- 1 - PHOENIX 53387-11 591022v4

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

Firm E-Mail for Official Court Documents

courtdocs@dickinsonwright.com

Scot L. Claus (#014999)

sclaus@dickinsonwright.com

Vail C. Cloar (#032011)

vcloar@dickinsonwright.com

Holly M. Zoe (#033333)

hzoe@dickinsonwright.com

DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400

Phoenix, AZ 85004-4568

Phone: (602) 285-5000

Fax: (844) 670-6009

Attorneys for City Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

The Satanic Temple and Michelle Shortt,

Plaintiffs,

v.

City of Scottsdale, Arizona, by it City Council, 

consisting of the Mayor and council members, 

WJ Jim Layne, Suzanne Klapp, Virginia Korte, 

Kathy Littlefield, Guy Phillips, and David 

Smith,

Defendants.

Case No. CV 18-00621-PHX-DGC

CITY OF SCOTTSDALE’S ANSWER 

TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

For its answer to the First Amended Complaint (Doc 57) (the “FAC”), Defendant the City 

of Scottsdale (the “City”) admits, denies, and alleges as follows: 

1. The City admits that the FAC is filed pursuant to the Court’s minute entry order requiring 

Plaintiffs to divulge the real parties in interest pursuant to Rule 17. The City denies the 

balance of Paragraph 1.

2. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 2, as the FAC adds a host of factual 

allegations and legal conclusions that were not present in the original Complaint. 

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 61 Filed 09/20/19 Page 1 of 8
- 2 - PHOENIX 53387-11 591022v4

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

3. The City denies that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the matter because, inter 

alia, Plaintiffs lack standing to seek the requested relief; The Satanic Temple, Inc. and 

Adversarial Truth, LLC did not exist at the time of the alleged events and cannot have 

suffered a redressable injury; The United Federation of Churches, LLC is unauthorized to 

transact business in Arizona and is barred by statute from pursuing litigation; and Michelle 

Shortt was acting on behalf of those unauthorized entities and not in an individual capacity.

4. The City admits that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to issue declaratory relief 

generally, but denies that any such jurisdiction exists in this case. 

5. The City admits the allegations of paragraph 5. 

6. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction the City denies the allegations of 

paragraph 6. 

7. The City denies that “The Satanic Temple” is a religious organization because, inter alia, 

its members do not profess to believe in or worship any supernatural power, theistic deity, 

or controlling power.

1

8. The City admits that the quoted language appears on the listed URL address, which is 

owned by “The United Federation of Churches, LLC.” The City lacks sufficient 

information to form a belief about the truth of the balance of paragraph 8, and therefore 

denies the same.

9. The City lacks sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of paragraph 9, and 

therefore denies the same.

10.The City lacks sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of paragraph 10, and 

therefore denies the same. The City affirmatively alleges that The Satanic Temple, Inc. did 

not exist at the time of the events that give rise to the FAC. The City further alleges that 

The Satanic Temple, Inc. is not authorized to transact business within the State of Arizona, 

 1 The City further objects to the generalized use of “The Satanic Temple” in the FAC, as its 

use makes it impossible to discern which allegations pertain to which of the named Plaintiffs, 

if any.

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 61 Filed 09/20/19 Page 2 of 8
- 3 - PHOENIX 53387-11 591022v4

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

and is barred from pursuing litigation before this Court. The City further affirmatively 

alleges that the United Federation of Churches, LLC never sought, nor did it receive, 

authorization to transact business in the State of Arizona.

11.The City denies the allegations of paragraph 11.

12.The City lacks sufficient information to form a belief why Ms. Shortt sought to speak prior 

to a City Council meeting. The City denies the balance of paragraph 12. 

13.The City admits that Ms. Shortt has resigned as a “chapter head.” The City lacks sufficient 

information to form a belief about the truth of the balance of paragraph 13, and therefore 

denies the same.

14.The City lacks sufficient information to form a belief about the presence of members of 

any named plaintiff in Arizona or in Scottsdale, and therefore denies the same. The balance 

of paragraph 14 states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the extent a 

response is required, the City denies the balance of paragraph 14. 

15.The City admits that it is a municipal corporation and is located within the Court’s district. 

The City denies the balance of paragraph 15. 

16.The City denies the allegations of paragraph 16. 

17.The City admits that it is governed by a charter, and that the quoted language appears in the 

City Charter.

18.The City admits that the City Council appoints and receives reports from the City Manager, 

and that the quoted language appears in the City Charter. The City denies that the City 

Council has direct “supervisory authority” over the City Manager in all respects. 

19.The City admits the allegations of paragraph 19.

20.The City admits that it sometimes opens its meetings with an invocation. The City 

affirmatively alleges that it opens its meetings with a moment of silence rather than an 

invocation.

21.The City denies the allegations of paragraph 21. 

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 61 Filed 09/20/19 Page 3 of 8
- 4 - PHOENIX 53387-11 591022v4

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

22.The City denies the allegations of paragraph 22. 

23.The City denies the allegations of paragraph 23. 

24.The City admits that it had no written policy formalizing its policy regarding speakers 

requesting to give an invocation. The City admits that Exhibit 1 is attached to the 

Complaint, but objects to the inclusion of a partial and incomplete list. 

25.The City admits Ms. Kuester solicits religious groups to give a pre-meeting invocation. The 

City lacks sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of paragraph 25, and 

therefore denies the same.

26.The City denies the allegations of paragraph 26.

