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 Joseph Williams and 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, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant v. AMBASSADOR OF GLOBAL MISSIONS UN LIMITED HIS SUCCESSORS, A CORPORATION SOLE, a Nevada corporation sole; JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS and JANE DOE WILLIAMS, husband and wife; WILLIAM JOE LITTLE, JR. and JANE DOE LITTLE, husband and wife, Defendants and Counterclaimant. Defendant/Counterclaimant Ambassador of Global Missions UN Limited His Successors, a Corporation Sole ("Global Missions"), answers the First 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, Global Missions admits the allegations of No. CV-04-595 PHX MHM ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM OF DEFENDANT/ COUNTERCLAIMANT AMBASSADOR OF GLOBAL MISSIONS UN LIMITED HIS SUCCESSORS, A CORPORATION SOLE

paragraph 1 of the Complaint.

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

Document 60

Filed 08/17/2005

Page 1 of 8

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

2.

Answering paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Global Missions Global

Missions alleges that its true corporate name is "Ambassador of Global Missions UN Limited His Successors, a Corporation Sole," and that it is a Nevada corporation sole. Global Missions admits the remaining allegations in paragraph 2. 3. Answering paragraph 3 of the Complaint, Global Missions admits that

Defendant Joseph L. Williams is an Ambassador of Global Missions. Global Missions denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 3. 4. Answering paragraph 4 of the Complaint, 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, Global Missions admits that

Joseph M. Studnek met with Defendant Williams. Global Missions is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of whether one of Plaintiff's advisers referred Plaintiff to Global Missions, and therefore denies that allegation. Global Missions denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 5. 6. Answering paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Global Missions admits that

Defendant 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. Global Missions denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 6. 7. Answering paragraph 7 of the Complaint, Global Missions admits that

Plaintiff donated to Defendant Global Missions a building, that the building was sold, and that because of Plaintiffs donation, Global Missions retained the net proceeds from the sale, which amounted to $3,377,089.64. Global Missions is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 7, and therefore denies them. 8. Answering paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Global Missions is without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations therein, and therefore denies them.
Document 60
-2-

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

Filed 08/17/2005

Page 2 of 8

1039244

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

9.

Answering paragraph 9 of the Complaint, Global Missions incorporates

its answers to paragraphs 1 through 8 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 10. Answering paragraph 10 of the Complaint, 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. Global Missions denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 10. 11. Answering paragraph 11 of the Complaint, 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. Global Missions denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 11. 12. Complaint. 13. Answering paragraph 13 of the Complaint, Global Missions Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 12 of the

incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 14. Answering paragraph 14 of the Complaint, 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. Global Missions denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 14. 15. Complaint. 16. Complaint. 17. Complaint. 18. Complaint.
Document 60
-3-

Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 15 of the

Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 16 of the

Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 17 of the

Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 18 of the

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

Filed 08/17/2005

Page 3 of 8

1039244

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

19. Complaint. 20.

Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 19 of the

Answering paragraph 20 of the Complaint, Global Missions

incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 19 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 21. Complaint. 22. Complaint. 22. Answering paragraph 22 of the Complaint, Global Missions Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 22 of the Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 21 of the

incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 21 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 23. Complaint. 24. Complaint. 25. Answering paragraph 25 of the Complaint, Global Missions Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 24 of the Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 23 of the

incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 24 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. Global Missions further denies the allegations of paragraph 25 of the Complaint. 26. Complaint. 27. Answering paragraph 27 of the Complaint, this paragraph contains no Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 26 of the

factual allegations, but only legal conclusions to which no response is required. 28. Complaint. 29. Answering paragraph 29 of the Complaint, Global Missions Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 28 of the

incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 28 of the Complaint as though fully
Document 60
-4-

