Free Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Arizona - Arizona


File Size: 81.0 kB
Pages: 2
Date: November 15, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Arizona
Category: District Court of Arizona
Author: unknown
Word Count: 489 Words, 2,997 Characters
Page Size: 610 x 799 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/24372/160.pdf

Download Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Arizona ( 81.0 kB)


Preview Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Arizona
SIIEI.ToN L. FREEMAN (AZ #009687)
1 MICHAEL A. CORDIER (AZ #014378)
2 LISA ANNE SII/IITI~I (AZ# 16762)
DECONCINI NICDONALD YETWIN & LACY, P.C.
3 7310 NORTH SIXTEENTH STREET, SUITE S30
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85020
4
Rn; (602) 282-0500
5 Fax; (602) 282-0520
E-mail: [email protected]
6
7 Attorneys for Defendants
8
Q 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
04
E)? 10 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Q 2 1] Nicholas Alozie, a single man, Case No. CIV 02 2639 PHX SRB
12 Plaintiff,
E g Q 13 v. MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT
>-· 8
Q E Q 14 The Mills Corporation, a foreign
Z f§ E corporation; Mills Services Corp., a
B 2 E 15 foreign corporation; and Arizona Mills,
E E °— 16 L.L.C., a foreign corporation,
g 5 I7 Defendants.
T3 is
tu
Q 19 Defendants The Mills Corporation, Mills Services Corp and Arizona Mills,
20 L.L.C. (collectively "Mills Defendants"), by and through undersigned counsel,
21 hereby moves pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(e) for leave of this Court to file
22 Defendants’ Responsive Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for
23 Award of Attorney’s Fees and Related Non-Taxable Expenses of 25 pages, for the
24 following reasons:. (1) Plaintiffs failure to provide supporting evidence created
25 numerous disputed issues of fact, all of which were required to be addressed by
26 Defendants with specificity pursuant to Local Rule 54.2(f); (2) Plaintiff failed to
consistently include relevant legal authorities to support Plaintiffs entitlement to
Case 2:02-cv-02639-SRB Document 160 Filed 11/15/2005 Paget of2

l fees, as required by Local Rule 54.2(c)(2). This failure compelled Defendants to
2 provide a more extensive legal analysis and citations than otherwise would have
3 been required; and (3) Defendants’ needed to address alternative legal standards
4 governing the award of fees because their motion for judgment notwithstanding
5 the verdict remains pending.
6 Therefore, Mills Defendants have prepared a responsive memorandum
7 commensurate with the importance of the issues presented. Mills Defendants
3 believe the Court will be benefited by the 25 page memorandum.
gf 9 DATED this day of November, 2005.
5 10
5 2 H D ON INI Mc ¤ AL YETWIN & LACY, P.C.
¤2S *3 ,
E 12 ‘ , g T
E ‘g§`3 13 By ¤444ll ! 2.,
;>-·2Z§ S n L. Freem n
Q § gc? I4 Michael A. Cordier
2: Lisa Anne Smith
8 Q § 15 Attorneys for Defendants
t .C
g E “ 16
Z 5 17 COPY ofthe foregoing mailed
2 this l $1} day of ovember, 2005, to:
8 18
E 19
Sabinus A. Megwa
20 The Megwa Law Office
21 6811 South Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85042
22
23
l,
24
25
26
U:\SLF\220478\PIeadings\TriaI\Post-trial Mtns\MTn.Exceed.Pg.Limit.O2.doc 2
Case 2:02-cv-02639-SRB Document 160 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:02-cv-02639-SRB

Document 160

Filed 11/15/2005

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:02-cv-02639-SRB

Document 160

Filed 11/15/2005

Page 2 of 2