Free Statement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

John T. Masterson, Bar #007447 Jennifer L. Holsman, Bar #022787 J ONES, S KELTON & H OCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone No.: (602) 263-1700 Facsimile No.: (602) 263-1784 E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants La Paz County, La Paz County Department of Community Development, La Paz County Sheriff's Office, Jay Howe, James Martin, Brad Weekley, Jerry Palmer, Penny Dalhberg, Guy Gorman, Dave Boatwright, Joe Deschaine, Curt Bagby, Joe Esqorsa, Pete Heere, and Jeff Bohlen UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 11 12 13 v. 14 LA PAZ COUNTY, et al., 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Summary Judgment. Defendants further object to exhibit 1, identified in ¶ 1, as 26 Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment as follows: 1. Defendants object to ¶ 1 on the grounds that the statements are La Paz County Defendants submit this Controverting Statement of Facts in response to Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Facts in Support of Denial of La Paz County JAMES W. FIELD and SUSAN F. FIELD, husband and wife, Case No. CV03-2214 PHX-SRB

Plaintiffs, LA PAZ CO UNTY DEFENDANTS' CONTROVERTING STATEMENT OF FACTS IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FACTS IN Defendants. SUPPORT OF DENIAL OF LA PAZ COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 158

Filed 03/17/2006

Page 1 of 21

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

irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. 2. Defendants object to ¶ 2 on the grounds that Plaintiffs' statement that

the "defendants terminated Plaintiff's (sic) electrical power without notice" misstates the evidence and is prejudicial. The remaining statements in ¶ 2 are irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants further object to exhibit 2, identified in ¶ 2, as irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Further, based on the documents produced, Plaintiffs "business license" expired in 1999, not 2002 as asserted by Plaintiffs. 3. Defendants object to ¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,

17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 on the grounds that the statements are irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 158 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 2 of 21 4. Defendants object to ¶ 30 on the grounds that the statements are Summary Judgment. Defendants further object to exhibits 3-31, identified in ¶¶ 3-29, as they are irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

hearsay, misstate the evidence, vague, ambiguous, are irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the statements

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

are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibits 32, 78 and 76, identified in ¶ 30, as they are hearsay. 5. Defendants object to ¶ 31 on the grounds that the statements are

irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants further object to exhibit 33, identified in ¶ 31, as it is irrelevant hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. 6. Defendants object to ¶ 32 on the grounds that the statements are

hearsay, misstate the evidence, vague, ambiguous, are irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. 7. Defendants object to ¶ 33 on the grounds that the statements are

irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 158 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 3 of 21 8. Defendants object to ¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 on the grounds that Summary Judgment. Defendants further object to exhibit 34, identified in ¶ 33, as it is irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

the statements are irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants further object to exhibits 34, 35, 36, 37,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

38, 39 and 42, as identified in ¶¶ 34-38, as they are irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. 9. Defendants object to ¶ 39 on the grounds that the statements are

irrelevant, hearsay, vague, ambiguous and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, Plaintiffs allegation that the Defendants added exhibit 40 "to the record illegally" to "miss lead (sic) the court" is

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
1

baseless, unsupported by the evidence and false. In addition, the statements are speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further objects top exhibit 40, identified in ¶ 39, as it is irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues presented in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. 10. Defendants object to ¶¶ 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 on the grounds that

the statements are irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants further object to exhibits 41, 42, 431 , 44 and 45 as identified in ¶¶ 40-44, as irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. 11. Defendants object to ¶ 45 on the grounds that the statements are

23 24 25 26

Plaintiffs failed to include exhibit 43 with their statement of facts. Based on Plaintiffs' description of the exhibit, however, Defendants note the same objections.

4 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 158 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 4 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

irrelevant, hearsay, misstates the evidence and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibit 46, as identified in ¶ 45, as irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' M otion for Summary Judgment. 12. Defendants object to ¶¶ 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50 on the grounds that

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
2

the statements are irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibits 47, 48 2 , 49, 50 and 51, as identified in ¶ 46-50, as irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' M otion for Summary Judgment. 13. Defendants object to ¶ 51 on the grounds that the statements are

Summary Judgment. In addition, Plaintiffs statement that he cooperated with County Officials in 2002 misstates the evidence. D efendants further object to exhibit 52, as identified in ¶ 51, as irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' M otion for Summary Judgment.

24 25 26

Defendants also object to Plaintiffs misrepresentation of the information noted on exhibit 49. First, the number of copies requested was incorrect (41 not 44). Further, exhibit 49 does not state that a complete copy of Plaintiffs' "property file" was requested. 5

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 158

Filed 03/17/2006

Page 5 of 21

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

14.

Defendants object to ¶ 52 on the grounds that the statements are

irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, Plaintiffs have misstated the evidence and the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibit 53, as identified in ¶ 52, as irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. 15. Defendants object to ¶¶ 53 and 54 on the grounds that the

statements are irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, Plaintiffs have misstated the evidence, as they admit Mr. Gorman was prohibited from inspecting their property on December 17, 1998. Defendants further object to exhibits 54 and 55, as identified in ¶¶ 53 and 54, as irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 6 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 158 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 6 of 21 / / / / 16. Defendants object to ¶¶ 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60 on the grounds

that the statements are irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, each paragraph contains

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibits 563 , 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61 as identified in ¶¶ 55-60, as irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. 17. Defendants object to ¶¶ 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67 on the grounds

that the statements are irrelevant, hearsay, misstates the evidence and is immaterial to 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
3

the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibits 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 and 68, identified in ¶¶ 61-67, as they are irrelevant, hearsay and are immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Further, Plaintiffs have misstated the evidence regarding exhibits 65, 66, 67 and 68. Defendants object to ¶ 68 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous

and is immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants further object to exhibit 69, as identified in ¶ 68, as the document is

Included in Exhibit 56, is a letter entitled "SOME MORE FACTS" that is not addressed to a party, is unsigned and undated. This letter has never been disclosed or provided to defense counsel (although there are comments made about both counsel for APS and La Paz County) and makes allegations that go beyond the scope of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and must be disregarded. 7

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 158

Filed 03/17/2006

Page 7 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. 19. Defendants object to the statements made in¶ 69 on the grounds

that they are hearsay. Defendants further object to exhibit 70, as identified in ¶ 69, as hearsay, vague and ambiguous. 20. Defendants object to ¶¶ 70, 71, 72, 73 and 74 on the grounds that

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 In exhibit 102, a letter dated January 19, 2003, Mr. Field asserts he has owned the "property" for 15 years. Thus, Mr. Field has owned the property since 1988, not 1991 as asserted. 8 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 158 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 8 of 21
4

the statements are irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants further object to exhibits 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75 as identified in ¶¶ 70-74, as hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. 21. Defendants object to ¶¶ 75, 76, and 77 on the grounds that the

statements are irrelevant, hearsay, misstates the evidence4 , vague and ambiguous. In

Defendants do not object to exhibits 76, 77 or 78, as identified in ¶¶ 75-77. / / /

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22.

Defendants object to ¶¶ 78 on the grounds that the statements are

irrelevant, hearsay, misstates the evidence and is immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants further object to exhibit 79, as identified in ¶ 79, as hearsay, vague and ambiguous. 23. Defendants object to ¶¶ 79, 80, 81 and 82 on the grounds that the

statements are vague, ambiguous, misstates the evidence, is hearsay and is immaterial 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 are irrelevant, hearsay, vague, ambiguous, misstates the evidence and is immaterial to 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
5

to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibits 80 5 , 81 and 83 as identified in ¶¶ 79-82 as hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants do not object to exhibit 82. 24. Defendants object to ¶ 83 on the grounds that the statements

the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants do not object to exhibit 84 and 84A, as identified in ¶ 83. 25. Defendants object to ¶ 84 on the grounds that the statements are

Plaintiffs failed to include exhibit 80 with their statement of facts. Based on Plaintiffs' description of the exhibit, however, Defendants note the same objections. 9

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 158

Filed 03/17/2006

Page 9 of 21

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

irrelevant, hearsay, misstates the evidence and is immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, Defendants object to

Plaintiffs statement that the Defendants were required to give 5 days notice before termination of electrical service to the property. Pursuant to Title 14, Article 2-111(B) of the Arizona Administrative Code, no notice was required. In addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants do not object to exhibit 85, as identified in ¶ 84. 26. Defendants object to ¶ 85 on the grounds that the statements are

irrelevant, hearsay, misstates the evidence and is immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants further object to exhibit 86, as identified in ¶ 85, as Plaintiffs failed to include the exhibit in their statement of facts. 27. Defendants object to ¶¶ 86, 87, 88, 89 and 90 on the grounds that

the statements are irrelevant, hearsay, vague, ambiguous and is immaterial to the issues 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 10 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 158 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 10 of 21 exhibit in their statement of facts. Defendants do not object to exhibits 89 and 90, as identified in ¶¶ 88 and 89. Finally, Defendants object to exhibit 91, as identified in ¶ 90, as hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibit 87 and 88, as identified in ¶¶ 86 and 87, as Plaintiffs failed to include the

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

28.

