The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ricardo M. Urbina United States District Judge
: Re Document Nos.: 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18
DENYING THE PETITIONERS'MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;GRANTING THEPETITIONERS'MOTION TO JOIN A PARTY*fn1 ;DENYING THE PETITIONERS'MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL*fn2 ;DENYING THE PETITIONERS'MOTION FOR RELIEF UPON RECONSIDERATION*fn3 ;
DENYING THE PETITIONERS'MOTION TO DISQUALIFY RESPONDENTS'COUNSEL;DENYING THE PETITIONERS'MOTION TO STRIKE THE MOTION TO DISMISS;DENYING THE PETITIONERS'MOTIONS FOR TELEVISED PROCEEDINGS*fn4 ;DENYING THE PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE COPIES OF THE TRANSCRIPT AND VIDEOTAPE;DENYING THEPETITIONERS'MOTION FOR EXPEDITED MEDIATION
The petitioners are the owners of an apartment building who allege that the respondents have unlawfully obstructed their ability to rent to tenants receiving federal housing assistance. On October 15, 2010, the court held a hearing on the petitioners' motion for a temporary restraining order. After hearing argument from both sides, the court denied the petitioners' motion. This matter now comes before the court on a multitude of motions filed by the petitioners following the denial of their motion. For the reasons discussed below, with the exception of the petitioners' motion to join a party, the court denies the petitioners' motions.
II. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The petitioners are the owners of an apartment building in Tucson, Arizona ("the City"). Pet. ¶ 3. They allege that certain City officials working under the authority of the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") have conspired to keep them from renting to tenants receiving federal assistance through the United States Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. § 1437f ("Section 8"). See generally id.
The respondents aver that in 2001, the City advised petitioner Frank
Konarski*fn5 that it would no longer approve new
Section 8 housing contracts with him due to "numerous complaints
expressed by the tenants and the continuing problems imposed on [its]
staff." Respts' Mot. to Dismiss & Opp'n to Pet'rs' Mot. for a TRO
("Respts' 1st Opp'n") at 3, Ex. 1. Since that time, the petitioners
have engaged in near constant -- though unsuccessful -- litigation
with the City. See Respts' 1st Opp'n, Exs. 1-3; see generally Konarksi
v. Valfire, 2003 WL 21421731 (9th Cir. June 13, 2003); Konarski v.
City of Tucson, 2008 WL 3850510 (9th Cir. Aug. 18, 2008). Nevertheless,
the petitioners continued to submit Section 8
contracts to the City and, on May 25, 2010, the City approved two of
these contracts. Pet. ¶ 20; Respts' 1st Opp'n at 4. Eight days later,
the City sent a letter to the petitioners explaining that "[t]he two
contracts for the above properties were improvidently signed and will
not be processed." Pet. ¶ 22; Respts' 1st Opp'n at 4.
On October 13, 2010, petitioner Frank Konarksi filed a petition for a
writ of mandamus against the Department of Housing and Urban
Development ("HUD") and HUD Secretary, Shaun Donovan,*fn6
seeking an order compelling the respondents to intercede in
his Section 8 dealings with the City and alleging that that a
"select-few highly corrupt city administrative officials under
Respondent HUD's control" harbor a "personal vendetta" against them.
Pet. ¶ 7. As part of this vendetta, the petitioners contend that the
officials have undermined the free choice given to Section 8 tenants
by steering potential and current tenants living in the petitioners'
building elsewhere. Id. ¶¶ 10-39. The petitioners ask the court to
order the respondents to "rid the Section 8 Housing/Housing Choice
Voucher program of the personal vendetta of its city administrative
officials." Id. ¶ B.*fn7
Contemporaneously with the petition, petitioner Frank Konarski filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. See generally Pet'rs' Mot. for a TRO & Prelim. Inj. ("Pet'rs' TRO Mot."). The respondents filed a combined motion to dismiss and opposition to the petitioners' motion. See generally Respts' 1st Opp'n.
On October 15, 2010, the court held a hearing on the petitioners' motion for a temporary restraining order, at the conclusion of which the court denied the petitioners' request for injunctive relief. See generally Hr'g Tr. Subsequently, the petitioners have filed a myriad of motions seeking a variety of relief. See Pet'rs' Expedited Mot. for Immediate Change of Judge ("Pet'rs' 1st Recusal Mot.") & to Vacate the 10/15/10 Ruling ("Pet'rs' Mot for Relief Upon Recons."); Pet'rs' Emergency Mot. to Assign a New Judge ("Pet'rs' 2d Recusal Mot."); Pet'rs' Mot. for a Neutral Judge ("Pet'rs' 3d Recusal Mot."); Pet'rs' Mot. to Assign a New Attorney for HUD ("Pet'rs' Mot. to Disqualify Respts' Counsel"); Pet'rs' Mot. to Strike Mot. to Dismiss ("Pet'rs' Mot. to Strike"); Pet'rs' Mot. for Televised Proceedings ("Pet'rs' 1st Mot. for Recorded Hearings"); Pet'rs' Mot. for the Videotaping of All Future Court Hearings ("Pet'rs' 2d Mot. for Recorded Hearings"); Pl.s' Mot for the Tr. & Videotape ("Pet'rs' Mot. for Tr."); Pet'rs' Mot. for Expedited Mediation ("Pet'rs' Mot. to Compel Mediation").
The respondents filed a consolidated response, see generally Respts' Omnibus Response to Pet'rs' Mots. ("Respts' 2d Opp'n"), and the petitioners filed a consolidated reply, see generally Pet'rs' Reply in Support of Motions ("Pet'rs' Reply"). With those motions fully briefed, the ...