Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02097/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02097-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

 ) 

DINA GALASSINI, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) CV-11-02097-PHX-JAT 

v. ) 

 ) 

TOWN OF FOUNTAIN ) FINAL PRETRIAL

HILLS, ARIZONA; ) ORDER

 ) 

Defendant, ) 

and ) 

 ) 

STATE OF ARIZONA, ) 

Intervenor-Defendant. ) 

 ___________________________________ ) 

The following is the joint Final Pretrial Order considered at the Final Pretrial 

Conference on June 4, 2014. 

A. COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES 

Plaintiff: 

Paul V. Avelar 

Timothy D. Keller 

Institute for Justice 

398 South Mill Avenue, Ste. 301 

Tempe, AZ 85281 

Email: pavelar@ij.org 

Case 2:11-cv-02097-JAT Document 134 Filed 06/04/14 Page 1 of 18
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

Email: tkeller@ij.org 

Phone: 480-557-8300 

Fax: 480-557-8305 

Defendant: 

Jeffrey Thomas Murray 

Kristin Marie Mackin 

Sims Murray Limited 

2020 N Central Ave., Ste. 670 

Phoenix, AZ 85004 

Email: jtmurray@simsmurray.com 

Email: kmackin@simsmurray.com 

Phone: 602-772-5500 

Fax: 602-772-5009 

Intervenor-Defendant:1

Diana Day 

Paula S Bickett 

Todd Mitchell Allison 

Office of the Attorney General 

1275 W Washington St. 

Phoenix, AZ 85007-2926 

Email: diana.day@azag.gov 

Email: paula.bickett@azag.gov 

Email: todd.allison@azag.gov 

Phone: 602-542-8305 

Fax: 602-542-8308 

B. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

1. Jurisdiction in this case is based on a federal question under 28 

U.S.C. § 1331. 

2. Jurisdiction is not disputed. 

 1

 The Intervenor Defendant asserts that based on the Court’s previous orders, the issues for trial are between 

Plaintiff and the Town only. The State’s interest in this litigation is solely in the constitutionality of the statute, 

which the Court has already decided. Therefore, the State has not listed any witnesses or exhibits in this Joint 

Pretrial Statement. As a party to the case, however, the State reserves its rights to participate in the trial, including 

argument, questioning of witnesses, and asserting objections as appropriate. 

Case 2:11-cv-02097-JAT Document 134 Filed 06/04/14 Page 2 of 18
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 

C. STIPULATIONS AND UNCONTESTED FACTS AND LAW

1. The following facts are admitted by the parties and require no 

proof: 

In 2011, the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona, placed on the November 

2011 ballot a bond issue to pay for road reconstruction. 

On October 6, 2011, Plaintiff Dina Galassini sent an email to 23 friends 

and neighbors explaining why people should oppose the bond. Ms. Galassini called on 

the email recipients to make their own signs opposing the bond—the signs were to say 

things like “Vote No on the Bond, “Bonds are BONDAGE,” etc.—and join her at one or 

both of two planned protest rallies in the Town. 

Paul Mood, the Development Services Director for the Town of Fountain 

Hills received Ms. Galassini’s email through a consultant who was working on the plans 

for the road maintenance for the Town. Mr. Mood sent Ms. Galassini’s email to Julie 

Ghetti, then Interim Town Manager for Fountain Hills, and Andrew McGuire, the 

Fountain Hills Town Attorney. Ms. Galassini’s email was in turn forwarded to Bevelyn 

Bender, Fountain Hills Town Clerk and election official, by Ms. Ghetti. 

After receiving Ms. Galassini’s email, Ms. Bender and Ms. Ghetti 

consulted with the Town Attorney and decided that Ms. Bender would write a letter to 

Ms. Galassini. On or about October 12, 2011, Ms. Bender sent a letter to Ms. Galassini. 

It stated: 

A recent email was brought to my attention that called for 

organized action by numerous individuals regarding the November 8, 

2011 Bond Election. 

Although an individual acting alone is not a political committee 

Case 2:11-cv-02097-JAT Document 134 Filed 06/04/14 Page 3 of 18
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4 

under Arizona law and need not file a statement of organization, if any 

additional person or persons join the effort (as defined in A.R.S. §16-

901(19) - see below) begun by an individual, the association of persons 

has become a “political committee” under Arizona law, and must file a 

statement of organization before accepting contributions, making 

expenditures, distributing literature or circulating petitions. 

Please be advised that according to State Statutes, as specifically 

outlined in Title 16, one or more persons working to impact the results of 

an election are considered to be a Political Action Committee (PAC) 

subject to all of the requirements associated with a PAC. In order to 

comply with the law a Statement of Organization must be filed in the 

office of the Town Clerk prior to any electioneering taking place. I would 

strongly encourage you to cease any campaign related activities until the 

requirements of the law have been met. 

As this Court found and determined in its decision, this letter was not an 

enforcement of Arizona’s campaign finance laws, but was a threatened enforcement of 

the statutory scheme. 

2. The following facts although not admitted, will not be contested at 

trial by evidence to the contrary: 

Upon receiving the letter on October 13, 2011, Ms. Galassini testified that 

she became scared of breaking the law and decided to cancel her two protest rallies. 

3. The following issues of law are uncontested and stipulated to by the 

parties: 

State law designates the Town Clerk as the filing officer and Town 

Attorney as enforcer of the State’s campaign finance statutes in Town elections. A.R.S. 

§ 16-924(A). 

Case 2:11-cv-02097-JAT Document 134 Filed 06/04/14 Page 4 of 18
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5 

According to this Court’s prior decision, Arizona’s definition of “political 

committee,” A.R.S. § 16-901(19), is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. (The 

State and the Town take no position on this previous finding by the Court for purposes 

of trial.) 

According to this Court’s prior decision, Arizona’s campaign finance 

laws, A.R.S. § 16-901 et seq., imposed on small groups that seek to combine to 

influence the results of an election are not substantially related to the State’s disclosure 

interest. (The State and the Town take no position on this previous finding by the Court 

for purposes of trial.) 

“[A] local government may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury 

inflicted solely by its employees or agents. Instead, it is when execution of a 

government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose 

edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the 

government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 

436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). 

“[A] municipality can be liable for an isolated constitutional violation 

when the person causing the violation has ‘final policymaking authority.’ Whether an 

official has policymaking authority is a question for the court to decide based on state 

law.” Christie v. Iopa, 176 F.3d 1231, 1235 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks 

and citations omitted). 

D. CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW

1. The following are the issues of fact to be tried and decided: 

Case 2:11-cv-02097-JAT Document 134 Filed 06/04/14 Page 5 of 18
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6 

Issue # 1: Whether the Town of Fountain Hills has a policy of applying 

state statutes regardless of their constitutionality. 

Plaintiff Contends: The Town’s Clerk, Interim Town Manager, and Town 

Attorney made a conscious decision to threaten to apply or threaten to apply Arizona’s 

campaign finance statutes to Plaintiff without regard to the constitutionality of those 

laws. Moreover, Arizona campaign finance statutes are so vague and complicated that 

they permit (intentionally or not) local variation, and the Town thus had to form local 

policies and customs in enforcing those laws. 

Defendant Contends: The Town does not have a policy of applying state 

statutes regardless of their constitutionality. In this case in particular, the Town made 

no conscious decision to apply a state statute regardless of its constitutionality because 

the Town made no decision to apply state statute against Ms. Galassini at all. This 

Court has already determined that there was no enforcement action by the Town and 

against the Plaintiff of Arizona’s Campaign Finance laws. In fact, there is no evidence 

of any policy of the Town – whether it be a longstanding Town policy or one made by 

an individual policymaker – to apply or threaten to apply Arizona’s campaign finance 

statutes to Plaintiff without regard to the constitutionality of those laws. In fact, the 

only testimony on the subject is that the Town had never before sent a letter like the one 

sent to Ms. Galassini and that the Town Clerk would never again send such a letter. 

2. The following are the issues of law to be tried and determined: 

Issue # 1: Whether the Town of Fountain Hills is liable under Monell v. 

Case 2:11-cv-02097-JAT Document 134 Filed 06/04/14 Page 6 of 18
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

7 

Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), for sending the October 12, 2011 

letter to Ms. Galassini. 

Plaintiff Contends: Because the Town’s officers made a conscious 

decision to apply Arizona’s campaign finance laws against Ms. Galassini, without 

regard to their constitutionality, the Town of Fountain Hills is liable under Monell v. 

Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), for the harm to Plaintiffs’ First 

Amendment rights. 

Defendant Contends: That this Court has already determined that the 

Town did not enforce Arizona’s Campaign Finance Laws against the Plaintiff. Again, 

no one at the Town made a conscious decision by anyone to apply Arizona’s campaign 

finance laws to Ms. Galassini. After consultation with the Town Attorney, the Town 

Clerk sent a letter to inform Ms. Galassini of the existence of certain potentially 

applicable statutes. Under state law, neither the Town Clerk nor the Town Attorney is a 

policymaker with respect to campaign finance laws and thus, the decision to send the 

letter does not subject the Town to liability under Monell. There is also no evidence that 

the Town has a custom, practice or policy of enforcing state statutes without regard to 

their constitutionality and therefore, the Town is not subject to liability under Monell. 

E. LIST OF WITNESSES

1. Plaintiff: 

Witnesses who shall be called at trial 

 Bevelyn Bender 

Case 2:11-cv-02097-JAT Document 134 Filed 06/04/14 Page 7 of 18
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

8 

 Town Clerk, Town of Fountain Hills 

 Town of Fountain Hills 

 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains 

 Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 

 Fact Witness – Ms. Bender is the Town Clerk and “filing officer” for the Town 

and will testify that the decision to send the letter of October 12, 2011, sent from Ms. 

Bender to Plaintiff, was made after consultation between herself, the Town Attorney 

(Andrew McGuire), and the then Interim Town Manager (Julie Ghetti). Ms. Bender will 

further testify that the Town’s policy when enforcing campaign finance laws is to abide 

by Arizona statutory law as written without further consideration of the constitutionality 

of those laws. 

 Andrew McGuire 

 Town Attorney, Town of Fountain Hills 

 Town of Fountain Hills 

 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains 

 Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 

 Fact Witness – Mr. McGuire is the Town Attorney and will testify that that the 

decision to send the letter of October 12, 2011, sent from the Town Clerk to Plaintiff, 

was made after a brief consultation between himself, the Town Clerk (Bevelyn Bender), 

and the then Interim Town Manager (Julie Ghetti). Mr. McGuire will further testify that 

the Town’s policy is to abide by Arizona statutory law as written when enforcing 

Case 2:11-cv-02097-JAT Document 134 Filed 06/04/14 Page 8 of 18
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

9 

campaign finance laws without making an independent determination of the 

constitutionality of those laws. 

Witnesses who may be called at trial 

Witnesses who are unlikely to be called at trial 

 Julie Ghetti 

 Deputy Town Manager/Finance Director, Town of Fountain Hills 

 Town of Fountain Hills 

 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains 

 Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 

 Fact Witness – Ms. Ghetti was the Interim Town Manager at the time the 

decision to send the letter of October 12, 2011, sent from the Town Clerk to Plaintiff, 

was made. If Bevelyn Bender and/or Andrew McGuire do not so testify, she would 

testify that the decision to send the letter was made after consultation between herself, 

the Town Attorney (Andrew McGuire), and the Town Clerk (Bevelyn Bender). 

2. Defendant: 

Witnesses who shall be called at trial 

Bevelyn Bender 

 Town Clerk, Town of Fountain Hills 

Case 2:11-cv-02097-JAT Document 134 Filed 06/04/14 Page 9 of 18
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

10 

 Town of Fountain Hills 

 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains 

 Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 

 Ms. Bender is the Town Clerk for the Town of Fountain Hills. She is expected to 

testify about her role as the election officer for the Town and regarding what lead up to 

and followed her drafting of the October 12, 2011 letter to Ms. Galassini, which 

includes that no enforcement action was ever taken against Ms. Galassini, and that no 

enforcement action was ever intended to be taken against Ms. Galassini. She is 

expected to testify that while she follows what is written in state statute, she seeks 

advice or counsel from the Town Attorney regarding interpretation of most issues 

regarding the campaign finance statutes. She is also expected to testify that the October 

12 letter was not issued pursuant to Town policy, and that there is no Town policy or 

practice with regard to enforcement of the campaign finance laws. Finally, she is 

expected to testify that Town does not enforce campaign finance statutes without regard 

to their constitutionality. She is also expected to testify that the October 12 letter was 

not issued pursuant to Town policy, but rather only as a good faith gesture to put 

Plaintiff on notice that her proposed actions may in fact be subject to Arizona statutes. 

