Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Thank you!

DONATE

Case: Tucson Woman's Clinic v. Schamadan

4:00-cv-00141 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Filed Date: March 1, 2000

Closed Date: Oct. 21, 2010

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

Abortion providers in Arizona brought this case on March 1, 2000 on behalf of themselves and their patients against several state officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including the Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, the Arizona Attorney General, and a class of all prosecuting attorneys in the state of Arizona. The plaintiffs were represented by the County Attorney for the County of Maricopa. Plaintiffs challenged a set of Arizona statutes and regulations passed in 1999 th…

Abortion providers in Arizona brought this case on March 1, 2000 on behalf of themselves and their patients against several state officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including the Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, the Arizona Attorney General, and a class of all prosecuting attorneys in the state of Arizona. The plaintiffs were represented by the County Attorney for the County of Maricopa. Plaintiffs challenged a set of Arizona statutes and regulations passed in 1999 that provided for the licensing, supervision, regulation, and control of physician practices in which five or more first trimester abortions per month or any post-first trimester abortions were performed. Plaintiffs requested declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of these laws because they allegedly violated plaintiffs’ and their patients’ constitutional rights to equal protection, due process (vagueness and undue burden), informational privacy, and undue delegation under the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as their right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The case was assigned to Judge Raner C. Collins.

Plaintiffs also promptly filed a motion for preliminary injunction to stay enforcement of the statutes and regulations at issue while the case was ongoing. On several occasions throughout the discovery period, Judge Collins granted stipulations by both parties that defendants would not enforce the statutes and regulations, though a formal preliminary injunction was never issued.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in April 2001. Plaintiffs’ motion sought relief as a matter of law on all claims except for their undue burden claim, on which they maintained there was a disputed issue of material fact. Defendants filed six separate motions for summary judgment, one for each of the plaintiffs’ claims. The court granted in part and denied in part both parties’ motions. 2002 WL 32595282.

The plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim rested on three alleged violations: (1) physicians that provide abortions are singled out from physicians that provide comparable procedures, (2) women seeking abortions were treated differently than men seeking similar medical procedures, and (3) physician practices that provide five or more first trimester abortions per month were treated differently from those that provide less than five. The court found none of these persuasive, and granted summary judgment to the defendants. 

However, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure issue. Due to the sensitive nature of abortion and the physician-patient relationship, the court held that licensed abortion clinics were sufficiently different form other places of business that courts have allowed to be closely regulated (including auto junkyards, catering businesses, and the veterinary drug industry). Thus, the regulatory provision requiring that the clinics give the Department of Health Services access to their facilities and requiring disclosure of patient medical records without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. 

Further, the court concluded that the regulations violated an individual’s right to informational privacy by requiring disclosure of unredacted patient medical records and personal information contained in ultrasound prints. However, the court also found that the provision providing for warrantless searches of physicians’ offices had already been addressed in the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim above. Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ and defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the informational privacy claim. 

The plaintiffs further contended that the statutes and regulations at issues granted local hospitals “unbridled power” to determine whether plaintiffs may continue to provide abortions, and that granting third parties authority to prevent otherwise legal abortions violated the Constitution. The court disagreed, holding that the delegation did not explicitly give hospitals the authority to act unconstitutionally, and did not grant unbridled or unfettered discretion because it was still subject to judicial review and held to constitutional standards. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this claim was granted, and plaintiffs’ denied. 

In their fifth claim, plaintiffs alleged that the statutes and regulations were unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause because it failed to provide abortion providers a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is prohibited and allowed room for potential discriminatory and arbitrary enforcement. In particular, plaintiffs argued that the term “gestational age” contained two incompatible methods of calculation because they produced estimates roughly two weeks apart. In addition, plaintiffs challenged medical terms of art or medical judgments such as “potentially life-threatening,” “serious injury, “vital signs,” and drugs and equipment needed to support and monitor cardiopulmonary function. The court reviewed case law from the Seventh and Fifth Circuits to determine that none of these terms were vague enough to raise a constitutional issue, and thus granted summary judgment on this claim to defendants. 

