED IN PART PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER. PLAINTIFFS

15

THUS DELETE THE RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS BUT PRESERVE THEIR APPEAL RIGHTS.]

16

192. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set

17 forth herein.

18

193. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits “unreasonable

19 searches and seizures.” The Fourth Amendment’s guarantees are applied to the States

20 through the Fourteenth Amendment.

21

194. Section 2 of SB 1070, as amended by Section 3 of HB 2162, requires that

22 officers conduct unreasonable seizures of individuals in violation of the Fourth 23 Amendment.

24

195. Sections 2 and 6 of SB 1070 provide for warrantless seizures of individuals in

25 the absence of probable cause that they have committed crimes, in violation of the Fourth

26 Amendment.

-57-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 58 of 61

1

196. Section 2 of SB 1070 authorizes officers to detain individuals without lawful

2 authority, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

3

COUNT FIVE

4

VIOLATION OF ARTICLE II, § 8 OF THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION

5

[COUNT FIVE HAS BEEN DISMISSED IN PART PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER. PLAINTIFFS THUS DELETE THE RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS BUT PRESERVE THEIR APPEAL RIGHTS.]

6

197. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set

7 forth herein.

8

198. Article 2, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution provides: “No person shall be

9 disturbed in private affairs...without authority of law.”

10

199. In addition, SB 1070 provides for warrantless seizures of individuals in the

11 absence of probable cause that they have committed crimes.

12

200. Moreover, SB 1070 extends this broad, warrantless arrest authority to the

13 context of an individual's home.

14

COUNT SIX

15

DUE PROCESS; 42 U.S.C. § 1983

16 [COUNT SIX HAS BEEN DISMISSED IN PART PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER. PLAINTIFFS THUS DELETE THE RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS BUT PRESERVE THEIR APPEAL RIGHTS.]
17 201. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set
18 forth herein.
19 202. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: “No State shall
20 . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . ..”
21 203. Section 2 of SB 1070 permits state and local law enforcement officials to seize,
22 detain, and transfer individuals without appropriate procedures, thereby depriving
23 Plaintiffs of their liberty without due process of law.
24 204. Section 6 of SB 1070 is vague and violates due process. The terms “public
25 offense” and “removable” do not provide meaningful standards and vest officers with
26 unbridled discretion to make arbitrary and discriminatory arrests.

-58-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 59 of 61

1

COUNT SEVEN

2

SECTION 1981; 42 U.S.C. § 1983

3

205. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set

4 forth herein.

5

206. Section 1981 of Title 42 of the United States Code guarantees that “[a]ll

6 persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State

7 and Territory . . . to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security

8 of persons and property.” Section 1981 also provides that all persons “shall be subject to

9 like punishments, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no

10 other.”

11

207. Section 1981 prohibits discrimination under color of state law on the basis of

12 alienage, national origin, and race.

13

208. SB 1070 impermissibly discriminates against persons within the State of

14 Arizona on the basis of alienage and national origin and race.

15

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

16 WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing facts and arguments, Plaintiffs request that the

17 Court:

18

a. Assume jurisdiction over this matter;

19

b. Declare that SB 1070 is unconstitutional in its entirety;

20

c. Enjoin Defendants from enforcing SB 1070;

21

d. Grant Plaintiffs’ costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and other

22

expenses pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1988; and

23 //

24 //

25 //

26 //

-59-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 60 of 61

1

e. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

2 3 Dated: October 31, 2011 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Linton Joaquin NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
/s/ Omar C. Jadwat AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
/s/ Victor Viramontes MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
/s/ Daniel J. Pochoda ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
/s/ Chris Newman NATIONAL DAY LABOR ORGANIZING NETWORK
/s/ Yungsuhn Park ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER
/s/ Daniel R. Ortega ORTEGA LAW FIRM
/s/ Laura D. Blackburne NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE (NAACP)

20

21

On behalf of Attorneys for Plaintiffs

22

23

24

25

26

-60-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 511 Filed 10/31/11 Page 61 of 61

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on October 31, 2011, I electronically filed FIRST AMENDED

3

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF with the Clerk of 4

5 the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all

6 counsel of record.

7

8

/s/ Linton Joaquin

9

Linton Joaquin

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

-61-

 
 Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 1 of 38

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Friendly House, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11 vs.

12 Michael B. Whiting, et al.,
13 Defendants.
14

15

) No. CV 10-1061-PHX-SRB ) ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

16

17

At issue are Defendants Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu and Pinal County Attorney

18 James P. Walsh’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (“Pinal Cnty. Defs.’ MTD”) (Doc.

19 204), Defendant Sheriff Joseph Arpaio’s Motionto Dismiss (“Arpaio MTD”) (Doc. 205), and

20 Intervenor Defendant Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Motion to Dism iss (“Brewer MTD”)

21 (Doc. 238). The Court also addresses Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Pls.’

22 Mot.”) (Doc. 235) and Request for Order on Pending Motion (“Pls.’ Req.”) (Doc. 430).

23 I. BACKGROUND

24

The Arizona Legislature enacted a set of statutes and statutory am endments in the

25 form of Senate Bill 1070, the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,”

26 2010 Arizona Session Laws, Chapter 113, which Governor Brewer signed into law on April

27 23, 2010. Seven days later, the Governor signed into law a set of amendments to Senate Bill

28

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 2 of 38

1 1070 in the form of House Bill 2162, 2010 Arizona Session Laws, Chapter 211.1 S.B. 1070

2 had an effective date of July 29, 2010. On July 28, 2010, the Court entered a preliminary

3 injunction in the related caseUnited States v. Arizona, CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB. (See United

4 States v. Arizona , CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB, Doc. 87, Orde r Granting Prelim . Inj. (“USA

5 Order”).) In the USA Order, the Court preliminarily enjoined certain provisions of S.B. 1070.

6 (Id. at 4.)

7

Plaintiffs challenge S.B. 1070 in its entirety.2 (Compl. ¶ 183, Prayer for Relief ¶ b.)

8 Plaintiffs also raise specific challenges to Sections 2, 3, 5, and 6 of S.B. 1070. (Com pl. ¶¶

9 180-218.) Section 2 of S.B. 1070 adds Arizona Revised Statute (“A.R.S.”) § 11-1051, which

10 requires law enforcem ent officials to check a person’s im migration status under certain

11 circumstances. Plaintiff principally contests the constitutionality of Subsection 2(B) of S.B.

12 1070, which requires officers to make a reasonable attempt, when practicable, to determine

13 an individual’s im migration status during any lawful stop, detention, or arrest where

14 reasonable suspicion exists that the person is unlawfully present in the United States. A.R.S.

15 § 11-1051(B). Subsection 2(B) also provides that all persons who are arrestedumst have their

16 immigration status verified prior to release. Id.

17

Section 3 of S.B. 1070 adds A.R.S. § 13-1509, which provides that “a person is guilty

18

19

1 In this Order, unless otherwise specified, the Court refers to Senate Bill 1070 and House Bill 2162 collectively as “S.B. 1070,” describing the April 23, 2010, enactm ent as

20 modified by the April 30, 2010, amendments.

21

2 As noted in the USA Order, the Court cannot “decla

re an entire statute

22

unconstitutional if the constitutional portions can be severed from

those which are

unconstitutional.” State v. Ramsey, 831 P.2d 408, 413 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992) (citingState v.

23 Prentiss, 786 P.2d 932, 937 (Ariz. 1989)). In determ

ining whether potentially

unconstitutional provisions of S.B. 1070 m ay be severed from the rem ainder of the 24 enactment, the primary concern is legislative intent. See id. at 715-16 (citing City of Mesa

25 v. Killingsworth, 394 P.2d 410, 413 (Ariz. 1964)). Section 12(A) of S.B. 1070 demonstrates that the Arizona Legislature intended the provisions of the enactment to be severable in order
26 to preserve the constitutional provisions of the Act. S.B. 1070, § 12(A). The Court will not

27

ignore S.B. 1070’s severability clause or the obligation to preserve the constitutional provisions of a state legislative enactment. The Court thus evaluates the constitutionality of

28 the individual provisions of S.B. 1070 challenged by Plaintiffs.

- 2 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 3 of 38

1 of willful failure to com plete or carry an alien registration docum ent if the person is in

2 violation of [8 U.S.C. §§] 1304(e) or 1306(a),” federal statutes that require aliens to carry

3 documentation of registration and penalize the willful failure to register. Id. § 13-1509(A).

4

Section 5 of S.B. 1070 adds two provisionsto the Arizona Criminal Code, A.R.S. §§

5 13-2928 and 13-2929. A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) makes it unlawful for an occupant of a motor

6 vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway, or highway and is impeding traffic to attempt to

7 hire a person for work at another location. Similarly, A.R.S. § 13-2928(B) provides that it

8 is unlawful for a person to enter a motor vehicle in order to be hired if the vehicle is stopped

9 on a street, roadway, or highway and is impeding traffic. A.R.S. § 13-2928(C) provides that

10 it is unlawful “for a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is an

11 unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform

12 work as an employee or independent contractor in this state.” A.R.S. § 13-2929 m akes it

13 unlawful for a person, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien is unlawfully

14 present in the United States, who is in viola tion of a crim inal offense to: (1) transport or

15 move or attem pt to tra nsport or move the alien in Arizona in furtherance of the alien’s

16 unlawful presence in the United States; (2) conceal, harbor, or shield or attempt to conceal,

17 harbor, or shield the alien fromdetection in Arizona; or (3) encourage or induce the alien to

18 come to or live in Arizona. Id. § 13-2929(A)(1)-(3).

19

Finally, Section 6 of S.B. 1070 amends A.R.S. § 13-3883 to permit an officer to arrest

20 a person without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that “the person to be

21 arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United

22 States.” Id. § 13-3883(A)(5).

23

Plaintiffs filed the instant suit as aclass action on May 17, 2010, asserting six causes

24 of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the following provisions of the United

25 States Constitution: (Count 1) the Supremacy Clause; (Count 2) the Equal Protection Clause;

26 (Count 3) the First Am endment; (Count 4) the Fourth Am endment; (Count 6) the Due

27 Process Clause; and (Count 7) the Right to Travel under the Privilege s and Immunities

28 Clause. (Compl. ¶¶ 198, 204-214.) Plaintiffs also claim that S.B. 1070 violates Article II, §

- 3 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 4 of 38

1 8 of the Arizona Constitution (Count 5) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count 8). ( Id. ¶¶ 199-203,

2 215-18.) Defendants Babeu and Walsh, DefendantArpaio, and Intervenor Defendant Brewer

3 now move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Proc edure

4 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiffs lack standing and have failed to state a claim

5 upon which relief may be granted.3

6 II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS

7

A. Motions to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

8

1. Standing

9

The Pinal County Defendants, Defendant Arpaio and Intervenor Defendant Brewer

10 move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1),

11 arguing that Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring this action. (Pinal Cnty. Defs.’ MTD at

12 4-6; Arpaio MTD at 2-5; Brewer MTD at 4-12.) “Article III of the Constitution limits the

13 judicial power of the United States to the resolution of [c] ases and [c] ontroversies, and

14 Article III standing . . . enforces the Constitution’s case-or-controversy requirement.” Hein

15 v. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 597-98 (2007) (internal quotations and

16 citations omitted). An analysis of standing requires an examination of “whether the particular

17 plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication of the particular claims asserted.” Allen v. Wright, 468

18 U.S. 737, 752 (1984). “‘[A] plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to

19 press’ and ‘for each form of relief’ that is sought.” Davis v. F.E.C., 128 S. Ct. 2759, 2769

20 (2008) (quoting DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 352 (2006)); see also Oregon

21 v. Legal Servs. Corp., 552 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Where claim s are raised by one

22 plaintiff who has standing, the court need not determine whether other plaintiffs asserting the

23

24

3 Defendants Babeu, Walsh and Arpaio also argue that Plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe

25 for adjudication. (Pinal Cnty. Defs.’ MTD at 6-7; Arpaio MTD at 5-7.) In addition, Defendant Arpaio asserts that designation of the suit as a class action is inappropria te.
26 (Arpaio MTD at 9-10.) Defendants Babeu and Walsh also assert that Plaintiffs have failed

27

to plead a short and plain statem ent of the claim as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring claim s against Babeu and Walsh

28 specifically. (Pinal Cnty. Defs.’ MTD at 3-6.)

- 4 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 5 of 38

1 same claims also have standing.See, e.g., Watt v. Energy Action Educ.Found., 454 U.S. 151,

2 160 (1981); Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 607 F.3d

3 1178, 1183 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Bates v. UPS, Inc., 511 F.3d 974, 985 (9th Cir. 2007)

4 (“In a class action, standing is satisfied if at least one na

med plaintiff m eets the

5 requirements.”).4

6

In evaluating standing, courts must accept all material allegations in the complaint as

7 true and construe the complaint in favor of the plaintiff. Graham v. FEMA, 149 F.3d 997,

8 1001 (9th Cir. 1998) (citingWarth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975)). The plaintiff has the

9 burden of establishing standing and must “‘allege[] such a personal stake in the outcome of

10 the controversy’ as to warrant [the] invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and . . . justify

11 exercise of the court’s remedial powers.” Warth, 422 U.S. at 498-99 (quoting Baker v. Carr,

12 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962)).

13

In order to have standing pursuant to Article III, a plaintiff must show (1) an “injury

14 in fact” that is concrete and particularized and actual or immine nt (not conjectural or

15 hypothetical); (2) that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action otfhe defendant;

16 and (3) that it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by

17 a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992); see also

18 Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009). Even when the constitutional

19

20

4 The Court notes that ther e is some authority suggesting that this lim itation on

standing analysis applies only to appellate review. See Planned Parenthood of Idaho, Inc.

21 v. Wasden, 376 F.3d 908, 918 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that “on remand, when the district

22

court enters the appropriate injunctive relief against enforcement of the statute, it may need to decide whether Planned Parenthood is a proper plaintiff . . . [because[o] ]nly a proper party

23 to an action can enforce an injunction that results froma final judgment”); see also Town of Southold v. Town of E. Hampton, 406 F. Supp. 2d 227, 235 n.5 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). However,
24 appellate courts generally have the same obligation to address standing as the trial courts, and

25 several district courts have applied this limited standing analysis at the trial court level.See Sierra Club v. El Paso Props., Inc,.No. 01-cv-02163-BNB-MEH, 2007 WL 45985, at *3 (D.
26 Colo. Jan. 5, 2007) (collecting cases). At this sat ge in this putative class action, the standing

27

inquiry is required to establish this Court’s jurisdic tion. The Court has jurisdiction to consider the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims if at least one Plaintiff has standing to bring each

28 claim.

- 5 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 6 of 38

1 minima of standing are present, prudential concerns may impose additional limitations. Elk

2 Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 11-12 (2004). Prudential standing

3 limitations embody “‘judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction’”

4 and include “‘the general prohibition on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal rights, the

5 rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the

6 representative branches, and the requirement that a plaintiff’s complaint fall within the zone

7 of interests protected by the law invoked.’” Id. at 12 (quoting Allen, 468 U.S. at 750-51); see

8 also Alaska Right to Life Political Action Comm. v. Feldma,n504 F.3d 840, 848-49 (9th Cir.

9 2007).

10

An organization has standing “to seek judicial relief from injury to itself and to

11 vindicate whatever rights and immunities the association itself may enjoy.” Warth, 422 U.S.

12 at 511. “An organization may establish a sufficient injury in fact if . . . a challenged statute

13 or policy frustrates the organization’s goals and requires the organization ‘to expend

14 resources in representing clients they otherwise would spend in other ways.’” Redondo

15 Beach, 607 F.3d at 1183 (quoting El Rescate Legal Servs., Inc. v. Exec. Office of Immigration

16 Review, 959 F.2d 742, 748 (9th Cir. 1992)); see also Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455

17 U.S. 363, 379 (1982). Where a statute “perceptibly im pair[s]” an organization’s ability to

18 provide the services the organization was formed to provide, “there can be no question that

19 the organization has suffered [an] injury in fact. Such concrete and demonstrable injury to

20 the organization’s activities–with the consequent drain on the organization’s

21 resources–constitutes far more than simply a setback to the organization’s abstract social

22 interests.” Havens, 455 U.S. a t 379. An organization also has “associational standing” to

23 bring suit on behalf of itsmembers “when its members would otherwise have standing to sue

24 in their own right, the interests at stake are germ ane to the organization’s purpose, and

25 neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual

26 members in the lawsuit.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528

27 U.S. 167, 181 (2000) (citing Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343

28 (1977)).

- 6 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 7 of 38

1

Plaintiffs assert various injuries arising fromthe future operation and enforcement of

2 S.B. 1070. (Com pl. ¶¶ 7-30.) “A plaintiff who challenges a statute m ust demonstrate a

3 realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute’s ope

ration or

4 enforcement.” Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union , 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979)

5 (citation omitted). However, “[o]ne does not have to await the consummation of threatened

6 injury to obtain preventive relief. If the injury is certainly im pending that is enough.” Id.

7 (internal quotation and citation omitted). Similarly, “‘it is not necessary that [a plaintiff]first

8 expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution tobe entitled to challenge [a criminal] statute

9 that he claim s deters the exercise of his constitutional rights.’” Id. (quoting Steffel v.

10 Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 (1974)). In order to have standing to challenge a crim inal

11 statute prior to the statute’s enforcement, a plaintiff must allege “an intention to engage in

12 a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a

13 statute,” and that a “credible threat” of prosecution existsI.d.; see also San Diego Gun Rights

14 Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 1996).

15

a. Injury in Fact

16

Plaintiffs must have standing to bring each claim asserted. See Davis, 128 S. Ct. at

17 2769 (citing DaimlerChrysler, 547 U.S. at 352). In order to have standing to bring a

18 particular claim, Plaintiffs must allege an injury in fact arising fromthe challenged conduct.

19 See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 358 n.6 (1996) (noting that “standing is not dispensed in

20 gross” and that “‘a plaintiff who has been us bject to injurious conduct of one kind [does not]

21 possess by virtue of that injury the necessary stake in litigating conduct of another kind,

22 although similar, to which he has not been subject’” (quotingBlum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991,

23 999 (1982)). The Court evaluates the alleged injuries as they relate to the asserted claims.

24

i. Civil Rights Violations (Counts 2, 4-6, 8)

25

Plaintiffs assert various claim s for violations of their civil rights arising from the

26 enforcement and operation of S.B. 1070 as written. Several organizations allege injuries on

27 their own behalf, asserting that S.B. 1070 will im pair their ability to pursue their

28 organizational missions. (Compl. ¶¶ 7-20 (alleging injuries to the organizational missions of

- 7 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 8 of 38

1 Plaintiffs Friendly House, Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”), Service

2 Employees International Union Local 5 (“SEIU Arizona”), United Food and Com mercial

3 Workers International Union (“UF CW”), Arizona S outh Asians for S afe Families

4 (“ASAFSF”), Southside Presbyterian Church (“Southside”), Arizona Hispanic Chamber of

5 Commerce (“AZHCC”), Asian Chamber of Commerce (“ACC”), Border Action Network

6 (“BAN”), Tonatierra Community Development Institute (“Tonatierra”), Muslim American

7 Society (“MAS”), Japanese Am erican Citizens League (“JACL”), Valle del Sol, and

8 Coalicion de Derechos Humanos (“Derechos Humanos”)).) Governor Brewer argues that the

9 organizational Plaintiffs have not “ alleged facts sufficient to establish that [S.B. 1070]

10 adversely impacts their mission, nor have they diverted resources in a manner that establishes

11 a ‘concrete and demonstrable injury.’” (Brewer MTD at 10 (quoting Havens, 455 U.S. at

12 379).)

13

Plaintiffs allege that several of the organizational Plaintiffs’ m issions involve

14 promoting and protecting im migrant and minority rights, preventing disc rimination, and

15 educating and providing assistance to immigrant or minority populations. (See, e.g., Compl.

16 ¶ 7 (asserting that Plaintiff Friendly House is a non-profit organization tha t provides

17 immigration services, including assistance with asylum applications); id. ¶ 20 (stating that

18 Plaintiff Derechos Humanos’s mission is to promote human rights in the U.S.-Mexico border

19 region); id. ¶¶ 12, 16 (asserting that Plaintiffs Southside and Tonatierra operate day laborer

20 centers).) Plaintiffs assert that S.B. 1070 will frustrate the m issions of the organizational

21 Plaintiffs in several ways.

22

First, Plaintiffs allege that several Plaintiff organizations will have to divert resources,

23 or already have diverted resources, in order to educate and assist com munity members

24 affected by S.B. 1070 and address the efar and confusion created by S.B. 1070. S( ee, e.g., id.

25 ¶¶ 12, 14, 17-19;id. ¶ 20 (alleging that Plaintiff “Derechos Humanos has already been forced

26 to suspend most of its work relating to community education . . . to respond to inquiries from

27 the community about S.B. 1070”).) Plaintiffs also allege that S.B. 1070 will create fear and

28 confusion, harming several of the organizational Plaintiffs’ missions by deterring clients and

- 8 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 9 of 38

1 members from participating in the organizations’ programs out of fear of being stopped under

2 S.B. 1070. (Id. ¶¶ 7-11, 13, 17-20.) In addition, the organizational Plaintiffs assert that the

3 potential for criminal prosecutions will deter participation by m embers and frustrate their

4 organizational purpose. ( Id. ¶ 11 (alleging tha t Plaintiff ASAFSF’s volunteers face an

5 imminent risk of prosecution and that this risk harms ASAFSF’s mission); id. ¶ 12 (alleging

6 that Southside employees and volunteers would be at risk of prosecution while performing

7 their work in furtherance of Southside’s mission); id. ¶ 15 (alleging that, as a result of the

8 risk of criminal prosecutions, Plaintiff BAN will have to divert resources to educateemmbers

9 about their rights and responsibilities under the law and address fear s and concerns).)

10 Plaintiffs also allege that S.B. 1070 will frustrate the organizational purpose of day laborer

11 centers by criminalizing the expressive activity of members who are not authorized to work

12 and chilling the expressive activity of m embers who a re authorized to work. ( Id. ¶ 16.)

13 Finally, Plaintiffs allege that S.B. 1070 will deter business, cause economic harm within the

14 state, and make it more difficult for som e organizations to retain m embers as a result of

15 members leaving the state. (Id. ¶¶ 13-15.)

16

The Complaint contains sufficient allegations that S.B. 1070 “perceptibly impair[s]”

17 the ability of the organizational Plaintiffs to provide the services that the organizations were

18 formed to provide, and, as a result, “there canbe no question that the organization[s]ha[ve]

19 suffered [an] injury in fact.”See Havens, 455 U.S. at 379. While Governor Brewer correctly

20 points out that, for the most part, the organizational Plaintiffs’ allegations involve threats of

21 future harm, the threat of future harmis sufficiently imminent. See Babbitt, 442 U.S. at 298

22 (“A plaintiff who challenges a statute m ust demonstrate a realistic danger of sustaining a

23 direct injury as a result of the statute’s operation or enforcement . . . . [and]does not have to

24 await the consummation of threatened injury to obtain preventive relief. If the injury is

25 certainly impending that is enough.” (internal quotation and citation omitted)).

26

The harms alleged by the organizational Plaintiffs do not result fromany hypothetical

27 unlawful enforcement or application of S.B. 1070. The alleged harm to the organizational

28 Plaintiffs will occur if S.B. 1070 goes into effect, regardless of how it is enforced or applied.

- 9 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 10 of 38

1 The organizations allege that they will have to divert resources to educate and assist

2 members, staff, and clients faced with the purportedly unconstitutional S.B. 1070. (Compl.

3 ¶¶ 12, 14, 17-20.) Similarly, Plaintiffs allege that S.B. 1070 will deter clients and members

4 from participating in the organizational Plaintiffs’ programs. (See id. ¶¶ 7-11, 13, 17-20.) In

5 order to continue providing services to their clientele, these organizations would presuambly

6 have to divert resources to reach the same individuals. (See id. ¶¶ 12, 14, 17-19.)In addition,

7 Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiff Derechos Humanos “has already been forced to suspend most

8 of its work relating to community education on border deaths and leadership development

9 to respond to inquiries fromthe community about S.B. 1070.” (Id. ¶ 20.) The organizational

10 Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the civil rights violations they claimwill result from

11 S.B. 1070 will require, or have already required, them to divert resources and that the

12 violations will injure their organizational missions. Plaintiffs have alleged a sufficient injury

13 in fact for purposes of standing to raise their civil rights claims (Counts 2, 4-6, 8).

14

ii. First Amendment (Count 3)

15

Plaintiffs’ allegations of injury to their First Amendment rights include two distinct

16 injuries. First, Plaintiff Tonatierra alleges that it operates a day laborer center and that S.B.

17 1070’s provisions prohibiting the solicitation of em ployment frustrate its m ission “to

18 empower workers and protect them from exploitation” by preventing day laborers from

19 expressing their ability to work. (Id. ¶ 16.) Plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to support an

20 injury in fact. Where an organization’s mission is to assist and protect clients in performing

21 a specific activity, the organization’s m ission is “perceptibly im paired” by a statute

22 criminalizing or chilling the clients’ activity.See Havens, 455 U.S. at 379;see also Redondo

23 Beach, 607 F.3d at 1183 (finding an organization whose m ission was to strengthen and

24 expand the work of day laborers had standing to challenge an ordinance preventing the

25 solicitation of work). Here, Tonatierra alleges that its m ission is to protect and assist day

26 laborers and that S.B. 1070’s regulation of employment solicitation frustrates this mission.

27 Plaintiff Tonatierra has alleged a sufficient injury in fact resulting from an alleged First

28 Amendment violation. See Redondo Beach, 607 F.3d at 1183.

- 10 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 11 of 38

1

Second, the Complaint also alle ges that individual Plaintiffs and m embers of the

2 organizational Plaintiffs are afraid to speak a foreign language or accented English around

3 law enforcement officers and that this fear results in a chilling of their Fir st Amendment

4 rights. (See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 8-9, 13, 22, 23.) These allegations are not sufficiently imminent for

5 purposes of standing. In the First Amendment context, self-censorship is “a harmthat can be

6 realized even without an actual prosecution.” Virginia v. Am. Booksellers Ass’n, 484 U.S.

7 383, 393 (1988). However, “[t]he potential plaintiff must have ‘an actual and well-founded

8 fear that the law will be enforced against [himor her]’ [and] such a fear of prosecution will

9 only inure if the plaintiff’s intended speech arguably falls within the statute’s reach.” Cal.

10 Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. Getman , 328 F.3d 1088, 1095 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Am.

11 Booksellers, 484 U.S. at 393). In addition, “[a] llegations of a subjective ‘chill’ are not an

12 adequate substitute for a claimof specific present objective harmor a threat of specific future

13 harm.” Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1972). Here, S.B. 1070 does not purport to limit

14 the rights of individuals to speak. Plaintiffs’ allegations are of only a “subjective chill” and

15 do not give rise to an injury in fact resulting from a First Amendment violation for standing

16 purposes.

17

iii. Right to Travel (Count 7)

18

Individual Plaintiffs Vicki Gaubeca and Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa also allege that, as

19 residents of New Mexico possessing only New Mexico driver’s licenses, they face an

20 imminent threat of detention pursuant to S.B. 1070 because their driver’s licenses do not

21 dispel reasonable suspicion of unlawful pres ence. (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 27.) Subsection 2(B) of

22 S.B. 1070 provides for a presumption of lawful presence where an individual can provide

23 identification from any state or local government that “requires proof of legal presence in the

24 United States before issuance.” A.R.S. § 11-1051(B). Plaintiffs allege that New Mexico does

25 not require such proof prior to issuing identification. However, Plaintiffs Gaubeca and

26 Cuauhtemoc Villa do not allege that they will be de terred from traveling to or in Arizona.

27 (See Compl. ¶¶ 22, 27.) Rather, both Plaintiffs allegeonly that they believe or fear that they

28 could be detained after being pulled over “because [their] New Mexico driver’s license will

- 11 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 12 of 38

1 not be accepted to dispel suspicion that [they are]‘unlawfully present’ in the United States.”

2 (Id. ¶ 22; see also id. ¶ 27.) An injury in fact cannot be based on a “chain of speculative

3 contingencies.” Lee v. Oregon, 107 F.3d 1382, 1388 (1997). In order for the alleged injury

4 to arise, Plaintiffs would have to be lawfully stopped by a law enforcem ent officer, the

5 officer would then have to develop reasonable suspicion that Plaintiffs were unlawfully

6 present in the United States, and then the stop would have to result in an unlawful detention.

7 This hypothetical chain of events is too speculative to support an injury in fact for purposes

8 of standing on a claimfor violations of the right to travel. Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) Motions

9 to Dismiss are granted as to Plaintiffs’ right to travel claim (Count 7).

10

b. Causation

11

The alleged injury in fact must also be fairly traceable to the challenged actionL. ujan,

12 504 U.S. at 560. Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries arise fromthe impact that Sections 2, 3, 5 and 6,

13 have on the Plaintiffs. (See Compl. ¶¶ 7-30.) Defendants do not argue that the alleged injuries

14 are not fairly traceable to the provisions of S.B. 1070. Plaintiffs’ Com plaint contains

15 adequate allegations m aking the alleged injuries fairly traceable to the enactm ent and

16 enforcement of S.B. 1070.

17

c. Redressability

18

Finally, Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries would likely be redressed by a favorable decision.

19 See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. Relief preventing the enforcement of S.B. 1070 or declaring S.B.

20 1070 unconstitutional would alleviate the organizational Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.

21

d. Prudential Standing Considerations

22

Prudential standing limitations prevent courts from looking at generalized grievances,

23 claims brought on behalf of third-parties, and claims that do not fall within the zone of

24 interests protected by the law invoked. Newdow, 542 U.S. at 12. Governor Brewer argues

25 that Plaintiffs “allege general concern about [S.B. 1070] rather than a specific, concrete

26 injury” and that the Court should “refrain ‘from adjudicating abstract questions of wide

27 public significance which amount to generalized grievances, pervasively shared and m ost

28 appropriately addressed in the representative branches.” (Brewer MTD at 11 (quotinVgalley

- 12 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 13 of 38

1 Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc,. 454 U.S. 464,

2 475 (1982) (internal quotations and citations omitted)).) The organizational Plaintiffs allege

3 injuries specific to their organizational missions. (See Compl. ¶¶ 7-20.) The alleged injuries

4 are not “pervasively shared” by the public. See Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 475. In addition,

5 the alleged injuries giving rise to standing are injuries suffered by the organizational

6 Plaintiffs. The claims are not impermissibly asserted on behalf of third-parties.5

7

2. Ripeness

8

Defendants Babeu, Walsh, and Arpaio also argue that Plaintiffs’ Complaint is not ripe

9 for adjudication. (Pinal Cnty. Defs.’ MTD at 6-7; Arpaio MTD at 5-7.) Ripeness has both

10 constitutional and prudential components. Portman v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 898,

11 902 (9th Cir. 1993). “The constitutional component of ripeness overlaps with the ‘injury in

12 fact’ analysis for Article III standing . . . [and] [w]hether framed as an issue of standing or

13 ripeness, the inquiry is largely the sam e: whether the issues presented are ‘definite and

14 concrete, not hypothetic al or a bstract.’” Wolfson v. Brammer , No. 09-15298, 2010 WL

15 3191159, at *7 (9th Cir. Aug. 13, 2010) (quoting Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights

16 Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000)); see also Getman , 328 F.3d at 1093-94

17 (noting that in many cases, the analysis of ripeness and standing are the same). Analysis of

18 the prudential component weighs “the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the

19 hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.” Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387

20 U.S. 136, 148-49 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99,

21

22

5 Defendants Babeu and Walsh also argue “the [C]omplaint alleges no facts specific

23 to either Pinal County Sheriff Babeu or Pinal County Attorney Walsh to establish that any

of the . . . [P]laintiffs have met the standing requirements.” (Pinal Cnty. Defs.’ MTD at 5.) 24 Officials with a direct role in the enforcement of challenged provisions are proper defendants

25 in a suit challenging the validity of a legislative enactment. Wasden, 376 F.3d at 919-20. As the Pinal County Sheriff and County Attorney, Defendants Babeu and Walsh will be tasked
26 with enforcing S.B. 1070. Plaintiffs here seek an injunction prohibiting this enforceemnt, and

27

it is appropriate to seek such an injunction against officials with a direct role in enforceemnt. See id. The organizational Plaintiffs’ allegations of injury are sufficie nt to sustain claim s

28 against officials tasked with enforcing S.B. 1070.

- 13 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 14 of 38

1 105 (1977).

2

Here, the Court has already de termined that Plaintiffs have alleged definite and

3 concrete injuries. Plaintiffs have also satisfied the prudential com ponent of ripeness. “A

4 claim is fit for decision if the issues raised are primarily legal, do not require further factual

5 development, and the challenged action is final.”Standard Alaska Prod. Co. v. Schaible, 874

6 F.2d 624, 627 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiffs assert that S.B. 1070 is unconstitutional on its face;

7 the issues ra ised are primarily legal and do not require further factual developm ent.

8 Moreover, “[t]o meet the hardship requirement, a litigant must show that withholding review

9 would result in direct and immediate hardship and would entail more than possible financial

10 loss.” Winter v. Cal. Med. Review, Inc. , 900 F.2d 1322, 1325 (9th Cir. 1990) (internal

11 quotation and citation omitted). The organizational Plaintiffs allege that they will be subject

12 to an organizational injury as a result of the enforcement of an unconstitutional enactment

13 if S.B. 1070 goes into effect. ( See Compl. ¶¶ 7-11, 13, 17-20.) These are sufficient

14 allegations of hardship for the purposes of ripeness.

15

B. Motions to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

16

1. Standard for Dismissal

17

Plaintiffs assert causes of action for violations of: (1) the Supremacy Clause;6 (2) the

18 Equal Protection Clause; (3) the First Amendment; (4) the Fourth Amendment; (5) Article

19 II, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution; (6) the Due Process Clause; (7) the Right to Travel; and

20 (8) 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (Compl. ¶¶ 180-218.) Defendants Brewer, Arpaio, Babeu and Walsh

21 (“Defendants”) move to dismiss all eight causes of action, asserting that Plaintiffs have failed

22 to state a claimfor which relief can be granted. The Court addresses each of Plaintiffs’ clasim

23 in turn.

24

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require “only ‘a short and plain statement of the

25 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice

26

27

6 The Court does not address Plaintiffs’ claim alleging a violation of the supremacy

28 clause as the Court already thoroughly addressed this issue in the USA Order.

- 14 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 15 of 38

1 of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

2 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); see also Fed.

3 R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Thus, dismissal for insufficiency of a complaint is proper if the complaint

4 fails to state a claim on its face. Lucas v. Bechtel Corp., 633 F.2d 757, 759 (9th Cir. 1980).

5 “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) m otion does not need detailed factual

6 allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’

7 requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

8 cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). A Rule 12(b)(6)

9 dismissal for failure to state a claim can be based on either: (1) the lack of a cognizable legal

10 theory; or (2) insufficient facts to support a cognizable legal claim . Balistreri v. Pacifica

11 Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990); Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.,

12 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984).

13

In determining whether an asserted claimcan be sustained, all allegations of material

14 fact are taken as true and construed in the light m ost favorable to the non-m oving party.

15 Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network , 18 F.3d 752, 754 (9th Cir. 1994). This presum ption

16 applies only to facts and “is inapplicable to legal conclusions.”Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.

17 1937, 1949 (2009). “[A]well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge

18 that actual proof of those facts is im probable, and that ‘re covery is very rem ote and

19 unlikely.’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 (quotingScheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)).

20 However, “for a com plaint to survive a m otion to dism iss, the non-conclusory ‘factual

21 content,’ and reasonable inferencesfrom that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim

22 entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009)

23 (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1952). In other words, the com plaint must contain enough

24 factual content “to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence” of the

25 claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.

26

2. Equal Protection Clause and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Counts 2 and 8)

27

Plaintiffs allege that S.B. 1070 violates their rights under the Equal Protection Clause

28 (Count 2) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count 8). (Compl. ¶¶ 185-90, 215-18.) Plaintiffs assert that

- 15 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 16 of 38

1 S.B. 1070 “was enacted with th e purpose and intent to discrim inate against racial and

2 national origin minorities, including Latinos, on the basis of race and national origin.” (Id.

3 ¶ 187.) Plaintiffs also allege that S.B. 1070 “impermissibly and invidiously targets Plaintiffs

4 who are racial and national origin m inorities . . . and subjects them to stops, detentions,

5 questioning, and arrests because of their race and/or national origin,” and that Section 3 of

6 S.B. 1070 “impermissibly discriminates against non-citizen Plaintiffs on the basis of alienage

7 and deprives them of the equal protection of the laws.” I(d. ¶ 190.) Plaintiffs similarly allege

8 that S.B. 1070 “impermissibly discriminates against persons within the State of Arizona on

9 the basis of alienage and national origin and race” in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (Id. ¶

10 218.)

11

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “commands that no State

12 shall deny to any person . . . the equal protectionof the laws, which is essentially a direction

13 that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” City of Cleburne v. Cleburne

14 Living Ctr., Inc. , 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985) (internal quotation and c itation omitted).

15 Similarly, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 prohibits discrimination under color of state law based on race,

16 “ancestry[,] or ethnic characteristics.”Saint Francis Coll. v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 613

17 (1987); see also Manatt v. Bank of Am., NA, 339 F.3d 792, 798 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that

18 “when Congress enacted § 1981, it intended ‘race’ to be defined broadly, to cover

19 discrimination against ethnic groups” (citing Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. at 613)). Where a

20 plaintiff alleges that facially neutral legislation is unconstitutional in violation of the Equal

21 Protection Clause and also that he or she is entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the

22 claims are “indistinguishable . . . and the analysis is the same . . . . [because] [u]nder either

23 theory, the [plaintiff] must prove [he or she is] deprived of equal protection of the laws,

24 which requires a showing of discriminatory intent.” Hispanic Taco Vendors of Wash. v. City

25 of Pasco, 994 F.2d 676, 679 n.3 (9th Cir. 1993). The Court addresses the sufficiency of

26 Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection Clause and § 1981 claims together.

27

Generally, “legislation is presum ed to be valid a nd will be sustained if the

28 classification drawn by the statute is r ationally related to a legitim ate state interest.”

- 16 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 17 of 38

1 Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 440; see also United States v. Flores-Villar, 536 F.3d 990, 997 (9th

2 Cir. 2008). However, under the Equal Protection Clause, certain classifications, including

3 classifications based on race, alienage, and national origin, are subject to strict scrutiny and

4 will be sustained only if they are suitably tailored to serve a com pelling state interest.

5 Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 440. Classifications that appear neutral but are a pretext for racial

6 discrimination are also subject to strict scrutiny. Personnel Adm’r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442

7 U.S. 256, 272 (1979) (noting that strict scrutiny applies to “a classification that is ostensibly

8 neutral but is an obvious pretext for racial discrimination” (citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118

9 U.S. 356 (1886); Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915)); see also Valeria v. Davis,

10 307 F.3d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “governmental actions . . . that are facially

11 neutral but motivated by discriminatory racial purpose . . . are subject to strict scrutiny”).

12 “Determining whether invidious discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor demands

13 a sensitive inquiry into such c ircumstantial and direct evidence of intent as m ay be

14 available.” Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp. , 429 U.S. 252, 266

15 (1977); see also Hispanic Taco Vendors, 994 F.2d at 679-80.

16

Here, Plaintiffs assert that “racial discrim ination was a motivating factor for [S.B.]

17 1070’s enactment.” (Pls.’ Resp. to Mots. to Dismiss (“Pls.’ Resp.”) at 37; Compl. ¶ 187.) In

18 addition, Plaintiffs assert that Section 3 of S.B. 1070 explicitly discriminates on the basis of

19 alienage. (Compl. ¶ 190; Pls.’ Resp. at 38-39.) Plaintiffs allege that it is “widely understood

20 that [S.B. 1070]is motivated by . . . discrimination against Latinos and other racial minorities

21 in Arizona on the basis of their race and national origin.” (Compl. ¶ 73.) Plaintiffs also allege

22 that Arizona State Senators made statements indicating that S.B. 1070 was likely to result in

23 increased discrimination and racial profiling.7 (See Compl. ¶¶ 68-69.) Similarly, Plaintiffs

24 allege that the sponsor of S.B. 1070 has a hisot ry of making racially insensitive remarks and

25 sponsoring legislation in Arizona related to race and national origin. I(d. ¶¶ 70-71.) Finally,

26

27

7 “[W]hen the adverse consequences of a law upon an identifiable group are . . .

inevitable . . . a strong inference that the adverse effects were desired can reasonably be

28 drawn.” Feeney, 442 U.S. at 279 n.25.

- 17 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 18 of 38

1 Plaintiffs also allege that, on its face, S.B. 1070 targets and discriminates against minorities.

2 (Id. ¶¶ 188, 190, 218.) The Complaint contains adequate allegations that race, alienage, or

3 national origin discrimination was a motivating factor in the enactment of S.B. 1070.8 Race,

4 alienage and national origin are so rarely relevant to the achievem ent of a legitimate state

5 interest that laws grounded in such considerations are subject to strict scrutinCy.leburne, 473

6 U.S. at 440. For the purposes of a c hallenge under Rule 12(b)(6), the Com plaint contains

7 “non-conclusory ‘factual content,’” from which the Court can draw “reasonable inferences

8 . . . [that are]plausibly suggestive of a claimentitling the plaintiff to relief.”Moss, 572 F.3d

9 at 969 (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1952). Governor Brewer’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’

10 Equal Protection and § 1981 claims is denied.

11

3. The First Amendment (Count 3)

12

Plaintiffs challenge three provisions of S.B. 1070 on First Aemndment grounds (Count

13 3), asserting that S.B. 1070 infringes on Plaintiffs’ freedom of speech by restricting

14 employment solicitation speech and chilling the first am endment rights of non-English

15 speakers and individuals who speak English with an accent. (Com pl. ¶¶ 84-85, 109, 159,

16 192-93.) First, Plaintiffs assert that A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B), which prohibit the act of

17 hiring and being hired by the occupant of a m otor vehicle, infringes on day laborers’ First

18 Amendment right to free speech. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 101-06, 193.) Plaintiffs also challenge A.R.S.

19 § 13-2928(C), which makes it “unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the United

20 States and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public

21 place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in this state.” (Id. ¶¶ 101-

22 09, 193 (citing A.R.S. § 13-2928(C)).) Finally, Plaintiffs assert that Section 2 of S.B. 1070

23 infringes on the First Amendment rights of non-English speakers. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9, 13, 22-23, 83-

24 87, 159.)

25

The First Amendment guarantees that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the

26

27

8 While S.B. 1070 also contains provisions porhibiting the consideration of race, color,

and national origin, A.R.S. § 11-1051(B), these provisions, standing alone, are not sufficient

28 to insulate against Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection Clause and § 1981 claims.

- 18 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 19 of 38

1 freedom of speech.” U.S . Const. am end. I.9 However, “the governm ent may impose

2 reasonable restrictions on the tim e, place, or m anner of protected speech, provided the

3 restrictions ‘are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, . . . are

4 narrowly tailored to serve a significant governm ental interest, and . . . leave open am ple

5 alternative channels for communication of the information.’” Redondo Beach, 607 F.3d at

6 1184 (quoting Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989)).

7

a. Section 5: A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B)

8

Section 5 of S.B. 1070 makes it unlawful for “an occupant of a motor vehicle that is

9 stopped on a street, roadway, or highway and is impeding traffic to attempt to hire a person

10 for work at another location” and for “a person to enter a motor vehicle in order to be hired

11 if the vehicle is stopped on a stre et, roadway, or highway and is impeding traffic.” A.R.S.

12 §13-2928(A), (B). Plaintiffs assert that “Section 5 of S.B. 1070 creates a content-based

13 regulation of protected speech” by prohibitingand regulating speech soliciting work. (Compl.

14 ¶¶ 102-03.)

15

Solicitation is a “form of expression that consists of both expressive content and

16 associated conduct or acts.” Redondo Beach, 607 F.3d at 1184. “[R] estrictions on acts of

17 solicitation that were passed to support legitim ate government concerns unrelated to

18 suppressing any particular message are content neutral.” Id. at 1185 (citing ACLU of Nev. v.

19 City of Las Vegas, 466 F.3d 784, 794 & n.10 (9th Cir. 2006); Berger v. City of Seattle, 569

20 F.3d 1029, 1051 (9th Cir. 2009)). However, “[a]restriction aimed at conduct does not satisfy

21 this content neutrality test . . . when the restriction ‘by its very terms, singles out particular

22 content for differential treatment.’” Id. at 1186 (quoting Berger, 569 F.3d at 1051).

23

In Redondo Beach , the Ninth Circuit Court of Appea ls found that an ordinance

24 making it “unlawful for any person to stand on a street or highway and solicit, or attempt to

25 solicit, employment, business, or contributions froman occupant of any motor vehicle” was

26

27

9 “The Fourteenth Amendment makes this limitation applicable to the states.”City of

28 Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 45 n.1 (1994).

- 19 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 20 of 38

1 a valid, content neutral regulation of speech. 607 F.3d at 1184-93. ThRe edondo Beach court

2 found that the ordinance at issue was “aimed at acts of on-the-spot solicitation” and regulated

3 “broad categories of expression which [did not]require an officer to make . . . a substantive

4 evaluation of a speaker’s m essage.” Id. at 1188. A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B) are

5 considerably narrower than the Redondo Beach ordinance. Unlike the Redondo Beach

6 ordinance, S.B. 1070 regulates only solicitation related to employment rather than a broad

7 category of solicitation. See A.R.S. § 13-2928(A), (B). Importantly, S.B. 1070’s provisions

8 are directed only at employment solicitation and not more broadly at the act of solicitation.

9 See ACLU of Nev., 466 F.3d at 794 (noting that “[al]though courts have held that bans on the

10 act of solicitation are content-neutral, we have not found any case holding that a regulation

11 that separates out words of solicitation for differential treatment is content-neutral” (citation

12 omitted)).

13

A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B) are content-based regulations of speech because the

14 provisions “differentiate[] based on the content of speech,” prohibiting only the solicitation

15 of employment. See id. at 793-94 (finding that an ordinance prohibiting handbills requesting

16 financial or other assistance but permitting handbills with other content was a “content-based

17 distinction because it single[d]out certain speech for differential treatment based on the idea

18 expressed” (internal quotation and citation om itted)); see also Berger, 569 F.3d at 1051

19 (finding that an ordinance that prohibited street performers from soliciting donations but did

20 not prohibit the perform ers from communicating other m essages was a content-based

21 regulation of speech). As a content-based regulation, A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B) is only

22 valid if it “serves a compelling government interest in the least restrictive manner possible.”

23 Berger, 569 F.3d at 1053. Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated their claimof a First Amendment

24 violation. Therefore, the Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge to A.R.S.

25 § 13-2928(A) and (B) are denied.

26

b. Section 5: A.R.S. § 13-2928(C)

27

Section 5 of S.B. 1070 also adds A.R.S. § 13-2928(C), which makes it unlawful for

28 “a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is an unauthorized alien

- 20 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 21 of 38

1 to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or performwork as an employee

2 or independent contractor in this state.” Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for violations of the

3 First Amendment based on A.R.S. § 13-2928(C). The Suprem e Court has held that

4 individuals who were not authorized to work did not have a right to backpay. Hoffman

5 Plastic Compounds v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 151 (2002) (noting that “allowing . . . [ana]ward

6 of backpay to illegal aliens would unduly trench upon explicit statutory prohibitions critical

7 to federal immigration policy”). Likewise, individuals who are unlawfully present in the

8 United States and unauthorized to work do not have a right to solicit workC. f. id. Plaintiffs’

9 First Amendment challenge to A.R.S. § 13-2928(C) is dismissed.

10

c. Section 2 of S.B. 1070

11

Section 2 of S.B. 1070 requires law enforcem ent officers to m ake a reasonable

12 attempt, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of a person where the officer

13 has lawfully stopped, detained, or arrested the individual and the officer has reasonable

14 suspicion that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States. A.R.S §

15 11-1051(B). As discussed above, Plaintiffs lack standing to assert that Section 2 will chill the

16 speech of individuals who do not speak English or who speak English with an accent. See

17 Laird, 408 U.S. at 13-14.

18

4. The Due Process Clause (Count 6)

19

Governor Brewer moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ due process claim , Count Six of the

20 Complaint. (Brewer MTD at 24-28.) Plaintiffsallege that Section 2 of S.B. 1070 violates the

21 Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of procedural due process. (Compl. ¶ 206 (alleging that

22 Section 2 “permits state and local law enforcem ent officials to seize, detain, and transfer

23 individuals without appropriate procedures, thereby depriving Plaintiffs of their liberty

24 without due process of law”).). Plaintiffs further allege that Sections 2, 5, and 6 of S.B. 1070

25 are void for vagueness and point in particular to eight term s or phrases that they claim are

26 impermissibly vague. (See id. ¶¶ 206-08.)

27

a. Procedural Due Process

28

“The Fourteenth Am endment’s Due Process Clause protects persons against

- 21 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 22 of 38

1 deprivations of life , liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural

2 protection must establish that one of these interests is at stake.W” ilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S.

3 209, 221 (2005). Subsection 2(B) of S.B. 1070 directs police officers to make a reasonable

4 attempt to determine the immigration status ofany person who is lawfully stopped, detained,

5 or arrested when the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person might be in the U.S.

6 unlawfully. A.R.S. § 11-1051(B). Subsection 2(B) also states, “Any person who is arrested

7 shall have the person’s im migration status determined before the person is released.” Id.

8 Section 6 of S.B. 1070 permits a police officer tomake a warrantless arrest if the officer has

9 probable cause to believe that “the person to be arrested has committed any public offense

10 that makes the person removable from the United States.” Id. § 13-3883(A)(5). Although

11 Governor Brewer states, “even assuming Plaintiffs can establish a liberty interest,” she does

12 not make any arguments regarding the nonexistence of a liberty interest. (Brewer MTD at

13 24.) Arrest and detention are classic exam ples of liberty interests protected by the Due

14 Process clause. See, e.g., Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 529 (2004) (observing that the

15 plaintiff’s interest was “the most elemental of liberty interests–the interest in being free from

16 physical detention by one’s own government” (citations omitted)).

17

Once it is established that a liberty interest is at stake, the Court turns to the question

18 of what process is due to people affecte d by S.B. 1070. The Suprem e Court has held,

19 “Because the requirem ents of due process are ‘flexible and cal[l] for such procedural

20 protections as the particular situation demands,’ we generally have declined to establish rigid

21 rules and instead have em braced a fram ework to evaluate the sufficiency of particular

22 procedures.” Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 224 (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481

23 (1972)). The factors to be considered were set out inMathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335

24 (1976):

25

First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action;

second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the

26

procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or

substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest,

27

including the function involved and the fiscal and adm inistrative

burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would

28

entail.

- 22 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 23 of 38
1 Regarding the first and third factors, Plaintiffs’ liberty interests here are “weighty,”
2 as is Arizona’s interest in promoting the safety and welfare of its citizens. See Landon v.
3 Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 34 (1982). Plaintiffs focus primarily on the second factor, the risk
4 of an erroneous deprivation, arguing that because a person’s immigration status cannot be
5 easily observed or inferred, S.B. 1070 “invites racial profiling and compels law enforcement
6 officers to make subjective and arbitrary decisions as to whomto single-out for immigration-
7 related investigation based solely on appearance, race, ethnicity, language, accent, or national
8 origin.” (Pls.’ Resp. at 32.)
9 Plaintiffs have stated a claimthat Subsection 2(B) of S.B. 1070 violates their right to
10 procedural due process on its face. S.B. 1070 contains no meaningful procedural safeguards
11 against erroneous deprivations of liberty, and im migration status is not som ething that is
12 easily ascertainable. A person who is lawfullypresent in the U.S. may look and act the same
13 way as a person who does not have permission to be in the country, and Plaintiffs’ allegations
14 of “subjective and arbitrary” detention decisions by law enforc ement agents are plausible.
15 For the purposes of a challenge under Rule 12()b(6), the Complaint contains “non-conclusory
16 ‘factual content,’” from which the Court can draw “reasonable inferences . . . [that are]
17 plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss, 572 F.3d at 969
18 (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1952). Governor Brewer’s Motion is denied as to Plaintiffs’
19 procedural due process claim.
20 b. Vagueness
21 Governor Brewer also challenges Plaintiffs’ allegation that Sections 2, 5, and 6 of S.B.
22 1070 contain unconstitutionally vague terms. (Brewer MTD at 25-28.) “It is a basic principle
23 of due process that an enactm ent is void for va gueness if its prohibitions are not clearly
24 defined.” Grayned v. City of Rock ford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972). There are two ways in
25 which a law may be invalidated on account of vagueness: “First, it may fail to provide the
26 kind of notic e that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits;
27 second, it may authorize and even encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” City
28 - 23 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 24 of 38

1 of Chi. v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 56 (1999) (citing Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357

2 (1983)). Plaintiffs assert that S.B. 1070 contains terms “that are ‘so vague and standardless

3 that it leaves the public uncertain as to the conduct it prohibits.’” (Pls.’ Resp. at 33 (quoting

4 City of Chi., 527 U.S. at 56).) The Court analyzes the challenged terms in turn.

5

i. Section 2

6

Plaintiffs allege that four term s in Section 2 are im permissibly vague: “reasonable

7 suspicion,” “reasonable attempt,” “unlawful presence,” and “determ ine the im migration

8 status.” (Compl. ¶ 206.) “Reasonable suspicion” has long be en understood to m ean “‘a

9 particularized and objective basis’ for suspecting the person stopped of crim inal activity.”

10 Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 (1996) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449

11 U.S. 411, 417-18 (1981)). The concept of reasonable suspicion is “fluid” and takes its

12 “substantive content from the particular context[]” in which it is applied. Id. (citing Illinois

13 v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 232 (1983)). Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts suggesting that

14 reasonable suspicion in S.B. 1070 is not properly interpreted as having this long-standing

15 meaning. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not stated a claim as to this term. The Court

16 also finds that “reasonable attempt” is sufficiently clear as used in S.B. 1070. While the

17 language is not precise, it is not arcane, and it permits an appropriate degree of flexibility in

18 implementation and does not prevent “ordinary people [from] understand[ing] what conduct

19 it prohibits.” City of Chi., 527 U.S. at 56 (citing Kolender, 461 U.S. at 357).

20

With regard to “unlawful presence,” Plaintiffs argue that S.B. 1070 uses the term

21 inconsistently with its definition under federal law. (Pls.’ Resp. at 33-34). Under the

22 Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), “an alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in

23 the United States if the alien is present in the United States after the expiration of the period

24 of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being

25 admitted or paroled.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(ii). The INA also sets out various exceptions

26 to time that is inc luded in calculating a period of unlawful presence for purposes of

27 inadmissibility analysis. See id. § 1182(a)(9)(B)-(C). S.B. 1070 does not purport to deterimne

28 the length of tim e a person is properly considered to have been unlawfully present, but

- 24 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 25 of 38

1 merely that for som e period, they were or are present in the U.S. without perm ission.

2 Although S.B. 1070 does not contain several of the exceptions contained in the INA, this,

3 alone, does not render the use of the phrase “unlawful presence” vague. Plaintiffs have not

4 stated a claim that “unlawful presence,” as used in Section 2, is impermissibly vague.

5

Plaintiffs also assert that “determine the immigration status” is vague. (Compl. ¶

6 206.) S.B. 1070 provides that a person’s “immigration status may be determined by: (1) A

7 law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to ascertain an alien’s

8 immigration status [or] (2) [t]he United States [I]mmigration and [C]ustoms [E]nforcement

9 or [t]he United States [C]ustoms and [B]order [P]rotection pursuant to 8 [U.S.C. §]1373(c).”

10 A.R.S. § 11-1051(E). Section 1373(c) of Title 8 provides that federal authorities “shall

11 respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or

12 ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the

13 agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status

14 information.” S.B. 1070 does not use the phrase “determ ine the im migration status”

15 inconsistently with federal law because it states that the determ ination is to be m ade by a

16 federal agency or federally-authorized law enforcement officer. A.R.S. § 11-1051(E). The

17 Court concludes that “determine the immigration status” is not vague. Governor Brewer’s

18 Motion is granted as to Section 2.

19

ii. Section 5

20

Plaintiffs allege that two term s in Section 5 are vague: “in furtherance of illegal

21 presence” and “that the immigrant has entered or remained in the United States illegally.”

22 (Compl. ¶ 208.) With regard to “in furtherance of illegal presence,” the Court finds that

23 this phrase is not so vague as to violate the due process guarantee of the Fourteenth

24 Amendment. The Court gives the words their ordinary meaning, Perrin v. United States, 444

25 U.S. 37, 42 (1979) (citation om itted), and observes that a parallel provision of federal

26 immigration law also uses the phrase “in furtherance” of illegal entry or presence in

27 discussing criminal penalties for similar actions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii).

28

The Court further concludes that P laintiffs have not stated a claim that the phrase

- 25 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 26 of 38

1 “that the alien has come to, has entered or remains in the United States illegally” is

2 unconstitutionally vague. Giving the words their ordinary m eaning, this phrase is not so

3 unclear as to not give a person of ordinary intelligence knowledge of what conduct is

4 prohibited. Section 5 m akes various actions unlawful if done by a person who knows or

5 recklessly disregards the fact that a person “hascome to, has entered or remains in the United

6 States illegally.” A.R.S. § 13-2929(A). This phrase is not vague. Like “in furtherance of

7 illegal presence,” a phrase very similar to the one in question appears in federal immigration

8 law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii)-(iii) (providing criminal penalties for any person who,

9 “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains

10 in the United States in violation of law,” transports, moves, conceals, harbors, or shields the

11 alien). Governor Brewer’s Motion is granted as to Section 5.

12

iii. Section 6

13

Plaintiffs challenge two term s in S ection 6: “public offense” and “rem ovable.”

14 (Compl. ¶ 207.) In full, Section 6 of S.B. 1070amends A.R.S. § 13-3883 to permit an officer

15 to arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to belie ve that “the

16 person to be arrested has com mitted any public offense that m akes the person removable

17 from the United States.” A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5).

18

“Public offense” is defined in Arizona state law as follows:

19

[C]onduct for whic h a sentence to a term of im prisonment or of a fine is

provided by any law of the state in which it occurred or by any law, regulation

20

or ordinance of a political subdivision of that state and, if the act occurred in

a state other than this state, it would be so punishable under the

laws,

21

regulations or ordinances of this state or of a political subdivision of this state

if the act had occurred in this state.

22

Id. § 13-105(26). While Plaintiffs claim that this phrase, on its own, is vague, their real

23

argument has to do with the way it is used inconjunction with the next phrase: “that makes

24

the person removable from the United States.” Id. § 13-3883(A)(5); (see also Pls.’ Resp. at

25

34-35.) Plaintiffs argue that “there is no list osftate crimes ‘that make[] [a] person removable

26

from the United States.’” (Pls.’ Resp. at 34 (first alteration added).) Plaintiffs also argue that

27

“whether a state offense makes a person ‘removable’ requires a complex factual and legal

28

- 26 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 27 of 38

1 analysis.” (Id.) Governor Brewer asserts that both terms have definitions in federal law and

2 are intended to be applied with those meanings. (Brewer MTD at 27.)

3

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have stated a claimthat Section 6 is void for vagueness.

4 Because A.R.S. § 13-3883 already provides for the warrantless arrest of a person who

5 commits a fe lony, misdemeanor, petty offense, or one of certain crim inal violations in

6 connection with a traffic accident, the effect of Section 6 on warrantless arrest authority is

7 somewhat opaque. Whatever the goal of Section 6 was, the Court concludes that its emaning

8 is not clear from the statutory language . Crucially, there is no logical m eaning for the

9 provision that avoids the problem pointed out by Plaintiffs, namely that an officer making

10 the decision to effect a warrantless arrest is unable to determ ine whether a public offense

11 makes a person removable from the United States.

12

Justice Alito has commented that

13

providing advice on whether a conviction for a particular offense will make an

alien removable is often quite complex. “Most crimes affecting immigration

14

status are not specifically mentioned by the [Immigration and Nationality Act

(INA)], but instead fall under a broad category of c rimes such as crimes

15

involving moral turpitude or aggravated felonies.” M. Garcia & L. Eig, CRS

Report for Congress, Immigration Consequences of Criminal Activity (Sept.

16

20, 2006) (sum mary) (emphasis in original). As has been widely

acknowledged, determining whether a particular crim e is an “aggravated

17

felony” or a “crime involving moral turpitude [(CIMT)]” is not an easy task.

18 Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1488 (2010) (Alito, J., concurring) (some citations

19 omitted). Within the complicated scheme of determining removability, some federal officials

20 are, under certain circumstances, authorized to change the immigration consequences of the

21 commission of a public offense and cancel or suspend the removal of an alien. See, e.g., 8

22 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(a), 1253(a)(3). Ultimately, immigration court judges and federal appeals

23 court judges determ ine whether an alien’s offense m akes an alien rem ovable. See id. §

24 1182(a)(2) (describing crimes that qualify as grounds for inadmissibility); id. § 1227(a)(2)

25 (describing crimes that qualify as grounds for deportation).

26

Plaintiffs have stated a claim that Section 6 is void for vagueness because they have

27 alleged facts sufficient to show that this provision “fail[s] to provide the kind of notice that

28 will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits.”City of Chi., 527 U.S.

- 27 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 28 of 38

1 at 56 (citing Kolender, 461 U.S. at 357). Even a person with extensive experience in law

2 enforcement and a background in im migration law might not be able to determine easily

3 whether a public offense m akes a person rem ovable from the United States. Governor

4 Brewer’s Motion is denied as to Section 6.

5

5. The Fourth Amendment and Article II, § 8 of the Ariz

ona

Constitution (Counts 4 and 5)

6

Governor Brewer m oves to dism iss Plaintiffs’ c laims that S.B. 1070 violates the

7

Fourth Amendment and Article II, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution. (Brewer MTD at 21-24.)

8

The Complaint alleges that Section 2 of S.B. 1070 requires officers to conduct unreasonable

9

seizures of individuals and authorizes officers to detain individuals without lawful authority

10

and transport them into federal custody, all in violation of the Fourth Amendment. (Compl.

11

¶¶ 196, 198.) The Complaint also alleges that Sections 2 and 6 violate the Fourth Aemndment

12

by permitting “warrantless seizures of individuals in the absence of probable cause that they

13

have committed crimes.” (Id. ¶ 197.) The Complaint further states that unspecified portions

14

of S.B. 1070 viola te the Arizona Constitution by “requiring that officers conduct

15

investigatory stops without reasonable suspicion of crim inal activity,” perm itting

16

“warrantless seizures of individuals in the absence of probable cause that they have

17

committed crimes,” and extending “this broad, warrantless arrest authority to the context of

18

an individual’s home.” (Id. ¶¶ 201-03.)

19

The Fourth Amendment protects the right to be free fromunreasonable searches and

20

seizures and states that warrants must be supported by probable cause. U.S. Const. amend.

21

IV.10 Article II, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution states: “No person shall be disturbed in his

22

private affairs, or his hom e invaded, without authority of law.” Arizona courts have

23

interpreted Article II, § 8 of the state constitution as providing broader protection against

24

searches and seizures than the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.See Moulé ex rel.

25

Moulé v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69, 863 F. Supp. 1098, 1102 (D. Ariz. 1994)

26

27

10 The Fourth Amendment is applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. City

28 of Ontario, Cal. v. Quon, 130 S. Ct. 2619, 2624 (2010).

- 28 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 29 of 38

1 (citing Arizona state law), rev’d on other grounds, 66 F.3d 335 (9th Cir. 1995).11

2

a. Fourth Amendment

3

Governor Brewer argues that Section 2 does not authorize unreasonable seizures in

4 violation of the Fourth Am endment because it is not unreasonable to inquire about

5 immigration status in connection with an otherwise lawful stop, detention, or arrest. (Brewer

6 MTD at 22.) The Court assum es that Plaintiffs challenge Subsection 2(B), as none of the

7 other subsections appears to significantly implicate the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme

8 Court has held that questioning by police does not constitute a discrete Fourth Amendment

9 event, such that police would need independent reasonable suspicion to ask the questions.

10 See Muehler v. Mena , 544 U.S. 93, 100-01 (2005). The questioning at issue in Muehler

11 related to immigration status, among other things. Id. Subsection 2(B) pertains to situations

12 in which the police have already made a lawful stop, detention, or arrest, and Subsection 2(B)

13 also requires reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence in the United States. This theory for

14 violation of the Fourth Amendment is unavailing.12

15

Plaintiffs also argue that the extension of a person’s detention during the time it takes

16

17

11 Where state and federal constitutional provisions are not coterm inous, courts are

directed to attempt to avoid federal constitutional questions by instead resolving the case on

18 state constitutional grounds, if possible. See Ellis v. City of La Mesa, 990 F.2d 1518, 1524

19

(9th Cir. 1993). Here, because the Arizona Constitution is more protective of the right to be free from searches and seizures than the Fourth Am endment is, the Court begins with the

20 federal analysis. If the Court were to conclude that Plaintiffs had stated a claim that S.B.

1070 violates Article II, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution, the federal issue would still have 21 to be addressed because the Fourth Amendment affords less protection.

22

12 Plaintiffs argue that Subsection 2(B) applies to lawful stops and detentions for civil

23 violations as well, so subsequent questioning regarding immigration status is a violation of

the Fourth Amendment. (Pls.’ Resp. at 35.) However, Subsection 2(B) requires reasonable 24 suspicion that the person is unlawfully present, which provides an additional basis for the

25 inquiry. Given the fact that investigatory questioning, on its own, does not typicallypimlicate the Fourth Amendment, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not stated a claimthat Subsection
26 2(B) violates the Fourth Amendment on this theory.See Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Ct,.542

27

U.S. 177, 185 (2004) (“Asking questions is an essential part of police investigations. In the ordinary course a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating

28 the Fourth Amendment.”)

- 29 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 30 of 38

1 to investigate and verify the person’s immigration status makes an investigatory stop into an

2 arrest. (Pls.’ Resp. at 35-36.) The Court findsthis argument more persuasive and concludes

3 that Plaintiffs have stated a claim that Subsection 2(B) violates the Fourth Am endment

4 because it impermissibly extends detention time for people who are stopped, detained, or

5 arrested while their immigration status is checked if the officer has reasonable suspicion that

6 the person is unlawfully present. Plaintiffs have alleged facts supporting aplausible inference

7 that this extension arguably changes the encounter from an investigatory stop perm itted

8 under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1983), into an arrest. In order to m ake an arrest, the

9 Fourth Amendment requires the officer to have probable cause, a much higher standard than

10 the reasonable suspicion required in Subsection 2(B)S. ee Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146,

11 152 (2004) (“In conformity with the rule at common law, a warrantless arrest by a law officer

12 is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a

13 criminal offense has been or is being committed.” (citations omitted)).

14

This reasoning also applies to the second sentence of Subsection 2(B): “Any person

15 who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is

16 released.” A.R.S. § 11-1051(B). Plaintiffs ha ve stated a claim that this requirem ent also

17 violates the Fourth Amendment because they have alleged facts plausibly suggesting that it

18 will lengthen detention tim e for arrestees while their im migration status is determ ined.

19 Arizona law permits law enforcement officers tocite and immediately release people arrested

20 for certain offenses. A.R.S. § 13-3903. Give n that, using this procedure, people are

21 technically “arrested” but never booked into jail or perhaps even transported to a law

22 enforcement facility, detention time for this category of arrestee will be extended during an

23 immigration status verification.13

24

25

13 The Court also notes that information from another related case indicates that the

number of people impacted by this procedure is substantial. (See Escobar v. City of Tucson,

26 No. CV 10-249-TUC-SRB, Doc. 9, City of Tucson’s Answer & Cross-cl. E(“scobar Answer

27

& Cross-cl.”), ¶ 38 (sta ting that during fiscal year 2009, Tucson used the cite-and-release procedure provided by A.R.S. § 13-3903 to “arrset” and immediately release 36,821 people).)

28

- 30 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 31 of 38

1

Section 6 amends A.R.S. § 13-3883 to permit officers to make warrantless arrests if

2 the officer has probable cause to believe that “the person to be arrested has committed any

3 public offense that m akes the person rem ovable from the United S tates.” A.R.S. § 13-

4 3883(A)(5). Governor Brewer asserts that “[t]he commission of a public offense that makes

5 a person removable from the United States will often involve the commission of a crime.”

6 (Brewer MTD at 22-23 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1227).) Therefore, Governor Brewer argues, as a

7 warrantless arrest is proper if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person

8 committed a crime, Section 6 can be applied in a constitutional manner, and for purposes of

9 a facial challenge, Plaintiffs have not stated a claim. (Brewer MTD at 23.)

10

As discussed in more detail with regard to Plaintiffs’ vagueness argum ents, it is

11 unclear how Section 6 alters the authority officers in Arizona already have

to ma ke

12 warrantless arrests, and Plaintiffs have stated a claimthat the provision is unconstitutionally

13 vague because there is no list of crim es that make a person rem ovable from the U.S., a

14 complicated determination ultimately made by federal officials, not a state law enforcement

15 officer in the field. See supra Part II.B.4.b.iii. The Court finds that, f or the same reason,

16 Plaintiffs have stated a claim that Section 6 violates the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiffs have

17 alleged sufficient facts suggesting that, because an Arizona law enforcement officer cannot

18 make a determination that a public offense makes the person removable from the U.S., any

19 arrest made under Section 6 would, in fact, not be base d on probable cause that the public

20 offense makes the arrestee rem ovable from the U.S. See Devenpeck, 543 U.S. at 152. 14

21 Plaintiffs have stated a claimthat Sections 2and 6 violate the Fourth Amendment in that they

22 permit unconstitutional seizures and detentions. Governor Brewer’s Motion is denied in this

23 regard.

24

Governor Brewer also moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim that Section 2 improperly

25

26

14 The Court notes again that under other subsections of A.R.S. § 13-3883(A), officers

27

may already make warrantless arrests if they have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested committed a felony, misdemeanor, petty offense, or certain criminal traffic

28 violations. See A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(1)-(4).

- 31 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 32 of 38

1 authorizes state law enforcem ent officials to “transport individuals into federal custody.”

2 (Brewer MTD at 23; see also Compl. ¶ 198.) Section 2 provides that

3

a law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien whom the agency

has received verification is unlawfully present in the United States and who is

4

in the agency’s custody to a federal facility in this state or to any other point

of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law

5

enforcement agency.

6 A.R.S. § 11-1051(D). Plaintiffs do not address this theory in their Response and cite no

7 authority stating that state law enforcement agencies may not transport a lawfully-detained

8 person in their custody. Section 2(D) requires that verification of the person’s unlawful

9 presence be obtained and that the person already be in the agency’s custody before the

10 transportation occurs. Plaintiffs have not stated a claimthat this provision plausibly violates

11 the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Means, 252 F. App’x 830, 834 (9th Cir. 2007)

12 (unpublished) (“[Plaintiff] cites no authority holdni g the transportation of a lawfully detained

13 individual violates the Fourth Amendment, and we have found none.”). Governor Brewer’s

14 Motion is granted as to this argument.

15

b. Article II, § 8

16

Most of Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the state constitution mirror those related to

17 the Fourth Amendment, so the Court’s analysis of the federal standard applies. See Moulé,

18 863 F. Supp. at 1102. Howe ver, Governor Brewer also m oves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ state

19 constitutional claim that “S[.]B[.] 1070 violates the Arizona Constitution’s gua rantee by

20 requiring that officers conduct investigatory stops without reasonable suspicion of criminal

21 activity.” (Brewer MTD at 24; Com pl. ¶ 201.) The Com plaint does not specify which

22 provision of S.B. 1070 is being challenged under this theory, or for that m atter, under the

23 Arizona Constitution generally. (Compl. ¶¶ 199-203.) Assuming that this challenge relates

24 to Subsection 2(B), the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not stated a claim sufficient to

25 withstand a challenge under Rule 12(b)(6). Nowhere does Subsection 2(B) state that officers

26 may or must conduct “investigatory stops” without reasonable suspicion. Governor Brewer’s

27 Motion is granted as to this theory.

28

- 32 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 33 of 38

1

6. Right to Travel (Count 7)

2

The right to travel from one state to another is a fundam ental right arising from

3 various clauses of the U.S. Constitution, including the Privileges and Immunities Clause of

4 Article IV and the Privileges and Im munities Clause of the Fourteenth Am endment. Att’y

5 Gen. of N.Y. v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 901-02 (1986). As discussed above, no Plaintiff

6 has standing to assert a claim for violations of the right to travel.See supra Part II.A.1.a.iii.

7

C. Additional Challenges to Plaintiffs’ Claims

8

Defendants Babeu and Walsh also assert that Palintiffs have failed to plead a short and

9 plain statement of the claim as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. (Pinal Cnty.

10 Defs.’ MTD at 3-4.) This argument is essentially a challenge to the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’

11 Complaint. The sufficiency of the Com plaint is discussed above. See supra Part II.B.

12 Defendant Arpaio also asserts that “designating this action as a ‘Class Action’ is

13 inappropriate . . . because if [S.B.] 1070 is declared unconstitutional, it will be so for

14 everyone, not just ‘class members.’” (Arpaio MTD at 9-10.) Defendant Arpaio’s challenge

15 to the appropriateness of alleging these claims as a class action is without merit. As Plaintiffs

16 point out, class actions commonly challenge the constitutionality of legislation. See, e.g.,

17 Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). Further, the appropriateness of class certification has not

18 yet been determined.

19

D. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

20

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction was filed on June 21, 2010. Plaintiffs

21 make three m ain arguments in their Moti on: (1) S.B. 1070 is preem pted by fe deral

22 immigration law (Pls.’ Mot. at 9-24); (2) S.B. 1070 violates the constitutional right to travel

23 (id. at 24-28); and (3) S.B. 1070 violates the First Am endment (id. at 28-32). The Court

24 entered a preliminary injunction in the related case United States v. Arizona, CV 10-1413-

25 PHX-SRB, on July 28, 2010. (See USA Order at 35-36.) In that Order, the Court found that

26 the United States was likely to succeed on the merits of its argument that certain portions of

27 S.B. 1070 were preem pted by federal law, that the United Sta tes was likely to suffer

28 irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief, and that the balance of equities tipped

- 33 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 34 of 38

1 in the United States’s favor considering the public interest. ( See id. at 4.) Therefore, the

2 Court preliminarily enjoined the following Sections of S.B. 1070:

3

Portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070

A.R.S. § 11-1051(B): requiring that an o fficer make a reasonable attempt to

4

determine the immigration status of a person stopped,

detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that

5

the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and

requiring verification of the im migration status of any

6

person arrested prior to releasing that person

Section 3 of S.B. 1070

7

A.R.S. § 13-1509:

creating a crime for the failure to apply for orcarry alien

registration papers

8

Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070

9

A.R.S. § 13-2928(C): creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit,

apply for, or perform work

10

Section 6 of S.B. 1070

11

A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5): authorizing the warrantless arrest of a personwhere there

is probable cause to believe the person has committed a

12

public offense that makes the person removable from the

United States

13

(Id.)

14

Plaintiffs in the instant matter do not substantively challenge any provisions of S.B.

15

1070 that were not enjoined by the Court in the USA Order, although Plaintiffs do challenge

16

the relevant provisions on some different grounds. (See Hr’g Tr. 34:8-37:15, July 22, 2010;

17

see also Pls.’ Mot. at 3-5, 9-32.) Plaintiffs acknowledge that the Court’s findings regarding

18

the preliminary injunction entered in United States v. Arizona, if applied to their Motion for

19

Preliminary Injunction, “would fully resolve Plaintiffs’ request for preliminary relief.” (Pls.’

20

Req. at 1.) Plaintiffs seek a ruling on their Motion for Prelim inary Injunction in order to

21

apply the USA Order to Defendants not nam ed in United States v. Arizona and to enable

22

these Plaintiffs “to participate fully and have their voices heard in litigation in the Court of

23

Appeals that could effectively decide many of their claims.” (Id. at 2.) The Court finds that

24

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction is rendered moot by the preliminary injunction

25

entered in United States v. Arizona. No additional provisions of S.B. 1070 are specifically

26

challenged by these Plaintiffs, so there is nothing else to enjoin.

27

Further, the Court concluded supra that Plaintiffs’ a rguments regarding the

28

- 34 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 35 of 38

1 constitutional right to travel and the First Amendment challenge to A.R.S. § 13-2928(C) are

2 unavailing. Although the Court denied Governor Brwe er’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First

3 Amendment claim against A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B), Plaintiffs stated at the hearing on

4 these Motions that they did not seek to preliminarily enjoin these provisions on First

5 Amendment grounds. (See Hr’g Tr. 81:21-23 (Plaintiffs’ counsel: “[I] n light of Redondo

6 Beach, we would withdraw our First Amendment P.I. request with respect to subsections (a)

7 and (b) at this time.”).) Plaintiffs’ preemption arguments are no different from those made

8 by the United States in United States v. Arizona, which were thoroughly addressed in the

9 USA Order.

10

If Plaintiffs’ Motion were not moot, the Court would have found one additional theory

11 persuasive in considering whether to enjoin Subsection 2(B) of S.B. 1070 prior to its

12 enactment, namely the Fourth Amendment challenge. (See USA Order at 16 n.6 (“The Court

13 is also cognizant of the potentially serious Fourth Amendment problems with the inevitable

14 increase in length of detention while im migration status is determ ined, as raised by the

15 plaintiffs in Friendly House, et al. v. Whiting, et al. , No. CV 10-1061-PHX-SRB.”).) The

16 Intervenor Defendants responded to this argument in their Response toAmicus Curiae Briefs

17 Filed in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Prelim inary Injunction (“Defs.’ Amicus Resp.”)

18 (Doc. 402).

19

“A plaintiff seeking a prelim inary injunction m ust establish tha t he is likely to

20 succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

21 preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in

22 the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008)

23 (citations omitted). Amicus Curiae Arizona Attorneys for Crim inal Justice (“AACJ”)

24 explains in its Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction the ways in

25 which the mandatory immigration determination upon arrest provisions of Subsection 2(B)

26 implicate the Fourth Amendment and lead to Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits

27 of this theory. ( See Doc. 336, Proposed Amicus Curiae Br. by Ariz. Att’ys for Crimina l

28 Justice in Supp. of Pls.’ Mot. (“AACJ Br.”) at 3-6, 9-10; Doc. 282, Order Granting Mot. for

- 35 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 36 of 38

1 Leave to File Amicus Curiae Br.)15

2

AACJ argues that Subsection 2(B) violatesthe Fourth Amendment by requiring police

3 to detain people longer than constitutionally permissible in order to determine immigration

4 status. (AACJ Br. at 4-5.) Subsection 2(B) provides:

5

For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by [an Arizona]law enforcement

official or . . . law enforcement agency . . . in the enforcement of any other law

6

or ordinance of a county, city or town of this state where reasonable suspicion

exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States,

7

a reasonable attem pt shall be m ade, when practic able, to determ ine the

immigration status of the person, exc ept if the determination may hinder or

8

obstruct an investigation.

9 A.R.S. § 11-1051(B). Subsection 2(B) also state,s“Any person who is arrested shall have the

10 person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.” Id.

11

The Court finds com pelling AACJ’s argument that Subsection 2(B) of S.B. 1070

12 “transforms investigatory stops into de facto arrests without probable cause.” (AACJ Br. at

13 9.) The Court addressed this a rgument above, in the context of Defendants’ Motion to

14 Dismiss, finding that Plaintiffs had stated a claimsufficient to withstand a motion under Rule

15 12(b)(6), and the Court now considers whether Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits

16 of this theory. The requirement that police officers make a reasonable attempt to determine

17 the immigration status of any person lawfully stopped, detained, or arrested when the officer

18

19

15 District courts have broad discretion to appoint or rejectamici curiae. Hoptowit v.

20 Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated in part on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). Amici may properly “take a legal position and present legal

21 arguments in support of it.” Funbus Sys., Inc. v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n , 801 F.2d 1120,

22

1125 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held, “In the absence of exceptional circumstances . . . we do not address issues raised only in an amicus

23 brief.” Artichoke Joe’s Grand Cal. Casino v. Norton, 353 F.3d 712, 719 n.10 (2003) (citing

Swan v. Peterson, 6 F.3d 1373, 1383 (9th Cir. 1993)). In this case, the Fourth Amendment 24 challenge is contained in the Complaint, has been responded to in the preliminary injunction

25 context by Defendants, and is discussed purely to demonstrate that this theory would have been compelling had the Court not already entered a preliminary injunction of the pertinent
26 provision on other grounds and instead engaged in a full Fourth Amendment analysis with

27

regard to preliminary injunctive relief. (See Compl. ¶¶ 3, 194-98; Defs.’Amicus Resp. at 5.) The Fourth Amendment challenge was also addressed by the parties in their briefing on

28 Governor Brewer’s Motion to Dismiss. (See Brewer MTD at 21-24; Pls.’ Resp. at 35-37.)

- 36 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 37 of 38

1 has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is unlawfully present appears, on its face,

2 to likely increase detention time for many people who are stopped, detained, or arrested. As

3 AACJ points out, detaining people for the additional time necessary to make a determination

4 of immigration status will change the encounter for many from an investigatory Terry stop

5 into an arrest, for which the police officer would need to have probable cause, not the

6 reasonable suspicion required by S.B. 1070. (See id. at 9-10); Herring v. United States, 129

7 S. Ct. 695, 698 (2009) (observing that the Fourth Amendment “usually requires the police

8 to have probable cause or a warrant before making an arrest”).

9

The second sentence of Subsection 2(B) states: “Any person who is arrested shall

10 have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.” A.R.S. § 11-

11 1051(B). This provision is mandatory (“shall”) and does not pertain only to people who are

12 arrested and booked into a jail. The Court observes that serious que stions also exist as to

13 whether this sentence violates the Fourth Amendment. See Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S.

14 200, 212 (1979) (holding that extensions of investigatory stops beyond the scope permitted

15 in Terry must be based on consent or probable cause (citingUnited States v. Brignoni-Ponce,

16 422 U.S. 873, 881-82 (1975)).

17

Requiring Arizona law enforc ement officials and agencies to determ ine the

18 immigration status of every person who is arrested will, on its face, impermissibly expand

19 the scope of detention for many arrestees because their liberty will be restricted while their

20 status is checked. As stated above, m any people each year are technically “arrested” but

21 never booked into jail or perhaps even transported to a law e nforcement facility, and

22 detention time for this category of arrestee will inevitably be extended during an immigration

23 status verification. (See Escobar Answer & Cross-cl., ¶ 38 (stating that during fiscal year

24 2009, Tucson used the cite-and-release procedure provided by A.R.S. § 13-3903 to “arrest”

25 and immediately release 36,821 people).)

26

Since the Court previously found that the United States was likely to succeed on its

27 challenge to this provision on preem ption grounds, re ndering Plaintiffs’ Motion for

28 Preliminary Injunction moot, the Court does not engage in a full prelim inary injunction

- 37 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 447 Filed 10/08/10 Page 38 of 38

1 analysis on Fourth Amendment grounds. However, there appear to be substantial questions

2 as to whether Subsection 2(B) would withstand a challenge under the Fourth Amendment,

3 and some of the facts supplied, both in this case and the related cases, suggest that Plaintiffs

4 could demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of this claim.

5

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting in part and denying in part the Motions

6 to Dismiss filed by Defendants Pinal CountySheriff Paul Babeu and Pinal County Attorney

7 James P. Walsh (Doc. 204), Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio (Doc. 205),

8 and Intervenor Defendant Arizona Governor Janice K. Brewer (Doc. 238). The following

9 of Plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed for lack of standing:

10 • violation of the First Amendment (Count 3) only as far as Plaintiffs challenge Section

11

2 of S.B. 1070;

12 • violation of the right to travel under the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Count 7).

13 Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for the following claims:

14 • violation of the First Amendment (Count 3) only as far as Plaintiffs challenge A.R.S.

15

§ 13-2928(C) of Section 5 of S.B. 1070;

16 • violation of the Due Process Clause (Count 6) only as far as Plaintiffs challenge

17

Sections 2 and 5 of S.B. 1070 for vagueness.

18 Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are denied for the balance of Plaintiffs’ claims.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary

20 Injunction (Doc. 235) and Request for Order on Pending Motion (Doc. 430).

21

22

DATED this 8th day of October, 2010.

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 38 -

 
 Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 1 of 29

1 Omar C. Jadwat (admitted pro hac vice)

Lucas Guttentag (admitted pro hac vice)

2 Tanaz Moghadam (admitted pro hac vice)

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

3 FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’

RIGHTS PROJECT

4 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor

New York, New York 10004

5 Telephone: (212) 549-2660

Facsimile: (212) 549-2654

6 ojadwat@aclu.org

lguttentag@aclu.org

Thomas A. Saenz (admitted pro hac vice)

7 tmoghadam@aclu.org

Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (admitted pro hac

vice)

8 Linton Joaquin (admitted pro hac vice) Victor Viramontes (admitted pro hac vice)

Karen C. Tumlin (admitted pro hac vice) Gladys Limón (admitted pro hac vice)

9 Nora A. Preciado (admitted pro hac vice) Nicholás Espíritu (admitted pro hac vice)

Melissa S. Keaney (admitted pro hac vice) MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL

10 Vivek Mittal (admitted pro hac vice)

DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW

634 S. Spring Street, 11th Floor

11 CENTER

Los Angeles, California 90014

3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2850

Telephone: (213) 629-2512

12 Los Angeles, California 90010

Facsimile: (213) 629-0266

Telephone: (213) 639-3900

tsaenz@maldef.org

13 Facsimile: (213) 639-3911

cvalenzuela@maldef.org

joaquin@nilc.org

vviramontes@maldef.org

14 tumlin@nilc.org

glimon@maldef.org

preciado@nilc.org

nespiritu@maldef.org

15 keaney@nilc.org

mittal@nilc.org

16

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17

Additional Co-Counsel on Subsequent Page

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

20

21 Friendly House, et al.,

CASE NO. CV-10-01061-SRB

22

Plaintiffs,

23

v.

24 Michael B. Whiting, et al.,

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OF A.R.S. §§ 13-2928 (A) AND (B) AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

25

Defendants.

(ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED)

26

27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUCTION OF ARS §§13-2928(A) AND (B)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 2 of 29

1 Daniel J. Pochoda (SBA No. 021979) Anne Lai* (SBA No. 330036)
2 ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA 3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235
3 Phoenix, Arizona 85014 Telephone: (602) 650-1854
4 Facsimile: (602) 650-1376 dpochoda@acluaz.org
5 alai@acluaz.org

Cecillia D. Wang (admitted pro hac vice) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 343-0775 Facsimile: (415) 395-0950 cwang@aclu.org

6

Julie A. Su (admitted pro hac vice)

Nina Perales (admitted pro hac vice)

Yungsuhn Park (admitted pro hac vice)

7 Iván Espinoza-Madrigal (admitted pro hac Connie Choi (admitted pro hac vice)

vice)

Carmina Ocampo (admitted pro hac vice)

8 MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL

ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN

DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL

LEGAL CENTER, a member

9 FUND

of Asian American Center for

110 Broadway Street, Suite 300

Advancing Justice

10 San Antonio, Texas 78205

1145 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200

Telephone: (210) 224-5476

Los Angeles, California 90017

11 Facsimile: (210) 224-5382

Telephone: (213) 977-7500

nperales@maldef.org

Facsimile: (213) 977-7595

12 iespinoza@maldef.org

jsu@apalc.org

ypark@apalc.org

13

cchoi@apalc.org

cocampo@apalc.org

14

Chris Newman (admitted pro hac vice)

Laura D. Blackburne (admitted pro hac

15 Lisa Kung (admitted pro hac vice)

vice)

NATIONAL DAY LABOR

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

16 ORGANIZING NETWORK

FOR THE ADVANCEMENT

675 S. Park View Street, Suite B

OF COLORED PEOPLE (NAACP)

17 Los Angeles, California 90057

4805 Mt. Hope Drive

Telephone: (213) 380-2785

Baltimore, Maryland 21215

18 Facsimile: (213) 380-2787

Telephone: (410) 580-5700

newman@ndlon.org

lblackburne@naacpnet.org

19 kung@ndlon.org

20 Daniel R. Ortega, Jr. (SBA No. 005015) ROUSH, MCCRACKEN, GUERRERO,
21 MILLER & ORTEGA 1112 E. Washington Street
22 Phoenix, Arizona 85034 Telephone: (602) 253-3554
23 Facsimile: (602) 340-1896 danny@rmgmo.com
24

25

26

27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUCTION OF ARS §§13-2928(A) AND (B)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 3 of 29

1 Bradley S. Phillips+ (admitted pro hac vice)
2 Paul J. Watford+ (admitted pro hac vice) Joseph J. Ybarra+ (admitted pro hac vice)
3 Elisabeth J. Neubauer+ (admitted pro hac vice)
4 Benjamin J. Maro+ (admitted pro hac vice)
5 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP+ 355 South Grand Avenue
6 Thirty-Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
7 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
8 Brad.Phillips@mto.com Paul.Watford@mto.com
9 Joseph.Ybarra@mto.com Elisabeth.Neubauer@mto.com
10 Benjamin.Maro@mto.com

Susan Traub Boyd+ (admitted pro hac vice)
Yuval Miller+ (admitted pro hac vice) Kimberly A. Morris+ (admitted pro hac vice) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP+ 560 Mission Street Twenty-Seventh Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2907 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 Susan.Boyd@mto.com Yuval.Miller@mto.com Kimberly.Morris@mto.com

11

Stephen P. Berzon++ (admitted pro hac

12 vice)

Jonathan Weissglass++ (admitted pro hac

13 vice)

ALTSHULER BERZON LLP++

14 177 Post Street, Suite 300

San Francisco, CA 94108

15 Telephone: (415) 421-7151

Facsimile: (415) 362-8064

16 sberzon@altshulerberzon.com

jweissglass@altshulerberzon.com

17

+Attorneys for all plaintiffs except Service Employees International Union, Service

18

Employees International Union, Local 5, United Food and Commercial Workers

International Union, and Japanese American Citizens League

19

++Attorneys for Service Employees International Union, Service

20

Employees International Union, Local 5, United Food and Commercial Workers

International Union

21

*Admitted pursuant to Ariz. Sup. Ct. R. 38(f)

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUCTION OF ARS §§13-2928(A) AND (B)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 4 of 29

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2
I.
3
II.
4

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 Procedural History.................................................................................................... 1

5 III. Standard.................................................................................................................... 2

6 IV. Argument.................................................................................................................. 3

7

A. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Their Claim That

8

Sections 13-2928 (A) and (B) Violate the First Amendment. ..................... 3

9

1. Sections 13-2928 (A) and (B) are unconstitutional content-based

10

regulations of protected speech. ............................................................ 3

11

2. Sections 13-2928 (A) and (B) cannot survive strict scrutiny................ 7

12

3. Sections 13-2928 (A) and (B) cannot meet intermediate scrutiny........ 8

13

14

B. Plaintiffs are Suffering Irreparable Harm ................................................... 10

15

C. The Equities Tip Decidedly in Plaintiffs’ Favor ........................................ 13

16

D. A Preliminary Injunction is in the Public Interest ......................................... 13

17 IV. Conclusion. ..............................................................................................................14

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

i

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUCTION OF ARS §§13-2928(A) AND (B)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 5 of 29

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2

PAGE(S)

3 FEDERAL CASES

4 A.C.L.U. of Nevada v. City of Las Vegas, 5 466 F. 3d 784 (9th Cir. 2006) ..................................................................................... passim

6 Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004) ............................................................................................................ 3
7

8 Berger v. City of Seattle, 569 F. 3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................... passim
9

10

Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988) ............................................................................................................ 7

11
Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Educ. of City of New York, 12 331 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2003) .............................................................................................. 11

13
Burson v. Freeman, 14 504 U.S. 191 (1992) ........................................................................................................ 3, 7

15 Carey v. Brown, 16 477 U.S. 455 (1980) ............................................................................................................ 7

17 Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, 18 507 U.S. 410 (1993) ............................................................................................................ 6

19 Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles v. Burke, 20 No. 98-cv-4863, 2000 WL 1481467 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2000)......................................... 9
21 Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 607 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................. 2
22
Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 23 623 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................. 2

24 Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761 (1993) ............................................................................................................ 9
25
Edwards v. City of Santa Barbara, 26 150 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................................. 8

27 Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) .......................................................................................................... 11
28

ii

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUCTION OF ARS §§13-2928(A) AND (B)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 6 of 29

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Continued

2

PAGE(S)

3 Friendly House v. Whiting, No. 10-01061 (D. Ariz. Oct. 8, 2010) ................................................................................. 2
4
Frisby v. Schultz, 5 478 U.S. 474 (1988) ............................................................................................................ 8

6 Ft. Funston Dog Walkers v. Babbitt, 96 F. Supp. 2d 1021 (N.D. Cal. 2000)............................................................................... 10
7
Galvin v. Hay, 8 374 F.3d 739 (9th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................................... 9

9 Glendale Assocs., Ltd. V. NLRB, 347 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................. 5
10
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 11 130 S. Ct. 2705 (2010)..................................................................................................... 5, 6

12 Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) .......................................................................................................... 10
13
Klein v. City of Laguna Beach, 14 381 F. App’x 723 (9th Cir. 2010)........................................................................................ 2

15 Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................... passim
16
Kuba v. 1-A Agr. Ass’n, 17 387 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................................... 7

18 Lopez v. Town of Cave Creek, 559 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (D. Ariz. 2008) ............................................................................... 12
19
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 20 505 U.S. 377 (1992) ............................................................................................................ 6

21 Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 303 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2002) ......................................................................................... 8, 10
22

23

Satellite Television of New York Assoc. v. Finneran, 579 F. Supp. 1552 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ............................................................................ 12, 13

24
Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 25 577 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................. 2

26 S.O.C. Inc. v. County of Clark, 152 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 1998) ......................................................................................... 5, 8
27

28

iii

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUCTION OF ARS §§13-2928(A) AND (B)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 7 of 29

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Continued

2

PAGE(S)

3 Tollis, Inc. v. San Bernardino County, 827 F.2d 1329 (9th Cir. 1987) ............................................................................................. 8
4
United States v. Grace, 5 461 U.S. 171 (1983) ........................................................................................................ 3, 9

6 United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000) ............................................................................................................ 7
7
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 8 491 U.S. 781 (1989) ............................................................................................................ 8

9 White v. Lee, 277 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000) ........................................................................................... 11
10
WV Ass’n of Club Owners and Fraternal Services, Inc. v. Musgrave, 11 553 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................. 11

12
STATE STATUTES
13

14 A.R.S. § 13-707 ................................................................................................................. 10

15 A.R.S. § 13-2906 ........................................................................................................... 7, 10

16 A.R.S. § 13-2928 ........................................................................................................ passim

17 A.R.S. § 28-905 ................................................................................................................... 7

18 A.R.S. § 28-704 ................................................................................................................... 7

19 A.R.S. § 28-871 ................................................................................................................... 7

20 A.R.S. § 28-873 ............................................................................................................. 7, 10

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

iv

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUCTION OF ARS §§13-2928(A) AND (B)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 8 of 29

1

I. INTRODUCTION

2

Plaintiffs move the Court for a preliminary injunction as to §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B)

3 of the Arizona Revised Statutes in order to halt the ongoing deprivation of First

4 Amendment rights to individuals – day laborers and employers – at risk of prosecution

5 under these provisions.

6

The First Amendment guarantees all members of society the right to free

7 expression. Solicitation speech is expression entitled to full protection under the First

8 Amendment. Sections 13-2928 (A) and (B) of the Arizona Revised Statutes are content-

9 based speech restrictions because they impose statewide criminal liability on motorists

10 and individuals based on individuals’ employment solicitation speech. Plaintiffs are likely

11 to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claims against A.R.S. §§ 13-2928 (A)

12 and (B) because, as content-based restrictions, they are subject to strict scrutiny and

13 Defendants cannot show that they survive that test.

14

Preliminary injunctive relief is necessary to halt Plaintiffs’ ongoing irreparable

15 injury due to the unconstitutional restriction of their right to free speech; the improper

16 chilling of their expressive activity; and these sections’ effect on day laborers’ livelihood

17 and their ability to support themselves and their families. Given the severity of these

18 harms to Plaintiffs, the balance of the equities tips sharply in their favor, especially

19 because Arizona has ample existing means at its disposal by which to address any

20 purported traffic safety interests. Finally, given the fundamental constitutional liberties at

21 stake, injunctive relief is in the public interest. For these reasons, immediate interim relief

22 is necessary during the pendency of this lawsuit.

23

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

24

Plaintiffs filed this action on May 17, 2010 challenging major provisions of

25 Arizona Senate Bill 1070, as amended (“SB 1070”), that together purport to create an

26 immigration policy of “attrition through enforcement” in the State of Arizona. Plaintiffs

27 assert in their Complaint that the provisions on their face violate the Constitution,

28 including the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. On June 4, 2010, Plaintiffs

1

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUCTION OF ARS §§13-2928(A) AND (B)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 9 of 29

1 moved for a preliminary injunction of the challenged provisions pursuant to a number of

2 their claims. At the Court's June 22, 2010 hearing, Plaintiffs withdrew their preliminary

3 injunction motion with respect to §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B) in light of the Ninth Circuit's

4 ruling in Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 607 F.3d

5 1178 (9th Cir. 2010). Since that time, however, the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en

6 banc in that case and ordered the panel's ruling not citable within this Circuit. See Comite

7 De Jornaleros De Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 623 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir.

8 2010). In addition, as this Court determined, the ordinance at issue in Redondo Beach is

9 distinguishable from §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B), which specifically target employment

10 solicitation speech. Friendly House v. Whiting, No. 10-01061 (D. Ariz. Oct. 8, 2010)

11 (order granting in part and den. in part defs.’ motions to dismiss and den. plts’ mot. for

12 prelim. inj.) (hereinafter “Oct. 8, 2010 Order”). Accordingly, Plaintiffs now seek a

13 preliminary injunction of §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B).

14

III. STANDARD

15

Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction to suspend enforcement of §§ 13-

16 2928 (A) and (B). A preliminary injunction should be granted when the moving party

17 establishes: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that he is likely to suffer

18 irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips

19 in his favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. See Sierra Forest Legacy

20 v. Rey, 577 F.3d 1015, 1021 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winters v. Natural Resources Defense

21 Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008)). “The same standard applies regardless of

22 whether the movant seeks to maintain the status quo or to halt an ongoing deprivation of

23 rights.” Klein v. City of Laguna Beach, 381 F. App’x 723, 725 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing

24 Textile Unlimited, Inc. v. A..BMH & Co., 240 F.3d 781, 786 (9th Cir. 2001)). Plaintiffs

25 meet these elements here.

26

27

28

2

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUCTION OF ARS §§13-2928(A) AND (B)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 10 of 29

1

IV. ARGUMENT

2

3

A. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Their Claim That Sections 13-2928 (A) and (B) Violate the First Amendment.

4

5

As this Court already observed in this case, §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B) are content-

6 based regulations of speech that are subject to strict scrutiny. Oct. 8, 2010 Order at 20.

7 See also Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656, 660 (2004). Sections 13-2928 (A) and (B) fail

8 to survive strict scrutiny because Defendants cannot meet their burden of showing that the

9 regulations “serve[] a compelling government interest in the least restrictive manner

10 possible.” See Berger v. City of Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

11 As such, Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims are likely to succeed on the merits.

12

1. Sections 13-2928 (A) and (B) are unconstitutional content-based

13

regulations of protected speech.

14

A.R.S. §§13-2928 (A) and (B), portions of SB 1070, unlawfully regulate protected

15 speech in a public forum on the basis of its content. See Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S.

16 191, 196-97 (1992). On their face, §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B) specifically suppress speech

17 soliciting work – in particular day labor solicitation speech – which is entitled to full

18 constitutional protection. ACLU of Nevada v. City of Las Vegas, 466 F.3d 784, 792 (9th

19 Cir. 2006) (“ACLU II”); see also Berger, 569 F.3d at 1050. These sections restrict

20 persons from engaging in work solicitation speech on all streets throughout the State of

21 Arizona, which are “quintessential public for[a]” that have “‘by long tradition . . . been

22 devoted to assembly and debate.’” Burson, 504 U.S. at 196-97 (citations omitted). In

23 such public fora, the government’s ability to restrict speech is “very limited.” United

24 States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 177 (1983).

25

Sections 13-2928 (A) and (B) single out particular content of communication

26 between a motorist and the person that he or she picks up for differential treatment.

27 Section 13-2928 (A) applies only to drivers who “attempt to hire or hire” workers, and §

28

3

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUCTION OF ARS §§13-2928(A) AND (B)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 11 of 29

1 13-2928 (B) applies only to persons entering a car “in order to be hired.” A.R.S. §§ 13-

2 2928 (A) and (B). Thus, the regulations target individuals engaging in speech that solicits

3 work, and leave other speech – such as artistic, political, and religious speech –

4 completely unrestricted. See Oct. 8, 2010 Order at 20; Berger, 569 F.3d at 1051. Indeed,

5 as the Court explained in ruling that §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B) are content-based, the

6 provisions specifically target and “regulate[] only solicitation related to employment,” and

7 not political or other forms of solicitation. Oct. 8, 2010 Order at 20.

8

In its ruling issued on October 8, 2010, the Court correctly relied on Berger and

9 ACLU II in determining that §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B) “are content-based regulations of

10 speech because the provisions ‘differentiate[] based on the content of speech,’ prohibiting

11 only the solicitation of employment.” Oct. 8, 2010 Order at 20. In ACLU II, the Ninth

12 Circuit held that a prohibition on handbills requesting financial assistance, but permitting

13 those with other content, was a “content-based distinction because it single[d] out certain

14 speech for differential treatment based on the idea expressed.” 466 F.3d at 793-94.

15 Similarly, in Berger, the en banc Court of Appeals held that an ordinance prohibiting

16 street performers from soliciting donations, but not prohibiting the performers from

17 communicating other messages, was a content-based regulation of speech. Berger, 569

18 F.2d at 1051. The Berger court explained that “[a] regulation is content-based if either the

19 underlying purpose of the regulation is to suppress particular ideas, or if the regulation, by

20 its very terms, singles out particular content for differential treatment.” Id. (emphasis

21 added) (citation omitted).

22

“Importantly, [§§ 13-2928 (A) and (B)’s] provisions are directed only at

23 employment solicitation and not more broadly at the act of solicitation.” Oct. 8, 2010

24 Order at 20. The Court further noted that “[a]lthough courts have held that bans on the act

25 of solicitation are content-neutral, [they] have not found any case holding that a regulation

26 that separates out words of solicitation for differential treatment is content-neutral.” Id.

27 (citing ACLU II, 466 F.3d at 794). Like the solicitation restriction at issue in Berger, §§

28 13-2928 (A) and (B) restrict “the medium and manner of” soliciting “based on the content

4

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUCTION OF ARS §§13-2928(A) AND (B)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 12 of 29

1 of the [speaker’s] message.” Berger, 569 F.3d at 1051. Indeed, “even though some

2 manner of communication on the subject is allowed[,]” “regulat[ing] the manner of speech

3 on the basis of content, tak[es] the regulation outside the time, place, and manner

4 rubric[.]” Id. Accordingly, §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B) are content-based speech restrictions

5 regardless of whether they “may be . . . directed at conduct, . . . [because] the conduct

6 triggering coverage under the statute consists of communicating a message.” Holder v. 7 Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705, 2724 (2010).1

8

The Court’s conclusion that §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B) are content-based is further

9 supported “by the fact that an officer seeking to enforce [the solicitation restrictions]

10 ‘must necessarily examine the content of the message that is conveyed.’” Berger, 569

11 F.3d at 1052 (quoting Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 134

12 (1992)). See also S.O.C., Inc. v. County of Clark, 152 F.3d 1136, 1145 (9th Cir. 1998)

13 (that an official must necessarily examine the content of the message that is conveyed in

14 order to enforce the regulation is the hallmark of a content-based regulation); Glendale

15 Assocs., Ltd. v. NLRB, 347 F.3d 1145, 1155 (9th Cir. 2003) (same). As the Supreme

16 Court recently explained, a law is a content-based regulation of speech where criminal

17 liability “depends on what [individuals] say.” Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. at

18 2723-2724.

19

Here, enforcement of §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B) necessarily requires an examination

20 of the content of the communication between an individual and occupant of a vehicle.

21 Law enforcement officers are required to determine the content of the message conveyed,

22 since liability accrues only when individuals engage in speech about employment

23 solicitation. An enforcing officer must determine whether, for instance, a motorist

24 responded to a political solicitation (permitted), a homeless person soliciting alms

25 (permitted), or instead to a person soliciting employment (prohibited). S.O.C., 152 F.3d at

26 1

Nor does the mere assertion of purported traffic and safety concerns lessen the

content-based nature of §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B). See ACLU II, 466 F.3d at 793 (“[T]he

27 mere assertion of a content-neutral purpose [is not] enough to save a law which, on its

face, discriminates based on content.”) (quoting Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. F.C.C., 512

28 U.S. 622, 642-42 (1994)).

5

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUCTION OF ARS §§13-2928(A) AND (B)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 13 of 29

1 1145 (noting, in holding ordinance content-based, that enforcing officer “would need to

2 examine the contents of the handbill to determine whether its distribution was

3 prohibited”); see also Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, 507 U.S. 410, 429 (1993).

4 Similarly, pedestrians in Arizona can engage in any speech with motorists, and in any

5 manner, without running afoul of §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B), as long as the speech does not

6 constitute employment solicitation. Oct. 8, 2010 Order at 20. Cf. ACLU II, 466 F.3d at

7 794; Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. at 2722-24.

8

This selective liability based on a particular subject of speech also evidences

9 Arizona’s attempt to chill the expression and communication of one particular set of

10 constitutionally protected ideas. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 505 U.S. 377, 394

11 (1992). “Selectivity of this sort creates the possibility that the [government] is seeking to

12 handicap the expression of particular ideas.” Id. While Arizona may enact legislation

13 aimed at ensuring traffic safety, it cannot do so in a way that is designed to impose

14 “special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects”

15 without the regulation becoming a constitutionally suspect content-based restriction on 16 speech. Id. at 391.2

17

Because liability under §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B) “depends on what [individuals]

18 say” when they communicate with a motorist, Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. at

19 2723-24, “the very basis for the regulation is the difference in content [,]”Discovery

20

2

The original bill, later codified as §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B), is HB 2042, titled

21 “unlawful roadside solicitation of employment.” HB 2042 was duplicated into and heard

22 concurrently with SB 1070. The testimony of HB 2042’s sponsor, State Representative Kavanagh, evidences that these provisions sought to suppress day labor solicitation

23 speech. Boyd Decl., Ex. 24 (filed in support of Pls’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj. on June 21,

24

2010, Docket No. 235), Kavanagh testimony Feb. 24, 2010 (“No one benefits from roadside solicitation of day labor” and there are “other ways decent people can get jobs,

25 and certainly standing on the street like a hooker isn’t one of them.”); Id. at. Ex. 31, Jan.

21, 2010 House Judiciary Comm. hearing (Kavanagh testifying that the law is necessary 26 because “large congregations of almost exclusively men hang[] around in communities,

27 [and it] is a problem — it’s unsightly, it’s intimidating, especially to people on the street, particularly women. . . .”). The underlying purpose of §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B) is clearly

28 aimed at suppressing day labor solicitation speech.

6

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUCTION OF ARS §§13-2928(A) AND (B)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 14 of 29

1 Network, 507 U.S. at 429. See also Burson, 504 U.S. at 197; Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S.

2 455, 462 (1980).

3

2. Sections 13-2928 (A) and (B) cannot survive strict scrutiny.

4

Strict scrutiny applies here, because, “[a]s . . . content-based regulation[s],

5 [Sections] 13-2928 (A) and (B) [are] only valid if [they] ‘serve[] a compelling

6 government interest in the least restrictive manner possible.’” Oct. 8, 2010 Order at 20

7 (quoting Berger, 569 F.3d at 1053). If a less restrictive alternative would achieve that

8 interest, the Defendants “must use that alternative.” See United States v. Playboy

9 Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 813 (2000). “A court should not assume a

10 plausible, less restrictive alternative would be ineffective.” Id. at 824.

11

Although traffic safety can be a recognized significant interest, Kuba v. 1-A Agr.

12 Ass'n, 387 F.3d 850, 858 (9th Cir. 2004), here, there are numerous state and local laws

13 readily available to Defendants that address traffic flow and public safety issues caused by

14 the interference with traffic. See e.g., A.R.S. § 28-905 (“A person shall not open a door

15 on a motor vehicle unless it . . . can be done without interfering with the movement of

16 other traffic.”); A.R.S. §§ 13-2906(A) (imposing a maximum 30-day jail sentence if

17 person “recklessly interferes with the passage of any highway or public thoroughfare by

18 creating an unreasonable inconvenience or hazard”); see also 28-871(A); 28-704(A); 28-

19 873(A). Accordingly, Defendants cannot show that §§13-2928 (A) and (B) are the least

20 restrictive means to achieve purported traffic safety interests because they could easily

21 rely on the myriad existing laws that directly regulate behavior by pedestrians or drivers

22 that disrupts traffic safety. See Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 329 (1988) (holding statute

23 was not narrowly tailored because “a less restrictive alternative is readily available”).

