Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1
2 3

RICHARD J. MCDANIEL, P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW 11811 N. TATUM BLVD., SUITE 1051 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85028 Telephone (602) 953-8721 FAX (602) 953-8731 Richard J. McDaniel #013329 Attorney for Defendants Woodcock IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Case No. CIV 04-78-FJM SHIMKO & PISCITELLI, Plaintiff, v. PAUL and BOBBI WOODCOCK, et. al. Defendants. DEFENDANT WOODCOCKS' AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

4
5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17

Defendant Woodcock amends his motion to dismiss claims and motion for summary judgment based upon new evidence. Shimko did not make himself available for deposition until March 24, 2008 and did not respond to discovery requests until April 7, 2008. Although this matter has been pending for almost five years, Shimko did not disclose material documents, including his firm's check and bank records, until last week. This evidence shows: (1) Shimko has repeatedly committed perjury about the amount of fees his firm has been paid; (2) Shimko's attorney, David Welling, did nothing to correct it or stop it; (3) Shimko and Welling, violated the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct and

18 19 20 21
22 23

24
25

9203-2/KMS/KMS/650009_v2

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 198

Filed 04/18/2008

Page 1 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Rule 11, Ariz.R.Civ.P.; and (4) Shimko and Welling have perpetrated a fraud on this Court and against the defendants by making claims for monies to which they knew they were not legally entitled. Based upon this egregious misconduct, the Woodcocks ask not only for summary judgment, but also for fee forfeiture, attorneys' fees, and sanctions against Shimko and Welling. Shimko's representation of Paul and Bobbi Woodcock in the CORF-related cases was so ridden with conflicts and ethical violations that it had no quantum meruit or other value. Shimko repeatedly failed to: (1) disclose to the Woodcocks numerous conflicts involved in his representation of multiple parties; (2) inform the Woodcocks of the details and risks of his business transactions with the CORF entities; and (3) obtain the Woodcocks' consent to the conflicts and business transactions. This motion is supported by the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities and a separate Statement of Facts. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. Material, Undisputed, Facts Based upon Shimko's recent deposition and documents he has now, finally, disclosed, the following facts are undisputed. Ohio attorneys Shimko and Piscitelli (S&P) began to represent the CORF entities in December 2000, when Shimko was asked to review a comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility (CORF) consulting business the individual defendants were starting.
2

9203-2/KMS/KMS/650009 v2

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 198

Filed 04/18/2008

Page 2 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9

(SOF 1) Neither attorney explained to their clients that they knew nothing about Medicare law and regulations concerning the operation of CORFs. (SOF 2) Shimko's firm billed almost $8,000 to look over the business, but failed to provide an opinion, review, or guidance to their clients. (SOF 3, 4) In November 2001, S&P began representing the CORE' entities and the defendants to address complaints from clients of the CORF consulting service. S&P began representing at least eight clients including the limited partners Woodcock, Ross, Goldfarb, and Guenther; CORE' officers, Ritchie and Brill; and CORE' Management Services, L.P., and CORE' Licensing Services, L.P. (SOF 5-6) Shimko did not explain to his clients the dangers and risks involved in his representing multiple clients. (SOF 6) Since Shimko did not inform his clients of the conflict, he never received Paul and Bobbi Woodcock's consent to waive the potential conflicts as required in a situation as plagued with potential conflicts as this one was. (SOF 7) Shimko did business transactions with the CORE' entities without explaining the risks and potential conflicts and without letting the Woodcocks know what he was doing. Shimko lent $200,000-$250,000 to one of the

to
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

CORE' entities without disclosing the details of the transactions to the Woodcocks or obtaining their consent. (SOF 8-10) Shimko took an ownership interest in Aztec Medical, a tissue bank venture, with some of the defendants in return for legal
3 9203-2/KMS/KMS/650009_v2

