Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01587/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01587-1/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

General Electric Capital Corporation was substituted for CitiCapital Commercial

Leasing Corporation upon written motion of its counsel.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

CITICAPITAL TECHNOLOGY

FINANCE, INC., formerly known as EAB

Leasing Corp., a Pennsylvania corporation,

and CITICAPITAL COMMERCIAL

LEASING CORPORATION, formerly

known as Associates Leasing, Inc., an

Indiana corporation, predecessor in interest

to real party in interest, GENERAL

ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

GRANT H. GOODMAN AND TERI B.

GOODMAN, husband and wife, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 03-01587-PHX-JAT

FINDINGS OF FACT AND

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

On June 20, 21, and 28, the Court presided over the bench trial in this matter. In their

complaint, Plaintiffs CitiCapital Technology Finance, Inc. (“CitiCapital Technology”) and

CitiCapital Commercial Leasing Corporation1

 (“CitiCapital Commercial”) asserted that

Defendants Grant and Teri Goodman owed deficiencies due under eight lease agreements

following the default of those lease agreements and the subsequent sale of the leased

equipment. Plaintiffs seek liquidated damages and attorney’s fees. Following the bench

trial, the Court hereby finds and concludes as follows:

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT Document 88 Filed 07/21/06 Page 1 of 15
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 -

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Plaintiff CitiCapital Technology is incorporated in Pennsylvania and has its

principal place of business in New York. Plaintiff General Electric Capital

Corporation (“GE”) is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of

business in Connecticut. Defendants Grant and Teri Goodman are both residents

and citizens of Arizona.

2. Under an agreement designated as Lease No. 005-0515121-000 (“Lease No.

121"), executed by GTI Capital Holdings, L.L.C., dba Rockland Materials

(“GTI”), and thereafter executed by U.S. Bancorp Leasing and Financial

(“USB”), USB financed GTI’s acquisition of certain equipment in exchange for

GTI’s promise to make sixty monthly payments in the amount of $3,503.18.

3. Under an agreement designated as Lease No. 005-0515122-000 (“Lease No.

122"), executed by GTI, and thereafter executed by USB, USB financed GTI’s

acquisition of certain equipment in exchange for GTI’s promise to make thirtysix monthly payments in the amount of $3,550.14.

4. Under Lease Nos. 121 and 122, GTI agreed to lease from USB the following

described personal property:

LEASE NO. LEASED EQUIPMENT VEHICLE

DESCRIPTION IDENTIFICATION #

121 Four (4) 2001 Benson 27' 5DMDSABD01M000216

Aluminum Dump Trailers 5DMDSABD21M000217

5DMDSABD41M000218

5DMDSABD61M000219

122 Four (4) 1996 Kenworth T800 1XKDDE9X2TJ723029

Tractors 1XKDDE9X0TJ723031

1XKDDE9XXTJ723473

1XKDDE9X1TJ723474

5. Defendant Grant Goodman, a principal and member of GTI, guarantied Lease

Nos. 121 and 122 (the “Grant Goodman Guaranty of Lease Nos. 121 and 122").

By executing said guaranty, Defendant Grant Goodman guarantied all payments,

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT Document 88 Filed 07/21/06 Page 2 of 15
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 -

charges, and obligations due under Lease Nos. 121 and 122.

6. USB assigned Lease No. 121, the Lease No. 121 equipment, and the Grant

Goodman Guaranty of Lease No. 121 to CitiCapital Technology. CitiCapital

Technology is the owner and holder of Lease No. 121, the Lease No. 121

equipment, and the Grant Goodman Guaranty of Lease No. 121.

7. USB assigned Lease No. 122, the Lease No. 122 equipment, and the Grant

Goodman Guaranty of Lease No. 122 to CitiCapital Technology. CitiCapital

Technology is the owner and holder of Lease No. 122, the Lease No. 122

equipment, and the Grant Goodman Guaranty of Lease No. 122.

8. Lease Nos. 121 and 122 went into default for the failure to pay monthly rent due

in April, 2003. Lease Nos. 121 and 122 remain in default.

9. Pursuant to the terms of Lease Nos. 121 and 122, upon default CitiCapital

Technology is entitled to immediate possession of the equipment included in

Lease Nos. 121 and 122 and is entitled to sell or otherwise dispose of it.

CitiCapital Technology is also entitled to apply the proceeds of any such

disposition to the indebtedness of GTI to CitiCapital Technology.