Defendants do not object to statements in ¶ 91 regarding Plaintiff's

failure to "do nothing" on his property as of November 26, 2002. Defendants object to the remaining statements as irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants do not object to exhibit 92, as identified in ¶ 91. 29. Defendants object to ¶¶ 92, 93, 94 and 95 on the grounds that

the statements are irrelevant, hearsay, vague, misstates the evidence, ambiguous and is immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants object to exhibits 93, 94, 95 and 96, as identified in ¶¶ 92-95, as hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. 30. Defendants object to ¶¶ 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105,

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 11 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 158 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 11 of 21 to exhibits 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 and 107, as identified in ¶¶ 96106, as irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. 31. Defendants object to ¶¶ 107, 108 and 109 on the grounds that the and 106 on the grounds that the statements are irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object

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

statements are irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibits 108, 109 and 110, as identified in ¶¶ 107-109, as hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' M otion for Summary Judgment. 32. Defendants object to ¶ 110 on the grounds that the statements are

irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. 33. Defendants object to ¶ 111 on the grounds that the statements are

vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, hearsay, not supported by the evidence and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants further object to exhibit 112, as identified in ¶ 111, as Plaintiffs failed to include the exhibit in their statement of facts.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 12 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 158 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 12 of 21 speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibit 113, as identified in ¶ 112, as Plaintiffs failed to include the exhibit in their statement of facts. 35. Defendants object to ¶¶ 113 and 114 on the grounds that the 34. Defendants object to ¶ 112 on the grounds that the statements are

irrelevant, vague, ambiguous, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the statements are unsupported,

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

statements are vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, hearsay, not supported by the evidence and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants further object to exhibits 114 and 116, as identified in ¶¶ 113-114, as hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. 36. Defendants object to ¶115 on the grounds that the statements are

irrelevant, vague, ambiguous, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibit 116, as identified in ¶¶ 116, as hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' M otion for Summary Judgment. 37. Defendants object to ¶¶ 116, 117, 118, 119 on the grounds that the

statements are vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, hearsay, not supported by the evidence and 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 13 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 158 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 13 of 21 119, as hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. 38. Defendants object to ¶¶ 120, 121, 122, 123 and 124 on the grounds immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibits 117, 118, 119 and 120, as identified in ¶¶ 116-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

that the statements are irrelevant, vague, ambiguous, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibits 121, 1226 , 123, 124 and 125, as identified in ¶¶ 120-124, as hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 40. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
6

39.

Defendants object to ¶¶ 125 and 126 on the grounds that the

statements are vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, hearsay, not supported by the evidence and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibits 126 and 127, as identified in ¶¶ 126-127, as Plaintiffs failed to attach them to their separate statement of facts. Defendants object to¶ 127 on the grounds that the

statements are vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, hearsay, not supported by the evidence and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibit 128, as identified in ¶ 127, as hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

Plaintiffs did not include a copy of exhibit 122 or 123 in their separate statement of facts. 14

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 158

Filed 03/17/2006

Page 14 of 21

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

41.

Defendants object to ¶ 128 and 129 on the grounds that the

statements are vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, hearsay, not supported by the evidence and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants further object to exhibits 129 and 130, as identified in ¶¶ 128 and 129, as irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. 42. Defendants object to ¶ 130 on the grounds that the

statements are vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, hearsay, not supported by the evidence and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In

addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibit 131, as identified in ¶ 130, as irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' M otion for Summary Judgment. 43. Defendants object to ¶ 131 on the grounds that the statements are

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 15 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 158 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 15 of 21 to exhibit 132, as identified in ¶ 131, as Plaintiffs failed to include this exhibit in their separate statement of facts. 44. Defendants object to ¶¶ 132 and 133 on the grounds that the irrelevant, hearsay, not supported by the evidence and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object

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

statements are vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, hearsay, not supported by the evidence and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In

addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibit 133 and 134, as identified in ¶¶ 132-133, as Plaintiffs failed to include this exhibit in their separate statement of facts. 45. Defendants object to ¶¶ 134, 135, 136 and 137 on the grounds that

the statements are irrelevant, hearsay, not supported by the evidence and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibits 135, 137 and 138, as identified in ¶ 134, 136 and 137 as Plaintiffs failed to include this exhibit in their separate statement of facts. Finally, Defendants object to exhibit 136, as identified in ¶¶ 135, as hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 16 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 158 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 16 of 21 addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibits 139 and 140, as identified in exhibit ¶¶ 138 and 139, as Plaintiffs failed to include the exhibits in their separate statement of facts. 46. Defendants object to ¶¶ 138, 139 and 140 on the grounds that the

statements are vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, hearsay, not supported by the evidence and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In

