Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02482/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02482-19/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

JAVIER TORRES, ALMA SANTIAGO

and LIA RIVADENEYRA, on behalf of

themselves and others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

TERRY GODDARD, Attorney General of

the State of Arizona, in his individual and

official capacities, and CAMERON

(“KIP”) HOLMES, in his individual

capacity,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2482-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Class (Docs. 79). On November

6, 2008, the Court entered an Order allowing Defendants to provide supplemental briefing

to address the necessity of a class certification hearing as well as the relevancy of

proposed testimony from law enforcement officials at such a hearing (Doc. 148-49). 

Subsequently, Plaintiffs were provided an opportunity to respond to Defendant’s

arguments (Docs. 150-51).

After reviewing the parties’ briefing, the Court finds that a hearing is warranted

before a ruling is made on class certification. When making the certification decision, the

Ninth Circuit has stated that the district court should analyze the allegations of the

complaint and other materials in the record, and consider the nature and scope of proof

needed to establish those allegations. Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 900-01 (9th Cir.

1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 816 (1976). However, an evidentiary hearing regarding

Case 2:06-cv-02482-SMM Document 154 Filed 01/26/09 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 -

class certification may be held when the record itself is insufficient to determine whether

certification is appropriate. Stolz v. United Bhd. of Carpenters and Joiners of America,

Local Union No. 971, 620 F. Supp. 396, 402 (D. Nev. 1985). 

At the class certification hearing, the parties are asked to be prepared to address

the following questions: 

1. Are the individual class members’ cases dissimilar enough as to prevent

class certification?

2. Are the class representatives Javier Torres and Lia Rivadeneyra members of

the proposed class and if so, are they able to adequately represent the class? 

Should a subclass be formed based upon the Sonora, Mexico warrant?

3. What is the effect of the Arizona Court of Appeals decision, State of

Arizona v. Western Union Financial Services, No. 1 CA-CV 07-0178, 2008

WL 2583853 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 1, 2008) on the class’ Fourth Amendment

claims? 

4. The Supreme Court has granted review and heard oral argument on the

commerce clause issues raised in the above Western Union case.

Consequently, should the Court wait to certify the class until the Arizona

Supreme Court renders a decision in State of Arizona v. Western Union

Financial Services (CV 08-0241-PR)? 

If Defendants believe that testimony from the law enforcement officials at the call

center would be helpful to answering the Court’s specific questions, such limited

testimony will be permitted at the hearing. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a class certification hearing will be held on

Wednesday, February 25, 2009, at 9 a.m. in Courtroom 605, 401 W. Washington

Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003.

DATED this 26th day of January, 2009.

Case 2:06-cv-02482-SMM Document 154 Filed 01/26/09 Page 2 of 2