Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

Dan W. Goldfine (#018788) Adam Lang (#022545) SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. One Arizona Center 400 East Van Buren Street Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 Telephone: (602) 382-6000 Facsimile: (602) 382-6070 [email protected] [email protected] - and Grant Woods, Esq. (#006106) GRANT WOODS, P.C. 1726 North Seventh Street Phoenix, Arizona 85006 Telephone: (602) 258-2599 Facsimile: (602) 258-5070 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterdefendants and Third Party Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Meritage Homes Corporation, et al., Case No. CV-04-0384-PHX-ROS Plaintiffs, v. Ricky Lee Hancock, et al., Defendants. AND RELATED THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS AND COUNTER-CLAIMS Plaintiffs, counterdefendants, and third-party defendants (collectively, "Meritage") reply to Rick Hancock's Response/opposition to "Meritage's Motion to Strike Response" ("Response to Motion to Strike"). The Rick Hancock Defendants ("Rick Hancock") have failed to comply with the rules of this Court in responding to Meritage's Motion for Summary Judgment. Specifically, Rick Hancock has failed to comply with Rule 56(e), This reply is limited to Rick Hancock's Response to the omnibus Motion to Strike re Hancocks' Response and Statement of Facts. Meritage responded to Rick Hancock's Request for Leave separately. See Document No. 466. Meritage previously responded to Greg Hancock's Response in order to comply with the time constraints imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules.
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 468 Filed 04/10/2007 Page 1 of 13
1

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

REPLY TO RICK HANCOCK DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE1 RE MOTION TO STRIKE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule") and this court's Local Rule 56.1(b) (cited to herein collectively as "the Rules"). Thus, the Motion to Strike is not frivolous or abusive as suggested by Rick Hancock. Had Rick Hancock provided evidentiary support for 92 factual assertions as required by the Rules then Meritage would not have needed 92 paragraphs to ask this Court to prevent Rick Hancock from responding "with mere allegation or denials." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986). Section 56 of MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE explains that motions to strike are not only permitted but often required as part of summary judgment practice when a party opposing summary judgment references purported facts but fails to comply with Rule 56. MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 56.14[4][a]; see also FEDERAL CIVIL RULES HANDBOOK at p. 926 (2006) (a party should move to strike references to evidence not supported in compliance with Rule 56). The Ninth Circuit agrees and has expressly held that motions to strike are proper vehicles for challenging materials (1) offered by a party opposing a summary judgment in an effort to create a question of fact but (2) not in compliance with the Rules or the Rules of Evidence. See, e.g., Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003); Pfingston v. Ronan Eng'g Co., 284 F.3d 999, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002). This is what we have here. Rick Hancock's effort in his Response to Meritage's Motion to Strike fails to comply with the Rules which is amply explained below. I. Meritage's Reply to Rick Hancock's Response and Controverting Statement of Facts. 1. Rick Hancock has still not provided support for the factual assertions found

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

in his Response at 3:3-17. This section contains 10 sentences with 16 separate factual assertions covering a myriad of topics ­ none of which are supported as required by the Rules. Therefore, Rick Hancock fails to comply with the Rules because he offers no evidentiary support for the proposition cited. 2. The first sentence of Rick Hancock's Response at 3:20-21 and CSOF at ¶ 17

make a legal argument containing a factual assertion. Then, Rick Hancock lists Steve

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 468 - 2 -Filed 04/10/2007

Page 2 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

Hilton's deposition as support without providing any citation to that deposition.2 Therefore, Rick Hancock fails to comply with Rules because he offers no evidentiary support for the proposition cited. 3. Diane Haas' Declaration is that Meritage stated that it intended to phase out

its use of the Hancock name ­ not that there was an immediate name change. Therefore, Rick Hancock fails to comply with the Rules because he offers no evidentiary support for the proposition cited. 4. The cited evidentiary record does not support the fact as described by Rick

Hancock when in fact, they were not changed in 2004. Rick Hancock attempts to use this section of cited testimony from Missie Valliere for this assertion and seven other assertions to follow (see e.g., ¶¶ 7-12, 82). Thus, Meritage provides the cited testimony in its entirety for the ease of the court: A. Keeping the name out there. We wanted to keep the Hancock Communities' name out there. Why? So it couldn't be used. By who? By any of the Hancocks.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

