Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Case 2:O4—cv—OO384-ROS Document 280-6 Filed O2/24/2006 Page 1 of 4

I FIECIEIVIEII T. BURKE .
I ‘
p I serine ,.,”
< I ` , I., rr
2 sei 1 N. 16"‘ sireeg . JUL 2 6,2%
P 1oenix,.A.1·.i.zona 5016 » ~ Q
2 PIi"lOII€Z (602).279-941 i ACM , J =
Attorneys for Plaintift`Greg1*·la11cocl< . K ‘
4 I .
5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA I
6 IN ANDIFOR TI-IE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
7 GREGORY S. HANCOCK, an I
individual. ‘ _ No. CV 2004-01 7311
8 Plai.11ti.tT, g
9 - vs. )
10 MERITAGE CORPORATION, a i PLAINTIFF’S MOTION T0
Maryland corporation; STEVEN J. CONTINUE-ACTION ON
11 HILTON, an individual; JOHN R. INACTIVE CALENDAR
LANDON, an individual; LARRY W.
12 SEAY, an individual; and SNEILL &
WILMER, L. L.P., an Arizona
13 professional { (Assigned to the I-Ionorable ·
corporation, Nonnan .1. Davis)
14 Deiciidants. g
15
I 16 Plaintii`t" herein, by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule V(e)(2),
17 Uniibrrn Rules of Practice of the Superior Court of Arizona, hereby moves that the Court
18 continue this matter on the inactive Calendar for a period ofnine (9) months, on the grounds
19 and for the following reasons: _
20 I . Tite equivalent o.t`plaintifI”s claims herein are also asserted as counter- and third·
21 party claims in federal court in case number CIV-04~03 84-PI*lX—ROS, Meritage Corporation
22 vs. Greg Hancock, et. al., assigned to Judge Roslyn Silver.
23 2. Greg Hancoela moved {OYSLlI1`l‘1]`l2.117j/‘_lLlClt*:;I`lTl(?·Illl therein for a dismissal ot°l\/Ieritage’s
24 claims, which was denied "wit`hout p.rejud.ice" because of Meritage’s eou.nsel’s tiling of a
25 Rule 56(t) affidavit; the discovery rec] uested ofGreg Hancock has been provided, and he has
26 requested the right to renew his motion for summary judgment.
I CaseI2:O4—cv-003.84-ROS Document 280-6 I Filed O2/24/2006 Page 2 of 4 (

l 3. lt` his summa1y_iudgment is granted, then the federal case will no longer exist and
2 this case will be the only forum for Greg Hancocl<`s claims against these defendants.
3 4. The order of 1 udge Silver which required Greg Hancoclt to dismiss this case with
4 prejuc/ice and to pay fees and costs incurred hy Meritage in this case is the subject of a
5 Petition For Writ of Mandarnus and Prohibition in the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 05-72891,
6 Hancock v. USDOAZP, which was filed on May 10, 2005; the Ninth Circuit has not yet
7 invited responses from tliejudge or other parties, and has as yet made no indication ol`how
8 it is going to handle the matter. . .
9 ` 5. The Ninth Circu.it’s ruling may have sonic effect on this case, although counsel
10 cannot predict at this point what such effect might bc. I _
11 6. The discovery which has occurred in the federal court would be relevant in this
12 case. h 1
13 7. There would be no prejudice to defendants by allowing this case to exist until such
14 time as the federal issues are resolved.
15 This case is subject to a 150 Day Order which schedules it to be dismissed pursuant
16 to Rule 38..1 on or after 8/4/2005 unless a motion to continue it on the inactive calendar is
17 brought. U A
18 ln the event this motion is granted, the Motion to Set and Certiiicate of Readiness
19 would be due on May 2, 2006. l
20 This motion is supported by the attached Declaration of Robert M. Frisbee.
21 Rl%lS`Pl£iC1`1?`lJl,loY SUBMlT'I`ED this 26* `*·- day of October, 2004.
22
23 FRISBEE & BCDSTOCK, PLC
24 I _
25 eax? (i.j;jjQ.-..-.-..---_.__...
- Robert MTFrisEE`€ .
26 Attorney for Plaintiff
. l Case 2:04—cv—00384#FiOS Document 28046 Filed 02/24/2006 Page 3 of 4 . - h

1 DECLARATION OF ROBERT M,. FRISBEE
2 I, Robert M. Frisbee, one ofthe attorneys for Pleintiff`Greg Hancock, do declare and
3 state that the ihcts stated in the foregoing Motion are true and correct.
4 DATED this ’ZL¤l—- day ofJt1ly, 2005.
5
yv ,
6 _ 5/ (,. Ah. LN ...`_._. _
7 · `iYTIs`l5€ie ''''”` i ’''```' i `'`'
8 . I -
- n ORIGINAL of the foregoing filed ‘ I
9 and COPIES served this ’Z&>v»day
O ofluly, 2005, on;
1
l~Iono.rable.Nor1na11 J. Davis
11 Maricopa County Sugerior Court
20l W. Jefferson (C B8, Room 703
12 Phoenix, AZ.85003—22 5
13 Kenneth . Sherk, Esq. ll
Timothy]. Burke, Esq.
14 FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C.
3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 2600
15 Phoenix, AZ, 850122913
Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant _
16 Snell & Wilmer, P.C.
17 Dan W. Goldfine, Esq. n
Richard (3. lirickson, Esq. `
18 SNELL & WILMER, LLP
, One Arizona Center
19 400 Van Buren
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 ·
. 20 Attorneys for Defendants A
21
. 22 I {_ _... ,,_, (,\__ KL, ·· » A
23 “““““‘“‘“"”°”—"""""*"‘“‘"`f""`“"“ .
24 E
25
· 26
. 3 A I
A ‘ _ Case 2:O4—cv—OO384—,ROS Doo-ument,280-6 Filed O2/24/2006 Page 4 of‘4 · n

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 280-6

Filed 02/24/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 280-6

Filed 02/24/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 280-6

Filed 02/24/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 280-6

Filed 02/24/2006

Page 4 of 4