Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Lulac - Arizona - Ps Reply Brief Re Smjdx Conformed

Lulac - Arizona - Ps Reply Brief Re Smjdx Conformed

Ratings: (0)|Views: 66|Likes:
Published by vomeditor

More info:

Published by: vomeditor on Oct 16, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/16/2013

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Law Office of Chris Ford125 East Coronado RoadPhoenix, AZ, 85004602-688-5571
 PLAINTIFFS’ BRIEF REGARDINGSUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTIONPage 1 of 6
C
HRIS
F
ORD
,
 
E
SQ
.
,
SBN
029437
L
AW
O
FFICE OF
C
HRIS
F
ORD
 
125 East Coronado RoadPhoenix, AZ 85004t: 602-688-5571f: 888-447-3714cford@azbar.org
 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
,JOSE ROBERTO SOTO, MARIA SALAZAR, MAYRA MIRANDA
I
N THE
S
UPERIOR 
C
OURT OF THE
S
TATE OF
A
RIZONA
 F
OR THE
C
OUNTY OF
M
ARICOPA
 
I
NTRODUCTION
 
Plaintiffs hereby submit their Reply Brief in response to Defendants’ Brief in Opposition(“Opposition” or “Opp.”) in compliance with rule 7.1(a), Ariz. R. Civ. P. In summary, defendantsmake the following arguments, all of them conclusory: (1) LULAC has proceeded according to“due process,” as defined by Manual Escobar or other LULAC leaders, and according to its ownJOSE ROBERTO SOTO, MARIASALAZAR, MAYRA DISCUAMINRANDA,Plaintiffs,v.LEAGUE OF UNITED LATINAMERICAN CITIZENS, ARIZONACHAPTER (LULAC); JOHN MIRELES,in his capacity as an officer of LULAC,Arizona Chapter; DAVID HERNANDEZ,in his capacity as executive director of LULAC, Arizona Chapter; ANAVALENZUELA, in her capacity asnational vice-president for youth for LULAC; MARI ALVARADO, in her capacity as president, LULAC Council #1083; DOES 1-20,Defendants.
Case No
. CV2013-008731
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY BRIEFREGARDING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTIONAssigned to
: Hon. Michael Herrod
Michael K Jeanes, Clerk of Court*** Electronically Filed ***M. Paigen, Deputy9/20/2013 3:28:00 PMFiling ID 5459488
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
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;
1
(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.
See
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,
 see
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.
A
RGUMENT
 
I.
 
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.
See generally
 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
1
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.
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Law Office of Chris Ford125 East Coronado RoadPhoenix, AZ, 85004602-688-5571
 PLAINTIFFS’ BRIEF REGARDINGSUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTIONPage 3 of 6
that Plaintiffs’ counsel “misapplies ‘for profit corporate law’ to this case which involves a non- profit organization.” Opp. at 2:23-24.However, as Plaintiffs pointed out in their Brief, A.R.S. § 10-3721 is found under Chapter 30 of Title 10, which deals with “Nonprofit Corporations.” Brief, at 3:26-4:1. Thus, the statuteclearly regulates nonprofit organizations, contrary to Defendants’ claim. Defendants offer no further analysis or rebuttal as to whether A.R.S. § 10-3721 should or does apply to LULAC, and they makeno attempt determine whether the statute implies a right of action under 
Cort v. Ash
, 422 U.S. 66,78 (1975) or 
Tucson v. Superior Court 
, 127 Ariz. 205, 208, 619 P.2d 33, 36 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).Defendants’ analysis under A.R.S. § 10-3302 is likewise spare. They simply urge the Courtto examine the statute “objectively” and conclude that LULAC “has a reasonable and orderly due process procedure pursuant to its By-laws and Constitution.” Opp. at 2:25-26. However, A.R.S. §10-3302 does not regulate whether a group’s procedure “has a reasonable and orderly due process.”Rather, it constrains nonprofits to act “not inconsistent with law” in furtherance of their activitiesand affairs. A.R.S. § 10-3302(20).Finally, Defendants offer no comment on whether A.R.S. § 10-3302 confers jurisdiction ona court to evaluate whether a nonprofit corporation has acted according to law, nor do they conductan appropriate analysis under 
Cort 
. Moreover, Defendants fail to offer any analysis or rebuttalregarding whether Plaintiffs actually or potentially have a right under A.R.S. § 10-3304 to challengeLULAC’s power to act in a proceeding.It is true that Plaintiffs have yet to make a claim under A.R.S. § 10-3304. However, shouldthe Court find that this statute is the only basis under which it could retain subject matter  jurisdiction, Plaintiffs would respectfully request that the Court grant them leave to amend their Complaint so that their claims could conform with the requirements of the statute. In summary,Defendants fail to rebut Plaintiffs’ position that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction based onArizona statutes.
II.
 
Defendants Cannot Show That the Court Lacks a Common Law Basis to Retain orTake Jurisdiction Over the Matter.
The vast majority of Defendants’ contentions have nothing to do with whether this Court

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->