Free Pretrial Order - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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 26

John T. Masterson, Bar #007447 Jennifer L. Holsman, Bar #022787 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: (602) 263-1700 Fax: (602) 200-7846 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants La Paz County, Brad Weekley, Penny Dahlberg, Guy Gorman and Dave Boatwright, David F. Gaona, Esq. Nicole Cantelme, Esq. Gaona Law Firm 3101 North Central Avenue Suite 720 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Attorneys for Co-Defendants, APS James. W. Field PO Box 248 Salome, Arizona 85348 Plaintiff Pro Per UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA James W. Field, Plaintiff, v. County of La Paz, et al., Defendants. JOINT PROPOSED PRETRIAL ORDER CV 03-2214-PHX SRB

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order previously entered, the following is the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order to be considered at the Final Pretrial Conference set for May 30, 2006 at 3:00 p.m., before Judge Bolton.

1633085.1

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 203

Filed 06/01/2006

Page 1 of 42

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 26
1633085.1

Tammy Doud, Plaintiff's assistant, contacted defense counsel at 4:45 pm on May 23, 2006, and advised that Mr. Field reserved the right to supplement the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order. If Plaintiff files a supplement Defendants reserve the right to file their objections. A. TRIAL COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. Plaintiff: James W. Field Post Office Box 248 Salome, Arizona 85348 Defendants: John T. Masterson, Bar #007447 Jennifer L. Holsman, Bar #022787 Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone No.: (602) 263-1700 Facsimile No.: (602) 263-1784 Counsel for La Paz County Defendants David F. Gaona, Esq. Nicole Cantelme, Esq. Gaona Law Firm Suite 720 3101 North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 230-2636 Facsimile: (602) 230-1377 Counsel for APS Defendants B. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION/VENUE.

1.

La Paz County and APS Defendants

This Court has jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331.

2 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 2 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

1 2 3

2.

Plaintiff

Jurisdiction in this case is based on 28 § 143(a)(3) to redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right,

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1633085.1

privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States; Venue: This Court the United States District Court in the District of Arizona Phoenix Division is the proper venue pursuant to: Title 28 Part IV Chapter 87 Sec. 1391(a)(2)(b)(2) Venue Generally. This Division of the United States District Court also has Venue in this action due to the fact that the cause or this action accrued in La Paz County, Arizona, located within the geographical area in which this Court has Jurisdiction.
C.

NATURE OF ACTION.

1.

La Paz County and APS Defendants

This is an action for an alleged violation of due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed by James W. Field. Mr. Field's claim arises out of the termination of his electrical service to his property, without prior notice, on November 12, 2002. Mr. Field seeks the recovery of his damages incurred as a result of the termination of his electrical service without notice. Mr. Field has sued Brad Weekly, Penny Dahlberg, Guy Gorman, and Dave Boatwright, all employees of La Paz County, along with Arizona Public Service

3 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 3 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26

and two of its employees, Doug McDonald and D.L. Wilson. All of the Defendants deny any and all liability. 2. Plaintiff

This action arises under title 42 U.S.C. 1983, Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law; violations by the Defendants to Deprive Plaintiff of his Constitutional Rights to Life and Liberty, or Property without Due Process of Law, and Depriving Plaintiff of Equal Protection of the Law, A guaranteed right under the 14th Amendment. Through the termination Plaintiffs electrical service by the Defendants, each of them, without notice. The Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $50,000,000.00 (fifty million dollars) for the deprivation of his protected interest with out being afforded an opportunity for some kind of hearing, destruction of the Plaintiffs life including everything from his marriage of near 15 years, the looming loss of his Real Property and Business after near 15 years of ownership, Emotional Damages & Mental Anguish, the loss of his income as well as the loss of potential income, something Plaintiff has also enjoyed nearly 15 years, the loss of the Personal Property constituting of his years of accumulating Business Inventory, embarrassment, payment for the talk in a small town that necessarily follows actions such as the ones complained of by Plaintiffs, the cost of nearly 3 years spent in getting this case in front of the Courts today. Last but not least, something that there could never be a value placed upon, that's Plaintiffs' Brothers Life, Tom Field, which was lost in July of 2004. Historically during Tom's ups and downs in life has relied upon the fact he could always relocate to his Brother's Property, the Plaintiffs Property, and help out, his Sanctuary, someplace to gather his thoughts. Unfortunately, the last time Tom encountered a need for sanctuary, approximately 18 months ago, he arrived to find his sanctuary was unlivable, or at least
1633085.1

4 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 4 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26

without the necessities of life (Utilities Service) in the Arizona Desert (120 in the daytime and 95 at night), Due to the fact Plaintiff had his own well there was no Water, which makes it unbearable in the Arizona Desert, all these things which contributed to Tom Field driving to the Arizona mountains and taking his own life, no Sanctuary, no possibility to gather his thoughts. D. JURY/NON-JURY. A jury trial has been requested. The Parties stipulate that the request was timely and properly made. E. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES. 1. Plaintiff

Plaintiff contends after conducting an Inspection allegedly for La Paz County Code Compliance on October 30th 2002, then (6) six days later, on November 5th 2002. the La Paz Defendants, contacted APS Defendants & Ordered them to terminate the electrical service on November 12, 2002 to Plaintiffs real property at 65524 Hwy 60, Salome, AZ Terminate electrical service without advance notice to Plaintiff or the approximately 45 tenants that lived on Plaintiffs Real Property, The La Paz

Defendants prepared an erroneous Notice and Order of Abatement, with out following proper procedures, had the electric shut off violating plaintiffs right to Due Process, the posted a Notice and Order of Abatement on the property. Interestingly, the termination of electrical power was planned for 13 days after the alleged discovery of conditions that were alleged to be "hazardous to the life and safety " of the renters living there. The La Paz Defendants allege that they were "forced to take action by instructing the local utility company, Arizona Public Service, to cut the power to the site",

1633085.1

5 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 5 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26

November 12th 2002 after The APS Defendants failed to independently view the alleged hazards, rather accepted the information provided to them by La Paz Defendants APS blindly terminated electrical service without notice to the property, in violation of ACC R14-2-211(C )(1)(f) Mr. Field contends he is entitled to at a minimum of 5 days advance notice before the termination of his protected interest (a right to purchase a continued supply of electricity). Which would have allowed him time to voice his objections and address; any actual deficiencies thus avoid the termination of service. Interestingly enough less than a week after terminating Plaintiffs Electrical Power without notice, the Defendants approached Mr. Field and attempted to get him to sign an open ended agreement that stated he would agree to what ever terminology the County entered in a document they were preparing, called the Abatement Compliance Agreement, If signed the county would restore power on a temporary basis, If however, Mr. Field did not sign the power would be left off. Further, if Mr. Field failed to meet any of the unknown requirements the Defendants would disconnect the power again. Mr. Field refused to sign any document, without the Defendants correcting there errors, and the content of the document being disclosed. Sense the termination of Plaintiffs power the Defendants have categorically ignored requests from Plaintiffs for corrective action, this has necessitated the filing of this case in United States Federal District Court. 2. APS Defendants

