Free Response to Motion - 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

G. Gregory Eagleburger, #002695 The Eagleburger Law Group 2999 N. 44th Street, Suite 303 Phoenix, Arizona 85018 (602)840-6533 Fax (602)808-9402 Attorney for Individual Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Awareness Corporation, Plaintiff, v. GROUP VISION INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C., a Michigan limited liability company; KELLY MATTICE and PAIGE MATTICE, husband and wife; KEVIN and CHERYL MACGREGOR, husband and wife dba THE LIFE TREE; LYNN and RENIE REMELSKI; and DAVID and SUZANNE BETTS, Defendants.
And related cross claims and third party actions.

Case No. CV03-2024-DGC INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Pursuant to this Court's Order of August 2, 2005, the Individual Defendants hereby respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. This Response is supported by the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and the entire Court record in this case.

25 26 27 28 Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC Document 378

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 15th day of August, 2005. /s/ G. Gregory Eagleburger Attorney for Individual Defendants

Filed 08/15/2005

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FACTUAL SETTINGS Plaintiff apparently failed to include a single appendix (Appendix A) with its Response to the Individual Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment filed in February of 2005. It thereafter filed a Notice of Errata noting the absence of such appendix. Appendix A is a matrix prepared by Plaintiff of assertions or statements allegedly made about Plaintiff's products and GVI's products submitted in support of its Lanham Act claims against GVI and the Individual Defendants. Appendix A was not a new piece

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

of evidence but merely a summary of exhibits already contained with Plaintiff's Response referencing the evidence by footnotes. As such, Appendix A does not add to the facts just reiterates them. In fact, Plaintiff's Appendix B (which was originally included in the Response of Awareness), includes the same type of matrix but more information on the particulars of the statements than Appendix A and refers to the same exhibits as Appendix A. The fundamental difference is that Appendix B contains wording which Awareness contends the exhibit states while Appendix A just has an "X" in the same column. Both Appendixes A and B are cited in the Response of Awareness for the same

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

evidence. In short, Appendix A is merely a shortened version of Appendix B. The Court did consider Appendix B in its decision. Appendix A adds nothing of substance to the decision making process. Therefore, the Court should not reconsider its rulings on the Lanham Act claims of Awareness.
Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC Document 378 -2Filed 08/15/2005 Page 2 of 3

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 27 28

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 15th day of August, 2005. THE EAGLEBURGER LAW GROUP By: /s/ G. Gregory Eagleburger Attorney for Individual Defendants The ORIGINAL of the foregoing electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court this 15th day of August, 2005 and a COPY hand-delivered to: The Honorable David G. Campbell U. S. District Court of Arizona 401 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2118 And a copy emailed to: Steven M. Weinberg, Esq. Greenberg Traurig, LLP 2375 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 700 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Attorneys for Plaintiff Curtis D. Drew, Esq. 2342 N. Pima Scottsdale, AZ 85257-2405 Attorney for Group Vision International, LLC /s/ Jill Robinson

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

Document 378

-3Filed 08/15/2005

Page 3 of 3