IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
|
|
- Reginald Harrell
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 0 0 David G. Derickson, State Bar No. 000 John P. Kaites, State Bar No. 0 Michael S. Love, State Bar No. 0 RIDENOUR, HIENTON & LEWIS, P.L.L.C. Chase Tower 0 North Central Avenue, Suite 00 Phoenix, Arizona 00-0 (0) -00; Fax (0) -0 Firm designatedcontact@rhlfirm.com Attorney dderickson@rhlfirm.com mlove@rhlfirm.com Attorneys for Interested Party/Protestant/Appellants In the Matter of: MAGELLAN HEALTH SERVICES OF ARIZONA, INC. AND MAGELLAN COMPLETE CARE OF ARIZONA, INC., vs. IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS Appellants, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, and Respondent, MERCY MARICOPA INTEGRATED CARE, Intervenor. Docket No. F-00-ADM No. Solicitation: ADHS-0000 MAGELLAN S OBJECTION TO AHCCCS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS AN INTERESTED PARTY And ADHS S JOINDER IN AHCCCS MOTION TO INTERVENE (Assigned to Hon. Diane Mihalsky) Magellan Health Services of Arizona, Inc. ( MHSAZ ) and Magellan Complete Care of Arizona, Inc. ( MCCA ) (collectively, Magellan ) objects to the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System s ( AHCCCS ) Motion to Intervene and to the Arizona Department of Health Services ( ADHS ) Joinder in Motion to Intervene. The addition of multiple intervenors, multiple law firms and unnecessary duplication does not serve the interests of a fair and orderly proceeding, judicial economy or any other valid 0;pap;-000
2 0 0 purpose. Not only does AHCCCS lack standing to intervene, but any interest that AHCCCS may assert in the process is already adequately protected by Attorneys for ADHS in this administrative hearing. INTRODUCTION AHCCCS stated goal in its Motion to Intervene is to get the best possible RBHA for Maricopa County. This goal is not unique to AHCCCS. In fact, it is the fundamental goal of the bid process and one which is shared by both ADHS and Magellan. The best way to ensure that the best possible RBHA is awarded the RBHA Contract is by ensuring the integrity of the bidding process. To that end, this matter is scheduled for a three day administrative hearing beginning August, 0Among the issues raised on appeal, Magellan maintains that the integrity of the bid process was tainted because ADHS committed certain significant legal and factual errors in awarding the RBHA contract to an unqualified bidder, including bias by ADHS in scoring the offers and amending the Solicitation to favor MMIC. As to these issues, ADHS is adequately represented by the Arizona Attorney General s Office. Magellan further argues that MMIC is not a responsible bidder and that MMIC s bid includes the creation of an illegal relationship with Maricopa Integrated Health System ( MIHS ). As to these issues AHCCCS intervention is also unnecessary. Faced with the substantial risk of losing the RBHA Contract, MMIC sought to intervene to preserve its own interest in upholding the RBHA Contract. See MMIC s Motion to Intervene, at pg., ls. -. MMIC has aggressively defended its award of the RBHA Contract at every stage, participating in the initial protest before ADHS and the appeal Apparently AHCCCS is not concerned with or unaware of parts of Gila County, which are also within the GSA RBHA District. The law is clear: a RBHA can only serve as a manager of behavioral health services, A.R.S. -0(C), yet MMIC s members include providers of behavior health services. - -
3 0 0 proceedings before the Arizona Department of Administration ( ADOA ). Id. at pg., lines -. Magellan did not object to MMIC s Motion to Intervene, which was granted by the ALJ. See Case Management Order No.. AHCCCS now seeks to jump on Respondent s bandwagon by claiming that it, too, has a right to intervene and be heard on appeal despite the fact AHCCCS was neither the party awarding the RBHA Contract (ADHS) nor the party awarded the RBHA Contract (MMIC). AHCCCS is not uniquely situated to defend ADHS or MMIC s actions in this appeal. Its interests are adequately represented by the Arizona Attorney General and/or the law firms of PERKINS COIE, LLP, SNELL & WILMER, LLP, or COPPERSMITH, SCHERMER & BROCKELMAN. The Standard for Granting A Motion to Intervene Rule (a) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure provides: (a) Intervention of Right Upon timely application, anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: () when a statute confers an unconditional right to intervene; or () when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties. (Emphasis added by AHCCCS.) AHCCCS does not claim a statutory right to intervene, as no such unconditional right exists. Instead, AHCCCS draws the ALJ s attention to the isolated word anyone while ignoring the actual enumerated criteria establishing when anyone may intervene. In the absence of an unconditional statutory right to intervene, the rule governing intervention requires that the applicant claim an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and (be) so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest. High School Dist. No. 0, Pima County v. Civil Rights Division, Ariz.,, 0 - -
