< .>N\V1 it uz
2 ....
3 i .i ])i’rl4j¢’:¢s il¤1!lilT( ‘rl7’p¢>!‘¢!{fU!7
40 North Center, Suite 200
4 Mesa, Arizona 85201
(480) 464-1111
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
By: Bradley D. Weech, Bar No. 011135
6 Jeremy S. Geigle, Bar No. 021786
7 i IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 i FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 ESTATE OF JOSEPH J. STUDNEK, by and No. CIV-04-595 PHX MHM
through its PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE,
10 JOSEPH M. STUDNEK, PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO:
11 Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND
12 v. TO MOTION TO ENFORCE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
13 lAMBASSADOR OF GLOBAL MISSIONS FOR ATTORNEY FEES
,UN LIMITED AND HIS SUCCESSORS, A
14 CORPORATION SOLE, a Nevada Assigned to the Honorable:
corporation; EL SHADDAI MINISTRIES Mary H. Murguia
15 AND HIS SUCCESSORS, A
CORPORATION SOLE, a Nevada Settlement Judge:
16 Corporation; SECOND CHANCE The Honorable David K. Duncan
CHRISTIAN EVANGELISTIC MINISTRIES,
17 ia Califomia corporation; BISHOP OF FAITH
VISION NOBLE HOUSE AND HIS
_ 18 SUCCESSORS, A CORPORATION SOLE, a
California corporation; JOSEPH L.
19 WILLIAMS and MONICA C. CISNEROS, as
husband and wife; WILLIAM JOE LITTLE,
20 JR.; MICHAEL CAMBRA and GLORIA
CAMBRA, as husband and wife; JOEL
21 DAVID and CINDY DAVID, as husband and
wife; KEITH AARON VANN and TRISHA
E lt 22 VANN, as husband and wife,
g 23 Defendants/Counterclaimant.
|·<
Z in
2 24
51E 25 Plaintiff responds to Defendants Motion for Additional Time to Respond to [Plaintiffs]
ag JZ
I-J i 26 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Attorney Fees and to show that the Motion must
Case 2:04-cv—00595-I\/IHI\/I Document 175 Filed 11/29/2006 Page 1 of 4
I I
I I
1 be denied and that further sanctions and judgment should be awarded to Plaintiff for Defendants’
2 failure to comply with the Settlement Agreement.
3 First and foremost is that fact that an entire month has now passed since Defendants’ counsel
4 moved to withdraw. The Defendants signed the motion and, therefore knew that their counsel was
5 Imoving to withdraw. If defendants intended to obtain new counsel, they certainly have already had
6 sufficient time to do so. And, as of this date, November 29, 2006, no new counsel has noticed their
· 7 appearance on behalf of the Defendants.
8 Second, there is no defense to Plaintiff" s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for
9 IAttomey fees. The settlement terms were entered into before Judge Duncan and placed on the Court j
10 Irecord. Defendants and their counsel even ordered the transcript. And, following receipt, they have
1 1 Inot made any claim that the Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit "C" to Plaintiff’ s November
12 Il5, 2006 Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement does not reflect the terms agreed to before
13 lJudge Duncan. Certainly, it is within the scope ofthe Court’s authority (as cited in the motion) and
. 14 jthe within the Court’s ability, or that of Judge Duncan, to compare the Court’s record with the
15 ISettlement Agreement and enforce the agreement on the Court record.
16 Finally, Ms. Hill ’ s statement that "Plaintiff’ s will not be prejudiced by this request" is blatant
. _ 1 17 and knowing misstatement. Ms. Hill has, herself, stated that she does not believe her clients intend
I 18 Ito pay according to the September 19, 2006 settlement agreement entered on the Court’s record.
19 And, every day that Plaintiffs are not granted judgment enforcing the Settlement Agreement is
20 prejudicial to Plaintiff. Further, every additional dollar in attorney fees and costs incurred by
21 Plaintiff is also put at risk of recovery. And, finally, part of the settlement terms included the
I E Q? 22 dismissal of lawsuits, including two in California, which, without the signature of Ms. Hill’s clients,
g 23 or the signature of this Court in their stead, continue without dismissal, thus prejudicin g the Plaintiff,
gg 24 along with the other defendants in those actions, as well as prejudicing those Courts and the use of
Q? 25 their resources. Ms. Hill knows this. So her statement to this Court that there will be no prejudice
)—iI< 26 is knowingly untrue.
I Case 2:04-cv—00595-I\/IHI\/I Document 175 Filed 11/29/2006 Page 2 of 4
1 Therefore, for these reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Hill’s Motion for Additional
2 Time be denied and that appropriate sanctions be ordered.
3 Dated this 29"‘ day of November, 2006.
4
5 JACKSON WHITE, P.C.
6 By:/s/ Bradley D.Weech
7 Bradley D. Weech
Jeremy S. Geigle
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
9
10
ll
12 {
13 p
14 A
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
12 li 22
§1El 23
212 ZZ
Case 2:04-cv—00595-I\/IHI\/I Document 175 Filed 11/29/2006 Page 3 of 4
1
1 I hereby certify that I electronically transmitted the
attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the
2 CM/ECP System for filing and transmittal of a
Notice of Electronic Filing to the following
3 CM/ECP registrants, and mailed a copy of same
to any non-registrants on November 29, 2006:
4
Copy of the f regoing hand-delivered
5 to this éfiéiay of November, 2006: ~
Honorable Mary H. Murguia
6 401 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85003
7
Co ies of the foregoing mailed this
igflay of November, 2006, to:
9 Joseph L. Williams
15934 Hesperian Blvd., PMB 311
10 ISan Lorenzo, VA 94580
11 E
12 By:
`F.·\ST urine/<, J0elGIObal Missions\Pldgs\Resp0nse t0 M0ti0nf0rAdditi0na/ Time. wpd
13 _
14 i
is 1
16
17
18
19
1
20
21
Lu 22
B
E I 23
B li
6 1g 24
ai is 25
if
26
i Case 2:04-cv—00595-I\/IHI\/I Document 175 Filed 11/29/2006 Page 4 of 4
Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM
Document 175
Filed 11/29/2006
Page 1 of 4
Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM
Document 175
Filed 11/29/2006
Page 2 of 4
Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM
Document 175
Filed 11/29/2006
Page 3 of 4
Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM
Document 175
Filed 11/29/2006
Page 4 of 4
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms