Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02496/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02496-1/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 (lead)

No. CV07-02518-PHX-NVW (member)

ORDER

Case 2:07-cv-02496-NVW Document 75 Filed 12/21/07 Page 1 of 5
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. 

VALLE DEL SOL, INC.; CHICANOS

POR LA CAUSA, INC.; and SOMOS

AMERICA,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

TERRY GODDARD, in his official

capacity as Attorney General of the State

of Arizona; GALE GARRIOTT, in his

official capacity as the Director of the

Arizona Department of Revenue; and

ANDREW THOMAS, in his official

capacity as Maricopa County Attorney,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

The court set an accelerated hearing on December 18, 2007, on the temporary

restraining order portions of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and

Preliminary Injunction (doc. # 4 in No. CV 07-2496), and on Plaintiffs’ Application for

Temporary Restraining Order, etc. (doc. # 3 in No. CV 07-2518, now consolidated with

Case 2:07-cv-02496-NVW Document 75 Filed 12/21/07 Page 2 of 5
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 -

No. CV 07-2496). The motions for preliminary injunction are set for hearing on January

16, 2008, with a pre-hearing schedule worked out at the December 18, 2007 hearing.

To obtain a temporary restraining order, the moving party must show “(1) a strong

likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff if

the preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and

(4) advancement of the public interest (in certain cases).” See Los Angeles Memorial

Coliseum Comm’n v. National Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1980);

Slater & Assocs. Ins., Inc. v. Roork, No. CV 07-1965, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81373 at *2

(D. Ariz. Oct. 16, 2007). To meet this burden, the moving party may show either: “(1) a

likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury; or (2) that

serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply

in its favor.” Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 340 F.3d 810, 813 (9th

Cir. 2003) (quoting Walczak v. EPL Prolong, Inc., 198 F.3d 725, 731 (9th Cir. 1999)). 

These consolidated actions are refilings, with some changes in parties, of 

consolidated actions dismissed December 7, 2007, for failure to name sufficient

defendants. Arizona Contractors Ass’n, Inc. v. Napolitano, No. 07-1355 PHX-NVW

(Arizona Contractors I). Plaintiffs also appealed that judgment of dismissal and sought

an injunction pending appeal. By order entered this day in Arizona Contractors I, those

motions for injunction pending appeal are denied. That order is attached hereto and is

incorporated for its discussion of the reasons for denying both an injunction pending

appeal and the motions for temporary restraining order in this case. 

Plaintiffs’ motions sought an order that “Defendants are enjoined from enforcing”

A.R.S. §§ 23-211through 214, the Legal Arizona Workers Act (the Act). That relief was

rendered unnecessary at the December 18, 2007 hearing when the county attorneys

agreed they could not and would not bring any enforcement proceeding before February.

Plaintiffs then orally amended their motions to request a different temporary

restraining order, in effect a declaratory judgment, that they would not be liable for failure

Case 2:07-cv-02496-NVW Document 75 Filed 12/21/07 Page 3 of 5
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 -

to use E-Verify between January 1, 2008, and the time the injunction may be lifted. That

is now the requested relief before the court. 

Plaintiffs have established that one or more of their members will have to purchase

a computer and internet access to use E-Verify. However, their presentations are not

persuasive to the extent they contend that any great expense would be incurred. The

declaration of Mr. LeVecke, an owner of 57 franchise restaurants who has a full time

immigration compliance officer, that he would need 57 new computers for E-Verify

compliance is unpersuasive in light of his failure to address alternative business solutions.

Plaintiffs have not supplied any authority for their oral motion that the court can

enter a permanently binding declaratory judgment at the commencement of a case, styled

as a temporary restraining order, where no officer needs to be restrained. Absent any

authority, the court is uncertain that such relief would be a proper exercise of the

extraordinary power of temporary restraint.

Several of the county attorney Defendants properly object to the motions for

temporary restraining order as coming late and without enough time for them to respond

adequately. The reason the motions for preliminary injunction cannot be heard and

decided earlier than January, and therefore the reason Plaintiffs seek a temporary

restraining order, is that Plaintiffs chose not to sue one or more appropriate county

attorneys in Arizona Contractors I. 

Nevertheless, counsel for the Maricopa County Attorney acknowledged that she

has presented what she wants to concerning the motions for temporary restraining order. 

Therefore, the court decides the motions after considering all the factors.

 Even applying the general standards for issuance of a temporary restraining order,

Plaintiffs’ motions are wanting. As discussed in more detail in today’s order in Arizona

Contractors I, the balance of hardships tips sharply against Plaintiffs, not in their favor. 

Plaintiffs’ injury from complying with the law is far less than the harm that a pre-trial

declaratory judgment, styled as a temporary restraining order, would impose on others

Case 2:07-cv-02496-NVW Document 75 Filed 12/21/07 Page 4 of 5
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 -

and on the public interest. Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the

merits, much less a strong likelihood. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining

Order (doc. # 4 in No. CV 07-2496) and Plaintiffs’ Application for Temporary

Restraining Order (doc. # 3 in No. CV 07-2518, now consolidated with No. CV 07-2496)

are DENIED. This order does not dispose of the motions for preliminary injunction,

which are set for hearing on January 16, 2007.

DATED this 21st day of December 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-02496-NVW Document 75 Filed 12/21/07 Page 5 of 5