1 COMMISSIONERS KRISTIN K. MAYES, Chairman GARY PIERCE PAUL NEWMAN SANDRA D. KENNEDY BOB STUMP c T FEB -.,=,**m*d-a* mission a. - N THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF JOHNSON UTILITIES, L.L.C., DBA JOHNSON UTILITIES COMPANY FOR AN INCREASE IN ITS WATER AND WASTEWATER RATES FOR CUSTOMERS WITHIN PINAL COUNTY, ARIZONA. DOCKET NO. WS-0987A EMERGENCY MOTION TO PROHIBIT INAPPROPRIATE CONTACT 5 6 Swing First Golf LLC ( Swing First ) moves for an order prohibiting Johnson Utilities LLC, its managing member George Johnson, or any other member or employee (collectively Utility ) from further contacting (i) Swing First s members or investors; or (ii) customers :oncerning the issues in this case. In support of its motion, Swing First states as follows: [ Factual Basis On February,009, Swing First submitted testimony in this docket. Attached as Exhibit A, is a copy of a February 9,009, letter from Utility, signed 9 0 by George Johnson and sent to Swing First members. Among other things, the letter: a. Threatens to sue the member for defamation if the member fails to proactively oppose Swing First s activities at the Corporation Commission; b. Attacks Mr. Ashton s character by attaching information concerning an irrelevant legal matter involving Mr. Ashton; c. d. e. Disparages without basis Mr. Ashton s management of Swing First; Libels Mr. Ashton by insinuating financial impropriety; and Seeks to damage Mr. Ashton s business relationship with Swing First s members and investors.
2 . Swing First is also informed and believes that Mr. Johnson has been contacting Swing First s members and/or Utility s customers, and demanding that they agree to be deposed or he will get an order forcing them to testify. I 5 I Discussion There can be no dispute that Utility s actions are completely inappropriate. Utility should not be attempting to intimidate another party or its customers through threats. Utility and Swing First are each represented by counsel. Regardless of their nature, all communications between the parties should be made by counsel. All communications with customers concerning testimony or other matters related to this case should also come from Utility s counsel. Swing First asks that the Commission act immediately, without further hearings or pleadings, to provide relief in the nature of a temporary restraining order. There can be no lawful justification for Utility s reprehensible behavior. To be clear, Swing First is not asking that the Commission evaluate this behavior at this time. Rather, Swing First is asking the Commission to order Utility to not engage in such actions in the future and to remind Utility of the standards of conduct in Commission cases. No further hearings or pleadings are required for the Commission to issue such an order. Requested Relief Swing First asks the Commission. To order Utility to cease all contacts with Swing First, its members, or its investors;. To order Utility to cease all contacts with it customers concerning this or other Commission matters (including Docket Nos. WS-0987A and WS-0987A ), other than as specifically authorized by the Commission;. To order Utility to make all contacts with Swing First and other parties in this case only through counsel; Swing First is today filing supplemental direct testimony concerning Utility s latest activities. This will provide the Commission a full opportunity to evaluate Utility s conduct and to determine what penalties are warranted.
3 ~ Jeffrey W. Crockett, Esq. Bradley S. Carroll, Esq. Kristoffer P. Kiefer, Esq. Snell & Wilmer LLP One Arizona Center 00 East Van Buren Street Phoenix, AZ Attorneys for Johnson Utilities, LLC James E. Mannato Florence Town Attorney 775 N. Main Street P.O. Box 670 Florence, AZ 85 By: Craig A.