Finally, plaintiffs argued that the court could not resolve their undue burden claim under the Due Process Clause at the summary judgment stage because a factual issue remained as to whether the implementation of the statutes and regulations would result in increased costs for abortions. Defendants argued that no issue of material fact existed because the statutes and regulations served a valid purpose, were not enacted for an invidious purpose, and that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that they would result in prohibitive cost increases. The court agreed with defendants and granted their motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ undue burden claim. 

The court also noted that the statutory scheme contained a severability clause, so the portions ruled unconstitutional by the court’s order could be cleanly severed without additional provisions being held invalid. Both parties appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

On June 18, 2004, in an opinion written by Judge Sidney R. Thomas, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs on their Fourth Amendment and informational privacy, as well as its grant of partial summary judgment to plaintiffs on their vagueness claims. 371 F.3d 1173. The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on the equal protection and the undue delegation claims, as well as its grant of partial summary judgment to defendants on the vagueness claims. However, the court reversed and remanded the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on the undue burden claim, holding that the district court too quickly discounted the burdens imposed by the statutes and regulations, including financial and health costs. The plaintiffs were thus entitled to a bench trial and specific findings of fact as to the impact the burdens would have on women seeking abortions. 

Both parties filed petitions for rehearing. On August 23, 2004, the Ninth Circuit issued an amended opinion, holding that one particular portion of the regulatory scheme did not violate informational privacy rights. 379 F.3d 531. The particular regulation in question required licensees to release information, including the name of a patient, to a professional licensing board if there was an “incident” with the patient involving death or serious injury. The Ninth Circuit took up this issue on appeal even though it had not been raised below, and had found an informational privacy violation in its earlier opinion. After reviewing the petitions for rehearing, the Ninth Circuit decided to amend their opinion, finding no informational privacy violation because the type of information requested was narrow, the potential for harm in any subsequent non-consensual disclosure was minimal, and the state interest in having the professional physician licensing board follow up on serious incidents was strong. With this amended opinion, the Ninth Circuit denied the petitions for rehearing.

Back in the district court, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations and eventually submitted a joint stipulation of settlement on September 10, 2008, which the court promptly granted. The Arizona Department of Health Services agreed under the settlement to write a new list of rules and regulations to implement the 1999 statute, which reduced the burdens on abortion providers by requiring the the health department to have a warrant in order to obtain patient records with identifying information and requiring dates of inspections to be scheduled with abortion facilities ahead of time. The regulations were implemented in 2010, and the case was dismissed with prejudice on October 21, 2010. 

Summary Authors

Zoe Goldstein (3/27/2022)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
118

4:00-cv-00141

Fourth Amended Complaint

Tucson Woman's Clinic v. Eden

Jan. 23, 2001

Jan. 23, 2001

Complaint
228

4:00-cv-00141

Judgment in a Civil Case

Tucson Woman's Clinic v. Eden

Sept. 30, 2002

Sept. 30, 2002

Order/Opinion
227

4:00-cv-00141

Order

Tucson Woman's Clinic v. Eden

Sept. 30, 2002

Sept. 30, 2002

Order/Opinion
47

4:00-cv-00141

02-17375

02-17381

02-17382

Opinion

Tucson Woman's Clinic v. Eden

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

June 18, 2004

June 18, 2004

Order/Opinion
56

4:00-cv-00141

02-17375

02-17381

02-17382

Opinion

Tucson Woman's Clinic v. Eden

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Aug. 23, 2004

Aug. 23, 2004

Order/Opinion
286

4:00-cv-00141

Order re: Joint Request for Stipulation of Settlement

Tucson Woman's Clinic v. Eden

Sept. 11, 2008

Sept. 11, 2008

Order/Opinion
294

4:00-cv-00141

Order of Dismissal with Prejudice

Tucson Woman's Clinic v. Eden

Oct. 21, 2010

Oct. 21, 2010

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4489815/tucson-womans-clini-v-schamadan/

Last updated Sept. 3, 2022, 3:10 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT FILED (MAH) (Entered: 03/02/2000)

March 1, 2000

March 1, 2000

PACER
2

MOTION for pro hac vice admission of attorney Bebe J. Anderson by pla [2-1] (MAH) (Entered: 03/07/2000)

March 7, 2000

March 7, 2000

PACER
3

ORDER by Judge Raner C. Collins granting motion for pro hac vice admission of attorney Bebe J. Anderson by pla [2-1] (cc: all counsel) (MAH) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 03/08/2000)