10. In the case of In re: GTI Capital Holdings, L.L.C./G.H. Goodman Investment

Companies, L.L.C., pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

District of Arizona, Case Nos. 2-03-07923 through 2-03-7924 (the “GTI

bankruptcy case”), the court entered an Order that authorized CitiCapital

Technology’s recovery of the equipment included in Lease Nos. 121 and 122.

After repossessing the equipment, CitiCapital Technology provided notice to all

parties of the sale of the Lease No. 121 and the Lease No. 122 equipment.

11. CitiCapital Technology and Nationwide Auction entered into an agreement in

which Nationwide Auction agreed to assist in the sale of CitiCapital

Technology’s repossessed equipment. Pursuant to this agreement, Nationwide

Auction provided a site on which to hold the public auction sales and also

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT Document 88 Filed 07/21/06 Page 3 of 15
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 -

assisted in marketing the sales.

12. In order to hold a successful public auction sale, CitiCapital Technology, in

conjunction with Nationwide Auction, marketed the equipment included in

Lease Nos. 121 and 122. At least ten days prior to the sale, they sent out 5,000

to 10,000 brochures, which listed the inventory being sold at the upcoming sale.

At least two weeks prior to the sale, they provided Internet access to information

about equipment being sold and also sent e-mails to 35,000-50,000 target

customers. Additionally, at least two weeks prior to the sale, they advertised the

sale in a publication known as “Truck Paper,” which has a nationwide

circulation of 700,000 people. Also, Roger Doyle, an employee of CitiCapital

Technology, called 50-100 potential buyers to notify them of the upcoming sale.

13. After extensive marketing of the Lease No. 121 equipment, one 2001 Benson 27'

Aluminum Dump Trailer was sold at public auction in Ontario, California, a

recognized market for the sale of construction equipment. The balance of the

Lease No. 121 equipment was sold by private sale. The date and gross amount

received from said sales is set forth below:

LEASED EQUIPMENT VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION # SALE PRICE

DESCRIPTION AND DATE

One (1) 2001 Benson 27' 5DMDSABD01M000216 $21,000

Aluminum Dump Trailer 2/23/04

One (1) 2001 Benson 27' 5DMDSABD21M000217 $21,000

Aluminum Dump Trailer 2/23/04

One (1) 2001 Benson 27' 5DMDSABD41M000218 $21,000

Aluminum Dump Trailer 2/23/04

One (1) 2001 Benson 27' 5DMDSABD61M000219 $12,500

Aluminum Dump Trailer 2/23/04

14. After extensive marketing of the Lease No. 122 equipment, it was sold at public

auction in Ontario, California. The date and gross amount received from the

public auction is set forth below:

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT Document 88 Filed 07/21/06 Page 4 of 15
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 -

LEASED EQUIPMENT VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION # SALE PRICE

DESCRIPTION AND DATE

One (1) 1996 Kenworth 1XKDDE9X2TJ723029 $11,500

T800 Tractor 2/10/04

One (1) 1996 Kenworth 1XKDDE9X0TJ723031 $5,750

T800 Tractor 2/10/04

One (1) 1996 Kenworth 1XKDDE9XXTJ723473 $5,500

T800 Tractor 2/10/04

One (1) 1996 Kenworth 1XKDDE9X1TJ723474 $6,500

T800 Tractor 2/10/04

15. CitiCapital Technology properly calculated its damages under the express

provisions of Lease Nos. 121 and 122. It properly discounted future rents to

present value. Additionally, it properly credited all payments made and properly

credited all net sale proceeds from the disposition of the equipment included in

Lease Nos. 121 and 122.

16. Under the express provisions of Lease Nos. 121 and 122, GTI agreed to pay

CitiCapital Technology its reasonable attorney’s fees, as well as all other

expenses incurred by CitiCapital Technology in connection with the

enforcement of any of its remedies. 

17. Under an agreement designated as Lease No. 005-0515468-000 (“Lease No.

468"), executed by GTI, and thereafter executed by CitiCapital Technology,

CitiCapital Technology financed GTI’s acquisition of certain equipment in

exchange for GTI’s promise to make sixty monthly payments in the amount of

$5,079.68.

