._ . \ ii A 1 ok l<>C.’»L. REJEIS ANT}I’RACT1ClY"
L1 xz‘i%.l?·f“ Il? RF.1E(T'1`lONBY 1‘Hl* `OUBJV
.e;i¢E£
l John P. Flynn W _ E l"` J `
State Bar No. 015065 " FECENFD gCOP`V
2 Gregory W. Seibt _
State Bar No. 021321 AUG " 1
TIFFANY & BOSCO s -_
3 ..............- p_A_ ...._...---- M»l.c11·€rxll5§@5$r;4; ¤·e ~ ~·<* · T-
rnmo noon cAMeL5Aci< ESPLANADE u I lyigigyqqggere Fi ij, i A
4 2525 EAST cAMi:n.5Ac•< R0A0 i V ni i A nw
Pnoemx, A»=uz0r~1A 5501 5-4257 LM" " bi ’ I ' lil I
rm.r;»==HoNa; (602) 255—6000
5 mcsnmnuz;
6 Attorneys for Metwest Mortgage Services, Inc.
7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 In re: CIV-03-2164-PHX-DGC
10 MICHAEL HARVEY LYNN, BK NO. 00-08572-PHX-GBN
H Debtor.
12
13 MICHAEL HARVEY LYNN,
APPELLEE’S REPLY IN
14 Appellant, SUPPORT OF ITS PLEADINGS
15 FILED AFTER MAY 31, 2005
V.
16 METWEST MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.,
17 Appellee,
18
19 Metwest Mortgage Services, Inc. (the "Appe1lee") hereby replies in support of its Motion
2() for an Award of Attomeys’ Fees and Non—taxable Costs, tiled on April 18, 2005 and objects to
21 any and all relief of whatever sort prayed for in Michael Lynn’s (the "Appellant") latest of his
22 meritless pleadings entitled, Appellant’s Responses t4o (sic) the Pleadings Filed by the Appellee
23 after May 31, 2005 ("Response"). First, for the reasons more fully detailed in Appel1ee’s Motion
24 for an Award of Attomeys’ Fees and Non-taxable Costs (the "Motion"), which in all material
25
26
2§%e7258§—cv-02164-DGC Document 45 _1_ Filed 08/O2/2005 Page 1 of 4
1 respects complies with the procedural and substantive rules of this Court, Appellee respectfully
2 requests that this Court enter an Order granting Appellee’s Motion.
3 The Appellee’s Notice of Errata, filed June 3, 2005, out of respect and deference to this
4 Court as well as to ensure the accuracy of the result in the proceedings pending herein, was
5 submitted to correct an inadvertent error that resulted in Appellee’s taking an erroneous position
6 relative to the alleged non-service of documents on Appellee that Appellant had earlier filed.
7 The Notice was only Appellee’s attempt to clarify an earlier mis-statement that would otherwise
8 effect the administration of the case, perhaps, adversely to Appellant. Out of fairness to him,
9 Appellee filed the Notice so as not to prejudice Appellant in the eyes of this Court. Certainly
_ 10 however, no prejudice or harrn was suffered as a result of the erroneous filing. This Court did
ll not base any decision on the filing, which, was in fact timely corrected by the filing of the Notice
12 of Errata, and thus, contrary to Appellant’s position, no Rule ll sanctions are merited under the
13 circumstances.
14 With respect to the Appellant’s arguments relative to his pending "Motion for Appellee
15 and its Attorneys to be Held in Contempt of Court and for Rule 11 Sanctions," filed on May 4,
16 2005; "Motion to Vacate this Court’s Order Entered on March 31, 2005," filed on May 4, 2005;
17 and "Motion for Clarification of the Order entered on April 26, 2005," filed on May 10, 2005,
18 and the relief requested therein, which is essentially the same regurgitated argument contained in
19 Appellant’s "Responses t4o (sic) the Pleadings Filed by the Appellee After May 31, 2005,"
20 Appellee is at a loss as to how further to respond. Quite frankly, no further response (in addition
21 to the Appellee’s Motion to Strike previously filed) is necessary, nor is one forthcoming that
22 would in any manner assist this Court in arriving at its "final" decision in this matter. Appellee
23 has spent the last several years exhaustively laboring to answer the same recurring arguments
24 made by this Appellant with only slight modifications.
25
26
g§e7%8é5—cv-02164-DGC Document 45 _2_ Filed 08/O2/2005 Page 2 of 4
1 In fact, as stated before, all of the Motions, taken collectively, are actually only thinly
2 veiled, inartfully plead Rule 59(e) motions asking this Court to reconsider its affirmation of the
3 bankruptcy court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for reconsideration and dismissal of Appellant’s
4 case and to hold Appellee in contempt for violation of 11 U.S.C. §524, the permanent injunction
5 against collection of discharged indebtedness. This Court, by Order dated April 28, 2005, has
6 already denied Appellant relief on his previously filed Motion for Reconsideration and should
7 strike these new Motions as Appellant’s impermissible attempts to waste more of both this
8 Court’s, and the Appellee’s, time and resources.
9 WHEREFORE, Appellee respectfully requests this Court enter an Order on Appellant’s
10 Motions, denying any and all relief requested therein. Appellee further requests that this Court
11 enter an Order granting its Motion for an Award of Attomeys’ Fees and Non-taxable Costs as
12 supported by the Memorandum in Support and the entire record in these proceedings.
4*
13 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this 6/ day of August, 2005.
14 TIFFANY & Bosco, 1>.A.
15
16 or if ~ {
By; A4 (4 F g
17 John P
Gregor ~ Zeibt
18 Third Floor Camelback Esplanade II
2525 East Camelback Road
IQ Phoenix, Arizona 85016-4237
Attomeys for Appellee
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
%§%%%%-cv—O2164-DGC Document 45 _3_FiIed O8/O2/2005 Page 3 of 4
1 Original and orgicopy tiled with the
Court on this [ day of August, 2005,
2
and iopy mailed this A
3 [5% day ofAugust, 2005, to:
4 Michael H. Lynn
5 3040 N. 36"‘ Street, Apt. S-208
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Pro Per
6
7 ’ Q} c"
A a
8 C ‘
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
§2%a§5e_§&3—cv—O2164-DGC Document 45_4_ Filed 08/O2/2005 Page 4 of 4
Case 2:03-cv-02164-DGC
Document 45
Filed 08/02/2005
Page 1 of 4
Case 2:03-cv-02164-DGC
Document 45
Filed 08/02/2005
Page 2 of 4
Case 2:03-cv-02164-DGC
Document 45
Filed 08/02/2005
Page 3 of 4
Case 2:03-cv-02164-DGC
Document 45
Filed 08/02/2005
Page 4 of 4
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms