Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 40 North Center, Suite 200 4 Mesa, Arizona 85201 (480) 464-1111 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff By: Bradley D. Weech, Bar No. 011135 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. CIV-04-595 PHX MHM PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO WILLIAMS' AND CAMBRA'S MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER Assigned to the Honorable: Mary H. Murguia

9 ESTATE OF JOSEPH J. STUDNEK, by and through its PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, 10 JOSEPH M. STUDNEK, 11 12 v. Plaintiff/Counterdefendant,

13 AMBASSADOR OF GLOBAL MISSIONS UN LIMITED AND HIS SUCCESSORS, A 14 CORPORATION SOLE, a Nevada corporation; EL SHADDAI MINISTRIES 15 AND HIS SUCCESSORS, A CORPORATION SOLE, a Nevada 16 Corporation; SECOND CHANCE CHRISTIAN EVANGELISTIC 17 MINISTRIES, a California corporation; BISHOP OF FAITH VISION NOBLE 18 HOUSE AND HIS SUCCESSORS, A CORPORATION SOLE, a California 19 corporation; JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS and MONICA C. CISNEROS, as husband and 20 wife; WILLIAM JOE LITTLE, JR.; MICHAEL CAMBRA and GLORIA 21 CAMBRA, as husband and wife; JOEL DAVID and CINDY DAVID, as husband and 22 wife; KEITH AARON VANN and TRISHA VANN, as husband and wife, 23 Defendants/Counterclaimants. 24 Plaintiff, Estate of Joseph J. Studnek ("Studnek"), responds to Williams' and Cambra's 25 Motions to Reconsider. As directed by this Court, this response is a combined response to both 26 Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM Document 214 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 1 of 9

1 Williams' and Cambra's Motions to Reconsider and not a response to other documents filed by 2 them. Further, as best possible, it is limited to only those portions of Williams' and Cambra's 3 filings that can be identified as related to their Motions for Reconsideration. Their filings are 4 combined motions to reconsider, motions to dismiss and other arguments. They are confusing at 5 best, and contain many intermingled, irrelevant and settled arguments. This response is intended 6 to be Plaintiff's best effort at discerning those portions that are, or would be considered, a part of 7 motions to reconsider, and responding to same. 8 9 1. 10 11 Williams' and Cambra's Motions to Reconsider Fail Under the Standards for Such Motions. Williams and Cambra both incorrectly request reconsideration under a variety of wrong and However, a motion seeking

12 inapplicable rules (perhaps all related to their other motions).

13 reconsideration is appropriately brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Backlund v. 14 Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9 th Cir. 1985). Reconsideration is only appropriate if: (1) the court 15 is presented with newly discovered, previously unavailable, evidence; (2) the court committed a 16 clear error of law and the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) there has been an intervening 17 change in controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. IJ, Multnomah County, Or. v. AC and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 18 1255, 1262 (9 th Cir. 1993); United States ex rel Conveyor Rental & Sales Co. V. Aetna Casualty and 19 Surety Co., 1991 WL 495733, *1 (D. Ariz. 1991). Such a motion, however, may not be used to re20 litigate old matters or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to 21 entry of judgment. See, e.g., Fed. Deposit Ins. Agency v. World Univ., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1 st Cir. 22 1992); accord Backlund, 778 F.2d at 1388; 1 Wright, Miller, & Kane, Federal Practice and 23 Procedure; Civil 2d § 2810.1 at 127-28 24 Williams and Cambra do not allege that the controlling law has changed since this Court

25 issued its April 11, 2007 Order. Nor do they appear to argue that this Court committed a clear error 26 Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM 2 Document 214 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 2 of 9

1 of law and that the initial decision was manifestly unjust. Nor do they argue anywhere that there 2 is any newly discovered and previously unavailable evidence. In fact, even their power of attorney 3 argument concedes that they always had the power of attorney since April, 2003, i.e. for over four 4 years. Rather, their motions are attempts to re-litigate old matters that have already been decided. 5 6 7 2. 8 9 Williams' and Cambra's Power of Attorney Argument is Without Basis in Fact and/or Law - And, is therefor Sanctionable. Even if Williams' and Cambra's power of attorney argument was newly discovered and Their motions must be denied.