18. Under an agreement designated as Lease No. 005-0515548-000 (“Lease No.

548"), executed by GTI, and thereafter executed by CitiCapital Technology,

CitiCapital Technology financed GTI’s acquisition of certain equipment in

exchange for GTI’s promise to make fifty-four monthly payments in the amount

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT Document 88 Filed 07/21/06 Page 5 of 15
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 -

of $2,120.00.

19. Defendant Grant Goodman guarantied Lease Nos. 468 and 548 (the “Grant

Goodman Guaranty of Lease Nos. 468 and 548"). By executing said guaranty,

Defendant Grant Goodman guarantied all payments, charges, and obligations

due under Lease Nos. 468 and 548.

20. Under Lease Nos. 468 and 548, GTI agreed to lease from CitiCapital

Technology the following described personal property:

 LEASE NO. LEASED EQUIPMENT VEHICLE

DESCRIPTION IDENTIFICATION #

468 Two (2) 2000 Peterbilt Trucks INPAL00X1YD493161

W/MTM W/58419-15606

11 YD Bridgemaster V Mixer INPAL00X3YD493162

W/57170-16029

548 Invoice #020969

One (1) Vince Hagan Model VH-10945P

Free Standing Jet Pulse Dust Conveyor

with baby-buggy style dust shroud, 

ducting and dust recycle system

Invoice #020970

One (1) 5" Fill Pipe in lieu of a 4" Fill Pipe

as quoted Two (2) additional 5" Fill Pipes

Invoice #OR00821C1

One (1) Vince Hagan Model 3200BAL

Elevated Silo with VH24SJP and 14"

Screw Conveyor

One (1) Silo Work Platform Option

21. Lease Nos. 468 and 548 went into default for the failure to pay the monthly rent

due in April, 2003. Lease Nos. 468 and 548 remain in default.

22. Pursuant to the terms of Lease Nos. 468 and 548, upon default CitiCapital

Technology is entitled to immediate possession of the equipment included in

Lease Nos. 468 and 548 and is entitled to sell or otherwise dispose of it.

CitiCapital Technology is also entitled to apply the proceeds of any such

disposition to the indebtedness of GTI to CitiCapital Technology.

23. In the GTI bankruptcy case, the court entered an Order that authorized

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT Document 88 Filed 07/21/06 Page 6 of 15
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 -

CitiCapital Technology’s recovery of the equipment included in Lease Nos. 468

and 548. After repossessing the equipment, CitiCapital Technology provided

notice to all parties of the sale of the Lease No. 468 and the Lease No. 548

equipment.

24. In order to hold a successful public auction sale, CitiCapital Technology, in

conjunction with Nationwide Auction, marketed the equipment included in

Lease Nos. 468 and 548. At least ten days prior to the sale, they sent out 5,000

to 10,000 brochures, which listed the inventory being sold at the upcoming sale.

At least two weeks prior to the sale, they provided Internet access to information

about equipment being sold and also sent e-mails to 35,000-50,000 target

customers. Additionally, at least two weeks prior to the sale, they advertised in

a publication known as “Truck Paper,” which has a nationwide circulation of

700,000 people. Also, Roger Doyle, an employee of CitiCapital Technology,

called 50-100 potential buyers to notify them of the upcoming sale. 

25. After extensive marketing of the Lease No. 468 equipment, it was sold at public

auction in Ontario, California. The date and gross amount received from the

public auction is set forth below.

LEASED EQUIPMENT VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION # SALE PRICE

DESCRIPTION AND DATE

 One (1) 2000 Peterbilt Truck INPAL00X1YD493161 $58,500

W/MTM 11 YD W/58419-15606 2/10/04

Bridgemaster V Mixer

One (1) 2000 Peterbilt Truck INPAL00X3YD493162 $60,000

W/MTM 11 YD W/57170-16029 2/10/04

Bridgemaster V Mixer

26. The Lease No. 548 equipment was sold by private sale. The date and gross

amount received from the private sale is set forth below:

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT Document 88 Filed 07/21/06 Page 7 of 15
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 -

 LEASED EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION SALE PRICE AND DATE

Invoice #020969 $29,500

One (1) Vince Hagan Model VH-10945P 10/20/04

Free Standing Jet Pulse Dust Conveyor

with baby-buggy style dust shroud, 

ducting and dust recycle system

Invoice #020970

One (1) 5" Fill Pipe in lieu of a 4" Fill Pipe

as quoted Two (2) additional 5" Fill Pipes

Invoice #OR00821C1

One (1) Vince Hagan Model 3200BAL

Elevated Silo with VH24SJP and 14"

Screw Conveyor

One (1) Silo Work Platform Option

27. CitiCapital Technology properly calculated its damages under the express

provisions of Lease Nos. 468 and 548. It properly discounted future rents to

present value. Additionally, it properly credited all payments made and properly

credited all net sale proceeds from the disposition of the equipment included in

Lease Nos. 468 and 548.

28. Under the express provisions of Lease Nos. 468 and 548, GTI agreed to pay

CitiCapital Technology its reasonable attorney’s fees, as well as all other

expenses incurred by CitiCapital Technology in connection with the

enforcement of any of its remedies. 

29. Under an agreement designated as Lease No. 211-0106451-000 (“Lease No.

451"), executed by GTI, and thereafter executed by CitiCapital Commercial,

CitiCapital Commercial financed GTI’s acquisition of certain equipment in

exchange for GTI’s promise to make sixty monthly payments in the amount of

$1,670.00.

30. Under an agreement designated as Lease No. 211-0106452-000 (“Lease No.

452"), executed by GTI, and thereafter executed by CitiCapital Commercial,

CitiCapital Commercial financed GTI’s acquisition of certain equipment in

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT Document 88 Filed 07/21/06 Page 8 of 15
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 - 9 -

exchange for GTI’s promise to make sixty monthly payments in the amount of

$3,188.00.

31. Under an agreement designated as Lease No. 211-0106453-000 (“Lease No.

453"), executed by GTI, and thereafter executed by CitiCapital Commercial,

CitiCapital Commercial financed GTI’s acquisition of certain equipment in

exchange for GTI’s promise to make sixty monthly payments in the amount of

$1,670.00.

32. Under an agreement designated as Lease No. 211-0107004-000 (“Lease No.

7004"), executed by GTI, and thereafter executed by CitiCapital Commercial,

CitiCapital Commercial financed GTI’s acquisition of certain equipment in

exchange for GTI’s promise to make sixty monthly payments in the amount of

$3,193.08.

33. Defendants Grant and Teri Goodman guarantied Lease Nos. 451, 452, 453, and

7004 (the “G and T Guaranties”). By executing said guaranties, Defendants

Grant and Teri Goodman guarantied all payments, charges, and obligations due

under Lease Nos. 451, 452, 453, and 7004.

34. Under Lease Nos. 451, 452, 453, and 7004, GTI agreed to lease from CitiCapital

Commercial the following described personal property:

LEASE NO. LEASED EQUIPMENT VEHICLE

DESCRIPTION IDENTIFICATION #

451 Two (2) 2002 Vantage P-41-1000 4EPPA41252BBA4130

Pneumatic Tank Trailers 4EPPA41272BBA4131

452 Two (2) 2002 Peterbilt 357 1XPAD09X32D574711

Conventional Tractors w/ 1XPAD09X52D574712

Gardner Denver Blowers

453 Two (2) 2002 Vantage P-41-1000 4EPPA41292BBA4132

Pneumatic Bulk Trailers 4EPPA41202BBA4133

7004 Two (2) 2002 Peterbilt 357 Tractors 1XPAD09X52D579196

w/ Gardner Denver Blowers 1XPAD09X72D579197

35. Lease Nos. 451, 452, 453, and 7004 went into default for the failure to pay the

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT Document 88 Filed 07/21/06 Page 9 of 15
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 -

monthly rent due in April, 2003. Lease Nos. 451, 452, 453, and 7004 remain in

default.

36. Pursuant to the terms of Lease Nos. 451, 452, 453, and 7004, upon default

CitiCapital Commercial is entitled to immediate possession of the equipment

included in Lease Nos. 451, 452, 453, and 7004 and is entitled to sell or

otherwise dispose of it. CitiCapital Commercial is also entitled to apply the

proceeds of any such disposition to the indebtedness of GTI to CitiCapital

Commercial.

37. In the GTI bankruptcy case, the court entered an Order that authorized

CitiCapital Commercial’s recovery of the equipment included in Lease Nos.

451, 452, 453, and 7004. After repossessing the equipment, CitiCapital

Commercial provided notice to all parties of the sale of the equipment included

in Lease Nos. 451, 452, 453, and 7004.

