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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Russell Thaw, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) 2:15-cv-01703 JWS

)

vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION

)

Loretta Lynch, et al., ) [Re: Motions at Dockets 9 and 16] 

)

Defendants. )

)

I. MOTIONS PRESENTED

At docket 9 defendants United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch and

thirteen judges of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (collectively,

“Defendants”) move pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (2) for an order dismissing the

complaint of plaintiffs Russell Thaw, Sheryl Ann Phipps, John M. Daley, and Patent

Lawyer Doe (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). In a combined filing at docket 16, Plaintiffs

oppose Defendants’ motion and move for summary judgment under Rule 56. Plaintiffs’

summary judgment motion is supported by a separate “statement of material

undisputed facts” at docket 17. Defendants reply in support of their motion and oppose

Plaintiffs’ motion in a combined filing at docket 24. Defendants’ evidentiary objections

and response to Plaintiffs’ statement of facts is at docket 25. At docket 31, Plaintiffs

reply in support of their motion.

Oral argument was requested, but would not assist the court.

Case 2:15-cv-01703-JWS Document 32 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 16
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

II. BACKGROUND

Local Civil Rule 83.1 (“LRCiv 83.1”) limits eligibility for full admission to the bar of

the Arizona District Court to attorneys who are members of the Arizona Bar.1

 Plaintiffs,

four attorneys who are not Arizona Bar members, allege that this limitation violates

federal law. Specifically, they allege that LRCiv 83.1 violates (1) the Rules Enabling

Act; (2) the Supremacy Clause; (3) the First Amendment; (4) Due Process; and

(5) Equal Protection. 

III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. Rule 12(b)(6)

Defendants’ motion cites Rules 12(b)(1) and (b)(6). Under Rule 12(b)(1) a party

may seek dismissal of an action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because

Defendants do not assert any challenges to this court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, their

reliance on Rule 12(b)(1) is misplaced. Defendants’ challenges to the sufficiency of

Plaintiffs’ complaint fall squarely under Rule 12(b)(6).

Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff’s claims. In reviewing such

a motion, “[a]ll allegations of material fact in the complaint are taken as true and

construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”2 To be assumed true,

the allegations “may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action, but must

contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the

opposing party to defend itself effectively.”3 Dismissal for failure to state a claim can be

based on either “the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts

1LRCiv 83.1(a).

2Vignolo v. Miller, 120 F.3d 1075, 1077 (9th Cir. 1997).

3Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). 

-2-

Case 2:15-cv-01703-JWS Document 32 Filed 03/16/16 Page 2 of 16
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

alleged under a cognizable legal theory.”4 “Conclusory allegations of law . . . are

insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.”5 

To avoid dismissal, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to “‘state a claim to relief

that is plausible on its face.’”6 “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads

factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”7 “The plausibility standard is not akin to

a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant

has acted unlawfully.”8 “Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent

with’ a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility

of entitlement to relief.’”9

 “In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the

non-conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable inferences from that content, must be

plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.”10

B. Rule 56

Plaintiffs’ motion seeks summary judgment under Rule 56. Summary judgment

is appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”11 The materiality requirement

ensures that “only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under

4Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

5Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001).

6Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

7

Id.

8

Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

9

Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

10Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Starr, 652 F.3d

at 1216.

11Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

-3-

Case 2:15-cv-01703-JWS Document 32 Filed 03/16/16 Page 3 of 16
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

the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.”12 Ultimately,

“summary judgment will not lie if the . . . evidence is such that a reasonable jury could

return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”13

 However, summary judgment is mandated

“against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an

element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of

proof at trial.”14

 The moving party has the burden of showing that there is no genuine dispute as

to any material fact.15 Where the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial

on a dispositive issue, the moving party need not present evidence to show that

summary judgment is warranted; it need only point out the lack of any genuine dispute

as to material fact.16 Once the moving party has met this burden, the nonmoving party

must set forth evidence of specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for

trial.17 All evidence presented by the non-movant must be believed for purposes of

summary judgment, and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in favor of the

non-movant.18 However, the non-moving party may not rest upon mere allegations or

denials, but must show that there is sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual

dispute to require a fact-finder to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth at

trial.19

12Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

13

Id.

14Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

15

Id. at 323.

16

Id. at 323-25.

17Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49.

18

Id. at 255.

19

Id. at 248-49.

-4-

Case 2:15-cv-01703-JWS Document 32 Filed 03/16/16 Page 4 of 16
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

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiffs’ Due Process and Equal Protection Claims

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state Due Process and Equal

Protection claims.20 By not responding to this argument, Plaintiffs abandon these two

claims.21

 Counts four and five of the complaint will be dismissed.

B. Plaintiffs’ Rules Enabling Act and Supremacy Clause Claims

Counts one and two of Plaintiffs’ complaint allege that LRCiv 83.1 is inconsistent

with federal law and therefore violates the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071-72,

and the Supremacy Clause. Because these two counts overlap, they will be discussed

together.

“Federal courts have inherent and broad regulatory authority to make rules

respecting the admission, practice, and discipline of attorneys in the federal courts.”22

Two sources of these rules from the Rules Enabling Act are relevant here. The first is

§ 2072, which empowers the Supreme Court to promulgate “general rules of practice

and procedure,” including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “for cases in the United

States district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and

courts of appeals.”23 This authority is limited to procedural rules: no rule may “abridge,

enlarge or modify any substantive right.”24

20Doc. 9 at 11-12.

21See, e.g., Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 802 F. Supp. 2d

1125, 1132 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (collecting cases).

22Gallo v. U.S. Dist. Court For Dist. of Arizona, 349 F.3d 1169, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2003).

2328 U.S.C. § 2072(a).

2428 U.S.C. § 2072(b). See Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Ins.

Co., 559 U.S. 393, 406-07 (2010); Sain v. City of Bend, 309 F.3d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir. 2002)

(“The requirement that [the Federal Rules] be at least arguably procedural comes from the

Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072, which provided that the federal rules ‘shall not abridge,

enlarge or modify any substantive right.’”).

-5-

Case 2:15-cv-01703-JWS Document 32 Filed 03/16/16 Page 5 of 16
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

The second source is § 2071, which empowers courts to promulgate local rules

“for the conduct of their business.”25 This authority is limited to rules that are

“consistent with Acts of Congress and rules of practice and procedure prescribed

under” § 2072.26

Defendants argue that LRCiv 83.1 does not violate the Rules Enabling Act

because § 2072’s prohibition of substantive rules does not apply to local rules enacted

under § 2071 and, even if it did, LRCiv 83.1 does not violate that prohibition.27

 In

response, Plaintiffs argue that neither § 2072 rules nor § 2071 rules may be substantive

in nature, and LRCiv 83.1 violates this prohibition because it abridges, enlarges, and

modifies a host of substantive rights.

1. § 2072’s prohibition of substantive rules also applies to § 2071 rules 

Defendants’ argument that § 2072’s procedural-rule limitation does not apply to

rules prescribed under § 2071 relies primarily on Russell v. Hug, a case involving a

challenge to the Northern District of California’s General Order 2 (“GO2”). GO2 set

forth the Criminal Justice Act Plan for that court28 and, among other requirements, it

required members of the Indigent Defense Panel to be California Bar members.29 The

plaintiff, who was not a California Bar member, argued that GO2 violated both § 2071

and § 2072. This case is of no avail to Defendants because the Ninth Circuit held that

GO2 was not a “rule” at all,30 and therefore neither § 2071 nor § 2072 applied. 

2528 U.S.C. § 2071(a).

26

Id. Rule 83, which was adopted under § 2072, is in accord. Fed. R. Civ. P. 83 (“A

local rule must be consistent with . . . federal statutes and rules adopted under 28 U.S.C.

§[] 2072 . . . .”).

27Doc. 9 at 5-6.

28275 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2002).

29

Id. at 816.

30

Id. at 817, 819.

-6-

Case 2:15-cv-01703-JWS Document 32 Filed 03/16/16 Page 6 of 16
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

Defendants also rely on Giannini v. Real,

31

 but that case also is inapposite because the

Ninth Circuit did not address whether local rules must conform to § 2072’s standards.

Plaintiffs respond by noting that § 2071 was amended by the Judicial

Improvements and Access to Justice Act of 1988 (“JIAJA”). Before the JIAJA, § 2071

stated that local rules must “be consistent with Acts of Congress and rules of practice

and procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court.”32 The JIAJA struck out § 2071’s

reference to the Supreme Court and substituted a reference to § 2072.33

 According to

one commentary on this revision, this change “requires the rules promulgated on the

authority of § 2071 to conform to the requirements of § 2072 instead of merely to rules

promulgated by the Supreme Court.”34

 

Plaintiffs’ argument is persuasive. If Defendants were correct that local rules

need only comply with the Supreme Court’s § 2072 rules themselves, and not also the

statutory limitations to those rules, then the 1988 amendment to the Rules Enabling Act

would serve no purpose. The court holds that § 2071 local rules, like § 2072 rules of

general applicability, must be procedural in nature.35

31911 F.2d 354, 360 (9th Cir. 1990).

32

Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act, Pub. L. No. 100-702, § 403, 102

Stat. 4642 (1988) (emphasis added).

33David D. Siegel, COMMENTARY ON 1988 REVISION OF SECTION 2071, in 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2071 (West 2006).

34

Id.

35See Panama Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Ciramar Int’l Trading, Ltd., No. 08-21213-CIV,

2009 WL 812714, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 26, 2009) (“Section 2072(b) expressly limits the reach of

a court’s local rules to rules of practice and procedure: ‘Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or

modify any substantive right.’”).

-7-

Case 2:15-cv-01703-JWS Document 32 Filed 03/16/16 Page 7 of 16
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. LRCiv 83.1 does not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive

right.

The Supreme Court has held that the Rules Enabling Act’s limitation that rules

“shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right”36 means that the rule “must

‘really regulat[e] procedure,—the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties

recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for

disregard or infraction of them.”37

 The test for determining whether a rule falls under

this definition does not depend on whether “the rule affects a litigant’s substantive

rights; most procedural rules do.”38 Instead, the test depends on “what the rule itself

regulates: If it governs only the manner and the means by which the litigant[’s] rights

are enforced, it is valid; if it alters the rules of decision by which the court will adjudicate

those rights, it is not.”39

Applying this test, there is no doubt that LRCiv 83.1 regulates procedure. 

Plaintiffs are correct that LRCiv 83.1 may have a substantive effect on the rights of the

parties and attorneys who appear before the Arizona District Court. For example, the

rule prohibits a party from being represented by an attorney who is not a member of the

bar and does not qualify under one of the four exceptions set out at LRCiv 83.1(b). 

Nonetheless, it does not violate § 2072 because it regulates only the process for

enforcing rights, not “the rights themselves, the available remedies, or the rules of

decision by which the court adjudicate[s] either.”40 Stated differently, it “governs the

3628 U.S.C. § 2072(b).

37Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, 559 U.S. at 407 (plurality opinion) (quoting

Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1, 14 (1941)).

38

Id.

39

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

40

Id. at 407-08.

-8-

Case 2:15-cv-01703-JWS Document 32 Filed 03/16/16 Page 8 of 16
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

in-court dispute resolution processes rather than the dispute that brought the parties

into court.”41

Plaintiffs disagree, arguing that LRCiv 83.1 abridges, enlarges, and modifies the

following substantive rights: (1) the right of full faith and credit under 28 U.S.C. § 1738; 42

(2) the right of “federal bar admission” granted to all licensed attorneys under the

“National Rules for Bar Admission”;43 (3) the right to practice patent law free from state

restrictions;44

 (4) the right to be free from monopolies under federal antitrust law;

45

(5) the right under Rule 1 to a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every

action”;46 and (6) various First Amendment rights. Because plaintiffs’ complaint does

not allege claims under the “National Rules for Bar Admission” or federal antitrust laws,

there is no need to address these two arguments here.47 Plaintiffs’ First Amendment

arguments overlap with their arguments in support of their First Amendment cause of

action, and are discussed in the First Amendment section below.

a. Full faith and credit

The full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, provides that any state’s

official records “shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United

States” as they have in the state from which they are taken.48 Plaintiffs argue that

41

Johansen v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 810 F.2d 1377, 1380 (5th Cir.1987).

