Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona


File Size: 12.9 kB
Pages: 3
Date: April 9, 2007
File Format: PDF
State: Arizona
Category: District Court of Arizona
Author: unknown
Word Count: 436 Words, 2,730 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/35258/87.pdf

Download Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona ( 12.9 kB)


Preview Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Holm Wright Hyde & Hays PLC
10429 South 51st Street, Suite 285 Phoenix, Arizona 85044 (480) 961-0040

Brad Holm (011237) Christopher S. Welker (020060) HOLM WRIGHT HYDE & HAYS PLC 10429 South 51st Street, Suite 285 Phoenix, Arizona 85044 (480) 961-0040 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA CRANE CO., a Delaware corporation and UNIDYNAMICS/PHOENIX, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. CRANE CO., a Delaware corporation; and UNIDYNAMICS/PHOENIX INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs, No. CV03-2226-PHX-ROS No. CV04-1400-PHX-ROS (Consolidated) PIRNIE'S RESPONSE TO CRANE'S MOTION TO TRANSFER

10 11 12 13 14 15

No. CIV06-02838-PHX-EHC

vs. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC., a New York corporation, Defendant. Defendant Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. does not oppose the relief requested in plaintiffs Crane Co. and Unidynamics/Phoenix, Inc.'s ("Crane") motion to transfer. But Malcolm Pirnie does not agree with all of Crane's factual allegations in the motion. For example, Pirnie

Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS

Document 87

Filed 04/09/2007

Page 1 of 3

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

disagrees with how Crane characterizes Pirnie's scope.1 And Pirnie views the issues in this case as similar to but still different from the issues in the other cases, as we understand them. For these reasons, Malcolm Pirnie did not join Crane's motion to transfer, contrary to Crane's allegation.2 But Pirnie agrees that Judge Silver's experience with the other cases could enhance "the efficient administration of justice" in this case, as Crane alleges.3 In any event, this case should not be consolidated with the other cases referenced in Crane's motion. Dated April 9, 2007. HOLM WRIGHT HYDE & HAYS PLC

By s/Brad Holm Brad Holm Christopher S. Welker 10429 South 51st Street, Suite 285 Phoenix, AZ 85044 Attorneys for Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.

1

21 22

Motion to transfer, pp. 2-3:27-4. Id., p. 5:6-7. 3 Id., p. 5:14.
2

Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS

Document 87

2

Filed 04/09/2007

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 s/Paulette Campbell 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 9, 2007, 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: Andrew R. Sherwood, Esq. [email protected] Joseph A. Drazek, Esq. [email protected] Quarles & Brady, LLP Renaissance One 2 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004

Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS

Document 87

3

Filed 04/09/2007

Page 3 of 3