Key Points:

• Wadsack missed her appointment to appear in court on August 26

• Attorney asks judge to throw out Justine Wadsack’s lawsuit

• Wadsack’s lawsuit claims a conspiracy to undermine her reelection efforts

Saying she has willfully ignored a court order to appear, an attorney for Tucson wants a federal judge to throw out Justine Wadsack’s lawsuit against the city.

He is also requesting a judge to order the former state senator to pick up the city’s costs for preparing for the hearing.

In new court filings, Joseph Williams points out that U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Zipps had originally ordered Wadsack to be in court on Aug. 19 to deal with a bid by Dennis Wilenchik, her attorney, to withdraw from the case. This is the case in which Wadsack claims her civil rights were violated in 2024 when she was stopped and later cited for speeding in Tucson.

Wilenchik gave no reason other than to tell the judge it was “professional considerations.” Wadsack, however, told Capitol Media Services she was short of cash to pay her attorney.

But Wilenchik cannot withdraw until Zipps gives her approval — which was to be the subject of the Aug. 19 hearing.

Wadsack sought and was granted a delay, this time until Aug. 26.

But Wadsack did not show up or call the court.

What makes this particularly egregious, Williams told Zipps, is that during the time Wadsack was supposed to be in court, she posted on X that she was “fortunate enough to be sitting front & center” at a talk by Charlie Kirk of Turning Point Action.

Kirk is the founder of that group, which seeks to “elect true conservative leaders.” And Wadsack told Capitol Media Services she is now working for the organization.

“She was explicitly ordered to appear in person for the hearing on August 26,” Williams said in his legal filing asking her lawsuit against the city be tossed.

“Her subsequent tweet, posted during the hearing, confirms her conscious decision to prioritize a voluntary event in Phoenix over a mandatory court appearance in Tucson,” he said. “This was not an oversight, a misunderstanding, or a minor procedural misstep; it was a deliberate choice to disregard an explicit and unambiguous directive from the court.”

And Williams told Zipps she needs to do something strong to get Wadsack’s attention.

“Monetary sanctions, while available, may not sufficiently deter such deliberate defiance or compel plaintiff to engage meaningfully with the court’s directives,” he said.

So what’s needed, Williams said, is for Zipps to dismiss Wadsack’s lawsuit against the city because she has failed to pursue the case and comply with court orders. He also wants Wadsack to pay the legal fees and costs incurred in preparing for and attending the Aug. 26 hearing, as well as the cost of preparing this new motion for sanctions.

Wadsack, when asked for comment about the city’s request, replied, “Get a life, seriously.”

The essence of her lawsuit is that she was singled out when a Tucson police officer pulled her over on East Speedway in 2024 after he said he clocked her driving 71 mph in an area with a 35 mph limit. She denied going that fast, but said she was speeding home because the battery on her all-electric Tesla was about to run out.

Wadsack did not get a citation at that time because the Arizona Constitution protects lawmakers from arrest during the legislative session. But she did get cited after the session was over, though it was dismissed after she took a defensive driving course.

Then, in January, Wadsack filed suit in federal court claiming her rights were violated in a conspiracy by Tucson police and other officials. She said that the traffic stop was all part of a plan to undermine her reelection efforts.

Whatever the reason, Wadsack lost the Republican primary race for state senate in August 2024 to Vince Leach. Leach had been defeated by Wadsack two years earlier. Leach went on to win the general election in the predominantly Republican district that encompasses much of the north and east side of Pima County and southern Pinal County.

Zipps already has issued an order giving Wadsack through Sept. 23 “to show cause why she should not be held in contempt or sanctioned for failing to comply with the court’s order.” And Zipps rescheduled — again — the hearing on the motion by Wilenchik to withdraw as her attorney, this time to Sept. 30.