Free Statement - 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

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
Suite 1600 3800 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85012-1946 (602) 631-4400 (602) 631-4404 (fax)

Law Offices

Brian Holohan (009124) [email protected] Darrell S. Dudzik (016465) [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Ronald Craig Fish, a law corporation, a California corporation, vs. Plaintiff, ) ) ) No. CIV-03-67-PHX-SMM ) ) ) DEFENDANTS STATEMENT OF ) FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ) ) ) following statement of facts in

Thomas G. Watkins, III, an individual, et al., Defendants. Defendants submit the

support of their motion for summary judgment: 1. Defendant Watkins, a Phoenix attorney, represented

Skyline in an action against a Skyline business competitor, So-Lite Manufacturing ( So-Lite ). (A genuine copy of the

Complaint in Skyline Manufacturing, Inc. v. So-Lite(Inc.)/SoLite Innovative Roofing Products, No CIV 01-0940 PHX MHM

(D.Ariz.) is already on the record as Exhibit 1 to Defendant s Motion to Dismiss dated June 13, 2002). 2. damages In its complaint, Skyline alleged that it suffered when So-Lite delivered and published two letters

Case 2:03-cv-00067-SMM

Document 123

Filed 03/31/2006

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

authored

by

So-Lite

president

Jason

Reeves

to

Skyline s

customers threatening patent infringement litigation against anyone who purchased any purportedly offending product.

(Skyline Complaint, ¶¶12-19). 3. The Skyline Complaint also alleged that the letters

immediately and adversely impacted Skyline s business in that many from of Skyline s and customers began immediately from stopped purchasing (Skyline

Skyline

purchasing

So-Lite.

Complaint, ¶19). 4. dismiss Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a motion to the Skyline matter for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) and failure state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to FRCP

12(b)(6) filed by So-Lite and Reeves. 5. Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of a motion to

stay the Skyline matter pending a determination of proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on filed by SoLite and Reeves. 6. Fish filed a motion to dismiss the Skyline matter for

lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(2) or alternatively 12(e). a more definite statement pursuant to FRCP

(A genuine copy of Fish s Motion to Dismiss is already

on the record as Exhibit 1 to Defendant s Motion to Dismiss dated April 30, 2003). 7. judgment Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of a motion for on the pleadings pursuant 2
Case 2:03-cv-00067-SMM Document 123 Filed 03/31/2006 Page 2 of 4

to

FRCP

12(c)

or

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

alternatively a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) filed by Fish. 8. Rule 11. Fish also filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to (A genuine copy of Fish s motion for Rule 11

sanctions is already on the record as Exhibit 2 to Defendant s April 30, 2003 Motion to Dismiss). 9. Judge Murguia issued a Memorandum Order filed March

25, 2002 finding, with respect to the So-Lite claims, that the Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the claims.

(Memorandum Order, p. 15, already on the record as Exhibit 3 to the Defendant s June 13, 2002 Motion to Dismiss). 10. The Memorandum Order granted the So-Lite motion to dismiss the unfair competition count. (Memorandum Order, p. 15). 11. The Memorandum Order denied the So-Lite motion to dismiss the interference with contract count. (Memorandum

Order, p. 15). 12. The Memorandum Order denied without prejudice So-

Lite s motion to stay. (Memorandum Order, p. 15). 13. The Memorandum Order granted Fish s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Memorandum Order, p. 15). 14. The Memorandum Order denied Fish s Rule 11 motion. (Memorandum Order, p. 15). 15. The Memorandum Order denied Fish s remaining motions as moot. (Memorandum Order, p. 15). 3
Case 2:03-cv-00067-SMM Document 123 Filed 03/31/2006 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

DATED this 31st day of March, 2006. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP

By /s/Darrell S Dudzik Brian Holohan Darrell S. Dudzik Attorneys for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on the 31st day of March, 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: Robert Hardy Falk, Esq. [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff Michael G. Ackerman, Esq. [email protected] Co-counsel for Plaintiff By /s/Darrell S. Dudzik

4
Case 2:03-cv-00067-SMM Document 123 Filed 03/31/2006 Page 4 of23020012v1 4
827165