The only two issues that remain in this case are (1) whether APS and its employees can be considered state actors; and (2) assuming Plaintiff can prove State action on the part of the APS Defendants, and assuming that Plaintiff is legally entitled to any pretermination notice under the circumstances in this case, for a § 1983 violation to exist,

1633085.1

6 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 6 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26

Plaintiff must prove that the termination was wrongful and that obvious electrical hazards did not exist on his property warranting termination without notice. With regard to the issue of State action, Plaintiff must prove that La Paz County compelled APS to terminate Plaintiff's electrical facilities. If the Plaintiff cannot prove compulsion, then he cannot prevail. APS denies that either it or its employees engaged in State action to intentionally deprive Plaintiff of any right protected by the Constitution or law of the United States; the APS Defendants deny any and all liability to the Plaintiff. APS is obligated to abide by the Arizona Corporation Commission's regulations and determine whether a sufficient basis exists pursuant to the regulations to terminate a customer's electrical service without notice, as further set forth in Terms and Conditions documents on file with Arizona Corporation Commission relating to APS's relationship with its customers. The Arizona Corporation Commission has the sole power to regulate public service corporations in Arizona, such as Defendant APS. Ariz. Const. Art. 15, § 3; A.R.S. § 40201, et seq. La Paz County does not have this authority. Defendant APS is mandated by statute to comply with the Corporation Commission's rules and regulations. See A.R.S. § 40-202(B). The Corporation Commission's regulations for electrical utilities provides for termination of a customer's electrical services ­ without notice ­ in specific and limited circumstances. Under Arizona Administrative Code § R14-2-211(B), an electrical utility can terminate a customer's electrical service without notice when the electrical utility determines the existence of "an obvious hazard to the safety or health of the consumer or the general population or the utility's personnel or facilities." (As a courtesy to the Court, a copy of A.A.C. § R14-2-211 is attached hereto.) This is the regulation that APS followed in this case, and it neither creates nor implies any government action.
1633085.1

7 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 7 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26

APS has the discretion to deny any request to terminate a customer's electrical service made by a city or county, and APS does not authorize termination of a customer's electrical service solely based on the direction of a city or county. When APS determines that obvious hazards exist in relation to a customer's electrical facilities, APS has the authority under Arizona Corporation Commission regulations to terminate electrical service without notice until such time as the safety problem is remedied. APS denies that either it or its employees engaged in State action to intentionally deprive Plaintiff of any right protected by the Constitution or law of the United States; the APS Defendants deny any and all liability to the Plaintiff. When APS determines that obvious hazards exist in relation to a customer's electrical facilities, APS has the authority under Arizona Corporation Commission regulations to terminate electrical service without notice until such time as the safety problem is remedied. 3. La Paz County Defendants

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated his procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by terminating electrical service to his property. Defendants deny this allegation. The Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against governmental deprivations of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law. In determining whether an individual has been deprived of his right to procedural due process, courts must engage in a two-step inquiry: (1) did the individual possess a protected liberty or property interest such that the due process protections were applicable; and if so, then (2) was the individual afforded an appropriate level of process. Farthing v. City of Shawnee, Kansas, 39 F.3d 1131, 1135 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985).
1633085.1

8 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 8 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26 defenses:

In this case, Defendants were authorized under Title 14, Article 2 of the Arizona Administrative Code to recommend the termination of electrical service to Plaintiffs' property based on the "obvious hazard to the safety or health of the consumer or the general population or the utility's personnel or facilities." See Patel v. Midland Memorial Hospital and Medical Center, 298 F.3d 333, 339-40 (5th Cir.) (en banc); Ram v. Rubin, 118 F.3d 1306, 1310 (9th Cir. 1997); Caine v. Hardy, 943 F.2d 1406, 1412 (5th Cir. 1991). Furthermore, it is as a direct result of Plaintiffs' actions that the electrical service was disconnected based on Plaintiffs' failure to comply with the applicable codes and regulations. Thus, Plaintiff will be unable to establish a prima facie case for the violation of his rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Further, the La Paz County Defendants assert the following affirmative

1.

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted. 2. Defendants allege that Plaintiff has not established a prima facie case

for the alleged violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 3. Defendants allege that no injuries or damages alleged by Plaintiff

were proximately caused by these Defendants. 4. Defendants allege that no constitutional rights of Plaintiff were

violated by the Defendants. 5. Defendants' actions were objectively reasonable under the

circumstances and were acting in good faith and without malice. 6. Defendants allege that there exists no conduct in this case motivated

by an evil motive or intent, nor did any conduct by the Defendants involve reckless or callous indifference to the rights of Plaintiff. Board of County Commissioners of Bryan County v. Brown, 526 U.S. 1283 (1997).
1633085.1

9 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 9 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26 basis.

7.

Defendants allege that the Plaintiff's injuries, losses and damages, if

any, were the result of the negligence of someone other than these answering Defendants, thereby reducing or eliminating any damages. 8. Defendants allege that the actions or inactions alleged, were not the

proximate cause of any injuries, losses or damages to Plaintiff. 9. Plaintiff was contributorily negligent, thereby diminishing or

reducing Plaintiff's right to recover under certain claims for relief. 10. Plaintiff's allegations arose as a result of Plaintiff's own negligence,

not the acts or omissions of Defendants, thereby warranting dismissal of this lawsuit. 11. Defendants allege that they are entitled to all privileges and

immunities, including absolute and qualified immunity, extended to governmental entities and employees under federal and state law. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982); The rule of qualified immunity "provides ample support to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law." Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 494-95 (1991) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). "Therefore, regardless of whether the constitutional violation occurred, the officer should prevail if the right asserted by the plaintiff was not "clearly established" or the officer could have reasonably believed that his particular conduct was lawful." Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624, 627 (9th Cir. 1991). Furthermore, "[t]he entitlement is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; .. . it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial." Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). 12. Defendants allege that Plaintiff's Complaint has no legal or factual

13. 14.

