Case: Flores v. Arizona

4:92-cv-00596 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Filed Date: Aug. 20, 1992

Closed Date: Aug. 7, 2015

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This school funding case was filed on August 20, 1992 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The plaintiffs, several students and their parents, claimed that the state failed to adequately fund programs for English language learners (ELLs). In 2000, the district court found that state's method and level of funding ELL programs was "arbitrary and capricious" and ordered that the level of state funding for ELL programs bear a rational relationship to the cost of those …

This school funding case was filed on August 20, 1992 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The plaintiffs, several students and their parents, claimed that the state failed to adequately fund programs for English language learners (ELLs). In 2000, the district court found that state's method and level of funding ELL programs was "arbitrary and capricious" and ordered that the level of state funding for ELL programs bear a rational relationship to the cost of those programs. The parties reached an agreement in 2002, and the court ordered a costing-out study. In January 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt due to the alleged failure of the state to comply.

In January 2005, after numerous delays by the state, the court ordered additional ELL funding. The state's failure to comply led to a December 2005 order and daily fines that mounted to $21 million before the state enacted additional funding in early March 2006. Moreover, the court enjoined the state from requiring ELL students to pass the state exit exam in order to get a diploma.

In August 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Flores v. Rzeslawski, vacated the 2005 district court judgment and remanded the case so the district court could hold "an evidentiary hearing and ma[k]e findings of fact regarding whether changed circumstances required modification of the [January 2000] court order or otherwise ha[ve] a bearing on the appropriate remedy."

In March 2007 Judge Raner Collins of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona ruled that Arizona is still illegally under-funding programs directed towards English learners, that it is in violation of multiple federal laws, and that $600 million of federal education funding that Arizona receives may be in jeopardy.

The ruling invalidated HB 2064, the funding formula passed by the Arizona legislature in response to the court's earlier decision. HB 2064, which would raise the amount of funding directed for ELL programs from $365 to $444 per pupil, Judge Collins ruled, is insufficient to meet the needs of ELL students. The formula, he noted, provides significantly less than was recommended by a court-ordered cost study completed in 2005.

According to the federal Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA), under which the court struck down HB 2064, states are required to ensure that all students, regardless of native language, have the opportunity for "equal participation" in public education. The insufficient funding, Judge Collins, ruled, violates this federal law.

Judge Collins also ruled HB 2064 illegal for other reasons. First, it mandates that schools can only receive the additional funding for a student for two years. The record in the case showed that many ELL students take longer - often four or five years - to become proficient in English. In addition, the bill stipulates that districts are required to use a portion of their Title I, Title II, and Title III federal funds to pay for ELL services before they get state aid. All of these federal funds are given under the condition that they will "supplement not supplant" state monies; accordingly, this requirement is illegal and jeopardizes the $600 million in federal funding that Arizona receives, the court ruled.

Judge Collins ordered the state to comply with the 2000 order by the end of the 2007 legislative session, but the legislature failed to do so. On October 11, 2007, Judge Collins issued a contempt order, giving the legislature until March 4, 2008 to bring ELL funding into compliance or face sanctions. Meanwhile, the state appealed Judge Collins' order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On February 22, 2008, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court judgment in favor of plaintiffs. The court found that the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) did not relieve states of the obligation to adhere to the mandates of the EEOA. According to the court, this means that even if Arizona could show that its schools are making "adequate yearly progress" toward improving overall academic achievement, individual students still have the right to bring civil rights claims under the EEOA. Describing the distinction between the two federal laws at issue, the court wrote, "The EEOA's concerns...lie fundamentally with the current rights of individual students, while NCLB seeks gradually to improve their schools." The court went on to explain the ramifications of a decision in favor of the State: "[Its] view, if adopted, would effectively repeal the EEOA by replacing its equality-based framework with the gradual remedial framework of NCLB." Based on the foregoing, the court held that "it is not inequitable to continue to require compliance" with the district court order.