March 8, 2000

March 8, 2000

PACER
4

RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and cmp EXECUTED in person upon dft Janet Napolitano on 3/3/00 (MAH) (Entered: 03/09/2000)

March 8, 2000

March 8, 2000

PACER
5

RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and cmp EXECUTED in person upon dft Richard M Romley on 3/3/00 (MAH) (Entered: 03/09/2000)

March 8, 2000

March 8, 2000

PACER
6

MOTION to exceed the page limit in support of their mtn for temporary restraining order/prelim injunction by plas [6-1] (MAH) (Entered: 03/13/2000)

March 10, 2000

March 10, 2000

PACER
7

NOTICE by pla of service of plas' mtn for temporary restraining order with supporting declarations on dfts (MAH) (Entered: 03/13/2000)

March 10, 2000

March 10, 2000

PACER
8

MOTION for pro hac vice admission of attorney Bonnie Scott Jones by plas [8-1] (MAH) (Entered: 03/13/2000)

March 10, 2000

March 10, 2000

PACER
9

RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and cmp EXECUTED in person upon dft James L Schamadan on 3/7/00 (MAH) (Entered: 03/13/2000)

March 10, 2000

March 10, 2000

PACER

LODGED mtn for restraining order/prelim injunction by plas (MAH)

March 10, 2000

March 10, 2000

PACER

LODGED declaration of Sherrylyn Young, M.D. re mtn for TRO by plas (MAH)

March 10, 2000

March 10, 2000

PACER

LODGED declaration of Robert Tamis, M.D. re mtn for TRO by plas (MAH)

March 10, 2000

March 10, 2000

PACER

LODGED declaration of Virginia L. Yrun re mtn for TRO by plas (MAH)

March 10, 2000

March 10, 2000

PACER

LODGED delcaration of William Richardson, M.D. re mtn for TRO by plas (MAH)

March 10, 2000

March 10, 2000

PACER

LODGED declaration of Damon S Raphael re mtn for TRO by pla (MAH)

March 10, 2000

March 10, 2000

PACER
10

ORDER by Judge Raner C. Collins granting motion to exceed the page limit in support of their mtn for temporary restraining order/prelim injunction by plas [6-1] (cc: all counsel) (MAH) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 03/13/2000)

March 13, 2000

March 13, 2000

PACER
11

MOTION for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order against enforcement of Arizona Revised Statutes 36-402, 36-449, 36-449.01, 36-449.02 and 36-449.03 and Arizona Regulation Title 9, Chapter 10, Article 15 [11-1] (MAH) (Entered: 03/13/2000)

March 13, 2000

March 13, 2000

PACER
12

DECLARATION by pla Damon Raphael, M.D. re motion for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order against enforcement of Arizona Revised Statutes 36-402, 36-449, 36-449.01, 36-449.02 and 36-449.03 and Arizona Regulation Title 9, Chapter 10, Article 15 [11-1] [11-1] (MAH) (Entered: 03/13/2000)

March 13, 2000

March 13, 2000

PACER
13

DECLARATION by pla William Richardson re motion for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order against enforcement of Arizona Revised Statutes 36-402, 36-449, 36-449.01, 36-449.02 and 36-449.03 and Arizona Regulation Title 9, Chapter 10, Article 15 [11-1] [11-1] (MAH) (Entered: 03/13/2000)

March 13, 2000

March 13, 2000

PACER
14

DECLARATION by pla Sherrylyn Young, M.D. re motion for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order against enforcement of Arizona Revised Statutes 36-402, 36-449, 36-449.01, 36-449.02 and 36-449.03 and Arizona Regulation Title 9, Chapter 10, Article 15 [11-1] [11-1] (MAH) (Entered: 03/13/2000)

March 13, 2000

March 13, 2000

PACER
15

DECLARATION by pla Virginia L. Yrun for Planned Parenthood/S re motion for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order against enforcement of Arizona Revised Statutes 36-402, 36-449, 36-449.01, 36-449.02 and 36-449.03 and Arizona Regulation Title 9, Chapter 10, Article 15 [11-1] [11-1] (MAH) (Entered: 03/13/2000)