Q. A. Q. A.

The cited testimony does not say that any subdivision names were changed. Therefore, Rick Hancock fails to comply with the Rules because he offers no evidentiary support for the proposition cited. 5. The cited evidentiary record does not support the fact (i.e., all media) as

described by Rick Hancock. The Declaration of Barbara Sorget-Stanton at ¶ 12 does not even address the topic being asserted. Therefore, Rick Hancock offers no evidentiary 2 To the extent that Rick Hancock also is relying on Ms. Sorget-Stanton's interpretation of Mr. Hilton's entire deposition for a single factual assertion, such is not proper support. Meritage also notes that Ms. Sorget-Stanton's Declaration does not support the assertion made as it relates to an email and not Mr. Hilton's deposition. Likewise, Ms. SorgetStanton's Declaration does not support the premise that a reduction in newspaper advertising equates with diminution of brand name value. Finally, Meritage reserves all rights with respect to Ms. Sorget-Stanton as discovery has not closed per this Court's Order on March 5, 2007.
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 468 - 3 -Filed 04/10/2007 Page 3 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

support for the proposition cited and therefore failed to comply with the Rules. 6. The cited evidentiary record does not support the fact (i.e., diminution in

name recognition) as described by Rick Hancock. See also ¶ 5, supra. 7. Missie Valliere does not testify about the Hancock Communities name

being dropped and then resurrected in two neighborhoods. See ¶ 4, supra. 8. The cited portions of Missie Valliere's deposition do not support the fact

(i.e., corporate intent) as described by Rick Hancock. See ¶ 4, supra. It should be noted that this is testimony about what two low-level employees apparently told a mid-level employee. 9. Missie Valliere's testimony was that the purpose was to keep the Hancock

name in the marketplace. See ¶ 4, supra. 10. Missie Valliere's cited testimony does not discuss a national branding

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

campaign or marketing reasons for using the name Hancock communities. See ¶ 4, supra. 11. Missie Valliere's testimony was that the purpose was to keep the Hancock

name in the marketplace. See ¶ 4, supra. 12. Rick Hancock makes inappropriate legal arguments here. There is no

factual support offered for "ditching" the name. The cited evidence is to the contrary. See ¶ 4, supra. Also, Rick Hancock's Response at 5:12-19 contains several facts which have not been supported. Therefore, Rick Hancock still offers no evidentiary support for the proposition cited and therefore failed to comply with the Rules. 13. The cited portions of Missie Valliere's deposition do not support the fact

asserted in the Response at 5:21-22. See also ¶ 15, infra. Also, Diane Haas' Declaration at ¶ 3 does not support the fact as described by Rick Hancock. See ¶ 3, supra. Therefore, Rick Hancock offers no evidentiary support for the proposition cited and therefore failed to comply with the Rules. 14. The cited testimony or any reasonable inference therefrom does not support

the assertion in the Response at 5:23-24. Therefore, Rick Hancock failed to comply with the Rules when he offered no evidentiary support for the proposition cited.
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 468 - 4 -Filed 04/10/2007 Page 4 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

15.

The purported support for the factual assertion was not filed with Rick

Hancock's Response and therefore is not in accordance with Local Rule 56.1(b). Therefore, Rick Hancock offers no evidentiary support for the proposition cited and therefore failed to comply with the Rules. 16. Rick Hancock's Response at ¶ 16 makes a legal argument and attempts to

offer the License Agreement ("Agreement") as support for legal conclusion which misstates what the Agreement provides. Therefore, Rick Hancock fails to comply with the Rules because he offers no evidentiary support for the proposition cited. 17. 18. 19. See ¶ 15, supra. See also Footnote 1, supra. See ¶ 17, supra. Missie Valliere does not testify in the cited portion of her deposition that the

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Hancock Communities name was deleted. Therefore, Rick Hancock fails to comply with the Rules because he offers no evidentiary support for the proposition cited. 20. For the first six sentences, Rick Hancock tries to insert new purportedly

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

controverting facts without providing support as required by the Rules. Simply stated, the support cited for the seventh sentence is inapposite to the fact it purports to support. Therefore, Rick Hancock offers no evidentiary support for the proposition cited and therefore failed to comply with the Rules. 21. The cited testimony does not support the assertion being made in the

Response. Therefore, Rick Hancock offers no evidentiary support for the proposition cited and therefore failed to comply with the Rules. 22. 23. See ¶ 21, supra. The cited testimony is to the contrary, and there is no evidence of any

agreements. Failed settlement negotiations do not make an agreement, by definition. Further, Defendant is attempting to use testimony that is inadmissible under Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 24. 25. See ¶ 23, supra. Rick Hancock asserts that Cole testified and/or opined that as of February
Document 468 - 5 -Filed 04/10/2007 Page 5 of 13