In September 2008, the defendants petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' holding that the state was not meeting its legal obligation to English-language learners.

On November 3, 2008, the District Court began further hearings on compliance issues.

On January 9, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of lower-court rulings that the state was not abiding by federal law and was not adequately funding programs for English-language learners. In Horne v. Flores, 129 S. Ct. 2579 (2009), the Supreme Court reversed. It held that the District Court and Court of Appeals improperly evaluated the case by simply deciding whether a previous order had been satisfied. They went on to explain that the defendants could also be relieved from the previous order in the event that changed circumstances made its enforcement inequitable. On remand, the Supreme Court directed the District Court to examine (1) whether the State's switch to structured English emersion constituted a changed circumstance which would warrant relief, (2) whether the provisions of NCLB constituted a changed circumstance which would warrant relief, (3) whether Arizona's efforts to reduce class sizes, teacher to student ratios and teacher quality constituted changed circumstances which would warrant relief, and (4) whether Arizona's increased funding to ELL constituted a changed circumstance which would warrant relief. Furthermore, the Court directed the District Court to re-examine the alleged state-wide noncompliance with the EEOA, as there were neither factual findings nor evidence on record supporting that allegation.

The 9th Circuit supplemented this order on September 1, 2009 by vacating the District Court's contempt order and award of attorneys' fees.

On March 28, 2013, Judge Collins granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's statewide claims. Judge Collins, in granting the defendants' motion to dismiss and vacating the Jan. 24, 2000 judgment, stated that the factual basis of the case had changed: the adoption of Structured English Immersion methodology; the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act, structural and management reforms; and an increase in overall education funding. Further, the plaintiffs advanced only one statewide claim, alleging that the implementation of the "four hour model" (an ESL model requiring four hours of language instruction per day, in this case being applied differently throughout the state) constituted a statewide EEOA violation. Judge Collins concluded that, because the plaintiffs only presented evidence from a few school districts, they did not establish standing to bring a statewide claim. Judge Collins held that the plaintiff's "statewide" claim required, instead, district-by-district analysis. The plaintiff appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where oral argument was held in January 2015.

In June 2015, The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its mandate. Based on the record, the court found that the plaintiff's challenge to the four hour model failed on its merits. The 9th Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that ELLs are appropriately exposed to the necessary academic content at some point during their education. Furthermore, the plaintiff's claims of ELLs segregation were unsupported by the evidence. The four hour model was a relatively recent program and there was not a lot of evidence on ELL performance; based on the evidence that did exist however, the 9th Circuit affirmed that the plaintiffs could not show their challenges to the program required maintaining an injunction. The district court's vacation of the injunction was affirmed. If new EEOA violations emerged, however, a new lawsuit could be brought.

Summary Authors

Joshua Arocho (7/17/2012)

Kevin Nomura (3/2/2015)

Carolyn Weltman (2/21/2016)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4630828/parties/flores-v-arizona-state-of/


Judge(s)

Alito, Samuel A. Jr. (District of Columbia)

Bea, Carlos T. (California)

Beezer, Robert R. (Washington)

Berzon, Marsha Siegel (California)

Collins, Raner Christercunean (Arizona)

Fletcher, Betty Binns (Washington)

Friedland, Michelle Taryn (California)

Hug, Procter Ralph Jr. (Nevada)

Kleinfeld, Andrew Jay (Alaska)

Marquez, Alfredo Chavez (Arizona)

Judge(s)

Alito, Samuel A. Jr. (District of Columbia)

Bea, Carlos T. (California)

Beezer, Robert R. (Washington)

Berzon, Marsha Siegel (California)

Collins, Raner Christercunean (Arizona)

Fletcher, Betty Binns (Washington)

Friedland, Michelle Taryn (California)

Hug, Procter Ralph Jr. (Nevada)

Kleinfeld, Andrew Jay (Alaska)

Marquez, Alfredo Chavez (Arizona)

