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 25 26 27 28

Law Office of James Burr Shields 382 East Palm Lane Phoenix, Arizona 85004-1531 (602) 307-0780 (Office) (602) 307-0784 (Facsimile)
James Burr Shields II, State Bar #011711 John A. Conley, State Bar #016429 Blake Simms, State Bar #021595 Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA

) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) Home Mortgage, Inc., an ) Arizona corporation conducting ) business in Arizona, ) Carl Brown; ) Molly Brown; ) Greg Brown; ) Jane Doe Brown; ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________)

Cathleen Channel, Theresa Wharry, Stacie Hanson, Monique Nichols,

Case No. CIV 2003-0100 PHX ROS PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO FILE THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, by and through counsel undersigned, briefly, responds to Defendants' motion for leave of Court to file a third party complaint against L. Gregory Brown. Obviously, Plaintiffs do not have standing to object to Defendants, Carl and Molly Brown, suing their son for negligence, breach of contract, etc. However, Plaintiffs and their attorney respond to the accusation that Mr. L. Gregory Brown's affidavit, which was attached as an exhibit to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, was "extorted." Nothing could be further from the truth. From the very beginning of this case, L. Gregory Brown was very capably represented by Dennis L. Hall. Mr. Hall is an experienced, qualified labor/employment attorney. Mr. Hall was present during all discussions with L. Gregory Brown which
Document 136 Filed 05/25/2007 Page 1 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-00100-ROS-MEA

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

eventually led to his execution of the affidavit in question. Without waiving any privilege, the decision to dismiss L. Gregory Brown, after the affidavit was executed, was made, primarily, because Mr. Brown was such an extreme minority shareholder of HMI, possessing, only, 1% of the company stock. The accusation that Mr. Brown's affidavit was "extorted" is frivolous within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). At this point, Plaintiffs are not pursuing a Rule 11(c) motion with the Court but, rather, simply want the Court to be aware that L. Gregory Brown's affidavit was hardly the result of any coercion or extortion. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 25th day of May, 2007. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES BURR SHIELDS

____s/ James Burr Shields________________ James Burr Shields Blake Simms Attorneys for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 25th day of May, 2007, I electronically submitted 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: James M. McGee, Esq. P.O. Box 460 Cottonwood, Arizona 86326 [email protected] Attorney for Defendants ____s/ Gail Ivey___________________

Case 2:03-cv-00100-ROS-MEA

-2Document 136

Filed 05/25/2007

Page 2 of 2