4 0 0 P.d 0, (App. ) (emphasis added), quoting A.R.S. Rules of Civil Procedure, rule (a). See also Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. American Ass n of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Ariz., 0 0, P.d, (0) (Arizona Catholic Conference failed to demonstrate that its interests would be inadequately served by the representation provided by the Attorney General). AHCCCS Interests Are Adequately Represented by ADHS The issue is whether AHCCCS interests ensuring a qualified RBHA is in place to provide integrated physical and behavioral health services to Medicaid eligible adults with Serious Mental Illness (SMI) are adequately represented without AHCCCS intervening. AHCCCS interests should have been protected through its active participation in the Solicitation and in ensuring an integral bid process not by jumping into the fray to argue on behalf of (or in opposition to) a specific bidder. Specifically, AHCCCS worked with ADHS to establish the appropriate level of expectations and demands on a future contractor in order to secure the best possible candidate for award. See AHCCCS Response at pg., lines -. Indeed, because AHCCCS is accountable to the federal arm of Medicare (the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services or CMS ), AHCCCS ensured that all responsible bidders be qualified to provide integrated physical and behavioral health care for SMI AHCCCS recipients and for AHCCCS recipients who are dually eligible for Medicaid and Medicare (through a Duals Special Needs Plan or D-SNP ). AHCCCS also had two members on the Solicitation evaluation committee. From there, AHCCCS delegated considerable authority to ADHS to oversee the RBHAs.... See AHCCCS Response at pg., lines -. In joining AHCCCS Motion to Intervene, ADHS tries to put the ball back in AHCCCS court, arguing that the RBHA Contract involves a transition to integrated care, which presents unique issues that AHCCCS, as the single state Medicaid agency, is best equipped to address. See - -
5 0 0 ADHS Joinder, at pg., lines -. Assuming ADHS was qualified to oversee and select a bid for integrated behavioral and medical health care, it is inconceivable that ADHS is now unqualified to adequately speak to these same issues on appeal. More importantly, the transition to integrated care is not even an issue on appeal. AHCCCS transition argument was made at the Motion to Stay level an argument flatly rejected on May, 0, when the ADOA correctly determined that a stay of the RBHA Contract is in the best interest of the State: The Director acknowledges the transition to a new model for integrated physical and behavioral health services, but respectfully disagrees the performance of the contract awarded to MMIC, especially related transition activities, should not be stayed pending resolution of the appeal.... [T]he Director concludes based on the impact transition of services imposes, the expense of the contract and RFP, the scope of the services provided and the population and their families it serves, a stay is in the best interests of the state. See May, 0 Decision and Order Regarding Request for Stay. Similarly, AHCCCS argues that its separate interests are affected because it will be hampered in doing its job while the State is required to separate the physical and behavioral health service responsibilities among two or more contractors in Maricopa County. See AHCCCS Response at pg., lines -. As before, this argument addresses the stay that is already in place and has nothing to do with the issues raised on appeal. It also creates a false sense of urgency, as Magellan s RBHA activities are presently providing the very services which AHCCCS claims would be at risk. On August, 00, Governor Brewer, ADHS, Magellan, MIHS, and the provider clinic chief executive officers announced the launching of Magellan s integrated care model. Since then, and under the terms of its existing contract, Magellan has developed and implemented integrated care for members. To date, Magellan has implemented and managed integrated care health homes serving over,000 members in clinics with - -
