Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00595/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00595-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Estate of Joseph J. Studnek, by and

through its Personal Representative,

Joseph M. Studnek, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Ambassador of Global Missions UN

Limited his Successors, et al., 

Defendants. _________________________________

Ambassador of Global Missions UN

Limited His Successors, 

Counterclaimant,

vs.

Estate of Joseph J. Studnek,

Counterdefendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV-04-0595-PHX-MHM

ORDER

 

 Defendants El Shaddai Ministries, Second Chance Ministries and Michael Cambra

have filed a motion to quash or for protective order re document subpoena to Wells Fargo,

N.A. (Doc. 112). These Defendants have requested expedited consideration of the motion

to quash or for protective order. (Doc. 113). Plaintiff has filed a response (Doc. 116) and

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM Document 120 Filed 05/23/06 Page 1 of 4
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 -

Defendants have filed a reply. (Doc. 117). The Court held a hearing on Defendants' motion

to quash or for protective order on May 11, 2006 and now enters this Order. 

 Documents attached to the motion to quash show that Plaintiff served a deposition

for records notice on Wells Fargo on April 17, 2006. The deposition notice and document

production was set for May 3, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. The documents that have been requested

are financial documents relevant to Defendants El Shaddai Ministries, Second Chance

Ministries and Mr. Cambra, as well as to other named Defendants, including Global Missions

and Joseph Williams. The subpoena and deposition notice direct Wells Fargo to provide

copies of the following records relevant to El Shaddai Ministries, Second Chance Ministries

and Mr. Cambra: bank statements, cancelled checks and deposits, certificates of deposit,

loans, notes, contracts, negotiable instruments, accounts receivable, financial statements,

expense records, balance sheets, profit and loss statements, documents reflecting interests in

partnerships and businesses, and corporate resolutions and minutes for all checking and

savings accounts from January 2001 through the present date, which is a period of

approximately five years. Defendants El Shaddai, Second Chance and Mr. Cambra contend

that they have pending motions to dismiss the second amended complaint which raise

meritorious arguments, that is, that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them and the

second amended complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief against them. These

Defendants contend it is premature for Plaintiff to seek discovery as to them, citing

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d).

 Plaintiff has filed a response opposing the Defendants' motion to quash or for

protective order. Plaintiff contends that these Defendants lack standing to quash the

subpoena, they lack a privacy right or privilege as to the documents requested, and that the

documents requested are key to this litigation as they show the financial relationship of all

Defendants. Plaintiff states that the documents will show that the Defendants were acting

in concert as to the fraud alleged in the second amended complaint. Plaintiff asserts that the

requested financial information is key to the Court's ruling on Defendants' pending motions

to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim for relief. 

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM Document 120 Filed 05/23/06 Page 2 of 4
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 -

 In their filed reply, Defendants do not appear to dispute various of the issues raised

by Plaintiff but contend that they are simply seeking to stay the requested discovery until the

Court has ruled on their motions to dismiss. Defendants urge the Court to take a "preliminary

peek" at the motions to dismiss to determine if the grounds appear to be meritorious.

Defendants further contend that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by a stay of discovery

pending resolution of the motions to dismiss. 

 The Court has preliminarily reviewed the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants El

Shaddai, Second Chance and Mr. Cambra. These Defendants have set forth a factual

discussion in support of their argument that they have not had sufficient contacts with the

State of Arizona on which to base personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff has filed a response which

asserts an alter ego theory involving these Defendants and Defendants Williams and Global

Missions. Plaintiff has argued in the alternative that the Court may consider the pending

motions to dismiss as motions for summary judgment and that Plaintiff should be permitted

to pursue discovery on the relationship of the Defendants and the alleged fraud. At the

hearing, counsel for Defendants expressed concern over the delays in this case and Plaintiff's

alleged conclusory argument based on an alter ego theory, noting that Plaintiff has filed a

response to the motions to dismiss but has not previously requested discovery on the issue

of personal jurisdiction. 

 The Court has determined that Plaintiff should be permitted limited access to any

documents that are the subject of the subpoena to Wells Fargo that bear on the issue of

personal jurisdiction of Defendants El Shaddai Ministries, Second Chance Ministries and Mr.

Cambra. The Court notes in this regard that Defendants Global Missions and Mr. Williams

have not objected to the records subpoena issued as to Wells Fargo. Counsel for Defendants

El Shaddai, Second Chance and Mr. Cambra also represents Defendant Global Missions.

Plaintiff has made a request for discovery, in the alternative, in its response to the motions

to dismiss. In the case of a plaintiff asserting an alter ego theory as to named defendants,

jurisdictional discovery is often appropriate where the record has not been fully developed.

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM Document 120 Filed 05/23/06 Page 3 of 4
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 -

See Harris Rutsky & Co. Insurance Services, Inc. v. Bell & Clements Limited, 328 F.3d

1122, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2003). 

 Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants El Shaddai, Second Chance and Mr. Cambra

are directed to meet and confer as necessary, and without undue delay, in an effort to reach

an agreement on the terms of a proposed protective order regarding the documents that have

been subpoenaed from Wells Fargo. The limited jurisdictional discovery should be

completed within 30 days of the filing date of this Order. Meanwhile, Wells Fargo should

comply with the subpoena regarding any request for documents to which there has been no

objection by any other named Defendant who has been properly served with the summons

and complaint, or any amended complaint, in this case. Defendants' motions to dismiss for

lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for relief remain under consideration

by the Court. 

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the motion to quash or for protective order (Doc. 112) filed

by Defendants El Shaddai Ministries, Second Chance Ministries and Michael Cambra is

granted in part and denied in part as set forth in this Order.

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion to quash is denied to the

extent that limited discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction of Defendants El Shaddai

Ministries, Second Chance Ministries and Michael Cambra shall be permitted and shall be

completed within 30 days of the filing date of this Order.

 IT IF FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion to quash or for protective

order is granted to the extent that discovery related to non-personal jurisdiction matters shall

not be permitted at this time. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion for expedited consideration

(Doc. 113) is denied as moot.

 DATED this 19th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00595-MHM Document 120 Filed 05/23/06 Page 4 of 4