Free Other Notice - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

EXHIBIT 1
Case 2:04—cv—00384-ROS Document 320-2 Filed 05/24/2006 Page 1 of 4 -

1
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT O3d9d2
2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
3
4
MERITAGE CORPORATION, a )
5 Maryland corporation, )
)
6 Plaintiff, )
)
7 vs. ) NO. CV 04-384 PHX—ROS
)
8 RICK HANCOCK, et aI., ) Phoenix, Arizona
) May I, 2006
9 Defendants. ) 3:19 p.m.
)
I O
I I
I2
Q . I 3
I4 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
I5 (Telephonic Discovery Dispute)
I6 BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER
I 7
I 8
I 9
2 O
2 I
Court Reporter: David M. Lee, CSR 9543, RMR, FCRR
22 Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse
401 W. Washington Street
23 Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 322-7245
2 4
Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporter
25 Transcript prepared by computer-aided transcription
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 2:04—cv—00384-ROS Document 320-2 Filed 05/24/2006 Page 2 of 4

65
` ) 1 response is due, if that's okay with your Honor. OM4%4O
2 THE COURT: All right. All counsel are owqmqs
3 experienced in federal court, and you know, under Rule OM4%46
4 l2(b)(l), what constitutes a basis for establishing no OM4%52
5 jurisdiction in federal court. If there is an arguable OM4%57
6 position concerning whether or not a Lanham violation has 0M4&O3
7 occurred, this Court has jurisdiction. In other words, if O4A8dl
8 there are genuine issues of material fact that relate to OM4&l6
9 the legal issue, then there is jurisdiction in this court OM4&2O
lO to determine whether there is a Lanham Act violation. omamzv
11 Now Mr. Frisbee and Mr. Mathew, if you are going O4A8£1
l2 to assert to this Court that the undisputed facts establish O4M8B4
2 13 no jurisdiction, that there was no jurisdiction at the time oqmama
I l4 this cause of action was filed, then the Court will omamqs
l5 consider whether or not I should dismiss the matter because O4AB£4
16 of no subject matter jurisdiction. 0m4msa
17 This matter has been presented to me before, and m;w;m
18 I have ruled that there isn't sufficient evidence to OM4%O4
19 establish that there was no jurisdiction at the time this OM4%O7
2O matter was filed, so again, there must be no material issue O4A9d3
21 of fact that would establish any jurisdiction before this O4A9£l
22 Court. I do not want to see, by either the defendants or Ok4%28
23 the plaintiff, any frivolous argument concerning this. If Ok4&34
24 I did have jurisdiction of this matter, even though it 0M4%39
25 might be resolved against the plaintiffs, then obviously, O4%9A4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 2:04—cv—00384-ROS Document 320-2 Filed 05/24/2006 Page 3 of 4

66
3)
(
` / 1 even if I do resolve it against the plaintiffs, I still omamsi
2 have the option to maintain supplemental jurisdiction. OM4%55
3 There we are. omsmoi
4 MR. MATHEW: Your Honor, this is —- omsmos
5 THE COURT: Now I do not want additional briefing 045OW5
6 on this, if it is something that I have resolved, or if omsmoa
7 it's not within the parameters of what I have set forth, O4£Od2
8 which would constitute an arguable issue concerning whether O4£Od6
9 or not this Court had jurisdiction at the time this matter omsmzz
1O was filed. owsmzv
ll All right. Am I clear, Mr. Goldfine? omsmza
12 MR. GOLDFINE: This is Dan Goldfine for Meritage. 046064
E 13 I guess I'm a bit perplexed. Should I not respond to their 045036
14 motion that's been filed already, or -— OM5M4l
15 THE COURT: You are to respond to it in omsmqa
16 accordance with what I have ordered today. In other words, O4£0A7
17 if you believe that they cannot establish that at the time 046061
18 this matter was filed, in accordance with the Federal Rules 045055
19 of Civil Procedure and federal jurisdiction, that the omsuos
2O Court —— that they —— that this Court did not have omsuos
21 jurisdiction, in other words, they are wrong, then that's 0451Al
22 what you are to point out to the Court. omsniv
23 MR. GOLDFINE: We'll do. cwsnza
24 THE COURT: The resolution of whether or not omsuzq
25 there is a license, if there are genuine issues of material 045125
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 2:04—cv—00384-ROS Document 320-2 Filed 05/24/2006 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 320-2

Filed 05/24/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 320-2

Filed 05/24/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 320-2

Filed 05/24/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 320-2

Filed 05/24/2006

Page 4 of 4