Free Other Notice - District Court of Arizona - Arizona


File Size: 121.2 kB
Pages: 3
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Arizona
Category: District Court of Arizona
Author: unknown
Word Count: 739 Words, 4,775 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/34766/192-2.pdf

Download Other Notice - District Court of Arizona ( 121.2 kB)


Preview Other Notice - District Court of Arizona
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
10 Plumbing and Air Conditioning Contractors NO. CV-03-1684-PHX-FJM
H of Central and Northern Arizona, et al.,
Plaintiffs, AFFIDAVIT OF CARL TRIPHAHN
12 vs.
13 Plumbing and Air Conditioning Contractors
of Arizona, Tucson Area, et al.,
14 Defendants.
15 Norm Record, Sr., Nancly Record, Norm
16 Record, Jr., George Mic els and Michael L.
Collir1s,
17 Counterclaim Plaintiffs,
18 vs.
Steven Baker and William Crowe,
19 Counterclaim Defendants. I
20
21
22 I, Carl Triphahn, after having been duly sworn and upon oath, do hereby state and
23 depose as follows:
24 1. I am the Executive Director of the Plumbing & Air Conditioning
25 Contractors of Central and Northern Arizona ("PAC-Phoenix"), one of the Plaintiffs in the
26 above-captioned action, and I am submitting this Affidavit in support of Plaintiffs’
ase 2:03—cv—01684-FJIVI Document 192-2 Filed 08/22/2005 Igglpw 1
oBPHx\7s022s.00002\1950209.1

1 Response in Opposition to the applications for attomey’s fees and nontaxable costs that
2 have been filed in this action by Defendants the Plumbing & Air Conditioning Contractors
3 of Arizona, Tucson Area ("PAC-Tucson”), Local 469 of the United Association of the
4 Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States
5 and Canada ("Local 469"), Local 741 ofthe United Association of the Journeymen and
6 Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada
7 ("Local 74l"), along with the individual Defendants; and by Defendants the Arizona Pipe
8 Trades Health & Welfare Trust Fund and the Arizona Pipe Trades Defmed Contribution
9 Pension Trust Fund ("the Trust Funds”). I have been in my current position with PAC-
10 Phoenix continuously for approximately 15 years. In my capacity as Executive Director
11 of PAC-Phoenix, I am very familiar with its financial affairs.
12 2. PAC-Phoenix is a not-for-profit corporation that provides collective
13 bargaining and other services to its members, comprised of about 15 unionized plumbing
14 and air conditioning contractors whose principal operations in Arizona are in the central
15 and northern parts of the state.
16 3. PAC-Phoenix derives all of its revenues from monthly dues paid by
17 its member contractors. By this means, PAC-Phoenix generates approximately $25,000
18 per year at the level at which member dues are currently set.
19 4. PAC-Phoenix currently has a positive account balance of $27,221.00,
20 but this does not take account of what is owed to Quarles & Brady Streich Lang, LLP, for
21 their services as Plaintiffs’ counsel in this litigation, which is several times the amount of
22 our account balance.
23 5. To the best of my information, knowledge and belief, there is nothing
24 suggesting any significant likelihood that the revenues of PAC-Phoenix will substantially
ig exceed $25,000 per year at any point in the next several years.
ag§P.'I€$g§g$§§%g£g4§§)g(IMl Document 192-2 -2- Filed 08/22/2005 1

1
6. Typically, the operating expenses of PAC-Phoenix run about $10,000
2
per year. These expenses include insurance, accounting expenses, a portion of my salary
3
in years when collective bargaining takes place, and incidental legal fees.
4
7. If the Court were to grant the applications for attorney’s fees and
5
nontaxable costs that have been filed in this case requiring PAC-Phoenix to pay a
6
substantial amount of money to some or all of the Defendants, such an award would, in all
7
likelihood, make it impossible for PAC-Phoenix both to pay its normal operating expenses
8
and other creditors and satisfy the award. In that situation, we very likely would be forced
9
to conclude that we needed to consider seriously seeking relief in Bankruptcy Court.
10
11 Further your affiant sayeth not, this L2 day of August, 2005.
12 2/
13 1 rn ahn I
14 STATE or AR1zoNA )
1 5 )ss.
County of Maricopa )
16
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this [ 2 day of August, 2005 by
17 -
Carl Triphahn.
18 P
19 Uma, 00 M
20 Notary Public
21 My Commission Expires:
22 I
- O -- 08
23 _ ,1 ` I no
snzunsso
24 Notary Pubic - Mzonu
• 4 M¤f|¢¤p¤C0unty
25 _ Mv¢¤mm. Expmacnau 20011
26
: - - - - F`| / /2005 P
23§Pé1Q%0%¥8.%JO‘3§?95E§O@11 2°°”"‘2“* *22 2-3- *22 02 22 Egmiglgf 1

Case 2:03-cv-01684-FJM

Document 192-2

Filed 08/22/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01684-FJM

Document 192-2

Filed 08/22/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01684-FJM

Document 192-2

Filed 08/22/2005

Page 3 of 3