27.The City denies the allegations of paragraph 27. 

28.The City admits that Ms. Shortt was placed on a schedule to speak prior to a City Council 

meeting, and that Ms. Shortt was given the opportunity to speak. The City denies that 

several of the Plaintiffs existed as of February 8, 2015, and therefore denies the balance of 

paragraph 28. 

29.The City admits that Ms. Shortt requested that her invocation be rescheduled due to a 

stated scheduling conflict. The City admits that Ms. Shortt was rescheduled for July 6, 

2018.

30.The City admits that Ms. Kuester testified consistently with the allegations of paragraph 

30. The City is without sufficient information to admit or deny what was said to Ms. 

Kuester at some unidentified point in time.

31.The City denies the allegations of paragraph 31.

32.Paragraph 32 improperly incorporates the allegations of a superseded pleading by 

reference, and the allegations are a nullity. To the extent that a response is required, the 

City denies the allegations of 32.

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 61 Filed 09/20/19 Page 4 of 8
- 5 - PHOENIX 53387-11 591022v4

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

33. Paragraph 33 improperly incorporates the allegations of a superseded pleading by 

reference, and the allegations are a nullity. To the extent that a response is required, the 

City denies the allegations of 33.

34. Paragraph 34 improperly incorporates the allegations of a superseded pleading by 

reference, and the allegations are a nullity. To the extent that a response is required, the 

City denies the allegations of 34.

35. Paragraph 35 improperly incorporates the allegations of a superseded pleading by 

reference, and the allegations are a nullity. To the extent that a response is required, the 

City denies the allegations of 35.

36.The City admits that Mr. Biesemeyer testified consistently with the allegations of 

paragraph 36. The City denies that expressing “concern” is evidence of any antipathy or is 

in any way unlawful. The City affirmatively alleges that the decision to inform Ms. Shortt 

that she could not give her invocation was done independently of any concern from 

Councilmember Klapp.

37.The City admits that the denial occurred later in time than when Councilmember Klapp 

voiced her concerns. The City affirmatively alleges that the decision to inform Ms. Shortt 

that she could not give her invocation was done independently of any concern from 

Councilmember Clapp. The City denies it did anything to prevent Ms. Shortt from 

attempting to explain a legitimate “substantial connection” to the City, and affirmatively 

alleges it heard nothing from Ms. Shortt following the denial of her request.

38.The City admits that the basis of its denial was the absence of any substantial connection 

to the City by Ms. Shortt, who is a Tucson resident with no known connection to 

Scottsdale.

39.The City denies the allegations of paragraph 39. 

40.The City lacks sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of paragraph 40, and 

therefore denies the same.

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 61 Filed 09/20/19 Page 5 of 8
- 6 - PHOENIX 53387-11 591022v4

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

41. Paragraph 41 contains bare editorial comments to which no response is required. To the 

extent that a response is required, the City denies the allegations of paragraph 41.

42.The City denies the allegations of paragraph 42.

43.The City denies the allegations of paragraph 43.

44.The City lacks sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of paragraph 44, and 

therefore denies the same.

45.Paragraph 45 improperly incorporates the allegations of a superseded pleading, and no 

response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the City denies the 

allegations of paragraph 45.

46.The City denies that Islam is a “new religion.” The City lacks sufficient information to 

form a belief about the truth of the balance of paragraph 46, and therefore denies the same.

47. Paragraph 47 states a pure legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent 

that paragraph 47 is construed to contain an allegation of fault, the City denies the same.

48.The City denies the allegations of paragraph 48.

49.The City denies the allegations of paragraph 49. 

50.The City denies the allegations of paragraph 50.

51.Paragraph 51 states a pure legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent 

that paragraph 51 is construed to contain an allegation of fault, the City denies the same.

52.Paragraph 52 states a pure legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent 

that paragraph 51 is construed to contain an allegation of fault, the City denies the same.

53.The City denies the allegations of paragraph 53. 

54.The City denies the allegations of paragraph 54.

Affirmative Defenses

55. For its first affirmative defense, the City alleges a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

56.For its second affirmative defense, the City alleges that the Plaintiffs jointly or severally 

lack standing to pursue their claims. 

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 61 Filed 09/20/19 Page 6 of 8
- 7 - PHOENIX 53387-11 591022v4

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

57. For its third affirmative defense, the City alleges failure to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted. 

58. For its fourth affirmative defense, the City alleges unclean hands. 

59. For its fifth affirmative defense, the City alleges estoppel.

60. For its sixth affirmative defense, the City alleges waiver.

WHEREFORE, having answered Plaintiffs’ FAC, the City asks the Court to enter 

judgment against Plaintiffs an in favor of the City: 

A. Dismissing Plaintiffs’ FAC with prejudice; 

B. Awarding Plaintiffs none of their requested relief; and

C. Awarding the City its taxable costs, as well as any other relief the Court deems just and 

proper.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 20th day of September, 2019. 

DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC

By: /s/ Scot L. Claus 

Scot L. Claus

Vail C. Cloar

Holly M. Zoe

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4568

Attorneys for City Defendants

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 61 Filed 09/20/19 Page 7 of 8
- 8 - PHOENIX 53387-11 591022v4

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 20, 2019, I electronically transmitted the attached 

document to the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, and which will be sent 

electronically to all registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing, and 

paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered participants.

By: /s/ Janet Hawkins

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 61 Filed 09/20/19 Page 8 of 8