Case 2:18-cv-04241-DJH Document 65 Filed 06/11/19 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Thomas H. Geoghegan (pro hac vice)
tgeoghegan@dsgchicago.com
Michael P. Persoon (pro hac vice)
mpersoon@dsgchicago.com
Despres, Schwartz & Geoghegan, Ltd.
77 West Washington Street, Suite 711
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Tel. (312) 372-2511
Fax. (312) 372-3791
admin@dsgchicago.com
Michael Kielsky
MK@UdallShumway.com
Udall Shumway
1138 North Alma School Rd, Suite 101
Mesa, Arizona 85201
Tel. (480) 461-5300
Bar No. 021864
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
PHOENIX DIVISION

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

William Price Tedards, Jr.; Monica Wnuk;
Barry Hess; Lawrence Lilien; and Ross
Trumble,

Hon. Diane J. Humetewa
Plaintiffs,
v.
Doug Ducey, Governor of Arizona, in his
official capacity, and Martha McSally,
Senator of Arizona, in her official capacity,

23
24
25
26
27
28

No. 2:18-cv-4241-PHX-DJH

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
STATUS CONFERENCE

 Case 2:18-cv-04241-DJH Document 65 Filed 06/11/19 Page 2 of 3

1
2
3

Plaintiffs, by their undersigned counsel, respectfully move for a status conference
to discuss the disposition of their renewed motion for a preliminary injunction, Docket
#14. Because the motion is seeking time-sensitive relief, and every day that passes

4
5
6
7
8

without that relief compounds the irreparable harm being done, such a status hearing may
be appropriate.
As this Court is aware, this lawsuit was filed, with an initial motion for a
preliminary injunction, on November 29, 2018. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for

9
10

preliminary injunction on December 28, 2018, and the motion was fully briefed on

11

January 18, 2019. The case has been under advisement since combined oral arguments on

12

April 12, 2019

13

In a case like this, involving a representative of the people of Arizona and a

14
15

breach of the Constitution, there is even greater urgency, especially when one party or

16

other may file an appeal. A year ago, in a case raising a virtually identical challenge to

17

the use of temporary appointments to fill a Senate vacancy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for

18

the Ninth Circuit stated that these cases would receive expedited consideration. In

19
20

Hamamoto v. Ige, 881 F.3d 719 (9th Cir 2018) this Circuit states at page 723:"[A] suit

21

challenging the appointment of a United States senator raises questions of national

22

importance, and the judicial system has evolved procedures for expediting review of

23

time-sensitive controversies..."

24
25
26
27
28

The Ninth Circuit then notes that a preliminary injunction motion brought
regarding the method of balloting in a statewide California election was considered and

 Case 2:18-cv-04241-DJH Document 65 Filed 06/11/19 Page 3 of 3

1

ruled upon by the district court, reversed by an appellate panel, and then affirmed by an

2

en banc panel, all within 47 days of the plaintiffs filing suit. Id

3
4
5

Plaintiffs recognize that this case raised important issues and deserves the careful
consideration of this Court. Plaintiffs respectfully request a status conference to discuss
this matter only if this Court deems it appropriate.

6
7

Respectfully Submitted,

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: June 11, 2019

By: /s/ Michael P. Persoon
One of Plaintiffs’ Attorneys