Free Response - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 LAW OFFICE
STUART]. REILLY, P.C.
2 PO Box 80410
Phoenix, Arizona 85060-0410
3 Telephone: 602/ 912-9200
E-mail: [email protected]
4
Stuart]. Reilly, #005275
5 Attorney for Plaintiff
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
10
ll Stuart J. Reilly, ) Case No. CIV 02-2218 PHX BTM
)
12 Plaintiff, ) PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO BREVVER
) DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO
13 vs. ) PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO HIS
) SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY RE:
14 Charles M. Brewer, Ltd. Profit Sharing Plan ) PLAINTIFFIS RESPONSE IN
and Trust, a retirement plan; Charles M. ) OPPOSITION T0 DEFENDANTS’
15 Brewer, Ltd. Restated Pension Plan, a ) MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
16 retirement plan; and Charles M. Brewer, ) JUDGMENT ON COUNT ONE
)
17 Defendants. )
)
18
19 The Plaintiff, Stuart J. Reilly, hereby responds to Brewer Defendants’ Objection to
20 Plaintiffs Reply to His Supplemental Authority re: Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to
21 Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Cotmt One.
22 Brewer Defendants unintentionally allowed Plaintiff the last word when the chose to
Y
23 file a response to Plaintiffs Supplemental Authority. Plaintiff correctly replied to that
24 response. Throughout this litigation it has been Defendants’ habit to file objections, motions to
25 strike, or attach cross motions to their responses to ensure that they always have the last
26
-1-
PLAINTlFF’S RESPONSE ro BREWER DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION ro i>rA1Nr1EE»s REPLY ro ms SUPPLEMENTAL Aumomrv RE;
r>EA1NrrEEs RESPONSE m o1>1>osmoN ro DEFENDANTS’ Mor1oN EoR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON coum ONE
c 9 2;02-ev-0221 8-BT|\llS|lLSPV` C“Sc>€Sni'é‘?ll‘ESél6“‘NGn‘?h’§T1Al“8/5"l“/$2`0'iJ5“L Page 1 of 3

1 word—a tiresome behavior normally outgrown in grade school. Hence, Defendants have filed
2 an objection to Plaintiff s reply thereby ensuring, once again, that they get the last word.
3 Defendants’ objection reiterates the content of their response to Plaintiff s Supplemental
4 Authority Re: Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary
5 Judgment on Count One. Plaintiff did not ignore the law discussed in Brewer Defendants’
6 response to his supplemental authority. Plaintiff simply pointed out that Defendants were the
7 first to cite Hickersan v. Veliscol Chemical Carp., 778 F.2d 365, 375 (7m Cir. 1985), cert.
8 denied 479 U.S. 815, 107 S.Ct. 70, 93 L.Ed.2d 28 (1986), but that Defendants had incorrectly
9 summarized the import of that case in their reply. If the Court determines that the ERISA
1() section interpreted by Hickerson does not govern the Charles M. Brewer, Ltd. Restated Pension
11 Plan that determination would leave Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and reply
12 legally unsupported on the merger issue.
13 Brewer Defendants allowed Plaintiff the opportunity to reply when they chose to file a
14 response to Plaintiffs Supplemental Authority. Plaintiff correctly replied to that response.
15 Defendants’ objection should be denied.
16
17 SUBMITTED this 17th day of October 2005.
18 STUART J. REILLY, P.C.
19
20 s/ Stuart J. Reilly
Stuart J. Reilly
21 Attorney for Plaintiff
22
23
24
25
26
-2-
"L"é’Elll3?F‘&Sr‘§2E€§J§if%`ZE§S?EZi§“?3lB£iL%?>ll;§l§9'§l5%Z‘;J`r¥F>l'$Z§§‘ElL§{tL°M’£3$?£EE§i&'§S$3§ 2‘éE%‘%‘E§L`£ RE;
c 9 2;o2-cv-0221 8-BT|\W?liBlI€’V' CMtli©%Sn$}§°}iiT2S5l6RlNGfi@€1"i“B/l1R¥lE0Ed€L Page 2 or 3

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
3 I hereby certify that on October 17, 2005, I electronically transmitted the attached doctunent to
the C1erk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of
4 Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:
5 Ed Hendricks, Esq.
Michael K. Dana, Esq.
6 MEYER, HENDRICKS & BIVEN, P.A.
3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
7 Phoenix, AZ 85012
8 Michael Vanic, Esq.
9 C. Frederick Reish, Esq.
REISH LUFTMAN REICHER & COHEN
10 11755 Wilshire Blvd., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90025-1539
11
12 Courtesy copy of the attached document mailed this 17th day of October 2005 to:
13 Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz
United States District Court
14 5160 Courthouse
940 Front Street
15 San Diego, CA 92101
16 s/ Marisa J Reilly
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-3-
1>tAmriEEs RESPONSE ro BREWER DEFENDANTS’ oEJEcr1oN ro i>EA1i~mEE·s REPLY ro ms SUPPLEMENTAL Aumomrv RE;
PLAINTIFPS RESPONSE IN opposmow ro nEEENoANrs~ Morrow FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT on coum ONE
o 9 2:02-cv-0221 8-BT|\lEl}SFV`Cl\5o%3ri?1lbCHfT2$§0RINGIEi1/bIbAllB/Ill7l/?§dll5AL Page 3 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02218-BTM-LSP

Document 220

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02218-BTM-LSP

Document 220

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02218-BTM-LSP

Document 220

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 3 of 3