Paez, Richard A. (California)

Rawlinson, Johnnie B. (Nevada)

Smith, Milan Dale Jr. (California)

Wallace, John Clifford (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Baron, David S. (District of Columbia)

Herr-Cardillo, Joy E. (Arizona)

Hogan, Timothy Michael (Arizona)

Morris, William Eric (Arizona)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Adams, Lynne Christensen (Arizona)

Bales, W. Scott (Arizona)

Bistrow, Eric J. (Arizona)

Cardenas, Jose A. (Arizona)

Demarchi, Kimberly Anne (Arizona)

Dulberg, Michael S. (Arizona)

Galvin, Jeanne Marie (Arizona)

Garner, David D. (Arizona)

Goddard, Terry (Arizona)

Hall, Roger W. (Arizona)

Iyer, Melissa G. (Arizona)

Kushibab, Peter D. (Arizona)

Manhart, Daryl (Arizona)

O'Grady, Mary Ruth (Arizona)

Park, Jinju (Arizona)

Preston, Mariannina E. (Arizona)

Segal, Susan P. (Arizona)

Selzer, Sarah (Arizona)

Skladany, Terri M. (Arizona)

Talenfeld, Elliott (Arizona)

Other Attorney(s)

Brown, D. Aaron (Arizona)

Browne, Sharon L. (Florida)

Cantelme, David J. (Arizona)

Chiou, Christopher C. (California)

Claffee, Scott A. (District of Columbia)

Cooper, Seth L. (District of Columbia)

Cutts, Kyle T. (California)

Detamore, James Scott (Colorado)

Farrell, Michael J. (Arizona)

Friedman, Michael J. (New York)

Gieseler, Steven Geoffrey (Florida)

Haskins, Steven A. (California)

Himmelfarb, Dan (District of Columbia)

Joseph, Lawrence J (District of Columbia)

Manley, James M. (Colorado)

Messerly, Ronald W. (Arizona)

Milczarek-Desai, Shefali (Arizona)

Neil, Paul R. (Arizona)

O'Brien, Robert (California)

Overholt, Keith F. (Arizona)

Parrish, Ashley C. (District of Columbia)

Phillips, Jonathan E. (California)

Popeo, Daniel J. (District of Columbia)

Reitz, Michael (Washington)

Richardson, John C (Arizona)

Richmond, Rick (California)

Rosenbaum, David B. (Arizona)

Samp, Richard A. (District of Columbia)

Sandler, Ross (New York)

Schaerr, Gene C. (District of Columbia)

Schlafly, Andrew L. (New Jersey)

Schoenbrod, David (New York)

Shapiro, Stephen M. (Illinois)

Sienicki, James J. (Arizona)

Starr, Kenneth Winston (District of Columbia)

Waldman, Ari E. (New York)

Zall, Barnaby W (Maryland)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket [PACER]

Aug. 7, 2015 Docket
160

Order (Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment)

48 F.Supp.2d 937

April 14, 1999 Order/Opinion
196

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

172 F.Supp.2d 1225

Jan. 24, 2000 Order/Opinion
209

Order

160 F.Supp.2d 1043

Oct. 12, 2000 Order/Opinion
226

Order

2001 WL 1028369

June 25, 2001 Order/Opinion
326

Order (Granting Motion to Intervene by Engineering Companies and General Contractors)

Oct. 5, 2005 Order/Opinion
335

Order "WO" (Injunction & Sanctions)

405 F.Supp.2d 1112

Dec. 16, 2005 Order/Opinion
390

Civil Order (Granting Motion to Intervene by Arizona Legislature)

March 14, 2006 Order/Opinion
392

Order on Motions for Stay Nos. 1 and 2

March 16, 2006 Order/Opinion
393

Order Re: Distribution of Fines

March 17, 2006 Order/Opinion

Resources

Title Description External URL

No Confidence: Confidentiality, Ethics and the Law of Academic Privilege

Eric Robinson

The law recognizes several evidentiary privileges, including a qualified privilege recognized by statute or court precedent in forty-eight states and several federal circuits that allows journalists … June 10, 2016 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10811680.2016.1184917

