Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

MINUTES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America v. Lear Jet THE HONORABLE JOHN W. SEDWICK PROCEEDINGS: ORDER FROM CHAMBERS CASE NO. 2:04-cv-00363 PHX June 12, 2006

At docket 167, claimants Bombardier Capital, Inc., Alberto Abed-Schebaikan, and Uptongrove, Ltd., have filed what is styled as a "joint motion" in opposition to the public sale of defendant Lear Jet, which is set for June 23, 2006. They note the court ordered the public sale "to avoid dissension" among the parties but assert that "all Claimants to this cause who have any claim, either direct or contingent, to the proceeds of any such sale" join in the motion in opposition to the public sale. Doc. 167, pp. 2, 5. This assertion implies all claimants of record have agreed to a private sale. However, as claimant ScotiaBank Inverlat points out, it has not agreed to a private sale. Doc. 170, p. 2. Thus, there remains dissension among the claimants and, for that reason, the motion at docket 167 is DENIED. The court is troubled by the implication in the motion at docket 167 that all claimants agreed to a private sale because it appears ScotiaBank's opposition to a private sale was registered before the motion was filed on May 10, 2006. For example, an e-mail exchange on May 4, 2006, shows: 1) the legal assistant to the attorney who signed the motion at docket 167 asked ScotiaBank's counsel if ScotiaBank would be joining the motion; and 2) ScotiaBank's counsel a) informed the legal assistant that ScotiaBank would not be joining the motion because it "strongly object[ed]" to delaying the public sale and b) requested confirmation that ScotiaBank's objection would be noted in any motion in opposition to the public sale. Doc. 170, ex. A, p. 1. An e-mail exchange on the same day the motion was filed demonstrates ScotiaBank's counsel alerted an attorney whose name, but not signature, appears on the motion at docket 167 that ScotiaBank opposed the motion. Id., ex. A, p. 2. If these e-mails accurately reflect reality, then it would seem the attorneys responsible for the motion at docket 167 had at least constructive, and in all likelihood actual, knowledge that ScotiaBank opposed the motion but represented the opposite anyway. One conclusion to be drawn from that scenario, if it is true, is the motion at docket 167 was an attempt to mislead the court. The attorney who signed the motion at docket 167 is ORDERED to show cause why that conclusion should not be drawn and sanctions imposed accordingly. He shall file a response to this order by Monday, June19, 2006. Counsel for ScotiaBank shall have five (5) days from the date the response is filed to file a reply, if he deems a reply necessary. ________________

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 174

Filed 06/12/2006

Page 1 of 1