6 0 0 expansion plans for the remaining clinics. These very clinics are proposed as the core of MMIC s integrated program, which is nothing more than a continuation of Magellan s integrated care program. Therefore, whether AHCCCS participates in this appeal or not, members will continue to benefit from the integrated care program that is currently in place and proposed to be expanded by both companies. Quite simply, AHCCCS rights will not be affected one way or the other by the outcome of this proceeding. AHCCCS should not be permitted to pick and choose who it wants to work with outside the legal confines of the bid process. By rule, the RBHA Contract shall only be awarded to a responsible offeror whose offer is determined to be most advantageous to the state based on the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation. See A.A.C. R--C(A). In the end, AHCCCS will be working with whatever entity is ultimately determined to be a responsible offeror whose offer is most advantageous to the state. Whether that is Magellan or MMIC, there is no direct legal effect on AHCCCS rights. The Right to Intervene Does Not Apply to Witnesses AHCCCS further claims that because it has been requested to produce documents and may have staff that will be called as witnesses AHCCCS has somehow obtained the status of an intervenor. The fallacy in AHCCCS s argument is that relevancy is not the standard for intervening. If it were, any witness could intervene in any action. AHCCCS is free to have counsel represent its interest in responding to document requests or preparing a witness to testify. The need for fact witnesses and/or documentary evidence does not make AHCCCS an interested party for purposes of intervening. CONCLUSION AHCCCS fails to satisfy any of the criteria for intervening pursuant to Rule (a). AHCCCS has no dog in the fight, as its legal interests are not impacted by whether Magellan or MMIC is ultimately the holder of the RBHA Contract. Any collateral effect - -
7 0 0 on AHCCCS arises from the Stay imposed by the ADOA, which is not part of the hearing process directed by the ADOA. The Stay will remain in place until this matter has concluded. Adding another party, as AHCCCS requests, adds no assistance to the ALJ in ascertaining the facts and law necessary to decide the issues on appeal and will only serve to further draw out these proceedings. Accordingly, Magellan requests that AHCCCS Motion to Intervene be denied. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 0 th day of July, 0. Copy e-filed this 0 th day of July, 0, and ed to all parties and interested persons via OAH portal. By: DC Hatheway RIDENOUR, HIENTON & LEWIS, P.L.L.C. By /s/ David G. Derickson, SBA #000 David G. Derickson John P. Kaites Michael S. Love 0 North Central Avenue, Suite 00 Phoenix, Arizona 00-0 Attorneys for Appellants - -
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
1 David G. Derickson, State Bar No. 000 John P. Kaites, State Bar No. 01 Michael S. Love, State Bar No. 0 RIDENOUR, HIENTON & LEWIS, P.L.L.C. Chase Tower 1 North Central Avenue, Suite 00 Phoenix, Arizona
More informationIN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS. Appellants, Respondent,
1 1 David G. Derickson, State Bar No. 000 John P. Kaites, State Bar No. 01 Michael S. Love, State Bar No. 0 RIDENOUR, HIENTON & LEWIS, P.L.L.C. Chase Tower 1 North Central Avenue, Suite 00 Phoenix, Arizona
More informationIN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
1 1 Andrew S. Gordon (000 Roopali H. Desai (0 COPPERSMITH SCHERMER & BROCKELMAN PLC 00 North Central Avenue, Suite Phoenix, Arizona 00 Telephone: (0 1-0 Facsimile: (0-0 agordon@csblaw.com rdesai@csblaw.com
More informationWOODBRIDGE STRUCTURED FUNDING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and WALLACE THOMAS, JR., Plaintiffs/Appellees,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE WOODBRIDGE STRUCTURED FUNDING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and WALLACE THOMAS, JR., Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. ARIZONA LOTTERY; JEFF HATCH-MILLER,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT
More informationSnell & Wilmer IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-00-dlr Document Filed 0/0/ Page of One Arizona Center, 00 E. Van Buren, Suite 00 0..000 0 0 Brett W. Johnson (#0) Sara J. Agne (#00) Joy L. Isaacs (#00) SNELL & WILMER One Arizona Center 00 E.
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
Michael K Jeanes, Clerk of Court *** Electronically Filed *** T. Hays, Deputy //0 ::00 PM Filing ID 00 0 0 B. Lance Entrekin (#) THE ENTREKIN LAW FIRM One East Camelback Road, #0 Phoenix, Arizona 0 (0)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Special Action Industrial Commission
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationSnell & Wilmer IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-0-ckj Document Filed // Page of One Arizona Center, 00 E. Van Buren, Suite 00 Phoenix, Arizona 00-0..000 0 Brett W. Johnson (# ) Eric H. Spencer (# 00) SNELL & WILMER One Arizona Center 00 E.
More informationDR. KRISHNA M. PINNAMANENI, individually, and as Trustee of THE KRISHNA M. AND BHAVANI K. PINNAMANENI REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, Plaintiffs/Appellants,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE DR. KRISHNA M. PINNAMANENI, individually, and as Trustee of THE KRISHNA M. AND BHAVANI K. PINNAMANENI REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. ARIZONA
More informationIN RE: THOMAS C. No. 1 CA-MH SP
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE MELINDA S. HENRICKS, ) No. 1 CA-UB 10-0359 ) Appellant, ) DEPARTMENT C ) v. ) ) O P I N I O N ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC ) SECURITY, an Agency,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE MANUEL SALDATE, a married man, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY ex rel. MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY S OFFICE, an
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE CHRISTOPHER PERRY; and PERRY & ) 1 CA-SA 10-0038 PARTNERS, PLLC, an Arizona ) Professional Limited Liability ) DEPARTMENT D Company dba PERRY & SHARIRO,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationNo. 2 CA-CV Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two, Department B
Page 1 JEFFREY A. BOATMAN and ANNE BOATMAN, husband and wife; FRED RIEBE; and ROBERT MCDONALD, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. SAMARITAN HEALTH SERVICES, INC., an Arizona corporation, Defendant-Appellee No.
More informationKARL and FABIANA STAUFFER, Plaintiffs/Appellants, PREMIER SERVICE MORTGAGE, LLC, et al., Defendants/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE KARL and FABIANA STAUFFER, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. PREMIER SERVICE MORTGAGE, LLC, et al., Defendants/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV 15-0026 Appeal from the Superior
More informationSOAR Works...in Arizona
SOAR Works...in Arizona Supplemental Security Income (SSI) SSI & SSDI 2 Different Programs! 2016 Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) Based on financial need. FBR=$733 (individual) and $1,100 (couple).
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Prescott Division
Case :0-cv-00-PGR Document Filed 0//0 Page of 0 0 DENNIS K. BURKE United States Attorney District of Arizona SUE A. KLEIN Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No. Two Renaissance Square 0 North Central
More informationIN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 0 Walker and Sons Inc. dba Katrol Construction -v- COMPLAINANT License No: B-.-C of Sygnos Inc. RESPONDENT No. 0A--ROC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION HEARING:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE In the Matter of the Estate of: THOMAS J. STEWART, Deceased. SEAN STEWART; STACIE ANN STEWART; ANDREA CRYSTAL STEWART; AARON STEWART, Appellees, v.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT United States of America, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, Case No. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona No. CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB
More informationMANUEL de JESUS ORTEGA MELENDRES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; et al.
0 0 Jonathon A. Moseley 00 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite Washington, D.C. 000 (0) -000 Attorney for Intervenors (Pro hac vice pending) Larry Klayman 00 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite Washington, D.C.
More informationJP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA, Claimant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV FILED
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE KEVORK BEKELIAN, et al., Applicants/Appellants, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA, Claimant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 18-0360 FILED 3-19-2019 Appeal from the Superior
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-00-dlr Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 Roopali H. Desai (0 Andrew S. Gordon (000 D. Andrew Gaona (0 COPPERSMITH BROCKELMAN PLC 00 North Central Avenue, Suite 00 Phoenix, Arizona 00 T: (0 - rdesai@cblawyers.com
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Cause No.