24 Defendants may enforce these laws, which allow them to combat threats to traffic flow

25 and public safety that they may assert an interest in eliminating, without

26 unconstitutionally impinging on the protected speech that §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B)

27 prohibit.

28

Based on the foregoing reasons, and as further explained below, §§13-2928 (A)

7

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUCTION OF ARS §§13-2928(A) AND (B)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 15 of 29

1 and (B) cannot survive strict scrutiny.

2

3. Sections 13-2928 (A) and (B) cannot meet intermediate scrutiny.

3

While Defendants may argue that Sections 13-2928 (A) and (B) should be subject

4 to intermediate scrutiny, the restrictions fail even that test because Defendants cannot

5 show that they do not burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further

6 significant governmental interests. Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 799

7 (1989); see Edwards v. City of Santa Barbara, 150 F.3d 1213, 1216 (9th Cir. 1998).

8 Sections 13-2928 (A) and (B) must “target[] and eliminate[] no more than the exact source

9 of the ‘evil’ [they] seek[] to remedy.” Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 485. See also

10 Berger, 569 F.3d at 1041. Thus, to meet their burden of establishing the constitutionality

11 of these laws, Defendants must show a “reasonable fit” between their asserted interest and

12 the terms of §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B). See S.O.C., 152 F.3d at 1148. As part of this

13 showing, Defendants must demonstrate “that in enacting the particular limitations . . . [the

14 State] relied upon evidence permitting the reasonable inference that absent such

15 limitations,” the proscribed speech would cause harmful effects. Tollis, Inc. v. San

16 Bernardino County, 827 F.2d 1329, 1333 (9th Cir. 1987). “[T]he existence of obvious,

17 less burdensome alternatives is ‘a relevant consideration in determining whether the ‘fit’

18 between the ends and means is reasonable.’” Berger, 569 F.3d at 1041 (quoting Discovery

19 Network, 507 U.S. at 417 n. 13).

20

Defendants cannot meet this “evidentiary requirement” to prove that their interest

21 in protecting against traffic hazards justifies the prohibitions of §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B).

22 See Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2009). “As both [the

23 Ninth Circuit] and the Supreme Court have repeatedly emphasized, ‘merely invoking

24 interests . . . is insufficient.’” Id. (quoting Kuba, 387 F.3d at 859). Rather, “’[t]he

25 Government must . . . show that the [prohibited] communicative activity endangers those

26 interests.’” Id. “There must be evidence in the record to support a determination that the

27 restriction [on speech] is reasonable.” Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 303 F.3d

28 959, 967 (9th Cir. 2002). Cf., S.O.C., 152 F.3d at 1146. Here, even if Defendants have

8

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUCTION OF ARS §§13-2928(A) AND (B)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 16 of 29

1 some evidence that in the past an individual solicitor and prospective employer obstructed

2 traffic and posed a safety threat somewhere in Arizona, it is not enough to justify the

3 extraordinary and unprecedented statewide blanket restriction on employment solicitation

4 speech imposed by §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B). See Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights

5 of Los Angeles v. Burke, 2000 WL 1481467, *9 (C.D. Cal. 2000). “A governmental body

6 seeking to sustain a restriction must demonstrate that the harms it recites are real.” See

7 Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761, 770-71 (1993); see also Berger, 569 F.3d at 1049.

8 Defendants cannot demonstrate that the speech prohibited by §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B)

9 actually endangers asserted traffic interests throughout the State of Arizona. Accordingly,

10 Defendants fail to meet their burden of proving that the challenged restrictions are

11 narrowly tailored.

12

Sections 13-2928 (A) and (B) further fail to pass constitutional muster under

13 intermediate scrutiny because there are “obvious, less burdensome alternatives” available

14 to meet Defendants’ purported interests. See Berger, 569 F.3d at 1041 (quoting Discovery

15 Network, 507 U.S. at 417 n. 13). As explained, Defendants have a number of existing,

16 conventional laws whose very purpose is to address traffic and other legitimate concerns,

17 further evidencing the overbreadth of the laws. “[T]he availability of [these] obvious less-

18 restrictive alternatives” demonstrates that these provisions “burden[] substantially more

19 speech than is necessary to achieve [their] purposes,” and are therefore not narrowly

20 tailored. See Galvin v. Hay, 374 F.3d 739, 753 (9th Cir. 2004).

21

Moreover, there is no credible argument that there is a governmental interest

22 sufficient to justify harsher penalties for individuals who impede traffic because they are

23 engaging in day labor solicitation than for other individuals who may cause a similar

24 impediment to traffic for other reasons. Cf., Grace, 461 U.S. at 182 (holding that a greater

25 restriction on speech on public sidewalks surrounding the Supreme Court but not other

26 public sidewalks could not be justified in the absence of a governmental interest

27 necessitating the increased regulation). Arizona state laws that already regulate conduct

28 that creates traffic hazards carry civil penalties and minimal jail sentences. See e.g.,

9

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUCTION OF ARS §§13-2928(A) AND (B)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 17 of 29

1 A.R.S. § 28-873(A) (imposing civil penalties for actions that may impede traffic); A.R.S.

2 § 13-2906(A) (imposing a maximum thirty-day jail sentence if person “recklessly

3 interferes with the passage of any highway or public thoroughfare by creating an

4 unreasonable inconvenience or hazard”); see A.R.S. § 13-707(A). In contrast, violations

5 of §§13-2928 (A) and (B) carry a potential six-month jail sentence for “impeding traffic.”

6 Thus, a person who recklessly interferes with traffic while proselytizing to a motorist

7 faces a jail sentence of thirty days. See A.R.S. § 13-2906(A). However, a person who

8 recklessly interferes with traffic while soliciting employment from a motorist faces a jail

9 sentence of six months. Defendants cannot justify the disproportionate criminal sanction

10 imposed by §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B) only on individuals who engage in employment

11 solicitation speech. Accordingly, §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B) burden substantially more

12 speech than is necessary to further significant governmental interests and necessarily fail

13 even under intermediate scrutiny.

14

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in proving that §§ 13-

15 2928 (A)’s and (B)’s employment solicitation speech restrictions violate the First

16 Amendment.

17

B. Plaintiffs Are Suffering Irreparable Harm.

18

Sections 13-2928 (A) and (B) infringe on Plaintiffs’ free speech rights, causing

19 them irreparable injury and warranting issuance of a preliminary injunction. 3 See Klein,

20 584 F.3d at 1207 (finding irreparable injury where plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of

21 success on the merits of his claims “[g]iven the free speech protections at issue in th[e]

22 case”). “[A] party seeking preliminary injunctive relief in a First Amendment context can

23 establish irreparable injury sufficient to merit the grant of relief by demonstrating the

24 existence of a colorable First Amendment claim.” Sammartano, 303 F.3d at 973 (internal

25

3

Because Plaintiffs Southside and Tonatierra have filed this lawsuit, in part, on

26 behalf of their members, the irreparable injury suffered by their members may be

considered. See Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 342-43 (1977)

27 (discussing associational standing); see also Ft. Funston Dog Walkers v. Babbitt, 96 F.

Supp. 2d 1021, 1040 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (determining irreparable harm based in part on

28 injury suffered by members of plaintiff group).

10

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUCTION OF ARS §§13-2928(A) AND (B)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 18 of 29

1 quotation marks and citation omitted). It is well-established that the infringement of First

2 Amendment rights – even for minimal periods of time – “unquestionably constitutes

3 irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (emphasis added).

4 Government speech regulations violate the First Amendment when they “would chill or

5 silence a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities[.]” White v.

6 Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1228 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted) (quoting Mendocino

7 Environmental Ctr. v. Mendocino County, 192 F.3d 1283, 1300 (9th Cir. 1999)). See also

8 Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Educ. of City of New York, 331 F.3d 342, 349 (2d

9 Cir. 2003) (“Where a plaintiff alleges injury from a rule or regulation that directly limits

10 speech, the irreparable nature of the harm may be presumed.”); WV Ass'n of Club Owners

11 and Fraternal Services, Inc. v. Musgrave, 553 F.3d 292, 298 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[I]n the

12 context of an alleged violation of First Amendment rights, a plaintiff's claimed irreparable

13 harm is ‘inseparably linked’ to the likelihood of success on the merits of plaintiff's First

14 Amendment claim.”). Plaintiffs’ likely success on the merits of their First Amendment

15 challenge to §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B) alone is sufficient to establish irreparable injury. See

16 Klein, 584 F.3d at 1207.

17

Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ day laborer members and individual day laborers are

18 chilled and are refraining from soliciting employment in the manner proscribed by §§ 13-

19 2928 (A) and (B) to avoid enforcement against them. See Declaration of Alison

20 Harrington in Supp. of Pls’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj. of A.R.S. §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B)

21 (“Harrington Decl.”) at ¶¶ 10, 11; Declaration of Tupac Enrique in Supp. of Pls’ Mot. for

22 Prelim. Inj. of A.R.S. §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B) (“Enrique Decl.”) at ¶¶ 10-14. Some day

23 laborer members have altogether ceased soliciting work in public rights-of-way, and

24 others are decreasing the number of days and the manner in which they do so. Harrington

25 Decl. at ¶¶ 10-12; Enrique Decl. at ¶ 10 (Since these provisions took effect, “[s]ome

26 jornalero members have ceased soliciting work in public entirely and others have cut

27 down on the number of days that they solicit work in public because they are afraid of

28 being arrested under Section 5(b) of S.B. 1070.”).

11

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUCTION OF ARS §§13-2928(A) AND (B)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 19 of 29

1

The day laborers fear being subjected to criminal sanctions, including

2 imprisonment, imposed by §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B), further evidencing irreparable harm

3 under First Amendment doctrine. See Harrington Decl. ¶¶ 10, 12; Enrique Decl. ¶¶ 10-14.

4 This fear has exacerbated among Plaintiff Tonatierra’s day laborer members following the

5 publication of a news article reporting Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s intent to

6 enforce § 13-2928. Enrique Decl. ¶¶ 12-14. On November 7, 2010, the Arizona Republic

7 published an article quoting Sheriff Arapio as stating that he “[is] going to enforce one

8 part of [S.B. 1070] about picking up laborers [because] [t]hat part wasn’t thrown out.” Id.

9 at ¶12, Exh. A. Plaintiff Tonatierra’s day laborer members soon thereafter learned about

10 Sheriff Arpaio’s reported threat to enforce § 13-2928, causing even greater fear that they

11 will be arrested if they solicit work in the manner proscribed by §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B).

12 Id. at ¶ 13. Indeed, another Arizona District Court has previously found irreparable injury

13 with respect to a similar ban on speech related to day labor adopted by the town of Cave

14 Creek, Arizona. Lopez v. Town of Cave Creek, 559 F. Supp. 2d 1030, 1036 (D. Ariz.

15 2008) (enjoining city ordinance that prohibited standing on a street to solicit employment

16 from the occupant of any vehicle). The result should be no different here.

17

The solicitation prohibitions imposed by §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B) also subject day

18 laborers to severe economic hardship. Cf. Satellite Television of New York Assoc. v.

19 Finneran, 579 F. Supp. 1546, 1551-52 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (considering economic burden on

20 party moving for preliminary injunction in evaluating irreparable harm and balance of

21 hardships). Most of Plaintiffs’ member day laborers rely on day work to sustain

22 themselves and their families. See Harrington Decl. ¶ 12; Enrique Decl. ¶ 15. Day work

23 is oftentimes the only available means for Plaintiffs’ member day laborers to obtain work

24 and is critical to their livelihood. Id. Due to the restrictions and sanctions imposed by §§

25 13-2928 (A) and (B), the day laborer members have refrained from soliciting or modified

26 the manner in which they solicit work in public rights-of-way, resulting in the reduction of

27 income from their day labor and in severe economic hardship. Id. In addition, individuals

28 who hire day laborers have indicated that they are reluctant to communicate publicly with

12

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUCTION OF ARS §§13-2928(A) AND (B)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 20 of 29

1 day laborers about their need for day work due to fear they will be subjected to fines

2 under §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B). Harrington Decl. ¶¶ 12-13. This reticence by employers

3 has led to “less day work” and, as a result, “day laborer members are struggling to provide

4 for themselves and their families.” Id. at ¶13.

5

C. The Equities Tip Decidedly in Plaintiffs’ Favor.

6

The equities tip decidedly in Plaintiffs’ favor. The hardship that Plaintiffs would

7 suffer without injunctive relief is substantial. See Harrington Decl. ¶ 12; Enrique Decl. ¶¶

8 15, 16. Plaintiffs face the option of either refraining from exercising their free speech

9 rights or risking criminal sanctions. See Harrington Decl. ¶¶ 10, 12; Enrique Decl. ¶¶ 15,

10 16. If, despite their best efforts, they are arrested for violation of the law, they would

11 suffer, at a minimum, the indignity and financial burden of arrest and incarceration. Cf.

12 Satellite Television of New York Assoc., 579 F. Supp. at 1552 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).

13

In contrast, the hardship to Defendants if the preliminary injunction were to issue is

14 negligible at best. If Defendants are preliminarily enjoined from enforcing §§13-2928 (A)

15 and (B), they will continue to have the right to control traffic and pedestrian safety and

16 protect public and private property by enforcing state statutes and municipal codes that

17 regulate these matters. Given these existing laws, Defendants are fully capable of

18 addressing any problems allegedly caused by employment solicitors even if the Court

19 enjoins §§13-2928 (A) and (B). The balance of hardships, therefore, tips decidedly in

20 favor of Plaintiffs, and an injunction should issue.

21

D. A Preliminary Injunction is in the Public Interest.

22

The Ninth Circuit has “consistently recognized the significant public interest in

23 upholding free speech principles.” Klein, 584 F.3d at 1208 (quoting Sammartano, 303

24 F.3d at 974 (collecting cases) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Indeed, §§13-2928 (A)

25 and (B) “would infringe not only the free expression interests of [Plaintiffs], but also the

26 interests of other people subjected to the same restrictions.” Id. (internal quotation marks

27 omitted). Here, §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B) restrict the ability of any potential speaker from

28 expressing his need and availability to work or hire day labor, and thus infringe on the

13

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUCTION OF ARS §§13-2928(A) AND (B)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 21 of 29

1 free speech rights of anyone seeking to engage in speech in the manner prohibited by the

2 laws. Thus, issuing the preliminary injunction here would advance the public interest in

3 upholding free speech.

4

V. CONCLUSION

5

Sections 13-2928 (A) and (B) unconstitutionally infringe upon the right of day

6 laborers to express their need and availability to work in a public forum. Because “[t]he

7 balance of equities and the public interest . . . tip sharply in favor of enjoining [Sections

8 13-2928 (A) and (B),]” and Ninth Circuit “caselaw clearly favors granting preliminary

9 injunctions” where the plaintiffs are “likely to succeed on the merits of [their] First

10 Amendment claim[,]” the Court should grant Plaintiffs’ motion. Klein, 584 F.3d at 1208.

11

Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enjoin Defendants from

12 enforcing A.R.S. Sections 13-2928 (A) and (B).

13

14 Dated: January 07, 2011

Respectfully Submitted,

15

/s/ Victor Viramontes

16

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL

DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
17

18

/s/ Karen C. Tumlin

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER

19

20

/s/ Omar C. Jadwat AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

21

FOUNDATION IMMIGRATNS’ RIGHTS

PROJECT

22

23

/s/ Daniel J. Pochoda

ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA

24

25

/s/ Yungsuhn Park

26

ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL

CENTER

27

28

14

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUCTION OF ARS §§13-2928(A) AND (B)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 22 of 29

1

/s/ Elisabeth J. Neubauer

2

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

3

/s/ Jonathan Weissglass

ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
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

15

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUCTION OF ARS §§13-2928(A) AND (B)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 23 of 29

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on January 7, 2011, I electronically transmitted the attached

3 document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing, and transmittal of a

4 Notice of Electronic Filing to the following ECF registrants:

5 James P. Abdo – jabdo@napierlawfirm.com; JPABDO@msn.com 6 David L. Abney – abneymaturin@aol.com

7 Russell R. Abrutyn – rabrutyn@marshalhyman.com

8 Joseph G. Adams – jgadams@swlaw.com; mgarsha@swlaw.com; docket@swlaw.com

9 Joe A. Albo, Jr. – joe.ablo@pinalcountyaz.gov; Kristine.carver@pinalcountyaz.gov;

10

Joe.albo@azbar.org

11 Maria E. Andrade – mandrade@huntleylaw.com; mdiaz@huntleylaw.com 12 Kenneth A. Angle – kangle@graham.az.gov

13 Erin Archerd – earcherd@cov.com

14 Cynthia A. Aziz – Cynthia@azizimmigrationlaw.com

15 Vikram K. Badrinath – vbadrinath@aol.com; vikram.badrinath@azbar.org

16 Daniel C Barr – dbarr@perkinscoie.com; docketphx@perkinscoie.com;

17

sneilson@perkinscoie.com

18 Gary M. Baum – gary.baum@cityofpaloalto.org; sharon.hanks@cityofpaloalto.org

19 Michael McCormack Bergin – bbergin@roselawgroup.com; jevert@roselawgroup.com 20 Anjali Bhargava – anjali.bhargava@cco.sccgov.org

21 Laura D. Blackburne – lblackburne@naacpnet.org

22 Adam N Bleir – adam@sherickbleier.com; clarissa@sherickbleier.com

23 Ronald G. Blum – rblum@manatt.com

24 Sean A. Bodkin – sean.bodkin@azbar.org

25 David J. Bodney – dbodney@steptoe.com; awilmont@steptoe.com;

26

phdctnef@steptoe.com

27 Victor Bolden – vbolden@newhavenct.net

28 Jean Boler – jean.boler@seattle.gov

1

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 24 of 29

1 John J. Bouma – jbouma@swlaw.com; rnzacbow@swlaw.com; brhoades@swlaw.com;

2

docket@swlaw.com; mzachow@swlaw.com

3 Susan Traub Boyd- susan.boyd@mto.com; robyn.bird@mto.com

4 Stephen P. Berzon – sberzon@altshulerberzon.com

5 Maria R. Brandon – brandonm@mail.maricopa.gov; wink1@mail.maricopa.gov;

6

fitzpatrickl@mail.maricopa.gov;

garciat@mail.maricopa.gov;

7

Garciaj013@mail.maricopa.gov

8 Richard L. Brusca – Richard.brusca@skadden.com

9 Robert G. Bucklew – gbuckelew@co.la-paz.az.us

10 William W. Carter – william.carter@lacity.org

11 Sirena Castillo – scastillo@manatt.com

12 Bryan B. Chambers – bchambers@co.gila.az.us

13 Stephanie Fleischman Cherny – Stephanie.cherny@skadden.com

14 Connie Choi – cchoi@apalc.org

15 Christopher R. Clark – crclark@dl.com

16 Vikki Cooper – vcooper@newhavenct.net

17 Zachary D. Cowan – zcowan@ci.berkeley.ca.us

18 Katherine Desormeau – kate.desormeau@cco.sccgov.org

19 Sara Elizabeth Dill – sdill@pkjlaw.com; saraedill@gmail.com

20 Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon – cvalenzuela@maldef.org; agodinez@maldef.org

21 J Richard Doyle – Richard.doyle@sanjoseca.gov; sue.uemura@sanjoseca.gov

22 Christopher Baird Dupont – dupontlaw@cox.net

23 Paul F. Eckstein – peckstein@perkinscoie.com; docketphx@perkinscoie.com;

24

cwendt@perkinscoie.com

25 Nicholas Jason Enoch - nicholas.enoch@azbar.org,danette@lubinandenoch.com

26 Ivan E Espinoza-Madrigal - iespinoza@maldef.org

27 Nicholas David Espiritu - nespiritu@maldef.org; agodinez@maldef.org

28 David Joseph Euchner - deuchner@comcast.net

2

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 25 of 29

1 Stanley G Feldman - sfeldman@hmpmlaw.com,svancamp@hmprnlaw.com

2 Wendy L Feng- wfeng@cov.com,mochoa@cov.com

3 Louis S Fidel - loufidel@hotmail.com

4 Nathan Jean Fidel – nfidel@hmpmlaw.com; slarsen@hmpmlaw.com;

5

jlarsen@

hmpmlaw.com

6 Noel A Fidel - noel.fidel@mwmf.com; lori.mandeIl@mwmf.com; nafidel@mac.com

7 Jack Hamilton Fields - jackfields@co.yavapai.az.us

8 Albert M Flores- amflegal@aol.com

9 June Ava Florescue - jfloresc@co.gila.az.us

10 Kathleen M. Foster - kfoster@newhavenct.net

11 Kenneth M Frakes – kfrakes@roselawgroup.com; frakes3@cox.net

12 Nora V. Frimann – nora.frimann@sanjoseca.gov; sue.uemura@sanjoseca.gov 13 Peter William Ginder - peter.ginder@ci.minneapolis.mn.us

14 Laura Prendergast Gordon – gordonlp@elpasotexas.gov

15 Carla Gorniak - cgoniak@dl.com

16 Matthew Harrison Green – mgreenh@mattgreenlaw.com; allisona@mattgreenlaw.com;

17

theresa@mattgreenlaw.com

18 Jon Marshall Greenbaum - jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org

19 Lucas Guttentag – lguttentag@aclu.org; irp_ecf@aclu.org

20 Lawrence L Hafetz - Ihafetz@counsel.lacounty.gov

21 Greta S Hansen - greta.hansen@cco.sccgov.org

22 Britt Wesley Hanson - bhanson@cochise.az.gov,kaguilar@cochise.az.gov

23 David T. Hardy – dthardy@mindspring.com

24 Gerald T. Hendrickson – jerry.hendrickson@ci.stpaul.mn.us 25 Robert Arthur Henry – bhenry@swlaw.com; pwilliams@swlaw.com;

26

docket@swlaw.com

27 Dennis J Herrera - tara.collins@sfgov.org

28

3

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 26 of 29

1 Michael M. Hethmon – mhethmon@irli.org; info@irli.org; smkonos@irli.org

2 Peter S. Holmes - peter.holmes@seattle.gov

3 Jeffrey Allen Imig - jimig@hmpmlaw.com; jarchambeau@hmpmlaw.com 4 Omar C Jadwat - ojadwat@aclu.org; mlauterback@aclu.org

5 Jonathan L Jantzen – jonathan.jantzen@tonation-nsn.gov

6 Linton Joaquin - joaquin@nilc.org

7 Daniel S Jurkowitz – danieljurkowitz@pcao.pima.gov; Annette.atkins@pcao.pima.gov;

8

susan.m

ontgomery@pcao.pima.gov

9 Joseph Andrew Kanefield - jkanefield@az.gov

10 Melissa S Keaney - keaney@nilc.org; keaney@nilc.org

11 Peter Shawn Kozinets – pkozinets@steptoe.com; phdctnef@steptoe.com;

12

mmedlin@steptoe.com

13 Elizabeth Janney Kruschek - ekruschek@perkinscoie.com

14 Lisa Kung – kung@ndlon.org

15 Anne Lai - alai@acluaz.org; .jessican@acluaz.org; mhlee@acluaz.org

16 Carolyn B Lamm - clamm@whitecase.com

17 Tamara Lange - tamara.lange@cco.sccgov.org; alexandra.weight@cco.sccgov.org

18 Michael Dennis Latham - mlatham@co.apache.az.us

19 Jennifer AD Lehman - jlehman@counsel.lacounty.gov,dbluem@counsel.lacounty.gov

20 Thomas P Liddy - liddy@mail.maricopa.gov; garciat@mail.maricopa.gov;

21

garciajOl3@mail.maricopa.gov

22 Gladys Limon - glimon@maldef.org; agodinez@maldef.org

23 William M. Litt - littwm@co.monterey.ca.us

24 James Neil Lombardo - neil.lombardo@skadden.com

25 Anne Cecile Longo – longoa@mcao.maricopa.gov; ca-civilmailbox@mcao.maricopa.gov

26 Richard Anthony Lopez - rlopez@cov.com

27 Foster Maer - fimaer@latinojustice.org

28 Stephen W Manning - smanning@ilgrp.com

4

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 27 of 29

1 Michael M Markman - mmarkman@cov.com,mmarkman@cov.com

2 Miguel A Marquez - miguel.marquez@cco.sccgov.org

3 Joanna S McCallum - jmccallurm@manatt.com

4 Michael William McCarthy - mmccarthy@co.greenlee.az.us;

5

mwmccarthy2002@yahoo.com

6 Charles J. McKee - mckeecj@co.monterey.ca.us

7 Charlie F. McNabb, Jr. – mcnabbcf@elpasotexas.gov

8 Lydia Mendoza - Irnendoza@manatt.com

9 Linda Meng - linda.meng@portlandoregon.gov

10 Yuval Miller - yuval.miller@mto.com; susan.ahmadi@mto.com

11 Mary Bridget Minder – bminder@perkinscoie.com; docketphx@perkinscoie.com

12

sneilson@perkinscoie.com

13 Vivek Mittal - mittal@nilc.org, mittal@nilc.org

14 Tanaz Moghadam - tmoghadam@aclu.org; arastogi@aclu.org

15 Kimberly A. Morris Kimberly.morris@mto.com

16 Michael P. Murphy – mmurphy@co.sanmateo.ca.us

17 Michael Napier – mnapierpc@aol.com; mike@napierlawfirm.com

18 Elisabeth Jill Neubauer - Elisabeth.Neubauer@mto.com; Marsha.Oseas@mto.com

19 Chris Newman – newman@ndlon.org

20 John D. Nibbelin – jnibbelin@co.sanmateo.ca.us 21 George A. Nilson - george.nilson@baltimorecity.gov

22 Carmina OCampo - cocampo@apalc.org; cocampo@apalc.org

23 Michael J ONeill – mike@landmarklegal.org

24 Andrea Sheridan Ordin - aordin@counsel.lacounty.gov

25 Daniel R Ortega, Jr - danny@rmgmo.com; lupe@rmgmo.com

26 Yungsuhn Park - ypark@apalc.org,ypark@apaIc.org

27 Robert Enrique Pastor – rpastor@hmpmlaw.com; slarsen@hmpmlaw.com;

28

jlarsen@hmpmlaw.com

5

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 28 of 29

1 Lance B Payette - lance.payette@navajocountyaz.gov

2 Cesar A Perales - cperales@latinojustice.org

3 Nina Perales - nperales@maldef.org; cleija@maldef.org

4 Jose L Perez - jperez@latinojustice.org

5 William Rowe Phelan, Jr. - william.phelan@baltimorecity.gov

6 Bradley S. Phillips – brad.phillips@mto.com; james.berry@mto.com;

7

mary.pantoja@mto.com

8 Gregory N Pimstone - gpimstone@manatt.com

9 Daniel Joseph Pochoda - dpochoda@acluaz.org; danpoc@cox.net;

10

jessican@acluaz.org

11 Nora A Preciado - preciado@nilc.org,preciado@nilc.org

12 John Daniel Reaves – jdreaves@usa.net

13 Rebecca Ann Reed - rreed@hrnpmIaw.com,gnielsen@hmpmlaw.com

14 Robert S Remar - rremar@leonardcarder.com

15 Jose de Jesus Rivera - azdjrivera@hmpmlaw.com; slarsen@hmpmlaw.com

16

jlarsen@hmpmlaw.com; jsoto@hmpmlaw.com

17 Garrett Roe - groe@irli.org; info@irli.org; smykonos@irli.org

18 Chris Myrl Roll – chris.roll@pinalcountyaz.gov; kristine.carver@pinalcountyaz.gov

19 George Jacob Romero - YCAttyCivil@yumacountyaz.gov

20 Thomas A Saenz - tsaenz@maldef.org

21 Gerald M. Sato – gerald.sato@lacity.org

22 Susan L Segal - susan.segal@ci.minneapolis.mn.us

23 Andrew Silverman – silverman@law.arizona.edu 24 Deborah S Smith deb@debsmithlaw.com

25 Wayne Snodgrass wayne.snodgrass@sfgov.org

26 Henry L. Solano – hsolano@dl.com; courtalert@dl.com 27 Julie A Su jsu@apalc.org

28 Ghazal Tajmiri - tajmiri@nilc.org;

6

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 457 Filed 01/07/11 Page 29 of 29

1 Robert Alexander Taylor robert.taylor@co.mohave.az.us

2 Phil A Thomas pthomas@leonardcarder.com

3 Carmen A. Trutanichh – ctrutanich@lacity.org

4 Karen Cassandra Tumlin - tumlin@nilc.org

5 Victor Viramontes – Vviramontes@maldef.org, agodinez@maldef.org

6 Charles F Walker charles.walker@skadden.com

7 Cecillia D Wang cwang@aclu.org; irptempl@aclu.org;1fernandez@aclu.org

8 Paul J Watford paul.watford@mto.com; marie.baltierra@mto.com

9 Jonathan Weissglass – jweisglass@altshulerberzon.com; smendez@altshulerberzon.com

10 Aileen Wheeler awheeler@cov.com, awheeler@cov.com

11 Bruce P White - whiteb@mcao.maricopa.gov

12 Jean E Wilcox jwilcox@coconino.az.gov, mrankin@coconino.az.gov

13 Joseph J Ybarra joseph.ybarra@mto.com

14 Joseph Young - jyoung@co.apache.az; us.josephdyoung7@gmaiLcom

15 Stephen N Zack szack@bsfllp.com • Barnaby W. Zall bzall@aol.com

16 Barnaby W. Zall – bzall@aol.com

17

18 COPY was also sent with Notice of Electronic Filing via Courier on January 7, 2010 to:
19

20 The Honorable Susan R. Bolton

21

United States District Court Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 522

22 401 W. Washington Street, SPC 50 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2153

23

/s/ 24

Anna Godinez

25

26

27

28

7

 
 Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 487 Filed 05/10/11 Page 1 of 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Friendly House, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11 vs.

12 Michael B. Whiting, et al.,
13 Defendants.
14

15

) No. CV 10-1061-PHX-SRB ) ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

16

17

The Court now resolves Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. § 13-

18 2928(A) and (B) (“2d PI Mot.”) (Doc. 457).

19 I. BACKGROUND

20

The facts of this case were set forth in this Court’s Order of October 8, 2010 (“the

21 Order”), which is incor porated fully herein. ( See Doc. 447, Order at 1-4.) The pertinent

22 details are briefly sum marized here. Plaintiffs bring a variety of challenges to Ariz ona’s

23 Senate Bill 1070 (“S.B. 1070”), the “Support Our Law Enforceemnt and Safe Neighborhoods

24 Act,” which was signed into law by Governor Brewer on April 23, 2010. S.B. 1070 had an

25 effective date of July 29, 2010; on July 28, 2010, the Court preliminarily enjoined certain

26 provisions of the law fromtaking effect, in the related caseUnited States v. Arizona, CV 10-

27 1413-PHX-SRB.

28

Plaintiffs in this case also m oved for a preliminary injunction as to a num ber of

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 487 Filed 05/10/11 Page 2 of 3

1 provisions of the law. (See Doc. 235, Pls.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj.) At oral argument on the first

2 Motion for Prelim inary Injunction, counsel for Plaintiffs withdrew the ir request for an

3 injunction running to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 13-2928(A) and (B), created by

4 S.B. 1070. (Order at 35.) In the October 8, 2010, Order, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs’ first

5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction was m oot in light of the injunction entered in United

6 States v. Arizona. (Id. at 34-35.) The Court also found that Plaintiffs had stated a claimwith

7 regard to their challenge to A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B) on First Amendment grounds. (Id.

8 at 19-20.) Plaintiffs now renew their Motion for preliminary injunctive relief as to A.R.S. §

9 13-2928(A) and (B). (2d PI Mot. at 2.)

10 II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS

11

Plaintiffs seek to preliminarily enjoin A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B), a reque st they

12 withdrew at oral argument on their first Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (See Order at 35.)

13 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on

14 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harmin the absence of preliminary relief, that

15 the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”

16 Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (citations omitted).

17

Plaintiffs withdrew their earlier Motion for preliminary injunctive relief as to these

18 two provisions on the basis that a finding that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits

19 of this claim was foreclosed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’s decision in Comite de

20 Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach , 607 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2010).

21 (Order at 35.) The Redondo Beach court held that a local ordinance that banned standing on

22 a street or highway and soliciting employment, business, or contributions fromthe occupant

23 of a motor vehicle was a valid, content neutral restriction. 607 F.3d at 1184-93.

24

Plaintiffs now argue that the Court should consider their Motion to enjoin A.R.S. §

25 13-2829(A) and (B) because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted rehearing en banc

26 and ordered the opinion of the three-judge panel not citable. (2d PI Mot. at 2.) The en banc

27 court heard oral argument on Redondo Beach on March 21, 2011, according to the Ninth

28 Circuit Court of Appeals’s website.

See Status of Pending En Banc Cases,

- 2 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 487 Filed 05/10/11 Page 3 of 3

1 http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/enbanc/ (last visited May 9, 2011). No opinion has yet been

2 issued. Id. The Court concludes that it would not be an efficient use of resources to rule on

3 Plaintiffs’ Motion at this tim e because the outcom e will be at least im pacted, if not

4 determined, by the ruling of the en banc court in Redondo Beach. The mere fact that the

5 Court of Appeals granted rehearing en banc does not, on its own, create a likelihood of

6 success on the merits of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge to A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and

7 (B).1 Furthermore, it would not be in the public interest for the Court to expend tim e and

8 resources ruling on the second Motion for Preliminary Injunction now, only to be faced with

9 a binding opinion fromthe Court of Appeals onRedondo Beach in the near future. The Court

10 therefore declines to consider Plaintiffs’ second Motion for Prelim inary Injunction as to

11 A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B) at this time.

12

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S.

13 § 13-2928(A) and (B) (Doc. 457) without prejudice to its refiling at a later time.

14

15

DATED this 10th day of May, 2011.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1 The Court also notes that, while it may have determined that Plaintiffs stated a claim

27

sufficient to survive a challenge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), that does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success as

28 required for preliminary injunctive relief. (See Order at 20); Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 374.

- 3 -

 
 Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 1 of 25

1 Omar C. Jadwat (admitted pro hac vice)
Lucas Guttentag (admitted pro hac vice)
2 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’
3 RIGHTS PROJECT
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
4 New York, New York 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2660
5 Facsimile: (212) 549-2654
ojadwat@aclu.org
6 lguttentag@aclu.org

7 Linton Joaquin (admitted pro hac vice)
Karen C. Tumlin (admitted pro hac vice)
8 Nora A. Preciado (admitted pro hac vice)
Melissa S. Keaney (admitted pro hac vice)
9 NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW
CENTER
10 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2850
Los Angeles, California 90010
11 Telephone: (213) 639-3900
Facsimile: (213) 639-3911
12 joaquin@nilc.org
tumlin@nilc.org
13 preciado@nilc.org
keaney@nilc.org
14
15

Thomas A. Saenz (admitted pro hac vice) Victor Viramontes (admitted pro hac vice) Nicholás Espíritu (admitted pro hac vice) MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 634 S. Spring Street, 11th Floor Los Angeles, California 90014 Telephone: (213) 629-2512 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266 tsaenz@maldef.org vviramontes@maldef.org nespiritu@maldef.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Additional Co-Counsel on Subsequent Page

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

18

19 Friendly House, et al,

CASE NO. CV-10-01061-SRB

20

Plaintiffs,

21

v.

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

22 Michael B. Whiting, et al.,

(ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED)

23

Defendants.

24

25

26

27

28

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 2 of 25

1 Daniel J. Pochoda (SBA No. 021979)

Cecillia D. Wang (admitted PHV)

ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA

Kenneth J. Sugarman (admitted PHV)

2 77 E. Columbus Street, Suite 205

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

FOUNDATION, IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS

3 Telephone: (602) 650-1854

PROJECT

Facsimile: (602) 650-1376

39 Drumm Street

4 dpochoda@acluaz.org

San Francisco, California 94111

Telephone: (415) 343-0775

5 Nina Perales (admitted PHV)

Facsimile: (415) 395-0950

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE cwang@aclu.org

6 AND EDUCATIONAL FUND

110 Broadway Street, Suite 300

Yungsuhn Park (admitted PHV)

7 San Antonio, Texas 78205

Connie Choi (admitted PHV)

Telephone: (210) 224-5476

Carmina Ocampo (admitted PHV)

8 Facsimile: (210) 224-5382

ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL

nperales@maldef.org

CENTER, a member of Asian American Center

9

for Advancing Justice

Chris Newman (admitted PHV)

1145 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200

10 Lisa Kung (admitted PHV)

Los Angeles, California 90017

NATIONAL DAY LABOR ORGANIZING Telephone: (213) 977-7500

11 NETWORK

Facsimile: (213) 977-7595

675 S. Park View Street, Suite B

ypark@apalc.org

12 Los Angeles, California 90057

cchoi@apalc.org

Telephone: (213) 380-2785

cocampo@apalc.org

13 Facsimile: (213) 380-2787

newman@ndlon.org

Daniel R. Ortega, Jr. (SBA No. 005015)

14 kung@ndlon.org

ROUSH, MCCRACKEN, GUERRERO,

MILLER & ORTEGA

15 Bradley S. Phillips+ (admitted PHV)

1112 E. Washington Street

Paul J. Watford+ (admitted PHV)

Phoenix, Arizona 85034

16 Joseph J. Ybarra+ (admitted PHV)

Telephone: (602) 253-3554

Benjamin J. Maro+ (admitted PHV)

Facsimile: (602) 340-1896

17 Lika C. Miyake+ (admitted (PHV)

danny@ortegalaw.com

Margaret G. Ziegler+ (admitted PHV)

18 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP+

Stephen P. Berzon++ (admitted PHV)

355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor

Jonathan Weissglass++ (admitted PHV)

19 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560

ALTSHULER BERZON LLP++

Telephone: (213) 683-9100

177 Post Street, Suite 300

20 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702

San Francisco, CA 94108

Brad.Phillips@mto.com

Telephone: (415) 421-7151

21 Paul.Watford@mto.com

Facsimile: (415) 362-8064

Joseph.Ybarra@mto.com

sberzon@altshulerberzon.com

22 Benjamin.Maro@mto.com

jweissglass@altshulerberzon.com

Lika.Miyake@mto.com

23 Margaret.Ziegler@mto.com

+Attorneys for all plaintiffs except Service

Employees International Union, Service

24 Aaron G. Leiderman+ (admitted PHV)

Employees International Union, Local 5,

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP+

United Food and Commercial Workers

25 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor

International Union, and Japanese American

San Francisco, CA 94105-2907

Citizens League

26 Telephone: (415) 512-4000

++Attorneys for Service Employees

Facsimile: (415) 512-4077

International Union, Service Employees

27 Aaron.Leiderman@mto.com

International Union, Local 5, and United Food

and Commercial Workers International Union

28

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 3 of 25

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Page

3 I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 1
4 II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND................................................................................ 1

5 III. ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................

6 A. B.
7

PROPOSED CLASS DEFINITIONS ...................................................................... 4 PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED CLASSES MEET THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION UNDER RULE 23(a).......................................... 5

8

1. Joinder Of Thousands Of Arizonans Impacted By SB 1070 Is Impractical.......................................................................................... 6

9

2. The Proposed Classes Share Common Questions Of Law And

Fact ..................................................................................................... 9

10

3. The Claims of the Named Plaintiffs Are Typical Of The

11

Proposed Classes .............................................................................. 11

4. The Named Plaintiffs Fairly And Adequately Represent The

12

Proposed Classes .............................................................................. 13

13 C.

THE PROPOSED CLASSES SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 23(b)(2)................................................................................................................... 14

14 IV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- i -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 4 of 25

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2 3 4 FEDERAL CASES

Page

5 Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor,

521 U.S. 591 (1997) .................................................................................................................. 9
6

Ansari v. New York Univ.,

7

179 F.R.D. 112 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) .............................................................................................. 6

8 Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc.,

9

158 F.R.D. 439 (N.D. Cal. 1994) ............................................................................................ 10

10 Barnes v. American Tobacco Co.,

161 F.3d 127 (3d Cir. 1998).................................................................................................... 14

11

Blackie v. Barrack,

12

524 F.2d 891 (9th Cir. 1975)..................................................................................................... 6

13 Celano v. Marriott Int’l, Inc.,

14

242 F.R.D. 544 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ........................................................................................ 7, 10

15 Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park,

47 F. 3d 473 (2d Cir. 1995)....................................................................................................... 6

16

Doe v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist.,

17

48 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (C.D. Cal. 1999) .................................................................................... 11

18 Doe v. Prosecutor, Marion County, Ind.,

19

566 F. Supp. 2d 862 (S.D. Ind. 2008) ..................................................................................... 14

20 Guadiana v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,
No. CIV 07-326 TUC FRZ (GEE), 2010 WL 582220 (D. Ariz. Jan. 27, 2010)....................... 6

21
Haley v. Medtronic, Inc.,

22

169 F.R.D. 643 (C.D. Cal. 1996) .............................................................................................. 7

23 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,

24

150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998)....................................................................................... 9, 10, 11

25

Harris v. Palm Springs Alpine Estates, Inc. 329 F.2d 909 (9th Cir. 1964)..................................................................................................... 8

26
Ingram v. O’Bannon,

27

88 F.R.D. 653 (E.D. Pa. 1980) .................................................................................................. 8

28

- ii -

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 5 of 25

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2

Page

3 Jordan v. Los Angeles County,
669 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1982)....................................................................................... 9, 10, 13

4
Krzesniak v. Cendant Corp.,

5

No. C 05-05156-MEJ, 2007 WL 1795703 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2007) ....................... 10, 11, 12

6 Lerwill v. Inflight Motion Pictures, Inc.,

7

582 F.2d 507 (9th Cir. 1978)................................................................................................... 13

8

Lewis ex rel. Young v. Alexander, — F.R.D. —, No. 06-3963, 2011 WL 3678721 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 22, 2011)............................. 15

9
Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship,

10

151 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 1998)................................................................................................. 13

11 Lyell v. Farmers Group Inc. Employees’ Pension Plan,

12

No. CV 07-1576-PHX-JAT, 2008 WL 5111113 (D. Ariz. Dec. 3, 2008) ................................ 6

13

Lynch v. Rank, 604 F. Supp. 30 (N.D. Cal. 1984) ............................................................................................. 8

14
McDonald v. Corrections Corp. of Am.,

15

No. CV-09-00781-PHX-JAT, 2010 WL 4572758 (D. Ariz. Nov. 4, 2010) ............................. 6

16 McMillon v. Hawaii,
261 F.R.D. 536 (D. Haw. 2009).............................................................................................. 16
17

18

Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp., 220 F.R.D. 604 (N.D. Cal. 2004) .............................................................................................. 7

19 Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC,

20

186 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 1999)..................................................................................................... 9

21 Nehmer v. U.S. Veterans’ Admin.,

118 F.R.D. 113 (N.D. Cal. 1987) ............................................................................................ 11
22

Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist.,

23

251 F.R.D. 564 (S.D. Cal. 2008)............................................................................................. 16

24 Perez-Funez v. District Director, I.N.S.,

25

611 F. Supp. 990 (C.D. Cal. 1984).......................................................................................... 13

26 Rosario v. Livaditis,
963 F.2d 1013 (7th Cir. 1992)................................................................................................. 11
27

28

- iii -

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 6 of 25

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2

Page

3 Schwartz v. Harp,
108 F.R.D. 279 (C.D. Cal. 1985) ............................................................................................ 12

4
Smiley v. Calumet City, Ill.,

5

No. 08C3017, 2009 WL 1381034 (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2009)................................................... 15

6 Staton v. Boeing Co.,

7

327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................... 9

8

Stewart v. Abraham, 275 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2001)................................................................................................ 6, 12

9
Sullivan v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist.,

10

307 F. Supp. 1328 (S.D. Tex. 1969) ....................................................................................... 16

11 Torres v. New York State Dept. of Labor,

12

318 F. Supp. 1313 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)........................................................................................ 15

13

United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Ariz. 2010)......................................................................................... 2

14
Von Colln v. County of Ventura,

15

189 F.R.D. 583 (C.D. Cal. 1999) ............................................................................................ 10

16 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
--- U.S. ----, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011).................................................................................. 14, 16
17

18

Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 1998)................................................................................... 1, 9, 11, 14

19 Waters v. Barry,

20

711 F. Supp. 1125 (D.D.C. 1989) ........................................................................................... 16

21 Winkler v. DTE, Inc.,

205 F.R.D. 235 (D. Ariz. 2001) ................................................................................................ 6
22

Yamada v. Nobel Biocare Holding AG,

23

275 F.R.D. 573 (C.D. Cal. 2011) .............................................................................................. 6

24

25

26

27

28

- iv -

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 7 of 25

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2 3 STATUTES AND RULES

Page

4 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
8............................................................................................................................................... 2

5

12(b)(1) ................................................................................................................................... 2

12(b)(6) ................................................................................................................................... 2

6

23............................................................................................................................................. 6

7

23(a) ........................................................................................................................ 4, 5, 13, 14 23(a)(1)............................................................................................................................ 5, 6, 8

8

23(a)(2).............................................................................................................................. 9, 10

23(a)(3)............................................................................................................................ 11, 12

9

23(b)(2) .......................................................................................................................... passim

10 11 OTHER AUTHORITIES 12 Article 2, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution........................................................................... 10
13 7B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 1798 (3d ed. 2011) ................ 6

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- v -

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 8 of 25

1 I. INTRODUCTION

2

Plaintiffs seek certification of three classes of individuals who will be harmed by

3 the implementation and enforcement of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 (“SB 1070”), a

4 comprehensive state regulation of immigration expressly intended to “discourage and

5 deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons

6 unlawfully present in the United States.” SB 1070, § 1.

7

Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to certify the following classes of persons who will be

8 harmed by SB 1070:

9

(a) All persons who as a result of their race or national origin are or will be

10

subject to stop, detention, arrest, or questioning about their immigration or

11

nationality status or required to produce documentation of that status,

12

pursuant to a provision of SB 1070 (“Class A”);

13

(b) All persons who are or will be deterred from soliciting work in a public

14

forum and/or performing work as an employee or independent contractor by

15

§ 5 of SB 1070 (“Class B”); and

16

(c) All persons who are or will be deterred from living, associating, worshiping,

17

or traveling with immigrants in Arizona because of a provision of SB 1070

18

(“Class C”).

19

There can be no reasonable dispute that the proposed classes meet the standards for

20 certification. Plaintiffs seek only declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the

21 implementation and enforcement of a statute that infringes upon the civil rights of

22 thousands of individuals across the state of Arizona—precisely the kind of case for which

23 Rule 23(b)(2) class treatment was designed and is warranted. Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d

24 1032, 1047 (9th Cir. 1998) (“As the Advisory Committee Notes explain, 23(b)(2) was

25 adopted in order to permit the prosecution of civil rights actions.”). Therefore, the Motion

26 should be granted.

27 II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

28

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on May 17, 2010. On June 4, 2010, Plaintiffs moved

- 1 -

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 9 of 25

1 for a preliminary injunction barring the implementation of SB 1070 in its entirety. On

2 July 6, 2010, the federal government filed its own lawsuit challenging many of SB 1070’s

3 provisions and moved for a preliminary injunction to bar its implementation. On July 28,

4 2010, the day before SB 1070 was scheduled to take effect, the Court issued a preliminary

5 injunction in the case brought by the federal government, blocking the implementation of

6 four provisions of SB 1070. United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Ariz.

7 2010), aff’d, 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011).

8

On June 18, 2010, various Defendants filed motions pursuant to Federal Rules of

9 Civil Procedure 8, 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6), seeking dismissal of all of Plaintiffs’ causes of

10 action on standing and other grounds. The Court resolved these motions in its Order dated

11 October 8, 2010. Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Mtn. to Dismiss and Prelim.

12 Inj., Dkt. #447. Therein, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motions

13 but allowed most of Plaintiffs’ claims to proceed. The Court also denied Plaintiffs’

14 preliminary injunction motion as moot in light of the preliminary injunction issued in the

15 related case brought by the federal government.

16

In accordance with the schedule set by the Court on September 19, 2011, Plaintiffs

17 commenced discovery on issues related to class certification. Specifically, Plaintiffs

18 propounded (1) requests for admission, requests for production of documents, and

19 interrogatories to Intervenor-Defendants the State of Arizona and Governor Janice K.

20 Brewer, see Notice of Service, Dkt. #515; (2) a subpoena for documents on non-party 21 Arizona Peace Officer Standards & Training Board (“AZPOST”),1 see id.; and (3) notices

22 of deposition to Governor Brewer and the person(s) most knowledgeable of the State of

23 Arizona, see Notice of Service Dkt. #548. The discovery sought information concerning,

24 inter alia, the intent of the State of Arizona and Governor Brewer to enforce SB 1070

25 throughout the State of Arizona; the statewide nature and potential impact of SB 1070; the

26

27 1 AZPOST is a state-created entity responsible for creating training and standards for all law enforcement officers in Arizona. See AZPOST website, available at
28 http://www.azpost.gov/.

- 2 -

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 10 of 25

1 scope of SB 1070 and the number of people it would affect; and whether the State and

2 Governor would implement SB 1070 through a centralized, uniform scheme. In their

3 responses to the requests for admission, the State of Arizona and Governor Brewer

4 admitted, inter alia, that prior to the issuance of the preliminary injunction in this case,

5 Intervenor Defendants intended for state and local entities and officials to enforce all

6 provisions of SB 1070 and the Governor took actions to ensure that SB 1070 would be

7 faithfully executed. (Declaration of Margaret G. Ziegler, Ex. A at pp. 2-3 and Ex. B at pp.

8 2-3.) Intervenor Defendants also admitted that if the injunction is lifted, all Arizona

9 county sheriffs and attorneys would be required to enforce SB 1070. (Id. at Ex. A, p. 4

10 and Ex. B, pp. 4-5.)

11

Following meet and confer discussions regarding Plaintiffs’ discovery, Plaintiffs

12 and Intervenor Defendants agreed to a Stipulation providing as follows: “In connection

13 with Plaintiffs’ forthcoming Motion for Class Certification, Intervenor Defendants

14 stipulate that it is the intention of the State of Arizona that each provision of S.B. 1070

15 that is not enjoined will be implemented and enforced uniformly throughout the State of

16 Arizona.” Dkt. #552 ¶ 4. The Court approved the Stipulation on December 7, 2011. Dkt.

17 #560.

18 III. ARGUMENT

19

Plaintiffs challenge SB 1070 on the grounds that it violates the Supremacy Clause

20 and core civil rights and civil liberties secured by the United States Constitution, including

21 the Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, the

22 Fifth Amendment right to due process, the First Amendment right to free speech, and the

23 Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. Plaintiffs hereby

24 seek certification of three classes of persons who, like the named Plaintiffs, will suffer

25 harm as a direct result of the implementation of SB 1070.

26

SB 1070’s numerous provisions create a comprehensive state-law system of

27 immigration regulation and enforcement that will: (1) require Arizona law enforcement,

28 including the county sheriff and county attorney Defendants, to investigate and determine

- 3 -

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 11 of 25

1 which persons present in Arizona may remain in the United States; (2) erect a state

2 immigration registration and punishment scheme by creating state crimes and criminal

3 penalties relating to alien registration, immigration status, and work authorization; and (3)

4 require police to arrest and detain individuals and transfer them to federal authorities

5 based merely on a belief that they have violated federal civil immigration laws, when state

6 and local officers are not competent to make such a determination or authorized to make it

7 under federal law. SB 1070 requires Arizona police officers and sheriffs, Arizona jails,

8 and Arizona courts to detect, adjudge, punish, and facilitate the deportation of individuals

9 who, in Arizona’s view, are not entitled to remain in the United States. SB 1070 will

10 require persons in the state to carry immigration registration documents under state law to

11 avoid detention, arrest, and possible prosecution. In addition, if implemented, SB 1070

12 will cause the investigation, detention, harassment, and arrest of numerous persons of

13 color in Arizona because of their race or national origin (or perceived race or national

14 origin), including members of Plaintiffs United Food and Commercial Workers, Border

15 Action Network, Tonatierra, Service Employees International Union, Service Employees

16 International Union Local 5, Muslim American Society, and Japanese American Citizens

17 League, as well as Individual Plaintiffs C.M., Luz Santiago, Jim Shee, Jose Vargas, Jesús

18 Cuauhtémoc Villa, John Doe #1, Jane Does #2-3, and members of the plaintiff classes.

19

All named Defendants are responsible for the enforcement of SB 1070. Intervenor

20 Defendants State of Arizona and Governor Brewer are also responsible for the statewide

21 implementation and enforcement of SB 1070. The Intervenor Defendants have stipulated

22 that, if the law is permitted to take effect, they intend to and will enforce each provision of

23 the law uniformly statewide. Dkt. #552 ¶ 4.

24

A. PROPOSED CLASS DEFINITIONS

25

Plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and all other persons similarly situated

26 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). Plaintiffs propose the

27 following three classes:

28

(a) All persons who as a result of their race or national origin are or will be

- 4 -

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 12 of 25

1

subject to stop, detention, arrest, or questioning about their immigration or

2

nationality status or required to produce documentation of that status,

3

pursuant to a provision of SB 1070;2

4

(b) All persons who are or will be deterred from soliciting work in a public

5

forum and/or performing work as an employee or independent contractor by

6

§ 5 of SB 1070;3 and

7

(c) All persons who are or will be deterred from living, associating, worshiping,

8

or traveling with immigrants in Arizona because of a provision of SB 1070.4

9

As discussed below, each of these classes satisfies the requirements for

10 certification.

11

B. PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED CLASSES MEET THE LEGAL

12

STANDARD FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION UNDER RULE 23(a)

13

In determining whether to certify a class, the Court must determine whether each

14 proposed class meets the four requirements of Rule 23(a), which are: (1) that the class is

15 so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (“numerosity”); (2) that there are

16 questions of law or fact common to the class (“commonality”); (3) that the claims or

17 defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class

18 (“typicality”); and (4) that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the

19 interests of the class (“adequacy of representation”). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). In addition,

20 where, as here, the moving party seeks to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2), the Court

21 must determine whether “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on

22 grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding

23

24

25

26 2 The individual Plaintiffs who represent Class A are Pedro Espinoza, C.M., Jim Shee, Jose Angel Vargas, Maura Castillo, Maria Morales, John Doe #1, and Jane Doe #3.
27 3 The individual Plaintiff who represents Class B is Jose Angel Vargas. 28 4 The individual Plaintiff who represent Class C is Luz Santiago.

- 5 -

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 13 of 25

1 declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).

2

In ruling on a motion for class certification, the court is to take the substantive

3 allegations of the First Amended Complaint (“FAC’) as true. Blackie v. Barrack, 524

4 F.2d 891, 901 n.17 (9th Cir. 1975); Yamada v. Nobel Biocare Holding AG, 275 F.R.D.

5 573, 576 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (“The court may not inquire into the merits of the class

6 representatives’ underlying claims and must accept as true the substantive allegations of

7 the complaint.”); Guadiana v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV 07-326 TUC FRZ

8 (GEE), 2010 WL 582220, at *2 (D. Ariz. Jan. 27, 2010) (“When a court considers a

9 motion for class certification, it takes the plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint as true. . .

10 .”); Lyell v. Farmers Group Inc. Employees’ Pension Plan, No. CV 07-1576-PHX-JAT, 11 2008 WL 5111113, *1 (D. Ariz. Dec. 3, 2008) (same).5

12

1. Joinder Of Thousands Of Arizonans Impacted By SB 1070 Is

13

Impractical

14

Rule 23(a)(1) is easily met here, as each class is so numerous that joinder of all

15 members is impracticable. While there is no numerical threshold for class certification

16 under Rule 23, “[g]enerally speaking, courts will find that the numerosity requirement has

17 been satisfied when the class comprises 40 or more members.” Ansari v. New York Univ.,

18 179 F.R.D. 112, 114 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park, 47

19 F. 3d 473, 483 (2d Cir. 1995) (“numerosity is presumed at a level of 40 members”);

20 Stewart v. Abraham, 275 F.3d 220, 227 (3d Cir. 2001) (40 members satisfies numerosity);

21 Winkler v. DTE, Inc., 205 F.R.D. 235, 240 (D. Ariz. 2001) (numerosity requirement

22 “imposes no absolute limitations”); McDonald v. Corrections Corp. of Am., No. CV-09-

23 00781-PHX-JAT, 2010 WL 4572758, at *4 (D. Ariz. Nov. 4, 2010) (numerosity

24 requirement “does not impose any absolute limitation” but “fifteen members is too small

25

26

5 While the court must accept the allegations in the FAC as true for purposes of class certification, the court may also “request the parties to supplement the pleadings with

27 sufficient material to allow an informed judgment on the class-action rule requirements.”

7B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 1798 n.15 (3d ed. 2011) 28 (citing Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891 (9th Cir. 1975)).

- 6 -

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 14 of 25

1 to meet numerosity requirement”); Celano v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 544, 549

2 (N.D. Cal. 2007); 1 Herbert Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 3:12

3 (5th ed. 2011). The court may determine that the numerosity requirement is met based on

4 general knowledge and common sense. Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp., 220 F.R.D. 604, 608

5 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (citing 1 Newberg on Class Actions §3:6); Haley v. Medtronic, Inc., 169

6 F.R.D. 643, 648 (C.D. Cal. 1996)).

7

Each of the three proposed classes has substantially more than forty members. SB

8 1070 is a law of statewide application that would affect literally thousands of Arizonans if

9 fully implemented. In fact, the individual named Plaintiffs and the members of the

10 organizational Plaintiffs alone are sufficiently numerous to meet the class action

11 requirement for Class A. For example, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers

12 International alone represents more than 21,000 workers in Arizona who would be subject

13 to SB 1070. (Declaration of Joseph Hansen, Dkt. #236-1, ¶ 3.) Of those workers, many

14 have varying degrees of English-language proficiency, represent many races and

15 ethnicities, and many are Latinos, all of which make them more likely to be subject them

16 to stops, detentions, arrests or questioning about their immigration or nationality status

17 under SB 1070. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 6.) Similarly, Plaintiff Service Employers International Union

18 represents approximately 2,300 workers in Arizona who would be subject to SB 1070.

19 (Declaration of Eliseo Medina, Dkt. #236-5, ¶ 5.) An estimated 40 percent of those

20 workers are Latinos and/or other racial minorities, which increases their chances of being

21 subject to stops, detentions, arrest or questioning about their immigration status under SB

22 1070 as members of Class A. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 6.)

23

Taking into consideration Arizona’s current population and given the statewide

24 reach of SB 1070 if it were implemented, the number of individuals aside from Plaintiffs

25 who would be adversely affected by SB 1070 could reach into the hundreds of thousands.

26 According to the latest census figures, Arizona’s population is approximately 6,392,017

27 people and 14.7 percent of those individuals are foreign born. See U.S. Census Bureau,

28 State and County QuickFacts, Arizona, avail. at

- 7 -

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 15 of 25

1 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html, last visited Dec. 6, 2011. (Pls.’

2 Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Ex. A.) SB 1070 will particularly burden persons of

3 Latino and/or Asian descent, who comprise 29.6 and 2.8 percent of the Arizona

4 population respectively. (Id.) Plaintiffs and those similarly situated in Class A are or will

5 be subject to stop, detention, arrest or questioning about their immigration or nationality

6 status or will be required to produce documentation of that status, pursuant to a provision

7 of SB 1070, as a result of their race or national origin. (See FAC ¶¶ 21, 22, 24-29, 149-

8 63.) Given the large number of individuals represented by Plaintiffs as well as others

9 similarly situated in Arizona who are or appear to be foreign-born Latinos or Asians, the

10 number of individuals adversely affected by the implementation of SB 1070 far exceeds

11 forty, as does the number of persons who will be deterred from soliciting work in a public

12 forum because of SB 1070. (Declaration of Alison Harrington ¶¶ 7, 8.) The number of

13 individuals deterred from associating with immigrants also indisputably exceeds 40. (See

14 RJN Ex. A (14.7% of 6,392,017 Arizonans are foreign born). These showings alone are

15 more than sufficient to satisfy the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) for each of the

16 proposed classes.

17

Plaintiffs also satisfy the numerosity requirement because joinder is impracticable

18 given the sheer number of Plaintiffs and class members. See Harris v. Palm Springs

19 Alpine Estates, Inc., 329 F.2d 909, 913-14 (9th Cir. 1964) (“‘impracticability’ does not

20 mean ‘impossibility,’ but only the difficulty or inconvenience of joining all members of

21 the class”) (citation omitted). Joinder of all potential class members is also impracticable

22 because many of their identities are unknown to Plaintiffs. See Ingram v. O’Bannon, 88

23 F.R.D. 653, 656 (E.D. Pa. 1980) (“The fact that a substantial number of class members are

24 unidentified favors a finding of numerosity.”). In addition, joinder is impracticable for

25 logistical reasons. Many of the class members would not have the resources to file

26 individual lawsuits to seek redress of violations of their civil and constitutional rights as a

27 result of implementation of SB 1070. See Lynch v. Rank, 604 F. Supp. 30, 36 (N.D. Cal.

28 1984), aff’d, 747 F.2d 528 (9th Cir. 1984), amended on reh’g, 763 F.2d 1098 (9th Cir.

- 8 -

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 16 of 25

1 1985) (limited economic means may hamper the ability of class members to bring

2 individual lawsuits and should be considered when assessing whether joinder is

3 impracticable). Moreover, even if they had the logistical ability to bring suit, a number of

4 the class members may not want to bring individual lawsuits to challenge the harms

5 caused by implementation of SB 1070 for fear of retaliation. See Mullen v. Treasure

6 Chest Casino, LLC, 186 F.3d 620, 624-25 (5th Cir. 1999) (noting that the unwillingness of

7 individuals to initiate or join a lawsuit for fear of retaliation supports class certification);

8 Doe Plfs’ Mot. for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonyms, Dkt. #3, at 14-15; Decl. of John

9 Doe 1, Dkt. #3-3, ¶ 7. In light of the racially charged and divisive atmosphere in Arizona

10 surrounding SB 1070 and immigration issues, this is a significant factor for the Court to

11 consider.

12

2. The Proposed Classes Share Common Questions Of Law And

13

Fact

14

Each of the three proposed classes shares common questions of law or fact, as

15 required by Rule 23(a)(2). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2); Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521

16 U.S. 591, 613 (1997). The commonality requirement does not impose a heavy burden.

17 Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 953 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Rule 23(a)(2) has been

18 construed permissively.”); Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998)

19 (same); Jordan v. Los Angeles County, 669 F.2d 1311, 1323 (9th Cir. 1982), vacated on

20 other grounds, 459 U.S. 810 (1983) (commonality requirement has generally been given

21 “a permissive application in a variety of substantive law areas so that the commonality

22 requirement is usually found to be satisfied”). Courts have typically construed the

23 commonality requirement liberally in cases seeking certification under Rule 23(b)(2)

24 because an injunction class generally challenges a policy or action affecting an

25 identifiable group in the same manner. The Ninth Circuit has held that, under Rule

26 23(b)(2), the commonality requirement is relaxed and “[i]t is sufficient if class members

27 complain of a pattern or practice that is generally applicable to the class as a whole” such

28 as when Rule 23(b)(2) is used as a “vehicle for challenging ‘a common policy.’” Walters

- 9 -

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 17 of 25

1 v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1047 (1998); see also Von Colln v. County of Ventura, 189

2 F.R.D. 583, 591 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (“When addressing commonality of class members

3 proposed under Rule 23(b)(2), a court may employ a liberal definition of commonality.”).

4

The commonality requirement “can be met by raising a single common issue that is

5 central to the case.” Celano, 242 F.R.D. at 551 (citing Staton, 327 F.3d at 954-56);

6 Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1019 (commonality requirement is met either by common legal issues

7 with divergent factual predicates or by common core of facts with disparate legal

8 remedies); Krzesniak v. Cendant Corp., No. C 05-05156-MEJ, 2007 WL 1795703, at *7

9 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2007) (“The existence of shared legal issues with divergent factual

10 predicates is sufficient, as is a common core of salient facts coupled with disparate legal

11 remedies within the class.”). Rule 23(a)(2) does not require that every question of law or

12 fact be common to every member of the class. Jordan, 669 F.2d at 1320; Arnold v.

13 United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 158 F.R.D. 439, 448-49 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (“Nor must

14 ‘all questions of law and fact involved in the dispute be common to all members of the

15 class.’”) (citation omitted).

16

Plaintiffs easily meet the commonality requirement, as this action raises multiple

17 questions of law that are common to members of each of the three putative classes.

18 including: (1) whether SB 1070 is preempted by the U.S. Constitution and federal law;

19 (2) whether SB 1070 deprives racial and national origin minorities of the equal protection

20 of the laws within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; (3)

21 whether SB 1070 violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; (4) whether SB

22 1070 violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 2, Section 8 of

23 the Arizona Constitution; and (5) whether SB 1070 is impermissibly vague and violates 24 due process of law for members of the proposed class.6

25 6 Although only one common issue is necessary to certify a class, members of each class

26 proposed here shares multiple common legal questions: members of Class A share, inter alia, questions of preemption, equal protection, the Fourth Amendment, and vagueness in
27 common; members of Class B share, inter alia, questions regarding preemption, equal

28

protection, and the First Amendment; and claims by members of Class C all involve, inter alia, questions of preemption and vagueness.

- 10 -

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 18 of 25

1

Moreover, any factual divergences that may exist within the classes have no

2 bearing on the commonality determination. Thus, for example although members of Class

3 A may differ in their citizenship or immigration statuses, these differences do not matter

4 as the claims in this case challenge the Defendants’ violation of various constitutional

5 safeguards which apply regardless of citizenship or immigration status. See Walters, 145

6 F.3d at 1046 (differences among class members regarding merits of individual cases were

7 “simply insufficient to defeat the propriety of class certification”); Doe v. Los Angeles

8 Unified Sch. Dist., 48 F. Supp. 2d 1233, 1241 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (“[C]ommonality exists if

9 plaintiffs share a common harm or violation of their rights, even if individualized facts

10 supporting the alleged harm or violation diverge.”). Similarly, because members of Class

11 B assert claims under the same legal theories, the specific factual context in which each

12 member may solicit and obtain employment is immaterial to the commonality analysis. If

13 Section 5 of SB 1070 is implemented, all members of Class B would, inter alia suffer

14 unconstitutional restrictions of their constitutional free speech rights. (See, e.g., FAC

15 ¶¶ 99-109.)

16

3. The Claims of the Named Plaintiffs Are Typical Of The Proposed

17

Classes

18

The named Plaintiffs’ claims are also typical of the proposed classes’ respective

19 claims, as required by Rule 23(a)(3). “Under the rule’s permissive standards,

20 representative claims are ‘typical’ if they are reasonably co-extensive with those of absent

21 class members; they need not be substantially identical.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020; see

22 also Krzesniak, 2007 WL 1795703, at *9. “While typicality and commonality ‘tend to

23 merge’ . . . . typicality focuses on whether the named plaintiffs possess the ‘same interest

24 and suffer the same injury’ as class members.” Krzesniak, 2007 WL 1795703, at *8

25 (citation omitted). A finding of commonality will ordinarily support a finding of

26 typicality. Nehmer v. U.S. Veterans’ Admin., 118 F.R.D. 113, 117 (N.D. Cal. 1987).

27

A claim is typical if it arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct

28 and is based on the same legal theory. Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d 1013, 1018 (7th Cir.

- 11 -

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 19 of 25

1 1992); Schwartz v. Harp, 108 F.R.D. 279, 282 (C.D. Cal. 1985). In this case, the named

2 Plaintiffs and all the members of the proposed classes will be harmed by the

3 implementation of SB 1070. They have identical claims for declaratory and injunctive

4 relief under common legal theories and identical interests in protecting their constitutional

5 rights. These identical claims for relief also arise from the same course of conduct by

6 Defendants—potential enforcement of SB 1070—which Defendants have acknowledged 7 will be enforced uniformly across the State of Arizona. Dkt. #552 ¶ 4.7

8

Any potential differences in the reasons for the named Plaintiffs’ or class members’

9 arrests, detentions, or interrogations under SB 1070 are irrelevant for Rule 23(a)(3)

10 purposes. See Krzesniak, 2007 WL 1795703, at *8 (citing Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp.,

11 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992) (typicality inquiry goes to “the nature of the claim . . .

12 of the class representative, and not to the specific facts from which it arose”). It is not

13 necessary that “the named plaintiffs’ injuries be identical with those of the other class

14 members, only that the unnamed class members have injuries similar to those of the

15 named plaintiffs and that the injuries result from the same, injurious course of conduct.”

16 Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d, 849, 869 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, the named Plaintiffs as

17 well as all of the proposed class members will suffer abuses and deprivation of rights due

18 to the enforcement of SB 1070 by the Defendants. Thus, the typicality requirement of

19 Rule 23(a)(3) is met.

20

21 7 For example, individual Plaintiffs Pedro Espinoza and Jim Shee, amongst others, fear being stopped, detained, arrested or questioned because they appear to be of a minority

22 racial group. (FAC ¶¶ 21, 24.) Their interests in preventing the implementation of SB

1070 are the same as other members of Class A who would suffer the same abrogations of 23 their equal protection and other rights because of such law enforcement action. Individual

24 Plaintiff Jose Angel Vargas fears arrest and prosecution for soliciting work in public places (id. ¶ 25), and shares common claims with Class B members who will have their

25 First Amendment and other rights affected in the same way if SB 1070 is implemented. If

26

SB 1070 is implemented, individual Plaintiff Luz Santiago fears that she would be stopped and arrested under the harboring provisions of SB 1070 Section 5 for her work

27 with members of her congregation, including those who are immigrants. (Id. ¶ 23.)

Members of Class C would have the same interests and claims under, inter alia, the 28 Fourth Amendment.

- 12 -

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 20 of 25

1

4. The Named Plaintiffs Fairly And Adequately Represent The

2

Proposed Classes

3

Plaintiffs also meet the final requirement of Rule 23(a), as they will fairly and

4 adequately represent the interests of all members of the proposed classes. To satisfy the

5 adequacy requirement, Plaintiffs must show (1) that their interests are common with, and

6 not antagonistic to, the interests of the class; and (2) that they are able to prosecute the

7 action vigorously through qualified and competent counsel. Linney v. Cellular Alaska

8 P’ship, 151 F.3d 1234, 1238-39 (9th Cir. 1998); Lerwill v. Inflight Motion Pictures, Inc.,

9 582 F.2d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 1978). As already set forth above, Plaintiffs seek relief on

10 behalf of each of the classes as a whole, share a common interest in ensuring the

11 protection of constitutional rights, and have no interests antagonistic to other members of

12 the classes.

13

Plaintiffs will also be able to prosecute this matter vigorously. Adequacy of

14 counsel can be shown by establishing that counsel is qualified, experienced, and able to

15 conduct litigation. Jordan, 669 F.3d at 1323. Courts have specifically recognized the

16 adequacy of “qualified and experienced counsel from such organizations as . . . the

17 American Civil Liberties Union.” Perez-Funez v. District Director, I.N.S., 611 F. Supp.

18 990, 997 (C.D. Cal. 1984). The Plaintiffs here are represented by counsel including the

19 ACLU Foundation Immigrants’ Rights Project; the Mexican American Legal Defense and

20 Educational Fund; the National Immigration Law Center; ACLU of Arizona; the Asian

21 Pacific American Legal Center (a member of the Asian American Center for Advancing

22 Justice); the National Day Laborer Organizing Network; the National Association for the

23 Advancement of Colored People; Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP; Roush, McCracken,

24 Guerrero, Miller & Ortega; and Altshuler Berzon, LLP, who collectively have extensive

25 expertise in class action litigation, including litigation regarding the rights of immigrants

26 and constitutional questions. (E.g., Declaration of Linton Joaquin at ¶¶ 4-5; Declaration

27 of Kenneth Sugarman at ¶¶ 6, 10, 15; Declaration of Victor Viramontes at ¶¶ 4-6).

28 Plaintiffs will adequately protect the interests of the absent class members.

- 13 -

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 21 of 25

1

C. THE PROPOSED CLASSES SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF

2

RULE 23(b)(2)

3

In addition to satisfying the Rule 23(a) requirements, the proposed classes also

4 satisfy Rule 23(b)(2), which requires that “the party opposing the class has acted or

5 refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or

6 corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R.

7 Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(2) certification is appropriate “when a single injunction or

8 declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class.” Wal-Mart

9 Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, --- U.S. ----, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2557 (2011).

10

As the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed, “‘[c]ivil rights cases against parties

11 charged with unlawful, class-based discrimination are prime examples’ of what (b)(2) is

12 meant to capture.” Id. at 2557-58 (quoting Amchem Prods, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591,

13 614 (1997)). “[T]he (b)(2) class ‘serves most frequently as the vehicle for civil rights

14 actions and other institutional reform cases that receive class action treatment.’” Barnes

15 v. American Tobacco Co., 161 F.3d 127, 142 (3d Cir. 1998) (quoting Baby Neal v. Casey,

16 43 F.3d 48, 58-59 (3d Cir. 1994)). “Indeed, (b)(2) was ‘designed specifically for civil

17 rights cases seeking broad declaratory or injunctive relief for a numerous and often

18 unascertainable or amorphous class of persons.’” Id. (quoting 2 Newberg on Class

19 Actions § 4:11 (4th ed.)).

20

The proposed classes satisfy Rule 23(b)(2) for multiple reasons. First, this suit

21 seeks to vindicate civil rights through injunctive and declaratory relief—precisely the type

22 of action for which Rule 23(b)(2) was designed. See Dukes, 131 S. Ct. at 2557; see also

23 Walters, 145 F.3d at 1047 (“As the Advisory Committee Notes explain, 23(b)(2) was

24 adopted in order to permit the prosecution of civil rights actions.”); 2 Newberg on Class

25 Actions § 4:11 (4th ed.); cf. Doe v. Prosecutor, Marion County, Ind., 566 F. Supp. 2d 862,

26 867 (S.D. Ind. 2008) (parties stipulated to Rule 23(b)(2) class of sex- and violent-

27 offenders in pre-enforcement declaratory judgment and injunctive relief action against

28 amendments to Indiana’s sex offender registration laws).

- 14 -

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 22 of 25

1

Second, Plaintiffs assert that they face an imminent threat of harm if SB 1070 is

2 enforced because SB 1070 violates the U.S. Constitution, federal law, and state law.

3 (First Am. Compl. §§ 166, 171). Specifically, if SB 1070 is not enjoined, it will require

4 persons in the state to carry immigration registration documents to avoid detention, arrest,

5 and possible prosecution, and will trigger the investigation, detention, harassment, and

6 arrest of numerous persons of color in Arizona. (Id. § 172.) As Intervenor Defendants the

7 State of Arizona and Governor Brewer have admitted, prior to the issuance of the

8 preliminary injunction Intervenor Defendants intended for state and local entities and

9 officials to enforce all provisions of S.B. 1070 and the Governor took actions to ensure

10 that the law would be faithfully executed. (Ziegler Decl. Ex. A at pp. 2-3 and Ex. B at pp.

11 2-3.) Furthermore, Intervenor Defendants stipulated that “it is the intention of the State of

12 Arizona that each provision of S.B. 1070 that is not enjoined will be implemented and

13 enforced uniformly throughout the State of Arizona.” Dkt. #552 ¶ 4 (emphases added).

14 Intervenor Defendants also admitted that if the injunction is lifted, all Arizona county

15 sheriffs and attorneys would enforce S.B. 1070 and the Governor would faithfully execute

16 the law. (Ziegler Decl. Ex. A at pp. 4-5 and Ex. B at pp. 4-5.) The State of Arizona and

17 Governor Brewer thus effectively admit that they will act on grounds that will apply

18 generally to each class as a whole.

19

Third, courts regularly certify 23(b)(2) classes to bring such constitutional

20 challenges against state and local laws. See, e. g., Lewis ex rel. Young v. Alexander, —

21 F.R.D. —, No. 06-3963, 2011 WL 3678721 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 22, 2011) (certifying (b)(2)

22 class bringing facial challenge to Pennsylvania’s Medicaid statute as conflicting with

23 federal Medicaid Act and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief barring enforcement of

24 the statute against the class); Smiley v. Calumet City, Ill., No. 08C3017, 2009 WL

25 1381034 (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2009) (certifying (b)(2) class in case challenging

26 constitutionality of municipal ordinance because “the interests of each of the class

27 members are cohesive and a decision on whether [the ordinance] is facially

28 unconstitutional will affect all persons that are similarly situated”); Torres v. New York

- 15 -

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 23 of 25

1 State Dept. of Labor, 318 F. Supp. 1313 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) (certifying (b)(2) class in civil

2 rights action seeking declaratory judgment of unconstitutionality of New York Labor

3 Law); Sullivan v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 307 F. Supp. 1328 (S.D. Tex. 1969)

4 (certification of (b)(2) class in suit challenging constitutionality of school district

5 regulations); see also Advisory Committee’s Note, 39 F.R.D. 69, 102 (1966) (“Action or

6 inaction is directed to a class within the meaning of this subdivision even if it has taken

7 effect or is threatened only as to one or a few members of the class, provided it is based on

8 grounds which have general application to the class.”) (emphasis added).

9

Fourth, Plaintiffs are not seeking monetary damages—only declaratory and

10 injunctive relief. Therefore, “a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide

11 relief to each member of [each] class.” Dukes, 131 S. Ct. at 2557.

12

Finally, Rule 23(b)(2) certification is appropriate because class treatment will

13 avoid any potential risk of mootness as the action progresses. Courts regularly consider

14 potential mootness as a factor favoring certification of Rule 23(b)(2) classes.8 See Ollier

15 v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist., 251 F.R.D. 564, 566 (S.D. Cal. 2008) (certifying

16 class of students and noting, because plaintiff students might graduate or move, that

17 “mootness is an important and real concern”); McMillon, 261 F.R.D. at 547-48 (“class

18 certification is needed because it will prevent Plaintiffs’ claims from becoming moot”);

19 Waters v. Barry, 711 F. Supp. 1125, 1130 n.10 (D.D.C. 1989) (in challenge to curfew law

20 court determined that Rule 23(b)(2) requirements were satisfied where plaintiff sought

21 class certification “to avoid a potential mootness problem as the matter progresses”).

22 Here, certain named Plaintiffs have immigration statuses that may or will change during

23

24 8 The Rule 23(b)(2) requirements would be fully satisfied here for the other reasons

25

explained above — because this is a civil rights matter of solely declaratory and injunctive relief to address a law generally applying to the entire class. Plaintiff need show nothing

26 more to meet the 23(b)(2) requirements, but raise the mootness issue because it is a factor

that courts have considered in certifying Rule 23(b)(2) classes. E.g., McMillon v. Hawaii, 27 261 F.R.D. 536, 547-48 (D. Haw. 2009) (noting that there is no “needs” showing required

28 in addition to the 23(b)(2) requirements, but finding that potential mootness made class certification necessary).

- 16 -

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 24 of 25

1 the pendency of this action, potentially rendering their individual claims moot. (FAC

2 ¶¶ 21 (Plaintiff Espinoza currently in deportation proceedings), 29 (Plaintiff Jane Doe

3 #3’s U-Visa application currently pending). Absent class certification, Plaintiffs could be

4 required to repeatedly amend their complaint to substitute in new representative plaintiffs,

5 leading to serial motions to amend and, subsequently, serial answers by each of the

6 Defendants. For this additional reason, class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is

7 appropriate here.

8 IV. CONCLUSION

9

For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs satisfy each of the requirements of

10 Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2). Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court

11 certify this case as a class action and appoint Plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel.

12 Dated: December 12, 2011
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

/s/ Nora Preciado NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
/s/ Omar C. Jadwat AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT

/s/ Victor Viramontes

___

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL

DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND

/s/ Lika C. Miyake MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 17 -

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 563 Filed 12/12/11 Page 25 of 25

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on December 12, 2011, I electronically transmitted the

3

attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing, and 4

5 transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to ECF registrants.

6

COPY will also be sent with Notice of Electronic Filing via FedEx on December

7 13, 2011 to:

8

The Honorable Susan R. Bolton

9

United States District Court

10

Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 522

401 West Washington Street, SPC 50

11

Phoenix, AZ 85003-2153

12

13 Dated: December 12, 2011
14
15

/s/ Aaron G. Leiderman Aaron Leiderman Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 18 -

MOTION FOR CLASS CERT. & MEM. IN SUPPORT THEREOF 10-CV-1061 (SRB)

 
 Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 604 Filed 02/29/12 Page 1 of 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Friendly House, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11 vs.

12 Michael B. Whiting, et al.,
13 Defendants.
14

15

) No. CV 10-1061-PHX-SRB ) ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

16

17

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Preliminary

18 Injunction of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 13-2928(A) and (B) (“3d PI Mot.”)

19 (Doc. 510).

20 I. BACKGROUND

21

The facts of this case were set forth in this Court’s Order of October 8, 2010, which

22 is incorporated fully herein. (See Doc. 447, Oct. 8, 2010, Order at 1-4.) The pertinent details

23 are briefly summarized here. Plaintiffs bring avariety of challenges to Arizona’s Senate Bill

24 1070 (“S.B. 1070”), the “Support Our Law Enforcem ent and Safe Neighborhoods Act,”

25 which was signed into law by Governor Brewer on April 23, 2010. 1 Among S.B. 1070’s

26

27

1 In this Order, the Court refers to Senate Bill 1070 and House Bill 2162 collectively

as “S.B. 1070,” describing the April 23, 2010, enactment as modified by the April 30, 2010, 28 amendments.

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 604 Filed 02/29/12 Page 2 of 13

1 components, Section 5 added A.R.S. § 13-2928 to the Arizona Criminal Code. A.R.S. § 13-

2 2928(A) makes it unlawful for an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street,

3 roadway, or highway and is impeding traffic to attempt to hire a person for work at another

4 location. Similarly, A.R.S. § 13-2928(B) provides that it is unlawful for a person to enter a

5 motor vehicle in order to be hired if the vehicle is stopped on a street, roadway, or highway

6 and is impeding traffic. S.B. 1070 had an effective date of July 29, 2010; on July 28, 2010,

7 the Court preliminarily enjoined certain provisions of the law, not including A.R.S. § 13-

8 2928(A) and (B), from taking effect, in the related case United States v. Arizona, CV 10-

9 1413-PHX-SRB.

10

Plaintiffs in this case also m oved for a prelim inary injunction as to a num ber of

11 provisions of the law. ( See Doc. 235, Pls.’ Mot. for Prelim . Inj. (“1st PI Mot.”).) At oral

12 argument on the first Motion for Preliminary Injunction, counsel for Plaintiffs withdrew their

13 request for an injunction running to A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B). (Oct. 8, 2010, Order at

14 35.) In the October 8, 2010, Order, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs’ first Motion for

15 Preliminary Injunction was m oot in light of the injunction entered in United States v.

16 Arizona. (Id. at 34-35.) The Court also found that Plaintiffs had stated a claim with regard

17 to their challenge to A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B) on First Amendment grounds. (Id. at 19-

18 20.)

19

Plaintiffs renewed their Motion for prelim inary injunctive relief as to A.R.S. § 13-

20 2928(A) and (B) on January 7, 2011. (Doc. 457, Pls.’Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (“2d PI Mot.”) at

21 2.) The Court denied the renewed Motion without prejudice on May 10, 2011, ruling that the

22 outcome would be “at least impacted, if not determined” by the decision of the en banc court

23 of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals inComite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of

24 Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). (Doc. 487, May 10, 2011, Order at

25 3.) On September 16, 2011, sitting en banc, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the

26 three-judge panel’s decision in Redondo Beach and held that a Redondo Beach ordinance

27 prohibiting solicitation of business, employment, and contributions on streets and highways

28 was not narrowly tailored to achieve the city’s interest in promoting traffic flow and safety

- 2 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 604 Filed 02/29/12 Page 3 of 13

1 and thus violated the free speech guarantees of the First Am endment. 657 F.3d at 948.

2 Plaintiffs now renew their Motion for Preliminary Injunction for the third time, arguing that

3 “[u]nder both the previous holding of this Court and the en banc Ninth Circuit’s holding in

4 [Redondo Beach], A.R.S. [] § 13-2928(A) and (B) are unconstitutional restrictions on

5 speech.” (3d PI Mot. at 1.) The Court headroral argument on this Motion on January 9, 2012.

6 (See Doc. 577, Minute Entry.)

7 II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS

8

A. Preliminary Injunction Standard

9

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B). (3d PI Mot. at 1.) “A plaintiff

10 seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that

11 he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance

12 of equities tips in his favor, and that aninjunction is in the public interest.”Winter v. Natural

13 Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

14

B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

15

1. Commercial Speech v. Noncommercial Speech

16

The Intervenor Defendants (“Defendants”) argue that Plaintiffs are not likely to

17 succeed on the m erits of their claim that A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B) violate the First

18 Amendment because these provisions are “contsitutional restrictions on commercial speech,”

19 properly evaluated under a m ore deferential standard than non-com mercial speech. (Doc.

20 553, Defs.’ Resp. to 3d PI Mot. (“Defs.’ Resp.”) at 6.) Plaintiffs argue that the commercial

21 speech test should not be applied to A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B), but, if it were, the

22 provisions would not pass muste r under even the m ore lenient standard. (Doc. 567, Pls.’

23 Reply in Supp. of 3d PI Mot. (“Pls.’ Reply”) at 1.)

24

The Supreme Court has defined “commercial speech” as “speech that does no more

25 than propose a commercial transaction.” United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405,

26 409 (2001); see also Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y. , 447

27 U.S. 557, 562 (1980) (defining “com mercial speech” as “expression related solely to the

28 economic interests of the speaker and its audience”). Com mercial speech is generally

- 3 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 604 Filed 02/29/12 Page 4 of 13

1 accorded less protection than other kinds of speech. United Foods, 533 U.S. at 409.

2

Plaintiffs argue that speech by day laborers soliciting work “is not ‘com mercial

3 speech’ under the First Amendment because day labor solicitation inextricably intertwines

4 a request for work with politic al and econom ic messages communicating day laborers’

5 existence, need for subsistence, social value and claims to inclusion.” (Pls.’ Reply at 8.)

6 Although commercial speech is entitled to less protection under the First Am endment,

7 “[c]ommercial speech does not retain its com mercial character ‘when it is inextricably

8 intertwined with otherwise fully protected speech.’” Hunt v. City of L.A., 638 F.3d 703, 715

9 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind of N.C., Inc. , 487 U.S. 781, 796

10 (1988)). On the contrary, “where the two components of speech can be easily separated, they

11 are not ‘inextricably intertwine d.’” Id. Plaintiffs cite Redondo Beach, in which the court

12 stated, “Solicitation is characteristically intertwined with informative and perhaps persuasive

13 speech seeking support for particular causes or for particular views on economic, political,

14 or social issues, so that without solicitation the flow of such inforamtion and advocacy would

15 likely cease.” 657 F.3d at 945 (quotations and citation om itted). However, the Redondo

16 Beach court went on to comme nt that the ordinance being reviewed in that case was not

17 limited to com mercial solicitation, so “we cannot, and do not, decide the [o] rdinance’s

18 validity under the Supreme Court’s ‘commercial speech’ case law.” Id. at 945 n.2.

19

In contrast, A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B) expressly apply to hiring, picking up, and

20 transporting people for work. See A.R.S. § 13-2928(A), (B). The speech of day laborers

21 seeking work from passing motorists “does no more than propose a commercial transaction”

22 between the day laborer and the potential employer. See United Foods, 533 U.S. at 409. The

23 Court finds that the speech impacted by these provisions is exclusively commercial speech,

24 and, even if it were not, any intertwined expression of day laborers’ existence or social value

25 is easily separated from the commercial speech involved in soliciting work. Thus, the Court

26

27

28

- 4 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 604 Filed 02/29/12 Page 5 of 13

1 is obliged to apply the commercial speech test as established by the Supreme Court.2, 3

2

2. Commercial Speech Test and Application

3

The Supreme Court set forth a four-part test to determ ine the constitutionality of a

4 restriction on commercial speech in Central Hudson:

5

(1) if the communication is neither misleading nor related to unlawful activity,

then it merits First Amendment scrutiny as a threshold matter; in order for the

6

restriction to withstand such scrutiny, (2) [t]he State must assert a substantial

interest to be achieved by restrictions on commercial speech; (3) the restriction

7

must directly advance the state interest involved; and (4) it must not be more

extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.

8

World Wide Rush, LLC v. City of L.A. , 606 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotations and

9

citation omitted). “[T]he last two steps of the Central Hudson analysis basically involve a

10

consideration of the fit between the legislature’s ends and the means chosen to accomplish

11

those ends.” Id. (quotation and citation om itted). The Supreme Court recently refined the

12

Central Hudson test, holding that if a ban on com mercial speech is content-based,

13

“heightened judicial scrutiny is warranted.” Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc. , 131 S. Ct. 2653,

14

2664 (2011); see also id. at 2673 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (noting that the majority applies a

15

“far stricter, specially ‘heightened’ First Amendment standard,” rather than the usualCentral

16

Hudson test).

17

18

19

2 Because the Court concludes that the speech at issue here is properly analyzed as commercial speech, Redondo Beach does not control.

20

3 Plaintiffs point out that in the October 8, 2010, Order, the Court found that A.R.S.

21 § 13-2928(A) and (B) were content-based and subject to strict scrutiny. (3d PI Mot. at 8

22

(citing Oct. 8, 2010, Order at 20).) While this is true, in the previous Order, the Court was considering a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which

23 only tests the sufficiency of the pleadings, not a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, which

examines the likelihood of success on the m erits. Furthermore, neither party raised the 24 question of commercial speech in the previ ous round of Motions, so the Court was not

25 squarely presented with this issue. Applica tion of the law of the case doctrine, “a judicial invention designed to aid in the efficient operation of court affairs,” is discretionarMy.ilgard
26 Tempering, Inc. v. Selas Corp. of Am., 902 F.2d 703, 715 (9th Cir. 1990). In its discretion,

27

the Court now concludes that the com mercial speech test applies to the determ ination of whether Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claimthat A.R.S.

28 § 13-2928(A) and (B) are barred by the First Amendment.

- 5 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 604 Filed 02/29/12 Page 6 of 13

1

The Court has previously found that A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B) are content-based

2 because they apply only to speech soliciting em ployment and not to other types of

3 solicitation speech. (Oct. 8, 2010, Order at 20);cf. City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network,

4 Inc., 507 U.S. 410, 429 (1993) (considering a ban on the use of newsracks for commercial

5 handbills, as opposed to newspapers and holding that “the very basis for the regulation is the

6 difference in content between ordinary newspapers and commercial speech. . . . Thus, by any

7 commonsense understanding of the term, the ban in this case is ‘content based.’”). InSorrell,

8 the Supreme Court emphasized the second, third, and fourth elements of theCentral Hudson

9 test, stating, “To sustain the targeted, content-based burden [the statute at issue]imposes on

10 protected expression, the State m ust show at least that the statute directly advances a

11 substantial governmental interest and that the measure is drawn to achieve that interest.” 131

12 S. Ct. at 2667-68. Accordingly, if a ban on commercial speech is content-based, Sorrell

13 instructs that it must be “drawn to achieve” “a substantial governmental interest,” whereas

14 the Central Hudson test requires that the regulation not be “more extensive than is necessary

15 to serve that interest.” Compare id., with Cent. Hudson, 447 U.S. at 566.

16

a. Related to Unlawful Activity

17

Defendants argue that the “conduct” restricted by A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B) is

18 “blocking or impeding traffic” and “is already unlawful.” (Defs.’ Resp. at 9.) However, this

19 argument misses the mark: the test requires that the communication “concern lawful activity

20 and not be m isleading.” Cent. Hudson, 447 U.S. at 566. The com munication allegedly

21 impacted by Arizona’s law concerns day labor, not blocking or impeding traffic. Defendants

22 do not argue, as indeed they cannot, that day labor in and of itself is unlawful.See Va. State

23 Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. , 425 U.S. 748, 772 (1976)

24 (observing that com mercial speech is unprotected by the First Am endment where “the

25 transactions proposed . . . are themselves illegal in any way”);Hispanic Interest Coal. of Ala.

26 v. Bentley, No. 5:11-CV-2484-SLB, 2011 WL 5516953, at *34 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 28, 2011)

27 (holding that “the solicitation of day labor . . . is a ‘lawful concern’”). Therefore, the Court

28 finds that these provisions “merit[] First Amendment scrutiny as a threshold m atter.” See

- 6 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 604 Filed 02/29/12 Page 7 of 13

1 World Wide Rush, 606 F.3d at 684 (quotation and citation omitted).

2

b. Governmental Interest

3

Defendants identify several interests that Arizona seeks to advance through these

4 provisions: “crime reduction, traffic safety, econom ic development, and protecting the

5 aesthetics of its communities.”4 (Defs.’ Resp. at 9.) Plaintiffs do not contest that these are

6 substantial governmental interests. Indeed, all ofArizona’s asserted interests have been found

7 to be at least “substantial.”See City of L.A. v. Alameda Books, Inc,.535 U.S. 425, 435 (2002)

8 (finding that “reducing crime is a substantial government interest”); Metromedia, Inc. v. City

9 of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 507-08 (1981) (concluding that there can be no “substantial

10 doubt that the twin goals that the ordinance seeks to further–traffic safety and the appearance

11 of the city–are substantial governmental goals”); Hampton Int’l Commc’ns, Inc. v. Las Vegas

12 Convention & Visitors Auth. , 913 F. Supp. 1402, 1412 (D. Nev. 1996) (recognizing a

13 substantial governmental interest in regulating economic development where the government

14 was engaged in “a permitted commercial activity”); cf. One World One Family Now v. City

15 & Cnty. of Honolulu, 76 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting that the lower court found

16 that “protecting the local merchant economy” was a “legitimate governmental interest[]”).

17 The Court finds that Arizona has asserted several substantial governm ental interests that

18 animate A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B), including the one on which Defendants principally

19 rely, traffic safety.

20

c. Direct Advancement of Interest

21

Turning to the third element of the commercial speech test, the Court next considers

22 whether the governm ent’s interest is directly advanced by the challenged provisions.

23 Defendants argue that A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and(B) “directly advance Arizona’s interest in

24 traffic safety by prohibiting in-street employment solicitation that blocks or impedes traffic.”

25 (Defs.’ Resp. at 10.) Defendants assert that when people solicit employment in the street, it

26

27

4 Although Defendants name these four interests, they only argue with respect to one:

28 traffic safety.

- 7 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 604 Filed 02/29/12 Page 8 of 13

1 creates a particularly grave traffic safety problem. (Id. at 2-3; see also, e.g., Doc. 470, Defs.’

2 Resp. to 2d PI Mot., Ex. E,Decl. of Cory L. Braddock, Exs. 3, 4.) Plaintiffs do not argue that

3 the regulations do not directly advance the government interest in promoting traffic safety.

4 A regulation “may not be sustained if it provides only ineffective or remote support for the

5 government’s purpose.” Cent. Hudson, 447 U.S. at 564. This inquiry focuses on whether the

6 regulation advances the governmental interest in its general application, not specifically with

7 respect to a particular speaker. See Vanguard Outdoor, LLC v. City of L.A., 648 F.3d 737,

8 742-43 (9th Cir. 2011). In other words, is the ordinance impermissibly underinclusive? See

9 Metro Lights, LLC v. City of L.A., 551 F.3d 898, 907 (9th Cir. 2009).

10

A ban on speech or activity “m ay be constitutionally underinclusive under Central

11 Hudson when it has exceptions that undermine and counteract that interest the government

12 claims it has adopted the law to further b ecause such a regulation cannot directly and

13 materially advance its aim.” Vanguard, 648 F.3d at 742 (quotations and citation om itted).

14 Such a regulation is barred in two situations: “(1) first, if the exception ensures that the

15 regulation will fail to achieve its end, it does notmaterially advance its aim; and (2) second,

16 exceptions that make distinctions among different kinds of speech must relate to the interest

17 the government seeks to advance.” Id. In Metromedia, the Supreme Court rejected the

18 argument that the city “denigrate[d]its interest in traffic safety and beauty and defeat[ed]its

19 own case by permitting onsite advertising and other specified signs” while banning offsite

20 advertising. Metromedia, 453 U.S. at 510-11. The Supreme Court concluded that the law’s

21 non-application to one type of sign, offsite advertising, did not alter the direct relation

22 between the city’s goals and the ban’s application to those signs. Id. at 511.

23

The Court finds that here, as in Metromedia, the fact that A.R.S. § 13-2928 (A) and

24 (B) only limit solicitation of employment and not other types of solicitation does not weaken

25 the link between the ban and Arizona’s interest in traffic safety.See id. at 509 (“‘We would

26 be trespassing on one of the most intensely local and specialized of all municipal problems

27 if we held that this regulation had no relation to the traffic problem of New York City.’”

28 (quoting Ry. Express Agency v. New York, 336 U.S. 106, 109 (1949))). Arizona may elect to

- 8 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 604 Filed 02/29/12 Page 9 of 13

1 privilege other kinds of solicitation above em ployment solicitation. See id. at 512; Metro

2 Lights, 551 F.3d at 911. Even though the ban is content-based and by logical extension

3 underinclusive to some degree, it still bans a significant amount of solicitation that would

4 theoretically take place if perm itted and thereby directly advances the traffic safety goal.

5 Significantly, A.R.S. § 13-2928 (A) and (B) ban solicitation of employment only where that

6 solicitation impedes traffic. The third element of the commercial speech test is satisfied.

7

d. Drawn to Achieve Governmental Interest

8

As explained above, Sorrell modified the commercial speech test originally set forth

9 in Central Hudson by holding that a content-based restriction on commercial speech must

10 be “drawn to achieve” a substantial governm ental interest. 131 S. Ct. at 2667-68. “There

11 must be a fit between the legislature’s endsand the means chosen to accomplish those ends.”

12 Id. at 2668 (quotation and citation om itted). The pre-Sorrell version of this elem ent,

13 contained in theCentral Hudson test, is “substantially similar” to the time, place, and manner

14 restrictions for content-neutral speech.Bd. of Trs. of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fo,x492 U.S. 469,

15 477 (1989) (quotation and citation omitted); see also Moser v. F.C.C.46 F.3d 970, 973 (9th

16 Cir. 1995). The Central Hudson test does not require that the government employ the least

17 restrictive means of advancing its interest. Bd. of Trs., 492 U.S. at 477. But the Suprem e

18 Court required that the means be narrowly tailored to the end, even beforeSorrell tightened

19 the test for content-based bans on commercial speech. Id. at 480.

20

The Court finds that Defendants have not shown that A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B),

21 which are content-base d restrictions of speech, are drawn to achieve the substantial

22 governmental interest in traffic safety. As an initial matter, because the regulation is content-

23 based and applies only to solicitation of em ployment, not other types of solicitation, it

24 appears to be structured to target particular speech rather than a broader traffic problem. See

25 Metro Lights, 551 F.3d at 905 n.8 (observing that underinclusivity is relevant to both the

26 third and fourth prongs of theCentral Hudson analysis). The adoption of a content-based ban

27 on speech indicates that the legislature did notdraft these provisions after careful evaluation

28 of the burden on free speech. See Discovery Network, 507 U.S. at 417, 428-30.

- 9 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 604 Filed 02/29/12 Page 10 of 13

1

“[T]he existence of obvious, less burdensome alternatives is ‘a relevant consideration

2 in determining whether the “fit” between ends and means is reasonable.’” Berger v. City of

3 Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029, 1041 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Discovery Network, 507 U.S. at 417

4 n.13); see also Ballen v. City of Redmond , 466 F.3d 736, 743-44 (9th Cir. 2006). Here,

5 numerous other traffic regulations are already in place in Arizona to “directly address traffic

6 and safety without restricting speech.” (See 3d PI Mot. at 6 (citing A.R.S. §§ 13-2906(A),

7 28-873(A), 28-905).) For example, civil penalties exist for stopping or parking a car in such

8 a way that it impedes traffic. A.R.S. § 28-873(A). It is also unlawful to open a door on a

9 motor vehicle if it interferes with traffic, and a maximum sentence of 30 days in jail may be

10 imposed if a person “recklessly interferes with the passage of any highway or public

11 thoroughfare by creating an unreasonable inconvenience or hazard.”Id. §§ 13-2906(A), 28-

12 905; see also id. §§ 13-707(A), 28-704(A), 28-871(A) (other pre-existing traffic and

13 misdemeanor restrictions on impeding traffic that encompass the behavior targeted by A.R.S.

14 § 13-2928(A) and (B)).5

15

The Court also notes that S.B. 1070 contains a purposes clause that is relevant to this

16 analysis. Section 1 of S.B. 1070, which has no A.RS.. citation, states that “the intent of [S.B.

17 1070] is to m ake attrition through enforcem ent the public policy of all state and local

18 government agencies in Arizona” and that “[t]he provisions of this act are intended to work

19 together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry a nd presence of aliens and econom ic

20 activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.” Section 1 also states that “there

21 is a com pelling interest in the cooperative enforcem ent of federal im migration laws

22 throughout all of Arizona.” This purposes clause applies to all sections of S.B. 1070, and

23 nowhere does it state that a purpose of the statutes and statutory revisions is to enhance

24 traffic safety. Rather, A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B), like the other parts of S.B. 1070, are

25

26

5 The fact that A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B) are additions to Title 13, Arizona’s

27

Criminal Code, rather than Chapter 3 of Title 28 of the A.R.S., which governs traffic and vehicle regulation, also undermines an argument that these provisions are actually “drawn

28 to” address a traffic safety problem.

- 10 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 604 Filed 02/29/12 Page 11 of 13

1 explicitly intended “to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and

2 local government agencies in Arizona” and “to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and

3 presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.”

4 The fact that A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B) werecreated as part of a package of statutes and

5 revisions aimed at perceived problems related to unlawful immigration also weighs against

6 a finding that the provisions are “drawn to” address a traffic problem.

7

The commercial speech test “ensure[s] not only that the State’s interests are

8 proportional to the resulting burdens placed on speech but also that the law does not seek to

9 suppress a disfavored message.” Sorrell, 131 S. Ct. at 2668. Because A.R.S. § 13-2928(A)

10 and (B) are not drawn to achieve Arizona’s goal of promoting traffic safety, the Court finds

11 that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the First

12 Amendment bars these provisions.

13

C. Irreparable Harm

14

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the “basic doctrine of equity

15 jurisprudence that courts of equity should not act . . . when the moving party has an adequate

16 remedy at law and will not suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief.” Younger v.

17 Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-44 (1971). Thus Plaintiffs have the burden to establish that, absent

18 a preliminary injunction, there is a likelihood–not just a possibility–tha t they will suffer

19 irreparable harm. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20-21. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated

20 “‘that an alleged constitutional infringement will often alone constitute irreparable harm.’”

21 Monterey Mech. Co. v. Wilson , 125 F.3d 702, 715 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Assoc. Gen.

22 Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Coal. for Econ. Equal,. 950 F.2d 1401, 1412 (9th Cir. 1991)). In

23 the free speech context, the Suprem e Court has held that “[t] he loss of First Am endment

24 freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”

25 Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976); accord Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d

26 1196, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2009).

27

The record contains evidence showing that the individual day laborer Plaintiffs and

28 day laborer members of some of the organizational Plaintiffs are being chilled fromsoliciting

- 11 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 604 Filed 02/29/12 Page 12 of 13

1 day labor. (See 3d PI Mot. at 12; see also id., Ex. 2, Decl. of Alison J. Harrington ¶¶ 10-11;

2 3d PI Mot., Ex. 3, Decl. of Tupac Enrique ¶¶ 10-13.) The Court has concluded that Plaintiffs

3 are likely to succeed on the m erits of their First Am endment challenge to A.R.S. § 13-

4 2928(A) and (B), and that conclusion, when coupled with Plaintiffs’ evidence regarding the

5 chilling of individuals’ solicitation of da y labor, demonstrates that Plaintiffs are likely to

6 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction.

7

D. The Balance of the Equities and the Public Interest

8

The Court considers the final two elements of the preliminary injunction test together.

9 Plaintiffs have the burden to show that the balance of equities tips in their favor and that a

10 preliminary injunction is in the public inte rest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. “A prelim inary

11 injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Id. at 24. “In each case,

12 courts ‘must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each

13 party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief,’” paying particular attention to

14 the public consequences. Id. (quoting Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, Alaska, 480 U.S.

15 531, 542 (1987)).

16

Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they have a significant interest in exercising their

17 First Amendment rights, as explained above. Notonly is the exercise of free speech a crucial

18 civil right, Plaintiffs have shown that they and their m embers are being chilled from

19 soliciting employment by the threat of enforcem ent of A.R.S . § 13-2928(A) and (B).

20 Defendants assert a countervailing interest “in the safety of [Arizona’s]streets and reducing

21 the crime, intimidation, and property destruction that result[ ] when large groups of day

22 laborers congregate in and along the roadside.” (Defs.’ Resp. at 17.) The Court finds that,

23 while Defendants’ interest is significant, the balance of hardships tips in Plaintiffs’ favor.

24 Defendants have not shown that A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B) a re drawn to achieve

25 Arizona’s goal of ensuring traffic safety or any of the other specified governemntal interests.

26 On the other hand, Plaintiffs have presented evidence that individual Plaintiffs and emmbers

27 of organizational Plaintiffs are being directly impacted by the threat of enforcement under

28 these provisions. Given the strong protection traditionally accorded to First Am endment

- 12 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 604 Filed 02/29/12 Page 13 of 13

1 rights and considering all the evidence in therecord, the Court concludes that the balance of

2 the equities favors Plaintiffs.

3

The public interest inquiry primarily focuses on the impact on non-parties, as opposed

4 to parties. Sammartano v. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 303 F.3d 959, 974 (9th Cir. 2002). “Courts

5 considering requests for preliminary injunctions have consistently recognized the significant

6 public interest in upholding First Amendment principles.” Id. (collecting cases). Here, as in

7 other cases implicating freedom of speech, continuing enforcement of a regulation that likely

8 violates the First Ame ndment would infringe not only the rights of Plaintiffs and their

9 members, but also of other day laborers and potential employers. Defendants have not shown

10 a competing public interest that is compelling enough to outweigh the public interest in a free

11 exchange of ideas. Cf. Hale v. Dep’t of Energy, 806 F.2d 910, 918 (9th Cir. 1986) (finding

12 that the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights were outweighed by the government’s interest in

13 the safety and security of a nuclear testing site)I.t is not in the public interest to enforce a law

14 that likely violates the First Amendment. This factor, too, favors Plaintiffs.

15 III. CONCLUSION

16

Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the emrits of their claim

17 that A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B) violate the First Amendment. Plaintiffs have also shown

18 that they are likely to suffer irreparable harmin the absence of an injunction, that the balance

19 of equities tips in their favor, and that the public interest favors injunctive relief.

20

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for

21 Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B) (Doc. 510).

22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED preliminarily enjoining Defendants from enforcing

23 A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B).

24

DATED this 29th day of February, 2012.

25

26

27

28

- 13 -

 
 Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 1 of 49

No. 12-15688
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Friendly House; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Michael B. Whiting; et al.,

No. 12-15688
No. 2:10-cv-01061-PHX-SRB District of Arizona

Defendants, and
State of Arizona and Janice K. Brewer,

Intervenors-Appellants.

APPELLANTS’ OPENING BRIEF

John J. Bouma Robert A. Henry Kelly A. Kszywienski SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. One Arizona Center 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 Telephone: (602) 382-6000 jbouma@swlaw.com bhenry@swlaw.com kkszywienski@swlaw.com
Joseph Sciarrotta, Jr. Office of Governor Janice K. Brewer 1700 W. Washington, 9th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007 Telephone: (602) 542-1586 jsciarrotta@az.gov

Thomas C. Horne Attorney General Michael Tryon Senior Litigation Counsel Evan Hiller Assistant Attorney General 1275 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926 Telephone: (602) 542- 5025 tom.horne@azag.gov michael.tryon@azag.gov evan.hiller@azag.gov
Attorneys for Appellant State of Arizona

Attorneys for Appellants State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 2 of 49

SECTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE NO.

TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES ....................................................... i - vii
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........................................................................4
ISSUE PRESENTED.................................................................................................5
STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................................................................................5
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................7
A. In-Sreeet Employment Solicitation Threatens Public Safety ..................7
B. There Are No Readily Available Effective Alternatives to Address the Safety Concerns and Economic and Environmental Harms In-Street Employment Solicitation Causes ..................................9
C. The Legislature Enacted Sections 5(A) and (B) to Address Public Safety Concerns .....................................................................................11
D. Sections 5(A) and (B) Are Narrow Regulations on Conduct That Raises Significant Safety, Economic, and Environmental Concerns ................................................................................................. 13
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...............................................................................14
LEGAL DISCUSSION ............................................................................................15
I. Standard of Review........................................................................................15
II. Sections 5(A) and (B) Are Subject to the Central Hudson Framework for Regulations on Commercial Speech........................................................16 A. Sections 5(A) and (B) Regulate Commercial Speech ...........................16

- ii -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 3 of 49
B. Regulations on Commercial Speech Are Subject to the Central Hudson Test ...........................................................................................17
C. The District Court Erred In Concluding that Sorrell Modified the Test Applicable to Sections 5(A) and (B) .............................................19
D. Even if Sorrell Somehow Modified the Central Hudson Test for Content-Based Regulations on Commercial Speech, Sections 5(A) and (B) Are Not Content Based ....................................................20 1. A Regulation Is Content Neutral If Enacted to Address the Secondary Effects of the Regulated Speech ...............................21 2. A Regulation Is Content Based If It Is Designed to Suppress Disfavored Speech or Speech by Disfavored Speakers .............23 3. The Record Does Not Support a Finding that Sections 5(A) and (B) Were Enacted to Suppress Disfavored Speech .............26
III. Sections 5(A) and (B) Are Constitutional Under Central Hudson ..................28 A. The Conduct Sections 5(A) and (B) Regulate Does Not Merit First Amendment Protection..................................................................28 B. Even If Sections 5(A) and (B) Governed Protected Speech, the Regulations Satisfy the Central Hudson Test........................................30 C. The District Court Erred In Finding that Sections 5(A) and (B) Failed the Final Prong of the Central Hudson Test...............................33
IV. Sections 5(A) and (B) Are Also Valid Time, Place, or Manner Regulations .......................................................................................................35
V. The District Court’s Errors With Respect to Plaintiffs’ Likelihood of Success on the Merits Requires Reversal of the District Court’s Conclusions with Respect to the Non-Merits Factors......................................36
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................39
- iii -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 4 of 49

Federal Cases

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

ACORN v. City of Phoenix, 603 F. Supp. 869 (D. Ariz. 1985) ...............................36
ACORN v. City of Phoenix, 798 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1986), overruled in part on other grounds by Redondo Beach II, 657 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011) ................8
Bd. of Trustees of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469 (1989) ..... 16, 18, 28, 34
Bland v. Fessler, 88 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 1996) .........................................................31
Cent. Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557 (1980)............................................................................................17
Children of the Rosary v. City of Phoenix, 154 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 1998)...............35
Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410 (1993) ............... 17, 18, 24, 25
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986). ........... 21, 22, 26, 27
Colacurcio v. City of Kent, 163 F.3d 545 (9th Cir. 1998) .......................................23
Colorado v. Hill, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) ....................................................................36
Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 607 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2010), rev'd, 657 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011) .....................5
Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 623 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2010) ...............................................................................6
Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) .......................................................... 6, 18
Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 282 U.S. 660 (1931) ...............................................39
Continental Baking Co. v. Woodring, 286 U.S. 352 (1932)....................................39
Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965) ...................................................................37

- iv -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 5 of 49
Coyote Publ’g, Inc. v. Miller, 598 F.3d 592 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1556 (2011) ............................................................ passim
Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 455 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2006) ...............................................................................30
Currier v. Potter, 379 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2004) ......................................................35 Dish Network Corp. v. FCC, 653 F.3d 771 (9th Cir. 2011),
cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1162 (2011) ....................................................... 22, 36, 37 Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761 (1993) ..................................................................17 Greater New Orleans Broad. Ass’n, Inc. v United States, 527 U.S. 173 (1999) ....17 Hale v. Dep’t of Energy, 806 F.2d 910 (9th Cir. 1986)...........................................37 Harris v. Bd. of Supervisors, 366 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2004) ....................................16 Heffron v. Int’l Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640 (1981) ..........30 Hunt v. City of Los Angeles, 638 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2011) .................. 17, 18, 30, 31 Metro Lights, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 551 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2009),
cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1014 (2009) ............................................................. 18, 20 Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981) .............................................18 Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minn. Comm’r of Revenue,
460 U.S. 575 (1983).............................................................................................25 Moser v. FCC, 46 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1995).............................................................36 Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935) ...............................................38 Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n of Human Relations,
413 U.S. 376 (1973) ................................................................................ 16, 28, 29 R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) .......................................................19
- v -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 6 of 49
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 587 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2009)...........................................30 Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989).............20 Shapero v. Ky. Bar Ass’n, 486 U.S. 466 (1988) ............................................... 16, 18 Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd.,
502 U.S. 105 (1991).............................................................................................25 Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653 (2011) ........................................ passim Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) .......................................16 Thompson v. W. States Med. Ctr., 535 U.S. 357 (2002)..........................................17 Tollis v. San Bernardino Cnty., 827 F.2d 1329 (9th Cir. 1987) ..............................23 Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) .................................... 20, 22 United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (1990).......................................................35 United States v. Playboy Entm't Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000) ........................25 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) ........................................................30 Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.,
455 U.S. 489 (1982).............................................................................................32 Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) ........................................ 20, 36 Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) .................................15 World Wide Rush, LLC v. City of Los Angeles,
606 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2010) .................................................................. 28, 31, 32
- vi -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 7 of 49
State Statutes Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2906........................................................................ 15, 41 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2928(A) and (B).................................................... passim Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28-704.......................................................................... 10, 41 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28-871.......................................................................... 10, 41 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28-873(A) ...........................................................................41 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28-905.................................................................................41 Federal Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)...............................................................................................4 28 U.S.C. § 1331........................................................................................................4 28 U.S.C. § 1345........................................................................................................4 Rules Fed. R. App. P. 4........................................................................................................4
- vii -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 8 of 49
Introduction In-street employment solicitation has cau sed substantial traffic, safety, economic, and aesthetic concerns in communities throughout Arizona for many years. After numerous unsuccessful effo rts to address those problems (includi ng through the enforcement of existing laws), the Arizona Legislature enacted Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2928(A) and (B) to regulate such solicitation, but only when it is conducted in a manner that blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic. With or without A riz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2928(A) and (B), it i s undisputed that persons cannot sol icit employment in Ariz ona in a manner that blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction of Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2928(A) and (B), arguing that Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2928(A) and (B) violate their First Amend ment rights by prohibiting them from soliciting employment in an illegal manner. This is a facial challenge with no as-applied allegations. The only evidence Plaintiffs presented to support their extraordinary request for preliminary injunctive relief was the a ssertion that the threat of prosecution under Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2928(A) and (B) was deterring persons in Arizona from soliciting em ployment. Plaintiffs ma ke this clai m even though the statute expressly applies only to in-street solicitation that impedes traffic. Arizona, by contrast, presented evidence that:
- 1 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 9 of 49
(1) in-street employment solicitation has been causing proble ms in Arizona for years;
(2) in-street em ployment solicitation causes significant traffic safety concerns;
(3) the secondary effects of in-street em ployment solicitation include increased crime, property damage, economic harms, and aesthetic concerns;
(4) in-street employment solicitation cau ses significantly greater har m than other forms of solicitation;
(5) Arizona co mmunities have made numerous, unsuccessful attempts to address these problems;
(6) existing laws have been and will cont inue to be ineffective in addressing these problems; and
(7) the legislative history dem onstrates that the Arizona Legislature enacted Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2928(A) and (B) to address the traffic safety concerns and secondary effects of in-street employment solicitation.
Notwithstanding Arizona’s unrefuted ev idence of a content-neutral purpose for enacting Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-29 28(A) and (B) and the ineffectiveness of the available alternatives, the district co urt found that Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 132928(A) and (B) are likely unconstit utional under the Central Hudson test. In reaching this conclusion, the district cour t first found that Plaintiffs have a Firs t
- 2 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 10 of 49
Amendment right to so licit employment in a manner that blocks or i mpedes the normal movement of traffic. The distri ct court then found that Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2928(A) and (B) are content based and, therefore, subject to “heightened scrutiny,” relying sol ely on i ts ruling at the m otion-to-dismiss stage and without addressing any of the eviden ce Arizona presented regarding the provisi ons’ content-neutral purpose. The district cour t then found that Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2928(A) and (B) fail t he final prong of the Central Hudson test (again without addressing any of the evidence Arizona presented) based on its fi ndings that Arizona has existing traffic laws to addr ess its traffic concerns and that the provisions at issue were supposedly enacted to suppress day-labor speech.
The district court’s findings are not supported by the evidence and cannot be sustained under the controlling precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit. The district court’s prelim inary injunction of Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 132928(A) and (B) should be vacated.
- 3 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 11 of 49
Statement of Jurisdiction On May 17, 2010, fourteen Or ganizational Plaintiffs1 and ten Individual Plaintiffs2 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) commenced this action against each of the County Attorneys and County Sherif fs in Arizona, in their of ficial capacities. ER 594. Arizona and Governor Brewer obtained leave to intervene on June 18, 2010. ER 615. The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345. On February 29, 2012, the district court entered a prelim inary injunction enjoining the portions of S.B. 1070, as amended by H.B. 2162 (“S.B. 1070”), which are codified at Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2928(A) and (B) (“Sections 5(A) and (B)”). ER 1-13. Arizona filed its prelim inary injunction a ppeal on March 28, 2012. ER 14-24. This appeal is timely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).

1 The Organizational Plaintiffs are

Friendly House, Service Em ployees

International Union, Service Employees International Union Local 5, United Food

and Commercial Workers International Un ion, Arizona South Asi ans for Safe

Families, Southside Presbyterian Chur ch, Arizona Hispanic Cham ber of

Commerce, Asian Chamber of Comm erce, Border Action Network, Tonatierra

Community Development Institute, Muslim American Society, Japanese American

Citizens League, Valle del Sol, and Coalicion de Derechos Humanos. ER 594.

2 The Individual Plaintiffs identified in the Complaint are Andrew Anderson, Vicki

Gaubeca, C.M., a minor, Lu z Santiago, Jim Shee, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesús

Cuauhtémoc, John Doe #1, Jane Doe #1, and Jane Doe #2. ER 594.

- 4 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 12 of 49
Issue Presented Whether the district court erred in fi nding that Sections 5(A) and (B) are content-based regulations on commercial speech and likely unconstit utional under the First Amendment notwithstanding that:
 Sections 5(A) and (B) regulate em ployment solicitation only when it is conducted in an indisputably illegal manner;
 The legislative history dem onstrates that Sections 5(A) and (B) were enacted to address traffic concerns and the secon dary effects of instreet employment solicitation; and
 Arizona presented unrefuted evidence that the existing traffic laws are inadequate to address Arizona’s traffic safety concerns.
Attached at the end of this brief is an Addendum containing the t ext of the pertinent provisions of the Arizona statutes cited herein.
Statement of the Case On June 21, 2010, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction of S.B. 1070 in its entirety (“Plaintiffs’ First Motion”). ER 617. That same m onth, the Ninth Circuit held that Redondo Beach Municipal Code § 3-7.1601 (the “Redondo Beach Ordinance”), which im poses broad restri ctions on roadside solicitations, was “a valid time, place, or manner restric tion” under the First Am endment. See Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beac h v. City of Redondo Beach , 607 F.3d 1178, 1180
- 5 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 13 of 49
(9th Cir. 2010) (“ Redondo Beach I”). Bas ed on Redondo Beach I , Plaintiffs withdrew their request for a prelim inary injunction of Sections 5(A) and (B). E R 590.
After the Ninth Circuit granted a petition for rehearing en banc of Redondo Beach I, see Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 623 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2010), Plaintiffs renewed their request for a prelim inary injunction of Sections 5(A) and (B) (“Pl aintiffs’ Second Motion”). ER 494-555. After full briefing, t he Court denied Plai ntiffs’ Second Motion without addressing the merits of Plaintiffs’ motion and without prejudice to Plaintiffs re asserting the motion after the en banc panel ruled on the Redondo Beach Ordinance’s constitutionality. ER 214.
On September 16, 2011, this Cour t struck down the Redondo Beach Ordinance under the time, place, or manner test because it found that the ordinance “was not narrowly t ailored to achieve the City’s goals.” Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach , 657 F.3d 936, 951 (9t h Cir. 2011) (en banc) (“Redondo Beach II”). Plaintiffs then moved for a preliminary injunction of Sections 5(A) and (B) a third time, relying alm ost exclusively on Redondo Beach II. ER 108-211 (“Plaintiffs’ Third Motion”).
The district court rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that Redondo Beach II controlled the constitutionality of Secti ons 5(A) and (B) because, unlike the
- 6 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 14 of 49
Redondo Beach Ordinance, Sections 5( A) and (B) regulate only commercial speech. ER 5 n.2. The district court nevertheless found that Sections 5(A) and (B) are likely unconstitutional regulations on commercial speech because Arizona’s existing traffic laws shoul d be sufficien t to address Arizona’s traffic safety concerns and because Sections 5(A) and (B ) had been inserted into a bill that included several provisions designed to discourage illegal immigration and, therefore, were not “drawn to achieve” Arizona ’s asserted interest in traffic safety. The district court granted the m otion on February 29, 2012 and entered an orde r preliminarily enjoining the enforcem ent of Sections 5(A) and (B). ER 1-13. Arizona filed this preliminary injunction appeal on March 28, 2012. ER 14-24.
Statement of Facts A. In-Street Employment Solicitation Threatens Public Safety In-street solicitation of em ployment poses a substantial and unique thre at to public safety. A physical interference with moving traffic—by either a pedestrian or a stopped vehicle—creates an obvious sa fety hazard. ER 95 (traffic engineer Dan Cleavenger stating that an intersection in Mesa “had a couple of crashes that appear to be related to the day labor folks”). That hazar d is particularly acute in the context of employment solicitation becau se prospective day laborers generally congregate by the roadside in l arge groups, flag down vehicles as they approach, and often swarm vehicles that stop. ER 326, 363, 363. Such conduct “creates a
- 7 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 15 of 49
dangerous situation for t he pedestrian near the roadway, for the m otorist interacting with the pedestrian, and for other motorists nearby.” ER 322; see also ER 326 (stating that the situation is particularly dangerous because “day laborers typically wait on the side of busy roads, at busy intersections, and at the entrance of major businesses t hat attract lots of customers”); ER 411 (reflecting statements by business managers near a popular day labor site that “[t]hey’ve seen a few jobseekers get injured by cars stopping abruptly”). 3 Also, unlike a sim ple solicitation for monetary donations, day l aborers and prospective employers must discuss the nature, duration, and location of the work to be perform ed and negotiate wages (oftentimes while dealing with language ba rriers), and then the day laborer m ust enter the vehicle to be transported to another location. ER 323-24.
Roadside solicitation of em ployment also results in increased cri minal activities. ER 328-29, 343-44, 363. Accord ing to a Department of Justice report: (1) “[s]imple and aggravated assaults ma y take place at d ay laborer sites”; (2) “[l]aborers may be routinel y robbed”; (3) “[l]aborers may drink and sell or use
3 See also ACORN v. City of Phoenix , 798 F.2d 1260, 1270 (9th Cir. 1986), overruled in part on other grounds by Redondo Beach II, 657 F.3d 936 (9t h Cir. 2011) (finding that “solicitati on from motorists creates a potentia l safety hazard because the consequent distraction of the drivers poses a significant risk to motorist and pedestrian safety”). Traffic sa fety in general, and pedestrian safety in particular, are significant concerns for Arizona. Arizona has one of the highest per capita pedestrian fatality rates of any state in the nation. ER 413. In 2009, m otor vehicle accidents inj ured over 138 peopl e and killed more than two p eople each day. ER 427. These accidents also cost the State $2.757 billion. Id.
- 8 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 16 of 49
illicit drugs in public ”; and (4) “[l]aborers may vandalize area property or deface property with graffiti.” ER 363. “Laborers often leav e discarded bottles, food wrappers, and other litter at day laborer s ites” and “[l]aborers waiting all day for work may urinate in public.” Id.
These problems exist in num erous Arizona cities, including Phoenix, Cave Creek, Chandler, Mesa, and Fountain Hi lls, causing business owners to com plain to local officials about the harm day labor ers have caused to their revenues. ER 95, 97, 99-100, 102, 328-30, 343-44, 410-11, 482-83, 485-86, 490-91. In particular, business owners and offici als have observed assa ults, trespassing, loitering, sexual harassment, theft, and pr operty destruction. ER 328-30, 343-44. One local business owner even received death threats from day laborers. ER 343.
B. There Are No Readily Available Effective Alternatives to Address the Safety Concerns and Economic and Environmental Harms InStreet Employment Solicitation Causes
Local communities and business owners have spent years exploring options to address the secondary effects of in-street employment solicitation without success. For example, the City of Mesa tried increasing its enforcement of other laws. ER 483. The City of Cave Cree k pushed for a crackdown on loit ering laws. ER 97. The City of Chandler enacted a parking ban. ER 99. And business owners
- 9 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 17 of 49
in the Cit y of Phoenix have hired off-duty pol ice officers to patrol outsi de their businesses. ER 330, 343.4
Arizona’s existing traffic laws do not adequately address the safety concerns arising out of in-street employment solicita tion because such laws are t oo narrow and difficult to apply in the em ployment-solicitation context. ER 104-07. For example, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28-704 imposes minimum speed limits, but does not address stopping a vehicle in the midst of moving traffic. ER 105.5 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2906, which provides crim inal penalties for obs tructing highways and thoroughfares, does not apply to a pedestri an who stands in the street to talk to a driver of a stopped vehicle unless t he pedestrian (as opposed to the stopped vehicle) is interfering with the flow of tr affic. ER 106. Appl ying Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2906 to the driver of a vehicle who stops in the midst of traffic to solicit employees can also be difficult because of the statute’s potential conflicts with other statutes, such as Ariz. Rev. Stat . Ann. §§ 28-871 and 28-873, that permit such stops in certain circum stances. ER 106-07. Parking laws address som e
4 Some cities co mmissioned studies to help identify ideas on how to solve these problems. See, e.g., ER 102 (“To study the issue, commissioners hit the streets for months to question laborers, business owners and neighbors.”). 5 Even where Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28-7 04 can be enforced against a driver who stops a vehicle in moving traffic, an officer who arrives on the scene after the vehicle is stopped may not know whethe r the driver stopped the vehicle to communicate with the prospective employ ee, or stopped the ve hicle for safety reasons after the prospective employee entered the roadway. ER 105.
- 10 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 18 of 49
situations in which a driver improperly st ops his or her car to comm unicate with a prospective employee, but not all situations, and the fines are fairly m inor (as low as $25), so they do not have a deterrent effect. ER 106.
Plaintiffs’ own evidence confirms that Arizona’s existing laws have failed to deter these problems. ER 541 (“[B]efore Sections 5(a) and (b) of S.B. 1070 went into effect . . . the jornalero mem bers sometimes . . . mad e their availability for work known by . . . signaling to drivers w ith their hands or calling out to them ” and “[d]rivers who chose to hire jornal eros typically pulled over on the public street to negotiate the terms of employment.”); ER 527 (“It is common practice for prospective employers to temporarily stop or park t heir vehicles on a public right of-way while they communicate and negotiate the hiring of a day laborer.”).
C. The Legislature Enacted Sect ions 5(A) and (B) to Address Public Safety Concerns
For many years before ultimately en acting the provisions in 2010, the Arizona Legislature considered several vers ions of the provisions codified in Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2928(A) and (B). As su mmarized below, the legislative history of each bill reflects that the Le gislature was concerne d about the traffic safety, public safety, crime, occupational safety, quality of life, aesthetics, and commercial business problems creat ed by unregulated em ployment solicitation along busy streets and roads throughout Arizona.
In 2007, the Legislature consider ed H.B. 2589 as a means to address
- 11 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 19 of 49
problems related to “unsafe traffic conditions,” trespassing, and “a black-market of day labor that is uncontrolled, unsafe and unwanted by most residents of Arizona.” H.B. 2589, 48th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2007). Dr. Melody Jafari urged t he House Judiciary Committ ee to pass the Bill because businesses in her neighborhood were “being im pacted . . . by vehicles stoppi ng in the roadway in front of [the] businesses to negotiate contracts for la bor” and because day laborer gatherings led to “trespa ss, littering and defecating on private property,” causing “the overall deterioration of a ppearance of the community.” Minutes of Hearing on H.B. 2589 Before the H. Comm. on Judiciary , 48th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2007). As a Special Assistant County At torney for Maricopa County testified, the Bill would treat day laborer solicitation di fferently than other trespasses becaus e day laborer solicitation was “a specific problem that is calling out for m ore significant sanctions.” Id.
In 2008, the Legislature considered H.B. 2412, “a traffic safety bill” to prevent street solicitation of da y labor that “disrupt[ed] traffic, harm[ed] business, exploit[ed] workers and de grade[d] neighborhoods.” Minutes of Hearing on H.B. 2412 Before the H. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Prop. Rights , 48th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2008).
In 2009, the Legislature considered H.B. 2533, a bill nearly identical in language to Sections 5(A) and (B) at issue in this case. See H.B. 2533, 49th Leg.,
- 12 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 20 of 49
1st Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2009). H.B. 2533’ s purpose was to address the unsafe “disruption of traffic” created by bot h “day laborers who congregate on the street to solicit work [and by] the indivi dual who pulls up and solicits t he person t o work.” Minutes of Hearing on H.B. 2533 Before the H. Comm. on Judiciary, 49th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2009).
In 2010, H.B. 2042 was presented to t he House with the explanation that “the primary reason for the bill is public safety.” Hearing on H.B. 2042 Before the H. Comm. on Judiciary , 49th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. 5 (A riz. 2010). Representative Kavanaugh, who introduced the Bill, further explained that H.B. 2042 was designed to address labor solicitations that “disrupt[] traffic and cause[] injuries or accidents” and issues concerning “large da y laborer gatherings, crimes in the areas of those gatherings, occupational safety for day laborers, black market employment of day la borers, illegal immigration issues related to day l abor, and tax issue s created by unreported cash payments to day laborers by employers.” Id. H.B. 2042 passed in the House in February 2010 and was then passed to the Senate where it ultimately became an amendment to S.B. 1070.
D. Sections 5(A) and (B) Are Narro w Regulations on Conduct That Raises Significant Safety, Economic, and Environmental Concerns
Sections 5(A) and (B) are very narro w regulations of in-stre et employment solicitation. Specifically, Section 5(A) ma kes it unlawful: “for an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway to attempt to hire or
- 13 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 21 of 49
hire and pick up passengers for work at a different location if the motor vehicl e blocks or impedes the norm al movement of traffic .” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 132928(A) (emphasis added). Section 5( B) makes it unlawful “for a person to enter a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway in order to be hired by an occupant of t he motor vehicle and to be tra nsported to work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2928(B) (emphasis added).
Nothing in Sections 5(A) or (B) prohibits any pers on from soliciting employment in any manner that does not involve (1) a motor vehicle stopping on a roadway, and (2) conduct that blocks or i mpedes the normal movement of traffic. Nothing in Sections 5(A) or (B), therefor e, affects Plaintiffs’ and their memb ers’ continued right to solicit, negotiate, and secure em ployment in parking l ots, while vehicles are properl y parked on the side of the street, in designated day labor centers, on sidewalks, and even on streets with little traffic —anywhere, for that matter, where the solicitations and negotiations do not interfere with traffic.
Summary of Argument The district court erred in fi nding that Plaintiffs are likely to establish that Sections 5(A) and (B) violate the First Am endment and, therefore, al so erred in finding that Plaintiffs’ probable succe ss on the m erits entitles Plaintiffs to preliminary injunctive relie f. Sections 5(A) and (B) do not violat e the First
- 14 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 22 of 49
Amendment because they regulate c onduct related to co mmercial speech (employment solicitation) only when the solicitation is performed in an illegal manner—blocking or im peding traffic. Even if the First Amendment som ehow created a right to solicit employm ent in such a reckless and illegal manner, Sections 5(A) and (B) are co nstitutional regulations on commerce because they directly advance and are narrowly tailored to serve Arizona’s substantial interest in traffic safety.
Legal Discussion I
Standard of Review “A plaintiff seeking a prelim inary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the m erits, that he is likel y to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “A preliminary inj unction is an extraordinary re medy never awarded as of right. . . . In each case, co urts ‘must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.’” Id. at 24 (citation omitted). A “district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction is reviewed for ‘abuse of discretion’ and should be re versed if the dist rict court based ‘its decision on a n
- 15 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 23 of 49

erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact.’” Stormans, Inc.

v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1119 (9th Ci r. 2009) (citation omitted); see also Harris

v. Bd. of Supervisors, 366 F.3d 754, 760 (9th Cir. 2004). A district court’s factual

findings are subject to a clearly erroneous standard, but

the district court’s

application of the applicable legal prin ciples “is subject to de novo review.”

Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1119.

II

Sections 5(A) and (B) Are Subject to the Central Hudson Framework for Regulations on Commercial Speech

A. Sections 5(A) and (B) Regulate Commercial Speech

Sections 5(A) and (B) regulate only employment solicitation, which is a

“classic example[] of commercial speech.” Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n of Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376, 385 (1973).6 The district court agreed

that Sections 5(A) and (B) govern commercial speech, properly rejecting Plaintiffs’

argument that employment solicitation is “‘inextricably intertwined’ with core First

Amendment speech.” ER 4; see also Bd. of Trustees of St ate Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox ,

492 U.S. 469, 474 (1989) (rejecting the argument that Tupperware sales at

Tupperware parties were “inextricably in tertwined” with di scussions regarding

financial responsibility because “[n]o law of man or of nature makes it i mpossible

6 See also Shapero v. Ky. Bar Ass’n , 486 U.S. 466, 472 (1988) (holding t hat lawyers’ solicitation for pecuniary gain is commercial speech).

- 16 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 24 of 49

to sell housewares without teaching home economics, or to teach hom e economics

without selling housewares”); Hunt v. City of Los Angeles , 638 F.3d 703, 716 (9th

Cir. 2011) (finding t hat the plaintiffs’ sa les of shea butter a nd incense were not

“inextricably intertwined” wi th noncommercial messages because t he plaintiffs

could “easily sell t heir wares without re ference to any reli gious, philosophical,

and/or ideological element.”).

B. Regulations on Commercial Speech Are Subject to the Central Hudson Test

In Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of

New York, 447 U.S. 557, 566 (1980), the S upreme Court established the

framework for evaluating the constituti onality of regulati ons on c ommercial

speech. The Supreme Court has since applied the

Central Hudson test to

regulations on commercial speech regard less of whether a challenged regulation

was content based or content neutral. See, e.g., Thompson v. W. States Med. Ctr. ,

535 U.S. 357, 367-68 (2002) (prohibit ions on solicitations and advertising for

compound drugs); Greater New Orleans Broad. Ass’n Inc. v United States , 527

U.S. 173, 184-96 (1999) (prohi bitions on broadcast adve rtisements for privat e

casino gambling); Edenfield v. Fane , 507 U.S. 761, 767 (1993) (rule prohibi ting

CPA’s from engaging in dir ect, personal solicitation); Cincinnati v. Discover y

- 17 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 25 of 49
Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410, 416 n.11 (1993) (ban on commercial newsracks); 7 Fox, 492 U.S. at 476 (ban on m ost private commercial enterprises); Shapero, 486 U.S. at 472 (prohibit ion on certain attorney solicitations); Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 507-08 (1981) (plurality opinion) (regulations on outdoor advertising); see also Sorrell v. IMS Hea lth, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653, 2667-68 (2011) (applying the Central Hudson test t o a prohi bition on the use of prescriber information in prescription records for m arketing purposes, which the Court found to be cont ent-based, speaker-based “and, in practice, viewpoint discrim inatory,” but without actually deciding “whether all speech hampered by [the challenged statute] is commercial”).
This Court’s precedent confirms that the Central Hudson test applies in all commercial speech cases. See Hunt, 638 F.3d at 715 (“[W]here only commercial speech is at issue, the ti me, place, or manner framework does not apply and courts apply the framework articulated in [Central Hudson].”); Metro Lights, LLC v. City of Los Angeles , 551 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1014 (2009) (“Whether or not the City’s regulation is content-based, the Central Hudson test still applies because of the reduced protection given to commerci al speech.”);
7 In Discovery Networks, the Court reserved the ques tion of whether content-based restrictions on commerci al speech may be subject to a heightened test. See 507 U.S. at 416 n.11 (“Because we conclude that Cincinnati’s ban on commercial newsracks cannot withstand scrutiny under Central Hudson and Fox, we need not decide whether that policy should be subjected to more exacting review.”).
- 18 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 26 of 49
Coyote Publ’g, Inc. v. Miller, 598 F.3d 592, 599 n.10 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied,
131 S. Ct. 1556 (2011) (hol ding that the Central Hudson test applies to all regulations of commercial speech, whether content based or content neutral).8
C. The District Court Erred In Concluding that Sorrell Modified the Test Applicable to Sections 5(A) and (B)
The district court erroneously found that Sorrell “modified t he commercial
speech test originally set forth in Central Hudson” for content-based regulations on
commercial speech. ER 9. In Sorrell, the Court analyzed the First Amend ment
standard applicable to a Ver mont statute that “burden[ed ] disfavored speech by
disfavored speakers” and “‘[went] even beyond m ere content discrimination to actual viewpoint discrimination.” 131 S. Ct. at 2663 (emphasis added).9 Although
the Court noted that “heightened judicial scrutiny was warrant ed,” id. at 2664, t he
Sorrell Court di d not actually apply any form of heighte ned scrutiny or even
articulate what “heightened scrutiny” te st might apply in the circum stances.
Instead, the Court applied its established Central Hudson test. Id. at 2667. The
8 The Central Hudson test and the commercial speech doctrine were not addressed or at issue in Redondo Beach II. 657 F. 3d at 945 n.2 (“ The City does not argue that the Ordinance applies onl y to comme rcial solicitation, a nd its text does not limit its reach to the commercial context. Thus, we cannot, and do not, decide the Ordinance’s validity under the Supreme Court’s ‘commercial speech’ case law.”). 9 The Supreme Court has “im plicitly distinguished between restrictions on expression based on subject matter and restrictions ba sed on viewpoint, indicating that the latter are p articularly pernicious. . . , and require[] pa rticular scrutiny, in part because such regulation often indicat es a leg islative effort to skew public debate on an issue.” R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul , 505 U.S. 377, 430 (1992) (Stevens, J., concurring) (internal citations omitted)).
- 19 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 27 of 49
Sorrell Court thus did not establish any alternative framework10 for lower courts to apply to content-based restrictions on commercial speech.
Until the Suprem e Court m odifies or rejects the Central Hudson test for content-based regulations on commercial speech, the Central Hudson framework remains applicable. See, e.g., Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc. , 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989) (“If a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons reject ed in some other line of decisions, t he Court of Appeals shoul d follow the case wh ich directly controls, leaving to t his Court the prerogative of overruling it s own decisions.”); Metro Lights, 551 F.3d at 911 (“[W]e ar e bound to follow the Suprem e Court precedent m ost directly on point.”).
D. Even if Sorrell Somehow Modified the Central Hudson Test for Content-Based Regulations on Co mmercial Speech, Sections 5(A) and (B) Are Not Content Based
“Deciding whether a particular regulation is content based or content neutral is not always a sim ple task.” Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC , 512 U.S. 622, 642 (1994). “[T]he ‘principal inquiry in dete rmining content-neutrality . . . is whether the government has adopted a regulation of speech because of [agreement or] disagreement with t he message it conveys.’” Id. (quoting Ward v. Rock Against 10 The district court found that Sorrell modified the Central Hudson test for content-based regulations on commercial speech, but that is not correct. Compare ER 9 with Sorrell, 131 S. Ct. at 2667-68 (relying on Fox to support its articulation of the Central Hudson test).
- 20 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 28 of 49
Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989)); accord Sorrell , 131 S. Ct. at 2664 (quoting Ward). Accordingly, the Supreme Court has consistently assessed the purpose of a challenged regulation in determining its content neutrality.
1. A Regulation Is Content Neutral If Enacted to Address the Secondary Effects of the Regulated Speech
A regulation is content neutral if it is justified by interests that are “unrelated to the suppression of free expression.” City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc ., 475 U.S. 41, 48 (1986)). In Renton, for example, the Supreme Court addressed a First Amendment challenge to an ordi nance “prohibit[ing] adult m otion picture theaters from locating within 1,000 feet of any residential zone, single- or multiplefamily dwelling, church, park, or school. ” 475 U.S. at 43. In determ ining the applicable standard, the Court recognized th at the ordinance did not “appear to fit neatly into either the ‘content-based’ or the ‘content-neutral’ category” becaus e “the ordinance treat[ed] theaters that specialize in adult films differently from other kinds of theaters.” Id. at 47. The Court found, howe ver, that the ordi nance was “aimed not at the content of the films shown . . . b ut rather at the secondary effects of such theaters on the surrounding community” because the ordi nance’s primary purpose was to “pre vent crime, protect th e city’s retail trade, maintain property values, and generally [protect] and [p reserve] the quality of [the City’s]
- 21 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 29 of 49

neighborhoods, commercial districts, and the quality of urban life.’” Id. at 47-48.11 The fact that regulating the conten t of adult film s may have been “ a motivating factor” in enacting the ordinance did not control the Court’s conclusion. Id. at 47 (emphasis in original). Instead, the Court found the ordinance “com pletely consistent with [its] d efinition of ‘c ontent-neutral’ speech regulations” and “justified without reference to the cont ent of the regulated speech.” Id. at 48 (emphasis in original).
Similarly, in Turner Broadcasting Syst em, 512 U.S. at 658, 661-62, the Supreme Court applied i ntermediate scrutiny to regulations that facially distinguished between broadcasters and cab le programmers. The plaintiffs argued that the speaker-based distinction requi red strict scrutiny and even identified portions of the legisl ative history in which Congress noted the value of broadcast programming. The Court rejected the ar gument, however, because the legislative history demonstrated that Congress did not enact the statute because it “preferred broadcasters over cable progra mmers based on the content of programm ing each group offers.” Id. at 658-59.12

11 The Court observed that had the City

’s purpose been to regulate First

Amendment rights, the City “would have trie d to close the [the adult theaters ] or

restrict their number rather than circumscribe their choice as to location.” Id. at 48

(citation omitted).

12 The Court also found that the chall enged provisions were not content based on their face and were not intended to disfavor particular content.

- 22 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 30 of 49
This Court has also repeatedly r ecognized that a regulation aimed at addressing the seco ndary effects of regul ated speech is content neutral. I n Colacurcio v. Cit y of Kent , 163 F.3d 545, 553 (9th Cir. 1998), for e xample, the Ninth Circuit held that a regulation on nude tabl e dancing was content neutral because the City’s predominant purpose in enacting the ordinance was to “control[] prostitution, drug dealing, and other crim inal activity.” Al though the appellants had presented some evidence that City officials intended t o discourage nude dancing generally, the court found the eviden ce inconsequential, holding that: “[a] finding that the restriction of First Am endment speech is a ‘motivating factor’ i n enacting an ordinance is not of itself sufficient to hold the regulation presumptively invalid.” Id. at 551. See also Dish Network Corp. v. FCC , 653 F.3d 771, 778 (9t h Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1162 (2011) (“[E]ven a statute that facially distinguishes a category of speech or speakers is conten t-neutral if justified by interests that are ‘ unrelated to the suppression of free expression.’” (citation omitted)); Tollis v. San Bernardino Cnty ., 827 F.2d 1329, 1332 (9th Cir. 1987) (if “the predominant purpose of the [regula tion] is the amelioration of secondary effects, then [it] is content-neutral”).
2. A Regulation Is Content Based If It Is Designed to Suppress Disfavored Speech or Speech by Disfavored Speakers
A regulation is cont ent based where cl ear evidence demonst rates that the government’s intent was to suppress disfavored speech. In Sorrell, for example,
- 23 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 31 of 49
the Supreme Court held that “heightened scrutiny” applied to a regulation that “disfavor[ed] marketing” and “disfavor[ed ] specific speaker s, namely pharmaceutical manufacturers.” 131 S. Ct. at 2663. The Court did not begin and end its analysis, however, with the statut e’s text. Instead, the Court evaluated the formal legislative findings accompanying the challenged provision and deter mined that the Vermont Legislature intended to single out certain speakers because they “convey messages that ‘are of ten in conflict wit h the goals of the state.’” Id. (quoting 2007 Vt. N o. 80 § 1(3)); see also id. at 2672 (“‘The goa ls of marketing programs, the legislature said, ‘are often in conflict with the goals of the state.’ § 1(3). The text of § 4631(d), associat ed legislative findings, and the record developed in the District Court establish that Vermont enacted the law for this end. . . . At the same time, the State has left unburdened those speakers whose messages are in accord with its own views.”).
In Discovery Networks, 507 U.S. at 429, the Supr eme Court rejected the argument that a sweeping ban on comme rcial newsracks was content-neutra l because (1) “the very basis for the regula tion is the difference in content between ordinary newspapers and commercial speech,” and (2) the City’s only justification for singling out commercial publications wa s its “naked asser tion that commercial speech has ‘low value.’” Id. at 429. In other words, the Court did not find the ban content-based solely because of its faci al distinction between newspapers and
- 24 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 32 of 49
commercial handbills; rather, it held that “[i]t is the absence of a n eutral justification for its sel ective ban on newsracks that prevents the city from defending its newsrack policy as content-neutral.” Id. at 429-30.13
In United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. , 529 U.S. 803, 811 (2000), the Court addressed a regulation th at “applies only to channels prim arily dedicated to ‘sexuall y explicit adult pr ogramming or other programm ing that is indecent’” and found that the regulation was content based because:
The overriding justification for the re gulation is concern for the effect of the subject matter on young viewers. Section 505 is not “j ustified without reference to the content of the regulated speech.” . . . It “focuses only on the content of the speech and the direct i mpact that speech has on its listeners.” . . . This is the essence of content-based regulation. Id. at 811-12 (internal citations om itted). As in Discovery Networks, therefore, it was the absence of a content-neutral justif ication for the challenged regulation that led the Court to apply strict scrutiny. See also Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 115 (1991) (regulation was contentbased where it targeted speech by crimin als and the State offered no contentneutral justification); Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minn. Comm’r of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 585 (1983) (a tax im posed on newspapers subjected to heightened scrutiny becaus e “differential treatment, unless justified by so me
13 As stated in Section II(D)(2), supra, the Discovery Networks Court evaluated the constitutionality of the ban under the Central Hudson framework.
- 25 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 33 of 49
special characteristics of the press , suggests that the goal of the regulation is not unrelated to suppression of expression” (emphasis added)).
3. The Record Does Not Support a Finding that Sections 5(A) and (B) Were Enacted to Suppress Disfavored Speech
Sections 5(A) and (B) are content neut ral because the legislative history and the statutes themselves demonstrate that the purpose of Sections 5(A) and (B) is to address the problematic direct effects of the prohibited conduct (im peding traffic) and the secondary effects crea ted by and arising out of the sol icitation of work i n busy streets and roadways in Arizona. See supra pp. 7-14. The record contains no evidence that Sections 5(A) and (B) we re primarily enact ed to suppress the solicitation of employment. See Renton, 475 U.S. at 48.
The district court’s finding that Sections 5(A) and (B) are content based was erroneous in three respects. First, the dist rict court erred in re lying on its ruling at the motion-to-dismiss stage that Sections 5(A) and (B) are cont ent based. ER 6 (“The Court has previously found that [Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann.] § 13-2928(A) and (B) are content-based because they apply only to speech soliciting employment and not to other types of solicitation speech .”). Not only was the court’s previous
- 26 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 34 of 49
ruling subject to a diffe rent legal standard,14 but it di d not (and could not ) involve any evaluation of t he Arizona Legislature’ s stated purpose for enacting Sections 5(A) and (B). ER 575. Accordingl y, the district court’s m otion-to-dismiss ruling should not have controlled the court’s ruling at the preliminary-injunction stage.
Second, the district court erred in disregarding Arizona’s content-neutral justification for Sections 5(A) and (B). The co ntent-neutral purpose for these provisions (traffic safety) is not subj ect to reasonable dispute because the provisions regulate em ployment solicitation only when such solicitation directly interferes with moving traffic. Arizona also presented unrefuted evidence that instreet employment solicitation causes signifi cantly greater safety concerns than other forms of solicitation. ER 322-24, 326, 363, 363, 411. Arizona further presented evidence that the Arizona Legi slature enacted Sections 5(A) and (B) to address public safety. All of this ev idence is highly relevant to the contentneutrality of Sections 5(A) and (B). See, e.g., Sorrell, 131 S. Ct. at 2672; Renton, 475 U.S. at 47. The district court, theref ore, committed clear error by refusing to consider it.
14 In ruling on a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a court considers only what has been alleged in the com plaint. In connection with Plaintiffs’ motions for a prelim inary injunction, ho wever, the parties submitted hundreds of pages of evidence to the district court. See ER 92-107, 131-207, 234-96, 322-493, 523-55. The district court’s fi nding that Plaintiffs’ pleading passed m uster under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) should not have precluded the court from considering that evidence or Arizona’s argument regarding the Arizona Legislature’s purpose for enacting Sections 5(A) and (B).
- 27 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 35 of 49
Third, the district court erred in relying on Sorrell because the Verm ont statute at issue in Sorrell is worlds apart from Sections 5(A) and (B). As the Sorrell Court found, the cha llenged Vermont statute wa s intended to “burden[] disfavored speech by disfavored speaker s” and “‘goes even beyond m ere content discrimination to actual viewpoint discrimination.” Id. at 2663 (em phasis added). Here, by contrast, there is no evidence that Sections 5(A) and (B) were enact ed to suppress employment solicitation, much less any particular viewpoint. Sorrell is therefore neither on point nor controlling.
For all these reasons, Sections 5(A) and (B) are subject to interm ediate scrutiny under the Central Hudson test.
III Sections 5(A) and (B) Are Constitutional Under Central Hudson A. The Conduct Sections 5(A) and (B) Regulate Does Not Merit First
Amendment Protection For commercial speech to receive First Amendment protection, it “m ust concern lawful activity a nd not be m isleading.” Fox, 492 U.S. at 475. The First Amendment does not protect unlawful activity. World Wide Rush, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 606 F.3d 676, 684 (9t h Cir. 2010). In Pittsburgh Press, for example, the Supreme Court addressed a First Amen dment challenge to an ordinance that sought to elim inate discriminatory help-wanted advertisements by prohibiting newspapers from “carry[ing] ‘help-want ed’ advertisements in sex-designated
- 28 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 36 of 49
columns except where the employer or adve rtiser is fre e to make hiring or employment referral decisions on the basis of sex.” 413 U.S. at 378. The Court found the ordinance valid because: “A ny First Amendment interest which m ight be served by advertising an ordinary commercial proposal and which m ight arguably outweigh the governmental interest supporting the regulation is altogether absent when the commercial activity itself is illegal . . .” Id. at 388-89. Thus, the Supreme Court found that otherwise lawf ul speech (employment advertisement s) lost its First Amendment protection when associated with unlawful activity (sex discrimination).
As in Pittsburgh Press, Sections 5(A) and (B) regulate the location of the commercial speech (em ployment solicitation) only when it is associated with unlawful activity (blocking or im peding traffic). Because Plaintiffs have no right to block or im pede traffic and Sections 5(A) and (B) do not regulate Plaintiffs’ activities when they are not blocking traffic, Plaintiffs’ activities are not protected under the First Am endment. See Pittsburgh Press, 413 U.S. at 385. The distri ct court rejected this argument without a ddressing Pittsburgh Press or explaining why Plaintiffs have a First Amendmen t right t o conduct the solicitation of employment in a manner that blocks or impe des the normal movement of traffic . The district court therefore erred in find ing that Sections 5(A) and (B) concern otherwise lawful activity.
- 29 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 37 of 49

B. Even If Sections 5(A) and (B) Governed Protected Speech, the Regulations Satisfy the Central Hudson Test

Even if one were to assume that Se ctions 5(A) and (B) did regulate conduct

that is somehow otherwise lawful, Secti ons 5(A) and (B) w ould still withstand

scrutiny under Central Hudson. A regulation on commerci al speech protected by

the First Amendment m ust satisfy Central Hudson’s three-part test. Hunt, 638

F.3d at 716. Under the first prong, “‘[t]he State must assert a substantial interest to

be achieved by restrictions on commercial speech.’”

Id. (citation om itted).

Sections 5(A) and (B) easily satisfy th is prong because Arizona has identified

several interests that these provisions serve—traffic safety, crime reduction,

economic development, and protecting th e aesthetics of its co mmunities—all of which are well-established as substant ial, if not co mpelling, interests.15 The

district court agreed “that Arizona has a sserted several substa ntial governmental

interests that animate [Ariz. Rev. Stat . Ann.] § 13-2928(A) and (B), including t he

one on which [Arizona] principally rel[ies], traffic safety.” ER 7.

15 See United States v. Salerno , 481 U.S. 739, 749 (1987) (interest in crim e prevention is compel ling); Heffron v. Int’l Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 653 (1981) (“As a ge neral matter, it is clear th at a State’s interest in protecting the ‘safety and convenience’ of persons using a public forum is a vali d governmental objective.”); Reed v. Town of Gilbert , 587 F. 3d 966, 979 (9t h Cir. 2009) (traffic and pedestrian safety are significant government interests); Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Honol ulu, 455 F.3d 910, 922 (9th Cir. 2006) (“It is well established t hat regulation for purposes of preserving aesthetics and promoting safety falls within the leg itimate and substantial interests of local governments.”).
- 30 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 38 of 49
To satisfy the second prong of the Central Hudson test, “‘the restriction must directly advance the int erest involved.’” Hunt, 638 F.3d at 716 (citation omitted). In Coyote Publishing, 598 F.3d at 608, for exam ple, the Ninth Circuit found that regulations on advertising by legal brothels “di rectly and m aterially advance Nevada’s interest in lim iting commodification [of sex] by reducing the market demand for, and thus the incidence of, the exchange of sex acts for money.” And in World Wide Rush, the Ninth Circuit found t hat there was “no question t hat restrictions on billboards advance cities’ substantial interests in aesthetics and safety.” 606 F.3d at 685.
As the district court found, Sections 5(A) and (B) directly advance Arizona’s interest in traffic safety by prohibiti ng in-street em ployment solicitation “only where that solicitation im pedes traffic.”16 ER 9. Sections 5(A) and (B) also directly advance Arizona’s int erest in addressing the secondary effects of in-stre et employment solicitation because they redu ce the incentive for persons to solicit employment along Arizona’s roadways. The fact that Sections 5(A) and (B) do not regulate all forms of in-street so licitation does not alter the analysis because instreet employment solicitation is far m ore prevalent and harmful than other form s
16 The identification of one substantial interest is sufficient to justify a regulation. See, e.g., Bland v. Fessler , 88 F.3d 729, 734 n.8 (9th Cir. 1996) (“B ecause we conclude that the protection of privacy is a sufficiently signi ficant governmental interest to justify the statute, we need not address plaintiffs’ arguments with respect to other rationales.”).
- 31 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 39 of 49
of in-street solicitation. See supra pp. 7-9; World Wide Rush , 606 F.3d at 685 (rejecting the argument that exceptions to the City’s billboard regulations “undermine the City’s interest s in aesthe tics and safety,” and holding that there must be “som e judicial ‘deference fo r a [governmental entity’s] reasonably graduated response to different aspects of a problem” (citation omitted)). In fact, Plaintiffs’ own evidence demo nstrates the deterrent effect Sections 5(A ) and (B) have had on the mass roadside congregations of prospective employees that caused the secondary effects. ER 135-37, 205-07.
To satisfy the final prong of t he Central Hudson test, the regulation must be “not more extensive than is necessary to serve [the State’s] interest.” Coyote Publ’g, 598 F.3d at 602 (citation om itted). Arizona “is not required to e mploy the least restrictive means conceivable,’ but ‘it must demonstrate narrow tailoring of the challenged regulation to the asserted in terest – a fit that is not necess arily perfect, but reasonable.’” Id. at 609 (citation omitted).17
In Coyote Publishing, for e xample, the Ninth Circuit found tha t the advertising regulations were narrowly tailored because “[ e]very advertisement for prostitution that is not seen contri butes to lim iting the com modification of sex, both directly and by reducing demand.” Id. In Hunt, the Ninth Circuit found t hat
17 Unlike in noncommercial speech cases, “the overbreadth doctrine does not apply to commercial speech.” Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 497 (1982).
- 32 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 40 of 49
vending regulations on the Venice Beac h Boardwalk were narrowly tailored t o serve the City’s objectives in preserving “orderly movement on the Boardwalk, . . . the historic ch aracter of the Boardw alk, [and] Boardwalk commercial life,” because “limiting the number of individuals that may set up booths and assigning individuals to particular spaces ensures th at pathways and spac es will be open for both pedestrians and emerge ncy personnel and prevents unregulated vending.” 638 F.3d at 718.
As in Hunt and Coyote Publishing, Sections 5(A) and (B) are narrowly tailored to achieve Arizona’s interests because S ections 5(A) and (B) regulate employment solicitation only when it blocks or impedes tr affic, and because every time a prospective em ployer or em ployee blocks or impedes traffic, it creat es an obvious safety hazard.
C. The District Court Erred In Finding that Sections 5(A) and (B) Failed the Final Prong of the Central Hudson Test
The district court found that Sections 5(A) and (B) failed the final prong of the Central Hudson test for two reasons. First, the district court found that “numerous other traffic regul ations are already in place in Arizona to ‘directly address traffic safety without restricting speech.’” ER 10. This finding was clearly erroneous because the record does not su pport a finding that Arizona’s existing laws are sufficient to address the safe ty concerns arising out of in-street employment solicitation. The district co urt did not address the evidence Arizona
- 33 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 41 of 49
presented on thi s issue (which Plaintiffs fa iled to rebut), including: (1) a declaration from a veteran of the City of Phoenix Police Department explaining the difficulty in applyi ng these other regula tions to in-street employm ent situations, ER 105-07; (2) the unsuccessful efforts of various jurisdictions in Arizona t o enforce the existing traffic laws as a means to co mbat in-street employment solicitations, ER 95, 97, 102, 483; and (3) t he substantial evidence ( see, e.g., ER 95, 97, 99-100, 102, 328-30, 343-44, 41 0-11, 482-83, 485-86, 490-91), including Plaintiffs’ own declarations (ER 135-37, 205-07), that the existing traffic laws had insufficient or no deterrent effect on in-street employment solicitation.
Even if t he record could support a fi nding that existing traffic laws are sufficient to address Arizona’s traffic safe ty concerns, the district court’s finding would still be erroneous because it effectively requires Arizona to employ the least restrictive means available. That is not the standard under the prevailing precedent of the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit. See, e.g., Coyote Publishing, 598 F.3d at 609 (“[A]lmost all of the restrictions disallowed under Central Hudson’s fourth prong have been substantially excessive, disregarding far less restrictive and m ore precise means.”) (quoting Fox, 492 U.S. at 479).
Second, the district court erroneously found that because Sections 5(A) and (B) were enacted as part of S.B. 1070, t hey were “not drawn to achieve Arizona’s goal of promoting traffic safety.” ER 11. Again, the district court did not address
- 34 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 42 of 49

the evidence Arizona provide d regarding th e several years of legislat ive history that preceded the enact ment of Sections 5(A) and (B). In fact, Sections 5(A) and (B) passed in the Ho use as a separate bill, H.B. 2042, before S.B. 1070 was even introduced. When H.B. 2042 went to the Senate, it became an amendment to S.B. 1070.18 That Sections 5(A) and (B) were ultimately included within a larger statute as part of legislative com promise and efficiency should not be a basis for disregarding the totality of legislative history, and it certa inly should not be the basis upon which Sections 5(A) and (B) are held to violate the First Amendment.
IV Sections 5(A) and (B) Are Also Valid Time, Place, or Manner Regulations
Although they need not do so, Sec tions 5(A) and (B) also withstand intermediate scrutiny under the test for fu lly protected speech because they are valid time, place, o r manner regulations.19 A State may “impose reasonable

18 See Bill Status Overview (H.B. 204

2), http://www.azleg.gov//Format

Document.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2042o.asp&Session_I=D 93 (last

visited May 8, 2012).

19 The ti me, place, or m anner test applies to regulations on speech in a public

forum. Regulations on speech in a no npublic forum, however, need only be

reasonable and not viewpoint-based. See Children of the Rosary v. City of

Phoenix, 154 F.3d 972, 979 (9th Cir. 1998).

Although st reets are generally

considered public fora, “courts should ‘focus[] on the access sought by the

speaker’ and not the [char acter of the forum] in general.” Currier v. Potter, 379

F.3d 716, 727 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation om itted); see also United States v. Kokinda,

497 U.S. 720, 727 (1990). Here, Plaintiffs seek to enter Arizona’s streets in a

manner that “blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.” Streets “are not

designated as forums for public communication while in use by vehicular traffic.”

ACORN v. City of Phoenix, 603 F. Supp. 869, 871 (D. Ariz. 1985).

- 35 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 43 of 49
restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech,” where the regulations are content-neutral. Ward, 491 U.S. at 791. Sections 5(A) and (B) are reasonable time, place, and manner regulations for the same reason s they are sufficiently tailored under the Central Hudson test. See Section III, supra; see also Moser v. FCC, 46 F.3d 970, 973 (9t h Cir. 1995) (noting the similarity between the Central Hudson test and the time, place, or manner test). Moreover, Sections 5(A) and (B) do not prohibit peop le from soliciting or negotiating em ployment, they “merely regulate[] t he places wh ere communications may occur.” Colorado v. Hill, 530 U.S. 703, 731 (2000); see also Dish Net work, 653 F.3d at 780 (“The question is not whether [the Legislature] was correct to determine that a particular statute was necessary, but whether its det ermination was reasonable and based on substantial evidence.”). Sections 5(A) and (B) leav e open numerous alternative channels of communication because they do not in any way restrict Plaintiffs and their members from soliciting, negotiating, and securing day labor anywhere where the solicitations and negotiations do not physically interfere with moving traffic.
V The District Court’s Errors With Respect to Plaintiffs’ Likelihood of Success on the Merits Requires Reversal of the District Court’s Conclusions with Respect to the Non-Merits Factors The district court found that each of th e non-merits factors weighed in favor of granting the injunction because “Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of
- 36 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 44 of 49
their First Amendment challenge to [Sections 5(A) and (B)]” 20 and “the individual day laborer Plaintiffs and day laborer members of som e of the organizational Plaintiffs are being chilled from soliciting day labor.” ER 11-12. Plaintiffs are not likely to suffer irreparable harm. Plai ntiffs’ members are not prohi bited from soliciting employment—they need only do so in a manner that does not disrupt the flow of traffic. See Hale v. Dep’t of Energy , 806 F.2d 910, 918 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The First Amendment does not guarantee an optimal setting for speech at all times and places.”).
Moreover, Sections 5(A) and (B) regul ate conduct that is already unlawful (entering the street and blocking or impeding traffic). See ER 10 (citing Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-2906(A), 28-871(A), 28-7 04(A), 28-873(A), 28-905). Plaintiffs cannot be “harmed” by being prohibited from engaging in conduct (i.e., interfering with traffic) that Plaintiffs the mselves concede is illegal, ev en if their purpose for doing so is to solicit employment. The First Amendm ent does not grant Plaintiffs the right t o engage in unlawful conduc t. As the Suprem e Court held in Cox v. Louisiana,
The rights of free s peech and asse mbly, while fu ndamental in our democratic society, still do not m ean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a gr oup at any publ ic place and at any time. The constitutional guarantee of liberty implies the existence of 20 A finding that the Plaintiffs are likely to establish an alleged First Amendment violation does not autom atically justify a finding of irreparable harm . See Dish, 653 F.3d at 776 (“[ P]roving the likelihood of [a First Am endment] claim is not enough to satisfy Winter.”).
- 37 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 45 of 49

an organized society maintaining public order, without which liberty itself would be lost in the excesses of anarchy. The control of travel on the streets is a clear example of governmental responsibility to insure this necessary order . A restriction in that relation, designed to promote the public convenience in the interest of all, and not susceptible to abuses of di scriminatory application, cannot be disregarded by the attempted exercise of some civil right which, in other circumstances, would be entitle d to protection. One would not be justified in ignoring the familiar red light because this was thought to be a means of social protest. Nor could one, contrary to traffic regulations, insist upon a street meeting in the middle of Times Square at the rush hour as a form of freedom of speech or assembly . Governmental authorities have th e duty and responsibility to keep their streets open and available for movement.
379 U.S. 536, 554 (1965) (emphasis added).

To the extent Plaintiffs argue th at their members are “chilled” from

soliciting employment in a m anner that does not require them to enter a stopped

vehicle on a traffic-filled street because they “fear” they will be arrested under

Sections 5(A) and (B), such fears cannot provide a basis for Pl

aintiffs to

challenge—much less for a co urt to enjoin—these provisions. Sections 5(A) and

(B) do not authorize a law enforcemen t officer to arrest a day laborer unless the

day laborer enters a m otor vehicle that is stopped on a roadway and blocking or

impeding traffic. Because this is a pr e-enforcement facial challenge, the Court

must presume that Arizona’s law enforc ement officers will enforce the provisions

in accordance with t heir terms and in a constitutional manner. See, e.g., Panama

Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388, 446 (1935) (“Every public officer is presumed

to act in obedience t o his duty…”). Mo reover, a preliminary injunction “will not

- 38 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 46 of 49
be granted against something merely feared as liab le to occu r at so me indefinite time in the future.” Connecticut v. Massachuset ts, 282 U.S. 660, 674 (1931); Continental Baking Co. v. Wo odring, 286 U.S. 352, 369 (1932) (“[A] ppellants had no right to resort to equity merely because of an anticipation of improper or invalid action in administration.”).
In contrast to Plaintiffs’ speculativ e allegations of ha rm, Arizona has a substantial interest in the safety of its streets and reducing the crime, intimidation, and property destruction that results when large groups of day laborers congregate in and along busy roadsides a nd engage in conduct that in terferes with traffic. See supra pp. 7-9. The balance of equities therefore tips sharply in Arizona’s favor.
Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court should vacate the preliminary injunction of Sections 5(A) and (B).
- 39 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 47 of 49
Dated: May 9, 2012
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. By s/John J. Bouma
John J. Bouma Robert A. Henry Kelly A. Kszywienski One Arizona Center 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
and By s/Joseph Sciarrotta, Jr., with permission
Joseph Sciarrotta, Jr. Office of Governor Janice K. Brewer 1700 W. Washington, 9th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007
Attorneys for Appellants the State of Arizona and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona
and By s/Michael Tryon, with permission
Thomas C. Horne Michael Tryon Evan Hiller Attorney General 1275 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926
Attorneys for Appellant the State of Arizona
- 40 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 48 of 49
Certificate of Compliance The undersigned certifies under Rule 32(a)(7)(C) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1, that the attached opening brief is proportionally spaced, has a type face of 14 points or more and, pursuant to the word-count feature of the word processing program used to prepare this brief, contains 9,270 words, exclusive of the matters that may be omitted under Rule 32(a)(7)(B)(iii). Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 28-2.6, Appellants confirm that they are not aware of any related cases pending in this Court. Dated: May 9, 2012
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. John J. Bouma Robert A. Henry Kelly A. Kszywienski By: s/John J. Bouma
John J. Bouma Attorneys for Appellants, Janice K. Brewer and the State of Arizona
- 41 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 49 of 49
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 9, 201 2, I electronically transm itted the foregoing document to the Clerk’s Office us ing the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants on record.
s/John J. Bouma
14894323
- 42 -

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-2 Page: 1 of 8

No. 12-15688
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Friendly House; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Michael B. Whiting; et al.,

No. 12-15688
No. 2:10-cv-01061-PHX-SRB District of Arizona

Defendants, and
State of Arizona and Janice K. Brewer,

Intervenors-Appellants.

ADDENDUM TO APPELLANTS’ OPENING BRIEF

John J. Bouma Robert A. Henry Kelly A. Kszywienski SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. One Arizona Center 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 Telephone: (602) 382-6000 jbouma@swlaw.com bhenry@swlaw.com kkszywienski@swlaw.com
Joseph Sciarrotta, Jr. Office of Governor Janice K. Brewer 1700 W. Washington, 9th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007 Telephone: (602) 542-1586 jsciarrotta@az.gov

Thomas C. Horne Attorney General Michael Tryon Senior Litigation Counsel Evan Hiller Assistant Attorney General 1275 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926 Telephone: (602) 542- 5025 tom.horne@azag.gov michael.tryon@azag.gov evan.hiller@azag.gov
Attorneys for Appellant State of Arizona

Attorneys for Appellants State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-2 Page: 2 of 8
TABLE OF CONTENTS The Arizona Statute at Issue Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2928................................................................................. 1 Other Arizona Traffic Statutes Cited in the Opening Brief Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2906................................................................................. 1 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28-704...................................................................................2 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28-871...................................................................................2 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28-873...................................................................................4 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28-905...................................................................................6
i

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-2 Page: 3 of 8
Pertinent Provisions of the Statute at Issue A.R.S. § 13-2928 (2012)
§ 13-2928. Unlawful stopping to hire and pick up passengers for work; unlawful application, solicitation or employment; classification; definitions
A. It is unlawful for an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway to attempt to hire or hire and pick up passengers for work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.
B. It is unlawful for a person to enter a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway in order to be hired by an occupant of the motor vehicle and to be transported to work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.
… F. A violation of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor.
Other Arizona Traffic Statutes Cited in the Opening Brief A.R.S. § 13-2906 (2012)
§ 13-2906. Obstructing a highway or other public thoroughfare; classification A. A person commits obstructing a highway or other public thoroughfare if,
having no legal privilege to do so, such person, alone or with other persons, recklessly interferes with the passage of any highway or public thoroughfare by creating an unreasonable inconvenience or hazard.
B. Obstructing a highway or other public thoroughfare is a class 3 misdemeanor.
1

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-2 Page: 4 of 8
A.R.S. § 28-704 (2012)
§ 28-704. Minimum speed limits; requirement to turn off roadway
A. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when either of the following applies:
1. Reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law. 2. The reasonable flow of traffic exceeds the maximum safe operating speed of the lawfully operated implement of husbandry. B. If the director or local authorities within their respective jurisdictions determine on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that slow speeds on any part of a highway consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the director or local authority may determine and declare a minimum speed limit below which a person shall not drive a vehicle except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law. C. If a person is driving a vehicle at a speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place on a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe, and if five or more vehicles are formed in a line behind the vehicle, the person shall turn the vehicle off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the director or a local authority, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed.
A.R.S. § 28-871 (2012)
§ 28-871. Stopping, standing or parking outside business or residence district
A. On a highway outside of a business or residence district, a person shall not stop, park or leave standing a vehicle, whether attended or unattended, on the paved or main traveled part of the highway if it is practicable to stop, park or leave the vehicle off that part of the highway. If a person stops, parks or leaves standing a vehicle, the person shall leave an unobstructed width of the highway opposite the standing vehicle for the free passage of other vehicles and a clear view of the standing vehicle shall be available from a distance of two hundred feet in each direction on the highway.
B. This section does not apply to:
2

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-2 Page: 5 of 8
1. The driver of a vehicle that is disabled while on the paved or main traveled portion of a highway in a manner and to an extent that it is impossible to avoid stopping and temporarily leaving the disabled vehicle in that position.
2. A vehicle or the driver of a vehicle engaged in the official delivery of the United States mail that stops on the right-hand side of the highway for the purpose of picking up or delivering mail if the following conditions are met:
(a) A clear view of the vehicle is available from a distance of three hundred feet in each direction on the highway or a flashing amber light at least four inches in diameter with the letters "stop" printed on the light is attached to the rear of the vehicle.
(b) The vehicle has a uniform sign that: (i) Is at least fourteen inches in diameter. (ii) Is approved by the department. (iii) Has the words "U.S. mail" printed on the sign. (iv) Is attached to the rear of the vehicle.
3

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-2 Page: 6 of 8
A.R.S. § 28-873 (2012)
§ 28-873. Stopping, standing or parking prohibitions; exceptions; definition
A. Except if necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or if in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or traffic control device, a person shall not stop, stand or park a vehicle in any of the following places:
1. On a sidewalk. 2. In front of a public or private driveway, except that this paragraph does not apply to a vehicle or the driver of a vehicle engaged in the official delivery of the United States mail if both of the following apply:
(a) The driver does not leave the vehicle. (b) The vehicle is stopped only momentarily. 3. Within an intersection. 4. Within fifteen feet of a fire hydrant. 5. On a crosswalk. 6. Within twenty feet of a crosswalk at an intersection. 7. Within thirty feet on the approach to any flashing beacon, stop sign, yield sign or traffic control signal located at the side of a roadway. 8. Between a safety zone and the adjacent curb or within thirty feet of points on the curb immediately opposite the ends of a safety zone, unless the director or a local authority indicates a different length by signs or markings. 9. Within fifty feet of the nearest rail or a railroad crossing or within eight feet six inches of the center of any railroad track, except while a motor vehicle with motive power attached is loading or unloading railroad cars. 10. Within twenty feet of the driveway entrance to a fire station and on the side of a street opposite the entrance to any fire station within seventy-five feet of the entrance when properly posted. 11. Alongside or opposite a street excavation or obstruction when stopping, standing or parking would obstruct traffic. 12. On the roadway side of a vehicle stopped or parked at the edge or curb of a street.
4

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-2 Page: 7 of 8
13. On a bridge or other elevated structure on a highway or within a highway tunnel.
14. At any place where official signs prohibit standing or stopping. 15. On a controlled access highway except:
(a) For emergency reasons. (b) In areas specifically designated for parking such as rest areas. B. A local authority may allow motor vehicles providing a public entity's public transportation service to stop on a state highway or state route for the purpose of allowing passengers to enter or exit if all of the following apply: 1. The local authority that has jurisdiction over the location of the proposed stopping point conducts a traffic and engineering investigation to determine whether passengers are able to safely enter or exit public transportation vehicles at the proposed stopping point. 2. The local authority that conducts the traffic and engineering investigation pursuant to paragraph 1 of this subsection submits the results of the investigation to the director for review and approval of the proposed stopping point. 3. The driver does not leave the vehicle. 4. The vehicle is stopped only long enough to load and unload passengers. 5. The vehicle engages four-way hazard flashers. 6. The roadway has a posted speed limit that does not exceed fifty-five miles per hour. 7. The roadway has signed or signalized intersection controls within a jurisdictionally confined boundary. 8. The vehicle is clearly marked as a public transportation vehicle. 9. As determined by the director in conjunction with the local authority, the driver drives the vehicle into a pullout or uses any other available method that limits the vehicle from interfering with traffic on the roadway. C. For the purposes of this section, "public transportation vehicle" means any vehicle that either: 1. Is owned or operated by a public entity. 2. Is operated under a contract with a public entity.
5

Case: 12-15688 05/09/2012 ID: 8171786 DktEntry: 32-2 Page: 8 of 8
A.R.S. § 28-905 (2012) § 28-905. Opening vehicle door
A person shall not open a door on a motor vehicle unless it is reasonably safe to do so and can be done without interfering with the movement of other traffic. A person shall not leave a door open on a side of a motor vehicle exposed to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload a passenger.
15045271
6

 
 Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 1 of 65

1 Omar C. Jadwat (admitted pro hac vice)

Lucas Guttentag (admitted pro hac vice)

2 Andre Segura (admitted pro hac vice)

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

3 FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’

RIGHTS PROJECT

4 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor

New York, New York 10004

5 Telephone: (212) 549-2660

Facsimile: (212) 549-2654

6 ojadwat@aclu.org

lguttentag@aclu.org

7

Thomas A. Saenz (admitted pro hac vice)

Linton Joaquin (admitted pro hac vice)

Victor Viramontes (admitted pro hac vice)

8 Karen C. Tumlin (admitted pro hac vice) Nicholás Espíritu (admitted pro hac vice)

Nora A. Preciado (admitted pro hac vice) MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL

9 Melissa S. Keaney (admitted pro hac vice) DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND

Alvaro M. Huerta (admitted pro hac vice) 634 S. Spring Street, 11th Floor

10 NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW

Los Angeles, California 90014

CENTER

Telephone: (213) 629-2512

11 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2850

Facsimile: (213) 629-0266

Los Angeles, California 90010

tsaenz@maldef.org

12 Telephone: (213) 639-3900

vviramontes@maldef.org

Facsimile: (213) 639-3911

nespiritu@maldef.org

13 joaquin@nilc.org

tumlin@nilc.org

14 preciado@nilc.org keaney@nilc.org

Attorneys for all Plaintiffs Except Maria

15 huerta@nilc.org

Morales

Additional Co-Counsel on Subsequent Pages

16

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

19 Valle del Sol, et al.
20

21

Plaintiffs,

22

v.

CASE NO. CV-10-01061-PHX-SRB
PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT

23 Michael B. Whiting, et al.,

(ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED)

24

Defendants.

25

26

27

28

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 2 of 65

1 Daniel J. Pochoda (SBA No. 021979) Cecillia D. Wang (admitted pro hac vice)

James Duff Lyall (SBA No. 330045) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

2 ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’

3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235 3 Phoenix, Arizona 85014

RIGHTS PROJECT 39 Drumm Street

4

Telephone: (602) 650-1854 Facsimile: (602) 650-1376

San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 343-0775

5 dpochoda@acluaz.org jlyall@acluaz.org

Facsimile: (415) 395-0950 cwang@aclu.org

6

7

Nina Perales (admitted pro hac vice) MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL

8

DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND

9 110 Broadway Street, Suite 300 San Antonio, Texas 78205

10 Telephone: (210) 224-5476

Facsimile: (210) 224-5382

11 nperales@maldef.org

12

13

Laboni Hoq (admitted pro hac vice) Yungsuhn Park (admitted pro hac vice) ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER, a member of Asian American Center for Advancing Justice 1145 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-7500 Facsimile: (213) 977-7595 lhoq@apalc.org ypark@apalc.org

14

Chris Newman (admitted pro hac vice) Jessica Karp (admitted pro hac vice)

Daniel R. Ortega, Jr. (SBA No. 005015) ROUSH, MCCRACKEN, GUERRERO,

15 NATIONAL DAY LABOR ORGANIZING NETWORK

MILLER & ORTEGA 1112 E. Washington Street

16 675 S. Park View Street, Suite B

Phoenix, Arizona 85034

Los Angeles, California 90057

Telephone: (602) 253-3554

17 Telephone: (213) 380-2785

Facsimile: (602) 340-1896

Facsimile: (213) 380-2787

danny@rmgmo.com

18 newman@ndlon.org

jkarp@ndlon.org 19
Marita Etcubañez (admitted pro hac

Aaron Leiderman (admitted pro hac vice)

20 vice)

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP+

Jessica Chia (admitted pro hac vice)

560 Mission Street

21 ASIAN AMERICAN JUSTICE

Twenty-Seventh Floor

CENTER

San Francisco, CA 94105-2907

22 1140 Connecticut Avenue NW, Ste

Telephone: (415) 512-4000

1200 23 Washington, DC 20036

Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 Aaron.leiderman@mto.com

24

Telephone: (202) 296-2300 Facsimile: (202) 296-2318

25 metcubanez@advancingequality.org jchia@advancingequality.org

26

27

28

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 3 of 65

1 Bradley S. Phillips+ (admitted pro hac Stephen P. Berzon++ (admitted pro hac vice)

vice)

Jonathan Weissglass++ (admitted pro hac

2 Joseph J. Ybarra+ (admitted pro hac vice)

vice)

ALTSHULER BERZON LLP++

3 Benjamin J. Maro+ (admitted pro hac 177 Post Street, Suite 300

4

vice) Lika C. Miyake+ (admitted (pro hac

San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151

5 vice)

Facsimile: (415) 362-8064

Margaret G. Ziegler+ (admitted pro hac sberzon@altshulerberzon.com

6 vice)

jweissglass@altshulerberzon.com

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP+

7 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560

Justin B. Cox (pro hac vice pending)

8 Telephone: (213) 683-9100

(Admitted in MD & DC)

Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 9 Brad.Phillips@mto.com

ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project 230 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 1440

10

Joseph.Ybarra@mto.com Benjamin.Maro@mto.com

Atlanta, GA 30303-2721 tel: (404) 523-2721, ext. 215

11

Lika.Miyake@mto.com Margaret.Ziegler@mto.com

fax: (404) 653-0331 jcox@aclu.org

12

13 + Attorneys for all plaintiffs except Maria Morales and Service Employees International
14 Union, Service Employees International Union, Local 5, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, and Japanese American Citizens League
15 ++ Attorneys for Service Employees International Union, Service Employees
16 International Union, Local 5, and United Food and Commercial Workers International Union
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ii

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 4 of 65

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Page No(s)

3

4 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………... 3

5 ARGUMENT ………………………………………………………………………………….…..3

6 I. Plaintiffs Are Likely To Succeed on the Merits ……………………………………..3

7

A.Plaintiffs Are Likely to Prove That §2(B) Is Preempted by Federal Law and Violates the

Fourth Amendment ……………………………………………………………………..3

8

1. Arizona Law Enforcement Agencies Will Extend Detentions Under § 2(B)

9

………………….…………………………………………………………………….. 5

10

2. Plaintiffs Are Substantially Likely to Prevail on Their Claim That § 2(B) Is Preempted

by Federal Law …………………………………………………………………………… 8

11

3. Plaintiffs Are Substantially Likely to Prevail on Their Claim That § 2(B) Violates the

12

Fourth Amendment ……………………………………………..………………………… 8

13

4. At a Minimum, the Court Should Certify the Question of Whether § 2(B) Authorizes

Additional Detention to the Arizona Supreme Court …………………………..……….. 10

14

B.Plaintiffs Are Likely to Prove That § 2(B) Violates the Equal Protection Clause. . .. 11

15

1. The Legislative History of S.B. 1070 Demonstrates a Discriminatory Intent….. ….. .12

16

i. Legislators routinely relied on false or misleading evidence in promoting S.B. 1070,

17

strongly suggesting that their stated reasons were pretext for unlawful

discrimination…………………………………………………………………………. 13

18

ii. Legislators repeatedly conflated Latinos, Spanish-speaking individuals, and the

19

children of unauthorized immigrants with “illegal aliens,” thereby demonstrating that

their attempts to punish and harass “illegal aliens” were also directed at these larger

20

groups…………………………………………………………………………….….. 17

21

iii. Legislators’ use of camouflaged racial language during the S.B. 1070 debate is

evidence of discriminatory intent. …………………………………………………… 20

22

iv. Statements of legislators who opposed S.B. 1070 further support a finding of

23

discriminatory intent. ……………………………………………………………. 22

24

v. Discriminatory statements by constituents and the public influenced the legislative

process and support a finding of discriminatory intent. ………………………….. 23

25

2. S.B. 1070’s Discriminatory Adverse Impact on Latinos and Mexican Nationals Weighs

26

in Favor of a Finding of Discriminatory Intent…………………… …………….26

27

3. The Historical Background and Events Leading Up to the Passage of S.B. 1070

Demonstrate Its Racial and Anti-Mexican Animus ………………………….........30

28

i

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 5 of 65

1

4. S.B. 1070 Departs Substantively from Established Practice………………………….34

2

C.Plaintiffs Are Substantially Likely to Prevail on Their Claim That A.R.S. § 13-2929 Is

Preempted by Federal Law………………………………………………………………… 36

3

1. A.R.S. § 13-2929 Is Field Preempted ……………………………………………37

4

2. A.R.S. § 13-2929 Is Conflict Preempted …………………………………………… 39

5

II. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm if the Preliminary Injunction Is Not Granted

6

……………………………………………………………………………………………. 41

7 III. The Balance of Equities Tips Sharply In Favor of Plaintiffs ……………………………. 46

8 IV. The Preliminary Injunction Will Serve the Public Interest ……………………………47

9 CONCLUSION

…………………………………………………………………………… 49

10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

…………………………………………………………… 50

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ii

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 6 of 65

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2

Page No(s)

3

4 CASES

5 AFL v. Chertoff, 6 552 F. Supp. 2d 999 (N.D. Cal. 2007)............................................................................. 47

7

Alliance of the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127(9th Cir. 2011). ..................................................................................Passim

8 Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi, 9 539 U.S. 396 (2003) ........................................................................................................ 40

10

Anderson Group, LLC v. City of Saratoga Springs, 557 F. Supp. 2d 332 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) ............................................................................ 24

11 Arizona v. Johnson, 12 555 U.S. 323 (2009) ..................................................................................................... 4, 9

13

Arizona v. United States, No. 11-182, __ U.S. ___ (June 25, 2012).................................................................Passim

14 Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 15 520 U.S. 43 (1997) .......................................................................................................... 10

16

Atkins v. Robinson, 545 F. Supp. 852 (E.D. Va. 1982) ................................................................................... 21

17 Babbitt v. United Farm Workers, 18 442 U.S. 289 (1979) ........................................................................................................ 44

19

Brock v. Pierce County, 476 U.S. 253(1986) ......................................................................................................... 13

20 Cent. Alabama Fair Hous. Ctr. v. Magee, 21 835 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (M.D. Ala. 2011)...................................................................Passim

22

Chamber of Commerce of United States v. Whiting, 563 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1968 (2011) ............................................................................. 38

23 City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 24 473 U.S. 432 (1985) ........................................................................................................ 24

25

Cmty. Hous. Trust v. Dep’t of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, 257 F. Supp. 2d 208 (D.D.C. 2003)............................................................................24-25

26 Comm. Concerning Cmty. Improvement, 27 583 F.3d at 703-04......................................................................................................11-12

28

iii

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 7 of 65
1 Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000) ........................................................................................................ 40
2 Doe v. Village of Mamaroneck,
3 462 F. Supp. 2d 520 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ......................................................................Passim
4 Farm Labor Org. Comm. v. Ohio State Highway Patrol, 308 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 2002) .......................................................................................... 20
5 Fed. Energy Admin. v. Algonquin SNG, Inc.,
6 426 U.S. 548 (1976). ....................................................................................................... 13
7 Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, (1983) ......................................................................................................... 9
8 Ganwich v. Knapp,
9 319 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................... 9
10 Garcia v. Gloor, 618 F.2d 264 (5th Cir. 1980) .................................................................................... 20, 31
11 Garrett v. City of Escondido,
12 465 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (S.D. Cal. 2006) ........................................................................... 38
13 Geier v. Am. HOnda Motor Co., Inc. 529 U.S. 861 (2000)......................................................................................................... 43
14 Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Deal,
15 793 F. Supp. 2d 1317, 1336 (N.D. Ga. 2011, appeal pending, No. 11-13044-FF (11th Cir.) ........................................................................................................................... Passim
16 Gonzalez v. Arizona,
17 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................... 33
18 Greater New Orleans Fair Hous. Action Ctr. v. St. Bernard Parish (“GNOFHAC I”), 641 F. Supp. 2d 563 (E.D. La. 2009) ............................................................................. 23
19 Greater New Orleans Fair Hous. Action Ctr. v. St. Bernard Parish (“GNOFHAC II”),
20 648 F. Supp. 2d 805 (E.D. La. 2009) ......................................................................Passim
21 Greater New Orleans Fair Hous. Action Ctr. v. St. Bernard Parish (“GNOFHAC III”), No. 06cv7185, 2011 WL 4915524 ...........................................................................Passim
22 Hernandez v. New York,
23 500 U.S. 352 (1991) .................................................................................................. 20, 31
24 Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985) .................................................................................................Passim
25 Illinois v. Caballes,
26 543 U.S. 405 (2005) ...................................................................................................... 4, 9
27 Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468 (2d Cir. 1996) ............................................................................................. 43
28
iv

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 8 of 65
1 Keyes v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973) ........................................................................................................ 30
2 Lavan v. City of Los Angeles,
3 797 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (C.D. Cal. 2011) ........................................................................... 43
4 Morales v. Trans World Airlines, 504 U.S. 374 (1992) ........................................................................................................ 44
5 Murillo v. Musegades, 809 F. Supp.
6 487 (W.D. Tex. 1992)...................................................................................................... 48
7 Nat’l Ctr. for Immigrants’ Rights, Inc. v. INS, 743 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1984) ......................................................................................... 47
8 O’Brien v. Town of Caledonia,
9 748 F.2d 403 (7th Cir. 1984) ........................................................................................... 49
10 Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 (1984) ....................................................................................................... 24
11 Reno v. Bossier Parish Sch. Bd.,
12 520 U.S. 471 (1997) ........................................................................................................ 26
13 Resident Advisory Bd. v. Rizzo, 564 F.2d 126 (3d Cir. 1977) ............................................................................................ 24
14 Rivera v. Inc. Vill. of Farmingdale,
15 784 F. Supp. 2d 133 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) ....................................................................... 21, 24
16 San Diego Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1996); .......................................................................................... 46
17 Ruiz v. Hull, 191 Ariz.
18 441 (1998)........................................................................................................................ 31
19 Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415 (9th Cir. 1984). ....................................................................................... 47
20 Smith v. Town of Clarkton,
21 682 F.2d 1055 (4th Cir. 1982) ......................................................................................... 21
22 Tsombanidis v. West Haven Fire Dep’t, 352 F.3d 565 (2d Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................ 12
23 U.S. v. Alabama,
24 813 F. Supp. 2d 1282, 1336 (N.D. Ala. 2011), appeal pending, Nos. 11-14532, 1114674 (11th Cir.) ......................................................................................................Passim
25 United States v. Arizona,
26 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................. 5
27 United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Ariz. 2010) ............................................................................... 36
28
v

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 9 of 65

1 United States v. Arizona, No. CV10-1413-PHX-SRB (D. Az. July 6, 2010) .................................................... 34, 42
2 United States v. City of Birmingham,
3 538 F. Supp. 819 (E.D. Mich. 1982) .............................................................................. 26

4 United States v. Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) ......................................................................................... 21
5 United States v. Sharpe,
6 470 U.S. 675 (1985) .......................................................................................................... 9

7 United States v. South Carolina, Nos. 2:11-cv-2958, 2:11-cv-2779, 2011 WL 6973241 (D.S.C. Dec. 22, 2011), appeal pending, No. 12-1096 (4th Cir.). ............Passim
8 Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation,
9 429 U.S. 252 (1977) .................................................................................................Passim

10 Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch, 701 F. Supp. 2d 835 (N.D. Tex. 2010) ............................................................................ 38
11 White v. Regester,
12 412 U.S. 755 (1973) ................................................................................................. 30, 33

13 Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) .................................................................................................. 3, 43
14 Wisconsin Dept. of Indus., Labor & Human Relations v. Gould Inc.,
15 475 U.S. 282 (1986) ........................................................................................................ 40

16

17 LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS

18 Ariz. Dep’t of State, 2006 Ballot Propositions - Proposition 103, available at 19 http://www.azsos.gov/election/2006/info/pubpamphlet/english/Prop103.htm ............... 31

20

Debate on S.B. 1070 Before S. Pub. Safety & Human Servs. Comm., Jan. 20, (2010) ................................................................................................................. 19

21 Final Reading of S.B. 1070, Senate Floor Session, Apr. 19, 2010 ..................................... 19

22 H.B. 2281, 48th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2010), available at 23 www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2281s.pdf......................................................... 32

24

Mary Romero & Marwah Serag, Violation of Latino Civil Rights Resulting from INS and Local Police’s Use of Race, Culture and Class Profiling: the Case of the Chandler

25 Roundup in Arizona, 52 Clev. St. L. Rev. 75 (2004). ..................................................... 33

26

Testimony of Rep. Patterson, Debate on S.B. 1070 in House third reading, Apr. 13, 2010 ......................................................................................................................................... 23

27 Testimony of Rob Haney, Maricopa County Republican Party Chairman, Debate on S.B. 28 1070 in Senate Public S. Pub. Safety & Human Servs. Comm. Jan. 20, 2010 ............... 25

vi

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 10 of 65
1 Testimony of Sen. Aboud, Final Reading of S.B. 1070 in the Senate,
2 Apr. 19, 2010 ............................................................................................................. 23, 29
3 Testimony of Sen. Gould, Final Reading of S.B. 1070 in Senate, Apr. 19, 2010 .............. 21
4 Testimony of Sen. Huppenthal, Final Reading of S.B. 1070 in Senate, Apr. 19, 2010...... 22
5 Testimony of Sen. Lopez, Final Reading of S.B. 1070 in the Senate, Apr. 19, 2010 ............................................................................................................. 23, 27
6 Testimony of Sen. Pearce, Debate on S.B. 1070 in House Military Affairs and Pub. Safety
7 Committee, Mar. 31, 2010........................................................................................Passim
8 Testimony of Sen. Rios, Final Reading of S.B. 1070 in the Senate, Apr. 19, 2010 ........... 23
9 Testimony of Sen. Melvin, Final Reading of S.B. 1070, Sen. Floor, Apr. 19, 2010….… 19
10 Testimony Sen. Melvin, S. Pub. Safety & Human Serv. Comm. , Jan. 20, 2010 ……….. 19
11 Ariz. Legislature’s Live Proceedings, http://azleg.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=17 ............................................ 27
12 Arizona Senate Bill 1070 49th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess., Ch. 113 (Ariz. 2010) ..................... 34
13 Arizona Senate Bill.1167 47 Leg., Sess. (Ariz. 2005), available at
14 http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/47leg/lr/bills/sb1167h.pdf ................................................ 30
15 FEDERAL STATUTES
16 17 8 U.S.C. § 1323 ............................................................................................................Passim 18 8 U.S.C. § 1324 ............................................................................................................Passim 19 8 U.S.C. § 1327 ............................................................................................................Passim 20 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(i),................................................................................................ 38 21 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii).......................................................................................... 38, 41 22 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(C)..................................................................................................... 42
23 STATE STATUTES 24 A.R.S. § 11-1051(B) ........................................................................................................... 44 25 A.R.S. § 12-1861 ................................................................................................................. 11 26
A.R.S. § 11-1051(G) ........................................................................................................... 47 27
A.R.S. § 13-1003 ................................................................................................................. 41 28
vii

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 11 of 65

1 A.R.S. § 13-2929..........................................................................................................Passim

2 OTHER AUTHORITIES
3

4 20,000 in Phoenix Rally for Migrants, Ariz. Republic, Mar. 25, 2006 .............................. 18

5

Acosta v. Huppenthal, No. 4:10-cv-00623-AWT (D. Ariz. filed Dec. 14, 2011) (ECF No. 125-1) ................... 32

6 Alia Beard Rau & Ginger Rough, Ariz. Lawmakers Pass Toughest Illegal Immigration 7 Law in U.S., Ariz. Republic, Apr. 19, 2010 ................................................................... 21

8

Ariz. Capitol Television, Capitol Forum: Rep. Kavanagh Talks About SB 1070, June 21, 2010, available at http://vimeo.com/12740392............................................................... 22

9 Brady McCombs, Fed Moves Will Limit SB 1070 Enforcement - Court Only Keeps

10

Section Allowing Police to Stop Suspected Illegal Immigrants Homeland Security Will Not Pick Them Up Unless They Are Criminal, Ariz. Daily Star, June 26, 2012.............. 7

11 Brad Knickerbocker, Jan Brewer Corrects the Record on Headless Bodies in the Desert, 12 Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 4, 2010 ........................................................................ 14

13 Civil-Rights Panel Aims at Sheriff, Ariz. Republic, Dec. 27, 2008 ................................... 29

14

Daniel Gonzalez, Study Rebuts Perceptions of Migrants’ English Use, Ariz. Republic, Dec. 9, 2008 ..................................................................................................................... 31

15 Deborah Schurman-Kauflin, The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million 16 Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants in the United States (2006)..................... 17

17

Editorial, Resist Stampede to State Mandates for Immigration Enforcement, Trib. (Mesa, Ariz.), Oct. 23, 2009 ........................................................................................................ 28

18 E.J. Montini, Is Phoenix Really the ‘Kidnapping Capital’?, Ariz. Republic, 19 July 12, 2009.................................................................................................................... 14

20 Email from Sen. Pearce dated Jan 17, 2006 ........................................................................ 21

21 Email from Sen. Pearce dated Mar. 3, 2006 ....................................................................... 22

22 Email from Sen. Pearce dated Apr. 6, 2006 ........................................................................ 18

23 Email from Sen. Pearce dated Apr. 24, 2006 ...................................................................... 31

24 Email from Sen. Pearce dated Dec. 14, 2006.................................................................18-19

25 Email from Sen. Pearce dated Jan. 29, 2007................................................................Passim

26 Email to Sen. Pearce dated Apr. 25, 2007........................................................................... 25

27 Email from Sen. Pearce dated May 22, 2007 ...................................................................... 22

28 Email to Sens. Pearce & Johnson dated July 6, 2007 ......................................................... 19

viii

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 12 of 65
1 Email from Sen. Pearce dated Dec. 21, 2008...................................................................... 32
2 Email from Sen. Pearce dated Feb. 15, 2009 ...................................................................... 18
3 Email from Sen. Pearce dated May 26, 2009 ...................................................................... 18
4 Email from Sen. Pearce dated June 30, 2009...........................................................18-19, 28
5 Email from Sen. Pearce dated July 14, 2009 ...................................................................... 28
6 Email from Sen. Pearce dated Oct. 23, 2009 ...................................................................... 16
7 Email to Sen. Pearce dated Apr. 20, 2010........................................................................... 26
8 Email to Sen. Pearce dated Apr. 28, 2010........................................................................... 26
9 Email to Sen. Pearce dated July 29, 2010 ........................................................................... 25
10 Email to Sen. Pearce dated Mar. 16, 2011 .......................................................................... 25
11 Email from Sen. Pearce dated May 17, 2011...................................................................... 30
12 Email to Sen. Pearce, Rep. Judy Burges, Rep. Tom Boone, Sen. Jack Harper, Apr. 22,
13 2010 ................................................................................................................................. 26
14 Email to Gov. Brewer & Sen. Pearce dated Apr. 21, 2010 ............................................... 33
15 Erin Burnett, Outfront: Supreme Court Upholds Key Arizona Provision; Interview with Sheriff Joe Arpaio CNN television broadcast June 25, 2012) .......................................7-8
16 Jack Martin & Eric A. Ruark, Fed'n for Am. Immigration Reform, fiscal burden of illegal
17 immigration on United States taxpayers 45 (2010) ....................................................19-20
18 Daniel Gonzalez, Feds Investigate Arpaio, Ariz. Republic, Mar. 11, 2009 ....................... 29
19 Daniel Gonzalez, Study Rebuts Perceptions of Migrants’ English Use, Ariz. Republic, Dec. 9, 2008 ……………………………………………………………………………. 31
20 Gustavo Arellano, Heard Mentality, Phx New Times
21 June 14, 2009 ................................................................................................................... 17
22 Jack Martin, Fed’n for Am. Immigration Reform, Limited English Proficiency Enrollment and Rapidly Rising Costs (2007) .................................................................................... 20
23 Jeremy Duda, Immigration and Customs Enforcement: If Sheriff Arpaio Continues
24 Sweeps, It Will Be Under State, Not Federal, Law, Ariz. Capitol Times, Oct. 16, 200929
25 Jim Small, Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce: Stemming Illegal Immigration is Arizona’s Top Priority, Ariz. Capitol Times, Oct. 21, 2009 ........................................... 19
26 JJ Hensley, Agencies Prepare to Enforce SB 1070:, Ariz. Republic, June 26, 2012............ 7
27 Majority Staff of H. Comm. on Homeland Sec. Subcomm. on Investigations, 109th Cong.,
28 A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border, Oct. 2006,
ix

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 13 of 65
1 available at http://www.house.gov/sites/members/tx10_mccaul/pdf/InvestigationsBorder-Report.pdf............................................................................................................ 16
2 Manuel C. Coppola, Locals Mixed on Court OK of "Show Me Your Papers" Rule,
3 Nogales International, June 26, 2012 .............................................................................6-7
4 Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, and Sheriff Joseph Arpaio (May 10, 2012 ................................................................................................................................. 29
5 Marc Lacey, Rift in Arizona as Latino Class is Found Illegal, NY Times, Jan. 7, 2011.... 32
6 Mary Jo Pitzl, Arizona Bill Targets Ban on Ethnic Studies, Arizona Republic, May 1, 2010
7 ......................................................................................................................................... 32
8 Matthew Benson, Immigration Foes Pledge New Bill, Voter Initiative, Ariz. Republic, Oct. 22, 2009 ................................................................................................................... 28
9 McCain Says Phoenix is the Second Kidnapping Capital in the World, St. Petersburg
10 Times, June 27, 2010 ....................................................................................................... 14
11 Mike Sakal, Police Unions: Immigration Bill Taxes Officers, Tribune (Mesa, Ariz.), Apr. 18, 2010 ........................................................................................................................... 35
12 Neil Munro, Arpaio Looking for ‘A Way Around’ Obama Admin ‘To Enforce State
13 [immigration] Laws, The Daily Caller, June 27, 2012...................................................... 7
14 Nicole Santa Cruz, Arizona Ethnic Studies Ban OKd as Law, L.A. Times, May 12, 2010,...................................................................................................................... 32
15 Phil Gordon, Op-Ed., Time to End Sen. Pearce’s Reckless Misstatements, Ariz. Republic,
16 June 27, 2009 ................................................................................................................... 15
17 Paul Giblin & Ryan Gabrielson, Third Federal Probe Launched into Sheriff’s Office: ICE to Audit Immigration Enforcement Efforts, Trib. (Mesa, Ariz.), Sept. 12, 2008 …… 29
18 Press Release, Sen. Pearce Demands End to Sanctuary City, ‘Catch and Release’ Policies,
19 Oct. 21, 2009 ..............................................................................................................27-28
20 Press Release, Dep’t of Justice, Department of Justice Releases Investigative Findings on the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (Dec. 15, 2011) ………………………………. 29
21 Press Release, Dep’t of Justice, Department of Justice Files Lawsuit in Arizona Against
22 Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, and Sheriff Joseph Arpaio (May 11, 2012) …………………………………………………………………………………….. 29
23 Roberto Miranda, Ariz. Law Unfair to Latinos, Hispanics, Daily 49er, May 2, 2010 ....... 23
24 Robin Lubitz, Op-Ed., Expert Questions Pearce’s Numbers, Ariz. Republic, June 26, 2009
25 ......................................................................................................................................... 16
26 Russell Pearce, Op-Ed., Let’s Put an End to Illegal-Migrant Catch and Release, Ariz. Republic, June 25, 2009 .......................................................................................14-15, 16
27 Ryan Gabrielson & Paul Giblin, Reasonable Doubt—Tribune Investigates Sheriff’s
28 Immigration Campaign: At What Cost?, Trib. (Mesa, Ariz.), July 9, 2008.................... 29
x

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 14 of 65
1 Sarah Lynch, Pearce Calls for Deportations: Mesa Policymaker Advocates ‘50s Policy for
2 Dealing with Illegals, Mesa Trib., Sept. 29, 2006 ........................................................... 34
3 Sean Hannity, Arizona Law Enforcement Reacts to Supreme Court Immigration Ruling, White House Response, Fox News television broadcast, June 25, 2012 .......................... 7
4 Stephen Lemons, One Mother’s Suffering, Joe Arpaio’s Bigotry, and Stories of Racial
5 Profiling by the MCSO, Phoenix New Times Blog, Oct. 15, 2009 ................................ 29
6 Stephen Lemons, Russell Pearce Scores Another Win Against Hispanics, Most Local
7 Activists Are No-Shows, Only Daniel Patterson Shines, Phoenix New Time Blogs, Feb. 25, 2010 ........................................................................................................................... 15
8 Stephen Lemons, Russell Pearce Spews Bogus Crime Stats on CNN; SB 1070 Goes to
9 Final Read Monday, Phoenix NewTimes Blog, Apr. 16, 2010....................................... 16
10 Stephen Lemons, The MCSO Retaliates Against a Guadalupe Activist; Plus, John Huppenthal Spews Bogus Stats During a Prejudice Party at the Arizona Capitol,
11 Phoenix New Times Blog, Oct. 29, 2009 ........................................................................ 15
12 Terry Greene Sterling, Russell Pearce and Other Illegal-Immigration Populists Rely on Misleading, Right-Wing Reports to Scapegoat Immigrants and to Terrify Penny-Pinched
13 Americans, Phoenix New Times, Dec. 2, 2010............................................................... 19
14 Tim Gaynor, Arizona Police See “Difficulties” Enforcing Immigration Law, Reuters, Jun. 26, 2012 ........................................................................................................................... 35
15 U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona QuickFacts........................................................................... 12
16 Wright & Miller: 11A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 2948.1
17 (2d ed. 1995) .................................................................................................................... 43
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
xi

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 15 of 65
1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, Plaintiffs Valle del Sol, et al.
2 (“Plaintiffs”) hereby move for a preliminary injunction enjoining all Defendants from
3 enforcing § 2(B) of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 (“SB 1070”), and from enforcing A.R.S. §
4 13-2929, as enacted by § 5 of SB 1070.
5 INTRODUCTION
6 In Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed the preemption claims
7 that the United States brought against four sections of S.B. 1070—§§ 3, 5(C), 6, and
8 2(B)—in this Court. No. 11-182, __ U.S. __ (June 25, 2012) (slip op. available at
9 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf). The Supreme Court
10 affirmed this Court’s injunction against §§ 3, 5(C), and 6. On the fourth provision—§
11 2(B)—the Supreme Court found that an injunction was not appropriate based on the record
12 before it, but explicitly preserved the possibility that § 2(B) could be enjoined in another
13 action, and identified clear boundaries that § 2(B) may not lawfully cross.
14 Plaintiffs brought many of the same preemption claims as the United States,
15 including the claims that have invalidated §§ 3, 5(C), and 6. But this action involves
16 additional claims, evidence, and irreparable injuries beyond what the Supreme Court had
17 before it in Arizona. In light of those claims, evidence, and injuries and the Supreme
18 Court’s guidance in Arizona, Plaintiffs bring this Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which
19 presents three issues:
20 First, Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction against § 2(B) of S.B. 1070 on
21 preemption and Fourth Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court stated that if police
22 extend detentions for status verification or other immigration purposes under § 2(B), that
23 will “raise constitutional concerns . . . [a]nd . . . disrupt the federal framework.” Arizona,
24 slip op. at 2. The Court declined to “assume” that § 2(B) would be implemented in such a
25 manner based on the record before it. Id. at 24. Plaintiffs here submit additional evidence
26 demonstrating that § 2(B) will be implemented in precisely the manner that the Supreme
27 Court deemed unconstitutional thereby irreparably harming any individuals subject to
28
1

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 16 of 65
1 illegal detentions. Given this new evidence, Plaintiffs can establish a likelihood of success
2 or serious questions going to the merits of these claims. Therefore, § 2(B) can and should
3 be preliminarily enjoined—at least until the Arizona Supreme Court definitively interprets
4 the provision in a way that forecloses unconstitutional implementation, which it could do
5 on certification from this Court.
6 Second, Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction against § 2(B) of S.B. 1070 based
7 on their Equal Protection Clause claim. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in demonstrating
8 that § 2(B) violates the Equal Protection Clause because racial or national origin
9 discrimination was a motivating factor in its enactment. Even though merits discovery has
10 been stayed in this case, there is already substantial evidence in each of the categories
11 enumerated in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development
12 Corporation, 429 U.S. 252 (1977), which is probative of discriminatory intent. And while
13 the evidence on this motion supports a finding of discriminatory intent, at this stage this
14 Court need only find a likelihood of success or serious questions going to the merits of this
15 claim.
16 Third, Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction against A.R.S. § 13-2929 on
17 preemption grounds. The Supreme Court’s analysis of §§ 3 and 5(C) further clarifies that
18 § 13-2929, the state harboring crime created by § 5 of S.B. 1070, is both field and conflict
19 preempted. Plaintiffs did not specifically seek a preliminary injunction against this portion
20 of § 5 in their initial motion for a preliminary injunction, and the Court has not addressed
21 field or conflict preemption challenges to this provision in either this case or in the U.S.
22 case (No. 2:10cv1413). Given the unanimous disapproval of similar harboring laws by
23 other federal courts and the Supreme Court’s recent decision, Plaintiffs are likely to
24 succeed in showing that § 13-2929 is preempted.
25 The requested injunction would protect the individual Plaintiffs and members of
26 Plaintiff organizations from irreparable harm, including the harms of unlawful detention
27 and arrest under § 2(B) and § 13-2929; prosecution under § 13-2929; and the stigma
28
2

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 17 of 65
1 imposed by the racial and national origin discrimination underlying § 2(B). These harms
2 to individuals and organizations were not before the Supreme Court in Arizona. The
3 public interest will likewise be served by the suspension of provisions that threaten
4 fundamental constitutional rights, disrupt the nation’s ability to speak with one voice on
5 immigration matters, and embody racial and national origin animus. Accordingly,
6 Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant the preliminary injunction they seek. As
7 to § 2(B), as discussed below, Plaintiffs alternatively request that the Court grant
8 Plaintiffs’ request for certification of questions concerning § 2 to the Arizona Supreme
9 Court and preliminarily enjoin § 2(B) pending the results of such certification.
10 ARGUMENT
11 Ordinarily, “[a] plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is
12 likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
13 preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in
14 the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
15 Where “the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor,” the plaintiff need
16 only “demonstrate[] . . . that serious questions going to the merits were raised” to justify
17 an injunction. Alliance of the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir.
18 2011). Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction under either standard.
19 I. Plaintiffs Are Likely To Succeed on the Merits
20 A. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Prove That § 2(B) Is Preempted by Federal Law
21 and Violates the Fourth Amendment
22 In Arizona, although the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on §
23 2(B), the Supreme Court did not hold that § 2(B) is constitutional; indeed, the Court
24 explicitly preserved the possibility that § 2(B) could be enjoined in another action.
25 Arizona, slip op. at 24. And the Supreme Court outlined the showing that would be
26 sufficient to hold § 2(B) preempted by federal law:
27 Detaining individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise
28
3

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 18 of 65
1 constitutional concerns. See, e.g., Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 333
2 (2009); Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005) (“A seizure that is
3 justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can
4 become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to
5 complete that mission”). And it would disrupt the federal framework to put
6 state officers in the position of holding aliens in custody for possible
7 unlawful presence without federal direction and supervision. Cf. Part IV–C,
8 supra (concluding that Arizona may not authorize warrantless arrests on the
9 basis of removability). The program put in place by Congress does not
10 allow state or local officers to adopt this enforcement mechanism.
11 Id. at 22.
12 Thus, if § 2(B) allows detention for immigration status verification, it is preempted
13 by federal law and raises other constitutional concerns. And this Court has previously
14 found in this case that both the first and second sentences of § 2(B) would, on their face,
15 cause such detention, based on their plain language and the evidence in the record
16 regarding the length of immigration status checks. Doc #447 at 35-38.
17 Without addressing that finding, however, the Supreme Court indicated that “§ 2(B)
18 could be read to avoid these concerns,” because “state courts may conclude that, unless the
19 person continues to be suspected of some crime for which he may be detained by state
20 officers, it would not be reasonable to prolong [a] stop,” Arizona, slip op. at 22, and one
21 could also read the second sentence of § 2(B) “as an instruction to initiate a status check
22 every time someone is arrested, or in some subset of those cases, rather than as a command
23 to hold the person until the check is complete no matter the circumstances.” Id. at 23. In
24 sum, on the record before the Court, “[t]here [was] a basic uncertainty about what the law
25 means and how it can be enforced.” Id. at 24.
26 In this action, and on this record, however, there is not a “basic uncertainty”
27 regarding the implementation of § 2(B). Plaintiffs present evidence establishing that
28
4

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 19 of 65
1 multiple law enforcement agencies in the state intend to enforce § 2(B) in a way that
2 crosses the line the Supreme Court drew. Thus, this Court need not “assume” based on the
3 statutory language that § 2(B) will extend stops and detentions. Instead, evidence not in
4 the record in Arizona shows that § 2(B) will extend detentions and Plaintiffs are,
5 accordingly, substantially likely to prevail on their claims that § 2(B) is preempted and
6 that it violates the Fourth Amendment.
7 Because Plaintiffs also meet the remaining elements of the preliminary injunction
8 standard, see infra Part II, Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction against § 2(B).
9 At a minimum, this Court should obtain a definitive interpretation of § 2(B) as to the
10 detention issue by certifying relevant questions to the Arizona Supreme Court, and issue a
11 preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo pending the Arizona Supreme Court’s
12 response.
13 1. Arizona Law Enforcement Agencies Will Extend Detentions Under §
14 2(B)
15 The evidence establishes that, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s ruling, Arizona
16 law enforcement will interpret § 2(B) as requiring them to extend stops and other
17 detentions beyond when they would ordinarily conclude, solely for immigration-related
18 purposes. As an initial matter, while the Supreme Court held that the language of § 2(B)
19 could conceivably be interpreted not to require extended detentions, interpreting § 2(B) to
20 mandate detention is the most natural reading of the statute. Indeed, that is how Arizona
21 agencies have continued to interpret § 2(B). Nothing in the state’s newly reissued training
22 materials on S.B. 1070 indicates that § 2(B) cannot be used to extend detentions solely for
23 immigration purposes, nor do these materials set any limit on the length of time an
24 individual can be held pending the results of immigration verification requests. See Br. for
25 Pls., United States v. Arizona, No. 10-1413 (Doc. 64-5, Ex. 35) (transcript of AZ POST
26 training video); Melissa Keaney Decl. (authenticating June 25, 2012 supplemental AZ
27 POST training) (Ex. A). Moreover, in the short amount of time since the Supreme Court
28
5

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 20 of 65
1 ruled, multiple Arizona law enforcement officials have publicly stated that implementation
2 of § 2(B) will in fact cause officers to detain individuals for immigration status verification
3 when they would not otherwise have been detained.1 4
In a declaration submitted with this motion, Tucson Police Chief Roberto 5
Villaseñor explains some of the problems posed by § 2(B) in detail, including the way that 6
police operating under § 2(B) will extend detention solely for immigration purposes. 7
Villaseñor Decl. ¶¶ 4-9 (Ex. D). In particular, Chief Villaseñor outlines two common 8
scenarios in which § 2(B) will extend detentions. Id. ¶¶ 8-10. First, the Tucson Police 9
Department currently makes approximately 36,000 “cite in lieu of detention” arrests per 10
year. Id. ¶ 8. The Chief states that “[u]nder Section 2(B) if we cannot get immediate 11
confirmation from federal officials of the immigration status of these suspects, we will 12
have to extend their detentions in the field until we get a status determination from federal 13
officials, or book them into jail to await these results. Id. Either situation will result in 14
extended detention of thousands of individuals—even if it is for brief periods of time.” Id. 15
¶ 9. 16
Second, Chief Villaseñor expects that “status checks under Section 2(B) will 17
operate the following way, both in my department and in other departments: once we make 18
the request mandated under Section 2(B), we will wait to hear back from federal 19
immigration officials before releasing the person.” Id. ¶ 10. That too will extend 20
detentions, especially in light of the fact that the private cause of action authorized in § 21
2(H) will put “Arizona law enforcement officers . . . under intense pressure to enforce the 22
provisions of SB 1070,” undermining the effectiveness of protections that putatively 23
safeguard constitutional rights. Id. ¶¶ 6-7. 24
Other Arizona law enforcement officials have also indicated that § 2(B) will extend 25
1 Indeed, both this Court, United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980, 993-98 (D. Ariz. 26 2010), and the Ninth Circuit, United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339, 346-52 (9th Cir.
2011), found that to be a natural interpretation of the statute. And, even in oral argument 27 before the Supreme Court, the state repeatedly refused to represent that § 2(B) would not
extend detentions in practice. Transcript of Oral Argument at 11, 14-15, 20, Arizona v. 28 United States, No. 11-182, __ U.S. ___ (June 25, 2012).
6

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 21 of 65
1 detentions for status verification. For example, Santa Cruz County Sheriff Antonio
2 Estrada explained that § 2(B) “may result in detention of people while citizenship is
3 clarified” and noted that some geographic regions in Arizona would be more susceptible to
4 these extended detentions. Manuel C. Coppola, Locals Mixed on Court OK of ‘Show Me
5 Your Papers’ Rule, Nogales International, June 26, 2012 (Ex. B-1); see also Brady
6 McCombs, Fed Moves Will Limit SB 1070 Enforcement: Court Only Keeps Section
7 Allowing Police to Stop Suspected Illegal Immigrants Homeland Security Will Not Pick
8 Them Up Unless They Are Criminal, Arizona Daily Star, June 26, 2012 (Pima and Santa
9 Cruz County Sherriffs will hold people for “a reasonable amount of time” for Border
10 Patrol) (Ex. B-2). See also JJ Hensley, Arizona Agencies Prepare to Enforce SB 1070:
11 Ariz. Police Training Helps Identify When ‘Reasonable Suspicion’ Exists’, Ariz.
12 Republic, June 26, 2012 (Sergeant Tommy Thompson of the Phoenix Police Department
13 indicating that one-hour roadside stops under § 2(B) are not out of the question) (Ex. B-3).
14 Indeed, at least one Arizona law enforcement official has not only indicated that
15 stops will be prolonged, but has also indicated that he will use detentions under § 2(B) in
16 ways that conflict with federal authority. Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever indicated
17 that his agency will extend detentions for immigration purposes even as to people that
18 “ICE or Border Patrol won’t come get”; his agency will “take them to [federal authorities],
19 dump them on their doorstep and say, you figure it out.” Sean Hannity, Arizona Law
20 Enforcement Reacts to Supreme Court Immigration Ruling, White House Response, Fox
21 News television broadcast, June 25, 2012 (Ex. B-4).
22 Finally, immediately after the Supreme Court decision, Maricopa County Sheriff
23 Joe Arpaio indicated that he will look for ways to detain people that he suspects of
24 violating immigration law: “[I]t will be interesting when we arrest someone . . . What will
25 I do with them? Dump them on the street? . . . Let them go? . . . I don’t like to do that
26 [because] that’s amnesty . . . I’m going to see what other options I have.” Neil Munro,
27 Arpaio Looking for ‘A Way Around’ Obama Admin To Enforce State [immigration]
28
7

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 22 of 65
1 Laws, The Daily Caller, June 27, 2012 (Ex. B-7). See also Erin Burnett, Outfront,
2 Supreme Court Upholds Key Arizona Provision; Interview with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, CNN
3 television broadcast, June 25, 2012 (“So what do we [law enforcement] do? We dump
4 them on the streets even though they’re here illegally? . . . I have a couple ideas and I’ll
5 face that issue when it comes up.” (Ex. B-6).
6 2. Plaintiffs Are Substantially Likely to Prevail on Their Claim That § 2(B)
7 Is Preempted by Federal Law
8 Because, as explained above, § 2(B) will allow detention solely for immigration
9 verification, Arizona explains that it “disrupt[s] the federal framework” and is not allowed
10 by “the program put in place by Congress”—in other words, it is preempted. Slip op. at
11 22. The Supreme Court’s disapproval of extended detention for verification under § 2(B)
12 flows directly from its analysis sustaining the injunction against § 6, S.B. 1070’s
13 warrantless arrest provision. In its § 6 analysis, the Supreme Court first explained that
14 because ordinarily “it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States,”
15 “the usual predicate for an arrest is absent” if the arrest is based on “nothing more than
16 possible removability.” Id. at 15-16. Furthermore, federal law both “instructs when it is
17 appropriate to arrest an alien during the removal process” and “specifies limited
18 circumstances in which state officers may perform the functions of an immigration
19 officer.” Id. at 16-17 (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1357(g)(1), 1103(a)(10), 1252c, 1324(c)). In
20 authorizing arrest for having “committed a public offense that makes the person
21 removable,” § 6 does not fall within any of those authorizations and “violates the principle
22 that the removal process is entrusted to the discretion of the Federal Government.” Id. at
23 18.
24 Detention solely for the purpose of obtaining immigration status verification under
25 § 2(B) is even less justifiable than arrest under § 6 (which required at least probable cause
26 of removability) and is even more clearly preempted under the Supreme Court’s analysis.
27 See id. at 22 (citing § 6 portion of ruling and concluding that detention under § 2(B) for
28
8

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 23 of 65
1 status verification is barred by “[t]he program put in place by Congress”). Because, as
2 explained above, the evidence shows that Arizona officials intend to enforce § 2(B) in a
3 way that extends detentions solely for verification purposes, Plaintiffs are substantially
4 likely to prevail on their preemption claim against § 2(B).
5 3. Plaintiffs Are Substantially Likely to Prevail on Their Claim That § 2(B)
6 Violates the Fourth Amendment
7 In addition to being preempted, by allowing detention for immigration status
8 verification § 2(B) also violates the Fourth Amendment. In Arizona, the Supreme Court
9 stated that such detention “would raise constitutional concerns,” the Supreme Court cited
10 two Fourth Amendment cases, Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 333 (2009), and Illinois
11 v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005), and quoted Caballes’s holding that “[a] seizure that
12 is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become
13 unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission.”
14 Arizona, slip op. at 22.
15 As the Court’s statement regarding “constitutional concerns” suggests, detaining
16 individuals under § 2(B) solely for immigration status verification would violate bedrock
17 Fourth Amendment principles. An initially lawful “seizure becomes unlawful when it is
18 ‘more intrusive than necessary.’” Ganwich v. Knapp, 319 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003)
19 (quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 504 (1983)). Accordingly, “[t]he scope of a
20 detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification,” id. (internal quotation
21 omitted), and a “detention must . . . last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the
22 purpose of the stop.” Royer, 460 U.S. at 500 (emphasis added); accord Johnson, 555 U.S.
23 at 333 (inquiries into matters unrelated to the legitimate justification for a stop may not
24 “measurably extend the duration of the stop”); Caballes, 543 U.S. at 407; United States v.
25 Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686 (1985). Because “the usual predicate for an arrest is absent”
26 where detention is “based on nothing more than possible removability,” Arizona, slip op.
27 at 16, detaining individuals solely for immigration investigation under § 2(B) violates the
28
9

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 24 of 65

1 Fourth Amendment.

2 Moreover, Plaintiffs here present irreparable injuries to individuals and

3 organizations from Fourth Amendment violations that were not before the Supreme Court

4 in Arizona. Arizona, slip op. at 19-24 (no discussion of irreparable injury or balance of

5 hardships to individuals or organizations); See also supra II (discussing irreparable injury

6 and balance of hardship specific to Plaintiffs). In addition to establishing likelihood of

7 success, Plaintiffs have raised “serious questions” going to the merits of their Fourth

8 Amendment claims and have demonstrated that the balance of hardships tips sharply in

9 their favor. See Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1135.

