Law Office of Chris Ford125 East Coronado RoadPhoenix, AZ, 85004602-688-5571
PLAINTIFFS’ BRIEF REGARDINGSUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTIONPage 2 of 6
rules, Opp. at 2:2-9, 2:25-26;
(2) LULAC has a right to deal with its internal affairs, includingmembership, and that it has “acted reasonably” in such affairs, Opp. at 2:9-15; (3) Plaintiffs werenot members of LULAC and thus not entitled to vote (no time frame given), Opp. at 2:15-17,2:19-20, 2:24-25, 3:3-4; (4) LULAC members are bound by LULAC’s constitution (a contention plaintiffs do not dispute as a general proposition but does not bear on the jurisdiction issue), Opp.at 2:17-18; and (5) ARS §§ 10-3721 & 10-3302 apparently do not form the basis for jurisdiction,Opp. at 2:23-25.Defendants further attempt to make substantive arguments related to this case but unrelatedto the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.
Opp. at 2:20-22, 2:26-30. Such arguments includethe conclusory contention that LULAC “do[es] not have ‘unreasonable and arbitrary violations of private rights’ and/or a ‘contravention of established public policy.’” Opp. at 2:33-3:2.Finally, Defendants appear to make a “standing” argument, i.e. Plaintiffs have no standingto sue because they were not members, a position Defendants support with various U.S. SupremeCourt cases that deal with the bases on which a court may or may not intervene in a privateorganization’s decisions to accept members,
Opp. at 3. Defendants’ “standing” position is odd, because this litigation concerns Defendants’ illicit and wrongful conduct of LULAC elections, nottheir bases for accepting members. In summary, as further explained below Defendants completelyfail to rebut Plaintiffs position that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this litigation.
Defendants Fail to Demonstrate That the Court Lacks Statutory Bases for Jurisdiction.
Defendants offer nothing substantive to rebut Plaintiffs arguments regarding the bases under Arizona statutes on which this Court should find that it has jurisdiction over this case.
Plaintiff’s Brief Regarding Subject Matter Jurisdiction (“Brief”), at 3:8-6:5. For example, the onlysupport Defendants offer for their claim that the court lacks jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 10-3721 is
The copy of Defendants’ Opposition served on Plaintiffs contains no page numbers. TheOpposition is three pages long, with substantive argument found on the second and third pages of the Opposition. Plaintiffs herein refer to the second page of the Opposition as page 2 and the third page as page 3.