Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Robert M. Frisbee #018779 FRISBEE & BOSTOCK, PLC 2 1747 Morten Ave. E. Suite 108 Phoenix, Arizona 85020 3 Phone: (602) 354-3689 [email protected] 4 Attorneys for Defendant Greg Hancock
1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA MERITAGE CORPORATION, a Maryland corporation Plaintiff, vs. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

NO. CIV 04-0384-PHX-ROS

GREG HANCOCK, an individual; RICK HANCOCK, an individual; and 12 RICK HANCOCK HOMES, L.L.C., an Arizona Corporation,
13

DEFENDANT GREG HANCOCK'S LIST OF CONTROVERTED FACTS IN RESPONSE TO MERITAGE'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants.
14 15

Defendant Greg Hancock controverts the following Statements of Fact proffered by
16 17

Meritage in support of its renewed motion for partial summary judgment:1 6. Statement is argumentative and irrelevant; the License Agreement's covenant by

18

Meritage not to diminish the Hancock name is entirely independent of any action or inaction
19

by Greg Hancock.
20

8. The statement is totally misleading. Aside from the fact that the word "usurp" was
21

never used by Rick Hancock, the testimony at Exh. 7, 49:2 to 50:20 relates to Beazer Homes
22

back in 1993; 54:24 to 61:12 relates entirely to Beazer; 68:4 to 71:20 reflects Rick
23

Hancock's opinion that Hancock homes had a reputation for high quality; 102:20-24
24

establishes that warranties are important; and 181:1-22 has to do with Rick Hancock wanting
25

to use his own name for his building company.
26
1

Numerical reference is to Meritage's numbered statements.

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 419-2

Filed 12/27/2006

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

9. The statement is no more than an inaccurate legal and factual conclusion. 10. The statement is only erroneous conclusion, and Meritage has offered no evidence of confusion; to the contrary, the Hancocks have offered Declarations and pages of deposition testimony that nobody was or is confused. 11. Only establishes that Rick Hancock has email capability, and Exh. 7, 214:14 to 217:15 establishes nothing whatever about confusion. 14. Misleading. The entirety of Rick Hancock's subdivision sign cannot be seen or read from either I10 or the off-ramp on Watson. 15. Meritage is not the exclusive licensee; the license was canceled. 25. Greg Hancock had nothing to do with the opening of Rick Hancock Homes, but even if he had there was no violation of any court order; the Court denied Meritage's renewed application for TRO as moot, and the matter was never again raised by Meritage. 26. Argumentative and absurd; there is no such evidence. 27. A total distortion of the testimony; Greg Hancock testified that numerous factors caused him stress, including the working conditions at Meritage. 28. States a conclusion not based on the testimony cited. SUBMITTED this 27th day of December, 2006. FRISBEE & BOSTOCK, PLC /s/ Robert M. Frisbee Robert M. Frisbee Attorney for Greg Hancock

The foregoing List of Controverted Facts was electronically filed and served this 18th day of December, 2006, and copy 23 thereof mailed to the Honorable Judge Silver.
22 24

/s/ Robert M. Frisbee
25 26 2 Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 419-2 Filed 12/27/2006 Page 2 of 2