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 198

Filed 04/18/2008

Page 3 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

services without explaining to the Woodcocks the risks and potential conflicts. (SOF 11-12) Shimko gave false testimony in the Guenther trial before this Court and in his deposition, claiming his firm was paid only $135,000, when his firm's own records show receipt of more than $603,000. (SOF 21-22) Shimko's attorney, David Welling, did nothing to correct or stop the testimony. (SOF 21-23) Shimko and Welling have also perpetrated a fraud on this Court by continuing to assert a claim for more than $78,000 in fraudulent over-billings. (SOF 19-20, 23-28) II. Argument Shimko is not entitled to attorneys' fees because his representation of Paul and Bobbi Woodcock in the underlying CORFrelated cases was so ridden with conflicts and ethical violations that it had no value to the Woodcocks. A. The Undisputed Facts Demonstrate That Shimko Failed to Provide Competent Representation. Shimko failed to provide competent legal representation in

17

violation of ER 1.1. Competent representation of a client
18

requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and
19

preparation reasonably necessary for representation. ER 1.1,
20

Rule 42, Rules of the Supreme Court. In December 2000 some of
21

the individual defendants asked Shimko to come to Phoenix to
22

review a new comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility
23

consulting business they were starting. Shimko sent his partner,
24

Frank Piscitelli. Although Shimko & Piscitelli charged the CORE'
25

entities almost $8,000, Shimko did not inform his clients that
4 9203-2/KMS/KMS/650009.y2

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 198

Filed 04/18/2008

Page 4 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

he and Piscitelli knew nothing about Medicare law or CORFs. Shimko & Piscitelli did not issue a report or opinion about the business or provide any guidance to their clients. They did not even have contact with their clients until almost nine months after the visit: Q: Now when Piscitelli had come to Arizona the previous year, wasn't it true that the purpose of that trip in part was for Mr. Piscitelli to look at the program and see if there were any potential legal pitfalls? A: That's what we thought. A: Like, I told you before Roger, he went out to the meeting, and I don't recall any contact with any of these fellas until Paul Woodcock called me about nine months later. Q: During that nine month period, did Mr. Piscitelli write or communicate in any way to the CORF people telling them that they had serious legal problems with their business practices? A:I don't know if Frank [Piscitelli] would have known enough about the CORE regulations of the way the businesses were operating or the truth of what Mr. Goldfarb was espousing at these meeting that he could have come to any opinion about it. We weren't Medicare lawyers. We weren't skilled in any kind of CORE regulations at all.... (SOF Ex. A, Shimko depo p. 42-44) Q: Do you know whether he [Piscitelli] provided any sort of opinion or summary of nay sort either verbal or in writing to the client in or about December 2000. A: Well, Roger, it was kind of strange. We went out and we attended this seminar, and my recollection is that we didn't hear anything from these people for another six, or seven months. We submitted our bill, they paid it, and you know, I didn't hear from Paul Woodcock. He didn't ask for my opinion or anything. (SOF Ex. A, Shimko depo p 18-19)
5

9203-28CMS/KMS/650009 v2

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 198

Filed 04/18/2008

Page 5 of 17

1

Shimko's testimony demonstrates an utter lack of
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

preparation and an absence of the legal skills and basic knowledge necessary to the adequate representation of his clients under these circumstances. The underlying representation necessarily required knowledge of CORFs and Medicare; yet Shimko admits that he and his former partner knew nothing about either area of practice. By Shimko's own account, they simply billed the clients and got paid. B. The Undisputed Facts Demonstrate That Shimko Failed to Disclose to the Woodcocks the Risks Inherent In Representing Multiple Clients Ethical Rule 1.7 is designed to make clients aware of the risks inherent in multiple representations and to make certain a client is advised of and knowingly accepts the risks. A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation will be directly adverse to another client unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client and each client consents after consultation. ER 1.7(a). When representing multiple clients in a single matter, the consultation must include explanation of the implications of common representation and the advantages and risks involved. ER 1.7(b) (2). Disciplinary rules disfavor multiple representations any time there is even a potential conflict of interest. Eriks v. Denver, 824 P.2d 1207, 1212, 118 Wash.2d 451, 460-461 (1992). Significantly, the rules
6

9203-2/KMS/KMS/650009 v2

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 198

Filed 04/18/2008

Page 6 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

prohibits multiple representation when an attorney's independent judgment may be compromised. Matter of Ireland, 345, 706 P.2d 352, 357 (1985). Shimko violated ER 1.7 because he did not explain to the Woodcocks the risks of representing multiple defendants and he never got their consent to risks: A: ... Roger, you have to understand, 99 percent of my practice at the time was contingent fee. This was--was a very unique experience for us. It was perhaps the only client at this time we would bill by the hour. Shimko depo. P. 9 1. 25- p. 10, 1. 3. Q: When they told you they wanted a joint effort or joint cooperative representation, did you tell them that there were conflict issues that needed to be discussed before you could accept thee representation? A: I didn't see any conflict issues to be discussed. 146 Ariz. 340,

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q: Did you ever see conflict issues that needed to be discussed? A: No, not from that discussion because what was discussed was here's your problem: You're the corporate. They are going to be sued, you're going to be sued, everybody's going to be sued. They can be found liable; you can be found liable. (SOF Ex. A, Shimko depo. P. 51) Shimko did not advise his clients of the potential conflicts involved in his simultaneous, joint representation of the CORE business entities, its officers and employees, the general partner and limited partners. He never advised the limited partners that they might have different interests and conflicts with the general partner and officers and employees.
7 9203-2/KMS/KMS/650009_v2

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 198

Filed 04/18/2008

Page 7 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

He never advised the individual defendants that they might have conflicts and different interests depending upon their own personal assets and financial situations; level of involvement in CORF activities and promotions; and knowledge of activities at CORF. He never advised them that he couldn't offer a settlement for one of them because that would conflict with his duty to the others: Q: Did you ever talk to them about whether it would be more advisable for one or all of them to have separate counsel so they could make separate agreements and save their individual situation as the expense of the rest of the group. A: Well, these were like the four musketeers, Mr. Cohen. They were in for a penny and they were in for a pound. Q: And you never told them there was any other way around it, did you? A: Other way around what? You tell me the other way around. (SOF Ex. A, Shimko depo. p. 54) 1. Even When Some Clients Did Not Follow His Advice, Shimko Did Not Warn the Woodcocks of the Risks.

Shimko failed to warn the Woodcocks of the risks and conflicts in his representation of multiple clients even when one of the clients persisted in doing activities that Shimko thought exposed his other clients to greater risk. Shimko testified that at some point he had a conversation with Ross and Woodcock because Goldfarb was continuing to make representations at seminars promoting the consulting services. Shimko asked the
8

9203-2/KMS/KMS/650009_v2

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 198

Filed 04/18/2008

Page 8 of 17

1
2 3

individual defendants what they wanted to do, but still failed to advise his clients of the risks: Q: So in other words, at this point you were advising one group of your clients to take a different course of action than another of your clients? A: No. I asked them what they wanted me to do. Q: Isn't it true that if you had dug into the relationships and the conduct a little more deeply back in November of 2001, you might have recognized that there were potentially differing interests between Mr. Ross, for example and Mr. Goldfarb? A: Well if my parents had been Swedish, I might be Swedish. So I don't know about this "if" thing Roger. I mean that's retrospective and I can't answer it. Q: ...My question is did you ever send a letter to Dick Ross telling him that there was a potential conflict of interest in your representing multiple parties? A: No, because I did not see a potential conflict of interest at that time. (SOF Ex. A, Shimko depo p. 58-61)

4
5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

2.
17 18 19 20 21
22 23

Even When the Plaintiffs' Attorneys in the CORE Litigations Approached Shimko About Cutting Deals with Some of his Clients, He Did Not Warn the Others About Conflicts.

A conflict may exist when substantially different possibilities of settlement of the claims or liabilities exist. Matter of Shannon, 179 Ariz. 52, 876 P.2d 548 (1994). Representing clients with substantially different positions in terms of settlement, is a basis for finding a conflict of interest. Id. Shimko testified that he attended dinner with the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the underlying CORP
9

24
25

9203-2/KMS/KMS/650009_v2

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 198

Filed 04/18/2008

Page 9 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

lawsuits. The attorney was offering to drop lawsuits against Shimko's clients Brill and Ritchie, who were CORF officers and employees, if they would provide testimony against Shimko's other clients. Shimko never explained to the individual defendants that he could not make a settlement on behalf of one of them, for example Woodcock, by offering Woodcock's testimony against the others because doing so would conflict with his duty of loyalty to the other limited partners. (SOF 16-17) By failing to disclose these conflicts to the Woodcocks and to get their waiver, Shimko failed, at the most fundamental level, to meet his ethical duties. C. Shimko Entered Into Transactions with the CORF Entities That Compromised His Representation of the Woodcocks. Ethical Rule 1.8 is designed to protect clients from

14

conflicts by requiring an attorney who enters into a business
15

transaction with his client to inform the client of the terms
16

and conditions; to advise the client to have independent counsel
17

review the terms; and to obtain the client's written consent. A
18

lawyer entering into a business relationship with a client must
19

not only give a full explanation of divergence of interest
20

between lawyer and client and the need to seek independent
21

counsel, but must also give a detailed explanation of the risks
22

and disadvantages to the client which flow from the
23

relationship. Matter of Neville, 147 Ariz. 106, 708 P.2d 1297
24

(1985).
25

10

9203-2/ICMS/KMS/650009 v2

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 198

Filed 04/18/2008

Page 10 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

In violation of E.R.

1.8, Shimko loaned $250,000 to the

CORF entities without informing Paul Woodcock that he had made

the loan until after the fact. Shimko did not prepare a promissory note or disclose details of the transaction to the Woodcocks. Shimko did not advise Woodcock to have independent counsel review the loan transaction.
(SOF 8-10) When Shimko

lent money to the CORF entities without Woodcock's knowledge and consent, Shimko compromised his ability to loyally represent the Woodcocks. As a creditor, Shimko had an interest in maintaining the CORF entities that potentially conflicted with his duty to the Woodcocks. Shimko also never explained to any of his clients how he would allocate monies he received from CORF between his legal bills and loan repayment. By applying monies received from CORF preferentially to repayment of the loan, Shimko increased the risk that CORF would be unable to pay legal bills and thus the likelihood that the individual defendants might be held responsible for the bills. Shimko also violated E.R. 1.8 when he acquired an ownership interest in a tissue bank business, Aztec Medical Group Partners, LLC, with some of his CORF clients. Shimko agreed to provide legal services to the business in exchange for an interest. Shimko failed to advise Woodcocks to have independent counsel review the transaction and operating agreement. Shimko did not obtain the Woodcocks' written consent.

11 9203-2/KMS/KMS/650009 _v2

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 198

Filed 04/18/2008

Page 11 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3.0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

On March 3, 2003, Jeff Finley, an attorney at Beus Gilbert, representing some of the underlying plaintiffs suing the CORF entities and individual defendants, sent Shimko a letter on stating his belief that Shimko was CEO of Aztec Medical and that Shimko & Piscitelli were using Aztec Medical to fraudulently convey monies from the CORE entities to Mexico. (SOF 17) Even then, Shimko still did not advise the Woodcocks of the potential conflicts and risks. After it became apparent in April 2003 that the CORF entities were headed toward insolvency and would be unable to pay ongoing attorneys' fees, Shimko demanded that the Woodcocks and the other individual defendants pledge their homes as collateral. Shimko did not warn his clients that if they knowingly and willingly pledged their homes they would be potentially waiving their homestead exemption. When the individual defendants refused to pledge their homes, Shimko withdrew as their counsel, citing conflicts that suddenly caught his attention only when he was in danger of no longer having his bills paid. D. Shimko Cannot Meet His Burden to Show the Woodcocks Consented to the Conflicts. Shimko cannot meet his burden to show that the Woodcocks

