Skip to content
The COVID Project
  1. Library
  2. Standing duties: Arizona
  3. DUT-AZ-017

Ex. DUT-AZ-017 Standing duty Primary source read

Minute entry ruling (Docket Code 926) on plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief

Mountainside Fitness Acquisitions, Inc. et al. v. Ducey, No. CV2020-093916 (Maricopa Cnty. Super. Ct. Aug. 4, 2020)

Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County (Hon. Timothy J. Thomason) · Arizona (Maricopa County Superior Court) (Court)

Open exhibit (PDF, 339 KB)Source (opens in a new tab)
The COVID Project

The record

Jurisdiction
Arizona (Maricopa County Superior Court) · Arizona
Level
Court
Authority
Ariz. Const. art. VI; Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65; 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment (procedural due process)
Issued
2020-08-04 Aug. 4, 2020
Effective
2020-08-04 (reopening application process to be implemented by Aug. 11, 2020) (read as 2020-08-04)
End
n/a (ruling); ADHS Emergency Measure 2020-02 of Aug. 10, 2020 (Ex. AZ-029) implemented it (read as 2020-08-10)
In force
Aug. 4, 2020 to Aug. 10, 2020
Quarters
2020 Q3
Limitation types
Business closureWorkplace rulesOperating condition
Addressees
  • indoor gyms and fitness centers closed by EO 2020-43 and EO 2020-52; the Governor and ADHS
Character
adjudication
Collection
Standing duties: Arizona DUT-AZ

Operative words

Applicants must also attest that they will strictly adhere to all policies and guidelines from the Center for Disease Control..., the Arizona Department of Health Services... and the Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration.... Even if affected businesses make such an attestation and strictly adhere to ADHS requirements, they are still forced to stay closed

Penalty

n/a (judicial ruling); the ruling describes the attestation regime under which reopening required a sworn commitment to 'strictly adhere' to CDC, ADHS and OSHA policies and guidelines

What it required

Held that EO 2020-43's closure of gyms satisfied substantive due process (rational basis) and that the orders were binding law, while holding that the absence of any process to apply for reopening during the mandatory shutdown violated procedural due process; ordered 'that EO 43 be enforced according to its terms' and that fitness centers 'must be allowed to complete and submit some type of form or application to receive authorization to reopen,' a form that 'can mandate compliance with the requirements.' Character as recorded: adjudication (order_operating_condition layer).

Retrieval note

The ruling recites the attestation Form's contents: applicants attest that they will 'implement comprehensive sanitation protocols; operate with reduced occupancy and capacity; ensure that it will monitor for symptoms of illness; ensure that customers and staff use face coverings at all times; provide employees with protective equipment; allow for virtual visits and teleworking when feasible; post... signage prohibiting individuals who are symptomatic from entering; implement symptom screening for employees and require sick employees to stay home' (at 4). The earlier ruling of July 7, 2020 (secondary: Ariz. Capitol Times, KJZZ) refused the temporary restraining order and held that gyms 'must follow' the order. ADHS Emergency Measure 2020-02 (Ex. AZ-029) recites this ruling and implemented the attestation and benchmark process. Copy retrieved from a news organization's document host; the caption, docket code and clerk's filing stamp are on the face of the document.

A record of The COVID Project. The instrument's text is the source's; the summary fields are The COVID Project's reading of it. Not legal advice.