10 4. At a Minimum, the Court Should Certify the Question of Whether §

11 2(B) Authorizes Additional Detention to the Arizona Supreme Court

12 Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction against § 2(B) of S.B. 1070

13 because law enforcement agencies will interpret the Section the same way that this Court

14 and the Ninth Circuit have previously interpreted it—i.e., as authorizing additional

15 detention for immigration verification purposes. Plaintiffs recognize, however, that the

16 Supreme Court noted that the Arizona state courts have not yet provided a “definitive

17 interpretation” of the provision, which could clearly establish that § 2(B) does not allow

18 such detention in spite of its plain language. Arizona, slip op. at 24. This Court can

19 request the definitive interpretation that the Supreme Court lacked by certifying relevant

20 questions to the Arizona Supreme Court.2 See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona,

21

22 2 In the event that this Court decides to certify to the Arizona Supreme Court, Plaintiffs respectfully propose the following question: “Does § 2(B) of S.B. 1070 authorize law
23 enforcement officers to detain an individual, including by extending an individual’s

24

detention beyond the point he or she would otherwise be released, in order to determine or verify the individual’s immigration status?” Should the Court decide to seek the guidance

25 of the Arizona Supreme Court as to § 2(B), it would also be appropriate, as a matter of judicial economy, to certify a similar question as to § 2(D), namely: “Does § 2(D) of S.B.
26 1070 authorize law enforcement officers to detain an individual, including by extending an

27 individual’s detention beyond the point he or she would otherwise be released, based on ‘verification’ that the individual is ‘unlawfully present’?” Plaintiffs include the question
28 regarding § 2(D) because, while not currently enjoined, it is also challenged in this

10

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 25 of 65
1 520 U.S. 43, 76 (1997) (“Certification procedure . . . allows a federal court faced with a
2 novel state-law question to put the question directly to the State’s highest court, reducing
3 the delay, cutting the cost, and increasing the assurance of gaining an authoritative
4 response.”); see also A.R.S. § 12-1861 (providing that the Arizona Supreme Court may
5 answer questions of law certified to it by a United States District Court, where there are
6 issues of Arizona state law that may be determinative of the cause pending with the United
7 States District Court, and where there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of the
8 Arizona Supreme Court and intermediate appeals courts of Arizona).
9 Because the statute will likely be applied in an unconstitutional manner in the
10 absence of a definitive ruling limiting § 2(B), if the Court decides to certify, it should
11 preliminarily enjoin § 2(B) on these grounds pending the state court’s response.
12 B. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Prove That § 2(B) Violates the Equal Protection
13 Clause
14 Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their equal protection challenge to SB 1070. As
15 the Supreme Court held in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429
16 U.S. 252 (1977), a plaintiff challenging a facially race-neutral law as intentionally
17 discriminatory is not required to prove that “the challenged action rested solely on racially
18 discriminatory purposes.” Id. at 265. Rather, Plaintiffs need only show that unlawful
19 discrimination was “a ‘substantial’ or ‘motivating’ factor behind enactment” of S.B. 1070.
20 Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 228 (1985). Once Plaintiffs make a showing of
21 discriminatory intent, the burden shifts to Defendants “to demonstrate that the law would
22 have been enacted without this factor.” Id.
23 Arlington Heights identified a number of factors that constitute highly relevant and
24 admissible circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent. 429 U.S. at 266-68. These
25 factors include whether: (1) the legislative history, especially contemporaneous statements
26
27 litigation and presents a similar question of statutory interpretation with respect to detention as that presented by § 2(B).
28 3 While this motion focuses on Section 2(B)’s discriminatory intent and disproportionate
11

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 26 of 65
1 by members of the legislature, evidences discrimination; (2) “the historical background” or
2 “sequence of events leading up to the challenged decision” evidences discrimination; (3)
3 the challenged decision has a disproportionate impact on a protected group; and (4) there
4 were substantive or procedural departures from usual decision making criteria. Id.; see
5 also Comm. Concerning Cmty. Improvement v. City of Modesto, 583 F.3d 690, 703 (9th
6 Cir. 2009). These factors are neither exhaustive nor mandatory, and courts consider them
7 as a whole in determining whether discrimination was a motivating factor for enactment of
8 the challenged law. See Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 268; Tsombanidis v. West Haven
9 Fire Dep’t, 352 F.3d 565, 580 (2d Cir. 2003). It is not necessary to establish each factor to
10 prevail on a discrimination claim. Cent. Alabama Fair Hous. Ctr. v. Magee, 835 F. Supp.
11 2d 1165, 1186 (M.D. Ala. 2011).
12 The Arlington Heights factors support a finding of intentional discrimination here.
13 Cf. Magee, 835 F. Supp. 2d at 1197 (finding discriminatory intent motivated Alabama law
14 resembling S.B. 1070). Discriminatory animus permeated the sequence of events leading
15 up to the passage of S.B. 1070, informed legislators’ views of the law, and ultimately
16 suffused the entire legislation with anti-Latino and anti-Mexican bias. Key legislators
17 relied on invented “facts” about the costs and dangers of “illegal immigration,” conflated
18 Latinos generally or certain U.S. citizen children with “illegal aliens,” and used thinly
19 veiled code words that, in context, plainly reveal a discriminatory motive. In operation, §
20 2(B) will disproportionately affect persons of color and especially Latinos and individuals
21 of Mexican origin, as population estimates make clear.3 And, the legislature intended § 22
2(B) to implement state-wide Maricopa County practices that had repeatedly resulted in 23
24 3 While this motion focuses on Section 2(B)’s discriminatory intent and disproportionate impact on Latinos and individuals of Mexican national origin, Plaintiffs maintain that §
25 2(B) also discriminates against other communities of color in Arizona, including its diverse Asian American population that is fast growing and currently makes up about 3.3
26 percent of the state’s population. U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona QuickFacts (Ex. F-6). Plaintiffs will continue to advance their equal protection claim on behalf of all
27 communities of color as the evidence in the case develops.
28
12

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 27 of 65
1 racial profiling complaints and investigations. Moreover, Arizona’s decision to enact S.B.
2 1070 substantively departed from the legislature’s usual decision-making on public safety
3 issues by restricting police discretion and by enacting an unprecedented private citizen
4 cause of action against police departments regarding their allocation of enforcement
5 resources. Plaintiffs therefore seek a preliminary injunction of § 2(B) on equal protection
6 grounds.
7 1. The Legislative History of S.B. 1070 Demonstrates a Discriminatory Intent.
8 As the Supreme Court stated in Arlington Heights, “contemporary statements by
9 members of the decisionmaking body” constitute “highly relevant” circumstantial
10 evidence of discriminatory intent. 429 U.S. at 267. Thus, virtually every case considering
11 an equal protection challenge to a legislative act considers the contemporaneous
12 statements of public officials, be they in legislative debates, statements to the press, or
13 campaign materials. See Magee, 835 F. Supp. 2d at 1187 n.17 (noting that
14 “contemporaneous statements by individual decisionmakers are relevant to determining
15 whether race was a motivating factor for the decision,” and, in fact, that “where the court’s
16 inquiry centers on finding an improper purpose, looking into legislators’ motives and
17 comments . . . . is now the norm, not the exception” (collecting cases)). Plaintiffs need not
18 show discriminatory motivation by every member, or by a majority, of the decision-
19 making body. See Hunter, 471 U.S. at 228. And statements made by the sponsor or
20 author of a law carry particular weight in establishing legislative intent. Brock v. Pierce
21 County, 476 U.S. 253, 263 (1986); Fed. Energy Admin. v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., 426 U.S.
22 548, 564 (1976).
23 The legislative history of S.B. 1070, and in particular the statements by its
24 cosponsors, Senator Pearce and Representative Melvin, demonstrate that racial and
25 national origin discrimination was a motivating factor for the enactment of S.B. 1070 and
26 § 2(B) specifically.
27
28
13

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 28 of 65
1 i. Legislators routinely relied on false or misleading evidence in
2 promoting S.B. 1070, strongly suggesting that their stated reasons
3 were pretext for unlawful discrimination.
4 Courts routinely consider misleading statements as evidence of invidious
5 discrimination, as it demonstrates that the stated justifications for legislation are mere
6 pretext. See, e.g., Doe v. Village of Mamaroneck, 462 F. Supp. 2d 520, 549, 552
7 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (holding that exaggerated, factually unsupported claims regarding the
8 number and problems caused by targeted day laborers were “negative and stigmatizing,”
9 providing “some evidence of racism”); Greater New Orleans Fair Hous. Action Ctr., 648
10 F. Supp. 2d 805, 814-19 (E.D. La. 2009) (evaluating the city’s proffered justifications for
11 its actions, finding them factually unsupported, and concluding that the challenged
12 governmental action therefore was pretextual and an invidious motive could be inferred)
13 (“GNOFHAC II”).
14 Legislative supporters of SB 1070 cited false or misleading information about
15 undocumented immigrants to justify passage of the law. In support of S.B. 1070,
16 legislators relied on assertions about the purported criminality or the alleged costs to
17 Arizona due to undocumented immigration. But, as explained below, those legislators
18 lacked any factual support for those assertions and indeed, some of these legislators’
19 statements were based on information that had been widely discredited.4 20
During the legislative debates, Senator Pearce and others routinely cited fabricated 21
“statistics”—particularly about the alleged criminality of undocumented immigrants—to 22
justify the need for S.B. 1070, though they knew that the data was misleading at best, and, 23
in several instances, outright false. Senator Pearce, for example, claimed that “Phoenix 24
number two in the world in kidnappings . . . the home invasion, carjacking, [and] identity 25
26 4 Other Arizona public officials, including Governor Jan Brewer, have similarly relied on alleged “facts” in order to support their positions on immigration. See Brad
27 Knickerbocker, Jan Brewer Corrects the Record on Headless Bodies in the Desert, Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 4, 2010 (discussing Gov. Brewer’s discredited claim that
28 headless bodies had been found in the Arizona border) (Ex. B-28).
14

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 29 of 65
1 theft capital of the nation.” Test. of Sen. Pearce, Debate on S.B. 1070 in H. Military
2 Affairs and Pub. Safety Comm., Mar. 31, 2010 (Ex. C-3 at 11).5 The claim about 3 kidnapping had been made before, but as Senator Pearce knew,6 there was no factual basis 4
for it. See, e.g., McCain Says Phoenix is the Second Kidnapping Capital in the World, St. 5
Petersburg Times, June 27, 2010 (investigating the claim in depth, and finding “no 6
evidence that it’s accurate, or even close”) (Ex. B-30). Similarly, the claims about home 7
invasions, carjackings and identity theft were factually unsupported and factually 8
unsupportable—which Senator Pearce also knew. See Phil Gordon, Op-Ed., Time to End 9
Sen. Pearce’s Reckless Misstatements, Ariz. Republic, June 27, 2009 (Ex. B-32) 10
(responding to a Pearce op-ed, and stating: “I know how it works for you, senator. If you 11
told people the real numbers—verified by the FBI—you’d have no ‘hot-button issue’ and 12
would risk losing your political base. But Arizonans expect and trust their elected officials 13
to speak the truth.”). 14
Legislators also used false statistics about murders committed by undocumented 15
immigrants, with Senator Pearce claiming that “60 % of the homicides in Phoenix involve 16
illegal aliens,” Test. of Sen. Pearce, Debate on S.B. 1070 in H. Military Affairs and Pub. 17
Safety Comm., Mar. 31, 2010 (Ex. C-3 at 9-10); and that “‘67 percent’ of law enforcement 18 officers killed in ‘the last few years’ have been murdered by illegal aliens.” 7 Id. Senator 19
Huppenthal made a similar claim at the press conference to introduce S.B. 1070, stating 20
5 Although Arizona’s legislative debates are not officially transcribed, these are archived in 21 video form on the Arizona Legislature’s website. See Ariz. Legislature’s Live
Proceedings, http://azleg.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=17. Plaintiffs have 22 had selected portions of these official videos professionally transcribed and true and
accurate copies of those transcriptions are provided as exhibits to this filing. 23 6 See E.J. Montini, Is Phoenix Really the ‘Kidnapping Capital’?, Ariz. Republic, July 12,
2009 (noting that the author had “left word with Pearce asking where he got his statistics 24 [about the kidnapping claim] but he hasn’t gotten back to me”) (Ex. B-29). See also
Russell Pearce, Op-Ed., Let’s Put an End to Illegal-Migrant Catch and Release, Ariz. 25 Republic, June 25, 2009 (“Phoenix runs second in the world in kidnappings and third in
the United States for violence. Arizona has become the home-invasion, carjacking, 26 identity-theft capital of the nation. These are not statistics Arizona should be famous
for.”) (Ex. B-31). 27 7 See also Stephen Lemons, Russell Pearce Scores Another Win Against Hispanics, Most
Local Activists Are No-Shows, Only Daniel Patterson Shines, Phoenix New Time Blogs, 28 Feb. 25, 2010 (Ex. B-33).
15

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 30 of 65
1 that that undocumented immigrants “ha[ve] murdered over 50 percent of [Arizona’s]
2 police officers.”8 As the senators knew, their claims were unsupported,9 inflammatory, 3
and could not have been drawn from actual data because neither the Phoenix police 4
department nor the FBI collects information on the immigration status of alleged 5 perpetrators10—a fact Senator Pearce explicitly acknowledged. See Email from Sen. 6
Pearce dated Oct. 23, 2009 (concluding email by stating that “NO GOVERNMENT 7
AGENCY TRACKS CRIMES BY ILLEGALS – NOT EVEN ATTACKS ON POLICE”) 8
(Ex. E-13). 9
Senator Pearce also claimed that “a congressional report out called ‘Drawing a Line 10
in the Sand’ by Congressman King” indicated that “9,000 Americans each year [are] killed 11
at the hands of illegal aliens. 25 a day, 12 by stabbing and shooting [and] 13 might be 12
DUI-related crimes.” Test. of Sen. Pearce, H. Military Affairs and Pub. Safety Comm., 13 Mar. 31, 2010 (Ex. C-3 at 5). The report Senator Pearce was apparently referencing,11 14
however, makes no mention of any statistics even remotely resembling those cited. These 15 statistics, moreover—which Pearce frequently cited12—are implausible on their face, as 16
has been pointed out by the former deputy administrator of the Department of Justice’s 17
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Robin Lubitz, Op-Ed., Expert 18
Questions Pearce’s Numbers, Ariz. Republic, June 26, 2009 (Ex. B-36) (“[N]obody knows 19
how many crimes are committed by illegal aliens because the information is not tracked. . . 20
21 8 Stephen Lemons, The MCSO Retaliates Against a Guadalupe Activist; Plus, John Huppenthal Spews Bogus Stats During a Prejudice Party at the Arizona Capitol, Phoenix
22 New Time Blogs, Oct. 29, 2009 (Ex. B-34). 9 See, e.g., Lemons, Russell Pearce Scores Another Win, supra note 7 (noting that when
23 asked to substantiate his claim, Pearce “could offer no source”); Lemons, MCSO Retaliates, supra note 8 (noting that when asked to substantiate the statistic, Senator
24 Huppenthal was unable to do so). 10 See Stephen Lemons, Russell Pearce Spews Bogus Crime Stats on CNN; SB 1070 Goes
25 to Final Read Monday, Phoenix NewTimes Blog, Apr. 16, 2010 (Ex. B-35). 11 Majority Staff of H. Comm. on Homeland Sec. Subcomm. on Investigations, 109th
26 Cong., A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border, Oct. 2006, available at http://www.house.gov/sites/members/tx10_mccaul/pdf/Investigaions-Border-
27 Report.pdf. 12 See, e.g., Pearce, Let’s Put an End to Illegal-Migrant Catch and Release, supra note 16
28 (citing the same statistics, but without attributing them to any source).
16

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 31 of 65
1 . Pearce’s statement that illegal aliens commit 12 murders each day by ‘stabbings and
2 shootings’ would mean that they are responsible for over one-fourth of all homicides
3 committed in the United States. This is an amazing assertion, which leads one to suspect
4 that Pearce is either making up data or relying on non-objective studies from biased
5 interest groups.”).
6 Senator Pearce also cited specious statistics regarding the number of undocumented
7 immigrant sex offenders contained in a self-published, non-peer reviewed “study” by
8 Violent Crimes Institute. Test. of Sen. Pearce, H. Military Affairs and Pub. Safety
9 Comm., Mar. 31, 2010 (Ex. C-3 at 5). See also Deborah Schurman-Kauflin, The Dark
10 Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal
11 Immigrants in the United States (2006) (Ex. B-45). Here again, the implausibility of these
12 “statistics”—which have been thoroughly debunked13—are obvious, and justifying any 13
legislation on such grounds demonstrates pretext. 14
ii. Legislators repeatedly conflated Latinos, Spanish-speaking 15
individuals, and the children of unauthorized immigrants with 16
“illegal aliens,” thereby demonstrating that their attempts to 17
punish and harass “illegal aliens” were also directed at these 18
larger groups 19
Particularly relevant is evidence that, in discussing the need for the challenged 20
action, the legislative body conflated the protected group (such as Latinos or Mexicans or 21
U.S.-citizen children of undocumented immigrants) with the ostensible target 22
(undocumented immigrants) of the legislation. In Magee, for example, the court found it 23
13 See, e.g., Gustavo Arellano, Heard Mentality, Phoenix New Times, vol. 32, issue 285 24 June 14, 2009 (“Schurman-Kauflin’s based her findings on a 2005 Government
Accountability Office survey that showed 2 percent of illegals in federal, local or state 25 prisons had committed a sex crime. She then applied that percentage to the illegal
immigrant population at large—voilà! Instant endemic perversity! This statistical sleight26 of-hand, however, withers by employing the very stats she uses. GAO data for 2003 (the
most recent year available) showed about 308,000 criminal aliens (legal as well as illegal 27 immigrants) were in American prisons; they constitute about 3 percent of the nation’s 12
million illegal immigrants. If only 2 percent of incarcerated illegals committed a sex 28 crime, then it’s intellectually misleading to arrive at the 240,000 figure.”) (Ex. B-37).
17

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 32 of 65
1 probative that one of the chief sponsors of the challenged legislation “conflated race and
2 immigration status,” and that such conflation was racial code supporting a finding of
3 discriminatory intent. 835 F. Supp. 2d at 1192; see also id. (discussing how other
4 supporters of the challenged legislation “frequently conflated illegal immigration and
5 Hispanics when discussing the ills to be remedied by [the law]”).
6 During the legislative proceedings on S.B. 1070, legislators frequently conflated
7 “Hispanic” or “Mexican” with “undocumented,” as if members of one of the former two
8 groups were necessarily members of the last. During a committee hearing, for example,
9 Senator Pearce asserted that Officer Martin had been murdered by undocumented
10 immigrants, and in an email Senator Pearce claimed that Officer Eggle had been killed by
11 undocumented immigrants. See Test. of Sen. Pearce, H. Military Affairs & Pub. Safety
12 Comm., Mar. 31, 2010 (Exs. C-3 at 4, E-14). Although there is evidence that Eggle was
13 killed by Mexicans, and Martin by a Latino, there is no basis to conclude that the
14 perpetrators were undocumented immigrants. See Huerta Decl. (Ex. G). Senator Pearce
15 made the same and other race- and national origin-based assumptions in asking his fellow
16 legislators to support SB 1070. Compare Email from Sen. Pearce dated June 30, 2009
17 (asserting that various individuals had been killed by undocumented immigrants) (Ex. E-
18 14) with Huerta Decl. (explaining that there is no evidence that several of the alleged
19 perpetrators mentioned by Senator Pearce were undocumented) (Ex. G).
20 Similarly, a draft letter to be signed by Senators Pearce and Karen Johnson, decried
21 “a huge protest march by 20,000 Hispanics,” asserting without any basis other than the
22 marchers’ race that “[m]ost of the protestors are not legal citizens, legal residents, or even
23 legal visitors in our country. They are illegal. They have no right to request or demand
24 anything.” Email from Sen. Pearce dated Apr. 6, 2006 (Ex. E-15)14. Pearce repeated his 25
race-based assumption several times over the years. See, e.g., Email from Sen. Pearce 26
14 See Yvonne Wingett and Susan Carrol, 20,000 in Phoenix Rally for Migrants, Ariz. 27 Republic, Mar. 25, 2006 (“Tens of thousands of Latinos marched up and down 24th Street
on Friday, protesting federal legislation that would criminalize undocumented 28 immigrants.”) (Ex. B-38).
18

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 33 of 65
1 dated May 26, 2009 (emailing an article about the arrests of Hispanic gang members with
2 the subject line: “Hundreds of Hispanic gang members arrested in L.A. for targeting Black
3 people (worse, is most of these Hispanic gang members are ILLEGAL aliens) Welcome to
4 the new United States of Mexico”) (Ex. E-16); Email from Sen. Pearce dated Feb. 15,
5 2009 (asserting that “vast majority” of Hispanic protesters were “illegal aliens”) (Ex. 17);
6 Email from Sen. Pearce dated June 20, 2006 (same) (Ex. E-18). In another email, Senator
7 Pearce asserted, inter alia: “I’m a racist because . . . I don’t want to be taxed to pay for a
8 prison population comprised of mainly Hispanics, Latinos, Mexicans or whatever else you
9 wish to call them . . . I object to having to pay higher sales tax and property tax to build
10 more schools for the illegitimate children of illegal aliens. . . [I] want to deny citizenship
11 to all anchor babies born in this country pre 2006 and here after . . . I object to corporation
12 and municipalities spending billions to translate everything in Spanish.” Email from Sen.
13 Pearce dated Dec. 14, 2006 (Ex. E-20).
14 An email from a member of Senator Karen Johnson’s staff to Senators Pearce and
15 Johnson is especially blatant in conflating race and “illegal” status: it reported that
16 “yesterday (Thursday) was the day that the landscapers come into my subdivision to cut
17 the grass and clean up the park. The crew has always been totally Hispanic. Yesterday
18 there were two men who were obviously NOT Hispanic –very white and very American
19 looking—like college kids. Hooray! It looks like the illegals are starting to depart.”
20 Email to Sens. Pearce & Johnson dated Jul. 6, 2007 (Ex. E-20).
21 Another example of this discriminatory conflation is the repeated claim of Senator
22 Al Melvin, who co-sponsored the bill, that “education, incarceration and medication” for
23 undocumented immigrants cost Arizona taxpayers $2 billion per year, referring to “well
24 documented” information on the Federation for American Immigration Reform’s
25 (“FAIR”) website.15 See Test. of Sen. Melvin, Final Reading of S.B. 1070, Sen. Floor, 26
Apr. 19, 2010 (Ex. C-6 at 15); Test. of Sen. Melvin, S. Pub. Safety & Human Serv. 27
15 Senator Pearce made a similar claim. See Email from Sen. Pearce to Legislators dated 28 June 30, 2009 (Ex. E-14).
19

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 34 of 65
1 Comm., Jan. 20, 2010 (Ex. C-1 at 9). But Senator Melvin did not acknowledge or explain
2 what had been pointed out publicly by others:16 that many of the “undocumented 3
immigrants” he blamed for costing Arizona taxpayers billions are in fact native-born 4
United States citizens. Indeed, the costs associated with educating U.S.-citizen children 5
constitute the majority of the total educational costs (60 percent of the total) Senator 6 Melvin cited. 17 See Jack Martin & Eric A. Ruark, Fed’n for Am. Immigration Reform, 7
The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers 45 (2010). 8
Moreover, Senator Melvin’s statistics also assume, without support, that a large majority 9
of English as a Second Language (“ESL”) students “may be assumed to be children of 10
either legal or illegal immigrants with a predominance of children of illegal aliens”—at 11 least in part because the fact that the native language of most ESL students is Spanish.18 12
See Jack Martin, Fed’n for Am. Immigration Reform, Limited English Proficiency 13 Enrollment and Rapidly Rising Costs 2 (2007); Martin & Ruark, supra, at 48.19 Thus, the 14
alleged “cost” of illegal immigration Melvin presented was premised, in significant part, 15
on assumptions about the immigration status of Spanish speakers, their parents, and the 16
cost of educating U.S. citizens. 17
As has been the case elsewhere, “the combination of a lack of evidence [supporting 18
16 See, e.g., Jim Small, Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce: Stemming Illegal 19 Immigration is Arizona’s Top Priority, Ariz. Capitol Times, Oct. 21, 2009 (Ex. B-39); see
also Terry Greene Sterling, Russell Pearce and Other Illegal-Immigration Populists Rely 20 on Misleading, Right-Wing Reports to Scapegoat Immigrants and to Terrify Penny-
Pinched Americans, Phoenix New Times, Dec. 2, 2010 (Ex. B-40). 21 17 FAIR has produced multiple reports on the alleged costs of undocumented immigrants
to Arizona over the last several years. See, e.g., http://www.fairus.org/issue/the-costs-to22 local-taxpayers-for-illegal-aliens; http://www.fairus.org/publications/the-costs-of-illegal-
immigration-to-arizonans-2004 (posting 2010 and 2004reports. Each of these documents 23 includes the costs associated with citizen children in costs of undocumented immigration.
18 This attack on the use of Spanish supports the inference that the Arizona legislature 24 considered Spanish to be a proxy for illegal immigrants and, by extension, Latinos. See
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 371-72 (1991); Garcia v. Gloor, 618 F.2d 264, 268 25 (5th Cir. 1980); Farm Labor Org. Comm. v. Ohio State Highway Patrol, 308 F.3d 523,
539-40 (6th Cir. 2002). 26 19 The conflation of U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants with undocumented 27 immigrants themselves suggests discriminatory intent against not just undocumented
immigrants, but also against a category of U.S. citizens based largely on their national 28 origin or ethnicity.
20

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 35 of 65
1 legislative assertions] and an assumption of unlawfulness applied to Latinos that is not
2 applied to other groups, especially when buttressed against evidence of the conflation of
3 Latino and ‘illegal immigrant,’ supports an inference of discrimination.” Magee, 835 F.
4 Supp. 2d at 1194 n.21.
5 iii. Legislators’ use of camouflaged racial language during the S.B.
6 1070 debate is evidence of discriminatory intent.
7 Comments by legislators directly expressing animus based on protected status are,
8 of course, rare, as “officials acting in their official capacities seldom, if ever, announce on
9 the record that they are pursuing a particular course of action because of their desire to
10 discriminate against a racial minority.” Smith v. Town of Clarkton, 682 F.2d 1055, 1064
11 (4th Cir. 1982). Courts therefore examine whether public officials have “camouflaged”
12 invidious intent by using code words from which, in context, one can infer a
13 discriminatory purpose. See, e.g., id. at 1066 (finding that statements about
14 “undesirables,” and concerns about personal safety due to “new” people were
15 “camouflaged racial expressions”); GNOFHAC II, 648 F. Supp. 2d at 811 (public officials
16 cited “influx of crime” and preserving “shared values” at public hearings, terms the court
17 held to be “camouflaged racial expressions”); Atkins v. Robinson, 545 F. Supp. 852, 874
18 (E.D. Va. 1982) (finding statement that she “feared the projects ‘would degenerate to
19 slum-like conditions, with an abundance of crime’” to be a veiled reference to race).20 The 20
Ninth Circuit, too, has noted that references to crime, “unless properly limited and 21
factually based, can easily serve as a proxy for race or ethnicity.” United States v. 22
Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000). 23
The legislative debate on S.B. 1070 was replete with racially coded language. 24
Senator Ron Gould, for example, spoke of the need to “protect” against “foreign 25
20 See also Rivera v. Inc. Vill. of Farmingdale, 784 F. Supp. 2d 133, 148-49 (E.D.N.Y. 26 2011) (mayoral candidate’s campaign materials blamed day laborers, a predominately
Latino group, for “increased gang activity,” and “overcrowding”); Mamaroneck, 462 F. 27 Supp. 2d at 549 (government officials stigmatized day laborers in public announcements,
asserting without any basis in fact that they were not residents and accusing them of 28 engaging in criminal activity).
21

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 36 of 65
1 invasion.”21 Test. of Sen. Gould, Final Reading of S.B. 1070, S. Floor Sess., Apr. 19, 2
2010 (Ex. C-6 at 17); see also Email from Sen. Pearce dated Jan. 17, 2006 (urging 3
recipients to “[p]lease forward … to all of your elected officials,” a column that asserts, 4
among other things, that Mexico President Vicente Fox is “more dangerous to America 5
than Saddam Hussein” because “Fox engineers the greatest invasion of another country 6
ever seen in the 20th and 21st centuries—without firing a shot.”) (Ex. E-21); Email from 7
Sen. Pearce dated Jan. 29, 2007 (“One look at Los Ang[e]les with its Mexican-American 8
mayor shows you Vicente Fox’s general Varigossa [sic] commanding an American city.”) 9
(Ex. E-8). Email from Sen. Pearce dated May 22, 2007 (email to fellow legislators, 10
inviting them to join him “in a coalition of Legislators for ‘Legal Immigration,’” and 11
including a “[g]ood article” that warns of “[a]n immigrant invasion of the United States 12
from the Third World, as America’s white majority is no longer even reproducing itself”) 13
(Ex. E-22). 14
Senator Huppenthal, for his part, asserted that “[w]e have seen parts of our 15
neighborhoods nuclear bombed by the effects of illegal immigration.” Test. of Sen. 16
Huppenthal, Final Reading of S.B. 1070, S. Floor Sess., Apr. 19, 2010 (Ex. C-6 at 11), see 17
also Email from Sen. Pearce dated Mar. 3, 2006 (forwarding an article that argued that 18
“Our sovereign nation is facing an overwhelming illegal alien invasion by an Hispanic 19
‘migrant army’ that has defied our immigration laws and sovereignty. The invasion of 20
America now totals 20 -23 million and rising. Of that number, 90% are Hispanics who 21
balkanize our cities and towns, and arrogantly corrupt our unifying national language 22
while actively disrespecting our culture, society and country! All this is being 23
accomplished while our complicit government shamelessly stands by blatantly ignoring 24
the anarchy, by allowing Mexico’s human tsunami of illegal aliens to lawlessly overrun 25
26 21 Leading up to S.B. 1070’s passage, Senator Gould also routinely spoke in the media 27 about immigration to Arizona as a “foreign invasion” or an “attack.” See, e.g., Alia Beard
Rau & Ginger Rough, Ariz. Lawmakers Pass Toughest Illegal Immigration Law in U.S., 28 Ariz. Republic, Apr. 19, 2010 (Ex. B-41).
22

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 37 of 65
1 America.”) (Ex. E-23).
2 Representative John Kavanagh, another sponsor of S.B. 1070, also spoke in racial
3 code when talking about the need for the day labor provisions. Specifically, he referred to
4 what he perceived to be the threat and discomfort of Arizona residents from seeing
5 “strange men” “walking around” to solicit work and likened day laborers to “hookers.”
6 Ariz. Capitol Television, Capitol Forum: Rep. Kavanagh Talks About SB 1070, June 21,
7 2010, available at http://vimeo.com/12740392 (“It causes massive disruption not only to
8 the street but to the communities. . . . Women were afraid to walk down the street. All
9 these strange men walking around. It’s a real problem. . . . I think most people recognize
10 that most of these people are illegal aliens. Legal residents don’t have to solicit labor on
11 the street like hookers.”).
12 iv. Statements of legislators who opposed S.B. 1070 further support a
13 finding of discriminatory intent.
14 Statements of legislators who opposed S.B. 1070–and the reactions of proponents–
15 are also relevant in assessing the discriminatory intent of the legislature. See, e.g., Greater
16 New Orleans Fair Hous. Action Ctr. v. St. Bernard Parish, 641 F. Supp. 2d 563, 570 (E.D.
17 La. 2009) (“GNOFHAC I”) (chairperson “who voted against the ordinance, said the
18 ordinance was racially motivated and was clearly intended to preserve the nearly all-
19 Caucasian demographic of the parish.”). During the debate on S.B. 1070, several
20 legislative opponents expressed strong views that S.B. 1070 would lead to racial profiling
21 and targeting of Latinos. See Test. of Rep. Patterson, Debate on S.B. 1070 in House, Apr.
22 13, 2010 (“We have many families in Arizona who are legal American citizens who speak
23 Spanish, who may not look American to some people in Arizona. This could lead to
24 profiling and it likely will in a way that I think could be very damaging to the very
25 relationships between the communities and law enforcement.”) (Ex. C-4 at 19); Test. of
26 Sen. Rios, Final Reading of S.B. 1070 in the Senate, Apr. 19, 2010, (stating that the bill
27 would “scapegoat a race of people”) (Ex. C-6 at 31); Test. of Sen. Aboud, Final Reading
28
23

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 38 of 65
1 of S.B. 1070 in the Senate, Apr. 19, 2010 (discussing the disproportionate burden on
2 Latinos who are likely to be targeted by S.B. 1070) (Ex. C-6 at 31-32); Test. of Sen.
3 Lopez, Final Reading of S.B. 1070 in the Senate, Apr. 19, 2010 (stating that SB 1070
4 “actually legalizes racial profiling” because law enforcement officers will rely on the
5 “color of that person’s skin and say ‘I have reasonable suspicion that this person is here
6 illegally’”) (Ex. C-6 at 33-34); see also Roberto Miranda, Ariz. Law Unfair to Latinos,
7 Hispanics, Daily 49er, May 2, 2010 (quoting Senator Richard Miranda as stating that S.B.
8 1070 “leads to a greater possibility of racial profiling. This is not just if you are Latino or
9 Hispanic—anyone of color may be subject to racial profiling”) (Ex. B-42).
10 v. Discriminatory statements by constituents and the public
11 influenced the legislative process and support a finding of
12 discriminatory intent.
13 Racially charged or racially coded statements made by constituents in the media or
14 during public hearings may also help to establish discriminatory intent, if there is evidence
15 that those statements influenced legislators. While “[p]rivate biases may be outside the
16 reach of the law, . . . the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect. ‘Public
17 officials sworn to uphold the Constitution may not avoid a constitutional duty by bowing
18 to the hypothetical effects of private racial prejudice that they assume to be both widely
19 and deeply held.’” Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984) (citation omitted); see
20 also City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 448 (1985) (“It is plain that
21 the electorate as a whole, whether by referendum or otherwise, could not order city action
22 violative of the Equal Protection Clause, and the [governmental body] may not avoid the
23 strictures of that Clause by deferring to the wishes or objections of some fraction of the
24 body politic.”) (citation omitted). Courts therefore consider relevant evidence that the
25 decision-making body considered and acted in response to discriminatory statements by
26 private individuals; here, too, courts will look for racially camouflaged statements. See,
27 e.g., Resident Advisory Bd. v. Rizzo, 564 F.2d 126, 144 (3d Cir. 1977) (inferring improper
28
24

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 39 of 65
1 racial motivation from city’s “sudden shift in . . . position from passive acceptance [of a
2 low-income housing project] to active opposition, in the face of protests by demonstrators
3 manifesting racial bias”); Rivera v. Inc. Vill. of Farmingdale, 784 F. Supp. 2d 133, 147-48
4 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (finding that plaintiffs established a prima facie case of intentional
5 discrimination in part based on citizens’ comments on Internet and public meetings
6 denigrating immigrants and blaming them for increased crime).22 7
There is ample evidence that S.B. 1070 was enacted in response to the 8
discriminatory demands of private individuals. During a public hearing on S.B. 1070, a 9
constituent who testified claimed that S.B. 1070 was necessary because Arizona was 10
suffering from an “invasion” of “illegal immigrants” and that unchecked immigration was 11
“importing a culture of corruption. It’s time to stop it. Enough is enough.” Test. of Rob 12
Haney, Maricopa Cty. Republican Party Chairman, Debate on S.B. 1070 in S. Pub. Safety 13
& Human Serv. Comm., Jan. 20, 2010 (Ex. C-1 at 38); see also Email from Sen. Pearce 14
dated Jan. 29, 2007 (email with subject line, “INVASION USA,” rebutting the “myth” that 15
“Mexico’s people love the USA, respect our language and the laws of our country” by 16
arguing “[c]orruption is a mechanism by which Mexico operates. Its people spawn more 17
corruption wherever they go because it is their only known way of life.”) (Ex. E-8). 18
Arizona legislators, supporters of S.B. 1070, also received constituent emails 19
around the time of the law’s consideration and passage urging them to take action to 20
reduce the growing Latino population in Arizona. Many of these emails to S.B. 1070’s 21
chief sponsor, Senator Pearce, also spoke in terms of an “invasion” of “illegals” or of a 22
“Mexican invasion.” See, e.g., Email to Sen. Pearce dated Mar. 16, 2011 (Ex. E-29); 23
24 22 See also GNOFHAC II, 648 F. Supp. 2d at 811-12 (finding public comments about increased crime and preserving “shared ‘value system’” “to be nothing more than
25 camouflaged racial expressions”); Anderson Gr., LLC v. City of Saratoga Springs, 557 F. Supp. 2d 332, 341 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (holding that discriminatory intent may be reasonably
26 inferred from evidence that governmental decision makers “bow[ed] to public opinion” and “discriminatory animus” of their constituents); Cmty. Hous. Trust v. Dep’t of
27 Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, 257 F. Supp. 2d 208, 227 (D.D.C. 2003) (finding challenged decision “tainted with discriminatory intent” due to reliance on discriminatory
28 citizen complaints).
25

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 40 of 65
1 Email to Sen. Pearce dated July 6, 2010 (Ex. E-25); Email to Sen. Pearce dated Apr. 28,
2 2010 (Ex. E-26); Email to Sen. Pearce dated Aug. 28, 2009 (Ex. E-27); Email to Sen.
3 Pearce dated Apr. 25, 2007 (Ex. E-28). Several of these emails used explicitly
4 discriminatory language. See, e.g., Email to Sen. Pearce dated Mar. 16, 2011 (“I do not
5 want to see our state and nation turned into a third world country”) (Ex. E-29); Email to
6 Sen. Pearce dated July 29, 2010 (“The country is at stake, in 50 years there will be no
7 white people living here, this is an out[]right assault against white people”) (Ex. E-30);
8 Email to Sen. Pearce dated July 2, 2010 (“If this invasion continues, it is just a matter of
9 time before . . . we will become a state in Mexico. . . . The filth, corruption disease and
10 death will become our heritage.”) (Ex. E-31); Email to Sen. Pearce dated Apr. 28, 2010
11 (“Our country is slowing [sic] dying and a new MEXICAN place is being born. Going
12 into J.C. Penny’s, K-Mart and even Wal-Mart and hearing Mexican music playing just
13 brings my blood to a boil.”) (Ex. E-26); Email to Sen. Pearce, Rep. Judy Burges, Rep.
14 Tom Boone, Sen. Jack Harper dated Apr. 22, 2010 (“Is this the United States of America
15 or Mexico? The opposition to SB 1070 by illegals is an outrage. . . . We want our country
16 back.” (Ex. E-32); Email to Sen. Pearce dated Apr. 20, 2010 (“[T]he City is turning into
17 Mexico . . . . I remember when Phoenix felt clean-Now it is dirty giving the appearance of
18 MEXICO big time!”) (Ex. E-33).
19 2. S.B. 1070’s Discriminatory Adverse Impact on Latinos and Mexican
20 Nationals Weighs in Favor of a Finding of Discriminatory Intent
21 “[I]mpact of an official action is often probative of why the action was taken in the
22 first place since people usually intend the natural consequences of their actions.” Reno v.
23 Bossier Parish Sch. Bd., 520 U.S. 471, 487 (1997) (citing Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at
24 266); see, e.g., Comm. Concerning Cmty. Improvement, 583 F.3d at 703-04 (relying on
25 Census data to conclude that plaintiffs presented evidence creating inference of
26 discriminatory intent); Magee, 835 F. Supp. 2d at 1188 (finding a disproportionate impact
27 of a similar anti-immigrant law in Alabama on Latinos who were over-represented in the
28
26

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 41 of 65
1 state’s non-citizen and undocumented populations). Courts also routinely consider the
2 foreseeability that the challenged action would have a discriminatory impact in
3 determining whether the legislature acted based on a discriminatory intent. United States
4 v. City of Birmingham, 538 F. Supp. 819, 828 (E.D. Mich. 1982) (“Courts will consider
5 evidence that a decision-making body took [a] certain action[] knowing it would have a
6 discriminatory effect.”), aff’d as modified, 727 F.2d 560 (6th Cir. 1984).
7 In passing S.B. 1070, legislators could foresee that enforcement of § 2(B) would
8 disproportionately harm Latinos and Mexican nationals in Arizona because both groups
9 make up a disproportionate share of the state’s foreign-born population and the state’s
10 undocumented population. According to the latest U.S. Census figures, approximately
11 67.5 percent of Arizona’s foreign-born population is from Latin America, and 29 percent
12 of the state’s total population is Latino. Preciado Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5 (Ex. F). The Department of
13 Homeland Security estimates that 59 percent of undocumented persons nationwide are
14 from Mexico. Id. ¶ 8. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that in 2008 over 90 percent of
15 unauthorized immigrants in the state were from Mexico. Id. ¶ 10.
16 In addition, there is clear evidence that the legislature enacted § 2(B) with the
17 understanding that it would not be applied in a racially neutral way. The legislature
18 enacted S.B. 1070 in the face of testimony and evidence that § 2(B)’s standard—
19 “reasonable suspicion” of unlawful presence—would lead to the profiling of Latinos and
20 those who appear Mexican. See Test. of Sen. Aboud, Final Reading of S.B. 1070 in the
21 Senate, Apr. 19, 2010 (Ex. C-6 at 31-32) (discussing the disproportionate burden on
22 Latinos who are likely to be targeted by S.B. 1070); Test. of Sen. Lopez, Final Reading of
23 S.B. 1070 in the Senate, Apr. 19, 2010 (stating that S.B. 1070 “actually legalizes racial
24 profiling” because law enforcement officers will rely on the “color of that person’s skin
25 and say, ‘I have reasonable suspicion that this person is here illegally’”) (Ex. C-6 at 33-
26 34); see also Villaseñor Decl. ¶¶ 3-7 (Ex. D) (law enforcement expert stating that § 2(B)
27 will force officers to rely on race and ethnicity and lead to accusations of racial profiling);
28
27

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 42 of 65
1 Gascón Decl. ¶¶ 18-20 (Doc. 235-6) (law enforcement expert stating that § 2(B) will
2 inevitably lead to lead to racial profiling); Gonzales Decl. ¶¶ 16-17 (Doc. 235-8) (same);
3 Granato Decl. ¶ 15 (Doc. 236) (same).
4 Moreover, the legislature explicitly intended § 2(B) to codify the practices of
5 Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and to require every other law enforcement agency in
6 the state to replicate his model of immigration enforcement. At the press conference held
7 on October 21, 2009 to introduce S.B. 1070, Senator Pearce—the law’s author and
8 principal sponsor—explained, together with Sheriff Arpaio himself, that S.B. 1070 would
9 restore Arpaio’s authority to enforce civil immigration law after the Department of
10 Homeland Security revoked its § 287(g) task force agreement with MCSO. See Press
11 Release, Sen. Pearce Demands End to Sanctuary City, ‘Catch and Release’ Policies, Oct.
12 21, 2009 (“Pearce points to the federal government and Secretary of Homeland Security
13 Janet Napolitano for trying to erode the progress made in Arizona with our tough and
14 effective laws.”) (Ex. B-12); id. (“Sheriff Joe Arpaio stated, ‘This new legislation is very
15 important given the fact that the federal government has moved to restrict my authority to
16 enforce illegal immigration laws. Their recent action in doing so makes this legislation
17 even more critical to ensure that state laws are in place so I can continue to do my job.’”);
18 see also Matthew Benson, Immigration Foes Pledge New Bill, Voter Initiative, Ariz.
19 Republic, Oct. 22, 2009, at B1 (Ex. B-13). Senator Pearce also held up Sheriff Arpaio’s
20 agency “as a model for what law enforcement should be doing.” Editorial, Resist
21 Stampede to State Mandates for Immigration Enforcement, Trib. (Mesa, Ariz.), Oct. 23,
22 2009 (Ex. B-14). Senator Pearce similarly, and repeatedly, linked S.B. 1070 with the
23 Arpaio approach to immigration enforcement in emails seeking the support of his fellow
24 legislators.23 25
26 23 For example, in a June 30, 2009 email asking his fellow legislators to support his 27 forthcoming legislation, Senator Pearce held up Sheriff Arpaio and the MCSO as a model,
personally thanking “Sheriff Joe” and asserting that Arpaio and MCSO “have a proven 28 track record of enforcing our immigration laws and not caving in to political correctness.”
28

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 43 of 65

1 Yet as Senator Pearce and the entire Arizona legislature knew, Arpaio’s actions—
2 particularly his immigration enforcement initiatives, which S.B. 1070 was designed to
3 preserve and expand statewide—had spawned numerous federal investigations,24 4 lawsuits,25 and countless complaints and media stories26 regarding racial profiling and 5

6 Email from Sen. Pearce dated June 30, 2009 (Ex. E-14). Around the same time, Pearce

7 sent another email that again praised the MCSO, this time to rebut the charge that his bill could lead to racial profiling. See also Email to Sen. Pearce dated July 14, 2009

8 (forwarding an email written or forwarded by Pearce) (Ex. E-6) (arguing that the citizen

9

suit provision contained in what became SB 1070 § 2(H) was necessary “to hold elected officials personally accountable for their continued refusal to cooperate with federal

10 immigration laws,” and asserting that Sheriff Arpaio would not object to that provision,

“because he DOES enforce immigration laws under the 287(g)”). As a result of Senator 11 Pearce’s lobbying—which, as mentioned, explicitly invoked “Sheriff Joe” as a model—26

12 state representatives and 11 state senators acceded to his request to endorse S.B. 1070. See Press Release, Sen. Pearce Demands End to Sanctuary City, “Catch and Release Policies,”

13 Oct. 21, 2009 (Ex. B-12). 24 See, e.g., Daniel Gonzalez, Feds Investigate Arpaio, Ariz. Republic, Mar. 11, 2009
14 (“The U.S. Justice Department has launched a civil-rights investigation of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office after months of mounting complaints that deputies are
15 discriminating in their enforcement of federal immigration laws.”) (Ex. B-15); Paul Giblin & Ryan Gabrielson, Third Federal Probe Launched into Sheriff’s Office: ICE to Audit
16 Immigration Enforcement Efforts, Trib. (Mesa, Ariz.), Sept. 12, 2008 (Ex. B-16) (“ICE joins the Government Accountability Office and the FBI in examining the sheriff's
17 immigration enforcement practices.”); see also Press Release, Dep’t of Justice, Department of Justice Releases Investigative Findings on the Maricopa County Sheriff’s
18 Office (Dec. 15, 2011) (reporting that the DOJ “found reasonable cause to believe that [MCSO engaged in a] pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct and/or violations of
19 federal law, including: Discriminatory policing practices including unlawful stops, detentions and arrests of Latinos; . . . [and] Discriminatory jail practices against Latino
20 inmates with limited English proficiency”) (Ex. B-17); Press Release, Dep’t of Justice, Department of Justice Files Lawsuit in Arizona Against Maricopa County, Maricopa
21 County Sheriff’s Office, and Sheriff Joseph Arpaio (May 11, 2012) (Ex. B-18). 25 See, supra note 5.
22 26 See, e.g., Stephen Lemons, One Mother’s Suffering, Joe Arpaio’s Bigotry, and Stories of Racial Profiling by the MCSO, Phoenix New Times Blog, Oct. 15, 2009 (introducing “a
23 sequence of online profiles” of those racially profiled by the MCSO’s Office) (Ex. B-19); Ryan Gabrielson & Paul Giblin, Reasonable Doubt—Tribune Investigates Sheriff’s
24 Immigration Campaign: At What Cost?, Trib. (Mesa, Ariz.), July 9, 2008 (reporting, as part of a five-day investigative report, that “[t]he sheriff’s ‘saturation’ patrols and ‘crime
25 suppression/anti-illegal immigration’ sweeps in Hispanic neighborhoods are done without any evidence of criminal activity, violating federal regulations intended to prevent racial
26 profiling.”) (Ex. B-20); Civil-Rights Panel Aims at Sheriff, Ariz. Republic, Dec. 27, 2008, at B1 (“[The Arizona Civil Rights Advisory Board] is recommending that, because of
27 racial-profiling complaints, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors end a contract with the federal government that allows the county Sheriff's Office to enforce immigration
28 laws.”) (Ex. B-21).

29

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 44 of 65
1 other forms of discrimination against Latinos. Indeed, the revocation of MCSO’s 287(g)
2 task force agreement—the very development that S.B. 1070 was intended to supersede—
3 followed the federal Department of Justice’s opening of an investigation into racial
4 profiling by MCSO and DHS’s determination that “the manner in which [MCSO]
5 conducted those sweeps was not consistent with good coordination and cooperation within
6 the communities they were operating within.” Jeremy Duda, Immigration and Customs
7 Enforcement: If Sheriff Arpaio Continues Sweeps, It will be Under State, Not Federal,
8 Law, Ariz. Capitol Times, Oct. 16, 2009 (Ex. B-22). Thus, there is substantial evidence
9 not only that S.B. 1070, and § 2(B) in particular, will have a discriminatory impact, but
10 that it was also enacted with knowledge and intent that it would operate in a
11 discriminatory manner.
12 3. The Historical Background and Events Leading Up to the Passage of
13 S.B. 1070 Demonstrate Its Racial and Anti-Mexican Animus.
14 A historical background of discriminatory conduct against a protected group helps
15 to establish discriminatory intent, “particularly if it reveals a series of official actions taken
16 for invidious purposes.” Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 267; Mamaroneck, 462 F. Supp.
17 2d at 548 (village had been historically tolerant of day laborers until laborer population
18 shifted from Caucasian to Latinos); Greater New Orleans Fair Hous. Action Ctr. v. St.
19 Bernard Parish, No. 06cv7185, 2011 WL 4915524, at *3 (E.D. La. Oct. 17, 2011)
20 (predominantly Caucasian Parish took multiple measures over six years to prevent the
21 development of multi-unit housing).27 22
27 See also Keyes v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 413 U.S. 189, 207 (1973) (“The prior doing of other 23 similar acts, whether clearly a part of a scheme or not, is useful as reducing the possibility
that the act in question was done with innocent intent.” (internal quotation omitted)); 24 White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 765-67 (1973) (holding that the “totality of
circumstances,” including Texas’s long history of discrimination against African25 Americans and Latinos in the political process, demonstrated that the election scheme was
“used invidiously” to dilute minority voting strength); GNOFHAC II, 648 F. Supp. 2d at 26 809-10 (citing specific councilmembers previous introduction of ordinances that would
have had or did have a racially disparate impact and that apparently were motivated, at 27 least in part, by racial animus, as demonstrated by the pretextual justifications given for
those measures). Although some of the cases cited herein brought intentional 28 discrimination claims under the Fair Housing Act, rather than the Equal Protection Clause,
30

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 45 of 65
1 S.B. 1070 was one of numerous recent bills introduced in the Arizona legislature
2 that target Latinos and individuals of Mexican origin. All of these efforts have been led by
3 Senator Pearce, the chief architect and sponsor of S.B. 1070.28 In 2005, the legislature 4
passed S.B. 1167, which would have made English the official language of the state and 5 “protect[ed] the rights of persons in [Arizona] who use English.”29 Although vetoed by 6
then-Governor Janet Napolitano, Pearce was successful in placing the measure on the 7
ballot, where it was approved by the Arizona electorate. See Ariz. Dep’t of State, 2006 8
Ballot Propositions - Proposition 103, available at 9
http://www.azsos.gov/election/2006/info/pubpamphlet/english/Prop103.htm. 10
The English-only measure was aimed at one particular language: Spanish. See 11
Daniel Gonzalez, Study Rebuts Perceptions of Migrants’ English Use, Ariz. Republic, 12
Dec. 9, 2008 (“[Senator Pearce] said he believes a surge of Spanish-speaking immigrants 13 threatens to turn Arizona into a bilingual state.”) (Ex. B-23).30 As courts have long 14
recognized, actions targeting Spanish can be a pretext for discrimination due to the “close 15
connection between the Spanish language and a specific ethnic community.” Farm Labor 16
Org. Com. v. Ohio State Highway Patrol, 308 F.3d 523, 539-40 (6th Cir. 2002); see also 17
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 371 (1991) (explaining that “for certain ethnic 18
groups and in some communities, proficiency in a particular language, like skin color, 19
should be treated as a surrogate for race” under a discriminatory intent analysis); Gloor, 20
618 F.2d at 268 (“Language may be used as a covert basis for national origin 21
22 the same factors are used to assess either claim. See, e.g., Magee, 835 F. Supp. 2d at 1185-94.
23 28 See Email from Pearce dated May 17, 2011 (“I am State Senator Russell Pearce the author of SB1070 and almost every other bill in this state to deal with ‘illegal’
24 immigration and am a national leader in this issue.”) (Ex. E-7). 29 S.B. 1167, 47 Leg., Sess. (Ariz. 2005), available at
25 azleg.state.az.us/legtext/47leg/1r/bills/sb1167h.htm. 30 Proposition 103 was Arizona’s second attempt to target Spanish speakers. In 1988, the
26 voters passed Proposition 106, a constitutional amendment establishing English as the official state language and requiring state employees to use English only in their jobs. In
27 1998, the Arizona Supreme Court struck down Proposition 106 as violative of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Ruiz v.
28 Hull, 191 Ariz. 441, para. 70 (1998).
31

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 46 of 65
1 discrimination.”). Moreover, there is direct evidence that the Arizona legislature
2 generally, and Senator Pearce specifically, targeted the use of Spanish as a surrogate for
3 race and national origin. See Email from Sen. Pearce dated Jan. 29, 2007 (rebutting the
4 “myth” that “Mexico’s people . . . respect our language” and comparing the importation of
5 Spanish speakers to “importing leper colonies and hop[ing] we don’t catch leprosy”) (Ex.
6 E-8); cf. Email from Sen. Pearce dated Apr. 24, 2006 (sharing an article that asserts part of
7 “destroy[ing] America” are celebrating bilingualism, with the aim of turning the United
8 States into “an ‘Hispanic Quebec’”) (Ex. E-9).
9 In 2010, during the same session in which S.B. 1070 was passed, the Arizona
10 legislature passed HB 2281, a bill that financially penalizes primary and secondary schools
11 if they provide “any courses or classes that ‘promote resentment toward a race or class of
12 people,’ ‘are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group,’ or ‘advocate
13 ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.’”31 Although worded 14
neutrally, the so-called “ethnic studies ban” was aimed at one course: the Mexican15
American Studies program of the Tucson Unified School District. See Nicole Santa Cruz, 16
Arizona Ethnic Studies Ban OKd as Law, L.A. Times, May 12, 2010 (indicating that then17
state Superintendent Horne said the intent of the bill was to target the Mexican American 18
studies program) (Ex. B-24); Marc Lacey, Rift in Arizona as Latino Class is Found Illegal, 19
N.Y. Times, Jan. 7, 2011 (same) (Ex. B-25); Mary Jo Pitzl, Ban on Ethnic Studies Passes, 20
Arizona Republic, May 1, 2010 (same) (Ex. B-28). State Superintendent John 21
Huppenthal—who served as a state senator until the beginning of 2011 and voted for HB 22
2281’s passage—admitted that the law’s target was the Mexican American studies 23
program in Tucson, and further admitted that this program is the only one to have been 24
investigated for violation of HB 2281 by his department during his term as Superintendent. 25
Huppenthal Dep. at 11, 13, Acosta v. Huppenthal, No. 4:10-cv-00623-AWT (D. Ariz. 26
filed Dec. 14, 2011) (ECF No. 125-1). 27
31 H.B. 2281, 48th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2010), available at 28 www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2281s.pdf.
32

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 47 of 65
1 As Senator Pearce explained in an email responding to a constituent complaint
2 about the then-pending measure, the “ethnic studies ban” was necessary to prevent “tax
3 dollars . . . being used to teach hateful anti American rhetoric in our American publicly
4 funded schools.” Email from Sen. Pearce dated Dec. 21, 2008 (Ex. E-10). Senator Pearce
5 enclosed in his email an overtly jingoistic article warning that Mexican American studies
6 programs are a slippery slope toward the realization of Atzlán—i.e., the retaking (or
7 “Reconquista”) of the American Southwest by Hispanics, particularly Mexicans. Id.
8 (“[T]he Mexican government has embraced the concept of ‘demographic warfare,’ a
9 reconquering of the southwestern United States through unchecked illegal immigration
10 and by exporting its ‘surplus poverty’ to regain control.”). The anti-Latino and anti-
11 Mexican animus animating HB 2281 is deep and self-evident.
12 Arizona’s anti-Mexican and anti-Latino animus is not new; the state, unfortunately,
13 has a long history of such discrimination. See Mary Romero & Marwah Serag, Violation
14 of Latino Civil Rights Resulting from INS and Local Police’s Use of Race, Culture and
15 Class Profiling: the Case of the Chandler Roundup in Arizona, 52 Clev. St. L. Rev. 75
16 (2004). Indeed, this history of discrimination against Latinos in Arizona has been
17 established in recent federal court litigation. See Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th
18 Cir. 2012) (en banc) (noting that the district court found, in the context of a claim under
19 Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, “that Latinos had suffered a history of discrimination
20 in Arizona that hindered their ability to participate in the political process fully, that there
21 were socioeconomic disparities between Latinos and whites in Arizona, and
22 that Arizona continues to have some degree of racially polarized voting.”).32 This history 23
32 As Judge Pegerson notes, this history includes: “de jure discrimination against Latinos 24 in Arizona [that] existed during most of the twentieth century. Just prior to 1910, Arizona
voters passed a literacy law that explicitly targeted Mexicans and disqualified non-English 25 speakers from voting in state elections. As late as the 1960s, these literacy requirements
were a precondition for voting in Arizona. After Arizona attained statehood in 1912, the 26 new state government engaged in an anti-immigrant campaign characterized by a series of
proposals aimed at restricting the political rights of Mexican immigrants' and limiting their 27 right to work. The new Arizona constitution restricted non-citizens from working on
public projects. In 1914, the Arizona legislature enacted the “eighty percent law,” which 28 stated that eighty percent of the employees in businesses that had five or more employees
33

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 48 of 65
1 is also relevant to the Arlington Heights analysis. See White, 412 U.S. at 765-69 (holding
2 that the “totality of circumstances,” including Texas’s long history of discrimination
3 against African-Americans and Latinos in the political process, demonstrated that the
4 election scheme was “used invidiously” to dilute minority voting strength); Hunter, 471
5 U.S. at 229 (considering evidence that “the Alabama Constitutional Convention of 1901
6 was part of a movement that swept the post-Reconstruction South to disenfranchise
7 blacks”). It is especially relevant here because Senator Pearce, in advocating for his anti-
8 immigrant measures, has explicitly invoked that history of discrimination, for example, by
9 calling for a reinstatement of the controversial “Operation Wetback” program, which
10 targeted Mexicans for deportation. See Sarah Lynch, Pearce Calls for Deportations: Mesa
11 Policymaker Advocates ‘50s Policy for Dealing with Illegals, Mesa Trib., Sept. 29, 2006
12 (Ex. B-27).33 13
4. S.B. 1070 Departs Substantively from Established Practice. 14
Under Arlington Heights, the Court should consider whether S.B. 1070 constituted 15
a substantial departure from established practice; such departures are evidence of 16
discriminatory intent. “Substantive departures exist when ‘factors usually considered 17
important by the decision-maker strongly favor a decision contrary to the one reached.” 18
Magee, 835 F. Supp. 2d at 1186 (quoting Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 267). Evidence 19
that a decision-making body’s challenged conduct does not further its own interests 20
supports a finding of discriminatory intent. GNOFHAC I, 641 F. Supp. 2d at 574. 21
Section 2(B) radically departs from the legislature’s usual deference to law 22
enforcement—removing discretion from officers in the field by requiring them to 23
investigate immigration status rather than focusing on criminal violations that threaten 24
public safety. Section 2(B) is unprecedented. No previous statute has required law 25
26 had to be “native-born citizens of the United States.” Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012) (Pregerson, J. concurring and dissenting in part).
27 33 Constituent emails to Arizona government officials have also suggested a new “Operation Wetback.” See, e.g., Email to Gov. Brewer & Sen. Pearce dated Apr. 21, 2010
28 (Ex. E-11); Email to Sen. Pearce dated Jul. 9, 2007 (Ex. E-12).
34

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 49 of 65
1 enforcement officers to consider any particular fact or status about individuals whom they
2 stop or detain in the regular course of their duties. Villaseñor Decl. ¶ 6 (Ex. D). Doing so
3 conflicts with Arizona’s general policy of providing law enforcement an appropriate
4 measure of discretion in investigating and enforcing Arizona’s laws. Id. Indeed, not only
5 does S.B. 1070 limit law enforcement’s discretion generally, it redirects their efforts away
6 from areas that the legislature generally prioritizes for law enforcement: investigating and
7 dealing with crimes under Arizona law, particularly those that threaten public safety. Id. ¶
8 2. See also Villaseñor Decl. ¶¶ 2, 5-6, Ex. 9 to Plf’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., United States v.
9 Arizona, No. CV10-1413-PHX-SRB (D. Az. July 6, 2010); Jack Harris Decl. ¶¶ 2, 5, Ex.
10 10 to Plf’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Arizona (D. Az. July 6, 2010); Tony Estrada Decl. ¶ 5,
11 Ex. 8 to Plf’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Arizona, (D. Az. July 6, 2010).
12 Moreover, the Arizona legislature took the additional radical step of authorizing the
13 state’s residents to enforce S.B. 1070 through civil lawsuits. S.B. 1070 § 2(H). To
14 Plaintiffs’ knowledge, there is no comparable cause of action against law enforcement
15 officials for failing to enforce a state-law provision in any other Arizona statute, and this
16 provision will further impinge on law enforcement’s ability to apply their own
17 professional judgment to situations they encounter in the field. Indeed, law enforcement
18 officers have reacted particularly strongly to this provision, expressing significant
19 concerns about the potential for lawsuits and the nearly impossible task of defending
20 against assertions that their officers acted improperly in not finding requisite “reasonable
21 suspicion” to trigger the immigration status check required by § 2(B). Villaseñor Decl. ¶¶
22 4,5,7 (Ex. D); see also Tim Gaynor, Arizona Police See “Difficulties” Enforcing
23 Immigration Law, Reuters, Jun. 26, 2012 (“[P]olice chiefs in Arizona are concerned that
24 requiring officers to make a ‘reasonable’ attempt to determine a suspect’s status could lead
25 to potentially ruinous litigation from both supporters and opponents of the law.”) (Ex. B-
26 43).
27 Relatedly, the potential fines that could result from such litigation threaten law
28
35

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 50 of 65
1 enforcement agencies’ ability to control their own purses. A representative and lobbyist
2 for the Arizona Association of Police Chiefs has stressed that “the fallout from such a fine
3 could be financially devastating for smaller municipalities.” See, e.g., Mike Sakal, Police
4 Unions: Immigration Bill Taxes Officers, Tribune (Mesa, Ariz.), Apr. 18, 2010 (“[S.B.
5 1070] also allows people to file lawsuits against police agencies they believe are lax in
6 enforcing their immigration obligations to the fullest extent permitted by federal law.
7 Municipalities also could be fined between $1,000 to $5,000 per day”) (Ex. B-44);
8 Villaseñor Decl., filed July 6, 2010, ¶ 8 (noting that because the clock on SB 1070’s
9 $5,000 per day fee begins upon a lawsuit’s filing, and because in Arizona, a lawsuit may
10 be served up to 120 days after filing, a city could incur $600,000 in fines before even
11 being served).
12 * * *
13 As discussed above, the evidence on this motion establishes that racial and national
14 origin discrimination was a “substantial” or “motivating” factor behind the enactment of
15 the S.B.1070, and § 2(B) in particular, and it is likely that Plaintiffs will be able to prevail
16 on this claim at trial, after merits discovery. Of course, the Court can also issue a
17 preliminary injunction based on equal protection if it finds Plaintiffs have raised “serious
18 questions going to the merits,” and have demonstrated that a balance of hardships tips
19 sharply in their favor. See Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1135 (citation
20 omitted). Under either standard, a preliminary injunction of § 2(B) on equal protection
21 grounds is warranted.
22 C. Plaintiffs Are Substantially Likely to Prevail on Their Claim That
23 A.R.S. § 13-2929 Is Preempted by Federal Law
24 In Arizona, the Supreme Court struck down both state criminal provisions of S.B.
25 1070 that were before the Court: the § 3 state registration crime and the § 5(C) state crime
26 penalizing unauthorized work. Slip op. at 11, 15. Plaintiffs address here another provision
27 of § 5, A.R.S. § 13-2929, that likewise creates a new state crime based on alleged
28
36

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 51 of 65
1 violations of federal immigration law—specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1324, the federal harboring
2 statute. Although this Court previously declined to enjoin A.R.S. § 13-2929 in the federal
3 government’s case, the federal government’s challenge was based only on the dormant
4 commerce clause and the claim that § 13-2929 amounts to a regulation of immigration.34 5
Moreover, at the time that it ruled on the federal motion, the Court did not have the benefit 6
of the Supreme Court’s subsequent elucidation of the relevant preemption doctrine when it 7
decided the motion. 8
Plaintiffs now respectfully request that the Court preliminarily enjoin § 13-2929 on 9
the grounds of field and conflict preemption. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona and 10 other precedents make it clear that § 13-2929 is invalid on these grounds.35 Indeed, after 11
the Court dismissed the United States’ challenge to § 13-2929 on other grounds, but before 12
the Arizona decision, three separate federal district courts have preliminarily enjoined 13
similar state transporting and harboring laws on the bases of conflict and/or field 14
preemption. Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Deal, 793 F. Supp. 2d 1317, 15
1336 (N.D. Ga. 2011 (hereinafter, “GLAHR”), appeal pending, No. 11-13044-FF (11th 16
Cir.); United States v. Alabama, 813 F. Supp. 2d 1282, 1336 (N.D. Ala. 2011), appeal 17
pending, Nos. 11-14532, 11-14674 (11th Cir.); United States v. South Carolina, Nos. 2:1118
cv-2958, 2:11-cv-2779, 2011 WL 6973241, at *22 (D.S.C. Dec. 22, 2011), appeal 19
pending, No. 12-1096 (4th Cir.). 20
The Court should enjoin A.R.S. § 13-2929 because—like § 3—it intrudes in a field 21
that the federal government has fully occupied, and because—like § 5(c) —it conflicts 22
with the purposes and objectives of the relevant federal law, criminalizes more conduct 23
24 34 See United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980, 1002-04 (D. Ariz. 2010) (finding United States was unlikely to succeed in arguing that § 13-2929 was an impermissible
25 regulation of immigration or that it violated the dormant commerce clause). The preemption challenges that Plaintiffs present here are fundamentally distinct from the
26 government’s challenge. Plaintiffs raise separate preemption challenges—that A.R.S. § 13-2929 impermissibly legislates in a field that has been fully occupied by Congress, and
27 that it conflicts with the federal statutes concerning transporting and harboring. Opp. to Mot. to Dismiss at 19-21 (Doc. 314).
28 35 The legality of A.R.S. § 13-2929 was not before the Supreme Court in Arizona.
37

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 52 of 65
1 than its federal counterpart, and imposes additional penalties beyond those approved by
2 the federal scheme.
3 I. A.R.S. § 13-2929 Is Field Preempted
4 The Supreme Court struck down § 3 of S.B. 1070 because federal law occupies the
5 alien registration field. Arizona, slip op. at 9-11. Similarly, Congress has occupied the
6 alien harboring field by enacting 8 U.S.C. § 1324, which is an integral part of Congress’s
7 comprehensive immigration law. GLAHR v. Deal, 793 F. Supp. 2d 1317, 1336 (N.D. Ga.
8 2011) (finding that a similar provision under Georgia’s law “imposes additional criminal
9 laws on top of a comprehensive federal scheme”); South Carolina, 2011 WL 6973241, at
10 *13 (8 U.S.C. § 1324 is part of federal scheme “so pervasive that it left no room in this
11 area for the state to supplement it.”).
12 Congress has enacted “a uniform, comprehensive scheme of sanctions,” both “for
13 those who unlawfully enter the United States” and “for third parties who aid the entry and
14 stay of those who unlawfully enter.” Alabama, 813 F. Supp. 2d at 1330-31(citing and
15 summarizing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1323, 1324, and 1327). These provisions prohibit the knowing
16 attempt to bring a person into the United States “at a place other than a designated port of
17 entry or place other than as designated by the [Secretary of Homeland Security],” 8 U.S.C.
18 § 1324(a)(1)(A)(i), and impose criminal penalties on anyone who, “knowing or in reckless
19 disregard of the fact” that a person has unlawfully entered or remained in the United
20 States, attempts to “transport or move” the person within the United States “in furtherance
21 of such violation of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii).
22 The provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324 have broad preemptive effect. See South
23 Carolina, 2011 WL 6973241, at *13; Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers
24 Branch, 701 F. Supp. 2d 835, 858-59 (N.D. Tex. 2010) (holding that § 1324 preempts city
25 ordinance forbidding rental of housing to unauthorized immigrants), aff’d, 675 F.3d 802
26 (5th Cir. 2012); Garrett v. City of Escondido, 465 F. Supp. 2d 1043, 1056 (S.D. Cal. 2006)
27 (same).
28
38

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 53 of 65
1 The Supreme Court recognized that Congress authorized state and local
2 involvement in immigration enforcement only in specific, limited circumstances, including
3 through 8 U.S.C. § 1324(c), which provides “authority to arrest” for violations of the
4 federal harboring statute. Arizona, slip op. at 17 (emphasis added). The Court made clear,
5 however, that states may not exceed such specific authorizations. Id. at 19; see also
6 Alabama, 813 F. Supp. 2d at 1333-34 (noting that in this area there is no savings clause
7 that might authorize state activity such as the one at issue in Chamber of Commerce of
8 U.S. v. Whiting, 563 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1968 (2011)). In A.R.S. § 13-2929 Arizona goes
9 well beyond what Congress authorized with respect to harboring—arrest for the federal
10 crime—by creating its own state criminal scheme.
11 Arizona explains that a state law allowing states to prosecute and punish alleged
12 federal immigration violations fundamentally conflicts with Congress’s reservation of
13 “broad discretion” over immigration enforcement to federal officials. Slip op. at 4-5. As
14 with alien registration, in the area of the inducement, transportation, and harboring of
15 noncitizens, the “federal statutory directives provide a full set of standards” that were
16 “designed as a ‘harmonious whole.’” Id. at 10 (quoting Hines, 312 U.S. at 72). And as in
17 the registration field, “[p]ermitting the State to impose its own penalties for the federal
18 offenses here would conflict with the careful framework Congress adopted.” Id. at 11.
19 “[T]he State would have the power to bring criminal charges against individuals for
20 violating a federal law even in circumstances where federal officials in charge of the
21 comprehensive scheme determine that prosecution would frustrate federal policies.” Id.
22 For these reasons, even if A.R.S. § 13-2929 were identical to the federal harboring
23 law, which it is not, it would be field preempted.
24 a. A.R.S. § 13-2929 Is Conflict Preempted
25 Within the past year, three federal courts have enjoined state harboring, inducing,
26 and transporting statutes similar to § 13-2929 on conflict preemption grounds. Alabama,
27 813 F. Supp. 2d at 1334-36; South Carolina, 2011 WL 6973241, at *13; GLAHR, 793 F.
28
39

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 54 of 65
1 Supp. 2d at 1335-36. A.R.S. § 13-2929 is similarly conflict preempted. Specifically,
2 A.R.S. § 13-2929 undermines the congressional scheme by adding additional penalties to
3 existing federal crimes; relocating decision-making regarding the interpretation and
4 prosecution of these crimes from the federal government to the state without ensuring
5 uniformity; and criminalizing conduct the federal government chose not to sanction.
6 Arizona’s harboring provisions are enforced by state police and prosecutors and
7 interpreted by state judges, not by their federal counterparts, and decisions about when to
8 charge a person or what penalty to seek are no longer under federal control. A.R.S. § 13-
9 2929 permits the state to prosecute and impose additional penalties on individuals whom
10 the federal government has elected not to charge, or those who have already been federally
11 charged and sentenced by a federal court. Thus, A.R.S. § 13-2929 authorizes state officers
12 to “use an iron fist where the President has consistently chosen kid gloves.” Am. Ins.
13 Ass’n v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396, 427 (2003). The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution
14 does not permit states to make that decision. See Arizona, slip op. at 11 (“Permitting the
15 State to impose its own penalties for the federal offenses here would conflict with the
16 careful framework Congress adopted”). Such state regulation would “disrupt this
17 comprehensive federally controlled immigration enforcement scheme by placing state
18 prosecutors in control of enforcement efforts under [the South Carolina provisions] and
19 permitting state judges to interpret the harboring and transporting statutes.” South
20 Carolina, 2011 WL 6973241, at *12.
21 Of particular relevance here, in Arizona the Supreme Court rejected as
22 “unpersuasive on its own terms” the argument that a “provision [that] has the same aim as
23 federal law and adopts its substantive standards” must survive preemption. Slip op. at 10-
24 11; see also id. at 15 (“Although § 5(C) attempts to achieve one of the same goals as
25 federal law . . . it involves a conflict in the method of enforcement”); see also Crosby v.
26 Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 379 (2000) (even if a state law shares the
27 same goals as the federal law, “[t]he fact of a common end hardly neutralizes conflicting
28
40

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 55 of 65
1 means”). Under A.R.S. § 13-2929, Arizona may decide to charge an individual over
2 whom the federal government has exercised its discretion not to prosecute. Likewise,
3 Arizona prosecutors may pile additional penalties on top of a federal sentence under 8
4 U.S.C. § 1324, effectively increasing the penalty carefully calibrated by Congress and the
5 federal justice system. “[T]his state framework of sanctions creates a conflict with the
6 plan Congress put in place.” Arizona, slip op. at 11 (citing Wisc. Dept. of Indus., Labor &
7 Human Relations v. Gould Inc., 475 U.S. 282, 286 (1986), for the proposition that
8 “conflict is imminent whenever two separate remedies are brought to bear on the same
9 activity” (internal quotation marks omitted)). By imposing different and additional
10 penalties, A.R.S. § 13-2929 impermissibly “undermines the congressional calibration of
11 force.” Crosby, 530 U.S. at 380.
12 In addition, Arizona emphasizes that a small inconsistency between federal and
13 state laws relating to immigration creates additional conflicts. Slip op. at 11 (SB 1070 § 3
14 conflicts because it creates “an inconsistency between [state] and federal law with respect
15 to penalties” by ruling out probation and pardon). A.R.S. § 13-2929 presents an even
16 more severe conflict than the Arizona criminal provisions considered by the Supreme
17 Court because, in addition to potentially imposing different penalties, it prohibits a
18 different (and broader) range of conduct than the federal harboring law. A.R.S. § 13-2929
19 punishes encouraging or inducing undocumented individuals to come to, enter, or reside in
20 the state of Arizona whether or not individuals enter Arizona from another state or another
21 country. The federal statute, in contrast, does not criminalize actions with respect to
22 entering Arizona from another state. See GLAHR, 793 F. Supp. 2d at 1334 (noting
23 Georgia’s provision was not identical to federal law because the state law prohibited
24 “knowingly inducing, enticing, or assisting illegal aliens to enter Georgia” whereas
25 “[o]nce in the United States, it is not a federal crime to induce an illegal alien to enter
26 Georgia from another state”); Alabama, 813 F. Supp. 2d at 1334 (same).
27 Additionally, federal criminal harboring sanctions are not directed at unlawfully
28
41

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 56 of 65
1 present individuals themselves or at incidental or innocent contact, while A.R.S. § 13-2929
2 permits Arizona to target such persons and behavior for prosecution and imprisonment.36 3
Congress chose not to penalize unauthorized immigrants’ presence or movement within 4
the country or across state lines unless other factors are present, and the federal 5
immigration laws do not penalize transportation of these individuals in such situations. 6
See Alabama, 813 F. Supp. 2d at 1334 (noting that “the corresponding federal provision in 7
8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) . . . does not extend to the smuggled or transported alien.”); 8
South Carolina, 2011 WL 6973241, at *15 (finding that state law making it a crime for 9
“an unlawfully present person to allow himself or herself to be ‘transported or moved’ 10
within the state or to be harbored or sheltered to avoid apprehension or detection” was 11
preempted in part because “[t]here is no comparable federal statute, and it appears that this 12
provision is unique in American law.”). Thus, A.R.S. § 13-2929 is broader than its federal 13
counterpart because it criminalizes more activity than the federal statute intended, in clear 14
conflict with federal objectives. 15
While in one sense the Arizona statute is narrower than its federal counterpart 16
because prosecution requires that the person must already be in violation of a separate 17
criminal offense, see U.S. v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d at 1002 n.18, that alone does not 18
cure A.R.S. § 13-2929’s fundamental conflict preemption problem. As this Court has 19
recognized, the relevant predicate offense can be something as mundane as a traffic 20
violation or a violation of the federal harboring and transporting statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1324, 21
itself. Order, May 29, 2012 (Doc. 682) (noting tha “[w]hile it is not clear what type of 22
criminal violation will trigger [A.R.S. § 13-2929] it is possible that traffic violations or the 23
violation of the federal alien smuggling statute could be sufficient to give rise to a 24
violation of § 13-2929”); see also GLAHR, 793 F. Supp. 2d at 1333 n.12 (finding 25
26 36 Arizona could prosecute undocumented persons for “being harbored” by reading A.R.S. 27 § 13-2929 together with A.R.S. § 13-1003 (conspiracy), in much the same way that it
already prosecutes undocumented persons for “being smuggled” by reading A.R.S. § 1328 2319 (smuggling) together with § 13-1003.
42

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 57 of 65
1 Georgia’s transporting and harboring law preempted in part because a violation of the
2 federal statute could be the predicate offense).
3 Arizona’s statute presents yet another conflict with federal law by failing to exempt
4 certain individuals from prosecution, making its reach wider than that of its federal
5 counterpart. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(C) exempts from prosecution ministers or missionaries
6 of religious denominations, while A.R.S. § 13-2929 provides no such exemption and
7 would allow prosecution of such individuals. See A.R.S. § 13-2929(E) (exempting only
8 child protective services personnel and first responders acting in their official capacity).
9 This inconsistency also supports a finding of conflict preemption. See South Carolina,
10 2011 WL 6973241, at *13 (“the inconsistent safe harbor provisions of state and federal
11 law result in conflict preemption.”); Alabama, 813 F. Supp. 2d at 1331 (finding harboring
12 and transporting state statute preempted because it “actually prohibits conduct allowed
13 under federal law and criminalizes conduct that is lawful under federal law.”); Geier v.
14 Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 529 U.S. 861, 899 (2000) (recognizing that “a federal statute
15 implicitly overrides state law . . . when state law is in actual conflict with federal law.”)
16 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
17 Like Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina’s enjoined counterparts, A.R.S. § 13-
18 2929 is preempted because, although it is “superficially similar to [the relevant federal
19 statute, 8 U.S.C.] § 1324, state prosecutorial discretion and judicial interpretation will
20 undermine federal authority to ‘establish immigration enforcement priorities and
21 strategies’” and undermine federal purposes and objectives. GLAHR, 793 F. Supp. 2d at
22 1335 (quoting U.S. v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339, 352 (9th Cir. 2011); Alabama, 813 F. Supp.
23 2d at 1335-36; South Carolina, 2011 WL 6973241, at *21. For all of these reasons,
24 Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that A.R.S. § 13-2929 conflicts with federal
25 law and is preempted.
26 II. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm if the Preliminary Injunction Is Not
27 Granted
28
43

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 58 of 65
1 Plaintiffs and putative class members will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not
2 granted. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20 (injunction appropriate where irreparable harm “likely”).
3 The alleged deprivation of their constitutional rights are alone sufficient to establish
4 irreparable injury from § 2(B) and A.R.S. § 13-2929. 11A Charles A. Wright et al.,
5 Federal Practice & Procedure § 2948.1 (2d ed. 1995) (“When an alleged deprivation of a
6 constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable
7 injury is necessary.”); see also Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 472 (2d Cir. 1996) (“[I]t is
8 the alleged violation of a constitutional right that triggers a finding of irreparable harm.”)
9 (granting preliminary injunction for plaintiff alleging Eighth Amendment claims against
10 prison officials); Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 797 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1019 (C.D. Cal.
11 2011) (“The Ninth Circuit has held that ‘an alleged constitutional infringement will often
12 alone constitute irreparable harm.’”) (finding irreparable harm based on likelihood of
13 establishing violations of Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment due process
14 rights) (citations omitted). In addition, courts have repeatedly recognized that the
15 enforcement of a preempted law may constitute irreparable harm, particularly where, as
16 here, more than monetary interests are at stake. See, e.g., United States v. Arizona, 641
17 F.3d at 366; GLAHR, 793 F. Supp. 2d at 1340; South Carolina, 2011 WL 6973241, at
18 *21; Alabama, 813 F. Supp. 2d at 1336; see also Morales v. Trans World Airlines, 504
19 U.S. 374, 381 (1992).
20 Even if this Court did not find that irreparable injury exists on the basis of the
21 constitutional violations raised here, ample evidence exists of the irreparable harm
22 Plaintiffs will suffer from § 2(B) and A.R.S. § 13-2929. Section 2(B) puts Plaintiffs and
23 class members at risk of unlawful detention and interrogation based on little more than an
24 individual officer’s “reasonable suspicion” that they are “unlawfully present in the United
25 States.” A.R.S. § 11-1051(B). Plaintiffs will be subject to racial profiling, additional
26 police scrutiny, prolonged detention, and possible arrest if § 2(B) is implemented. See
27 Harris Decl., United States v. Arizona, No. 10-1413, ¶ 7 (Doc. 27-10); George Gascón
28
44

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 59 of 65
1 Decl. ¶¶ 18–20 (Doc. 235-6); Eduardo González Decl. ¶¶ 16–17 (Doc. 235-8); Samuel
2 Granato Decl. ¶ 16 (Doc. 236). Indeed, the Court already found that Plaintiffs have
3 alleged a “realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of . . . [the] operation or
4 enforcement’ of [§ 2] because of their appearance and limited English-speaking ability.”
5 Order, May 29, 2012, at 11 (quoting Babbitt v. United Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 298
6 (1979)). The Court further found that “[b]ecause § 2 applies during every lawful stop,
7 detention, or arrest, the Individual Plaintiffs will be subject to the allegedly
8 unconstitutional immigration investigations even if they are stopped only for suspicion of
9 a minor traffic violation and even if they have not actually committed any crime.” Id. at 8-
10 9.
11 In addition, Plaintiffs, and many putative class members, will curtail their public
12 activities if § 2(B) is allowed to take effect out of fear that they will be subject to arrest
13 and detention by law enforcement officials due to their appearance and limited English-
14 speaking ability. See Vargas Decl. ¶ 7 (Doc. 236-10); C.M. Decl. ¶ 5 (Doc. 331-5); Tupac
15 Enrique Decl. ¶ 3 (Doc. 236-9). Members of plaintiff organizations will also reduce going
16 out in public and attending organizational events out of fear that contact with law
17 enforcement officials could lead to interrogation and detention under § 2(B). Joseph
18 Hansen Am. Decl. ¶ 6 (Doc. 314-2); Eliseo Medina Decl. ¶ 6 (Doc. 236-9). Plaintiffs will
19 also be fearful of having any contact with law enforcement, including reporting crimes or
20 serving as witnesses. See Ibarra Decl. ¶ 12 (Doc. 236-2) (“SB 1070 will cause many of
21 our clients or prospective clients to not report that they are victims of crime out of fear that
22 contact with Arizona state law enforcement will subject them to detention, arrest and
23 possible deportation.”); see also Medina Decl. ¶ 7 (Doc. 236-9); Gascón Decl. ¶¶ 9–10
24 (Doc. 235-6); Gonzalez Decl. ¶¶ 12–13 (Doc. 235-8), 18; Granato Decl. ¶¶ 9–10 (Doc.
25 236).
26 Moreover, Plaintiffs and putative class members are at risk of criminal prosecution
27 under A.R.S. § 13-2929. The Court has already found that Plaintiff Luz Santiago “has
28
45

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 60 of 65
1 alleged a ‘realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the . . . operation or
2 enforcement’ of A.R.S. § 13-2929.” Order, May 29, 2012, at 4. As the pastor of her
3 church, Plaintiff Santiago fears that she will face criminal sanctions because she frequently
4 provides transportation, food, and shelter to members of her congregation who may not be
5 authorized to remain in the United States. Santiago Dep. at 20-21, 24-25 (Doc. 655-11).
6 For example, Santiago has stated that she frequently drives members of her congregation
7 to church retreats and to shop for groceries. Id. at 20-21. She also provides shelter to
8 individuals in need. Id. at 24. Under A.R.S. § 13-2929, it is likely that Santiago would be
9 found to do so “in reckless disregard” of the fact that some of those congregation members
10 and individuals may be unlawfully present. Order, May 29, 2012, at 16; see also Santiago
11 Dep. at 30-31, 33. If A.R.S. § 13-2929 is not enjoined, Santiago will continue to face the
12 “reasonable likelihood” of criminal charges. See Order, May 29, 2012, at 16. Because
13 Santiago intends to continue to provide transportation and shelter to members of her
14 congregation without regard to their immigration status, see Santiago Dep. 58-59, she will
15 suffer irreparable harm if A.R.S. § 13-2929 is not enjoined. See San Diego Gun Rights
16 Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 1996); see also GLAHR, 793 F. Supp. 2d
17 at 1340 (finding that plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm under similar harboring
18 provisions because they would be “subject to criminal penalties under laws that are
19 allegedly preempted”); Alabama, 813 F. Supp. 2d at 1332 (same).
20 Organizational Plaintiffs will also suffer direct harm in the form of resource
21 diversion, the frustration of their core mission activities, and the possibility of criminal
22 prosecution of staff or volunteers under A.R.S. § 13-2929. Organizational Plaintiffs have
23 already diverted significant resources toward educating their members about the effects of
24 S.B. 1070, including A.R.S. § 13-2929. Jennifer Allen Decl. ¶ 12 (Doc. 314-1); Alison J.
25 Harrington Decl. ¶¶ 8, 23 (Doc. 314-4). A.R.S. § 13-2929 will also hinder the
26 organizational Plaintiffs’ ability to retain and recruit members because those members will
27 curtail their own travel and participation in organizational events in order to avoid being
28
46

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 61 of 65

1 charged with violating A.R.S. § 13-2929. Allen Decl. ¶ 13-14. This Court has already

2 found that “[t]he alleged harm to the organizational Plaintiffs will occur if S.B. 1070

3 [including A.R.S. § 13-2929] goes into effect, regardless of how it is enforced or applied.”

4 Order, Oct. 8, 2010, at 9.

5 In addition, Organizational Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if their staff or

6 volunteers are prosecuted under A.R.S. § 13-2929. For example, staff from Plaintiff

7 Border Action Network (“BAN”) regularly bus members to events and organizational

8 functions. Allen Decl. ¶ 9. Because BAN does not inquire into the citizenship or

9 immigration status of the members it transports and some of these members are persons

10 without authorization to be in the United States, “BAN staff are concerned that this could

11 subject them to investigation under the new immigration law.” Id.; see also Pl. Ariz.

12 South Asians for Safe Families’ Answers to Intervenor Def. Governor Brewer’s First Set

13 of Interrogs. at 6-7 (indicating that ASASF volunteers often transport citizen and non-

14 citizen domestic violence victim members to medical and legal appointments) (Ex. H).

15 Similarly, organizational Plaintiff Southside Presbyterian Church will be irreparably

16 harmed if its leaders, staff, parishioners, and volunteers are subjected to criminal

17 prosecution under A.R.S. § 13-2929 for “performing work that is central to [their] faith”

18 by providing assistance to the homeless or to immigrants in distress in the desert, or by

19 transporting parishioners and community members to activities and medical facilities.

20 Harrington Decl. ¶¶ 9-12, 21 (Doc. 314-4).

21

III.

The Balance of Equities Tips Sharply In Favor of Plaintiffs

22 Any harm to the Defendants from the grant of a preliminary injunction is minimal

23 because Plaintiffs ask only for the status quo to be maintained while the significant

24 constitutional challenges to § 2(B) are resolved. As described above, without a

25 preliminary injunction, the irreparable harms facing Plaintiffs are overwhelming, and

26 courts frequently have found that the equities favor an injunction to preserve the status quo

27 in just such a situation. See, e.g., Nat’l Ctr. for Immigrants’ Rights, Inc. v. INS, 743 F.2d

28

47

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 62 of 65
1 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1984) (agreeing with district court’s conclusion that irreparable harm
2 to plaintiffs outweighed harm to government from delay in implementing regulation); AFL
3 v. Chertoff, 552 F. Supp. 2d 999, 1006-07 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (same). Indeed the
4 preservation of the status quo in the face of potential widespread and significant
5 irreparable harm is precisely the purpose of a preliminary injunction. See Sierra On-Line,
6 Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiffs merely seek
7 to prevent Defendants from implementing a law that is constitutionally suspect in order to
8 prevent broad irreparable harm to Plaintiffs and to the public. Thus, the equities tip
9 sharply in favor of the grant of a preliminary injunction.
10 IV.The Preliminary Injunction Will Serve the Public Interest
11 The interests of Plaintiffs and the public are aligned in favor of a preliminary
12 injunction. The same violations that would irreparably harm Plaintiffs would concurrently
13 harm the public interest. In fact, § 2(B) is likely to result in widespread discrimination
14 against racial and ethnic minorities, because law enforcement would be required to assess,
15 without sufficient training and guidance, whether there is “reasonable suspicion” that an
16 individual is unlawfully present.
17 The fact that law enforcement officials risk being sued by private parties, who
18 believe that Arizona city and county officials have not enforced the law strictly enough,
19 increases the likelihood that racial profiling will be employed. See A.R.S. § 11-1051(G);
20 see also Villaseñor Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5, 7 (Ex. D). This provision sends a clear directive of
21 maximum enforcement to local law enforcement officials. As a result, Plaintiffs and
22 members of the public are at a substantial risk of being deprived of their constitutional
23 rights to liberty and due process, with “no meaningful procedural safeguards against
24 erroneous deprivations of liberty.” Order, Oct. 8, 2010, at 23. Given the near certainty of
25 these irreparable harms, it is unquestionably in the public interest to prevent these
26 widespread constitutional violations. See Murillo v. Musegades, 809 F. Supp. 487, 498
27 (W.D. Tex. 1992) (the “public interest will be served by protection of Plaintiffs’
28
48

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 63 of 65

1 constitutional rights” in cases where the majority of the Hispanic population within a
2 geographic area would be subjected to “illegal stops, questioning, detentions, frisks,
3 arrests, searches, and further abuses” by local law enforcement).
4 Section 2(B) will, as noted above, also deter individuals from interacting with law
5 enforcement, thus compromising public safety. González Decl. ¶¶ 12–13, 18 (Doc. 235-
6 8); Granato Decl. ¶¶ 9–10 (Doc. 236); Gascón Decl. ¶¶ 9–10 (Doc. 235-6). Section 2(B)
7 will undermine trust between the police and community members, for whom a routine
8 encounter with law enforcement will become a lengthy detention. This increased fear of
9 local law enforcement in immigrant communities will threaten the safety of all Arizona
10 communities, as well as the safety of police officers.
11 Moreover, the public interest is served best when unconstitutional and preempted
12 state laws are blocked by courts. See Arizona, 641 F.3d at 366 (“[I]t is clear that it would
13 not be equitable or in the public’s interest to allow the state . . . to violate the requirements
14 of federal law . . . . In such circumstances, the interest of preserving the Supremacy
15 Clause is paramount.” (internal quotation omitted)); see also South Carolina, 2011 WL
16 6973241, at *21 (finding that a preliminary injunction of similar harboring provisions is in
17 the public interest); Alabama, 813 F. Supp. 2d at 1336 (same); Buquer, 797 F. Supp. 2d at
18 925 (“‘the public has a strong interest in the vindication of an individual’s constitutional
19 rights . . . .’” (quoting O’Brien v. Town of Caledonia, 748 F.2d 403, 408 (7th Cir. 1984)));
20 GLAHR, 793 F. Supp. 2d at 1340 (same). As described above, § 2(B) and A.R.S. § 13-
21 2929 are preempted by federal law. For the foregoing reasons, the public interest weighs
22 in favor of a preliminary injunction.
23

24 CONCLUSION
25 The Court should grant the requested injunction.
26

27 DATED this 17th day of July 2012.
28

Respectfully submitted,

49

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 64 of 65
1 2
/s/ Karen C. Tumlin 3
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW 4
CENTER 5 6
/s/ Omar C. Jadwat 7
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 8
FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS 9
PROJECT 10 11
/s/ Victor Viramontes 12
MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 13
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
50

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 715 Filed 07/17/12 Page 65 of 65
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I hereby certify that on July 17, 2012, I electronically transmitted the foregoing
3 document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System which will send notification of
4 such filing to all counsel of record.
5 6 7
/s/ Karen C. Tumlin 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
51

 
 Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1300 Filed 09/19/16 Page 1 of 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9

10 Valle del Sol, eta!.,

11

Plaintiffs,

12 vs.

13 Michael B. Whiting, eta!.

14

Defendants,

15

and

16 Doug Ducey, eta!.,

17

Intervenor Defendants,

18

Case No. CV-10-01061-PHX-SRB
ORDER APPROVING PARTIES' JOINT CASE DISPOSITION

19 Having considered the Parties' Joint Case Disposition,

20

It is ORDERED that Intervenor Defendants distribute The Informal Attorney

21 General Opinion, a sample of which is attached as Exhibit A, consistent with their

22 practices for distributing Attorney General Opinions. In addition, Intervenor Defendants

23 will distribute Exhibit A to the Arizona Sheriffs Association, the Arizona Law

24 Enforcement Legal Advisors Association, and the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police.

25

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the portions of S.B. 1070 that are codified at

26 A.R.S. §§ 28-3511A(1)(d) and (e) are hereby permanently enjoined.

27 Ill

28

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1300 Filed 09/19/16 Page 2 of 10

1

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Intervenor Defendants shall pay $1.4 million to

2 Plaintiffs' Counsel to resolve any liability for attorneys' fees and costs from this case, No.

3 CV 10-1061-PHX-SRB, and any appeal arising from that matter.

4

5

Dated this 19th day of September, 2016.

6

7

8

9
United States District Judge
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1300 Filed 09/19/16 Page 3 of 10
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1300 Filed 09/19/16 Page 4 of 10

STATE OF ARIZONA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Informal Attorney General Opinion September 19,2016

No. !16-
Re: Advisory Model Policy for Law Enforcement Applying SB 1070

This informal Attorney General opinion sets forth an advisory model policy to guide law enforcement agencies and officers as to their duties under state law. 1 This advisory model policy reflects the Attorney General's view as to the constitutional interpretation of§ 2(B) and 2(D) of S.B. 1070, A.R.S. § 11-1051(B) and (D), and acknowledges the Legislature's admonition that§ 2 must "be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens." A.R.S. § 11-1 051(L). In particular, this policy is intended to articulate the constitutional limits demarcated in Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (20 15); Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012); and Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012), among other applicable authority. I. The Statute
The relevant sections of A.R.S. § 11-1051 provide: B. For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal
1 Although this opinion is designated "informal", the analysis contained herein has the same persuasive weight as the analysis in a formal Attorney General opinion.

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1300 Filed 09/19/16 Page 5 of 10

government pursuant to 8 United States Code § 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements ofthis subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

I. A valid Arizona driver license.

2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.

3.

A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

D. Notwithstanding any other law, a law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien who the agency has received verification is unlawfully present in the United States and who is in the agency's custody to a federal facility in this state or to any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency. A law enforcement agency shall obtain judicial authorization before securely transporting an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States to a point of transfer that is outside of this state.

II. Policy
Law enforcement officers shall conduct contacts with individuals suspected of being unlawfully present in the United States in a manner consistent with federal and state laws. See A.R.S. § ll-105l(L). Officers shall protect the civil rights, privileges, and immunities of all persons. Officers shall not prolong a stop, detention, or arrest solely for the purpose of verifying immigration status. Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2509 ("Detaining individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns.") If an officer deviates from this policy, the officer must notif'y a supervisor at the first reasonable opportunity. Officers shall not contact, stop, detain, or arrest an individual based on race, color, or national origin, except when it is part of a suspect description linking that individual to a particular unlawful incident and said description is timely, reliable, and geographically relevant or when otherwise authorized by law. See A.R.S. § 11-1051(B).

III. Definitions The following definitions will apply to the terms below as discussed in this informal
opinion:
Alien: Any individual not a citizen or national of the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3).

2

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1300 Filed 09/19/16 Page 6 of 10
Civil immigration violation: A violation ofa federal civil immigration law. Offenses include, but are not limited to, unlawful presence of an alien in the United States; an alien whose visa has expired and has not been renewed; or an alien who seeks or engages in unauthorized employment. See, generally, 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(1)(B)-(C).2 Criminal immigration violation: A violation of a federal criminal immigration law. Offenses include, but are not limited to, violations of Title 8, U.S.C., §1324; Title 8, U.S.C. §1325(a); and Title 8, U.S.C. §1326. Determine: To ascertain or conclude, especially after observation or consideration. See Dictionary.com, http://www.dictionary.com (15 Apr. 2016). Only the federal government may determine immigration status. Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2498 ("The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status ofaliens."); see also Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 225 (1982) ("The States enjoy no power with respect to the classification of aliens."). ICEICBP: Immigration and Customs Enforcement/Customs and Border Protection. Immigration status: The legal standing of an alien's presence in the United States. Probable cause: Reliable information based on facts and circumstances sufficient to lead to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed and that the individual to be arrested has committed it. See, e.g., Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, (2003) ("The substance of all the definitions of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) Reasonable suspicion: Specific facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts support an objective belief that an individual has committed or is aboutto commit an offense; based upon the facts that exist, there is reason to investigate fmther. An officer may stop or briefly detain an individual for further investigation based on reasonable suspicion (a Terry stop), but may not arrest on that basis alone. See Terry v. Ohio, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (1968). Unlawfully present: For the purpose of applying § 2(B) and 2(D) of S.B. I070, officers may consider an alien "unlawfully present" only if the alien is NOT: (1) a lawful or conditional permanent resident; (2) a nonimmigrant in an authorized period ofstay; (3) a refugee or asylee; or (4) otherwise authorized or allowed to remain in the United States by federal law or the federal Department of Homeland Security. 3 VerifY: To prove to be true; confirm; substantiate. Dictionary.com, http://www.dictionary.com (15 Apr. 2016). 2 State law enforcement officers generally lack authority to detain individuals for civil violations of immigration law. Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2506 ("Federal law specifies limited circumstances in which state officers may perform the functions of an immigration officer."). 3 This definition is for purposes of this policy alone.
3

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1300 Filed 09/19/16 Page 7 of 10
IV. Consensual Contacts
State laws related to immigration enforcement neither expand nor limit an officer's ability to approach an individual and engage in a consensual contact. During a consensual contact, the officer may inquire about any subject matter. However, the individual contacted does not have to answer questions or produce any identification, but may choose to do so voluntarily. See, e.g., Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497 (1983). During a consensual contact, officers may ask, but shall not demand, that an individual produce immigration documents.
V. Individuals Lawfully Stopped or Detained Officers shall not prolong a stop or detention for an immigration inquiry to request or
obtain verification of immigration status, or prolong a criminal investigation or inquiry in order to accommodate or complete immigration-related tasks. Arizona, 132 S.Ct.at 2509; see also Rodriguez, 135 S.Ct. at 1614-16.
An officer shall presume that a person is lawfully present in the United States ifthe person provides any of the following: a valid Arizona driver license or nonoperating identification license; a valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification; or any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification, provided the issuing entity requires proofoflegalpresence in the United States. A.R.S. § ll-105l(B)(l)-(4).
If in the course of duty an officer has reasonable suspicion that an individual is unlawfully present in the United States, based on all available facts, except race or ethnicity, the officer shall attempt to verify the individual's immigration status by contacting ICE/CBP unless doing so would prolong the stop or detention, or the circumstances below apply. The officer shall, consistent with department policies, document the verification attempt, including the basis for the officer's reasonable suspicion as to unlawful presence and any response from ICE/CBP, in the stop data collection system. 4
If it is not practicable for an officer to investigate or verify an individual's immigration status due to factors such as call load, staffing, emergencies, other present duties, availability of personnel on scene, location, available back-up, ability to contact ICE/CBP, or the availability of ICE/CBP, the officer may, consistent with department policies, use discretion not to pursue an investigation into the individual's immigration status, but shall document the justification for such a decision in the stop data collection system.
If an officer has reasonable suspicion that an individual is unlawfully present, but believes that investigating or verifying immigration status may hinder or obstruct an investigation, the officer may, consistent with department policies, use discretion notto inquire into the individual's
4 "In January 2003, the Arizona Department of Public Safety began voluntarily collecting data regarding traffic and pedestrian stops, including information pertaining to the characteristics of the traffic stop, driver, vehicle and officer(s)." See http://www.azdps.gov/about/reports/docs/Traffic Stop Response 2008.pdf (last visited 09113/16)
4

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1300 Filed 09/19/16 Page 8 of 10
immigration status. A.R.S. § I I-105 !(B). The officer shall, consistent with department policies, document the justification for such a decision in the stop data collection system. Factors to consider that may indicate an immigration inquiry could hinder or obstruct an investigation may include the need for suspect, victim, and witness cooperation in any investigation. VI. Immigration Violations
If an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed a civil immigration violation, the officer has no authority to arrest the individual and shall not detain the individual longer than necessary to complete the state law basis for the contact. 5 See Melendres, 695 F.3d at 1001 (any extension of a lawful stop "must be supported by additional suspicion of criminality. Unlawful presence is not criminal.").
If an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed a federal criminal immigration violation, the officer may arrest the individual and contact ICE/CBP to clarify its interest in detaining the individual. 6 See Melendres, 695 F.3d at 1001 (citing Gonzales v. City ofPeoria, 722 F.2d 468,475 (9th Cir. 1983), for the proposition that "'federal law does not preclude local law enforcement of the criminal provisions' of federal immigration law."). Officers may wait a reasonable time period for ICE/CBP response and should document any response or direction from ICE/CBP. If ICE/CBP fails to respond or take disposition within a reasonable amount oftime and there is no other criminal violation, the officer shall release the individual.
lfiCE/CBP agrees to take disposition ofthe individual, officers may assist by transporting the individual to an ICE/CBP facility ifiCE/CBP so directs. A.R.S. § I I -105 1(0). When making the determination to transport, officers shall, consistent with department policies, consider department and division priorities.
Officers shall not arrest an individual simply because the individual lacks proper documentation. See Melendres, 695 F.3d at 1000-01. VII. Arrests
An officer or jail official shall not prolong an arrest or detention for an immigration inquiry, including to request or obtain verification of immigration status. Arizona, I 32 S.Ct. at 2509 ("Detaining individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns.").
5 This restriction on non-federallaw enforcement does not apply where such officials have been specifically trained and delegated to exercise the authority of an immigration officer under § 287(g) ofthe INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g), and are acting pursuant to that authority. Melendres, 695 F.3d at 1001. 6 It remains an open issue whether reasonable suspicion of illegal entry or another immigration crime would be a basis for prolonging a detention. Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2509.
5

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1300 Filed 09/19/16 Page 9 of 10
If, after reviewing all available facts (except race or ethnicity) and/or evidence, an officer has reasonable suspicion that an arrestee is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made to contact ICE/CBP to verify the arrestee's immigration status prior to releasing the arrestee, but release may not be delayed in order to request or obtain verification. Id. The presumptions and the exceptions in section V above apply to this paragraph. Officers shall, consistent with department policies, document any response or direction from ICE/CBP in the stop data collection system.
The officer shall proceed to handle the arrestee according to department policy, which may result in the issuance of a citation, referral, and the release of the arrestee. VIII. Contact with ICE/CBP
Officers attempting to verify an individual's immigration status shall do so by contacting Operational Communications. Operational Communications shall submit an inquiry through the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS) for verification of an individual's immigration status. After a response is received from ICE/CBP, Operational Communications shall forward the information to the officer. If information verifying an individual's immigration status is received from another source (such as an ICE/CBP officer on scene), the verification shall, consistent with department policies, be documented in the stop data collection system.
If an officer wishes to request verification prior to the release of an individual or arrestee, Operational Communications may follow the NLETS submission with a phone call to the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC). 7 As explained above, however, officers may not extend a stop or detention in order to make a verification request or to wait for a verification response. IX. Consular Notification
Officers should follow consular notification procedures set forth in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (the Convention), see Article 30 ofthe Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963, [1970]21 U.S.T. 77, 100-101, T.I.A.S. No. 6820, namely, "when a national of one country is detained by authorities in another, the authorities must notify the consular officers ofthe detainee's home country ifthe detainee so requests." Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331, 339 (2006) ("[Article 36 of the Convention] provides that 'if he so requests, the competent authorities ofthe receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner."'). Law enforcement officials may refer to the following for guidance on such notification procedures: Law Bulletin 2009-05, Foreign Nationals-Advice ofRights in Addition to Miranda Warnings; the
7 "ICE's LESC operates '24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year' and provides, among other things, 'immigration status, identity information and real-time assistance to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies.'" Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2508 (internal citations omitted).
6

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1300 Filed 09/19/16 Page 10 of 10 U.S. Department of State's Consular Notification and Access Manual, (Fourth ed. 2016),
https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/travel/CNAtrainingresources/CNA Manual 4th Edition Au gust2016.pdf (last visited 9/13/16).8
8 This infonnal opinion does not confer upon aliens any legal rights beyond those recognized by binding
court precedent. See Sanchez-Llamasv. Oregon, 126 S. Ct. at2681 ("Indeed, Article 36 [of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations] does not guarantee defendants any assistance at all. The provision secures only a right of foreign nationals to have their consulate informed oftheir arrest
or detention-not to have their consulate intervene, or to have law enforcement authorities cease their investigation pending any such notice or intervention.").
7

 
 Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 1 of 35

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VALLE DEL SOL INCORPORATED; C.M., a minor; JOSE ANGEL VARGAS; COALICION DE DERECHOS HUMANOS; UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION; BORDER ACTION NETWORK; JIM SHEE; LUZ SANTIAGO; ARIZONA SOUTH ASIANS FOR SAFE FAMILIES; JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS LEAGUE; LOCAL 5 SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION; SOUTHSIDE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH; MUSLIM AMERICAN SOCIETY; TONATIERRA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE; ASIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF ARIZONA; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION; ARIZONA HISPANIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; PEDRO ESPINOZA; MAURA CASTILLO; MARIA MORALES,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
MICHAEL B. WHITING; EDWARD G. RHEINHEIMER; DAVID W. ROZEMA; DAISY FLORES; KENNY ANGLE;

No. 12-15688
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01061-
SRB
OPINION

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 2 of 35

2

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

DEREK D. RAPIER; SAM VEDERMAN; RICHARD M. ROMLEY; MATTHEW J. SMITH; BRADLEY CARLYON; BARBARA LAWALL; JAMES P. WALSH; GEORGE SILVA; SHILA S. POLK; JON R. SMITH, County Attorneys in their official capacities; JOSEPH DEDMAN, JR.; LARRY A. DEVER; BILL PRIBIL; JOHN R. ARMER; PRESTON J. ALLRED; STEVEN N. TUCKER; DONALD LOWERY; JOSEPH M. ARPAIO; TOM SHEAHAN; KELLY CLARK; CLARENCE W. DUPNIK; PAUL R. BABEU; TONY ESTRADA; STEVE WAUGH; RALPH OGDEN, County Sheriffs, in their official capacities,
Defendants,
and
STATE OF ARIZONA; JANICE K. BREWER,
Intervenor-Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 17, 2012—San Francisco, California

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 3 of 35

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

3

Filed March 4, 2013

Before: Raymond C. Fisher, Richard C. Tallman and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Fisher

SUMMARY*

Civil Rights
The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction barring the enforcement of two provisions in Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070, which make it unlawful for a motor vehicle occupant to hire or attempt to hire a person for work at another location from a stopped car that impedes traffic, or for a person to be hired in such a manner.
The panel held that the district court correctly determined that, though Arizona has a significant government interest in promoting traffic safety, the day labor provisions failed the requirement set forth in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 566 (1980), that restrictions on commercial speech be no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 4 of 35

4

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

merits and that the other requirements for a preliminary injunction were satisfied.