38. CitiCapital Commercial and Nationwide Auction entered into an agreement in

which Nationwide Auction agreed to assist in the sale of CitiCapital

Commercial’s repossessed equipment. Pursuant to this agreement, Nationwide

Auction provided a site on which to hold the public auction sales and also

assisted in marketing the sales.

39. In order to hold a successful public auction sale, CitiCapital Commercial, in

conjunction with Nationwide Auction, marketed the equipment included in

Lease Nos. 451, 452, 453, and 7004. At least ten days prior to the sale, they sent

out 5,000 to 10,000 brochures, which listed the inventory being sold at the

upcoming sale. At least two weeks prior to the sale, they provided Internet

access to information about equipment being sold and also sent e-mails to

35,000-50,000 target customers. Additionally, at least two weeks prior to the

sale, they advertised in a publication known as “Truck Paper,” which has a

nationwide circulation of 700,000 people. 

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT Document 88 Filed 07/21/06 Page 10 of 15
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 -

40. After extensive marketing of the equipment included in Lease Nos. 451, 452,

453, and 7004, it was sold at public auction in Ontario, California. The date and

gross amount received from the public auction sale(s) is set forth below:

LEASE LEASED EQUIPMENT VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION # SALE

NO. DESCRIPTION PRICE

AND

DATE

451 One (1) 2002 Vantage P-41-1000 4EPPA41252BBA4130 $22,000

Pneumatic Tank Trailer 11/21/03

451 One (1) 2002 Vantage P-41-1000 4EPPA41272BBA4131 $23,500

Pneumatic Tank Trailer 11/20/03

452 One (1) 2002 Peterbilt 357 1XPAD09X32D574711 $58,500

Conventional Tractor w/ Gardner 11/21/03

Denver Blower

452 One (1) 2002 Peterbilt 1XPAD09X52D574712 $51,000

Conventional Tractor w/ Gardner 11/24/03

Denver Blower

453 One (1) 2002 Vantage P-41-1000 4EPPA41292BBA4132 $24,750

Pneumatic Bulk Trailer 11/21/03

453 One (1) 2002 Vantage P-41-1000 4EPPA41202BBA4133 $25,500

Pneumatic Bulk Trailer 11/20/03

7004 One (1) 2002 Peterbilt 357 Tractor 1XPAD09X52D579196 $51,000

w/ Gardner Denver Blower 11/21/03

7004 One (1) 2002 Peterbilt 357 Tractor 1XPAD09X72D579197 $51,000

w/ Gardner Denver Blower 11/21/03

41. CitiCapital Commercial assigned Lease Nos. 451, 452, 453, and 7004 (referred

to as the “GE Leases”) and the G and T Guaranties to GE. GE is the owner and

holder of the GE Leases and the G and T Guaranties.

42. GE properly calculated its damages under the express provisions of the GE

Leases. It properly calculated a final adjustment for each lease. Additionally,

it properly credited all payments made and properly credited all net sale

proceeds from the disposition of the equipment included in Lease Nos. 451, 452,

453, and 7004.

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT Document 88 Filed 07/21/06 Page 11 of 15
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 - 12 -

43. Under the express provisions of the GE Leases, GTI agreed to pay all reasonable

attorney’s fees as well as all other expenses incurred in connection with the

enforcement of any of the remedies under the GE leases. 

II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The basis for the Court’s jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1332.

2. Where a contract provides damages provisions in the event of a breach, the

Court will enforce the contract as written. Green v. Snodgrass, 289 P.2d 191,

193 (Ariz. 1955). These damages provisions generally control unless they are

unconscionable. See Davis v. AZ Boys Choir Soc., 669 P.2d 1005, 1010 (Ariz.

App. 1983).

3. The test of whether a repossession sale is valid is whether every aspect of the

disposition is commercially reasonable. A.R.S. § 47-2706. The determination

of what is reasonable is generally a question of fact. Gulf Homes, Inc. v.

Goubeaux, 602 P.2d 810, 812 (Ariz. 1979).

4. Unless otherwise agreed, sale may be at a public or private sale. Sale may be as

a unit or in parcels and may be at any time and place and on any terms. A.R.S.

§ 47-2706. 

5. The fact that a better price could have been obtained by a sale at a different time

or in a different method from that selected by the secured party is not of itself

sufficient to establish that the sale was not made in a commercially reasonable

manner. If the secured party either: (1) sells the collateral in the usual manner

in any recognized market, or (2) sells at the price current in such market at the

time of his sale, or (3) otherwise sells in conformity with reasonable commercial

practices among dealers in the type of property sold, he has sold in a

commercially reasonable manner. A.R.S. § 47-9627.

