:09' 1 2 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ARIZONA PHOENIXDISTRJCT
4
CASE NO. 14-BK-18636-EPB, CASE NO. 15-AP-00062-EPB;
5 6 7 8 9 10 li 12 13 14 15 16
WENDELL DWAYNE O'NEAL,
"'"'""""'
RLED
Vs.
MAY 262015
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIXINC,
unjt"d st!.,te2
APOLLO ED. GROUP INC.,
BAi4KRIjpTcY court forthe district of arizona
DEFENDANTS, REPLY FOR JOINDER OF MARICOPA SUPERIOR COURT CONSUMER FRAUD CLAIMS, Apollo Ed. Group Inc. and University of Phoenix Inc. unlawfully
17 18 19 20
obtained summary judgment as more fully set forth below and reliefs hereinafter sought as provided'. Title 28 USC § § 1441(a)(c)(1)(A)(i); King v. CAE INC. No. CV 12-00441-PHX-FjM; Fed. R. Civ, Proc. Rules 18(a).
21 22
Endischee v. Endischee, 141 Ariz. 77, 79, 685 P.2d 142, 144 (App. 1984).
23
Kadota v. Hosogai, 125 Ariz. 131, 134, 608 P.2d 68, 71 (App.1980).
24 25 26 27
' Title li us. Code g' 727,- Title 34 CRF§ §685.212(a)(c)," Title 28 USC § /57(A)(B)(C)(T) (4)(5); SEC. v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130 (2007).
28
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
]
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 1 of 50
Desc
1
The Maricopa Superior Court summary judgment ruling is voic
2 3 4 5
because Apollo supra misrepresented acceptance of process service or 09/29/2014 contrary to Alabama court rules. King v CAE, Id; End/schee ¥
Endischee, Id; 16 A.R.S. Rule 4.1(C)(3)(4). On the other hand, Apo/lc
6 7
Individual Employees failed to appear within time provided under couE
8
rules after legitimately removing state claims due to remand. 16 A.R.S.
9 10 11 12
Rules 55(a); 16 A.R.S. Rules 4. 1(c)(3)(4). In light, this honorable Court may join consumer fraud claims without regard to Res Judicata, Abstention, or One Year Statute of Limitations Affirmative defenses'.
13 14
P/aintih consumer fraud claims are not time barred because he 15 16
commenced a federal lawsuit on 05/19/2014 within one year of withdrawa
17
from Ax/a On/ine College'. The federal Court permitted consumer frauc
18 19
claims' and later allowed voluntary dismissaF,
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2 Apollo Defendants did not raise the statute of limitations in its motion to dismiss. [Doc. 24]. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 12(a)(1)(A)([)· ' O 'Neal v Carla Dei/man et al, Case 2.'14-cv-01080-SRB. [Doc. 1], ( us. District Court, Phoenh Arizona). ' Id. /Doc. 18. Countll] . Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rules 15(a)(c)(d). ' Id. [Doc. 29]. 2
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 2 of 50
Desc
'
\
al
1
P/a/ntih refiled consumer fraud claims in the Maricopa Superior Court
2 3 4
on 07/28/2014'. Additionally, PlaintW provided judicial notice of pendinC state and federal claims to preserve litigation opportunity on 9/11/2014' ,
5 6
COUNTER-ARGUMENTS,
7 8 9 10 li 12
I.
THE MARICOPA SUPERIOR COURT ISSUED A VOIC SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER BECAUSE APOLLO AND UNIVERSITY MISREPRESENTED ACCEPTANCE OF PROCESS SERVICE,
P/alntih concedes there is no active consumer fraud lawsuit before the Maricopa Superior Court because Apollo supra obtained summary
13 14 15
judgment by fraud against civil rights8. In light, consumer fraud claims were never lawfully tried in the Maricopa Court, therefore they may be joinec
16 17 18
under federal court rules without regard to Res judicata and Abstentior affirmative defenses9.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
' [Doc. 28/ PP. l-2 in support. ' See [Doc. 28/for attached Maricopa Docket Journal Entriesfor 09/1 1/2014 Judicial Notice in support. ' us. Const. Am. X7V, V, I,' 16 ARSRules 56(c); 16ARS Rules 55(a); 16 ARS Rules l2(a); King Id; Endischee Id,' /6 A.R.S, Rules of Civil Proc. Rule 4. 1(c)(3)(4). ' [Doc. 24]. us. Canst. 'Am. X7V, V, I; Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rules l8(a); King. Id: Endischee v. Endischee, Id. 3
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 3 of 50
Desc
P
'
A. ROOKER-FELDMAN DOES NOT APPLY WHERE APOLLO ANE
,
UNIVERSITY MISREPRESENTED ACCEPTANCE OF PROCESS SERVICE,
3
4
The basis for challenging the state court summary judgment decision 1e
' firmly grounded in Constitutional provisions for Equal Protection under color 6
, of Arizona laws as more fully set forth within the Fourteenth, Fifth, and Firs" ' Amendments that 28 USC § 1257 cannot preclude. S.E.C. v. Ross, Id. lr 9 10
this case, federal statutes provide for discharge of Stafford loans and court
ll rules provide for joinder of consumer fraud claims. Title 11; Fed. R. Civ. 12 Proc. Rules 18(a). Moreover, state and federal case laws provide Apollc 13
14 Defendants obtained a void summary judgment decision based upor 15 misrepresenting acceptance of process service. King, Id; End/schee v. 16 17
Endischee, Id.
18
19 Maricopa journal entries evidence P/aintil7' did not file acceptance o" 20 service forms for Apollo and University"t Apollo supra never appeared ir 21
the Maricopa Court after receiving summons on 09/09/2014 contrary tc
22
23 Arizona court rules. ARS. Rules 12(a)(b). 24 25 26 27
10 See [Doc. 28/for Maricopa Superior Court Docket Journal Entriesfor 10/06/2014 Acceptance ofService Forms
28
fo" Individuals in support. 16 A.R.S. Rules of Civil Procedj"e, Rule 4.l(c)(3)(4).
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 4 of 50
Desc
1
Instead, Apollo and University removed state claims to federal court or'
2
10/03/2014 and waived the sufficiency of process service issue '1 . 3
4 Afterwards, Apollo and University misrepresented they accepted process 5
service on 09/29/2014 to obtain additional time for responses contrary
6 7 8
Arizona and federal court rules " . Judge Snow granted Apollo anc University an extension of time for responses based upon saic
9
mjsrepresentation'3 . The Court never re-issued summons but remandec 10 11 12
Apollo Defendants back to the Maricopa Court on 12/15/2014". ThE remand voided extension of time orders for lack of jurisdiction't King v.
13 14
CAE INC, Id.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
" O 'Neal v University ofPhoenK Inc. et al, 14-CV-2207-PELK-GMS. [Doc. 1]; Richards v Harper, No. 87-4225. United States Court ofAppeals, Ninth Circuit, (Dec. 23, 1988). " Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rules 8/(c)(1)(2)(A)(B)(C); Fed. R. Cijj. Proc. Rules 55(a),' 16 A.R.S. Rules 4./(c)(3)(4); O 'Neal v University ofPhoenH Inc. et al 14-CV-2207-GMS.. [Doc. 7]; Mason v. Genisco Technology Co©. No. 9155108, 960 F.2d 849 (1992); Benny v Pipes Id. " Id. [Doc. 8]. l' Id. [Doc. 43/, [Doc. 46/. Attorney Adams stated the University did not receive a summons at all. See Averment 2 in support. " Id. [Doc. 50-51].
