Free Objection - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
3101 North Central Avenue ­ Suite 720 Phoenix, Arizona 85012

GAONA LAW FIRM
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

3101 NORTH CENTRAL AVE, SUITE 720 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 _____________

(602) 230-2636 Fax (602) 230-1377

David F. Gaona, State Bar No. 007391 Nicole Seder Cantelme, State Bar No. 021320 Attorneys for Defendants APS, Doug McDonald and Donald Wilson IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA JAMES W. FIELD and SUSAN F. FIELD, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, vs. LA PAZ COUNTY, et al., Defendants. No. CIV03-02214 PHX SRB OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF JAMES FIELD'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FACTS BY DEFENDANTS ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, DOUG McDONALD, AND DONALD WILSON

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

GAONA LAW FIRM

Defendants Arizona Public Service Company, Doug McDonald and Donald Wilson ("APS Defendants") submit the following objections to Plaintiff James Field's separate statement of facts. The first two pages of Plaintiff's separate statement of facts is argument, is not in proper form, and is not properly supported by the record. Most of Plaintiff's averments on pages 1 and 2 refer to Plaintiff's complaints about other co-defendants in this case. Plaintiff merely alleges without support that the APS Defendants did not evaluate Plaintiff's electrical system and conspired with La Paz County to terminate Plaintiff's electrical service. The APS Defendants object to these

1 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 131 Filed 02/21/2006 Page 1 of 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
3101 North Central Avenue ­ Suite 720 Phoenix, Arizona 85012

statements as they are merely Plaintiff's allegations, are not supported by the record, and are not statements of fact. Statements 1 through 14 ­ The APS Defendants object to the relevance of these statements and the documents submitted to support statements 1 through 14. First, these documents have never been disclosed by the Plaintiff and, second, the documents demonstrate estimates for work that may (or may not) have been performed more than 13 years prior to Plaintiff's power being terminated. The documents do not establish the condition of Plaintiff's electrical system in November 2002 when his service was terminated. Finally, the documents lack proper foundation. Plaintiff did not submit an affidavit from the licensed electrician who performed the work outlined in the estimates. Nor has Plaintiff ever provided an affidavit from a licensed electrician who can testify as to the condition of Plaintiff's electrical system at the time his power was terminated on November 12, 2002. Statements 15 through 20 ­ The APS Defendants object to the relevance and foundation of these statements as these documents are certificates of occupancy issued to the Plaintiff by La Paz County between 1989 and 1991 and have no relevance to the

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

GAONA LAW FIRM

claims against the APS Defendants in this case. Statement 21 ­ The APS Defendants object to the relevance and the foundation of this statement and the supporting document. The inspection referred to in this statement was not conducted by the APS Defendants and took place in 1994, eight years prior to Plaintiff's electric service being terminated. Statement 22 ­ The APS Defendants object to the relevance and foundation of this statement and the supporting document. The document submitted by Plaintiff in support apparently reflects work performed to the well on Plaintiff's property in 1995. The work performed was not conducted by the APS Defendants, nor inspected by the

2 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 131 Filed 02/21/2006 Page 2 of 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
3101 North Central Avenue ­ Suite 720 Phoenix, Arizona 85012

APS Defendants, and has no relevance to Plaintiff's claims against the APS Defendants in this case Statement 23 ­ The APS Defendants object to the relevance and foundation of this statement and the supporting document. The document provided by Plaintiff in support reflects an inspection performed in 1996, but not by the APS Defendants. Moreover, this document has no relevance to the condition of Plaintiff's electrical system as the inspection was for alleged non-conforming use of the property (i.e., a swap meet) and placement of a mobile home without a permit. Statements 24 through 34 ­ The APS Defendants object to the relevance and the foundation of the pictures described in these statements and the copies of the pictures provided. These pictures were not taken at the time that Plaintiff's electrical service was terminated, but were apparently taken nearly three years later in August 2005, and do not accurately depict the condition of Plaintiff's electrical system when his power was terminated. Plaintiff also fails to provide any foundation for these pictures or foundation for the conclusions provided ­ Plaintiff's conclusions concerning the

