Free Reply to Response - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

ALEXANDER POULOS
1 State Bar No. 012139
TABITHA A. JECMEN
2 State Bar No. 024901
TIFFANX;_A& BOSCO
3 THIRD FLOOR CAI\/IELBACK ESPLANADE ii
2525 EAST cAiviELBAci< ROAD
4 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016-4237
TELEPHONE; (602) 255-6000
5 FACSIMILE: (602) 255-010:-:
6 Attorneys for Robert Johnson and Groupe Angelil International Holdings, S.A
7
8
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE
10 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
11
12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Cause No. CR 02-993-PHX—FJM
13
ROBERT JOHNSON’S AND
14 vs. GROUPE ANGELIL
INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS,
15 KWIKMED, INC., S.A.’S REPLY TO UNITED
CYMEDIC HEALTH GROUP, INC. STATES’ PRELIMINARY
16 KEITH B. SALVATO, RESPONSE TO ROBERT
KIMBERLY L. SALVATO, JOHNSON’S AND GROUPE
17 RONALD N. WANCHUK, ANGELIL INTERNATIONAL
JANICE G. GAMBLIN, HOLDINGS, S.A.’S RULE 54(b)
lg WILLIAM J. CLEMANS, MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION
19 ADALBERTO ROBLES, OF JUDGMENT AND RULE
58(d) MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
20 Defendants. SEPARATE JUDGMENT
21 . . .
Robert Johnson and Groupe Angelil International Holdings, S.A. ("Movants") for
22
their Reply to PIaintiff’s Response to Movants’ Motion For Certification of Judgment and
23
Rule 58(d) Motion For Entry of Separate Judgment allege as follows:
24
LRCiv 7.2(a) — (d) allows for motions, responses, and replies. This Local Rule
25
makes no reference to "preIiminary responses" asking the Court to advise a party
26
ase 2:02-cr—00993—FJM Document 270 _l_FiIed 01/29/2008 Page 1 of 3

1 Iitigant whether to respond to an opposing party’s motion.1 Plaintiff cites no court rules,
2 statutes, or case law supporting its request.
3 Plaintiff is asking the Court for an advisory opinion. The Federal Court is
4 constitutionally empowered to decide cases and controversies. It may not render
5 advisory opinions:
6 The exercise ofjudicial power under Art. lll of the Constitution depends on the
existence of a case or controversy. As the Court noted in North Caro/ina v. Rice,
7 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971), a federal court has neither the power to render
advisory opinions nor ‘to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of
8 litigants in the case before them.’ Its judgments must resolve "‘a real and
substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of a
9 conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law
10 would be upon a hypothetical state of facts."’ Ibid., quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co.
v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 241 (1937).)
11 . .
Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (U.S. 1975)
12 Movants are puzzled by Plaintiff’s request. When Movants’ requested in writing
13 that Plaintiff confirm the 60-day filing period of a notice of appeal in this matter, Plaintiff,
14 in an e—mail identifying Emory Hurley as the newly appointed supervisor of Plaintiff’s
15 forfeiture unit, responded, "l am under no obligation to research and affirm for Mr.
16 Poulos what time period may or may not apply to any future action he believes is
17 appropriate." See Exhibit A, e-mail from Peter Sexton to Sandy Zahnter dated January
18 10, 2008. Now, Plaintiff, without legal basis, requests from the Court the same courtesy
lg that Plaintiff refused to give Movants.
20 Movants request that this Court treat Plaintiff’s "preliminaiy response" as a formal
21 Response to Movants’ motion, that Movants’ Response be denied for the reasons set
22 forth above, and that the Court grant Movants’ Motion.
23
24 1 Under LRCiv 7.2(g), the Court may order a Response or Reply to a Motion For
Reconsideration, but only if the Court requires one to decide the Motion. Plaintiff has
25 notified the Court that it is not competent to respond and, therefore, has asked the Court
to "direct" Plaintiff as to whether Movants’ Motion legally requires a Response, so that
26 Plaintiff may find someone with "expertise" to prepare and file it. This amounts to a
request for advice on how Plaintiff should litigate this case.
ase 2:02-cr—OO993—FJM Document 270 _2_ Filed O1/29/2008 Page 2 of 3

1 DATED this 29"‘ day of January, 2008.
2
3 TIFFANY & BOSCO, P.A.
4 By: /s/ Alexander Poulos
5 Alexander Poulos
Tabitha A. Jecmen
6 Third Floor Camelback Esplanade ll
2525 East Camelback Road
7 Phoenix, Arizona 85016-4237
Attorneys for Robert Johnson and
8 Groupe Angelil International Holdings,
S.A.
`
10 Electronically filed this 29th
ll day of January 2008 with:
12 Clerk of the
United States District Court
13 District of Arizona
401 West Washington St.
14 Phoenix, AZ 85003
15
Copy of the foregoing
16 Emailed to:
17 Honorable Frederick J. Martone
United States District Court of Arizona
18 401 West Washington St., SPC 62
19 Phoenix, AZ 85003
20 Emory Hurley, Esq.
Assistant United States Attorney
21 40 North Central Ave., #1200
Phoenix, AZ 85004
22
23 /s/ Sandy Zahnter
24
ssoss4
25
26
ase 2:02-cr—00993—FJI\/I Document 270 _3_ Filed 01/29/2008 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:02-cr-00993-FJM

Document 270

Filed 01/29/2008

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:02-cr-00993-FJM

Document 270

Filed 01/29/2008

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:02-cr-00993-FJM

Document 270

Filed 01/29/2008

Page 3 of 3