1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Timothy A. Shimko (PRO HAC VICE) (OSBN 0006736) David A. Welling (PRO HAC VICE) (OSBN 0075934) TIMOTHY A. SHIMKO & ASSOCIATES 2010 Huntington Building 925 Euclid Ave. Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Tel. (216) 241-8300 Fax (216) 241-2702 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) DAVID GOLDFARB; RICHARD ) ROSS; et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) SHIMKO & PISCITELLI, et al., CASE NO. CV-04-78-PHX-FJM
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FACTS CORRESPONDING TO DEFENDANT ROSS' STATEMENT OF FACTS
NOW COMES Plaintiff, and pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(b), hereby submits the Plaintiff's separate statement of facts corresponding to Defendant Ross' statement of facts filed in support of their motion for summary judgment. (The Plaintiff utilizes the same numbering system in this statement of facts corresponding with Defendant Ross' statement of facts.) 1. The Plaintiff disputes the statement contained in Paragraph 1 of the Defendant Ross' statement of facts. The CORF entities did not retain the Plaintiff, and rather, the
23 24 25 26 1 Defendants, individually, retained the Plaintiff. (T. Shimko Aff. at ¶ 26).
Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM
Document 212
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 1 of 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2. The Plaintiff disputes the statement contained in Paragraph 2 of the Defendant Ross' statement of facts. The Plaintiff did not advise about a conflict because there was no conflict. (T. Shimko Aff. at ¶ 28.) 3. The Plaintiff disputes the statement contained in Paragraph 3 of the Defendant Ross' statement of facts. The Plaintiff did not advise about a conflict because there was no conflict. (T. Shimko Aff. at ¶ 28.) 4. The Plaintiff disputes the statement contained in Paragraph 4 of the Defendant Ross' statement of facts. The Plaintiff did not advise about a conflict because there was no conflict. (T. Shimko Aff. at ¶ 28.) 5. The Plaintiff disputes the statement contained in Paragraph 5 of the Defendant Ross' statement of facts. The Plaintiff did not make a deal concerning the testimony of the
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 7. The Plaintiff disputes the statement contained in Paragraph 7 of the Defendant Ross' 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 statement of facts. The Plaintiff did not make a deal concerning the testimony of the Defendants or discuss it because no deal was ever offered for any of the Defendants. The only deal offered was to Brill and Ritchie, and not to the Defendants. (T. Shimko Aff. at ¶¶ 51-54.) Defendants or discuss it because no deal was ever offered for any of the Defendants. The only deal offered was to Brill and Ritchie, and not to the Defendants. (T. Shimko Aff. at ¶¶ 51-54.) 6. The Plaintiff disputes the statement contained in Paragraph 6 of the Defendant Ross' statement of facts. The Plaintiff did not advise the Defendants about a conflict because there was no conflict. (T. Shimko Aff. at ¶ 28.)
Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM
Document 212
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 2 of 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
8. The Plaintiff disputes the statement contained in Paragraph 8 of the Defendant Ross' statement of facts. The Plaintiff did not have significant business dealings with the CORF entities. Further, the Defendants knew about the loan made to CLS and there was no dispute or confusion about how the loan was to be repaid. (T. Shimko Aff. at ¶¶ 5556.) 9. The Plaintiff disputes the statement contained in Paragraph 9 of the Defendant Ross' statement of facts. The Defendants knew about the Plaintiff's involvement in Aztec Medical, and there was never any conflict resulting from it. Timothy A. Shimko at ¶¶ 59-63.) 10. The Plaintiff disputes the statement contained in Paragraph 10 of the Defendant Ross' statement of facts. The Plaintiff did not discuss the homestead protection because it was (See the affidavit of
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1
never relevant to any discussion that the Plaintiff had with the Defendants. deposition of Timothy A. Shimko at P. 86-87 L. 10-25, 1-51)
(See the
11. The Plaintiff disputes the statement contained in Paragraph 11 of the Defendant Ross' statement of facts. The Plaintiff knew that the Defendants' primary concern was their personal liability, and the Plaintiff did perform research for the Defendants concerning protecting their assets. (See the affidavit of Timothy A. Shimko at ¶¶ 25-26.)
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED ON this 12th day of May, 2008.
TIMOTHY A. SHIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Excerpt of Timothy A. Shimko deposition attached as Exhibit 1. 3
Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM
Document 212
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 3 of 5
1 By: 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 COPY of the foregoing electronically filed and served this 12th day of May, 2008 upon: Roger L. Cohen, Esq. Jaburg & Wilk, P.C. 3200 North Central Avenue, Ste. 2000 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Ross Richard J. McDaniel, Esq. 11811 N. Tatum Blvd., Ste. 1051 Phoenix, Arizona 84208 Counsel for Defendants Woodcock 4 TIMOTHY A. SHIMKO & ASSOCIATES By: /s/ Timothy A. Shimko Timothy A. Shimko (OSBN 0006736) David A. Welling (OSBN 0075934) 2010 Huntington Building 925 Euclid Ave. Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Tel. (216) 241-8300 Fax (216) 241-2702 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED ON this 12th ____ day of May, 2008. /s/ Timothy A. Shimko Timothy A. Shimko (OSBN 0006736) David A. Welling (OSBN 0075934) 2010 Huntington Building 925 Euclid Ave. Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Tel. (216) 241-8300 Fax (216) 241-2702 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Shimko & Piscitelli and Timothy A. Shimko
Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM
Document 212
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 4 of 5
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
Served via regular U.S. Mail upon the following: Mr. and Mrs. David Goldfarb 11437 N. 53rd Place Phoenix, Arizona 85254 Defendants Milton and Kathi Guenther 3642 E. Rockwood Phoenix, Arizona 84032 Defendants in pro per
/s/ Mildred Pacheco
5
Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM
Document 212
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 5 of 5