Plaintiff seeks damages not authorized by law. Defendants allege that the electrical service to Plaintiff's property

was terminated based on a danger to the health and safety of community residents and
1633085.1

10 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 10 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26

pursuant to the applicable La Paz County Electrical Code, La Paz County Ordinances, La Paz County Zoning Regulations, and the Arizona Revised Statutes. To date, Plaintiffs have not yet completed the items to be fixed outlined in the 2002 Compliance Abatement Agreement. 15. Defendants had authority under Sections 201.2 and 201.3 of the

Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings to conduct the inspection of Plaintiffs' property in 2002. Section 202 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings authorizes the County to issue an abatement order to repair, rehabilitate, demolish or remove the dangerous condition. 16. Defendants were authorized by the Arizona Administrative Code to

recommend termination of electrical service to Plaintiffs' property without notice when "an obvious hazard to the safety or health of the consumer or the general population or the utility's personnel or facilities" existed on Plaintiffs' property. See Title 14, Article 2 of the Arizona Administrative Code. F. STIPULATIONS AND UNDISPUTED FACTS. 1. On October 30, 2002, a search warrant inspection was conducted on

Plaintiff's property to ensure compliance with La Paz County Zoning and Planning ordinances. 2. was terminated. 3. Arizona Public Service Company is a private corporation, and its On November 12, 2002, the electrical service to Plaintiff's property

employees, Doug McDonald and D.L. Wilson, are private and not public employees. PLAINTIFF'S STIPULATIONS AND UNDISPUTED FACTS. Plaintiffs feel there are several Undisputed Facts in this case. However, both La Paz County and APS Defendants object to each undisputed fact as listed by Plaintiff below:
1633085.1

11 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 11 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26 the laws
1633085.1

(1) La Paz Defendants attempted to inspect Plaintiffs Property September 13, 2002 due to a alleged complaint received by Community Development, and were refused permission (2) On Septmenber 13, 2002 Defendant Dalhberg drove a vehicle with California License Plates to Plaintiffs property when planning to do the inspection. (3) On September 13, 2002 Plaintiff asked Deputy Bolhen to issue a citation to Dalhberg for failure to purchase Arizona license plates, and was refused. (4) La Paz Defendants Inspected Plaintiffs property on October 30, 2002. (5) La Paz Defendants wrote a letter to APS November 7th 2002 (confirming a prior telephone call to APS) in the letter La Paz Defendants advised APS Defendants the power would be terminated November 12th 2002 at 11:00 a.m. (6) APS Defendants did not personally view electrical service on Plaintiffs property to confirm alleged unsafe conditions before terminating service November 12th 2002, at 11:00 a.m. (7) The Plaintiffs were not provided advance notice of pending termination by either Defendant as required by AAC R14-2-211(C )(1)(f) (8) The electrical service remains off to this date, (8) On November 19th 2002 La Paz Defendants admitted electrical power could be safely restored to the property, however did not do so. G. PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS OF DISPUTED FACTS (1)The APS Defendants acted under color of law due to being Ordered by the La Paz Defendants to terminate power without notice, (2)The LA Paz Defendants and the APS Defendants are guilty of causing a Deprivation of Plaintiff 14th Amendment Rights, under the Color of Law. (3)The La Paz Defendants acted capriciously, arbitrarily and in violation of

12 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 12 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26
1633085.1

(4) the electrical service was not unsafe as alleged (5) Had Plaintiffs been afforded the proper Due Process, the termination would not of accrued (6)There was not an immediate risk to anyone's safety , had there been the County would have instructed APS to cut the power the same day it was discovered. H. DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS OF DISPUTED FACTS 1. 1. APS Defendants Whether APS exercised its own discretion to terminate Plaintiff's

electrical services without notice? 2. Whether APS could be compelled by La Paz County to terminate

Plaintiff's electrical service? 3. Whether on November 12, 2002, obvious electrical hazards existed in

Plaintiff's electrical system, and/or including obvious electrical hazards at the main service panel where the meter is located? 4. In the event that Plaintiff is entitled to any notice, what damages, if

any, were caused by the lack of notice before to terminating Plaintiff's electrical service? 5. 2. 1. Whether Plaintiff engaged in any mitigation of his alleged damages? County Defendants On October 30, 2002, an inspection was conducted on Plaintiff's

property to ensure compliance with La Paz County Zoning and Planning ordinances pursuant to an administrative search warrant. 2. Due to various violations, a "Notice and Order for Abatement" was

prepared on November 5, 2002.

13 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 13 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26
1633085.1

3.

The November 5, 2002 Abatement Order stated: "The County finds

conditions that are hazardous to the life safety of the residents living on the site. The County has concluded that the hazards are considerable and that immediate action must be taken to prevent any injury to residents or visitors." 4. The November 5, 2002 Abatement Order also stated: "Due to the

nature and scope of the electrical problems, the County is forced to take action by instructing the local utility company, Arizona Public Service, to cut power to the site. This is done in the interest of public safety." 5. On or around November 12, 2002, the electrical service to Plaintiffs'

property was terminated pursuant to Section 14, Article 2-211(B). 6. Since November 12, 2002, La Paz County has attempted to work

with Plaintiff in complying with the County ordinances. 7. La Paz County most recently conducted an inspection of the

Plaintiffs' property on January 13, 2005, and found numerous outstanding violations. 8. After the January 12, 2005 inspection, La Paz County developed an

updated checklist of items (known as Exhibit "A") Plaintiffs must repair on the property in order to have their electrical service "green tagged" by La Paz County. 9. This Compliance Agreement and checklist of items that must be

completed was forwarded to Plaintiffs on June 6, 2005. 10. Because Plaintiffs have failed to cure the outstanding violations on

the property, electrical service has not yet been restored. 11. safety hazard. 12. risk to the public. 13. Whether Plaintiff sustained any injuries or damages.
14 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 14 of 42

Whether the conditions on Plaintiff's property were a health and

Whether the conditions on Plaintiff's property posed an immediate

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26
1633085.1

14. 15.

