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 6 Jeremy S. Geigle, Bar No. 021786 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. Plaintiff/Counterdefendant,

PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO: DEFENDANTS'

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.

MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION Assigned to the Honorable: Mary H. Murguia Oral Argument Requested

Defendants previously moved to dismiss this action against them on several different

26 grounds. The Court permitted discovery to be taken with respect to one of the claims, namely a

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

Document 137

Filed 08/31/2006

Page 1 of 7

1 lack of personal jurisdiction. Following the discovery on the subject, Plaintiffs are now 2 submitting this supplemental response to address the facts that are now known and proven. 3

Because the original motion to dismiss under Rule 12 involves facts that are outside of

4 the pleadings and were the subject of fairly extensive discovery, the Court must consider the 5 motion under Rule 56. 6

Accordingly, if there is any question of material fact establishing Defendants' actual

7 involvement in a financial common scheme, this Court must deny the motion. 8

Based on the evidence now available, there is more than enough evidence that the

9 Defendants carried on a common financial scheme, subjecting them to this Court's jurisdiction. 10 In fact, the evidence is conclusive that Defendants all participated together in the scheme. 11 Defendants' previous assertions to the contrary are plainly false. The proven falsity of 12 Defendants' claims defeats Defendants' motion to dismiss and leaves no doubt about which side 13 is to be believed in the rest of the litigation of this matter. 14 1. 15

Summary of Defendants' Arguments. Defendants El Shaddai Ministries, Second Chance Christian Evengelistic Ministries, and

16 Michael Cambra have each moved to dismiss the action claiming that they have no minimum 17 contacts with Arizona.1 The same Defendants have claimed that Plaintiff has failed to state a 18 claim against them. That claim has already been well addressed by the previous response. The 19 evidence set forth in this supplemental response only confirms the previous arguments that 20 Plaintiff has not only stated a proper claim, he has fully proven a proper claim against each of 21 the Defendants in this case. Indeed, between the original response and this supplemental 22 response, the record of evidence against Defendants before the Court is typical of a motion for 23 summary judgment against the Defendants, not a motion to dismiss filed by the Defendants. 24 Defendants Joel and Cindy David have also raised the same arguments. No new evidence has been found with respect to these two defendants. Therefore, the response already 26 on record suffices with respect to their arguments, and they are not the subject of this supplemental response. 25
1

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

Document 137 2

Filed 08/31/2006

Page 2 of 7

1 2. 2

Applicable Legal Standard. Plaintiff's burden in the issue at bar is to produce a prima facie showing of personal

3 jurisdiction. Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs., v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1128-29 4 (9th Cir. 2003). At this stage, the Plaintiff only needs to provide evidence that, if believed, would 5 support the Court's continued exercise of jurisdiction. Ibid. If both parties provide evidence 6 supporting different versions of a fact, this Court must resolve competing inferences in 7 Plaintiff's favor. Ibid. 8

This Court has already noted evidence that the various defendants in this case share the

9 same address, contact information and other similar factors. The Court noted these facts when 10 the parties appeared for oral argument on the subject. Rather than reiterate the facts of which the 11 Court has already taken notice, Plaintiff respectfully incorporates the response already filed and 12 will therefore emphasize the newly discovered facts that address the main concern that the Court 13 appeared to have in oral argument. Specifically, the Court noted that, at the time, there was no 14 evidence that the various defendants actually shared finances and, therefore, shared in the 15 proceeds that are the subject of this lawsuit. 16 17

That evidence has now been found and is submitted with this supplemental response. With this evidence of financial sharing of hundreds of thousands of dollars between the

18 various defendants, all questions of law are resolved in Plaintiff's favor. 19

The Ninth Circuit has set forth a three prong standard for determining minimum contacts

20 of a non-resident defendant. Specific jurisdiction in this case exists if (1) the defendant has 21 performed some act or consummated some transaction or otherwise purposefully availed himself 22 of the privilege of conducting business in Arizona, (2) the claim arises out of or results from the 23 defendant's forum-related activities, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. Bancroft 24 & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta National, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000). There is 25 irrefutable evidence that the various defendants have collectively and individually taken 26

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

Document 137 3

Filed 08/31/2006

Page 3 of 7

1 hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Plaintiff right here in Arizona. In a nutshell, this 2 evidence satisfies all the prongs of the Ninth Circuit test. 3 3. 4

Defendants' Arguments Fail under the Facts. There is overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that Defendants all took part of a

5 common financial scheme. 6

With respect to Defendant Global Missions, the evidence establishes that Global Missions

7 received $3,377,089.64 from the very transaction that gave rise to this action. (See Exhibit A 8 bank statement dated 6-11-03) This resolves any questions about the underlying liability issue in 9 this case. 10

The evidence also establishes that Defendant El Shaddai received $385,000 from Global

11 Missions in one transaction alone. (See Exhibit B - bank statements from El Shaddai and Global 12 Missions, complete with matching account and reference numbers) This flatly contradicts El 13 Shaddai's claim that it has no connection with Global Missions and that it never received any 14 money from Global. Specifically, Michael Cambra, as director of El Shaddai, stated in his 15 affidavit of February 2, 2006, that, "Global Missions has made no donation to El Shaddai 16 Ministries and is not otherwise affiliated with the church." (Emphasis added) This statement 17 could not be more false. It ignores $385,000 donation, which in fact is only the first of many. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Additional transfers between Global Missions to El Shaddai include:

!

