Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 40 North Center, Suite 200 4 Mesa, Arizona 85201 (480) 464-1111 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff By: Bradley D. Weech, Bar No. 011135 Jeremy S. Geigle, Bar No. 021786 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. CIV-04-595 PHX MHM

9 ESTATE OF JOSEPH J. STUDNEK, by and through its PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, 10 JOSEPH M. STUDNEK, 11 12 v. 13 AMBASSADOR OF GLOBAL MISSIONS UN LIMITED AND HIS SUCCESSORS, A 14 CORPORATION SOLE, a Nevada corporation; EL SHADDAI MINISTRIES 15 AND HIS SUCCESSORS, A CORPORATION SOLE, a Nevada 16 Corporation; SECOND CHANCE CHRISTIAN EVANGELISTIC MINISTRIES, 17 a California 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 22 VANN, as husband and wife, 23 24 25 Defendants/Counterclaimant. Plaintiff/Counterdefendant,

PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO: DEFENDANTS JOEL AND CINDY DAVID'S MOTION TO DISMISS Assigned to the Honorable: Mary H. Murguia Oral Argument Requested

Pursuant to the Court's order of August 23, 2006, Plaintiff hereby supplements the

26 responses already filed to the motions to dismiss by Defendants Joel and Cindy David. Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM Document 140 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 1 of 3

1

The specific discovery undertaken by Plaintiff has not revealed any new information with

2 respect to the Davids. Apparently, the Davids do not bank at the same institution from which the 3 subpoenaed records were eventually received. 4 Nevertheless, Plaintiff maintains that the previous response contains more than enough

5 evidence to support a prima facie cause of action against the Davids. The Court must accept the 6 allegations within the pleading as true and construe them in a light most favorable to the 7 Plaintiff. Dismissal is improper unless it appears beyond doubt that the claimant can prove no 8 set of facts supporting the claim that would entitle the Plaintiff to relief. Love v. United States, 9 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9 th Cir. 1989). The evidence already submitted comes from a witness who 10 is very familiar with all the parties and the facts. As the Court is required at this juncture to 11 accept this evidence as true, the Davids should remain parties to this action. 12 Obviously, the Davids may present their motion later under Rule 56 if they believe it is

13 appropriate. In the meantime, there is no question that Plaintiff has met his prima facie burden 14 to survive the Davids' motions to dismiss. 15 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny both motions to dismiss

16 filed by Defendants Joel and Cindy David. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM Document 140 2 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 2 of 3 By: /s/ Jeremy S. Geigle Bradley D. Weech, Esq. Jeremy S. Geigle, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated this 5th day of September, 2006. JACKSON WHITE, P.C.

1 I hereby certify that I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the 2 CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following if 3 CM/ECF registrants, and mailed a copy of same to any non-registrants this 5 th day of September, 4 2006: 5 Judge Mary H. Murguia 6 401 W. Washington Phoenix, AZ 85003 7 8 Debra A. Hill OSBORN, MALEDON, P.A. 9 2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2794 10 Attorney for Defendants 11 By: /s/ Jeremy S. Geigle 12
F:\STU\Studnek, Joe\Global Missions\Pldgs\Supplemental Response to Davids' Mots to Dismiss.wpd

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM Document 140 3 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 3 of 3