Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00054/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00054-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

JAN E. KRUSKA,

Plaintiff, 

v.

PERVERTED JUSTICE FOUNDATION

INCORPORATED, et. al.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-0054-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion and Affidavit with Exhibits to Quash

Replies, Memorandums, etc., Motion for Judgment in Full, and Motion to Recover

Services Expenses (“Motion to Quash”) (Doc. 73) and Motion to Withdraw Judicial

Notice, Special Motion, Motion for Judgment (In Reference to Doc. 73 Only) (“Motion to

Withdraw”) (Doc. 87).

In her Motion to Quash, Plaintiff asserts that Steven G. Ford, counsel for

Defendants Christopher Brocious and Barbara Ochoa, is not admitted to practice with the

District Court of Arizona (Doc. 73, ¶9). Plaintiff indicates that she checked the Arizona

District Court website and was unable to locate any Steven Ford admitted to practice

(Doc. 73, ¶10). As a result, Plaintiff requests that the Court quash all motions, replies,

and filings by defense counsel (Doc. 73). Further, Plaintiff asks the Court to grant

Case 2:08-cv-00054-SMM Document 134 Filed 11/17/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

judgment in full in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants Brocious and Ochoa (Doc.

73). 

In the Response filed by Defendants, counsel attaches a printout from the U.S.

District Court of Arizona website showing his admission and active status (Doc. 79). 

Subsequently, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Withdraw in which she indicates a computer

“glitch” was to blame for her inability to locate defense counsel on the District Court

website (Doc 87, ¶6). Despite searching the website three times for Steven Ford, Plaintiff

received the same message, “the query returned no matches” (Doc. 87, ¶2). Based upon

this inability to verify that defense counsel was admitted to practice in the District Court

of Arizona, Plaintiff submitted the Motion to Quash (Doc. 87, ¶4). 

In light of the evidence that defense counsel Steven Ford is admitted to practice in

the District Court of Arizona, the Court will grant the withdrawal of Plaintiff’s Motion to

Quash. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion and Affidavit with

Exhibits to Quash Replies, Memorandums, etc., Motion for Judgment in Full, and Motion

to Recover Services Expenses (Doc. 73).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Motion to Withdraw Judicial

Notice, Special Motion, Motion for Judgment (In Reference to Doc. 73 Only) (Doc. 87).

DATED this 15th day of November, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00054-SMM Document 134 Filed 11/17/08 Page 2 of 2