Arizona Christian University v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6 ( 2023 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 Arizon a Christian University, ) No. CV-23-00413-PHX-SPL ) 9 ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) 11 ) Washington Elementary School ) 12 District No. 6, et al., ) 13 ) ) 14 Defendants. ) 15 On April 11, 2023, the parties appeared before the Court for a Preliminary 16 Injunction Hearing. Plaintiff Arizona Christian University (“Plaintiff” or “ACU”) seeks a 17 preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to renew the “Student Teacher Placement 18 Agreement” with ACU for the 2023–24 school year. (See Doc. 10, 24). Defendants oppose 19 the issuance of a preliminary injunction. (See Doc. 21). 20 The Court has fully reviewed and considered the briefing, the arguments at the 21 Hearing, and all the documents filed in this matter. Assuming, without deciding, that 22 injunctive relief is appropriate, the Court finds that such relief could not be granted without 23 fully addressing the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, the Court is inclined to 24 accelerate a merits-based decision in this case by advancing a trial on the merits, pursuant 25 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2). This would likely involve setting an expedited 26 briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss that is filed by Defendants and a trial on the 27 merits thereafter, with the opportunity for supplemental briefing following the trial. See 28 Slidewaters LLC v. Wash. State Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 4 F.4th 747, 759–760 (9th Cir. 1 2021) (finding consolidation under Rule 65(a)(2) proper where district court gave clear 2 notice of its intent to consolidate and allowed supplemental submissions, where no 3 additional factual development was needed, and where the parties had a full opportunity to 4 present their cases). 5 Before proceeding on this course, the Court will set a Status Conference to give the 6 parties the opportunity to set forth their positions on the best way to resolve Plaintiff’s 7 Motion and whether consolidation may be appropriate. See Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 8 F.2d 328, 337 (9th Cir. 1988) (alteration in original) (quoting Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 9 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981)) (“Before a consolidation order may issue, the court must give 10 the parties ‘clear and unambiguous notice [of the court’s intent to consolidate the trial and 11 the hearing] either before the hearing commences or at a time which will still afford the 12 parties a full opportunity to present their respective cases.”). The parties shall also be 13 prepared to discuss the following, along with any related matters: 14 (i) If the Court were to rule on and grant Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction now, is there a form of 15 injunctive relief that would not result in the creation of a contract?1 16 (ii) Do either of the parties request a jury trial in this matter? 17 (iii) If the Court were to consolidate Plaintiff’s Motion with 18 a trial on the merits—pursuant to Rule 65(a)(2)—would the parties need time for discovery or further fact 19 development prior to the trial? 20 (iv) Briefing schedules and trial dates, should the Court 21 determine that consolidation is appropriate 22 The Court notes that the decision to consolidate Plaintiff’s Motion with a trial on the merits 23 1 See Diversified Mortg. Invs. v. U.S. Life Title Ins. Co. of N.Y., 544 F.2d 571, 576 24 (2d Cir. 1976) (internal citations omitted) (“The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to 25 maintain the status quo pending a final determination on the merits. It provides relief which is ‘interlocutory, tentative, provisional, ad interim, impermanent, mutable, not fixed or final 26 or conclusive, characterized by its for-the-time-beingness.’ It should not be used as a device 27 for creating a new contract between the parties or deciding questions of contract breach, properly determinable after trial. It is not an adjudication on the merits, and it should not 28 grant relief properly awarded only in a final judgment.”). 1 | is ultimately in the Court’s discretion. See Slidewaters, 4 F.4th at 759. 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED that a Status Conference is set for April 18, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. 4| before the Honorable Judge Steven P. Logan, United States District Judge, in the Sandra Day O’Connor United States Courthouse, located at 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, 6| Arizona 85003, 5th Floor, Courtroom 501. 7 Dated this 12th day of April, 2023. 8 10 United States District kadge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28