GRK Holdings, LLC v. First American Title Insurance Company et al
Filing
171
ORDER. Reaffirming trial set for 5/22/2012 at 9:00 a.m. Counsel shall be in the courtroom ready to proceed no later than 8:30 a.m. on 5/22/2012. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 4/23/2012. (NVO)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9
10
GRK Holdings, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company,
No. CV10-0050 PHX-DGC
ORDER
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
Security Title Agency, Inc.,
14
Defendant.
15
16
The parties have submitted a Proposed Final Pretrial Order (Doc. 170) as required
17
by the Court’s Order Setting Trial (Doc. 168). The proposed order identifies various
18
issues of law to be determined by the Court. This order will address those issues.
19
1.
Plaintiff contends that it may recover damages from Defendant to
20
compensate Plaintiff for attorneys’ fees incurred in defending separate state court actions
21
allegedly caused by Defendant’s breach. Plaintiff is correct. As the Arizona Court of
22
Appeals has explained, “the overwhelming general rule is that the victim of a breach of
23
contract may recover damages from the breaching party to compensate for attorneys’ fees
24
and costs expended by the victim to defend a separate suit brought against it as a
25
foreseeable result of the breach.” Fairway Builders, Inc. v. Malouf Towers Rental Co.,
26
603 P.2d 513, 529 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). The Court does not conclude that the attorneys’
27
fees claimed in this case were foreseeable as a matter of law. Foreseeability will be a fact
28
determination to be made by the jury.
1
2.
The Court previously precluded Defendant from presenting any evidence
2
that Plaintiff’s debt was paid in full. Doc. 168 at 3. Plaintiff contends in the proposed
3
order that Defendant has identified two witnesses, Veronica Belifore and Nicole Zorn,
4
who will testify that Plaintiff received payment in full. Doc. 170 at 9-10. Defendant
5
does not address these witnesses in its response to this legal issue, but does contend that
6
Plaintiff’s loan was satisfied in full as a matter of law. Id. at 14-15. This issue was
7
decided in the Court’s previous order. Defendant will not be permitted to present any
8
evidence at trial, or to argue to the jury, that Plaintiff’s debt has been paid in full.
9
3.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff has waived or released its claim for damages
10
on Unit 122 by virtue of a release of the deed of trust. Defendant quotes release
11
language, but provides no citation for the quoted language and otherwise fails to identify
12
evidence in the record in support of its position. Nor does Defendant cite any legal
13
authority in support of its requested ruling. As a result, Defendant has provided no basis
14
for the Court to rule on this issue as a matter of law.
15
4.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff released its claim for lost proceeds on
16
Unit 122 by virtue of a settlement agreement entered in the state court litigation.
17
Doc. 170 at 14. Again, Defendant does not cite to a document or portion of the record in
18
support of this argument, or provide a copy of the settlement agreement that purportedly
19
effectuated this release. As a result, Defendant has provided no basis for the Court to rule
20
in its favor as a matter of law.
21
5.
Defendant contends that Plaintiff was junior to $912,500 in secured
22
obligations covering Units 119 and 122 and therefore would have been entitled to no
23
sales proceeds from these units. Doc. 170 at 15. Defendant again fails to provide any
24
exhibit or citation to the record in support of this assertion. As a result, the Court cannot
25
rule in its favor as a matter of law.
26
6.
Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s damages were reduced by $100,000
27
through a March 26, 2006 agreement, but does not provide a copy of, or a citation to, the
28
agreement. As a result, the Court cannot rule in Defendant’s favor as a matter of law.
-2-
1
As previously stated by the Court, trial will begin on May 22, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.
2
The parties should be in the courtroom and ready to proceed no later than 8:30 a.m. on
3
May 22, 2012.
4
Dated this 23rd day of April, 2012.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?