Whether Plaintiff mitigated his alleged damages. Whether Plaintiff's request for a "permanent injunctive relief in order

to re-establish electrical service to his property at no cost to Plaintiffs" is appropriate. 16. Although Plaintiffs assert six separate causes of action in the first

paragraph of the Complaint, the Complaint only includes legal and factual information for three specific "Counts". I. ISSUES OF LAW IN CONTROVERSY. 1. Plaintiff

Defendants violated AAC R14-2-211(B) - AAC R14-2-211(C ) Defendants waited for two weeks to terminate power, therefore should of provided plaintiffs required notice. Plaintiffs also contend APS acted under Color of Law, due to the fact APS acted because La Paz County told them to. 2. APS Defendants

The APS Defendants assert that they were not acting pursuant to the order, direction, or compulsion of Co-Defendant La Paz County, and they cannot be legally considered state actors; thus, APS cannot be held liable under § 1983. The APS

Defendants also assert that neither county governments nor municipalities possess the legal authority to order (or compel) a public service corporation to terminate a customer's electrical service. Plaintiff is not legally entitled to any notice prior to termination of his electrical service where APS determines that obvious electrical hazards exist. Damages ­ The damages Mr. Field can legally recover is a disputed issue. Additionally, Mr. Field had a duty to mitigate his damages, and it remains in dispute what

15 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 15 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26

efforts Mr. Field made and/or what efforts did Mr. Field fail to make to mitigate his damages. 2. 1. La Paz Defendants Whether Defendant is entitled to recover their taxable costs and

reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P. and 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 2. granted. 3. Whether Plaintiffs have stated a procedural due process claim under Whether Plaintiffs have stated a claim upon which relief may be

the Fourteenth Amendment. 4. Whether Defendants complied with the provisions of Title 14, Article

2 of the Arizona Administrative Code. 5. 6. Whether Plaintiffs have stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Whether Plaintiff's own intentional conduct caused harm to

Plaintiffs, thereby reducing or barring recovery of damages from Defendants. 7. Defendants. 8. Whether Plaintiffs were contributorily or comparatively at fault, Whether Plaintiffs sustained injuries proximately caused by

therefore reducing or barring recovery of damages from Defendants. 9. 10. 11. 12. Whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. The nature and extent, if any, of Plaintiffs' damages. Whether Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages. Whether Plaintiffs have complied with the terms listed on the 2002 or

2005 Compliance Agreements in order to "green tag" electrical service to their property.

1633085.1

16 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 16 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26 K.

13.

Whether Plaintiffs' property complies with applicable county, state

and federal codes and ordinances thus authorizing the reinstatement of his electrical service. 14. and safety hazard. J. SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES. None at this time. WITNESSES. 1. 1. Plaintiff Detective Curt Bagby with the La Paz County Sheriffs' Department Whether Plaintiff's electrical service was terminated due to a health

Curt Bagby was, at all relevant times, a detective with the La Paz County Sheriffs Department. As a former Defendant in this case Det. Bagby has knowledge and information in regards to the claims in Plaintiffs Complaint, Det. Bagby is expected to provide testimony as to any and all knowledge or information he may have regarding any interaction, conversations, investigations, or other contact with any on consistent with any and all reports, memos, correspondence, or other documents authored or read by him. Det. Bagby is also expected to testify to the fact that he received his information that he used in his Affidavit for the October 30, 2002 Inspection. from Penny Dalhberg, Code Enforcement Specialist with the La Paz Count Department of Community Development he did not have Personal knowledge and also that he did not attend the inspection on October 30th 2002. Objection: La Paz County Defendants object to this witness because the anticipated testimony is irrelevant to the remaining issues in this case. See Court Order dated April 27, 2006.
1633085.1

17 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 17 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26

2.

Dave Boatwright with the La Paz County Health Department

Was at all relevant times, Sanitarian with the La Paz County Health Department. As a Defendant in this case, Mr. Boatwright has knowledge and information in regards to claims in Plaintiffs Compliant. Mr. Boatwright is expected to provide testimony as to any and all knowledge or information he may have regarding any interaction, conversations, investigations or other contact with any one consistent with any and all reports, memos, correspondence or other documents authored or read by him. Mr. Boatwright is also expected to testify why he wanted to what until the Migrant Workers where on the property before returning to inspect . That on September 13, 2002 County was there to inspect property and Plaintiff refused to allow inspection, and about the handwritten notes from October 30th 2002.Mr. Boatwright is expected to testify to what the subject matter was in the discussion at the sheriff's substation in Salome prior to the inspection of Plaintiffs Property on October 30, 2002.To disclose who Emily is and her phone number, and to the events that surround the alleged attempt by Emily to inspect the property on October 1, 2002 due to his alleged communication with Emily. Also to the fact he never returned to property after the termination electrical service to the property or replied to any of the requests for information by the Plaintiff. 3. Penny Dalhberg Defendant ­ former Code Enforcement Specialist

Penny Dalhberg was, at all relevant times, the Code Enforcement Specialist with the La Paz County Department of Community Development. As a Defendant in the case, Ms Dalhberg has knowledge and information in regards to the claims in Plaintiffs Complaint. Ms. Dalhberg is expected to provide testimony as to any and all knowledge or information she may have regarding any interactions, conversations, investigations, or other contact with any one, consistent with any and all reports, memos, correspondence of r other documents authored or read by her. Ms. Dalhberg is expected to testify about her California license Plates and attempted inspection on September 13, 2002 and verifying
1633085.1

18 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 18 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26

8/26/02 complaints altered documents and about why she gave false info to Bagby for his affidavit, and to all correspondences by Jim and false information to Captain Biro in memo on 11/26/02 and all emails with no response. 4. Tammy Doud Personal Assistant to Plaintiff,

Ms. Doud was, at all relevant times the Personal Assistant to Mr. James W. Field Plaintiff in this case. Ms Doud has personal knowledge and information regarding the claims within Plaintiffs' Complaint. Ms. Doud is expected to provide testimony as to but not limited to any and all personal knowledge or information she may have regarding the actions, inactions, injuries and damages by these Defendants as well as Ms. Doud is expected to testify to the facts that surround the Search of Plaintiffs' Property the conduct of the individuals during the search, any and all encounters with any and all defendants before and after the search, to the facts that surround the day the power was terminated. To Exhibits that she has personal knowledge of. Ms. Doud has been the Personal Assistant to Plaintiff for 6 years and worked off and on for 4 Year's prior to that, Ms. Doud has personal knowledge to almost all events that have accrued through the events that are the cause of this action, and will be testifying to all that is within her knowledge. 5. Joe Esqorsa, former Defendant ­ Detective La Paz County Sheriffs Department

Joe Esqorsa was, at all relevant times, a detective with La Paz County Sheriffs' Department. As a former Defendant in this case Mr. Esqorsa has knowledge or information in regards to the claims in Plaintiffs' Complaint. Mr. Esqorsa is expected to provide testimony as to any and all knowledge or information he may have regarding any interactions, conversations, investigations, or other contact with any one consistent with any and all reports, memos, correspondence or other documents authored, heard or read by him.