10 previously unavailable evidence, it fails on its face. 11 Williams and Cambra both argue that an April 15, 2003 Power of Attorney negates the

12 September 19, 2006 Settlement Agreement, apparently claiming that it deprives this Court of 13 jurisdiction. But, assuming this is part of their Motion for Reconsideration, they are clearly wrong. 14 15 First, neither Williams nor Cambra cite any authority for any portion of their argument. Second, jurisdiction and venue for the filing of the initial filing of the case is not the same

16 as the jurisdiction of this Court to enforce a settlement agreement entered into by the Settling 17 Defendants1 who were present in Arizona, and in this Court's own chambers, when they entered into 18 the Settlement Agreement. As the Court noted, the Settling Defendants were given adequate, and 19 even written, notice that they did not have to settle if they chose not to do so. 20 21 22
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
1

As set forth in the Settlement Document, Exhibit "C" to the Estate's Motion, and the

23 September 19, 2006 transcript of the Settlement Conference, the Settling Defendants include the following: 24 25 26 Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM 3 Document 214 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 3 of 9
Ambassador of Global Missions Un Limited and His Successors, a Corporation Sole ("Global Missions") Joseph L. Williams ("Williams") El Shaddai Ministries and its Successors, a Corporation Sole ("El Shaddai") Second Chance Christian Evangelistic Ministries ("Second Chance"), and Michael J. Cambra ("Cambra")

1

Third, Williams and Cambra cite no authority that a power of attorney takes from the

2 Principal of that power of attorney, the right to continue to act for itself. To the contrary, a power 3 of attorney is a written grant by the principal to the agent of defined authority to act on behalf of 4 the principal and nothing more. It does not remove from the Principal, the Principal's right to act 5 for itself. 6 Fourth, it is nonsense to argue that a principal could ever transfer the principal's right to

7 claim that the agent breached its obligations to the principal. If so, then the agent would be free to 8 breach its obligations to the principal with impunity i.e. the principal would have no right to enforce 9 the agent's obligations, seek damages for improper conduct and/or seek damages for fraudulent 10 inducement to grant the power of attorney in the first place. In this case specifically, Williams' and 11 Cambra's argument is that once Plaintiff gave the power of attorney, it was powerless to ensure that 12 the authority granted was exercised appropriately. In fact, their argument is that the agent, Global 13 Missions, was the only one that could authorize a lawsuit against itself. That is just pure nonsense, 14 and totally unsupported by any authority. 15 And, finally, the power of attorney does not say what Williams and Cambra claim. They

16 argue that the power of attorney gives Global Missions AND Williams the exclusive right to sue 17 themselves on behalf of the Estate. Well, as noted above, if that were the case, then, obviously, they 18 would not sue themselves. However, the absurdity of this argument is not even supported by the 19 power of attorney itself. A copy of the SPECIAL AND LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY is 20 attached as Exhibit "A" for the Court's ease of reference in relation to the following discussion. 21 First, the power of attorney attached to Mr. Williams' April 9, 2007 Request for Judicial

22 Notice is specifically titled a "SPECIAL AND LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY". 23 Second, it does not grant Mr. Williams anything. The Limited Power of Attorney was

24 granted only to Global, not to Mr. Williams personally. And, Global has not objected to the 25 enforcement of the Settlement Agreement. 26 Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM 4 Document 214 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 4 of 9

1

Third, the power granted was limited to "act as my representative and assist in the donation

2 of my proceeds", and that's all. In fact, the document then gave "express permission" as to who 3 Global Missions could even talk with. Obviously, allowing Global to act as a representative did not 4 deny Plaintiff the right to sue the agent, Global, for improper conduct. And, to "assist" requires that 5 others, including the Principal may be involved in the donation of proceeds. And, express 6 permission to talk to a defined list of people and entities was included. So, conversely, outside of 7 the express grant of agency authority granted by the power of attorney, no other authority was 8 granted. And, certainly, neither Global, Mr. Williams, Mr. Cambra or any other of the Settling 9 Defendants were granted the exclusive authority to cause Plaintiff to sue the Settling Defendants. 10 Williams' and Cambra's arguments that Williams was so endowed with such authority violates Rule 11 11, FRCP i.e. there is no factual or legal basis for the claim. 12 In conclusion, the power of attorney was limited, at best. It was not given to Mr. Williams,