March 13, 2000

March 13, 2000

PACER
16

DECLARATION by pla Robert H Tamis, M.D. re motion for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order against enforcement of Arizona Revised Statutes 36-402, 36-449, 36-449.01, 36-449.02 and 36-449.03 and Arizona Regulation Title 9, Chapter 10, Article 15 [11-1] [11-1] (MAH) (Entered: 03/13/2000)

March 13, 2000

March 13, 2000

PACER
17

RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and cmp EXECUTED in person upon dft Barbara LaWall on 3/8/00 (MAH) (Entered: 03/14/2000)

March 14, 2000

March 14, 2000

PACER
18

ORDER by Judge Raner C. Collins granting motion for pro hac vice admission of attorney Bonnie Scott Jones by plas [8-1] Bonnie Scott Jones appointed for plas (cc: all counsel) (MAH) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 03/15/2000)

March 15, 2000

March 15, 2000

PACER
19

ORDER by Judge Raner C. Collins setting motion for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order [11-1] at 1:30 3/27/00; ORD that dfts shall file any responsive briefs by noon 3/22/00; if parties intend to present testimony at the hrg, they should notify the court by 3/22/00 (cc: all counsel) (MAH) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 03/15/2000)

March 15, 2000

March 15, 2000

PACER
20

STIPULATION by pla, dft to stay enforcement of abortion clinic regulatory scheme pending outcome of preliminary injunction hrg, to continue preliminary injunction hrg for 90 days, to extend dfts and & response ddls; set reply ddl for pla. (PAB) (Entered: 03/23/2000)

March 22, 2000

March 22, 2000

PACER
21

ORDER by Judge Raner C. Collins granting stipulation to continue ddls, setting motion for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order against enforcement of Arizona Revised Statutes 36-402, 36-449, 36-449.01, 36-449.02 and 36-449.03 and Arizona Regulation Title 9, Chapter 10, Article 15 [11-1] at 10:00 6/29/00 ; dfts shall have a 30 day extension on the current ddl to file an answer to the cmp; dfts shall file any responsice briefs to plas' mtn for a TRO by 5/22/00; plas' reply briefs are due 6/5/00 ORD that enforcement of the Abortion Clinic Regulatory Scheme is STAYED pending the outcome of the preliminary injunction hrg (cc: all counsel) (MAH) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 03/24/2000)

March 24, 2000

March 24, 2000

PACER
22

First AMENDED COMPLAINT by pla [1-1] ; (MAH) (Entered: 04/12/2000)

April 12, 2000

April 12, 2000

PACER
23

CERTIFICATE of service of amended cmp upon dfts by pla (MAH) (Entered: 04/12/2000)

April 12, 2000

April 12, 2000

PACER
24

MOTION for pro hac vice for Eve Gartner by pla Planned Parenthood/S [24-1] (PAB) (Entered: 04/17/2000)

April 17, 2000

April 17, 2000

PACER
25

ORDER by Judge Raner C. Collins granting motion for pro hac vice for Eve Gartner by pla Planned Parenthood/S [24-1] (cc: all counsel) (MAH) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 04/18/2000)

April 18, 2000

April 18, 2000

PACER
26

MOTION (Request) to substitute the Maricopa County Attorney as class representative or accord Pima County nominal party status by dft [26-1] (MAH) (Entered: 05/08/2000)

April 18, 2000

April 18, 2000

PACER
27

ANSWER by dft Barbara LaWall to first amended cmp (MAH) (Entered: 05/02/2000)

May 1, 2000

May 1, 2000

PACER
28

ANSWER by dft James L Schamadan, dft Janet Napolitano to first amended cmp (MAH) (Entered: 05/02/2000)

May 1, 2000

May 1, 2000

PACER
29

MOTION to certify class action by pla [29-1] the proposed class for a dft consists of the Arizona AG, all Arizona County Attorneys, City Attorneys and Town Attorneys, and their employees and agents, in their official capacities (MAH) (Entered: 05/08/2000)

May 8, 2000

May 8, 2000

PACER
30

RESPONSE (Memorandum of law in opposition ) by pla to motion to substitute the Maricopa County Attorney as class representative or accord Pima County nominal party status by dft [26-1] (MAH) (Entered: 05/08/2000)

May 8, 2000

May 8, 2000

PACER
31

STIPULATION by plas, dfts to dismiss pla Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona, allow pla to file second amended cmp and amended memorandum of law in support of their mtn for temporary restraining order and/or prelim injunction, and to amend existing scheduling order (MAH) (Entered: 05/08/2000)

May 8, 2000

May 8, 2000

PACER
32

CERTIFICATE of service of stipluation to dismiss pla Planned Parenthood, permit the filing of certain amended pleadings and amend existing scheduling order, plas' second amd cmp, plas' amd memorandum of law in suport of mtn for TRO/prelim injunction, plas' memorandum in support of mtn for class certification and in opposition to dfts mtn re class certification by pla (MAH) Modified on 05/17/2000 (Entered: 05/08/2000)

May 8, 2000

May 8, 2000

PACER
33

MOTION for pro hac vice admission of attorney Suzanne Novak by plas [34-1] (MAH) Modified on 05/17/2000 (Entered: 05/08/2000)

May 8, 2000

May 8, 2000

PACER

LODGED amended memo of law in support of mtn for temporary restraining order and/or prelim injunction (MAH)

May 8, 2000

May 8, 2000

PACER

LODGED second amd cmp (MAH)

May 8, 2000

May 8, 2000

PACER
34

ORDER by Judge Raner C. Collins granting motion for pro hac vice admission of attorney Suzanne Novak by plas [34-1] (cc: all counsel) (MAH) Modified on 05/17/2000 (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 05/16/2000)

May 16, 2000

May 16, 2000

PACER
35

ORDER by Judge Raner C. Collins telephonic prel scheduling conf set for 10:00 6/13/00 before Judge Collins' law clerk, Annemarie Hennelly joint report due 5 days prior (cc: all counsel) (MAH) Modified on 05/17/2000 (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 05/16/2000)

May 16, 2000

May 16, 2000

PACER
36

ORDER by Judge Raner C. Collins granting stipulation to terminate pla Planned Parenthood, file amended pleadings and extend ddls terminating party Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona ord that pla are granted leave to file their second amended cmp and their amended memo of law in support of their mtn for tro and/or prelim injunction; clerk is directed to file plas' second amd cmp and amended memo of law in support of their mtn for tro/prelim injunction as of the date of this order; ord ddl for dfts' response and plas' reply to plas' mtn for prelim injunction is vacated; vacating hearing re motion for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order (cc: all counsel) (MAH) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 05/17/2000)

May 17, 2000

May 17, 2000

PACER
37

Seconded AMENDED COMPLAINT by plas [22-1], [1-1] ; (MAH) (Entered: 05/17/2000)

May 17, 2000

May 17, 2000

PACER
38

Amended MEMORANDUM of Law by pla IN SUPPORT of motion for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order against enforcement of Arizona Revised Statutes 36-402, 36-449, 36-449.01, 36-449.02 and 36-449.03 and Arizona Regulation Title 9, Chapter 10, Article 15 [11-1] (MAH) (Entered: 05/17/2000)

May 17, 2000

May 17, 2000

PACER
39

RESPONSE by dft Barbara LaWall to motion to certify class action by pla [29-1] (MAH) (Entered: 05/18/2000)

May 18, 2000

May 18, 2000

PACER
40

MOTION to intervene and memorandum in support of by Richard M Romley [40-1] (MAH) (Entered: 05/26/2000)

May 26, 2000

May 26, 2000

PACER
41

CERTIFICATE of service by intervenor Richard M Romley (MAH) (Entered: 05/26/2000)

May 26, 2000

May 26, 2000

PACER
42

REPLY by pla to response to motion to certify class action by pla [29-1] (PAB) (Entered: 05/31/2000)

May 30, 2000

May 30, 2000

PACER
43

CERTIFICATE of service by pla of reply memo in support of pla mtn for class certification (PAB) (Entered: 05/31/2000)

May 30, 2000

May 30, 2000

PACER
44

STIPULATION by plas, dfts re class certification, including that pla shall amend cmp to name Richard M. Romley as sole representative of the proposed dft class; 3rd amd cmp shall be filed 6/9/00; plas' mtn for class certification shall be construed as incorporating this change in class representation; Richard Romley's mtn to intervene is w/drawn as moot, Barbara LaWall's obj to designation as class representative and opposition to plas' mtn for class certification are w/drawn as moot (MAH) (Entered: 06/08/2000)