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

Finally, Defendants object to exhibit 141, as identified in ¶ 140, as hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' M otion for Summary Judgment. 47. Defendants object to ¶ 141 on the grounds that the statements are

vague, ambiguous and hearsay. Further, Defendants object to any statements that Plaintiffs did not "know" what needed to be repaired on their property. This information was provided to Plaintiffs in November of 2002. Defendants further object to exhibit 142, as identified in ¶ 141, as Plaintiffs failed to attach a copy of the exhibit to their separate statement of facts. 48. Defendants object to ¶ 142 on the grounds that the statements are

vague, ambiguous, hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants further object to exhibit 143, as identified in ¶ 142, as hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' M otion for Summary Judgment.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 158 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 17 of 21 statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibit 144, as identified in ¶ 143, as Plaintiffs failed to attach a copy of the exhibit to their separate statement of facts. 50. Defendants object to ¶¶ 144 and 145 on the grounds that the 49. Defendants object to ¶ 143 on the grounds that the statements are

vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, hearsay, not supported by the evidence and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

statements are vague, ambiguous, hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants further object to exhibits 145 and 146, as identified in ¶¶ 144-145, as Plaintiffs failed to attach a copy of the exhibit to their separate statement of facts. 51. Defendants object to ¶¶ 146 and 147 on the grounds that the

statements are vague, ambiguous, hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 statements are hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
7

in Defendants' M otion for Summary Judgment. Defendants further object to exhibit 147, as identified in ¶ 146, as it misstates the evidence, is incomplete, hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Finally, Defendants object to exhibit 149, as identified in ¶ 147, as Plaintiffs failed to attach a copy of the exhibit to their separate statement of facts.7 52. Defendants object to ¶¶ 148 and 149 on the grounds that the

Motion for Summary Judgment. Further, Defendants object to any statements that Plaintiffs did not "know" what needed to be repaired on their property. This information was provided to Plaintiffs in November of 2002. In addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object

Plaintiffs failed to identify an exhibit 148 and did not attach an exhibit as such. 18

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 158

Filed 03/17/2006

Page 18 of 21

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

to exhibits 150 and 151, identified in ¶¶ 148-149, as hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. 53. Defendants object to ¶¶ 150, 151, 152, 153 and 154 on

the grounds that the statements are vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibits 152, 152A, 153 and 154, as identified in ¶¶ 150154, as hearsay, immaterial and irrelevant to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Finally, Defendants object to exhibit 155, as identified in ¶ 154, as Plaintiffs failed to attach a copy of the exhibit to their separate statement of facts. 54. Defendants object to ¶ 155 on the grounds that the statements

misstate the evidence, are hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 19 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 158 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 19 of 21 Plaintiffs failed to attach a copy of the exhibit to their separate statement of facts. 55. Defendants object to ¶ 156, 157, 158 and 159 on the grounds that Motion for Summary Judgment. This information was provided to Plaintiffs in November of 2002. In addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibit 156, as identified in ¶ 155, as

the statements are irrelevant, misstate the evidence, are hearsay and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the statements

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

are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibits 157, 158 and 159, as identified in ¶¶ 156-158, as Plaintiffs failed to attach a copy of the exhibit to their separate statement of facts. Defendants further object to exhibit 160, as identified in ¶ 159, as hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. 56. Defendants object to ¶ 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168,

169, 170, 171, 172, 173 and 174 on the ground that the statements are irrelevant, are hearsay and are immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the statements are unsupported, speculative, conclusory arguments, not fact. Defendants further object to exhibits 161, 163, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173 and 174, as identified in ¶¶ 160, 162, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172 and 174, as hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Finally, Defendants object to exhibits 162, 164, 165 and 167, as

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 20 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 158 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 20 of 21 statements are irrelevant, are hearsay and are immaterial to the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants further object to the affidavits (Exhibit 175 and 176), as identified in ¶¶ 175 and 176, submitted by Mr. Farr and Ms. Doud on the grounds that they are hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues raised identified in ¶¶ 161, 163, 164 and 166, as Plaintiffs failed to attach copies of the exhibits to their separate statement of facts. 57. Defendants object to ¶ 175 and 176 on the grounds that the

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

in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Further, Defendants are unclear as to which affidavits Plaintiffs are referring to in ¶¶ 175 and 176, as no copies were attached to their separate statement of facts. DATED this 17th day of March, 2006. J ONES, S KELTON & H OCHULI, P.L.C. By s/Jennifer L. Holsman John T. Masterson Jennifer L. Holsman 2901 North Central Avenue Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 ORIGINAL of the foregoing e-filed this 17 th day of March, 2006 with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. COPY of the foregoing mailed even date to:

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1601043_1

James W. Field and Susan F. Field Post Office Box 248 Salome, Arizona 85348 Plaintiffs Pro Per

s/Colleen Webb

21 Document 158 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 21 of 21

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB