IN THE SUPERIOR COURT PINAL COUNTY, STATE OF ARIZONA Date: 42/15/2020 ‘THEHON KEVIN D WHITE, oy seit Nina hata Rose Mar — S1190¢vz02001869 Plaintift(s), “ RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS DOUG DUCEY, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Arizona; KATIE HOBBS, in her official capacity as the Secretary of State; and DOES I-X, Defendant(s). ee “The Court has reviewed and considered the Motions to Dismiss filed by the Governor, the Secretary of State and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office and the Response filed by Plaintiff. In addition, the ‘Court has also considered the oral arguments of cocnees the Notice of Filing, fled on December 14, 2020 by the Secretary of State and Plaintiff's Response to it. Good cause exists to grant the Motions to Dismiss on multiple separate and independent grounds raised by the moving parties, including the following: L_ PLAINTIFE Is NOT AUTHORIZED TO BRING THIS ELECTION CONTEST, Plaintiff by her own admission was not registered to vote for the 2020 general election. She therefore does not qualify to contest the election under ARS. § 16-672(A)(1) because she was not an “elector” of the state ‘and county in which she resides. She jacks standing to challenge an election in which she did not vote ‘and could not vote. Page 1 of 4© ° _ Pl x : T vy. ‘The Secretary of State completed the canvass of the election and declaration of result ‘on November 30, 2020. See hitpsillazsos. govisites/defaultfiles/2020_General_State_Canvass.pat. The five day statute of limitation set by A.R.S. § 16-672 began to run on that date. The fifth day, therefore, fell on Saturday, December 5, 2020. Plaintiff filed her original Complaint on Monday, December 7, 2020, 7 days after ‘completion of the canvass. Plaintiff, however, did not verify the original Complaint as required by ARS. § 16-673(B) She filed an ‘Amended Complaint the next day on December 8, 2020 that was verified. ‘As noted by all of the Defendants, failure to file a Complaint by the statutory deadline is a jurisdictional defect that is fatal to the action. See, Smith v. Bd of Directors, Hose Dist No.1 Pinal Cty, 148 Ariz. 598, 599 (App. 1986)(Court of Appeals affirmed trial court's dismissal of election contest filed 2 days after statutory 5 day deadline set by QRS. 16-673); see also Donaghey v. Attomey General, 120 Ariz. 93, 95 (1976)(Court notes that Arizona Courts have held that the requirements as to time within the election contest must be brought are regarded as mandatory , and unless strictly complied with, the Court is without jurisdiction ‘to proceed.). Plaintiff failed to file the original Complaint within the five day statutory time frame. Plaintiff contends that “the Court should apply according to A.R.S. § 1-243(A), which provides for excluding Sundays from time computation.” Plaintiff's Response to Motion er Dismiss, p. 6, 1-8. Even following A.R.S. 1-243(A) and excluding Sunday from counting, the original Complaint was not filed within five days. Ce Nerdiote, as noted above, the original Complaint falled to comply with A.R.S. $16- 675, The subsequent Amended Complaint fled the next day was certainly not fled Sithin the five day statute of limitations. The Amended Complaint would not relate back weithe date ofthe original defective Complaint for purposes of application of the stave « Irsations set by ARS. §16-673. Allowing jurisdictionally defective compiaints to be coat by subsequent untimely amended complaints would eviscerate the legislative carota that such actions be filed within 5 days and permit parties to circumvent the ‘trong public policy supporting prompt resolution of election cases. I, LACHES WARRANTS DISMISSAL ‘(As contended by the Secretary of State and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, ae oaival ig also appropriate on the separate and independent ground of laches. ft Wis case, Plaintiff waited until 35 days after the election and seven days after certification of the election to file her first Complaint (albeit a defective one as noted above). As well ae oe inthe Mofions to Dismiss filed by the Secretary of Stale and Mericopa Coun fatomey’s Office, Plaintiff's delay wes unreasonable and highly prejudicial. Good cause therefore exists to dismiss the ‘Complaint based on the ground of laches. IV. PLAINTIEE's FAILURE TO TIMELY JOIN INDISPENSABLE PARTIES ALSO CALLS FOR DISMISSAL Page 2 of 4Good cause is also present for dismissal based on Plaintif's failure to timely join indispensable parties in this case. On December 14, Plaintiff fled what she has labeled "Corrected Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory, Emergency Injunctive Relief” together with a Motion for Leave to Amend. The proposed amendment to the Complaint seeks to add who she now effectively concedes are indispensable parties: the Biden Electoral College Voters, the Pinal County Supervisors and the Pinal County Recorder. Plaintiff has yet to formally join Joe Biden the candidate whose election she seeks to set aside. Fourteen days have passed since the canvass of the vote was completed and 7 days have passed since she filed her original Complaint. Her failure to timely join these indispensable parties in the context of an election case, particularly one filed as late as this one, warrants dismissal on this separate and independent ground. ‘The Court notes that the requested amendment to the Complaint, if granted, would be flagrantly untimely under A.R.S. 16-672 and would only bolster the case for dismissal based on laches because of the significant additional delay and prejudice it would cause. Based on the grounds noted above and other good cause stated by the Governor, the Secretary of State and the Maricopa County Attorney's. Office, IT IS ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint. ITS FURTHER ORDERED denying the pending Motion to Amend the Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the ‘evidentiary hearing set for December 16, 2020 and rescinding the Court's order regarding disclosure of exhibits. Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Cure Status as an Elector” at 3:53 p.m. on December 14, 2020. In the Motion she reiterates what she explained in closing argument: that she mistakenly plead that she was @ “qualified elector” when she meant to plead that she ‘was an “elector.” This is an issue that would technically call for yet another mendes complaint. Her request to “cure” by taking notice of what she meant has been done; the Court has given due ‘consideration to her explanation and notes that whether she plead she was a qualified elector” or an “elector” would not change the Court's ruling on the Motions to Dismiss. The Court finds no just reason for delay and enters this final judgment as to all claims and parties and finds that no further matters remain pending, pursuant Rule 54(C), except for any request for costs or ‘Motion for attorney's fees, pursuant to Ariz.R.Civ.P. 4X) and (g). The Court makes this finding for purposes of permitting an immediate appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. Dated this 15" day of December, 2020 Kevin D. White Judge of the Superior Court Page 3 ofMallodidistributed copy: 12/18/2020 MARICOPA ATTORNEY CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION jimailt mari JUDGEWHITE Page 4 of 4