4 To order Utility to make all contacts with its customers concerning this case only through counsel, other than as specifically authorized by the Commission; and 5. For such further relief as may be appropriate. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on February,009. Original and copies filed on February,009, to: Docket Control Arizona Corporation Commission 00 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona Copy of the foregoing mailed and ed on February,009, to: Ernest G. Johnson, Director Utilities Division Arizona Corporation Commission 00 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ Ayesha Vohra Legal Division Arizona Corporation Commission 00 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ Craig A. h&ks Craig A. Marks, PLC 065 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite Phoenix, AZ 8508 Attorney for Swing First Golf LLC
5 Motion Exhibit A 900 ing Member of Swin
6 Enclosure: Superior Court Complaint NO. CVW5-Ol78 Superior Court Judgment NO. t'v005-0f79 Superior Court Complaint NO CR 5-089&&)
7 a Curry, Pearson & Wooten, PLC 8 I W. Roosevelt Street Phoenix, Arizona Tel. (60) FEU (60) Kristen Cuny #00 Attorney for Plainlifx E s IC M THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA CURTIS LAYTON, by and through his arents and uardians, IRh.N LAYT%N and CYNTHIA NO. cvoo5-079 LAYTON, COMPLAINT Plaintiff, (TORT-NON MOTOR VEHICLE) vs. DAVID ASHTON and STASHA SSWTON husband and wife- JOHN OES I-d and JANE DOE i-v, Defendants. Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby alleges as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff, Cuds Layton, byand through his parents, Brian Layton and Cynthia Layton, were residents of Maricopa County, Arizona, at the time the events alleged herein occurred. On information and belief, Defendants David Ashton and Stasha Ashton are husband and wife and reside in Maicopa County Arizona. A actions against Defendants complained of herein were undert&m jointly or on behalf of and for the benefit Qf the marital community of David Ashton and Stasha Ashton. The remaining Defendants are fictitiousiy-named individuals who, atong with the
8 I IO 8 ' Defendants are liable for the Plaintiffs damages, as alleged herein. The Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to add proper names when the identities of the fictitiously-named Defendants are ascertained. The incident and all matters alleged herein occurred in Maricopa County in the State of Arizona, Jurisdiction and venue are appropriate for this Court. The amount in controversy exceeds the minimal jurisdictional limits of this court. On or about April, 005, Defendants David Ashton and Stasha Ashton sought out some unknown juvenile males who had allegedly yelled profanities at Stasha Ashton earlier in the day. Defendants David Ashton and Stasha Ashton were together in their vehicle searching for the juveniles when they saw Plaintiff Curtis Layton riding his bicycle near 6P Avenue and Happy Valley Road in Phoenix, Arizona. Defendant Stasha Ashton identified Plaintiff and then Defendant David Ashton exited his vehicle and attacked Curtis Layton both physically and verbally by pushing Curtis off of his bicycle, throwing him against a pillar and shopping cart and yelling at him. After already attacking Plaintiff, Defendant David Ashton then forcibly took Curtis towards the car where Defendant Stasha Ashton was sitting and asked her if Plaintiff was one of the juvcniics involved. Defendant Stasha Ashtan toid her husband that Plaintiff was not. COUNT ONE (Assault) Plaintiff hereby realleges the allegations in paragraph -9. Defendant David Ashton intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with Curtis Layton or place Curtis Layton in imminent apprehension of such contact without cause or justification. Defendant Stasha Ashton intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with Curtis
9 J' I !O.!. t. t. Yf.Layton or place Curtis Layton in imminent apprehension of such contact without cause or justification when she went with her husband to find Plaintiff and assist him. Defendants actions caused Curtis Layton to fear imminent offensive and harmful contact. Curtis Layton suffered physical injuries, mental anguish, pain and suffering as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' intentional acts. COUNT T wo (Battery) Plaintiffk hereby reallege the allegations in paragraphs -. Defendant David Ashton intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact when he attacked Curtis Layton without cause or justification. Defendant Stasha Ashtqn intended to cause a harmfbl or offensive contact with Curtis Layton when she went with her husband to find Plaintiff and assist him. Defendants' actions caused Curtis Layton to suffer hannfbl and offensive contact. Curtis Layton suffered physical injuries, mental anguish, pain and suffering as a dirccl and proximate result of Defendant's intentional acts. * COUNT THREE (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) Plaintiffs hereby mallege the allegations in paragraphs - 9. Defendants actions in attacking Curtis Layton without cause or justification was extreme and outragems conduct. Defmdants actions either intended to cause severe emotional distress or recklessly disregarded'the near certainty that such distress would result from their actions and conduct. Curtis Layton suffered severe emotional distress as a result of Defendant's.. conduct.
