Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00587/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00587-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1335 Interpleader Action

---

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

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

The Magellan Owners Association, a.k.a.,

The Magellan Ship Owners Association, et

al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-587-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is a Joint Motion for the Disbursement of

interplead funds submitted by fifty-six (56) Claimants/Defendants Unit Buyers. (Doc.332).

After the Joint Motion was filed, three additional Unit Buyer Claimant/Defendants joined in

the Motion each amending the list of claims to include their individual claims. (Docs. 335,

339, 342). On September 14, 2010, the Claimant/Defendants filed a joint notice that they had

no objection to the joinder to the motion by the Claimants/Defendants. (Doc. 344) The sole

remaining Claimant/Defendant who has appeared in this litigation but who has not joined in

the Motion for Disbursement is the The Magellan Owners Association, a.k.a., The Magellan

Ship Owners Association (“Magellan”). On July 21, 2010, the Court held a hearing on a

Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record, (Doc. 308), filed by Magellan’s Attorneys. ( Doc.

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 345 Filed 09/22/10 Page 1 of 23
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 -

321). Pursuant to the Court’s June 29, 2010 Order, personally appearing at the July 21, 2010

hearing was Mr. Randall B. Jackson, who appeared as Magellan’s “corporate representative

or an otherwise appropriate agent.” (See Doc. 312). At the July 21, 2010 hearing, the Court

granted Magellan’s Attorneys’ Motion to Withdraw, (Doc. 321), and specifically warned Mr.

Jackson that Magellan, as a business association, could not appear in a pro se capacity, and

therefore could not take part in the litigation as the case moved forward should they fail to

secure appropriate legal representation. The Court also warned Mr. Jackson that failure to

secure counsel would mean that Magellan would not be able to present arguments to the

Court regarding the disbursement of interplead funds. Moreover, the Court warned Mr.

Jackson that without appropriate representation Magellan might also be subject to a default

judgment, in the event that any Unit Buyer Claimant/Defendants assert crossclaims against

Magellan. Magellan has currently failed to secure appropriate legal representation, and has

failed to file a Response to the Unit Buyer’s Joint Motion for Disbursement, which remains

unopposed. After reviewing the pleadings relevant to the issue of disbursement and

determining oral argument unnecessary, the Court issues the following Order.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY & FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This statutory interpleader action under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 was filed by the now

dismissed Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.(“Wells Fargo”). As previously indicated,

“[i]nterpleader is a procedural device used to resolve conflicting claims to money or

property. It enables a person or entity in possession of a tangible res or fund of money (the

stakeholder) to join in a single suit two or more claimants’ asserting mutually exclusive

claims to that stake.” Nevada v Pioneer Cos., 245 F Supp. 2d 1120, 1125 (D Nev. 2003)

(quoting 4 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 22.02[1] (3d ed 2002)). An

interpleader action avoids the problem of multiple, conflicting claims to a single fund by

forcing all “claimants” to a limited amount of money to resolve their potentially adverse

claims all at once, before the same judge. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v.

Tashire, 386 U.S. 523, (1967). An interpleader action usually involves two distinct stages.

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 345 Filed 09/22/10 Page 2 of 23
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 -

See Mid-American Indem. Co. v. McMahan, 666 F. Supp. 926, 928 (S.D. Miss. 1987).

During the first stage, the court determines whether the plaintiff/stakeholder has the right to

compel the adverse claimants to interplead and litigate their claims to the fund in one

proceeding. Id. At this point, the court determines whether the prerequisites to statutory

interpleader have been met. If the court decides that interpleader is available, it may issue an

order discharging the stakeholder and directing the claimants to interplead. See Wright &

Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 1704, at 624-627 (3d ed. 2001). The court

may also make any other order that is appropriate and convenient for the resolution of the

competing claims. Id. During the second stage, the court will adjudicate the defendants’

adverse claims to the interplead funds. New York Ins. Co. v. Connecticut Dev. Auth., 700

F.2d 91, 95 (2d Cir. 1983). The second stage generally proceeds like any other civil action

and it is ultimately resolved when the district court enters judgment in favor of a defendant

who is lawfully entitled to the interplead funds. See Diamond Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v.

Comm’r of Revenues, 422 F.2d 532, 534 (8th Cir. 1970). 

The Court has already completed the first stage of the interpleader. The Court has

accepted jurisdiction over Plaintiff Wells Fargo’s Complaint and has declared interpleader

an acceptable mechanism for resolving competing claims to the more than $11 million in

disputed funds. After Wells Fargo deposited the disputed funds with the Court, which was

accompanied by a statement of its accounting practices related to the disputed funds, the

Court discharged Wells Fargo from the litigation as a disinterested stakeholder, and

dismissed with prejudice all counterclaims that had been filed against it related to its

handling of the disputed funds. After discharge, Wells Fargo moved the Court for an award

of attorneys’ fees, which the Court denied on August 23, 2010. (Doc. 336). On Jul 21, 2010,

the Court set a schedule for the second stage of the interpleader, along with a time line for

the Unit Buyers to assert crossclaims against Magellan. On August 16, 2010, the Unit Buyers

filed a Joint Motion for Disbursement, which was eventually joined by all

Claimant/Defendants who have appeared in this litigation, with the exception of Magellan.

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 345 Filed 09/22/10 Page 3 of 23
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 - 4 -

Because Magellan has not responded in opposition or filed its own Motion for Disbursement,

and because the time for filing such a document has lapsed, the Court is prepared to rule on

the Unit Buyer’s pending Motion.

The Unit Buyer Claimant/Defendants are individual purchasers of certain fractional

ownership interests in a proposed luxury residential cruise ship. Claimant/Defendant

Magellan was the promoter and developer of the ship. Magellan prepared, and each of the

Unit Buyers signed, a form purchase and sale agreement conveying the individual fractional

ownership interests. The Purchase Agreements varied only in two material respects: (1) the

amount of the purchase price and advanced association fees paid by each Unit Buyer; and

(2) the deadline for Magellan to meet its performance obligations in building the ship (either

2 or 3 years from the date of the agreement). 

Under the Purchase Agreements, Unit Buyers were required to pay an agreed

percentage of the “Purchase Price” and “Estimated First Year’s Annual Cooperative

Assessment”—known as the “Initial Deposit” amount. Magellan was required to deposit the

Initial Deposit with the “Escrow Agent”, Wells Fargo. The Purchase Agreements then

allowed Wells Fargo to release 10% of the overall Purchase Price, the “Release Amount”,

to Magellan for Magellan to pay certain expenses. Wells Fargo retained the balance of the

Initial Deposits in escrow. Generally, Purchase Agreements signed prior to the summer of

2007 contained performance deadlines of 3 years. Purchase Agreements signed during or

after the summer of 2007 contained a 2 year performance deadline. In all cases, under plain

language of the documents, Magellan’s performance deadline has long since passed.

The Purchase Agreements required Magellan to meet three performance criteria by

the performance deadline stated in the Purchase Agreements: (1) enter into a construction

contract for the building of the ship; (2) deliver a financial guaranty for payment of the

construction to the ship builder; and (3) post an irrevocable letter of credit with the ship

builder. If Magellan failed to timely perform, the Unit Buyers could terminate their Purchase

Agreements and were “entitled to the immediate return of the Initial Deposit (including the

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 345 Filed 09/22/10 Page 4 of 23
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 -

Release Amount) and any other amounts paid by [Unit Buyers] to [Magellan]...” The Unit

Buyers contend that Magellan breached its performance obligations, and that the Unit Buyers

have accordingly terminated their Purchase Contracts. Unit Buyers therefore argue that they

are entitled to the immediate return of their Initial Deposit amounts, plus all interest accrued

thereon.

By way of background, Wells Fargo and Magellan entered into an Escrow Agreement,

whereby Wells Fargo acted as the Escrow Agent for the Initial Deposits paid by each Unit

Buyer. The Escrow Agreement was incorporated into the Purchase Agreements by reference.

Under the Escrow Agreement, Wells Fargo was required to keep an accounting of each of

the Unit Buyer’s Initial Deposits, the Release Amounts thereafter transferred to Magellan,

and the interest earned on the remaining escrowed funds. Unit Buyers therefore allege that

Wells Fargo was further required to disburse the balance of each of the Unit Buyer’s funds

back to them if Magellan failed to meet its performance deadline.

Wells Fargo deposited the escrowed funds with the Court on January 8, 2010. By

Order of the Court, Wells Fargo filed its accounting of the escrow funds under seal. After

numerous objections were filed by a number of the Unit Buyers, Wells Fargo filed an

amended accounting under seal on February 24, 2010. The amended accounting identified

each of the Unit Buyer’s: (1) individual payment of the Initial Deposit amount (separately

accounting for the purchase price and association dues deposits); (2) payment of the Release

Amount to Magellan; and (3) individual interest earned on the balance of the Initial Deposits

from the payment date until the date of deposit with the Court. (See Doc. 279). After Wells

Fargo filed the amended accounting, the Court ordered that Magellan and the Unit Buyers

file any further objections concerning the deposit and amended accounting by April 30, 2010.

With an accurate amended accounting, the objecting Unit Buyers withdrew their previous

objections, and thereby eliminated all objections to depositing the interplead funds.

Thereafter the Court entered an Order accepting the deposit and accounting. 

/ / / 

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 345 Filed 09/22/10 Page 5 of 23
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 - 6 -

II. ANALYSIS

The Unit Buyers’ individual claims to the interpleaded funds are set forth in Exhibit

3 to their Joint Motion for Disbursement (and in the amended exhibits submitted with the

subsequent joinders to the Motion). The Accounting sets forth both the “Claimants Total

Claim Amount” and their individual pro-rata “Percentage of Claim” to the interpleaded

funds. Unit Buyers affirm that the amount and percentages stated in the Accounting are true

and accurate with respect to each of their claims. As such, Unit Buyers have requested that

the Court enter an Order directing the Clerk of the Court to disburse the amount of funds

corresponding with the Percentage of Claim (so to include interest earned while on deposit

with the Court) to each and every Unit Buyer in accordance with the payee schedule

provided in the Accounting. The Court has reviewed the Unit Buyers’ Accounting, and

agrees that disbursement according to this proposed payment schedule is the most equitable

and practical manner of resolving this dispute, and that disbursement in the manner provided

by the Joint Motion will result in the disputed funds being returned to the rightful owners,

who are the Unit Buyer Claimant/Defendants.

The only issue that remains is the status of the non-appearing Unit Buyers. Nine (9)

named Unit-Buyer Defendants, the remaining potential stakeholders, have failed to appear

in this matter. (See Doc. 332, Exhib. 5 though two of the listed Unit Buyers have since

appeared and joined the motion). Each of the non-appearing Unit-Buyers has apparently

either been served or waived service in this matter. In general, where a stakeholder is served

with process but then fails to appear and make claim to interpleaded funds, the stakeholder

waives his rights to the funds making them available for equitable redistribution to the other

stakeholders. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Eason, 736 F.2d 130, 133 n. 4 (4th Cir.

1984)(“[I]f all but one named interpleader defendant defaulted, the remaining defendant

would be entitled to the fund”); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Connecticut Dev. Auth., 700 F.2d

91, 95 & n. 6 (2d Cir. 1983)(default of interpleader defendants expedited conclusion of

interpleader action by obviating need for judicial determination of answering defendant's

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 345 Filed 09/22/10 Page 6 of 23
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 - 7 -

entitlement to stake); Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, (U.S.) v. Conroy, 431 F. Supp. 2d 220,

226 (D.R.I. 2006)(“A named interpleader defendant who fails to answer the interpleader

complaint and assert a claim to the res forfeits any claim of entitlement that might have been

asserted defendants have a right to seek the default of another defendant for failure to appear

and plead.”).

Although the non-appearing Unit-Buyers are in default, the Joint Unit Buyers have

requested that the Court establish an additional process for which the non-appearing

Unit-Buyers are given further notice of their obligation to appear and make a claim to the

interpleaded funds. Such a process will provide the non-appearing Unit-Buyers with a second

round of notice of their rights and obligations in this matter and will adequately inform them

of the consequences of failing to appear and make claim to the interpleaded funds. Should

any non-appearing Unit-Buyer fail to timely appear and make claim to the interpleaded funds

through this additional court process, the Joint Moving Unit Buyers request that the Court

Order any residual funds be distributed on an adjusted pro-rata basis (after eliminating the

allocable percentage attributable to the defaulting non-appearing Unit-Buyer) to the

Unit-Buyers who have appeared. The Unit Buyers ask that they be permitted to submit a

second joint request for distribution of the forfeited funds and an amended distribution

schedule to the Court in a manner similar in form and nature to Exhibit 3.

The Unit Buyers jointly request that the Court adopt the following schedule for

handling the claims of the non-appearing Unit Buyers:

• The non-appearing Unit-Buyers must, no later than November 15, 2010: (1)

enter an appearance in this case; (2) file a claim for Disbursement of Funds

requesting the Court to disburse the interpleaded funds allocable to them; and

(3) submit sworn or verified proof of an entitlement to receive a return of the

monies deposited with Wells Fargo.

• Any non-appearing Unit-Buyer who fails to timely enter an appearance and

make a claim for disbursement shall be in default for having failed to plead or

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 345 Filed 09/22/10 Page 7 of 23
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 - 8 -

otherwise defend pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

and thereby waive their right to receive any portion of the interpleaded funds.

• The law firm of Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC (who represents a number of Unit

Buyers already) shall be directed to mail, electronically or by postal channels,

the instant Court Order, together with the Notice of Claim Bar, which has been

attached as Exhibit 4 to the Joint Motion for Distribution. These notices will

be sent to the non-appearing Unit-Buyers within one (1) day of the entry of the

Court’s Order at the contact address(es) provided in the non-appearing

Unit-Buyer’s respective Waivers or Affidavits of Service, which are set forth

in Exhibit 5.

With several minor revisions, the Court will accept the Joint Unit Buyers’ proposed

process and schedule for the handling of the claims of the non-appearing Parties. The Court

notes that the proposed process and schedule sets forth a fair process for the non-appearing

Unit Buyers to be provided with additional notice before their claims to the interplead funds

are to be extinguished. 

Accordingly

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the unopposed Joint Motion for the

Disbursement of Interplead Funds. (Doc. 332).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to disburse the

interpleaded funds held in the Court's Registry to the Unit-Buyer Defendants listed on

Exhibit A attached hereto as follows:

The Clerk shall first determine the amount allocable to each Unit Buyer by

multiplying (i) the total amount of funds held in the Court Registry, including any

accrued interest, by (ii) the percentage allocable to each Unit-Buyer as shown in the

column entitled “Percentage of Funds” on Exhibit A. The Clerk shall then prepare

checks in the amount allocable to each Unit-Buyer by making the check payable to

the specified Payee shown on the Column entitled “Payee” and shall mail same to

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 345 Filed 09/22/10 Page 8 of 23
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

According to Exhibit 5 of the Joint Motion for Disbursement, there is no mailing

address available for Unit Buyer Lori Patrizia Weltert, only a electronic mailing address. (See

Doc. 332, Exhib. 5).

- 9 -

each such Payee at the address shown in the Column entitled “Address” on Exhibit

A. The Clerk is ordered to make this disbursement of funds as soon as possible.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court, in addition to the

regular mailings, within one (1) day of the entry of the instant Order, specifically mail to the

following non-appearing Unit Buyers a copy of the instant Court Order, together with the

Notice of Claim Bar Date and Order, which has been simultaneously lodged on the Court’s

docket, to the following individuals at their last known mailing addresses, which are set forth

in Exhibit 5 to docket number 332:1

• Daniel & Victoria Allen, 176 Jeffer Court, Wyckoff, NJ 07481

• Julian & Phoebe Chen, 365 S. Atlantic Blvd #D, Monterey Park, CA 91754

• Lena Humber Trust, 10 Moncada Way, San Rafael, CA 94901

• Robert Johnston, 313 La Peninsula Blvd, Naples, FL 34113

• Patricia & Fredric Schoen,116 Huntersfield Rd, Delmar, NY 12054

• Robert & Maureena Schreurs, 6097 Blackburn Rd, Chilliwack, British Columbia,

Canada

• Esther Shelden, 5625 Crescent Park W. #409, Playa Vista, CA 90094

• Mark Shumate, 221 l6th St. #2, Atlanta, GA 30363

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the law firm Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC to

electronically mail a copy of the instant Court Order, together with the Notice of Claim Bar

Order, at the electronic contact address(es) provided in the non-appearing Unit-Buyer’s

respective Waivers or Affidavits of Service, which are set forth in Exhibit 5 to docket

number 332. The electronic mail must accomplished in both PDF and Microsoft Word form

and must be sent within one (1) day of the entry of the instant Order

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 345 Filed 09/22/10 Page 9 of 23
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 - 10 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if any Unit Buyers who have been served or

accepted service in this matter but have failed to submit a claim for disbursement of the

interpleaded funds by November 15, 2010 the residual funds held by the Clerk after the

disbursements above ordered are made, shall be distributed to the Unit Buyers who have

appeared and filed a claim for disbursement of funds on an adjusted pro rata basis (after

eliminating the allocable percentage attributable to any defaulting Unit Buyers) following

the entry of this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to facilitate this secondary disbursement process,

the Unit-Buyer Defendants are directed to submit a second joint request for distribution of

forfeited funds with an amended distribution schedule to the Court similar in form and nature

to Exhibit 3 in their Motion identifying each moving Unit-Buyer, the percentage of the total

funds to be distributed to each moving Unit-Buyer, the designated Payee and address to

which each disbursement is to be sent.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this secondary disbursement schedule shall be

filed on or before November 30, 2010. 

DATED this 20th day of September, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 345 Filed 09/22/10 Page 10 of 23
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 - 11 -

EXHIBIT A:

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 345 Filed 09/22/10 Page 11 of 23
- 12 -

CLAIMANT APPEARAN

CE DKT. #

PAYEE ADDRESS TOTA

CLAI

AMOU

Acanitt Ltd (Freiha) 102 Snell & Wilmer LLP Trust

Account

1 Arizona Ctr, 400 EVan Buren, Phoenix, AZ85004-2202

$1,249,8

Amaral, Walt & Janet 99 Ridenour Hienton & Lewis

PLLC Trust Account

Ridenour Hienton &Lewis, PLLC 201 N.Central, Suite 3300,Phoenix, AZ 85004

$253,788

Andree, Frank &Lapalme, C

338 Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A.

Trust Account

Gallagher & Kennedy,P.A., 2575 EastCamelback Road,Phoenix, AZ 85016

$73,705.

Arnold, Thomas 137 Thomas R. Arnold 464 Prospect Street La

Jolla, CA. 92037

$254,216

Baker, David LivingTrust

230 David G. Baker, Trustee 239 Brannan Street, Unit

3A, San Francisco CA94107-4071

$158,145

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 345 Filed 09/22/10 Page 12 of 23
- 13 -

BAL Investment Group 57 Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC

Trust Account 

Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC14500 N. NorthsightBlvd. Scottsdale, AZ85260

$28,372.

Benedetto, Joseph(ALCAN)

210 Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC

Trust Account 

Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC14500 N. NorthsightBlvd. Scottsdale, AZ85260

$351,503

Boese, Joerg 341 Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC

Trust Account 

Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC14500 N. NorthsightBlvd. Scottsdale, AZ85260

$161,824

Brown, Carol & Walker,Danna

135 Ridenour Hienton & Lewis

PLLC Trust Account

Ridenour Hienton &Lewis, PLLC 201 N.Central, Suite 3300,Phoenix, AZ 85004

$25,572.

Cinca, Daniel Dragos 151 Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC

Trust Account 

Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC14500 N. NorthsightBlvd. Scottsdale, AZ85260

$129,466

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 345 Filed 09/22/10 Page 13 of 23
- 14 -

Cooper, Marc & Ruth 75 Marc and Ruth Cooper 625 East Dilido Drive,

Miami Beach, FL 33139

$42,718.

Coviello Family LivingTrust

179 Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC

Trust Account 

Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC14500 N. NorthsightBlvd. Scottsdale, AZ85260

$260,296

Cramer, Lorraine,Trustee

167 Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A.

Trust Account

Gallagher & Kennedy,P.A., 2575 EastCamelback Road,Phoenix, AZ 85016

$358,231

Fahmy, Diaa & Odette 265 Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A.

Trust Account

Gallagher & Kennedy,P.A., 2575 EastCamelback Road,Phoenix, AZ 85016

$30,310.

Farid, Amany & Dr.Rafla, Atef

266 Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A.

Trust Account

Gallagher & Kennedy,P.A., 2575 EastCamelback Road,Phoenix, AZ 85016

$69,799.

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 345 Filed 09/22/10 Page 14 of 23
- 15 -

Feldman, Benjamin 212 Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC

Trust Account 

Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC14500 N. NorthsightBlvd. Scottsdale, AZ85260

$81,225.

Fulco, Frank & Kathleen 112 Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC

Trust Account 

Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC14500 N. NorthsightBlvd. Scottsdale, AZ85260

$91,359.

Gopin, Michael 163 Ridenour Hienton & Lewis

PLLC Trust Account

Ridenour Hienton &Lewis, PLLC 201 N.Central, Suite 3300,Phoenix, AZ 85004

$52,129.

Grainger, Michael &Donna

182 Cohen Kennedy Dowd &

Quigley Trust Account

2425 E. Camelback Rd.,Suite 1100 Phoenix, AZ85016

$53,123.

Haglund, James & Patty 89 Osborn Maledon, P.A. Trust

Account

2929 N. Central Avenue,Suite 2100 Phoenix,Arizona 85012

$109,047

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 345 Filed 09/22/10 Page 15 of 23
- 16 -

Harborage (EdTeraskiewicz)

90 Harborage Leasing Corp. c/o Morella &

Associates, 706 Rochester Road,Pittsburgh, PA 15237

$74,323.

Iacino, Edward &Roberta

178 Edward & Roberta Iacino c/o Preeo Silverman

Green & Egle PC, 140117th St, Ste 800, Denver,CO 80202 

$47,782.

Jaynes, Cecil FamilyTrust

328 Harper Law PLC Trust

Account

Harper Law PLC, 1 N.Central Ave., Suite 1130,Phoenix, Arizona 85004

$103,857

Karu, Stuart 210 Cohen Kennedy Dowd &

Quigley Trust Account

2425 E. Camelback Rd.,Suite 1100 Phoenix, AZ85016

$203,311

Kelly, Anthony & Louise 186 Ridenour Hienton & Lewis

PLLC Trust Account

Ridenour Hienton &Lewis, PLLC 201 N.Central, Suite 3300,Phoenix, AZ 85004

$263,629

Kornievsky, George &Carol

157 George M. Kornievsky and

Carol A. Kornievsky, Trustees

6 Longshore, Irvine, CA 92614

$269,542

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 345 Filed 09/22/10 Page 16 of 23
- 17 -

Levey, Mark 297 Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC

Trust Account 

Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC14500 N. NorthsightBlvd. Scottsdale, AZ85260

$52,067.

Lubell, Paul 80 Paul Lubell c/o Florence M.

Bruemmer, 42104 N.Venture Court, Ste.A122, Anthem, AZ 85086

$143,768

Mason, Donald & Tomie 207 Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC

Trust Account 

Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC14500 N. NorthsightBlvd. Scottsdale, AZ85260

$172,289

McMahan, John 211 Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC

Trust Account 

Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC14500 N. NorthsightBlvd. Scottsdale, AZ85260

$199,389

Menard, Linda 138 Ridenour Hienton & Lewis

PLLC Trust Account

Ridenour Hienton &Lewis, PLLC 201 N.Central, Suite 3300,Phoenix, AZ 85004

$234,393

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 345 Filed 09/22/10 Page 17 of 23
- 18 -

Miller, Charles & Rita 81 Charles E. Miller, Sr. and Rita

S.Miller

Revocable Trust

6820 Manasota KeyRoad, Englewood Florida34223

$256,624

Miller, David 185 Cohen Kennedy Dowd &

Quigley Trust Account

2425 E. Camelback Rd.,Suite 1100 Phoenix, AZ85016

$953,145

O'Hara, Gary & Janice 73 Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC

Trust Account 

Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC14500 N. NorthsightBlvd. Scottsdale, AZ85260

$37,358.

Ouano, Ruperto 228 Ridenour Hienton & Lewis

PLLC Trust Account

Ridenour Hienton &Lewis, PLLC 201 N.Central, Suite 3300,Phoenix, AZ 85004

$25,698.

Polik, Dean & Gwenn 196 Garvey Schubert Barer Trust

Account

Garvey Schubert BarerAttn: David R. West1191 Second Ave., 18thFloor, Seattle, WA 98101

$38,925.

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 345 Filed 09/22/10 Page 18 of 23
- 19 -

Polskin, Howard &Philippa

84 Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC

Trust Account 

Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC14500 N. NorthsightBlvd. Scottsdale, AZ85260

$162,633

Prata Investments 65 Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC

Trust Account 

Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC14500 N. NorthsightBlvd. Scottsdale, AZ85260

$144,606

Radeka, Richard &Sharon

76 Richard Radeka and Sharon

Radeka

Richard and SharonRadeka c/o H. DavidHanes, 508 W.Vandament, Suite 300,Yukon, OK 73099

$41,085.