1633085.1

19 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 19 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26
1633085.1

Objection: La Paz County Defendants object to this witness because the anticipated testimony is irrelevant to the remaining issues in this case. See Court Order dated April 27, 2006. 6. Guy Gorman Defendant ­ La Paz County Building Inspector

Guy Gorman was, at all relevant times, a Building Inspector for La Paz County. Mr. Gorman as a Defendant in this case has knowledge and information in regards to Claims in Plaintiffs' Complaint. Mr. Gorman is expected to provide testimony as to but not limited to Any and all knowledge or information he may have regarding any interactions, conversations, investigations, inspections or other contact with any one consistent with any and all reports, memos, correspondence or other documents authored or read by him. Mr. Gorman is expected to testify to the facts that surround the inspection of Plaintiffs property on October 30, 2002, and January 13, 2005. as to the subject matter involved at the Sheriffs substation prior to the Plaintiffs property being inspected on October 30, to the subject and content of the Phone conversation with an APS employee in November 2002. 7. Jay Howe former Defendant Former District 3 Supervisor

Jay Howe was, at all relevant time the District 3 Supervisor for La Paz County. As a former Defendant in this case Mr. Howe has knowledge or information in regards to the claims in Plaintiffs' Complaint. Mr. Howe is expected to provide testimony as to any and all knowledge or information he may have regarding any interaction, conversations, investigations, or other contact with any one, consistent with any and all reports, memos, correspondence or other documents authored or read or heard by him. Mr. Howe is also expected to testify to events that surround Mr. Field requesting Mr. Howe's assistance in bringing his property in compliance in November of 1997, as well as to the contents of a certain recording he listened to in December of 2002.

20 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 20 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26
1633085.1

Objection: La Paz County Defendants object to this witness because the anticipated testimony is irrelevant to the remaining issues in this case. See Court Order dated April 27, 2006. 8. Doug McDonald ­ Defendant with APS

Doug McDonald was, at all relevant times, an employee with APS. Mr. McDonald, as a Defendant in this case, has knowledge or information in regards to the claims in Plaintiffs' Complaint. Mr. McDonald is expected to provide testimony as to any and all knowledge or information he may have regarding any interactions, conversations, investigations, or other contact with any one, consistent with any and all reports, memos, correspondence or other documents authored or read by him. Mr. McDonald is also expected to testify He did not inspect prior to the termination of the electrical service to Plaintiffs Property, also that Guy Gorman contacted him and order termination . Mr. McDonald is also expected to testify that Guy Gorman only sent his opinion and a few photos however APS does not have jurisdiction for Customers side of the meter. 9. Brad Weekley Defendant ­ Former Director of the La Paz County Department of Community Development

Brad Weekley was, at all relevant times, the Director of the Department of Community Development. As a Defendant in this case, Mr. Weekley has knowledge and information in regards to the claims in Plaintiffs Complaint. Mr. Weekley is expected to provide testimony as to any and all knowledge or information he may have regarding any interactions, conversations, investigations, or other contact with any one consistent with any and all reports, memos, correspondence or other documents authored or read by him. Mr. Weekley is also expected to testify he approved abatement notice and order and of the procedures used, and about all unanswered emails from Plaintiff and to the fact he would not sell plaintiff a permit for upgrade or repair on July 1, 2004.

21 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 21 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26
1633085.1

10.

D.L.Wilson Defendant with APS

Mr. Wilson was, at all relevant times, an employee for APS in the Parker Office. Mr. Wilson as a Defendant in this case has knowledge or information regarding the claims in Plaintiffs' Complaint. Mr. Wilson is expected to provide testimony regarding any interactions, conversation, or other contact he may have had with anyone, consistent with reports, memos, correspondenc3e, or any other documents authored or read by him. Mr. Wilson is also expected to testify that no one from his office personally visited the property prior to the termination of electrical service to Plaintiffs Property that they only had the abatement Notice and Order and a few photos sent to them by Guy Gorman and that Guy Gorman ordered them to terminate the power on November 12, 2002.

Might Testify at Trial: See Attachment 11. Jeff Bohlen ­ Former Defendants ­ Deputy Sheriff La Paz County

Jeff Bohlen was, at all relevant times, a deputy with the La Paz County Sheriff's Department. As a Defendant in this case, Deputy Bohlen has knowledge and information in regards to the claims in Plaintiffs Complaint. Deputy Bohlen is expected to provide testimony as to any and all knowledge or information he may have regarding any interactions, conversations, investigations, or other contact with any one consistent with any and all reports, memos, correspondence or other documents authored or read by him. Officer Bohlen is expected to testify to the fact that Plaintiff requested him to serve Ms. Dalhberg a citation for failing to reguister her vehicle in the state of Arizona on September 13, 2002 when Plaintiff refused to allow an inspection until such a time as they provided him with a copy of the alleged complaint that was allegedly what instituted the request for permission to inspect.

22 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 22 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26
1633085.1

Additionally Bohlen is expected to give testimony as to the subject of the conversation held at the Sheriffs substation in Salome prior to the execution of the inspection on October 30, 2002. as well as prior to the termination of the electrical service on November 12, 2002., also for what reason was his appearance required during the inspection of the propert. Objection: La Paz County and APS Defendants object to this witness because the anticipated testimony is irrelevant to the remaining issues in this case. See Court Order dated April 27, 2006.

Might Testify at Trial: 12. Merrill Rodgers ­ Former Animal Control Officer

Mr. Rodgers was, at all relevant times, the Animal Control officer in La Paz County Arizona, Mr. Rodgers has knowledge and information regarding claims in Plaintiffs Complaint. Mr. Rodgers is expected to provide testimony as to any and all his knowledge or information he may have in regarding the actions of the Defendants, and any interactions, conversations, investigations, or other Contact with Defendants, consistent with any reports, memos, correspondence or other documents authored or read by him. Mr. Rodgers is expected to provide testimony as to the subject of the conversation at the Sheriffs Substation in Salome prior to the execution of the Inspection of Plaintiffs property on October 30, 2002, also for what reason his attendance was required during the inspection. Objection: La Paz County and APS Defendants object to this witness because the anticipated testimony is irrelevant to the remaining issues in this case. See Court Order dated April 27, 2006.

23 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 23 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26

13.