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

Filed 08/17/2005

Page 4 of 8

1039244

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. Global Missions further denies the allegations of paragraph 29 of the Complaint. 30. Global Missions is without knowledge or information sufficient to form

a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 30, and therefore denies them. 31. Answering paragraph 31 of the Complaint, this paragraph contains no

factual allegations, but only legal conclusions to which no response is required. 32. Complaint. 33. Answering paragraph 33 of the Complaint, Global Missions Global Missions denies the allegations of paragraph 32 of the

incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 32 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. Global Missions further denies the allegations of paragraph 33 of the Complaint. 34. Global Missions is without knowledge or information sufficient to form

a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 34, and therefore denies them. 35. Answering paragraph 35 of the Complaint, this paragraph contains no

factual allegations, but only legal conclusions to which no response is required. 36. Answering paragraph 36, 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. 37. Global Missions denies each and every allegation of the First Amended

Complaint not expressly admitted herein. 38. As an affirmative defense to the Complaint, Global Missions alleges

that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Further, Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by unclean hands.
Document 60
-5-

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

Filed 08/17/2005

Page 5 of 8

1039244

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

39.

This action arises out of contract. Accordingly Global Missions is

entitled to reimbursement of its attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and other applicable law. WHEREFORE, having fully answered the First Amended Complaint, Global Missions prays as follows: 1. 2. For the First Amended Complaint to be dismissed with prejudice. For an award to Global Missions 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. COUNTERCLAIM Defendant/Counterclaimant Global Missions, for its counterclaim against Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Estate of Joseph J. Studnek, alleges as follows: 1. sole. 2. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Joseph M. Defendant/Counterclaimant Global Missions is a Nevada corporation

Studnek is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona, and is personal representative of the Estate. 3. The acts and events giving rise to this cause of action occurred in

Maricopa County, Arizona. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this District. 4. In or around March 2003, Joseph M. Studnek, acting in his capacity of

personal representative of the Estate, agreed to transfer to Global Missions all assets in the Estate that existed as of the date of the Agreement. In exchange, Global Missions agreed to provide to Studnek a letter recognizing that the Estate had transferred such assets. 5. The Estate did transfer one piece of property to Global Missions and

Global Missions has provided the Estate with the promised letter with respect to that property.

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

Document 60

-6-

Filed 08/17/2005

Page 6 of 8

1039244

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

6.

Despite Global Missions' demands, however, Joseph M. Studnek, as

personal representative of the Estate, has refused to transfer to Global Missions the remaining assets in the Estate. Moreover, upon information and belief, Joseph M. Studnek, acting as personal representative of the Estate, has transferred the remaining assets of the Estate to other entities. COUNT I Breach of Contract 7. Global Missions realleges each and every allegations of Paragraphs 1

through 8 of this Counterclaim as though fully set forth herein. 8. The Estate entered into a contract to transfer Global Missions all assets

in the Estate at the time of the Agreement. 9. Although the Estate has transferred one piece of property to Global

Missions, the Estate has refused to transfer the additional assets in the Estate at the time the contract. Thus the Estate has breached its contract with Global Missions. 10. 11. Global Missions has suffered damages as a result of the Estate's breach. Global Missions has incurred and will incur attorneys fees and costs in

prosecuting this claim and is entitled to reimbursement pursuant to A.R.S. § 12341.01 and other applicable law. WHEREFORE, Global Missions prays as follows: 1. For the Court's judgment that the Estate has breached its contract with

Global Missions; 2. at trial; 3. For an award to Global Missions of its attorneys fees and costs pursuant For an award of damages to Global Missions in an amount to be proven

to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and other applicable law; and 4. For any other relief that this Court deems just.

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

Document 60

-7-

Filed 08/17/2005

Page 7 of 8

1039244

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

DATED this 17th day of August, 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

I hereby certify that on August 17, 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 Jackson White 40 N. Center Street, Suite 200 Mesa, AZ 85201 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant [email protected]

/s/ Lindsay B. Jensen

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

Document 60

-8-

Filed 08/17/2005

Page 8 of 8

1039244