You are on page 1of 6

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1989 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 6

Cecillia D. Wang (Pro Hac Vice)
1 cwang@aclu.org
2 ACLU Foundation
Immigrants’ Rights Project
3 39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
4
Telephone: (415) 343-0775
5 Facsimile: (415) 395-0950
6 Kathleen E. Brody
7 kbrody@acluaz.org
Daniel J. Pochoda
8 dpochoda@acluaz.org
Brenda Muñoz Furnish
9
bmfurnish@acluaz.org
10 ACLU Foundation of Arizona
3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235
11 Phoenix, AZ 85014
12 Telephone: (602) 650-1854
Facsimile: (602) 650-1376
13

14
Attorneys for Plaintiffs (additional attorneys
15 for Plaintiffs listed on next page)

16

17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
18
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, ) CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS
19 et al., )
20 )
Plaintiffs, ) PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO COURT’S
21 ) REQUEST FOR BRIEFING ON
v. ) JURISDICTION OVER MOTIONS FOR
22 ) RECUSAL AND DISCOVERY (DOC.
23 Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., ) 1923)
)
24 Defendants. )
)
25
)
26 )
27

28
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1989 Filed 03/28/17 Page 2 of 6

1 Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
2
Andre I. Segura (Pro Hac Vice)
3 asegura@aclu.org Julia A. Gomez (Pro Hac Vice)
ACLU Foundation jgomez@maldef.org
4 Immigrants’ Rights Project Mexican American Legal Defense and
125 Broad Street, 17th Floor Educational Fund
5
New York, NY 10004 634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor
6 Telephone: (212) 549-2676 Los Angeles, CA 90014
Facsimile: (212) 549-2654 Telephone: (213) 629-2512
7 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266
8
Anne Lai (Pro Hac Vice) James B. Chanin (Pro Hac Vice)
9 alai@law.uci.edu jbcofc@aol.com
401 E. Peltason, Suite 3500 Law Offices of James B. Chanin
10
Irvine, CA 92697 3050 Shattuck Avenue
11 Telephone: (949) 824-9894 Berkeley, CA 94705
Facsimile: (949) 824-0066 Telephone: (510) 848-4752
12 Facsimile: (510) 848-5819
13
Stanley Young (Pro Hac Vice) Tammy Albarran (Pro Hac Vice)
14 syoung@cov.com talbarran@cov.com
Covington & Burling LLP Lauren E. Pedley (Pro Hac Vice)
15 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700 lpedley@cov.com
16 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Covington & Burling LLP
Telephone: (650) 632-4700 One Front Street
17 Facsimile: (650) 632-4800 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 591-7066
18
Facsimile: (415) 955-6566
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1989 Filed 03/28/17 Page 3 of 6

1 Pursuant to the Court’s order (Doc. 1923), Plaintiffs hereby state their position on
2 whether the Court retains jurisdiction over the pending motions for recusal and related
3 discovery (Docs. 1878, 1884).
4 As noted by the Court, Joseph Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, and Joseph Sousa (the “non-
5 party civil contemnors”) now argue on appeal that this Court’s contempt-related orders
6 should be vacated and that this Court and its Monitor should be recused from further
7 proceedings for the same reasons set forth in the pending motions. See Appellants’ Opening
8 Br., No. 16-16663 (9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2016) (Doc. 11).
9 Plaintiffs intend to demonstrate in due course in future briefing before this Court and
10 the Ninth Circuit that the non-party civil contemnors lack standing to seek the recusal of the
11 Court and its Monitor and to appeal the Court’s contempt-related judgments. However,
12 during the pendency of an appeal, the district court is generally divested of jurisdiction “over
13 those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount
14 Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). Since the non-party civil contemnors have now raised the
15 recusal issues on appeal, it appears that this Court no longer has jurisdiction over the pending
16 motions for recusal and related discovery.
17 Nevertheless, Plaintiffs note that this Court has the authority to issue an indicative
18 ruling on the pending motions, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1. Pursuant to
19 Rule 62.1, the Court may defer, deny, or indicate that it would grant a motion or that the
20 motion raises a substantial issue even when ruling on such a motion would be barred by a
21 pending appeal. In this case, such an indicative ruling could reach issues including whether
22 the motions are timely and whether the non-party civil contemnors have standing to proceed
23 on these issues. 1
24
1
25 Plaintiffs do not waive any previous or future arguments as to the timeliness of the non-
party civil contemnors’ motions or their standing to seek the requested relief before this
26 Court or on appeal. Rather, Plaintiffs believe that the Ninth Circuit would benefit from an
indicative ruling from this Court on the issues of timeliness and standing—either of which
27 would be sufficient to deny the non-party civil contemnors’ requested relief both before this
Court and at the Ninth Circuit.
28 1
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1989 Filed 03/28/17 Page 4 of 6

1 While Rule 62.1 on its face applies when a “timely motion is made” and, as Plaintiffs
2 have argued, the pending motions before the Court are extremely untimely (see Docs. 1912,
3 1913), courts have exercised their discretion under Rule 62.1 to issue indicative rulings that
4 address both the timeliness and merits of a motion in light of a pending appeal. See, e.g.,
5 United States v. Peterson, 2013 WL 1830217, at *2-5 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2013) (exercising
6 “discretion under Rule 62.1 to deny [a] Rule 60(b) motion because it is untimely and
7 meritless”); Baker v. Douglas, 2010 WL 4386476, at *3-6 (M.D. Penn. Oct. 29, 2010)
8 (same). District courts have also frequently addressed motions for disqualification and
9 recusal in the context of pending appeals pursuant to Rule 62.1. See, e.g., Pierce v. Smith,
10 2016 WL 740321 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2016); Morris v. Kesselring, 2012 WL 278727 (M.D.
11 Penn. Jan. 31, 2012); Curves, LLC v. Spalding County, GA, 2011 WL 925564 (N.D.G.A.
12 Feb. 18, 2011). The Court may therefore issue an indicative ruling under Rule 62.1 on the
13 pending motions.
14

15 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 28th day of March, 2017.
16 /s/ Andre Segura
17 Cecillia D. Wang (Pro Hac Vice)
18 Andre I. Segura (Pro Hac Vice)
ACLU Foundation
19 Immigrants’ Rights Project
20
Kathleen E. Brody
21 Daniel Pochoda
Brenda Muñoz Furnish
22 ACLU Foundation of Arizona
23
Anne Lai (Pro Hac Vice)
24
Stanley Young (Pro Hac Vice)
25
Tammy Albarran (Pro Hac Vice)
26 Lauren E. Pedley (Pro Hac Vice)
Covington & Burling, LLP
27

28 2
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1989 Filed 03/28/17 Page 5 of 6

Julia Gomez (Pro Hac Vice)
1
Mexican American Legal Defense and
2 Educational Fund
3 James B. Chanin (Pro Hac Vice)
4
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
5

6

7

8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1989 Filed 03/28/17 Page 6 of 6

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
I hereby certify that on March 28, 2017, I electronically transmitted the attached
3
document to the Clerk’s office using the CM/ECF System for filing. Notice of this filing will be
4
sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system or by mail as
5
indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing.
6
Dated this 28th day of March, 2017.
7

8 /s/ Andre Segura

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28