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationISAACMAN KAUFMAN & PAINTER, P.C., a California professional corporation, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationWilliam G. Kanellis, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., Counsel for Defendant.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 07-532C Filed: July 7, 2008 TO BE PUBLISHED AXIOM RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, INC., Plaintiff, Bid Protest; Injunction; v. Notice Of Appeal As Of Right, Fed. R.
More informationBEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Professional Medical Transport, Inc., dba PMT Ambulance ( PMT ), R/M Arizona
Philip R. Wooten (0000 PHILIP R. WOOTEN, P.C. 1 East Equestrian Trail Phoenix, Arizona 0-0 (0-0 (0-1 (Fax Email: philip.wooten@azbar.org Attorney for PMT Ambulance, American Ambulance, Comtrans Ambulance
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: COUNSEL: DIANE MERRILL, Petitioner/Appellee, v. ROBERT KENNETH MERRILL, Respondent/Appellant. No. CV-15-0028-PR Filed December 15, 2015
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT
More informationANDY BIGGS, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, THOMAS J. BETLACH, Defendant/Appellee.
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE ANDY BIGGS, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. THOMAS J. BETLACH, Defendant/Appellee. EDMUNDO MACIAS; GARY GORHAM; DANIEL MCCORMICK; and TIM FERRELL, Intervenor
More informationDANTAN SALDAÑA, Plaintiff/Appellant, No. 2 CA-CV Filed July 21, 2017
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO DANTAN SALDAÑA, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHARLES RYAN, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MARLENE COFFEY, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY WARDEN, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT
More informationIn re the Marriage of: DIANE MERRILL, Petitioner/Appellee, ROBERT KEITH MERRILL, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO MOTION OF THE OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY TO INTERVENE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO The Ohio Democratic Party, : : Plaintiff, : Case No. C2 04-1055 : v. : Judge Marbley : J. Kenneth Blackwell, Secretary of State, : in his official
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
MARC J. VICTOR, P.C. 0 South Alma School Road, Suite Chandler, Arizona (0 - Fax (0-0 Marc J. Victor - SBN 0 Marc@AttorneyForFreedom.com Attorneys for Defendant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT FAIRBANKS DECISION ON APPEAL
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT FAIRBANKS J&S SERVICES, INC., ) ) Appellant, ) ) vs. ) ) DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL ) RESOURCES, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Case No. 4FA-14-2651CI
More informationOVERTURNING AGENCY DECISIONS
Page 1 of 7 OVERTURNING AGENCY DECISIONS Presented by Adriane J. Hofmeyr Quarles & Brady LLP Tuesday, June 20, 2017 10:20 pm to 11:05 am 11th Annual Specialized CLE for In-House Counsel Hotel Palomar,
More informationELOISE GARBARENO, Petitioner/Appellant, No. 2 CA-CV Filed February 28, 2014
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE THE ESTATE OF RICHARD R. SNURE, DECEASED. ELOISE GARBARENO, Petitioner/Appellant, v. FRAN WHATLEY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF RICHARD
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) No. 1 CA-CV 09-0174 LEBARON PROPERTIES, LLC, an ) Arizona limited liability company,) DEPARTMENT A ) ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) O P I N I O N ) v. )
More informationIN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS STATE OF ARIZONA
John B. Weldon, Jr., 0001 Mark A. McGinnis, 01 Scott M. Deeny, 0 SALMON, LEWIS & WELDON, P.L.C. 0 East Camelback Road, Suite 00 Phoenix, Arizona 01 (0) 01-00 jbw@slwplc.com mam@slwplc.com smd@slwplc.com
More informationBEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
1 1 1 1 Lawrence J. Rosenfeld (SBN 00 lawrence.rosenfeld@squirepb.com SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US LLP 1 E. Washington Street, Suite 00 Phoenix, AZ 00 Telephone: (0-000 Facsimile: (0-1 Attorneys for Intervenors
More informationDIVISION ONE. ARIZONA REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE SHELLEY MAGNESS and COLORADO STATE BANK & TRUST COMPANY, N.A., Co-Trustees of The Shelley Magness Trust UDA 6/25/2000, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. ARIZONA REGISTRAR
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc PAULINE COSPER, ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. CV-11-0083-PR Petitioner, ) ) Court of Appeals v. ) Division One ) No. 1 CA-SA 10-0266 THE HONORABLE JOHN CHRISTIAN REA, )
More informationI. OVERVIEW. A. Purchases below statutory bid threshold
PP O4 09 BID PROTESTS AND APPEALS I. OVERVIEW It is the policy of the District to afford due process to suppliers that have participated in a competitive procurement process and believe they have not been
More informationNotice and Protest Procedures for Protests Related to a University s Contract Procurement Process.
