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

1 Stephen G. Montoya (#011791)
MONTOYA JIMENEZ, P.A.

2 3 4 5

The Great American Tower 3200 North Central Avenue, Ste. 2550 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 (602) 256-6718 (fax) 256-6667

[email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 The Judgment in this case was entered on December 23, 2005. 15 The Judgment explicitly and unequivocally states that the jury rendered its verdict 16 against Frank Favela for punitive damages "in the amount of $350,000.00." 17 Notwithstanding the explicit and unequivocal terms of the Judgment--over a 18 month later--on February 6, 2006, Defendant Favela filed a "Motion to Correct the 19 Judgment," weakly claiming that "it appears that the Court entered a judgment 20 improperly, in the amount of $350,000.00 not $35,000.00." See Defendant Favela's 21 Motion to Conform/Correct the Judgment, p. 1, lines 23-24. 22 The only "evidence" that Defendant Favela adduces in support of his Motion are 23 City of Phoenix, Frank Favela, and Frank Peralta, defendants. Monica Ortega-Guerin, plaintiff, vs. Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant Favela's Motion to Conform/Correct the Judgment (Oral Argument Requested) No. CIV 04-0289-PHX-MHM FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Case 2:04-cv-00289-MHM

Document 98

Filed 02/24/2006

Page 1 of 3

1 (1) a cryptic reference to Defendant Favela's legal counsel's alleged, self-serving trial 2 notes--which have not been produced to the Court--and (2) a docket entry indicating 3 that the jury's punitive damage award against Defendant Favela was in the amount of 4 $35,000.00. 5 6 Defendant Favela's alleged "evidence" is no evidence at all. First, Defendant Favela's attorney's alleged trial notes are not evidence of what

7 transpired at trial because Defendant Favela's legal counsel is not a witness in this 8 case, but in fact is an advocate obliged to perceive and communicate the facts in favor 9 of his client, Defendant Favela. 10 Second, the Clerk's docket entry is also not evidence of what transpired at trial,

11 and Plaintiff believes that it is the Clerk's docket entry that is in error, not the official 12 Judgment of the Court. In fact, Defendant Favela does not present any reason why the 13 Clerk's (mistaken) docket entry is entitled to a greater weight than the Court's official 14 Judgment. 15 Accordingly, because Defendant Favela has adduced absolutely no evidence

16 supporting his Motion to Correct the Judgment, the Court should deny the Motion. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 -2s/ Stephen G. Montoya Stephen G. Montoya 3200 North Central Avenue, Ste. 2550 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2490 Attorney for Plaintiff Dated the 24th day of February, 2006. MONTOYA JIMENEZ A Professional Association

Case 2:04-cv-00289-MHM

Document 98

Filed 02/24/2006

Page 2 of 3

1 2 : 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 24, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached 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: David F. Gaona Gaona Law Firm 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 720 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorney for Defendants

:

I further certify that on February 27, 2006, the attached document was handdelivered to: The Honorable Mary H. Murguia United States District Court for the District of Arizona Sandra Day O'Connor United States Courthouse 401 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85003

s/ Stephen G. Montoya

-3-

Case 2:04-cv-00289-MHM

Document 98

Filed 02/24/2006

Page 3 of 3