Free Motion to Consolidate Cases - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 John A. Shannon, Jr.
The Law Offices of John Shannon
2 c/o Hudson & Associates
2642 E. Thomas Rd.
3 Suite 1
Phoenix, AZ. 85016
4 (602) 279-3699
(602) 266-9294 (FAX)
5
State Bar No. 5033
6
Attorney for Plaintiff
7
8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
é, 6 Q., 9 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
_ § I0
SEQ?
I: I- : I! ll
8 us "’ g MARVIN SAPIRO and GLORIA SAPIRO,
E g E 12 husband and wife, No. 03-CV-1555 PHX SRB
N
T2 13 (Assigned to the Honorable
vs. Susan R. Bolton)
. I4
.__. SUNSTONE HOTELS INVESTORS, LLC. and
= - 15 SUNSTONE HOTELS INVESTORS, LP,
W 16 Defendants. AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN A.
¤> ¤ SHANNON, JR.
£ § 17
22 GILBERT SUDBECK and LYNN SUDBECK,
3 Q 18 husband and wife,
.2 *8
I- ” 19 Plaintiffs,
No. CV-04-1535-PHX-JWS
20
21 vs.
22 (Assigned to the Honorable
SUNSTONE HOTEL PROPERTIES, INC.; John W. Sedwick)
23 SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, LLC;
SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, L.P.; SMP Il
24 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; JEFFERY
HAMMERMEISTER, and JANE DOE
25 HAMMERMEISTER, husband and wife; JOHN
AND JANE DOE I-X, husbands and wives;
26 BLACK CORPORATIONS, I-X; WHITE
PARTNERSHIPS, I-X
27
Defendants.
28
se 2:03-cv-01555-SRB Document 122-3 Filed 11/11/2005 Page 1 of 3

1 State of Arizona )
2 County of Maricopa g ss
3 John A. Shannon, Jr. upon his oath deposes and says:
4 1) That he is the attorney in connection with the above entitled and numbered
5 action, No. CV-04-1535-PHX—JWS, Sudbeck v. Sunstone Hotel Properties, et.aI.;
6 2) That he has prosecuted the action on behalf of the Plaintiffs Sudbeck since
7 the inception of that action;
8 3) Your affiant understands that the two causes listed in the above caption
jg 6 2 9 concern the poisoning of the Plaintiffs with Legionnaire’s Disease at the same hotel
E E __ 10 facility of the Defendants known as the Sheraton San Marcos Golf Resort and
E 11 Conference Center in Chandler. The time period during which the two poisonings
E § E 12 occurred were between June 2002, and February 2003. Plaintiffs in both cases allege
TC; N 13 they sustained bodily injuries as a result of contracting Legionnaires Disease while
I 14 guests at the hotel property in question. (The hotel eventually closed for a period of
15 about 10 days because of fears that it might be poisoning other hotel guests.) Affiant
W I 16 also believes that consolidation wouIdn’t involve fundamentally different parties since
gg E 17 the corporate defendants in the two cases are the same, and no parties would be
E 2 18 prejudiced by consolidation inasmuch as the defendants have asked for a continuance,
lg 9* 19 and no trial date has yet been set in the Sudbeck matter.
20 5) The remaining discovery for the Plaintiffs Sudbeck is the videotaping of the
21 trial testimonty of Mr. Sudbeck’s treating physician in South Dakota;
22 6) The Plaintiffs Sudbeck intend to apply the opinions of Mr. Sapiro’s liability
23 expert Mr. Matt Frije to their case; in that regard the opinions of Mr. Frije would not be
24 materially different than those already disclosed in the case brought by Mr. Sapiro;
25 7) As for causation and damages the Plaintiffs intend to rely on the opinions of
26 Dr. Aris Assimoucopolous who is located in South Dakota and who has already been
27 disclosed; once the deposition and trial testimony of the treating physician is completed, V
28 Plaintiffs will be prepared for trial;
- 2 -
se 2:03-cv-01555-SRB Document 122-3 Filed 11/11/2005 Page 2 of 3

1 8) A defendant in the Sudbeck matter, Diversified Engineering, Inc. was
2 dismissed via Summary Judgment on or about September 13, 2005; until that time
3 consolidation might not have been possible, since the defendants to the two actions
4 were not the same; however, with the dismissal of Diversified Engineering, Inc. the
5 defendants in the two actions are practically the same with the exception that the
6 manager of the hotel in question, Mr. Jeff Hammermeister, who is named as a party
7 defendant in the Sudbeck matter, is not named in the Sapiro matter; the presence of
8 Mr. Hammermeister as a party should not make a material difference in the trial of the
g E cg 9 cases, since manager’s employer is liable via respondeat superior.
E § __ 10 DATED this gay of November, 2005.
Eééi M
E § g 12 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. SHANNON, JR.
g N I3 a t /
"‘ l ’ ’;fl
-. 15 ttorney for Plaintiffs, GIL ERT and LYNN SUDBECK
W I6
g é 17
E g 18
E 5 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 »
28
C se 2:03-cv-01555-SRB Document 122-3 3 Filed 11/11/2005 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB

Document 122-3

Filed 11/11/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB

Document 122-3

Filed 11/11/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB

Document 122-3

Filed 11/11/2005

Page 3 of 3