Free Other Notice - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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

RICHARD J. MCDANIEL, P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW 11811 N. TATUM BLVD., SUITE 1051 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85028 Telephone (602) 953-8721 FAX (602) 953-8731 Richard J. McDaniel #013329 Attorney for Defendants Woodcock IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Case No. CIV 04-78-FJM SHIMKO & PISCITELLI, Plaintiff, v. PAUL and BOBBI WOODCOCK, et. al. Defendants. NOTICE OF FILING OMITTED EXHIBITS

The Woodcocks have attached Ex. C, which was inadvertently omitted from the Woodcocks Notice of Non-Opposition to Motion to Continue Trial, Motion to Compel, and Motion for Sanctions. Exhibit C is a copy of Shimko's March 4, 2003 letter to Defendants in which Shimko states that he received 5 checks totaling $112,500 which bounced. Also attached is a copy of Woodcock's counsel's letter of June 28, 2007 to Shimko in which counsel attempted to resolve the discovery dispute by again demanding a complete accounting of all funds and payments Shimko received. Dated this 11th day of August 2008.

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

1 Document 232

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 1 of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 Electronically to: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 /s/ Rich McDaniel Copy mailed this 11th day of August 2008 to: David and Rhona Goldfarb 11437 N. 53 rd Place Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Pro Per

RICHARD J. MCDANIEL ATTORNEY AT LAW By /s/ Rich McDaniel Richard J. McDaniel 11811 N. Tatum, #1051 Phoenix, AZ 85028 Attorney for Defendants Woodcock

Timothy Shimko & Associates 2010 Huntington Building 925 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Roger Cohen JABURG & WILK 3200 N. Central, 20 th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85012-2440 Attorney for Ross

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

2 Document 232

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 2 of 16

RICHARD J. MCDANIEL

June 27, 2008

David Welling Timothy Shimko Timothy Shimko & Associates 2010 Huntington Building 925 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Re: Shimko v. Woodcock, et. al. Dear David and Tim: Pursuant to my earlier interrogatories and requests for production and the Arizona Rules of Disclosure, please provide me with a complete accounting showing all payments you/your firm received; the nature of the payment (wire transfer, check, etc.); the date of the payment; the bank or financial institution from which the payment was drawn and the one into which it was deposited; and how these payments were credited to payment of your firm's bills and/or loan repayment. Please identify and explain in detail any checks, wire transfers, or other payments that you contend had insufficient funds. Please provide evidence that there were insufficient funds and these were returned not honored by your bank. I also need a full accounting of your firm's billings; amounts you contend you were paid; what bills those payments covered; and the specific invoices and amounts you contend you are still owed. The numbers I calculate are different than the ones you have represented to the Court. I do not want to be surprised at trial by information that should have long ago been disclosed to defendants and provided in response to discovery requests. Please provide this information to my office no later than July 15, 2008. If I have not received it by then I will motion the Court to compel. Thanks for your anticipated cooperation.

11811 N. TATUM BLVD, #1051 · PHOENIX, ARIZONA · 85028 PHONE: 602 953-8721 · FAX: 602 953-8731 Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM Document 232 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 3 of 16

--2-

June 27, 2008

Richar· J. McDaniel Attorney at Law C: Roger Cohen

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 232

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 4 of 16

EXHIBIT C
Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM Document 232 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 5 of 16

Shimko & Piscitelli
Timothy A. Shlmko Frank E. Piscitelll, Jr. Legal Professional Association 2010 Huntington Building 925 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Telephone (216) 241-8300 Fax (216) 241-2702 E-Mail splawcix.netcom.com

March 4, 2003 VIA FACSIMILE 480.212.0054 Paul Woodcock, D.C. Milton Guenther, D.C. Richard Ross David Guenther Joel V. Brill, M.D. Fred Ritchie CORF Licensing Services, L.P. CORF Management Services, L.P. 7272 East Indian School Road Ste. 540 Scottsdale, Arizona 85251 Re: Dear Gentlemen: Regretfully, in light of present circumstances, and as we discussed at length last week, it has become impossible for my firm to continue to provide services without our past bills being paid. I am happy to continue to work with you, but my practice cannot survive without being compensated for its past and future services. As you know, you have sent me five checks, for which there were insufficient funds, totaling $112,500. Presently, your obligations to this firm and me exceed $354,000. By Friday February 28, 2003, we were served with an additional 10 new complaints from Beus Gilbert. Adding these to the two that Cheifetz served earlier last week, brings the total to 12 new lawsuits. This would effectively increase our workload by an additional 50%. Should you be able to bring my fees current, I estimate that at least $25,000 in additional services will need to be paid on a weekly basis to continue to defend these lawsuits. CORF case status

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 232

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 6 of 16

Paul Woodcock, D.C. Milton Guenther, D.C. Richard Ross David Guenther Joel V. Brill, M.D. Fred Ritchie March 4, 2003 Page 2

I am willing to work with you, by forgiving some fees and by reducing my rate for future services. However, I am not in a position to provide any further services without any prospects of payment. I will continue to provide those services that the canons of ethics require me to do to protect your interests in the short run. We will not seek admission in any new cases, and neither will Cameron Artigue; and this requires you to act quickly. If payment is not received by March 11 1h , I will have to file motions to withdraw in these cases where we have been admitted. I will also have to notify the Defendants of my resignation as your counsel. The following CLS and CMS lawsuits are pending in Arizona, California, Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky. I have included a brief description displaying the status of each case so that: (I) you are aware of who CORF's counsel of record is, and (2) to illustrate the work that needs to be done in each case. As you can see, currently there is a caseload of thirty-eight (38) lawsuits. 1) Arya v. CORF, CV 2003-003239 i. Counsel: a. New case (no Gammage & Burnham; no pro hac vice filed yet) ii. Pending: a. Answer / Response Due: 3/28/03 Beall v CORF, CV 2002-012092 i. Counsel: a. Gammage & Burnham has filed a motion to withdraw b. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application is: pending ii. Status: a. Responsive Pleadings filed b. Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statements exchanged Brandon v. CORF, CV 2002-020607 i. Counsel: a. Gammage & Burnham has filed a motion to withdraw

2)

3)

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 232

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 7 of 16

Paul Woodcock, D.C. Milton Guenther, D.C. Richard Ross David Guenther Joel V. Brill, M.D. Fred Ritchie March 4, 2003 Page 3

b. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application has been: denied ii. Status: a. Responsive Pleadings filed iii. Pending: a. Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement Due: 3/21/02 b. Deposition: Karin Kohake, 3/12/02, 1:00 p.m., at Fleishman & Shapiro, P.C., 1600 Broadway, Suite 2600, Denver, Colorado. 4) Buck v. CORF, CV 2002-024561 i. Counsel: a. New case (no Gammage & Burnham; no pro hac vice filed yet) ii. Pending: a. Responsive Pleadings filed Century 2 v. CORF, CV 2002-015173 i. Counsel: a. Gammage & Burnham has filed a motion withdraw b. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application has been: admitted ii. Status: a. Responsive Pleadings have been filed Comprehensive Care v. CORF, CV 2002-023074 i. Counsel: a. Gammage & Burnham withdrawal motion was: granted b. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application is: pending ii. Status: a. Motions to dismiss: pending b. Answer: due if motions to dismiss fail CORF v. Fournier, CV 2002-019881 i, Counsel:

5)

6)

7)

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 232

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 8 of 16

Paul Woodcock, D.C. Milton Guenther, D.C. Richard Ross David Guenther Joel V. Brill, M.D. Fred Ritchie March 4, 2003 Page 4

a. Gammage & Burnham withdrawal motion was: granted b. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application has been: denied ii. Status: a. Responsive Pleadings have been filed 8) CORF v. Monica Smith (Ancillary Care), CV 2002-016036 i. Counsel: a. Gammage & Burnham has filed a motion to withdraw b. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application has been: admitted ii. Status: a. Responsive Pleadings have been filed Cunningham v. CORP, CV 2003-003238 i. Counsel: a. New case (no Gammage & Burnham; no pro hac vice filed yet) ii. Pending: a. Answer / Response Due: 3/28/03

9)

10) Davenport v. CORF, CV 2002 006534 i. Counsel: a. Gammage & Burnham has filed a motion to withdraw b. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application is: granted ii. Status: a. Responsive Pleadings have been filed 11) Davis v. CORF, CV 2002-018891 i. Counsel: a. Gammage & Burnham has filed a motion to withdraw b. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application has been: denied

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 232

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 9 of 16

Paul Woodcock, D.C. Milton Guenther, D.C. Richard Ross David Guenther Joel V. Brill, M.D. Fred Ritchie March 4, 2003 Page 5

ii. Status: a. Motions to dismiss: pending b. Answer: due if motions to dismiss fail 12) DeMarco v. CORF, CV 2002-023322 i. Counsel: a. Gammage & Burnham has filed a motion to withdraw b. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application is: pending ii. Status: a. Motions to dismiss: pending b. Answer: due if motions to dismiss fail Fournier v. CORF, CV 2002-024178 i. Counsel: a. Gammage & Burnham has filed a motion to withdraw b. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application is: pending ii. Status: a. Motions to dismiss: pending b. Answer: due if motions to dismiss fail

13)

14)

Ghodsi v. CORF, 02CC10228, removed to Federal Court i. Counsel: a. Bidna & Keys b. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application has been: admitted ii. Status: a. Plaintiff has indicated appeal, yet hasn't filed an appeal (local counsel indicates the process takes 1-3 years) Grabowski v. CORF, CV 2002-024426 i. Counsel: a. Gammage & Burnham has filed a motion to withdraw

15)

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 232

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 10 of 16

Paul Woodcock, D.C. Milton Guenther, D.C. Richard Ross David Guenther Joel V. Brill, M.D. Fred Ritchie March 4, 2003 Page 6

b. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application is pending ii. Status: a. Motions to dismiss: pending b. Answer: due if motions to dismiss fail 16) Harrigil v. CORF, CV 2002-024660 i. Counsel: a. New case (no Gammage & Burnham; no pro hac vice filed yet) ii. Status: a. Responsive Pleadings filed Hovde v. CORF, CV 2003-003240 i. Counsel: a. New case (no Gammage & Burnham; no pro hac vice filed yet) ii. Pending: a. Answer / Response Due: 3/28/03 Hughes v. CORF, CV 2003-000062 i. Counsel: a. New case (no Gammage & Burnham; no pro hac vice filed yet) ii. Pending: a. Responsive Pleadings filed Jarboe v. CORF, 82D03-0209-CC-3991 i. Counsel: a. Statham, Allega, Jessen, & Rudisill b. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application has been: admitted ii. Status: a. Motions to Dismiss for venue: pending b. Answer submitted Knaack v. CORF, CV 2003-000198 i. Counsel:

17)

18)

19)

20)

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 232

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 11 of 16

Paul Woodcock, D.C. Milton Guenther, D.C. Richard Ross David Guenther Joel V. Brill, M.D. Fred Ritchie March 4, 2003 Page 7

a. New case (no Gammage & Burnham; no pro hac vice filed yet) ii. Pending: a. Responsive Pleadings filed 21) Landry v. CORF, CV 2003-001850 i. Counsel: a. New case (no Gammage & Burnham; no pro hac vice filed yet) ii. Pending: a. Answer / Response Due: 3/24/03

22)

Lauch v. CORF, 02CI05556 Kentucky i. Counsel: a. Reminger & Reminger b. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application has been: admitted ii. Status: a. Responsive Pleadings filed Leighton v. CORY, CV2002-0 1 5 982 i. Counsel: a. Gammage & Burnham has filed a motion to withdraw b. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application is: pending ii. Status: a. Responsive Pleadings have been filed Louisville Therapy v CORF, 02CI05268 Kentucky i. Counsel: a. Reminger & Reminger b. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application has been: admitted ii. Status: a. Responsive Pleadings have been filed

23)

24)

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 232

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 12 of 16

Paul Woodcock, D.C. Milton Guenther, D.C. Richard Ross David Guenther Joel V. Brill, M.D. Fred Ritchie March 4, 2003 Page 8

25) Mehta v. CORF, CV 2003-000075 i. Counsel: a. New case (no Gammage & Burnham; no pro hac vice filed yet) ii. Pending: a. Answer / Response Due: 3/2403

26)