See also Morel v. DaimlerChrysler AG, 565 F.3d 20, 24-25 (1st Cir. 2009) (compiling cases).

42Doc. 16 at 60-61.

43

Id. at 61.

44

Id. at 57-59.

45

Id. at 65-67.

46

Id. at 67 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1).

47Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569; Villegas v. United States, 963 F. Supp. 2d 1145, 1155

(E.D. Wash. 2013).

48See also United States v. Towne, 997 F.2d 537, 541 (9th Cir. 1993).

-9-

Case 2:15-cv-01703-JWS Document 32 Filed 03/16/16 Page 9 of 16
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

LRCiv 83.1 violates this statute because it does not afford full faith and credit to the

records from other states showing that they are members of “the bar” of those states.49

As the Ninth Circuit held in Giannini, this argument lacks merit because no other state

has declared Plaintiffs members of the Arizona bar, which is the relevant requirement.50 

b. The right to practice patent law

Plaintiffs argue that LRCiv 83.1 abridges, enlarges, and modifies their inherent

right to practice patent law before the Arizona District Court because it adopts a state

law restriction on that practice.51 Plaintiffs’ second cause of action alleges that

LRCiv 83.1 violates the Supremacy Clause for the same reason.52 Their arguments rely

on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sperry v. Florida ex rel. Florida Bar.

53

 

In Sperry, an attorney was charged with the unauthorized practice of law

because he represented Florida clients before the United States Patent Office without a

Florida bar license. Because federal law regulated the ability to practice before the

Patent Office and allowed non-lawyers to do so, the Supreme Court held that “by virtue

of the Supremacy Clause, Florida may not deny to those failing to meet its own

qualifications the right to perform the functions within the scope of the federal

authority.”54 

Sperry is unavailing because there is no conflict between LRCiv 83.7 and rights

conferred by federal or state law. Even if non-Arizona-bar-members have the right to

49Doc. 16 at 60; Doc. 31 at 38.

50Giannini v. Real, 911 F.2d 354, 360 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Giannini’s claim lacks merit

because no act, record or judicial proceeding, in New Jersey or Pennsylvania, states that

Giannini is entitled to practice law in California.”).

51Doc. 16 at 58; Doc. 31 at 36.

52Doc. 1-1 at 13.

53373 U.S. 379, 383 (1963).

54

Id. at 385.

-10-

Case 2:15-cv-01703-JWS Document 32 Filed 03/16/16 Page 10 of 16
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

represent Arizona clients before the Patent Office, that does not provide those

individuals with the right to practice before the Arizona District Court. They are entirely

different tribunals and, as Defendants point out, there is “no authority permitting

reciprocity between the [Patent Office] and the court system.”55 Further, the Supremacy

Clause is not implicated because Arizona law is not in conflict with federal law.

56

 In fact,

the opposite is true: federal and state law is perfectly aligned because federal law

incorporates Arizona’s standards for bar admission. It does not violate the Supremacy

Clause for a federal law to incorporate state standards.57 

c. Rule 1

Plaintiffs argue that LRCiv 83.1 “abridges and modifies the primary aim and

purpose of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” as expressed in Rule 1, by delaying

and making more expensive the resolution of civil cases.58 This argument lacks merit

because Rule 1, like the rest of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides no

substantive rights.59

55Doc. 24 at 8.

56The Supremacy Clause provides that “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United

States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of

any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. CONST. art. VI, cl. 2.

