Hoyt et al v. Aerus Holdings LLC et al

Filing 17

ORDER granting 12 Motion to Dismiss Nata Jackson as a defendant. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 3/22/12.(LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Edward Hoyt and James Gabriel,

10

Plaintiffs,

11

vs.

12
Aerus Holdings et al.,
13
Defendants.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 11-02184-PHX-FJM
ORDER

15
16

We have before us defendants' motion to dismiss or transfer (doc. 12), plaintiffs'

17

response (doc. 14), and defendants' reply (doc. 15). According to the notice of removal (doc.

18

1), the only remaining defendants in this action are Michael and Nata Jackson. The motion

19

to dismiss or transfer seeks dismissal of Nata Jackson based on lack of personal jurisdiction,

20

or transfer of this case to Tennessee. (Doc. 12 at 9).

21

Defendant Michael Jackson signed a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release with

22

the plaintiffs on June 18, 2007. Section 8 of this contract provides that the federal and state

23

courts in Maricopa County, Arizona are the exclusive venue for all legal actions regarding

24

the agreement and other agreements executed pursuant to it. (Doc. 14, ex. 1 § 8). The parties

25

later entered into an amended settlement agreement and Michael signed a personal guaranty

26

on February 15, 2008. (Doc. 12, ex. 2). There was no signature line for his wife Nata and

27

her signature does not appear on the document. Plaintiffs claim that Michael's guaranty was

28

for the benefit of the marital community and therefore Nata is properly joined in order to

1

reach community property. No independent claim is asserted against Nata. Nata has no

2

contacts with Arizona.

3

A.R.S. § 25-214(C)(2) provides that "[e]ither spouse separately may acquire, manage,

4

control or dispose of community property, or bind the community, except that joinder of both

5

spouses is required in any of the following cases: . . . [a]ny transaction of guaranty,

6

indemnity or suretyship." The Arizona Court of Appeals has interpreted this provision "to

7

mean that the community is not bound by any guaranty that is not signed by both spouses,

8

even though the guaranty was for a business that benefitted the marital community." Vance-

9

Koepnick v. Koepnick, 197 Ariz. 162, 163, 3 P.3d 1082, 1083 (Ct. App. 1999).

10

If the language of a statute is plain, we need look no further to interpret its meaning.

11

"Our first step in interpreting a statute is to determine whether the language at issue has a

12

plain and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particular dispute in the case. Our inquiry

13

must cease if the statutory language is unambiguous and 'the statutory scheme is coherent and

14

consistent.'" Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340, 117 S. Ct. 843, 846 (1997). The

15

plain meaning of A.R.S. § 25-214(C)(2) is that a guaranty does not bind the marital

16

community unless it is signed by both spouses. See FDIC v. Gannett, No. CV10-02726-

17

PHX-JAT, 2011 WL 2728455, at *2 (D. Ariz. July 13, 2011) ("The plain meaning of § 25-

18

214(C) is that both spouses must sign a guaranty in order to bind the community under

19

Arizona law."). Both spouses did not sign the guaranty here. As a result, the marital

20

community is not bound by Michael Jackson's signature, even if Nata Jackson and the marital

21

community were benefitted. Because no other basis for personal jurisdiction is asserted, IT

22

IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants' motion to dismiss Nata Jackson as a defendant

23

(doc. 12).

24

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2012.

25
26
27
28
-2-