10 J i I WHERIEFORE, Plaintiff prays forjudgment against the Defendants as follows: A. Compensatory damages; B. Punitive Damages; C. Costs and expenses incurred herein; and D. For such other and fbrther relief as &he Court deems just and appropriate under he circumstances. 005: DATEDthisfl f?l dayof &&cp&$k, CURRY, PEARSON & WOOTEN, PLC Attorney for Plaintiff ; : 8 9 (
11 5 G I5 8 I William D. Holm, Bar #007 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHUU, P.L.C. 90 North Central Avenue. Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 850 Telephone: ( Fa: (60)ZOO- 80 minuteentri Attorneys for Defendants Ashton SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA COUNTY OF MARICOPA CURTIS MYTON, by and thmu his NO. CV parents and ardians, BRIAN YTON and CYNTHIA J%YTON, JUDGMENT V. Plaintiff, DAVID ASHTON and STASHA ASHTON, husband and wife, et al., Defendants. (Assigned to the Hon. Paul A. Katz) The above-entitled and numbered cause having come on regularly for a jury trial before the Honorable Paul A. Katz on May 9, 007; the Plaintiff, Curtis Layton, being present in person and with his parents Brian Layton and Cynthia Layton and his attorney, Kristin Cuny, Defendants David Ashton and Stasha Ashton, being present in person and with their attorney, William D. Holm, and the parties having announced ready; Plaintiff having introduced evidence in support of his complaint and Defendants having introduced evidence in opposition thereto; and the matter having been submitted to the jury for its determination; and the jury having returned a verdict for Plaintiff NOW, THEMFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that judgment be entered, in Plaintiffs favor, and against Defendants David Ashton and Stasha Ashton in the amount of $9, I
12 ... "I' I IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AM) DECREED that, as the prevailing party in this action, Plaintiff is entitled to recover his taxable costs from Defendants in the amount of S %! e "70. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that, pursuant to Arizona Rules of CiviI Procedure Rule 68(d), since Plaintiff failed to obtain a Judgment greater than Defendants' June 6, 006 Offer of Judgment in the amount of $0,000, Defendants Ashton are entitled to recover double their taxable costs incurred afrer the date of the Offer of Judgment in the amount of $
13 THE STATE OF &IZoNA V. DAVID BRUCE ASHTON CR AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, A CLASS 6 FELONY
14 ANDREW P THOMAS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY Scott Wolfram Deputy County Attorney Bar Id #: West Washington, Suite 000 Phoenix, At 8500 Telephone: (60) MCAOFirm#: Attorney for Plaintiff THE STATE OF ARIZONA, VS. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA Plaintiff, DAVID BRUCE ASHTON (OOl), COUNTY OF MARICOPA, RCC - GLENDALE Defendant. DR Phoenix Police Department NORTH VALLEY JUSTICE COURT CR DIRECT COMPLAINT CA00508 COUNT : AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. A CLASS 6 FELONY IN CUSTODY The complainant herein personally appears and, being duly sworn, complains on information and belief against DAVID BRUCE ASHTON, charging that in Maricopa County, Arizona: COUNT 9: DAVID BRUCE ASHTON, on or about the l* day of April, 005, being eighteen years of age or more. intentionally. knowingly or recklessly caused physical injury to CURTIS LAYTON, a child of years of age or under, in violation 0fA.R.S ,-70.-?0, and -80. /A Scott Wolfram // Deputy County Attorney Y Subscnied and sworn upon information and belief this&%ay of April, 005. SWeslAO.DCO