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

GAONA LAW FIRM

pictures are merely his own and are not supported by an affidavit of a licensed electrician. Notably, Plaintiff fails to provide criticism of the photographs taken of Plaintiff's electrical system at the time his service was terminated. Statement 35 ­ The APS Defendants object to the relevance of this statement and the document used to support the statement (the document is incomplete; a complete copy of the notes was attached to La Paz County's Initial Disclosure and is attached hereto for the Court's convenience). The APS Defendants did not conduct an inspection of Plaintiff's property on October 30, 2002, and the statement has no relevance to the claims against the APS Defendants in this case. Statements 36 through 38 ­ The APS Defendants object to these statements as they are mere arguments or averments not supported by the Plaintiff and are not
3 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 131 Filed 02/21/2006 Page 3 of 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
3101 North Central Avenue ­ Suite 720 Phoenix, Arizona 85012

statements of fact. Plaintiff continuously fails to recognize the Arizona Corporation Commission regulation which allows APS to terminate a customer's electrical service without notice where an "obvious hazard" exists. A.A.C. § R14-2-211(B). Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence other than his own averments to support that no hazard existed on his property in November 2002 or that the APS Defendants improperly terminated Plaintiff's service under Commission regulations. Statement 39 ­ The APS Defendants do not dispute that La Paz County first contacted APS concerning Plaintiff's electrical system on November 5, 2002. Statement 40 ­ The APS Defendants do not dispute that APS received a letter and photographs from La Paz County describing and depicting the condition of Plaintiff's property in November 2002. Statement 41 ­ The APS Defendants do not dispute that as a matter of caution and concern for employee safety, APS entered into its customer service screen not to communicate to Plaintiff, if he were to call in, that a La Paz County Deputy would be escorting our serviceman to the premises to cut Plaintiff's power.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

GAONA LAW FIRM

Statement 42 ­ The APS Defendants object to Plaintiff's unsupported conclusion that the APS Defendants terminated Plaintiff's electrical service solely at the direction of La Paz County. This is not a statement a fact ­ it is argument by the Plaintiff. As demonstrated by Exhibit S to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and the Arizona Corporation Commission regulations, the APS Defendants were required to independently evaluate Plaintiff's electrical system and the APS Defendants determined that it warranted disconnection without notice. Statement 43 ­ The APS Defendants object to this statement as it is unsupported, speculative, conclusory argument, not fact. Regardless of the timeline, this

unsupported argument does not disprove that hazards existed on Plaintiff's property allowing termination of service without notice.
4 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 131 Filed 02/21/2006 Page 4 of 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
3101 North Central Avenue ­ Suite 720 Phoenix, Arizona 85012

DATED this 21st day of February, 2006. GAONA LAW FIRM /s/ Nicole Seder Cantelme David F. Gaona Nicole Seder Cantelme Attorneys for APS, Doug McDonald and Donald Wilson

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 5 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 131 Filed 02/21/2006 Page 5 of 14

GAONA LAW FIRM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
3101 North Central Avenue ­ Suite 720 Phoenix, Arizona 85012

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 21, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: John Masterson, Esq. Jennifer Holsman, Esq. JONES SKELTON & HOCHULI, 3200 North Central Avenue, Suite Phoenix, Arizona 85012 I further certify that on February 21, 2006, I mailed a copy of the foregoing document to Plaintiffs pro per: James W. Field and Susan F. Field 66524 Hwy 60 Post Office Box 248 Salome, Arizona 85348 I further certify that on February 22, 2006, the attached document was handdelivered to: The Honorable Susan R. Bolton United States District Court for the District of Arizona Sandra Day O'Connor U.S Courthouse, Suite 522 401 West Washington Street, SPC 50 Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2153

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

GAONA LAW FIRM

/s/ Nicole Seder Cantelme

6 Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 131 Filed 02/21/2006 Page 6 of 14

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 131

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 7 of 14

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 131

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 8 of 14

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 131

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 9 of 14

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 131

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 10 of 14

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 131

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 11 of 14

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 131

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 12 of 14

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 131

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 13 of 14

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 131

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 14 of 14