June 8, 2000

June 8, 2000

PACER
45

Joint Rule 16 Status REPORT by plas, dfts (MAH) (Entered: 06/08/2000)

June 8, 2000

June 8, 2000

PACER
46

CERTIFICATE of service of 3rd amended cmp by pla (MAH) (Entered: 06/09/2000)

June 9, 2000

June 9, 2000

PACER
49

Third AMENDED COMPLAINT by pla terminating dft Barbara LaWall ; naming Richard Romley as the sole representative of the proposed dft class (MAH) (Entered: 06/14/2000)

June 9, 2000

June 9, 2000

PACER

LODGED third amended cmp (MAH)

June 9, 2000

June 9, 2000

PACER
47

SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Raner C. Collins ; all initial disclosures due 7/20/00; parties are granted until 8/1/00 for leave to move to amend pleadings or join additional parties; pla shall disclose names of expert witnesses and reports on or before 8/21/00; dft shall have up and until 9/11/00 to disclose rebuttal experts and their reports; all other witnesses shall be disclosed by 9/11/00; discovery due 10/27/00 ; dispositive motions due 11/3/00; cnsl shall file a proposed pretrial order 30 days from the filng date of the Court order issuing its decision on dispositive mtns; mtns in limine shall be filed no later than 2 weeks after the filing of the pto; responses to mtn in limine are due 10 days after the mtn is filed; pretrial conference will be set upon the filing of the pto; trial will be set at the pretrial (cc: all counsel) (MAH) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 06/14/2000)

June 14, 2000

June 14, 2000

Clearinghouse
48

ORDER (scheduling order) by Judge Raner C. Collins ; pla's are granted leave to file a third amended cmp, which names Richard M. Romley as the sole representative of the proposed Defendant Class and retains Janet Napolitano and James L. Schamadan in the action as individual dfts; clerk is directed to file plas' third amended cmp, lodged 6/9/00; as if it were filed on that date; dfts' shall file answers by 7/7/00; plas' mtn for class certification and supporting memorandum shall be construed as incorporating the aforementioned change in Class Representation; dfts shall not seek to change venue; Richard Romley's mtn to intervene is w/drawn as moot; finding the motion to intervene and memorandum in support of by Richard M Romley [40-1] moot.; Barbara LaWall's obj to designation as Class Representative and opposition to pla's mtn for Class Certification are w/drawn as moot; granting motion to certify class action by pla [29-1], [26-1] (cc: all counsel) (MAH) Modified on 06/14/2000 (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 06/14/2000)

June 14, 2000

June 14, 2000

PACER
50

NOTICE of service of discovery by dft James L Schamadan, dft Janet Napolitano . (PAB) (Entered: 06/19/2000)

June 19, 2000

June 19, 2000

PACER
51

NOTICE of service of discovery by dft James L Schamadan, dft Janet Napolitano . (MAH) (Entered: 06/23/2000)

June 23, 2000

June 23, 2000

PACER
52

NOTICE by dft James L Schamadan, dft Janet Napolitano of subsitution ; Cathy Eden, Director of Arizona Department of Health Services, is substituted as dft in this matter for James L. Schamadan, previous Acting Director (MAH) (Entered: 06/29/2000)

June 28, 2000

June 28, 2000

PACER
53

ANSWER by dft Janet Napolitano, dft Cathy Eden to third amended cmp (MAH) (Entered: 06/29/2000)

June 28, 2000

June 28, 2000

PACER
54

ANSWER to 3rd amended cmp by dft Richard M Romley (MAH) (Entered: 07/07/2000)

July 7, 2000

July 7, 2000

PACER
55

CERTIFICATE of service by mail of answer to 3rd amd cmp by dft Richard M Romley (MAH) (Entered: 07/07/2000)

July 7, 2000

July 7, 2000

PACER
60

NOTICE of compliance of initial disclosure statement pursuant to FRCivP 26(a) by plas (MAH) (Entered: 07/25/2000)