Huey Long - Former La Paz County Administrator

Huey Long was, at relevant times, employed by La Paz County. Mr. Long has knowledge or information in regards to claims in Plaintiffs Complaint. Mr.. Long is expected to provide testimony regarding all interactions, conversations or other contact he may have had with any one consistent with any correspondence or documents authored or read by him. Is expected to testify as to how Complaints from Plaintiffs were handled after power had been terminated with out notice, as well as what the policy was when dealing with Plaintiff. Objection: La Paz County and APS Defendants object to this witness because the anticipated testimony is irrelevant to the remaining issues in this case. See Court Order dated April 27, 2006. 14. William R. Farr ­ Business Associate / Investor ­ Former and 1st Chairman of the Board

Mr. Farr was, at all relevant times, a Business Associate / Investor with Mr. Field. Mr. Farr has knowledge or information regarding the claims contained within Plaintiffs `Complaint. Mr. Farr is expected to provide testimony as to any and all knowledge or information he may have in regards to the actions, injuries and damages by Defendants, additionally as to the meeting at the high school gymnasium prior to the amended Zoning regulations being enacted in 1986. As well as to any and all knowledge or information he may have in regards to any interactions, conversations, investigations or other contact with any one by him in regards to the property or plaintiff. Objection: La Paz County and APS Defendants object to this witness because the anticipated testimony is irrelevant to the remaining issues in this case. See Court Order dated April 27, 2006.
1633085.1

24 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 24 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26
1633085.1

15.

James Martin ­ Former Defendant

James Martin during the course of the actions became the Intim Director, of La Paz County Department of Community Development replacing Brad Weekley also a defendant in this case. As a Defendant in this case, Mr. Martian has knowledge or information in regards to the claims in Plaintiffs Complaint. Mr. Martin is expected to provide testimony as to any and all knowledge or information he may have regarding any interactions, conversations, investigations, or other contact with any one consistent with any and all reports, memos, correspondence or other documents authored or read by him. Is expected to testify as to how complaints from Plaintiffs were handled after power had been terminated with out notice, as well as what the policy was when dealing with Plaintiff. Objection: La Paz County and APS Defendants object to this witness because the anticipated testimony is irrelevant to the remaining issues in this case. See Court Order dated April 27, 2006. 2. 1. APS Defendants Doug McDonald, Design Project Leader, Sr., Arizona Public Service

Company, c/o Gaona Law Firm, 3101 North Central, Suite 720, Phoenix, Arizona 85012, (602) 230-2636. Fact witness and named defendant ­ will be called. It is anticipated that Mr. McDonald will testify regarding the circumstances surrounding the disconnection of Plaintiffs' electrical service. In general, Mr. McDonald will testify consistent with his experience, knowledge, decision-making, supervision of other employees, and APS policies and practices relating to safety and health concerns surrounding a customer's

25 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 25 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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

electrical facilities. Mr. McDonald will testify that APS is obligated to abide by the Arizona Corporation Commission's regulations and determine whether a sufficient basis exists pursuant to the regulations to terminate a customer's electrical service without notice, as further set forth in Terms and Conditions documents on file with Arizona Corporation Commission relating to APS's relationship with its customers. Mr.

McDonald will testify that he has the discretion to deny any request to terminate a customer's electrical service made by a city or county, and does not authorize termination of a customer's electrical service solely based on the direction of a city or county. Mr. McDonald will testify and detail his evaluation and decision-making that determined immediate safety and health hazards present on Plaintiff's property. 2. Donald Wilson, Manager, APS La Paz District, c/o Gaona Law Firm,

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 also testify regarding his post-termination communications with Mr. Field, as evidenced by the emails dated February 5, 2003, February 20, 2003, and February 28, 2003.
1633085.1

3101 North Central, Suite 720, Phoenix, Arizona 85012, (602) 230-2636. Fact witness and named defendant ­ will be called. It is anticipated that Mr. Wilson will testify regarding the circumstances surrounding the disconnection of Plaintiffs' electrical service. Mr. Wilson will testify consistent with his experience, knowledge, supervision of other employees, and APS policies and practices relating to safety and health concerns surrounding a customer's electrical facilities. Mr. Wilson will further testify about his consultation with Doug McDonald regarding the APS decision that immediate electrical health and safety hazards existed that warranted termination of service. Mr. Wilson will

26 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 26 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26

3.

Victor Schreiner (identified by Plaintiff as the unknown APS driver),

Arizona Public Service Company, c/o Gaona Law Firm, 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 720, Phoenix, Arizona 85012, (602) 230-2636. Fact witness ­ will be called. Mr. Schreiner, for all material times, was a district serviceman for APS, and will testify concerning the termination of electrical service to Plaintiff's property that is at issue in this case. Mr. Schreiner went to Plaintiff's property on November 12, 2002, and shut off the electrical service. Mr. Schreiner is expected to testify consistent with what he

observed when he got to the property and action he took upon arriving at that property. The APS Defendants reserve the right to call any of the witnesses named by the Plaintiff (or the La Paz County Co-Defendants) that Plaintiff (or La Paz County) has identified will be called at the trial of this matter. 3. La Paz County Defendants

The following witnesses will be called at trial: 1. Dave Boatwright, Defendant c/o Jones, Skelton & Hochuli

Dave Boatwright was, at all relevant times, an employee of the La Paz County Health Department. As a Defendant in this case, Mr. Boatwright has knowledge and information regarding the allegations contained in Plaintiffs' Complaint. Mr.

Boatwright is expected to provide testimony as to any and all knowledge or information he may have regarding Plaintiffs' property, and any interactions, conversations, investigations or other contact with Plaintiffs, consistent with any reports, memos, correspondence or other documentation authored by him. 2. Penny Dalhberg, Defendant c/o Jones, Skelton & Hochuli

Penny Dalhberg was, at all relevant times, an employee with the La Paz County Department of Community Development. As a Defendant in this case, Ms. Dalhberg has knowledge and information regarding the allegations contained in Plaintiffs' Complaint. Ms. Dalhberg is expected to provide testimony as to any and all knowledge or
1633085.1

27 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 27 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26

information she may have regarding Plaintiffs' property, and any interactions, conversations, investigations or other contact with Plaintiffs, consistent with any reports, memos, correspondence or other documentation authored by her. 3. Guy Gorman, Defendant c/o Jones, Skelton & Hochuli

Guy Gorman was, at all relevant times, an employee with the La Paz County Department of Community Development. As a Defendant in this case, Mr. Gorman has knowledge and information regarding the allegations contained in Plaintiffs' Complaint. Mr. Gorman is expected to provide testimony as to any and all knowledge or information he may have regarding Plaintiffs' property, and any interactions, conversations, investigations or other contact with Plaintiffs, consistent with any reports, memos, correspondence or other documentation authored by him. 4. Brad Weekley, Defendant c/o Jones, Skelton & Hochuli

