Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02496/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02496-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)

---

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

ARIZONA CONTRACTORS

ASSOCIATION, INC., an Arizona nonprofit corporation; ARIZONA

EMPLOYERS FOR IMMIGRATION

REFORM, INC., an Arizona non-profit

corporation; CHAMBER OF

COMMERCE OF THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA, a Washington

D.C. non-profit corporation; ARIZONA

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, an

Arizona non-profit corporation;

ARIZONA HISPANIC CHAMBER OF

COMMERCE, INC., an Arizona nonprofit corporation; ARIZONA FARM

BUREAU FEDERATION, an Arizona

non-profit corporation; ARIZONA

RESTAURANT AND HOSPITALITY

ASSOCIATION, an Arizona non-profit

corporation; ASSOCIATED MINORITY

CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, an

Arizona non-profit limited liability

company; ARIZONA ROOFING

CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, an

Arizona non-profit corporation;

NATIONAL ROOFING

CONTRACTORS’ ASSOCIATION, an

Illinois not-for-profit corporation;

WAKE UP ARIZONA! INC., an

Arizona non-profit corporation; and

ARIZONA LANDSCAPE

CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION,

INC., an Arizona non-profit corporation, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV07-02496-PHX-NVW 

ORDER

Case 2:07-cv-02496-NVW Document 23 Filed 12/13/07 Page 1 of 4
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 -

CRISS CANDELARIA, Apache County

Attorney; ED RHEINHEIMER, Cochise

County Attorney; TERENCE C.

HANER, Coconino County Attorney;

DAISY FLORES, Gila County Attorney;

KENNY ANGLE, Graham County

Attorney; DEREK D. RAPIER, Greenlee

County Attorney; MARTIN BRANNAN,

LaPaz County Attorney; ANDREW P.

THOMAS, Maricopa County Attorney;

MATTHEW J. SMITH, Mohave County

Attorney; JAMES CURRIER, Navajo

County Attorney; BARBARA

LAWALL, Pima County Attorney;

JAMES P. WALSH, Pinal County

Attorney; GEORGE SILVA, Santa Cruz

County Attorney; SHEILA POLK,

Yavapai County Attorney; JON SMITH,

Yuma County Attorney; TERRY

GODDARD, Attorney General of the

State of Arizona; and FIDELIS V.

GARCIA, Director of the Arizona

Registrar of Contractors,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Before the court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and

Preliminary Injunction (doc. # 4), Motion for Expedited Discovery and to Waive Rule

26(d) (doc. # 7) (which does not attach any proposed discovery request), and Motion for

Protective Order Regarding John Doe Members (doc. # 13). No proof of service has been

filed for any Defendant, but counsel have filed notices of appearance on behalf of

Defendants Thomas, Goddard, and Garcia. 

By this order a scheduling conference will be set to fix a prompt and fair schedule

for proceeding on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and other motions in light

of the gravity and magnitude of the relief sought. The court is confident that the

Defendants, all of whom are public officials, and the Plaintiffs will cooperate for the

expeditious and effective presentation of the undisputed facts, the legal issues, and the

evidence on any disputed material facts. The scheduling conference will be set on

December 18, 2007, at 1:30 p.m., which gives a minimal time for the new Defendants to

Case 2:07-cv-02496-NVW Document 23 Filed 12/13/07 Page 2 of 4
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 -

review this litigation, confer with their counsel, and be ready to address scheduling. The

court will hear the Motion for Preliminary Injunction with all promptness after hearing

the views of all parties concerning scheduling.

Plaintiffs also request that the court set a hearing on Plaintiffs’ request for a

temporary restraining order to enjoin enforcement of the Legal Arizona Workers Act,

A.R.S. §§ 23-211 through 214 (the Act), which takes effect on January 1, 2008. This

request for injunction before the new Defendants can marshal their case is problematic. 

The court is familiar with substantive issues briefed in the previous litigation, but some

were not adequately addressed. Arizona Contractors Association, Inc. v. Napolitano, No.

CV 07-1355-PHX-NVW (D. Ariz. 2007). Unless the new Defendants elect to add

nothing to what was said in the earlier case, they may not have an adequate opportunity to

express their views. 

Moreover, the urgency that Plaintiffs feel is of their own making. In the prior

litigation they were on notice in September that they may be out of court unless they sued

one or more appropriate county attorneys, which they could have done with trivial

expense and no delay. Plaintiffs have now dissipated the time available for the

appropriate defendants to present their case and for the court to deliberate and rule after

hearing both sides. 

Delay in seeking emergency injunctive relief is a factor to be considered in

weighing the propriety of the relief. Lydo Enterprises, Inc. v. Las Vegas, 745 F.2d 1211,

1213 (9th Cir. 1984). Where the untimely filing of a suit and its attendant request for a

temporary restraining order is a direct consequence of a party’s tactical decisions, such

unreasonable delay evidences a lack of diligence and is grounds for denial. See Apache

Survival Coalition v. United States, 118 F.3d 663, 665-66 (9th Cir. 1997) (denying

temporary restraining order to halt mountaintop construction of telescope where the

plaintiff filed its suit only after its “administrative strategy” failed and construction had

begun). 

Case 2:07-cv-02496-NVW Document 23 Filed 12/13/07 Page 3 of 4
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 -

Counsel may address these and all other pertinent issues at the hearing on the

motion for temporary restraining order, which will be set at the same time as the

scheduling conference.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Temporary Restraining Order (doc. # 4) and a scheduling and case management

conference are set for December 18, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. If any Defendant elects not to

take an active role in the defense of this action, that party is not required to attend the

hearing but will be bound by any orders of the court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all counsel discuss and be prepared to address

with the court: (1) acceleration of briefing and hearing on the Motion for Preliminary

Injunction (doc. # 4) to the earliest possible time; (2) stipulation to undisputed facts or to

trial in part or in whole on written submissions, including agreement to the record in the

previous litigation; and (3) consolidation of the hearing on preliminary injunction with

trial on the merits pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ counsel immediately transmit a copy

of this order to counsel for all Defendants who have not yet appeared in this action.

DATED this 13th day of December 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-02496-NVW Document 23 Filed 12/13/07 Page 4 of 4