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

2004 Meritage owed Hancock earn-outs. Rick Hancock does not cure the defect noted. (The testimony cited relates to earn-outs owed if Greg Hancock had not quit his job.) 26. Rick Hancock, instead of attempting to cure the lack of support, attempts to

shift the Court's focus to what Meritage has cited or not cited in its Motion. As a result, Rick Hancock has still not supported the assertion as required by the Rules. There is nothing about micromanaging, threats of lawsuits, firing by facsimiles, runners, golfing, secret reports, and subordinate by-passing at Rick Hancock's CSOF at ¶¶ 27-28. 27. There is no language in the Agreement stating that Meritage's rights under

the Agreement were not assets of Meritage. See also, ¶ 15, supra. 28. 29. Rick Hancock does not cure the noted defect. First, Greg Hancock is not the sole licensor. See License Agreement,

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Exhibit "4" to Rick Hancock CSOF. Second, there is a difference between sole discretion to protect a mark and discretion to protect all rights of all parties under the Agreement. Id. Therefore, Rick Hancock offers no evidentiary support for the proposition cited and therefore failed to comply with the Rules. 30. 31. Rick Hancock offers factual support but that support is too late. To the extent that Rick Hancock implies that there are disclaimers on all

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

marketing materials, even more than a couple of marketing materials, or a few bits of information, see ¶ 21, supra. 32. See ¶ 21, supra. Missie Valliere's cited testimony does not touch upon any

of the purported assertions found in Rick Hancock's Response. 33. 34. See ¶ 15, supra. See ¶ 21, supra. Citing to three websites (in addition to his direction to

Google his name) does not support the purported assertion as described by Rick Hancock. 35. Rick Hancock fails to address the problem that his purported evidentiary

support has nothing to do with the Phoenix metropolitan area. 36. Rick Hancock still offers no evidentiary support for the proposition cited

and therefore failed to comply with the Rules.
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 468 - 6 -Filed 04/10/2007 Page 6 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

37. 38. 39.

See ¶ 21, supra. See ¶ 15, supra. See ¶ 21, supra. See also ¶ 15, supra. Finally, Greg Hancock is not a

qualified expert in Mr. Keeffe's intent nor, if he was, was he properly disclosed as such. Similarly, Greg Hancock lacks personal knowledge about Scott Keeffe's intent and is precluded form testifying about the same by Fed. R. Evid. 602. 40. 41. See ¶ 36, supra. Rick Hancock's Response at 14:4-5 is not a statement of fact but rather a

conclusion of law, a problem not addressed by Rick Hancock. Further, even if the sentence was couched as a fact, see ¶ 15, supra. 42. 43. 44. See ¶ 36, supra. See ¶ 36, supra. See also ¶ 15, supra. Exhibit 31 to Rick Hancock's CSOF is not Shari Mesko's deposition. Thus,

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

Hancock offers no evidentiary support for the proposition cited and therefore failed to comply with the Rules. 45. Rick Hancock's attempt to cure the lack of support is ineffectual because the

purported support fails to support the assertion in Rick Hancock's Response. With respect to Greg Hancock's expert or lay testimony about Mr. Keeffe's intent, see ¶ 39 supra. 46. This deals with an implied statement of fact regarding the use of "executed."

Rick Hancock ignores this and does not cure the lack of evidentiary support. Thus, Rick Hancock offers no evidentiary support for the proposition cited and therefore failed to comply with the Rules. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. See ¶ 15, supra. See ¶ 36, supra. See ¶ 36, supra. See ¶ 36, supra. See ¶ 36, supra. (It should be noted that Mr. Cole's calculation assumes that

Greg Hancock stayed with Meritage for the full four years.)
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 468 - 7 -Filed 04/10/2007 Page 7 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

52.