15 .- -L COURT INFORMATtON SHEET CClSl Countv Attornev Case Number: CA00508 STATE v. DAVID BRUCE ASHTON Defendant Sequence: Defendant's Address: Defendant's Employer: IN CUSTODY 7 WESTAVENIDA DEL SOL PEORIA,AZ 858 UNKNOWN Defendants PUBLIC DEFENDER Attorney DEFENDANT'S DESCRIPTION: 'Race: wgt - 5 DOB: //970 SoCec #: i0689 Filina ID Number: CA W Sex: a Hair: BRO E es: ORN Hgt: 50 SID * Unknown FBI #: Unknown Old LEJIS #: Unknown JMS Booking #; PO657 JMS LEJlS #: Unknown FILING STATUS: Direct Complaint CR #k CR Date Filed: Court Designation: RCC - GLENDALE Justice Court Precinct: NORTH VALLEY JUSTICE ATTORNEY: SCOlT WOLFRAM Bar ID: 000 Location: Downtown PRELIMINARY HEARINGIGRAND JURY CHARGES: COUNT I: AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. A CLASS 6 FELONY Count ARS Date of Crime DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS: DR Phoenix Police Department EXTRADITE: A0 DWL
16 RELEASE QUESTIONNAIRE D. CRIME80FVXOLENCE I. Relations ip of de ndant to victim: /Swh D o l c c ~ m ~ ~ ~ l o ~ Explain:. Isdefdailtc E, OTHERtNFORMATION involving OYES Explain: on pmbrrion. pmle w any othcr form of rekm convictions?... huluranvindiutionihcdekndantis: c. cirrcuarsrancesoftee~ withwhom How long a,#,>/.s k.iw < Was Ute ddindyu tfk influence of alcohol of dtup at the time of the What facts indicate Ute d$piant will flee if reled? explain: what facts &plain: m Nr I / have to oppose nn unsecured n h?
17 s considered a major drug dealer, p l ~ state e the SECTION-UI: hbabk Cause Statement. -Pkasc summatizc and include the information which OfknSe? \ Approximate monetary value: \ Qlrirntitysnd typc: \. Buckeye. CentralPhoenix. Chandler.... EastMesa 5. Fast PhoenixItl 6. East Phoenix## 7. GilaBend 8. Glendale 9. Mafyvaie. Northeast Phoenix ** If a ruaitive arrest. a form IVA must also be completed ** MARICOPA COU"Y-W!S"ICE COUBT PRECINCTS. Northwest Phoenix. Peoria IS. Scoitsdaie - South MesdGilbW. South Phoenix 8. Tempe East 9. Tempe West 0. Tollcson. West Mesa. WestPhoenix. Wickenburg
BARROW COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT SHELDON ALLEN Plaintiff, vs. MATTHEW BENNETT, Defendant. STATE OF GEORGIA SUMMONS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CASE NO.: TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT: You are hereby summoned and required
COBB COUNTY STATE COURT STATE OF GEORGIA GEORGE LOUIS BAILEY, Plaintiff, vs. MARVIN SIMPSON, Defendant. SUMMONS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CASE NO.: TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT: You are hereby summoned and required
This booklet was published with the generous support of Stan Marks Begam & Marks, P.A. Phoenix, AZ Robert Pastor Montoya, Jimenez & Pastor, P.A. Phoenix, AZ Sara Powell Law Office of Sara Powell Phoenix,
Victims Witnesses Handbook www.sheriff.org VICTIMS & WITNESSES HANDBOOK Referral Telephone Numbers The Broward Sheriff s Office (BSO) will be as helpful as possible to you during the progress of your case.
