Galassini v. Fountain Hills, Town of et al, No. 2:2011cv02097 - Document 138 (D. Ariz. 2014)
Court Description: CONSENT JUDGMENT pursuant to the parties' 137 Joint Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). ORDERED that the Consent Judgment is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the final judgment of this Court as to all claims between Dina Galassini and the Town. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), the Court finds there is no just reason for delay in entering this judgment. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 7/16/2014.(LFIG)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Galassini v. Fountain Hills, Town of et al 1 Doc. 138 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Dina Galassini, No. CV-11-02097-PHX-JAT Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 CONSENT JUDGMENT Town of Fountain Hills, et al., 13 Defendants. This Consent Judgment is made and agreed upon by and between Dina Galassini 14 15 and the Town of Fountain Hills (the “Town”). 16 RECITALS 17 18 1. 19 Ms. Galassini initiated this litigation against the Town on October 26, 2011. The basis of her claims was that her free speech and association rights had been 20 violated by the application of certain Arizona campaign finance laws found in 21 Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. 22 23 2. 24 The next day, October 27, 2011, the State of Arizona intervened into the litigation as Intervenor-Defendant to defend the constitutionality of the challenged state 25 laws. 26 27 28 3. On November 3, 2011, the district court granted Ms. Galassini’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, prohibiting the application and enforcement of the Dockets.Justia.com 1 challenged state laws as to Ms. Galassini so that she could “speak and associate 2 with others and hold her protests between now and November 8, 2011.” [DOC 3 33] 4 5 4. 6 This preliminary injunction was granted over the objections of both the Town and the State of Arizona. 7 8 5. taken no position on the constitutionality of the Arizona Revised Statutes at issue 9 10 11 Since the conclusion of the preliminary injunction proceedings, the Town has in this litigation. 6. On September 30, 2013, the district court granted in part Ms. Galassini’s motion 12 13 for summary judgment. The district court also denied in part Ms. Galassini’s 14 motion for summary judgment and also denied the Town’s motion for summary 15 judgment. [DOC 106] 16 17 7. The district court found the definition of political committee, Arizona Revised 18 Statutes § 16-901(19), to be unconstitutionally vague because people of common 19 intelligence must guess at the law’s meaning and will differ as to its application. 20 21 8. The district court found the definition of political committee, Arizona Revised 22 Statutes § 16-901(19), to be unconstitutionally overbroad because it sweeps in a 23 substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech without any sufficiently 24 important governmental interest in regulating such speech. 25 26 27 9. The district court found Arizona’s campaign finance statutory scheme, Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 16-901 et seq., to be unconstitutionally burdensome for 28 -2- 1 groups that spend less than $500 because those burdens are not substantially 2 related to the government’s disclosure interest. 3 4 10. First Amendment rights. 5 6 The district court found that these Arizona statutes have violated Ms. Galassini’s 11. The district court found that there is a disputed question of fact as to whether the 7 8 9 Town of Fountain Hills has a policy of applying state statutes regardless of their constitutionality. [Doc 106] 10 11 CONSENT JUDGMENT The constitutionality of the statutes at issue now decided, the Town and Ms. 12 13 14 Galassini consent to the entry of a final judgment as to the Town as follows: A. 15 The Town, having taken no position on the Arizona Revised Statutes at issue in this litigation and instead having deferred to the State of Arizona to 16 defend the constitutionality of the statutes, consents to an entry of judgment 17 18 in accordance with the Court’s findings declaring Arizona Revised Statutes 19 § 16-901(19), to be unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and declaring 20 Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 16-901 et seq., to be unconstitutional as 21 22 applied to groups that spend less than $500, all as set forth in the district 23 court’s decision of September 30, 2013. 24 B. The Town admits to liability under Monell v. Department of Social 25 26 Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Specifically, the Town admits its 27 officials—the town clerk, interim town manager, and town attorney—did 28 not make an independent determination as to the constitutionality of the -3- 1 applicable Arizona state statute prior to the Town’s adherence thereto and 2 made a conscious decision to send the October 12, 2011 letter to Ms. 3 Galassini. At that time, the town officials believed in good faith that the 4 5 Arizona Revised Statutes were constitutional. The letter informed Ms. 6 Galassini that based on the plain language of the statute as well as guidance 7 and training provided by the Arizona Clerks’ Association and the Secretary 8 of State’s Office, Ms. Galassini could become a political committee if any 9 10 11 additional person or persons joined her effort. C. The Town agrees to be bound by the terms of any injunction or other 12 equitable relief entered by any court during the remainder of this litigation. 13 14 D. 15 The Town agrees to pay Ms. Galassini $1 in nominal damages and $2,500 in attorneys’ fees and costs. 16 17 E. Ms. Galassini waives any claim for further nominal or actual damages 18 against the Town, or any claim for further attorneys’ fees and costs arising 19 from this litigation. 20 21 F. Ms. Galassini waives all of her prior, existing, or future rights to any relief 22 of any kind arising out of or related to this litigation (known and unknown) 23 from the Town and its agents, employees, officers, divisions, successors, 24 and assigns other than the relief set forth in paragraphs C and D, above. 25 26 This waiver covers this litigation only and does not preclude Ms. Galassini 27 from filing a new lawsuit in the event a change of circumstances causes the 28 Town or its agents, employees, officers, divisions, successors, or assigns to -4- 1 2 apply or enforce, threaten to apply or enforce, or cause to be applied or enforced, unconstitutional campaign finance laws to Ms. Galassini. 3 4 5 Approved as to Form: 6 7 Dated: July 15, 2014 By: /s/ Paul V. Avelar Paul V. Avelar (023078) 8 Timothy D. Keller (019844) 9 INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 10 11 12 Dated: July 15, 2014 By: /s/ Jeffrey T. Murray 13 Jeffrey T. Murray (019223) 14 Kristin M. Mackin (023985) 15 SIMS MURRAY LTD 16 17 18 19 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED granting the parties’ Stipulation to Proceed by Consent Judgment (Doc. 137). 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the foregoing proposed Consent Judgment is 21 APPROVED and ADOPTED as the final judgment of this Court as to all claims 22 between Dina Galassini and the Town. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), 23 the Court finds there is no just reason for delay in entering this judgment. 24 Dated this 16th day of July, 2014. 25 26 27 28 -5-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
