Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 Sid A. I-Iorwitz — State Bar N0. 05447
CARMICHAEL & POWELL, P.C.
2 730l North 16th Street, Ste. 103
Phoenix, Arizona 85020-5297
3 Phone: (602) 861-0777 -
4 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant General Acrylics, Inc. ‘
6 UNlTED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 STATE OF ARIZONA
8 GENERAL ACRYLICS, INC., an Arizona No. CV-03-1495 PHX RGS
% corporation,
9 T
Plaintiff,
I0
v. GENERAL ACRYLICS’ {
11 RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ E
§ § [_ MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY; a MOTION TO CERTIFY FOR ;
§ E gg § 12 Maryland coigorationg ASSURANCE INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL i
O E 3 Q gg COMPANY F AMERICA, a New York
¤-i Q 5 is § .2 13 corporation; and ZURICH AMERICAN
Q3 M L; Ei Q § INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York
CD ce N . .
§ 3 E 5 @1 § I4 corporation,
·=C E ··* Q
§ é Eg i in 15 Defendants.
Mangg i
5 e Z O I6
< S E E And Related Counterclaim.
U e 17
18 General Acrylics, Inc. ("General Acrylics”) hereby tiles its Response to
19 Defendants’ Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal. While General Acrylics {
20 disputes many of the factual matters and characterizations set forth in Defendants’
21 Motion to Certify, General Acrylics does not disagree that it would be within this
22 Court’s discretion to certify its prior Orders and allow for an interlocutory appeal of
23 the coverage issue which the Court adjudicated in favor of General Acrylics.
24 For the record, General Acrylics challenges the notion that Judge Martone’s
25 decision in US. Home Corporation v. Maryland Casualty Company, et al., CV—04-
26 l I5-PHX-FIM is "diametrically different" from the core issues addressed in this case.
27 Without knowing or viewing the entire record in that matter, including but not limited j

Case 2:03-cv—01495-RGS Document 52 Filed 07/12/2006 Paget of2

1 i
1 to, the statement of facts, evidence and affidavits which were submitted, the
2 arguments which were made, the policy provisions which were emphasized, and the _
3 E context in which the issues were raised, it cannot be determined whether the ruling in
4 E that case is in conflict with the ruling in this case. All General Acrylics can say is
5 that, based upon the undisputed material facts which were before this Court in this
6 case, a correct and proper decision on the motions for summary judgment was made.
7 Notwithstanding the foregoing comments, General Acrylics completely defers i
8 to this Court with respeqt to Defendants’ Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal.
9 Dated this {%ay of July, 2006. i
W cnnivrrcnxs a POWELL, 1>.c.
11 E
Q s is ‘ j
” BY J
°“*2?s§·.:u sia .n¤iw1rZ 2
eg § K 7301 North 16th Street, Suite 103
5, Q § EM E Phoenix, Arizona 85020-5297
5 ($5 [Q § E3, E 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant
*·* E Z Q E General Acrylics
i 2 it
U S Copy f the foregoing was mailed this
17 gziday of July, 2006, to:
is ;
g Steven Plitt, Esq.
19 Joshua Rogers, Esq.
20 BESS KUNZ, P.C.
3838 North Central Avenue, Ste 1500
gi Phoenix, Arizona 85012-1902
1 Attorneys for Defendants/Counterclaimant
22 l
23 ,
24 .
25 By ,
26
27
- 2 -
`c'5`§’§PéSG2‘??5“é’i`éi’i¥8iHZ‘§‘%?lti1E§§"g`RSrY5£5’$lj’Fi%"éiF»i; ‘é°° Fuse 07/12/2006 Page 2 Or 2

Case 2:03-cv-01495-RGS

Document 52

Filed 07/12/2006

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-01495-RGS

Document 52

Filed 07/12/2006

Page 2 of 2