57Cf. Augustine v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 429 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

(“Although a state cannot regulate the licensing requirements of attorneys before the Board,

federal law may adopt or incorporate state law standards as its own.”).

58Doc. 16 at 67; Doc. 31 at 45.

59See, e.g., Synanon Church v. United States, 557 F. Supp. 1329, 1330 n.2 (D.D.C.

1983) (“Plaintiff also argues that the right to a jury trial in this action is conferred by Rule 57 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This argument is seriously misguided. The Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure do exactly what their name implies-they establish procedural rules.

They do not create substantive rights.”).

-11-

Case 2:15-cv-01703-JWS Document 32 Filed 03/16/16 Page 11 of 16
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

C. Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Claims

The First Amendment states in pertinent part that “Congress shall make no law

. . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people peaceably to

assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”60 Plaintiffs

contend that LRCiv 83.1 violates their First Amendment right to free speech, to free

association, and to petition the Government. 

1. Free speech

Plaintiffs advance two arguments61 concerning their First Amendment right to

free speech: LRCiv 83.1 is a prior restraint on speech,62 and it is content-based

discrimination.63

 Both of these arguments fail because they “mistake the appropriate

60U.S. CONST. amend. I.

61Plaintiffs cite various cases in support their First Amendment argument that are not

First Amendment cases and, in any event, are unavailing. These cases include: a case

decided on supervisory authority grounds, Frazier v. Heebe, 482 U.S. 641, 645 (1987); but see

Giannini, 911 F.2d at 361 (rejecting a supervisory authority challenge to similar local rules in

California); cases based on the Privileges & Immunities Clause, Barnard v. Thorstenn, 489 U.S.

546, 553 (1989); Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman, 487 U.S. 59, 69 (1988); and Supreme

Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274, 288 (1985); but see Giannini, 911 F.2d at 357

(rejecting a Privileges & Immunities Clause challenge to similar local rules in California); and a

case based on the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548

U.S. 140, 146 (2006); but see Paciulan v. George, 38 F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1137 (N.D. Cal. 1999)

(rejecting an apparent Sixth Amendment challenge to California’s bar admission rules); Nat’l

Ass’n for Advancement of Multijurisdiction Practice v. Berch, 973 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1113 n.21

(D. Ariz. 2013) (same).

62Plaintiffs rely on the following prior restraint cases: Citizens United v. Fed. Election

Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 335 (2010); Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 550 (1993);

Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963).

63Plaintiffs rely on the following content-based-discrimination cases: Reed v. Town of

Gilbert, Ariz., 135 S. Ct. 2218, 2226 (2015); United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 2551

(2012) (same); Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 27 (2010); United States v.

Swisher, 811 F.3d 299, 313 (9th Cir. 2016).

-12-

Case 2:15-cv-01703-JWS Document 32 Filed 03/16/16 Page 12 of 16
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

First Amendment framework for analyzing” LRCiv 83.1.64 The Ninth Circuit considers

“bar admission restrictions to be time, place, and manner restrictions on speech.”65 

Confronted with this authority, Plaintiffs maintain that LRCiv 83.1 represents

content-based discrimination because it contains “three different bar admission

restrictions for Arizona lawyers, U.S. government and Tribal lawyers.”66

 In Reed, the

Supreme Court explained that “[g]overnment regulation of speech is content based if a

law applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message

expressed.”67 Plaintiffs content-based argument fails because even they acknowledge

that LRCiv 83.1’s bar admission requirements do not depend in any way on the topic,

idea, or message expressed.68

Time, place, and manner regulations, like LRCiv 83.1, are reasonable provided

that they satisfy three elements: (1) they “are justified without reference to the content

of the regulated speech”; (2) “they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant

governmental interest”; and (3) “they leave open ample alternative channels for

communication of the information.”69 As just discussed, LRCiv 83.1 satisfies the first

element. LRCiv 83.1 also satisfies the second and third elements for the reasons

outlined by the Ninth Circuit in Berch: Arizona’s bar admission restrictions are narrowly

64Nat'l Ass’n for the Advancement of Multijurisdiction Practice v. Berch, 773 F.3d 1037,

1047 (9th Cir. 2014).