22

consented to his numerous ethical conflicts. In a disciplinary
23 24 25

proceeding, the burden of establishing disclosure to and consent by the client is upon the lawyer and any doubt or ambiguity must be resolved against the lawyer. A violation of the rule
12

9203-2/KMS/KMS/650009 v2

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 198

Filed 04/18/2008

Page 12 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14

prohibiting the representation of multiple, adverse interests is established when, in the absence of a writing, the lawyer cannot prove the client's consent to multiple representation is voluntary and knowing. Matter of Neville, 147 Ariz. 106, 708 P.2d 1297 (1985). Any doubts and ambiguities which are disclosed in later disputes with the client will be resolved against the attorney. Id. Woodcock has testified that Shimko did not disclose or warn him of the potential conflicts involved in Shimko's representation of multiple clients or advise him about the business transactions. (SOF 6-16) Shimko has produced no evidence showing he warned his clients about the potential conflicts or obtained their consent to them. E. Shimko's Perjury and Misrepresentations Make Him Ineligible for Fees. Shimko did not disclose his firm's records of payments

15 16 17 16 19 20 21

received until last week. These records show that Shimko's law firm received $603,816.80 in payments from the CORE defendants, most of this for fees. Shimko lied at Guenther's trial, claiming that his firm received only about $135,000 in fees: Q: How much was your firm paid by CORF Management and CORE Licensing Services? A: We have been paid a total amount of $135,572 ....

22 23 24 25

(SOF Ex. H, Guenther Trial Transcript, p. 91). Shimko lied at his deposition: Q: You do not believe they were near 850,000.
13

9203-2/KMS/KMS/650009_v2

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 198

Filed 04/18/2008

Page 13 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

A: I think they were closer to some 580 some thousand; 480 to 500 some thousand. I think we had $350,000 that remained unpaid, and we were paid 135,000. That's my recollection. (SOF Ex. A, Shimko depo p. 6) In addition to misrepresenting the amount that Shimko's firm was paid, Shimko and Welling have continued to falsely misrepresent the total amount owed their firm. Shimko acknowledged in at his deposition that his firm had overbilled $78,097 for David Welling's time as a law clerk, having "mistakenly" billed him at $350 per hour instead of $125. Shimko testified that he has been aware of the over billing since a few weeks after the bill went out in April 2003, yet has never corrected his billing statements by subtracting the

14

$78,000 out of the $359,000 Shimko claims he is owed.
15

Nevertheless, Shimko and his attorney, Welling, have
16

continued to maintain and aver in pleadings, affidavits, and
17

testimony before the federal courts that Shimko's firm is still
18

owed the full $359,000. Before Judge Sedgwick Shimko testified:
19 20 21

"I provided legal services which were accepted and up to a point paid for; however, my firm and I are still owed $354,949 for the services provided." (SOF 25, Shimko affidavit 11/8/06) Before the 9th Circuit Shimko

22

and Welling stated:
23 24 25

"Plaintiff Shimko and his firm provided $359,668 in services to Appellant and his partners for which he and his firm have not been paid."

