Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Exhibit E (Title page and signature pages of Response to Motion for Summary Judgment)

Case 2:02-cv-02157-SRB

Document 78-8

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 1 of 4

(1:.

CL~RK

1 Jo~'ce
II

3318 West Sierra Vista Drive
AZ 85017

A. Corrales

liE HW

2 IIPhoenix,

Phone: (602) 595-3475 3 II Fax: (602) 864-3389 Plaintiff Pro Per 4 5 6
7
II

05fEB -2 PM10=42

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA COUNTY OF MARICOPA

Joyce Corrales, A.
Plaintiff,
,"s.

Case No. CV2004-007776

8 9

II

j

j
Services,Inc.,
Bank, N.A.

10 IIChaseBankcard

)
~

a Delaware corporation, d.b.a.
Defendant.

11 II Chase Manhattan 12 13 14 I

) ) )

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Hon. Kenneth L. Fields)

)

Plaintiff Joyce A. Corrales (""Corrales") hereby' responds in opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment" ('''Dl\'ISJ'') pursuant to

151 the "'Defendant's

I

16 Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (i'ARCP") Rule 56«' and e).
I

17

II

The Plaintiff has concurrentl"

filed her separate

"Response

to the!

18 II Defendant's Statement of Facts in Support of its Motion for SummaQ-' 19 II udgment, and Additional Facts from Plaintiff," pursuant to ARCP Rule 56(c)2. J

I

20 21

I

I

I

22 II
23
II

There

are disputes

as to material

facts

and defenses

which

should

I

preclude

summary

judgment.

Please see the "Response

to Defendant's

I

24 Ii tatement of Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, etc.'~filed S 25 ' concurrently with this Response pursuant to ARCP Rule 56(c) 2.

26
27

1

A. Summary Judgment Standards
In determining whether there are any factual issues to resolve, the Court
of record in the light most favorable to the party opposing

28 II to view the matters is

Case 2:02-cv-02157-SRB

Document 78-8

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 2 of 4

II

II

1

II

In Thompson, supra, the Arizona Supreme Court reversed a Superior

2 II ourt order directing a verdict of no punitive damages against an employer on I C 3 Ii acts less egregious than those in the instant case. f
4 5
! I
I

6 'j Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, "an employer is vicariously 7 IIiable onl)' for the behavior of an employee who was acting within the course I l

8 II nd scope of his employment." a

Pruitt v. Pavelin, 141 Ariz. 195,205,685
Jaycees "". Superior Court

P.2d

I

9 Ii1347, 1357 (App. 1984); Scottsdale

of Maricopa
I

10 II County, 17 Ariz. App. 571, 574,499 P.2d 185,188 (1972). Fallar v. Compuware 11 II orlh, 202 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1080 (D. Ariz. 2002) (headnote 12). In Arizona, C
12 "[t ]he conduct of a sen'ant is within the scope of'employment if it is of the kind
II

I

13 IIhe employee is emplo~'ed to perform, it occurs substantiall)' t

within the

14 II authorized time and space limit, and it is actuated at least in part by a purpose I

15lito serve the master." Love v. Libertv Mot. Ins. Co., 158 Ariz. 36,38, 760 P.2d
16 111085,1087 (App. 1988). Duncan v. State, 157 Ariz. 56,61, 754 P.2d 1160, 1165
17
/I

I

I

I

(App. 1988).
CBSl's reliance on a holding Smith \'. American Express Tra"vel, 179 The portion of

I

18

19 IIAriz. 131, 135, 136,876 P. 2d 11.66 (App. 1994) is erroneous.

20 II.smith cited b~' CBSI has been overruled b~' the Supreme Court in State Dept.
21 IIof Administration ". Schallock, 189 Ariz. 250,941 P.2d 1275 (1997). 22 I

'

Finall)', CBSI has admitted in its DSOF that l\Ir. Bright "'as acting within
I
I

231the course and scope of his authority as its Vice President wben be
24 lIinierviewed/interrogated
25 I'

Corrales. DSOF paragraphs

1-4,7, and 10. 2005.

RESPECTFULLY

SUBMITTED this 2nd day of Februan', .

I I I I I I I I

26 II 27 28 -9Case 2:02-cv-02157-SRB Document 78-8 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 3 of 4

---

1 IICOPy of this Re!)Jonse transmitted this 3rd dav of Februarv, 2005, to: 2 .. "" "' Hon. Kenneth L. Fields (band-delivered)
U

4

3 Judge, Maricopa County Superior Court
II

Ernest Calderon, Attorney at Law (mailed) 5 112020 North Central Avenue - Suite 1110 -

7

6
9 10

ov e Ith°j;;na -:(;orrales ~O4~ 8"
II

By:

.

(,

t~

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 I 28 -10Case 2:02-cv-02157-SRB Document 78-8 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 4 of 4