You are on page 1of 4

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1774 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 4

1

5

Richard K. Walker (SBN 004159)
WALKER & PESKIND, PLLC
16100 N. 71st Street, Suite 140
Scottsdale, Arizona 85254-2236
rkw@azlawpartner.com
Phone: 480/483-6336
Facsimile: 480/483-6337

6

Counsel for Defendant Maricopa County, Arizona

2
3
4

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

8

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9
10

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al.,

11
12

CASE NO: 2:07-CV-02513-GMS

Plaintiffs,

DEFENDANT MARICOPA COUNTY’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL
MEMORANDUM REGARDING
COMPENSATION PURSUANT TO THE
COURT’S ORDER OF JULY 22, 2016

vs.

13
14
15

Joseph. M. Arpaio, et. al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Defendant MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA (“the County”), hereby submits its

18

Motion for Leave to Respond to Plaintiffs’ July 27, 2016 Supplemental Memorandum

19

Regarding Compensation Pursuant to the Court’s Order of July 22, 2016 (Doc. 1772). In

20

their Supplemental Memorandum, Plaintiffs propose, for the first time, that: (a) this Court

21

“issue a stipulated judgment adopting the Parties’ common proposal so that victims of the

22

violation can be notified of their right to seek compensation;” (b) such notice “explicitly

23

state that individuals eligible for compensation may, as an alternative to applying under

24

the BrownGreer compensation system, make a claim for compensation directly to this

25

Court;” and (c) the Court would then “[i]f appropriate . . . hold hearings in which

26
27
28

1

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1774 Filed 08/01/16 Page 2 of 4

1
2

Defendants would have an opportunity to present any objections.” Plaintiffs’ Supp.
Mem. at 1-2.1

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

This procedure has never previously been discussed among the parties who have
been in negotiations for months to arrive at a streamlined, claimant-friendly
compensation program, in which those injured as a result of any failures to implement
this Court’s orders would be able to obtain compensation more expeditiously and at
considerably less expense than would be the case if they pursued individual claims under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs now seem to be proposing that a notice that has heretofore
been discussed solely as a means for making potential claimants aware of the streamlined
extrajudicial program would be expanded to invite them to participate in a judicial claims
process never previously discussed. The features and procedures for this new third
option for potential claimants are not defined, but appear to be contemplated by Plaintiffs
as incorporating some, perhaps all, of the abridgements of due process rights to which
Defendants have been willing to agree in the context of the compensation program that
has been under discussion for many months.

Among other things that make the

interjection of the proposal at this late date fundamentally unfair, is the fact that Plaintiffs
chose to introduce it at a time when their counsel were well aware of the fact that

18
19
20
1

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs also mention in their Supplemental Memorandum that they may be amenable
to “a possible additional proviso [for the extrajudicial compensation system that has been
the subject of lengthy negotiations] of a $10,000 cap per claimant as compensation for
any total period of detention.” Doc. 1772 at 1 (footnote omitted). If this “feeler” is
intended as a proposed modification of the compensation rate to be applied under the
BrownGreer extrajudicial compensation program, the County may well be amenable to it.
Plaintiffs appear to contemplate, however, that their agreement to such a “proviso” would
be contingent upon agreement by the County and the Sheriff to Plaintiffs’ detention-only
compensation rate. Regardless of any cap, the County submits that compensation of
victims at a rate that annualizes at over $5 million per year is manifestly excessive, and
transgresses the boundary between compensation and punishment that limits remedies
that can properly be imposed in a civil contempt proceeding.
2

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1774 Filed 08/01/16 Page 3 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

undersigned counsel for the County was out of state and preparing for trial in another
case.
Because the introduction of this third option for potential claimants is brand new,
remains ill-defined at best, and would consume substantial additional resources of the
Court and the parties, the County respectfully submits that it should be permitted to
respond more fully to Plaintiffs’ eleventh-hour attempt to inject into the case a process
they could have raised much earlier, but chose not to. The County further respectfully
requests that the Court grant it until August 8, 2016 to file its response thereto.

9
10

DATED: August 1, 2016

11
12

WALKER & PESKIND, PLLC

13
14

By: /s/ Richard K. Walker
Richard K. Walker, Esquire

15

16100 N. 71st Street, Suite 140
Scottsdale, Arizona 85254-2236
Attorneys for Defendant Maricopa County,
Arizona

16
17
18
19
20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

21
22

I hereby certify that on August 1, 2016, I electronically filed Defendant Maricopa

23

County’s Motion for Leave to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum

24

Regarding Compensation Pursuant to the Court’s Order Of July 22, 2016, with the Clerk

25
26

of the Court for filing and uploading to the CM/ECF system, which will send notification

27

of such filing to all parties of record.

28

3

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1774 Filed 08/01/16 Page 4 of 4

1
2

/s/ Jennifer Grisham

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

4