July 17, 2000

July 17, 2000

PACER
61

CERTIFICATE of service of plas' notice of initial disclosure by mail by pla (MAH) (Entered: 07/25/2000)

July 17, 2000

July 17, 2000

PACER
56

NOTICE of service of discovery by dft Janet Napolitano, dft Cathy Eden . (MAH) (Entered: 07/20/2000)

July 19, 2000

July 19, 2000

Clearinghouse
57

NOTICE of compliance of initial disclosure statement pursuant to FRCivP 26(a) by dft Janet Napolitano, dft Cathy Eden (MAH) (Entered: 07/21/2000)

July 20, 2000

July 20, 2000

PACER
58

NOTICE of compliance of initial disclosure statement pursuant to FRCivP 26(a) by dft Richard M Romley (MAH) (Entered: 07/21/2000)

July 21, 2000

July 21, 2000

PACER
59

First suppl NOTICE of compliance of initial disclosure statement pursuant to FRCivP 26(a) by State Dfts (PAB) (Entered: 07/25/2000)

July 24, 2000

July 24, 2000

PACER
62

CERTIFICATE of service of plas' notice of initial disclosure by plas (MAH) (Entered: 08/03/2000)

Aug. 3, 2000

Aug. 3, 2000

PACER
63

MOTION for pro hac vice admission of atty Stephen Crampton by dft Richard M Romley [63-1] (MAH) (Entered: 08/10/2000)

Aug. 10, 2000

Aug. 10, 2000

PACER
64

ORDER by Judge Raner C. Collins granting motion for pro hac vice admission of atty Stephen Crampton by dft Richard M Romley [63-1] (cc: all counsel) (MAH) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 08/11/2000)

Aug. 11, 2000

Aug. 11, 2000

PACER
65

NOTICE of service of discovery by plas. (MAH) (Entered: 08/14/2000)

Aug. 14, 2000

Aug. 14, 2000

PACER
66

CERTIFICATE of service by mail of plas' notices of service of plas' first request for production of documents and plas' first and second sets of interrogatories by plas (MAH) (Entered: 08/14/2000)

Aug. 14, 2000

Aug. 14, 2000

PACER
67

MOTION for pro hac vice admission by attorney Denise M. Burke by dft Richard M Romley [67-1] (MAH) (Entered: 08/16/2000)

Aug. 16, 2000

Aug. 16, 2000

PACER
68

NOTICE by pla of change of address of The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy (MAH) (Entered: 08/17/2000)

Aug. 17, 2000

Aug. 17, 2000

PACER
69

ORDER by Judge Raner C. Collins granting motion for pro hac vice admission by attorney Denise M. Burke by dft Richard M Romley [67-1] (cc: all counsel) (MAH) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 08/23/2000)

Aug. 23, 2000

Aug. 23, 2000

PACER
70

MOTION for pro hac vice admission of atty Brian Fahling by dft Richard M Romley [70-1] (MAH) (Entered: 08/23/2000)

Aug. 23, 2000

Aug. 23, 2000

PACER
71

ORDER by Judge Raner C. Collins granting motion for pro hac vice admission of atty Brian Fahling by dft Richard M Romley [70-1] (cc: all counsel) (MAH) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 08/28/2000)

Aug. 28, 2000

Aug. 28, 2000

PACER
72

ORDER by Judge Raner C. Collins [48-1] that pla shall promptly serve all class members with notice of this action; if any class member wishes to be excluded from the class he shall notify the Court by 9/11/00; any jgm in this action will bind the class member if they do not opt out of the class by that date; any dft that remains in the class may file an appearance through cnsl [48-2] (cc: all counsel) (MAH) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 08/28/2000)

Aug. 28, 2000

Aug. 28, 2000

PACER
73

NOTICE of service of discovery by dft Richard M Romley . (MAH) (Entered: 08/28/2000)

Aug. 28, 2000

Aug. 28, 2000

PACER
74

NOTICE of compliance of initial disclosure statement pursuant to FRCivP 26(a) by pla (MAH) (Entered: 08/28/2000)

Aug. 28, 2000

Aug. 28, 2000

PACER
75

NOTICE by dft Richard M Romley that dft has served all class members with notification of this action (MAH) (Entered: 09/06/2000)