 

Andrew McGuire 

 Town Attorney, Town of Fountain Hills 

 Town of Fountain Hills 

 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains 

Case 2:11-cv-02097-JAT Document 134 Filed 06/04/14 Page 10 of 18
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

11 

 Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 

Mr. McGuire is the Town Attorney for the Town of Fountain Hills. He is 

expected to testify that in his role as Town Attorney, under the statutes, he is charged 

with enforcing the campaign finance laws. He is also expected to testify that the Town 

has no policies regarding the enforcement of campaign finance laws and that he 

provides advice to the Town on issues raised under the campaign finance statutes on a 

case-by-case basis. He is expected to testify that the Town does not have a policy or 

custom of enforcing statutes without regard to their constitutionality. He is also 

expected to testify that the October 12 letter was not issued pursuant to Town policy, but 

rather only as a good faith gesture to put Plaintiff on notice that her proposed actions 

may be subject to Arizona statutes. 

Witnesses who may be called at trial 

Julie Ghetti 

 Deputy Town Manager/Finance Director, Town of Fountain Hills 

 Town of Fountain Hills 

 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains 

Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 

If called, Ms. Ghetti is expected to testify that in her role as Interim Town 

Manager, her job was to see that the policies of the Town Council, the Town 

policymaker, were carried out. She is expected to testify that there is and was no Town 

policy regarding enforcement of Arizona’s campaign finance statutes. She is also 

Case 2:11-cv-02097-JAT Document 134 Filed 06/04/14 Page 11 of 18
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

12 

expected to testify that the October 12 letter was not issued pursuant to Town policy, but 

rather only as a good faith gesture to put Plaintiff on notice that her proposed actions 

may in fact be subject to Arizona statutes. 

Dina Galassini 

She is expected to testify that she has no knowledge or evidence of the Town’s 

enforcement of any campaign finance statute – or any other statute – against her. She is 

also expected to testify that she has no knowledge or evidence related to any Town 

policy regarding the Town’s enforcement of state statutes without regard to their 

constitutionality. Finally, she is expected to testify that the October 12, 2011 letter was 

the one and only political interaction she had ever had with the Town. 

Witnesses who are unlikely to be called at trial 

Amy Chan – Deposition testimony only 

Jim Drake – Deposition testimony only 

Each party understands that it is responsible for ensuring that the 

witnesses it wishes to call to testify are subpoenaed. Each party further understands that 

any witness a party wishes to call shall be listed on that party’s list of witnesses above 

and that party cannot rely on that witness having been listed or subpoenaed by another 

party. 

Case 2:11-cv-02097-JAT Document 134 Filed 06/04/14 Page 12 of 18
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

13 

F. LIST OF EXHIBITS 

1. The following exhibits are admissible in evidence and may be 

marked in evidence by the Clerk: 

 a. Plaintiff’s Exhibits: 

1. Letter from Town Clerk to Plaintiff (October 12, 2011) including 

attached email from Ms. Galassini (personal contact information redacted) 

(FTNHILLS00209-12) 

2. Campaign Finance 101 for City and Town Clerks – Arizona 

Municipal Clerks Association Election Training – July 2009 – Reference Outline 

(ARIZ002572-97) 

3. Email from Jim Drake to James Barton dated October 28, 2011 RE: 

FW: registration of committee question for Fountain Hills (ARIZ000016-17) 

 b. Defendant’s Exhibits: 

1. Email string between Bev Bender to Dina Galassini dated October 

17, 2011 (FTNHILLS00191-00192; also PL0013-0014) 

2. Email from Bev Bender to Mayor and Council dated October 12, 

2011 (FTNHILLS00197) 

3. Email from Jim Drake to Amy Chan and Kris Kingsmore dated 

October 17, 2011 (ARIZ00001) 

4. Email from Kris Kingsmore to Jim Drake and Amy Chan dated 

October 17, 2011 (ARIZ00002) 

5. Email from Amy Chan to Kris Kingsmore and Jim Drake dated 

Case 2:11-cv-02097-JAT Document 134 Filed 06/04/14 Page 13 of 18
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

14 

October 17, 2011 (ARIZ00005-00006) 

6. Email from Jim Drake to James Barton dated October 28, 2011 Re: 

FW: Registration of committee question for Fountain Hills (ARIZ00016-00017) 

7. Email from Dina Galassini to caseinquiry@goldwaterinstitute.org 

dated October 18, 2011 (PL0011) 

8. Email from Dina Galassini to “Schweikert David” dated October 

18, 2011 (PL0012) 

9. Email from Dina Galassini to Stephen and Diane Jones dated 

October 13, 2011 (PL0027) 

2. As to the following exhibits, the parties have reached the following 

stipulations: 

a. Plaintiff’s Exhibits: 1 & 3. Defendant will stipulate to the 

admission of pages ARIZ002572 and ARIZ002576 from Plaintiff’s Ex. No. 2. 

 b. Defendant’s Exhibits: Plaintiff will stipulate to the 

admission of Defendant’s Exhibits 1-6. 

