Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-04069/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-04069-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Terry Dishon, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Connie R Gorham, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-16-04069-PHX-ROS

ORDER 

Plaintiffs Terry Dishon and Luci Dishon, husband and wife, filed suit against 

Defendants Connie Gorham and Gary Haak, alleging breach of contract and requesting 

declaratory judgment. (Doc. 6.) On June 4, 2019, the Court conducted a bench trial. 

During the trial, Defendants declined to offer any evidence for admission.1 (Doc. 156 at 

131–32.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52, the Court makes the following 

findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

Plaintiffs Terry Dishon and Luci Dishon met David Gorham, the late husband of 

Defendant Connie Gorham, in October 2011. (Doc. 156 at 55.) At that time, Terry Dishon 

was the owner of Dishon Disposal, Inc., an oil field services company in North Dakota. 

(Doc. 156 at 54.) David Gorham offered to provide business consulting services to Dishon 

Disposal. (Doc. 156 at 55.) 

 

1

In his post-trial filing, Defendant Haak attaches multiple exhibits to support his proposed 

findings of fact. (Doc. 157.) However, Haak did not offer these exhibits for admission 

into evidence at trial, despite having the opportunity to do so. Because these exhibits were 

not admitted at trial, the Court does not consider them in its findings of fact.

Case 2:16-cv-04069-ROS Document 160 Filed 09/20/19 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

David Gorham and Scott Hepford owned MCI Partners, which provided business 

consulting, management, planning, and strategy services to Dishon Disposal. (Doc. 156 at 

56.) The Dishons have never been owners, members, officers, or employees of MCI 

Partners. (Doc. 156 at 56.) In May 2012, Gary Haak began work for MCI Partners. (Doc. 

156 at 60.) Haak did not work for Dishon Disposal, the Dishons, or any company owned 

by the Dishons. (Doc. 156 at 61.) The Dishons never made any promises to Haak for the 

services that he provided to Dishon Diposal through MCI Partners; nor did Dishon Disposal 

agree to pay Haak for his work through MCI Partners. (Doc. 156 at 61.)

In November 2012, Dishon Disposal was acquired by Digerati Technologies, Inc., 

through a series of transactions and reverse merger that the parties call the “November 

Transactions.” (Doc. 156 at 61–62.) Shortly thereafter, litigation relating to the November 

Transactions ensued between David Gorham and other parties, but the Dishons were not 

named as parties in any of the litigation. (Doc. 165 at 68.) In May 2013, Digerati 

Technologies filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for 

the Southern District of Texas. (Ex. 2.) Pursuant to the bankruptcy, two settlement 

agreements were executed: the Rule 11 Mediated Settlement Agreement and the 

Bankruptcy Settlement Agreement (collectively, the “Settlement Agreements”). (Exs. 1; 

2.) The Dishons, David Gorham, Connie Gorham, MCI Partners, and multiple other parties 

were signatories to the Settlement Agreements, which provided that all parties “mutually 

release, acquit and forever discharge . . . any and all claims, causes of action, demands, of 

any character or kind, known or unknown, whether in contract or in tort, relating to the 

Lawsuits . . . or any theory of law concerning the facts giving rise to the allegations brought 

forth in any of the Lawsuits or that could have been brought forth related to any of the 

Lawsuits through the date of this Settlement Agreement.” (Exs. 1 at 21.) 

After David Gorham passed away in 2015, Defendant Connie Gorham, through her 

attorney, demanded that the Dishons pay $1.5 million “for the water treatment system and 

payment for consultation and services rendered by Mr. Gorham.” (Ex. 4.) In addition, 

Defendant Haak also asserted claims and made demands to the Dishons for payments 

Case 2:16-cv-04069-ROS Document 160 Filed 09/20/19 Page 2 of 4
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

relating to his employment at MCI Partners and the November Transactions. (Exs. 14; 17; 

18; 21; 45; 46; 48; 49.) In a related lawsuit also before this Court, Haak sued the Dishons 

for breach of contract in connection with Haak’s work related to the November 

Transactions. See Haak v. Dishon, 17-cv-03576-ROS (the “Related Lawsuit”).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Defendants breached the Settlement Agreements by making demands for payments 

and asserting claims related to the November Transactions. (Doc. 6.) The Settlement 

Agreements explicitly provided that all claims related to the November Transactions and 

work provided by MCI Partners were released. (Ex. 1; 2.) Defendant Gorham was a 

signatory to the Settlement Agreements and Defendant Haak, as a former employee of MCI 

Partners, was also a party to the Settlement Agreements. Accordingly, Defendants are 

liable for breach of contract.

In their Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Plaintiffs argue they 

are titled to $339,166.57 in damages, which represents “the amount of reasonable and 

necessary attorney’s fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs in connection with Defendants’ 

improper claims and demands.” (Doc. 153 at 6.) However, Plaintiffs cite no law and offer 

no explanation for their damages theory. The Court notes that under the “American Rule,” 

courts generally prohibit the recovery of attorney’s fees as damages. Seattle Times Co. v. 

Seattle Mailer’s Union Non. 32, 664 F.2d 1366, 1370 (9th Cir. 1982). As such, Plaintiffs 

shall file a brief explaining why they are entitled to attorney’s fees and citing relevant law 

supporting their theory.

Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the Related Lawsuit should be dismissed because the 

claims in the Related Lawsuit are compulsory counterclaims in this lawsuit. Plaintiffs are 

correct. “A pleading shall state as a [compulsory] counterclaim any claim which at the 

time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of 

the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim[.]” 

Pochiro v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 827 F.2d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations 

omitted). Whether two claims arise out of the same “transaction or occurrence” depends 

Case 2:16-cv-04069-ROS Document 160 Filed 09/20/19 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

on whether “the essential facts of the various claims are so logically connected that 

considerations of judicial economy and fairness dictate that all the issues be resolved in 

one lawsuit.” Id. Haak’s claims in the Related Lawsuit involve his alleged consulting 

work for the Dishons’ business—the very subject of the present lawsuit. Haak alleges he 

was hired by the Dishons to work for MCI Partners and was also promised payment in 

exchange for his work related to the November Transactions. (Haak v. Dishon, 17-cv03576-ROS, Doc. 56.) Haak did not assert these claims in the present suit as compulsory 

counterclaims, and is not allowed to assert them in a separate lawsuit. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED no later than October 3, 2019, Plaintiffs shall file a brief 

explaining their damages theory and citing law supporting the theory. Defendants shall 

respond no later than October 17, 2019.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Related Lawsuit, Haak v. Dishon, 17-cv-03576-

ROS, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

Dated this 20th day of September, 2019.

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:16-cv-04069-ROS Document 160 Filed 09/20/19 Page 4 of 4