65

Id.

66Doc. 16 at 56.

67Reed, 135 S. Ct. at 2227.

68See Doc. 16 at 38 (“U.S. Government and Indian lawyers can express themselves on

any topic or subject they want in the District of Arizona on behalf of their clients and each

other.”).

69Mothershed v. Justices of Supreme Court, 410 F.3d 602, 611 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

-13-

Case 2:15-cv-01703-JWS Document 32 Filed 03/16/16 Page 13 of 16
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

tailored, they serve a significant governmental interest, and they leave open ample

alternative channels of communication.70 Plaintiffs’ free speech claims lack merit. 

2. Free association

“The First Amendment’s protection of association prohibits a State from

excluding a person from a profession or punishing him solely because he is a member

of a particular political organization or because he holds certain beliefs.”71 Plaintiffs

argue that LRCiv 83.1 abridges their right to free association by preventing them from

associating “with anyone other than an Arizona Supreme Court licensed lawyer.”72 This

argument lacks merit. LRCiv 83.1 does not exclude Plaintiffs from Arizona District

Court bar membership based on their membership in a particular political organization

or because they hold certain beliefs. Further, as the Ninth Circuit explained in Berch:

“Arizona attorneys and non-Arizona attorneys are free to associate with attorneys who

are members of the bars of other states, whether these other states enjoy reciprocity

with Arizona or not.”73

3. Right to petition 

“[T]he Petition Clause protects the right of individuals to appeal to courts and

other forums established by the government for resolution of legal disputes. ‘[T]he right

of access to courts for redress of wrongs is an aspect of the First Amendment right to

petition the government.’”74 Plaintiffs argue that LRCiv 83.1 violates their right to

petition by excluding them from practicing before the Arizona District Court.75 This is

70Berch, 773 F.3d at 1047.

71Baird v. State Bar of Ariz., 401 U.S. 1, 6 (1971).

72Doc. 16 at 40. See also Doc. 16 at 64; Doc. 31 at 44.

73773 F.3d at 1047-48.

74Borough of Duryea, Pa. v. Guarnieri, 131 S. Ct. 2488, 2494 (2011) (quoting Sure–Tan,

Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883, 896–897 (1984)).

75Doc. 16 at 63-64.

-14-

Case 2:15-cv-01703-JWS Document 32 Filed 03/16/16 Page 14 of 16
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

not so. LRCiv 83.1 does not deny Plaintiffs meaningful access to the courts because

they may practice before the Arizona District Court so long as they follow the

procedures outlined in that rule.76

D. Leave to Amend

Plaintiffs argue that if the court holds that they have not stated a claim, they

should be granted leave to amend.77 Rule 15(a) provides that, after the time for

amendment as a matter of course has expired, a party may amend its complaint only

with the opposing party’s consent or with leave of court. “The court should freely give

leave when justice so requires.”78 The court exercises its discretion in considering a 

motion for leave to amend and it may deny the motion if the amendment “appears to be

futile or legally insufficient.”79

The only basis for Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is their request to add

allegations to their complaint that correspond with the new arguments they raised in

their current briefing.

80

 After considering Plaintiffs’ unpleaded claims that LRCiv 83.1

infringes their right to federal bar admission under the “National Rules for Bar

Admission” and violates federal antitrust laws, the court finds that amendment would be

futile. Leave to amend is denied.

76See Berch, 773 F.3d at 1048 (9th Cir. 2014).

77Doc. 31 at 28-29.

78Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

79Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988).

80Doc. 31 at 28.

-15-

Case 2:15-cv-01703-JWS Document 32 Filed 03/16/16 Page 15 of 16
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

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the preceding discussion, Defendants’ motion to dismiss at docket 9 is

GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment at docket 16 is DENIED. 

Plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed with prejudice. 

DATED this 15th day of March 2016.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-16-

Case 2:15-cv-01703-JWS Document 32 Filed 03/16/16 Page 16 of 16