See ¶ 36, supra. The right to terminate for a breach does not equate to

giving Greg Hancock discretion to control Meritage's use of the mark. 53. Rick Hancock attempts to cure the lack of evidentiary support by citing to

yet another "version" of Rick Hancock's testimony which stands for the opposite of what Rick Hancock is asserting. See also ¶ 15, supra. 54. Rick Hancock attempts to cure by providing additional evidence. The

purported support does not, in fact, support the controverting fact. See also ¶ 15, supra. 55. Rick Hancock attempts to cure by providing additional evidence. Indeed, he

groups an unconnected question and answer together. The purported support does not, in fact, support the assertion. See also ¶ 15, supra. 56. Rick Hancock does not cure the defects noted in the Motion to Strike. Rick

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Hancock also simply makes a legal argument in violation of the same Rules. 57. Rick Hancock points to the same facts which are not responsive to the SOF

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

in a misleading manner and therefore continues to fail to comply with the Rules. Further, Rick Hancock attempts to cure by providing additional evidence. The new purported support does not, in fact, support the assertion. See also ¶ 15, supra. 58. Rick Hancock continues to misstate the evidentiary record, which only

refers to one contrived phone call manufactured by his counsel during the deposition of Larry Seay for the purposes, apparently, based on its continued use, to mislead the Court. Indeed, counsel for Rick Hancock dialed the phone. Also, Rick Hancock provides no support for the assertion as required by the Rules. 59. 60. See ¶ 36, supra. For CSOF at ¶ 16 ­ Rick Hancock still has not provided support for the

assertion in violation of the Rules. For CSOF at ¶ 17 to 193, & 25 ­ The new purported support does not support the assertion. See also ¶ 15, supra. 61.
3

The new support does not support the assertion. See also ¶ 15, supra.

¶19 contains what must be the most disingenuous argument undersigned counsel has encountered in his 20 years of practice, Rick Hancock takes an argument out of context knowing that the argument was made assuming the fact was true.
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 468 - 8 -Filed 04/10/2007 Page 8 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

62.

Plaintiff maintains its position that Rick Hancock's CSOF at ¶ 21 makes

legal arguments and fails to cite to the evidentiary record in violation of the Rules. 63. Plaintiff maintains its position that Rick Hancock's CSOF at ¶ 22 points to

facts not responsive to the SOF in a misleading manner (particularly with respect to timing) and therefore failed to comply with the Rules. Rick Hancock adds new facts not supported by the evidentiary record. Rick Hancock also makes legal arguments and fails to cite to the evidentiary record in violation of the Rules. 64. Plaintiff maintains its position that Rick Hancock's CSOF at ¶ 23 points to

facts not responsive to the SOF in a misleading manner (particularly with respect to timing) and therefore failed to comply with the Rules. He now adds a new statement of fact for which the evidentiary record does not support. Rick Hancock also makes legal arguments and fails to cite to portions of the evidentiary record in violation of the Rules. 65. Rick Hancock's Response at ¶ 24 after the word "admitted" fails to provide

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

support for the purported facts in violation of the Rules. See also Footnote 3, supra. 66. Rick Hancock continues to make legal arguments and fails to cite to portion

of the evidentiary record in violation of the Rules. 67. The purported facts asserted in Rick Hancock's CSOF at ¶¶ 27 and 28 are

not supported by citation to the record in violation of the Rules. Rick Hancock's reliance on the Rules of Evidence is misplaced. The testimony is not only admissible as a statement of a party opponent, regardless of Rick Hancock's status, but also is admissible as impeachment. Fed. R. Evid. 801 and 803. 68. The Agreement simply does not prevent the Licensor from transferring it

nor preventing Meritage from assigning its rights to wholly-owned subsidiaries. 69. Rick Hancock continues to confuse a letter purporting to terminate the

Agreement with an ultimate legal conclusion in violation of the Rules. See also Footnote 3, supra. Further, as it pertains to Rick Hancock's CSOF at ¶ 45, see ¶ 15, supra. 70. 71. Meritage stands by its objection. Missie Valliere's cited testimony does not support the assertion that
Document 468 - 9 -Filed 04/10/2007 Page 9 of 13

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

Meritage sought to confuse customers. See also ¶ 15, supra. 72. 73. See ¶ 3, supra. To the extent that Rick Hancock implies that the use of the disclaimer was

more than isolated, the purported support in ¶¶ 56-58 still does not, in fact, support the purported fact asserted. Therefore, Rick Hancock failed to comply with the Rules. 74. Rick Hancock still offers no evidentiary support for the proposition cited

and therefore failed to comply with the Rules. 75. The September 8, 2003 email, Exhibit 15 to Rick Hancock's CSOF, simply

does not state what Rick Hancock says it does. It does not state that Steve Hilton and John Landon had agreed to stop using the name. Rather, Steve Hilton writes in the email: John: You may want to begin considering how we are going to transition the "Hancock communities" name to "Meritage Homes." We have the rights to the name for 6 years. I think the name should be dark in the market for at least 1 year or maybe 2 prior to the expiration of our license so that we do not waste advertising dollars on a name that Greg may resurrect immediately following our license. Therefore we should consider a plan to phase out the name over the next 18 months. What do you think? 76. 77. 78. 79. See ¶ 21, supra. See ¶ 76, supra. See ¶ 76, supra. Rick Hancock continues to mischaracterize and misstate the Agreement.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