The Impact of a Structured English Immersion Model on English Language Learners' Reading Achievement

Fred Lugo

Researchers have estimated that by 2030, two of every five American public school students will be acquiring English as second language learners. Providing adequate means by which ELLs can obtain bot… Jan. 1, 2018

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4630828/flores-v-arizona-state-of/

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

COMPLAINT FILED (former emp) (Entered: 08/25/1992)

Aug. 20, 1992
335

ORDER granting 296 Motion for Sanctions . Signed by Judge Raner C Collins on 12/15/05. (JKM, )

Dec. 16, 2005 RECAP
2

MOTION dismiss by dft [2−1] (former emp) (Entered: 12/08/1992)

Dec. 4, 1992
638

ORDER The court finds in favor of the Plaintiffs. Further ORDERED that the crt finds that the moving defendants failed to satisfy the requirements pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) for relief. Further ORDERED that the State has until the end of the current Legislative Session to comply with the original order.. Signed by Judge Raner C Collins on 03/22/07. (DNO, )

March 22, 2007 RECAP
3

NOTICE by dft of filing of orig afdts of Verma Pastor and Judy Richardson. (former emp) (Entered: 12/14/1992)

Dec. 9, 1992
4

STIPULATION that pla file resp to dft mtn to dismiss. (former emp) (Entered: 01/20/1993)

Jan. 14, 1993
5

MOTION to exceed the page limit in response to mtn for dismiss by pla [5−1] (former emp) (Entered: 01/20/1993)

Jan. 14, 1993

Proposed oppos to mtn to dismiss submitted by by pla (former emp) (Entered: 01/20/1993)

Jan. 14, 1993
6

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez that pla file resp to dfts pending mtn to dismiss by 2/19/93. (cc: all counsel) (former emp) (Entered: 01/25/1993)

Jan. 19, 1993
8

RESPONSE by pla to motion dismiss by dft [2−1] (former emp) (Entered: 01/25/1993)

Jan. 19, 1993
9

Ntc of filing EXHIBITS to response to dfts mtn to dismiss. (former emp) (Entered: 02/02/1993)

Jan. 29, 1993
10

STIPULATION to extend time to 2/8/93 to file reply to pla resp to mtn to dismiss. (former emp) (Entered: 02/03/1993)

Feb. 1, 1993
11

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez extend time for dft to reply to 2/8/93. (cc: all counsel) (former emp) (Entered: 02/08/1993)

Feb. 3, 1993
12

REPLY by dft to response to motion dismiss by dft [2−1] (former emp) (Entered: 02/09/1993)

Feb. 8, 1993
13

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez denying motion dismiss by dft [2−1] case management ddl for pla to file amd cmp by 6/30/93 (cc: all counsel) (former emp) (Entered: 06/02/1993)

May 26, 1993
14

AMENDED COMPLAINT by pla [1−1] (BAR) (Entered: 06/24/1993)

June 22, 1993
15

STIPULATION to ext time to file response (BAR) (Entered: 07/19/1993)

July 15, 1993
16

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez granting stipulation that dft's may file their response by 7/29/93 (cc: all counsel) (BAR) (Entered: 07/27/1993)

July 26, 1993
17

MOTION dismiss by dft [17−1] (BAR) (Entered: 07/30/1993)

July 29, 1993
18

MOTION to exceed the page limit by pla re oppo to dft's mtn to dism [18−1] (BAR) (Entered: 08/11/1993)

Aug. 10, 1993

LODGED Opposition to Motin to Dism (BAR) (Entered: 08/11/1993)

Aug. 10, 1993
21

NOTICE OF HEARING by pla setting motion dismiss by dft [17−1] at 10:00 10/18/93 (BAR) (Entered: 08/16/1993)

Aug. 10, 1993
19

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez granting motion to exceed the page limit by pla re oppo to dft's mtn to dism [18−1] (cc: all counsel) (BAR) (Entered: 08/13/1993)

Aug. 12, 1993
20

RESPONSE by pla to motion dismiss by dft [17−1] (BAR) (Entered: 08/13/1993)

Aug. 12, 1993
22

REPLY by dft to response to motion dismiss by dft [17−1] (BAR) (Entered: 08/31/1993)

Aug. 30, 1993
23

MINUTE ENTRY Judge Inits: ACM Crt Rptr: J Davis Court directs parties to agree on stip. facts (or chart) re: funding formulas. taking under advisement on 10/18/93 the motion dismiss by dft [17−1] Parties to submit agreed facts & disputed fcts by 11/30/93 (cc: all counsel) [23−1] (former emp) (Entered: 10/20/1993)

Oct. 18, 1993
24

MOTION to extend time to file stipulated statement of facts by pla [24−1] (sealed) (Entered: 11/30/1993)

Nov. 29, 1993
25

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez granting motion to extend time to 12/17/93 to file stipulated statement of facts by pla [24−1] (cc: all counsel) (BAR) (Entered: 12/07/1993)

Dec. 3, 1993
26

STATEMENT OF FACTS by pla re structure and operation of the state school finance system [17−1] (BAR) (Entered: 12/20/1993)

Dec. 16, 1993
27

STIPULATED FACTS by dft (BAR) (Entered: 12/21/1993)

Dec. 17, 1993
28

NOTICE by pla of Filing Exhibits, per crt's request at oral argument (BAR) (Entered: 02/10/1994)

Feb. 9, 1994
29

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez that FRCIVP as amended, shall apply to all cases pending in court and discovery continue as scheduled. (cc: all counsel) (re: order [29−1] (BAR) (Entered: 03/17/1994)

March 16, 1994
31

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez granting stipulation re disclosure and discovery purs to Rule 26 (cc: all counsel) (BAR) (Entered: 04/11/1994)

April 8, 1994
32

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez that dft's mtn to dismiss, treated by the court as a mtn for sum jgm purs to Rule 12(b)(6) is denied; ord that pla's request for Class Certification is grt, ord that cnsl stip as to the best notice practicable to all members under circumstances to all members of proposed class who can be ID purs to FRC 23(c)(2) and submit an appropriate order for the court's signature. (BAR) (Entered: 07/19/1994)

July 14, 1994
33

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez ; prel scheduling conf set for 11:00 9/22/94 before law clerk (cc: all counsel) (BAR) (Entered: 07/25/1994)

July 21, 1994
34

ANSWER by dfts (BAR) (Entered: 08/01/1994)

July 29, 1994
35

JOINT REPORT by pla, dft purs to FRCP Rule 16 & Order Setting Scheduling Conf (BAR) (Entered: 09/19/1994)

Sept. 16, 1994
36

SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez ; discovery due 7/1/95 ; dispositive motions due 8/1/95 ; pretrial order due 9/1/95 ; final Pretrial Conference set for 11:00 9/11/95 (cc: all counsel) (BAR) (Entered: 10/11/1994)

Oct. 6, 1994
37

MOTION to modify provisions of the joint rule 16 report approved by order of the court by pla [37−1] (BAR) (Entered: 05/22/1995)

May 19, 1995
38

RESPONSE by dft Arizona, State of to motion to modify provisions of the joint rule 16 report approved by order of the court by pla [37−1] (PAB) (Entered: 06/09/1995)

June 8, 1995
39

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez granting motion to modify provisions of the joint rule 16 report approved by order of the court by pla [37−1] ; discovery ddl set for 12/31/95 ; dispositive motions due 2/1/96 ; PTO ddl set for 3/1/96 ; Pretrial conference set for 10:00 8/18/95 (cc: all counsel) (BAR) (Entered: 06/19/1995)