14

9203-2/KMS/KMS/650009 v2

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 198

Filed 04/18/2008

Page 14 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

"Appellant and his partners received the benefit of those service and have been unjustly enriched to the amount of $359,668 plus interest." (SOF 26, Appellees' Response Brief, 3/28/06) And before this Court, Shimko and his attorney, Welling, have repeatedly and knowingly continued to misrepresent they are owed the full $359,000: "Plaintiff Shimko and his firm are still owed $359,668 for services provided to Dr. Guenther and his partners." "Dr. Guenther and his partners received the benefit of those services and have been unjustly enriched in the amount of $359,668 plus interest." (SOF 28, Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Memorandum on Guenther Remand)

12

Shimko and Welling have continually averred they are owed
13

the full $359,000. Thus, they have repeatedly asserted claims
14

for $78,000 they know is not owed to them. At a minimum this is
15

a violation of their duties under Rule 11. Shimko and Welling's
16

misrepresentations have resulted in fraud and injustice, when,
17

for example, this Court relied upon the misrepresentations, to
18

rule that the Guenthers owed one-fourth of a bill that included
19

the excess charges.
20

F. All Monies Paid to Shimko Should Be Forfeited.
21

Many courts have held that once a conflict of interest or
22

other ethical violation has been established, the attorney is
23

prohibited from collecting fees. In Estate of Watson, 557 N.W.
24

2d 38, 41, 5 Neb. App. 184, 189 (1996). An attorney who knew or
25

plainly should have known he had a conflict of interest, may not
15

9203-2/KMS/ICMS/650009 v2

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 198

Filed 04/18/2008

Page 15 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

receive fees for services rendered after acquiring such knowledge. 557 N.W. 2d at 43, 5 Neb. App. at 193. The general principle that a breach of ethical duties may result in denial or disgorgement of fees is well recognized by courts of law. Eriks v. Denver, 824 P.2d at 1213, 118 Wash.2d at 462. In the present case, Shimko repeatedly failed to disclose potential conflicts and failed to obtain knowing and informed consent to the multiple representations. He failed to inform his clients of deals and transactions he was entering into with the CORF entities; the potential risks and conflicts; and the wisdom of seeking outside counsel to review the transactions. These failures violated the Arizona and Ohio ethical rules and fatally compromised Shimko's loyalty and duty to the Woodcocks. He is not entitled to fees. Even if Shimko had provided competent, loyal, and conflict free legal representation to the Woodcocks, he would not be entitled to additional fees. Shimko never subtracted out the $78,000 he overcharged for Welling's time from the $359,000 he claims he is owed. In addition, because Piscitelli refused to be deposed, this Court ruled that Shimko cannot collect the fees billed by Piscitelli, which are $314,868.42. Subtracting these two amounts out, leaves a negative balance. G. Sanctions Shimko failed to provide competent, loyal, and ethical service to the Woodcocks and other individual defendants. He
16 9203-2/KMS/KMS/650009 v2 Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 198

Filed 04/18/2008

Page 16 of 17

1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

failed to advise his clients of conflicts; failed to get their consent; and failed to inform them of business transactions and the risks involved. In bringing the present litigation, Shimko has given material, perjured testimony and made fraudulent claims for excess billings, to which he and his attorney knew they were not entitled. Given Shimko and Welling's misconduct, the $603,816.80 paid to Shimko's firm should be forfeited; the Woodcocks and other individual defendants should be awarded their fees and costs; the Court should impose sanctions on Shimko and Welling; and the Court should initiate disciplinary complaints with the Arizona and Ohio Bar Associations. Dated this 18th day of April 2008. RICHARD J. MCDANIEL ATTORNEY AT LAW By /s/ Rich McDaniel Richard J. McDaniel 11811 N. Tatum, #1051 Phoenix, AZ 85028 Attorney for Defendants Woodcock Electronically filed and copied this 18th day of April 2008: David Welling Timothy Shimko & Associates Roger Cohen JABURG & WILK mailed to: David and Rhona Goldfarb 11437 N. 53 rd Place Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Pro Per /s/ Rich McDaniel
17
9203-2/KMS/KMS/650009_v2

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19

20 21
22 23

24
25

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 198

Filed 04/18/2008

Page 17 of 17