Free Designation of Record on Appeal - 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

Grant H. Goodman, State Bar #009463 Grant H. Goodman, PLLC 5110 North 44th Street, Suite L200 Phoenix AZ 85018 Phone: (602) 343-1477 [email protected] Attorney for Defendants/Appellants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA CITICAPITAL TECHNOLOGY ) FINANCE, INC., formerly known as EAB ) Leasing Corp., a Pennsylvania corporation, ) ) and CITICAPITAL COMMERCIAL ) LEASING CORPORATION, formerly ) ) known as Associates Leasing, Inc., an ) Indiana corporation; GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION ) ) ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) ) ) v. ) ) GRANT H. GOODMAN and TERI B. ) ) GOODMAN, husband and wife, ) ) Defendants/Appellants. ) Case No.: CV03-01587 PHX JAT DESIGNATION OF PORTIONS OF TRANSCRIPT AND STATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL

Defendants-Appellants designate the following portions of the transcript which they intend to include in the record on appeal in the above-entitled case: 1. 2. The testimony of (a) Grant H. Goodman and (b) James Carmichael. The cross-examination of (a) Bonnie Schlee and (b) Roger Doyle.

Appellants further state that the issues they intend to present on appeal are as follows: 1. Whether the trial court inappropriately restricted ownership testimony of

value, ownership testimony of fact and opinion on contract intent, and understanding
- 1 -

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT

Document 94

Filed 07/28/2006

Page 1 of 4

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

relative to contract enforcement and terms in response to non-hearsay trial testimony of plaintiff's witnesses, Ms. Schlee and Mr. Doyle. 2. Whether the trial court improperly instructed plaintiff's counsel and

witnesses based upon ad hominem attacks on defendants' counsel and pro se witness, Grant H. Goodman. 3. Whether the trial court improperly precluded defendants' multiple offers of

proof on material and critical issues which govern the case under application of Arizona Uniform Commercial Code statutory provisions requiring an assessment of "reasonableness" as a fact issue under A.R.S. §§ 47-2A504; 47-2A507; 47-2A528; 472A527; and 47-2A519. 4. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in failing to credit

defendants the full amounts (under the theory of equitable recoupment) to be received by plaintiff through the federal court as and for its judicially approved Priority Administrative Claim. 5. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in rejecting unequivocal

evidence in the form of judicial admissions (judicial estoppel) which were admissions against interest contained within General Electric's appellate brief (Appellee's Brief: In Re: Montgomery Ward Holding Corp., United States Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, April 26, 2002) as plaintiff's unqualified endorsement voiding the punitive and/or liquidated damage clauses in the present matter pursuant to Uniform Commercial Code 2A-504. 6. Whether the trial court properly applied the law in deciding that Ontario,

California was the relevant market for disposition of the equipment at issue where the contracts, equipment, negotiations, execution of the contracts, and trial under the contracts determined Phoenix, Arizona as constituting the appropriate and relevant market to determine proof of market rent (A.R.S. § 47-2A507) and/or a "commercially reasonable" sale in disposition of said assets under A.R.S. § 47-2A528.

- 2 -

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT

Document 94

Filed 07/28/2006

Page 2 of 4

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

7.

Whether an auction held in Ontario, California, pursuant to an undisclosed

auction contract, may be considered a "recognized market" under the Arizona Uniform Commercial Code. 8. Whether the plaintiff, through a "quick sale", obtained the equivalent of a

fair market value for the disposed of equipment, and whether the creditor may, by contract, delegate its duties to an auctioneer to perform all aspects inherent in disposition of a commercially reasonable sale to said auction house (including manner, method, reserve pricing (or lack thereof), marketing, advertising, and removal of said equipment from the relevant market in which the equipment had been used for a period of years). 9. Whether the plaintiff may breach its own standards requiring appraisals and

comparable sales of the equipment at issue in favor of claiming that the price received at auction was equivalent to fair market value(s). 10. Whether the plaintiff may not calculate, to net present value, the amount the

creditor would have received had the contract(s) been fully performed and instead substitute a stipulated loss value table (admitted by the plaintiff as actually a fair market value table) thereby receiving a penalty exceeding $106,000.00 over and above that which it would have received had the contracts been fully performed. This designation and statement of issues is made pursuant to Rule 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure to notify the Clerk of the above Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and appellee herein, that appellants do not intend to include the entire transcript in the record on appeal in this case. Dated this 28th day of July, 2006. GRANT H. GOODMAN, PLLC /s/ Grant H. Goodman, #009463 Grant H. Goodman 5110 North 44th Street, Suite L200 Phoenix AZ 85018 Attorney for Defendants/Appellants
- 3 -

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT

Document 94

Filed 07/28/2006

Page 3 of 4

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

Original e-filed, copy e-mailed to [email protected] and copy mailed this 28th day of July, 2006, to: Honorable James A. Teilborg United States District Court 401 West Washington Suite 523 SPC 51 Phoenix AZ 85003 David N. Ingrassia, Esq. DAVID N. INGRASSIA, P.C. 1212 East Osborn Road Phoenix AZ 85014 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellee

/s/ Grant H. Goodman

- 4 -

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT

Document 94

Filed 07/28/2006

Page 4 of 4