v2345678-91011121314151617181920_ -- v.2122232425262728RECE~VEDMAY 02 2013CHErFETZ iANNITELLIMARCOLlNI, P.C.RUSSO, RUSSO &...
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728SYCAMORE VISTA LAND FOR SALE,LLC, an Arizona Limited LiabilityCompany,Third...
2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Third-Party Plaintiffs complaint is comprised almost exclusively of legalcon...
101112131415161718192021222324252627282Gerald MaltzHARALSON, MILLER,PITT, FELDMAN & McANALLY, P.L.C.One South Church Avenu...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Sycamore Vista Homeowner's Association Responds

3,981 views

Published on

it's not actually the HOA's attorney responding but two (yes, two) lawyers from Russo's office. I have yet to write about who Steve Russo is but will say this now: They have no web page! rss-law.com How do they stay in business?

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,981
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3,369
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Sycamore Vista Homeowner's Association Responds

  1. 1. v2345678-91011121314151617181920_ -- v.2122232425262728RECE~VEDMAY 02 2013CHErFETZ iANNITELLIMARCOLlNI, P.C.RUSSO, RUSSO & SLANIA, P.C.Stephen T. Portell, State Bar No. 18567Joseph D. Chimienti, State Bar No. 0279556700 N. Oracle Rd., Suite 100Tucson, Arizona 85704(520)529-1515sportell@rrs-law .COil!joec@rrs-law.comAttorneys for Sycamore Vista No.5 Homeowners Assoc.IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONAIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMANT PROPERTIES, LLC, an ArizonaLimited Liability Company,Plaintiffv.666ISMONEY, LLC, an Arizona LimitedLiability Company, and SYCAMOREVISTA LAND FOR SALE, LLC, anArizona Limited Liability Company,DefendantsSYCAMORE VISTA LAND FOR SALE,LLC, an Arizona Limited LiabilityCompany,CountercIaimant,NT PROPERTIES, LLC, an ArizonaLimited Liability Company,Counter-DefendantCase No.: C20130421THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTSYCAMORE VISTA NO.5HOMEOWNERSASSOCIATIONS MOTION TODISMISSAssigned to the Hon. Carmine Corneliou"-w ~ a· ;Calendared By~_ __fJate. _Cal for_S 0~ Re,W 3 ~T> - ~.:;.lo·:> Ac.S~ Io~
  2. 2. 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728SYCAMORE VISTA LAND FOR SALE,LLC, an Arizona Limited LiabilityCompany,Third-Party Plaintiffv.SYCAMORE VISTA NO.5HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, anArizona Non-Profit CorporationThird-Pa DefendantThird-Party Plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against Defendant Sycamore Vista No.5Homeowners Association, Inc. ("Sycamore Vista HOA") based solely upon conclusoryallegations. Pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Defendant SycamoreVista HOA moves to dismiss the Third Party Complaint.ARGUMENTIn deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court must: (1) limit itsconsideration to the well-pled factual allegations, ignoring conclusory allegations, (2)assume the truth of the well-pled factual allegations set forth in the challenged pleading,and consider all reasonable inferences therefrom and (3) dismiss only if the claimant isnot entitled to relief as a matter oflaw, on any interpretation of the facts as alleged in thechallenged pleading. See Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 419 (Ariz.2008). Further, allegations that represent merely conclusions of law or unwarranteddeductions are not credited. See Id.; See also Aldabbagh v. Arizona Dept. of LiquorLicenses and Control, 162 Ariz. 415, 417 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).2
  3. 3. 2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Third-Party Plaintiffs complaint is comprised almost exclusively of legalconclusions that have no factual references to Sycamore Vista I-lOA. Instead of pleadingfacts in its complaint, Third Party Plaintiff provides its interpretation of the Division Oneopinion in Drealll L.~!!.~LViJla~ommunity Club, Inc., v. Raimey, 224 Ariz. 42 (Ariz. Ct.App. 2010), and then, without any specific factual allegations pertaining to SycamoreVista HOA, concludes that the case at bar is similar to Dreamland.Arizona courts have held that, even under liberal notice pleading rules, a plaintiffsobligation to provide the grounds for entitlement to relief requires more than labels andconclusions, and formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is not sufficient.See Dube v. Likins, 216 Ariz. 406, 424 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). Further, a whollyconclusory statement of a claim cannot survive a motion to dismiss simply because thepleadings leave open the possibility that the plaintiff might later establish some set ofundisclosed facts to support a recovery. See Q!!..H~Q" 218 Ariz. at 419. The Third-PartyPlaintiff has merely alleged a summary of law it intends to rely upon and conclusorystatements and allegations pertaining to that summary. Therefore, Third-Party Plaintiffscomplaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).{~,- ~.IDATED this day 0. _, 2013RUSSO, RUSSO & SLA lA, P.C.B~_L. _~_~:_.__~.._-._._.__--_"tep en T. PortellJoseph D. ChimientiAttorneys for Third-Party Defendant3
  4. 4. 101112131415161718192021222324252627282Gerald MaltzHARALSON, MILLER,PITT, FELDMAN & McANALLY, P.L.C.One South Church Avenue, Suite 100Tucson 8573~ORIGINAL of the foregoing tiled this LdayottJ.M.-/ ,2013 with the Clerk of the SuperiorCoUrt,I>lma County.: ••<;oPYof the foregoing mailed this I..r;.;:~,2013,tO:Steven W. ChefietzRachael B. EisenstadtCHEIFETZ IANNITELLI MARCQUNI, P.C.111 West Monroe Street, 17th FloorPhoenix, AZ 85003Attorneys for Defendants 666fSMONEY, LLCand Third-Party Plaintiff, Sycamore Vista Landfor Sale, LLe67894

×