Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5

EDWARD D. FITZHUGH, ESQ. P.O. Box 24238 Tempe, Arizona 85285-4238 (480) 752-2200 Bar No. 007138 Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

7 8 9 10 11
vs. Joe Ramirez and Ana Ramirez, Individually and as Parents and Legal Guardians of Jose Ramirez. Jr.; Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV03-0060 PHX-ROS

OBJECTION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE (Assigned to the Honorable Roslyn Silver)

12 13 14 15 16 17
Tanya Soto and John Doe Soto, wife and husband; Annie Preston and John Doe Preston, wife and husband; Clay Klavitter and Jane Doe Klavitter, husband and wife; Glendale Union High School District No. 205; Defendants.

COME NOW Plaintiffs and submit their objection to Defendants' Motion to

18
Consolidate. The objection is based on the following uncontested material factors:

19
1. The cases have different defendants. In CV03-0060 the sole defendant is the

20
Glendale Union School District. CV04-002908 is against, Tanya Soto, Annie Preston, and

21
Clay Klavitter.

22
2. The allegations in the cases are substantially different. In CV03-0060 the claim

23
is against the Glendale Union School District for its failure to protect and supervise. In

24
CV04-002908 the claim is against the individual teachers and administrators who learned

25
of the physical and sexual assault on Plaintiff, but, in violation of State law and professional

26
standards did not report the assault to the authorities.

27
3. CV03-0060 is much more advanced than the other case. Consolidation of the

28
cases would substantially delay trial.

Case 2:03-cv-00060-ROS

Document 90

Filed 11/04/2005

Page 1 of 2

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 26 27 28

Plaintiffs recognize the courts favor consolidation whenever practical. However, in this case consolidation would delay resolution. At the same time the trial in CV03-0060 would substantially streamline the issues and time of trial in CV04-002908. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the court deny Defendants' Motion to Consolidate. DATED this 18th day of October, 2005. s/ Edward D. Fitzhugh Edward D. Fitzhugh Attorney for Plaintiffs I hereby certify that on October 18, 2005, I electronically transmitted the foregoing document to the Clerk's office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following EM/ECF Registrants: Steve Leach, Esq. J. Steven Sparks, Esq. SANDERS & PARKS, P.C. 3030 N. Third Street, Suite 1300 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3099 Attorney for Defendants s/ Barbara K. Dean

Case 2:03-cv-00060-ROS

2 Document 90

Filed 11/04/2005

Page 2 of 2