Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00001/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00001-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

Roberts Properties, Ltd., doing business as Gold Canyon R.V. Resort ("Resort"), is

also named as a Defendant.

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gary Greenburg; Barbara Greenburg, 

Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants, 

vs.

Roberts Properties, Ltd.; et al., 

Defendants/Counterclaimants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-0001-PHX-SRB

ORDER

This case involves a dispute between the owner of an R.V. park and two of its tenants.

Plaintiffs Gary Greenburg ("Gary") and Barbara Greenburg have alleged that they were given

written permission by the manager of the R.V. park, Defendant Craig P. Suddarth, to make

certain modifications to their mobile home and the surrounding site, but that once they

initiated those modifications, Suddarth, along with the owner and manager of the R.V. Park,

Defendant Barbel Roberts, withdrew permission and threatened eviction. At issue is a

motion filed by Defendants1

 (Doc. 140) which asks the Court, pursuant to both Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 11 and the Court's "inherent power" to protect itself against fraud, to

dismiss the Complaint, as Plaintiffs allegedly defrauded the Court by forging Suddharth's

signature on certain documents, then attaching those documents to each version of their

Case 2:04-cv-00001-SRB Document 157 Filed 12/23/05 Page 1 of 6
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

These facts were drawn from the Third Amended Complaint and the exhibits

accompanying Defendants' motion.

3

Park model recreational vehicles, sometimes referred to as "mobile homes," are a

form of manufactured housing that can be transported from one location to another.

- 2 -

Verified Complaint. The motion also alleges that Gary perjured himself by lying in his

deposition concerning the authenticity of the documents. In Plaintiffs' response, they deny

all wrongdoing.

I. BACKGROUND2

Beginning in or before March 2003, Plaintiffs inquired about the possibility of

constructing a park model recreational vehicle ("mobile home")3 on a lot located within the

Resort owned by Roberts through Roberts Properties, Ltd., and managed by Suddarth. As

part of these discussions, Plaintiffs requested the Resort's architectural and construction rules

and regulations. Suddarth referred Plaintiffs to the Resort's standard rules and regulations

booklet. Those rules and regulations provide, in relevant part,

No improvements, alterations, repairs, excavations or other work which

in any way alters the appearance of any property shall be made without

written approval. No building, fence, wall or other structure shall be

commenced, erected, improved or altered without written permission

from Management. No awnings or other structures shall be attached to

any trailer, recreational vehicle or park model without written

permission from Management. . . . Management has the right to refuse

any plan, specification or grading plan which in its opinion is not

suitable or desirable for aesthetic or other reasons. Resident will be

required to remove improvements, which have been made without

Management . . . approval.

(Third Am. Compl., Ex. 1 at 2.)

Case 2:04-cv-00001-SRB Document 157 Filed 12/23/05 Page 2 of 6
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

Plaintiffs have represented themselves throughout this action.

- 3 -

It is undisputed that Plaintiffs submitted construction plans to Resort management in

March 2003, and that those plans (the "First Plans") were approved in writing by Suddarth.

(Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss at 3.) Following approval of their construction plans, Plaintiffs

signed two rental agreements with the Resort to lease a particular lot from April 3, 2003 to

September 30, 2005.

At this point, respective accounts of subsequent events diverge sharply. Plaintiffs

contend that on two separate occasions, once in July 2003 (the "Second Plans") and again

in September 2003 (the "Third Plans"), they received written permission from Suddarth to

alter their constructions plans. Attached to their Third Amended Complaint are the allegedly

approved construction plans, both bearing what Plaintiffs allege to be Suddarth's signature.

(Third. Am. Compl., Ex. 11, 14.) The RV park model as constructed varies markedly from

the RV park model as depicted in the First Plans.

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs were never given approval to deviate from the First

Plans. Instead, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs manufactured approval for the modified

plans by forging Suddarth's signature, then submitting those forgeries as attachments to each

of their verified complaints. In support of their position, Defendants provide a letter and an

affidavit from a handwriting examiner who compared the signatures and concluded that

Suddarth's signature on the Second Plans and Third Plans is a forgery. 

The allegedly forged documents are the foundation of Plaintiffs' lawsuit. When

Suddarth observed that Plaintiffs' mobile home site did not conform to the specifications of

the First Plans, Suddarth ordered Plaintiffs to stop construction. Plaintiffs complained that

they were constructing their home in accordance with plans that Suddarth approved;

Suddarth countered that he had never given approval beyond the First Plans. Defendants

threatened eviction if Plaintiffs did not bring their site into line with the First Plans.

Plaintiffs chose to file suit instead of comply.4

 Their original Complaint was filed with this

Court on January 2, 2004. Thrice amended, the Complaint now includes ten causes of

Case 2:04-cv-00001-SRB Document 157 Filed 12/23/05 Page 3 of 6
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 -

action, including intentional misrepresentation, "violation of tenant's covenant right to quiet

enjoyment," defamation, retaliation, breach of obligation of good faith, intimidation and

harassment, civil conspiracy, defamation, and two counts of discrimination. On April 12,

2005, Defendants filed a counterclaim, alleging breach of contract and defamation.

Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss on September 26, 2005. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS

Defendants ask that this matter be dismissed in light of the fraud that Plaintiffs have

allegedly perpetrated, and continue to perpetrate, on the Court. Defendants correctly point

out that "courts have the power to dismiss an action when a party has willfully deceived the

court and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice."

Sun World, Inc. v. Lizarazu Olivarria, 144 F.R.D. 384, 390 (E.D. Cal. 1992) (quoting

Fjelstad v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 762 F.2d 1334 (9th Cir. 1985)). Plaintiffs' conduct, if

proven true, constitutes an affront to the administration of justice, and could result, at a

minimum, in the dismissal of this action with prejudice, the entry of default judgment in

Defendants' favor, an award of all fees and costs to Defendants, and even a referral to the

United States Attorney's Office for criminal investigation. See 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a)

("Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, . . . verification, or statement under penalty of

perjury . . . ) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court . . . of the United States

knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any information, including

any . . . paper, document, record, . . . or other material, knowing the same to contain any false

material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years,

or both.); Sun World, Inc., 144 F.R.D. at 389 (dismissing action, entering default judgment,

and awarding costs and fees, pursuant to Rule 11 and the court's inherent power to police

fraud, where district court concluded, after evidentiary hearing, that the defendant had

submitted fraudulent documents to the court and lied at his deposition); Combs v. Rockwell

Intern. Corp., 927 F.2d 486, 488 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming district court's dismissal of action,

under both Rule 11 and the court's inherent powers, where the plaintiff had falsified parts of

his deposition testimony); Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1116-18 (1st Cir. 1989)

Case 2:04-cv-00001-SRB Document 157 Filed 12/23/05 Page 4 of 6
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 -

(affirming district court's dismissal of action where the plaintiff fabricated a crucial

document, attached it to the complaint, and committed other dishonest acts, all in order to

"gain unfair advantage" in the litigation). See also Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709

F.2d 585, 591 (9th Cir. 1983).

The question for the moment is whether, based on the evidence provided in

Defendants' motion and Plaintiffs' response, the Court can conclude with an appropriate

degree of certainty that the forgery and perjury occurred. Defendants offer an affidavit of

Suddarth, attesting that while he gave written approval of the First Plans, he did not for the

Second or Third, nor did Plaintiffs even present the latter two plans to him for approval.

(Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. B.) 

Defendants also offer the letter and affidavit of a handwriting examiner, William J.

Flynn, who scrutinized Suddarth's signature on the First Plans and compared it to the alleged

forgeries on the Second and Third. (Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. C.) Flynn opines that

Suddarth's signature on the Second and Third Plans is a forgery. (Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss, Ex.

C.) Flynn examined the signatures under a microscope and noticed evidence of inkjet

droplets and scan lines on the signatures in question, leading him to the conclusion that the

original signature was scanned using a portable scanner, then reprinted on the Second and

Third Plans with an inkjet printer. (Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. C.) As further support for

his conclusion, Flynn notes that Suddarth's signature on the First Plans is identical to his

alleged signature on the Second Plans, an occurrence that flouts the "well-established

forensic principal that no two naturally made signatures will exactly overlay." (Defs.' Mot.

to Dismiss, Ex. C.)

Finally, Defendants contend that because the signatures on the Second and Third

Plans are counterfeit, Plaintiffs must have lied to the Court by verifying a complaint that

contained as exhibits the fraudulent documents, and Gary must have lied in his deposition

when he stated that Suddarth signed the Second Plans in his presence.

In response, Plaintiffs deny all accusations contained in Defendants' motion. Plaintiffs

express doubt about the usefulness of handwriting "experts" and question Defendants'

Case 2:04-cv-00001-SRB Document 157 Filed 12/23/05 Page 5 of 6
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 -

motives in bringing the motion. Plaintiffs claim to have conducted their own examination

of the Suddarth signatures and concluded that while the signatures are "very similar," they

are not "perfect, exact or identical" matches, and therefore cannot be forgeries. (Pls.' Resp.

at 5.) Plaintiffs also claim to have asked five "lay persons" for their opinion about the

signatures, and, according to Plaintiffs, all five agreed that the signatures were "slightly

different." (Pls.' Resp. at 6.) Plaintiffs reiterate that Gary personally witnessed Suddarth sign

the Second Plans, and that Suddarth likely has no memory of that meeting because, according

to Plaintiffs, he has an alcohol abuse problem. (Pls.' Resp. at 9.) Plaintiffs point to what they

claim to be other inconsistencies in Suddarth's version of events as proof that he either lied

or forgot about signing the Second and Third Plans.

The Court concludes that the best way to resolve the issue of Plaintiffs' alleged fraud

is to conduct an evidentiary hearing. See Sun World, Inc., 144 F.R.D. at 389 (conducting

evidentiary hearing to determine whether the plaintiff had perpetrated a fraud on the court

by submitting an allegedly fake document); Wyle, 709 F.2d at 585; Hughes Tool Co. v.

Meier, 489 F. Supp. 333 (Dist. Utah 1977). Both parties will be permitted to call witnesses

and present other evidence. Following that hearing, the Court will render a decision and, if

necessary, assess proper sanctions.

IT IS ORDERED setting an evidentiary hearing at which the Court will resolve the

issues raised by Defendants in their Motion to Dismiss. That hearing will occur on Monday,

January 9, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. 

DATED this 22nd day of December, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-00001-SRB Document 157 Filed 12/23/05 Page 6 of 6