Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01570/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01570-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

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

Jerome Henry Evenson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Thomas A. Thinnes, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-1570-PHX-MS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is "The Thinnes Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff's January 4, 2006 Amended Complaint" (Doc. # 84). Plaintiff filed a Second

Amended Complaint pursuant to this Court's December 12, 2005 Order dismissing

Plaintiff's only remaining claim against the Thinnes Defendants. Defendant Robert

Owens filed a joinder in the Thinnes Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 85).

Plaintiff filed responses to the Thinnes Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and to

Defendant Owens' joinder (Docs. # 93, 94). The Thinnes Defendants and Defendant

Owens filed replies (Docs. # 96, 97). 

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint

In this Court's December 12, 2005 Order, this Court granted Defendant

Benjamin Thinnes' Motion for Reconsideration of Two Rulings in the Court's

September 28, 2005 Order. As a result, Plaintiff's fraud claim against Defendant

Benjamin Thinnes was dismissed. The Court provided Plaintiff with 30 days "to file

Case 2:04-cv-01570-MS Document 99 Filed 05/03/06 Page 1 of 5
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

- 2 -

an Amended Complaint with the Court that specifically addresses the nine factors

enumerated [in the Order] which are required to establish a fraud claim, and alleging

facts in support thereof." See Doc. # 82 at 4. Plaintiff filed his Second Amended

Complaint on January 4, 2006 (Doc. # 83). Plaintiff names Thomas A. Thinnes

(deceased), the Estate of Thomas A. Thinnes, Thomas A. Thinnes, P.A., and

Benjamin A. Thinnes as the personal representative of the Estate of Thomas A.

Thinnes ("The Thinnes Defendants"). Plaintiff also names Defendant Robert Owens

and other unknown defendants.

Substantively, Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint attempts to restate his

fraud claim against the Thinnes Defendants with particularity pursuant to FED.R.CIV.

P. 9(b) and Nielson v. Flashberg, 419 P.2d 514 (Ariz. 1966). Plaintiff further

presents an entirely new claim of breach of contract. 

As an initial matter, the Thinnes Defendant correctly note that this Court's

December 12, 2005 Order did not provide Plaintiff with unfettered liberty to present

new claims. Rather, the explicit purpose of this Court's Order was to provide Plaintiff

with one final opportunity to plead with specificity his fraud claim against the Thinnes

Defendants. As a result, Plaintiff's breach of contract claim will be dismissed with

prejudice.

Plaintiff's Fraud Claim

The Thinnes Defendants and Defendant Owens, through his joinder, move to

dismiss Plaintiff's fraud claim for failure to state a claim pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.

12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). 

Specifically, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has "failed to identify a single

representation allegedly made by Mr. Thinnes to Plaintiff that could support a

common law claim for fraud." (Doc. # 84 at 3). The Court agrees.

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint has not cured the fatal defects

articulated in this Court's December 12, 2005 Order. Again, Plaintiff has failed to

identify a representation made by Mr. Thinnes to Plaintiff that supports a claim for

Case 2:04-cv-01570-MS Document 99 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 -

common law fraud. Plaintiff posits two separate theories to establish the

representation requirement. First, Plaintiff argues that "[t]he existence of an

attorney-client relationship is a 'representation' in an of itself." Plaintiff

misunderstands the meaning of representation as it relates to establishing a claim

for fraud. The fact that Defendant Thomas Thinnes "represented" Plaintiff during his

criminal trials does not establish a representation. To establish the "representation"

factor, Plaintiff must show a statement or promise made by Defendant Thomas

Thinnes, the mere fact that Plaintiff was "represented" is insufficient. 

Plaintiff's second theory to establish a representation is again his contention

that Defendant Thomas Thinnes' promise to allow Plaintiff to "represent himself"

during his criminal proceedings is the representation which Plaintiff asserts proved

to be false. Plaintiff has articulated a "representation," thereby satisfying the first

factor of the Nielson test. 

That said, Plaintiff's claim again fails to demonstrate that the speaker knew at

the time the representation/statement was made that it was false or would not be

honored. See Nielson, 419 P.2d at 516. Plaintiff has not articulated any evidence

to suggest that Defendant Thomas Thinnes did not intend to allow Plaintiff to

meaningfully participate in his own representation at the time they entered into an

attorney-client relationship. To the contrary, Plaintiff even concedes that "Mr.

Thinnes' representation, loyalty and integrity" to Plaintiff were "not in question at [the

time of the first trial]." (Doc. # 83 at 9). Therefore, by Plaintiffs own admission,

Defendant Thomas Thinnes could not have known at the time he promised that

Plaintiff could participate in his own defense that he would not honor that promise.

Moreover, McAlister v. Citibank, 829 P.2d 1253, 1260 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992)

establishes that fraud can only be established by unfulfilled promises concerning

future events if those statements regarding those events "were made with the

present intent not to perform." Id. (citing Spudnuts v. Lane, 641 P.2d 912, 914 (Ariz.

Ct. App. 1982). Simply put, that is not what transpired between Defendant Thomas

Case 2:04-cv-01570-MS Document 99 Filed 05/03/06 Page 3 of 5
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

1

 Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint fails completely to identify a single

representation made by Defendant Owens to Plaintiff. As a result, Plaintiff's Second

Amended Complaint fails as to Defendant Owens. Plaintiff's assertion that

Defendant Owens was an employee of Defendant Thomas Thinnes and profited

from his professional relationship with Defendant is of no import when evaluating

whether fraudulent statements were made by Defendants to Plaintiff. 

- 4 -

Thinnes and Plaintiff. At most, Plaintiff can establish that Defendant Thomas

Thinnes decided before Plaintiff's second trial that he did not want Plaintiff's active

participation. However, that does not establish fraud at the time their relationship

was formed.1

 To the extent that Plaintiff argues that Defendant Thomas Thinnes

violated the rules of Professional Conduct in failing to provide "loyal representation,"

those concerns are not cognizable in a federal diversity action for fraud. As a result,

the Thinnes Defendants' and Defendant Owens' motion to dismiss will be granted

in its entirety. 

In accordance with the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED THAT 

1. The Thinnes Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's January 4, 2006

Amended Complaint (Doc. # 84) is GRANTED.

2. Defendants Thomas A. Thinnes (deceased), the Estate of Thomas A.

Thinnes, Thomas A. Thinnes, P.A., and Benjamin A. Thinnes as the

personal representative of the Estate of Thomas A. Thinnes are hereby

DISMISSED with prejudice.

3. Defendant Robert Owens, through his joinder with the Thinnes

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

4. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is hereby DISMISSED with

prejudice in its entirety as fully explained herein and judgment shall be

entered by the Clerk in favor of all Defendants.

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01570-MS Document 99 Filed 05/03/06 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

5. The Clerk shall terminate this action.

DATED this 2nd day of May, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01570-MS Document 99 Filed 05/03/06 Page 5 of 5