Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Case 2:O4—cv—OO384-ROS Document 280-5 Filed O2/24/2006 Page 1 of 3

F|l.ED..........LODGED-...-.-..
S1 Wll1Tr€1° aactrvm c¤r>v._.....
L.L.R —-— mozmx. Anizowi
uwomcss _
One Center 9. [email protected]
Ph¤emx,Ai·u¤m 85004-2202 CLEHn tial .;z;i I mr} A‘2` COURT
(6()2)382,6qx) msmncrj or ARHONA mm M
Fax: (602) 38L6070 SALTLAKECITY, Lmu-i
wwwswlavmcom
DENVEIAXDLORADO
Emma C. Harty U\svmAS'NEvADA
602-382-6347
[email protected] March 21, 2005
VIA HAND-DELIVERY
Honorable Roslyn O. Silver
United States District Court
Sandra Day O'Com1or U.S. Courthouse, Suite 624
401 West Washington Street, SPC 59
Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2158
Re: Meritage Corp. v. Greg Hancock and Rick Hancock, et al.
Case N 0. CV-04-0384-PHX-ROS
Dear Judge Silver:
Pursuant to your order, Meritage submits the following position paper regarding
Defendant Greg Hancock’s counsel’s, Mr. Frisbee’s, statute of limitation concems. During the
March 11, 2005 hearing, Mr. Frisbee asserted that he needed to file a separate state action due to
statute of limitations concems regarding the "malicious interference" issue. Hearing Transcript
at 52:4-6. However, no malicious interference claims were filed in the state action.
Accordingly, Meritage is unable to fully respond to Mr. Frisbee’s claim.
Nevertheless, Meritage contends that Mr. Frisbee’s statute of limitations concems are
unsubstantiated. For, under Arizona’s savings law:
If an action is commenced within the time limited for the action,
andthe action is terminated in any marmer other than by
abatement, voluntary dismissal, dismissal for lack of prosecution
or a final judgment on the merits, the plaintiff] or a successor or
personal representative, may commence a new action for the same
cause after the expiration of the time so limited and within six
months alter such termination.
. _ _ _ 2 0-5 F`Ied O2/24/2006 Page 2 of 3
1 650267·lCaS9 2 Cgncq Q.%§lé.1eiEEgDm§mber cif%(g(Cr?AlU|l[;i,2 Ilcigdingassociation of iridepcndent law firms.

· Snell &Wilmer
-—-L 1..L.n —-
Honorable Roslyn O. Silver
March 21, 2005
Page 2
A.R.S. § 12-504. Thus, if Greg Hancock had originally filed his counterclaims in the Federal
action and the action was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, Greg Hancock could refile his
claims in state court without facing a statute of limitations bar.
Respectfully submitted,
Snell & Wilmer in n
Emma C. Harty
. _ - F`I d O2/24/2006 Pa e 3 of 3
Issompase 2.04-cv-00384 ROS Document 280 5 ne g

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 280-5

Filed 02/24/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 280-5

Filed 02/24/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 280-5

Filed 02/24/2006

Page 3 of 3