28
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
5
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 5 of 50
Desc
1
The Maricopa summary judgment was void because (1), the University
2
denied receiving a summons on 09/09/2014 ". (2), "Apollo was no 3 4
authorized to do business in Tennessee, therefore receipt of summons waE
5
not valid pursuant to Arizona's Rules of Civil Procedure"". (3), P/aintif
6 7 8
never filed an acceptance of service forms for Apollo and University in thE Maricopa Court. (4), State and federal courts never re-issued summons
9 !0 11 12
because Defendants misrepresented acceptance on 09/29/2014. (6), Ir light, the Maricopa Court had no personal jurisdiction over Defendants tc grant summary judgment18. Therefore, this honorable Court may remove tc
13 14 15
enjoin the federal Stafford loan claim presented as consumer frauc accordingly. Title 28 USC § § 1441(a)(c)(1)(A)(1)·
16 17
RELIEFS SOUGHT,
18 19
WHEREFORE, and for all foregoing reasoning, Plainti/T respectfully
20 21
prays for an order joining the Maricopa federal Stafford loan claims
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
" See [Doc. 28/for Attornq Adams 09/22/2014 e-mail in support. Endischee v. Endischee, Id. " See [Doc. 2i/for Attormy Lynne Adams 09/22/2014 e-mail in support. Additionally, Attorney Adams attached 11//3/20/4 Response Opposing SuNciency ofProcess Service in Tennessee. [Doc. 32]. O 'Neal v Universi(y of Phoenix Inc. et al, 14-CV-2207-PHX-GMS. '8 Tonner v Paradise Valley Magistrate 's Court, 171 Ariz. 449; 831 P.2d. 448 (1 992). 6
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 6 of 50
Desc
1
together with herein action and any other relief deemed necessary under
2 3
herein pIed circumstances. Id. CERTIFICATION,
4 5 6 7
P/aintifT certifies the foregoing Reply supra contains truthful anc accurate statements based upon his own knowledge, information and belie".
8 9
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 11 et seq.
10
SERVICE,
li 12
P/a/ntifT provided Apollo and University notice of Reply supra by e-
13
delivery through counsels Lynne Adams and Warren Stapleton before
14
mailing the same to the law firm of Osborn Ma/edon P.A. as required. 15
IIL
LY SUBMITTED,
17
,[ 19 20 21 22
tE'Bm#
23 24
5/20/2015 1:21:11 PM
25 26 27 28
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
7
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 7 of 50
Desc
EXHIBIT A
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 8 of 50
Desc
l
IN THE ARIZONA CIVIL COURT OFAPPEALS, DIVISION ONE, PHOENIX DISTRICT
2 3
CASE NO. 1 CA-CV15-0306;
4 5
WENDELL DWAYNE O'NEAL,
6 7 8
APPELLANT, V's.
9 10 ]]
CARLA DEILMAN ETAL.,
APPELLEES,
MOTION FOR A PROCEDURAL ORDER DETERMINING WHETHER APOLLO AND UNIVERSITY ARE PROPER PARTIES ON APPEAL,
12 13 14 15 16
I.
STATEMENT, Apollo and University have not consented or objected to entry of thE
17 18 19 20
below sought procedural order determining their status on appeal because they claim they never received proper process service through Tennessee statutory agent who was not authorized to deliver summons and complaints
21 22
in Phoenix Arizona on 09/09/2014'.
23 24 25 26 27
' See attached Exhibit A. Attorney Christina Rubalcava 09/09/2014 email and Attorney Lynne Adams 09/1 9/2014 email denying sufficient process service in support.
28
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
1
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 9 of 50
Desc
1
Therefore, Appe/lees propose their summary judgment orders are not void'.
2
Additionally, Apollo and University raise an affirmative Res Judicata 3 4 5
defense against Stafford loan discharge claims presented in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court based upon herein related summary judgment decision
6 7 8
dismissing consumer fraud claims. ONeal v Dei/man et al, 1 CA-CV- 150306; In Re Wendell Dwayne O'Neal, 14-bk-18636-EPB; ONeal v Stafibm
9
Loans et al, 15-AP-00062-EPB, [Doc. 24 '], (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 10 11 12
Phoenix AZ). Therefore, Appellant motions for immediate determinatior whether Apollo and University are proper parties to herein appeal after they
13 14 15
misrepresented acceptance of process service and claimed notice o" bankruptcy permitted summary judgment 4 as more fully set fortl"
16 17
hereinafter.
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
' Take Judicial Notice, O 'Neal v Stagord Loans et al, 15-AP-00062-EPB, [Doc. 24], [Doc. 31]. ARCAP Rule
6(a)(1)(2)(3)(4)(b)(l)(2). ' The Court may take judicial notice of Appellees Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 24] Id. ARCAP Rule
6(a)(/)(2)(3)(4)(b)(1)(2).
27
4 See attached Exhibit D. Attorney Lynne Adams Notice ofBankruptcyjiled in the Maricopa Superior Court on 12/29/20/4.
28
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
2
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 10 of 50
Desc
l
I.
GROUNDS,
2
Appellant requests an order determining whether Apollo anc 3
4 University are proper parties to herein appeal because state and federa 5
court records evidence they never received summons permitting their
6 7 8 9
appearances5. Apollo supra removed consumer fraud claims to federa
court and misrepresented acceptance of process service to obtair additional time for responses6. The federal court never re-issued summonE
10 11 12
and declined to rule whether Apollo and University received proper service', Alternatively, the Court remanded Apollo supra back to the Maricopa Cour"
13 14 15
where they later obtained summary judgment by claiming entitlement due to notice of Chapter 7 bankruptcy contrary to Arizona and federa
16 17
authorities'. 16 ARS. Rules 12(a)(b).
18 19 20 21 22
' Take Judicial Notice of Maricopa Docket Journal Entries evidencing no acceptance of service forms for Apollo and Universi{y in support. See attached Exhibit A. Attorney Lynne Adams 09/09/2014 email and Attorny Lynne Adams
23
09/1 9/20/4 email in support. ' Take Judicial Notice of O 'Neal v Universi{y ofPhoenix Inc. el al, 14-2207-PHX-GMS, [Doc. 1/, [Doc. 7-8]. (US. District Court, Phoenix AZ). See attached Exhibit B. Attornty Lynne Adams 10/09/2014 Motionfor Extension of Time to Respond to First Amended Complaint, PP. 1. Relevant Case Background ¶ 3,' PP. 2. ¶ in support. ' See attached Exhibit C. /Doc. 43] PP. 2. ¶ 2 in support. [Doc. 43] Order Declining to Determine Jurisdiction because Defendants Misrepresented Acceptance of Process Service. See also [Doc. 5 1] Order Denying
24 25 26
Reconsideration for Mootness and Lack of Jurisdiction.
27
' See attached Exhibit D. Apollo Defendants /2/29/20/4 Notice ofAppellant Chapter 7 Bankruptcy as basis to motionfor summaryjudgment, citing In Re Way, 186 B.R. 700, 707 (9'H Cir. BAP.1995).
28
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
3
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 11 of 50
Desc
l
Appellant proposes Apollo and University are ineligible to participate ir
2 3 4 5
herein appeal because they never received summons permitting summary judgment in the consumer fraud lawsuit and therefore are inappropriately before this Court on appeal'. King v CAE, Id; Endischee v Endischee, Id,
6 7 8
16 A.R.S. Rule 4.1(C)(3)(4). The Maricopa Superior Court summary judgment rulings are void because Apollo supra misrepresentec
9 10 11 12
acceptance of process service on 09/29/2014. King v CAE, Id; Endischee ¥ Endischee, Id; 16 A.R.S. Rule 4.1(C)(3)(4). On the other hand, Apo/lc Individual Employees failed to appear within time provided under cour^
13 14
rules after legitimately removing state claims due to remand. Take Judicia
15
Notice of Maricopa Docket Entries for Apollo Individual EmployeeE
16
Acceptance of Service Forms in support. 16 A.R.S. Rules 55(a); 16 A.R.S. 17 18
Rules 4.1(C)(3)(4). Appellant requests this honorable court immediately
19
deny opportunity for Apollo and University to appear on appeal because
20 21
they misrepresented acceptance of process service in federal court anc
22
failed to timely plead for summary judgment in state court after remand'0.
23 24 25 26 27 28
' ARS 12-120.21,' 17B ARS SpecialActions, Rules ofProc., Rule 3; ARCAP Rule 8(c)(2); 16 ARCP Rule 60(c)(3); King v. CAE INC No. CV12-00441-PHX4'jM; S.E. C. v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130 (2007): Endischee v. EndiSCheejl41 Ariz. 77, 79, 685 P.2d /42, /44 (App./984); Kadota v. Hosogai, 125 Ariz. 13/, /34, 608 P.2d 68, 71 (App.1980,. '° 16 ARS Rules 56(c); Rules 55(a); Rules 12(a)(b); Endischee v. Endischee, Id. 4
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 12 of 50
Desc
1
ARGUMENT,
2 3
4 5 6 7
II.
APOLLO AND UNIVERSITY NEVER RECEIVED SUMMONS AND WERE INELIGIBLE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ANE APPEARANCE ON APPEAL ACCORDING TO 16 ARS RULES 56(C) ; RULES 12(a); RULES 4(d),
P/a/ntih contends Arizona law does not provide for parties to obtair" summary judgment if they never received proper summons service
8 9
compelling their appearances". Maricopa journal entries evidence Apo//c
10
and University never received proper summons'2 or accepted service. ARS.
11 12 13 14
Rules 4 et seq. Federal court journal entries evidence Apollo and University misrepresented they accepted process service on 09/29/2014", JudgE
Snow granted Apollo and University an extension of time for responseE
15 16 17
based upon said misrepresentation" . However, the federal Court never
re-issued summons. Therefore, Apollo and University improperly appearec
18 19
in the Maricopa Superior Court after remand on 12/15/2014 '5.
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28
" U.S. Const. Am. X7V, V, I; I6ARSRules 56(c),' /6 ARS Rules 55(a); 16ARS Rules l2(a)," King Id,' Endischee Id," /6 A.R.S. Rules of CivilProc. Rule 4.1(c)(3)(4). '2 SeeMaricopa Superior Court Docket Journal Entriesfor 10/06/2014 Acceptance of Service Formsfor Individuals in support. 16 A.R.S. Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4. 1 (c)(3)(4). " Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rules 81(c)(1)(2)(A)(B)(C); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rules 55(a).' 16 A.R.S. Rules 4.1(C)(3)(4),' O 'Neal v University ofPhoenK Inc. el al 14-CV-2207-GMS.. [Doc. 7/ ; Mason v. Genisco Technology Corp. No. 9/55108, 960 F.2d 849 (1992),' Benny v Pipes Id. " Id. [Doc. 8]. " Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Techs., Inc., 840 F.2d 685, 688 (9th Cir. /988)," see also SEC v. Ross, 504 F.3d /130, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2007). 5
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 13 of 50
Desc
1
The remand voided extension of time orders for lack of jurisdiction", King Li
2 3 4
CAE INC, Id. See attached Exhibit C. [Doc. 51/ Judge Snow Order Denying Reconsideration for Mootness and Lack of jurisdiction in support
5 6 7
Apollo and University summary judgment decisions are void becausE (1), both parties deny receiving summons in Tennessee1'. (2), State anc
8 9 10
federal courts never re-issued summons based upon misrepresentec acceptance of process service on 09/29/2014. (3), the federal cour
II 12 13 14
remanded and vacated extension of time orders for lack of jurisdiction. (4) the Maricopa Court had no jurisdiction over Defendants to grant summary judgment". Therefore, this honorable Court may immediately determim
15 16 17
Apollo and University were ineligible for summary judgment and are precluded from participating in appellate proceedings. ARCAP Rule
18 19
6(a)(1)(2)(3)(4)(b)(1)(2).
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
" Id. [Doc. 50-51]. " See O'Neal v Universijy ofPhoenk Inc. supra [Doc. 32] 14-2207-GMS. 18 Tonner v Paradise Valley Magistrate 's Court, /7/ Ariz. 449; 831 p.2d 448 (1992). 6
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 14 of 50
Desc
1
RELIEFS SOUGHT,
2 3 4 5
WHEREFORE, and for all foregoing reasoning, Appellant respectfully prays for procedural order determining Apollo and University improperly appeared in the Maricopa Superior Court for summary judgment purposes
6 7 8
because they received no summons. Additionally, Apollo employee Appe/lees were ineligible for summary judgment because they failed tc
9 10 11 12
appear within time provided under court rules after acceptance of process service. In light, Appellant requests costs, including attorney fees, together with any other relief deemed necessary under herein pIed circumstances.
13 14
Id. Alternatively, Appellant respectfully request Abstention".
15
CERTIFICATION,
16 17 18 19
P/aintih certifies the foregoing Motion supra contains truthful anc accurate statements based upon his own knowledge, information and belief.
20
ARCAP. Rules 6(a) et seq. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
" O 'Neal v StaU'ord Loans el al, 15 AP-00062-EPB,' O 'Neal v Attorney Lynne Adams et al, L5-565-PHX4ZB presenting same issues as on appeal. See Attached Exhibit E. Appellant Replyfor Joinder ofMaricopa Superior Court consumerYaud claims against Apollo and Universig in support. 7
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 15 of 50
Desc
L
0
1
SERVICE,
2 3 4 5
Plainti/T provided Apollo and University counsels Lynne Adams anc Warren Stapleton e-notice of herein motion for a procedural order before mailing the same to the law firm of Osborn Ma/edon P.A. at 2929 NortF
6 7
Centra/Avenue, Suite 2100, Phoenix AZ 85012 as required.
8 9 10
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
11 12 13 14 15
WENDELL DWAYNE O'NEAL, DEBTOR IN PROPRIA PERSONA, 5575 SIMMONS STREET, SUITE 1, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89031 TX 256-361-5393, [email protected].
16 17
5/21/2015 11:02:48 AM
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
8
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 16 of 50
Desc
Request for Courtesy Copy of Responses Filed With Court. O'Neal v Deilman et al, CV-2014-091086. - [email protected] - Gmail Thursday, September' 1 1, 20 14 7:il AM
Request for Courtesy Copy of Responses Filed With Court. O'Neal v Deilman et al, CV-2014-091086. From: "Wendell O'Neal" Date: Sep 9, 2014 4:33 PM Subject: Service of First Amended and Original Complaints Including Summons. O'Neal v Deilman et al, CV-2014-091086. To: "Christina Rubalcava" Cc: "Wendell O'Neal"
Christina, I personally serviced an original Summons together with Complaints against your clients this afternoon with statutory agent Corporate Service Corporation, Nashville Tn.
I understood the documents were electronically transmitted. Please contact if you have any questions.
Respectfully, Wendell.
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 17 of 50
Desc
On Sep 10, 2014 1:00 PM, "Rubalcava, Christina" wrote:
Wendell, Your personal service of the Maricopa County Superior Court Complaint on a Tennessee registered agent does not comport with the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure regarding service and is, therefore, ineffective. We will respond to your Complaint once you have properly served Defendants.
Thank you,
Christina
inserted from
2
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 18 of 50
Desc
O'Neal v. Deilman, et al., No. CV2014-091086 Adams, Lynne
Sep 19
to me, Christina from: Adams, Lynne [email protected]. to: Wendell O'Neal [email protected]. cc: "Rubalcava, Christina" [email protected]. date: Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:09 PM subject: O'Neal v. Deilman, et al., No. CV2014-091086 mailed-by: omlaw.com
Mr. O'Neal:
I am working with Christina Rubalcava on this matter. I saw that you filed an affidavit of service with the court earlier this week, and l understand that you have sent Christina requests for acceptance of service on behalf of the individuals you have named in the complaint. I am writing to discuss service and response deadlines for all of the defendants related to the amended complaint. Apollo Group, Inc.: We continue to believe that your service of the Apollo Group, Inc. in Tennessee was not valid pursuant to Arizona's Rules of Civil Procedure. However, in order to avoid a court fight about this matter, we are willing to accept service on behalf of Apollo Group.
UniveisitY of Phoenix, Inc.: I do not believe that you have attempted to serve the University of Phoenix, but we will also accept service on its behalf. individual Defendants: We have consulted with the most, but not all, of the individual defendants you have named in the complaint. Those whom we have spoken with have agreed that we can accept service on their behalves. We suspect that we will be able to do so for all of the individual defendants, but we will need a few additional days to confirm that.
If you are amenable to allowing us to accept service on behalf of Apollo Group, Inc. and University of Phoenix, Inc., please send me acceptance of service forms for those entities. I will then return them to you at the same time as I return the acceptance notices for the individual defendants. That will mean that all of the responses to the amended complaint for all of the defendants will be due on the same date, which will alleviate multiple responses.
1
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 19 of 50
Desc
In addition, we ask that you grant us 35 days from the date on which we return the acceptances of service to respond to your amended complaint, instead of the usual 20 days. Please let me know if you are agreeable to that, and if so, when we return the acceptance forms, we will calculate and indicate the date by which we will respond to the amended complaint so that there is no confusion about the matter between us. If you chose not to agree to this course of action, we will be forced to challenge your service on the Apollo Group and will request that the Court grant us the additional time we seek to respond to the complaint. I have no doubt that the court would allow us the additional time, particularly in light of our proposal to you and our attempt to resolve the service matter without involving the court by agreeing to accept service.
We believe this approach is a fair approach that will avoid an early court fight about service and allow all of the defendants to respond to the complaint on the same date. Please let me know if you agree with our proposals. Lynne Adams Lynne C. Adams
A PROFE&BJQU$. A88QGKAJTVQN ATTDRNEU AT LAW
2929 North Central Avepue 21St FlQQr Phoenix, Arizonq S5q12 Telephone 6Q2.64o.q348 Facsimile 6o2,64o.qQ5o [email protected] omlaw.cQm
CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION OF COUNSEL This email mosage is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all oopies of the original message.
2
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 20 of 50
Desc
R Sep 22
Wendell O'Neal to Lynne, Christina, bcc: me
from: Wendell O 'Neal wendelloneal@gmail . com. to : "Adams , Lynne" ladams@omlaw. com. cc : "Rubalcava , Christina" cr1jbalcava@omlaw . com. bcc : Wendell O 'Neal wendelloneal@gmail . com. date: Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:29 PM subject: Re: O'Neal v. Deilinan, et al. , No. CV2014091086 mailed-by : gmail . com Ms . Adams :
Thank you for relaying the University of Phoenix and Apollo Group Inc. willingness to accept service of my first amended complaint after receipt from its statutory agent on 09/09. Inasmuch, I must reject the acceptance offer and look forward to your client's response according to court rules. See Affidavit of Service and Motion for Ruling in support. I provided your client's statutory agent summons complaints for both the University of Phoenix and
&
Apollo Group Inc. contrary to your assertions contained in 09/19 e-mail assertions at paragraph three entitled "University of Phoenix". I am not amendable to allowing said parties to accept service until the highest court decides the same was defective in view of all circumstances.
Consequently, I will charge your clients with misrepresentation if and when said Court decides service was defective . support .
See
Affidavi t
of
Service
Additionally, I am not disposed to allow your any additional days for response to the first complaint and particularly in view said received e-mail notice even before filed by the 07/28. Therefore, said clients should be able to within time provided under Court rules.
supra
in
clients amended parties Court on respond
3
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 21 of 50
Desc
If the Court agrees with any argument advanced by your clients then an immediate claim of appeal and supporting brief will follow.
Your clients not only totally disregarded my efforts to avoid litigation by rejecting a fair settlement offer but also countered proposed to waive inaccurate debt information in exchange for agreement to never apply for enrollment again under circumstances alleged in first complaint that I believe a jury should find worthy of punitive damages in view of said complaint.
the
Additionally, your clients have obstructed the administrative complaint processes by failure to respond to grievances and debt validation inquiries contrary to counsel representations to date.
In light, I am not interested in helping your client in any way and particularly in conduct/ actionsl omissions giving extending to date.
view rise to
of their complaints
Please provide the remaining Defendant's acceptance of service documents by e-mail as committed for filing with the Court at earliest opportunity.
Respectfully, Wendell .
Inserted from
4
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 22 of 50
Desc
EXHIBIT B
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 23 of 50
Desc
Case 2:14-cv-02207-GMS Document 7 Filed 10/09/14 Page 1 of 3
4
Lynne C. Adams, 011367 Christina C. Rubalcava, 026357 OSBORN MALEDON, PA. 2929 North Central Avenue 2 1st Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2793 (602) 640-9000
5
Attorneys for Defendants
l 2 3
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8 Wendell Dwayne O'Neal,
9 Plaintiff,
10 VS.
li 12
Carla Deilman, Lynette Hauek, Sean Dunn, "Francis", Marc Booker, Gloria Sesmas, Unknown Employee, University Of Phoenix Inc, Apollo Group Inc.,
i < >Z D
qp m
F<
QF O, cn
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (First Request)
m r<<
J gn
z iu OL —e V) O cn r. LLd r "< D
dP
13
No. 2:14-CV-02207-GMS
C I
<
14
Defendants.
15 16
Defendants request an extension of time in which to respond to Plaintiffs First
17
Amended Complaint until the later of November 3, 2014 or 14 days after the Court
18
resolves Plaintifts Motion for Remand, assuming that the case is not transferred back to
19
Maricopa County Superior Court. The requested extension will not only allow
20
Defendants time to adequately respond to Plaintiffs 54-page complaint, but also will
21
allow the parties to fiilly brief and the Court to decide the pending Motion to Remand
22
and the jurisdictional issues raised by that Motion.
23 24 25 26 27
Relevant Case Background. On July 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court. Plaintiff did not serve the initial Complaint on any Defendants, nor did he request a waiver or acceptance of service for that version of the Complaint. On September 8, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint in Superior Court, and undersigned counsel accepted service of the First
28
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 24 of 50
Desc
Case 2:14-Cv-02207-GMS Document 7 Filed 10/09/14 Page 2 of 3
1
Amended Complaint on September 29, 2014 for all defendants except "Francis" and
2
"Unknown Employee."
3
On October 3, 2014, the Defendants removed this case from Arizona State Court
4
to this Court. On October 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Remand, challenging the
5
propriety of the removal, specifically whether it was timely. [Doc. 6] On October 9,
6
2014, Plaintiff emailed Defendants' counsel a copy of an Emergency Motion for
7
Hearing Regarding Remand of Arizona State Claims Against University Defendants
8
that he apparently intends to file with this Court.
9
Because the First Amended Complaint was served on September 29, 2014,
10
Defendants' response to the First Amended Complaint must be filed by October 20,
11
2014 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(C)(2). That is also the date on which Defendants'
12
response to the Motion for Remand is due.
13
plaintifrs Opposition to Extension. In light of the pending challenge to this
14
Court's jurisdiction over this matter, and in light of the fact that the First Amended
15
Complaint is 54 pages long, on October 8, 2014, Defendants' counsel requested that
16
Plaintiff grant them a short extension to respond to the First Amended Complaint.
17
Plaintiff declined to grant the request. After receiving notice of the Motion to Remand,
18
Defendants' counsel renewed and revised their request to Plaintiff, asking for an
19
extension until the later of November 3, 2014 or until 14 days following this Court's
20
decision on the pending Motion for Remand. Plaintiff also declined to grant that
21
request, and instead indicated his intent to file the Emergency Motion. In that Motion,
22
Plaintiff reiterates his opposition to providing Defendants with additional time to
23
respond to the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has also indicated that he plans to
24
move for a default judgment against Defendants.
25
Accordingly, Defendants seek an order extending their time to respond to the
26
First Amended Complaint until the later of November 3, 2013 or 14 days from the
27
Court's resolution of the Motion for Remand, assuming that the case is not transferred
28
back to Maricopa County Superior Court.
2 Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 25 of 50
5684927
Desc
Case 2:14-cv-02207-GMS Document 7 Filed 10/09/14 Page 3 of 3
1
A proposed Order accompanies this Motion.
2
DATED this 9" day of October, 2014.
3
OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.
4 5
By SI Lynne C. Adams Lynµe C. Adams Christina C. Rubalcava 2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2782 Attorneysfor Defendants
6 7 8 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
I hereby certify that on October 9, 2014, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the all CM/ECF registrants and I served the attached document by mail on the following, who is not a registered participant of the CNUECF System: Wendell Dwayne O'Neal 5575 Simmons Street, Unit 1 Las Vegas, NV 85031 Pro Per
17 18
sI Dian Burton
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
3 Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 26 of 50
5684927
Desc
EXHIBIT C
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 27 of 50
Desc
Case 2:14-CV-02207-GMS Document 43 Filed 12/03/14 Page 1 of 3
1 2 3 4 5 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8 9
Wendell Dwayne ONeal, Plaintiff,
10 ll
V.
