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

BARBARA 

LAWALL

PIMA 

COUNTY 

ATTORNEY

CIVIL 

DIVISION

BARBARA LAWALL

PIMA COUNTY ATTORNEY

CIVIL DIVISION

Daniel Jurkowitz, SBN 018428

Deputy County Attorney

32 North Stone Avenue, Suite 2100

Tucson, Arizona 85701

Telephone: 520-724-5700

Daniel.Jurkowitz@pcao.pima.gov

Attorney for Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

League of United Latin American Citizens 

Arizona; Arizona Students’ Association,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Michele Reagan, in her official capacity 

as Secretary of State of Arizona; Adrian 

Fontes, in his official capacity as Maricopa 

County Recorder,

Defendants,

No. 2:17-cv-04102-DGC

PIMA COUNTY RECORDER’S 

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO 

ENFORCE

Assigned to: 

Honorable David G. Campbell

Without waiving any jurisdictional objections, the Pima County Recorder, F. 

Ann Rodriguez, makes a special appearance to respond to the Motion to Enforce and 

asks that the motion be denied as to the Pima County Recorder for the reasons set 

forth below. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /
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

BARBARA 

LAWALL

PIMA 

COUNTY 

ATTORNEY

CIVIL 

DIVISION

I. Mr. Cisneros and the Pima County Recorder are both not parties to 

the case or the consent decree and the Court lacks personal and 

subject matter jurisdiction over them.

Neither Mr. Cisneros nor the Pima County Recorder were parties to this case. 

Accordingly, the Court did not have personal jurisdiction over the Pima County 

Recorder when the consent decree was ordered and the order does not directly bind 

the Pima County Recorder. F. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2). The Pima County Recorder was 

not in active concert or participation with any of the parties and was not even 

consulted about resolution of the consent decree. Even if she was, “[a] district court 

cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonparty...on the basis that the nonparty 

is acting ‘in active concert or participation,’ within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d) 

with a party who is subject to an injunction, unless personal jurisdiction is established 

over the nonparty.” Gucci Am., Inc. v. Weixing Li, 768 F.3d 122, 137 (2d Cir. 2014). 

That has not occurred. See also Swetland v. Curry, 188 F.2d 841, 843, (6th Cir. 1951) 

(not having been made a party to the injunction, county not bound in subsequent 

contempt proceedings); Kean v. Hurley, 179 F.2d 888 (8th Cir. 1950) (A judgment or 

decree for injunction is usually in personam and persons who are not parties to the 

injunction or in privity with them are not bound by the decree). The appropriate party 

to seek any relief from for any alleged violations of the consent decree would be the 

Arizona Secretary of State. 

Mr. Cisneros relies upon F. R. Civ. P. 71 as the basis for hailing the Pima 

County Recorder into court to enforce the consent decree. A consent decree however 

“...represents a compromise between parties who have waived their right to litigation 

and, in the interest of avoiding the risk and expense of suit, have giv[en] up something 

they might have won had they proceeded with the litigation.” United States v. Armour 

& Co., 402 U.S. 673, 681 (1971). Accordingly, “...a consent decree is not enforceable 
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

BARBARA 

LAWALL

PIMA 

COUNTY 

ATTORNEY

CIVIL 

DIVISION

directly or in collateral proceedings by those who are not parties to it even though 

they were intended to be benefited by it.” Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 

421 U.S. 723, 750 (1975). Further, Mr. Cisneros, who is not a party, lacks standing to 

seek affirmative relief under the consent decree. See e.g. Salter v. Douglas 

MacArthur State Technical College, 929 F.Supp. 1470, 1481 (M.D. Alabama 1996). 

II. The motion fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

In addition to the Pima County Recorder not being a party to the case or the 

consent decree, there is no case or controversy as there has been no violation of the 

consent decree. The consent decree directs a somewhat contradictory process where 

an applicant who holds an F-Type License, indicating non-citizenship, should be 

moved to a “not eligible” status and then county recorder should notify the applicant 

within 10 business days that, if this incorrect, the applicant can provide documentary 

proof of citizenship to the county recorder. Consent Decree (Dkt. 37) at 9. The 

delineated procedures, however, specifically refer to a person in “Fed Only Voter”

status and do not refer to a person who has been placed in a “not eligible” status. 

Consent Decree (Dkt. 37) at 10-12. Nevertheless, it appears that an appropriate 

process occurred for Mr. Cisneros. The Pima County Recorder was notified by the 

Arizona Secretary of State that Mr. Cisneros had an F-Type License. Notice was sent 

to Mr. Cisneros and he presented documentary proof of citizenship and was registered 

as a Full Ballot Voter upon presentation of such. There is no language in the consent 

decree directing that this be other than a new registration for someone who was 

previously in “not eligible” status. However, the Pima County Recorder, in her 

discretion, allowed the registration to relate back to the date upon which Mr. Cisneros 

first applied as potentially contemplated by the process in paragraph 3 of the consent 

decree and verified his early ballot for counting. See attached Exhibit A, Affidavit of 
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

BARBARA 

LAWALL

PIMA 

COUNTY 

ATTORNEY

CIVIL 

DIVISION

Chief Deputy Recorder/Registrar of Voters Christopher Roads. Accordingly, even if 

the Court were to consider the merits of the motion, there is no relief to be granted.

III. The motion is unnecessary and improper and the Court should 

issue sanctions. 

As previously related, this motion against the Pima County Recorder is 

unnecessary and improper. Further, the Pima County Recorder provides online realtime updates to all early ballot processing activities and that information is available 

anytime at https://www.recorder.pima.gov/VoterStats/BallotInfo. Mr. Cisneros 

apparently declined to avail himself of this opportunity and chose to instead file this 

unnecessary and improper motion incurring expense for Pima County and wasting the 

Court’s time. The Pima County Recorder respectfully requests that the Court issue an 

appropriate sanction for this unnecessary and improper litigation. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED November 13, 2018.

BARBARA LAWALL,

PIMA COUNTY ATTORNEY

By: /s/ Daniel Jurkowitz 

Daniel Jurkowitz, 

Deputy County Attorney
5 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

BARBARA 

LAWALL

PIMA 

COUNTY 

ATTORNEY

CIVIL 

DIVISION

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 13, 2018, I electronically transmitted the 

attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and 

transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following ECF registrants:

Danielle Lang

Paul M. Smith

J. Gerald Hebert

Adav Noti

Mark Gaber

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER

1411 K Street NW Suite 1400

Washington, DC 20005

dlang@campaignlegalcenter.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Joseph La Rue 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office 

2005 North Central Avenue

Phoenix, AZ 85004 

joseph.larue@azag.gov 

Attorney for Defendant Michele Reagan Secretary of State of Arizona

Talia Offord 

Deputy County Attorney 

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office 

301 West Jefferson Street 

Phoenix, AZ 85003 

offordt@mcao.maricopa.gov 

Attorneys for Defendant Adrian Fontes, Maricopa County Recorder

By: /s/ Katherine T. Syverson