13 but rather to Global Mission, and Global Missions has not objected to Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce 14 Settlement and has not filed a motion for reconsideration, or any other relevant motion, for that 15 matter. The Power of Attorney does not even attempt to limit the Estate's right to sue the Settling 16 Defendants or to enforce the Settlement Agreement. And, it certainly does not grant Williams, 17 Global or anyone else, the sole right to decide to sue themselves. 18 19 3. 20 21 Williams and Cambra May Not Argue for the Other Parties and Should be Further Sanctioned for Ignoring This Court's Order and Clear Law. Both Williams and Cambra still continue to argue for other parties despite this Court's Order

22 instructing and directing that they are not allowed to do so. Those arguments should be stricken and 23 denied. And, Williams and Cambra should be further sanctioned for ignoring this Court's explicit 24 orders and relevant case law. 25 26 Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM 5 Document 214 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 5 of 9

1

In Plaintiff's reply and in the Court's April 11, 2007 Order the inappropriateness of

2 Williams' and Cambra's attempt to argue for others was clearly set out. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ..... 23 24 25 26 Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM 6 Document 214 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 6 of 9 During a December 6, 2006 hearing, pursuant to defense counsel Debra Ann Hill and Ronda R. Fisk's request and Ms. Hill's sealed affidavit, the Court granted defense counsel's Motion to Withdraw as counsel from their representation of Mr. Cambra, Global Missions, El Shaddai, and Second Chance. During the hearing, the Court specifically directed Mr. Cambra and Mr. Williams as the sole representatives And, in this Court's April 11, 2007, the Court expressly stated and instructed as follows: However, neither Ambassador of Global Mission UN Limited ("Global Missions"), a Nevada sole corporation headed by Mr. Williams; El Shaddai Ministries and his Successors, A Corporation `Sole ("El Shaddai") headed by Mr. Cambra; nor Second Chance Christian Evangelistic Ministries ("Second Chance"), a California corporations (sic) also headed by Mr. Cambra, have filed an opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement. Mr. Williams and Mr. Cambra are not legal counsel for these entities and their attempts to file documents on their behalf are inappropriate and must be stricken. (Cambra and Williams filed documents entitled Request for Judicial Notice, now arguing that, in contravention of Judge Duncan's June 21, 2006 Order and their clear representations of authority in the September 19, 2006 Settlement Conference transcript, they were not authorized to settle for their three corporate entities - see below.) In Plaintiff's January 22, 2007 reply, Plaintiff explained the following: First, three of the Settling Defendants have not filed any response to the Estate's motion, and thus, the motion should be granted summarily against (1) Ambassador of Global Missions Un Limited and His Successors, a Corporation Sole, (2) El Shaddai Ministries and His Successors, a Corporation Sole, and (3) Second Chance Christian Evangelistic Ministries.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

of corporate defendants Global Missions (Mr. Williams), and El Shaddai and Second Chance (Mr. Cambra) to retain counsel as soon as possible. To date, no appearances have been made by new counsel for either Global Missions, El Shaddai, or Second Chance. Also during the December 6, 2006 hearing, the Court granted Defendants an extension of time until January 11, 2007 to respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement. Defendants claimed the need for an extension based on their need to find and hire new corporate counsel. ..... Defendants Global Missions, El Shaddai, and Second Chance have not filed an opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement. Nor has an attorney filed a notice of appearance on behalf of any of these corporate entities since the Court granted previous counsel's Motion for Leave to Withdraw in December 2006. Ths is true despite the Court's strong advisement to Mr. Williams and Mr. Cambra that corporate Defendants must be represented by counsel. See Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202, 113 S.Ct. 716, 721 (1993)(holding that a "corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.") As noted by Plaintiff and as determined, instructed and even directed by the Court, Williams

12 13

and Cambra cannot represent the other Settling Defendants. 2 Their continued and repetitive attempts to do so should be stricken and/or denied, and they should be sanctioned for doing so.