June 16, 1995
40

MOTION to extend discovery cutoff & to amd other ddl's accordingly by pla, dft [40−1] (former emp) (Entered: 12/20/1995)

Dec. 19, 1995
41

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez granting motion to extend discovery cutoff & to amd other ddl's accordingly by pla, dft [40−1] ; discovery ddl set for 6/30/96 ; dispositive motions due 8/1/96 ; PTO ddl set for 9/1/96 (cc: all counsel) (BAR) (Entered: 01/16/1996)

Jan. 12, 1996
42

MOTION to exceed the page limit re memo in support of mtn for sum jgm by dfts [42−1] (BAR) (Entered: 02/26/1996)

Feb. 22, 1996
43

MOTION for summary judgment by dfts [43−1] (BAR) (Entered: 02/26/1996)

Feb. 22, 1996

LODGED memo in support of dft's mtn for sum jgm (BAR) (Entered: 02/26/1996)

Feb. 22, 1996

LODGED dft's stmt of facts (BAR) (Entered: 02/26/1996)

Feb. 22, 1996
44

NOTICE by pla of Service of Discovery Papers (BAR) (Entered: 02/27/1996)

Feb. 26, 1996
45

ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: terminating attorney Peter D Kushibab for Eugene Hughes, attorney Peter D Kushibab for C Diane Bishop, attorney Peter D Kushibab for Arizona, State of and substituting attorney Terri M. Skladany (BAR) (Entered: 03/06/1996)

March 6, 1996
46

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez granting motion to exceed the page limit re memo in support of mtn for sum jgm by dfts [42−1] (cc: all counsel) (PAB) (Entered: 03/21/1996)

March 20, 1996
47

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by dft of motion for summary judgment by dfts [43−1] (PAB) (Entered: 03/21/1996)

March 20, 1996
48

STATEMENT OF FACTS by dft re motion for summary judgment by dfts [43−1] (PAB) (Entered: 03/21/1996)

March 20, 1996

LODGED pla's opposition to mtn for sum jgm (BAR) (Entered: 04/05/1996)

April 3, 1996

LODGED pla's stmt of facts in support of opposition to mtn for sum jgm (BAR) (Entered: 04/05/1996)

April 3, 1996
50

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez granting motion to exceed the page limit of respo to dft's mtn for sum jgm by pla [49−1] (cc: all counsel) (BAR) (Entered: 04/08/1996)

April 4, 1996
51

RESPONSE by pla to motion for summary judgment by dfts [43−1] (PAB) (Entered: 04/09/1996)

April 4, 1996
52

STATEMENT OF FACTS by pla re motion response (PAB) (Entered: 04/09/1996)

April 4, 1996
53

EXHIBITS in support of response to mtn for sum jgm(Re: [51−1] (PAB) (Entered: 04/09/1996)

April 8, 1996
54

STIPULATION for ext of time to file opposition to dft's mtn for sum jgm (1st request) (BAR) (Entered: 04/10/1996)

April 9, 1996
55

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez granting stipulation that pltfs may file an opposition to dfts mtn for sum jgm on or before 4/12/96 (cc: all counsel) (PAB) (Entered: 04/16/1996)

April 15, 1996
56

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez parties' respective stmt of fact are stricken and parties directed to arrange for the return of their stmts of facts striking statement, striking statement; parties to meet and prepare the joint stmt of facts and file one document w/attached exhibits by 4/30/96; ord that the reply memo shall be filed by 5/15/96. (cc: all counsel) (BAR) (Entered: 04/16/1996)

April 15, 1996
57

STATEMENT OF FACTS by dft re motion for summary judgment by dfts [43−1] (BAR) (Entered: 05/13/1996)

May 10, 1996
58

REPLY by dft to response to motion for summary judgment by dfts [43−1] (PAB) (Entered: 05/15/1996)

