1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

FACTS Consistent with the facts articulated in plaintiffs Verified Complaint, in summary: The League of United Latin American Citizens, Arizona Chapter (LULAC AZ) held its annual convention, located at Pima Community College, Desert Vista Campus, Tucson, Arizona, on June 8, 2013. A primary purpose of this convention was for delegates from local Councils to vote for delegates who will represent Arizona in voting at LULACs annual national convention for 2013, which is scheduled to take place in Las Vegas, Nevada from June 17-22, 2013. Defendants and Does managed and controlled the aforementioned LULAC AZ convention on June 8, 2013, including and especially the election of delegates and voting process. LULAC AZs 2013 annual state convention agenda advertised that registration for that event would take place from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. on the morning of June 8, 2013. Exhibit A to Declaration of Chris Ford (Ford Dec.) at 1-2. Plaintiff Soto arrived prior to 10 a.m., and defendants registered him to participate in the convention, including qualifying him to vote in LULAC AZs elections that day as a delegate from his Council. Plaintiffs Salazar and Miranda arrived at approximately 10:45 a.m., but defendants nonetheless registered them to participate in the convention, including qualifying them to vote in LULAC AZs elections that day as a delegates from their Councils. Because defendants registered plaintiffs, provided plaintiffs with delegate badges and told them they were qualified to vote, plaintiffs believed they were duly registered for the convention and eligible to vote. However, when the election started during the afternoon session of the convention, defendants did not call plaintiffs names or council numbers, did not seat plaintiffs to vote, and in fact denied and prevented plaintiffs from any participation in the voting. Despite their having been led plaintiffs to believe that they were validly registered and qualified to vote, defendants, immediately prior to the election, told plaintiffs told they were
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Page 2 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

unqualified to vote. LULAC officers failed to follow Roberts Rules of Order when conducting the election. Prior to the June 8, 2013 LULAC AZ convention, plaintiff Salazar received a certificate from LULAC stating that her council #1135 was in good standing and a LULAC Receipt of Payment dated May 28, 2013 showing that LULAC Council #1135 had paid $306 to the national office on April 29, 2013.. Exhibit A, to Verified Complaint The Receipt specifies that the councils 11 members, four delegates and four alternates were in good standing. Exhibit A to Verified Complaint. Plaintiff Miranda herewith submits to the Court a list of approximately 29 duly registered delegates to the LULAC AZ convention on June 8, 2013, all of whom defendants denied the right to vote. Exhibit B to Verified Complaint. Members of LULAC enjoy the following rights: a. To participate in all meetings and other activities of their respective councils.

Constitution of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC Const.), art. 4, 1b.(2); b. To propose, discuss and vote on matters of interest to and for the welfare of the

Council or League. LULAC Const., art. 4, 1b.(3); c. To vote and be candidates for an office in their Council, District, State or National

Conventions, provided that in the case of offices at levels higher than their Council, they are certified as delegates to the convention, have the support of respective Council and otherwise fulfill all requirements of the office sought. LULAC Const., art. 4, 1b.(4) (emphasis added); d. At conventions, [o]nly accredited delegates registered at the Convention will be

allowed to vote. Bylaws of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC Bylaws), art. II, 3h; e. Each Council in good standing shall have the right to send as many delegates and

alternates as it is entitled to, according to a chart in the bylaws. LULAC Bylaws, art. II, 4 (emphasis added). //
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Page 3 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

// TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER / PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION A temporary restraining order is available when there is a threat of an immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage. Ariz.R.Civ.P., Rule 65(d). The Verified Complaint demonstrates that immediate and irreparable harm will occur if Defendants are not immediately restrained/enjoined as requested. The Temporary Restraining Order will maintain the status quo pending an evidentiary hearing on the Application for Preliminary Injunction. A party seeking a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction must establish four traditional equitable criteria: (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the possibility of irreparable injury not remediable by damages; (3) a balance of hardships in that partys favor; and (4) public policy favoring the requested relief. Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture II, 176 Ariz. 275, 280, 860 P.2d 1328, 1333 (Ariz. App. 1993); Shoen v. Shoen, 167 Ariz. 58, 63, 804 P.2d 787, 792 (App. Div.1, 1990). Each factor is addressed below. A. There is a strong likelihood that plaintiffs will succeed on the merits The following facts as stated in plaintiffs Verified Complaint demonstrate that the strong likelihood that they will prevail on the merits: (i) Defendants registered plaintiffs at LULAC AZs annual convention on June 8, 2013 and represented to plaintiffs that they were eligible to vote as delegates to the convention; (ii) When the election started during the afternoon session of the convention, however, defendants did not call plaintiffs names or council numbers, did not seat plaintiffs to vote, and denied and prevented plaintiffs from any participation in the voting; (iii) Defendants denied at least 29 delegates the right to vote that day.

In so doing, defendants (1) violated A.R.S. section 10-3721; (2) perpetrated common law fraud by having led plaintiffs to believe they were duly registered and qualified to vote and only at the last minute refusing to seat them to participate in the election; and (3) acted ultra vires to
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Page 4 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

their duties and obligations as set forth under Arizona statue and LULACs constitution and bylaws. B. Plaintiffs will be irreparably damaged absent relief by the Court As set forth in plaintiffs Verified Complaint, the LULAC AZ elections on June 8, 2013 managed and controlled by local defendants deprived plaintiffs (and at least 29 delegates in total) the right to participate and vote for delegates who will represent LULAC AZ at LULACs annual convention, commencing on June 17, 2013 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Had plaintiffs and the other 26 or more delegates who were denied the right to vote been able to cast ballots at the election, the results may well have been different. In any case, no damage at law could remedy plaintiffs, and the results of defendants illegal and fraudulent election stand without Court intervention. Accordingly, the only way to protect plaintiffs rights is to invalidate the June 8, 2013 election and order a new election at which all delegates are properly seated and allowed to vote. C. The balance of hardships tips in plaintiffs favor Defendants could argue that it would be unduly disruptive or burdensome to hold another election. However, the cost and inconvenience to do so is minimal when balanced against the important rights guaranteed both by Arizona statute and LULACs constitution and bylaws for all LULAC members to participate and vote on matters of interest to LULAC and its Councils. D. Public policy favors the requested relief The public interest that nonprofit organizations respect and protect equally the right of all members to vote is extremely strong. Indeed, were the court not to order relief, such could serve as an invitation for member organizations to hold fraudulent and illegal elections without any concern over the consequences for their actions. Such obviously would undermine public trust in an important principle one person, one vote that is at the foundation of our democracy. BOND REQUIREMENT Under Rule 65(e), no restraining order or preliminary injunction shall issue except upon the giving of security by the applicant, in such sum as the court deems proper, for the payment of
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Page 5 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. The bond is subject to the discretion of the trial court. Here, the harm to defendants of the Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, even if later quashed, is nominal, because holding a new, legally valid election would be neither costly nor overly inconvenient to defendants. No bond requirement is appropriate. CERTIFICATION OF NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS OF PLAINTIFFS INTENT
TO SECURE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Pursuant to Rule 65, the undersigned counsel for plaintiffs certifies that he has made the following efforts to notify defendants of plaintiffs intention to seek a Temporary Restraining Order (see Declaration of Chris Ford, attached to Verified Complaint): 1. At 11:23 a.m. on June 14, 2013 counsel left a telephone message with defendant

John Mireles, providing him notice regarding the instant Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. 2. At 11:28 a.m. on June 14, 2013 counsel left a telephone message with defendant

David V. Hernandez, providing him notice regarding the instant Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. 3. At 11:25 a.m. on June 14, 2013 counsel reached defendant Mari Alvarado via

telephone and provided her with notice of plaintiffs intent to seek a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction against defendants. She provided counsel with the following address for notice: Mari Alvarado, P.O. Box 35544, Phoenix, AZ 85069. 4. At 11:47 a.m. on June 14, 2013 counsel emailed notice of plaintiffs intent to seek

a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction against defendants to Messers. Mireles and Hernandez. The email to Mr. Mireles bounced back as invalid. Later advised that there was a mistake in Mr. Mireles email address, counsel resent to the corrected address at 1:27 p.m., June 14, 2013. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to enter the Temporary Restraining Order with Notice and Order to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should
Law Office of Chris Ford 125 East Coronado Road Phoenix, AZ, 85004 602-688-5571

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Page 6 of 7