Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01724/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01724-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Injunction

---

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 

National Association for the Advancement 

of Multijurisdiction Practice; Allison 

Girvin; and Mark Anderson, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Arizona Supreme Court; Hon. Rebecca 

White Berch, Chief Justice; Hon. W. Scot 

Bales, Vice Chief Justice; Hon. John 

Pelandar; Hon. Robert M. Brutinel, 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-01724-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19), Plaintiffs’ 

Motion to Amend (Doc. 21), Defendants’ Motion to Stay Plaintiffs’ First Motion for 

Summary Judgment (Doc. 29) and Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 31). 

For the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied as moot, 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend is granted, Defendants’ Motion to Stay is denied and 

Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time is granted. 

I. Motion to Amend

 Under Rule 15(a)(2), if a party has already amended its pleading once, any 

subsequent amendments may be made only with the opposing party’s written consent or 

the court’s leave. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, “[t]he court should freely give leave 

when justice so requires.” Id.; see also Universal Mortg. Co. v. Prudential Ins. Co., 799 

Case 2:12-cv-01724-BSB Document 35 Filed 12/18/12 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

F.2d 458, 459 (9th Cir. 1986). Leave to amend should be denied only if “the proposed 

amendment either lacks merit or would not serve any purpose because to grant it would 

be futile in saving the plaintiff’s suit.” 

 Defendants contend that leave to amend should be denied because the amendment 

would be futile in saving Plaintiffs’ suit. (Doc. 22 at 4.) However, Plaintiffs’ proposed 

Second Amended Complaint appears to add at least one claim that would not be 

dismissed by Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 21-1 at ¶¶ 73–76.) Plaintiffs 

allege that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff Allison Girvin for exercising her First 

Amendment right to petition the courts for redress by failing her by one point on the July 

2012 Arizona Bar Exam. (Id.) Defendants argue that this does not state a claim and that 

this is a false allegation. (Doc. 22 at 8.) However, state actions designed to retaliate 

against the exercise of First Amendment rights are actionable under § 1983. Soranno’s 

Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989). Defendants’ counsel’s 

declaration that these allegations are false do not cause this proposed claim to fail. As 

such, Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment is not entirely futile. The Court therefore grants 

Plaintiffs leave to file their Second Amended Complaint. 

 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is dismissed without prejudice to Defendants filing 

another Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Furthermore, 

Defendants’ Motion to Stay is denied. Defendants are ordered to respond to Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 

 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19) is DENIED AS MOOT. 

 2. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend (Doc. 21) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are 

directed to file and serve the Second Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of 

the date of this Order. 

 3. Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Doc. 29) is DENIED. 

 4. Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 31) is GRANTED. 

Defendants shall have to and including January 18, 2013, in which to respond to 

Case 2:12-cv-01724-BSB Document 35 Filed 12/18/12 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28). 

 Dated this 18th day of December, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-01724-BSB Document 35 Filed 12/18/12 Page 3 of 3