Free Answer to Amended Complaint - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3
The Phoenix Plaza 21 st Floor 2929 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2794 P.O. Box 36379 Phoenix, Arizona 85067-6379 Telephone Facsimile 602.640.9000 602.640.9050

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

Debra A. Hill, 012186 Ronda R. Fisk, 022100 OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. 2929 North Central Avenue Suite 2100 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2794 (602) 640-9000 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant Ambassador of Global Missions UN Limited IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ESTATE OF JOSEPH J. STUDNEK, by and through its PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, JOSEPH M. STUDNEK, No. CV-04-595 PHX MHM

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND Plaintiff and COUNTERCLAIM OF Counterdefendant DEFENDANT/ COUNTERCLAIMANT v. AMBASSADOR OF GLOBAL MISSIONS UN LIMITED HIS AMBASSADOR OF GLOBAL MISSIONS SUCCESSORS, A CORPORATION SOLE UN LIMITED HIS SUCCESSORS, A CORPORATION SOLE, a Nevada corporation sole; EL SHADDAI MINISTRIES AND HIS SUCCESSORS, A CORPORATION SOLE, a Nevada corporation; SECOND CHANCE CHRISTIAN EVANGELISTIC MINISTRIES, a California corporation; BISHOP OF FAITH VISION NOBLE HOUSE AND HIS SUCCESSORS, A CORPORATION SOLE, a California corporation; JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS and MONICA C. CISNEROS, as husband and wife; WILLIAM JOE LITTLE, JR.; MICHAEL CAMBRA and GLORIA CAMBRA, as husband and wife; JOEL DAVID and CINDY DAVID, as husband and wife; KEITH AARON VANN and TRISHA VANN, as husband and wife, Defendants and Counterclaimant.
Document 75 Filed 12/16/2005 Page 1 of 9

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

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

Defendant/Counterclaimant Ambassador of Global Missions UN Limited His Successors, a Corporation Sole ("Global Missions") answers the Second Amended Complaint ("Complaint") filed by Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Estate of Joseph J. Studnek (the "Estate") and admits, denies, and alleges as follows: 1. Upon information and belief, Defendant Global Missions admits the

allegations of paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 2. Complaint. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Global Missions admits the Defendant Global Missions admits the allegations in paragraph 2 of the

allegations of paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 4. Answering paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions is

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations therein, and therefore denies them. 5. Answering paragraph 5 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions is

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations therein, and therefore denies them. 6. Answering paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions is

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations therein, and therefore denies them. 7. Complaint. 8. Answering paragraph 8 of the Complaint, upon information and belief, Defendant Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 7 of the

Defendant Global Missions admits that Gloria Cambra is the wife of Michael Cambra and denies that Global Missions was involved in "fraudulent schemes." Defendant Global Missions is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations therein, and therefore denies them. 9. Answering paragraph 9 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions

denies that Global Missions or Joseph L. Williams ("Williams") engaged in "fraud
-2-

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

Document 75

Filed 12/16/2005

Page 2 of 9

1118049

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

schemes." Defendant Global Missions is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations therein, and therefore denies them. 10. Answering paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions

denies that Global Missions or Williams engaged in "fraud schemes" or that William Joe Little, Jr. is a successor in interest to Global Missions or Williams. Defendant Global Missions is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations therein, and therefore denies them. 11. Answering paragraph 11 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions

denies that Global Missions or Williams engaged in "fraud schemes." Defendant Global Missions is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations therein, and therefore denies them. 12. Answering paragraph 12 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions

is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations therein, and therefore denies them. 13. Answering paragraph 13 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions

admits that Joseph M. Studnek met with Williams. Defendant Global Missions is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of whether one of Plaintiff's advisors referred Plaintiff to Global Missions, and therefore denies that allegation. Defendant Global Missions denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 13. 14. Answering paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions

admits that Williams told Joseph M. Studnek that Global Missions was connected to worldwide humanitarian efforts, and that donations to Global Missions would be used for such efforts. Defendant Global Missions denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 14. 15. Answering paragraph 15 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions

admits that Plaintiff donated to Defendant Global Missions a building, that the
-3-

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

Document 75

Filed 12/16/2005

Page 3 of 9

1118049

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

building was sold, and that because of Plaintiff's donation, Global Missions retained the net proceeds from the sale, which amounted to $3,377,089.64. Defendant Global Missions is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 15, and therefore denies them. 16. Answering paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions

is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations therein, and therefore denies them. 17. Answering paragraph 17 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions

denies that Global Missions or Williams acted in concert with anyone to perpetuate fraud or received any proceeds from any alleged fraud. Defendant Global Missions is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations therein, and therefore denies them. 18. Answering paragraph 18 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions

denies that Global Missions is a sham organization operated for the purposes of funneling assets as a conduit to another source. Defendant Global Missions further denies that either Global Missions or Williams are an alter ego of any named defendant or that they are individually or collectively liable for the acts of the any named defendants. Defendant Global Missions is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations therein, and therefore denies them. 19. Answering paragraph 19 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions

denies that Global Missions or Williams were involved in a common scheme with any named defendant or that Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of actions of Global Missions or Williams. Defendant Global Missions is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations therein, and therefore denies them.