Sept. 5, 2000

Sept. 5, 2000

PACER
76

NOTICE by dft Janet Napolitano, dft Cathy Eden of service by mail of expert witness disclosure and reports (MAH) (Entered: 09/13/2000)

Sept. 12, 2000

Sept. 12, 2000

PACER
77

NOTICE of service of discovery by dft Janet Napolitano, dft Cathy Eden . (MAH) (Entered: 09/13/2000)

Sept. 12, 2000

Sept. 12, 2000

PACER
78

NOTICE by dft Janet Napolitano, dft Cathy Eden of service of initial list of non-expert witnesses (MAH) (Entered: 09/13/2000)

Sept. 12, 2000

Sept. 12, 2000

PACER
79

NOTICE by dft Richard M Romley of service of witnesses and expert witness disclosures by mail (MAH) (Entered: 09/13/2000)

Sept. 13, 2000

Sept. 13, 2000

PACER
80

CERTIFICATE of service of plas' notice of service of witness disclosures by pla (MAH) (Entered: 09/20/2000)

Sept. 19, 2000

Sept. 19, 2000

PACER
81

NOTICE by dft James L Schamadan, dft Janet Napolitano OF TAKING DEPO OF Virginia Yrun on the following date(s): 10/10/00 @ 9:00 (MAH) (Entered: 10/02/2000)

Sept. 29, 2000

Sept. 29, 2000

PACER
82

NOTICE by pla OF TAKING DEPO OF E.H. Warren, Jr. Ph.D. on the following date(s): 10/17/00 at 1:00 (MAH) (Entered: 10/04/2000)

Oct. 4, 2000

Oct. 4, 2000

PACER
83

NOTICE by pla OF TAKING DEPO OF Kathleen Phillips on the following date(s): 10/19/00 @ 8:00; and request to produce documents at deposition (MAH) (Entered: 10/04/2000)

Oct. 4, 2000

Oct. 4, 2000

PACER
84

NOTICE by pla OF TAKING DEPO OF Noreen Johnson, M.D. on the following date(s): 10/30/00 @ 8:00 (MAH) (Entered: 10/04/2000)

Oct. 4, 2000

Oct. 4, 2000

PACER
85

NOTICE by pla OF TAKING DEPO OF Lynn S. Farnsworth, M.D. on the following date(s): 10/18/00 @ 8:00 (MAH) (Entered: 10/04/2000)

Oct. 4, 2000

Oct. 4, 2000

PACER
86

NOTICE by pla OF TAKING DEPO OF Viki Davis on the following date(s): 10/17/00 @ 8:00, and request to produce documents and deposition (MAH) (Entered: 10/04/2000)

Oct. 4, 2000

Oct. 4, 2000

PACER
87

NOTICE by pla OF TAKING DEPO OF Vicki Conditt, R.N. on the following date(s): 10/19/00 @ 10:00, and request to produce documents at deposition (MAH) (Entered: 10/04/2000)

Oct. 4, 2000

Oct. 4, 2000

PACER
88

NOTICE by pla OF TAKING DEPO OF Virginia Blair on the following date(s): 10/17/00 @ 10:00, and request to produce documents (MAH) (Entered: 10/04/2000)

Oct. 4, 2000

Oct. 4, 2000

PACER
89

NOTICE of service of discovery by plas. (MAH) (Entered: 10/13/2000)

Oct. 13, 2000

Oct. 13, 2000

PACER
90

NOTICE of service of discovery by plas--certificate of service. (MAH) (Entered: 10/13/2000)

Oct. 13, 2000

Oct. 13, 2000

PACER
91

NOTICE of service of discovery by plas. (MAH) (Entered: 10/18/2000)

Oct. 18, 2000

Oct. 18, 2000

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Arizona

Case Type(s):

Reproductive Issues

Key Dates

Filing Date: March 1, 2000

Closing Date: Oct. 21, 2010

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Abortion providers in Arizona

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Center for Reproductive Rights

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Attorney General, State

Arizona Department of Health and Human Services, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Due Process: Substantive Due Process

Unreasonable search and seizure

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Declaratory Judgment

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Issues

Reproductive rights:

Licensing restriction

Facility requirements

Undue Burden

Reproductive health care (including birth control, abortion, and others)

General:

Abortion