It is hard to believe that Abe Hamadeh's Election Contest still has never made it out of the trial court, nearly 8 months after he narrowly lost the race for Arizona Attorney General and 6 1/2 months after the Election Contest lawsuit was filed.
Now, more than one month after oral arguments on their languishing Motion for a New Trial, Hamadeh's attorneys are nudging Judge Lee Jantzen by asking for a scheduling conference. It is usually an awkward thing to remind a judge about an outstanding issue, but attorney Jen Wright worded it carefully:
"Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 16(d) provides: “On a party's written request the court must-or on its own the court may-set a Scheduling Conference.” Pursuant to rule 16(d), Plaintiffs therefore request that this Court set a scheduling conference so that pre-trial deadlines may be determined. Plaintiffs understand that this Court has not yet ruled on their motion for a new trial and do not presume what this Court may determine is appropriate and just. Nonetheless, setting deadlines now would allow this case to more rapidly proceed to trial should this Court rule in their favor, shortening the period of uncertainty for the people of Arizona as to who was rightfully elected by the voters as the true attorney general of the state in the November, 2022 general election."
On April 4, Arizona's Law published an article noting that the Motion for New Trial had been "at issue" since early February, as were several other post-trial motions. The following week, the court set an (optional) oral argument for mid-May. It is now 36 days since that hearing.
(DECISION WEEK Begins For Judge In Languishing Abe Hamadeh Election Contest --Arizona Constitution)
The April 4 article also discusses the 60-day deadline judges have to make a ruling, and the combined lack of clarity in the election contest statutes and court rules that have allowed three election contest cases to still be in various stages of the legal process so long after the election and transition of power. (We have already started work on tightening the timeline for future elections.)
"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet.
Blame it on me if you like. I filed a Rule 65(b) Petition against the Mohave County Board of Supervisors in their capacity as Board of Directors of our improvement district (Jennifer Esposito v. Wilma Bishop) and it was assigned to Jantzen, which forced him to clear the calendar. That show cause hearing was supposed to be 2 weeks ago but the Board attorney filed a last minute motion to dismiss ( which was denied) and we ended up arguing that instead so the hearing was pushed out until tomorrow morning. It gave the judge the perfect opportunity to delay.
ReplyDeleteThat is nonsensical and procedurally improper.
ReplyDeletehttps://arizonadailyindependent.com/2023/06/22/mohave-judge-assigned-to-hamadeh-election-case-was-censured-and-reprimanded-in-past-for-overdue-rulings/
ReplyDelete