See also ¶ 76, supra. 80. recognition. 81. Rick Hancock concedes that CSOF at ¶¶ 107, 110, and 111 should be See ¶ 21, supra. Less visible does not equate to a diminution of public

stricken. Also, Rick Hancock violated Local Rule 56.1(b) by not filing the purported support for the assertions in CSOF ¶ 110, 111, and 1134 with his Response. For CSOF at ¶ 115 ­ Rick Hancock continues to confuse a letter purporting to terminate the Agreement with an ultimate legal conclusion in violation of the Rules. See also Footnote 4 A single "representative disclaimer" does not mean that all or even a single purchaser actually signed a disclaimer.
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 468- 10 Filed 04/10/2007 Page 10 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

3, supra. 82. 83. See Footnote 3, supra. The new cited portion highlights the key problem. Any particular "buyer"

might know the difference after dealing with Rick Hancock, even if they are "idiots" as Rick Hancock describes them. This testimony, however, does not support the idea that new customers, "idiots" or not, would know the difference. Moreover, it is the difference between Rick Hancock Homes ("RHH") and Hancock Communities or a Hancock Home by Meritage and not the difference between RHH and Meritage that is salient. 84. Defendant still leaves nearly all of the purported facts in his Response at

¶ 117 unsupported. Rick Hancock does try to support one fact, but see ¶ 21, supra. 85. This purported fact is misleading because Mr. Cole is opining to amounts

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

owed had Greg Hancock remained employed and not amounts owed in February 2004. Therefore, Rick Hancock offers no evidentiary support for the proposition cited and therefore failed to comply with the Rules. 86. See ¶ 21, supra. See also ¶ 75, supra. Barbara Sorget-Stanton's Declaration

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

at ¶ 13 simply lists what she reviewed before making her Declaration which does not support the purported fact. Also, Rick Hancock's CSOF at ¶ 52 remains not supported as required by the Rules. See ¶ 75, supra. 87. See ¶ 21, supra. The cited evidentiary record does not support the fact as

described to the extent that it states that the agreement was formally executed because there was no delivery as required by law. 88. Rick Hancock's CSOF at ¶ 134 is not a statement of fact but rather a

conclusion of law. Further, even if the sentence was a fact, see ¶ 15, supra. 89. Even in the light most favorable to Rick Hancock, the newly cited evidence

does not support CSOF at ¶ 137. See also ¶ 15, supra. 90. 91. 92. Rick Hancock does not cure the defect noted. Rick Hancock does not cure the defect noted. See also ¶ 15, supra. Rick Hancock CSOF at ¶ 141 has not been cured. See ¶ 39 supra.
Document 468- 11 Filed 04/10/2007 Page 11 of 13

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

DATED this 10th day of April, 2007. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.

By s/ Dan W. Goldfine Dan W. Goldfine Adam Lang One Arizona Center Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Third Party Defendants and

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

By s/ Grant Woods Grant Woods GRANT WOODS, P.C. 1726 North Seventh Street Phoenix, AZ 85006 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Third Party Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 10, 2007, I electronically transmitted the foregoing document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Ivan K. Mathew Mathew & Mathew, P.C. 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 1730 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Defendants Rick Hancock, Brenda Hancock, Rick Hancock Homes, L.L.C., and RLH Development, L.L.C. Robert M. Frisbee Frisbee & Bostock, PLC 1747 East Morton Avenue Suite 108 Phoenix AZ 85020 Attorneys for Defendant Greg Hancock

Document 468- 12 Filed 04/10/2007

Page 12 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

Kenneth J. Sherk Timothy J. Burke Fennemore Craig, P.C. 3003 N. Central Ave. Suite 2600 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2913 Attorneys for Defendant Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P. in State Court Action s/ Becky Kinningham
1978546

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 468- 13 Filed 04/10/2007 Page 13 of 13

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.