COUNSEL
John J. Bouma, Robert A. Henry (argued) and Kelly A. Kszywienski, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., Phoenix, Arizona; Joseph Sciarrotta, Jr., Office of Governor Janice K. Brewer, Phoenix, Arizona, for Appellants.
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General, Michael Tryon, Senior Litigation Counsel, and Evan Hiller, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix, Arizona, for Appellant State of Arizona.
Thomas A. Saenz, Victor Viramontes (argued) and Nicholás Espíritu, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Los Angeles, California; Omar C. Jadwat and Andre Segura, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants’ Rights Project, New York, New York; Linton Joaquin, Karen C. Tumlin, Nora A. Preciado, Melissa S. Keaney and Álvaro M. Huerta, National Immigration Law Center, Los Angeles, California; Nina Perales, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, San Antonio, Texas; Chris Newman and Lisa Kung, National Day Labor Organizing Network, Los Angeles, California; Marita Etcubañez and Jessica Chia, Asian American Justice Center, Washington, D.C.; Cecillia D. Wang, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants’ Rights Project, San Francisco, California; Daniel J. Pochoda and James Duff Lyall, ACLU Foundation of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; Daniel R. Ortega, Ortega Law Firm, P.C., Phoenix, Arizona;

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 5 of 35

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

5

Yungsuhn Park, Connie Choi and Carmina Ocampo, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, a member of Asian American Center for Advancing Justice, Los Angeles, California, for Appellees.

Aaron Leiderman, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, San Francisco, California; Bradley S. Phillips, Joseph J. Ybarra, Benjamin J. Maro, Lika C. Miyake and Margaret G. Ziegler, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, California, for all Appellees except Maria Morales and Service Employees International Union, Service Employees International Union, Local 5, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and Japanese American Citizens League.

Stephen P. Berzon and Jonathan Weissglass, Altshuler Berzon LLP, San Francisco, California, for Appellees Service Employees International Union, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 and United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.

OPINION
FISHER, Circuit Judge:
Two provisions in Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 make it unlawful for a motor vehicle occupant to hire or attempt to hire a person for work at another location from a stopped car that impedes traffic, or for a person to be hired in such a manner. These provisions raise First Amendment concerns because they restrict and penalize the commercial speech of day laborers and those who would hire them. Arizona defends the provisions as traffic safety measures, designed to promote the safe and orderly flow of traffic. We

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 6 of 35

6

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

acknowledge that Arizona has a real and substantial interest in traffic safety. Arizona, however, has failed to justify a need to serve that interest through targeting and penalizing day labor solicitation that blocks traffic, rather than directly targeting those who create traffic hazards without reference to their speech, as currently proscribed under the State’s preexisting traffic laws. Laws like this one that restrict more protected speech than is necessary violate the First Amendment.1

Arizona has also singled out day labor solicitation for a harsh penalty while leaving other types of solicitation speech that blocks traffic unburdened. Arizona defends this contentbased distinction by invoking the “unique” dangers posed by labor solicitation. That justification is only minimally supported by the record and, tellingly, S.B. 1070’s introduction says nothing about traffic safety. Rather it emphasizes that its purpose is to encourage self-deportation by stripping undocumented immigrants of their livelihood. Adopting content-based restrictions for reasons apparently unrelated to traffic safety further supports the conclusion that the day labor provisions restrict more speech than necessary.

Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment challenge to the day labor provisions. We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction barring their enforcement.

1 S.B. 1070 contains other provisions that, although they were challenged in the same underlying district court action, are not at issue in this appeal.

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 7 of 35

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

7

BACKGROUND

The two provisions challenged here were included as part of Section 5 of Arizona’s recent comprehensive immigration reform bill, S.B. 1070. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 132928(A)–(B) (Sections 5(A) and (B), collectively the day labor provisions). Section 5(A) makes it a crime for an occupant of a motor vehicle to solicit or hire a day laborer if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes traffic. Section 5(B) makes it a crime for a day laborer to enter a motor vehicle to work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes traffic.2 Following several years of deliberation, the Arizona House of Representatives passed the day labor provisions in February 2010 as a standalone bill. State Representative John Kavanagh, the provisions’ principal legislative sponsor, said at committee hearings that the provisions would promote traffic safety but would also discourage the “shadow economy” of day labor and address illegal immigration because “[a] large number of these people

2 Specifically, the day labor provisions state:
A. It is unlawful for an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway to attempt to hire or hire and pick up passengers for work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.
B. It is unlawful for a person to enter a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway in order to be hired by an occupant of the motor vehicle and to be transported to work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2928(A)-(B).

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 8 of 35

8

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

are illegal immigrants and this is the way they get work, and this work is one of the anchors that keeps them in the country.” After the day labor provisions passed the Arizona House of Representatives, the Arizona Senate adopted them as an amendment to S.B. 1070, an omnibus immigration bill.

S.B. 1070 includes a purposes clause, common to all sections of the bill, which states that the “intent of [S.B. 1070] is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona” and that the “provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.” See S.B. 1070, ch. 113, 2010 Ariz. Sess. Laws § 1.

In May 2010, the plaintiffs filed suit in the District of Arizona seeking a declaration that S.B. 1070 is unconstitutional in its entirety. The plaintiffs are various organizations and individuals affected by S.B. 1070. The defendants are various county officials as well as the state of Arizona and Arizona Governor Janice Brewer, who intervened as defendants. In June 2010, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, arguing that the day labor provisions violate the First Amendment. They renewed their motion in October 2011, after we held in Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach (Redondo Beach), 657 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc), that a Redondo Beach ordinance restricting all roadside solicitation violates the First Amendment. See id. at 950–51 (holding that the restriction inhibited more speech than necessary to serve the city’s goal of promoting traffic safety).

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 9 of 35

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

9

The district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the day labor provisions in February 2012. The key issue before the district court was whether the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim. The district court first held that Redondo Beach does not control this case because the day labor provisions, unlike the Redondo Beach ordinance, are explicitly limited to commercial speech. The court then evaluated the day labor provisions under the four-pronged test for restrictions on commercial speech the Supreme Court first set out in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 566 (1980). Under that test, we first evaluate whether the affected speech is misleading or related to unlawful activity. See World Wide Rush, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 606 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Metro Lights, L.L.C. v. City of Los Angeles, 551 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir. 2009)). If not, the government bears the burden of showing that it has a substantial interest, that the restriction directly advances that interest and that the restriction is not more extensive than necessary to serve the interest. See id. The district court held that Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653 (2011), required it to apply a more demanding version of the “not more extensive than necessary” test to content-based restrictions on commercial speech. Finding the day labor provisions to be content-based, the district court applied Sorrell and analyzed whether they were “drawn to achieve” a substantial government interest.

Applying Central Hudson’s threshold requirement that speech be related to lawful activity and not misleading, the court ruled that because day labor is lawful activity, restrictions on the solicitation of day labor merit First Amendment scrutiny. Applying the “substantial interest” prong, the court credited Arizona’s uncontroverted assertion

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 10 of 35

10

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

that Arizona has a substantial government interest in traffic safety. Applying the “direct advancement” prong, the court concluded that the day labor provisions directly advance that interest because they prohibit traffic-blocking activity that would otherwise take place. Under the “not more extensive than necessary” prong, however, the district court first held that the day labor provisions are content-based restrictions and then held that the “[d]efendants have not shown that [they] . . . are drawn to achieve the substantial governmental interest in traffic safety.” On the contrary, the district court noted, the ordinance “appears to be structured to target particular speech rather than a broader traffic problem.” The court cited the purposes clause of S.B. 1070 and the existence of obvious and less-burdensome alternatives as further evidence that the day labor provisions were not drawn to advance Arizona’s interest in traffic safety.

The district court concluded that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits because the day labor provisions are insufficiently tailored under Central Hudson’s fourth prong as modified by Sorrell. It then found that the other requirements for a preliminary injunction (irreparable harm, balance of the equities and the public interest) were met and granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the provisions. The intervenor defendants filed this interlocutory appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res.

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 11 of 35

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

11

Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). We review an order granting a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion. See Katie A. ex rel. Ludin v. Los Angeles County, 481 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 2007). “Under this standard, [a]s long as the district court got the law right, it will not be reversed simply because the appellate court would have arrived at a different result if it had applied the law to the facts of the case.” Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, 645 F.3d 1109, 1115 (9th Cir. 2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Dominguez v. Schwarzenegger, 596 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2010), vacated on other grounds by Douglas v. Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1204 (2012)). “This review is limited and deferential, and it does not extend to the underlying merits of the case.” Id. (quoting Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067, 1078 (9th Cir. 2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted). When the district court bases its decision on an erroneous legal standard, we review the underlying issues of law de novo. See Flexible Lifeline Sys., Inc. v. Precision Lift, Inc., 654 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). “[W]hen a district court grants a preliminary injunction protecting First Amendment rights, ‘[i]f the underlying constitutional question is close . . . we should uphold the injunction and remand for trial on the merits.’” Thalheimer, 645 F.3d at 1128 (second alteration in original) (quoting Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656, 664–65 (2004)).

DISCUSSION

Day laborers are those who, rather than having a fixed place of employment, perform temporary work such as gardening, tree trimming, yard clean-up, moving, construction work, house cleaning and elder care. Because such day laborers do not have a fixed place of employment, they advertise their availability for employment by gathering

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 12 of 35

12

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

in a visible location and then gesturing to motorists or otherwise communicating their availability to work. Day laborers frequently congregate on street corners and sidewalks, and those who would hire day laborers often stop in the road to negotiate terms and complete the hire. The day labor provisions restrict speech by penalizing the solicitation of day labor work when that solicitation impedes traffic. The plaintiffs introduced declarations showing that, after the provisions’ passage but before the district court enjoined enforcement, employers refrained from hiring day laborers on public streets and day laborers refrained from soliciting work from the roadside out of fear of prosecution.

Arizona concedes that the day labor provisions restrict day laborers’ and would-be employers’ speech. But it argues the provisions are permissible because it is illegal to block traffic and because day labor solicitation presents unique traffic safety concerns that justify special treatment of such speech when it blocks traffic. Plaintiffs counter that Arizona’s asserted interest in traffic safety is a sham; that the true purpose of the provisions is to remove day laborers from public view and to suppress their economic opportunities.

Regulations that inhibit speech must comport with the requirements of the First Amendment. We recognize that Arizona has a significant interest in protecting the safe and orderly flow of traffic on its streets. We similarly credit Arizona’s assertion that the roadside solicitation of labor may create dangerous traffic conditions. The First Amendment requires more than the invocation of a significant government interest, however. Rather, it requires that the restriction’s benefits be balanced against the burden on protected speech. How we conduct this balancing depends on what type of speech is regulated and whether the regulation is content-

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 13 of 35

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

13

based or content-neutral. We shall address these questions before turning to the ultimate question of whether Arizona’s interest in traffic safety justifies its restriction on day labor solicitation.

I.

The district court correctly determined that the day labor provisions are content-based restrictions on commercial speech.

A. The Day Labor Provisions Restrict Only Commercial Speech

Commercial speech is that “which does ‘no more than propose a commercial transaction.’” Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 762 (1976) (quoting Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376, 385 (1973)). Such speech is protected by the First Amendment, but to a lesser degree than other types of speech. See United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405, 409 (2001) (“We have used standards for determining the validity of speech regulations which accord less protection to commercial speech than to other expression.”). A motorist who pulls over and either hires or attempts to hire a day laborer has proposed a commercial transaction.3 By the same token, a day laborer

3 At oral argument, Arizona argued that the day labor provisions apply only to consummated transactions and not to negotiations or attempts to hire a day laborer. That argument is belied by the plain language of Section 5(A), which explicitly penalizes the “attempt to hire . . . and pick up passengers for work at a different location.” We will not apply a limiting construction that is contrary to the plain language of the statute. See Bd. of Airport Comm’rs of L.A. v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U.S. 569,

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 14 of 35

14

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

soliciting work from the roadside proposes a commercial transaction. Because the day labor provisions are explicitly limited to attempts to hire, hiring, picking up and transporting workers to work at a different location, all affected speech is either speech soliciting a commercial transaction or speech necessary to the consummation of a commercial transaction.

The plaintiffs, however, argue that day labor solicitation speech is “core” First Amendment speech because it is inextricably intertwined with core political and economic messages. See Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 796 (1988) (holding that commercial speech does not “retain[] its commercial character when it is inextricably intertwined with otherwise fully protected speech”). Plaintiffs may be correct that day laborers convey vital political and economic messages when they solicit work from the side of the road, but those messages are not inextricably intertwined with the speech the day labor provisions regulate. Nothing in those provisions prohibits a worker from expressing his views publicly, nor is there any reason such views cannot be expressed without soliciting work. See Bd. of Trs. of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 474 (1989) (“No law of man or of nature makes it impossible to sell housewares without teaching home economics, or to teach home economics without selling housewares.”).

Immigration policy and economic equality are matters of public importance and the mere presence of day laborers on the street may express something about their own views on these topics. The presence of day laborers soliciting work in

575 (1987) (refusing to adopt a limiting construction because “the words of the resolution simply leave no room for a narrowing construction”).

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 15 of 35

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

15

the streets may also increase the salience of economic or immigration debates to others who encounter the day laborers. However compelling these arguments, the Supreme Court has made clear that “advertising which ‘links a product to a current public debate’ is not thereby entitled to the constitutional protection afforded noncommercial speech.” Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 68 (1983) (quoting Cent. Hudson, 447 U.S. at 563 n.5)). The act of soliciting work as a day laborer may communicate a political message, but the primary purpose of the communication is to advertise a laborer’s availability for work and to negotiate the terms of such work. The district court correctly concluded that the day laborer provisions restrict only commercial speech.

B. The Day Labor Provisions Are Content-Based Restrictions

The district court also correctly determined that the day labor provisions are content-based restrictions on commercial speech. “A regulation is content-based if either the underlying purpose of the regulation is to suppress particular ideas or if the regulation, by its very terms, singles out particular content for differential treatment.” Berger v. City of Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029, 1051 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (citation omitted). On their face, the day labor provisions target one type of speech – day labor solicitation that impedes traffic – but say nothing about other types of roadside solicitation and nonsolicitation speech. They are therefore classic examples of content-based restrictions. Our conclusion is confirmed by the stated purpose of the provisions, their legislative history and the disproportionate sanctions they impose for traffic problems arising from day labor solicitation. See Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S. Ct.

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 16 of 35

16

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

2653, 2663 (2011) (“Just as the ‘inevitable effect of a statute on its face may render it unconstitutional,’ a statute’s stated purposes may also be considered” in determining whether it is content-based. (quoting United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 384 (1968))); United States v. Playboy Entm’t Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 812 (2000) (noting that a speech by a bill’s sponsor supported the Court’s determination that the bill was content-based); cf. Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 675 F.3d 1213, 1224–25 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that differential treatment supports an inference of viewpoint discrimination).

The district court reasonably determined that the purpose of the day labor provisions was to suppress labor-solicitation speech rather than to promote traffic safety. Significantly, the purposes clause introducing S.B. 1070 describes it as an immigration bill, not a traffic safety bill. See S.B. 1070, ch. 113, 2010 Ariz. Sess. Laws § 1 (The “intent of [S.B. 1070] is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona” and the “provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.”). This clear and unambiguous expression of purpose contradicts Arizona’s argument that the day labor provisions are content-neutral traffic regulations. Rather, they appear expressly intended to deter day labor activity by undocumented immigrants.

Though not dispositive of legislative intent, portions of the legislative history also evince hostility to day laborer solicitation rather than concern with traffic safety. For instance, State Representative Kavanagh, the day labor provisions’ principal legislative sponsor, stated at committee hearings that they would promote traffic safety but that they

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 17 of 35

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

17

would also discourage the “shadow economy” of day labor and address illegal immigration because “[a] large number of these people are illegal immigrants and this is the way they get work, and this work is one of the anchors that keeps them in the country.”

Finally, the day labor provisions’ punishment is far out of line with punishments for other similar traffic violations. For example, conduct that recklessly impedes traffic is punishable by 30 days’ imprisonment, but day labor solicitation that is not dangerous or reckless, but merely impedes traffic, is a class 1 misdemeanor punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment. Compare Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2928(F) (violation of the day labor provisions is a class 1 misdemeanor), and § 13-707(A)(1) (class 1 misdemeanor punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment), with § 132906 (recklessly interfering with the passage of any highway or public thoroughfare is a class 3 misdemeanor), and § 13707(A)(3) (class 3 misdemeanor punishable by up to 30 days’ imprisonment). The imposition of a much harsher penalty for those who block traffic while engaging in labor solicitation speech evidences the desire to suppress such speech.

Arizona argues that the day labor provisions are contentneutral because they were enacted to ameliorate “secondary effects” – the traffic problems created when day laborers congregate and solicit employment from passing vehicles. See City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 48 (1986) (holding that a zoning regulation on adult theaters was content-neutral because it had been enacted to “prevent crime, protect the city’s retail trade, maintain property values, and generally [protect] and [preserve] the quality of [the City’s] neighborhoods, commercial districts, and the quality of urban life” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Arizona

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 18 of 35

18

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

raised this argument before the district court, which implicitly rejected it by finding that the day labor provisions are content-based. This rejection was not an abuse of discretion in light of the facts showing that the purpose of the day labor provisions was to suppress labor-solicitation speech. Cf. id. (holding that a content-neutral “‘predominate’ intent[] . . . is more than adequate to establish that the city’s [purpose] . . . was unrelated to the suppression of free expression.”). Arizona’s argument that the day labor provisions are contentneutral under Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 719–20 (2000), because they are “justified” by its interest in traffic safety suffers from the same defect. See ACLU of Nev. v. City of Las Vegas, 466 F.3d 784, 793 (9th Cir. 2006) (“‘[T]he mere assertion of a content-neutral purpose [is not] enough to save a law which, on its face, discriminates based on content.’ . . . [Instead,] we will hold that [an] ordinance is content-based if . . . the main purpose in enacting it was to suppress or exalt speech of a certain content.” (first and second alterations in original) (emphasis added) (quoting Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 642–43 (1994))).

The district court correctly concluded that the day labor provisions are content-based restrictions.

II.

The district court also correctly concluded that the day labor provisions are likely unconstitutional restrictions. We evaluate restrictions on commercial speech using the fourpart test from Central Hudson:

(1) if the communication is neither misleading nor related to unlawful activity, then it merits First Amendment scrutiny as a threshold

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 19 of 35

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

19

matter; in order for the restriction to withstand such scrutiny, (2) [t]he State must assert a substantial interest to be achieved by restrictions on commercial speech; (3) the restriction must directly advance the state interest involved; and (4) it must not be more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.

World Wide Rush, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 606 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2010) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Metro Lights, L.L.C. v. City of Los Angeles, 551 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir. 2009)). The parties dispute whether the day labor provisions satisfy Central Hudson’s first, third and fourth prongs. The parties also raise the challenging issue of whether Sorrell, 131 S. Ct. at 2664, 2667–68, made the fourth Central Hudson prong for contentbased restrictions on commercial speech even more demanding for the state. We conclude that the day labor provisions are deficient under even the pre-Sorrell, arguably more government-friendly, precedent urged by Arizona. We will therefore apply that precedent and defer extended discussion of Sorrell for a more appropriate case with a more fully developed factual record. We turn to each of Central Hudson’s four prongs in turn.

A. Day Laborer Solicitation Is Neither Misleading nor Related to Unlawful Activity

Commercial speech merits First Amendment protection only if “the communication is neither misleading nor related to unlawful activity.” World Wide Rush, 606 F.3d at 684 (quoting Metro Lights, 551 F.3d at 903). Arizona argues that the day labor provisions are permissible because they regulate

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 20 of 35

20

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

speech only when associated with the unlawful activity of blocking or impeding traffic. Arizona’s proposed rule would be a novel extension of Central Hudson’s legality requirement, which has traditionally focused on the content of affected speech – i.e., whether the speech proposes an illegal transaction – instead of whether the speech is associated with unlawful activity. See Wash. Mercantile Ass’n v. Williams, 733 F.2d 687, 691 (9th Cir. 1984) (rejecting the argument that drug paraphernalia’s association with illegal drug use allows the state to restrict all paraphernalia advertising; instead holding that paraphernalia advertising is not protected in states where such sales are illegal but that paraphernalia advertising warrants First Amendment scrutiny if the advertising proposes a sale in a state where such sales are legal). Some decisions have expressly phrased the legality requirement as whether “the transactions proposed in the forbidden [communication] are themselves illegal in any way.” Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 425 U.S. at 772; see also Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 638 (1985) (“The States and the Federal Government are free to prevent the dissemination of commercial speech that . . . proposes an illegal transaction . . . .”). Other decisions have used Central Hudson’s more general “related to unlawful activity” language. Cent. Hudson, 447 U.S. at 564; see also Fla. Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618, 623–24 (1995) (“Under Central Hudson, the government may freely regulate commercial speech that concerns unlawful activity . . . .”).

However it is formulated, we think it clear that Central Hudson’s legality requirement requires us to evaluate the content of a commercial message rather than the means by which that message is conveyed. Here, that means that the plaintiffs have satisfied the requirement because it is legal to

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 21 of 35

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

21

hire or be hired for day labor. We find support for this conclusion both in Pittsburgh Press, the Supreme Court case upon which Arizona principally relies, and in the Supreme Court’s explanation in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 383–84 (1992), of what it means for certain speech to be “excluded” from First Amendment protection.

Pittsburgh Press, the case from which Central Hudson drew its legality requirement, considered only the commercial transaction proposed by an advertisement. There, the Supreme Court held that a newspaper has no First Amendment right to publish a discriminatory employment advertisement. See Pittsburgh Press, 413 U.S. at 388–89. The Supreme Court reasoned that, just as it would be permissible to ban an advertisement for narcotics or prostitution, it was permissible to ban gender-specific job postings because sex discrimination in hiring is illegal. See id. at 388. The Court concluded that “[a]ny First Amendment interest which might be served by advertising an ordinary commercial proposal and which might arguably outweigh the governmental interest supporting the regulation is altogether absent when the commercial activity itself is illegal and the restriction on advertising is incidental to a valid limitation on economic activity.” Id. at 389.

In Pittsburgh Press, unlike here, the affected speech proposed an illegal transaction – the discriminatory hiring of a worker. The day labor provisions, on the other hand, regulate speech proposing a legal transaction where the speech is conducted in an unlawful manner. Nothing in Pittsburgh Press or any other case Arizona cites suggests that we should expand our inquiry beyond whether the affected speech proposes a lawful transaction to whether the affected speech is conducted in a lawful manner. Moreover, the

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 22 of 35

22

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

Supreme Court’s discussion in R.A.V. of categorical First Amendment exemptions cautions that such an expansion would be improper.

In R.A.V., the Supreme Court discussed its approach to categorical exemptions from First Amendment scrutiny. It explained that, although it has sometimes said that the “protection of the First Amendment does not extend” to certain categories of speech, that statement is not “literally true.” R.A.V., 505 U.S. at 383 (quoting Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 504 (1984)). Instead, what a categorical exclusion means is that, “these areas of speech can, consistently with the First Amendment, be regulated because of their constitutionally proscribable content.” Id. The proposal of an illegal transaction is, like the obscenity and defamation discussed in R.A.V., categorically exempted from First Amendment protection because it lacks social value. See United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 297 (2008) (“Offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection.” (citing Pittsburgh Press, 413 U.S. at 388)). The basis of this categorical exclusion is the content of the speech, not the manner in which that speech is conducted. See id. (“[O]ffers to give or receive what it is unlawful to possess have no social value and thus, like obscenity, enjoy no First Amendment protection.” (citing Pittsburgh Press, 413 U.S. at 387–89)). Thus, in deciding whether to apply a categorical exception, we look to the content of a communication rather than the method of that communication. Here, the content of the communication – the solicitation of labor – is perfectly legal.

This approach fits with R.A.V.’s ultimate lesson, which is that government may not leverage its power to regulate one

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 23 of 35

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

23

sphere of activity into the ability to favor certain speech within that sphere. So, though a state may ban all fighting words, it may not ban only those fighting words that invoke race, color, creed, religion or gender. See R.A.V., 505 U.S. at 391–96. Similarly, the government may prohibit all outdoor fires, but it may not specifically prohibit flag burning. Id. at 385 (“[B]urning a flag in violation of an ordinance against outdoor fires could be punishable, whereas burning a flag in violation of an ordinance against dishonoring the flag is not.” (citing Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 406–07 (1989))). In the commercial speech context, R.A.V. noted that, though a state may “regulate price advertising in one industry but not in others, because the risk of fraud . . . is in its view greater there,” it “may not prohibit only that commercial advertising that depicts men in a demeaning fashion.” Id. at 388–89 (citations omitted).

Arizona may prohibit pedestrians and motorists from blocking traffic, and it has done so. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 132906(A) (imposing criminal penalties for one who “recklessly interferes with the passage of any highway or public thoroughfare by creating an unreasonable inconvenience or hazard”). But as we discuss below, it may not, consistent with the First Amendment, use a content-based law to target individuals for lighter or harsher punishment because of the message they convey while they violate an unrelated traffic law. Such disparate treatment implicates the First Amendment.

In sum, it is legal in Arizona to hire or be hired for day labor. The day labor provisions limit the ability of day laborers and employers to solicit, negotiate and consummate that legally permissible transaction. The district court therefore correctly held that the day labor provisions are

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 24 of 35

24

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

subject to First Amendment scrutiny as restrictions on lawful, nonmisleading speech.

B. Arizona Has Satisfied Central Hudson’s Second Prong by Demonstrating that it Has a Substantial
Interest in Traffic Safety

Arizona asserts that the day labor provisions are justified by the state’s desire to promote traffic safety.4 Promoting traffic safety is undeniably a substantial government interest. See Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 507–08 (1981) (holding that there can be no “substantial doubt that the twin goals that the ordinance seeks to further – traffic safety and the appearance of the city – are substantial governmental goals”). Arizona has therefore satisfied Central Hudson’s substantial governmental interest requirement.

C. The District Court’s Determination that the Day Labor Provisions Directly Advance Arizona’s Interest
in Traffic Safety Was Not an Abuse of Discretion

Central Hudson’s third prong requires that a restriction on commercial speech must “directly advance” the state’s substantial interest. Cent. Hudson, 447 U.S. at 564. One “consideration in the direct advancement inquiry is ‘underinclusivity . . . .’” Metro Lights, 551 F.3d at 904.

4 Arizona identifies several other substantial interests, including crime reduction, economic development and protecting the aesthetics of its communities. As before the district court, Arizona identifies these interests as substantial but fails to argue that the day labor provisions are narrowly tailored to achieve them. We therefore decline to address these additional interests.

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 25 of 35

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

25

“Central Hudson requires a logical connection between the interest a law limiting commercial speech advances and the exceptions a law makes to its own application.” Id. at 905. We term a law that distinguishes among types of commercial speech without such a logical connection “underinclusive.” As we discuss here, underinclusivity is relevant to Central Hudson’s direct advancement prong because it “may diminish the credibility of the government’s rationale for restricting speech in the first place.” Id. at 904–05 (quoting City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 52 (1994)). As we discuss in Section II.D, infra, underinclusivity is also relevant to Central Hudson’s narrow tailoring prong.

Above, we held that the day labor provisions are contentbased because they distinguish between day labor solicitation speech and all other types of roadside solicitation. In Ballen v. City of Redmond, 466 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2006), we struck down an ordinance that prohibited many commercial signs but exempted real estate signs, because “[t]he City . . . failed to show how the exempted signs reduce vehicular and pedestrian safety or besmirch community aesthetics any less than the prohibited signs.” Id. at 743. The adoption of a content-based restriction, absent justification, “indicate[d] that the City ha[d] not carefully calculated the costs and benefits associated with the burden on speech.” Id.

The day labor provisions, however, are not automatically underinclusive simply because they are content-based and fail to regulate all forms of roadside communication. See Metro Lights, 551 F.3d at 910 (noting that a regulation that bans some, but not all, advertising signs is not automatically underinclusive). Similarly, Arizona may discriminate between different types of roadside communication if it determines that roadside labor solicitations present more

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 26 of 35

26

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

acute safety concerns than other roadside communications. See id. (holding that the additional danger posed by “uncontrolled and incoherent proliferation” of offsite signs was sufficient justification for treating uncontrolled offsite advertising differently from regulated advertising at transit stops). Finally, Arizona may consider the benefits of different types of roadside communications when determining which communications to restrict. See id. at 910–11 (respecting city’s decision that the value it derives from one form of advertising, but not another, “is stronger than the city’s interests in traffic safety and esthetics.” (quoting Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 512 (1981))).

Arizona does not argue that day labor solicitation is less valuable than other types of roadside solicitation. The inquiry is therefore whether anything in the record supports Arizona’s assertion that day labor solicitation creates more acute traffic safety concerns than other types of roadside communication. The plaintiffs say no, arguing that jaywalking, protesting, selling food or goods at the side of the road and a number of other activities present the same traffic concerns as day labor solicitation but are unregulated by the day labor provisions. Arizona counters that the plaintiffs’ assertion is the one unsupported by the record, which includes news articles, declarations and photographs of day laborers and vehicles blocking traffic. We take the point that day labor solicitation may create traffic safety concerns. This evidence is nonprobative, however, on the key question of whether those concerns are more acute than the traffic safety concerns caused by other types of roadside communication.

Arizona introduced declarations from two former police officers explaining the particular traffic problems caused by

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 27 of 35

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

27

day laborer solicitation. Most of the officers’ declarations discuss the hazards of roadside pedestrian-motorist communications generally; while they would support penalizing pedestrian-motorist interactions generally, they do not support singling out day labor solicitation. One officer did, however, represent that day laborer interactions require the parties to negotiate multiple terms, and so take longer than other types of in-street solicitation. Whether this statement is admissible, accurate or generally applicable is far from clear, but at this stage of the proceedings we must accept it as an asserted fact that might justify harsher sanctions than for other roadside speech that blocks traffic.

The district court applied the correct legal standard and determined that the day labor provisions, while “underinclusive to some degree,” still ban enough trafficblocking solicitation that they directly advance Arizona’s interest in traffic safety. Although the evidence was weak, the court’s conclusion was not an abuse of discretion.

D. There Is a Substantial Likelihood that Plaintiffs Will Succeed on Their Claim that the Day Labor Provisions
Restrict More Speech than Necessary to Serve Arizona’s Interest in Traffic Safety

Finally, Central Hudson requires that a regulation “is not more extensive than is necessary to serve” a substantial government interest. 447 U.S. at 566. The test is sometimes phrased as requiring a “‘reasonable fit’ between [government’s] legitimate interests” and the means it uses to serve those interests, City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410, 416 (1993), or that the government employ a “means narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective,” Bd. of Trs. of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S.

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 28 of 35

28

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

469, 480 (1989). The district court concluded that the plaintiffs had established a likelihood of success on their claim that the day labor provisions are not “drawn to achieve” Arizona’s substantial interest in traffic safety. The court derived this standard from Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653, 2667–68 (2011), which held that “[t]o sustain [a] targeted, content-based burden . . . on protected expression, the State must show at least that . . . the measure is drawn to achieve that interest.” The parties debate whether this standard is more stringent than Central Hudson’s formulation that a restriction must be no “more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.” Cent. Hudson, 447 U.S. at 566. At the least, Sorrell articulates the test the Supreme Court most recently applied to a content-based restriction on commercial speech, so the district court did not err in applying it. Whether Sorrell intended to make the commercial speech test more exacting for the state to meet is a question that we need not decide, because we conclude plaintiffs are likely to succeed even under Central Hudson’s formulation of the standard and our cases interpreting it.

Under those decisions, a restriction on commercial speech “must not be more extensive than is necessary to serve” a substantial government interest – i.e., it should not be overinclusive. World Wide Rush, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 606 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Metro Lights, 551 F.3d at 903) (internal quotation marks omitted). We recently evaluated a similar in-street solicitation ban and held it to be impermissibly overinclusive. See Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach (Redondo Beach), 657 F.3d 936, 950 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). Redondo Beach applied the “time, place or manner” test for content-neutral restrictions on core First Amendment speech. Id. at 945. Like Central Hudson’s for restrictions on

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 29 of 35

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

29

commercial speech, that test requires that a regulation be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest. See id. at 948 (“To satisfy the [time, place or manner] narrow tailoring requirement, ‘the Government . . . bears the burden of showing that the remedy it has adopted does not burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests.’” (quoting Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 665 (1994))). Because the test for commercial speech is “‘substantially similar’ to the application of the test for validity of time, place, and manner restrictions,” Redondo Beach provides a helpful framework for analyzing this case. Fox, 492 U.S. at 477 (quoting S.F. Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522, 537 n.16 (1987)).

In Redondo Beach, as here, the government sought to justify an in-street solicitation ban by its interest in traffic flow and safety. Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d at 947. The ban applied to all in-street solicitation, regardless of whether the solicitation blocked traffic. See id. at 941–42. We recognized, as we do here, that traffic safety is an important government interest and that solicitation may create dangerous traffic conditions. See id. at 947–48. Nevertheless, we held that Redondo Beach’s law was overinclusive because it restricted more speech than necessary to serve Redondo Beach’s interest in traffic safety. See id. at 947–51.

Arizona’s law is less restrictive than Redondo Beach’s because the day labor provisions regulate only labor solicitation that blocks traffic, whereas Redondo Beach’s ordinance regulated all roadside solicitation. Nevertheless, one line of analysis from Redondo Beach is highly relevant and persuasive. The Redondo Beach ordinance restricted

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 30 of 35

30

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

more speech than necessary because “[t]he City has various other laws at its disposal that would allow it to achieve its stated interests while burdening little or no speech.” Id. at 949. That holding was based on the longstanding rule that, because restricting speech should be the government’s tool of last resort, the availability of obvious less-restrictive alternatives renders a speech restriction overinclusive. See id. at 950 (citing Discovery Network, 507 U.S. at 417 n.13 (“[I]f there are numerous and obvious less-burdensome alternatives to the restriction on commercial speech, that is certainly a relevant consideration in determining whether the ‘fit’ between ends and means is reasonable.”); Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 444 U.S. 620, 637 (1980) (“The Village’s legitimate interest in preventing fraud can be better served by measures less intrusive than a direct prohibition on solicitation. Fraudulent misrepresentations can be prohibited and the penal laws used to punish such conduct directly.”); Schneider v. New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147, 162 (1939) (“There are obvious methods of preventing littering. Amongst these is the punishment of those who actually throw papers on the streets.”)).

Plaintiffs have cited a number of preexisting Arizona laws that could be used to address legitimate traffic safety concerns without burdening speech. These include Arizona Revised Statutes Sections 28-873(A) (civil penalties for stopping or parking a car in various situations), 28-905 (civil penalties for opening a car door if it interferes with traffic), and 13-2906(A) (criminal penalties for one who “recklessly interferes with the passage of any highway or public thoroughfare by creating an unreasonable inconvenience or hazard.”). Arizona responds that “the existing traffic laws had insufficient or no deterrent effect on in-street

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 31 of 35

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

31

employment solicitation.” This argument misses the point and is in any event unsupported.

First, Arizona’s substantial government interest is in traffic flow and safety, not in curbing in-street employment solicitation. The question is therefore not whether existing laws are sufficient to deal with in-street employment solicitation, but rather whether existing laws are sufficient to deal with the traffic problems that may attend in-street employment solicitation. Arizona, which bears the burden of proof on this issue, has introduced no evidence addressing it.

Second, our consideration is not limited to Arizona’s actual traffic safety regulations, but includes any potential or actual traffic safety regulations that are obviously available. See, e.g., Discovery Network, 507 U.S. at 417 (“The fact that the city failed to address its recently developed concern about newsracks by regulating their size, shape, appearance, or number indicates that” the restriction was not narrowly tailored). As discussed above, Redondo Beach identified a number of existing laws the city could have invoked that were broad enough to address the traffic concerns attending instreet employment solicitation without implicating speech. See Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d at 949–50 (citing California ordinances prohibiting jaywalking, stopping in traffic alongside a red-painted curb, stopping a car “so as to obstruct the normal movement of traffic,” standing in a roadway “if such action interferes with the lawful movement of traffic” and standing or stopping “except as near as is physically possible to the building line or the curb line”). Our discussion in Redondo Beach highlights the animating First Amendment principle that government must consider pursuing its interests through conduct-based regulations before enacting speech-based regulations.

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 32 of 35

32

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

Nothing in the record shows that Arizona could not effectively pursue its interest in traffic safety by enforcing or enacting similar kinds of speech-neutral traffic safety regulations. Therefore, even under the Central Hudson standard Arizona urges, plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the day labor provisions are overinclusive because they restrict more speech than necessary to serve Arizona’s interest in traffic safety.5

The day labor provisions are a poor fit with Arizona’s interest in traffic safety because, in this context, they are also underinclusive. As we previously discussed, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the day labor provisions are underinclusive but not so much so that they fail to directly advance Arizona’s interest in traffic safety. That the day labor provisions are underinclusive is still relevant, however, to whether they satisfy Central Hudson’s no-moreextensive-than-necessary prong. The district court correctly noted the relevance of underinclusivity to this inquiry and correctly determined that the provisions’ underinclusivity contributes to the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits. See Metro Lights, 551 F.3d at 905 n.8 (explaining that underinclusivity is relevant to both whether a speech restriction directly advances the government’s interest and whether it is more extensive than necessary).

A statute that “discriminat[es] on the basis of content” may be “‘more extensive than necessary’ to advance the government’s interest” if there is no valid reason for the

5 We reiterate that we consider only the limited record before us and only as a predictive matter at the preliminary injunction stage. Nothing in our opinion should be read as foreclosing the parties from introducing additional evidence as this case proceeds.

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 33 of 35

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

33

discrimination. Id. (quoting Cent. Hudson, 447 U.S. at 566) (citing Ballen, 466 F.3d at 743–44). In Ballen, we held that, where there is no reason related to the government’s asserted interest for distinguishing based on content, a content-based law restricts more speech than necessary because it indicates that the government “has not carefully calculated the costs and benefits associated with the burden on speech imposed by its discriminatory, content-based prohibition.” 466 F.3d at 743.

The day labor provisions are content-based restrictions designed to suppress the economic activity of undocumented immigrants. Unlike in Ballen, Arizona has proffered at least some legitimate basis for distinguishing between day labor solicitation and other roadside communications. See Section II.C, supra. As noted, however, that justification is only marginally supported by the record. In its narrow tailoring analysis, the district court correctly discounted it and emphasized S.B. 1070’s purposes clause, the fact that the day labor provisions provide penalties drastically out-ofproportion to those for other traffic violations and the legislative record. These factors all support the court’s conclusion that the day labor provisions are underinclusive because they are “structured to target particular speech rather than a broader traffic problem.” That conclusion, whether under Central Hudson or Sorrell, undercuts Arizona’s argument that the day labor provisions are narrowly tailored to serve its interest in traffic safety.

In sum, Arizona could have advanced its interest in traffic safety directly, without reference to speech. The availability of such obvious and less-restrictive alternatives makes the day labor provisions overinclusive. They are also underinclusive because they draw content-based distinctions

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 34 of 35

34

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

that appear motivated by a desire to eliminate the livelihoods of undocumented immigrants rather than to address Arizona’s interest in traffic safety. Being both overinclusive and underinclusive, the day labor provisions restrict more speech than necessary to serve Arizona’s interest in traffic safety. The district court correctly determined that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim.

III.

In addition to likelihood of success on the merits, a court granting a preliminary injunction must consider the likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities and the public interest. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The district court considered each of these factors. Its conclusion that plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction was appropriate because “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). The court correctly found that the equities tip in favor of the plaintiffs because they have a significant First Amendment and economic interest in engaging in solicitation speech and Arizona need not impede that speech in order to pursue its traffic safety goals. Finally, the court correctly found that an injunction is in the public interest because the day labor provisions, if enforced, would infringe the First Amendment rights of many persons who are not parties to this lawsuit.

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 802-1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 35 of 35

VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING

35

CONCLUSION

Laws that limit commercial speech must not be more extensive than necessary to serve a substantial government interest. The district court correctly determined that, though Arizona has a significant government interest in promoting traffic safety, the day labor provisions fail Central Hudson’s requirement that restrictions on commercial speech be no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits and that the other requirements for a preliminary injunction are satisfied. We therefore affirm the preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the day labor provisions.

AFFIRMED

 
 Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1285 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 23

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Valle Del Sol, et al.,

No. CV-10-01061-PHX-SRB

10

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

11 v.

12 Michael B. Whiting, et al.,

13

Defendants,

14 and

15 Douglas A. Ducey and the State of Arizona,
16 Intervenor Defendants.
17

18

At issue are Plaintiffs’ and Intervenor Defendants’ (“Arizona”) motions for partial

19 summary judgment. (See Doc. 1215, Intervenor Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. re: Counts One,

20 Two, Four, Five, Six, and Seven of the FAC (“Arizona’s Mot.”); Doc. 1223, Pls.’ Mot.

21 for Partial Summ. J. and for Permanent Inj. (“Pls.’ Mot.”) & Doc. 1223-1, Pls.’ Mem. of

22 Points and Authorities in Supp. of Mot. and Permanent Inj. Req. (“Pls.’ Mem.”).)

23 I. BACKGROUND

24

This case is a facial challenge to the Arizona law commonly known as S.B. 1070,

25 a set of statutes and statutory amendments enacted in 2010 to address immigration-related

26 issues in Arizona. (See Doc. 447, Oct. 8, 2010 Order at 1-4 (summarizing S.B. 1070’s

27 historical background and provisions)); United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980,

28 985-91 (D. Ariz. 2010) (same), aff’d, 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011), aff’d in part, rev’d in

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1285 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 23

1 part, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012).1 The enactment of S.B. 1070 led to this suit and the related

2 pre-enforcement facial challenge in United States v. Arizona, in which the United States

3 filed suit to enjoin S.B. 1070 as preempted. (See Arizona, No. 10-CV-01413-PHX-SRB,

4 Doc. 1, Compl.) The Arizona case is now resolved. Plaintiffs’ challenge to S.B. 1070

5 includes, but is not limited to, preemption theories. (See Doc. 511, First Am. Compl. for

6 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“FAC”) ¶¶ 177-82 (Count One – Supremacy Clause),

7 183-88 (Count Two – Equal Protection Clause), 189-91 (Count Three – First

8 Amendment), 192-96 (Count Four – Fourth Amendment), 197-200 (Count Five – Article

9 II, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution), 201-04 (Count Six – Due Process Clause), 205-08

10 (Count Seven – 42 U.S.C. § 1981).) (The federal constitutional claims are brought under

11 42 U.S.C. § 1983.)

12

Five years of rulings in these cases has narrowed the unresolved issues concerning

13 S.B. 1070’s facial validity. In Arizona, the Supreme Court held that although Section 3 of

14 S.B. 1070 was field preempted and that Sections 5(C) and 6 were conflict preempted,

15 Section 2(B) was not preempted on its face. See Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct.

16 2492, 2501-10 (2012). The Court permanently enjoined Sections 3, 5(C), and 6. (See 17 Arizona, Doc. 180, Sept. 18, 2012 Order.)2 The Court later permanently enjoined Section

18 4, which amended the crime of human smuggling under A.R.S. § 13-2319. (See id., Doc.

19 215, Nov. 7, 2014 Order.) Like the United States, Plaintiffs moved to enjoin various

20 provisions of S.B. 1070. The Court preliminarily enjoined the portions of Section 5

21 codified under A.R.S. § 13-2929, which created a separate crime for certain smuggling

22 activities. (Doc. 757, Sept. 5, 2012 Order); Valle del Sol v. Whiting, 2012 WL 8021265

23

24

1 The Court refers to Senate Bill 1070 and House Bill 2162 collectively as “S.B.

25

1070,” describing the April 23, 2010 enactment as modified by the April 30, 2010 amendments.

26

2 Section 3 made the failure to comply with federal alien registration requirements

27

a state misdemeanor. A.R.S. § 13-1509. Section 5(C) made it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in Arizona. A.R.S. § 13-2928(C). Section 6

28

authorized the warrantless arrest of a person where there was probable cause to believe the person had committed any public offense that made the person removable from the

United States. A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5).

- 2 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1285 Filed 09/04/15 Page 3 of 23

1 (D. Ariz. Sept. 5, 2012), aff’d, 732 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct.

2 1876 (2014). A.R.S. § 13-2929 is now permanently enjoined after the United States and

3 Arizona reached a stipulation in Arizona. (See Arizona, Doc. 200, June 9, 2014 Order.)

4 The Court also preliminarily enjoined the portions of Section 5 codified under A.R.S.

5 § 13-2928(A) and (B) involving day labor prohibitions. (Doc. 604, Feb. 29, 2012 Order);

6 Friendly House v. Whiting, 846 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (D. Ariz. 2012), aff’d sub nom. Valle

7 Del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 709 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 2013). The portions of S.B. 1070 that are

8 not enjoined are now in effect.

9

The parties filed motions for partial summary judgment after the close of

10 discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Together the partial summary judgment motions

11 cover all counts in the First Amended Complaint. Arizona moves for summary judgment

12 on each count except for Plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge to the day labor

13 provisions (Count Three). (See Arizona’s Mot. at 2.) Plaintiffs move for summary

14 judgment on their First Amendment challenge to the day labor provisions and their

15 preemption challenge to Section 2(D) (Count One). (See Pls.’ Mot. at 1; Pls.’ Mem. at 516 29.) Plaintiffs ask the Court to permanently enjoin these provisions. (Id.)3

17 II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS

18

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is properly granted

19 when: (1) there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact; and (2) after viewing the

20 evidence most favorably to the non-moving party, the movant is clearly entitled to prevail

21 as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23

22 (1986); Eisenberg v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 815 F.2d 1285, 1288-89 (9th Cir. 1987). A fact is

23 “material” when, under the governing substantive law, it could affect the outcome of the

24 case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A genuine dispute of

25 material fact arises if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict

26 for the nonmoving party.” Id. In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court

27 3 Because the Section 5 smuggling provisions are already unenforceable due to the
28 permanent injunction order in Arizona, the Court denies as moot Plaintiffs’ other request to permanently enjoin A.R.S. § 13-2929. (See Pls.’ Mot. at 1; Pls.’ Mem. at 29-33.)

- 3 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1285 Filed 09/04/15 Page 4 of 23

1 must regard as true the non-moving party’s evidence if it is supported by affidavits or

2 other evidentiary material, and “all inferences are to be drawn in the light most favorable

3 to the non-moving party.” Eisenberg, 815 F.2d at 1289; see also Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324.

4 The non-moving party may not merely rest on its pleadings; it must produce some

5 significant probative evidence tending to contradict the moving party’s allegations,

6 thereby creating a material question of fact. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256-57 (holding that

7 the plaintiff must present affirmative evidence to defeat a properly supported motion for

8 summary judgment); First Nat’l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289

9 (1968).

10

A. Arizona’s Motion

11

Arizona contends that after the rulings in this case and in Arizona Plaintiffs’

12 remaining claims are that: Section 2 of S.B. 1070 violates the Supremacy Clause, the

13 Equal Protection Clause, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981; Section 2(B) violates the Fourth

14 Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and Article II, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution; and

15 the Section 5 day labor provisions codified under A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B) violate

16 the First Amendment. (Arizona’s Mot. at 2.) Arizona argues that Plaintiffs’ First

17 Amendment challenge is the only claim that involves triable issues that cannot be

18 resolved on summary judgment. (Id.) Plaintiffs do not dispute Arizona’s contentions

19 about what claims remain against S.B. 1070, except Plaintiffs contend that their claims

20 alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 are not limited to

21 Section 2 but challenge S.B. 1070 in its entirety. (See Doc. 1252, Pls.’ Memo. of Law in

22 Opp’n to Arizona’s Mot. (“Pls.’ Opp’n”) at 9.) Plaintiffs note that the Court allowed

23 these claims to proceed past the pleading stage in ruling on Arizona’s motion to dismiss.

24 (Id. at 9-10; see Oct. 8, 2010 Order at 15-18.) Plaintiffs acknowledge the Court’s prior

25 statement that it cannot “declare an entire statute unconstitutional if the constitutional

26 portions can be severed from those which are unconstitutional,” but Plaintiffs argue

27 “there will be nothing to sever if [they] ultimately prove that discriminatory intent was a

28 motivating factor for the law in its entirety.” (Pls.’ Opp’n at 10 n.12 (citing Oct. 8, 2010

- 4 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1285 Filed 09/04/15 Page 5 of 23

1 Order at 2 n.2).)4

2

1. Section 2(B) (Counts One, Four, Five, and Six)

3

Arizona argues that the Supreme Court’s opinion in Arizona prevents further facial

4 challenges to Section 2(B). (See Arizona’s Mot. at 9-12.) Arizona moves for summary

5 judgment on the counts challenging Section 2(B), which include part of Count One

6 (Supremacy Clause) and all of Counts Four (Fourth Amendment), Five (Article II, § 8 of

7 the Arizona Constitution), and Six (Due Process Clause). (Id.; see FAC ¶¶ 177-82, 192-

8 204; Joint Proposed Case Management Plan at 3-4 (clarifying that Plaintiffs’ claims

9 alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment and Due Process Clause are based on 10 Section 2(B)).)5 Section 2(B) requires state law enforcement officers or agencies to make

11 a “reasonable attempt . . . to determine the immigration status” of any person they stop,

12 detain, or arrest on some other legitimate basis if “reasonable suspicion exists that the

13 person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States.” A.R.S. § 11-1051(B).

14 The law also provides that “[a]ny person who is arrested shall have the person’s

15 immigration status determined before the person is released.” Id.

16

In Arizona, the Supreme Court held that Section 2(B) was not preempted on its

17 face. See Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2507-10. After holding that “the mandatory nature of the

18 status checks” under Section 2(B) did not interfere with federal immigration law, the

19

4 Plaintiffs have also alleged that S.B. 1070 in its entirety violates the Supremacy 20 Clause, but in Arizona, the Court refused “to enjoin S.B. 1070 as an integrated statutory

21

enactment with interlocking provisions” on preemption grounds and “evaluate[d] the constitutionality of the individual provisions of S.B. 1070 challenged by the United

22

States.” Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d at 992-93; (see also FAC ¶ 180; Doc. 799, Joint Proposed Case Management Plan at 2.) (In addressing Arizona’s motion to dismiss, the

23

Court “d[id] not address Plaintiffs’ claim alleging a violation of the [S]upremacy [C]lause as the Court already thoroughly addressed this issue in the [Arizona] Order.” (Oct. 8,

24

2010 Order at 14 n.6.)) Consistent with Arizona, the Court must evaluate Plaintiffs’ preemption challenges in terms of “the individual provisions of S.B. 1070 challenged by

25

Plaintiffs.” (See id. at 2 n.2.) Plaintiffs’ pleadings and papers have only identified Section 2(B) and Section 2(D) as being preempted.

26

5 Although the Joint Proposed Case Management Plan does not mention the claim

27

under Article II, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution, this claim, like Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment challenge, is based on allegations that S.B. 1070 authorizes unconstitutional

28

warrantless seizures and arrests. (See FAC ¶¶ 192-96); Ariz. Const. Art. II, § 8 (“No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of

law.”).

- 5 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1285 Filed 09/04/15 Page 6 of 23

1 Supreme Court addressed the second “constitutional concern” of “prolonged detention

2 while the checks are being performed.” Id. at 2508-09. The opinion described the ways

3 by which Arizona courts could interpret Section 2(B) to avoid the “constitutional

4 concern” that “state officers will be required to delay the release of some detainees for no

5 reason other than to verify their immigration status.” Id. at 2509 (“The state courts may

6 conclude that, unless the person continues to be suspected of some crime for which he

7 may be detained by state officers, it would not be reasonable to prolong the stop for the

8 immigration inquiry.”) (“State courts may read [the second sentence of Section 2(B)—

9 that ‘[a]ny person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined

10 before [he] is released’—]as an instruction to initiate a status check every time someone

11 is arrested, or in some subset of those cases, rather than as a command to hold the person

12 until the check is complete no matter the circumstances.”). The Supreme Court reasoned

13 that “if [Section] 2(B) only requires state officers to conduct a status check during the

14 course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been released, the

15 provision likely would survive preemption—at least absent some showing that it has

16 other consequences that are adverse to federal law and its objectives.” Id. The Supreme

17 Court did not address “whether reasonable suspicion of illegal entry or another

18 immigration crime would be a legitimate basis for prolonging a detention, or whether this

19 too would be preempted by federal law.” Id. The opinion advised that “[t]he nature and

20 timing of this case counsel[ed] caution in evaluating the validity of [Section] 2(B).” Id. at

21 2510. Noting the “basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be

22 enforced” at this stage, the opinion did not “foreclose other preemption and constitutional

23 challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.” Id.

24

The issue of whether the Arizona opinion forecloses Plaintiffs’ facial challenges to

25 Section 2(B) is not new. The Court addressed this issue when it denied Plaintiffs’ request

26 to preliminarily enjoin Section 2(B) on preemption, Fourth Amendment, and Equal 27 Protection grounds. (See Sept. 5, 2012 Order); Valle del Sol, 2012 WL 8021265.6

28 6 Plaintiffs initially appealed the denial of their preliminary injunction request, but

- 6 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1285 Filed 09/04/15 Page 7 of 23

1 Plaintiffs argued that the Arizona opinion did not foreclose their facial challenges to

2 Section 2(B) because the Supreme Court did not have before it the record that exists in

3 this case. Valle del Sol, 2012 WL 8021265, at *2. Plaintiffs interpreted their evidence to

4 show that state officials would implement Section 2(B) in the same manner the Supreme

5 Court deemed unconstitutional. Id. The Court rejected this argument and refused to

6 “ignore the clear direction in the Arizona opinion that [Section] 2(B) cannot be

7 challenged further on its face before the law takes effect.” Id. at *3 (“As the Supreme

8 Court stated, Plaintiffs and the United States may be able to challenge the provision on

9 other preemption and constitutional grounds ‘as interpreted and applied after it goes into

10 effect.’” (quoting Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2510)). The Court denied Plaintiffs’ request to

11 certify “a question to the Arizona Supreme Court as to whether [Section] 2(B) authorizes

12 additional detention beyond the point a person would otherwise have been released, in

13 order to determine that person’s immigration status.” Id. The Court explained that

14 “[g]iven the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Arizona Supreme Court would be faced with the

15 same issue that bars this Court’s consideration of Plaintiffs’ facial challenges to [Section]

16 2(B). Without a set of as-applied facts, the Supreme Court has held that it would be

17 speculative to decide as a matter of law that [Section] 2(B) will be enforced in an

18 unconstitutional manner.” Id.; (see also Doc. 1233, Apr. 6, 2015 Order at 1-4 (denying a

19 second certification motion regarding Section 2(B) because it was an untimely motion for

20 reconsideration of the preliminary injunction request denial).)

21

In responding to Arizona’s motion, Plaintiffs have not addressed the Court’s prior

22 interpretation of the Arizona opinion. Plaintiffs generally make the same arguments the

23 Court has already considered and rejected in the preliminary injunction stage. (See Pls.’

24 Opp’n at 1-3.) Plaintiffs narrowly interpret the Arizona opinion to address only whether

25 the United States could prevail in its facial challenge to Section 2(B). (Id. at 2.) As in the

26

27

later withdrew their Ninth Circuit appeal. Arizona cross-appealed the Court’s grant of a preliminary injunction against the Section 5 smuggling provisions, A.R.S. § 13-2929. The

28

Ninth Circuit affirmed on grounds that A.R.S. § 13-2929 was void for vagueness and preempted. See Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006, 1019-29 (9th Cir. 2013),

cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1876 (2014).

- 7 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1285 Filed 09/04/15 Page 8 of 23

1 preliminary injunction stage, Plaintiffs argue that the Supreme Court could not determine

2 Section 2(B)’s constitutionality based on the record at the time. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiffs

3 interpret their evidence to show that Section 2(B) authorizes law enforcement officers to

4 detain and arrest individuals solely to verify their immigration status. (Id. at 7-8 (citing

5 Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (“AZ POST”) training materials, a

6 2010 Arizona Legislative Council legal opinion, former Arizona State Senator Russell

7 Pearce’s testimony and statements, and three county sheriffs’ interpretations of Section

8 2(B)); see Doc. 1253, Pls.’ Resp. to Intervenor Defs.’ Statement of Material Undisputed

9 Facts in Supp. of Mot., and Pls.’ Statement of Additional Facts Precluding Summ. J.

10 (“Pls.’ Resp. and Statement of Additional Facts”) ¶¶ P1-18.)

11

The Court will not depart from its prior analysis. Plaintiffs are attempting to

12 challenge a law that is not preempted on its face and could be interpreted to avoid the

13 constitutional concerns mentioned in the Arizona opinion, including potential violations

14 of the Fourth Amendment and the privacy protections in Article II, § 8 of the Arizona

15 Constitution. See Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2509-10 (explaining that Arizona courts could

16 interpret Section 2(B) on its face to avoid the “constitutional concern” that “state officers

17 will be required to delay the release of some detainees for no reason other than to verify

18 their immigration status”). The Supreme Court held there is a “basic uncertainty about

19 what the law means and how it will be enforced . . . [, and] without the benefit of a

20 definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume

21 [Section] 2(B) will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law.” Id. at

22 2510; see also City of L.A. v. Patel, 135 S. Ct. 2443, 2450 (2015) (“[C]laims for facial

23 relief under the Fourth Amendment are unlikely to succeed when there is substantial

24 ambiguity as to what conduct a statute authorizes: Where a statute consists of

25 ‘extraordinarily elastic categories,’ it may be ‘impossible to tell’ whether and to what

26 extent it deviates from the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.” (quoting Sibron v. 27 New York, 392 U.S. 40, 59-60 & n.20 (1968))).7 If state law enforcement agencies

28 7 The parties dispute how the standards in United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739

- 8 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1285 Filed 09/04/15 Page 9 of 23

1 implement policies or practices that raise constitutional concerns, the Arizona opinion

2 contemplates as-applied challenges to Section 2(B) now that the law is in effect, not

3 additional facial challenges. See Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2510.

4

The Court grants summary judgment in favor of Arizona on Count One

5 (Supremacy Clause) to the extent the count challenges Section 2(B) and Counts Four

6 (Fourth Amendment), Five (Article II, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution), and Six (Due

7 Process Clause).

8

2. Equal Protection Clause and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Counts Two and

9

Seven)

10

Arizona moves for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims alleging violations of

11 the Equal Protection Clause and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (See Arizona’s Mot. at 12-17.) These

12 claims are based on allegations that S.B. 1070 “was enacted with the purpose and intent

13 to discriminate against racial and national origin minorities, including Latinos, on the

14 basis of race and national origin . . . [and] impermissibly and invidiously targets

15 Plaintiffs[,] who are racial and national origin minorities.” (FAC ¶¶ 185-86; see also id.

16 ¶ 208.) “The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no

17 State shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,’

18 which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.”

19 City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). Title 42 U.S.C.

20 § 1981 prohibits discrimination under color of state law based on race, “ancestry[,] or

21 ethnic characteristics.” Saint Francis Coll. v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 613 (1987); see

22 also Gen. Bldg. Contractors Ass’n v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 389-90 (1982)

23

24

(1987), apply to Plaintiffs’ Section 2(B) facial challenges. (See Pls.’ Opp’n at 3-5; Doc. 1264, Intervenor Defs.’ Reply in Supp. of Mot. (“Arizona’s Reply”) at 4); see United

25

States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987) (“A facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must

26

establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.”); Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P. v. Cnty. of San Diego, 543 F.3d 571, 579 n.3 (9th Cir. 2008) (en

27

banc) (“The Supreme Court and this court have called into question the continuing validity of the Salerno rule in the context of First Amendment challenges. In cases

28

involving federal preemption of a local statute, however, the rule applies with full force.” (citations omitted)). The Court does not need to find that Salerno precludes Plaintiffs’

Section 2(B) facial challenges when the Arizona opinion already does that.

- 9 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1285 Filed 09/04/15 Page 10 of 23

1 (purposeful discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause will also violate 42

2 U.S.C. § 1981).

3

Arizona argues it is entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiffs cannot

4 establish that S.B. 1070, on its face, will have a discriminatory effect. (Arizona’s Mot. at

5 12-15.) Arizona also argues that there is a lack of admissible evidence that S.B. 1070 was

6 enacted with a discriminatory purpose. (Id. at 16-17; see also Doc. 927, Dec. 11, 2013

7 Order at 5 (explaining that “[t]o succeed on their Equal Protection challenge, Plaintiffs

8 will have to show, among other things, ‘[p]roof of racially discriminatory intent or

9 purpose’ in the enactment of S.B. 1070” (second alteration in original) (quoting Arlington

10 Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265 (1977))).) Arizona’s argument on

11 discriminatory purpose is based on a discovery dispute ruling that precludes Plaintiffs

12 from opposing the summary judgment motion with facts that were not part of their

13 interrogatory responses. (Arizona’s Mot. at 16-17; see Doc. 1192, Feb. 2, 2015 Minute

14 Order at 1-2.) Arizona contends that because Plaintiffs provided only conclusory

15 allegations without supporting facts, the ruling precludes all of Plaintiffs’ factual support

16 involving the discriminatory purpose element. (Arizona’s Mot. at 16-17.) If the evidence

17 supporting these facts is admissible, Arizona does not argue that it is insufficient to create

18 triable issues. (See Arizona’s Reply at 5-6.)

19

It is undisputed that S.B. 1070 is a facially neutral law. Plaintiffs contend that S.B.

20 1070 will have a disparate impact on Latinos in Arizona based on evidence that people

21 from Mexico and Latin America comprise more of the foreign-born and undocumented

22 immigrant population than other races. (See Pls.’ Opp’n at 12-13 (citing Doc. 1217, Decl.

23 of Stephanie Elliott in Supp. of Arizona’s Mot., Ex. C, Pls.’ Third Supplemental Resp.

24 and Objections to Intervenor Defs.’ Interrogs. at 7-8 (stating that S.B. 1070 was expected

25 and intended to have a disparate impact on, inter alia, Mexicans and Latinos)); Pls.’

26 Resp. and Statement of Additional Facts ¶¶ P19-22 (citing evidence estimating that

27 29.9% of all Arizona residents are Latino; that 64.7% of its foreign-born population is

28 from Latin America; and that over 90% of undocumented immigrants in Arizona are

- 10 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1285 Filed 09/04/15 Page 11 of 23

1 from Mexico).) Plaintiffs argue that this evidence, paired with their evidence under the

2 discriminatory purpose element, is sufficient to raise triable issues under the Arlington

3 Heights analysis to preclude summary judgment on their Equal Protection and 42 U.S.C.

4 § 1981 claims. (See Pls.’ Opp’n at 12-13.)

5

Under the discriminatory effect element of an Equal Protection claim, the parties

6 dispute whether Plaintiffs must identify a “similarly situated” group that will be treated

7 differently under S.B. 1070—i.e., Plaintiffs must demonstrate that state law enforcement

8 officials will enforce the law differently for Latinos than a similarly situated person of

9 another race or ethnicity. (See id. at 11; Arizona’s Reply at 8.) Plaintiffs argue that

10 Arizona is attempting to import irrelevant concepts from “selective prosecution” or

11 “selective enforcement” cases to their claims. (See Pls.’ Opp’n at 11); see United States v.

12 Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 (1996) (“The requirements for a selective-prosecution

13 claim draw on ordinary equal protection standards. . . . To establish a discriminatory

14 effect in a race case, the claimant must show that similarly situated individuals of a

15 different race were not prosecuted.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

16 However, none of the authority Plaintiffs cite supports their argument that they do not

17 have to show that a similarly situated group will be treated differently under S.B. 1070.

18 See Pimentel v. Dreyfus, 670 F.3d 1096, 1106 (9th Cir. 2012) (“To state an equal

19 protection claim of any stripe, . . . a plaintiff must show that the defendant treated the

20 plaintiff differently from similarly situated individuals.”).

21

In Arlington Heights, the issue was whether the defendants acted with proscribed

22 discriminatory intent. Arlington Heights involved allegations that the plaintiffs had

23 allegedly suffered discriminatory treatment through the denial of a zoning permit request,

24 but the absence of discriminatory purpose “end[ed] the constitutional inquiry,” making it

25 unnecessary for the Supreme Court to address whether the challenged ordinance had “a

26 discriminatory ‘ultimate effect.’” See Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 271; see also Hunter

27 v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 227 (1985) (invalidating a provision of the Alabama

28 Constitution under the Arlington Heights analysis because it was enacted with a

- 11 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1285 Filed 09/04/15 Page 12 of 23

1 discriminatory purpose and it had a discriminatory effect by disenfranchising African-

2 Americans at a higher rate than whites convicted of certain non-felony offenses).

3 Plaintiffs also rely on the recent Ninth Circuit decision in Arce v. Douglas, 793 F.3d 968

4 (9th Cir. 2015), in which the court applied the Arlington Heights analysis to a law that

5 eliminated a Mexican American Studies program in the Tucson public schools. (See Doc.

6 1269, Not. of Supp. Authority.) Plaintiffs claim it is instructive that the Ninth Circuit

7 relied on the fact that “sixty percent of all [Tucson Unified School District] students [are]

8 of Mexican or other Hispanic descent, but also ninety percent of students in the [Mexican

9 American Studies, or ‘MAS’] program were such.” (Id. at 1 (alteration in original)

10 (quoting Arce, 793 F.3d at 978).) Plaintiffs compare these statistics to their own evidence.

11 (Id. at 1-2.) Critically, however, the law’s enactment and enforcement had a

12 discriminatory effect on similarly situated students, namely Mexican-American students 13 as opposed to other students. Arce, 793 F.3d at 978.8

14

Because Plaintiffs have admittedly not produced any evidence that state law

15 enforcement officials will enforce S.B. 1070 differently for Latinos than a similarly

16 situated person of another race or ethnicity, the Court grants summary judgment in favor

17 of Arizona on Counts Two (Equal Protection Clause) and Seven (42 U.S.C. § 1981). The

18 Court does not address Arizona’s alternative argument for summary judgment on these 19 claims.9

20

8 Plaintiffs also cite Pacific Shores Properties, LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 730 21 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 436 (2014), which involved a

22

challenge to an ordinance that “had the practical effect of prohibiting new group homes from opening in most residential zones.” Pacific Shores, 730 F.3d at 1147. Pacific Shores

23

involved disparate treatment claims based on statutory laws. Id. at 1158 (“[Plaintiffs] who allege disparate treatment under statutory anti-discrimination laws need not demonstrate

24

the existence of a similarly situated entity who or which was treated better than the plaintiffs in order to prevail.”). That case did not purport to change the usual standards of

25 proof for Equal Protection claims.

9 Plaintiffs move to strike the responsive statement of facts Arizona filed with its 26 reply. (Doc. 1280, Pls.’ Mot. to Strike Intervenor Defs.’ Resps. and Objections to Pls.’

27

Statement of Additional Facts Precluding Summ. J. (“Pls.’ Mot. to Strike”); see Doc. 1265, Arizona’s Resps. and Objections to Pls.’ Statement of Additional Facts Precluding

28

Summ. J.) Plaintiffs argue the filing violates the local rules. (Pls.’ Mot. to Strike at 1-2); see LRCiv 7.2(m)(2) (“Any response to an objection [in an opposing party’s

controverting statement of facts] must be included in the responding party’s reply

- 12 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1285 Filed 09/04/15 Page 13 of 23

1

B. Plaintiffs’ Motion

2

Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on their First Amendment challenge to the

3 Section 5 day labor provisions, A.R.S. § 13-2928(A)-(B), and their preemption challenge

4 to Section 2(D). (See Pls.’ Mot. at 1; Pls.’ Mem. at 5-29.) Plaintiffs ask the Court to

5 permanently enjoin these provisions. (Id.) In addition to prevailing on the merits, a

6 plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must show: “(1) that [he or she] has suffered an

7 irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are

8 inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships

9 between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the

10 public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” eBay Inc. v.

11 MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006).

12

1. Section 5 – A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B) (Count Three)

13

Plaintiffs argue that the day labor provisions under A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B)

14 impose impermissible content-based restrictions on First Amendment protected speech

15 and are not narrowly tailored to promote Arizona’s interest in traffic safety. (See Pls.’

16 Mem. at 5-20.) Plaintiffs contend that the record is virtually unchanged from when the

17 Court preliminarily enjoined the day labor provisions. (Id. at 5; see Feb. 29, 2012 Order);

18 Friendly House, 846 F. Supp. 2d 1053. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary

19 injunction order. Valle Del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 709 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 2013).

20

A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) makes it unlawful for an occupant of a motor vehicle that is

21 stopped on a street, roadway, or highway and is impeding traffic to attempt to hire a

22 person for work at another location. A.R.S. § 13-2928(B) provides that it is unlawful for

23 a person to enter a motor vehicle in order to be hired if the vehicle is stopped on a street,

24 roadway, or highway and is impeding traffic. In the preliminary injunction stage, the

25 Court and Ninth Circuit analyzed the day labor provisions as content-based commercial

26

27

memorandum for the underlying motion and may not be presented in a separate responsive memorandum.”). The Court denies the motion as moot. None of the

28

dispositive issues involving Arizona’s partial summary judgment motion required the Court to consider the objections Arizona raised in the responsive statement of facts when

the reply fully addressed those issues.

- 13 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1285 Filed 09/04/15 Page 14 of 23

1 speech restrictions under the four-prong test the Supreme Court set out in Central

2 Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557

3 (1980). Friendly House, 846 F. Supp. 2d at 1056-58; Valle Del Sol, 709 F.3d at 818-20.

4 The Central Hudson test first evaluates “whether the affected speech is misleading or

5 related to unlawful activity. If not, the government bears the burden of showing that it has

6 a substantial interest, that the restriction directly advances that interest and that the

7 restriction is not more extensive than necessary to serve the interest.” Valle Del Sol, 709 8 F.3d at 816 (citations omitted).10 It is undisputed that the day labor provisions are subject

9 to First Amendment scrutiny as restrictions on lawful, non-misleading speech and that

10 Arizona has a substantial interest in traffic safety. (See Pls.’ Mem. at 8-9; Doc. 1245,

11 Arizona’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. (“Arizona’s Resp.”) at 2); Valle Del Sol, 709 F.3d

12 at 823. Even if the day labor provisions directly advance Arizona’s substantial interest in

13 traffic safety—an issue the parties disputed in the preliminary injunction stage and

14 dispute now on summary judgment—the restrictions “‘must not be more extensive

15 than . . . necessary to serve’ a substantial government interest—i.e., [they] should not be

16 overinclusive.” Valle Del Sol, 709 F.3d at 825 (quoting World Wide Rush, LLC v. City of

17 L.A., 606 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2010)); see also Posadas de Puerto Rico Assocs. v.

18 Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico, 478 U.S. 328, 341 (1986) (“The last two steps of the Central

19 Hudson analysis basically involve a consideration of the ‘fit’ between the legislature’s

20

21

10 The Court applied the standards in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653 22 (2011), to the day labor provisions, a case the Court interpreted as modifying Central

23

Hudson’s fourth prong to impose more demanding requirements on the state. Friendly House, 846 F. Supp. 2d at 1057-58 (“[I]f a ban on commercial speech is content-based,

24

Sorrell instructs that it must be ‘drawn to achieve’ ‘a substantial governmental interest,’ whereas the Central Hudson test requires that the regulation not be ‘more extensive than

25

is necessary to serve that interest.’”). The Ninth Circuit declined to address “[w]hether Sorrell intended to make the commercial speech test more exacting for the state to

26

meet . . . because . . . [P]laintiffs [we]re likely to succeed even under Central Hudson’s formulation of the standard and [the Ninth Circuit] cases interpreting it.” Valle Del Sol,

27

709 F.3d at 825; see id. at 821 (“[We] defer extended discussion of Sorrell for a more appropriate case with a more fully developed factual record.”). The Ninth Circuit still has

28

had no occasion to clarify the application of Sorrell through an extended discussion; however, in this current posture, the day labor provisions are still deficient under the pre-

Sorrell Central Hudson standards.

- 14 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1285 Filed 09/04/15 Page 15 of 23

1 ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends.”).11 Because the day labor

2 provisions are not narrowly tailored to serve Arizona’s substantial interest in traffic

3 safety, it is unnecessary to address whether Arizona’s evidence is sufficient to create

4 genuine issues of material fact about whether the day labor provisions directly advance

5 that traffic safety interest. This finding is consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s analysis

6 addressing the preliminary injunction order on appeal.

7

The Ninth Circuit held that “[P]laintiffs [we]re likely to succeed on the merits of

8 their claim that the day labor provisions are overinclusive because they restrict more

9 speech than necessary to serve Arizona’s interest in traffic safety.” Valle Del Sol, 709

10 F.3d at 827 (emphasis omitted). Arizona had not produced evidence that existing laws or

11 other potential laws were insufficient to address “the traffic problems that may attend in-

12 street employment solicitation.” Id. (emphasis omitted). The opinion listed specific

13 examples of traffic laws from the Ninth Circuit decision in Comite de Jornaleros de

14 Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc), “that

15 were broad enough to address the traffic concerns attending in-street employment

16 solicitation without implicating speech.” Id. (listing California traffic laws from Redondo

17 Beach that “prohibit[ed] jaywalking, stopping in traffic alongside a red-painted curb,

18 stopping a car so as to obstruct the normal movement of traffic, standing in a roadway if

19

20

11 As in the preliminary injunction stage, Arizona identifies several other

21

substantial interests beyond traffic safety, including crime reduction, economic development, and protecting the aesthetics of its communities, but does not argue that the

22

day labor provisions are narrowly tailored to achieve them. (See Arizona’s Resp. at 6-7.) The Court will therefore not consider these interests in the analysis. See Valle Del Sol,

23 709 F.3d at 823 n.4 (declining to address these proffered interests for the same reason).

24

Regarding Central Hudson’s third prong, the Court previously found that the day labor provisions, while “underinclusive to some degree,” still banned enough traffic-

25

blocking solicitation that they directly advanced Arizona’s interest in traffic safety. Friendly House, 846 F. Supp. 2d at 1059. Although most of the evidence in the record

26

was “nonprobative” on the issue of whether the particular traffic problems caused by day laborer solicitation were “more acute than the traffic safety concerns caused by other

27

types of roadside communication,” “[o]ne officer did, however, represent that day laborer interactions require the parties to negotiate multiple terms, and so take longer than other

28

types of in-street solicitation.” See Valle Del Sol, 709 F.3d at 824-25. The Ninth Circuit called this evidence “weak,” but concluded that the Court’s finding was not an abuse of

discretion. Id. at 825.

- 15 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1285 Filed 09/04/15 Page 16 of 23

1 such action interferes with the lawful movement of traffic and standing or stopping

2 except as near as is physically possible to the building line or the curb line” (internal

3 quotation marks omitted)). The Ninth Circuit found “[n]othing in the record show[ing]

4 that Arizona could not effectively pursue its interest in traffic safety by enforcing or

5 enacting similar kinds of speech-neutral traffic safety regulations.” Id.

6

The Ninth Circuit also held that “[t]he day labor provisions are a poor fit with

7 Arizona’s interest in traffic safety because, in this context, they are also underinclusive.”

8 Id. at 827-28 (“That the day labor provisions are underinclusive is . . . relevant . . . to

9 whether they satisfy Central Hudson’s no-more-extensive-than-necessary prong.”). The

10 Ninth Circuit explained that the Court properly “emphasized S.B. 1070’s purposes 11 clause,[12] the fact that the day labor provisions provide penalties drastically out-of-

12 proportion to those for other traffic violations[,] and the legislative record”—“factors all

13 support[ing] the [C]ourt’s conclusion that the day labor provisions are underinclusive

14 because they are ‘structured to target particular speech rather than a broader traffic

15 problem.’” Id. at 828. The Ninth Circuit concluded the analysis by noting that

16

Arizona could have advanced its interest in traffic safety directly, without

reference to speech. The availability of such obvious and less-restrictive

17

alternatives makes the day labor provisions overinclusive. They are also

underinclusive because they draw content-based distinctions that appear

18

motivated by a desire to eliminate the livelihoods of undocumented

immigrants rather than to address Arizona’s interest in traffic safety.

19

20 Id.

21

Arizona argues that there are factual disputes about whether Arizona traffic laws

22 sufficiently address the “unique safety concerns” arising from in-street employment

23 solicitation. (Arizona’s Resp. at 7-8.) Arizona lists a number of state traffic laws and

24 relies exclusively on one officer’s declaration about the purported shortcomings of these

25 laws to “address the hazards of in-street employment solicitation.” (Id.; see Doc. 1246,

26

12 The purposes clause in Section 1 of S.B. 1070 states that “the intent of [S.B. 27 1070] is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local

28

government agencies in Arizona” and that “[t]he provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and

economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.”

- 16 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1285 Filed 09/04/15 Page 17 of 23

1 Arizona’s Controverting Statement of Facts and Supplemental Statement of Undisputed

2 Material Facts ¶¶ 26-31 (citing Doc. 553-3, Second Decl. of Daniel Boyd).) This

3 declaration was part of the record in the preliminary injunction stage and not all of the

4 statements in it specifically address “the traffic problems that may attend in-street

5 employment solicitation.” See Valle Del Sol, 709 F.3d at 827 (“The question is . . . not

6 whether existing laws are sufficient to deal with in-street employment solicitation, but

7 rather whether existing laws are sufficient to deal with the traffic problems that may

8 attend in-street employment solicitation.”). Even if existing traffic laws are insufficient to

9 address the traffic problems in-street employment solicitation may cause, there is no

10 evidence that Arizona could not effectively pursue its interest in traffic safety by enacting

11 other speech-neutral traffic safety regulations. Id. (“[O]ur consideration is not limited to

12 Arizona’s actual traffic safety regulations, but includes any potential or actual traffic

13 safety regulations that are obviously available.”). As the Ninth Circuit explained, “[the]

14 government must consider pursuing its interests through conduct-based regulations

15 before enacting speech-based regulations.” Id. The Court must find “that the day labor

16 provisions are overinclusive because they restrict more speech than necessary to serve

17 Arizona’s interest in traffic safety.” See id. The Court does not need to address if Arizona

18 has offered sufficient controverting evidence to create factual issues about whether the

19 day labor provisions are underinclusive.

20

Arizona does not dispute that the other permanent injunction requirements are met.

21 See id. at 828-29 (affirming the preliminary injunction findings that Plaintiffs would

22 suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, the equities favored Plaintiffs, and an

23 injunction was in the public’s interest); see also Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,

24 555 U.S. 7, 32 (2008) (citing case law for the rule that issuing a permanent injunction is

25 essentially the same as for issuing a preliminary injunction except for the requirement to

26 show actual success on the merits instead of a likelihood of success). The Court grants

27 summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on Count Three (First Amendment) and

28 permanently enjoins the Section 5 day labor provisions, A.R.S. § 13-2928(A)-(B).

- 17 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1285 Filed 09/04/15 Page 18 of 23

1

2. Section 2(D) (Count One)

2

Section 2(D) of S.B. 1070 provides:

3

Notwithstanding any other law, a law enforcement agency may securely

transport an alien who the agency has received verification is unlawfully

4

present in the United States and who is in the agency’s custody to a federal

facility in this state or to any other point of transfer into federal custody that

5

is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency. A law

enforcement agency shall obtain judicial authorization before securely

6

transporting an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States to a

point of transfer that is outside of this state.

7

8 A.R.S. § 11-1051(D). Plaintiffs argue that Section 2(D) is conflict and field preempted

9 based on their interpretation that the law authorizes state officials to detain and transport

10 individuals based on civil removability without federal direction and supervision. (See

11 Pls.’ Mem. at 21-29); United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339, 344 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The

12 federal preemption doctrine stems from the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2,

13 and the fundamental principle of the Constitution that Congress has the power to preempt

14 state law.” (alteration incorporated) (quoting Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 15 U.S. 363, 372 (2000))), rev’d on other grounds, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012).13 Because

16 Plaintiffs compare Section 2(D) to the conflict preempted Section 6 provisions, and their

17 preemption challenge centers on whether the law conflicts with the federal removal

18 system, it is appropriate to consider this challenge under the conflict preemption analysis,

19 not the field preemption analysis. (Pls.’ Mem. at 21); see Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v.

20 Napolitano, 558 F.3d 856, 863 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that conflict preemption

21 occurs “when either ‘compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical

22

23

13 The United States did not challenge Section 2(D) in Arizona. See Arizona, 703

24

F. Supp. 2d at 986 (“[T]he United States has not made any argument to preliminarily enjoin . . . A.R.S. § 11-1051(C)-(F)[,] requiring that state officials work with federal

25

officials with regard to unlawfully present aliens[.]”). The Court previously dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim that Section 2(D) violated the Fourth Amendment by authorizing state

26

law enforcement agencies to “transport individuals into federal custody,” but did not address whether Plaintiffs could state a claim against Section 2(D) under a preemption

27

theory. (See Oct. 8, 2010 Order at 14 n.6, 32 (“Plaintiffs do not address this [dismissal] theory in their Response and cite no authority stating that state law enforcement agencies

28

may not transport a lawfully-detained person in their custody.”).) The Court will not consider Plaintiffs’ untimely and procedurally improper request for reconsideration of the

dismissal. (See Pls.’ Mem. at 25 n.14); LRCiv 7.2(g)(2).

- 18 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1285 Filed 09/04/15 Page 19 of 23

1 impossibility,’ or where ‘state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and

2 execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’” (quoting Fid. Fed. Sav. &

3 Loan Ass’n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 153 (1982))), aff’d sub nom. Chamber of

4 Commerce of U.S. v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011).

5

The general rule is that “it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in

6 the United States. If the police stop someone based on nothing more than possible

7 removability, the usual predicate for an arrest is absent.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2505

8 (citation omitted). In Arizona, Section 6 was held to be conflict preempted because the

9 law authorized state officials to make arrests for civil immigration violations, which

10 would have “provide[d] state officers even greater authority to arrest aliens on the basis

11 of possible removability than Congress . . . g[ave] to trained federal immigration

12 officers.” Id. at 2506; see also A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5) (authorizing the warrantless arrest

13 of a person “if the officer ha[d] probable cause to believe . . . [t]he person to be arrested

14 ha[d] committed any public offense that ma[de] the person removable from the United 15 States”).14 The law did this by authorizing “officers who believe[d] an alien [wa]s

16 removable by reason of some ‘public offense’ . . . [to] arrest on that basis regardless of

17 whether a federal warrant [w]as issued or the alien [wa]s likely to escape. This state

18 authority could be exercised without any input from the Federal Government about

19 whether an arrest [wa]s warranted in a particular case.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2506.

20

Plaintiffs argue that Section 2(D) operates like Section 6 to authorize the detention

21 and transportation of individuals to federal immigration facilities for civil immigration

22 violations. (Pls.’ Mem. at 21.) Plaintiffs interpret the phrase “[n]otwithstanding any other

23

14 The opinion summarized the removal system Congress created and the 24 circumstances in which an individual can be arrested and detained during the removal

25

process. See Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2505-06. “[T]he Attorney General can exercise discretion to issue a warrant for an alien’s arrest and detention pending a decision on

26

whether the alien is to be removed from the United States, . . . [a]nd if an alien is ordered removed after a hearing, the Attorney General will issue a warrant.” Id. (internal

27

quotation marks omitted) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and 8 CFR § 241.2(a)(1)). “If no federal warrant has been issued, . . . [federal officers] may arrest an alien for being in the

28

United States in violation of any immigration law or regulation, for example, but only where the alien is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.” Id. (citing 8 U.S.C.

§ 1357(a)).

- 19 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1285 Filed 09/04/15 Page 20 of 23

1 law” in Section 2(D) as instructing state officials to discard all state or federal limitations

2 on their authority, and argue the only limitation on state officials’ authority occurs when

3 an individual is transported out of Arizona. (Id. at 22.) Plaintiffs support their

4 interpretation with evidence from many of the same sources they relied on in the earlier

5 Section 2(B) analysis, including the AZ POST training materials and interpretations of

6 the law from state law enforcement officials, including county sheriffs. (Id. at 23-24; see

7 Doc. 1224, Pls.’ Statement of Facts in Supp. of Mot. ¶¶ 179-90.) Plaintiffs read too much

8 into the law.

9

Section 2(D) requires that verification of an individual’s unlawful presence in the

10 country be obtained and that the person be in state custody before being transported to a

11 federal facility. A.R.S. § 11-1051(D). Unlike the preempted Section 6 provisions, which

12 expanded the statutory list of offenses for which state officials were authorized to make a

13 warrantless arrest, Section 2(D) addresses circumstances after an individual is already in

14 custody. The law is not a source for state officials’ arrest or detention powers, consistent

15 with its placement with other so-called cooperation provisions in Section 2. See A.R.S. §

16 11-1051(C)-(F); FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000)

17 (“A court must . . . interpret the statute as a symmetrical and coherent regulatory scheme

18 and fit, if possible, all parts into an harmonious whole.” (citations and internal quotation

19 marks omitted)). Whether state officials have legal custody is determined by laws outside

20 of Section 2(D). The introductory phrase “[n]otwithstanding any other law” in Section

21 2(D) cannot mean that all other applicable laws are displaced. Section 2(D) cannot be

22 read on its face as authorizing detention for civil immigration violations.

23

Plaintiffs also argue that Section 2(D) is preempted because it authorizes state

24 officials to transport individuals to federal facilities without federal direction or

25 supervision. (Pls.’ Mem. at 25-26.) Putting aside the inherent authority that state officials

26 have to enforce federal criminal immigration laws, see Gonzales v. Peoria, 722 F.2d 468,

27 475-76 (9th Cir. 1983) (concluding that Arizona officers have authority to enforce the

28 criminal provisions of federal immigration law), overruled on other grounds, Hodgers-

- 20 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1285 Filed 09/04/15 Page 21 of 23

1 Durgin v. de la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 1999), federal law authorizes state and

2 local officials to perform immigration enforcement duties under cooperation agreements

3 and in other circumstances, see, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1) (authorizing the federal

4 government to enter into formal agreements with states and municipalities under which

5 their officers may perform certain duties of a federal immigration officer); id. § 1252c

6 (authorizing arrest and detention of previously removed aliens convicted of a felony); id.

7 § 1324(c) (authorizing arrests for violations of the federal smuggling statute); accord

8 Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2506 (citing these statutes). These duties can include transporting

9 detainees. See 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1) (noting that delegated state officials are “qualified to

10 perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation,

11 apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States (including the transportation of

12 such aliens across State lines to detention centers)”). Plaintiffs acknowledge the

13 circumstances in which state officials can enforce federal immigration law, but their

14 argument presumes that Section 2(D) must be read to exclude them. The verification and

15 transport process the law recognizes is consistent with state officials’ enforcement actions

16 taken under cooperation agreements and as authorized under the federal statutes listed 17 above.15 Like Section 2(B), if state law enforcement agencies implement policies or

18 practices based on Section 2(D) that raise constitutional concerns, that enforcement can

19 be challenged in an as-applied case; however, the law is not facially preempted by federal 20 immigration law.16

21

Because Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their preemption claims against Section 2(B)

22

23

15 The verification process in Section 2(D) contemplates cooperation agreements

24

between Arizona and the federal government. See A.R.S. § 11-1051(E)(1) (“[A]n alien’s immigration status may be determined by . . . [a] law enforcement officer who is

25

authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.”).

26

16 This analysis also applies to Plaintiffs’ argument that Section 2(D) authorizes

27

state officials to unilaterally act without federal direction. (See Pls.’ Mem. at 24 (relying on several state officials’ interpretations of Section 2(D)).) Because Section 2(D) can be

28

interpreted to cover situations in which federal officials request state officials’ assistance—a situation that does not implicate the constitutional concerns Plaintiffs

identify—the law is not facially preempted.

- 21 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1285 Filed 09/04/15 Page 22 of 23

1 and Section 2(D), the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Arizona on Count One

2 (Supremacy Clause). Plaintiffs have not identified any other provision of S.B. 1070 they

3 are challenging under Count One that is not enjoined. See supra n.4.

4 III. CONCLUSION

5

Arizona is entitled to summary judgment on the remaining claims in Counts One

6 (Supremacy Clause), Two (Equal Protection Clause), Four (Fourth Amendment), Five

7 (Article II, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution), Six (Due Process Clause), and Seven (42

8 U.S.C. § 1981). Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on Count Three (First

9 Amendment). The Section 5 day labor provisions, A.R.S. § 13-2928(A)-(B), are

10 permanently enjoined.

11

IT IS ORDERED granting Intervenor Defendants’ Motion for Summary

12 Judgment re: Counts One, Two, Four, Five, Six, and Seven of the FAC (Doc. 1215).

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’

14 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and for Permanent Injunction (Doc. 1223).

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike

16 Intervenor Defendants’ Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Statement of Additional

17 Facts Precluding Summary Judgment (Doc. 1280).

18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of

19 Arizona on Counts One (Supremacy Clause), Two (Equal Protection Clause), Four

20 (Fourth Amendment), Five (Article II, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution), Six (Due Process

21 Clause), and Seven (42 U.S.C. § 1981).

22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of

23 Plaintiffs on Count Three (First Amendment).

24 / / /

25 / / /

26 / / /

27 / / /

28 / / /

- 22 -

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1285 Filed 09/04/15 Page 23 of 23

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED permanently enjoining the Section 5 day labor

2 provisions, A.R.S. § 13-2928(A)-(B).

3

4

Dated this 4th day of September, 2015.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 23 -

 
 Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1297 Filed 09/15/16 Page 1 of 6

1 Omar C. Jadwat (admitted pro hac vice) Thomas A. Saenz (admitted pro hac vice)

Andre Segura (admitted pro hac vice)

Victor Viramontes (admitted pro hac vice)

2 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL

FOUNDATION

IMMIGRANTS’ DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND

3 RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor

634 S. Spring Street, 11th Floor Los Angeles, California 90014

4 New York, NY 10004

Telephone: (213) 629-2512

Telephone: (212) 549-2660

Facsimile: (213) 629-0266

5 Facsimile: (212) 549-2654 ojadwat@aclu.org

tsaenz@maldef.org vviramontes@maldef.org

6 asegura@aclu.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

7 Linton Joaquin (admitted pro hac vice) Karen C. Tumlin (admitted pro hac vice)

Additional Co-Counsel on Subsequent Pages

8 Nora A. Preciado (admitted pro hac vice) Melissa S. Keaney (admitted pro hac vice)

9 Alvaro M. Huerta (admitted pro hac vice)

Nicholás Espíritu (admitted pro hac vice)

10 NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW

CENTER

11 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90010

12 Telephone: (213) 639-3900

Facsimile: (213) 639-3911

13 joaquin@nilc.org

tumlin@nilc.org

14 preciado@nilc.org

keaney@nilc.org

15 huerta@nilc.org

espiritu@nilc.org

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

18

19 Valle del Sol, et al.,
20 Plaintiffs,
21 vs.
22 Michael B. Whiting, et al.
23 Defendants,
24 and
25 Doug Ducey, et al.,
26 Intervenor Defendants.
27

Case No. CV-10-01061-PHX-SRB JOINT CASE DISPOSITION

28

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1297 Filed 09/15/16 Page 2 of 6

1 Daniel J. Pochoda (SBA No. 021979) ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
2 3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235 Phoenix, Arizona 85014
3 Telephone: (602) 650-1854 Facsimile: (602) 650-1376
4 dpochoda@acluaz.org
5 Marita Etcubañez (admitted pro hac vice)

Cecillia D. Wang (admitted pro hac vice) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 343-0775 Facsimile: (415) 395-0950 cwang@aclu.org

6

ASIAN AMERICANS JUSTICE - AAJC

ADVANCING Justin B. Cox (admitted pro hac vice) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

7 1140 Connecticut Avenue NW

UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’

Suite 1200

RIGHTS PROJECT

8 Washington, DC 20036

1989 College Avenue

Telephone: (202) 296-2300

Atlanta, GA 30317

9 Facsimile: (202) 296-2318

Telephone: 404.221.5854

MEtcubanez@advancingjustice-aajc.org Facsimile: 404.221.5857

10

jcox@aclu.org

Chris Newman (admitted pro hac vice)

11 Jessica Karp Bansal (admitted pro hac Laboni A. Hoq (admitted pro hac vice)

vice)

ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING

12 NATIONAL

DAY

LABOR JUSTICE – LOS ANGELES

ORGANIZING NETWORK

1145 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200

13 675 S. Park View Street, Suite B

Los Angeles, California 90017

Los Angeles, California 90057

Telephone: (213) 977-7500

14 Telephone: (213) 380-2785

Facsimile: (213) 977-7595

Facsimile: (213) 380-2787

lhoq@advancingjustice-la.org

15 newman@ndlon.org

jkarp@ndlon.org

Daniel R. Ortega, Jr., (SBA No. 005015)

16

ORTEGA LAW FIRM, P.C.

Nina Perales (admitted pro hac vice) 17 MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL
DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL 18 FUND
110 Broadway Street, Suite 300 19 San Antonio, Texas 78205

361 East Coronado Road Phoenix, Arizona 85004-1525 Telephone: (602) 386-4455 Facsimile: (602) 340-1896 danny@ortegalaw.com

Telephone: (210) 224-5476 20 Facsimile: (210) 224-5382

nperales@maldef.org 21

Bradley S. Phillips+ (admitted pro hac Stephen P. Berzon++ (admitted pro hac

22 vice)

vice)

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP+

Jonathan Weissglass++ (admitted pro hac

23 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor

vice)

Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560

ALTSHULER BERZON LLP++

24 Telephone: (213) 683-9100

177 Post Street, Suite 300

Facsimile: (213) 687-3702

San Francisco, CA 94108

25 Brad.Phillips@mto.com

Telephone: (415) 421-7151

Facsimile: (415) 362-8064

26

sberzon@altshulerberzon.com

jweissglass@altshulerberzon.com

27

28

ii

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1297 Filed 09/15/16 Page 3 of 6
1 + Attorneys for all plaintiffs except Service Employees International Union, Service
2 Employees International Union, Local 5, and United Food and Commercial Workers International Union
3 ++ Attorneys for Service Employees International Union, Service Employees
4 International Union, Local 5, and United Food and Commercial Workers International Union
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
iii

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1297 Filed 09/15/16 Page 4 of 6

1

Plaintiffs and Intervenor Defendants have conferred regarding the outstanding

2 matters in this case and have reached agreement on a proposed disposition of the case. In

3 the interest of the efficient resolution of this case, the Parties make the following

4 representations and request that the Court enter the proposed final order.

5

The Parties have stipulated and agreed to resolve Valle del Sol v. Whiting, No. CV

6 10-1061-PHX-SRB on the following terms:

7

First, as part of its agreement with Plaintiffs, Intervenor Defendants will issue the

8 attached Informal Attorney General Opinion, which provides guidelines on the

9 implementation of Senate Bill 1070’s Section 2(b) and 2(d), among other sections. The

10 Informal Attorney General Opinion reflects the State’s interpretation of legal requirements

11 and limitations for implementing Section 2(b) and 2(d). The Informal Attorney General

12 Opinion is attached as Exhibit A.

13

Second, both parties stipulate that A.R.S. §§ 28-3511A (1)(d) and (e) should be

14 enjoined, and ask this Court to enjoin those provisions. These are impoundment

15 provisions that apply when there is a predicate offense under the “harboring,”

16 “transporting,” or “concealing” provisions codified at A.R.S. 13-2929, which have been

17 enjoined in this litigation and a related case. See Valle del Sol v. Whiting, No. CV 10-

18 1061-PHX-SRB, 2012 WL 8021265 (D. Ariz. Sept. 5, 2012) (preliminary injunction);

19 Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming preliminary

20 injunction); United States v. Arizona, No. 2:10-cv-014013-SRB at Docket No. 200

21 (permanent injunction). Thus, because there is no legal basis to enforce A.R.S. §§ 28-

22 3511A(1)(d) and (e), the Parties stipulate that A.R.S. §§ 28-3511A(1)(d) and (e) should be

23 permanently enjoined because it is unconstitutional.

24

Third, the Plaintiffs further settle any claim they have for attorneys’ fees and costs

25 related to this case, No. CV 10-1061-PHX-SRB, and all of its appeals for the sum of $1.4

26 million. Intervenor Defendants agree to pay $1.4 million to Plaintiffs’ Counsel to resolve

27 any liability for attorneys’ fees and costs from this case, No. CV 10-1061-PHX-SRB, and

28 all of its appeals.

1

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1297 Filed 09/15/16 Page 5 of 6

1

Fourth, upon approval by the Court of the proposed order filed herewith and the

2 terms agreed to by the Parties, the Parties will not further challenge the Court’s ruling at

3 Docket No. 1285 or any other rulings in this litigation. See the Parties’ joint request for

4 dismissal without prejudice filed with the Ninth Circuit attached as Ex. B.

5

6

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 15th day of September, 2016.

7

8 By /s/ John R Lopez, IV w/ permission Arizona Attorney General's Office
9 1275 W Washington Street
10 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997

11 Attorneys for Intervenor Defendant the State of Arizona
12 and
13

14

By /s/ Michael Tryon w/ permission Arizona Attorney General's Office

15 1275 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926

16

Attorneys for Intervenor Defendant the 17 State of Arizona

18

19

20

21

22

23

By /s/ Victor Viramontes Victor Viramontes Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 634 S. Spring St., 11th Floor Los Angeles, California 90014
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
By /s/ Karen C. Tumlin w/ permission Karen C. Tumlin National Immigration Law Center 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2850 Los Angeles, California 90010
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
By /s/ Cecillia D. Wang w/ permission Cecillia D. Wang American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants’ Rights Project 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, California 94111
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

24

25

26

27

28

2

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1297 Filed 09/15/16 Page 6 of 6

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on September 15, 2016, I electronically transmitted the

3 foregoing Joint Case Disposition and any attached proposed order and exhibits to the

4 Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of

5 Electronic Filing to all ECF registrants in this matter.

6

7 DATED: September 15, 2016

8

/s/ Marco A. Gomez

9

Marco A. Gomez

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1297-1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1297-1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 2 of 8
This informal Attorney General opinion sets forth an advisory model policy to guide law enforcement agencies and officers as to their duties under state law.1 This advisory model policy reflects the Attorney General’s view as to the constitutional interpretation of § 2(B) and 2(D) of S.B. 1070, A.R.S. § 11-1051(B) and (D), and acknowledges the Legislature’s admonition that § 2 must “be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.” A.R.S. § 11–1051(L). In particular, this policy is intended to articulate the constitutional limits demarcated in Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015); Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012); and Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012), among other applicable authority.
I. The Statute
The relevant sections of A.R.S. § 11-1051 provide:
B. For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code § 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona driver license. 2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license. 3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification. 4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
D. Notwithstanding any other law, a law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien who the agency has received verification is unlawfully present in the United States and who is in the agency's custody to a federal
1 Although this opinion is designated ‘informal’; the analysis contained herein has the same persuasive weight as the analysis in a formal Attorney General opinion.”
1

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1297-1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 3 of 8
facility in this state or to any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency. A law enforcement agency shall obtain judicial authorization before securely transporting an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States to a point of transfer that is outside of this state.
II. Policy
Law enforcement officers shall conduct contacts with individuals suspected of being unlawfully present in the United States in a manner consistent with federal and state laws. See A.R.S. § 111051(L). Officers shall protect the civil rights, privileges, and immunities of all persons. Officers shall not prolong a stop, detention, or arrest solely for the purpose of verifying immigration status. Arizona, 132 S.Ct. at 2509 (“Detaining individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns.”) If an officer deviates from this policy, the officer must notify a supervisor at the first reasonable opportunity. Officers shall not contact, stop, detain, or arrest an individual based on race, color, or national origin, except when it is part of a suspect description linking that individual to a particular unlawful incident and said description is timely, reliable, and geographically relevant or when otherwise authorized by law. See A.R.S. § 11-1051(B).
III. Definitions
The following definitions will apply to the terms below as discussed in this informal opinion:
Alien: Any individual not a citizen or national of the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3).
Civil immigration violation: A violation of a federal civil immigration law. Offenses include, but are not limited to, unlawful presence of an alien in the United States; an alien whose visa has expired and has not been renewed; or an alien who seeks or engages in unauthorized employment. S e e , g e n e r a l l y , 8 U . S . C . § 1227(a)(1)(B)-(C).2
Criminal immigration violation: A violation of a federal criminal immigration law. Offenses include, but are not limited to, violations of Title 8, U.S.C., §1324; Title 8, U.S.C. §1325(a); and Title 8, U.S.C. §1326.
Determine: To ascertain or conclude, especially after observation or consideration. See Dictionary.com, http://www.dictionary.com (15 Apr. 2016). Only the federal government may determine immigration status. Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2498 (“The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of
2 State law enforcement officers generally lack authority to detain individuals for civil violations of immigration law. Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2506 (“Federal law specifies limited circumstances in which state officers may perform the functions of an immigration officer.”).
2

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1297-1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 4 of 8
aliens.”); see also Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 225 (1982) (“The States enjoy no power with respect to the classification of aliens.”).
ICE/CBP: Immigration and Customs Enforcement/Customs and Border Protection.
Immigration status: The legal standing of an alien’s presence in the United States.
Probable cause: Reliable information based on facts and circumstances sufficient to lead to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed and that the individual to be arrested has committed it. See, e.g., Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, (2003) (“The substance of all the definitions of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
Reasonable suspicion: Specific facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts support an objective belief that an individual has committed or is about to commit an offense; based upon the facts that exist, there is reason to investigate further. An officer may stop or briefly detain an individual for further investigation based on reasonable suspicion (a Terry stop), but may not arrest on that basis alone. See Terry v. Ohio, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (1968).
Unlawfully present: For the purpose of applying § 2(B) and 2(D) of S.B. 1070, officers may consider an alien “unlawfully present” only if the alien is NOT: (1) a lawful or conditional permanent resident; (2) a nonimmigrant in an authorized period of stay; (3) a refugee or asylee; or (4) otherwise authorized or allowed to remain in the United States by federal law or the federal Department of Homeland Security.3
Verify: To prove to be true; confirm; substantiate. Dictionary.com, http://www.dictionary.com (15 Apr. 2016).
IV. Consensual Contacts
State laws related to immigration enforcement neither expand nor limit an officer’s ability to approach an individual and engage in a consensual contact. During a consensual contact, the officer may inquire about any subject matter. However, the individual contacted does not have to answer questions or produce any identification, but may choose to do so voluntarily. See, e.g., Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497 (1983). During a consensual contact, officers may ask, but shall not demand, that an individual produce immigration documents.
V. Individuals Lawfully Stopped or Detained
Officers shall not prolong a stop or detention for an immigration inquiry to request or obtain verification of immigration status, or prolong a criminal investigation or inquiry in
3 This definition is for purposes of this policy alone.
3

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1297-1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 5 of 8
order to accommodate or complete immigration-related tasks. Arizona, 132 S.Ct.at 2509; see also Rodriguez, 135 S.Ct. at 1614-16.
An officer shall presume that a person is lawfully present in the United States if the person provides any of the following: a valid Arizona driver license or non-operating identification license; a valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification; or any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification, provided the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States. A.R.S. § 11-1051(B)(1)(4).
If in the course of duty an officer has reasonable suspicion that an individual is unlawfully present in the United States, based on all available facts, except race or ethnicity, the officer shall attempt to verify the individual’s immigration status by contacting ICE/CBP unless doing so would prolong the stop or detention, or the circumstances below apply. The officer shall, consistent with department policies, document the verification attempt, including the basis for the officer’s reasonable suspicion as to unlawful presence and any response from ICE/CBP, in the stop data collection system.4
If it is not practicable for an officer to investigate or verify an individual’s immigration status due to factors such as call load, staffing, emergencies, other present duties, availability of personnel on scene, location, available back-up, ability to contact ICE/CBP, or the availability of ICE/CBP, the officer may, consistent with department policies, use discretion not to pursue an investigation into the individual’s immigration status, but shall document the justification for such a decision in the stop data collection system.
If an officer has reasonable suspicion that an individual is unlawfully present, but believes that investigating or verifying immigration status may hinder or obstruct an investigation, the officer may, consistent with department policies, use discretion not to inquire into the individual’s immigration status. A.R.S. § 11-1051(B). The officer shall, consistent with department policies, document the justification for such a decision in the stop data collection system. Factors to consider that may indicate an immigration inquiry could hinder or obstruct an investigation may include the need for suspect, victim, and witness cooperation in any investigation.
VI. Immigration Violations
If an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed a civil immigration violation, the officer has no authority to arrest the individual and shall not
4 “In January 2003, the Arizona Department of Public Safety began voluntarily collecting data regarding traffic and pedestrian stops, including information pertaining to the characteristics of the traffic stop, driver, vehicle and officer(s).” See http://www.azdps.gov/about/reports/docs/Traffic_Stop_Response_2008.pdf (last visited Sep. 13, 2016)
4

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1297-1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 6 of 8
detain the individual longer than necessary to complete the state law basis for the contact.5 See Melendres, 695 F.3d at 1001 (any extension of a lawful stop “must be supported by additional suspicion of criminality. Unlawful presence is not criminal.”).
If an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed a federal criminal immigration violation, the officer may arrest the individual and contact ICE/CBP to clarify its interest in detaining the individual.6 See Melendres, 695 F.3d at 1001 (citing Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, 475 (9th Cir. 1983), for the proposition that “‘federal law does not preclude local law enforcement of the criminal provisions’ of federal immigration law.”). Officers may wait a reasonable time period for ICE/CBP response and should document any response or direction from ICE/CBP. If ICE/CBP fails to respond or take disposition within a reasonable amount of time and there is no other criminal violation, the officer shall release the individual.
If ICE/CBP agrees to take disposition of the individual, officers may assist by transporting the individual to an ICE/CBP facility if ICE/CBP so directs. A . R . S . § 1 1 1 0 5 1 ( D ) . When making the determination to transport, officers shall, consistent with department policies, consider department and division priorities.
Officers shall not arrest an individual simply because the individual lacks proper documentation. See Melendres, 695 F.3d at 1000-01.
VII. Arrests
An officer or jail official shall not prolong an arrest or detention for an immigration inquiry, including to request or obtain verification of immigration status. Arizona, 132 S.Ct. at 2509 (“Detaining individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns.”).
If, after reviewing all available facts (except race or ethnicity) and/or evidence, an officer has reasonable suspicion that an arrestee is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made to contact ICE/CBP to verify the arrestee’s immigration status prior to releasing the arrestee, but release may not be delayed in order to request or obtain verification. Id. The presumptions and the exceptions in section V above apply to this paragraph. Officers shall, consistent with department policies, document any response or direction from ICE/CBP in the stop data collection system.
The officer shall proceed to handle the arrestee according to department policy,
5 This restriction on non-federal law enforcement does not apply where such officials have been specifically trained and delegated to exercise the authority of an immigration officer under § 287(g) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g), and are acting pursuant to that authority. Melendres, 695 F.3d at 1001.
6 It remains an open issue whether reasonable suspicion of illegal entry or another immigration crime would be a basis for prolonging a detention. Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2509.
5

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1297-1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 7 of 8

which may result in the issuance of a citation, referral, and the release of the arrestee.

VIII. Contact with ICE/CBP

Officers attempting to verify an individual’s immigration status shall do so by contacting Operational Communications. Operational Communications shall submit an inquiry through the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS) for verification of an individual’s immigration status. After a response is received from ICE/CBP, Operational Communications shall forward the information to the officer. If information verifying an individual’s immigration status is received from another source (such as an ICE/CBP officer on scene), the verification shall, consistent with department policies, be documented in the stop data collection system.

If an officer wishes to request verification prior to the release of an individual or
arrestee, Operational Communications may follow the NLETS submission with a phone call to the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC).7 As explained above, however, officers
may not extend a stop or detention in order to make a verification request or to wait for a
verification response.

IX. Consular Notification

Officers should follow consular notification procedures set forth in the Vienna

Convention on Consular Relations (the Convention), see Article 30 of the Vienna

Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963, [1970] 21 U.S.T. 77, 100-101, T.I.A.S.

No. 6820, namely, “when a national of one country is detained by authorities in another, the

authorities must notify the consular officers of the detainee’s home country if the detainee so

requests.” Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331, 339 (2006) (“[Article 36 of the

Convention] provides that ‘if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State

shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular

district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial

or is detained in any other manner.’”). Law enforcement officials may refer to the following

for guidance on such notification procedures: Law Bulletin 2009-05, Foreign Nationals—

Advice of Rights in Addition to Miranda Warnings; the U.S. Department of State’s Consular

Notification

and

Access

Manual,

(Fourth

ed.

2016),

https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/travel/CNAtrainingresources/CNA_Manual_4th_Edition _August2016.pdf (last visited September 13, 2016. 8

7 “ICE’s LESC operates ‘24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year’ and provides, among other things, ‘immigration status, identity information and real-time assistance to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies.’” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2508 (internal citations omitted). 8 This informal opinion does not confer upon aliens any legal rights beyond those recognized by binding court precedent. See Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 126 S. Ct . at 2681 (“Indeed, Article 36 [of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations] does not guarantee defendants any assistance at all. The provision secures only a right of foreign nationals to have their consulate informed of their arrest or detention—not to have their consulate intervene, or to have law enforcement authorities cease
6

Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 1297-1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 8 of 8
their investigation pending any such notice or intervention.”). 7

 
 Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 1 of 273
CLOSED,PROTO,STD
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:10−cv−01061−SRB

Valle del Sol, et al, v. Whiting, et al. Assigned to: Judge Susan R Bolton Related Cases: 2:10−cv−00926−SRB
4:10−cv−00249−SRB 2:10−cv−00943−SRB 2:10−cv−00951−SRB 2:10−cv−01413−SRB 2:14−mc−00058−SRB 2:10−cv−01453−SRB Case in other court: Ninth Circuit, 12−15688
Ninth Circuit, 12−17046 Ninth Circuit, 12−17152 Ninth Circuit, 14−16506 Ninth Circuit, 15−17005 Ninth Circuit, 15−17015 Cause: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s) Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/17/2010 Date Terminated: 09/04/2015 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 950 Other Statutes: Constitutionality of State Statutes Jurisdiction: Federal Question

C.M. a minor

represented by James Duff Lyall ACLU − Phoenix, AZ 3707 N. 7th St., Ste. 235 Phoenix, AZ 85014 602−650−1854 Fax: 602−650−1376 Email: jlyall@acluaz.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Karp Bansal National Day Laborer Organizing Network 675 S Park View St., Ste. B Los Angeles, CA 90057 213−380−2214 Fax: 213−380−2878 Email: jbansal@ndlon.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Polansky ACLU − New York, NY 125 Broad St., 18th Fl. New York, NY 10004 212−549−2621 Fax: 212−549−2654 Email: irp_jp@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin B Cox ACLU − Atlanta, GA 1989 College Ave. NE Atlanta, GA 30317 404−221−5854 Fax: 404−221−5857 Email: jcox@aclu.org

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 2 of 273
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Joyce Flood ASU Alumni Law Group 111 E Taylor, Ste. 120 Phoenix, AZ 85004−4467 602−251−3620 Fax: 602−251−8055 Email: kelly.flood@asualumnilawgroup.org TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laboni Amena Hoq Asian Americans Advancing Justice − Los Angeles, CA 1145 Wilshire Blvd., 2nd Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−7500 Fax: 213−977−7595 Email: lhoq@apalc.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Grace Maraschino Munger Tolles & Olson LLP − Los Angeles, CA 355 S Grand Ave., Ste. 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90071−1560 213−683−9115 Fax: 213−683−4015 Email: margaret.maraschino@mto.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron G Leiderman Munger Tolles & Olson LLP 560 Mission St., 24th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94105−2907 415−512−4000 Fax: 415−512−4077 Email: aaron.leiderman@mto.com TERMINATED: 04/21/2014
Alvaro M Huerta National Immigration Law Center 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−639−3900 Fax: 213−639−3911 Email: huerta@nilc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley S Phillips Munger Tolles & Olson LLP − Los Angeles, CA 355 S Grand Ave., Ste. 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90071−1560 213−683−9262 Fax: 213−683−5162 Email: brad.phillips@mto.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmina OCampo

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 3 of 273
Asian Americans Advancing Justice − Los Angeles, CA 1145 Wilshire Blvd., 2nd Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−7500 Fax: 213−977−7595 Email: cocampo@apalc.org TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia D Wang ACLU − San Francisco, CA Immigrants Rights Project 39 Drumm St. San Francisco, CA 94111 415−343−0775 Fax: 415−395−0950 Email: cwang@aclu.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman , National Day Laborer Organizing Network 675 S Park View St Ste B Los Angeles, CA 90057 213−380−2785 Fax: 213−380−2787 Email: newman@ndlon.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Patricia Sun ACLU − San Francisco, CA Immigrants Rights Project 39 Drumm St. San Francisco, CA 94111 415−343−0770 Fax: 415−395−0950 Email: csun@aclu.org TERMINATED: 11/25/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi Asian Americans Advancing Justice − Los Angeles, CA 1145 Wilshire Blvd., 2nd Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−7500 Fax: 213−977−7595 Email: connie@sggimmigration.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon MALDEF 634 S Spring St 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 213−629−2512 Fax: 213−629−0266 Email: cvalenzuela@maldef.org TERMINATED: 01/28/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. Ortega Law Firm PC 361 E Coronado Rd., Ste. 101

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 4 of 273
Phoenix, AZ 85004−1525 602−386−4455 Fax: 602−386−4480 Email: danny@ortegalaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda ACLU − Phoenix, AZ P.O. Box 17148 Phoenix, AZ 85011 602−650−1854 Fax: 602−650−1376 Email: dpochoda@acluaz.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elisabeth Jill Neubauer Munger Tolles & Olson LLP 355 S Grand Ave., 35th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−683−9100 Fax: 213−683−4003 Email: vivian.rodriguez@mto.com TERMINATED: 05/17/2011
Esther H Sung Munger Tolles & Olson LLP − Los Angeles, CA 355 S Grand Ave., Ste. 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90071−1560 213−683−9100 Fax: 213−683−5198 Email: esther.sung@mto.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ghazal Tajmiri , National Immigration Law Center 3435 Wilshire Blvd Ste 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−639−3900 Fax: 213−639−3911 Email: tajmiri@nilc.org TERMINATED: 09/22/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon MALDEF 634 S Spring St 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 213−629−2512 Fax: 213−629−0266 Email: glimon@maldef.org TERMINATED: 02/07/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harini Raghupathi ACLU − San Francisco, CA Immigrants Rights Project 39 Drumm St. San Francisco, CA 94111 415−343−0780 Fax: 415−395−0950 Email: hraghupathi@aclu.org TERMINATED: 09/07/2010

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 5 of 273
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal MALDEF 110 Broadway Ste 300 San Antonio, TX 78205 210−224−5476 Fax: 210−224−5382 Email: iespinoza@maldef.org TERMINATED: 02/18/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph J Ybarra Munger Tolles & Olson LLP 355 S Grand Ave 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−683−9100 Fax: 213−687−3702 Email: joseph.ybarra@mto.com TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su Asian Americans Advancing Justice − Los Angeles, CA 1145 Wilshire Blvd., 2nd Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−7500 Fax: 213−977−7595 Email: jsu@apalc.org TERMINATED: 03/22/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Cassandra Tumlin National Immigration Law Ctr 3435 Wilshire Blvd Ste 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−674−2850 Fax: 213−639−3911 Email: tumlin@nilc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberley A Morris Munger Tolles & Olson LLP 560 Mission St Ste 2700 San Francisco, CA 94105−2907 415−512−4000 Fax: 415−512−4077 Email: mary.pantoja@mto.com TERMINATED: 11/14/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lika Cynthia Miyake Munger Tolles & Olson LLP − Los Angeles, CA 355 S Grand Ave., Ste. 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90071−1560 213−683−9100 Fax: 213−687−3702 Email: lika.miyake@mto.com TERMINATED: 05/29/2014

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 6 of 273
Linton Joaquin National Immigration Law Ctr 3435 Wilshire Blvd Ste 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−639−3900 Fax: 213−639−3911 Email: joaquin@nilc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , National Day Labor Organizing Committee 675 S Park View St
Los Angeles, CA 90057 213−380−2785 Fax: 213−380−2787 Email: kung@ndlon.org TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag ACLU − New York, NY 125 Broad St., 18th Fl. New York, NY 10004 212−549−2660 Fax: 212−549−2654 Email: lguttentag@aclu.org TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marita Cecilia Etcubanez Asian Americans Advancing Justice − Washington, DC 1140 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste. 1200 Washington, DC 20011 202−255−3365 Fax: 202−296−2318 Email: metcubanez@advancingjustice−aajc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha L Gomez MALDEF − Los Angeles, CA 634 S Spring St., 11th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90014 213−629−2512 Fax: 213−629−0266 Email: mgomez@maldef.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney National Immigration Law Center 3435 Wilshire Blvd Ste 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−639−3900 Fax: 213−639−3911 Email: keaney@nilc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu National Immigration Law Center 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 7 of 273
213−639−3900 Fax: 213−639−3911 Email: espiritu@nilc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Soltman Munger Tolles & Olson LLP − Los Angeles, CA 355 S Grand Ave., Ste. 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90071−1560 213−683−9100 Fax: 213−687−3702 Email: nsoltman@kwikalaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales MALDEF 110 Broadway St Ste 300 San Antonio, TX 78205 210−224−5476 Fax: 210−224−5382 Email: nperales@maldef.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado National Immigration Law Center 3435 Wilshire Blvd Ste 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−639−3900 Fax: 213−639−3911 Email: preciado@nilc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat ACLU − New York, NY 125 Broad St., 18th Fl. New York, NY 10004 212−549−2620 Fax: 212−549−2654 Email: ojadwat@aclu.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Watford Munger Tolles & Olson LLP 355 S Grand Ave 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−683−9172 Fax: 213−683−4072 Email: paul.watford@mto.com TERMINATED: 05/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phil A Thomas , Leonard Carder LLP 1188 Franklin St Ste 201 San Francisco, CA 94109 415−771−6400 Fax: 415−771−7010 Email: pthomas@leonardcarder.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 8 of 273
Robert S Remar Leonard Carder LLP 1188 Franklin St Ste 201 San Francisco, CA 94109 415−771−6400 Fax: 415−771−7010 Email: rremar@leonardcarder.com TERMINATED: 09/26/2012
Susan Traub Boyd , Munger Tolles & Olson LLP 560 Mission St 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105−2907 415−512−4005 Fax: 415−644−6905 Email: Susan.Boyd@mto.com TERMINATED: 08/08/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanaz Moghadam ACLU − New York, NY 125 Broad St., 18th Fl. New York, NY 10004 212−284−7316 Fax: 212−549−2654 Email: tmoghadam@aclu.org TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A Saenz , MALDEF Educational Fund (MALDEF) 634 S Srping St 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 213−629−2512 Fax: 213−629−0266 Email: tsaenz@maldef.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Viramontes MALDEF − Los Angeles, CA 634 S Spring St., 11th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90014 213−629−2512 Fax: 213−629−0266 Email: Vviramontes@maldef.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vivek Mittal National Immigration Law Center 3435 Wilshire Blvd Ste 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−639−3900 Fax: 213−639−3911 Email: mittal@nilc.org TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yungsuhn Park Asian Americans Advancing Justice − Los Angeles, CA

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 9 of 273

1145 Wilshire Blvd., 2nd Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−7500 Fax: 213−977−7595 Email: ypark@apalc.org TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yuval Miller Munger Tolles & Olson LLP 560 Mission St 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415−512−4054 Fax: 415−512−4077 Email: ymiller@dcbsf.com TERMINATED: 11/14/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zulaikha Aziz Asian Americans Advancing Justice − Los Angeles, CA 1145 Wilshire Blvd., 2nd Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−241−0245 Fax: 213−977−7595 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anne Lai University of California Irvine School of Law Immigrants Rights Clinic 401 E Peltrason Dr., Ste. 3500 Irvine, CA 92697 949−824−9894 Fax: 949−824−0066 Email: alai@law.uci.edu TERMINATED: 07/06/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jose Angel Vargas

represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 10 of 273
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laboni Amena Hoq (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Grace Maraschino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zulaikha Aziz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014
Alvaro M Huerta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley S Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Patricia Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 11 of 273
Elisabeth Jill Neubauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011
Esther H Sung (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ghazal Tajmiri , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harini Raghupathi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Martin Castillo MALDEF − Los Angeles, CA 634 S Spring St., 11th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90014 213−629−2512 Fax: 212−629−0266 Email: jcastillo@maldef.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph J Ybarra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/22/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth John Sugarman ACLU − San Francisco, CA Immigrants Rights Project 39 Drumm St. San Francisco, CA 94111 415−343−0777 Fax: 415−395−0950 Email: irp_ks@aclu.org TERMINATED: 04/27/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lika Cynthia Miyake (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/29/2014

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 12 of 273
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Soltman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Watford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phil A Thomas , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012
Susan Traub Boyd , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A Saenz , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 13 of 273

Plaintiff Coalicion De Derechos Humanos

Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vivek Mittal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yuval Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne Lai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laboni Amena Hoq (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Grace Maraschino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 14 of 273
TERMINATED: 04/21/2014
Alvaro M Huerta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne Lai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2011
Bradley S Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Patricia Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elisabeth Jill Neubauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011
Esther H Sung (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ghazal Tajmiri National Immigration Law Center 3435 Wilshire Blvd Ste 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−639−3900 Fax: 213−639−3911 Email: tajmiri@nilc.org

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 15 of 273
TERMINATED: 09/22/2010
Gladys Limon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011
Harini Raghupathi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2010
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Martin Castillo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph J Ybarra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/22/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lika Cynthia Miyake (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/29/2014
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marita Cecilia Etcubanez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha L Gomez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 16 of 273
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Soltman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Watford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phil A Thomas , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012
Susan Traub Boyd , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A Saenz , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vivek Mittal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yuval Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zulaikha Aziz

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 17 of 273

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union

represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laboni Amena Hoq (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martha L Gomez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014

Alvaro M Huerta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chris Newman , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christine Patricia Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2014

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 18 of 273
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ghazal Tajmiri , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harini Raghupathi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Weissglass Altshuler Berzon LLP − San Francisco, CA 177 Post St., Ste. 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 415−421−7151 Fax: 415−362−8064 Email: jweissglass@altshulerberzon.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Martin Castillo MALDEF − Los Angeles, CA 634 S Spring St., 11th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90014 213−629−2512 Fax: 213−629−0266 Email: jcastillo@maldef.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/22/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 19 of 273
Kenneth John Sugarman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marita Cecilia Etcubanez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Soltman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phil A Thomas , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012
Stephen Paul Berzon Altshuler Berzon LLP − San Francisco, CA 177 Post St., Ste. 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 415−421−7151 Fax: 415−362−8064 Email: sberzon@altshulerberzon.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 20 of 273

Susan Traub Boyd Munger Tolles & Olson LLP 560 Mission St 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105−2907 415−512−4005 Fax: 415−644−6905 Email: Susan.Boyd@mto.com TERMINATED: 08/08/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A Saenz , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vivek Mittal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zulaikha Aziz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anne Lai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Andrew Anderson TERMINATED: 10/31/2011

represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 21 of 273
Bradley S Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elisabeth Jill Neubauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011
Ghazal Tajmiri , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harini Raghupathi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph J Ybarra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 22 of 273
TERMINATED: 03/22/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura D Blackburne NAACP 4805 Mount Hope Dr. Baltimore, MD 21215 410−580−5673 Fax: 410−358−9350 Email: lblackburne@naacpnet.org TERMINATED: 12/06/2011
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Watford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phil A Thomas , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012
Susan Traub Boyd , (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 23 of 273

TERMINATED: 08/08/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A Saenz , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vivek Mittal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yuval Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anne Lai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Border Action Network

represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth John Sugarman

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 24 of 273
(See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laboni Amena Hoq (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Grace Maraschino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014
Alvaro M Huerta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley S Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Patricia Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elisabeth Jill Neubauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 25 of 273
Esther H Sung (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ghazal Tajmiri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2010
Gladys Limon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011
Harini Raghupathi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2011
Jorge Martin Castillo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph J Ybarra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/22/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lika Cynthia Miyake (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/29/2014
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marita Cecilia Etcubanez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha L Gomez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 26 of 273
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Soltman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Watford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phil A Thomas , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012
Susan Traub Boyd , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A Saenz , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vivek Mittal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 27 of 273

Plaintiff Jim Shee

Yuval Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zulaikha Aziz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne Lai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laboni Amena Hoq (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Grace Maraschino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014
Bradley S Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 28 of 273
Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Patricia Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elisabeth Jill Neubauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther H Sung (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ghazal Tajmiri , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harini Raghupathi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Martin Castillo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph J Ybarra

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 29 of 273
(See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/22/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth John Sugarman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lika Cynthia Miyake (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/29/2014
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marita Cecilia Etcubanez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha L Gomez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maya Roy Asian Pacific American Legal Center 1145 Wilshire Blvd., 2nd Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−7500 Fax: 213−977−7595 Email: mroy@apalc.org TERMINATED: 01/24/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Soltman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 30 of 273
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Watford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phil A Thomas , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012
Susan Traub Boyd , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A Saenz , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vivek Mittal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yuval Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zulaikha Aziz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne Lai (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 31 of 273

TERMINATED: 07/06/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Luz Santiago

represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laboni Amena Hoq (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Grace Maraschino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014

Alvaro M Huerta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anne Lai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2011

Bradley S Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 32 of 273
Chris Newman , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Patricia Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elisabeth Jill Neubauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011
Esther H Sung (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ghazal Tajmiri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2010
Gladys Limon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011
Harini Raghupathi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2010
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2011
Jorge Martin Castillo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph J Ybarra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/22/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Cassandra Tumlin

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 33 of 273
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth John Sugarman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lika Cynthia Miyake (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/29/2014
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marita Cecilia Etcubanez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha L Gomez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Soltman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Watford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phil A Thomas , (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 34 of 273

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012

Susan Traub Boyd , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A Saenz , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vivek Mittal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yuval Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zulaikha Aziz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Arizona South Asians for Safe Families

represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 35 of 273
Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth John Sugarman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laboni Amena Hoq (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Grace Maraschino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zulaikha Aziz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014
Bradley S Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Patricia Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 36 of 273
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elisabeth Jill Neubauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther H Sung (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ghazal Tajmiri , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harini Raghupathi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Martin Castillo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph J Ybarra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/22/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lika Cynthia Miyake (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/29/2014
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 37 of 273
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marita Cecilia Etcubanez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha L Gomez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Soltman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Watford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Anthony Lopez , Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20004 202−662−5431 Fax: 202−778−5431 Email: rlopez@cov.com TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012
Susan Traub Boyd , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 38 of 273

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A Saenz , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vivek Mittal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yuval Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anne Lai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Japanese American Citizens League

represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laboni Amena Hoq (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 39 of 273
TERMINATED: 04/21/2014
Anne Lai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2011
Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Patricia Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ghazal Tajmiri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2010
Gladys Limon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011
Harini Raghupathi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2010
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2011
Jorge Martin Castillo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/22/2011
Karen Cassandra Tumlin

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 40 of 273
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marita Cecilia Etcubanez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maya Roy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Soltman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phil A Thomas , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012
Susan Traub Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2011
Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 41 of 273

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A Saenz , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vivek Mittal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zulaikha Aziz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Local 5 Service Employees International Union

represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laboni Amena Hoq (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zulaikha Aziz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 42 of 273
Alvaro M Huerta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Patricia Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ghazal Tajmiri , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harini Raghupathi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Weissglass (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Martin Castillo

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 43 of 273
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/22/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marita Cecilia Etcubanez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha L Gomez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Soltman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phil A Thomas , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 44 of 273

Plaintiff Southside Presbyterian Church

Stephen Paul Berzon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Traub Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A Saenz , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vivek Mittal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne Lai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 45 of 273
Laboni Amena Hoq (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Grace Maraschino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014
Alvaro M Huerta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley S Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Patricia Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elisabeth Jill Neubauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther H Sung (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 46 of 273
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ghazal Tajmiri , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harini Raghupathi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Martin Castillo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph J Ybarra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/22/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth John Sugarman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lika Cynthia Miyake (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/29/2014
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marita Cecilia Etcubanez (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 47 of 273
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha L Gomez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Soltman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Watford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phil A Thomas , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012
Susan Traub Boyd , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A Saenz , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vivek Mittal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 48 of 273

Plaintiff
Muslim American Society TERMINATED: 07/11/2012

Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yuval Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zulaikha Aziz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne Lai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Grace Maraschino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014
Alvaro M Huerta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley S Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 49 of 273
Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elisabeth Jill Neubauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011
Esther H Sung (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ghazal Tajmiri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2010
Gladys Limon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011
Harini Raghupathi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2010
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2011
Joseph J Ybarra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/22/2011
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 50 of 273
Kenneth John Sugarman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lika Cynthia Miyake (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/29/2014
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marita Cecilia Etcubanez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Watford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phil A Thomas , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012
Susan Traub Boyd , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 51 of 273

Plaintiff
Tonatierra Community Development Institute

Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A Saenz , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vivek Mittal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yuval Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne Lai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laboni Amena Hoq (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 52 of 273
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Grace Maraschino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014
Alvaro M Huerta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley S Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Patricia Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elisabeth Jill Neubauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther H Sung (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ghazal Tajmiri , (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 53 of 273
TERMINATED: 09/22/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harini Raghupathi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Martin Castillo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph J Ybarra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/22/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth John Sugarman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lika Cynthia Miyake (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/29/2014
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marita Cecilia Etcubanez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha L Gomez (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 54 of 273
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Soltman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Watford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phil A Thomas , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012
Susan Traub Boyd , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A Saenz , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vivek Mittal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 55 of 273

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yuval Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zulaikha Aziz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anne Lai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Friendly House TERMINATED: 07/11/2012

represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Grace Maraschino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014

Alvaro M Huerta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andre Segura ACLU − New York, NY 125 Broad St., 18th Fl. New York, NY 10004 212−549−2676 Email: asegura@aclu.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 56 of 273
Anne Lai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2011
Benjamin J Maro Munger Tolles & Olson 355 S Grand Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−683−9246 Fax: 213−683−4046 Email: benjamin.maro@mto.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley S Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elisabeth Jill Neubauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011
Esther H Sung (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ghazal Tajmiri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2010
Gladys Limon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011
Harini Raghupathi (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 57 of 273
TERMINATED: 09/07/2010
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2011
Jessica S Chia Asian Americans Advancing Justice − Washington, DC 1140 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste. 1200 Washington, DC 20011 202−296−2300 Fax: 202−296−2318 Email: jchia@apilegaloutreach.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph J Ybarra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/22/2011
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lika Cynthia Miyake (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/29/2014
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marita Cecilia Etcubanez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 58 of 273

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul J Watford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Phil A Thomas , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012

Susan Traub Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2011

Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A Saenz , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vivek Mittal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yuval Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa TERMINATED: 10/31/2011

represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin B Cox (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 59 of 273
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014
Bradley S Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elisabeth Jill Neubauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ghazal Tajmiri , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harini Raghupathi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2010

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 60 of 273
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Martin Castillo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph J Ybarra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/22/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Watford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phil A Thomas ,

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 61 of 273

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012

Susan Traub Boyd , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A Saenz , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vivek Mittal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yuval Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anne Lai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Valle Del Sol Incorporated

represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 62 of 273
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laboni Amena Hoq (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Grace Maraschino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zulaikha Aziz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014
Alvaro M Huerta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley S Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Patricia Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 63 of 273
Elisabeth Jill Neubauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther H Sung (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ghazal Tajmiri , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harini Raghupathi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Martin Castillo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph J Ybarra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/22/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin B Cox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth John Sugarman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lika Cynthia Miyake (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/29/2014
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung ,

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 64 of 273
(See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marita Cecilia Etcubanez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maya Roy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Soltman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Watford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phil A Thomas , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012
Susan Traub Boyd , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 65 of 273

Thomas A Saenz , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vivek Mittal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yuval Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anne Lai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona

represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth John Sugarman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Grace Maraschino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 66 of 273
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014
Anne Lai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2011
Bradley S Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Patricia Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elisabeth Jill Neubauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011
Esther H Sung (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ghazal Tajmiri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2010
Gladys Limon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 67 of 273
Harini Raghupathi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2010
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Martin Castillo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph J Ybarra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/22/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laboni Amena Hoq (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lika Cynthia Miyake (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/29/2014
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marita Cecilia Etcubanez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha L Gomez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maya Roy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 68 of 273
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Soltman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Watford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phil A Thomas , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012
Susan Traub Boyd , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A Saenz , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vivek Mittal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yuval Miller (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 69 of 273

TERMINATED: 11/14/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zulaikha Aziz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
John Doe #1, proceeding under pseudonym

represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Grace Maraschino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014

Alvaro M Huerta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anne Lai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2011

Bradley S Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 70 of 273
Chris Newman , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Patricia Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elisabeth Jill Neubauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011
Esther H Sung (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ghazal Tajmiri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2010
Gladys Limon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011
Harini Raghupathi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2010
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2011
Jorge Martin Castillo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph J Ybarra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/22/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Cassandra Tumlin

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 71 of 273
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lika Cynthia Miyake (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/29/2014
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marita Cecilia Etcubanez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha L Gomez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Soltman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Watford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phil A Thomas , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 72 of 273

Plaintiff Service Employees International Union

Susan Traub Boyd , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A Saenz , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vivek Mittal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yuval Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zulaikha Aziz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 73 of 273
Laboni Amena Hoq (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014
Alvaro M Huerta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Patricia Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ghazal Tajmiri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2010
Gladys Limon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011
Harini Raghupathi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2010
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2011

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 74 of 273
Jonathan Weissglass (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Martin Castillo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/22/2011
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth John Sugarman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marita Cecilia Etcubanez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha L Gomez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Soltman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 75 of 273

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Phil A Thomas , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012

Stephen Paul Berzon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Traub Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2011

Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A Saenz , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vivek Mittal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zulaikha Aziz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anne Lai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 76 of 273
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth John Sugarman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laboni Amena Hoq (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Grace Maraschino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zulaikha Aziz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014
Alvaro M Huerta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne Lai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2011
Bradley S Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Patricia Sun (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 77 of 273
TERMINATED: 11/25/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elisabeth Jill Neubauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011
Esther H Sung (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ghazal Tajmiri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2010
Gladys Limon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harini Raghupathi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Martin Castillo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph J Ybarra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/22/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 78 of 273
Lika Cynthia Miyake (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/29/2014
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marita Cecilia Etcubanez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha L Gomez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Soltman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address)
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Watford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phil A Thomas , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012
Susan Traub Boyd , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2011

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 79 of 273

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A Saenz , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vivek Mittal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yuval Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Vicki Gaubeca TERMINATED: 10/31/2011

represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014

Anne Lai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2011

Bradley S Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 80 of 273
Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elisabeth Jill Neubauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011
Ghazal Tajmiri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2010
Gladys Limon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011
Harini Raghupathi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2010
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2011
Joseph J Ybarra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/22/2011
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linton Joaquin (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 81 of 273
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Watford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phil A Thomas , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012
Susan Traub Boyd , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A Saenz , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vivek Mittal (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 82 of 273

TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yuval Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jane Doe #1, proceeding under pseudonym TERMINATED: 10/31/2011

represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Grace Maraschino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014

Anne Lai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2011

Bradley S Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chris Newman , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 83 of 273
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elisabeth Jill Neubauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011
Ghazal Tajmiri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2010
Gladys Limon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harini Raghupathi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2011
Joseph J Ybarra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/22/2011
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lika Cynthia Miyake (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/29/2014
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 84 of 273
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marita Cecilia Etcubanez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Watford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phil A Thomas Leonard Carder LLP 1188 Franklin St Ste 201 San Francisco, CA 94109 415−771−6400 Fax: 415−771−7010 Email: pthomas@leonardcarder.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012
Susan Traub Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A Saenz MALDEF Educational Fund (MALDEF) 634 S Srping St 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 85 of 273

213−629−2512 Fax: 213−629−0266 Email: tsaenz@maldef.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vivek Mittal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yuval Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jane Doe #2, proceeding under pseudonym TERMINATED: 10/31/2011

represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Grace Maraschino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014

Anne Lai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2011

Bradley S Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carmina OCampo

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 86 of 273
(See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elisabeth Jill Neubauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011
Ghazal Tajmiri (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2010
Gladys Limon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011
Harini Raghupathi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2010
Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/18/2011
Joseph J Ybarra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie A Su (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/22/2011
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lika Cynthia Miyake (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/29/2014

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 87 of 273
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Watford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phil A Thomas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012
Susan Traub Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A Saenz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 88 of 273

Vivek Mittal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/12/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yuval Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Pedro Espinoza

represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laboni Amena Hoq (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Grace Maraschino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014

Alvaro M Huerta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Benjamin J Maro Munger Tolles & Olson 355 S Grand Ave Los Angeles, CA 90071

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 89 of 273
213−683−9246 Fax: 213−683−4046 Email: benjamin.maro@mto.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley S Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmina OCampo Asian Pacific American Legal Center 1145 Wilshire Blvd., 2nd Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−7500 Fax: 213−977−7595 Email: cocampo@apalc.org TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman National Day Laborer Organizing Network 675 S Park View St Ste B Los Angeles, CA 90057 213−380−2785 Fax: 213−380−2787 Email: newman@ndlon.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Patricia Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda ACLU − Phoenix, AZ 3707 N. 7th St., Ste. 235 Phoenix, AZ 85014 602−650−1854 Fax: 602−650−1376 Email: dpochoda@acluaz.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther H Sung (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Martin Castillo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph J Ybarra (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 90 of 273
TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura D Blackburne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/06/2011
Lika Cynthia Miyake (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/29/2014
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung National Day Labor Organizing Committee 675 S Park View St Los Angeles, CA 90057 213−380−2785 Fax: 213−380−2787 Email: kung@ndlon.org TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marita Cecilia Etcubanez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Soltman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Watford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/30/2012

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 91 of 273

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A Saenz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yungsuhn Park Asian Pacific American Legal Center 1145 Wilshire Blvd., 2nd Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−7500 Fax: 213−977−7595 Email: ypark@apalc.org TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zulaikha Aziz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Maura Castillo

represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laboni Amena Hoq (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Grace Maraschino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 92 of 273
Alvaro M Huerta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin J Maro (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley S Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Patricia Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther H Sung (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Martin Castillo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph J Ybarra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Prendergast Gordon City Attorneys Office 2 Civic Center Plaza 9th Floor El Paso, TX 79901

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 93 of 273
915−541−4550 Fax: 915−541−4190 Email: gordonlp@elpasotexas.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lika Cynthia Miyake (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/29/2014
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marita Cecilia Etcubanez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha L Gomez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Soltman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Watford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A Saenz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Viramontes

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 94 of 273

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zulaikha Aziz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Maria Morales TERMINATED: 06/07/2012

represented by Maria Morales 632 W Viola St. Casa Grande, AZ 85122 (915)443−7306 PRO SE

James Duff Lyall (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Grace Maraschino (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014

Benjamin J Maro (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bradley S Phillips (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 95 of 273
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther H Sung (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph J Ybarra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura D Blackburne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/06/2011
Lika Cynthia Miyake (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/29/2014
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marita Cecilia Etcubanez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 96 of 273

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nora A Preciado (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A Saenz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor Viramontes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yungsuhn Park (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Unknown Party Named as Jane Doe #3 in Amended Complaint

represented by James Duff Lyall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Polansky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin B Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Joyce Flood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 97 of 273
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Grace Maraschino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron G Leiderman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/21/2014
Alvaro M Huerta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin J Maro (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley S Phillips (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmina OCampo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Newman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine Patricia Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/25/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Connie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R Ortega , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Martin Castillo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph J Ybarra (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Cassandra Tumlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 98 of 273
Laura D Blackburne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/06/2011
Lika Cynthia Miyake (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/29/2014
Linton Joaquin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marita Cecilia Etcubanez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S Keaney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Soltman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nora A Preciado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Watford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A Saenz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Viramontes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yungsuhn Park

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 99 of 273
(See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zulaikha Aziz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Michael B Whiting Apache County Attorney, in his official capacity
Defendant Edward G Rheinheimer Cochise County Attorney, in his official capacity

represented by Garrett Roe Immigration Reform Law Institute 25 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Ste. 335 Washington, DC 20001 202−232−5590 Fax: 202−464−3590 Email: groe@irli.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael M Hethmon Immigration Reform Law Institute 25 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Ste. 330B Washington, DC 20001 202−232−5590 Fax: 202−464−3590 Email: mhethmon@irli.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael B Whiting Apache County Attorneys Office P.O. Box 637 Saint Johns, AZ 85936 928−337−7560 Email: MWhiting@apachelaw.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph D Young Apache County Attorneys Office P.O. Box 637 Saint Johns, AZ 85936 928−337−7560 Email: jyoung@apachelaw.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Dennis Latham Apache County Attorneys Office P.O. Box 637 Saint Johns, AZ 85936 928−337−7560 Fax: 928−337−2427 Email: MLatham@apachelaw.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Terry Lynn Bannon Office of Cochise County Attorney PO Drawer CA Bisbee, AZ 85603 520−432−8700

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 100 of 273

Fax: 520−432−8778 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Britt Wesley Hanson Office of Cochise County Attorney PO Drawer CA Bisbee, AZ 85603 520−432−8700 Fax: 520−432−8778 Email: bhanson@cochise.az.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
David W Rozema Esq, Coconino County Attorney, in his official capacity

represented by William P Ring Coconino County Attorneys Office 110 E Cherry Ave. Flagstaff, AZ 86001−4627 928−679−8200 Fax: 928−679−8201 Email: wring@coconino.az.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jean E Wilcox Coconino County Attorneys Office 110 E Cherry St Flagstaff, AZ 86001 928−779−6518 Fax: 928−779−5618 Email: jwilcox@coconino.az.gov TERMINATED: 09/04/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Daisy Flores Gila County Attorney, in her official capacity TERMINATED: 09/09/2013

represented by Bryan B Chambers Gila County Attorneys Office 1400 E Ash St Globe, AZ 85501 928−425−3231 Fax: 928−425−3720 Email: bchambers@co.gila.az.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

June Ava Florescue Gila County Attorneys Office 1400 E Ash St Globe, AZ 85501 928−425−3231 Fax: 928−425−3720 Email: jfloresc@co.gila.az.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Kenny Angle Graham County Attorney, in his official capacity

represented by Kenneth Andrew Angle Graham County Attorneys Office 800 W Main St Safford, AZ 85546 928−428−3620 Fax: 928−428−7200 Email: kangle@graham.az.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 101 of 273

Defendant Derek D Rapier Greenlee County Attorney, in his official capacity
Defendant Sam Vederman La Paz County Attorney, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 08/28/2013
Defendant Richard M Romley Maricopa County Attorney, in his official capacity
Defendant Matthew J Smith Mohave County Attorney, in his official capacity

represented by Donielle Irene Wright Greenlee County Attorneys Office P.O. Box 1717 Clifton, AZ 85533−1717 928−865−4108 240 Fax: 928−865−4665 Email: dwright@co.greenlee.az.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William McCarthy Greenlee County Attorney PO Box 1717 Clifton, AZ 85533 928−865−4108 Fax: 928−865−4665 Email: mmccarthy@co.greenlee.az.us TERMINATED: 08/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert Glenn Buckelew La Paz County Attorney 1320 Kofa Ave. Parker, AZ 85344 928−669−4969 Fax: 928−669−2091 Email: gbuckelew@co.la−paz.az.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne Cecile Longo MCAO Division of County Counsel 222 N Central Ave Ste 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85004−2926 602−506−5269 Fax: 602−506−6083 Email: longoa@mcao.maricopa.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce P White Maricopa County Attorney's Office 222 N Central Ave Ste 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85004 602−506−6173 Fax: 602−506−8567 Email: whiteb@mcao.maricopa.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert Alexander Taylor Mohave County Attorneys Office City Attorney P.O. Box 7000 Kingman, AZ 86402−7000 928−753−0770 Fax: 928−753−4290 Email: robert.taylor@mohavecounty.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 102 of 273

Defendant Bradley Carlyon Navajo County Attorney, in his official capacity
Defendant Barbara Lawall Pima County Attorney, in her official capacity
Defendant James P Walsh Pinal County Attorney, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 07/31/2013

represented by Jason Stanley Moore Navajo County Attorneys Office P.O. Box 668 Holbrook, AZ 86025 928−524−4307 Fax: 928−524−4307 Email: jason.moore@navajocountyaz.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance B Payette Navajo County Attorney PO Box 668 Holbrook, AZ 86025 928−524−4002 Fax: 928−524−4244 Email: lance.payette@navajocountyaz.gov TERMINATED: 02/29/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel S Jurkowitz Pima County Attorneys Office 32 N Stone Ave., Ste. 2100 Tucson, AZ 85701 520−740−5750 Fax: 520−740−5600 Email: Daniel.Jurkowitz@pcao.pima.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Roberta Neil Miller Pinal County Attorneys Office P.O. Box 887 Florence, AZ 85232−0887 520−866−6271 Fax: 520−866−6521 Email: r.neil.miller@pinalcountyaz.gov TERMINATED: 07/31/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Myrl Roll Pinal County Attorneys Office PO Box 887 Florence, AZ 85232 520−866−6271 Fax: 520−866−6521 Email: chris.roll@pinalcountyaz.gov TERMINATED: 12/13/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joe A Albo , Jr. Maricopa County Attorneys Office − Civil Services Division 222 N Central Ave., Ste. 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85004 602−372−2275 Email: joe_albo@outlook.com TERMINATED: 12/13/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 103 of 273

Defendant George Silva Santa Cruz County Attorney, in his official capacity
Defendant Sheila S Polk Yavapai County Attorney, in her official capacity
Defendant Jon R Smith Yuma County Attorney, in his official capacity

represented by Charlene Ann Laplante Santa Cruz County Attorney 2150 N Congress Dr., Ste. 201 Nogales, AZ 85621−1090 520−375−7704 Email: claplante@co.santa−cruz.az.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean Aloysius Bodkin Law Office of Sean Bodkin 4620 E Via Dona Rd Cave Creek, AZ 85331 480−528−3095 Email: sean.bodkin@azbar.org TERMINATED: 07/18/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin David Kreutzberg Yavapai County Attorneys Office 255 E Gurley St. Prescott, AZ 86301 928−771−3344 Fax: 928−771−3110 Email: ben.kreutzberg@yavapai.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Archerd Covington & Burlin LLP 1 Front St 32nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 415−591−7015 Fax: 415−955−6515 Email: earcherd@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jack Hamilton Fields Yavapai County Attorneys Office 255 E Gurley St 3rd Floor Prescott, AZ 86301 928−771−3338 Fax: 928−771−3375 Email: jack.fields@co.yavapai.az.us TERMINATED: 03/06/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William J Kerekes Yuma County Attorneys Office 250 W 2nd St Ste G Yuma, AZ 85364 928−817−4300 Fax: 928−817−4321 Email: YCAttyCivil@yumacountyaz.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 104 of 273

Defendant Joseph Dedman, Jr. Apache County Sheriff, in his official capacity
Defendant Larry A Dever Cochise County Sheriff, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 10/05/2012
Defendant Bill Pribil Coconino County Sheriff, in his official capacity

George Jacob Romero Yuma County Attorneys Office Civil Division 250 W 2nd St Yuma, AZ 85364 928−817−4300 Email: YCAttyCivil@yumacountyaz.gov TERMINATED: 02/01/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael B Whiting (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph D Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Dennis Latham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Terry Lynn Bannon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian McCormack Bergin Bergin Frakes Smalley & Oberholtzer PLLC 4343 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 210 Phoenix, AZ 85018 602−888−7857 Fax: 602−888−7856 Email: bbergin@bfsolaw.com TERMINATED: 08/08/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Britt Wesley Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/15/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth Michael Frakes Rose Law Group PC 6613 N Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 200 Scottsdale, AZ 85032 480−240−5634 Fax: 480−951−6993 Email: kfrakes@bfsolaw.com TERMINATED: 08/08/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William P Ring (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 105 of 273

Jean E Wilcox (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/04/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John R Armer Gila County Sheriff, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 09/09/2013

represented by Bryan B Chambers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
June Ava Florescue (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Preston J Allred Graham County Sheriff, in his official capacity

represented by Kenneth Andrew Angle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Steven N Tucker Greenlee County Sheriff, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 08/29/2013

represented by Donielle Irene Wright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael William McCarthy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Donald Lowery La Paz County Sheriff, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 08/28/2013

represented by Robert Glenn Buckelew (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Joseph M Arpaio Maricopa County Sheriff, in his official capacity

represented by Anne Cecile Longo MCAO Division of County Counsel − 222 N Central Ave Ste 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85004−2926 602−506−5269 Fax: 602−506−6083 Email: longoa@mcao.maricopa.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce P White Maricopa County Attorney's Office Division of County Counsel 222 N Central Ave Ste 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85004 602−506−6173 Fax: 602−506−8567 Email: whiteb@mcao.maricopa.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Randall Jue

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 106 of 273

Maricopa County Attorneys Office − Phoenix (Central Ave.) 222 N Central Ave., Ste 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85004−2206 602−506−8541 Fax: 602−506−8567 Email: juej@mcao.maricopa.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maria Brandon Maricopa County Attorneys Office − Civil Services Division 222 N Central Ave., Ste. 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85004 602−506−8541 Email: brandon@mcao.maricopa.gov TERMINATED: 05/23/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas P Liddy Maricopa County Attorneys Office − Civil Services Division 222 N Central Ave., Ste. 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85004 602−506−8541 Fax: 602−506−8567 Email: liddyt@mcao.maricopa.gov TERMINATED: 07/08/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy James Casey Schmitt Schneck Smyth Casey & Even PC 1221 E Osborn Rd., Ste. 105 Phoenix, AZ 85014−5540 602−277−7000 Fax: 602−277−8663 Email: timcasey@azbarristers.com TERMINATED: 05/15/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Tom Sheahan Mohave County Sheriff, in his official capacity

represented by Robert Alexander Taylor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Kelly Clark Navajo County Sheriff, in his official capacity

represented by Jason Stanley Moore (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lance B Payette (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/29/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Clarence W Dupnik Pima County Sheriff, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 08/03/2015

represented by Daniel S Jurkowitz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 107 of 273

Defendant Paul R Babeu Pinal County Sheriff, in his official capacity
Defendant Tony Estrada Santa Cruz County Sheriff, in his official capacity
Defendant Steve Waugh Yavapai County Sheriff, in his official capacity
Defendant Ralph Ogden Yuma County Sheriff, in his official capacity

represented by Roberta Neil Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seymour Garry Gruber , II Pinal County Attorneys Office PO Box 887 Florence, AZ 85232 520−866−6271 Fax: 520−866−6521 Email: seymour.gruber@pinalcountyaz.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joe A Albo , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris Myrl Roll (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charlene Ann Laplante (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha L Gomez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean Aloysius Bodkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin David Kreutzberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jack Hamilton Fields (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/06/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William J Kerekes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George Jacob Romero (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/01/2012

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 108 of 273

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Duncan Hunter U.S. Representative, (CA) TERMINATED: 10/31/2011

represented by David T Hardy David T Hardy PC 8987 E Tanque Verde PMB 265 Tucson, AZ 85749 520−749−0241 Email: dthardy@mindspring.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
William G Montgomery Marcipa County Attorney TERMINATED: 10/31/2011

represented by James Randall Jue (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas P Liddy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/08/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anne Cecile Longo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce P White (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Rod Rothrock Interim Cochise County Sheriff TERMINATED: 08/22/2013

represented by Brian McCormack Bergin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Britt Wesley Hanson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth Michael Frakes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
M Lando Voyles Pinal County Attorney

represented by Seymour Garry Gruber , II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Mark J Dannels Cochise County Sheriff

represented by Britt Wesley Hanson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Terry Lynn Bannon (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 109 of 273

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Leon N Wilmot Yuma County Sheriff, in his official capacity

Defendant
John C Drum La Paz County Sheriff

represented by Robert Glenn Buckelew (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Tony Rogers La Paz County Attorney

represented by Robert Glenn Buckelew (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Larry Avila Greenlee County Sheriff

represented by Donielle Irene Wright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Bradley D Beauchamp Gila County Attorney, in his official capacity

represented by Bryan B Chambers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

June Ava Florescue (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Adam Sheppard Gila County Sheriff, in his Official Capacity

represented by Bryan B Chambers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

June Ava Florescue (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Chris Nanos Pima County Sheriff

represented by Daniel S Jurkowitz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Defendant Arizona, State of

represented by Christopher Michael DeRose Office of the Attorney General

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 110 of 273
15 S 15th Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85007 602−542−8830 Fax: 602−542−8308 Email: Chris.DeRose@azag.gov TERMINATED: 06/30/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Ann Kszywienski Snell & Wilmer LLP − Phoenix, AZ 1 Arizona Center 400 E Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004−2202 602−382−6384 Email: kkszywienski@swlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Arthur Munns Office of the Attorney General 1275 W Washington St. Phoenix, AZ 85007 602−542−7997 Fax: 602−364−3202 Email: christopher.munns@azag.gov TERMINATED: 06/23/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
G Michael Tryon Office of the Attorney General Civil Division 1275 W Washington St. Phoenix, Az 85007 602−542−8355 Fax: 602−364−2215 Email: michael.tryon@azag.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Isaiah Fields Office of the Attorney General 1275 W Washington St Phoenix, AZ 85007 602−542−7622 Fax: 602−542−3393 Email: Isaiah.Fields@azag.gov TERMINATED: 06/23/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John R Lopez , IV Office of the Attorney General − Phoenix 1275 W Washington St. Phoenix, AZ 85007−2997 602−542−8986 Fax: 602−542−8308 Email: John.Lopez@azag.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Sciarrotta , Jr. Office of the Governor 1700 W Washignton St., 9th Fl. Phoenix, AZ 85007 602−542−1586 Email: jsciarrotta@az.gov TERMINATED: 12/22/2014

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 111 of 273
Mary Ruth OGrady Office of the Attorney General 1275 W Washington Phoenix, AZ 85007−2997 602−542−8986 Fax: 602−542−8308 Email: mary.ogrady@azag.gov TERMINATED: 06/23/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie Susan Elliott Office of the Attorney General 15 S 15th Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85007 602−542−8555 Email: Stephanie.Elliott@azag.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven A LaMar Beer & Toone PC 76 E Mitchell Dr. Phoenix, AZ 85012−2330 602−263−0900 Fax: 602−263−9817 Email: slamar@beer−toone.com TERMINATED: 06/23/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas C Horne Office of the Attorney General − Phoenix 1275 W Washington St. Phoenix, AZ 85007−2997 602−542−5025 Email: tom.horne@azag.gov
John J Bouma Snell & Wilmer LLP 1 Arizona Center 400 E Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004−0001 602−382−6000 Fax: 602−382−6070 Email: jbouma@swlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph G Adams Snell & Wilmer LLP 1 Arizona Center 400 E Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004−2202 602−382−6207 Fax: 602−382−6070 Email: jgadams@swlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Andrew Kanefield Office of Governor Janice K Brewer 1700 W Washington St., 9th Fl. Phoenix, AZ 85007 602−542−1586 Fax: 602−542−7602 Email: jkanefield@az.gov TERMINATED: 05/25/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 112 of 273

Intervenor Defendant Janice K Brewer TERMINATED: 02/25/2015
Intervenor Defendant Phoenix Law Enforcement Association

Robert Arthur Henry Snell & Wilmer LLP − Phoenix, AZ 1 Arizona Center 400 E Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004−2202 602−382−6259 Fax: 602−382−6070 Email: bhenry@swlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Michael DeRose (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
G Michael Tryon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Ann Kszywienski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie Susan Elliott (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J Bouma (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph G Adams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Andrew Kanefield (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Sciarrotta , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/22/2014
Robert Arthur Henry (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Garrett Roe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James P Abdo Napier Abdo Coury & Baillie PC 2525 E Arizona Biltmore Cir Ste 135 Phoenix, AZ 85016

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 113 of 273

602−248−9107 Fax: 602−248−0971 Email: jabdo@napierlawfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael M Hethmon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Napier Napier Coury & Baillie PC 2525 E Arizona Biltmore Cir., Ste. 135 Phoenix, AZ 85016 602−248−9107 Fax: 602−248−0971 Email: mnapierpc@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant
Douglas A Ducey Governor of the State of Arizona, in his official capacity

represented by Kelly Ann Kszywienski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

G Michael Tryon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie Susan Elliott (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John J Bouma (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph G Adams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Arthur Henry (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant First Amendment Coalition of Arizona

represented by Daniel Clayton Barr Perkins Coie LLP PO Box 400 Phoenix, AZ 85001−0400 602−351−8085 Fax: 602−648−7085 Email: DBarr@perkinscoie.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Janney Kruschek Perkins Coie LLP − Phoenix, AZ P.O. Box 400 Phoenix, AZ 85001−0400 602−382−2867 Fax: 602−382−2800 Email: EKruschek@perkinscoie.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 114 of 273

Movant
Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

represented by John D Kaufmann Law Office of John D Kaufmann 177 N Church Ave Ste 905 Tucson, Az 85701−1120 520−623−2016 Fax: 520−623−8715 Email: kaufmann@tabbn.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Immigration Reform Law Institute

represented by John D Kaufmann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Mark Spencer

represented by Callie Parkinson Maxwell Kercsmar & Feltus PLLC 7150 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 285 Scottsdale, AZ 85251 480−421−1001 Fax: 480−421−1002 Email: cpm@kflawaz.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Geoffrey S Kercsmar Kercsmar & Feltus PLLC 7150 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 285 Scottsdale, AZ 85251 480−421−1001 Fax: 480−421−1002 Email: gsk@kflawaz.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James F Peterson Judicial Watch Incorporated 425 3rd St. SW, Ste. 800 Washington, DC 20024 202−646−5172 Fax: 202−646−5199 Email: jpeterson@judicialwatch.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul J Orfanedes Judicial Watch Incorporated 425 3rd St. SW, Ste. 800 Washington, DC 20024 202−646−5172 Fax: 202−646−5199 Email: porfanedes@judicialwatch.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ramona Raula Cotca Judicial Watch Incorporated 425 3rd St. SW, Ste. 800 Washington, DC 20024

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 115 of 273

202−646−5172 Fax: 202−646−5199 Email: rcotca@judicialwatch.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Legal Momentum

represented by Christopher Baird Dupont Trautman Dupont PLC 1726 N 7th St Phoenix, AZ 85006 602−344−0038 Fax: 602−374−2913 Email: dupontlaw@cox.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory N Pimstone , Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP 11355 W Olympic Blvd

Los Angeles, CA 90064 310−312−4000 Fax: 310−312−4224 Email: gpimstone@manatt.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joanna S McCallum , Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP 11355 W Olympic Blvd

Los Angeles, CA 90064 310−312−4000 Fax: 310−312−4224 Email: jmccallum@manatt.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lydia Mendoza , Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP 11355 W Olympic Blvd

Los Angeles, CA 90064 310−312−4000 Fax: 310−312−4224 Email: lmendoza@manatt.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald G Blum , Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP 7 Times Sq

New York, NY 10036 212−790−4500 Fax: 212−790−4545 Email: rblum@manatt.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sirena Castillo , Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP 11355 W Olympic Blvd

Los Angeles, CA 90064 310−312−4000 Fax: 310−312−4224 Email: scastillo@manatt.com

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 116 of 273

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus National Council of La Raza

represented by Cesar A Perales Latino Justice PRLDEF 99 Hudson St 14th Floor New York, NY 10013 212−739−7494 Fax: 212−431−4276 Email: jperez@latinojustice.org TERMINATED: 02/06/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles F Walker , Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP 1440 New York Ave NW

Washington, DC 20005 202−371−7862 Fax: 202−661−9162 Email: charles.walker@skadden.com TERMINATED: 02/06/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Foster Maer , Latino Justice PRLDEF 99 Hudson St 14th Floor New York, NY 10013 212−739−7507 Fax: 212−431−4276 Email: fmaer@latinojustice.org TERMINATED: 02/06/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Neil Lombardo , Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP 1440 New York Ave NW

Washington, DC 20005 202−371−7862 Fax: 202−661−9162 Email: neil.lombardo@skadden.com TERMINATED: 07/30/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jose L Perez , Latino Justice PRLDEF 99 Hudson St 14th Floor New York, NY 10013 212−739−7575 Fax: 212−431−4276 Email: jperez@latinojustice.org TERMINATED: 02/06/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Louis Brusca , Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP 1440 New York Ave NW

Washington, DC 20005 202−371−7862

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 117 of 273

Fax: 202−661−9162 Email: richard.brusca@skadden.com TERMINATED: 02/06/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie Fleischman Cherny Mitchell Stein & Carey PC 1 Renaissance Sq. 2 N Central Ave., Ste. 1900 Phoenix, AZ 85004 602−358−0290 Email: scherny@ebay.com TERMINATED: 02/06/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
American Immigration Lawyers Association

represented by Cynthia Ann Aziz , Aziz Law Firm 1804 East Blvd

Charlotte, NC 28203 704−347−1808 Fax: 704−347−1887 Email: cynthia@azizimmigrationlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah S Smith , Law Office of Deborah S Smith 7 W 6th Ave Ste 4M Helena, MT 59601 406−457−5345 Fax: 406−457−5346 Email: deb@debsmithlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maria E Andrade Andrade Law Office Incorporated P.O. Box 2109 Boise, ID 83701 208−472−5690 Fax: 208−388−0234 Email: mandrade@andradelegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Russell Reid Abrutyn Marshal E Hyman & Associates 3250 W Big Beaver Ste 529 Troy, MI 48084 248−643−0642 Fax: 248−643−0798 Email: russell@abrutyn.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen W Manning , Immigration Law Group PC PO Box 40103

Portland, OR 97240 503−241−0035 Fax: 503−241−7733 Email: smanning@ilgrp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 118 of 273

Amicus International Longshore and Warehouse Union
Amicus Hispanic National Bar Association
Amicus Los Abogados Hispanic Bar Association of Arizona
Amicus United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Amicus Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

Vikram Ketty Badrinath Law Offices Of Vikram Badrinath PC 100 N Stone Ave Ste 302 Tucson, AZ 85701−1514 520−620−6000 Fax: 520−620−6797 Email: vbadrinath@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert S Remar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicholas Jason Enoch Lubin & Enoch PC 349 N 4th Ave Phoenix, AZ 85003 602−234−0008 Fax: 602−626−3586 Email: nicholas.enoch@azbar.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stephanie Fleischman Cherny (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/06/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stephanie Fleischman Cherny (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/06/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stephanie Fleischman Cherny (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/06/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Janney Kruschek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2011
Jon Marshall Greenbaum Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 1401 New York Ave NW Ste 400 Washington, DC 20005 202−662−8315 Fax: 202−628−2858 Email: jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 119 of 273

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Bridget Minder − Inactive Perkins Coie LLP PO Box 400 Phoenix, AZ 85001−0400 602−351−8000 Fax: 602−648−7016 Email: mary.mcmullen.minder@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 08/14/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul F Eckstein Perkins Coie LLP PO Box 400 Phoenix, AZ 85001−0400 602−351−8000 Fax: 602−648−7122 Email: PEckstein@perkinscoie.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Los Angeles, County of

represented by Andrea Sheridan Ordin , Office of Los Angeles County Counsel 648 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 W Temple St

Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−974−1801 Fax: 213−626−7446 Email: aordin@counsel.lacounty.gov TERMINATED: 11/01/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer AD Lehman Office of Los Angeles County Counsel 648 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 W Temple St

Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−974−1908 Fax: 213−626−2105 Email: jlehman@counsel.lacounty.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lawrence L Hafetz , Office of Los Angeles County Counsel 648 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 W Temple St

Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−974−7546 Fax: 213−613−4751 Email: lhafetz@counsel.lacounty.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
Santa Clara, County of California

represented by Anjali Bhargava Office of County Counsel County of Santa Clara 70 W Hedding St East Wing 9th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 408−299−5900

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 120 of 273

Fax: 408−292−7240 Email: greta.hansen@cco.sccgov.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Greta S Hansen Office of County Counsel County of Santa Clara 70 W Hedding St 9th Floor, East Wing San Jose, CA 95110 408−299−5900 Fax: 408−292−7240 Email: greta.hansen@cco.sccgov.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Desormeau ACLU − San Francisco, CA Immigrants Rights Project 39 Drumm St. San Francisco, CA 94111 415−343−0778 Fax: 415−395−0950 Email: kate.desormeau@gmail.com TERMINATED: 02/14/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miguel A Marquez Office of County Counsel County of Santa Clara 70 W Hedding St East Wing 9th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 408−299−5900 Fax: 408−292−7240 Email: greta.hansen@cco.sccgov.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara Lange Office of County Counsel County of Santa Clara 70 W Hedding St 9th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 408−299−5900 Fax: 408−292−7240 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Baltimore, City of

represented by George A Nilson , Baltimore City Department of Law 100 Holliday St

Baltimore, MD 21202 410−396−4094 Fax: 410−547−1025 Email: george.nilson@baltimorecity.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Rowe Phelan , Jr Baltimore City Department of Law 100 Holliday St

Baltimore, MD 21202 410−396−4094

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 121 of 273

Fax: 410−547−1025 Email: william.phelan@baltimorecity.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Berkeley, City of

represented by Zachary D Cowan Berkeley City Attorneys Office 2180 Milvia St 4th Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 510−981−6998 Fax: 510−981−6960 Email: zcowan@ci.berkeley.ca.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Los Angeles, City of

represented by Carmen A Trutanich Los Angeles City Attorneys Office 200 N Main St RM 800 City Hall E Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−978−8100 Fax: 213−978−8312 Email: carmen.trutanich@tuckerellis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald M Sato , Los Angeles City Attorneys Office 200 N Main St Rm 800 City Hall E Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−978−8347 Fax: 213−978−8312 Email: gerald.sato@lacity.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William W Carter Los Angeles City Attorneys Office 200 N Main St Rm 800 City Hall E Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−978−8347 Fax: 213−978−8312 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Minneapolis, City of

represented by Peter William Ginder , Minneapolis City Attorneys Office 350 S 5th St City Hall Rm 210 Minneapolis, MN 55415 612−673−2478 Fax: 612−673−3362 Email: peter.ginder@ci.minneapolis.mn.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan L Segal , Minneapolis City Attorneys Office 350 S 5th St Ste 210 Minneapolis, MN 55415 612−673−3272 Fax: 612−673−3811

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 122 of 273

Email: susan.segal@ci.minneapolis.mn.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Monterey, County of

represented by Charles J McKee , Monterey County Counsels Office 168 W Alisal St 3rd Floor Salinas, CA 93901 831−755−5045 Fax: 831−755−5283 Email: mckeecj@co.monterey.ca.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William M Litt Monterey County Counsels Office 168 W Alisal St., 3rd Fl. Salinas, CA 93901 831−755−5045 Fax: 831−755−5283 Email: littwm@co.monterey.ca.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
New Haven, City of TERMINATED: 12/16/2014

represented by Kathleen M Foster Corporation Counsels Office City of New Haven 165 Church St 4th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 203−946−7971 Fax: 203−946−7942 Email: kfoster@newhavenct.net TERMINATED: 12/16/2014

Victor A Bolden Corporation Counsels Office City of New Haven 165 Church St 4th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 203−946−7971 Fax: 203−946−7942 Email: vbolden@newhavenct.net TERMINATED: 12/16/2014

Vikki Cooper Corporation Counsels Office City of New Haven 165 Church St 4th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 203−946−7971 Fax: 203−946−7942 Email: vcooper@newhavenct.net TERMINATED: 08/28/2012

Amicus Palo Alto, City of

represented by Gary Michael Baum City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave., 8th Fl. Palo Alto, CA 95128 650−329−2171

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 123 of 273

Fax: 650−329−2646 Email: garybaumlaw@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Portland, City of

represented by Linda Meng City Attorneys Office − City of Portland 1221 SW 4th Ave Room 430 Portland, OR 97204 503−823−4047 Fax: 503−823−3089 Email: linda.meng@portlandoregon.gov TERMINATED: 01/31/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Saint Paul, City of

represented by Gerald T Hendrickson , Office of the City Attorney 400 City Hall 15 W Kellogg Blvd Ste 400 St Paul, MN 55102 651−266−8710 Fax: 651−298−5619 Email: jerry.hendrickson@ci.stpaul.mn.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus San Francisco, City of

represented by Dennis J Herrera , San Francisco City Attorneys Office 1 Dr Carlton B Goodlett Pl Rm 234 City Hall San Francisco, CA 94102 415−554−4748 Fax: 415−554−4715 Email: tara.collins@sfgov.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wayne Snodgrass , San Francisco City Attorneys Office 1 Dr Carlton B Goodlett Pl Rm 234 City Hall San Francisco, CA 94102 415−554−4748 Fax: 415−554−4715 Email: wayne.snodgrass@sfgov.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus San Francisco, County of

represented by Dennis J Herrera , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wayne Snodgrass , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus San Jose, City of

represented by J Richard Doyle Office of the City Attorney 200 E Santa Clara St., 16th Fl.

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 124 of 273

San Jose, CA 95113 408−535−1900 Fax: 408−998−3131 Email: richard.doyle@sanjoseca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nora V Frimann , Office of the City Attorney 200 E Santa Clara St 16th Floor San Jose, CA 95113 408−535−1900 Fax: 408−998−3131 Email: nora.frimann@sanjoseca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
Seattle, City of TERMINATED: 07/01/2010

represented by Jean Boler Seattle City Attorneys Office 600 4th Ave 4th Floor Seattle, WA 98124 206−684−8207 Fax: 206−684−8284 Email: jean.boler@seattle.gov TERMINATED: 10/10/2014

Peter S Holmes Seattle City Attorneys Office 600 4th Ave 4th Floor Seattle, WA 98124 206−684−8686 Fax: 206−684−8284 Email: peter.holmes@seattle.gov TERMINATED: 10/10/2014

Amicus
Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice TERMINATED: 04/08/2014

represented by Adam Netel Bleier Sherick & Bleier PLLC 222 N Court Ave Tucson, AZ 85701 520−318−3939 Fax: 520−318−0201 Email: adam@sherickbleier.com TERMINATED: 04/08/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Joseph Euchner David J Euchner Attorney at Law PO Box 85582 Tucson, AZ 85754 520−740−5765 Fax: 520−243−4803 Email: deuchner@comcast.net TERMINATED: 04/08/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Louis S Fidel Piccarreta & Davis PC 145 S 6th Ave. Tucson, AZ 85701 520−622−6900 Email: lfidel@pd−law.com

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 125 of 273

TERMINATED: 04/08/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Harrison Green Law Offices of Matthew H Green 130 W Cushing St. Tucson, AZ 85701 520−882−8852 Fax: 520−882−8843 Email: matt@arizonaimmigration.net TERMINATED: 04/08/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Asian American Institute

represented by Aileen Wheeler , Covington & Burling LLP 1 Front St 35th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 415−591−7020 Fax: 415−955−6520 Email: awheeler@cov.com TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erin Archerd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael M Markman Covington & Burling LLP − San Francisco, CA 1 Front St., Ste. 35 San Francisco, CA 94111 415−591−7020 Fax: 415−955−6520 Email: mmarkman@cov.com TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Anthony Lopez , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wendy L Feng Covington & Burling LLP 1 Front St San Francisco, CA 94111 415−591−7075 Fax: 415−955−6575 Email: wfeng@cov.com TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Anti−Defamation League

represented by Peter Shawn Kozinets Steptoe & Johnson LLP 201 E Washington St Ste 1600 Phoenix, AZ 85004−2382 602−257−5200 Fax: 602−257−5299

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 126 of 273

Email: pkozinets@steptoe.com TERMINATED: 02/15/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Jeremy Bodney Steptoe & Johnson LLP − Phoenix, AZ Collier Center 201 E Washington St., Ste. 1600 Phoenix, AZ 85004−2382 602−257−5200 Fax: 602−257−5299 Email: bodneyd@ballardspahr.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus United Mexican States

represented by Albert M Flores Law Office of Albert M Flores 337 N 4th Ave Phoenix, AZ 85003 602−271−0070 Fax: 602−252−1922 Email: amflegal@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carla Gorniak Clifford Chance US LLP 31 W 52nd St. New York, NY 10019 212−878−8000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher R Clark Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP 1301 Ave. of the Americas, Ste. 2826W New York, NY 10019 212−259−8000 Fax: 212−632−0162 Email: crclark@dl.com TERMINATED: 12/09/2013

Henry L Solano Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP 1301 Ave of the Americas New York, NY 10019 212−259−6501 Fax: 212−259−6030 Email: hsolano@dl.com TERMINATED: 12/09/2013

Amicus
American−Arab Anti−Discrimination Committee

represented by Aileen Wheeler Covington & Burling LLP 1 Front St 35th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 415−591−7020 Fax: 415−955−6520 Email: awheeler@cov.com TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Erin Archerd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 127 of 273

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Richard Anthony Lopez Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20004 202−662−5431 Fax: 202−778−5431 Email: rlopez@cov.com TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus
Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Erin Archerd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus Asian American Legal Defense Fund

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erin Archerd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus Center for Community Change

represented by

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 128 of 273

Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Erin Archerd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Erin Archerd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus Equal Justice Society

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Erin Archerd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 129 of 273

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Erin Archerd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus Immigration Equality

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Erin Archerd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus
Mexican American Bar Association of Texas

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Erin Archerd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus
National Asian Pacific American Bar Association

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 130 of 273

Erin Archerd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus
National Black Law Students Association

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Erin Archerd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus National Center for Lesbian Rights

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Erin Archerd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 131 of 273

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus
National Korean American Service and Education Consortium

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Erin Archerd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus
National Organization for Mexican American Rights

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Erin Archerd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus OneAmerica

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Erin Archerd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 132 of 273

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus Organization of Chinese Americans

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Erin Archerd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus Public Counsel

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Erin Archerd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus Society of American Law Teachers

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Erin Archerd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 133 of 273

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus Southern Center for Human Rights

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Erin Archerd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus Arab American Institute

represented by Aileen Wheeler Covington & Burling LLP TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Wendy L Feng Covington & Burling LLP TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus
Arizona Asian−American Bar Association

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 134 of 273

Amicus Arizona Opportunities Industrialization Center
Amicus Asian Law Caucus
Amicus BPSOS Incorporated

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY
Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011
represented by Jorge Martin Castillo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Anthony Lopez , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY
Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY
Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY
Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011
represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY
Michael M Markman (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 135 of 273

TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus
Clergy & Laity United for Economic Justice

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus Greater Phoenix Urban League

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus
Hispanic Bar Association of New Jersey

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 136 of 273

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus
Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Incorporated

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 137 of 273

LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus League of Woman Voters of Arizona

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus
League of Woman Voters of the United States

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus Muslim Advocates

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard Anthony Lopez

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 138 of 273

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus Muslim Public Affairs Counsel

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus New York Immigrant Coalition

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Amicus Progressive Jewish Alliance

represented by Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Richard Anthony Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 139 of 273

Amicus Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund
Amicus American Bar Association
Amicus American Unity Legal Defense Fund Incorporated

represented by Richard Anthony Lopez , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aileen Wheeler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael M Markman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wendy L Feng (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew Silverman University of Arizona College of Law P.O. Box 210176 Tucson, AZ 85721−0176 520−621−1975 Email: silverman@law.arizona.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carolyn B Lamm White & Case LLP 701 13th St. NW, Ste. 600 Washington, DC 20005 202−626−3605 Fax: 202−639−9355 Email: clamm@whitecase.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Elizabeth Dill Perry Krumsiek & Jack LLP P.O. Box 578924 Chicago, IL 60657 866−527−4142 Fax: 617−720−4310 Email: saraedill@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen N Zack Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 100 SE 2nd St., Ste. 2800 Miami, FL 33131 305−539−8400 Fax: 305−539−1307 Email: szack@bsfllp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Barnaby W Zall Weinberg & Jacobs LLP 11300 Rockville Pike, Ste. 1200

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 140 of 273

Rockville, MD 20852 301−231−6943 Fax: 301−954−1200 Email: bzall@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
Ecuador, Republic of TERMINATED: 06/06/2012

represented by Ecuador, Republic of C/O Luis Gallegos, Ambassador 2535 15th St, NW Washington, DC 20009 202−234−7200 PRO SE

Amicus
Argentine, Republic of TERMINATED: 06/06/2012

represented by Argentine, Republic of C/O Jose L Perez Gabilondo 16000 New Hampshire Ave. Washington, DC 20009 202−238−6401 PRO SE

Amicus Washington Legal Foundation

represented by David T Hardy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Tohono O'odham Nation

represented by Jonathan Landis Jantzen Tohono O'odham Nation Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 830 Sells, AZ 85634 520−383−3410 Fax: 520−383−2689 Email: jonathan.jantzen@tonation−nsn.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus El Paso, City of

represented by Charlie F McNabb , Jr. City Attorneys Office 2 Civic Center Plaza 9th Floor El Paso, TX 79901 915−541−4550 Fax: 915−541−4190 Email: gordonlp@elpasotexas.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura Prendergast Gordon , City Attorneys Office 2 Civic Center Plaza 9th Floor El Paso, TX 79901 915−541−4550 Fax: 915−541−4190 Email: gordonlp@elpasotexas.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus San Mateo, County of

represented by

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 141 of 273

John D Nibbelin , San Mateo County Counsel 400 County Center 6th Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 650−363−4250 Fax: 650−363−4034 Email: jnibbelin@co.sanmateo.ca.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael P Murphy , San Mateo County Counsel 400 County Center 6th Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 650−363−4250 Fax: 650−363−4034 Email: mmurphy@co.sanmateo.ca.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus United States Conference of Mayors

represented by John Daniel Reaves John Daniel Reaves Attorney General Counsel 1200 New Hampshire Ave NW Ste 800 Washington, DC 20036 202−776−2305 Fax: 202−776−3305 Email: jdreaves@usa.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Landmark Legal Foundation

represented by Michael J ONeill , Landmark Legal Foundation 19415 Deerfield Ave Ste 312 Leesburg, VA 20176 703−554−6105 Fax: 703−554−6119 Email: mike@landmarklegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard P Hutchison Landmark Legal Foundation 3100 Broadway Rd Ste 1210 Kansas City, MO 64111 816−931−5559 Fax: 816−931−1115 Email: rpetehutch@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
Bolivia, Plurinational State of TERMINATED: 06/06/2012

represented by Bolivia, Plurinational State of Plurinational State of Bolivia c/o Erika Duenas, Charge D'affaires 3014 Massachussetts Ave, NW Washington, DC 20008 202−328−4155 Fax: 202−328−4159 PRO SE

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 142 of 273

Amicus Peru, Republic of TERMINATED: 06/06/2012
Amicus American Immigration Control Foundation
Amicus Dan Burton U.S Representative (IN)
Amicus Trent Franks U.S. Representative (AZ)
Amicus Sam Graves U.S. Representative (MO)
Amicus Wally Herger US Representative, (CA)
Amicus Steve King U.S. Representative, (IA)
Amicus Doug Lamborn U.S. Representative (CO)
Amicus Cynthia Lummis U.S. Representative, (WY)
Amicus Tom McClintock U.S. Representative, (CA)
Amicus Gary Miller U.S. Representative, (CA)

represented by Peru, Republic of C/O Fernando J. Quiros, Deputy Chief 1700 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036 202−833−9860 PRO SE
represented by David T Hardy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David T Hardy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David T Hardy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David T Hardy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David T Hardy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David T Hardy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David T Hardy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David T Hardy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David T Hardy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David T Hardy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 143 of 273

Amicus Jerry Moran U.S. Representative, (KS)
Amicus Sue Myrick U.S. Representative, (NC)
Amicus National Border Patrol Council
Amicus Russell Pearce Arizona State Senator
Amicus Ted Poe U.S. Representative, (TX)
Amicus Denny Rehberg U.S. Representative, (MT)
Amicus Phil Roe U.S. Representative, (TN)
Amicus Dana Rohrabacher U.S. Representative, (CA)
Amicus Mike Simpson U.S. Representative, (ID)
Amicus Lamar Smith U.S. Representative, (TX)
Amicus Allied Educational Foundation
Amicus El Salvador, Republic of

represented by David T Hardy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David T Hardy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David T Hardy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David T Hardy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David T Hardy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David T Hardy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David T Hardy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David T Hardy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David T Hardy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David T Hardy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David T Hardy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 144 of 273

Amicus Paraguay, Republic of
Amicus Concerned Citizens and Friends of Illegal Immigration Law Enforcement
Amicus Colombia, Republic of
Amicus Guatemala, Republic of Named as Guatemala
Amicus Nicaragua, Republic of
Amicus Costa Rica, Republic of TERMINATED: 09/02/2010
Amicus Chile, Republic of TERMINATED: 06/06/2012

represented by David T Hardy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Chile, Republic of C/O Arturo Fermandois, Ambassador 1732 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 785−1746 PRO SE

Date Filed 05/17/2010
05/17/2010 05/17/2010 05/17/2010

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 350.00, receipt number 0970−3923535, filed by C.M., Jose Angel Vargas, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Andrew Anderson, Border Action Network, Jim Shee, Luz Santiago, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Japanese American Citizens League, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Southside Presbyterian Church, Muslim American Society, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Friendly House, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa, Valle del Sol, Inc., Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Unknown Parties, Service Employees International Union, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Vicki Gaubeca. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Index and Exhibits 1−2)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 05/17/2010)
2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Valle del Sol, Inc.. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 05/17/2010)
3 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYMS by Unknown Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Anne Lai, # 3 Declaration of John Doe 1, # 4 Declaration of Jane Doe 1, # 5 Declaration of Jane Doe 2)(Lai, Anne) Modified on 5/25/2010 (JEMB**CORRECITON−Modified to non−exparte event**). (Entered: 05/17/2010)
4 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Elisabeth J. Neubauer by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network,

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 145 of 273

05/17/2010
05/17/2010
05/17/2010 05/17/2010 05/17/2010 05/17/2010 05/18/2010 05/18/2010 05/18/2010
05/18/2010

C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Unknown Parties, Valle del Sol, Inc., Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Neubauer, Elisabeth) (Entered: 05/17/2010)
5 APPLICATION of Nina Perales for Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice Pursuant to LRCiv 83.1(b)(3) by Plaintiffs Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle del Sol, Inc., Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/17/2010)
6 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Nina Perales by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle del Sol, Inc., Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/17/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX096919 as to Elisabeth Jill Neubauer. (BAS) (Entered: 05/17/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX096928 as to Nina Perales. (BAS) (Entered: 05/17/2010)
7 This case has been assigned to the Honorable Mark E. Aspey. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV 10−1061−PHX−MEA. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
8 Magistrate Election Form Deadline (Attachments: # 1 Instructions)(BAS) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
9 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 4 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 6 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
10 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Bradley S. Phillips by Friendly House. (Phillips, Bradley) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
11 SUMMONS Submitted by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
12 SUMMONS Submitted by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 146 of 273

05/18/2010
05/18/2010
05/18/2010 05/18/2010 05/18/2010
05/18/2010 05/18/2010 05/18/2010 05/18/2010

House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons, # 7 Summons)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
13 SUMMONS Submitted by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
14 SUMMONS Submitted by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons, # 7 Summons)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX096969 as to Bradley S Phillips. (BAS) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
15 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 10 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
16 Notice re Constitutional Challenge to a State Statute by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa (Attachments: # 1 Complaint, # 2 Exhibits to Complaint)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
17 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon by Friendly House. (Dixon, Cynthia) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
18 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Nicholas D Espiritu by Friendly House. (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
19 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Gladys Limon by Friendly House. (Limon, Gladys) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
20 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Cecillia D. Wang by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 147 of 273

05/18/2010
05/19/2010
05/19/2010 05/19/2010 05/19/2010
05/19/2010 05/19/2010 05/19/2010

American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
21 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Harini Raghupathi by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
22 Summons Issued as to Preston J Allred, Kenny Angle, John R Armer, Joseph M Arpaio, Paul Babeu, Bradley Carlyon, Kelly Clark, Joseph Dedman, Jr, Larry A Dever, Clarence W Dupnik, Tony Estrada, Daisy Flores, Jon R Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons, # 7 Summons, # 8 Summons, # 9 Summons, # 10 Summons, # 11 Summons, # 12 Summons)(MHA). *** IMPORTANT: You must select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" on the print screen in order for the court seal to appear on the summons you print. (Entered: 05/19/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 150, receipt number PHX097039 as to Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, Gladys Limon, Nicholas David Espiritu. (BAS) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
23 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 17 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 18 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 19 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
24 Summons Issued as to Barbara LaWall, Donald Lowery, Ralph Ogden, Sheila S Polk, Bill Pribil, Derek D Rapier, Edward G Rheinheimer, Richard M Romley, David W Rozema, George Silva, Matthew J Smith, Steven N Tucker, Sam Vederman, James P Walsh, Steve Waugh, Michael B Whiting. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons, # 7 Summons, # 8 Summons, # 9 Summons, # 10 Summons, # 11 Summons, # 12 Summons, # 13 Summons, # 14 Summons, # 15 Summons)(MHA). *** IMPORTANT: You must select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" on the print screen in order for the court seal to appear on the summons you print. (Entered: 05/19/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 100, receipt number PHX97042 as to Cecillia D Wang, Harini Raghupathi. (BAS) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
25 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 20 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 21 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
26 SUMMONS Submitted by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 148 of 273

05/19/2010
05/19/2010
05/19/2010
05/19/2010 05/19/2010 05/19/2010 05/19/2010
05/20/2010 05/21/2010
05/21/2010 05/21/2010

Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
27 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Yuval Miller on behalf of plaintiffs Andrew Anderson, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, and Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (BAS) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
28 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Susan Traub Boyd on behalf of plaintiffs Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, and Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (BAS) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
29 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Joseph J Ybarra on behalf of plaintiffs Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, and Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (BAS) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX097071 as to Joseph J Ybarra. (BAS) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX097070 as to Susan T Boyd. (BAS) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX097069 as to Yuval Miller. (BAS) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
30 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 27 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 28 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 29 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
31 Summons Issued as to Tom Sheahan. (REK). *** IMPORTANT: You must select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" on the print screen in order for the court seal to appear on the summons you print. (Entered: 05/20/2010)
32 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Omar C. Jadwat by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)(Jadwat, Omar) (Entered: 05/21/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX097139 as to Omar C Jadwat. (BAS) (Entered: 05/21/2010)
33 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 32 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 149 of 273

05/21/2010 05/21/2010 05/21/2010 05/21/2010
05/24/2010
05/24/2010 05/24/2010 05/24/2010
05/25/2010 05/25/2010

(BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 05/21/2010)
34 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Victor G Viramontes by Friendly House. (Viramontes, Victor) (Entered: 05/21/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX097160 as to Victor Viramontes. (BAS) (Entered: 05/21/2010)
35 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 34 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 05/21/2010)
36 Notice re Filed Motion to Transfer Related Case by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Motion to Transfer Related Case)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 05/21/2010)
37 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Lucas Guttentag by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)(Guttentag, Lucas) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX018789 as to Lucas Guttentag. (BAS) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
38 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 37 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
39 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Paul J Watford on behalf of Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Muslim American Society, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, and Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (BAS) (Entered: 05/25/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX097199 as to Paul J Watford. (BAS) (Entered: 05/25/2010)
40 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 39 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 05/25/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 150 of 273

05/25/2010 05/26/2010
05/26/2010
05/26/2010 05/26/2010 05/27/2010
05/28/2010 05/28/2010 05/28/2010 05/28/2010 05/28/2010

41 ORDER that each individual Plaintiff named in the caption of this matter shall separately execute and file within 14 days of the entry of this order their written election to either consent to the exercise of jurisdiction over this matter by a magistrate judge or a written election to have this case reassigned to a United States district judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark E Aspey on 5/25/10. (MAP) (Entered: 05/25/2010)
42 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. Joseph M Arpaio served on 5/21/2010; Richard M Romley served on 5/21/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 05/26/2010)
43 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Tanaz Moghadam on behalf of plaintiffsy Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, and Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (BAS) (Entered: 05/26/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX097299 as to Tanaz Moghadam. (BAS) (Entered: 05/26/2010)
44 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 43 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 05/26/2010)
45 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. John R Armer served on 5/24/2010; Paul Babeu served on 5/24/2010; Daisy Flores served on 5/24/2010; James P Walsh served on 5/24/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Affidavit)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
46 NOTICE of Appearance by Mary Ruth O'Grady on behalf of State of Arizona (O'Grady, Mary) (Entered: 05/28/2010)
47 MOTION to Intervene by State of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(O'Grady, Mary) (Entered: 05/28/2010)
48 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher Arthur Munns on behalf of State of Arizona (Munns, Christopher) (Entered: 05/28/2010)
49 Magistrate Election Form Deadline (6/11/10) as to State of Arizona (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form)(MAP) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
Magistrate Election Form Deadline (re 49 ) (MAP) (Entered: 06/01/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 151 of 273

05/28/2010
05/28/2010
06/01/2010 06/01/2010 06/01/2010 06/01/2010 06/01/2010 06/01/2010 06/01/2010 06/01/2010 06/01/2010 06/01/2010 06/01/2010 06/02/2010
06/02/2010

71 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa; Barbara LaWall served on 5/25/10. (REW) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
72 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa; Clarence Dupnik served on 5/25/10. (REW) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
50 Agreement to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Party agrees to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
51 MOTION to Intervene by Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bouma, John) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
52 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Karen C. Tumlin by Friendly House. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Record Certificate of Good Standing)(Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
53 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Linton Joaquin by Friendly House. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Record Certificate of Good Standing)(Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
54 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Julie A Su on behalf of plaintiffs. (BAS) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
55 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Yungsuhn Park on behalf of plaintiffs. (BAS) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
56 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Carmina Ocampo on behalf of plaintiffs. (BAS) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX097426 as to Julie A Su. (BAS) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX097427 as to Yungsuhn Park. (BAS) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX097428 as to Carmina OCampo. (BAS) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
73 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Connie Choi on behalf of the plaintiffs. (BAS) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
57 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 54 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 55 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 56 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 100, receipt number PHX097451 as to Karen Cassandra Tumlin, Linton Joaquin. (BAS) (Entered: 06/02/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 152 of 273

06/02/2010 06/02/2010 06/02/2010 06/02/2010 06/02/2010 06/02/2010 06/03/2010
06/03/2010
06/03/2010
06/03/2010 06/03/2010 06/03/2010

58 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 52 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 53 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
59 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Thomas A Saenz on behalf of plaintiffs. (BAS) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX097503 as to Thomas A Saenz. (BAS) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
60 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Melissa S Kearney on behalf of plaintiffs. (BAS) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
61 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Nora A Preciado on behalf of plaintiffs. (BAS) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 100, receipt number PHX097504 as to Nora A Preciado, Melissa S Keaney. (BAS) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
62 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 59 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 60 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 61 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
63 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. Bradley Carlyon served on 5/26/2010; Kelly Clark served on 5/26/2010; Joseph Dedman, Jr served on 5/26/2010; Larry A Dever served on 5/24/2010; Clarence W Dupnik served on 5/25/2010; Tony Estrada served on 5/24/2010; Barbara LaWall served on 5/25/2010; Ralph Ogden served on 5/24/2010; Sheila S Polk served on 5/25/2010; Edward G Rheinheimer served on 5/24/2010; George Silva served on 5/24/2010; Jon R Smith served on 5/24/2010; Steve Waugh served on 5/25/2010; Michael B Whiting served on 5/26/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Affidavit, # 4 Affidavit, # 5 Affidavit, # 6 Affidavit, # 7 Affidavit, # 8 Affidavit, # 9 Affidavit, # 10 Affidavit, # 11 Affidavit, # 12 Affidavit, # 13 Affidavit)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
64 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. Bill Pribil served on 5/25/2010; David W Rozema served on 5/25/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
65 NOTICE of Appearance by Lance B Payette on behalf of Bradley Carlyon, Kelly Clark (Payette, Lance) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
66 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Vivek Mittal on behalf of plaintiffs. (BAS) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
67 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Ghazal Tajmiri on behalf of plaintiffs. (BAS) (Entered: 06/03/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 153 of 273

06/03/2010 06/03/2010 06/04/2010
06/04/2010
06/07/2010 06/07/2010 06/08/2010 06/08/2010 06/08/2010

PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 100, receipt number PHX097521 as to Vivek Mittal, Ghazal Tajmiri. (BAS) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
68 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 66 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 67 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
69 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMIT by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMIT)(Boyd, Susan) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
70 LODGED Proposed LODGED PROPOSED PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT ATTACHED re: 69 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMIT. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Boyd, Susan) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX097428 as to Connie Choi. (BAS) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
74 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 73 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
75 NOTICE of Appearance by Isaiah Fields on behalf of Arizona, State of (Fields, Isaiah) (Entered: 06/08/2010)
76 NOTICE of Appearance by Steven A LaMar on behalf of Arizona, State of (LaMar, Steven) (Entered: 06/08/2010)
77 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. Donald Lowery served on 5/27/2010. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 06/08/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 154 of 273

06/09/2010 06/09/2010 06/09/2010 06/09/2010 06/09/2010 06/09/2010 06/10/2010 06/10/2010 06/10/2010 06/10/2010 06/10/2010 06/10/2010 06/10/2010 06/10/2010
06/11/2010
06/11/2010 06/11/2010 06/11/2010
06/11/2010

78 NOTICE of Appearance by Jean E Wilcox on behalf of Bill Pribil, David W Rozema (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 06/09/2010)
79 NOTICE of Appearance by Bruce P White on behalf of Richard M Romley (White, Bruce) (Entered: 06/09/2010)
80 NOTICE of Appearance by Anne Cecile Longo on behalf of Richard M Romley (Longo, Anne) (Entered: 06/09/2010)
81 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re Extension of Time for Responsive Pleading by Richard M Romley. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order)(White, Bruce) (Entered: 06/09/2010)
82 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael William McCarthy on behalf of Steven N Tucker (McCarthy, Michael) (Entered: 06/09/2010)
83 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael William McCarthy on behalf of Derek D Rapier (McCarthy, Michael) (Entered: 06/09/2010)
84 NOTICE of Appearance by Jack Hamilton Fields on behalf of Sheila S Polk (Fields, Jack) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
85 NOTICE of Appearance by Joe A Albo, Jr on behalf of Paul Babeu, James P Walsh (Albo, Joe) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
86 Joinder re 81 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re Extension of Time for Responsive Pleading by Defendants Bill Pribil, David W Rozema. (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
87 NOTICE of Appearance by George Jacob Romero on behalf of Jon R Smith (Romero, George) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
88 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel S Jurkowitz on behalf of Clarence W Dupnik, Barbara LaWall (Jurkowitz, Daniel) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
89 NOTICE of Appearance by George Jacob Romero on behalf of Ralph Ogden (Romero, George) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
90 NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas P Liddy on behalf of Joseph M Arpaio (Liddy, Thomas) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
91 Agreement to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Party agrees to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction by Joseph M Arpaio (Liddy, Thomas) Pursuant to Administrative Policies and Procedures, Consent Forms Are Not to be E−Filed. Text changed from Notice to above on 6/11/2010 (MAP). (Entered: 06/10/2010)
92 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 91 Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge by Joseph M Arpaio. Description of deficiency: Pursuant to Administrative Policies and Procedures, Consent forms are not to be e−filed. (MAP) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
93 NOTICE of Appearance by Jack Hamilton Fields on behalf of Steve Waugh (Fields, Jack) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
94 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert Glenn Buckelew on behalf of Donald Lowery, Sam Vederman (Buckelew, Robert) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
95 ORDER that Defendants David Rozema, Derek Rapier, Richard Romley, Bradley Carlyon, Barbara Lawall, James Walsh, Sheila Polk, Jon Smith, Bill Pribil, Steven Tucker, Joseph Arpaio, Kelly Clark, Clarence Dupnik, Paul Baben, and Ralph Ogden, and proposed Intervenor Jan Brewer, having now appeared in this matter, shall each separately execute and file within 14 days of the entry of this order their written election to either consent to the exercise of jurisdiction over this matter by a magistrate judge or a written election to have this case reassigned to a United States district judge. The parties are reminded that consent forms are not to be filed electronically. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark E Aspey on 6/11/10. (MAP) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
96 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher Baird Dupont on behalf of Legal Movement (Dupont, Christopher) (Entered: 06/11/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 155 of 273

06/11/2010 06/11/2010 06/11/2010
06/11/2010 06/11/2010 06/11/2010 06/11/2010 06/11/2010
06/11/2010 06/11/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010
06/14/2010 06/14/2010

97 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief by Legal Momentum. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Dupont, Christopher) Modified on 6/14/2010 CORRECTED to correct motion event (REW). (Entered: 06/11/2010)
98 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Gregory N Pimstone on behalf of Legal Momentum. (BAS) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
99 LODGED Proposed Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Planitiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, re: 97 Motion for leave to File. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Legal Momentum. (Dupont, Christopher) Modified on 6/14/2010 CORRECTED to add linkage (REW). (Entered: 06/11/2010)
100 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Sirena Castillo on behalf of Legal Momentum. (BAS) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
101 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Lydia Mendoza on behalf of Legal Momentum. (BAS) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
102 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Joanna S McCallum on behalf of Legal Momentum. (BAS) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 200, receipt number PHX097888 as to Joanna S McCallum, Gregory N Pimstone, Sirena Castillo, Lydia Mendoza. (BAS) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
103 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 98 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 100 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 101 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 102 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
104 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher Baird Dupont on behalf of Legal Momentum (Dupont, Christopher) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
105 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Dennis Latham on behalf of Michael B Whiting (Latham, Michael) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
106 Party Elects Assignment of Case to District Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
107 Minute Order Pursuant to Local Rule 3.8(a), a request has been received for a random reassignment of this case to a District Judge FURTHER ORDERED Case reassigned by random draw to Judge John W. Sedwick. All further pleadings/papers should now list the following COMPLETE case number: CV 10−1061−PHX−JWS. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
108 NOTICE of Change of Address by Robert Glenn Buckelew (Buckelew, Robert) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
109 LODGED Proposed Declaration of Susan T. Boyd re: 69 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMIT. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits to Declaration of Susan T. Boyd)(Boyd, Susan) (Entered: 06/14/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 156 of 273

06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010

110 LODGED Proposed Declaration of Andrew Anderson re: 69 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMIT. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Boyd, Susan) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
111 LODGED Proposed Declaration of Bo Cooper re: 69 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMIT. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to Declaration of Bo Cooper)(Boyd, Susan) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
112 LODGED Proposed Declaration of George Gascon re: 69 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMIT. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Boyd, Susan) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
113 LODGED Proposed Declaration of Vicki Gaubeca re: 69 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMIT. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Boyd, Susan) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
114 LODGED Proposed Declaration of Eduardo Gonzalez re: 69 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMIT. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Boyd, Susan) (Entered: 06/14/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 157 of 273

06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010
06/14/2010 06/14/2010

115 LODGED Proposed Declaration of Samuel Granato re: 69 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMIT. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Boyd, Susan) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
116 LODGED Proposed Declaration of Joseph T. Hansen re: 69 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMIT. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Boyd, Susan) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
117 LODGED Proposed Declaration of Luis Ibarra re: 69 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMIT. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Boyd, Susan) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
118 LODGED Proposed Declaration of Abraham F. Lowenthal re: 69 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMIT. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to Declaration of Abraham F. Lowenthal)(Boyd, Susan) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
119 NOTICE of Appearance by Sean Aloysius Bodkin on behalf of George Silva (Bodkin, Sean) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
120 LODGED Proposed Declaration of Eliseo Medina re: 69 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMIT. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 158 of 273

06/14/2010 06/14/2010
06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010

International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to Declaration of Eliseo Medina)(Boyd, Susan) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
121 NOTICE of Appearance by Sean Aloysius Bodkin on behalf of Tony Estrada (Bodkin, Sean) Modified on 6/16/2010 (SAT). NOTE: Same PDF as doc #119. (Entered: 06/14/2010)
122 LODGED Proposed Declaration of Doris Meissner re: 69 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMIT. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Doris Meissner)(Boyd, Susan) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
123 LODGED Proposed Declaration of Tupac Enrique re: 69 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMIT. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Boyd, Susan) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
124 LODGED Proposed Declaration of Jose Angel Vargas re: 69 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMIT. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Boyd, Susan) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
125 LODGED Proposed Declaration of Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa re: 69 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMIT. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Boyd, Susan) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
126 LODGED Proposed Declaration of Jane Doe 1 [Redacted−Public Version] re: 69 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMIT. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 159 of 273

06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/15/2010 06/15/2010 06/15/2010 06/15/2010
06/15/2010 06/15/2010 06/15/2010 06/15/2010 06/15/2010 06/15/2010 06/15/2010 06/15/2010 06/15/2010
06/15/2010 06/15/2010

Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Boyd, Susan) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
130 Party Elects Assignment of Case to District Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
131 Party Elects Assignment of Case to District Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
127 NOTICE of Appearance by June Ava Florescue on behalf of John R Armer, Daisy Flores (Florescue, June) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
128 ANSWER to Complaint by Barbara LaWall.(Jurkowitz, Daniel) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
129 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,, by Clarence W Dupnik.(Jurkowitz, Daniel) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
132 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion to file amicus curiae brief and proposed brief by Legal Momentum. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order proposed order on motion for excess pages)(McCallum, Joanna) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
133 Answer of Defendant Ralph Ogden, Yuma County Sheriff ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,, by Ralph Ogden.(Romero, George) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
134 Answer of Jon R. Smith, Yuma County Attorney ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,, by Jon R Smith.(Romero, George) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
135 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Jose L Perez on behalf of National Council of La Raza. (BAS) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
136 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Cesar A Perales on behalf of National Council of La Raza. (BAS) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
137 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Foster Maer on behalf of National Council of La Raza. (BAS) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX097933 as to Foster Maer. (BAS) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX097934 as to Cesar A Perales. (BAS) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX097935 as to Jose L Perez. (BAS) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
138 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 135 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 136 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 137 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
139 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Deborah S Smith on behalf of American Immigration Lawyers Association. (BAS) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX097987 as to Deborah S Smith. (BAS) (Entered: 06/15/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 160 of 273

06/15/2010
06/15/2010 06/15/2010 06/15/2010
06/15/2010 06/15/2010
06/15/2010 06/15/2010 06/15/2010 06/15/2010 06/15/2010 06/15/2010 06/15/2010

140 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Robert S Remar on behalf of plaintiffs Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, and Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (BAS) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
141 ANSWER to Complaint by Derek D Rapier.(McCarthy, Michael) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
142 ANSWER to Complaint by Steven N Tucker.(McCarthy, Michael) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
143 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Phil A Thomas on behalf of plaintiffs Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, and Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (BAS) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 100, receipt number PHX097983 as to Robert S Remar, Phil A Thomas. (BAS) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
144 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 139 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 140 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 143 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
145 MOTION for Leave to Appear: International Longshore and Warehouse Union's Motion for Leave to Appear As Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction by International Longshore and Warehouse Union. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Enoch, Nicholas) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
146 MEMORANDUM re: Memorandum Of Points and Authorities of Amicus Curiae International Longshore And Warehouse Union in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Amicus International Longshore and Warehouse Union. (Enoch, Nicholas) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
147 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth Andrew Angle on behalf of Kenny Angle (Angle, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
148 Notice re Advisory of Non−Opposition to Defendants' Requests to File Responsive Pleadings on or before June 18, 2010 by Friendly House et al. (Viramontes, Victor) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
149 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Sheila S Polk, Steve Waugh.(Fields, Jack) Modified on 6/16/2010 (SAT). NOTIFICATION: Atty noticed that document is not text searchable. (Entered: 06/15/2010)
150 MOTION for Leave to File AMICI CURIAE BRIEF AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by Hispanic National Bar Association, Los Abogados Hispanic Bar Association of Arizona, National Council of La Raza, The United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cherny, Stephanie) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
151 LODGED Proposed AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF LA RAZA et al. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION re: 150 MOTION for

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 161 of 273

06/15/2010 06/16/2010
06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010
06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010
06/16/2010
06/16/2010

Leave to File AMICI CURIAE BRIEF AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Hispanic National Bar Association, Los Abogados Hispanic Bar Association of Arizona, National Council of La Raza, The United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. (Cherny, Stephanie) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
160 Agreement to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Party agrees to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
152 MOTION for Leave to File by American Immigration Lawyers Association. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order on Motion for Leave)(Badrinath, Vikram) Modified on 6/17/2010 (SAT). NOTIFICATION: Attorney noticed to re−file with correct PDF document. (Entered: 06/16/2010)
153 LODGED Proposed re: 152 MOTION for Leave to File. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by American Immigration Lawyers Association. (Badrinath, Vikram) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
154 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney James Neil Lombardo on behalf of plaintiffs. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098023 as to James Neil Lombardo. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
155 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Richard Louis Brusca on behalf of plaintiffs. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098024 as to Richard Louis Brusca. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
156 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Charles F Walker on behalf of plaintiffs. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098025 as to Charles F Walker. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
157 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 154 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 155 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 156 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
158 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,, by Bradley Carlyon, Kelly Clark.(Payette, Lance) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
159 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Hispanic National Bar Association, Los Abogados Hispanic Bar Association of Arizona, National Council of La Raza, The United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. (Cherny, Stephanie) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
161 MOTION for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law by Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kruschek, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
162 LODGED Proposed Brief of Amicus Curiae re: 161 MOTION for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. (Kruschek, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
163 LODGED Proposed Declaration of Daniel C. Barr in Support of Brief of Amicus Curiae re: 161 MOTION for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−7, # 2 Exhibit 8−12)(Kruschek, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/16/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 162 of 273

06/16/2010 06/16/2010
06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010
06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010 06/16/2010

Notice of request for e−notices by Daniel C. Barr. (Barr, Daniel) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
164 Agreement to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Party agrees to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
165 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Greta S Hansen on behalf of Santa Clara, California, County of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098033 as to Greta S Hansen. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
166 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Miguel A Marquez on behalf of Santa Clara, California, County of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX09832 as to Miguel A Marquez. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
167 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Anjali Bhargava on behalf of Santa Clara, California, County of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098034 as to Anjali Bhargava. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
168 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Katherine Desormeau on behalf of Santa Clara, California, County of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098035 as to Katherine Desormeau. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
169 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Russell Reid Abrutyn on behalf of American Immigration Lawyers Association. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098031 as to Russell Reid Abrutyn. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
170 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Jennifer AD Lehman on behalf of Los Angeles, County of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098037 as to Jennifer AD Lehman. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
171 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Andrea Sheridan Ordin on behalf of Los Angeles, County of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098036 as to Andrea Sheridan Ordin. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
172 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Lawrence L Hafetz on behalf of Los Angeles, County of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098038 as to Lawrence L Hafetz. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
173 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Jon Marshall Greenbaum on behalf of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098023 as to Jon Marshall Greenbaum. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
174 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Ronald G Blum on behalf of Legal Momentum. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098053 as to Ronald G Blum. (BAS) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
175 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 165 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 166 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 167 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 168 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 163 of 273

06/16/2010
06/16/2010
06/16/2010
06/17/2010 06/17/2010 06/17/2010 06/17/2010 06/17/2010 06/17/2010 06/17/2010 06/17/2010
06/17/2010

169 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 170 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 171 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 172 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 173 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 174 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
188 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, by Baltimore, City of, Berkeley, City of, Los Angeles, City of, Los Angeles, County of, Minneapolis, City of, Monterey, County of, New Haven, City of, Palo Alto, City of, Portland, City of, Saint Paul, City of, San Francisco, City of, San Francisco, County of, San Jose, City of, Santa Clara, California, County of, Seattle, City of. (ESL) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
189 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Amicus Curiae Brief by Baltimore, City of, Berkeley, City of, Los Angeles, City of, Los Angeles, County of, Minneapolis, City of, Monterey, County of, New Haven, City of, Palo Alto, City of, Portland, City of, Saint Paul, City of, San Francisco, City of, San Francisco, County of, San Jose, City of, Santa Clara, California, County of, Seattle, City of. (ESL) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
190 LODGED Proposed Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction re: 188 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae and 189 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Amicus Curiae Brief. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Baltimore, City of, Berkeley, City of, Los Angeles, City of, Los Angeles, County of, Minneapolis, City of, Monterey, County of, New Haven, City of, Palo Alto, City of, Portland, City of, Saint Paul, City of, San Francisco, City of, San Francisco, County of, San Jose, City of, Santa Clara, California, County of, Seattle, City of. (ESL) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
176 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,, by Tony Estrada.(Bodkin, Sean) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
177 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,, by George Silva.(Bodkin, Sean) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
178 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert Alexander Taylor on behalf of Matthew J Smith (Taylor, Robert) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
179 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert Alexander Taylor on behalf of Tom Sheahan (Taylor, Robert) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
180 ANSWER to Complaint by Matthew J Smith.(Taylor, Robert) Modified on 6/18/2010 (SAT). NOTIFICATION: Not text searchable. (Entered: 06/17/2010)
181 ANSWER to Complaint by Tom Sheahan.(Taylor, Robert) Modified on 6/18/2010 (SAT). NOTIFICATION: Document not text searchable. (Entered: 06/17/2010)
182 NOTICE of Appearance by Britt Wesley Hanson on behalf of Larry A Dever, Edward G Rheinheimer (Hanson, Britt) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
183 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Parties, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. Preston J Allred served on 6/2/2010; Kenny Angle served on 6/2/2010; Derek D Rapier served on 6/7/2010; Tom Sheahan served on 6/1/2010; Matthew J Smith served on 6/1/2010; Steven N Tucker served on 6/7/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Affidavit, # 4 Affidavit, # 5 Affidavit)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
184 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 152 MOTION for Leave to File. Description of deficiency: Incorrect PDF document attached. (SAT) (Entered: 06/17/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 164 of 273

06/17/2010 06/17/2010 06/17/2010 06/17/2010 06/17/2010
06/17/2010 06/17/2010 06/17/2010
06/17/2010 06/17/2010 06/17/2010 06/17/2010 06/18/2010 06/18/2010 06/18/2010
06/18/2010 06/18/2010

185 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Cynthia Ann Aziz on behalf of American Immigration Lawyers Association. (BAS) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
186 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Stephen W Manning on behalf of American Immigration Lawyers Association. (BAS) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098096 as to Stephen W Manning. (BAS) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098094 as to Cynthia Ann Aziz. (BAS) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
187 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 185 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 186 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
191 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,, Answer of Defendant Coconino County Sheriff Bill Pribil by Bill Pribil.(Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
192 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,, Answer of Defendant Coconino County Attorney David W. Rozema by David W Rozema.(Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
193 ORDER: Pending before the Court in CV10−0926−PHX−SRB are two Motions to Transfer Related Cases. One filed by Defendant Governor Janice K. Brewer (dkt #13) requesting to transfer CV10−0249−TUC−DCB and CV10−0951−PHX−ROS to this Court and one filed by Plaintiffs in case number CV10−1061−PHX−JWS (dkt. #8). Any party who wishes to file a response either in opposition or in support of the Motions to Transfer must do so by 5:00 p.m. on June 23, 2010. Any response filed shall be filed in case number CV10−926−PHX SRB. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 6/17/10. (MAW) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
194 NOTICE of Appearance by Vikram Ketty Badrinath on behalf of American Immigration Lawyers Association (Badrinath, Vikram) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
195 MOTION for Leave to File as Amicus Curiae Brief by American Immigration Lawyers Association. (Attachments: # 1 Amicus Brief, # 2 Proposed Order)(Badrinath, Vikram) Modified on 6/22/2010 (LSP). (Entered: 06/18/2010)
196 Party Elects Assignment of Case to District Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
197 Party Elects Assignment of Case to District Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
198 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice. (Bleier, Adam) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
199 NOTICE of Appearance by Adam Netel Bleier on behalf of Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice (Bleier, Adam) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
200 LODGED Proposed Brief of Amicus Curiae Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice re: 198 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice. (Bleier, Adam) Modified on 6/22/2010 (LSP), COVER sheet missing. (Entered: 06/18/2010)
201 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS granting 47 State of Arizona's Motion to Intervene; granting 51 Governor Brewer's Motion to Intervene. (DMT) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
202 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,, of Defendants Graham County Attorney, Kenneth A. Angle and Graham County Sheriff, P.J. Allred by Kenny Angle.(Angle, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/18/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 165 of 273

06/18/2010 06/18/2010 06/18/2010 06/18/2010 06/18/2010 06/18/2010 06/18/2010 06/21/2010 06/21/2010 06/21/2010
06/21/2010
06/21/2010 06/21/2010 06/21/2010 06/21/2010 06/21/2010
06/21/2010 06/21/2010
06/21/2010

203 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,, by Donald Lowery, Sam Vederman.(Buckelew, Robert) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
204 First MOTION to Dismiss Case for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim by Paul Babeu, James P Walsh. (Albo, Joe) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
205 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Joseph M Arpaio. (Liddy, Thomas) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
206 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,, by Richard M Romley.(White, Bruce) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
207 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bouma, John) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
208 LODGED Proposed Motion to Dismiss re: 207 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Janice K Brewer. (Bouma, John) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
209 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS granting 81 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Richard M Romley answer due 6/30/2010(DMT) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
210 Notice re Appearance (2nd Notice) by Joseph M Arpaio (Brandon, Maria) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
211 ANSWER to Complaint by John R Armer, Daisy Flores.(Chambers, Bryan) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
212 ORDER granting 3 Motion to proceed anonymously as follows − Pending any further order which might require choosing between proceeding as an identified party and being dismissed, John Doe #1, Jane Doe #1, and Jane Doe #2 may proceed anonymously. (DMT) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
213 MOTION/Notice re NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT−INTERVENOR STATE OF ARIZONA by Arizona, State of (O'Grady, Mary) Modified on 6/22/2010 (SAT). CORRECTION/NOTIFICATION: Docket text modified to reflect event corrected to Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. (Entered: 06/21/2010)
214 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Wendy L Feng on behalf of Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona and other amicus parties. (BAS) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX0137890 as to Wendy L Feng. (BAS) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
215 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Michael M Markman on behalf of Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona and other proposed amicus parties. (BAS) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX0137890 as to Michael M Markman. (BAS) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
216 First MOTION for Leave to File AMICAS BRIEF by United Mexican States. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Flores, Albert) Modified on 6/22/2010 (SAT). CORRECTION: Docket text modified to identify correct filer. (Entered: 06/21/2010)
217 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Aileen Wheeler on behalf of Asian American Institute. (BAS) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
218 JUDGE SEDWICK TEXT ORDER re 69 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Plaintiff's' motion at docket 69 to file a brief not to exceed 40 pages is GRANTED for good cause shown. The lodged brief shall be filed upon receipt of this order. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (JWS) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX0137890 as to Aileen Wheeler. (BAS) (Entered: 06/21/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 166 of 273