Brad Weekley was, at all relevant times, the Director of La Paz County Department of Community Development. As a Defendant in this case, Mr. Weekley has knowledge and information regarding the allegations contained in Plaintiffs' Complaint. Mr. Weekley is expected to provide testimony as to any and all knowledge or information he may have regarding Plaintiffs' property, and any interactions, conversations, investigations or other contact with Plaintiffs, consistent with any reports, memos, correspondence or other documentation authored by him. 5. Doug McDonald c/o David Gaona 3101 North Central, Suite 720 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 (602) 230-2636

Mr. McDonald is a named Defendant in this matter and employee of Arizona Public Service (APS). APS is a private utility which is regulated by the Arizona Corporation Commission. The regulations allow for termination of a customer's electrical service without notice where the utility determines the "existence of an obvious hazard to
1633085.1

28 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 28 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26

the safety or health of the consumer or the general public." A.A.C. § R14-2-211. It is anticipated that Mr. McDonald will testify regarding the circumstances surrounding the disconnection of Plaintiffs' service without notice, including his contact with any La Paz County employee. Mr. McDonald will also testify that APS is obligated to abide by the Commission's regulations and determine whether a sufficient basis exists pursuant to the regulation to terminate a customer's electrical service without notice. Mr. McDonald will testify that in this case, he and co-defendant D.L. Wilson evaluated and observed the documented information they had regarding Plaintiff's electrical facilities and determined that unsafe and hazardous conditions existed on the customer's side of the meter which warranted disconnection without notice. Finally, Mr. McDonald will testify regarding his evaluation of Mr. Field's meter panel on January 12, 2005, and the unresolved problems remaining at that time. 6. Donald Wilson c/o David F. Gaona 3101 North Central, Suite 720 Phoenix, AZ 85012 602-230-2636

Mr. Wilson is a named Defendant in this matter and employee of Arizona Public Service (APS). It is anticipated that Mr. Wilson will testify regarding the circumstances surrounding the disconnection of Plaintiffs' electrical service, including his contact with any La Paz County employee. Mr. Wilson will also testify consistently with communications he had with Plaintiff James Field through email correspondence. Mr. Wilson will further testify that in this case, he and co-Defendant Doug McDonald evaluated the observed and documented information they had regarding Plaintiffs' electrical facilities and determined that unsafe and hazardous conditions existed on the customer's side of the meter which warranted disconnection without notice. Mr. Wilson

1633085.1

29 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 29 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26

will testify that he communicated to Mr. Field what was required to re-establish his electrical service which has not been completed to date. 7. Victor Schreiner, APS District Serviceman

Victor Schreiner was, at all relevant times, a district serviceman with Arizona Public Service. As such, Mr. Schreiner was the person who actually terminated the electrical service on Plaintiff's property on November 12, 2002. Mr. Schreiner is expected to provide testimony as to any and all knowledge, observations or information he may have regarding the conditions of Plaintiff's property, and any interactions, conversations, investigations or other contact with Plaintiff, consistent with any reports, memos, correspondence or other documentation authored by him. 8. Pete Heere, Defendant, c/o Jones, Skelton & Hochuli

Pete Heere was, at all relevant times, a deputy with the La Paz County Sheriff's Department. As a Defendant in this case, Deputy Heere has knowledge and information regarding the allegations contained in Plaintiffs' Complaint. Deputy Heere is expected to provide testimony as to any and all knowledge or information he may have regarding Plaintiffs' property, and any interactions, conversations, investigations or other contact with Plaintiffs, consistent with any reports, memos, correspondence or other documentation authored by him. The La Paz County Defendants reserve the right to call any of the witnesses named by the Plaintiff (or the APS Co-Defendants) that Plaintiff (or APS) has identified will be called at the trial of this matter. L. EXPERTS. No experts have been disclosed or identified pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

1633085.1

30 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 30 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26

M.

EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS. La Paz County Defendants intend to offer the deposition testimony of

Deputy Heere and Brad Weekley at trial. All La Paz County Defendants witnesses have been subpoenaed to testify live at trial. The parties reserve the right to use any depositions for impeachment of witnesses at trial, or to utilize depositions, should any witnesses become unavailable. The parties disclose the following exhibits: 1. 1. Plaintiff Field Exhibit D ­ 16 Hand written notes from October 30th 2002 that show Plaintiff was not home during inspection as alleged by La Paz Defendant Gorman.

La Paz County Defendants object to the handwritten notes as they are piecemeal of an inspection report. Defendants respectfully request that the entire inspection report, including the handwritten notes, be provided as an exhibit to the jury. APS Defendants object to this exhibit as irrelevant. 2. Field Exhibit I ­ 2 Inspection Report dated 10/19/93

La Paz County Defendants object to this Inspection Report as irrelevant, lacking foundation and hearsay. APS Defendants object to this exhibit as irrelevant. 3. Field Exhibit I ­ 4 Inspection Report dated 11/21/94

La Paz County Defendants object to this Inspection Report as irrelevant, lacking foundation and hearsay. APS Defendants object to this exhibit as irrelevant. 4. Field Exhibit I ­ 6 Inspection Report dated 01/24/96

La Paz County Defendants object to this Inspection Report as irrelevant, lacking foundation and hearsay.
1633085.1

31 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 31 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26
1633085.1

APS Defendants object to this exhibit as irrelevant. 5. Field Exhibit I ­ 11 Inspection Report dated 09/09/98

La Paz County Defendants object to this Inspection Report as irrelevant, lacking foundation and hearsay. APS Defendants object to this exhibit as irrelevant. 6. Field Exhibit I ­ 18 Inspection Report dated 05/30/01

La Paz County Defendants object to this Inspection Report as irrelevant, lacking foundation and hearsay. APS Defendants object to this exhibit as irrelevant. 7. Field Exhibit I ­ 7 Inspection Report dated 05/03/96

La Paz County Defendants object to this Inspection Report as irrelevant, lacking foundation and hearsay. APS Defendants object to this exhibit as irrelevant. 8. Septic tank permits and approvals, contradicts abatement order

La Paz County Defendants object to this Inspection Report as irrelevant, lacking foundation and hearsay. APS Defendants object to this exhibit as irrelevant. 9. Pictures of property, showing actual condition

La Paz County Defendants object to these unidentified pictures of Plaintiff's property. Upon receipt of Plaintiff's pictures, further objections will be noted. APS Defendants object to this exhibit as irrelevant.

