Skip to content

Judicial Watch • JW Interveners v Goldwater

JW Interveners v Goldwater

JW Interveners v Goldwater

Page 1: JW Interveners v Goldwater

Category:General

Number of Pages:24

Date Created:September 13, 2012

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014

Tags:Goldwater, interveners


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

David Gomez (006790) Michael Petitti, Jr. (011667) 
GOMEZ PETITTI, P.C. 
2525 East Camelback Road, Suite 860 
Phoenix, Arizona 85016 (602) 957-8686 
Attorneys for Proposed Interveners THE SUPERIOR COURT THE ATE ARIZONA AND FOR THE COUNTY MARICOPA 
CHEATHEM, al. Case No. CV201 l-021634 Plaintiffs, MOTION INTERVENE 
vs. DICICCIO, al. (Assigned to: Honorable Katherine Coope1 Defendants. (Oral Argument Requested) 
Proposed Interveners Thomas Cox, Victor Escoto, Richard Hartson, Vivian 
Reque, and David Wilson ("Proposed Interveners"), counsel and pursuant Rule the Arizona Rules Civil Procedure, hereby move intervene this action 
matter right or, the alternative, permission. grounds therefore, Proposed 
Interveners state follows: 

MEMORANDUM POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Introduction. 
Proposed Interveners are line officers the Phoenix Police Department ("PPD"). Plaintiffs, who claim taxpayers and residents the City Phoenix ("the City"), challenge the 2012-14 Memorandum Understanding ("MOU") entered and between the City and its police officers, negotiated the officers' authorized representative, the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association ("PLEA"). their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert that ce1iain release time provisions bargained for and paid the City's police officers essential part the officers' compensation under the 2012-14 MOU violate the Gift Clause provision Arizona's Constitution. Plaintiffs ask the Court declare the entire agreement unconstitutional and "preliminarily and permanently enjoin [the MOU's] further effect." short, Plaintiffs seek void