06/21/2010 06/21/2010 06/21/2010 06/21/2010 06/21/2010 06/21/2010 06/21/2010 06/21/2010
06/21/2010
06/21/2010 06/21/2010 06/21/2010
06/21/2010
06/21/2010
06/21/2010

219 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Dennis J Herrera on behalf of San Francisco, City of, San Francisco, County of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098161 as to Dennis J Herrera. (BAS) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
220 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Wayne Snodgrass on behalf of San Francisco, City of, San Francisco, County of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098160 as to Wayne Snodgrass. (BAS) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
221 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Ivan E Espinoza−Madrigal on behalf of plaintiffs. (BAS) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098159 as to Ivan Espinoza−Madrigal. (BAS) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
222 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Tamara Lange on behalf of Santa Clara, County of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
223 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 217 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 219 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 220 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 221 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 222 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
224 JUDGE SEDWICK TEXT ORDER re 207 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Defendant intervenor Brewer's motion at docket 207 to file a 34−page brief in support of her motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The brief shall be filed upon receipt of this order. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (JWS) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
225 NOTICE of Appearance by Peter Shawn Kozinets on behalf of Anti−Defamation League (Kozinets, Peter) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
226 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by Asian American Institute. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List and Description of Amicus Curiae, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Feng, Wendy) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
227 LODGED Proposed Amicus Curiae Brief of Asian American Institute and Other Amici Curiae re: 226 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Asian American Institute. (Feng, Wendy) Cover sheet missing. Modified on 6/22/2010 (ESL). (Entered: 06/21/2010)
228 MOTION for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Anti−Defamation League in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Anti−Defamation League. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Motion for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Anti−Defamation League)(Kozinets, Peter) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
229 LODGED Proposed Brief of Amicus Curiae The Anti−Defamation League in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Anti−Defamation League. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Peter S. Kozinets in Support of Brief of Amicus Curiae The Anti−Defamation League, # 2 Appendix Index of Exhibits to Peter S. Kozinets' Declaration in Support of Brief of Amicus Curiae The Anti−Defamation League, # 3 Exhibit Exhibits A−H, # 4 Exhibit Exhibits I−R)(Kozinets, Peter) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
233 Agreement to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Party agrees to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP) (Entered: 06/22/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 167 of 273

06/21/2010 06/21/2010
06/21/2010 06/22/2010 06/22/2010 06/22/2010
06/23/2010 06/23/2010
06/23/2010 06/23/2010 06/23/2010 06/23/2010 06/23/2010

235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support by Plas (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Susuan Boyd, # 2 Index and Exhibits to Decl of S Boyd, # 3 Decl of Andrew Anderson, # 4 Decl of Bo Cooper, # 5 Exhibits to Decl of Bo Cooper, # 6 Decl of George Gascon, # 7 Decl of Vicki Gaubeca, # 8 Decl of Eduardo Gonzalez)(KMG) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
236 Additional Attachments (DECLARATIONS) to Main Document re 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: Declaration of Samuel Granato # 1 Declaration of Joseph T. Hansen, # 2 Decl of Luis Ibarra, # 3 Decl of Abraham F. Lowenthal, # 4 Exhibits to decl of Abraham F Lowenthal, # 5 Decl of Eliseo Medina, # 6 Exhibits to Decl of Eliseo Medina, # 7 Decl of Doris Meissner, # 8 Exhibits to Decl of Doris Meissner, # 9 Decl of Tupac Enrique, # 10 Decl of Jose Angel Vargas, # 11 Decl of Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa, # 12 Decl of Jane Doe 1 (redacted))(KMG) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
238 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Intervenor Defendant Janice K Brewer. (ESL) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
230 AMENDED MOTION to File Amicus Curiae by United Mexican States. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Flores, Albert) Modified on 6/23/2010 (LSP), INCORRECT event, modified to Amended Motion. (Entered: 06/22/2010)
231 LODGED Proposed Brief of The United Mexican States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs re: 230 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae [AMENDED]. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by United Mexican States. (Flores, Albert) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
232 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 214 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 215 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
234 MINUTE ORDER granting 213 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Henceforth, the State of Arizona shall be represented by Messrs. Bouma, Henry and Adams of the law firm of Snell & Wilmer and by Joseph A. Kanefield in the office of the Governor of Arizona. (LAD) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
237 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. Sam Vederman served on 6/8/2010. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
Remark as to attorney Ronald Lee− removed per attorney request, party and/or parties represented by other admitted counsel. (BAS) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
239 Joinder IN REQUESTS FOR CONSOLIDATION by Intervenor Plaintiffs Flagstaff, City of, San Luis, City of, Somerton, City of, Tolleson, City of. (Rivera, Jose) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
240 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Carolyn B Lamm on behalf of amicus American Bar Association. (BAS) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098290 as to Carolyn B Lamm. (BAS) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
241 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Christopher R Clark on behalf of United Mexican States. (BAS) (Entered: 06/23/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 168 of 273

06/23/2010 06/23/2010
06/23/2010 06/23/2010 06/23/2010 06/23/2010
06/23/2010 06/23/2010 06/24/2010 06/24/2010 06/24/2010 06/25/2010

242 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Carla Gorniak on behalf of United Mexican States. (BAS) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
243 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Richard Anthony Lopez on behalf of Arab American Institute, Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services, Arizona Asian−American Bar Association, Arizona Opportunities Industrialization Center, Asian American Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus, BPSOS, Inc., Center for Community Change, Clergy & Laity United for Economic Justice, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA), Equal Justice Society, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Hispanic Bar Association of New Jersey, Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, Immigration Equality, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, League of Woman Voters of Arizona, League of Woman Voters of the United States, Muslim Advocates, Muslim Public Affairs Counsel, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, National Black Law Students Association (NBLSA), National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, National Korean American Service and Education Consortium (NAKASEC), National Organization for Mexican American Rights (NOMAR), New York Immigrant Coalition, OneAmerica, Organization of Chinese Americans, Progressive Jewish Alliance, Public Counsel, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Society of American Law Teachers (SALT), Southern Center for Human Rights. (BAS) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098285 as to Richard Anthony Lopez. (BAS) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098279 as to Christopher R Clark. (BAS) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098282 as to Carla Gorniak. (BAS) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
244 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 240 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 241 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 242 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 243 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
245 MOTION for Order Limiting Amici Curiae Briefing by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bouma, John) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
246 MOTION to Stay re Responses to Amici Curiae Filings by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bouma, John) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
247 ANSWER to Complaint by Larry A Dever.(Hanson, Britt) (Entered: 06/24/2010)
248 ANSWER to Complaint by Edward G Rheinheimer.(Hanson, Britt) (Entered: 06/24/2010)
249 Notice re Response to Joinder in Requests for Consolidation by Janice K Brewer (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Bouma, John) (Entered: 06/24/2010)
250 ORDER granting the Pla's Motion to Transfer Related Case (docket #8 filed in CV10−926−PHX−SRB). Further ordered granting the Motion to Transfer Related Cases to this Court filed by Governor Brewer (docket 13 filed in CV10−926−PHX−SRB. Further ordered transferring the following cases to this Court: CV 10−249−TUC−DCB, CV 10−951−PHX−ROS, and CV 10−1061−PHX−JWS. Directing the Plas in CV 10−926−PHX−SRB, CV 10−943−PHX−SRB, CV 10−249−TUC−DCB, CV 10−951−PHX−ROS, and CV 10−1061−PHX−JWS to file a notice summarizing all pending motions in each case and the briefing status of those motions, no later than 5:00 p.m. on 06/29/10. It is further ordered that all future filings in the transferred cases shall bear the following case numbers: CV 10−249−TUC−SRB, CV 10−951−PHX−SRB, and CV

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 169 of 273

06/25/2010
06/25/2010 06/25/2010 06/25/2010 06/25/2010 06/25/2010 06/25/2010 06/25/2010 06/25/2010 06/25/2010 06/28/2010 06/28/2010 06/28/2010 06/28/2010 06/28/2010
06/28/2010 06/28/2010 06/28/2010 06/28/2010 06/28/2010

10−1061−PHX−SRB. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 06/25/10. (ESL) (Entered: 06/25/2010)
251 RESPONSE in Opposition re 230 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae [AMENDED] Brief of the United Mexican States filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Liddy, Thomas) (Entered: 06/25/2010)
252 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Jean Boler on behalf of Seattle, City of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
253 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Susan L Segal on behalf of by Minneapolis, City of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
254 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Peter W Ginder on behalf of Minneapolis, City of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 100, receipt number PHX098353 as to Susan L Segal, Peter William Ginder. (BAS) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
255 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Linda Meng on behalf of Portland, City of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
256 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Stephen N Zack on behalf of American Bar Association. (BAS) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098341 as to Stephen N Zack. (BAS) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
257 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Peter Holmes on behalf of Seattle, City of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
258 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Gary M Baum on behalf of Palo Alto, City of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098345 as to Jean Boler. (BAS) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098342 as to Linda Meng. (BAS) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098336 as to Peter S Holmes. (BAS) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098335 as to Gary M Baum. (BAS) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
259 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 252 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 253 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 254 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 255 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 256 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 257 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 258 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
260 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney George A Nilson on behalf of Baltimore, City of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX093858 as to George A Nilson. (BAS) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
261 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney William Rowe Phelan Jr on behalf of Baltimore, City of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098359 as to William Rowe Phelan, Jr. (BAS) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
262 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 260 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 261 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 170 of 273

06/28/2010 06/29/2010
06/29/2010 06/29/2010 06/29/2010 06/29/2010
06/30/2010 06/30/2010 06/30/2010 06/30/2010 06/30/2010

Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
263 MOTION re Proposed Briefing Schedule For Plaintiff's Motion For Preliminary Injunction and Defendants' Motions to Dismiss by Plaintiff Friendly House. (Viramontes, Victor) CORRECTION: incorrect event selected. This entry has been modified from (joinder) to (motion) Modified on 6/28/2010 (ESL). (Entered: 06/28/2010)
264 STATUS REPORT on Pending Motions in CV−10−1061 PHX−SRB by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Neubauer, Elisabeth) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
265 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Sara Elizabeth Dill on behalf of American Bar Association. (BAS) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098437 as to Sara Elizabeth Dill. (BAS) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
266 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 265 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
267 RESPONSE in Opposition re 245 MOTION for Order Limiting Amici Curiae Briefing filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Neubauer, Elisabeth) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
268 Notice re Election of District Judge Option by Michael B Whiting (Young, Joseph) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
269 LODGED PROPOSED DOCUMENT re: 278 Motion for Leave to File Memorandum Brief of Amicus Curiae American Bar Association in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Amicus. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File is granted. filed by American Bar Association. (Dill, Sara)CORRECTION: incorrect event selected. This entry has been modified from (memorandum) to (lodged proposed document) Modified on 7/1/2010 (ESL). (Entered: 06/30/2010)
270 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Zachary D Cowan on behalf of Berkeley, City of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098478 as to Zachary D Cowan. (BAS) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
271 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney William M Litt on behalf of Monterey, County of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/30/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 171 of 273

06/30/2010 06/30/2010 06/30/2010 06/30/2010
06/30/2010 06/30/2010 06/30/2010
06/30/2010
06/30/2010 06/30/2010 06/30/2010 07/01/2010 07/01/2010 07/01/2010

PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098473 as to William Litt. (BAS) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
272 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Charles J McKee on behalf of Monterey, County of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098472 as to Charles J McKee. (BAS) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
273 ORDER granting the Joint 263 Motion Proposing Briefing Schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Defendants' Motions to Dismiss; that oppositions to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are due on or before 07/09/10; that replies in support of the motions are due on or before 07/19/10. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 06/30/10. (ESL) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
274 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Gerald T Hendrickson on behalf of Saint Paul, City of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098469 as to Gerald T Hendrickson. (BAS) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
275 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 270 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 271 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 272 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 274 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
276 ORDER setting oral argument on Plaintiffs' 235 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Defendants Pinal County Sheriff, Paul Babeu, and Pinal County Attorney James P. Walsh's 204 Motion to Dismiss, and Intervenor Defendant Governor Brewer's 238 Motion to Dismiss for 07/22/10 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 502, 401 W. Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 06/30/10. (ESL) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
277 RESPONSE in Opposition re 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum filed by Paul Babeu, James P Walsh. (Albo, Joe) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
278 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae Memorandum Brief by American Bar Association. (Dill, Sara) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
279 NOTICE of Appearance by Sara Elizabeth Dill on behalf of American Bar Association (Dill, Sara) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
280 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 269 Memorandum filed by American Bar Association. Description of deficiency: Leave of Court required to file a document. Please see attached pdf for complete details. No follow up is required. (ESL) (Entered: 07/01/2010)
281 MOTION for Hearing on Motion re Defendant Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio's Motion to Dismiss by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Liddy, Thomas) (Entered: 07/01/2010)
282 ORDER granting the following motions: International Longshore and Warehouse Union's 145 Motion for Leave to Appear as Amicus Curiae in Support of, docket entry # 146 shall be deemed filed this date and Anti−Defamation League's 228 Motion for Leave to File of Amicus Curiae in Support of. Docket entry # 229 shall be deemed filed this date. Granting in part and denying in part the following motions: National Council of La Raza et al's 150 Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief; Legal Momentum' 97 Motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of; 161 Motion for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; County of Santa Clara, et al's 188 Motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of; Amended/Corrected 152 , 195 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by Amercian Immigration Lawyerse Association; Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice's 198 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of;

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 172 of 273

07/01/2010
07/01/2010
07/02/2010 07/02/2010 07/02/2010 07/02/2010 07/02/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010
07/06/2010 07/06/2010
07/06/2010 07/06/2010

Asian American Institute and Other's 226 Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief in Support of; United Mexican States' 230 Amended Motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief; American Bar Association's 278 Motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Plas' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. DENYING Legal Momentum's 132 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Excess of 17 Pages and County of Santa Clara, et al's 189 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Excess of Page Limit. Granting in part and denying in part Intervenor Dfts' 245 Motion for an Order Limiting Amici Curiae Briefing. Granting Intervenor Dfts' 246 Motion to Stay Responses to Amici Curiae Filings. That any revised Amicus Curiae brief be filed no later than Wednesday, 07/14/10. Intervenor Dfts may, but are not required to, submit Responses to these briefs no later than 07/21/10. That any other interested party wishing to file an Amicus Curiae brief must file a Motion for Leave and lodge the proposed brief not later than 07/14/10. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 07/01/10. (NOTE: See attached pdf for complete details) (ESL) (Entered: 07/01/2010)
283 AMICUS CURIAE in Support of Plaintiffs' 235 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, by Amicus International Longshore and Warehouse Union. (ESL) Modified on 7/1/2010 to create document linkage and update docket text (ESL). (Entered: 07/01/2010)
284 BRIEF of Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs' 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Amicus Anti−Defamation League. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Peter S. Kozinets, # 2 Index of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit A−H, # 4 Exhibit I−R)(ESL) (Entered: 07/01/2010)
285 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Barnaby W Zall on behalf of American Unity Legal Defense Fund, Inc. (BAS) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
286 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Vikki Cooper on behalf of New Haven, City of. (BAS) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
287 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Victor A Bolden on behalf of New Haven, City of. (BAS) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
288 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Kathleen M Foster on behalf of New Haven, City of. (BAS) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 150, receipt number PHX098544 as to Vikki Cooper, Kathleen M Foster, Victor A Bolden. (BAS) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098545 as to Barnaby W Zall. (BAS) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
289 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 285 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 286 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 287 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 288 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
290 BRIEF re 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Amicus Curiae) by Amicus Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. (Kruschek, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
291 ORDER that Defendant's 281 Motion to Request Oral Argument will be denied within 3 days of the date of this order if counsel does not comply with the ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, Page 12, Section G, specifically, subparagraph 1b. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 07/06/10. (ESL) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
292 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Chris Newman on behalf of plaintiff Friendly House. (BAS) (Entered: 07/07/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098561 as to Chris Newman. (BAS) (Entered: 07/07/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 173 of 273

07/07/2010
07/07/2010 07/07/2010 07/07/2010 07/07/2010
07/07/2010 07/07/2010 07/08/2010 07/08/2010 07/08/2010 07/08/2010 07/08/2010 07/08/2010
07/08/2010 07/08/2010 07/08/2010 07/08/2010 07/08/2010

293 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 292 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/07/2010)
294 BRIEF Amicus Curiae in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Amicus Legal Momentum. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A)(McCallum, Joanna) (Entered: 07/07/2010)
295 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Henry L Solano on behalf of United Mexican States. (BAS) (Entered: 07/07/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098656 as to Henry L Solano. (BAS) (Entered: 07/07/2010)
296 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 295 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/07/2010)
297 RESPONSE to Motion re 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Derek D Rapier. (McCarthy, Michael) (Entered: 07/07/2010)
298 RESPONSE to Motion re 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Steven N Tucker. (McCarthy, Michael) (Entered: 07/07/2010)
299 BRIEF of the United Mexican States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs Pursuant to Court Order by Amicus Parties United Mexican States, United Mexican States filed by United Mexican States. (Gorniak, Carla) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
300 RESPONSE to Motion re 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Larry A Dever, Edward G Rheinheimer. (Hanson, Britt) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
301 ANSWER to Complaint by Michael B Whiting.(Young, Joseph) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
302 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,, by Joseph Dedman, Jr.(Young, Joseph) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
303 ORDER, the Court advises counsel that the hearing scheduled for July 22, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. will be held in Special Proceedings Courtroom #200. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/8/10. (REW) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
304 ORDER granting Defendant Sheriff Arpaio's 281 Motion for Hearing on Motion.Motion Hearing set for 7/22/2010 at 10:00 AM in Special Proceedings Courtroom #200, re: Motion to Dismiss 205 . Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/8/10.(REW) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
305 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Gerald M Sato on behalf of Los Angeles, City of. (BAS) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
306 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney William W Carter on behalf of Los Angeles, City of. (BAS) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098755 as to William W Carter. (BAS) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098754 as to Gerald M Sato. (BAS) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
307 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 305 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 306 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/08/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 174 of 273

07/08/2010 07/08/2010
07/09/2010 07/09/2010 07/09/2010 07/09/2010 07/09/2010
07/09/2010 07/09/2010 07/09/2010 07/09/2010 07/09/2010
07/09/2010
07/09/2010 07/12/2010 07/12/2010 07/12/2010 07/12/2010 07/12/2010

308 MOTION for To Participate for Limited Purpose of Requesting Camera Coverage of July 22, 2010 Hearing by First Amendment Coalition of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kruschek, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
309 DECLARATION of Daniel C. Barr re 308 MOTION for To Participate for Limited Purpose of Requesting Camera Coverage of July 22, 2010 Hearing by Movant First Amendment Coalition of Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Kruschek, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
310 RESPONSE to Motion re 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Response of Defendants Coconino County Attorney David W. Rozema and Sheriff Bill Pribil filed by Bill Pribil, David W Rozema. (DAndrea, Michelle) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
311 RESPONSE to Motion re 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Sheila S Polk, Steve Waugh. (Fields, Jack) Document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(c). Attorney noticed. Modified on 7/9/2010 (ESL). (Entered: 07/09/2010)
312 RESPONSE to Motion re 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Kenny Angle, Preston J Allred. (Angle, Kenneth) Modified on 7/12/2010 to add additional filers. (ESL). (Entered: 07/09/2010)
313 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for For One Consolidated Oppn by Friendly House. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Joaquin, Linton) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
314 LODGED Proposed Oppn to Mots to Dismiss. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Friendly House. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Affidavit, # 4 Affidavit, # 5 Affidavit, # 6 Affidavit, # 7 Affidavit)(Joaquin, Linton) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
315 RESPONSE to Motion re 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Bradley Carlyon, Kelly Clark. (Payette, Lance) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
316 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Maria E. Andrade by American Immigration Lawyers Association. (Andrade, Maria) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
317 RESPONSE to Motion re 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Liddy, Thomas) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
318 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bouma, John) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
319 LODGED Proposed Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction re: 318 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index and Exhibits A−L, # 2 Exhibit Braddock Dec. and Exhibits 1−22, # 3 Exhibit Braddock Decl. Exhibits 23−37)(Bouma, John) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
320 Joinder re 318 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages by Defendants Richard M Romley, Arizona, State of filed by Richard M Romley, Arizona, State of. (White, Bruce) Modified on 7/12/2010 to create document linkage (ESL). (Entered: 07/09/2010)
337 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Carmen A Trutanich on behalf of Los Angeles, City of. (BAS) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
321 RESPONSE to Motion re 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Donald Lowery, Sam Vederman. (Buckelew, Robert) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
Notice of request for e−notices by Michael M. Walker. (Walker, Michael) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
322 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Nora V Frimann on behalf of San Jose, City of. (BAS) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
323 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney J Richard Doyle on behalf of San Jose, City of. (BAS) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098862 as to Nora V Frimann. (BAS) (Entered: 07/12/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 175 of 273

07/12/2010 07/12/2010
07/12/2010 07/12/2010 07/12/2010 07/12/2010 07/13/2010 07/13/2010 07/13/2010 07/13/2010
07/13/2010 07/13/2010
07/13/2010
07/13/2010

PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098861 as to J Richard Doyle. (BAS) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
324 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 322 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 323 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
332 MOTION for Leave to Join 299 Amicus Curiae Brief of the United Mexican States, by Ecuador, Republic of. (ESL) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
333 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Ecuador, Republic of re 332 MOTION for Leave to Join. (ESL) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
334 MOTION for Leave to Join 299 Amicus Curiae Brief of the United Mexican States, by Argentine, Republic of. (ESL) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
335 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Argentine, Republic of re 334 MOTION for Leave to Join. (ESL) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
325 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae Supporting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by American Unity Legal Defense Fund, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Zall, Barnaby) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
326 LODGED Proposed Proposed Brief Amicus Curiae re: 325 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae Supporting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by American Unity Legal Defense Fund, Inc.. (Zall, Barnaby) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
327 Corporate Disclosure Statement by American Unity Legal Defense Fund, Inc.. (Zall, Barnaby) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
328 ORDER that Intervenor Defendants' 318 Motion is granted and that the proposed Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which Intervenor Defendants lodged with this Court on 07/09/10, shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs reply shall not exceed the eleven page limit set out in LRCiv. 7.2(e). Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 07/13/10. (ESL) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
329 RESPONSE to Motion re 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index and Exhibits A−L, # 2 Braddock Decl. and Exhibits 1−22, # 3 Braddock Decl. Exhibits 23−37)(ESL) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
330 ORDER granting Pla's 313 Motion for Leave to file Brief in Excess of Page Limit, that Plas may file a consolidated opposition to the three pending motions to dismiss in excess of the page limit set forth in Local Rule 7.2(e). Plas' opposition shall not exceed 40 pages. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plas' Opposition to Motions to Dismiss and supporting declarations, which were lodged with Plas' Motion For Leave To File One Consolidated Opposition In Excess Of Page Limit To Three Motions To Dismiss, shall be filed forthwith. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 07/13/10. (ESL) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
331 RESPONSE in Opposition re 238 MOTION to Dismiss, 205 MOTION to Dismiss, 204 First MOTION to Dismiss Case for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim filed by Friendly House, et al. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Jennifer Allen, # 2 Declaration Joseph Hansen, # 3 Declaration Gail Gabler, # 4 Declaration Alison Harrington, # 5 Declaration C.M., # 6 Declaration Efran Sanchez, # 7 Declaration Jim Shee) (ESL) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
336 BRIEF Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs' 235 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Filed by Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice. (Euchner, David) CORRECTION: Incorrect event selected. Modified on 8/2/2010 (ESL). (Entered: 07/13/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 176 of 273

07/13/2010 07/13/2010 07/13/2010 07/14/2010
07/14/2010 07/14/2010
07/14/2010 07/14/2010

PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098842 as to Carmen A Trutanich. (BAS) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
338 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 337 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
339 EX PARTE DOCUMENT application for Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel (With Client Approval) by Defendant Larry A Dever. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Bergin, Brian) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
340 BRIEF of Amici Curiae by Amicus Parties American−Arab Anti−Discrimination Committee, Arab American Institute, Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services, Arizona Asian−American Bar Association, Arizona Opportunities Industrialization Center, Asian American Institute, Asian American Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus, BPSOS Incorporated, Center for Community Change, Clergy & Laity United for Economic Justice, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Equal Justice Society, Greater Phoenix Urban League, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Hispanic Bar Association of New Jersey, Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Incorporated, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, League of Woman Voters of Arizona, League of Woman Voters of the United States, Muslim Advocates, Muslim Public Affairs Counsel, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, National Black Law Students Association, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, National Korean American Service and Education Consortium, National Organization for Mexican American Rights, New York Immigrant Coalition, OneAmerica, Organization of Chinese Americans, Progressive Jewish Alliance, Public Counsel, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Society of American Law Teachers, Southern Center for Human Rights. (Feng, Wendy) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
341 BRIEF REVISED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS 235 MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Amicus Parties Baltimore, City of, Berkeley, City of, Los Angeles, City of, Los Angeles, County of, Minneapolis, City of, Monterey, County of, New Haven, City of, Palo Alto, City of, Portland, City of, Saint Paul, City of, San Francisco, City of, San Francisco, County of, San Jose, City of, Santa Clara, County of, Seattle, City of. (Hansen, Greta) Modified on 7/15/2010 to create document linkage.(ESL). (Entered: 07/14/2010)
342 TEXT ORDER: On July 22, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. the Court will first hear argument on the Motions to Dismiss followed by argument on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. On the three Motions to Dismiss, each Defendant will have the opportunity to argue followed by one argument by Plaintiffs in response to the three Motions to Dismiss. Each Defendant is allocated 7 minutes and may reserve part of that time for rebuttal. Defendants may agree among themselves to allocate the total time differently. Plaintiffs shall have 20 minutes of argument. On the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiffs shall have 40 minutes and Intervenor Defendant shall have 40 minutes. No other Defendant will be allocated oral argument time. The amicus filings will be considered on the papers only. Plaintiffs may reserve part of their 40 minutes for rebuttal.Only one lawyer may argue each motion but the Motions to Dismiss may be argued by a different lawyer than the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Entered by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/14/10. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAW) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098990 as to Maria E Andrade. (BAS) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
343 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 316 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/14/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 177 of 273

07/14/2010 07/14/2010
07/14/2010 07/14/2010 07/14/2010 07/14/2010 07/14/2010
07/14/2010
07/14/2010
07/14/2010 07/14/2010 07/14/2010 07/14/2010 07/14/2010 07/14/2010 07/14/2010

Remark as to attorney Claudia McGee Henry −removed per attorney request, party represented by other admitted counsel. (BAS) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
344 BRIEF re 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Amicus Parties Hispanic National Bar Association, Los Abogados Hispanic Bar Association of Arizona, National Council of La Raza, United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. (Cherny, Stephanie) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
345 First MOTION to File Amicus Curiae by Washington Legal Foundation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order granting leave to file amicus)(Hardy, David) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
346 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae by Tohono O'odham Nation. (Jantzen, Jonathan) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
347 LODGED Proposed Proposed amicus brief. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Washington Legal Foundation. (Hardy, David) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
348 NOTICE of Appearance by David T Hardy on behalf of Washington Legal Foundation (Hardy, David) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
349 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Washington Legal Foundation, American Immigration Control Foundation, National Border Patrol Council, Allied Education Foundation and Concerned Citizens and Friends of Illegal Immigration Law Enforcement. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Hardy, David) Modified on 7/15/2010 to add additional filers. (ESL). (Entered: 07/14/2010)
350 MOTION for Leave: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO JOIN THE 341 REVISED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, ET AL., by El Paso, City of, San Mateo, County of, United States Conference of Mayors. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hansen, Greta) CORRECTION: incorrect event selected. Modified on 7/15/2010 (ESL). (Entered: 07/14/2010)
351 LODGED PROPOSED DOCUMENT Amicus Curiae Brief re 346 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae . Document to be filed by Clerk of Motion to File is granted. by Amicus Tohono O'odham Nation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Jantzen, Jonathan) CORRECTION: Incorrect event selected. Modified on 7/15/2010 (ESL). (Entered: 07/14/2010)
352 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by Landmark Legal Foundation. (REW) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
353 LODGED Proposed Amicus Curiae Brief re: 352 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Landmark Legal Foundation. (REW) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
354 BRIEF of Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs' 235 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Filed by American Immigration Lawyers Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List of Resources)(Badrinath, Vikram) CORRECTION: Incorrect event selected. Modified on 8/2/2010 (ESL). (Entered: 07/14/2010)
355 LODGED Proposed Revised Brief of Amicus Curiae American Bar Association re: 278 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae Memorandum Brief. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by American Bar Association. (Dill, Sara) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
356 BRIEF re Amicus Curiae Memorandum Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' 235 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Filed by American Bar Association. (Dill, Sara) CORRECTION: Incorrect event selected. Modified on 8/2/2010 (ESL). (Entered: 07/14/2010)
357 MOTION to Intervene by Phoenix Law Enforcement Association. (Napier, Michael) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
358 LODGED Proposed Amicus Brief re: 238 MOTION to Dismiss Case, 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Phoenix Law Enforcement Association. (Napier,

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 178 of 273

07/14/2010
07/14/2010
07/14/2010
07/14/2010 07/14/2010 07/14/2010 07/14/2010 07/15/2010
07/15/2010 07/15/2010 07/15/2010 07/15/2010 07/15/2010 07/15/2010 07/15/2010 07/15/2010 07/15/2010 07/15/2010 07/15/2010 07/15/2010 07/16/2010

Michael) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
359 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 357 MOTION to Intervene Proposed Order as of right by Defendant Phoenix Law Enforcement Association. (Napier, Michael) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
360 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 357 MOTION to Intervene Proposed Order for Permissive Intervention by Defendant Phoenix Law Enforcement Association. (Napier, Michael) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
361 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 358 Lodged Proposed Document Order by Defendant Phoenix Law Enforcement Association. (Napier, Michael) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
362 MOTION for Leave to Join: 299 Amicus Curiae Brief of the United Mexican States by Bolivia, Plurinational State of. (ESL) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
363 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Bolivia, Plurinational State of re 362 MOTION for Leave to Join: Amicus Curiae Brief. (ESL) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
364 MOTION for Leave to Join: 299 Amicus Curiae Brief of the United Mexican States, by Peru, Republic of. (ESL) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
365 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Peru, Republic of re 364 MOTION for Leave to Join: Amicus Curiae Brief. (ESL) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
366 ORDER granting Defendant Larry Dever's 339 Ex Parte Motion to Withdraw Britt Hanson as Attorney; counsel for Defendant Larry Dever is now: Brian M Bergin and Kenneth M Frakes. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/15/10.(REW) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
367 NOTICE of Appearance by Brian McCormack Bergin on behalf of Larry A Dever (Bergin, Brian) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
368 Joinder re 317 Response to Motion, 329 Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Defendant Larry A Dever. (Bergin, Brian) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
369 MOTION for Leave to Join: 299 Amicus Curiae Brief of the Unitd Mexican States by Colombia, Republic of. (REW) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
370 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Colombia, Republic of re 369 MOTION for Leave to Join: Amicus Curiae Brief. (REW) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
371 MOTION for Leave to Join: Amicus Curiae Brief of the United Mexican States by Guatemala. (REW) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
372 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Guatemala re 371 MOTION for Leave to Join: Amicus Curiae Brief (REW) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
373 MOTION for Leave to Join: Amicus Curiae Brief of the United Mexican States by Nicaragua, Republic of. (REW) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
374 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Nicaragua, Republic of re 373 MOTION for Leave to Join: Amicus Curiae Brief (REW) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
375 MOTION for Leave to Join: Amicus Curiae Brief of the United Mexican States by Paraguay, Republic of. (REW) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
376 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Paraguay, Republic of re 375 MOTION for Leave to Join: Amicus Curiae Brief (REW) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
377 MOTION for Leave to Join: Amicus Curiae Brief of the United Mexican States by El Salvador, Republic of. (REW) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
378 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by El Salvador, Republic of re 377 MOTION for Leave to Join: Amicus Curiae Brief. (REW) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
379 REPLY to Response to Motion re 204 First MOTION to Dismiss Case for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim filed by Paul Babeu, James P Walsh. (Albo, Joe) (Entered: 07/16/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 179 of 273

07/16/2010 07/16/2010 07/16/2010 07/19/2010
07/19/2010
07/19/2010 07/19/2010 07/19/2010 07/19/2010
07/19/2010

380 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Lisa Kung on behalf of plaintiffs. (BAS) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX099096 as to Lisa Kung. (BAS) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
381 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 380 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
382 REPLY in Support re 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Neubauer, Elisabeth) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
383 DECLARATION of Declaration of Elisabeth Neubauer in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction re 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiffs Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe, Jane Doe, John Doe, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − 3 Part 1, # 2 Exhibit 3 Part 2, # 3 Exhibit 4 − 7)(Neubauer, Elisabeth) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
Remark as to attorney Ronald Lee − per firm request (Asian Pacific American Legal Center) no longer with firm and will not gain admission, party or parties represented by other admitted counsel. (BAS) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
384 ORDER. The following Amicus Curiae briefs are ordered filed as of this date: 326 , 347 , 351 , 353 , 358 ; granting the following Motions for Leave to Join Amicus Curiae Briefs: 332 , 334 , 350 , 362 , 364 , 369 , 371 , 373 , 375 , 377 ; granting the following Motions to File Amicus Curiae Briefs: 325 , 345 , 346 , 352 ; the following Motion is granted in part, with regard to participation as Amicus Curiae: 357 . Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/19/10.(REW) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
385 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF in Opposition to Plaintiffs' 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and in Support of Defendants' 238 MOTION to Dismiss by Amicus American Unity Legal Defense Fund, Inc. (REW) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
386 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF in Oppposition to Plaintiffs' 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Amicus Parties Allied Educational Foundation, American Immigration Control Foundation, Dan Burton, Concerned Citizens and Friends of Illegal Immigration Law Enforcement, Trent Franks, Sam Graves, Wally Herger, Steve King, Doug Lamborn, Cynthia Lummis, Tom McClintock, Gary Miller, Jerry Moran, Sue Myrick, National Border Patrol Council, Russell Pearce, Ted Poe, Denny Rehberg, Phil Roe, Dana Rohrabacher, Mike Simpson, Lamar Smith, Washington Legal Foundation, Defendant Duncan Hunter.(REW) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
387 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF in Support of Plaintiffs' 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Amicus Tohono O'Odham Nation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(REW) (Entered: 07/19/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 180 of 273

07/19/2010 07/19/2010 07/19/2010
07/19/2010 07/19/2010
07/19/2010 07/19/2010 07/19/2010 07/20/2010 07/20/2010 07/20/2010 07/20/2010
07/21/2010 07/21/2010

388 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF re 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Amicus Landmark Legal Foundation. (REW) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
389 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF in Support of Defendants' 238 MOTION to Dismiss and in Opposition to Plaintiffs' 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Intervenor Defendant Phoenix Law Enforcement Association. (REW) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
390 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Erin Archerd on behalf of American−Arab Anti−Discrimination Committee, Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services, Asian American Institute, Asian American Legal Defense Fund, Center for Community Change, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Equal Justice Society, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Immigration Equality, Mexican American Bar Association of Texas, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, National Black Law Students Association, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, National Korean American Service and Education Consortium, National Organization for Mexican American Rights, OneAmerica, Organization of Chinese Americans, Sheila S Polk, Public Counsel, Society of American Law Teachers, and Southern Center for Human Rights. (BAS) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX099114 as to Erin Archerd. (BAS) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
391 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 390 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
392 RESPONSE to Motion re 235 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Matthew J Smith. (Taylor, Robert) CORRECTION: document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(c). Modified on 7/20/2010 (ESL). (Entered: 07/19/2010)
393 Joinder in Defendants Paul Babeu and James P. Walsh's 379 Reply to Response to Motion −AND− Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motions to Dismiss by Defendant Joseph M Arpaio. (Liddy, Thomas) Modified on 7/20/2010 to create document linkage.(ESL). (Entered: 07/19/2010)
394 REPLY in Support re 238 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Tom Tardy)(Bouma, John) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
395 ERRATA re 379 Reply re Motion to Dismiss by Paul Babeu, James P Walsh (Albo, Joe) CORRECTION: incorrect event selected. Modified on 7/20/2010 (ESL). (Entered: 07/20/2010)
396 Joinder in the State of Arizona's 329 Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Defendant Paul Babeu. (Albo, Joe) Modified on 7/20/2010 to create document linkage.(ESL). (Entered: 07/20/2010)
397 Joinder in Intervenor−Defendant Governor Brewer's 329 Response to Plaintiff's 235 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Defendant Joseph M Arpaio. (Liddy, Thomas) Modified on 7/21/2010 CORRECTED: linkage added (REW). (Entered: 07/20/2010)
398 ORDER denying First Amendment Coalition of Arizona's 308 Motion to Participate For Limited Purpose of Requesting Camera Coverage of July 22, 2010 Hearing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no audio/video recording of the arguments on July 22, 2010 will be permitted. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 07/20/10. (Attachments: # 1 Letter dated 11/05/07, # 2 Letter dated 07/23/09, # 3 Letter dated 09/23/09)(ESL) (Entered: 07/20/2010)
Notice of request for e−notices by Kenneth D. Nyman. (Nyman, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
399 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Michael J ONeill on behalf of Landmark Legal Foundation. (BAS) (Entered: 07/21/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 181 of 273

07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010
07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/22/2010
07/23/2010
07/23/2010 07/23/2010 07/23/2010 07/23/2010 07/23/2010 07/26/2010 07/26/2010

PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX099265 as to Michael J ONeill. (BAS) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
400 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Richard P Hutchison on behalf of Landmark Legal Foundation. (BAS) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX099263 as to Richard P Hutchison. (BAS) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
401 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 399 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 400 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
402 RESPONSE to Amicus Curiae Briefs filed in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Intervenor Defendants Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Bouma, John) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
403 MOTION for Leave to Join: Amicus Curiae of the United Mexican States by Costa Rica, Republic of. (ESL) (Entered: 07/22/2010)
404 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Motion Hearing held on 7/22/2010 re Plaintiffs' 235 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 204 , 205 and 238 ). IT IS ORDERED taking under advisement Plaintiffs' 235 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 204 , 205 and 238 ).(Court Reporter Elizabeth Lemke.)(ESL) (Entered: 07/22/2010)
405 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa for proceedings held on 7/22/2010 before Judge Susan R. Bolton. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 07/23/2010)
406 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM RE Oral Argument by Joseph M Arpaio for proceedings held on 07−22−2010 before Judge Susan R. Bolton. (Liddy, Thomas) (Entered: 07/23/2010)
407 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney John Daniel Reaves on behalf of United States Conference of Mayors. (BAS) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
409 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Laura Prendergast Gordon on behalf of El Paso, City of. (BAS) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
410 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Charlie F McNabb Jr on behalf of El Paso, City of. (BAS) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 100, receipt number PHX099358 as to Charlie F McNabb, Jr, Laura Prendergast Gordon. (BAS) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX098988 as to John Daniel Reaves. (BAS) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
408 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 407 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/26/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 182 of 273

07/26/2010
07/26/2010 07/26/2010 07/26/2010 07/26/2010 07/26/2010 07/26/2010
07/26/2010 07/26/2010 07/26/2010 07/26/2010 07/27/2010 07/27/2010 07/27/2010
07/27/2010

411 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 409 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 410 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
412 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer for proceedings held on 07−22−10 before Judge Bolton. (Bouma, John) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
413 EX PARTE MOTION For Withdrawal of Counsel James Neil Lombardo by National Council of La Raza. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cherny, Stephanie) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
414 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Jonathan Weissglass by Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Weissglass, Jonathan) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
415 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Stephen P. Berzon by Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Berzon, Stephen) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 100, receipt number PHX099372 as to Stephen Paul Berzon, Jonathan Weissglass. (BAS) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
416 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 414 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 415 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
417 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Garrett Roe on behalf of Phoenix Law Enforcement Association. (BAS) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
418 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Michael M Hethmon on behalf of Phoenix Law Enforcement Association. (BAS) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
421 MOTION for Leave to Join: 299 Amicus Curiae Brief of the United Mexican States, by Chile, Republic of. (ESL) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
422 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Chile, Republic of re 421 MOTION for Leave to Join: Amicus Curiae Brief. (ESL) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX099376 as to Michael M Hethmon. (BAS) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX099377 as to Garrett Roe. (BAS) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
419 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 417 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 418 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
420 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Motion Hearing held on 07/22/2010 before Judge Susan R Bolton. Court Reporter: Elizabeth A Lemke. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 8/17/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/27/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/25/2010. (BAS) (Entered: 07/27/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 183 of 273

07/27/2010
07/28/2010 07/28/2010 07/28/2010 07/28/2010
07/29/2010 07/30/2010 07/30/2010 07/30/2010 07/30/2010
07/30/2010 07/30/2010 07/30/2010 07/30/2010

423 ORDER, the 413 EX PARTE MOTION For Withdrawal of Counsel James Neil Lombardo by National Council of La Raza will be denied within 3 days if counsel does not comply with the ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, Section II(G), specifically, subparagraph 1b. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/27/10. (REW) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
424 NOTICE OF ORDER in CV10−1413−PHX−SRB. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 07/28/10. (note: see attached pdf for complete details)(ESL) (Entered: 07/28/2010)
425 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Kimberley A Morris on behalf of C.M.. (BAS) (Entered: 07/28/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX099535 as to Kimberley A Morris. (BAS) (Entered: 07/28/2010)
426 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 425 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/28/2010)
427 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM requested by Los Angeles, County of for proceedings held on July 22, 2010 before Judge Susan Bolton. (Lehman, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
428 ORDER granting 413 Ex Parte Motion for Withdrawal of James Neil Lombardo in his capacity as counsel for the National Council of La Raza. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/30/10.(REW) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
Remark as to attorney mark R Levin of Landmark Legal Foundation − removed per attorney request− party represented by other admitted counsel. (BAS) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
429 Remark as to attorney Laura Blackburne − removed for noncompliance with admissions procedures; party or parties represented by other admitted counsel. (BAS) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
430 MOTION for Ruling re Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiffs Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe, Jane Doe, John Doe, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION)(Jadwat, Omar) CORRECTION: Incorrect event selected. Modified on 8/2/2010 (ESL). (Entered: 07/30/2010)
431 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Michael P Murphy on behalf of San Mateo, County of. (BAS) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
432 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney John D Nibbelin on behalf of San Mateo, County of. (BAS) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 100, receipt number PHX099621 as to John Nibbelin, Michael P Murphy. (BAS) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
433 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 431 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 432 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/30/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 184 of 273

08/02/2010 08/02/2010 08/09/2010
08/16/2010 08/23/2010
08/26/2010 09/02/2010 09/03/2010
09/07/2010 09/17/2010 09/22/2010

434 RESPONSE to Motion re 430 Motion for Ruling by Defendants Paul Babeu, James P Walsh. (Albo, Joe) Correction: incorrect event selected. Modified on 8/2/2010 (ESL). (Entered: 08/02/2010)
435 MOTION for Joinder in Defendants Paul Babeu and James P. Walsh's 434 Response to Plaintiff's Request for Order on Pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A [Proposed] Order)(Liddy, Thomas) Modified on 8/3/2010 to create document linkage. (ESL). (Entered: 08/02/2010)
436 REPLY to Response to Motion re 430 MOTION for Ruling re Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 435 MOTION for Joinder in Defendants Paul Babeu and James P. Walsh's Response to Plaintiff's Request for Order on Pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Jadwat, Omar) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
437 RESPONSE to Motion re 430 MOTION for Ruling re Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Bouma, John) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
438 REPLY to Response to Motion re 430 MOTION for Ruling re Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Jadwat, Omar) (Entered: 08/23/2010)
439 NOTICE of Change of Address by Anne Lai (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
440 ORDER denying the 403 Motion for Leave to Join Amicus Curiae Brief of the United Mexican States (Republic of Costa Rica) and the 421 Motion for Leave to Join Amicus Curiae Brief of the United Mexican States (Republic of Chile). Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 09/02/10. (ESL) (Entered: 09/02/2010)
441 First MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Harini Raghupathi by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Raghupathi, Harini) (Entered: 09/03/2010)
442 ORDER granting 441 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Harini Raghupathi is relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 9/7/10.(REW) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
443 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Ghazal Tajmiri by Friendly House. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Joaquin, Linton) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
444 ORDER granting the 443 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, that attorney Ghazal Tajmiri be relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiffs FRIENDLY HOUSE, et al.. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 09/21/10.(ESL) (Entered: 09/22/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 185 of 273

10/04/2010 10/04/2010 10/05/2010
10/05/2010 10/08/2010
10/22/2010 10/22/2010 10/22/2010 10/22/2010 10/22/2010
10/22/2010 10/25/2010 10/25/2010

445 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Laura D Blackburne on behalf of Andrew Anderson. (BAS) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX101910 as to Laura D Blackburne. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
446 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 445 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
Remark as to attornes Cory L Andrews, Daniel J Popeo, and Richard A Sump − removed per counsel's request; party or parties represented by other admitted counsel. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
447 ORDER granting in part and denying in part the Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu and Pinal County Attorney James P. Walsh 204 , Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio 205 , and Intervenor Defendant Arizona Governor Janice K. Brewer 238 ; the following of Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed for lack of standing: violation of the First Amendment (Count 3) only as far as Plaintiffs challenge Section 2 of S.B. 1070; violation of the right to travel under the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Count 7); Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for the following claims: violation of the First Amendment (Count 3) only as far as Plaintiffs challenge A.R.S. § 13−2928(C) of Section 5 of S.B. 1070; violation of the Due Process Clause (Count 6) only as far as Plaintiffs challenge Sections 2 and 5 of S.B. 1070 for vagueness; Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are denied for the balance of Plaintiffs' claims; denying as moot Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction 235 and Request for Order on Pending Motion 430 . Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 10/8/10.(REW) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
448 Pinal County Defendants' ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,, by Paul Babeu, James P Walsh.(Albo, Joe) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
449 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer.(Bouma, John) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
450 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Larry A Dever.(Bergin, Brian) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
451 Separate ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,, by Joseph M Arpaio.(Liddy, Thomas) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
452 MOTION for Reconsideration re 447 Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Motion for Ruling, by Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of V.Viramontes in Supp. of Pls' Mot. for Partial Reconsideration, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Viramontes, Victor) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
453 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Benjamin J Maro on behalf of Friendly House. (BAS) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX102763 as to Benjamin J Maro. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
454 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 453 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System.

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 186 of 273

11/03/2010 12/15/2010 01/07/2011
01/19/2011 01/19/2011 01/20/2011 01/20/2011 01/20/2011 01/21/2011

Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
455 ORDER that the 452 Motion for Partial Reconsideration will be denied within 3 days of the date of this order if counsel does not comply with the ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, Section II(D), specifically, subparagraph 3. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 11/03/10. (ESL) (Entered: 11/03/2010)
456 NOTICE re Name Change and Substitution of Maricopa County Attorney, by Bruce P White (White, Bruce) CORRECTION: Incorrect event selected. This entry has been modified from (notice of change of address) to (notice) Modified on 12/16/2010 ESL (Entered: 12/15/2010)
457 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) by Friendly House, C.M., Jose Angel Vargas, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Andrew Anderson, Border Action Network, Jim Shee, Luz Santiago, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Japanese American Citizens League, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Southside Presbyterian Church, Muslim American Society, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, John Doe, Service Employees International Union, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Vicki Gaubeca, Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Limon, Gladys) Modified on 1/7/2011 to add additional filers. (ESL). (Entered: 01/07/2011)
458 RESPONSE to Motion re 457 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) filed by Derek D Rapier. (McCarthy, Michael) (Entered: 01/19/2011)
459 RESPONSE to Motion re 457 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) filed by Steven N Tucker. (McCarthy, Michael) Note: same pdf document as Doc. 458. Modified on 1/20/2011 (ESL). (Entered: 01/19/2011)
460 NOTICE of Appearance re Association of Counsel by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Bouma, John) CORRECTION: incorrect event selected. This entry has been modified from (notice−other) to (notice of appearance) Modified on 1/21/2011 (ESL). (Entered: 01/20/2011)
461 RESPONSE to Motion re 457 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) Response of Defendant Coconino County Attorney David W. Rozema and Sheriff Bill Pribil to Motion for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. §§13−2928(A) and (B) filed by Bill Pribil, David W Rozema. (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 01/20/2011)
462 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 457 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bouma, John) (Entered: 01/20/2011)
463 RESPONSE to Motion re 457 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) filed by Sheila S Polk, Steve Waugh. (Fields, Jack) CORRECTION: document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(c). Modified on 1/24/2011 (ESL). (Entered: 01/21/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 187 of 273

01/24/2011 01/24/2011 01/27/2011
01/28/2011 02/03/2011
02/07/2011 02/09/2011 02/09/2011 02/09/2011

464 ORDER Pursuant to Plaintiffs' and Intervenor Defendants' Joint 462 Motion for an Extension of Briefing Deadlines for Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. §§ 13−2928 (A) and (B); that all defendants shall have up to and including 02/09/11 to file any responsive memoranda to plaintiffs' Motion and plaintiffs shall have up to and including 02/28/11 to file any reply in support thereof. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 01/24/11. (ESL) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
465 RESPONSE to Motion re 457 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) filed by Edward G Rheinheimer. (Hanson, Britt) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
466 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Dixon, Cynthia) CORRECTION: document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(c). Modified on 1/28/2011 (ESL). (Entered: 01/27/2011)
467 ORDER re 466 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, that Attorney Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon be relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiff's Friendly House, et al.. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 01/28/11. (ESL) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
468 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Limon, Gladys) (Entered: 02/03/2011)
469 ORDER re 468 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, that Attorney Gladys Limon be relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiffs Friendly House, et al. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 02/07/11.(ESL) (Entered: 02/07/2011)
470 RESPONSE in Opposition re 457 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Daniel Boyd, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Brian Livingston, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of Roger Sensing, # 5 Exhibit Declaration of Dr. Melody Jafari, # 6 Exhibit Declaration of Cory Braddock)(Bouma, John) (Entered: 02/09/2011)
471 RESPONSE to Motion re 457 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) filed by Paul Babeu, James P Walsh. (Albo, Joe) (Entered: 02/09/2011)
472 Joinder re 470 Response in Opposition to Motion,, 457 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) by Defendant Larry A Dever filed by Larry A Dever. (Bergin, Brian) (Entered: 02/09/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 188 of 273

02/09/2011 02/11/2011 02/14/2011 02/16/2011 02/17/2011 02/18/2011 02/28/2011
03/04/2011 03/09/2011 03/16/2011
03/21/2011

473 Joinder in Intervenor Defendant Governor Brewer's 470 Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Defendant Joseph M Arpaio. (Liddy, Thomas) Modified on 2/10/2011 to create document linkage. (ESL). (Entered: 02/09/2011)
474 Joinder in State of Arizona's 470 Response to Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. §§ 13−2928(A) and (B) by Defendant William G Montgomery filed by William G Montgomery. (Longo, Anne) Modified on 2/14/2011 to create document linkage (ESL). (Entered: 02/11/2011)
475 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Counsel and Waiver of Electronic Service by Katherine Desormeau, counsel for Amicus Santa Clara, County of. (ESL) (Entered: 02/15/2011)
476 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Ivan Espinoza−Madrigal by Friendly House. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Perales, Nina) (Entered: 02/16/2011)
477 ORDER that the 476 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will be denied within 3 days of the date of this order if counsel does not comply with the ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, Section II(G), specifically, subparagraph 1b. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 02/17/11. (LFIG) (Entered: 02/17/2011)
478 ORDER re 476 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.3(b), and good cause appearing: It is hereby ordered, attorney Ivn Espinoza− Madrigal be relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiffs FRIENDLY HOUSE, et al.. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 02/18/11. (ESL) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
479 REPLY to Response to Motion re 457 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. Section 13−2928 (A) & (B) filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit to Declaration)(Viramontes, Victor) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
480 ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 452 Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the 10/08/10, Order (Doc. 452). Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 03/04/11.(ESL) (Entered: 03/04/2011)
481 NOTICE re of Supplemental Authority Pertinent to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. 13−2928(A) and (B) by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Bouma, John) (Entered: 03/09/2011)
482 RESPONSE re 481 Notice (Other) of Supplemental Authority Filed by Defendant−Intervenors by Plaintiffs Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe, Jane Doe, John Doe, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Viramontes, Victor) (Entered: 03/16/2011)
483 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Julie A. Su by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church,

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 189 of 273

03/22/2011 03/30/2011 05/10/2011 05/10/2011 05/16/2011
05/17/2011 05/25/2011 06/30/2011
07/05/2011
07/06/2011 08/05/2011

Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Park, Yungsuhn) (Entered: 03/21/2011)
484 ORDER re 483 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, Pursuant to Local Rule 83.3(b) and good cause appearing: it is hereby ordered, attorney Julie A. Su be relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiff's FRIENDLY HOUSE, et al.. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 03/22/11. (ESL) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
485 NOTICE re Change of Counsel of Record by Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. (Kruschek, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/30/2011)
486 NOTICE of Change of Address by Thomas P Liddy (Liddy, Thomas) (Entered: 05/10/2011)
487 ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 457 Motion for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. § 13−2928(A) and (B) without prejudice to its refiling at a later time. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 05/10/11.(ESL) (Entered: 05/10/2011)
488 First MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Motion to Withdraw as Counsel by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Motion to Withdraw as Counsel)(Neubauer, Elisabeth) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
489 ORDER granting 488 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel; that attorney Elisabeth J. Neubauer be relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiffs Friendly House, et al.. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 05/17/11.(ESL) (Entered: 05/17/2011)
490 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by John J Bouma (Bouma, John) (Entered: 05/25/2011)
491 ORDER SETTING RULE 16 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE − Pursuant to Rule 16, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a Pretrial Scheduling Conference is set for 09/19/11 at 4;30 p.m., Courtroom #502, Fifth Floor, Federal Building, 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona. Counsel are directed to Rule 16 for the objectives of this conference. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 06/30/11. (note: see attached pdf for complete details) (ESL) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
492 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Anne Lai by Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, League of Woman Voters of Arizona, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 07/05/2011)
493 ORDER re 492 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Anne Lai is relieved as attorney of record for the Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 07/06/11.(ESL) (Entered: 07/06/2011)
494 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 190 of 273

08/05/2011
08/08/2011 09/09/2011
09/12/2011 09/12/2011 09/12/2011 09/16/2011
09/19/2011 09/19/2011

Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Boyd, Susan) (Entered: 08/05/2011)
495 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa re 494 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL (Boyd, Susan) (Entered: 08/05/2011)
496 ORDER granting 494 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel; that attorney Susan Traub Boyd be relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiff's Friendly House, et al.. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 08/08/11.(ESL) (Entered: 08/08/2011)
497 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Vivek Mittal by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Mittal, Vivek) (Entered: 09/09/2011)
498 ORDER that the 497 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will be denied within 3 days of the date of this order if counsel does not comply with the ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, Section II(G), specifically, subparagraph 1b.. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 09/12/11. (ESL) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
499 ORDER granting 497 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel; that attorney Vivek Mittal be relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiffs Friendly House, et al.. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 09/12/11.(ESL) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
500 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Bouma, John) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
501 First MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Tanaz Moghadam by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Moghadam, Tanaz) (Entered: 09/16/2011)
502 ORDER re 501 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, that Attorney Tanaz Moghadam is relieved as attorney of record for the plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 09/19/11.(ESL) (Entered: 09/19/2011)
503 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Scheduling Conference held on 9/19/2011. Scheduling Order to follow. (Court Reporter Liz Lemke.)(ESL) (Entered: 09/20/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 191 of 273

09/21/2011 10/03/2011
10/24/2011
10/24/2011 10/24/2011
10/24/2011 10/24/2011 10/25/2011 10/28/2011

504 SCHEDULING ORDER: Plaintiffs may have until October 3, 2011 to move to amend their Complaint to add additional Plaintiffs. Initial disclosure regarding standing and class certification shall be made by November 4, 2011. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be filed by December 12, 2011. Defendants' response shall be filed by March 15, 2012. Discovery regarding standing and class certification issues only may proceed and shall be completed by February 15, 2012. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 9/21/2011. (ALS) Modified on 10/5/2011 (MAW). (Entered: 09/21/2011)
505 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint per Court Order 504 , File First Amended Complaint by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Amended Complaint, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Attachment − Proposed Order)(Joaquin, Linton) Modified on 10/4/2011 (KMG). (Entered: 10/03/2011)
506 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Margaret G Ziegler on behalf of plaintiffs Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Friendly House, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, and Jose Angel Vargas. (BAS) (Entered: 10/24/2011)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX115017 as to Margaret G Ziegler. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 10/24/2011)
507 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Lika C Miyake on behalf of plaintiffs Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Friendly House, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, and Jose Angel Vargas. (BAS) (Entered: 10/24/2011)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX115016 as to Lika C Miyake. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 10/24/2011)
508 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 506 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 507 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 10/24/2011)
509 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 505 motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint shall be filed within 7 days of the date of this order. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 10/25/11. (ESL) (Entered: 10/25/2011)
510 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of ARS Sections 13−2928(A) and (B) by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 192 of 273

10/31/2011 11/04/2011
11/04/2011 11/04/2011 11/04/2011 11/04/2011 11/04/2011
11/07/2011
11/07/2011 11/07/2011

League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Nicholas Espiritu, # 2 Declaration of Alison Harrington, # 3 Declaration of Tupac Enrique, # 4 Proposed Order)(Viramontes, Victor) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
511 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Friendly House.(Joaquin, Linton) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
512 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST re Status Conference held on September 19, 2011 before the Honorable Susan Bolton by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa for proceedings held on 09/19/2011 before Judge Susan Bolton.. (Joaquin, Linton) (Entered: 11/04/2011)
513 Minute Order: Motion Hearing set for 1/9/2012 at 09:30AM before Judge Susan R Bolton re: 510 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of ARS Sections 13−2928(A) and (B). This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAW) (Entered: 11/04/2011)
514 NOTICE re Notice of Service of Intervenor Def. Rule 26 Initial Discl. Stmt Re Standing and Class Cert. Issues by Janice K Brewer . (Bouma, John) (Entered: 11/04/2011)
515 NOTICE re Service of Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, Requests For Production of Documents, and Requests For Admission To Defendant Governor Janice K. Brewer and Defendant The State Of Arizona; and Subpoena To Arizona Peace Officer Standards & Training Board by Friendly House et al. (Miyake, Lika) (Entered: 11/04/2011)
516 NOTICE re Service of Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures Regarding Standing and Class Certification by Friendly House et al.. (Miyake, Lika) (Entered: 11/04/2011)
517 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Scheduling Conference Proceedings held on 09/19/2011, before Judge Susan R Bolton. Court Reporter Elizabeth A Lemke. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 11/25/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/5/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/2/2012. (BAS) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
518 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Aaron Leiderman on behalf of Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Jim Shee, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, and Jose Angel Vargas. (BAS) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX115493 as to Aaron G Leiderman. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
519 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 518 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 193 of 273

11/10/2011 11/10/2011 11/10/2011 11/10/2011 11/10/2011 11/11/2011
11/11/2011
11/14/2011 11/14/2011 11/14/2011 11/14/2011 11/14/2011 11/14/2011

(BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
520 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Bill Pribil, David W Rozema for proceedings held on 9/19/11 before Judge Susan R. Bolton.. (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
521 ANSWER to 511 Amended Complaint by Barbara Lawall.(Jurkowitz, Daniel) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
522 ANSWER to 511 Amended Complaint by Clarence W Dupnik.(Jurkowitz, Daniel) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
523 ANSWER to 511 Amended Complaint by Steven N Tucker.(McCarthy, Michael) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
524 ANSWER to 511 Amended Complaint by Derek D Rapier.(McCarthy, Michael) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
525 *MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Yuval Miller as Counsel, by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Motion to Withdraw as Counsel)(Leiderman, Aaron) *Entry modified to remove "motion to withdraw" on 11/14/2011 (ESL). (Entered: 11/11/2011)
526 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney MOTION to Withdraw Kimberly A. Morris as Counsel by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Motion to Withdraw as Counsel)(Leiderman, Aaron) (Entered: 11/11/2011)
527 ORDER granting 525 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel; that Attorney Yuval Miller be relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiffs Friendly House, et al. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 11/14/11.(ESL) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
528 ORDER granting 526 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel; that Attorney Kimberley A. Morris be relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiffs Friendly House, et al. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 11/14/11.(ESL) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
529 ANSWER to 511 Amended Complaint by Michael B Whiting.(Young, Joseph) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
530 ANSWER to 511 Amended Complaint by Joseph Dedman, Jr.(Young, Joseph) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
531 MOTION for Extension of Time Current Deadlines by Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bouma, John) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
532 ANSWER to 511 Amended Complaint by Larry A Dever.(Bergin, Brian) (Entered: 11/14/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 194 of 273

11/14/2011 11/14/2011 11/14/2011 11/15/2011 11/15/2011 11/15/2011
11/15/2011 11/15/2011 11/15/2011
11/15/2011 11/15/2011
11/16/2011 11/16/2011 11/18/2011 11/18/2011 11/21/2011

533 ANSWER to 511 Amended Complaint by Sheila S Polk, Steve Waugh.(Fields, Jack) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
534 ANSWER to 511 Amended Complaint by David W Rozema.(Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
535 ANSWER to 511 Amended Complaint by Bill Pribil.(Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
536 RESPONSE to Motion re 510 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of ARS Sections 13−2928(A) and (B) filed by Derek D Rapier. (McCarthy, Michael) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
537 RESPONSE to Motion re 510 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of ARS Sections 13−2928(A) and (B) filed by Steven N Tucker. (McCarthy, Michael) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
538 ORDER granting 531 Motion for Extension of Time Deadline as to 510 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of ARS Sections 13−2928(A) and (B). ORDERED that Intervenor Defendants and any other defendant who has not yet responded shall have up to and including 12/2/11 to file their response to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. §§ 13−2928(A) and (B), ECF No. 510. FURTHER ORDERED that Intervenor Defendants and any other defendant who has not yet responded shall have up to and including 12/2/11 to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, ECF No. 511. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 11/15/11.(MAP) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
539 ANSWER to 511 Amended Complaint by Bradley Carlyon, Kelly Clark.(Payette, Lance) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
540 Answer of Defendant Graham County Attorney Kenneth A. Angle and Graham County Sheriff P.J. Allred ANSWER to 511 Amended Complaint by Kenny Angle.(Angle, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
541 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Kenneth John Sugarman on behalf of Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, and Jose Angel Vargas. (BAS) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX115776 as to Kenneth John Sugarman. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
542 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 541 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
543 ANSWER to 511 Amended Complaint by Edward G Rheinheimer.(Hanson, Britt) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
544 RESPONSE to Motion re 510 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of ARS Sections 13−2928(A) and (B) filed by Edward G Rheinheimer. (Hanson, Britt) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
545 Answers of Defendants Yuma County Attorney, Jon R. Smith and Sheriff Ralph Ogden, to First Amended Complaint ANSWER to 511 Amended Complaint by Jon R Smith.(Kerekes, William) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
546 RESPONSE to Motion re 510 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of ARS Sections 13−2928(A) and (B) filed by Jon R Smith. (Kerekes, William) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
547 MOTION for Protective Order RE: AZPOST Subpoena by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 195 of 273

11/21/2011
11/23/2011 11/29/2011 12/02/2011 12/02/2011
12/02/2011 12/02/2011 12/02/2011 12/02/2011 12/05/2011

2)(Bouma, John) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
548 NOTICE re of Service of Plaintiffs' Notices of Deposition of Defendant Governor Janice K. Brewer and Defendant The State of Arizona by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa . (Leiderman, Aaron) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
549 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer for proceedings held on 9/19/11 before Judge Susan Bolton.. (Henry, Robert) (Entered: 11/23/2011)
550 NOTICE re of Service of Intervenor Defendants Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Written Discovery by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer . (Bouma, John) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
551 Pinal County Defendants' ANSWER to 511 Amended Complaint by Paul R Babeu, James P Walsh.(Albo, Joe) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
552 STIPULATION RE PENDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES AND CLASS CERTIFICATION ISSUE by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Maro, Benjamin) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
553 RESPONSE to Motion re 510 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of ARS Sections 13−2928(A) and (B) filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Decl. of K. Kszywienski, # 3 Second Decl. of D. Boyd)(Bouma, John) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
554 Joinder re 553 Response to Motion, by Defendant Larry A Dever. (Bergin, Brian) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
555 Joinder re 553 Response to Motion, by Defendants Joseph M Arpaio, William G Montgomery filed by Joseph M Arpaio, William G Montgomery. (White, Bruce) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
556 RESPONSE to Motion re 510 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of ARS Sections 13−2928(A) and (B) and Joinder re 553 Response, filed by Paul R Babeu, James P Walsh. (Albo, Joe) *Entry modified to include Joinder on 12/5/2011 (ESL). (Entered: 12/02/2011)
557 NOTICE OF WAIVER OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE by Richard Anthony Lopez; Michael M Markman; Aileen Wheeler; Erin Archerd and Wendy L Feng, counsel for Amicus Parties American−Arab Anti−Discrimination Committee, Arab American Institute, Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services, Arizona Asian−American Bar Association, Arizona Opportunities Industrialization Center, Asian American Institute, Asian American Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus, BPSOS Incorporated, Center for Community Change, Clergy & Laity United for Economic Justice, Equal Justice Society, Greater Phoenix Urban League, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Hispanic Bar Association of New Jersey, Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, Immigration Equality, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Incorporated, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, League of Woman Voters of Arizona, League of Woman Voters

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 196 of 273

12/06/2011 12/06/2011
12/07/2011 12/07/2011 12/12/2011 12/12/2011

of the United States, Muslim Advocates, Muslim Public Affairs Counsel, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, National Black Law Students Association, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, National Korean American Service and Education Consortium, National Organization for Mexican American Rights, New York Immigrant Coalition, OneAmerica, Organization of Chinese Americans, Progressive Jewish Alliance, Public Counsel, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Society of American Law Teachers, Southern Center for Human Rights (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Appendix I)(Feng, Wendy) (Entered: 12/05/2011)
558 ORDER that the 552 Stipulation Re: Pending Discovery Disputes and Class Certification Issue will be denied within 3 days of the date of this order if counsel does not comply with the ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, Section II(G), specifically, subparagraph 1b. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 12/06/11. (ESL) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
559 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply In Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Viramontes, Victor) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
560 ORDER that the court approves the 552 Stipulation re: Pending Discovery Disputes and Class Certification Issue in accordance with its terms. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 12/07/11. (ESL) (Entered: 12/07/2011)
561 ORDER re Plaintiff's 559 Motion for Extension of Time; Plaintiff's shall have up to and including 12/14/11 to file Plaintiff's Reply in Support of their Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. §§ 13−2928(A) and (B). Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 12/07/11.(ESL) (Entered: 12/07/2011)
562 MOTION to Dismiss Party Individual Plaintiffs , MOTION to Strike 511 Amended Complaint Class Action Allegations by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bouma, John) (Entered: 12/12/2011)
563 MOTION to Certify Class by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Margaret G. Ziegler In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Linton Joaquin In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, # 3 Affidavit Declaration of Victor Viramontes In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, # 4 Affidavit Declaration of Kenneth J. Sugarman In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, # 5 Affidavit Declaration of Alison J. Harrington In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, # 6 Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, # 7 Request for Judicial Notice In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; Declaration of Aaron G. Leiderman In Support Thereof, # 8 Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Request for Judicial Notice In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion For Class Certification)(Leiderman, Aaron) (Entered: 12/12/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 197 of 273

12/13/2011 12/14/2011 12/14/2011 12/14/2011
12/16/2011 12/20/2011
12/21/2011 12/22/2011 12/27/2011 12/27/2011 12/27/2011

564 *Joinder re 562 MOTION to Dismiss Party Individual Plaintiffs , MOTION to Strike 511 Amended Complaint Class Action Allegations by Defendants Joseph M Arpaio, William G Montgomery filed by Joseph M Arpaio, William G Montgomery. (White, Bruce) *Entry modified to include document number on 12/13/2011 (ESL). (Entered: 12/13/2011)
565 *JOINDER re 562 MOTION to Dismiss Party Individual Plaintiffs MOTION to Strike 511 Amended Complaint Class Action Allegations by Paul R Babeu, James P Walsh. (Albo, Joe) *Entry modified to correct event on 12/14/2011 (ESL). (Entered: 12/14/2011)
566 NOTICE re of Service by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer . (Bouma, John) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
567 REPLY to Response to Motion re 510 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of ARS Sections 13−2928(A) and (B) filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Viramontes, Victor) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
568 Joinder re 562 MOTION to Dismiss Party Individual Plaintiffs MOTION to Strike 511 Amended Complaint Class Action Allegations by Defendant Larry A Dever. (Bergin, Brian) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
569 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time To File Response and Reply to Intervenor Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and to Extend Discovery Deadline by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Viramontes, Victor) (Entered: 12/20/2011)
570 ORDER re: 569 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply; that Plaintiffs' Response to Intervenor Defendants' 562 Motion to Dismiss the Individual Plaintiffs and Strike Class Allegations be due by 01/20/12 and Intervenor Defendants Reply be due by 02/17/12. The Court also extends the class and standing discovery cut−off to 03/02/12. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 12/21/11.(ESL) (Entered: 12/21/2011)
571 ORDER granting Intervenor−Defendants' 547 Motion for Protective Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED quashing the Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises In a Civil Action that Plaintiffs served on the Arizona Peace Officer Standards & Training Board ("AZPOST") on October 28, 2011. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 12/22/11.(ESL) (Entered: 12/22/2011)
572 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Marita Etcubanez on behalf of Friendly House. (BAS) (Entered: 12/27/2011)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX117150 as to Marita Etcubanez. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 12/27/2011)
573 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 572 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 198 of 273

01/03/2012 01/09/2012
01/09/2012 01/10/2012 01/20/2012
01/23/2012
01/24/2012

(BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 12/27/2011)
574 ORDER setting oral argument on Plaintiffs' 563 Motion for Class Certification for Monday, 04/09/12 at 10:00 a.m.. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 01/03/12. (ESL) (Entered: 01/03/2012)
575 NOTICE of Appearance by James Duff Lyall on behalf of Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(Named as Jane Doe − #1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa (Lyall, James) (Entered: 01/09/2012)
577 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Motion Hearing held on 1/9/2012 re: Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction 510 . Argument held. IT IS ORDERED taking under advisement Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction 510 . (Court Reporter Liz Lemke)(MAW) (Entered: 01/10/2012)
576 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer for proceedings held on 01/09/2012 before Judge Susan Bolton.. (Kszywienski, Kelly) (Entered: 01/10/2012)
578 *RESPONSE in Opposition re 562 MOTION to Dismiss Party Individual Plaintiffs MOTION to Strike 511 Amended Complaint Class Action Allegations filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Request for Judicial Notice, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Granting Request for Judicial Notice)(Ziegler, Margaret) *Attorney noticed to file Request as a separate entry. Modified on 1/23/2012 (ESL). (Entered: 01/20/2012)
579 REQUEST re: For Judicial Notice by Plaintiffs Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe, Jane Doe, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Request for Judicial Notice)(Ziegler, Margaret) (Entered: 01/23/2012)
580 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings held on 01/09/2012, before Judge Susan R Bolton. Court Reporter Elizabeth A Lemke. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 2/14/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/24/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/23/2012. (BAS) (Entered: 01/24/2012)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 199 of 273

01/26/2012 01/26/2012 01/30/2012 01/31/2012 01/31/2012 02/01/2012 02/03/2012
02/03/2012
02/06/2012 02/06/2012

581 NOTICE re Service by Janice K Brewer of First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production to the Individual Plaintiffs. (Bouma, John) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
582 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Portland, City of. (Meng, Linda) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
583 ORDER that the 582 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will be denied within 3 days of the date of this order if counsel does not comply with the ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, Section II(G), specifically, subparagraph 1b. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 01/30/12. (ESL) (Entered: 01/30/2012)
584 AMENDED MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Portland, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Meng, Linda) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
585 ORDER granting 584 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel; that Attorney Linda Meng be relieved as attorney of record for Amicus City of Portland, Oregon. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 01/31/12.(ESL) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
586 *Notice of Substitution of Counse by Jon R Smith . (Kerekes, William) *Modified entry to correct event type on 2/2/2012 (ESL). (Entered: 02/01/2012)
587 * Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR STANDING AND CLASS DISCOVERY CUT−OFF by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa, Arizona, State of, Janice K. Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Viramontes, Victor) * Modified on 2/6/2012 to add intervenor defendants as filers (LAD). (Entered: 02/03/2012)
588 NOTICE re Service by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa of Plaintiff Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce's Answers to Intervenor Defendant Governor Brewer's First Set of Interrogatories. (Sugarman, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/03/2012)
589 ORDER granting 587 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. The Court extends the class certification and standing discovery cut−off to March 15, 2012. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 2/6/12.(DMT) (Entered: 02/06/2012)
590 NOTICE re Service by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa of Discovery Responses by Plaintiffs Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Coalicion de Derechos Humanos, Japanese American Citizens League, Service Employees International Union, Service Employees International Union Local 5, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 200 of 273

02/09/2012 02/09/2012 02/09/2012 02/09/2012 02/10/2012
02/16/2012
02/16/2012
02/17/2012 02/21/2012 02/23/2012

Institute, Valle del Sol, Inc. (Park, Yungsuhn) (Entered: 02/06/2012)
591 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Jessica Karp on behalf of plaintiffs. (BAS) (Entered: 02/09/2012)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX118696 as to Jessica Karp. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 02/09/2012)
592 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 591 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 02/09/2012)
593 MOTION to Consolidate Cases by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bouma, John) (Entered: 02/09/2012)
594 NOTICE re Service by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa . (Sugarman, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/10/2012)
595 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery AND RESCHEDULE THE APRIL 9, 2012 HEARING by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Viramontes, Victor) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
596 ORDER that the Court extends the class certification and standing discovery cut−off to 04/11/12; Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification will be due no later than 05/04/12 and Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their Motion for Class Certification will be due no later than 05/18/12; that the 04/09/12 date for hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is vacated and rescheduled to 06/04/12 at 10:00 a.m.; that no further extensions will be granted. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 02/16/12. (ESL) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
597 REPLY to Response to Motion re 562 MOTION to Dismiss Party Individual Plaintiffs MOTION to Strike 511 Amended Complaint Class Action Allegations filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Bouma, John) (Entered: 02/17/2012)
598 ORDER setting oral argument on Intervenor Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Individual Plaintiffs and Strike Class Action Allegations 562 on 3/26/12 at 10:45 am. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 2/21/12. (TLJ) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
599 NOTICE re SERVICE OF DISCOVERY BY PLAINTIFFS ARIZONA SOUTH ASIANS FOR SAFE FAMILIES and BORDER ACTION NETWORK by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League,

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 201 of 273

02/27/2012
02/27/2012 02/28/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 03/01/2012 03/02/2012 03/08/2012 03/08/2012 03/08/2012 03/08/2012
03/09/2012 03/09/2012 03/09/2012

Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa . (Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 02/23/2012)
600 RESPONSE in Opposition re 593 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Sugarman, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/27/2012)
601 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Republic of Ecuador. Reason for return: Attempted−Not Known. Document number 598. (TLJ) (Entered: 02/28/2012)
602 NOTICE re Service of Governor Brewer's Second Set of Interrogatories to the Organizational Plaintiffs by Janice K Brewer . (Bouma, John) (Entered: 02/28/2012)
603 *NOTICE of Attorney Subsitution: Jason S. Moore appearing for Bradley Carlyon, Kelly Clark. Attorney Lance B Payette terminated. . (Moore, Jason) *Modified to correct event type on 2/29/2012 (ESL). (Entered: 02/29/2012)
604 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 510 Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. § 13−2928(A) and (B). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED preliminarily enjoining Defendants from enforcing A.R.S. § 13−2928(A) and (B). Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 02/29/12. (ESL) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
605 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Republic of Argentine. Reason for return: Not deliverable as addressed. Document number 577. (TLJ) (Entered: 03/01/2012)
606 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Republic of Ecuador. Reason for return: not deliverable as addressed. Document number 596. (TLJ) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
607 REPLY to Response to Motion re 593 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Bouma, John) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
608 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Jessica S Chia on behalf of Friendly House. (BAS) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX119720 as to Jessica S Chia. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
609 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 608 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
610 NOTICE re Discovery Responses by John Doe and Maura Castillo.(Pochoda, Daniel) . (Entered: 03/09/2012)
611 NOTICE re of Service of Governor Brewer and the State of Arizona's Notice of Depositons by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer . (Bouma, John) (Entered: 03/09/2012)
612 NOTICE re OF SERVICE OF DISCOVERY RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFFS PEDRO ESPINOZA and JANE DOE #3 by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 202 of 273

03/09/2012 03/12/2012 03/14/2012 03/23/2012
03/23/2012 03/25/2012

Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa . (Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 03/09/2012)
613 NOTICE re Service of Discovery by Plaintiff Jose Angel Vargas by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Steve King, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa . (Karp, Jessica) (Entered: 03/09/2012)
614 NOTICE re Service of Discovery Responses by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa . (Park, Yungsuhn) (Entered: 03/12/2012)
615 NOTICE re Service of Discovery Responses by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa . (Karp, Jessica) (Entered: 03/14/2012)
616 NOTICE re Objections of Plaintiffs Derechos Humanos, Valle Del Sol, Japanese American Citizens League, and United Food and Commercial Workers International Union to Topics for Examination 5 − 7 of Intervenor Defendants State of Arizona and Governor Brewer's Notice of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 30(b)(6) Depositions by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa . (Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 03/23/2012)
617 NOTICE re Notice of Service by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer . (Bouma, John) (Entered: 03/23/2012)
618 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiff Maria Morales by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families,

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 203 of 273

03/26/2012 03/26/2012 03/26/2012 03/27/2012
03/27/2012
03/28/2012 03/28/2012 03/29/2012

Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Viramontes, Victor) (Entered: 03/25/2012)
619 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer for proceedings held on 03/26/2012 before Judge Bolton.. (Kszywienski, Kelly) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
620 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Motion Hearing held on 3/26/2012 re: Intervenor Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Individual Plaintiffs and Strike Class Action Allegations 562 . Argument presented. IT IS ORDERED taking under advisement Intervenor Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Individual Plaintiffs and Strike Class Action Allegations 562 . (Court Reporter Liz Lemke)(MAW) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
621 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing. Proceedings held on 3/26/2012, before Judge Susan R. Bolton. Court Reporter Elizabeth A. Lemke. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 4/16/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/26/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/25/2012. (VAR) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
622 NOTICE re Service of Discovery Responses by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa . (Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
623 NOTICE re Service of Supplemental Discovery Responses by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church . (Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
624 *MOTION to Dismiss Party FRIENDLY HOUSE and MUSLIM AMERICAN SOCIETY REQUEST FOR MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE BY PLAINTIFFS FRIENDLY HOUSE AND MUSLIM AMERICAN SOCIETY by Friendly House, Muslim American Society. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Viramontes, Victor) *Modified to remove non−filers on 4/24/2012* (REW). (Entered: 03/28/2012)
625 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL to 9th Circuit, as to 604 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. Filing fee received: $ 455.00, receipt number 0970−6578524. (Attachments: # 1 Appeal Notice Representation Statement)(Bouma, John) (Entered: 03/28/2012)
626 Ninth Circuit Case Number 12−15688 for 625 Notice of Appeal. (LSP) (Entered: 03/29/2012)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 204 of 273

03/29/2012
03/29/2012 03/29/2012
03/30/2012 03/30/2012
03/30/2012
04/02/2012 04/02/2012

627 NOTICE re of Service PLAINTIFF ARIZONA SOUTH ASIANS FOR SAFE FAMILIES ANSWERS TO INTERVENOR DEFENDANT GOVERNOR BREWERS SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa . (Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 03/29/2012)
628 ORDER denying Plaintiff's 618 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 3/29/12.(ESL) (Entered: 03/29/2012)
629 NOTICE re Service of Discovery Responses by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa . (Park, Yungsuhn) (Entered: 03/29/2012)
630 NOTICE re Notice of Service of Governor Brewer and the State of Arizona's Second Amended Notice of Deposition by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer . (Bouma, John) (Entered: 03/30/2012)
631 NOTICE re Service by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa . (Sugarman, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/30/2012)
632 NOTICE re Service of Discovery Responses by Plaintiff Tonatierra by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa . (Karp, Jessica) (Entered: 03/30/2012)
633 NOTICE re Notice of Service of Discovery Responses by Plaintiffs SEIU, SEIU Arizona, and UFCW by Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union . (Weissglass, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/02/2012)
634 NOTICE re Service of Discovery Responses by Plaintiffs Southside Presbyterian Church, Valle del Sol, Derechos Humanos, C.M., and Luz Santiago by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M.,

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 205 of 273

04/03/2012 04/04/2012
04/04/2012 04/04/2012 04/05/2012 04/05/2012 04/09/2012 04/10/2012
04/12/2012 04/12/2012 04/12/2012

Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa . (Viramontes, Victor) (Entered: 04/02/2012)
635 NOTICE re Notice That No Transcript Will Be Ordered For Appeal by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer . (Bouma, John) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
636 Second MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney FOR MARIA MORALES by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Viramontes, Victor) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
637 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Republic of Ecuador. Reason for return: Attempted not known. Document number 628. (ESL) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
638 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Republic of Ecuador. Reason for return: Temporarily Away − Unable to forward. Document number 620. (ESL) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
639 ORDER granting 636 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel; that all counsel for Plaintiffs be relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiff Maria Morales. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 04/05/12.(ESL) (Entered: 04/05/2012)
640 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Republic of Ecuador. Reason for return: Unclaimed. Document number 626. (ESL) (Entered: 04/06/2012)
641 CERTIFICATE OF RECORD TRANSMITTED TO 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS re 625 Notice of Appeal. (VAR) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
642 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST ORDER by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa for proceedings held on 1/9/2012 before Judge Susan Bolton.. (Viramontes, Victor) (Entered: 04/10/2012)
643 NOTICE re SERVICE OF DISCOVERY RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFFS MAURA CASTILLO AND JOHN DOE I by Maura Castillo, John Doe . (Lyall, James) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
644 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Republic of Ecuador. Reason for return: Return to Sender, Unable to Forward. Document number 608 . (LAD) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
645 NOTICE re Service of Discovery Responses by Plaintiffs Tonatierra and Jose Angel Vargas by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 206 of 273

04/13/2012 04/17/2012 04/17/2012 04/23/2012 04/27/2012
05/02/2012
05/03/2012 05/04/2012 05/04/2012

Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa . (Karp, Jessica) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
646 RESPONSE to Motion re 624 MOTION to Dismiss Party FRIENDLY HOUSE and MUSLIM AMERICAN SOCIETY REQUEST FOR MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE BY PLAINTIFFS FRIENDLY HOUSE AND MUSLIM AMERICAN SOCIETY filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−C)(Bouma, John) (Entered: 04/13/2012)
647 * Joinder In Intervenor Defendants' Response to Motion for Dismissal Without Prejudice By Plaintiffs Friendly House and Muslim American Society 646 by Defendants Joseph M Arpaio, William G Montgomery. (White, Bruce) * Modified to add document linkage on 4/18/2012 (LAD). (Entered: 04/17/2012)
648 Joinder re 646 Response to Motion, by Defendant Larry A Dever filed by Larry A Dever. (Bergin, Brian) (Entered: 04/17/2012)
649 *REPLY to Response to Motion re 624 MOTION to Dismiss Party FRIENDLY HOUSE and MUSLIM AMERICAN SOCIETY REQUEST FOR MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE BY PLAINTIFFS FRIENDLY HOUSE AND MUSLIM AMERICAN SOCIETY filed by Friendly House, Muslim American Society. (Viramontes, Victor) *Modified to remove non−filers on 4/24/2012* (REW). (Entered: 04/23/2012)
650 *NOTICE to Withdraw as Attorney, re: Kenneth Sugarman by Andrew Anderson, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Vicki Gaubeca, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sugarman, Kenneth) *Modified from Motion on 4/30/2012* (REW). (Entered: 04/27/2012)
651 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym ), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym ), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Proposed Protective Order)(Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
652 PROTECTIVE ORDER, re: confidential information pursuant to the 651 Joint MOTION for Protective Order (see order for complete details). Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 5/3/12. (REW) (Entered: 05/03/2012)
653 ORDER, pursuant to Local Rule 83.3(b), attorney Kenneth J Sugarman is relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiffs Friendly House, et al. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 5/4/12. (REW) (Entered: 05/04/2012)
654 MOTION to Seal and Exceed Page Limitation by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bouma, John) (Entered: 05/04/2012)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 207 of 273

05/04/2012 05/07/2012 05/09/2012
05/10/2012
05/14/2012 05/14/2012 05/14/2012 05/14/2012

655 *LODGED Proposed Opposition to Pls.' Mot. for Class Certification re: 654 Motion to Seal; 563 MOTION to Certify Class . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Seal is granted. Filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Chart of Claims), # 2 Exhibit B (Bill Status Overview), # 3 Exhibit C (Letter from Plaintiffs), # 4 Exhibit D (C.M. Dep.), # 5 Exhibit E (Vargas Dep.), # 6 Exhibit F (John Doe Dep.), # 7 Exhibit G (Jane Doe Dep.))(Bouma, John) *Modified event to sealed lodged; corrected reference to related document on 5/7/2012 (JHER). (Entered: 05/04/2012)
656 SEALED LODGED Proposed Additional Attachments in Support of Intervenor Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification re: 654 MOTION to Seal and Exceed Page Limitation. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Seal is granted. Filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit H (Shee Dep.), # 2 Exhibit I (Espinoza Dep.), # 3 Exhibit J (Castillo Dep.), # 4 Exhibit K (Santiago Dep.), # 5 Exhibit L (McGlone Dep.))(Bouma, John) (Entered: 05/07/2012)
657 *RESPONSE to Motion re: 654 Motion, and MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 563 MOTION to Certify Class, by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tumlin, Karen) *Modified to include Response event on 5/10/2012* (REW). (Entered: 05/09/2012)
658 NOTICE of Appearance by Kelly Joyce Flood on behalf of Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Flood, Kelly) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
659 ORDER granting 654 Motion to Seal. The Clerk shall file under seal the proposed documents lodged at docket entries 655 and 656 . FURTHER Plaintiffs' motion for leave is GRANTED, and they may submit a reply in support of the motion not exceeding 20 pages (Doc. 657 ). ORDERED that Plaintiffs are GRANTED two (2) additional business days up to and including May 22, 2012, to submit their Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification. See Order for Comlee Details. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 5/11/12.(MAP) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
660 SEALED RESPONSE (OPPOSITION) to Motion 563 filed by State of Arizona, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Chart of Claims), # 2 Exhibit B (Bill Status Overview), # 3 Exhibit C (Letter from Plaintiffs), # 4 Exhibit D (C.M. Dep.), # 5 Exhibit E (Vargas Dep.), # 6 Exhibit F (John Doe Dep.), # 7 Exhibit G (Jane Doe Dep.))(MAP) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
661 Sealed Additional Attachments to 660 re 563 MOTION filed by State of Arizona, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit I (Espinoza Dep.), # 2 Exhibit J (Castillo Dep.), # 3 Exhibit K (Santiago Dep.), # 4 Exhibit L (McGlone Dep.))(MAP) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
662 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Republic of Ecuador. Reason for return: Unable to Forward. Document number 653 . (LAD) (Entered: 05/15/2012)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 208 of 273

05/15/2012 05/16/2012 05/16/2012 05/21/2012 05/22/2012 05/22/2012
05/22/2012
05/22/2012

663 MOTION to Dismiss Party Maria Morales For Failure to Prosecute and Comply With Discovery Rules by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bouma, John) (Entered: 05/15/2012)
664 * JOINDER re 663 MOTION to Dismiss Party Maria Morales For Failure to Prosecute and Comply With Discovery Rules by Paul R Babeu, James P Walsh. (Albo, Joe) * Modified to correct event on 5/17/2012 (LAD). (Entered: 05/16/2012)
665 ORDER as to 663 MOTION to Dismiss Party Maria Morales For Failure to Prosecute and Comply With Discovery Rules: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Maria Morales shall file with the Clerk of the Court and serve on opposing counsel a responsive memorandum to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss no later than June 4, 2012. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 5/16/12. (LAD) (Entered: 05/16/2012)
666 *NOTICE of Change of Address by Carla Gorniak. (Gorniak, Carla) *Modified on 5/22/2012; document not in compliance with Local Rule 7.1(a)* (REW). (Entered: 05/21/2012)
667 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Motion to Withdraw as Counsel by Joseph M Arpaio. (Liddy, Thomas) (Entered: 05/22/2012)
668 *MOTION for Leave to File PLAINTIFFS REDACTED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNREDACTED COPY UNDER SEAL by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tumlin, Karen).*Modified to add motion to seal; attorney noticed to lodge unredacted version under seal on 5/22/2012 (JHER). (Entered: 05/22/2012)
669 LODGED Proposed PLAINTIFFS [LODGED] REDACTED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION re: 563 MOTION to Certify Class . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Pltf Jose Vargas Supp Rsp to Gov Brewer 1st ROGs)(Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 05/22/2012)
670 *SEALED LODGED Proposed PLAINTIFFS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION re: 668 Motion to Seal; 563 MOTION to Certify Class . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Seal is granted. Filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Tumlin, Karen) *Modified to correct reference to related document on 5/22/2012 (JHER). (Entered: 05/22/2012)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 209 of 273

05/23/2012 05/24/2012 05/24/2012 05/24/2012 05/25/2012 05/25/2012 05/25/2012
05/25/2012
05/25/2012
05/25/2012

671 ORDER granting 667 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney; Attorney Maria Brandon is relieved as attorney for Joseph Arpaio. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 5/23/12.(REW) (Entered: 05/23/2012)
672 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Andre Segura on behalf of Friendly House. (BAS) (Entered: 05/24/2012)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX122402 as to Andre Segura. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 05/24/2012)
673 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 672 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 05/24/2012)
674 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Friendly House. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Watford, Paul) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
675 ORDER − The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Redacted Reply in Support of Class Certification and to File Unredacted Reply Under Seal. Good cause appearing therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for leave is GRANTED. The clerk shall accept for filing under seal the unredacted version of the document lodged at docket entry 670 . The Clerk is also directed to file the lodged redacted reply at docket entry 669 . Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 5/25/12.(LAD) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
676 REPLY (Redacted) to Response to 563 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(LAD) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
677 SEALED REPLY to Response to 563 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (LAD) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
678 MOTION to Seal AND TO DESIGNATE PORTIONS OF INTERVENOR DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTICATION AND SUPPORTING EXHIBITS AS SEALED by Andrew Anderson, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
679 *SEALED LODGED Proposed MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SEAL AND TO DESIGNATE PORTIONS OF INTERVENOR

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 210 of 273

05/29/2012 05/29/2012 05/29/2012 05/29/2012
05/29/2012 05/30/2012

DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTICATION AND SUPPORTING EXHIBITS AS SEALED re: 678 Motion to Seal; 563 MOTION to Certify Class . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Seal is granted. Filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Karen C Tumlin, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Table, # 3 Exhibit 2 − C.M. Dep._redacted, # 4 Exhibit 3− Vargas Dep_redacted, # 5 Exhibit 4 − John Doe Dep._redacted, # 6 Exhibit 5 − Jane Doe Dep_redacted, # 7 Exhibit 6− Pedro Espinoza_redacted, # 8 Exhibit Castillo Dep._redacted, # 9 Exhibit 8− Mem in Support of Mot re Sealing _redacted)(Tumlin, Karen) *Modified to note REFILED corrected at 683 on 5/30/2012 (JHER). (Entered: 05/25/2012)
680 Joinder re 663 MOTION to Dismiss Party Maria Morales For Failure to Prosecute and Comply With Discovery Rules by Defendant Larry A Dever. (Bergin, Brian) (Entered: 05/29/2012)
681 ORDER: On May 25, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel 674 . IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will be denied within 3 days of the date of this order if counsel does not comply with the ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, Section II(G), specifically, subparagraph 1b. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 5/29/12. (MAW) (Entered: 05/29/2012)
682 ORDER denying 562 Intervenor Defendants Governor Janice K. Brewer and the State of Arizona's Motion to Dismiss the Individual Plaintiffs and Strike Class Action Allegations [see Order for details]. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 5/29/12.(MAW) (Entered: 05/29/2012)
683 SEALED LODGED Proposed CORRECTED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SEAL AND TO DESIGNATE PORTIONS OF INTERVENOR DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTICATION AND SUPPORTING EXHIBITS AS SEALED re: 668 MOTION for Leave to File PLAINTIFFS REDACTED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNREDACTED COPY UNDER SEAL MOTION to Seal Document, 678 MOTION to Seal AND TO DESIGNATE PORTIONS OF INTERVENOR DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTICATION AND SUPPORTING EXHIBITS AS SEALED, 563 MOTION to Certify Class . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Seal is granted. Filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Karen C Tumlin, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Table, # 3 Exhibit 2 − C.M. Dep._redacted, # 4 Exhibit 3− Vargas Dep_redacted, # 5 Exhibit 4 − John Doe Dep._redacted, # 6 Exhibit 5 − Jane Doe Dep_redacted, # 7 Exhibit 6− Pedro Espinoza_redacted, # 8 Exhibit 7− Castillo Dep._redacted, # 9 Exhibit 8− Mem in Support of Mot re Sealing _redacted)(Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 05/29/2012)
684 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Republic of Ecuador. Document number 659. (TLJ) (Entered: 05/29/2012)
685 ORDER: On the Court own motion; IT IS ORDERED resetting in time only Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 563 from June 4, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. to June 4, 2012, at 1:30 p.m. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 5/30/12. (MAW) (Entered:

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 211 of 273

05/30/2012 06/04/2012 06/05/2012 06/05/2012 06/06/2012
06/07/2012 06/08/2012 06/08/2012 06/08/2012
06/11/2012 06/12/2012 06/12/2012 06/18/2012 06/18/2012

05/30/2012)
686 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL re 674 and that attorney Paul J. Watford be relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiffs Friendly House, et al. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 5/30/12.(TLJ) (Entered: 05/30/2012)
687 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Motion Hearing held on 6/4/2012 re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 563 . Argument held. IT IS ORDERED taking under advisement Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 563 . (Court Reporter Liz Lemke)(MAW) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
688 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Joan Schipper for proceedings held on 3/26/2012 before Judge Susan R. Bolton. (VAR) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
689 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer for proceedings held on June 4, 2012 before Judge Susan Bolton.. (Henry, Robert) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
690 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa for proceedings held on June 4, 2012 before Judge Susan R. Bolton.. (Joaquin, Linton) (Entered: 06/06/2012)
691 ORDER granting 663 Motion to Dismiss Party and dismissing Plaintiff Maria Morales from this case. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 6/6/12.(REW) (Entered: 06/07/2012)
692 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Republic of Equador. Reason for return: Not Deliverable as Addressed/Unable to Forward. Document number 671. (REW) (Entered: 06/08/2012)
693 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Republic of Ecuador. Reason for return: Not Deliverable as Addressed/Unable to Forward. Document number 675. (REW) (Entered: 06/08/2012)
695 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing. Proceedings held on 6/4/2012, before Judge Susan R. Bolton. Court Reporter Elizabeth A. Lemke. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 6/29/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/9/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/6/2012. (VAR) (Entered: 06/11/2012)
694 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Joan Schipper for proceedings held on 6/4/2012 before Judge Susan R. Bolton. (VAR) (Entered: 06/11/2012)
696 ANSWER to 511 Amended Complaint by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer.(Bouma, John) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
697 Maricopa Defendants' ANSWER to 511 Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by Joseph M Arpaio, William G Montgomery.(White, Bruce) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
698 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Alvaro M Huerta on behalf of plaintiffs. (BAS) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX123179 as to Alvaro M Huerta. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 06/18/2012)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 212 of 273

06/18/2012
06/18/2012 06/18/2012 06/19/2012 06/19/2012 06/19/2012 06/20/2012 06/20/2012 06/20/2012 06/20/2012 06/21/2012 06/21/2012
07/11/2012
07/16/2012 07/16/2012

699 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 698 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
700 * ANSWER to 511 Amended Complaint by Sheila S Polk and Scott Mascher.(Fields, Jack) * Note: Scott Mascher is not listed as a party in this case on 6/19/2012 (LAD). (Entered: 06/18/2012)
701 * ANSWER to 511 Amended Complaint by Steve Waugh.(Fields, Jack) * Modified to reflect incorrect PDF document attached on 6/19/2012 (LAD). (Entered: 06/18/2012)
702 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 701 Answer to Amended Complaint filed by Steve Waugh. Description of deficiency: Incorrect PDF document attached. Please see attachment for full details. (LAD) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
703 * YUMA DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ANSWER to 511 Amended Complaint by Jon R Smith, Ralph Ogden.(Kerekes, William) * Modified to add additional filer on 6/19/2012 (LAD). (Entered: 06/19/2012)
704 ANSWER to 511 Amended Complaint by Steve Waugh.(Fields, Jack) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
705 ANSWER to 511 Amended Complaint by Bradley Carlyon, Kelly Clark.(Moore, Jason) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
706 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Ecuador, Republic of. Reason for return: RTS. Document number 686 . (LAD) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
707 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Ecuador, Republic of. Reason for return: RTS. Document number 685 . (LAD) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
708 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Ecuador, Republic of. Reason for return: RTS. Document number 687 . (LAD) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
709 ORDER granting 678 Motion for Leave to Seal and to Designate Portions of Intervenor Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Class Certification and Supporting Exhibits. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 6/21/12. (MAP) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
710 Sealed Memorandum re 668 filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8)(MAP) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
711 ORDER granting Plaintiff's, Friendly House and Muslim American Society, Motion for Voluntary Dismissal 624 and dismissing Friendly House and Muslim American Society without prejudice; directing the Clerk to change the short title caption from Friendly House, et al. v. Whiting, et al. to Valle del Sol, et al. v. Whiting, et al; all future pleadings must reflect this change.. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/11/12.(REW) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
712 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Laboni A Hoq on behalf of Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona. (BAS) (Entered: 07/16/2012)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX124100 as to Laboni A Hoq. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 07/16/2012)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 213 of 273

07/16/2012 07/16/2012 07/17/2012
07/17/2012 07/17/2012 07/17/2012

713 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 712 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/16/2012)
714 *NOTICE of Appearance by Laboni Amena Hoq on behalf of Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Japanese American Citizens League, and all other Plaintiffs. (Hoq, Laboni) *Modified to add text on 7/17/2012* (REW). (Entered: 07/16/2012)
715 *MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Supporting Memorandum by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Keaney Declaration, # 2 Exhibit B−Cox Declaratinon, # 3 Exhibit C−Legislative Transcripts Part 1, # 4 Exhibit C−Legislative Transcripts Part 2, # 5 Exhibit D−Villasenor Declaration, # 6 Exhibit E−Pochoda Declaration, # 7 Exhibit F−Preciado Declaration, # 8 Exhibit G−Huerta Declaration, # 9 Exhibit H−ASAFSF Interrogatories)(Tumlin, Karen) *Modified on 7/18/2012; document filed prematurely, lodged as docket #719* (REW). (Entered: 07/17/2012)
716 *Additional Attachment, Proposed Order re: 715 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Tumlin, Karen) *Modified from Lodged Document on 7/18/2012* (REW). (Entered: 07/17/2012)
717 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 07/17/2012)
718 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 07/17/2012)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 214 of 273

07/17/2012
07/17/2012 07/23/2012 07/23/2012 07/23/2012
07/23/2012 07/24/2012 08/09/2012

719 LODGED Proposed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Supporting Memorandum re: 718 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 717 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Keaney Declaration, # 2 Exhibit B−Cox Declaration, # 3 Exhibit C−Legislative Transcripts Part 1, # 4 Exhibit C−Legislative Transcripts Part 2, # 5 Exhibit D−Villasenor Declaration, # 6 Exhibit E−Pochoda Declaration, # 7 Exhibit F−Preciado Declaration, # 8 Exhibit G−Huerta Declaration, # 9 Exhibit H−ASAFSF Interrogatories, # 10 Text of Proposed Order)(Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 07/17/2012)
720 *MOTION to Expedite Briefing (Shorten Time) re 719 Lodged Motion by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Supreme Court Letter, June 25, 2012, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Tumlin, Karen) *Modified to correct Motion event on 7/18/2012* (REW). (Entered: 07/17/2012)
721 RESPONSE in Opposition re 718 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 720 MOTION to Expedite, 717 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bouma, John) (Entered: 07/23/2012)
722 ORDER granting 718 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order and memorandum of law, which was lodged with Plaintiffs' Motion Seeking Leave to File a Brief in Excess of the Page Limit, shall be filed forthwith. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/23/12.(LSP) (Entered: 07/23/2012)
723 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Points and Authorites in Support by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Keaney Declaration, # 2 Exhibit B − Cox Declaration, # 3 Exhibit C − Legislative Transcripts Part 1, # 4 Exhibit C − Legislative Transcripts Part 2, # 5 Exhibit D − Villasenor Declaration, # 6 Exhibit E − Pochoda Declaration, # 7 Exhibit F − Preciado Declaration, # 8 Exhibit G − Huerta Declaration, # 9 Exhibit H − ASAFSF Interrogatories, # 10 Text of Proposed Order)(LSP) (Entered: 07/23/2012)
724 ORDER denying 720 Plaintiffs' Motion to Shorten Time for Briefing and Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Defendants may have until Friday, August 10, 2012 to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. If Plaintiffs wish to reply they must do so by Friday, August 17, 2012. See PDF document for details. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/23/12.(LSP) (Entered: 07/23/2012)
725 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 563 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification [see Order for details]. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/24/12.(MAW) (Entered: 07/24/2012)
726 *RESPONSE to Motion re 723 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 717 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order , 715 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Supporting Memorandum filed by Edward G Rheinheimer. (Hanson, Britt) *Modified

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 215 of 273

08/09/2012 08/09/2012 08/09/2012 08/09/2012 08/10/2012
08/13/2012 08/13/2012 08/14/2012 08/14/2012 08/14/2012
08/15/2012 08/15/2012 08/17/2012

to reflect document is not in compliance with L.R. Civ 7.1(c); attorney noticed on 8/9/2012 (TLJ). (Entered: 08/09/2012)
727 RESPONSE to Motion re 723 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 715 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Supporting Memorandum filed by Derek D Rapier. (McCarthy, Michael) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
728 RESPONSE to Motion re 717 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Derek D Rapier. (McCarthy, Michael) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
729 RESPONSE to Motion re 723 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 715 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Supporting Memorandum filed by Steven N Tucker. (McCarthy, Michael) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
730 RESPONSE to Motion re 717 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Steven N Tucker. (McCarthy, Michael) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
731 RESPONSE in Opposition re 723 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction as permitted by ECF No. 724 filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index, # 2 Exhibit A (AzPOST E−mail), # 3 Exhibit B (Halliday Declaration), # 4 Exhibit C (Dever Declaration), # 5 Exhibit D (Raiss Declaration), # 6 Exhibit E (Spencer Declaration), # 7 Exhibit F (Brown Declaration), # 8 Exhibit G (McGlone Declaration), # 9 Exhibit H (List of Pls.' E−mails), # 10 Exhibit I (Kszywienski Decl. 1 of 2), # 11 Exhibit I (Kszywienski Decl. 2 of 2))(Bouma, John) (Entered: 08/10/2012)
732 *Joinder to Intevenor Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction 731 by Defendants Paul R Babeu, James P Walsh. (Albo, Joe) *Modified to link to document on 8/14/2012 (TLJ). (Entered: 08/13/2012)
733 *Joinder In Intervenor Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 731 by Defendants Joseph M Arpaio, William G Montgomery filed by Joseph M Arpaio, William G Montgomery. (White, Bruce) *Modified to link to document on 8/14/2012 (TLJ). (Entered: 08/13/2012)
734 *Joinder in Intervenor Defendants Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction re 731 by Defendant Jon R Smith and Ralph Ogden (Kerekes, William) *Modified to link to document and to add additional filer on 8/14/2012 (TLJ). (Entered: 08/14/2012)
735 Joinder re 731 Response in Opposition to Motion,, for Preliminary Injunction by Defendant Larry A Dever. (Bergin, Brian) (Entered: 08/14/2012)
736 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED setting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction 723 for oral argument on Tuesday, August 21, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 502. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the courtesy copy of Plaintiffs' Reply shall be delivered to the Court no later than 8:00 a.m., Monday, August 20, 2012. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 8/14/12. (MAW) (Entered: 08/14/2012)
737 *Joinder Graham Defendant's Joinder in Intervenor Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction re 731 by Defendant Kenny Angle and P.J. Allred filed by Kenny Angle. (Angle, Kenneth) *Modified to link to document and to add additional defendant to docket text on 8/15/2012 (TLJ). (Entered: 08/15/2012)
738 RESPONSE to Motion re 717 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Michael B Whiting. (Young, Joseph) (Entered: 08/15/2012)
739 REPLY to Response to Motion re 723 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Evidence, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit I, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit J, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit K, # 5

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 216 of 273

08/20/2012
08/20/2012 08/21/2012
08/21/2012 08/23/2012
08/24/2012 08/27/2012 08/27/2012 08/27/2012 08/27/2012

Exhibit Exhibit L, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit M, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit N)(Jadwat, Omar) (Entered: 08/17/2012)
740 *NOTICE re Supplemental Authority re 723 by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − GHAHR Opinion, # 2 Exhibit B − USA v AL Opinion, # 3 Exhibit C − HICA Opinion)(Tumlin, Karen) *Modified to link to (doc. 723) on 8/21/2012 (TLJ). (Entered: 08/20/2012)
741 MOTION to Strike ; Request for Judicial Notice; Notice re Evidentiary Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Bouma, John) (Entered: 08/20/2012)
742 RESPONSE to Motion re 741 MOTION to Strike ; Request for Judicial Notice; Notice re Evidentiary Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Valle Del Sol Incorporated. (Viramontes, Victor) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
743 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Motion Hearing held on 8/21/2012 re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction 723 . Argument held. IT IS ORDERED taking under advisement Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction 723 . (Court Reporter Liz Lemke)(MAW) (Entered: 08/22/2012)
744 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas for proceedings held on August 21, 2012 before Judge Honorable Susan Bolton.. (Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 08/23/2012)
745 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings held on 08/21/2012, before Judge Susan R Bolton. Court Reporter Elizabeth Lemke. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 9/14/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/24/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/23/2012. (BAS) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
746 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer for proceedings held on 8/21/2012 before Judge Bolton.. (Kszywienski, Kelly) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
747 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Justin Cox on behalf of Valle Del Sol Incorporated. (BAS) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX125498 as to Justin Cox. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
748 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 747 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 217 of 273

08/28/2012 08/29/2012 08/30/2012 08/30/2012 08/31/2012
08/31/2012
09/04/2012 09/04/2012 09/05/2012
09/13/2012

(BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
749 REPLY to Response to Motion re 741 MOTION to Strike ; Request for Judicial Notice; Notice re Evidentiary Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Bouma, John) (Entered: 08/28/2012)
750 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by New Haven, City of. (Bolden, Victor) (Entered: 08/29/2012)
751 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by Michael William McCarthy. (McCarthy, Michael) (Entered: 08/30/2012)
752 *NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by Michael William McCarthy. (McCarthy, Michael) *Modified to reflect duplicate entry of (Doc. 751) on 8/31/2012 (DMT). (Entered: 08/30/2012)
753 ORDER: On August 29, 2012, Counsel for Amicus Curiae City of New Haven filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel 750 . IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will be denied within 3 days of the date of this order if counsel does not comply with the ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, Section II(G), specifically, subparagraph 1b. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 8/31/12. (MAW) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
754 NOTICE re Service of Discovery Responses of ASIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF ARIZONA, ARIZONA HISPANIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ARIZONA SOUTH ASIANS FOR SAFE FAMILIES, BORDER ACTION NETWORK, COALICION DE DERECHOS HUMANOS, JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS LEAGUE, SOUTHSIDE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, TONATIERRA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE, VALLE DEL SOL, INC., by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas . (Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
755 ORDER RE: 750 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. Ordered that Attorney Vikki Cooper be relieved as attorney of record for Amicus Curiae City of New Haven, et al. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 9/4/2012.(LFIG) (Entered: 09/04/2012)
756 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by Jean E Wilcox. (Wilcox, Jean) (Entered: 09/04/2012)
757 ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 723 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. ORDERED preliminarily enjoining the enforcement of A.R.S. § 13−2929. ORDERED denying as moot Intervenor Defendants Janice K. Brewer and State of Arizona's 741 Motion to Strike, Request for Judicial Notice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiffs' 717 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 9/5/2012.(LFIG) (Entered: 09/05/2012)
758 *NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL to 9th Circuit, re: 757 Order by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. Filing fee received: $ 455.00, receipt number 0970−7229716. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Order dated 09/05/12, # 2 Exhibit B− Representation Statement)(Preciado, Nora) *Modified to correct Appeal event, document number/link added on 9/17/2012* (REW). (Entered: 09/13/2012)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 218 of 273

09/13/2012
09/17/2012 09/17/2012 09/17/2012 09/18/2012 09/19/2012
09/21/2012
09/24/2012
09/24/2012 09/25/2012 09/25/2012 09/25/2012 09/26/2012

759 MOTION Injunction Pending Appeal re 758 Notice of Appeal, by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
760 RESPONSE to Motion re 759 MOTION Injunction Pending Appeal re 758 Notice of Appeal,,, filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Bouma, John) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
761 Ninth Circuit Case Number 12−17046 for 758 Notice of Appeal. (REW) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
762 Joinder re 760 Response to Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal by Defendant Larry A Dever. (Bergin, Brian) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
763 *MOTION re: Request for Expedited Decision and Waiver of Reply by Plaintiff Valle Del Sol Incorporated. (Tumlin, Karen) *Modified to motion type on 9/19/2012 (TLJ). (Entered: 09/18/2012)
764 ORDER: The Court has considered Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal, Intervenor Defendants' Response, Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever's Joinder in Intervenor Defendants' Response and Plaintiffs' Request for Expedited Decision and Waiver of Reply 763 . IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal 759 . Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 9/19/12.(MAW) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
765 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Lucas Guttentag by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Guttentag, Lucas) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
766 ORDER: On September 21, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel 765 . IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will be denied within 3 days of the date of this order if counsel does not comply with the ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, Section II(G), specifically, subparagraph 1b. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 9/24/12. (MAW) (Entered: 09/24/2012)
767 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL and that attorney Lucas Guttentag be relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiffs Valle Del Sol, et al re 765 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 9/24/12.(TLJ) (Entered: 09/24/2012)
768 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by International Longshore and Warehouse Union. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Motion to Withdraw as Attorney)(Remar, Robert) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
769 *NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL(INTERLOCUTORY) re 757 Order by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. Filing fee $ 455.00, receipt number 0970−7271911. (Bouma, John) *Modified to add document number on 9/26/2012 (LSP). (Entered: 09/25/2012)
770 Representation Statement by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer re 769 Notice of Cross Appeal . (Bouma, John) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
771 Ninth Circuit Case Number 12−17152 for 769 Notice of Cross Appeal(Interlocutory). (LSP) (Entered: 09/26/2012)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 219 of 273

09/26/2012 10/05/2012 10/16/2012
11/01/2012 11/01/2012 11/02/2012 11/09/2012
11/13/2012 12/03/2012 12/04/2012 12/04/2012
12/05/2012 12/13/2012 01/08/2013

772 ORDER granting the 768 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney; Attorney Robert S Remar and Amicus International Longshore and Warehouse Union shall be removed from the Court's electronic service system in this matter. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 9/26/12.(REW) (Entered: 09/26/2012)
773 NOTICE re Substitution of Party by Larry A Dever . (Bergin, Brian) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
774 MANDATE of USCA, Appellants' motion for voluntary dismissal of preliminary injunction appeal 12−17046 is granted; Appeal 12−17046 is dismissed; remaining briefing schedule in 12−17152 reset; failure to file timely the opening brief shall result in the automatic dismissal of appeal 12−17152 by the Clerk for failure to prosecute; this order served on the district court shall act as and for the mandate of this court for appeal No. 12−17046, re: 758 Notice of Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 NDA) (REW) (Entered: 10/16/2012)
775 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by Roberta Neil Miller. (Miller, Roberta) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
776 *EX PARTE NOTICE to Withdraw as Attorney of record within Law Firm by Los Angeles, County of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lehman, Jennifer) *Modified from Motion on 11/2/2012* (REW). (Entered: 11/01/2012)
777 ORDER re: MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney, pursuant to Local rule 83.3(b), attorney Andrea Sheridan Ordin is relieved as attorney of record for Amicus curiae County of Los Angeles. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 11/2/12. (REW) (Entered: 11/02/2012)
778 *NOTICE to Withdraw Lisa Kung as Attorney by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Karp, Jessica) *Modified from Motion on 11/13/2012* (REW). (Entered: 11/09/2012)
779 ORDER, granting 778 MOTION to Withdraw as Counsel; attorney Lisa Kung is relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiffs Valle Del Sol, et al. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 1/13/12. (REW) (Entered: 11/13/2012)
780 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Maya Roy on behalf of Valle Del Sol Incorporated. (BAS) (Entered: 12/04/2012)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX128961 as to Maya Roy. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 12/04/2012)
781 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 780 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 12/04/2012)
782 NOTICE of Appearance by Maya Roy on behalf of Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Japanese American Citizens League, Jim Shee. (Roy, Maya) (Entered: 12/05/2012)
783 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by Joe A Albo, Jr. (Albo, Joe) (Entered: 12/13/2012)
784 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 220 of 273

01/09/2013 01/23/2013 01/24/2013 02/01/2013
02/04/2013 02/05/2013 02/06/2013 02/06/2013 02/07/2013 02/12/2013
02/15/2013 02/15/2013

Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Park, Yungsuhn) (Entered: 01/08/2013)
785 ORDER RE: MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL granting 784 that attorney Yungsuhn Park be relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiffs Valle del Sol, et al. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 1/9/13.(TLJ) (Entered: 01/09/2013)
786 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Japanese American Citizens League, Jim Shee. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Roy, Maya) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
787 ORDER RE: MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL that attorney Maya Roy be relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiffs Valle del Sol, et al., re granting 786 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 1/24/13.(TLJ) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
788 NOTICE re of Service of Discovery Responses of Border Action Network by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Steven N Tucker, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa . (Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 02/01/2013)
789 NOTICE re of Service of Discovery Responses by Plaintiffs SEIU and SEIU Arizona by Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union . (Weissglass, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/04/2013)
790 NOTICE re Discovery by Tonatierra Community Development Institute . (Karp, Jessica) (Entered: 02/05/2013)
791 NOTICE re Service of Discovery Responses by Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona . (Hoq, Laboni) (Entered: 02/06/2013)
792 NOTICE re Notice Identifying Change of Cochise County Sheriff by Larry A Dever . (Bergin, Brian) (Entered: 02/06/2013)
793 ORDER: Scheduling Conference set for 3/25/2013 at 11:30 AM before Judge Susan R Bolton [see Order for details]. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 2/7/13. (MAW) (Entered: 02/07/2013)
794 NOTICE re Service of Discovery Responses by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa . (Jadwat, Omar) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
795 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Anti−Defamation League. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kozinets, Peter) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
796 ORDER granting 795 the Motion of Attorney Peter Shawn Kozinets to Withdraw as Attorney of record for amicus curiae Anti−Defamation League in this matter. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 2/15/13.(REW) (Entered: 02/15/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 221 of 273

03/05/2013 03/06/2013 03/18/2013
03/25/2013
03/26/2013 03/27/2013 04/08/2013
04/09/2013 04/12/2013 04/12/2013
04/12/2013 04/12/2013

797 NOTICE of Change of Address by Nicholas David Espiritu. (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
798 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by Benjamin David Kreutzberg. (Kreutzberg, Benjamin) (Entered: 03/06/2013)
799 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Arizona, State of, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Janice K Brewer, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
800 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Scheduling Conference held on 3/25/2013. IT IS ORDERED directing Plaintiffs' counsel to submit a stipulation to dismiss certain claims as outlined in the parties' joint proposed case management plan no later than April 8, 2013. Deadlines discussed and entered. Scheduling Order to follow. (Court Reporter Liz Lemke) Hearing held 11:31 AM to 11:59 AM.(MAW) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
801 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 3/7/2014. Dispositive motions due by 5/21/2014 [see Order for details]. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 3/26/13. (MAW) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
802 MANDATE of USCA, AFFIRMED re: 12−15688 625 Notice of Appeal, filed by Janice K Brewer, Arizona, State of. (copies distributed) (Attachments: # 1 Opinion, # 2 nda)(TLJ) Modified on 4/30/2013 to add omitted text (REW). (Entered: 03/27/2013)
803 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Claims Against Sections 3, 5C and 6 of SB 1070 by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 04/08/2013)
804 ORDER pursuant to the Parties' 803 Stipulation, Plaintiffs' claims against Sections 3 (A.R.S. § 13−1509), 5(C) (A.R.S. § 13−2928) and 6 (A.R.S. § 13−3883) of S.B. 1070 are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 4/9/10. (REW) (Entered: 04/09/2013)
805 NOTICE re Notice of Substitution of Defendant−−Yavapai County Sheriff by Steve Waugh . (Kreutzberg, Benjamin) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
806 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Jorge Martin Castillo on behalf of Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Opportunities Industrialization Center, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (BAS) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX132976 as to Jorge Martin Castillo. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
807 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 806 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 04/12/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 222 of 273

04/19/2013 04/22/2013 04/29/2013 05/06/2013
05/10/2013
05/10/2013 06/04/2013 07/15/2013
07/18/2013 07/26/2013 07/29/2013 07/31/2013

808 MOTION for Extension of Time Deadline for Initial Disclosures Unopposed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Henry, Robert) (Entered: 04/19/2013)
809 ORDER granting 808 Intervenor Defendants' Motion to Extend Deadline for Initial Disclosures from April 26, 2013, to May 10, 2013. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 4/22/13.(MAW) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
810 *NOTICE re SERVICE OF DISCOVERY RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFFS Border Action Network, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Valle Del Sol Incorporated. (Espiritu, Nicholas) *Modified to remove non−filers on 4/30/2013* (REW). (Entered: 04/29/2013)
811 NOTICE re SERVICE OF DISCOVERY RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFFS COALICION DE DERECHOS HUMANOS, SOUTHSIDE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, TONATIERRA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE, AND VALLE DEL SOL, INC. by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas . (Castillo, Jorge) (Entered: 05/06/2013)
812 NOTICE re Service of Plaintiffs Supplement to Initial Disclosures by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas re 801 Scheduling Order . (Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 05/10/2013)
813 NOTICE re Notice of Service of Intervenor Defendants Rule 26 Initial Disclosure Statement Re Plaintiffs Substantive Claims by Arizona, State of and Defendant Janice K. Brewer. (Hiller, Evan) (Entered: 05/10/2013)
814 *NOTICE of Change of Address by Justin Cox. (Cox, Justin) *Modified on 6/5/2013; document not in compliance with Local Rule 7.1(a)* (REW). (Entered: 06/04/2013)
815 NOTICE re SERVICE OF DISCOVERY RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFFS COALICION DE DERECHOS HUMANOS, SOUTHSIDE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, AND VALLE DEL SOL, INC. by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas . (Castillo, Jorge) (Entered: 07/15/2013)
816 *NOTICE of Substitution of Attorney by George Silva; Charlene Laplante substituting for Sean Bodkin. (Laplante, Charlene) *Modified from Motion on 7/19/2013* (REW). (Entered: 07/18/2013)
817 NOTICE re Service of Discovery Requests on Defendants (County Attorneys and County Sheriffs) by Valle Del Sol Incorporated . (Miyake, Lika) (Entered: 07/26/2013)
818 NOTICE re Service of Amended Discovery Requests on Defendants (County Attorneys) by Valle Del Sol Incorporated . (Miyake, Lika) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
819 NOTICE of Change of Address by Margaret Grace Ziegler. (Ziegler, Margaret) (Entered: 07/31/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 223 of 273

07/31/2013 08/01/2013
08/05/2013
08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/08/2013 08/08/2013 08/08/2013 08/09/2013
08/13/2013
08/14/2013

820 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by Seymour Garry Gruber, II. (Gruber, Seymour) (Entered: 07/31/2013)
821 NOTICE re Certificate of Service of Subpoena to Produce Documents to Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Subpoena to Arizona POST)(Flood, Kelly) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
822 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Zulaikha Aziz on behalf of Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, and Unknown Party. (BAS) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX136626 as to Zulaikha Aziz. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
823 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 822 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
824 NOTICE of Appearance by Zulaikha Aziz on behalf of Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Japanese American Citizens League, Jim Shee. (Aziz, Zulaikha) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
825 *NOTICE of Change of Address re Firm Name Change by Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Japanese American Citizens League, Jim Shee . (Aziz, Zulaikha) *Modified to correct event on 8/9/2013 (LFIG). (Entered: 08/08/2013)
826 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: Ed Reinheimer appearing for Larry A Dever. Attorney Brian McCormack Bergin and Kenneth Michael Frakes terminated. . (Bergin, Brian) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
827 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa: Affidavit of Process re Subpoena upon Arizona Peace Officer Standards & Training Board on August 1, 2013. (Flood, Kelly) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
828 NOTICE re Certificate of Service of Discovery on Intervenor Defendant State of Arizona by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas . (Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
829 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe,

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 224 of 273

08/15/2013
08/15/2013
08/15/2013 08/16/2013
08/16/2013 08/16/2013 08/16/2013 08/20/2013

Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas for proceedings held on March 25, 2013 before Judge SUSAN R. BOLTON.. (Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
830 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas: Affidavit of Process re Subpoena upon Arizona Police Association on 08/12/2013. (Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 08/15/2013)
831 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas: Affidavit of Process re Subpoena upon Phoenix Law Enforcement Agency on 8/12/2013. (Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 08/15/2013)
836 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Scheduling Conference Proceedings held on 3/25/2013, before Judge Bolton. Court Reporter Elizabeth Lemke. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/5/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/16/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/13/2013. (VPB) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
832 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Christine Patricia Sun on behalf of plaintiffs Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, and Jose Angel Vargas. (BAS) (Entered: 08/16/2013)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX137073 as to Christine Patricia Sun. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 08/16/2013)
833 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 832 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 08/16/2013)
834 NOTICE re Amended Service of Discovery Requests by Valle Del Sol Incorporated . (Miyake, Lika) (Entered: 08/16/2013)
835 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 225 of 273

08/22/2013 08/22/2013 08/23/2013 08/26/2013 08/26/2013 08/26/2013 08/26/2013 08/26/2013
08/27/2013 08/27/2013 08/28/2013 08/28/2013 08/28/2013 08/28/2013
08/29/2013 08/29/2013 08/29/2013 08/29/2013 08/29/2013

Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas: Affidavit of Process re Subpoena upon Maricopa County Assoc of Detention Officers on 8/14/2013. (Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
837 AMENDED by #838 − NOTICE of Appearance by Terry Lynn Bannon on behalf of Larry A Dever, Mark J Dannels. (Bannon, Terry) *Modified to add filer on 8/23/2013* (REW). (Entered: 08/22/2013)
838 *AMENDED DOCUMENT by Larry A Dever, Mark J Dannels. Amendment to 837 Notice of Appearance/Association of Counsel. (Bannon, Terry) *Modified to add filer on 8/23/2013* (REW). (Entered: 08/22/2013)
839 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Clarence W Dupnik, Barbara Lawall. (Jurkowitz, Daniel) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
840 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Paul R Babeu, M Lando Voyles. (Gruber, Seymour) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
841 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF VALLE DEL SOL'S AMENDED FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION by Defendant Jon R Smith. (Kerekes, William) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
842 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Jon R Smith, Leon N. Wilmot. (Kerekes, William) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
843 *NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Preston J Allred, Kenny Angle. (Angle, Kenneth) *Modified to add filer on 8/27/2013* (REW). (Entered: 08/26/2013)
844 *OBJECTION Objections to Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's First Sets of Requests for Production of Documents (Mohave County Attorney and Mohave County Sheriff) by Defendant Matthew J Smith, Tom Sheahan. (Taylor, Robert) *Modified to add filer on 8/27/2013* (REW). (Entered: 08/26/2013)
845 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by William G Montgomery. (White, Bruce) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
846 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (White, Bruce) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
847 NOTICE re Substitution of Defendant by Donald Lowery to John C. Drum. (Buckelew, Robert) (Entered: 08/28/2013)
848 NOTICE by Sam Vederman Substitution of Defendant to Tony Rogers. (Buckelew, Robert) (Entered: 08/28/2013)
849 *OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF VALLE DEL SOL'S AMENDED FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION by Donald Lowery, Sam Vederman. (Buckelew, Robert) *Modified from Notice on 8/29/2013* (REW). (Entered: 08/28/2013)
850 OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF VALLE DEL SOL'S AMENDED FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION by Michael Whiting and Joseph Dedman by Michael B Whiting. (Young, Joseph) *Modified from Notice on 8/29/2013* (REW). (Entered: 08/28/2013)
851 *OBJECTION to Plaintiff First Set of Requests for Production of Documents by Steven N Tucker. (Wright, Donielle) *Modified from Motion on 8/30/2013* (REW). (Entered: 08/29/2013)
852 *OBJECTION to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents by Derek D Rapier. (Wright, Donielle) *Modified from Motion on 8/30/2013* (REW). (Entered: 08/29/2013)
853 NOTICE re Notice of Change of Sheriff by Steven N Tucker . (Wright, Donielle) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
854 NOTICE re Change of Sheriff by Derek D Rapier. (Wright, Donielle) Modified on 8/30/2013; Duplicate entry of #853 (REW). (Entered: 08/29/2013)
855 NOTICE of Appearance by John D Kaufmann on behalf of Immigration Reform Law Institute. (Kaufmann, John) (Entered: 08/29/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 226 of 273

08/29/2013 08/29/2013 08/29/2013 08/29/2013
08/29/2013
09/04/2013 09/04/2013 09/09/2013
09/09/2013 09/09/2013 09/09/2013 09/09/2013 09/10/2013

856 NOTICE of Appearance by John D Kaufmann on behalf of Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). (Kaufmann, John) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
857 MOTION to Quash Subpoena /Objections to Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's Subpoena by Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). (Kaufmann, John) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
858 MOTION to Quash Subpoena /Objections to Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's Subpoena by Immigration Reform Law Institute. (Kaufmann, John) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
859 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas: Affidavit of Service re Subpoena to Produce Documents upon Federation For American Immigration Reform (FAIR) on August 15, 2013. (Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
860 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa: Affidavit of Service re Subpoena to Produce Documents upon Immigration Reform Law Institute on August 15, 2013. (Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
861 MINUTE ORDER: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing set for 9/16/2013 at 03:30 PM before Judge Susan R Bolton. Counsel are reminded that speaker phones and cell phones are not permitted. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAW) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
868 OBJECTION to Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents by Defendant Larry Avila. (LFIG) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
862 STIPULATION RE: 858 MOTION to Quash Subpoena /Objections to Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's Subpoena, 857 MOTION to Quash Subpoena /Objections to Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's Subpoena by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
863 NOTICE re IDENTIFYING CHANGE OF GILA COUNTY ATTORNEY by Bradley D Beauchamp . (Chambers, Bryan) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
864 NOTICE re IDENTIFYING CHANGE OF GILA COUNTY SHERIFF by Bradley D Beauchamp . (Chambers, Bryan) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
865 OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF VALLE DEL SOL'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS by Defendant Bradley D Beauchamp. (Chambers, Bryan) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
866 OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF VALLE DEL SOL'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS by Defendant Adam Sheppard. (Chambers, Bryan) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
867 *OBJECTION to Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's First Set of Requets for Production by Bradley Carlyon, Kelly Clark . (Moore, Jason) *Modified to correct event on

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 227 of 273

09/11/2013 09/12/2013 09/12/2013 09/16/2013 09/16/2013
09/17/2013 09/23/2013 09/23/2013 10/04/2013 10/04/2013 10/04/2013 10/07/2013
10/08/2013
10/09/2013

9/11/2013 (LFIG). (Entered: 09/10/2013)
869 ORDER granting 862 Stipulation Re Pending Discovery Disputes 857 and 858 . Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 9/11/13. (MAW) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
870 NOTICE re Service of Discovery Requests on Defendants (County Attorneys, County Sheriffs) and Intervenor Defendants by Valle Del Sol Incorporated . (Leiderman, Aaron) (Entered: 09/12/2013)
871 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Japanese American Citizens League. (Aziz, Zulaikha) (Entered: 09/12/2013)
872 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by G Michael Tryon. (Tryon, G) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
874 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing held on 9/16/2013 at the request of Intervenor Defendants' counsel Robert Henry. Discussion held. The Court directs counsel to have a more meaningful meet and confer within the next 30 days to attempt to resolve any outstanding issues regarding scope of discovery. If the matter cannot be resolved, counsel may request another telephonic discovery dispute hearing. At the present time a motion for protective order regarding discovery may not be filed. With respect to the subpoenas issued to third parties, any objections are not subject to Paragraph J of the Court's Scheduling Order and will be resolved by written motions. (Court Reporter Liz Lemke) Hearing held 3:45 PM to 4:08 PM.(MAW) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
873 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Bouma, John) (Entered: 09/17/2013)
875 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Bill Pribil. (Ring, William) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
876 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by David W Rozema. (Ring, William) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
877 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Bouma, John) (Entered: 10/04/2013)
878 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Bouma, John) (Entered: 10/04/2013)
879 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by David W Rozema. (Ring, William) (Entered: 10/04/2013)
880 STIPULATION RE: 861 Set/Reset Hearings, 858 MOTION to Quash Subpoena /Objections to Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's Subpoena, 869 Order on Stipulation, Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings, 857 MOTION to Quash Subpoena /Objections to Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's Subpoena Second Joint Stipulation by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 10/07/2013)
881 ORDER re: 880 Stipulation: IT IS ORDERED the Producing Parties shall file their amended motion on October 7, 2013. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file its opposition to the amended Motion no later than October 21, 2013. Any reply brief shall be filed no later than seven days after the opposition brief. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 10/8/13. (JAMA) (Entered: 10/08/2013)
882 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 228 of 273

10/10/2013
10/10/2013
10/10/2013 10/11/2013 10/11/2013 10/11/2013 10/11/2013 10/11/2013 10/11/2013 10/11/2013 10/11/2013 10/11/2013 10/11/2013

Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas for proceedings held on September 16, 2013 before Judge Susan Bolton.. (Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 10/09/2013)
883 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing held on 9/16/2013, before Judge Bolton. Court Reporter Elizabeth Lemke. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/31/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/12/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/8/2014. (VPB) (Entered: 10/10/2013)
884 *Joint MOTION for Leave to File of Non−Parties IRLI and Fair to Untimely File Their Joint Amended Motion to Quash by Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Immigration Reform Law Institute. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Amended Motion to Quash, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit 2, # 6 Exhibit 3, # 7 Exhibit 4, # 8 Exhibit 5, # 9 Exhibit 6)(Kaufmann, John) *Modified to correct Motion event on 10/11/2013* (REW). (Entered: 10/10/2013)
885 OBJECTION to Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's First Sets of Requests for Admissions and First Set of Interrogatories (Cochise County Attorney and Cochise County Sheriff) by Defendant Mark J Dannels. (Bannon, Terry) (Entered: 10/10/2013)
886 OBJECTION Objections to Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's First Sets of Requests for Admissions and First Set of Interrogatories (Mohave County Attorney and Mohave County Sheriff) by Defendant Matthew J Smith. (Taylor, Robert) (Entered: 10/11/2013)
887 *JOINDER re Objection to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Admission by Bradley Carlyon, Kelly Clark re 885 Objection, 886 Objection . (Moore, Jason) *Modified to correct event on 10/15/2013 (LFIG). (Entered: 10/11/2013)
888 OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF VALLE DEL SOL'S FIRST SETS OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AND FIRST SETS OF INTERROGATORIES (PINAL COUNTY ATTORNEY AND PINAL COUNTY SHERIFF) by Defendants Paul R Babeu, M Lando Voyles. (Gruber, Seymour) (Entered: 10/11/2013)
889 *Joinder of Objection to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Admission by Defendant Bradley D Beauchamp, Adam Sheppard. (Chambers, Bryan) *Modified on 10/15/2013 to add filer. (LFIG) (Entered: 10/11/2013)
890 *JOINDER of Objections to Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories by Defendant Derek D Rapier. (Wright, Donielle) *Modified to correct event on 10/15/2013 (LFIG). (Entered: 10/11/2013)
891 *NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by David W Rozema. (Ring, William) *Modified on 10/15/2013 to reflect case caption is incorrect as to Docs. 891−894. (LFIG) (Entered: 10/11/2013)
892 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Bill Pribil. (Ring, William) (Entered: 10/11/2013)
893 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by David W Rozema. (Ring, William) (Entered: 10/11/2013)
894 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Bill Pribil. (Ring, William) (Entered: 10/11/2013)
895 *NOTICE of Service of Discovery re Objections to Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's First Sets of Request for Admissions and First Sets of Interrogatories by Jon R Smith, Leon N Wilmot . (Kerekes, William) *Modified to correct event on 10/15/2013 (LFIG). (Entered: 10/11/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 229 of 273

10/11/2013 10/11/2013 10/14/2013 10/14/2013 10/14/2013 10/14/2013 10/15/2013
10/16/2013 10/16/2013 10/16/2013 10/16/2013 10/16/2013 10/16/2013 10/21/2013
10/21/2013

896 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Clarence W Dupnik, Barbara Lawall. (Jurkowitz, Daniel) (Entered: 10/11/2013)
897 *Joinder in Objection to Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories of Plaintiff by Defendants Michael B Whiting, Joseph Dedman, Jr. (Young, Joseph) *Modified on 10/15/2013 to add filer. (LFIG) (Entered: 10/11/2013)
898 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (White, Bruce) (Entered: 10/14/2013)
899 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (White, Bruce) (Entered: 10/14/2013)
900 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by William G Montgomery. (White, Bruce) (Entered: 10/14/2013)
901 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by William G Montgomery. (White, Bruce) (Entered: 10/14/2013)
902 *NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, C.M., Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Sun, Christine) *Modified to correct filers on 10/15/2013 per attorney request. (LFIG) (Entered: 10/15/2013)
903 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Preston J Allred. (Angle, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
904 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Kenny Angle. (Angle, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
905 *NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Kenny Angle. (Angle, Kenneth) *Modified on 10/17/2013 to reflect entry is duplicate of Doc. 904 . (LFIG) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
906 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Preston J Allred. (Angle, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
907 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Kenny Angle. (Angle, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
908 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer for proceedings held on 9/16/2013 before Judge Susan R. Bolton.. (Henry, Robert) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
909 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Flood, Kelly) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
910 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Flood, Kelly) (Entered: 10/21/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 230 of 273

10/21/2013
10/23/2013 10/25/2013
10/28/2013 10/28/2013 10/29/2013 10/29/2013 10/29/2013

911 RESPONSE in Opposition re 857 MOTION to Quash Subpoena /Objections to Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's Subpoena, 858 MOTION to Quash Subpoena /Objections to Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's Subpoena, 884 MOTION for Leave to File filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Nicholas Espiritu, # 2 Declaration of Justin Cox, # 3 Exhibits A−B to Cox Decl., # 4 Exhibit C part 1 to Cox Decl., # 5 Exhibit C part 2 to Cox Decl., # 6 Exhibit D to Cox Decl., # 7 Exhibits E−F to Cox Decl.)(Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
912 *JOINDER to OBJECTIONS re: 897 , 885 , 889 , 890 , 886 , 887 , 888 to Plaintiffs' First set of Requests for Admissions and First Set of Interrogatories by Defendants John C Drum, Tony Rogers. (Buckelew, Robert) *Modified from Objection and document numbers/links added on 10/24/2013* (REW). (Entered: 10/23/2013)
913 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Karp, Jessica) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
914 STIPULATION for Extension to File Reply for FAIR and IRLI's Amended Motion to Quash Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action by Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Immigration Reform Law Institute. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Kaufmann, John) (Entered: 10/28/2013)
915 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Esther H Sung on behalf of Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, and Jose Angel Vargas. (BAS) (Entered: 10/29/2013)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX139355 as to Esther H Sung. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 10/29/2013)
916 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 915 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 10/29/2013)
917 ORDER: On October 28, 2013, a Joint Stipulation for Extension to File Reply 914 was filed. IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Stipulation for Extension to File Reply will be denied within 3 days of the date of this order if counsel does not comply with the ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, Section II (G), specifically, subparagraph 1b. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 10/29/13. (MAW) (Entered: 10/29/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 231 of 273

10/30/2013 11/01/2013 11/01/2013 11/14/2013 11/15/2013 11/15/2013 11/15/2013 11/15/2013
12/04/2013
12/10/2013 12/11/2013 12/11/2013

918 ORDER pursuant to 914 Stipulation: IT IS ORDERED that non−party Movants FAIR and IRLI shall file their Reply to their Amended Motion to Quash no later than November 1, 2013. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 10/30/13. (MAW) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
919 REPLY to Response to Motion re 858 MOTION to Quash Subpoena /Objections to Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's Subpoena, 857 MOTION to Quash Subpoena /Objections to Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's Subpoena filed by Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Immigration Reform Law Institute. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaufmann, John) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
920 MANDATE of USCA, affirming the decision of the District Court, re: 12−17152 769 Notice of Cross Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 Opinion, # 2 NDA) (copies sent by the Ninth Circuit)(REW) Modified on 8/5/2014 (REW). (Entered: 11/01/2013)
921 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Bradley Carlyon, Kelly Clark. (Moore, Jason) (Entered: 11/14/2013)
922 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Garrett Robert Roe on behalf of Michael B Whiting. (BAS) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
923 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Michael M Hethmon on behalf of Michael B Whiting. (BAS) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX140074 as to Michael M Hethmon, Garrett Roe. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
924 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 922 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 923 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
925 NOTICE of Deposition of 30(b)(6) Intervenor Defendant State of Arizona, filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Flood, Kelly) (Entered: 12/04/2013)
926 *MOTION for Hearing or Conference re: Plaintiffs & Intervenor−Defendants Joint Request for a Telephonic Conference to Address a Discovery Dispute (Scope of Discovery) by Intervenor Defendants Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Henry, Robert) *Modified from Request on 12/11/2013* (REW). (Entered: 12/10/2013)
927 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 884 Joint Motion of Nonparties IRLI and FAIR to Untimely File Their Joint Amended Motion to Quash Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 12/11/13.(MAW) (Entered: 12/11/2013)
928 NOTICE of Deposition of Sheriff Paul Babeu, filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Pochoda, Daniel) (Entered: 12/11/2013)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 232 of 273

12/11/2013
12/12/2013 12/19/2013 12/20/2013
12/23/2013 12/26/2013 01/02/2014 01/02/2014 01/07/2014
01/13/2014

929 NOTICE of Deposition of Sheriff Mark Dannels, filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Pochoda, Daniel) (Entered: 12/11/2013)
930 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Bradley Carlyon, Kelly Clark. (Moore, Jason) (Entered: 12/12/2013)
931 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Bradley Carlyon. (Moore, Jason) (Entered: 12/19/2013)
932 NOTICE of Deposition of Sheriff William Pribil, filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Pochoda, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
933 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Valle Del Sol Incorporated. (Sung, Esther) (Entered: 12/23/2013)
934 *First MOTION for Reconsideration on 927 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Non−Parties' Amended Motion to Quash by Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Immigration Reform Law Institute. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaufmann, John) *Modified to correct reference to related document on 12/27/2013 (ALS). (Entered: 12/26/2013)
935 MINUTE ORDER: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing set for 1/7/2014 at 02:00 PM before Judge Susan R Bolton. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAW) (Entered: 01/02/2014)
936 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED directing Plaintiffs to file a response to the attorney−client privilege arguments raised in the Motion for Reconsideration on Order Regarding Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action 934 within fourteen days of this Order. A reply may be filed within seven days after the response is filed [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 1/2/14. (MAW) (Entered: 01/02/2014)
937 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing held on 1/7/2014 at the request of Defense counsel Seymour Gruber re: noticed deposition of Defendant Sheriff Paul Babeu. Discussion held. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' counsel may take the deposition of Defendant Babeu. The deposition shall be taken at the location that Defendant Babeu chooses if he wishes to be deposed in Pinal County. The deposition shall last no more than 4 hours, and the deposition shall take place within the next 45 days at the convenience of Defendant Babeu during regular business hours, Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (Court Reporter Liz Lemke) Hearing held 2:12 PM to 2:30 PM.(MAW) (Entered: 01/09/2014)
938 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Anti−Defamation League, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 233 of 273

01/14/2014 01/15/2014 01/15/2014 01/16/2014 01/16/2014 01/16/2014
01/17/2014 01/17/2014 01/17/2014
01/21/2014 01/21/2014

Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sun, Christine) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
939 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union. (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
940 *NOTICE of Service of Discovery re: Response to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Admission by Mark J Dannels. (Bannon, Terry) *Modified from Notice on 1/16/2014* (REW). (Entered: 01/15/2014)
941 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona, State of. (Bouma, John) (Entered: 01/15/2014)
942 *NOTICE of Service of Discovery re: Objections to Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's Second Set of Request for Admissions by Leon N Wilmot. (Kerekes, William) *Modified from Notice on 1/16/2014* (REW). (Entered: 01/16/2014)
943 ORDER granting 938 Joint Motion for Extension of Case Schedule [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 1/16/14.(MAW) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
944 *RESPONSE in Opposition re 934 First MOTION for Reconsideration or Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Non−Parties' Amended Motion to Quash [IRILI] filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Nora Preciado and Exhibits)(Preciado, Nora) *Modified on 1/17/2014; document is not text searchable* (REW). (Entered: 01/16/2014)
945 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Clarence W Dupnik. (Jurkowitz, Daniel) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
946 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Paul R Babeu. (Gruber, Seymour) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
947 *MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Kelly J. Flood by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Flood, Kelly) *Modified on 1/21/2014; incomplete document, attorney notified to re−file. (REW). (Entered: 01/17/2014)
948 *NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 947 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Kelly J. Flood. Description of deficiency: Incomplete Document. Please re−file the complete document using the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney event or the Notice of Substitution (Within Firm Only) event, as appropriate. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (REW) (Entered: 01/21/2014)
949 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (White, Bruce) (Entered: 01/21/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 234 of 273

01/21/2014
01/23/2014 01/23/2014 01/23/2014
01/23/2014 01/23/2014 01/27/2014 01/29/2014 01/30/2014 01/30/2014
01/30/2014
01/31/2014

950 *NOTICE of Attorney Substitution/Withdrawas Kelly J. Flood by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Pedro Espinoza, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Flood, Kelly) *Modified from Motion on 1/22/2014* (REW). (Entered: 01/21/2014)
951 ORDER, granting the 950 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney and allowing Kelly J Flood to withdraw as attorney of record for the Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 1/22/14. (REW) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
952 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Bill Pribil. (Ring, William) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
953 MINUTE ORDER: Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 2/3/2014 at 03:00 PM before Judge Susan R Bolton. Plaintiffs' counsel is to provide the call−in number and code to all counsel and chambers no later than January 31, 2014. Plaintiffs' counsel is to e−mail to chamber's mailbox [bolton_chambers@azd.uscourts.gov] the names of the attorneys (and the party they represent) who will be attending the telephonic hearing. Counsel are reminded that speakerphones and cell phones are not permitted. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAW) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
954 REPLY to Response to Motion re 934 First MOTION for Reconsideration or Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Non−Parties' Amended Motion to Quash filed by Immigration Reform Law Institute. (Bates, Paul) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
955 NOTICE re of Service of Objections to Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's Second Set of Requests for Admission by Tom Sheahan . (Taylor, Robert) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
956 OBJECTION to Subpoena by Objector Laura Leighton. (LAD) (9 pages) (Entered: 01/27/2014)
957 NOTICE/LETTER from (non−party) Robert B Haney, addressed to Justin Cox, re: requested documents. (REW) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
958 NOTICE of Appearance by Timothy James Casey on behalf of Joseph M Arpaio. (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
959 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Keaney, Melissa) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
960 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Keaney, Melissa) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
961 ORDER denying 934 FAIR's and IRLI's Motion for Reconsideration on Order Regarding Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 1/31/14.(MAW) (Entered: 01/31/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 235 of 273

02/03/2014
02/03/2014 02/04/2014 02/04/2014
02/05/2014 02/05/2014 02/06/2014 02/06/2014
02/10/2014 02/13/2014

962 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST Discovery Hearing by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas for proceedings held on February 3, 2014, Judge Susan R Bolton hearing judge(s). (Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 02/03/2014)
965 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing held on 2/3/2014 at the request of Plaintiffs' counsel regarding a request to compel the County Defendants to respond to discovery requests. Discussion held. IT IS ORDERED sustaining the objection made by the County Defendants. (Court Reporter Liz Lemke) Hearing held 3:12 PM to 3:31 PM.(MAW) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
963 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Arizona, State of for proceedings held on 02/03/2014, Judge Susan R Bolton hearing judge(s). (Henry, Robert) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
964 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic Discovery Disput Proceedings held on 2/3/2014, before Judge Bolton. Court Reporter Elizabeth Lemke. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/25/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/7/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/5/2014. (VPB) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
966 RESPONSE to Second Set of Requests for Admission to Graham County Sheriff by Defendant Preston J Allred.. (Angle, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
967 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by National Council of La Raza. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cherny, Stephanie) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
968 ORDER granting the 967 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney and allowing Skadden and LatinoJustice to withdraw as counsel of record for National Council of La Raza ("NCLR") et al in this matter; granting removal of Skadden and LatinoJustice from ECF noticing in this matter. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 2/6/14.(REW) (Entered: 02/06/2014)
969 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Pochoda, Daniel) (Entered: 02/06/2014)
970 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Valle Del Sol Incorporated. (Sung, Esther) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
971 NOTICE of Deposition of Defendant Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Castillo, Jorge) (Entered: 02/13/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 236 of 273

02/19/2014 02/20/2014
03/04/2014
03/04/2014
03/04/2014
03/04/2014
03/06/2014 03/07/2014 03/10/2014 03/10/2014 03/10/2014

972 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Kszywienski, Kelly) (Entered: 02/19/2014)
973 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/20/2014)
974 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 03/04/2014)
975 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Joaquin, Linton) (Entered: 03/04/2014)
976 AFFIDAVIT of Service re KRIS KOBACH Subpoenas re: 974 Notice of Service of Discovery by Plaintiffs Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 03/04/2014)
977 AFFIDAVIT of Service re Lexipol LLC Subpoena re: 975 Notice of Service of Discovery by Plaintiffs Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Joaquin, Linton) (Entered: 03/04/2014)
978 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Valle Del Sol Incorporated. (Sung, Esther) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
979 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Valle Del Sol Incorporated. (Sung, Esther) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
980 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 03/10/2014)
981 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Henry, Robert) (Entered: 03/10/2014)
982 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Bill Pribil. (Ring, William) (Entered: 03/10/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 237 of 273

03/11/2014 03/11/2014 03/11/2014 03/11/2014 03/11/2014 03/12/2014 03/12/2014 03/12/2014 03/12/2014
03/12/2014 03/12/2014 03/14/2014 03/17/2014 03/17/2014 03/19/2014
03/26/2014 03/26/2014 03/26/2014

983 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Tom Sheahan. (Taylor, Robert) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
984 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Leon N Wilmot. (Kerekes, William) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
985 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Bradley Carlyon, Kelly Clark. (Moore, Jason) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
986 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Paul R Babeu. (Gruber, Seymour) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
987 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Preston J Allred. (Angle, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
988 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Clarence W Dupnik. (Jurkowitz, Daniel) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
989 *NOTICE of Service of Discovery: Objections to Plaintiff Valle Del Sol's Third Set of Requests for Admission by Mark J Dannels. (Hanson, Britt) *Modified from Notice on 3/13/2014* (REW). (Entered: 03/12/2014)
990 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph Dedman, Jr. (Young, Joseph) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
991 *NOTICE of Service of Discovery: Defendant Sheriff L. Avila Objections to Plaintiff Valle del Sol's Third Set of Request for Admissions by Larry Avila. (Wright, Donielle) *Modified from Notice, filer corrected on 3/13/2014* (REW). (Entered: 03/12/2014)
992 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by John C Drum. (Buckelew, Robert) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
993 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by John C Drum. (Buckelew, Robert) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
994 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Valle Del Sol Incorporated. (Sung, Esther) (Entered: 03/14/2014)
995 NOTICE of Deposition of Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, filed by Valle Del Sol Incorporated. (Castillo, Jorge) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
996 NOTICE of Service of Discovery (objections) by non−party Kris W Kobach (Kansas Secretary of State). (REW) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
997 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Pochoda, Daniel) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
998 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Martha L Gomez on behalf of plaintiffs. (BAS) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX144435 as to Martha L Gomez. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
999 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 998 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 238 of 273

no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 03/26/2014)

03/26/2014

1000

NOTICE re: NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENAS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS UPON DR. MELODY JAFARI, AND ROGER SENSING by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas . (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 03/26/2014)

03/26/2014

1001

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 03/26/2014)

03/27/2014 1002 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Kszywienski, Kelly) (Entered: 03/27/2014)

03/28/2014 1003 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Kszywienski, Kelly) (Entered: 03/28/2014)

04/01/2014 1004 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Leon N Wilmot. (Kerekes, William) (Entered: 04/01/2014)

04/02/2014 1005 MINUTE ORDER: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing set for 4/21/2014 at 03:00 PM before Judge Susan R Bolton. Counsel are reminded that cell phones and speaker phones are not permitted. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAW) (Entered: 04/02/2014)

04/02/2014 1006 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 04/02/2014)

04/03/2014 1007 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Mark J Dannels. (Hanson, Britt) (Entered: 04/03/2014)

04/03/2014 1008 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Paul R Babeu. (Gruber, Seymour) (Entered: 04/03/2014)

04/03/2014

1009

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/03/2014)

04/04/2014 1010 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Clarence W Dupnik. (Jurkowitz, Daniel) (Entered: 04/04/2014)

04/04/2014 1011 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by John C Drum. (Buckelew, Robert) (Entered: 04/04/2014)

04/05/2014 1012 *NOTICE of Service of Discovery: Objections to Third Set of RFAs by Joseph Dedman, Jr. (Young, Joseph) *Modified from Notice on 4/7/2014* (REW). (Entered: 04/05/2014)

04/07/2014 1013 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Preston J Allred. (Angle, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/07/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 239 of 273

04/07/2014 1014 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Kszywienski, Kelly) (Entered: 04/07/2014)

04/08/2014 1015 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Fidel, Louis) (Entered: 04/08/2014)

04/08/2014

1016

ORDER, granting the 1015 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney; Louis S Fidel, David J Euchner, Matthew H Green and Adam N Bleier and Amicus Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice shall be removed from the Court's electronic service system in this matterDated this 8th day of Attorney Louis S Fidel; Matthew Harrison Green; Adam Netel Bleier and David Joseph Euchner terminated. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 4/8/14.(REW) (Entered: 04/08/2014)

04/10/2014 1017 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Kszywienski, Kelly) (Entered: 04/10/2014)

04/15/2014

1018

NOTICE re: Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoenas to Prodcuce Documents on Daniel Boyd and Brian Livingston by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas . (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/15/2014)

04/15/2014

1019

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/15/2014)

04/17/2014

1020

*NOTICE of Service re: Dr. Melody Jafari and Roger Sensing Subpoenas re: 1001 Notice of Service of Discovery, 1000 Notice by Plaintiffs Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Espiritu, Nicholas) *Modified from Affidavit on 4/18/2014* (REW). (Entered: 04/17/2014)

04/21/2014

1021

NOTICE re: of Intent to Serve Amended Subpoena Upon Beverly Ginn by Andrew Anderson, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa re: 997 Notice of Service of Discovery . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Deposition Subpoena (Beverly Ginn))(Pochoda, Daniel) (Entered: 04/21/2014)

04/21/2014

1022

MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing held on 4/21/2014 at the request of Intervenor Defendants' counsel regarding the noticed deposition of Plaintiff Jose Vargas regarding issues pertinent to Phase II discovery. Plaintiffs' counsel object to this deposition since Plaintiff had been previously deposed regarding Phase I discovery. Discussion held. IT IS ORDERED that the deposition of Jose Vargas shall proceed as scheduled but the Plaintiff shall not be questioned on subjects previously discussed in his first deposition. (Court Reporter Liz Lemke.) Hearing held 3:05 PM to 3:10 PM.(MAW) (Entered: 04/22/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 240 of 273

04/22/2014

1023

TRANSCRIPT REQUEST re Discovery Dispute by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas for proceedings held on April 21, 2014, Judge Susan R Bolton hearing judge(s). (Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 04/22/2014)

04/23/2014

1024

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic Discovery Dispute Proceedings held on 4/21/2014, before Judge Bolton. Court Reporter Elizabeth Lemke. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 5/14/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/27/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/22/2014. (VPB) (Entered: 04/23/2014)

04/24/2014 1025 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer for proceedings held on 04/21/2014, Judge Susan R Bolton hearing judge(s). (Kszywienski, Kelly) (Entered: 04/24/2014)

04/24/2014

1026

MOTION for Extension of Time of Case Schedule (Second Request Related to Discovery on the Merits) by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Christine P. Sun in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Case Schedule (Second Request Related to Discovery on the Merits), # 2 Exhibit A−II, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Sun, Christine) Modified on 4/25/2014 (REW). (Entered: 04/24/2014)

04/25/2014

1027

NOTICE re: Plaintiffs' Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena Upon Russell Pearce by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Subpoena of Russell Pearce)(Pochoda, Daniel) (Entered: 04/25/2014)

04/29/2014

1028

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Sung, Esther) (Entered: 04/29/2014)

05/02/2014 1029 NOTICE re: Plaintiffs' Notice of Deposition Subpoena to Arizona Department of Public Safety by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 241 of 273

Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Deposition Subpoena to Arizona Department of Public Safety)(Pochoda, Daniel) (Entered: 05/02/2014)

05/02/2014

1030

NOTICE re: INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENAS UPON BRIAN LIVINGSTON AND JOHN KAVANAGH by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas . (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/02/2014)

05/02/2014

1031

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/02/2014)

05/02/2014

1032

*NOTICE of Service of Discovery by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas . (Karp, Jessica) *Modified on 5/5/2014 (LFIG). (Entered: 05/02/2014)

05/02/2014

1033

*NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Sung, Esther) *Modified to reflect PDF has incorrect case number on 5/5/2014 (LFIG). (Entered: 05/02/2014)

05/05/2014 1034 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Bill Pribil. (Ring, William) (Entered: 05/05/2014)

05/05/2014 1035 NOTICE re: Intent to Serve Subpoenas by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer . (Kszywienski, Kelly) (Entered: 05/05/2014)

05/06/2014

1036

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/06/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 242 of 273

05/07/2014

1037

NOTICE re: OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION UPON ROGER SENSING by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas . (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/07/2014)

05/07/2014

1038

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Pochoda, Daniel) (Entered: 05/07/2014)

05/07/2014

1039

NOTICE re: OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION UPON DANIEL BOYD AND DR. MELODY JAFARI by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas . (Castillo, Jorge) (Entered: 05/07/2014)

05/08/2014

1040

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/08/2014)

05/08/2014 1041 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney as to Carmina Ocampo Only by Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Japanese American Citizens League, Jim Shee. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Hoq, Laboni) (Entered: 05/08/2014)

05/08/2014 1042 NOTICE re: Intent to Serve Subpoena by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer . (Kszywienski, Kelly) (Entered: 05/08/2014)

05/09/2014 1043 NOTICE of Deposition of Jose Vargas, filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Henry, Robert) (Entered: 05/09/2014)

05/09/2014

1044

ORDER: On May 8, 2014, a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel was filed by Carmina Ocampo 1041 . IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will be denied within 3 days of the date of this order if counsel does not comply with the ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, Section II(G), specifically, subparagraph 1b. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 5/9/14. (MAW) (Entered: 05/09/2014)

05/09/2014

1045

NOTICE re: OF SERVICE OF DISCOVERY by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 243 of 273

Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas . (Castillo, Jorge) (Entered: 05/09/2014)

05/12/2014

1046

MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Jessica Polansky by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Polansky, Jessica) (Entered: 05/12/2014)

05/12/2014 1047 RESPONSE to Motion re: 1026 MOTION for Extension of Time of Case Schedule (Second Request Related to Discovery on the Merits) filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−C)(Kszywienski, Kelly) (Entered: 05/12/2014)

05/12/2014

1048

*NOTICE of Service of Discovery: Interrogatory Responses by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Sung, Esther) *Modified from Notice on 5/13/2014* (REW). (Entered: 05/12/2014)

05/13/2014 1049 ORDER re: 1041 Motion to Withdraw; attorney Carmina Ocampo is relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiffs Valle del Sol, et al. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 5/13/14.(REW) (Entered: 05/13/2014)

05/13/2014

1050

REPLY to Response to Motion re: 1026 MOTION for Extension of Time of Case Schedule (Second Request Related to Discovery on the Merits) filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Cox Decl. & Exhibits II − OO)(Cox, Justin) (Entered: 05/13/2014)

05/15/2014

PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX146190 as to Jessica Polansky. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 05/15/2014)

05/15/2014

1051

ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 1046 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 05/15/2014)

05/15/2014

1052

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 244 of 273

Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Sung, Esther) (Entered: 05/15/2014)

05/19/2014 1053 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona, State of. (Tryon, G) (Entered: 05/19/2014)

05/19/2014 1054 *NOTICE of Service of Discovery by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Kszywienski, Kelly) *Modified from Notice on 5/20/2014* (REW). (Entered: 05/19/2014)

05/21/2014

1055

EX PARTE MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney James F. Peterson by Judicial Watch, Inc., Daniel Boyd, Center for Immigration Studies, Rusty Childress, Anna Gaines, Robert Haney, Laura Leighton, Brian Livingston, Melody Jafari, Franklin Marino, NumbersUSA Action, NumbersUSA Education and Research Foundation, Russell Pearce, Constantin Querard, Roger Sensing, Mark Spencer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, James) (Entered: 05/21/2014)

05/21/2014

1056

EX PARTE MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Paul J. Orfanedes by Anna Gaines, Brian Livingston, Center for Immigration Studies, Constantin Querard, Daniel Boyd, Franklin Marino, Judicial Watch, Inc., Laura Leighton, Mark Spencer, Melody Jafari, NumbersUSA Action, NumbersUSA Education and Research Foundation, Robert Haney, Roger Sensing, Russell Pearce, Rusty Childress. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Orfanedes, Paul) (Entered: 05/21/2014)

05/22/2014 1057 *NOTICE OF ATTORNEY'S CHANGE OF ADDRESS/FIRM NAME by Justin Cox. (Cox, Justin) *Modified on 5/23/2014; document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(a)* (REW). (Entered: 05/22/2014)

05/22/2014 1058 NOTICE of Appearance by Geoffrey S Kercsmar on behalf of Mark Spencer. (Kercsmar, Geoffrey) (Entered: 05/22/2014)

05/22/2014 1059 MOTION to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on Mark Spencer by Mark Spencer. (Kercsmar, Geoffrey) (Entered: 05/22/2014)

05/22/2014 1060 NOTICE of Errata re: 1059 MOTION to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on Mark Spencer by Interested Party Mark Spencer.. (Attachments: # 1 Motion to Quash)(Kercsmar, Geoffrey) (Entered: 05/22/2014)

05/23/2014

1063

MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Ramona R Cotca on behalf of Daniel Boyd, Center for Immigration Studies, Rusty Childress, Anna Gaines, Robert Haney, Melody Jafari, Judicial Watch, Inc., Laura Leighton, Brian Livingston, Franklin Marino, NumbersUSA Action, NumbersUSA Education and Research Foundation, Russell Pearce, Constantin Querard, Roger Sensing, Mark Spencer. (REK) (Entered: 05/27/2014)

05/23/2014

PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $35, receipt number PHX146469 as to Ramona R Cotca. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (REK) (Entered: 05/27/2014)

05/27/2014

1061

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Pochoda, Daniel) (Entered: 05/27/2014)

05/27/2014

1062

NOTICE re: Plaintiffs' Notice of Intent to Serve Amended Subpoena to Arizona Department of Public Safety by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee,

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 245 of 273

Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa re: 1029 Notice (Other) . (Pochoda, Daniel) (Entered: 05/27/2014)

05/27/2014

1064

ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 1063 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (REK) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 05/27/2014)

05/28/2014

PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX146470 as to Paul J Orfanedes. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 05/28/2014)

05/28/2014

PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX146471 as to James F Peterson. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 05/28/2014)

05/28/2014

1065

ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 1055 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 1056 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 05/28/2014)

05/28/2014

1066

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 05/28/2014)

05/29/2014 1067 *NOTICE to Withdraw as Attorney by Valle Del Sol Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Miyake, Lika) *Modified from Motion on 5/30/2014* (REW). (Entered: 05/29/2014)

05/30/2014 1068 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Clarence W Dupnik, Barbara Lawall. (Jurkowitz, Daniel) (Entered: 05/30/2014)

05/30/2014

1069

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Cox, Justin) (Entered: 05/30/2014)

05/30/2014

1070

NOTICE re: INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA UPON JOHN KAVANAGH by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 246 of 273

Vargas . (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/30/2014)

05/30/2014

1071

MOTION to Compel Nonparty Robert Haney to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Justin B Cox, # 2 Exhibit A through Q, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Cox, Justin) (Entered: 05/30/2014)

06/02/2014

1072

NOTICE re: Plaintiffs' Notice of Intent to Serve Amended Subpoenas to Daniel Boyd and Franklin Marino by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa re: 1039 Notice (Other) . (Pochoda, Daniel) (Entered: 06/02/2014)

06/02/2014 1073 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Kenny Angle. (Angle, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/02/2014)

06/02/2014 1074 ORDER, granting Motion to Withdraw as Counsel; attorney Lika C Miyake be relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiffs Valle Del Sol, et al. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 6/2/14. (REW) (Entered: 06/02/2014)

06/02/2014 1075 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Jon R Smith, Leon N Wilmot. (Kerekes, William) (Entered: 06/02/2014)

06/02/2014 1076 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Paul R Babeu. (Gruber, Seymour) (Entered: 06/02/2014)

06/02/2014

1077

NOTICE re: Plaintiffs' Notice of Intent to Serve Second Amended Subpoenas to Daniel Boyd and Franklin Marino by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Vicki Gaubeca, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa re: 1072 Notice (Other) . (Pochoda, Daniel) (Entered: 06/02/2014)

06/02/2014

1078

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Huerta, Alvaro) (Entered: 06/02/2014)

06/03/2014 1079 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Edward G Rheinheimer. (Bannon, Terry) (Entered: 06/03/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 247 of 273

06/03/2014 1080 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by William G Montgomery. (White, Bruce) (Entered: 06/03/2014)

06/03/2014

1081

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 06/03/2014)

06/05/2014

1082

NOTICE re: EXECUTED SUBPOENAS: JOHN KAVANAGH by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas re: 1030 Notice (Other), 1031 Notice of Service of Discovery, 1081 Notice of Service of Discovery, 1070 Notice (Other) . (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 06/05/2014)

06/06/2014 1083 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 06/06/2014)

06/06/2014 1084 NOTICE re: Rule 26(A)(3) Disclosure of Witnesses and Trial Exhibits by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer . (Henry, Robert) (Entered: 06/06/2014)

06/06/2014

1085

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Joaquin, Linton) (Entered: 06/06/2014)

06/06/2014 1086 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Henry, Robert) (Entered: 06/06/2014)

06/06/2014 1087 MINUTE ORDER: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing set for 7/7/2014 at 10:00 AM before Judge Susan R Bolton. Counsel are reminded that speaker phones and cell phones are not permitted. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAW) (Entered: 06/06/2014)

06/09/2014 1088 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by John C Drum, Tony Rogers. (Buckelew, Robert) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/09/2014

1089

RESPONSE in Opposition re: 1059 MOTION to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on Mark Spencer filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Justin B. Cox, # 2 Exhibit A − I−2)(Sung, Esther) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/10/2014

1090

*RESPONSE re: 1084 Intervenor Defendants' Notice of Rule 26(A)(3) Disclosure of Witnesses & Trial Exhibits by Plaintiffs Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe, Jane Doe, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago,

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 248 of 273

Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Sun, Christine) *Modified to add document number/link on 6/11/2014* (REW). (Entered: 06/10/2014)

06/13/2014

1091

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 06/13/2014)

06/16/2014 1092 NOTICE of Appearance by Geoffrey S Kercsmar on behalf of Robert Haney. (Kercsmar, Geoffrey) (Entered: 06/16/2014)

06/16/2014

1093

*RESPONSE in Opposition re: 1071 MOTION to Compel Nonparty Robert Haney to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum, MOTION to Staty Briefing on Non−Jurisdictional Issues filed by Robert Haney. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1−3, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Kercsmar, Geoffrey) *Modified to add motion on 6/17/2014 (LFIG). (Entered: 06/16/2014)

06/17/2014

1094

NOTICE re: INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA UPON NEVILLE W. CRAMER by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas . (Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 06/17/2014)

06/17/2014

1095

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 06/17/2014)

06/18/2014 1096 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Preston J Allred. (Angle, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/18/2014)

06/19/2014 1097 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 1059 MOTION to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on Mark Spencer filed by Mark Spencer. (Kercsmar, Geoffrey) (Entered: 06/19/2014)

06/23/2014 1098 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by David W Rozema. (Ring, William) (Entered: 06/23/2014)

06/24/2014

1099

MOTION to Compel Nonparty Russell Pearce to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Justin B. Cox, # 2 Index of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 B through B−44, # 5 C & D, # 6 E−1 through E−3, # 7 F−1 through F−10, # 8 Text of Proposed

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 249 of 273

Order)(Cox, Justin) Modified on 6/25/2014 (REW). (Entered: 06/24/2014)

06/26/2014

1100

*MOTION of Attorney Withdrawal re Joseph Y. Ybarra by Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Sung, Esther) *Modified from Motion on 6/27/2014* (REW). *Modified on 6/27/2014; changed back to Motion per chambers* (REW). (Entered: 06/26/2014)

06/26/2014

1101

REPLY to Response to Motion re: 1071 MOTION to Compel Nonparty Robert Haney to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Cox Declaration & Exhibit R)(Cox, Justin) (Entered: 06/26/2014)

06/27/2014

1102

ORDER: On June 26, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel as to Joseph Y. Ybarra 1100 . IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will be denied within 3 days of the date of this order if counsel does not comply with the ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, Section II(G), specifically, subparagraph 1b. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 6/27/14. (MAW) (Entered: 06/27/2014)

06/27/2014

1103

NOTICE re: Attorney Name Change by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Jose Angel Vargas . (Karp, Jessica) (Entered: 06/27/2014)

06/27/2014

1104

*MOTION for Leave to Appear In−Person by Plaintiffs Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Sun, Christine) *Modified from Request on 6/30/2014* (REW). (Entered: 06/27/2014)

06/27/2014

1105

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Castillo, Jorge) (Entered: 06/27/2014)

06/27/2014

1106

MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Regarding Joseph Ybarra by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza,

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 250 of 273

Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Sung, Esther) (Entered: 06/27/2014)

06/30/2014 1107 ORDER, granting the 1100 , 1106 Motions to Withdraw as Attorney; attorney Joseph J Ybarra is relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiffs Valle Del Sol, et al. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 6/30/14.(REW) (Entered: 06/30/2014)

07/01/2014

1108

ORDER: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' Request Re: July 7, 2014 Discovery Conference. IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs' Request for parties to appear in person for the July 7, 2014 discovery dispute. Unless all parties will appear in person the discovery dispute will be held telephonically 1104 . Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/1/14.(MAW) (Entered: 07/01/2014)

07/01/2014

1109

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Cox, Justin) (Entered: 07/01/2014)

07/02/2014

1110

NOTICE re: Intent to Serve Subpoena to Testify At A Deposition In A Civil Action Upon NEVILLE W. CRAMER by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas . (Huerta, Alvaro) (Entered: 07/02/2014)

07/02/2014

1111

MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Jadwat, Omar) Modified on 7/3/2014 (REW). (Entered: 07/02/2014)

07/03/2014

1112

RESPONSE in Opposition re: 1093 MOTION to Stay Briefing on Non−Jurisdictional Issues filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Cox, Justin) (Entered: 07/03/2014)

07/07/2014 1113 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing held on 7/7/2014 at the request of Plaintiffs' counsel [see attached minute entry for details]. (Court Reporter Liz Lemke) Hearing held 10:08 AM to 10:34 AM.(MAW) (Entered: 07/08/2014)

07/08/2014

1114

TRANSCRIPT REQUEST of 7/7/2014 Telephonic Dispute Hearing by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 251 of 273

Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas for proceedings held on 7/72014, Judge Susan R Bolton hearing judge(s). (Sun, Christine) (Entered: 07/08/2014)

07/09/2014 1115 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer for proceedings held on 07/07/2014, Judge Susan R Bolton hearing judge(s). (Henry, Robert) (Entered: 07/09/2014)

07/09/2014 1116 ORDER granting 1026 Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Case Schedule (Second Request Related to Discovery on the Merits) [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/9/14.(MAW) (Entered: 07/09/2014)

07/09/2014

1117

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic Discovery Dispute held on 7/7/2014, before Judge Bolton. Court Reporter Elizabeth Lemke. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 7/30/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/11/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/7/2014. (VPB) (Entered: 07/09/2014)

07/10/2014 1118 ORDER granting 1059 Mark Spencer's Motion to Quash Deposition and Subpoena Duces Tecum [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/10/14.(MAW) (Entered: 07/10/2014)

07/10/2014 1119 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 1111 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Henry, Robert) (Entered: 07/10/2014)

07/11/2014 1120 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 1099 MOTION to Compel Nonparty Russell Pearce to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by Russell Pearce. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, James) (Entered: 07/11/2014)

07/14/2014 1121 *Joinder with Intervenor Defendants Response: Motion for Leave to File Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Defendant David W Rozema, Bill Pribil. filed by David W Rozema. (Ring, William) *Modified to include filer on 7/15/2014 (KMG). (Entered: 07/14/2014)

07/14/2014 1122 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 1093 MOTION to Stay Briefing on Non−Jurisdictional Issues filed by Robert Haney. (Peterson, James) (Entered: 07/14/2014)

07/15/2014 1123 Joinder re: 1119 Response in Opposition to Motion by Defendant Joseph M Arpaio. (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 07/15/2014)

07/15/2014 1124 *JOINDER In Intervenor Defendant's 119 Response In Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Motion For Partial Summary Judgment by Joseph M Arpaio, William G Montgomery. (White, Bruce) *Modified on 7/16/2014 to Change from Motion to Joinder. Motion Termed (MAP)*. (Entered: 07/15/2014)

07/17/2014 1125 NOTICE of Errata re: 1120 Response in Opposition to Motion by Interested Party Russell Pearce.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Kercsmar, Geoffrey) (Entered: 07/17/2014)

07/17/2014

1126

REPLY to Response to Motion re: 1111 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Espiritu,

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 252 of 273

Nicholas) (Entered: 07/17/2014)

07/21/2014

1127

MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Nicholas Soltman on behalf of plaintiffs Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, and Jose Angel Vargas. (BAS) (Entered: 07/21/2014)

07/21/2014

PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX148463 as to Nicholas Soltman. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 07/21/2014)

07/21/2014

1128

ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 1127 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/21/2014)

07/21/2014

1129

REPLY to Response to Motion re: 1099 MOTION to Compel Nonparty Russell Pearce to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by American−Arab Anti−Discrimination Committee, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Supplemental Decl. of Justin Cox, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Amended Proposed Order)(Cox, Justin) (Entered: 07/21/2014)

07/22/2014 1130 ORDER denying 1111 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/22/14.(MAW) (Entered: 07/22/2014)

07/22/2014

1131

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Robert Haney to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum 1071 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Robert Haney's Cross−Motion to Stay Briefing on Non−Jurisdictional Issues 1093 (see attached Order for details). Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/22/14.(MAW) (Entered: 07/22/2014)

07/31/2014

1132

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Deposition Subpoena to Rusty Childress, # 2 Exhibit B − Deposition Subpoena to Mark Spencer, # 3 Exhibit C − Deposition Subpoena to Robert Haney)(Cox, Justin) (Entered: 07/31/2014)

07/31/2014

1133

NOTICE re: Intent to Serve Amended Subpoena to Testify At A Deposition In A Civil Action Upon JOHN KAVANAGH by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas . (Espiritu, Nicholas)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 253 of 273

(Entered: 07/31/2014)

07/31/2014 1134 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 07/31/2014)

07/31/2014

1135

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Amended Deposition Subpoena to Russell Pearce)(Cox, Justin) (Entered: 07/31/2014)

07/31/2014

1136

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Sung, Esther) (Entered: 07/31/2014)

07/31/2014

1137

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/31/2014)

08/04/2014

1138

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Deposition Subpoena to Van Esser)(Cox, Justin) (Entered: 08/04/2014)

08/04/2014

1139

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Subpoena Duces Tecum to Judicial Watch)(Cox, Justin) (Entered: 08/04/2014)

08/04/2014 1140 NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals re: 1131 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Robert Haney. Filing fee received: $ 505.00, receipt number 0970−10732639. (Peterson, James) (Entered: 08/04/2014)

08/05/2014

1141

*NOTICE of Deposition of 30(b)(6) Intervenor Defendant State of Arizona, filed by Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party. (Cox, Justin) *Modified on 8/6/2014 to reflect incorrect case number. (LFIG) (Entered: 08/05/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 254 of 273

08/05/2014

1142

*NOTICE of Deposition of 30(b)(6) Intervenor Defendant Janice K. Brewer, filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Cox, Justin) *Modified on 8/6/2014 to reflect incorrect case number. (LFIG) (Entered: 08/05/2014)

08/05/2014

1143

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Cox, Justin) (Entered: 08/05/2014)

08/05/2014 1144 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Henry, Robert) (Entered: 08/05/2014)

08/06/2014 1145 USCA Case Number re: 1140 Notice of Appeal. Case number 14−16506, Ninth Circuit. (copies sent by the Ninth Circuit) (REW) (Entered: 08/06/2014)

08/08/2014 1146 MOTION to Stay by Robert Haney. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kercsmar, Geoffrey) (Entered: 08/08/2014)

08/14/2014 1147 *NOTICE of Withdrawal of Counsel Within Firm by Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. (Barr, Daniel) *Modified to correct Notice event on 8/15/2014* (REW). (Entered: 08/14/2014)

08/15/2014 1148 *MOTION for Attorney Withdrawal Peter S. Holmes and Jean M. Boler filed by Jean Boler. (Boler, Jean) *Modified from Notice on 8/18/2014; document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(a)* (REW). (Entered: 08/15/2014)

08/18/2014 1149 MINUTE ORDER: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing set for 8/25/2014 at 03:00 PM before Judge Susan R Bolton. Counsel are reminded that speaker phones and cell phones are not permitted. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAW) (Entered: 08/18/2014)

08/20/2014

1150

RESPONSE in Opposition re: 1146 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal of July 22 Order filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Soltman, Nicholas) (Entered: 08/20/2014)

08/25/2014 1151 ORDER denying 1148 Seattle City Attorney's Office Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel for failure to comply with LRCiv 83.3(b). Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 8/25/14.(MAW) (Entered: 08/25/2014)

08/25/2014 1152 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing held on 8/25/2014 at the request of Plaintiffs' counsel [see attached minute entry for details]. (Court Reporter Liz Lemke) Hearing held 3:09 PM to 3:25 PM.(MAW) (Entered: 08/26/2014)

08/28/2014 1153 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by William G Montgomery. (White, Bruce) (Entered: 08/28/2014)

09/02/2014 1154 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 1146 MOTION to Stay filed by Robert Haney. (Peterson, James) (Entered: 09/02/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 255 of 273

09/03/2014

1155

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Deposition Subpoena to Russell Pearce, # 2 Exhibit B − Deposition Subpoena to Robert Haney)(Cox, Justin) (Entered: 09/03/2014)

09/05/2014 1156 ORDER denying 1146 Non−party Robert Haney's Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal of July 22, 2014 Order [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 9/5/14.(MAW) (Entered: 09/05/2014)

09/09/2014 1157 ORDER granting 1099 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Russell Pearce to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 9/9/14.(MAW) (Entered: 09/09/2014)

09/16/2014

1158

*Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Arizona, State of, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Janice K Brewer, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cox, Justin) *Modified on 9/17/2014; document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(a)* (REW). (Entered: 09/16/2014)

09/18/2014 1159 ORDER granting 1158 Motion for Extension of Case Schedule. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no further extensions of the case schedule will be granted [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 9/18/14.(MAW) (Entered: 09/18/2014)

09/23/2014 1160 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 09/23/2014)

10/03/2014 1161 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Seattle, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Boler, Jean) (Entered: 10/03/2014)

10/10/2014

1162

ORDER, granting the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney 1161 and allowing Peter S Holmes and Jean M Boler to withdraw as counsel of record for the Seattle City Attorney's Office; granting removal of the Seattle City Attorney's Office from ECF noticing in this matter. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 10/10/14.(REW) (Entered: 10/10/2014)

10/20/2014 1163 MANDATE of USCA, this case is DISMISSED, as to 14−16506 re: 1140 Notice of Appeal filed. (Attachments: # 1 Order, # 2 NDA) (Copies sent by the Ninth Circuit)(KMG) (Entered: 10/20/2014)

10/23/2014

1164

*NOTICE of Service of Amended Deposition Subpoena of Robert Haney, filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Deposition Subpoena to Rob Haney)(Cox, Justin) *Modified on 10/23/2014 (LFIG). (Entered: 10/23/2014)

10/30/2014

1165

NOTICE re: Amended Deposition Subpoena by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 256 of 273

International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Deposition Subpoena to Russell Pearce)(Cox, Justin) (Entered: 10/30/2014)

10/30/2014

1166

NOTICE re: INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION UPON MARSHALL TRIMBLE by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas . (Huerta, Alvaro) (Entered: 10/30/2014)

10/30/2014

1167

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Huerta, Alvaro) (Entered: 10/30/2014)

11/20/2014

1168

NOTICE re: Intent to Serve Subpoena Duces Tecum by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Subpoena Duces Tecum to Janice K. Brewer)(Cox, Justin) (Entered: 11/20/2014)

11/20/2014

1169

NOTICE re: Intent to Serve Subpoena Duces Tecum by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Subpoena Duces Tecum to Jessica Gavora)(Cox, Justin) (Entered: 11/20/2014)

11/21/2014

1170

*MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Christine P. Sun by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Sun, Christine) *Modified to correct motion type on 11/21/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 11/21/2014)

11/24/2014

1171

ORDER: On November 21, 2014, Plaintiffs' counsel Christine P. Sun filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel 1170 . IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will be denied within 3 days of the date of this order if counsel does not comply with the ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, Section II(G), specifically, subparagraph 1b. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 11/24/14. (MAW) (Entered: 11/24/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 257 of 273

11/25/2014 1172 ORDER granting 1170 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Christine Patricia Sun relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiffs Valle Del Sol, et al. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 11/25/14.(LSP) (Entered: 11/25/2014)

12/02/2014 1173 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer for proceedings held on 08/25/2014, Judge Susan R Bolton hearing judge(s). (Henry, Robert) (Entered: 12/02/2014)

12/05/2014

1175

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing Proceedings held on 08/25/2014, before Judge Susan R. Bolton. (Court Reporter: Elizabeth A. Lemke). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 12/26/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/5/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/5/2015. (RAP) (Entered: 12/09/2014)

12/09/2014 1174 MINUTE ORDER: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing set for 1/5/2015 at 10:00 AM before Judge Susan R Bolton. Counsel are reminded that speaker phones and cell phones are not permitted. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAW) (Entered: 12/09/2014)

12/09/2014

1176

TRANSCRIPT REQUEST of Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing held on 8/25/14 by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa for proceedings held on 8/25/2014, Judge Susan R Bolton hearing judge(s). (Cox, Justin) (Entered: 12/09/2014)

12/10/2014

1177

STIPULATION to Reschedule Discovery Dispute Hearing by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Arizona, State of, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Janice K Brewer, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cox, Justin) (Entered: 12/10/2014)

12/10/2014 1178 ORDER granting 1177 Stipulation : Discovery Dispute Hearing reset for 12/15/2014 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 502, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Susan R Bolton. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 12/10/2014. (TCA) (Entered: 12/10/2014)

12/15/2014 1179 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by New Haven, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bolden, Victor) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/15/2014 1181 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing held on 12/15/2014 at the request of Plaintiffs' counsel [see attached minute entry for details]. (Court Reporter Liz Lemke) Hearing held 10:41 AM to 11:14 AM.(MAW) (Entered: 12/16/2014)

12/16/2014 1180 ORDER, granting the Motion 1179 and allowing Victor A Bolden and Kathleen M Foster to withdraw as counsel of record for the City of New Haven in this matter; granting removal of the City of New Haven from ECF noticing in this matter. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 12/16/14.(REW) (Entered: 12/16/2014)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 258 of 273

12/16/2014

1182

TRANSCRIPT REQUEST of Telephonic Hearing by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa for proceedings held on 2014.12.15, Judge Susan R Bolton hearing judge(s). (Cox, Justin) (Entered: 12/16/2014)

12/18/2014

1183

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic Discovery Dispute Proceedings held on 12/15/2014, before Judge Susan R. Bolton. (Court Reporter: Elizabeth A. Lemke). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 1/8/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/20/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/18/2015. (RAP) (Entered: 12/18/2014)

12/22/2014 1184 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bouma, John) (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014

1185

ORDER pursuant to Intervenor Defendants' 1184 Motion. ORDERED that attorney Joseph Sciarrotta, Jr. shall be withdrawn as counsel for Intervenor Defendants in this action. Mr. Sciarrotta's name shall be removed from the Court's docket as counsel for Intervenor Defendants. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 12/22/2014.(LFIG) (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014 1186 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer for proceedings held on December 15, 2014, Judge Susan R Bolton hearing judge(s). (Henry, Robert) (Entered: 12/22/2014)

01/22/2015 1187 MINUTE ORDER: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing set for 2/2/2015 at 03:00 PM before Judge Susan R Bolton. Counsel are reminded that speaker phones and cell phones are not permitted. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAW) (Entered: 01/22/2015)

01/26/2015

1188

MOTION for Order to Show Cause Why Russell Pearce Should Not Be Held in Contempt for Disobeying the Court's Sept. 9, 2014 Order (Doc. No. 1157), MOTION for Sanctions for Disobeying the Court's Order, MOTION to Compel Russell Pearce to Permit a Third−Party Search of His Electronic Data by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Mem. of Law in Support, # 2 Exhibit Decl. of Justin B. Cox, # 3 Exhibit A − Excerpt of Pearce Dep., # 4 Exhibit B − Outlook folders, # 5 Exhibit C − Pearce Decl. of Oct. 8, 2014, # 6 Exhibit D − Pearce Decl. of Nov. 11, 2014, # 7 Exhibit E − Pearce Decl. of Jan. 2, 2015, # 8 Exhibit F − Cox letter dated Dec. 22, 2014, # 9 Exhibit G − Peterson letter dated Dec. 29, 2014, # 10 Exhibit H − Email chain from Dec. 30, 2014 & Jan. 2, 2015, # 11 Text of Proposed Order re: Mot. for OSC, # 12 Text of Proposed Order re: Mot. to Compel, # 13 Text of Proposed Order re: Sanctions)(Cox, Justin) Modified on 1/27/2015 (REW). (Entered: 01/26/2015)

01/28/2015 1189 MOTION for Protective Order and Terminate Deposition by Russell Pearce. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, James) (Entered: 01/28/2015)

01/29/2015 1190 MOTION for Extension of Time to Depose Russell Pearce and RESPONSE in Opposition to MOTION for Protective Order 1189 , MOTION to Compel Deposition Testimony by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 259 of 273

Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Mem. of Law, # 2 Exhibit A − Tr. of Dep. of Russell Pearce, # 3 Exhibit B − email chain, # 4 Exhibit C − Excerpt of Tr. of Dep. of John Kavanagh, # 5 Exhibit D − Russell Pearce LinkedIn profile, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Cox, Justin) Modified on 1/30/2015 (REW). (Entered: 01/29/2015)

02/02/2015 1192 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing held on 2/2/2015 at the request of Intervenor Defendants [see attached minute entry for details]. (Court Reporter Liz Lemke) Hearing held 3:09 PM to 3:34 PM.(MAW) (Entered: 02/04/2015)

02/03/2015 1191 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephanie Susan Elliott on behalf of Arizona, State of. (Elliott, Stephanie) (Entered: 02/03/2015)

02/04/2015 1193 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer for proceedings held on February 2, 2015, Judge Susan R Bolton hearing judge(s). (Henry, Robert) (Entered: 02/04/2015)

02/04/2015

1194

TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas for proceedings held on 02/02/2015, Judge Susan R Bolton hearing judge(s). (Cox, Justin) (Entered: 02/04/2015)

02/04/2015

1195

NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY: Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the General Orders, Local Rules, and CM/ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual of this Court, the following deficiencies have been found with the electronically filed document, Transcript Request Doc. #1194 filed by Justin Cox: 1) AO435 form, boxes 11 & 17, contain conflicting dates. 2) AO435 form, box 18, requested email delivery, but no email address provided. ACTION REQUIRED BY THE REQUESTOR: The deficiencies must be corrected within one (1) business day of this notice. The requestor must re−file the entire corrected document AO435 Transcript Order form as an AMENDED Transcript Request. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (RAP) (Entered: 02/04/2015)

02/04/2015

1196

TRANSCRIPT REQUEST [AMENDED] by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas for proceedings held on 02/02/2015, Judge Susan R Bolton hearing judge(s). (Cox, Justin) (Entered: 02/04/2015)

02/05/2015

1197

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing Proceedings held on 02/02/2015, before Judge Susan R. Bolton. (Court Reporter: Elizabeth A. Lemke). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 260 of 273

Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/26/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/9/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/6/2015. (RAP) (Entered: 02/06/2015)

02/11/2015

1198

RESPONSE in Opposition re: 1190 MOTION for Extension of Time to Depose Russell Pearce & Opp'n to Mot. for Protective Order (Doc. No. 1189) MOTION to Compel Deposition Testimony filed by Russell Pearce. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Declaration of Russell Pearce), # 2 Exhibit B)(Cotca, Ramona) Modified on 2/12/2015 (REW). (Entered: 02/11/2015)

02/11/2015 1199 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 1189 MOTION for Protective Order and Terminate Deposition filed by Russell Pearce. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Declaration of Russell Pearce), # 2 Exhibit B)(Cotca, Ramona) Modified on 2/12/2015 (REW). (Entered: 02/11/2015)

02/12/2015

1200

RESPONSE in Opposition re: 1188 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Why Russell Pearce Should Not Be Held in Contempt for Disobeying the Court's Sept. 9, 2014 Order (Doc. No. 1157) MOTION for Sanctions for Disobeying the Court's Order MOTION to Compel Russell Pearce to Permit a Third−Party Search of His Electronic Data filed by Russell Pearce. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of James F. Peterson, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I)(Peterson, James) Modified on 2/13/2015 (REW). (Entered: 02/12/2015)

02/13/2015

1201

MOTION to Compel Non−Party Gov. Janice K. Brewer to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Decl. of Justin B. Cox, # 2 Index of Exhibits, # 3 Ex. A − Subpoena Duces Tecum to Janice K. Brewer, # 4 Ex. B − Aff. of Service, # 5 Ex. C − Excerpts from "Scorpions for Breakfast", # 6 Ex. D − Intv. Defs.' Resps.to Pls.' 8th Set of RFPs, # 7 Ex. E − Cox letter dated Nov. 5, 2014, # 8 Ex. F − Ex. D − Intv. Defs.' Supp. Resps.to Pls.' 8th Set of RFPs (, # 9 Ex. G − Cox letter dated Dec. 3, 2014, # 10 Ex. H − Henry letter dated Dec. 12, 2014 re RFPs, # 11 Ex. I − Gov. Brewer's Objs. to Subpoena Duces Tecum, # 12 Ex. J − Sung letter dated Dec. 26, 2014, # 13 Ex. K − Sung & Henry email chain, # 14 Ex. L − Henry letter dated Jan. 5, 2015, # 15 Ex. M − Cox letter dated Feb. 5, 2015, # 16 Ex. N − Cox letter dated Feb. 6, 2015, # 17 Ex. O − Henry letter dated Feb. 10, 2015, # 18 Ex. P − Cox letter dated Feb. 12, 2015, # 19 Ex. Q − Press Release dated May 10, 2011, # 20 Proposed Order)(Cox, Justin) (Entered: 02/13/2015)

02/19/2015

1202

* MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1189 MOTION for Protetive Order and Terminate Deposition and 1190 MOTION for Extension of Time to Depose Russell Pearce by Russell Pearce. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Kercsmar, Geoffrey) *Modified to correct numbers/links on 2/20/2015* (REW). (Entered: 02/19/2015)

02/19/2015 1203 * MOTION to Stay and MOTION for a Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Kszywienski, Kelly). *Added MOTION for Hearing on 2/20/2015* (REW). (Entered: 02/19/2015)

02/19/2015

1204

RESPONSE in Opposition re: 1203 MOTION to Stay and Request for a Telephonic Hearing filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Cox, Justin) (Entered: 02/19/2015)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 261 of 273

02/20/2015

1205

REPLY to Response to Motion re: 1190 MOTION for Extension of Time to Depose Russell Pearce MOTION to Compel Deposition Testimony filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Cox, Justin) (Entered: 02/20/2015)

02/20/2015 1206 ORDER granting 1202 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. The deadline for Russell Pearce to file his Reply in Support of Russell Pearce's Motion to Terminate Deposition and for Protective Order is extended to February 11, 2015, nunc pro tunc. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 2/20/15.(MAW) (Entered: 02/20/2015)

02/23/2015

1207

REPLY to Response to Motion re: 1188 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Why Russell Pearce Should Not Be Held in Contempt for Disobeying the Court's Sept. 9, 2014 Order (Doc. No. 1157) MOTION for Sanctions for Disobeying the Court's Order MOTION to Compel Russell Pearce to Permit a Third−Party Search of His Electronic Data filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Cox, Justin) (Entered: 02/23/2015)

02/25/2015

1208

ORDER: This Court has reviewed and considered Intervenor Defendants' Motion to Stay Briefing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and Request for a Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing and Plaintiffs' Opposition. IT IS ORDERED staying the briefing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and setting a Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing to address the issues raised by Plaintiffs' Motion for Monday, March 2, 2015 at 1:45 p.m. 1203 . Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 2/25/15.(MAW) (Entered: 02/25/2015)

02/25/2015

1209

Joint MOTION to Continue Discovery Dispute Hearing of 3/2/15 by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona, State of, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Janice K Brewer, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sung, Esther) (Entered: 02/25/2015)

02/26/2015

1210

ORDER granting 1209 Motion to Continue. IT IS ORDERED that the Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing currently scheduled for March 2, 2015, see Order 1208 , is rescheduled to March 9, 2015, at 3:00 p.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no cell phones or speaker phones are allowed. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 2/26/15.(MAW) (Entered: 02/26/2015)

03/09/2015

1211

MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing held on 3/9/2015 at the request of Intervenor Defendants regarding Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Non−Party Janice K. Brewer to Comply With Subpoena Duces Tecum 1201 . Discussion held. The Court will not order any further production of documents by Intervenor Defendant Janice K. Brewer, either in her personal or official capacity. LATER: IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel 1201 . (Court Reporter Liz Lemke.) Hearing held 3:06 PM to 3:15 PM.(MAW) (Entered: 03/10/2015)

03/10/2015 1212 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order to Show Cause, for Sanctions, and to Compel Russell Pearce to Permit a Third−Party Search of his Electronic Data 1188 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Motion of Non−Party Russell Pearce to Terminate Deposition and for Protective Order 1189 . IT IS

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 262 of 273

FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Additional Time to Depose Russell Pearce and to Compel Deposition Testimony 1190 (see attached Order for details). Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 3/10/15.(MAW) (Entered: 03/10/2015)

03/17/2015

1213

*MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages re: Overlength Brief by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Keaney, Melissa) *Modified to correct event on 3/18/2015* (REW). (Entered: 03/17/2015)

03/17/2015

1214

*FILED at 1223 − LODGED Proposed Document: MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment re: 1213 MOTION to File Excess Pages. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion is granted. Filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Keaney, Melissa) *Modified from Filed to Lodged on 3/18/2015* (REW). Modified on 3/24/2015 (REW). (Entered: 03/17/2015)

03/17/2015 1215 MOTION for Summary Judgment re: Counts One, Two, Four, Five, Six, and Seven of FAC by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Tryon, G) (Entered: 03/17/2015)

03/17/2015 1216 STATEMENT of Material Undisputed Facts in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment re: 1215 MOTION for Summary Judgment re: Counts One, Two, Four, Five, Six, and Seven of FAC by Intervenor Defendants Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Tryon, G) (Entered: 03/17/2015)

03/17/2015 1217 *DECLARATION of Stephanie Elliott re: 1215 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Intervenor Defendants Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−F)(Tryon, G) *Modified to correct document number/link on 3/18/2015* (REW). (Entered: 03/17/2015)

03/17/2015

1218

*FILED at 1224 − LODGED Proposed Document: STATEMENT of Facts re: 1213 MOTION to File Excess Pages. Document to be filed if Motion granted. Filed by Plaintiffs Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Nicholas Espiritu, # 2 Index of Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit A thru L, # 4 Exhibit M thru Z, # 5 Exhibit AA thru EE, # 6 Exhibit FF thru PP, part 1, # 7 Exhibit FF thru PP, part 2, # 8 Exhibit QQ, part 1, # 9 Exhibit QQ, part 2, # 10 Exhibit QQ, part 3, # 11 Exhibit RR thru WW, part 1, # 12 Exhibit RR thru WW. part 2, # 13 Exhibit XX thru ZZ, # 14 Exhibit AAA thru TTT, part 1, # 15 Exhibit AAA thru TTT, part 2)(Preciado, Nora) *Modified from Filed to Lodged on 3/18/2015* (REW). Modified on 3/24/2015 (REW). (Entered: 03/17/2015)

03/17/2015

1219

*PORTIONS (Exhibit N and S) Filed at Doc. 1231 *SEALED LODGED Proposed NOTICE OF LODGING UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS re: 651 Joint MOTION for Protective Order . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 263 of 273

Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Flagstaff, City of, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit N: Vargas Depo (Lodged/Sealed), # 2 Exhibit P: Enrique Depo (Lodged/Sealed), # 3 Exhibit S; Harrington Decl (Lodged/Sealed)(Preciado, Nora) *Modified on 3/18/2015 to change from Lodged to Sealed Lodged (MAP)*. *Modified on 4/1/2015 (MAP)*. (Entered: 03/17/2015)

03/17/2015

1220

MOTION for Certification to the Arizona Supreme Court by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A − C, # 2 Proposed Order of Certification)(Cox, Justin) (Entered: 03/17/2015)

03/23/2015 1221 MOTION re: 1220 MOTION for Certification to the Arizona Supreme Court Intervenor Defendants Motion for Clarification by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Tryon, G) (Entered: 03/23/2015)

03/23/2015

1222

ORDER granting 1213 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File an Overlength Brief. Plaintiffs may file a 1−page motion for a partial summary judgment and 34−page supporting memorandum of law in excess of the page limit set forth in Local Rule 7.2(e). Plaintiffs' motion for a partial summary judgment and supporting memorandum of law, which was lodged with Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File an Overlength Brief, shall be filed forthwith. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 3/23/15.(MAW) (Entered: 03/23/2015)

03/23/2015

1223

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, MOTION for Permanent Injunction by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum)(REW) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/23/2015

1224

STATEMENT of Facts in Support re: 1223 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment MOTION for Permanent Injunction by Plaintiffs Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Nicholas Espiritu, # 2 Index of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibits A − L, # 4 Exhibits M − Z, # 5 Exhibits AA − EE, # 6 Exhibits FF − PP part 1, # 7 Exhibits FF − PP part 2, # 8 Exhibit QQ part 1, # 9 Exhibit QQ part 2, # 10 Exhibits QQ part 3, # 11 Exhibits RR − WW part 1, # 12 Exhibits RR − WW part 2, # 13 Exhibits XX − ZZ, # 14 Exhibits AAA − TTT part 1, # 15 Exhbiits AAA − TTT part 2)(REW) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

1225

ORDER: Plaintiffs to file a memorandum within 7 days of the date of this order not to exceed 5 pages addressing whether their pending Motion is an untimely Motion for Reconsideration.Defendants and Intervenor Defendants shall not respond to Plaintiffs motion at this time. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 3/24/2015.(TCA) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 264 of 273

03/30/2015

1226

RESPONSE re: 1225 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Plaintiffs Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Cox, Justin) (Entered: 03/30/2015)

03/30/2015

1227

MOTION to Seal Document 1218 Statement, 1219 Lodged Proposed Document by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bansal, Jessica) (Entered: 03/30/2015)

03/30/2015

1228

*FILED at Doc. 1232 *SEALED LODGED Proposed Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to Seal re: 651 Joint MOTION for Protective Order re: 1227 Motion to Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Bansal, Jessica) *Modified to add link to Motion to Seal on 3/31/2015 (CEI). *Modified on 4/1/2015 (MAP)*. (Entered: 03/30/2015)

03/30/2015

1229

NOTICE re: Withdrawing Confidentiality Designation as to Exhibit "P" of the Declaration of Nicholas Espiritu in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas re: 1218 Statement, 652 Protective Order, 1228 Sealed Lodged Proposed Document, 1219 Lodged Proposed Document, 1227 MOTION to Seal Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit P: Copy of excerpts and/or exhibits deposition transcript of Tupac Enrique, Sept 8, 2014)(Bansal, Jessica) Modified on 3/31/2015 (REW). (Entered: 03/30/2015)

04/01/2015

1230

ORDER granting 1227 Motion to Seal Exhibits "N" and "S" to the Declaration of Nicholas Espritu in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Espritu Decl.). FURTHER Plaintiffs may file under seal their Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Seal. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 3/31/15.(MAP) (Entered: 04/01/2015)

04/01/2015

1231

Exhibits N and S to the Declaration of Nicholas Espiritu in Support of 1223 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit S)(MAP) (Entered: 04/01/2015)

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 265 of 273

04/01/2015

1232

Memorandum in Support of 1227 Motion for Leave to Seal filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (MAP) (Entered: 04/01/2015)

04/06/2015 1233 ORDER denying 1220 Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 4/6/15.(MAW) (Entered: 04/06/2015)

04/09/2015

1234

Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Summary Judgment Cross−Motions by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Viramontes, Victor) (Entered: 04/09/2015)

04/09/2015

1235

ORDER granting 1234 Motion for Extension of Time to File Responses. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that responses to the currently pending motions for summary judgment shall be extended until May 12, 2015. Under this schedule, Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Replies for the Motions for Summary Judgment will be due on June 9, 2015. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 4/9/15.(MAW) (Entered: 04/09/2015)

04/16/2015

1236

NOTICE re: of Filing of Redacted Copies of Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal, Exhibit "S" to the Declaration of Nicholas Espiritu by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas re: 1232 Sealed Document, 1230 Order on Motion to Seal Document, 1231 Sealed Document . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Redacted Copy of Ex "S" to Decl of Nicholas Espiritu in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (filed under seal at ECF No. 1231), # 2 Exhibit 2 − Redacted Copy of Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Seal (filed under seal at ECF No. 1232))(Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/16/2015)

04/16/2015

1237

*CORRECTED By Doc. 1238 * SEALED Exhibit "S" (Declaration of Alison J. Harrington) to the Declaration of Nicholas Espiritu in Support of 1223 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Espiritu, Nicholas) *Modified on 4/17/2015 to change from lodged to filed pursuant to SRB Chambers (MAP)*. (Entered: 04/16/2015)

04/16/2015

1238

*SEALED CORRECTED Exhibit "S" (Declaration of Alison J. Harrington) to the Declaration of Nicholas Espiritu in Support of 1223 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 266 of 273

Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Espiritu, Nicholas) *Modified on 4/17/2015 to change from lodged to filed pursuant to SRB Chambers (MAP)*. (Entered: 04/16/2015)

04/23/2015 1239 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY'S CHANGE OF EMAIL ADDRESS by Jessica Karp Bansal. (Bansal, Jessica) (Entered: 04/23/2015)

04/27/2015 1240 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Certification, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Casey, Timothy) Modified on 4/28/2015 (REW). (Entered: 04/27/2015)

05/06/2015

1241

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1215 MOTION for Summary Judgment re: Counts One, Two, Four, Five, Six, and Seven of FAC by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Jadwat, Omar) Modified on 5/7/2015 (REW). (Entered: 05/06/2015)

05/06/2015

1242

ORDER granting 1241 Motion for Extension of Time to File Responses. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' and Defendants' responses to the currently pending motions for summary judgment shall be due on May 26, 2015, and replies shall be due on June 23, 2015. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 5/6/15.(MAW) (Entered: 05/06/2015)

05/15/2015 1243 ORDER, granting the Application to Withdraw as Counsel 1240 for Defendant Joseph M Arpaio; attorney Timothy J Casey and the law firm of Schmitt Schneck Smyth Casey & Even, P.C. are hereby withdrawn as counsel of record for Defendant Joseph M Arpaio. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 5/15/15.(REW) (Entered: 05/15/2015)

05/20/2015

1244

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Re: Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Intervenor Defendants Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 05/20/2015)

05/26/2015 1245 RESPONSE to Motion re: 1223 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Tryon, G) (Entered: 05/26/2015)

05/26/2015 1246 STATEMENT of Facts and Supplemental Statement of Undisputed Material Facts re: 1245 Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Intervenor Defendants Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Tryon, G) (Entered: 05/26/2015)

05/26/2015

1247

*DECLARATION of Stephanie Elliott in Support of Arizona's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 1245 re: 1246 Statement by Intervenor Defendants Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A − K)(Tryon, G) *Modified to add document number/link on 5/27/2015* (REW). (Entered: 05/26/2015)

05/26/2015

1248

*FILED AT DOC 1252 LODGED Proposed Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Intervenor Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 1215) re: 1244 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families,

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 267 of 273

Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Cox, Justin) *Modified to correct document number/link on 5/27/2015* (REW). Modified on 6/3/2015 (ATD). (Entered: 05/26/2015)

05/26/2015

1249

*FILED AT DOC 1253 LODGED Proposed Plaintiffs' Response to Intervenor Defendants' Statement of Material Undisputed Facts in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiffs' Statement of Additional Facts Precluding Summary Judgment re: 1244 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Cox, Justin) *Modified to correct document number/link on 5/27/2015* (REW). Modified on 6/3/2015 (ATD). (Entered: 05/26/2015)

05/26/2015

1250

*FILED AT DOC 1254 LODGED Proposed Declaration of Jorge M. Castillo in Opposition to Intervenor Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, with Exhibits A−KKK re: 1244 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−L, # 2 Exhibit M−Q, # 3 Exhibit R−V, # 4 Exhibit W−Z, # 5 Exhibit AA−HH, # 6 Exhibit II, # 7 Exhibit JJ−KK, # 8 Exhibit LL−ZZ, # 9 Exhibit AAA−KKK)(Cox, Justin) *Modified to correct document number/link on 5/27/2015* (REW). Modified on 6/3/2015 (ATD). (Entered: 05/26/2015)

06/03/2015

1251

ORDER granting 1244 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Brief in Excess of Page Limit. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs may file a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Intervenor Defendants Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in excess of the page limit set forth in Local Rule 7.2(e). Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Intervenor Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment shall not exceed 22 pages. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 6/2/15.(MAW) (Entered: 06/03/2015)

06/03/2015

1252

PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR DEFENDANTS'MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT re: Counts One, Two, Four, Five, Six, and Seven of FAC 1215 filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (ATD) (Entered: 06/03/2015)

06/03/2015

1253

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR DEFENDANTS' 1216 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL FACTS PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Plaintiffs Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Coalicion De

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 268 of 273

Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (ATD) (Entered: 06/03/2015)

06/03/2015

1254

DECLARATION of Jorge M. Castillo in Opposition to 1215 MOTION for Summary Judgment re: Counts One, Two, Four, Five, Six, and Seven of FAC by Plaintiffs Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−L, # 2 Exhibits M−Q, # 3 Exhibits R−V, # 4 Exhibits W−Z, # 5 Exhibits AA−HH, # 6 Exhibits II, # 7 Exhibits JJ−KK, # 8 Exhibits LL−ZZ, # 9 Exhibits AAA−KKK) (ATD) (Entered: 06/03/2015)

06/10/2015

1255

Joint MOTION for Extension of Time To File Summary Judgment Replies and Pretrial Disclosures by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Jadwat, Omar) Modified on 6/11/2015 (REW). (Entered: 06/10/2015)

06/10/2015

1256

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1255 defendant's joint motion for extensions of time to file summary judgment replies and pretrial disclosures. Parties shall file their replies by 6/30/2015. Parties' request to extend Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3) pretrial disclosures is denied. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 6/10/2015.(TCA) (Entered: 06/10/2015)

06/15/2015 1257 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Tryon, G) (Entered: 06/15/2015)

06/15/2015

1258

*Notice re: PLAINTIFFS PRETRIAL DISCLOSURES (redacted) by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Castillo Declaration, # 2 Ex. 1 to Castillo Declaration, # 3 Ex. 2 (part 1) to Castillo Declaration, # 4 Ex. 2 (part 2) to Castillo Declaration, # 5 Ex. 3 to Castillo Declaration)(Castillo, Jorge) *Modified from Exhibit List on 6/16/2015* (REW). (Entered: 06/15/2015)

06/15/2015

1259

*FILED at Doc. 1271 *SEALED LODGED Proposed Plaintiffs' Pretrial Disclosures (unredacted) re: 1260 Motion to Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Modified on 7/10/2015 (MAP). (Entered: 06/15/2015)

06/15/2015 1260 MOTION to Seal Document 1259 Sealed Lodged Proposed Document by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 269 of 273

Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 [Proposed] Order)(Castillo, Jorge) (Entered: 06/15/2015)

06/16/2015 1261 Exhibit List Disclosure of Witnesses and Trial Exhibits by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A and B)(Tryon, G) Modified on 6/17/2015 (REW). (Entered: 06/16/2015)

06/30/2015

1262

REPLY to Response to Motion re: 1223 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Jadwat, Omar) (Entered: 06/30/2015)

06/30/2015

1263

*FILED at Doc. 1279 *SEALED LODGED Proposed Declaration of Nicholas Espiritu in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Jadwat, Omar) *Modified on 7/22/2015 (MAP)*. (Entered: 06/30/2015)

06/30/2015 1264 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 1215 MOTION for Summary Judgment re: Counts One, Two, Four, Five, Six, and Seven of FAC filed by Arizona, State of. (Tryon, G) (Entered: 06/30/2015)

06/30/2015 1265 STATEMENT of Facts re: 1264 Reply to Response to Motion by Intervenor Defendant Arizona, State of. (Tryon, G) (Entered: 06/30/2015)

06/30/2015 1266 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by John R Lopez, IV. (Lopez, John) (Entered: 06/30/2015)

07/02/2015

1267

OBJECTION re: 1261 Exhibit List Intervenor Defendants' Disclosure of Witnesses and Trial Exhibits by Plaintiffs Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe, Jane Doe, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/02/2015)

07/02/2015

1268

*FILED at Doc. 1277 *SEALED LODGED Proposed Declaration of Nicholas Espiritu in Support of Plaintiffs' Objections to Intervenor Defendants' Pretrial Disclosures. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee,

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 270 of 273

Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−I)(Espiritu, Nicholas) *Modified on 7/22/2015 (MAP)*. (Entered: 07/02/2015)

07/09/2015

1269

NOTICE re: Supplemental Authority by Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas re: 1252 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Arce Opinion [Jul 7 2015])(Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 07/09/2015)

07/09/2015 1270 ORDER granting 1260 Motion to Seal Plaintiffs unredacted Pretrial Disclosures. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/9/15. (MAP) (Entered: 07/09/2015)

07/09/2015

1271

Sealed Pretrial Disclosures filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (MAP) (Entered: 07/09/2015)

07/10/2015

1272

MOTION to Seal Document 1268 Sealed Lodged Proposed Document by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/10/2015)

07/10/2015

1273

MOTION to Seal Document 1263 Sealed Lodged Proposed Document by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/10/2015)

07/10/2015 1274 *MOTION for Extension of Time for Filing Objections to Plaintiffs' Pretrial Disclosures by Arizona, State of, Janice K Brewer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tryon, G) *Modified to correct Motion event on 7/13/2015* (REW). (Entered: 07/10/2015)

07/15/2015

1275

ORDER granting 1274 Intervenor Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Continue the Deadline for Filing Objections to Plaintiffs' Pretrial Disclosures. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Intervenor Defendants' objections to Plaintiffs' Pretrial Disclosures are due within 30 days from the date the Court rules on the motions for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/15/15.(MAW) (Entered: 07/15/2015)

07/22/2015 1276 ORDER granting 1272 Motion to Seal Declaration of Nicholas Espiritu in Support of Plaintiffs' Objections to Intervenor Defendants' Pretrial Disclosures. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/22/15.(MAP) (Entered: 07/22/2015)

07/22/2015

1277

Sealed Declaration of Nicholas Espiritu in Support of Plaintiff's Objections to Intervenor Defendants' Pretrial Disclosures filed by Andrew Anderson, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, Jane Doe(#2, proceeding under pseudonym), Jane

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 271 of 273

Doe(#1, proceeding under pseudonym), John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Friendly House, Vicki Gaubeca, Japanese American Citizens League, Maria Morales, Muslim American Society, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − I)(MAP) (Entered: 07/22/2015)

07/22/2015 1278 ORDER granting 1273 Motion to Seal Declaration of Nicholas Espiritu in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/22/15.(MAP) (Entered: 07/22/2015)

07/22/2015

1279

Sealed Declaration of Nicholas Espiritu in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (MAP) (Entered: 07/22/2015)

07/23/2015

1280

MOTION to Strike 1265 Statement of Facts re: 1264 Reply to Response to Motion by Intervenor Defendant Arizona by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/23/2015)

07/31/2015 1281 RESPONSE re: 1269 Notice (Other) Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority by Intervenor Defendants Arizona, State of, Douglas A Ducey. (Elliott, Stephanie) (Entered: 07/31/2015)

08/03/2015 1282 NOTICE re: Rule 25(d) Substitution by Clarence W Dupnik . (Jurkowitz, Daniel) (Entered: 08/03/2015)

08/10/2015 1283 RESPONSE to Motion re: 1280 MOTION to Strike 1265 Statement of Facts re: 1264 Reply to Response to Motion by Intervenor Defendant Arizona filed by Arizona, State of, Douglas A Ducey. (Elliott, Stephanie) (Entered: 08/10/2015)

08/14/2015

1284

REPLY to Response to Motion re: 1280 MOTION to Strike 1265 Statement of Facts re: 1264 Reply to Response to Motion by Intervenor Defendant Arizona filed by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 08/14/2015)

09/04/2015

1285

ORDER − IT IS ORDERED granting Intervenor Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment re: Counts One, Two, Four, Five, Six, and Seven of the FAC (Doc. 1215 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and for Permanent Injunction (Doc. 1223 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Intervenor Defendants Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' Statement of Additional Facts Precluding Summary Judgment (Doc. 1280 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Arizona on Counts One (Supremacy Clause), Two (Equal Protection Clause), Four (Fourth Amendment), Five (Article II, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution), Six (Due Process Clause), and Seven (42 U.S.C. § 1981). IT IS

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 272 of 273

FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on Count Three (First Amendment). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED permanently enjoining the Section 5 day labor provisions, A.R.S. § 13−2928(A)−(B). (See document for further details). Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 9/4/15.(LAD) (Entered: 09/04/2015)

09/04/2015

1286

CLERK'S JUDGMENT − IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, pursuant to the Court's Order filed September 4, 2015, judgment is entered in favor of Arizona on Counts One (Supremacy Clause), Two (Equal Protection Clause), Four (Fourth Amendment), Five (Article II, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution), Six (Due Process Clause), and Seven (42 U.S.C. § 1981). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED entering judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on Count Three (First Amendment). This matter is hereby terminated. (LAD) (Entered: 09/04/2015)

09/10/2015

1287

*Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Stipulation for Plaintiffs' Petition for Fees and Costs by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Viramontes, Victor) *Modified to correct event type on 9/11/2015 (KGM). (Entered: 09/10/2015)

09/15/2015

1288

ORDER granting 1287 Motion for Extension of Time. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs may submit their petition for attorneys' fees and costs in this matter at any time up to: (1)90 days from the deadline for Parties' Notice of Appeal with respect to the Court's September 4, 2015 Orders, in the event that no appeal is taken; or (2)90 days from the date of final resolution of any appeal filed in relation to the Court's September 4, 2015 Orders. Nothing herein precludes the parties from applying to this Court for a further extension of time for good cause shown. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 9/15/15.(MAW) (Entered: 09/15/2015)

10/05/2015

1289

*NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals re: 1286 Clerk's Judgment, Orders 1285 , 1212 , 1116 , 447 , Minute Entries 1211 , 1192 , 1113 by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated. Filing fee received: $ 505.00, receipt number 0970−12187244. (Attachments: # 1 Representation Statement)(Viramontes, Victor) *Modified to add document number/links on 10/6/2015* (REW). (Entered: 10/05/2015)

10/05/2015 1290 *NOTICE OF CROSS−APPEAL to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals re: 1286 Clerk's Judgment, 1285 Order by Arizona, State of, Douglas A Ducey. Filing fee received: $ 505.00, receipt number 0970−12188667. (Lopez, John) *Modified to Cross−Appeal, document number/link added on 10/6/2015* (REW). (Entered: 10/05/2015)

10/08/2015 1291 USCA Case Number re: 1289 Notice of Appeal. Case number 15−17005, Ninth Circuit. (Copies sent by the Ninth Circuit.) (KMG) (Entered: 10/08/2015)

10/08/2015 1292 USCA Case Number re: 1290 Notice of Cross−Appeal. Case number 15−17015, Ninth Circuit. (Copies sent by the Ninth Circuit.) (KMG) (Entered: 10/08/2015)

10/22/2015

1293

TRANSCRIPT REQUEST for Telephonic Discovery Dispute by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas for proceedings held

Case: 2:10-cv-1061 As of: 03/13/2017 08:59 AM MST 273 of 273

on 3−9−15, Judge Susan R Bolton hearing judge(s). (Castillo, Jorge) (Entered: 10/22/2015)

10/26/2015 1294 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY'S CHANGE OF ADDRESS/FIRM NAME by Robert Glenn Buckelew. (Buckelew, Robert) (Entered: 10/26/2015)

10/28/2015

1295

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic Discovery Dispute proceedings held on 03/09/2015, before Judge Susan R. Bolton. (Court Reporter: Elizabeth A. Lemke). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 11/18/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/30/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/26/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 10/28/2015)

07/08/2016 1296 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by James Randall Jue. (Jue, James) (Entered: 07/08/2016)

09/15/2016

1297

Joint MOTION for Approval of JOINT CASE DISPOSITION by Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Viramontes, Victor) (Entered: 09/15/2016)

09/15/2016

1298

Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 1297 Joint MOTION for Approval of JOINT CASE DISPOSITION [Corrected Proposed Order] by Plaintiffs Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Border Action Network, C.M., Maura Castillo, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Pedro Espinoza, Japanese American Citizens League, Luz Santiago, Service Employees International Union, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, Jim Shee, Southside Presbyterian Church, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Unknown Party, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Jose Angel Vargas, Jesus Cuauhtemoc Villa. (Viramontes, Victor) (Entered: 09/15/2016)

09/16/2016

1299

MANDATE of USCA granting the joint motion to dismiss the appeals without prejudcie re: 1290 Notice of Appeal filed by Douglas A Ducey, Arizona, State of, 1289 Notice of Appeal filed by Jim Shee, Coalicion De Derechos Humanos, John Doe, Asian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona, Luz Santiago, Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families, Local 5 Service Employees International Union, C.M., Service Employees International Union, Valle Del Sol Incorporated, Border Action Network, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Southside Presbyterian Church, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Pedro Espinoza, Maura Castillo, Japanese American Citizens League. (See document for further details). (Attachments: # 1 NDA) (LAD) (Distributed by the Ninth Circuit) (Entered: 09/16/2016)

09/19/2016

1300

ORDER: Having considered the Parties' Joint Case Disposition 1297 , IT IS ORDERED that Intervenor Defendants distribute The Informal Attorney General Opinion, a sample of which is attached as Exhibit A, consistent with their practices for distributing Attorney General Opinions. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portions of S.B. 1070 that are codified at A.R.S. §§ 28−3511(A)(1)(d) and (e) are hereby permanently enjoined. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Intervenor Defendants shall pay $1.4 million to Plaintiffs' Counsel to resolve any liability for attorneys' fees and costs from this case, No. CV 10−1061−PHX−SRB, and any appeal arising from that matter. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 9/19/16.(MAW) (Entered: 09/19/2016)