May 14, 1996
59

MOTION to decertify class by dft [59−1] (PAB) (Entered: 05/15/1996)

May 14, 1996
60

NOTICE by dft of service of discvovery papers (PAB) (Entered: 05/22/1996)

May 20, 1996
61

STATUS REPORT by pltfs. (CDE) (Entered: 06/03/1996)

May 31, 1996
62

STIPULATION to ext time for dfts' resp to pla's 2nd req for prod of documents (BAR) (Entered: 06/04/1996)

June 3, 1996
63

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez granting stipulation to ext time for dfts' resp to plas' 2nd req for prod of documents (cc: all counsel) re: order [63−1] (BAR) (Entered: 06/06/1996)

June 5, 1996
64

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez Crt has been advised of Public Law 104−134, which requires w/drawal of pla's cnsl, ord that all ddlns are vacated, further ord that upon subst of new cnsl for pla the parties are to notify the court and a scheduling conf shall be held by the judge's law clerk, if necessary pnd disp of dft's mtn for sum jgm (cc: all counsel) (BAR) (Entered: 06/06/1996)

June 5, 1996
66

RESPONSE by dft to pla's status report to the court [61−1] (BAR) (Entered: 06/12/1996)

June 7, 1996
67

NOTICE by dft OF TAKING DEPO OF DR. SIDNEY D. BORCHER on the following date(s): 6/27/96 at 9:00 (BAR) (Entered: 06/12/1996)

June 7, 1996
65

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez granting stipulation to ext time for dft's resp to pla's second req for prod of documents to 45 days from the date the court rules on the dft's mtn for sum jgm (cc: all counsel) (BAR) (Entered: 06/12/1996)

June 10, 1996
68

MOTION for order grt So AZ Legal Aid lv to withdraw as counsel by pla [68−1] (BAR) (Entered: 07/26/1996)

July 25, 1996
69

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for pla by Timothy Michael Hogan & mtn to substitute as cnsl of record (PAB) (Entered: 08/02/1996)

Aug. 1, 1996
70

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez granting motion for order grt So AZ Legal Aid lv to withdraw as counsel by pla [68−1] attorney William Eric Morris for Marco Antonio Ramirez, for Manuel Bustamante, for Evangelina Miranda (cc: all counsel) (PAB) (Entered: 08/02/1996)

Aug. 1, 1996
71

ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: terminating attorney Terri M Skladany for defendants and substituting attorney Jeanne Marie Galvin (BAR) (Entered: 08/06/1996)

Aug. 2, 1996
72

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez granting motion to decertify class by dft [59−1], denying motion for summary judgment by dfts [43−1] (cc: all counsel) (BAR) (Entered: 08/13/1996)

Aug. 9, 1996
73

MOTION for reconsideration by dft [73−1] of ct's order dated 8/8/96 (former emp) (Entered: 08/23/1996)

Aug. 22, 1996
74

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez re: motion for reconsideration by dft [73−1] [73−1] Pla shall file a resp memorandu w/i 10 days of the date of this order(cc: all counsel) (PAB) (Entered: 08/27/1996)

Aug. 26, 1996
75

RESPONSE by pla to motion for reconsideration by dft [73−1] (PAB) (Entered: 09/11/1996)

Sept. 9, 1996
76

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for pla by David S Baron (PAB) (Entered: 09/11/1996)

Sept. 9, 1996
77

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez denying motion for reconsideration by dft [73−1] (cc: all counsel) (BAR) (Entered: 09/19/1996)

Sept. 18, 1996
78

REPLY by dft to motion for reconsideration by dft [73−1] [73−1] (BAR) (Entered: 09/20/1996)

Sept. 19, 1996
79

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez ; telephonic status hearing set for 10:30am on 10/21/96 (cc: all counsel) (former emp) (Entered: 09/27/1996)