$130,000 opening account donation from January 5, 2004 for El Shaddai from Global (See Exhibit C)

! ! ! ! ! !

$7,000 on June 1, 2004 from Global to El Shaddai (Exhibit D) $353,000 from El Shaddai to Global on June 24, 2004 (Exhibit E) $40,000 from Global to El Shaddai on September 26, 2003 (Exhibit F) $9,500 from Global to El Shaddai on November 20, 2003 (Exhibit G) $125,000 from Global to El Shaddai on December 24, 2003 (Exhibit G) $15,500 from Global to El Shaddai on March 2, 2004 (Exhibit H)
Document 137 4 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 4 of 7

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

1 2 3

! !

$30,000 from Global to El Shaddai on March 26, 2004 (Exhibit I) $1,000 from El Shaddai to Defendant Larry Williams on July 27, 2004 (Exhibit J)

These transfers between two entities who claim to be completely unrelated and never to

4 have received anything from each other total well over one million dollars. These transactions 5 must be considered with the claim that they had nothing to do with each other. Their denial of 6 the now-obvious only emphasizes the common financial scheme and dependency on each other. 7

In fact, the majority of Global's outgoing money is to El Shaddai. Likewise, the majority

8 of El Shaddai's incoming money is from Global. The two are clearly financially intertwined. 9

As further evidence, Defendant Michael Cambra was a signer on Global Missions' bank

10 accounts. (See Exhibit K - signature cards belonging to El Shaddai and Global Missions bank 11 accounts) At the same time, Defendant Larry Williams, the director of Global Missions, was a 12 signer on Defendant El Shaddai's account. In other words, each entity and defendant is the other 13 entity and defendant's right hand person. 14

Each individual has financial control over the other's accounts, over a million of dollars

15 changed hands between the entities, and each entity is responsible for the majority of inflows 16 and outflows between the other entity. 17

Accordingly, the evidence against each defendant entity and Michael Cambra is

18 overwhelming, not just prima facie, as required by Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Bell 19 & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 20

It is no wonder that Defendants fought so stridently the subpoenas that brought this

21 evidence to light. 22

As stated before, Defendant Second Chance Ministries is housed at the same address as

23 El Shaddai. Defendant Michael Cambra runs both of these entities. No bank records have been 24 received or disclosed from this entity. Every inference of the evidence before this Court 25 establishes that Second Chance Ministries continues to be a proper party to this action as an alter 26

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

Document 137 5

Filed 08/31/2006

Page 5 of 7

1 ego and an almost assuredly received and / or holds significant sums of money bilked from 2 Plaintiff. 3

With this evidence, there can be no question that each and every Defendant entity and

4 individual has performed some act or consummated some transaction or otherwise purposefully 5 availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in Arizona (taking a building from 6 Plaintiff, selling the building, and sharing the proceeds from the sale). Likewise, there is no 7 question that the claim arises out of or results from the defendant's forum-related activities. 8 Finally, the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable against Defendants who are so financially 9 intertwined in the financial scheme that is the subject of this lawsuit. Therefore, all factors for 10 personal jurisdiction set forth in Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta National, Inc., 223 F.3d 11 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000) are present, and the Court should continue to exercise its jurisdiction 12 over each entity and individual Defendant. 13 4. 14

The Evidence Removes Any Credibility That the Defendants Might Have Had. For purposes of the motion to dismiss before the Court, this Court must accept Plaintiff's

15 assertions in opposition to the motion as true. Even without mandate, the Court can rest assured 16 that the Defendants have been blatantly untruthful to this Court and are not to be believed. This 17 misconduct should not be condoned. 18

The evidence submitted with this supplemental response openly and directly contradicts

19 boldface statements made by the Defendants under oath. There is no question that they have 20 made multiple material misrepresentations to the Court and therefore can not be trusted. 21 5. 22

Conclusion and Request for Relief. Plaintiff requests that the collective motions to dismiss be denied in full and that the

23 Court enter any sanctions deemed appropriate against Defendants for the blatantly false claims 24 before the Court. 25 26

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

Document 137 6

Filed 08/31/2006

Page 6 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6

Dated this 31st day of August, 2006. JACKSON WHITE, P.C.

By: /s/ Jeremy S. Geigle Bradley D. Weech, Esq. Jeremy S. Geigle, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff

7 I hereby certify that I electronically transmitted the

attached document to the Clerk's Office using the
8 CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a

Notice of Electronic Filing to the following if to any non-registrants this 31st day of August, 10 2006:
11 9 CM/ECF registrants, and mailed a copy of same

Judge Mary H. Murguia
12 401 W. Washington

Phoenix, AZ 85003
13 14 Debra A. Hill

OSBORN, MALEDON, P.A.
15 2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2794
16 Attorney for Defendants 17

By: /s/ Jeremy S. Geigle
18
F:\STU\Studnek, Joe\Global Missions\Pldgs\Supplemental Response to Mot to Dismiss.2.wpd

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

Document 137 7

Filed 08/31/2006

Page 7 of 7