Puente Arizona et al v. Arpaio et al
| Puente Arizona, Susan E Frederick-Gray, Sara Cervantes Arreola and Guadalupe Arredondo |
| Joseph M Arpaio, Bill Montgomery, Robert Halliday and Maricopa, County of |
| 2:2014cv01356 |
| June 18, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| David G Campbell |
| Constitutionality of State Statutes |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
731
ORDER - Plaintiffs motion for fees and expenses (Doc. 708 ) is granted in part. Plaintiffs are awarded $1,015,990 in attorneys' fees and $20,532.08 in non-taxable expenses against the Maricopa County Attorney in his official capacit y, the Maricopa County Sheriff in his official capacity, and Maricopa County. Defendants' motion to strike (Doc. 727 ) is denied. The State's motion for relief from taxable costs (Doc. 726 ) is granted. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 10/25/2017.(KAS)
|
|
Filing
701
ORDER - Plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief is granted. Plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction against Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone is granted. Defendant Penzone shall create a written policy for MCSO consistent wi th this permanent injunction and disseminate it within MCSO within 60 days of this order. Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief against Defendants Montgomery and Maricopa County, and for expungement of the convictions of Plaintiffs Cervant es Arreola and Estrada Fernandez, are denied. Defendants' motion to file a non-electronic supplement (Doc. 688 ) is denied, and Plaintiffs' motion to strike (Doc. 689 ) is granted. The Clerk shall enter final judgment in accordance with this order. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/24/17. (LAD)
|
|
Filing
623
ORDER - 1. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 538 ) is granted with respect to preemption of Defendants' use of the Form I-9 and attached documents, and otherwise denied. 2. Defendant State of Arizona's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 510 ) is denied with respect to preemption of Defendants' use of the Form I-9 and attached documents, granted with respect to Plaintiffs' other preemption claims, and granted with respect to Plaintiffs' equal protecti on claims. 3. Defendant Montgomery's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 534 ) is denied with respect to preemption of Defendants use of the Form I-9 and attached documents, granted with respect to Plaintiffs' other preemption claims, and granted with respect to Plaintiffs' equal protection claims. 4. Defendant Arpaio's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 525 ) is denied with respect to preemption of Defendants use of the Form I-9 and attached documents, granted with respect to Plaintiffs' other preemption claims, and granted with respect to Plaintiffs' equal protection claims. 5. Defendant Maricopa Countys motion for summary judgment on Monell liability (Doc. 511 ) is denied with respect to Defendant Arpaio and granted with respect to Defendant Montgomery. 6. The motion for leave to file excess pages (Docs. 543 ) is granted. 7. Plaintiffs shall file a memorandum on the appropriate remedy in this case, not to exceed 15 pages, on or before December 7, 2016. Defendants shall file a joint reply, not to exceed 15 pages, on or before December 21, 2016. Plaintiffs shall file a 7 page reply on or before January 4, 2017. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/22/16. (LAD)
|
|
Filing
563
ORDER denying 529 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/9/2016.(DGC, nvo)
|
|
Filing
479
ORDER denying 442 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/5/2016.(DGC, nvo)
|
|
Filing
440
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 409 Motion for Reconsideration. Defendants may ask which family members were supported as alleged in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Second Amended Complaint, but may not inquire into the immigration status of the Expungement Plaintiffs family members or other efforts of the Expungement Plaintiffs to obtain work.Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/24/2016.(TCA)
|
|
Filing
431
ORDER re discovery conference call of 1/20/2016. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/19/2016. (DGC, nvo)
|
|
Filing
164
ORDER denying 141 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 141 Motion reconsideration. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/27/2015.(DGC, nvo)
|
|
Filing
133
ORDER - 1. Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 30 ) is granted. Until further order of the Court, Defendants are enjoined from enforcing A.R.S. § 2009(A)(3) and the portion of A.R.S. § 13-2008(A) that addresses acti ons committed "with the intent to obtain or continue employment." 2. Defendants' motions to dismiss and strike (Docs. 53 , 55 , 127 ) are denied. 3. Parties' motions to supplement (Docs. 84 , 98 , 103 , 123 ) are granted. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/5/15. (LAD)
|
|
Filing
129
ORDER: December 10, 2014, Plaintiffs shall file a memorandum, not to exceed 10pages, which attaches one or more anonymous affidavits and addresses why they show standing in this case. December 17, 2014, Defendants shall file a joint memorandum, not to exceed ten pages, addressing Plaintiffs December 10th filing. No further memoranda will be filed without order of the Court. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/1/2014. (TCA)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
