Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Order Denying Dfs

Order Denying Dfs

Ratings: (0)|Views: 121|Likes:
Published by ray stern
Motions to dismiss a challenge to SB 1070 by Friendly House are denied.
Motions to dismiss a challenge to SB 1070 by Friendly House are denied.

More info:

Published by: ray stern on May 29, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONAFriendly House, et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.Michael B. Whiting, et al.,Defendants.))))))))))))No. CV 10-1061-PHX-SRB
This matter comes before the Court on Intervenor Defendants Governor Janice K.Brewer and the State of Arizona’s (collectively, “Arizona”) Motion to Dismiss the IndividualPlaintiffs and Strike Class Action Allegations (“Ariz.’s Mot.”) (Doc. 562). The Motion is joined by Defendants Joseph Arpaio, William Montgomery, Paul Babeu, James Walsh, andLarry Dever. (
Docs. 564, 565, 568.)
The facts of this case were set forth in this Court’s Order of October 8, 2010, whichis incorporated fully herein. (
Doc. 447, Oct. 8, 2010, Order (“MTD Order”) at 1-4.) Thepertinent details are briefly summarized here. The instant litigation challenges Arizona’sSenate Bill 1070 (“S.B. 1070”), which was signed into law by Governor Brewer on April 23,
Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 682 Filed 05/29/12 Page 1 of 20
In this Order, the Court refers to Senate Bill 1070 and House Bill 2162 collectivelyas “S.B. 1070,” describing the April 23, 2010, enactment as modified by the April 30, 2010,amendments.- 2 -2010.
Plaintiffs filed suit on May 17, 2010. (Doc. 1, Compl. for Declaratory & InjunctiveRelief (“Compl.”) at 61.) In their original Complaint, Plaintiffs asserted six causes of actionunder 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the following provisions of the United StatesConstitution: the Supremacy Clause (Count 1); the Equal Protection Clause (Count 2); theFirst Amendment (Count 3); the Fourth Amendment (Count 4); the Due Process Clause(Count 6); and the right to travel under the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Count 7). (
 ¶¶ 198, 204-214.) Plaintiffs also asserted that S.B. 1070 violates Article II, § 8 of the ArizonaConstitution (Count 5) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count 8). (
¶¶ 199-203, 215-18.)On October 8, 2010, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s original Complaint and dismissedfor lack of standing Plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge to Section 2 of S.B. 1070 andPlaintiffs’ claim for violation of the right to travel. (MTD Order at 38.) The Court alsodismissed Plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge to A.R.S. § 13-2928(C) of Section 5 of S.B.1070 and Plaintiffs’ claim that Sections 2 and 5 were impermissibly vague in violation of theDue Process Clause. (
)Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on October 31, 2011, removing thedismissed claims and related allegations and replacing several of the individual plaintiffs.(
Doc. 511, 1st Am. Compl. for Declaratory & Injunctive Relief (“FAC”) ¶¶ 21-29, 189-204.) In the FAC, nine individuals (collectively, “Individual Plaintiffs”) and fourteenorganizations assert the following seven causes of action challenging S.B. 1070: violationof the Supremacy Clause (Count 1); violation of the Equal Protection Clause (Count 2);violation of the First Amendment (Count 3); violation of the Fourth Amendment (Count 4);violation of Article II, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution (Count 5); violation of the DueProcess Clause (Count 6); and violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count 7). (
¶¶ 7-29, 177-208.) The Individual Plaintiffs purport to represent five proposed classes. (
¶¶ 161-65.)
Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 682 Filed 05/29/12 Page 2 of 20
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728- 3 -Arizona moves to dismiss the Individual Plaintiffs from the FAC pursuant to FederalRule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the Individual Plaintiffs lack standing. (Ariz.’sMot. at 2, 6-12, 16-17.) Arizona also moves to strike the class action allegations from theFAC, arguing that the proposed classes cannot be certified as a matter of law because noIndividual Plaintiff has standing to represent any of the proposed classes and each proposedclass is defined to include persons without standing. (
at 1-2, 12-16.) The Court heard oralargument on the Motion on March 26, 2012. (
Doc. 620, Minute Entry.)
II.LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSISA. Motion to Dismiss the Individual Plaintiffs1.Standing
“Article III of 
the Constitution limits the judicial power of 
the United States to theresolution of 
[c]ases and [c]ontroversies, and Article III standing . . . enforces theConstitution’s case-or-controversy requirement.”
 Hein v. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc.
, 551 U.S. 587, 597-98 (2007) (internal quotations omitted). Standing requires thatplaintiffs have a “personal stake in the outcome” in order to “assure that concrete adversenesswhich sharpens the presentation of issues” necessary for the proper resolution of constitutional questions.
 Baker v. Carr 
, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962).As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishingstanding.
 Lopez v. Candaele
, 630 F.3d 775, 785 (9th Cir. 2010). Standing focuses on“whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication of the particular claimsasserted.”
 Allen v. Wright 
, 468 U.S. 737, 752 (1984). “‘[A] plaintiff must demonstratestanding for each claim he seeks to press’ and ‘for each form of relief’ that is sought.”
 Davisv. F.E.C.
, 128 S. Ct. 2759, 2769 (2008) (quoting
 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno
, 547 U.S.332, 352 (2006));
see also
Oregon v. Legal Servs. Corp.
, 552 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).Where, as here, a defendant challenges the plaintiff’s standing based solely on theinsufficiency of the allegations in the complaint, courts accept all material allegations in thecomplaint as true and construe the complaint in favor of the plaintiff.
White v. Lee
, 227 F.3d1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that a Rule 12(b)(1) attack on standing may be either
Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 682 Filed 05/29/12 Page 3 of 20

You're Reading a Free Preview

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