12
University of Phoenix Incorporated, et al.,
13
No. CV-14-02207-PHX-GMS ORDER
Defendants.
14 15
Pending before this Court are: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Ruling Re: Service of
16
Summons, (Doc. 22); (2) Motion for Leave to Appeal in forrna pauperis re: Notice of
17
Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. 24); (3) Motion for U.S. Marshal Service of Subpoena, (Doc.
18
28); (4) Motion for Relief Hom Order Doc. 30; (5) Motion for Hearing to Determine
19
Sufhciency of Service (Doc. 36); and (6) Plaintiffs Objection and Motion to Strike (Doc.
20
38). For the reasons stated below all of these motions are denied.
21
Defense "Counsel accepted service of the First Amended Complaint on September
22
29, 2014 for all Defendants except 'Francis' and 'Unknown employee"' (Doc. 7).
23
Defense counsel thereafter requested, and, on October 10, 2014, the Court granted an
24
extension of time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
25
(Doc. 8). It was not until four days later that Plaintiff first sought an entry of default
26
judgment against some of the Defendants who acknowledged service and for whom the
27
Court had granted an extension of time to respond.
28
///
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 28 of 50
Desc
Case 2:14-cv-02207-GMS Document 43 Filed 12/03/14 Page 2 of 3
1
Plaintiff files most of the above motions trying to get the Court to reconsider its
2
denial of default or default judgment against these coiporate Defendants. Plaintifs
3
theory appears to be that he had already accomplished service on two of the corporate
4
Defendants and therefore, the Court's extension of time to respond was only effective as
5
to the individual Defendants who Plaintiff had not previously served. The Plaintiff
6
therefore attempts to get the Court to determine whether or not the corporate Defendants
7
had been previously served, prior to the time that they acknowledged acceptance of
8
service. The Court declines to do so. Whether or not they had been previously served
9
was not material to the Court's determination to grant all Defendants a limited extension
10
of time to respond. And, the Court granted the Defendants the extension before the
11
Plaintiff moved for default against two of the Defendants. As a result Plaintiffs Motion
12
for Ruling Re: Service of Summons, (Doc. 22), his Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma
13
pauperis re: Notice of Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. 24), his Motion for Relief fiom Order
14
(Doc. 30), his Motion for Hearing to Determine Sufficiency of Service (Doc. 36), and his
15
Objection and Motion to Strike (Doc. 38) all lack merit and are denied.
16
To the extent that the Plaintiff attempts to have the Marshal's service serve one of
17
the corporate Defendants with a subpoena, the Court notes that the corporate Defendant is
18
a party to this lawsuit. The appropriate way for the Plaintiff to obtain documents from
19
parties is pursuant to the discovery rules of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules
20
26-35, and not through the issuance of a subpoena. The Court, therefore, also denies
21
Plaintiffs Motion for U.S. Marshal Service of Subpoena, (Doc. 28).
22
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
23
1.
The Motion for Ruling re: Service of Summons and Complaint (Doc. 22) is
25
2.
The Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 24) is denied.
26
3.
The Motion for U.S. Marshal Service of Subpoena (Doc. 28) is denied.
27
4.
The Motion for Relief Rom Order (Doc. 30) is denied.
28
5.
The Motion for Hearing or Conference (Doc. 36) is denied.
24
denied.
-2Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 29 of 50
Desc
Case 2:14-cv-02207-GMS Document 43 Filed 12/03/14 Page 3 of 3
1
6.
The Motion to Strike Response to Motion (Doc. 38) is denied.
2
Dated this 3rd day of December, 2014.
3 4 5 6
United States District Judge
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-3Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 30 of 50
Desc
Case 2:14-CV-02207-GMS Document 7-1 Filed 10/09/14 Page 1 of 1
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Wendell Dwayne O'Neal,
10 PlaintifE
No. 2:14-CV-02207-GMS
11 VS.
12 13 14
ORDER Carla Deilman, Lynette Hauck, Sean Dunn, "Francis", Marc Booker, Gloria Sesmas, Unknown Employee, University Of Phoenix Inc, Apollo Group Inc.,
15
Defendants.
16 The Court having considered the Defendants' Request for Extension of Time to
17 18
Respond to First Amended Complaint and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is granted and that Defendants shall
19 20
have until the later of November 3, 2014 or 14 days after the Court rules on Plaintiff's
21
Motion for Remand in which to respond to the First Amended Complaint.
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5711021
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 31 of 50
Desc
EXHIBIT D
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 32 of 50
Desc
Michael K Jeanes, Clerk of Court *** Electronically Filed *** K. Laird, Deputy 12/29/2014 1:53:00 PM FilingID 6313279
1 2 3 4
Lynne C. Adams, 011367 Christina C. Rubalcava, 026357 OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. 2929 North Central Avenue, 21st Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2793 (602) 640-9000 ladams@,omlaw.com crubalcava@,omlaw.com
5 Attorneys for Defendants
6
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
7
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
8
WENDELL DWAYNE O'NEAL, 9
Plaintiff,
Z P
" dP
12
P
" KJ : OJ
13
mra Z 14
vs. CARLA DEILMAN, LYNETTE HAUCK, SEAN DUNN, "FRANCIS", MARC BOOKER, GLORIA SESMAS, UNKNOWN EMPLOYEE, UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX INC., APOLLO GROUP INC.,
) ) ) ) )
J 0
< >·
db,Dmm
aw
Defendants.
Z W O% —X 0O © Pui h
<
16
)
DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF BANKRUPTCY (Assigned to the Hon. David Talamante)
) )
)
15
&< O } a-
) ) ) )
10 11
) No. CV-2014-091086
Defendants Carla Dielman, Lynette Hauck, Sean Dunn, Marc Booker, Gloria Sesmas, the
17
University of Phoenix, Inc., and Apollo Education Group, Inc. hereby give notice that Plaintiff
18
Wendell Dwayne O'Neal has filed for bankruptcy before the United States Bankruptcy Court,
19
District of Arizona, Case No. 2-14-bk-18636-EPB. The automatic stay applicable under 11
20
U.S.C. § 362 now applies.
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
However, the Ninth Circuit Appellate Panel has indicated that the automatic stay does not bar Plaintiffs (or his bankruptcy trustee's) prosecution of this lawsuit. See, e.g., In re Way, 229 B.R. 11, 13 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1998); In re Merrick, 175 B.R. 333, 336 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1994). Further, Defendants have the right to defend themselves against a debtor's lawsuit after the bankruptcy filing. The Ninth Circuit has "clearly held that the automatic stay does not prohibit a defendant in an action brought by a plaintiff/debtor Rom defending itself in that action." See Way, 229 B.R. at 13, (citing In re White, 186 B.R. 700, 707 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1995); Merrick, 175 B.R. at 336.).
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 33 of 50
Desc
1
Under the foregoing authority, Defendants have separately filed a motion to dismiss.
2 DATED this 29" day of December, 2014.
3
OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.
4 5
By Isl Lynne C Adams Lynne C. Adams Christina C. Rubalcava 2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2782 Attorneysfor Defendants
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Electronically filed on and a copy e-delivered on December 29, 2014 to: Honorable David Talamante Maricopa County Superior Court 222 E. Javelina Ave. Mesa, AZ 85210-6234
14
COPY mailed on December 29, 2014, to:
15
Wendell Dwayne O'Neal 5575 Simmons Street, Unit 1 P.O.BOX 211 Las Vegas, NV 85031 Pro Per
16 17 18 19 20 21
jill H. Ford Chapter 7 Trustee of Wendell Dwayne O'Neal P.O. Box 5845 Carehee, AZ 85377 Isl Dian Burton
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2 Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 34 of 50
5839319
Desc
EXHIBIT E
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 35 of 50
Desc
1 2 3 4 5
Lynne C. Adams, 011367 Warren J. Stapleton, 018646 Christina C. Rubalcava, 026357 OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. 2929 North Central Avenue, 21st Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2793 (602) 640-9000 ladams@,omlaw.com wstapleton@,omlaw.com crubalcava@,omlaw.com
6 7
Attorneys for University of Phoenix, Inc. and Apollo Education Group, Inc.
