Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00153/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00153-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Paul B. Mohr, Jr. and Lydia BustamanteMohr, husband and wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Murphy Elementary School District 21

of Maricopa County; William E. Grimes

and Theresa M. Grimes; and Terri

Swanson and John Doe Swanson,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-153-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants in state court on November 9, 2009.

Dkt. #1-1 at 8-13. The complaint sought declaratory relief based on contract and the Arizona

Constitution. Id. ¶¶ 20-24. The amended complaint, filed in state court on January 14, 2010,

asserts five claims: violation of Arizona’s open meeting law, declaratory judgement based

on contract, declaratory judgment based on Arizona statutory rights and federal due process

rights, federal civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and tortious interference with

contract. Dkt. #1-3 at 75-88. On January 25, 2010, Defendants removed the action to this

Court based on federal question jurisdiction. Dkt. #1.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand, arguing that removal was improper because

Defendants did not remove the case within 30 days of when they were first on notice of a

federal question. Dkt. #7. Plaintiffs also have filed a motion for temporary restraining order

and order to show cause. Dkt. #8. The Court will deny that motion to the extent it seeks a

Case 2:10-cv-00153-DGC Document 10 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

temporary restraining order. Plaintiffs request an expedited ruling on the motion to remand,

not injunctive relief. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not shown that they are likely to succeed on

the merits of the remand issue. See Am. Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. City of L.A., 559 F.3d 1046,

1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard for injunctive relief).

The Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion (Dkt. #8) to the extent they request an

expedited ruling on the motion to remand. Defendant shall file a response to the motion to

remand by February 5, 2010. Plaintiffs shall file a reply by February 10, 2010. The Court

will then issue a prompt ruling on the motion. The Court will set the matter for a hearing

only if oral argument will aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Lake at Las

Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991);

Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order and order to show cause

(Dkt. #8) is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is denied as to

the request for a temporary restraining order and granted to the extent

Plaintiffs seek an expedited ruling on the motion to remand (Dkt. #7).

2. Defendants shall file a response to the motion to remand by February 5, 2010,

and Plaintiffs shall file a reply by February 10, 2010. Plaintiffs shall call the

Court once the reply has been filed and the Court will then issue a prompt

ruling. 

DATED this 1st day of February, 2010.

 

Case 2:10-cv-00153-DGC Document 10 Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 2