Sept. 24, 1996
80

MINUTE ENTRY Judge Inits: ACM Crt Rptr: R.Bodimer ; status hearing held. Court orders that the pltf file a petn to file an amended complt by 5:00 p.m. on 11/29/96 or this case will be dism. [cc: all counsel] [80−2] (former emp) (Entered: 10/21/1996)

Oct. 21, 1996
81

MOTION for leave to file 2nd amd cmp by pla [82−1] (BAR) Modified on 12/30/1996 (Entered: 11/29/1996)

Nov. 27, 1996

LODGED 2nd Amended Complaint (BAR) (Entered: 01/02/1997)

Nov. 27, 1996
82

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez granting motion for leave to file 2nd amd cmp by pla [82−1] (cc: all counsel) (BAR) (Entered: 01/10/1997)

Jan. 8, 1997
83

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by pla [14−1] terminating pla Evangelina Miranda; adding Miriam Flores and Rosa Rzeslawski (BAR) (Entered: 01/10/1997)

Jan. 8, 1997
84

STIPULATION for Extension of Time, 60 days, to File Answer (former emp) (Entered: 01/31/1997)

Jan. 30, 1997
85

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez granting stipulation that dft have until 3/28/96 to file their ans to pla 2nd amd cmp (cc: all counsel) (PAB) (Entered: 02/04/1997)

Feb. 3, 1997
86

ANSWER by dfts (BAR) (Entered: 03/31/1997)

March 28, 1997
87

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez ; discovery ddl set for 4/28/97 ; dispositive motions due 5/28/97 ; PTO ddl set for 6/27/97 , ; Pretrial conference set for 10:00 7/14/97 (cc: all counsel) (BAR) (Entered: 04/02/1997)

April 1, 1997
88

JOINT MOTION to extend time by dft, pla [88−1] (BAR) (Entered: 04/21/1997)

April 21, 1997
89

ORDER by Judge Alfredo C. Marquez granting motion to extend time by dft, pla [88−1] , ; discovery ddl set for 8/25/97 ; dispositive motions due 9/26/97 ; PTO ddl set for 10/24/97 ; Pretrial conference set for 10:00 11/3/97 (cc: all counsel) (BAR)

April 29, 1997
91

MOTION to extend time to submit resp to pla's mtn for an order to maintain this cause of action as a class action, or alternatively resp to pla's motion by dft [91−1] (BAR) (Entered: 06/10/1997)

June 6, 1997
92

RESPONSE by pla to motion to extend time to submit resp to pla's mtn for an order to maintain this cause of action as a class action, or alternatively resp to pla's motion by dft [91−1] and pla rply to dft resp to pla mot re: class action (PAB) (Entered: 06/19/1997)

June 18, 1997
92

REPLY by pla to response to motion for order an order to maintain this cause of action as a class action by pla [90−1]& response to dft mot for addition time (PAB) (Entered: 06/19/1997)

June 18, 1997
93

NOTICE by dfts of lodging form of order grt addl time for dfts to submit resp to pla's mtn for an order to maintain this cause of action as a class action (BAR) (Entered: 06/25/1997)

June 24, 1997
94

ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: terminating attorney Jeanne Marie Galvin, attorney Mariannina E Preston for Eugene Hughes, C Diane Bishop, for Arizona, State of and substituting attorney Roger W. Hall (BAR) (Entered: 06/25/1997)

June 24, 1997

State / Territory: Arizona

Case Type(s):

Education

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 20, 1992

Closing Date: Aug. 7, 2015

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Students in Arizona who were not native English speakers. For purposes of this case, they are referred to as English Language Learners ("ELLs").

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

State of Arizona, State

Defendant Type(s):

Elementary/Secondary School

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Amount Defendant Pays: 0

Order Duration: 2002 - 2015

Content of Injunction:

Monitoring

Issues

General:

Funding

Discrimination-basis:

Language discrimination

Affected Gender:

Female

Male

Language:

Spanish

Type of Facility:

Government-run