8
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 10
In Re:
ll
WENDELL DWAYNE O'NEAL,
ill
, Chapter 7
Debtor.
WENDELL DWAYNE O'NEAL,
19
, NO. 15-AP-00062-EPB
Plaintiff,
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR JOINDER OF
V,.
18
No. 14-BK-18636-EPB
' NIARICOPA SUPERIOR COURT CONSUMER FRAUD CLAIMS
STAFFORD LOANS, UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, INC., APOLLO ED. GROUP, I
INC.,
Defendants.
20 21 22
Plaintiff Wendell ONeal has filed a Motion for Joinder of Maricopa Superior
23
Court Consumer Fraud Claims, in which he seeks to transfer his "Maricopa Superior
24
Court consumer fraud claims" to this adversary action. Dkt #28- 1 at p. l. However,
25
there are no pending claims for this Court to join. As O'Neal admits in his motion and
26
as indicated in one of the many exhibits he has attached to that motion, his consumer
27
Kaud claims were dismissed with prejudice by the Arizona Superior Court, along with
28
all of his other claims against the University of Phoenix and Apollo Education Group
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 31
Filed 05/18/15
Entered 05/18/15 17:24:51 Desc
Page Entered 1 of 7 05/27/15 14:18:09 DocMain 32 Document Filed 05/26/15 Main Document Page 36 of 50
Desc
l 2 3
(collectively "the University"). Joinder of those claims would therefore require this Court to overturn the Arizona Superior Court's ruling and resurrect the already dismissed claims, neither of which is within this Court's power to do. Moreover, even if this Court could somehow resurrect O'Neal's defiinct State
4 5 6 7
law claims, the resurrection would be fiitile as this Court lacks jurisdiction over the unrelated claim, and the claim is barred by res judicata and the one-year statute of limitations. Argument
8 9
I.
O'Neal's Consumer Fraud Claims Have Been Dismissed with Prejudice and Appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
There is no active lawsuit pending in Arizona Superior Court and, thus, no consumer fraud claim to join. All of O'Neal's claims against the University (and other University employee defendants), including his consumer fraud claim, were dismissed with prejudice in a final judgment on the merits. See Dkt #24 (University's Mot. to Dismiss) at Ex. 1 (Arizona Superior Court Minute Entry, dated 1/23/15, dismissing action with prejudice; Final Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice, dated 3/3/15; Minute Entry, dated 3/17/15, denying motion for relief from judgment). Moreover, because O'Neal has appealed the Superior Court's order to the Arizona Court of Appeals, the Superior Court no longer has any jurisdiction over his defiinct claims. Given the posture of the State court litigation, O'Neal has essentially made the impossible request that this Court: (1) transfer his appeal from the Arizona Court of Appeals back to Arizona Superior Court, (2) instruct the Superior Court to vacate its judgment dismissing ONeal's claims with prejudice and then to reinstate O'Neal's Superior Court complaint, and (3) transfer a portion of that complaint to this Court. There is no way for this Court to do what O'Neal seeks. O'Neal is apparently belatedly attempting to forum shop, having decided that this Court is potentially more inclined to rule in his favor on his claims than was the Arizona Superior Court. But it was O'Neal who decided to file his claims in Arizona Superior
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB Doc 31 Filed 05/18/£5 Entered 05/18/15 17:24:51 Desc Page Entered 2 of 7 05/27/15 14:18:09 Desc Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB DocMain 32 Document Filed 05/26/15 Main Document Page 37 of 50
Court, and it was O'Neal who asked that the case be remanded back to the state court 1
after the University removed it to federal court. That the claims were decided in the 2
University's favor does not provide ONeal with any right to have them relitigated in 3 4
this Court Not only does this Court lack authority to directly reverse the Arizona Superior
5
Court's judgment, it cannot indirectly review that decision. As pointed out in the 6
University's reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss, 28 U.S.C. § 1257 and the 7
Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibit this Court from acting as an appellate court for state 8
court judgments. See Rooker v. Fidelig Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Dist. of 9
Columbia Court ofAppea/s v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The Rooker-Feldman 10
doctrine bars a party losing in state court from seeking what in substance would be 11
appellate review of the state judgment in a federal court, based on the losing party's 12
claim that the state court judgment itself violates the loser's federal rights. See Exxon 13
Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 291-92 (2005). O'Neal's 14 15 16
attempt to do that fails for at least two reasons: ·
First, there is no federal basis to challenge the state court's decision,
which was based on state procedural grounds governing state law claims. 17
This is directly barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1257. 18 19
· Second, even if there were a federal law-based challenge to the Arizona State Court's decision, it would barred by Rooker-Feldman. See
20
Exxon Mobil Corp., 544 U.S. at 291-92. 21
Thus, the Court must decline O'Neal's request to join additional, previously22
adjudicated claims, because his request impermissibly attempts to obtain federal review
23 24
of the State Court's decision.
25 26 27 28
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB Doc 31 Filed 05/18/q5 Entered 05/18/15 17:24:51 Desc Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB DocMain 32 Document Filed 05/26/15 PageEntered 3 of 7 05/27/15 14:18:09 Desc Main Document Page 38 of 50
F
.
I 2
II.
The Joinder of Any Claims Would Be Futile Even If This Court Had the Necessary Authority to Resurrect and Transfer Them. Even if this Court did have the authority to resurrect O'Neal's state court claims
3
and review them, the joinder of the consumer fraud claim would be futile for three
4
reasons.
5
No BankruptcY Jurisdiction. This Court does not have jurisdiction over
6
O'Neal's State statutory consumer fraud claim as it does not arise in, arise under, or
7
relate to his bankruptcy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b); In re Tucson Estates, 912 F.2d 1162,
8
1168 (9th Cir. 1990). As discussed in more detail in the University's Motion to
9
Dismiss, now that the Trustee has abandoned these claims, the resolution of these
10
claims could not conceivably have any impact on O'Neal's bankruptcy estate. See, e.g.,
11
In re Fietz, 852 F.2d 455, 457 (9th Cir. 1988); In re WorldFin. Servs. Ctr., Inc., 64 B.R.
12
980, 987-88 (Bank. S.D. Cal. 1986) (collecting cases).
13
Barred by Res Judicata. O'Neal's consumer fraud claims are barred by res
14 judicata. O'Neal admittedly seeks to join the very same consumer Kaud claim that he 15
brought in the Arizona Superior Court, which the Superior Court dismissed with
16
prejudice in a final judgment on the merits. See Dkt #24 at Ex. 1; see also Tahoe Sierra
17
Pres. Council, Inc. y. Tahoe RegionalPlanning, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003)
18
(finding res judicata applies when there is "(1) an identity of claims, (2) a final
19
judgment on the merits, and (3) privity between parties"). Although O'Neal did not
20
assert the consumer fraud claim against the University, the University was a party to the
21
action and the consumer fraud claim was brought against one of its employees. ONeal
22
indisputably had the opportunity to assert this claim against the University in Superior
23
Court and, as a result, res judicata bars its litigation in this Court. See Federated Dep 't
24
Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981) (holding that res judicata precludes the
25
parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in
26
that action); Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, 322 F.3d at 1078 ("Identity of claims exists
27
when two suits arise Hom the same transactional nucleus of facts.") (internal quotation
28
marks omitted).
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB Doc 31 Filed 05/18/b Entered 05/18/15 17:24:51 Desc Page Entered 4 of 7 05/27/15 14:18:09 Desc Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB DocMain 32 Document Filed 05/26/15 Main Document Page 39 of 50
Time-Barred. Finally, even if O'Neal could surmount these hurdles, his
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
consumer fraud claim is fUrther barred by the statute of limitations. At the time O'Neal asserted this claim in Arizona Superior Court, it was already barred by Arizona's oneyear statute of limitations. A.R.S. § 12-541 (one-year limitations period for liability created by statute). O'Neal's complaint made clear on its face that he knew of the basis for the alleged consumer fraud by July 26, 2013, yet O'Neal did not file his claim until September 8, 2014. See Dkt #24, Ex. 6-l at pp. 2-43 (O'Neal's First Amended Complaint filed in Arizona Superior Court action, alleging consumer fiaud claim); Dkt #24, Ex. 6-2 at p. 44 & Ex. 6-3 at pp. 2-3 (email messages showing that by July 26, 2013 at the latest, O'Neal was aware of the issues related to his financial aid package for the 2012-13 academic year, which formed the basis of his consumer haud claim); Alaface v. Nat'llnv. Co., 181 Ariz. 586, 892 P.2d 1375 (App. 1994) (statutory consumer fraud action must be initiated within one year after the cause of action accrues). Any consumer fraud claim ONeal now seeks to assert against the University is likewise well after the July 26, 2014 deadline to bring suit and barred by the statute of limitations. III.