Riker, Donald & Leigh 277 Sacks Tierney P.A. Trust

Account

Sacks Tierney P.A. 4250North Drinkwater Blvd.,4th Floor, Scottsdale, AZ 85251

$32,799.

Riley, Richard A & Carol 88 Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC

Trust Account 

Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC14500 N. NorthsightBlvd. Scottsdale, AZ85260

$195,433

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 345 Filed 09/22/10 Page 19 of 23
- 20 -

Root, Tracy 329 Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC

Trust Account 

Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC14500 N. NorthsightBlvd. Scottsdale, AZ85260

$158,275

Ross, Robert & Winnie 191 John Kao Law Office Clients'

Funds Account

John Kao Law OfficeThe Mills Tower, 220Montgomery Street,Suite 1611, SanFrancisco, California94104

$81,522.

Roudels, Jon 24 Jonathan Roudels 3945 NW 39 Ct, 

Gainesville Fl 32606

$27,693.

Sangiacomo, Maria F 186 Ridenour Hienton & Lewis

PLLC Trust Account

Ridenour Hienton &Lewis, PLLC 201 N.Central, Suite 3300,Phoenix, AZ 85004

$58,928.

SATA Holdings 58 Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC

Trust Account 

Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC14500 N. NorthsightBlvd. Scottsdale, AZ85260

$28,424.

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 345 Filed 09/22/10 Page 20 of 23
- 21 -

Shafron, Martin &Margaret

119 Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC

Trust Account 

Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC14500 N. NorthsightBlvd. Scottsdale, AZ85260

$313,251

Shia, Daniel & Jonathan,H Yuan

141 Harper Law PLC Trust

Account

Harper Law PLC, 1 N.Central Ave., Suite 1130,Phoenix, Arizona 85004

$71,780.

Sitgraves, Darcy &Brazier, J 

167 Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A.

Trust Account

Gallagher & Kennedy,P.A., 2575 EastCamelback Road,Phoenix, AZ 85016

$81,451.

Spevakow, Robert &Darlene

144 Ridenour Hienton & Lewis

PLLC Trust Account

Ridenour Hienton &Lewis, PLLC 201 N.Central, Suite 3300,Phoenix, AZ 85004

$159,372

Stiff, Robert & Susan 79 Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC

Trust Account 

Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC14500 N. NorthsightBlvd. Scottsdale, AZ85260

$44,251.

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 345 Filed 09/22/10 Page 21 of 23
- 22 -

Thomas, William 85 Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC

Trust Account 

Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC14500 N. NorthsightBlvd. Scottsdale, AZ85260

$28,288.

Trotter, John 267 Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A.

Trust Account

Gallagher & Kennedy,P.A., 2575 EastCamelback Road,Phoenix, AZ 85016

$23,627.

Vitacura, Inc (JorgeInclan)

111 Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC

Trust Account 

Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC14500 N. NorthsightBlvd. Scottsdale, AZ85260

$288,204

Wassef, Ezzat Dr. 264 Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A.

Trust Account

Gallagher & Kennedy,P.A., 2575 EastCamelback Road,Phoenix, AZ 85016

$71,042.

Weis, Timothy & Tracy,Trustees

189 Polsinelli Shughart Client

Trust Account

Polsinelli Shughart PC,3636 N. Central Avenue,Suite 1200, Phoenix AZ 85012

$777,916

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 345 Filed 09/22/10 Page 22 of 23
- 23 -

Wolfe, Mitchel &Sharyne

110 Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC

Trust Account 

Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC14500 N. NorthsightBlvd. Scottsdale, AZ85260

$194,528

Wong, Steve & Cheung,Rose

220 Burch & Cracchiolo, PA Trust

Account

 Burch & Cracchiolo,PA, 702 E. Osborn Rd.,Suite 200, Phoenix, AZ85014

$43,528.

Wright, Irvin 280 Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC

Trust Account 

Alvarez & Gilbert, PLLC14500 N. NorthsightBlvd. Scottsdale, AZ85260

$155,007

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 345 Filed 09/22/10 Page 23 of 23