This case involved a wrongful death claim by plaintiff Pamela Diane Bach arising from the October 1975 crash of a U.S. military aircraft in Arizona during an ejection sequence that killed her husband, First Lieutenant Robert M. Bach; the English firm Martin-Baker, which designed and manufactured the ejector seat installed in the plane, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court denied the motion. Arizona Rule 4(e)(2) permits jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant that caused an event to occur in the state, and the facts showed Martin-Baker had placed its specially designed military seats into the stream of commerce with knowledge they would be used by U.S. forces, including in Arizona, thereby satisfying both the state long-arm statute and constitutional due process. The court rejected arguments that the non-resident status of the parties or the seat's sale in England precluded jurisdiction, noting the presence of hundreds of Martin-Baker seats in Arizona and the foreseeability of litigation there.
In United States v. Catalanotto, defendant Joseph Rae moved to disqualify the Tucson Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona and quash the Second Superseding Indictment against him, based on a conflict arising from his former attorney Jon R. Cooper joining that office after representing Rae in related matters. The court found that Cooper had received confidential information from Rae about individuals and an automobile later tied to the indictment counts, and that a pending civil lawsuit by Cooper against Rae for unpaid fees created an appearance of impropriety or retaliation. Applying Arizona ethical rules, the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, and precedents like State v. Latigue, the court held that knowledge could be imputed to the Tucson office, violating standards against even the appearance of professional impropriety under Canon 9. It therefore quashed the indictment as to Rae, disqualified the Tucson office from further prosecution of him, severed Rae from the case, and allowed for possible handling by the Phoenix office or a special prosecutor.
This case involves retail business partners suing First National Bank of Chicago and others under federal antitrust laws after the bank, acting as trustee, refused to lease them space in an Arizona shopping center it owned. The bank moved to dismiss, arguing improper venue under a federal statute limiting suits against national banks to the district where the bank is established, here the Northern District of Illinois. Although a broader antitrust venue provision exists, the court found the bank-specific rule applies absent waiver. The court denied the motion, holding that the bank waived venue protections by qualifying to do business in Arizona and designating a statutory agent for service of process there, even without operating a branch. The decision rested on the principle that such actions demonstrate consent to suit in the state, consistent with precedents recognizing waiver in similar contexts.
The case involved the criminal prosecution of a Border Patrol officer, William Dale Manypenny, for assault with a deadly weapon after he shot and injured a fleeing alien while on duty on the Organ Pipe National Monument or Papago Indian Reservation in Arizona; the case was removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442. The court initially arrested judgment on jurisdictional and preemption grounds but, on reconsideration, denied that motion and instead granted a judgment of acquittal. The core reasoning was that Arizona retained criminal jurisdiction over the lands in question, as none of the constitutional or statutory exceptions to state authority applied, but federal officers have a complete defense to state charges when their actions are honestly and reasonably believed necessary to carry out their federal duties, and the evidence here could not support a guilty verdict under that standard.
In Northcross v. Joslyn Fruit Co., Inc., an Arizona plaintiff doing business as Northcross Distributing Company sued a Colorado corporation for breach of contract and nonpayment of approximately $23,472.50 after the defendant placed five orders for perishable agricultural goods that were shipped F.O.B. from Nogales, Arizona. The defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), asserting lack of personal jurisdiction under Arizona's long-arm statute (Rule 4(e)(2)). The court granted the motion and dismissed the case, holding that the defendant was not "doing business" in Arizona, had no direct contacts there, and did not cause an event in the state sufficient to confer jurisdiction; the connection was also deemed too insubstantial to satisfy constitutional due process. The plaintiff failed to carry the burden of establishing a basis for jurisdiction despite the goods originating in Arizona.
This case is a class action brought by Deputy Sheriff Gomez, a Mexican-American, against Pima County, its sheriff, and other officials, alleging violations of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 through discriminatory employment practices in the Sheriff's Department, including unjustified discipline, transfers, and denial of promotions affecting him and the class of Mexican-American/Spanish-surname applicants and employees. The defendants moved to dismiss on multiple grounds, including whether a county can be sued under § 1981, whether Mexican-Americans may bring claims under that statute, immunity, failure to state a claim, and exhaustion of administrative remedies. The court denied the motion to dismiss in full, holding that counties are proper defendants under § 1981, that Mexican-Americans may sue under the statute for discrimination based on race or color, and that exhaustion would be required only if administrative procedures could have prevented the alleged deprivations.