24 - reply re lisa's motion for 2nd extension

7/29/2019 24 - Reply Re Lisa's Motion for 2nd Extension

1/4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

26

-1-QB\145800.00002\14760198.1

Quarles & Brady LLPFirm State Bar No. 00443100

Renaissance One, Two North Central Ave.Phoenix, AZ 85004-2391TELEPHONE 602.229.5200

John S. Craiger (#021731)[email protected] E. Funkhouser III (#022449)[email protected] M. Aspey (#026609)[email protected]

Attorneys for DefendantLisa Jean Borodkin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, an Arizonalimited liability company,

Plaintiff,

v.

LISA JEAN BORODKIN and JOHN DOEBORODKIN, husband and wife; RAMONDMOBREZ and ILIANA LLANERAS,husband and wife; DANIEL BLACKERTSand JANE DOE BLACKERTS, husbandand wife; ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE,LLC, a California limited liability company,DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-CV-01426-PHX-GMS

DEFENDANT LISA JEANBORODKIN'S REPLY INFURTHUR SUPPORT OFMOTION FOR EXTENSION OFTIME TO ANSWER/RESPOND

(Assigned to the HonorableG. Murray Snow)

(Expedited ConsiderationRequested)

Defendant Lisa Jean Borodkin ("Ms. Borodkin") submits this reply in further

support of her motion for a reasonable extension of time, through and includingOctober 31, 2011, by which she must file an answer or response to Plaintiff's Complaint.

This reply is supported by the Declaration of Lisa Jean Borodkin in Further Support of

Motion for Extension of Time to Answer/Respond (the "Declaration of Lisa J

Borodkin") filed concurrently herewith and the entire record herein.

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 24 Filed 10/10/11 Page 1 of 4


2/4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

26

-2- -QB\145800.00002\14760198.1

Plaintiff Xcentric Ventures, L.L.C. (Xcentric) makes no claim in its opposition

that it would be prejudiced by an extension. See Response of Xcentric to Borodkins

Request for Extension of Time to Respond (Oct. 6, 2011) (Docket No. 22), passim

Based on that alone, this reasonable request should be granted. In addition, due to the

peculiar nature of this action, briefly described below, equity and good conscience suppor

the granting of the requested extension.

As Xcentric concedes, this is an action for malicious prosecution. See Docket No

22 at 1:22. However, Ms. Borodkin was not the attorney that instituted the underlying

litigation. See Compl. 31. Defendant Daniel F. Blackert was the attorney that instituted

the underlying litigation. See Compl. 28.

Xcentrics claims against Ms. Borodkin are wholly derivative of Xcentrics claims

against Blackert and the other defendants.1

As such, Blackert would likely be found a

necessary party or indispensible party, under Federal Rule 19(2). See Walsh v.

Centeio, 692 F.2d 1239, 1242 (9th Cir. 1982). Moreover, Xcentric claims that it has

evidence to support its allegations regarding Blackerts improper motive and state of

mind. However, Xcentric does not dispute that it has not served Blackert. See Docket No.

22, passim. Equity and good conscience would favor granting this extension unless

Xcentric has shown that it has made a diligent effort to locate and serve Blackert.

Second, and as briefly alluded to in Ms. Borodkin's initial Motion for Extension of

Time, Ms. Borodkin has good grounds for seeking dismissal of the action as a sanction

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. This case is brought primarily to harass Ms.

Borodkin and extort testimony about a third party, as demonstrated by the written demandof Ed Magedson. See Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin. Magedson is the Manager of

1Xcentrics claims against Ms. Borodkin are styled Wrongful Continuation of

Civil Proceedings and Aiding and Abetting Tortious Conduct.



3/4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

26

-3- -QB\145800.00002\14760198.1

Xcentric and verified the Complaint.

This Court has wide latitude to manage its own calendar for the expeditious

resolution of cases. Because Xcentric does not claim that it would be prejudiced by the

extension, and Ms. Borodkin has submitted strong prima facie evidence that this

Complaint was filed for an improper purpose, Ms. Borodkin respectfully requests that this

Court exercise its discretion and grant the requested extension of time to answer or

otherwise respond to the Complaint to October 31, 2011.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 10th day of October, 2011.

QUARLES & BRADY LLPRenaissance One, Two North Central AvenuePhoenix, AZ 85004-2391

By /s/ David E. Funkhouser IIIJohn S. CraigerDavid E. Funkhouser IIIKrystal Aspey

Attorneys for Lisa Jean Borodkin



4/4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

26

-4- -QB\145800.00002\14760198.1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 10, 2011, I electronically transmitted the attached

document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of aNotice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrant:

David S. Gingras, Esq. ([email protected])Attorneys for Plaintiff

Hartwell Virginia Harris ([email protected])Attorney for Defendants Mobrez, Llaneras and AsiaEconomic Institute LLC

/s/ David E. Funkhouser III


24 - reply re lisa's motion for 2nd extension

Documents