Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Mark F. Brinton (SBA 7674) Law Offices of Mark F. Brinton 1745 South Alma School Road, Suite 100 Mesa, AZ 85210-3010 (480) 756-2256 Counsel for Plaintiff Joyce Corrales IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF ARIZONA Joyce Corrales, No. CIV 02-2157 PHX-SRB Plaintiff, vs. Chase Bankcard Services, Inc. Defendant PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND REQUEST FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION

Plaintiff Joyce A. Corrales, through her undersigned counsel, hereby responds in opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike and Request for Summary Disposition. A) But for irregularities in the Pacer ECF System, Plaintiff's Response/Statement of Facts would have been filed timely But for the Pacer program's inexplicable refusal to accept the undersigned's password on the evening of 30 June 2006, Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Defendant's Statement

Case 2:02-cv-02157-SRB

Document 80

Filed 07/26/2006

Page 1 of 3

of Facts would have been timely filed. Late on the evening of 30 June 2006, the undersigned, through his paralegal Roger McKee, attempted to file electronically the aforementioned pleadings. (The Pacer program has a history of rejecting the subject password.) Nevertheless, McKee's inability to file the pleadings late on the evening of Friday night, June 30, caused him to fax them to the undersigned starting at 11:53 pm later that night. Ultimately, as the undersigned indicated in Exhibit C to his Second Amended Motion to Withdraw, he left the pleadings with neighboring attorney Bill Richardson at 11:40 am on Saturday, July 1, with a request that he electronically file them with the Court, and with the reasonable expectation that he comply with that request. (The undersigned delayed his family's July 4th week-end - with the intended departure time of 7:00 am, Saturday, July 1 - in order to address the snafu of his client's signature, and finally left his office at 11:40 am, as indicated.) The undersigned learned on Sunday, July 2, while with his family in Greer, Arizona, that Richardson had declined to file the pleadings. Upon returning to his office on Wednesday, July 5, the undersigned explained the facts to M s. Klepper and faxed the pleadings to her, ultimately filing them electronically on Friday, July 7, via the scanner within the office of the Clerk of the Court. Moreover, absent from Defendant's Motion is any claim that it has been prejudiced by the late filing because Ms. Klepper knows that with her generously granting additional time for Plaintiff to file her pleadings, Plaintiff would
2

Case 2:02-cv-02157-SRB

Document 80

Filed 07/26/2006

Page 2 of 3

have been pleased to grant any such request from Defendant. Accordingly, the circumstances described above do not warrant the Court's striking the pleadings as untimely. B) No facts warrant the Court's perceiving any fraud by Plaintiff. Devoid of any legal support, Defendant claims that the suspicious nature of Plaintiff's signature warrants this Court's striking her pleadings. Defendant's claim is without merit. In Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 2006 WL 1843400, our Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the notion that a forged signature constituted a fraud on the court. (See attached copy of Latshaw.) Conclusion Based on the circumstances and case law cited above, Defendant's Motion to Strike and Request for Summary Disposition are without merit. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to deny them. DATED THIS 26TH day of July 2006, Law Office of Mark F. Brinton By /s/ Mark F. Brinton The foregoing electronically filed this 26th day of July 2006 /s/ Mark F. Brinton

3

Case 2:02-cv-02157-SRB

Document 80

Filed 07/26/2006

Page 3 of 3