18.002 Notice and Protest Procedures for Protests Related to a University s Contract Procurement Process. (1) Purpose. The procedures set forth in this Regulation shall apply to protests that arise from
More informationEDWARD A. TIMMINS, JR. and ANN M. TIMMINS, Defendants/Appellants. No. 1 CA-CV FILED
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE THOMAS M. BAUMGARTNER and JULIE B. BAUMGARTNER; DANIEL CROSS and CATHY CROSS; CLYDE CUMING and BETSY CUMING; GARY ENGELS and DENISE ENGELS; LARRY PUTNAM and
More informationCITY OF FLAGSTAFF, Petitioner Employer, SCF ARIZONA, Petitioner Carrier, THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, Petitioner Employer, SCF ARIZONA, Petitioner Carrier, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, RICK A. BUNCH, Respondent Employee.
More informationTable of Contents. Date Issued: June 12, 2009 Date Last Revised: December 15, 2010
Date Issued: June 12, 2009 Date Last Revised: December 15, 2010 CHAPTER 28. Protests Table of Contents CHAPTER 28. Protests... 28 1 28.1 General... 28 2 28.1.1 Policy... 28 2 28.1.2 Notice to Offerors...
More informationLAW ALERT. Arizona Court of Appeals Reinforces Notice of Claim Requirement
LAW ALERT Our Law Alerts are published on a regular basis and contain recent Arizona cases of interest. If you would like to subscribe to these alerts, please email marketing@jshfirm.com. You can view
More informationThis matter comes before the Court as an administrative appeal of Appellee
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE C D, ) ) Appellant, ) vs. ) ) STATE OF ALASKA and, ) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ) SOCIAL SERVICES and ) DIVISION OF SENIOR
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationLitigating Bad Faith: Why Winning the Battle May Not Win the Protest
BNA Document Bid Protests Litigating Bad Faith: Why Winning the Battle May Not Win the Protest By Andrew E. Shipley Andrew E. Shipley is a partner in Perkins Coie LLP's Government Contracts Group. In a
More informationINSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
0 0 Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the GOLDWATER INSTITUTE Clint Bolick (0 Carrie Ann Sitren (00 Taylor C. Earl (0 00 E. Coronado Road Phoenix, AZ 00 (0-000 litigation@goldwaterinstitute.org
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE BRIDGESTONE RETAIL TIRE No. 1 CA-IC 10-0059 OPERATIONS, DEPARTMENT A Petitioner Employer, O P I N I O N OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE CO/SEDGWICK CMS, Petitioner
More informationIn re the Marriage of: DENISE K. EKVALL, Petitioner/Appellee, DAVID D. ESTRADA, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
1 1 1 David B. Rosenbaum, 00 Thomas L. Hudson, 01 Sara S. Greene, 00 OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. North Central Avenue, st Floor Phoenix, Arizona 01- (0 0-000 E-mail: thudson@omlaw.com E-mail: drosenbaum@omlaw.com
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County. Cause No. V-1300-CV
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationAPPELLEE SEDONA CASA CONTENTA'S RESPONSE TO AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
CXDWXPit GELB, a single woman, Appellant, VS. 1 DEPARTMENT OF FIRE, BUILDING & LIFE SAFETY, a 1 political subdisivion of the State of Arizona; SEDONA CASA CONTENTA, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, 1 Appellees.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE JAMES J. HAMM and DONNA LEONE ) No. 1 CA-CV 12-0130 HAMM, ) ) DEPARTMENT C Plaintiffs/Appellants, ) ) v. ) O P I N I O N ) CHARLES L. RYAN, Director,
More informationDIVISION PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES DIVISION PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES GENERALLY; EXCEPTIONS
DIVISION 100 - PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES 100-1 DIVISION 100 - PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES GENERALLY; EXCEPTIONS 10.100 General Procurement Contracts; Exceptions Except
More informationCase 5:13-cv EFM-DJW Document 126 Filed 01/02/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 5:13-cv-04095-EFM-DJW Document 126 Filed 01/02/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS KRIS W. KOBACH, KANSAS SECRETARY OF STATE, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Case
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Court Chatter. (Hon.