The Arizona Superior Court's Judgment Is Not "Void." O'Neal asserts that the Arizona Superior Court's dismissal of his claims with
prejudice is void because the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the University, resulting from the University's purported failure to timely respond to O'Neal's complaint. Even if O'Neal's assertion was true, and it is not, a lack of personal jurisdiction over a party does not impact the validity of a final judgment. See Ariz. Tile, L.L.C. v. Berger, 223 Ariz. 491, 494, 224 P.3d 988, 991 (App. 2010) (recognizing personal jurisdiction was waived by failure to raise the affirmative defense and upholding enforceability of court's order). Moreover, as detailed in the University's Motion to Dismiss, O'Neal has argued
25 26 27
this service issue ad nauseam, and both the District Court and the Arizona Superior Court have ruled that the University timely responded to O'Neal's Complaint. In short, O'Neal did not properly serve his lawsuit when he personally delivered a copy of his
28
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB Doc 31 Filed 05/18/§5 Entered 05/18/15 17:24:51 Desc PageEntered 5 of 7 05/27/15 14:18:09 Desc Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB DocMain 32 Document Filed 05/26/15 Main Document Page 40 of 50
1
summons and complaint to a Tennessee statutory agent for one defendant, rather than having an independent party serve the Arizona statutory agent for both defendantsj See
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4(d) (prohibiting a party Hom serving as a process server in his own lawsuit); Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1 & 4.2 (only permitting out-of-state service on a corporation in limited circumstances). However, as the email messages that O'Neal has attached to his Motion for Joinder indicate, the University agreed to accept service, mooting the issue. Regardless, the propriety of service on the University and its subsequent acceptance of service have no impact on the finality of the Arizona Superior Court's judgment.
IV.
In Consequence of This Vexatious Litigation, the Court Should Award Attorneys' Fees and Stay Further Briefing. This Motion, along with ONeal's other filings both in this Court and in other
courts, indicate that he is a vexatious litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. O'Neal has "multiplie{d] the proceedings in [this] case unreasonably and vexatiously," and he should therefore be required to pay the University's attorneys' fees and costs associated with responding to this Motion and to his Amended Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1927; Wages v. I.R.S., 915 F.2d 1230, 1235-36 (9th Cir. 1990) (requiring pro per litigant to pay fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1927). Accordingly, the University requests that this Court award it the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with responding to this Motion. Moreover, if history is any indicator, O'Neal will continue to file motion after frivolous motion, forcing the University and this Court to engage in and consider voluminous and potentially unnecessary briefing. In light of the Court's "broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket,"
24 25 26 27 28
' The University's argument regarding service of process is included in more detail in the briefing from O'Neal's Arizona Superior Court case, which O'Neal has attached to his Motion for Joinder. Judge Snow's denial of O'Neal's service argument is also included in those exhibits. Judge Talamante also expressly rejected the service and personal jurisdiction arguments, which were raised before the entry of Final Judgment and again after it. See Dkt #24 at Ex. 1.
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB Doc 31 Filed 05/18/£5 Entered 05/18/15 17:24:51 Desc PageEntered 6 of 7 05/27/15 14:18:09 Desc Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB DocMain 32 Document Filed 05/26/15 Main Document Page 41 of 50
r
6
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997), the University requests that the Court enter 1
an order clarifying that the University need not respond to any of O'Neal's filings 2
regardless of when filed - until after the Court has ruled upon the pending Motion to 3 4
Dismiss. Conclusion
5
For all of these reasons, the University asks the Court to deny O'Neal's Motion 6
for Joinder in its entirety; award the University its attorneys' fees and costs in 7
responding to this frivolous motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927; and enter an order 8
that Defendants only need respond to a motion filed by O'Neal when so directed by the 9 10
Court.
DATED May 18, 2015.
11
OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.
12
By Isl Warren J. Stapleton Lynne C. Adams Warren J. Stapleton Christina C. Rubakava 2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2782 Attorneysfor University ofPhoenix, Inc. and Apollo Education Group, Inc.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
COPY mailed on May 18, 2015, to: Wendell Dwayne ONeal 5575 Simmons Street, Unit 1 P.O. Box 211 Las Vegas, NV 89031 Pro Per
23 24
Jill H. Ford Chapter 7 Trustee of Wendell Dwayne O'Neal
25
P.O. Box 5845 Carefree, AZ 85377
26 27 28
Isl Peggy Nieto 6079259
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB Doc 31 Filed 05/18/15 Entered 05/18/15 17:24:51 Desc Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB DocMain 32 Document Filed 05/26/15 PageEntered 7 of 7 05/27/15 14:18:09 Desc Main Document Page 42 of 50
q ,
'
? ' ,
1 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ARIZONA PHOENIX DISTRICT
3 4
CASE NO. 14-BK-18636-EPB; CASE NO. 15-AP-00062-EPB;
5 6 7 8
WENDELL DWAYNE O'NEAL, PLAINTIFF,
9 ID li 12 13 14 15 16
Vs. UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX INC, APOLLO ED. GROUP INC., DEFENDANTS, REPLY FOR JOINDER OF MARICOPA SUPERIOR COURT CONSUMER FRAUD CLAIMS, Apollo Ed. Group Inc. and University of Phoenix Inc. unlawfully
17
obtained summary judgment as more fully set forth below and reliefs 18 19 20
hereinafter sought as provided'. Title 28 USC § § 1441(a)(c)(1)(A)(l); KinC v. CAE INC. No. CV 12-00441-PHX-FjM; Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rules 18(a).
21 22 23
Endischee v. Endischee, 141 Ariz. 77, 79, 685 P.2d 142, 144 (App.1984). Kadota v. Hosogai, 125 Ariz. 131, 134, 608 P.2d 68, 71 (App.1980).
24 25 26 27
' Title li us. Code§ 727,- Title 34 CRF§ §685.2l2(a)(c); Title 28 USC§ 157(A)(B)(C)(I) (4)(5); S.E.C v. ROSS, 504 F.3d 1130 (2007).
28
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
1
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 43 of 50
Desc
¥
I 0
1
The Maricopa Superior Court summary judgment ruling is voic
2 3 4 5
because Apollo supra misrepresented acceptance of process service or 09/29/2014 contrary to Alabama court rules. King v CAE, Id; Endischee l Endischee, Id; 16 A.R.S. Rule 4.1(C)(3)(4). On the other hand, Apo//c
6 7 8
Individual Employees failed to appear within time provided under cour rules after legitimately removing state claims due to remand. 16 A.R.S
9 ID
Rules 55(a); 16 A.R.S. Rules 4.1(c)(3)(4). In light, this honorable Court may
11
join consumer fraud claims without regard to Res Judicata, Abstention, or
12
One Year Statute of Limitations Affirmative defenses2.
13 14
P/aintilT consumer fraud claims are not time barred because he
15 16
commenced a federal lawsuit on 05/19/2014 within one year of withdrawa
17
from Axia Online Col/ege3. The federal Court permitted consumer frauc
18 19
claims' and later allowed voluntary dismissaF.
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2 Apollo Defendants did not raise the statute of limitations in its motion to dismiss. [Doc. 24]. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule /2(a)(/)(A)(j). ' O 'Neal v Carla Dei/man el al, Case 2:14-cv-01080-SRB. [Doc. I], ( us. District Court, Phoenk Arizona). ' Id. [Doc. /8. Count II]. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rules l5(a)(c)(d). ' Id. [Doc 29]. 2
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 44 of 50
Desc
.
4
}
.
> &
1
P/aintih refiled consumer fraud claims in the Maricopa Superior Cout
2
3
on 07/28/2014'. Additionally, P/aintih provided judicial notice of pending
4 state and federal claims to preserve litigation opportunity on 9/11/2014' , 5
'
COUNTER-ARGUMENTS,
7
I. '
THE MARICOPA SUPERIOR COURT ISSUED A VOlt SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER BECAUSE APOLLO ANC
9
UNIVERSITY MISREPRESENTED PROCESS SERVICE,
10
11
ACCEPTANCE
OF
P/aintih concedes there is no active consumer fraud lawsuit before thE
'2 Maricopa Super'or Court because Apollo supra obtained summary 13
14 judgment by fraud against civil rights'. In light, consumer fraud claims were i' never lawfully tried in the Maricopa Court, therefore they may be joinec 16 17
under federal court rules without regard to Res Judicata and Abstentior
18 affirmative defensesg. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
' [Doc. 28j PP. l-2 in support. ' See [Doc. 28/for attached Maricopu Docket Journal Entriesfor 09/1 1/2014 Judicial Notice in support.
27
' US. Const. Am. X7V, V, I; 16ARSRules 56(c),' 16ARSRules 55(a),' 16ARSRules 12(a)," King Id: Endischee Id; 16 A.R.S. Rules of Civil Proc. Rule 4. /(c)(3)(4j.
28
' [Doc. 24J. us. Const. Am. X7V, V, I; Fed. R. Civ. Proc. :ules 18(a); King, Id; Endischee v. Endischee, Id.
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 45 of 50
Desc
.
i
'
A. ROOKER-FELDMAN DOES NOT APPLY WHERE APOLLO AND
,
UNIVERSITY MISREPRESENTED ACCEPTANCE OF PROCESS SERVICE,
3
4
The basis for challenging the state court summary judgment decision is
5 firmly grounded in Constitutional provisions for Equal Protection under color 6
, of Arizona laws as more fully set forth within the Fourteenth, Fifth, and Firs: ' Amendments that 28 USC § 1257 cannot preclude. S.E.C. v. Ross, Id. lr 9 10
this case, federal statutes provide for discharge of Stafford loans and court
11 rules provide for joinder of consumer fraud claims. Title 11; Fed. R. Civ. '2 Proc. Rules 18(a). Moreover, state and federal case laws provide Apo//c 13
,, Defendants obtained a void summary judgment decision based upor 15 misrepresenting acceptance of process service. King, Id; End/schee v. 16 17
End/schee, Id.
18
19 Maricopa journal entries evidence P/aintif did not file acceptance 020 service forms for Apollo and UniveNty10. Apollo supra never appeared ir 21
the Maricopa Court after receiving summons on 09/09/2014 contrary tc
22
23 Arizona court rules. ARS. Rules 12(a)(b). 24 25 26 27
jo See [Doc. 28/for Maricopa Superior Court Docket Journal Entries/Or /0/06/20/4 Acceptance of Service Forms
28
for Individuals in support. 16 A.R.S. Rules qf Civil Proced:'e, Rule 4. l(c)(3)(4)-
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 46 of 50
Desc
%
\
0
1
Instead, Apollo and University removed state claims to federal court or
2 3 4 5
10/03/2014 and waived the sufficiency of process service issue '1
Afterwards, Apollo and University misrepresented they accepted process
service on 09/29/2014 to obtain additional time for responses contrary
6 7 8
Arizona and federal court rules " . Judge Snow granted Apollo anc University an extension of time for responses based upon saic
9 10 11 12
misrepresentation'3 . The Court never re-issued summons but remandec
Apollo Defendants back to the Maricopa Court on 12/15/2014". ThE remand voided extension of time orders for lack of jurisdiction1'. King v.
13 14
CAE INC, Id.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
" O 'Neal v University ofPhoen± Inc. et al, 14-CV-2207-PHX-GMS. [Doc. 1]; Richards v Harper, No. 87-4225. United States Court ofAppeals, Ninth Circuit, (Dec. 23, 1988). " Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rules 81(c)(1)(2)(A)(B)(C); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rules 55(a),' 16A.R.S. Rules 4.l(c)(3)(4); O 'Neal v Universi{y ofPhoenir Inc. et al 14-CV-2207-GMS.. [Doc. 7] ; Mason v. Genisco Technolqy Corp. No. 9155108, 960 F.2d 849 (1992); Benny v Pjpes Id. " Id. /Doc. 8]. " Id. [Doc. 43/, [Doc. 46/. Attornty Adams stated the University did not receive a summons at all. See Averment 2 in support. " Id. {Doc. 50-51].
28
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
5
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 47 of 50
Desc
·1·
q
7
'V
N
'
The Maricopa summary judgment was void because (1), the University
2 3
denied receiving a summons on 09/09/2014 ". (2), "Apollo was no
4 authorized to do business in Tennessee, therefore receipt of summons waE 5
not valid pursuant to Arizona's Rules of Civil Procedure"". (3), P/aintit
6
7 never filed an acceptance of service forms for Apollo and University in the 8 Maricopa Court. (4), State and federal courts never re-issued summonE 9 10
because Defendants misrepresented acceptance on 09/29/2014. (6), lr"
ii light, the Maricopa Court had no personal jurisdiction over Defendants tc 12
grant summary judgment'8. Therefore, this honorable Court may remove tc
13
14 enjoin the federal Stafford loan claim presented as consumer frauc
" accordingly. Title 28 USC § § 1441(a)(c)(1)(A)(i)· 16 17
18 19
RELIEFS SOUGHT, WHEREFORE, and for all foregoing reasoning, P/aintih respectfully
20
21 prays for an order joining the Maricopa federal Stafford loan claims 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
" See [Doc. 28jfor Attorney Adams 09/22/2014 e-mail in support. EndLschee v. Endischee, Id. " See [Doc. 28)for Attomy Lynne Adams 09/22/2014 e-mail in support. Additionally, Attormy Adams attached 11/13/2014 Response Opposing S@ciency ofProcess Service in Tennessee. [Doc. 32]. O 'Neal v Universi(y of PhoenH Inc. et al, 14-CV-2207-PHX-GMS. '8 Tonner v Paradise Vall< Magistrate 's Court, 171 Ariz. 449; 831 P.2d. 448 (1992). 6
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 48 of 50
Desc
.
--
.
'X
k"
1
together with herein action and any other relief deemed necessary under
2 3
herein pIed circumstances. Id. CERTIFICATION,
4 5 6 7
P/aintih certifies the foregoing Reply supra contains truthful anc accurate statements based upon his own knowledge, information and belief.
8 9
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 11 et seq.
10
SERVICE, II 12 13
P/aintih provided Apollo and University notice of Reply supra by edelivery through counsels Lynne Adams and Warren Stapleton before
14 15
mailing the same to the law firm of Osborn Ma/edon P.A. as required.
16
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 17 18 19 20 21 22
WENDELL DWAYNE O'NEAL, DEBTOR IN PROPRIA PERSONA, 5575 SIMMONS STREET, SUITE 1, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89031 TX 256-361-5393, [email protected].
23 24
5/20/2015 8:50:54 AM
25 26 27 28
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
7
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 49 of 50
Desc
Cqy THIRTEENTH DIMENSION LLC A Crisis Management Enterprise, 5575 SIMMONS STREET, STE. 1, P.O. BOX 211. LAS VEGAS NEVADA 89031
Tx. (256)461-5393, [email protected]. 5/20/2015 4:29:20 PM ARIZONA, CIVIL COURT OF APPEALS, DIVISION ONE, 1501 W. WASHINGTON STREET, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007 CLERK OF COURT, 1CA-CV- 150306, O'NE4L VCARLA DEhLMANETAL, MOTIONFORPROCEDURAL ORDER, Dear Clerk,
Please file the enclosed Motion supra as captioned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
WENDELL DWAYNE O'NEAL, PETITIONER IN PRPRA. PRSNA. xI AUomeyLynneAdams, Warren Stapleton, Osborn Maledon P.A. f.
Case 2:15-ap-00062-EPB
Doc 32 Filed 05/26/15 Entered 05/27/15 14:18:09 Main Document Page 50 of 50
Desc