14 15 4. 16 17 Those Portions of Williams' and Cambra's Filings Outside of Their Requests For Reconsideration Must be Stricken Williams and Cambra have filed various additional documents, most of which are renewed

18 attempts to continue the litigation that was settled on September 19, 2006 before the Honorable 19 Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan. Further, this Court has found and ordered that the September 20 19, 2006 settlement was a fully enforceable settlement entered on the Court's record, as provided 21 by Local Rule 83.7 (as noted and quoted at page 2 of Plaintiff's reply to the motion to enforce). 22 Further, this Court then found that "The terms of the written settlement agreement [attached to 23 Plaintiff's motion to enforce] track the transcript of the settlement conference." (April 11, 2007 24 25
2

Mr. Cambra may represent his marital community, as he did at the settlement conference and as

26 he has done in his strenuous arguments against Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce. Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM 7 Document 214 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 7 of 9

1 Order, page 13, lines 6-7.) And, the Court has granted judgment to Plaintiff based on the breach 2 of the settlement agreement by the defendant parties' refusal to sign and perform the terms thereof. 3 Finally, this Court has already found against the Settling Defendants on all of the arguments

4 which they have just repeated again in their recent filings. Thus, for the sake of brevity, Plaintiff 5 incorporates its Motion to Enforce and all of its subsequent replies related thereto. 6 ///// 7 ///// 8 ///// 9 10 In light of the September 19, 2007 settlement agreement and this Court's findings, Williams'

11 and Cambra's attempts to continue argument about claims that have been compromised and settled 12 is entirely without merit.3 13 14 15 5. 16 Mr. Cambra's argument about Mrs. Cambra is a Red Hearing. Mr. Cambra continues to argue that the Court's Order must be modified with regard to his These rehashed arguments must be stricken, denied or otherwise ruled against.

17 wife. But, Mr. Cambra negotiated for the dismissal of his wife and community from the obligations 18 of the Settlement Agreement. Whether or not she had been served became moot when the Estate 19 agreed to dismiss her as part of the Settlement Agreement. And that is the way the written 20 Settlement Agreement was prepared. There is no need to modify the Court's April 11, 2007 Order 21 or the written Settlement Agreement. 22 Nonetheless, since the September 19, 2006 Settlement Agreement, Mr. Cambra has argued

23 on behalf of himself, his community and Mrs. Cambra. And, while Mrs. Cambra, individually, may 24 25 26
For example, claims that (1) Plaintiff does not have standing to maintain the underlying action, (2) Plaintiff's claims are not ripe, (3) jurisdiction and venue for the claims in Plaintiff's complaint is lacking or inappropriate, or (4) that Plaintiff's complaint fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted.
3

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

8 Document 214

Filed 05/17/2007

Page 8 of 9

1 not be subject to the attorneys fees and costs to be awarded as part of the judgment (because Mr. 2 Cambra cannot represent her), certainly Mr. Cambra and his marital community are subject thereto. 3 4 6. 5 Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, Williams and Cambra's Motions for Reconsideration not only fail,

6 but both should be sanctioned, even beyond the award of Plaintiff's fees and costs already awarded. 7 Otherwise, it is clear that they will simply continue to abuse the Court system and those they engage 8 in litigation with. As noted in a prior filing, Mr. Williams has already been labeled a vexatious 9 litigant by the California Superior Court. And, Mr. Cambra's motions filed with this Court reflect 10 that both of them are working together4 to file duplicative and baseless filings with this Court, and 11 thus abusing this Court's resources as well as the Plaintiff. They even use the same address on their 12 pleadings. 13 14 15 16 17 Dated this 17 th day of May, 2007. JACKSON WHITE, P.C. By: /s/ Bradley D. Weech Bradley D. Weech Attorneys for Plaintiff

18 I hereby certify that 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 19 CM/ECF registrants, and mailed a copy of same to any non-registrants on May 17, 2007: 20 Honorable Mary H. Murguia 401 W. Washington 21 Phoenix, AZ 85003 22 By: /s/ Aaron Terryl Weech 23 24 25 26
4 F:\STU\Studnek, Joe\Global Missions\Pldgs\Response to Motions to Reconsider.wpd

Joseph L. Williams and Michael Cambra 15934 Hesperian Blvd., P.M.B. 311 San Lorenzo, CA 94580

They even use the same address and telephone number in their filings.

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM

9 Document 214

Filed 05/17/2007

Page 9 of 9