3. As to the following exhibits, the party (“objection party”) against 

whom the exhibit is to be offered objects to the admission of the exhibit and offers the 

objection (legal objection stated in few words – no narrative) stated below: 

a. Plaintiff’s Exhibits: Defendant stipulates to admission of 

Plaintiff’s exhibits subject to qualifications above. 

b. Defendant’s Exhibits: Exhibits 7-9 – Objection: Not 

Relevant. 

Case 2:11-cv-02097-JAT Document 134 Filed 06/04/14 Page 14 of 18
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

15 

c. If the objecting party seeks to use an exhibit listed by an 

offering party, an asterisk shall be placed next to that exhibit number, and the offering 

party shall set forth any objections that party reserves if the objecting party offers that 

exhibit. 

 d. The offering party shall bring all marked exhibits to trial the 

morning of trial; the offering party may not remove any exhibits after the parties’ 

meeting. In other words, all exhibits marked at the meeting shall be brought, in their 

complete form, to trial. 

4. Each party hereby acknowledges by signing this joint Proposed 

Final Pretrial Order that any objections not specifically raised herein are waived. 

G. DEPOSITIONS TO BE OFFERED 

 30(b)(6) Deposition of Amy Chan (August 23, 2012) 

 Start Stop 

 page/line 9:5 9:17 

 10:16 10:24 

 12:4 13:5 

 40:10 40:25 

 41:16 42:4 

 30(b)(6) Deposition of Jim Drake (August 23, 2012) 

 Start Stop 

 Page/line 10:4 10:21 

 10:22 11:6 

Case 2:11-cv-02097-JAT Document 134 Filed 06/04/14 Page 15 of 18
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

16 

 24:15 24:25 

 25:1 25:17 

 27:17 27:24 

 28:17 29:17 

 30:15 31:14 

 Deposition of Julie Ghetti (August 20, 2012) 

 Start Stop 

 Page/line 9:2 9:7 

 9:19 9:21 

 17:5 18:8 

 21:9 21:12 

 22:3 22:7 

 22:16 22:25 

 24:16 24:18 

Each party hereby acknowledges by signing this joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order that 

any deposition not listed as provided herein will not be allowed, absent good cause. 

H. MOTIONS IN LIMINE (JURY TRIAL) 

None. This case shall be tried to the Court. 

I. LIST OF PENDING MOTIONS 

Notice of Seeking Injunction as a Remedy 

J. ESTIMATED LENGTH OF TRIAL 

0 hours - Jury selection (not applicable) 

Case 2:11-cv-02097-JAT Document 134 Filed 06/04/14 Page 16 of 18
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

17 

.5 hours - Opening statements 

2.5 hour - Plaintiff's case (including rebuttal, if any) 

2.5 hour - Defendant's case 

.5 hour - Closing arguments 

6.0 hours - Total 

K. TRIAL DATE 

September 3, 2014 

L. JURY DEMAND 

No jury trial has been requested. 

M-1. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

The separately lodged Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are 

incorporated by reference into this joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order. 

N. CERTIFICATIONS 

The undersigned counsel for each of the parties in this action do hereby certify 

and acknowledge the following: 

1. All discovery has been completed. 

2. The identity of each witness has been disclosed to opposing counsel. 

3. Each exhibit listed herein: (1) is in existence; (2) is numbered; and (3) has 

been disclosed and shown to opposing counsel. 

4. The parties have complied in all respects with the mandates of the 

Court’s Rule 16 Scheduling Order and Order Setting Final Pretrial Conference. 

5. The parties have made all of the disclosures required by the Federal Rules 

Case 2:11-cv-02097-JAT Document 134 Filed 06/04/14 Page 17 of 18
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

18 

of Civil Procedure. (Unless otherwise previously ordered to the contrary.) 

6. The parties acknowledge that once this joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order 

has been signed and lodged by the parties, no amendments to this Order can be made 

without leave of Court. 

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: 

/s/ Paul Avelar /s/ Jeffrey T. Murray 

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant 

/s/ Diana Day 

Attorney for Intervenor-Defendant 

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that this Proposed Final Pretrial Order jointly submitted by the 

parties is hereby APPROVED and ADOPTED as amended as the official Pretrial 

Order of this Court. 

 Dated this 4th day of June, 2014. 

Case 2:11-cv-02097-JAT Document 134 Filed 06/04/14 Page 18 of 18