32 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 32 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26
1633085.1

10. 11. 12.

Field Exhibit D ­ 28a were not there Field Exhibit L - 22 November 7th 2002

Abatement order its-self ­ prove issues that Letter to APS from Gorman dated

several Computer screens disclosed by aps in supplemental disclosure

La Paz County Defendants object to the unidentified "computer screens." Upon receipt of the "computer screens," further objections will be noted. 13. Field Exhibit D ­ 19 Memo from Gorman to Weekley stating plaintiff has complied with most of electrical issues we can temporary restore power. Field Exhibit D ­ 23 11/20/02 Field Exhibit D ­ 42 Power Restoration Agreement dated Abatement order compliance agreement

14. 15. 16.

Letters to Gorman concerning abatement order

La Paz County Defendants object to this exhibit as irrelevant, lacking foundation and hearsay. 17. Letter to Dalhburg concerning morning sickness.

La Paz County Defendants object to this Inspection Report as irrelevant, lacking foundation and hearsay. APS Defendants object to this exhibit as irrelevant.

2. 1. Paz County. 2. 3. 4.

APS Defendants

Without waiving any objections, any exhibit listed by Plaintiff and by La

APS Customer Screens Related to Mr. Field's Account. Letter from Guy P. Gorman to Doug McDonald dated November 7, 2002. Photographs of Plaintiff's property taken at La Paz County inspection on
33 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 33 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26

October 30, 2002, provided in November 7, 2002, Letter from Guy Gorman to Doug McDonald. 5. Arizona Corporation Commission's Consumer Complaint File regarding

the termination of electrical service to Plaintiff's property, Complaint Nos. 2002-22159; 2003-23116; 2003-23782; 2003-23842. 6. 5, 2003. 7. 20, 2003. 8. 28, 2003. 9. Without waiving any objections, any document listed by Plaintiff in his E-mail correspondence from D.L. Wilson to James Field, dated February E-mail correspondence from D.L. Wilson to James Field, dated February E-mail correspondence from D.L. Wilson to James Field, dated February

Initial Disclosure Statement. 10. All disclosure statements of all the parties. 3. La Paz County Defendants

1633085.1

34 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 34 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26
1633085.1

1.

Letter dated December 7, 1992, from La Paz County Planning and Zoning to Plaintiff James Field regarding complaints against Plaintiff's property. (LPC000017) La Paz County Health Department Complaint dated May 10, 1994. (LPC000023-24) La Paz County Planning and Zoning Complaint dated May 10, 1994. (LPC000025) Letter dated May 13, 1994 from La Paz County Planning and Zoning to Desert Oasis RVP (James Wesley Field, Jr.) Regarding violation. (LPC000026) La Paz County Health Department Complaint dated June 1, 1994. (LPC000027 La Paz County Planning and Zoning Complaint dated November 6, 1995. (LPC000031) La Paz County Health Department Environmental Health Services Final Notice dated January 9, 1996 to Desert Oasis Bargain acknowledged and/or received by Plaintiff James Field on January 22, 1996. (LPC000032) La Paz County Planning and Zoning Complaint dated January 10, 1996. (LPC000033) Letter dated January 10, 1996 from La Paz County Department of Community Development to Plaintiff James Field regarding existing violations. (LPC000034) Letter dated January 10, 1996 from La Paz County Health Department to Plaintiff James Field regarding operating permit, fees and penalties due for Desert Oasis Bargain Center. (LPC000035-44) Inspection requests dated March 19, 1997 with attachments. (LPC000052-53) La Paz County Department of Community Development Ordinance/Regulation Complaint Form dated March 19, 1997. (LPC000054) Letter dated April 29, 1997 from La Paz County Department of Community Development to Plaintiff James Field regarding violation of the La Paz County Zoning Regulations. (LPC000055) Letter dated May 30, 1997 from La Paz County Department of Community Development to Plaintiff James Field regarding violation of the La Paz County Zoning Regulations. (LPC000056-57)

2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7.

8. 9.

10.

11. 12.

13.

14.

35 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 35 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26
1633085.1

15. 16.

Inspection Requests dated July 10, 1997. (LPC000058) Letter dated July 16, 1997 from La Paz County Department of Community Development to Plaintiff James Field regarding the need to process an application for the pre-fab home assembled on Plaintiff's property. (LPC000059-62) Letter dated August 27, 1997 from La Paz County Health Department to Plaintiff James Field regarding operating permit, fees and penalty's due from Desert Oasis Bargain Center Permit #T1179. (LPC000063-64) Letter dated December 11, 1997 from La Paz County Health Department to Plaintiff James Field regarding expired Operating Permit #T1179. (LPC000066) La Paz County Health Department Mobile Home/Recreational Vehicle Park Inspection Report dated September 9, 1998. (LPC000068) La Paz County Department of Community Development Inspection Request dated September 11, 1998. (LPC000069) La Paz County Department of Community Development Ordinance/Regulation Complaint Form dated December 17, 1998. (LPC000070-71) Letter dated January 21, 1999 from La Paz County Department of Community Development to Plaintiff James Field regarding violation of La Paz County Zoning Regulations. (LPC000072) Code Violation Inspection Report dated March 31, 1999. (LPC000073) Code Violation Inspection Report dated April 6, 1999. (LPC000074) Letter dated June 15, 1999 from La Paz County Health Department to Plaintiff James Field regarding lapsed health permit for Desert Oasis Park. (LPC000076) La Paz County Health Department Environmental Health Services Final Notice dated June 9, 2000 regarding renewal. (LPC000080) Code Violation Inspection Report dated August 14, 2000. (LPC000081) Letter dated September 1, 2000 from La Paz County Health Department to Plaintiff James Field regarding expired Operating Permit #T1179. (LPC000082-84)

17.

18.

19.

20. 21.

22.

23. 24. 25.

26. 27. 28.

36 Document 203 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 36 of 42

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

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 26
1633085.1

29.

Letter dated September 5, 2000 from La Paz County Department of Community Development to James Field regarding violation of La Paz County Zoning Regulations. (LPC000085) La Paz County Health Department Mobile Home/Recreational Vehicle Park Inspection Report dated May 22, 2001. (LPC000087) La Paz County Health Department Mobile Home/Recreational Vehicle Park Inspection Report dated May 30, 2001. (LPC000088) Handwritten notes dated June 20, 2001 regarding Desert Oasis RV and Bargain Center. (LPC000089) Letter dated October 2, 2001 from La Paz County Health Department to Plaintiff