Moss v. CORF, CV 2002-021901 i. Counsel: a. Gammage & Burnham has filed a motion to withdraw b. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application has been: admitted ii. Status: a. Stay pending Settlement conference b. Motions to dismiss: pending c. Answer: due if motions to dismiss and settlement conference fail Nikor Enterprises v. CORF, CV 2003-003343 i. Counsel: a. New case (no Gammage & Burnham; no pro hac vice filed yet) ii. Pending: a. Answer / Response Due: 3/28/03 Petersen v. CORF, 02 C 5746 Illinois i. Counsel: a. Kubasiak, Fylstra, Reizen & Rottuno b. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application has been: admitted ii. Status: a. Motions to dismiss for improper venue: pending Rah v. CORF, CV 2003-002934 i. Counsel:

27)

28)

29)

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 232

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 13 of 16

Paul Woodcock, D.C. Milton Guenther, D.C. Richard Ross David Guenther Joel V. Brill, M.D. Fred Ritchie March 4, 2003 Page 9

a. New case (no Gammage & Burnham; no pro hac vice filed yet) ii. Pending: a. Answer / Response Due: 3/28/03 30) Rubenstein v. CORF, CV 2002-021922 i. Counsel: a. Gammage & Burnham has filed a motion to withdraw b. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application has been: denied ii. Status: a. Motions to dismiss: pending b. Answer: due if motions to dismiss fail Sanders v. CORF, CV 2003-002959 i. Counsel: a. New case (no Gammage & Burnham; no pro hac vice filed yet) ii. Pending: a. Answer / Response Due: 3/28/03 Saunders v. CORF, CV 2003-003025 i. Counsel: a. New case (no Gammage & Burnham; no pro hac vice filed yet) ii. Pending: a. Answer / Response Due: 3/28/03 Schmidt v. CORF, CV 2003-000063 i. Counsel: a. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application is: pending ii. Status: a. Motions to dismiss: pending b. Responsive Pleadings filed Silverberg v. CORF, CV 2003-002841

31)

32)

33)

34)

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 232

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 14 of 16

Paul Woodcock, D.C. Milton Guenther, D.C. Richard Ross David Guenther Joel V. Brill, M.D. Fred Ritchie March 4, 2003 Page 10

i. Counsel: a. New case (no Gammage & Burnham; no pro hac vice filed yet) ii. Pending: a. Answer / Response Due: 3/28/03 35) Solman v. CORF, CV 2002-024377 i. Counsel: a. New case (no Gammage & Burnham; pro hac vice is pending) ii. Pendin g : a. Responsive Pleadings filed Sroka v. CORF, CV2002-016156 i. Counsel: a. Gammage & Burnham has filed a motion to withdraw b. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application is: pending ii. Status: a. Motions to dismiss: pending b. Answer: due if motions to dismiss fail Stedt v. CORF, CV2002-015204 i. Counsel: a. Gammage & Burnham has filed a motion to withdraw b. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application has been: denied ii. Status: a. Responsive Pleadings have been filed Sun v. CORF, CV 2002-018556 i. Counsel: a. Gammage & Burnham has filed a motion to withdraw b. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application has been: denied

36)

37)

38)

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 232

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 15 of 16

Paul Woodcock, D.C. Milton Guenther, D.C. Richard Ross David Guenther Joel V. Brill, M.D. Fred Ritchie March 4, 2003 Page 11

ii. Status: a. Responsive Pleadings have been filed 39) Wear v. CORF, CV 2003-002799 i. Counsel: a. New case (no Gammage & Burnham; no pro hac vice filed yet) ii. Pending: a. Answer / Response Due: 3/28/03 40) Yepremian v. Goldfarb, CV-03-479 NM (SHSx), Cen. District of California i. Counsel: a. Bidna & Keys ii. Status: a. Motions to dismiss for 12(b)(6): pending 41) Zadeh v. CORF, 02CI07945 i. Counsel: a. Reminger & Reminger b. Shimko & Piscitelli's pro hac vice application has been: admitted ii. Status: a. Motions to dismiss: pending b. Answer: due if motions to dismiss fail Very truly yours,

(al
Timothy A. Sfiimko /mp

Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

Document 232

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 16 of 16