This booklet was published with the generous support of Mary Alexander, Esq. San Francisco, CA Joseph George, Esq. Sacramento, CA Ivo Labar, Esq. San Francisco, CA John Manly, Esq. Newport Beach, CA Dwight
This booklet was published with the generous support of Mary Alexander, Esq. Mary Alexander and Associates, PC San Francisco, CA Philip Bourdette, Esq. Bourdette & Partners Visalia, CA Deborah Chang, Esq.
CAUSE NO. RONALD AND CARRIE STEMP IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. CARE CLINICS, INC., NUTRIGENOMICS, INC. CENTER FOR AUTISTIC SPECTRUM TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS DISORDERS, INC., CASD BIOMEDICAL CLINIC, CASD BIORESEARCH
This booklet was published with the generous support of Steven Laird Law Offices of Steven C. Laird Fort Worth, Texas Marc Lenahan Lenahan Law, PLLC Dallas, Texas Tahira Merritt Law Office of Tahira Khan
This booklet was published with the generous support of Richard Binko Law Offices of Richard S. Binko Cheektowaga, New York Madeline Bryer Law Offices of Madeline Bryer New York, New York Cynthia S. LaFave
This booklet was published with the generous support of Christopher Day, Esq. Day & Johns, PLLC Fairfax, Virginia Peter Everett, Esq. Chidi James, Esq. Blankingship & Keith, PC Fairfax, Virginia Michael
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE Frequently Asked Questions and General Legal Information on Procedures and Policies Andrew M. Cuomo Attorney General of the State of New York STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE
General District Courts To Understand Your Visit to Court You Should Know: It is the courts wish that you know your rights and duties. We want every person who comes here to receive fair treatment in accordance
ISMAEL HARO, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT LAW DIVISION Plaintiff, v. Case No. CITY OF BLUE ISLAND, MICHAEL CORNELL, and KEVIN SISK, Defendants. Plaintiff Demands Trial
This booklet was published with the generous support of JOHN BLUME, ESQ. BLUME, GOLDFADEN, BERKOWITZ, DONNELLY, FRIED & FORTE Chatham, NJ JEFFREY FRITZ, ESQ. Philadelphia, PA HAROLD GERR, ESQ. Highland
This booklet was published with the generous support of Ralph Davis Ralph Davis Law Peoria, Illinois For referrals to an attorney or more information, please call the National Crime Victim Bar Association
This booklet was published with the generous support of John Connelly Law Offices of John R. Connelly, Jr. Tacoma, Washington Mark Leemon Sidney Royer Leemon & Royer, PLLC Seattle, Washington Rebecca Roe
This booklet was published with the generous support of Benjamin D. Andreozzi, Esq. Harrisburg, PA Stewart J. Eisenberg, Esq. Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler, Eisenberg and Jeck, P.C. Philadelphia, PA Jeffrey
People v. Costa, No.02PDJ012. 10.16.02. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties Conditional Admission of Misconduct and disbarred Respondent, Maria R. Costa, attorney
This booklet was published with the generous support of Melvin L. Hewitt, Jr. Isenberg & Hewitt, P.C. Atlanta, Georgia Civil Justice for Victims of Crime in Georgia For referrals to an attorney or more
This booklet was published with the generous support of Keith Franz Azrael, Franz, Schwab & Lipowitz, LLC Baltimore, Maryland Stan Brown Law Office of Stan Derwin Brown, LLC Largo, Maryland Steven Kelly
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MARLON PENDLETON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) PAMELA FISH, CHICAGO POLICE ) DETECTIVE JACK STEWART, ) CHICAGO POLICE
FULTON COUNTY STATE COURT STATE OF GEORGIA JENNIFER GARRISON, vs. Plaintiff, MONTAG REALTY COMPANY, LLC d/b/a VERONA APARTMENTS, THE REALTY FUND III, L.P. and JOHN DOES 1-5, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CASE NUMBER:
Case :-cv-000-jah -CAB Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. (SBN: ) firstname.lastname@example.org Robert L. Hyde, Esq. (SBN: ) email@example.com Hyde & Swigart Camino Del Rio South,