-4-

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

Document 75

Filed 12/16/2005

Page 4 of 9

1118049

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

20.

Answering paragraph 20 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions

incorporate its answers to paragraphs 1 through 19 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 21. Answering paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions

admits that Plaintiff agreed to convey to Global Missions, among other things, a building whose value above and beyond encumbrances was approximately $3,300,000. Defendant Global Missions denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 21. 22. Answering paragraph 22 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions

is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of whether a tax credit was given, and therefore denies that allegation. Defendant Global Missions denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 22. 23. Complaint. 24. Answering paragraph 24 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions Defendant Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 23 of the

incorporate its answers to paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 25. Answering paragraph 25 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions

admits that Defendant Williams told Joseph M. Studnek that the proceeds of a donation to Global Missions would be used to aid worldwide humanitarian efforts. Defendant Global Missions denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 25. 26. Complaint. 27. Complaint. 28. Complaint. Defendant Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 28 of the Defendant Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 27 of the Defendant Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 26 of the

-5-

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

Document 75

Filed 12/16/2005

Page 5 of 9

1118049

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

29. Complaint. 30. Complaint. 31.

Defendant Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 29 of the

Defendant Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 30 of the

Answering paragraph 31 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions

incorporate its answers to paragraphs 1 through 30 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 32. Complaint. 33. Answering paragraph 33 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions Defendant Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 32 of the

incorporate its answers to paragraphs 1 through 32 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 34. Complaint. 35. Complaint. 36. Answering paragraph 36 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions Defendant Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 35 of the Defendant Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 34 of the

incorporate its answers to paragraphs 1 through 35 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. Defendant Global Missions further denies the allegations of paragraph 36 of the Complaint. 37. Complaint. 38. Answering paragraph 38 of the Complaint, this paragraph contains no Defendant Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 37 of the

factual allegations, but only legal conclusions to which no response is required. 39. Complaint. 40. Answering paragraph 40 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions Defendant Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 39 of the

incorporate its answers to paragraphs 1 through 39 of the Complaint as though fully
-6-

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

Document 75

Filed 12/16/2005

Page 6 of 9

1118049

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

set forth herein. Defendant Global Missions further denies the allegations of paragraph 40 of the Complaint. 41. Defendant Global Missions is without knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 41, and therefore denies them. 42. Answering paragraph 42 of the Complaint, this paragraph contains no

factual allegations, but only legal conclusions to which no response is required. 43. Complaint. 44. Answering paragraph 44 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions Defendant Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 43 of the

incorporate its answers to paragraphs 1 through 43 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. Defendant Global Missions further denies the allegations of paragraph 44 of the Complaint. 45. Defendant Global Missions is without knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 45, and therefore denies them. 46. Answering paragraph 46 of the Complaint, this paragraph contains no

factual allegations, but only legal conclusions to which no response is required. 47. Answering paragraph 47, Defendant Global Missions is without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of whether the Estate received tax credits for the alleged gift and whether the Estate can receive credits for the alleged gift, and therefore denies these allegations. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are not factual allegations, but only legal conclusions to which no response is required. 48. Answering paragraph 48 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions

incorporate its answers to paragraphs 1 through 47 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

-7-

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

Document 75

Filed 12/16/2005

Page 7 of 9

1118049

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

49.

Answering paragraph 49 of the Complaint, Defendant Global Missions

denies that Global Missions or Williams currently hold the proceeds from the sale of the property. Defendant Global Missions denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 49. 50. Defendant Global Missions denies each and every allegation of the First

Amended Complaint not expressly admitted herein. 51. As an affirmative defenses to the Complaint, Defendant Global

Missions allege that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; Plaintiff failed to state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud; Defendant Global Missions' enrichment was justified; and, alternatively, the alleged contract was not in writing and therefore does not satisfy the Statute of Frauds, A.R.S. § 44-101(6). Further, Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by unclean hands. 52. This action arises out of contract. Accordingly Defendant Global

Missions is entitled to reimbursement of their attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and other applicable law. WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Global Missions prays as follows: 1. 2. For the Second Amended Complaint to be dismissed with prejudice. For an award to Defendant Global Missions and of its attorneys' fees

and costs pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and other applicable law. 3. For such other relief as the Court deems just.

DATED this 16th day of December, 2005. OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. By s/ Ronda R. Fisk Debra A. Hill Ronda R. Fisk 2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2794 Attorneys for Defendant/ Counterclaimant Ambassador of Global Missions UN Limited
-8-

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

Document 75

Filed 12/16/2005

Page 8 of 9

1118049

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

I hereby certify that on December 16, 2005, 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:
Bradley D. Weech Jeremy S. Geigle Jackson White 40 N. Center Street, Suite 200 Mesa, AZ 85201 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant [email protected] [email protected]

s/ Lindsay B. Jensen

-9-

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

Document 75

Filed 12/16/2005

Page 9 of 9

1118049