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT Document 88 Filed 07/21/06 Page 12 of 15
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 - 13 -

III. RESULT

The only issue in this case centers around the amount, if any, that Plaintiffs have been

damaged. Because the parties included liquidated damages provisions in each of the lease

agreements at issue, the Court will enforce these provisions. The Court previously stated in

its September 27, 2005 Order that the liquidated damages provisions included in the lease

agreements are not unconscionable. The Court also stated that “the amount fixed is

reasonable to the extent that it approximates the loss anticipated at the time of the making of

the contract, even though it may not approximate the actual loss.” Pima Savings and Loan

Association v. Rampello, 812 P.2d 1115, 1118 (Ariz. App. 1991).

Plaintiffs properly followed the express provisions of the lease agreements upon

default. Pursuant to the lease agreements, Plaintiffs repossessed the equipment and sold it

by way of both public auction and private sale. Defendants argue that these sales were not

executed in a commercially reasonable manner, but the Court disagrees. Plaintiffs, in

conjunction with Nationwide Auction, engaged in extensive marketing of all of the

repossessed equipment. Their marketing efforts, which included brochures, e-mails, Internet

access to sale information, and personal phone calls to potential buyers, were reasonably

calculated to notify potential buyers of the sale. Additionally, Plaintiffs sold the equipment

in Ontario, California, which is a recognized market for the sale of construction equipment.

Because Plaintiffs sold the repossessed equipment in a recognized market and in the usual

manner, which included both public auction and private sale, their sales were executed in a

commercially reasonable manner under A.R.S. § 47-9627.

Following the sale of each piece of equipment, Plaintiffs properly used the liquidated

damages provisions in each lease agreement to calculate the deficiencies due under the

agreements. Based on these calculations, CitiCapital Technology is entitled to judgment in

its favor and against Defendant Grant Goodman as follows: (a) as to Lease No. 121, the

amount of $51,213.80 plus interest at the rate of fifteen percent (15%) from April 23, 2005

through the date judgment is entered; (b) as to Lease No. 122, the amount of $5,178.14 plus

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT Document 88 Filed 07/21/06 Page 13 of 15
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 - 14 -

interest at the rate of fifteen percent (15%) from April 23, 2005 through the date judgment

is entered; (c) as to Lease No. 468, the amount of $59,716.73 plus interest at the rate of ten

percent (10%) from April 23, 2005 through the date judgment is entered; and (d) as to Lease

No. 548, the amount of $25,801.26 plus interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) from April

23, 2005 through the date judgment is entered. 

Additionally, GE is entitled to judgment in its favor and against Defendants Grant and

Teri Goodman as follows: (a) as to Lease No. 451, the amount of $40,723.94 plus interest

at the rate of ten percent (10%) from April 23, 2005 through the date judgment is entered;

(b) as to Lease No. 452, the amount of $60,834.57 plus interest at the rate of ten percent

(10%) from April 23, 2005 through the date judgment is entered; (c) as to Lease No. 453, the

amount of $40,268.45 plus interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) from April 23, 2005

through the date judgment is entered; and (d) as to Lease No. 7004, the amount of $73,093.31

plus interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) from April 23, 2005 through the date judgment

is entered.

IV. JUDGMENT 

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of

CitiCapital Technology and against Defendant Grant Goodman in the amount of $56,391.94

plus interest to be calculated at a rate of 15% from April 23, 2005 through the date judgment

is entered (following the entry of judgment, interest shall accrue at the applicable federal

rate).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in

favor of CitiCapital Technology and against Defendant Grant Goodman in the amount of

$85,517.99 plus interest to be calculated at a rate of 10% from April 23, 2005 through the

date judgment is entered (following the entry of judgment, interest shall accrue at the

applicable federal rate).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT Document 88 Filed 07/21/06 Page 14 of 15
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 - 15 -

favor of GE and against Defendants Grant and Teri Goodman in the amount of $214,920.27

plus interest to be calculated at a rate of 10% from April 23, 2005 through the date judgment

is entered (following the entry of judgment, interest shall accrue at the applicable federal

rate).

DATED this 20th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT Document 88 Filed 07/21/06 Page 15 of 15