Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

. . ._ X, ;_ gp, MJRM ACCORDUYU A
,g·;»g,2’°§;_g.;ti;l L1r£lh5§E`{iii¤ss emcw ce _ p
( ·;;_·; ;_, stale IO RF.1r,CHON BY THE — - y A
“ if- _ h /Z.”M‘/ 2, FILED _____ LODGED
**1*-* J ) 2__p FlEOE'\/ED gggm COPY
1 John P. Flynn
sate Bar N0. 015065 AUG - 1 2005
2 Gregory W. Seibt ,
State Bar No. 021321 C1J§1+ TIFFANY & BOSOO mil V l"°*·'.¤'?*
3 —-—— -—-——-·-— BYn..-,. .,,... .,ln-..._ MB 5- I
mano noon camatsgepix ¤as•=n.Amton-: n ` BLPUTY
4 asas EAST cAMsi.a,¤.cK new
Puosmx, Anizom eso n s-4a:w
rztseuowa; ceoaa ass-sooo
5 mcsnmnts; reoai ass-010.2
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 MICILAEL HARVEY LYNN, BK NO. 00-08572-PHX-GBN
11 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 "Appellee") hereby replies in support of its Motion
20 for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Non—taxable Costs, tiled on April 18, 2005 and objects to
2] any and all relief of whatever sort prayed for in Michael Lymi’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 Appellee’s Motion
24 for an Award of Att0meys’ Fees and Non-taxable Costs (the "Motion”), which in all material
25
26
» ageygggg-cv—O2164-DGC Document 44 -1-FiIed O8/O1/2005 Page 1 of 4

1 respects complies with the procedural and substantive rules of this Court, Appellee respectfully
2 requests that this Cotu·t enter an Order granting Appellee’s Motion.
3 The Appellee’s Notice of Errata, tiled Jtme 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 tiled the Notice so as not to prejudice Appellant in the eyes of this Court. Certainly
10 however, no prejudice or harm 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 ll Sanctions," filed on May 4,
16 2005; “Motion to Vacate this C0l11'lZ’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," tiled on May 10, 2005,
18 and the relief requested therein, which is essentially the same regtugitated argument contained in
19 Appe11ant’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 mamier assist this Court in arriving at its "i·inal" 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 -
g1gey35@§—cv—O2164-DGC Document 44 -g-FiIed 08/O1/2005 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 afiinnation of the
3 bankruptcy court’s denial of Appella.nt’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 tiled 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
ll enter an Order granting its Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Non-taxable Costs as
12 supported by the Memorandum in Support and the entire record in these proceedings.
13 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, misgday of August, 2005.
14 TIFFANY & BOSCO, P.A.
15 F
16 ‘ By:
17 John
Gregor eibt
1.8 Third Floor Camelback Esplanade II
2525 East Camelback Road
19 Phoenix, Arizona 85016-4237
Attorneys for Appellee
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
asev2r@§—cv-02164-DGC Document 44 -3-Filed 08/01 /2005 Page 3 of 4

1 Original and on copy tiled with the
2 Court on this E day of August, 2005,
3 anggopy mailed this
_; day of August, 2005, to:
4 Michael H. Lynn
5 3040 N. 36th Street, Apt. $-208
Phoenix, AZ 85018
6 Pro Per
7 1 · Q1
s Q
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 ·
16
17
18
19
20
21 .
22
23
24
25
26
a1se72x@G—cv—02164—DGC Document 44 -4-Filed 08/01 /2005 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02164-DGC

Document 44

Filed 08/01/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02164-DGC

Document 44

Filed 08/01/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02164-DGC

Document 44

Filed 08/01/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02164-DGC

Document 44

Filed 08/01/2005

Page 4 of 4