Michael K Jeanes, Clerk of Court *** Electronically Filed *** K. Curtner, Deputy 2/7/2015 4:08:42 PM Filing ID 6392290 L. KIRK NURMI #020900 LAW OFFICES OF L. KIRK NURMI 2314 East Osborn Phoenix, Arizona
More informationForty-Seventh Legislature v. Napolitano, 143 P.3d 1023, 213 Ariz. 482 (Ariz., 2006)
143 P.3d 1023 213 Ariz. 482 The FORTY-SEVENTH LEGISLATURE OF the STATE of Arizona; The Arizona State Senate; The Arizona House of Representatives; Ken Bennett, individually and as President, Arizona State
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc STATE OF ARIZONA, ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. CR-90-0356-AP Appellee, ) ) Maricopa County v. ) Superior Court ) No. CR-89-12631 JAMES LYNN STYERS, ) ) O P I N I O N Appellant.
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY ~ The Plaintiff, Phoenix Townhouse Homeowners Association ("Association"), an
9 ' O 11 12 13 14 15 16 l7 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD DELGADO & WOOD, PLC Attorneys at Law 1400 E. Southern Ave., Suite 400 Tem~e. Arizona 85282 Attorneys for Plaintiff MCHAEL K. JEANES
More informationMARY ANN MUNOZ, Petitioner, THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, FRY S FOOD STORES, Respondent Employer,
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationARIZONA PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE PIVOTAL COLORADO II, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company; MILLARD R. SELDIN, an Arizona resident; SCOTT A. SELDIN, an Arizona resident; SCOTT-SELDIN
More informationIn the United States Court of Federal Claims
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 15-189C (Filed: March 23, 2016) EXCELSIOR AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., Plaintiff, RCFC 24; Postjudgment Motion for Leave v. to Intervene; Timeliness; Bid Protest
More informationJUNE FISH, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, LIFE TIME FITNESS INC, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV FILED
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ALMA HOLCOMB, et al., ) Court of Appeals ) Division One Plaintiffs/Appellants, ) No. 1 CA-CV 16-0406 ) v. ) Maricopa County ) Superior Court AMERICAN
More informationscc Doc 812 Filed 02/10/12 Entered 02/10/12 16:44:16 Main Document Pg 1 of 5
Pg 1 of 5 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, New York 10178 Telephone: (212) 309-6000 Facsimile: (212) 309-6001 Wendy S. Walker MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market Street, Spear Street
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS BID PROTEST
Case 1:15-cv-00158-MBH Document 25 Filed 03/15/15 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS BID PROTEST Number 15-158C Judge Marian Blank Horn VISUAL CONNECTIONS, LLC, v. Plaintiff, THE
More informationBid Protests. Presented By: Keith Romanowski, Watkins Meegan LLC Dan Herzfeld, Pillsbury
Bid Protests Presented By: Keith Romanowski, Watkins Meegan LLC Dan Herzfeld, Pillsbury Agenda Who can file What is a protest Why file a protest When to File Where to File Protest Types 2 Proprietary and
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in La Paz County. Cause No.
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationAPPROVES CONSOLIDATION
ARIZONA SUPREME APPROVES CONSOLIDATION In October, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a long-awaited Order that effects the most extensive structural changes to Arizona civil procedural rules since the initial
More informationCase 0:16-cv BB Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2016 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:16-cv-61474-BB Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2016 Page 1 of 5 ANDREA BELLITTO and AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS UNION, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA v. Plaintiffs,
More informationARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI. ---o0o--- SCWC CERTIFIED CONSTRUCTION, INC., Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant,
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-14-0001160 20-SEP-2016 07:56 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ---o0o--- SCWC-14-0001160 CERTIFIED CONSTRUCTION, INC., Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant,
More informationDue Process Grievance and Appeal
Due Process Grievance and Appeal Procedures BEFORE VIEWING THIS TRAINING You only need to take this training if your job is on this list: Case Manager or Supports Coordinator Case Management or Supports
More informationZB, N.A., a National Banking Association, Plaintiff/Appellee,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE ZB, N.A., a National Banking Association, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. DANIEL J. HOELLER, an individual; and AZAR F. GHAFARI, an individual, Defendants/Appellants.
More informationCITY CENTER EXECUTIVE PLAZA, LLC; INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., JERRY AND CINDY ALDRIDGE, Petitioners,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE CITY CENTER EXECUTIVE PLAZA, LLC; INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., JERRY AND CINDY ALDRIDGE, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE LEE F. JANTZEN, Judge of the SUPERIOR
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY INTRODUCTION
[Cite as Summit Cty. Fiscal Officer v. Estate of Barnett, 2009-Ohio-2456.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) SUMMIT COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER C.A. No.
More informationApril 29, Attorney General Tom Horne Office of the Attorney General 1275 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ
JENNIFER C. PIZER SENIOR COUNSEL and DIRECTOR, LAW & POLICY PROJECT jpizer@lambdalegal.org April 29, 2013 Attorney General Tom Horne Office of the Attorney General 1275 West Washington Street Phoenix,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationCase 2:09-cv MHM Document 22 Filed 12/03/09 Page 1 of 8
Case :0-cv-00-MHM Document Filed /0/0 Page of ALAN L. LIEBOWITZ, SBN 000 0 North nd Street, Suite D-0 Phoenix, AZ 0 (0) -0 Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Court Chatter. (Hon.
Michael K Jeanes, Clerk of Court *** Electronically Filed *** R. Krane, Deputy 1/25/2015 2:38:48 PM Filing ID 6363601 L. KIRK NURMI #020900 LAW OFFICES OF L. KIRK NURMI 2314 East Osborn Phoenix, Arizona
More informationNEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY. Division of Materiel. Schedule W. Compliance with NYS State Finance Law Sections 139-j and 139-k ( Lobbying Law )
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY Division of Materiel Schedule W Compliance with NYS State Finance Law Sections 139-j and 139-k ( Lobbying Law ) Solicitation No.: 1/13 NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY COMPLIANCE
More informationANDREW SNYDER, Plaintiff/Appellant, ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationCase 2:17-cv DGC Document 36-1 Filed 06/04/18 Page 1 of 20 EXHIBIT A
Case :-cv-0-dgc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 EXHIBIT A Case :-cv-0-dgc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA League of United Latin American
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA; FREEPORT MINERALS CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. HON. CRANE
More informationIN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
0 0 MARK BRNOVICH Firm Bar No. 0000 Attorney General Kevin D. Ray (#00) Molly Bonsall (#0) Assistant Attorneys General West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 00 Telephone: (0) - Facsimile: (0) -000 E-mail:
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 108D 1
Chapter 108D. Medicaid Managed Care for Behavioral Health Services. Article 1. General Provisions. 108D-1. Definitions. The following definitions apply in this Chapter, unless the context clearly requires
More informationHow to Challenge and Overturn a State Agency Decision Under the Administrative Review Act. Adrian Hofmeyr, Partner Litigation & Dispute Resolution
How to Challenge and Overturn a State Agency Decision Under the Administrative Review Act Adrian Hofmeyr, Partner Litigation & Dispute Resolution Overturning Agency Decisions Challenging State Agency Decisions
More informationMARY ANNA SOTOMAYOR, Plaintiff/Appellee, PAULINE SOTOMAYOR-MUÑOZ, Defendant/Appellant. No. 2 CA-CV Filed March 28, 2016
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO MARY ANNA SOTOMAYOR, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. PAULINE SOTOMAYOR-MUÑOZ, Defendant/Appellant. No. 2 CA-CV 2015-0156 Filed March 28, 2016 Appeal from the Superior
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More information