Attachment 1 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 1 of 43
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Law Offices of 

MICHAEL W. CARMEL, LTD. 

80 East Columbus Avenue 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2334 

Telephone: (602) 264-4965 

Arizona State Bar No. 007356 

Facsimile: (602) 277-0144 

E-mail: Michael@mcarmellaw.com 

SIGNED. 

Dated: September 7, 2017 

'?~ ' _.b._0---

Paul Sala, Bankruptcy Judge 

6 Attorney for Debtor 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

In re: 

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Chapter 11 Proceedings 

PAULL. BRUNO, Case No. 2: 16-bk-I 1826-PS 

Debtor. 

ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

The Court has reviewed the Debtor's Motion to Dismiss filed at DE #299 ("Motion"), the 

Objection to Motion to Dismiss filed by Gary Abeyta ("Abeyta") at DE #307 ("Abeyta 

Objection"), the Objection to Motion to Dismiss filed by Par Avian Travel, Inc. at DE #308 

("Par Avion Objection"), and the Objection filed by Schoenberg Family Law Group, P.C. 

("Schoenberg") at DE #303, which was subsequently conditionally withdrawn. 

The Court conducted a hearing on the matter on August 16, 2017 at 2:30 p.m. 

For the reasons stated on the record, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

The Motion is granted, and the Abeyta Objection and Par Avian Objection are overruled, 

subject to the following conditions: 

Order Dismissing 8-31-17.doc 

Cas 2:16-bk-11826-PS Doc 334 Filed 09/07/17 Entered 09/07/17 15:42:53 Desc 

Main Document Page 1 of 3 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 2 of 43
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. The Debtor shall pay to Abeyta the temporary support obligations as 

ordered by the California Superior Court in the total amount of $42,337.00, which sum shall paid 

in full prior to the date this Order is lodged with the Court. The payment of the total temporary 

support award reflects a set off agreed to by the parties as follows: the total temporary support 

obligation from debtor to Abeyta is $57,564.00 ($6,396.00/month for nine (9) months) (the 

"Award"). The debtor and Abeyta shall set off against the Award the amount of $15,227.00, 

which amount Abeyta owes to Jessica Cha, Esq. (the "Cha Payment") as part of the dissolution 

proceeding between the debtor and Abeyta pending in the California courts. The debtor shall be 

responsible for paying and fully satisfying the Cha Payment, and debtor shall indemnify Abeyta 

and hold Abeyta harmless from any and all obligations with respect to the Cha Payment. The 

Debtor and Abeyta each have obtained separate sanctions awards in the California dissolution 

proceeding, which are $10,946.00 in favor of Bruno and $10,000.00 in favor of Abeyta. The 

debtor and Abeyta shall waive those payments and the payments shall be considered fully 

satisfied. 

2. If the Debtor refiles a subsequent bankruptcy, it shall be assigned to the 

Honorable Paul Sala. 

3. The Debtor shall pay all outstanding United States Trustee's fees due for 

the time period July 1, 2017-August 16, 2017. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the agreements between the Debtor and Abeyta in this Order 

regarding the California litigation shall be without prejudice to either party's claims or defenses 

in the event of an appeal from any decisions that have been made to date in the California 

litigation. 

IT TS FURTHER ORDERED that all adversary proceedings filed in this case shall be 

dismissed without prejudice. The Debtor's counsel will upload a seperate Order in each 

Order Dismissing 8-31-17.doc 2 

Cas 2:16-bk-11826-PS Doc 334 Filed 09/07/17 Entered 09/07/17 15:42:53 Desc 

Main Document Page 2 of 3 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 3 of 43
1 adversary proceeding. 

2 DA TED AND SIGNED ABOVE. 

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 

Order Dismissing 8-31-17.doc 3 

Gas 2:16-bk-11826-PS Doc 334 Filed 09/07/17 Entered 09/07/17 15:42:53 Desc 

Main Document Page 3 of 3 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 4 of 43
Attachment 2 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 5 of 43
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 

Law Offices of 

MICHAEL W. CARMEL, LTD. 

80 East Columbus Avenue 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2334 

Telephone: (602) 264-4965 

Arizona State Bar No. 007356 

Facsimile: (602) 277-0144 

E-mail: Michael@mcarmellaw.com 

Attorney for Debtor 

SIGNED. 

Dated: September 12, 2017 

?~ Paul Sala, Bankruptcy '~--°<-- Judge 

IN THE UNITED ST ATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

In re: 

PAULL. BRUNO, 

Debtor. 

PAUL LEONARD BRUNO, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GARY ABEYTA, an individual; THE 

CAVANAGH LAW FIRM, P.A., an Arizona 

corporation; CHARLES I-I. DELACEY, an 

individual; TI-IE DELACEY RIEBEL 

FAMILY LAW GROUP, LLP, a California 

limited liability partnership, 

Defendants. 

Chapter 11 Proceedings 

Case No. 2:16-bk-I 1826-PS 

Adversary No. 2: 16-ap-00510-PS 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

Based on the Court's dismissal of the administrative case, the above-captioned adversary 

proceeding is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

DA TED AND SIGNED ABOVE. 

Cas 2:16-ap-00510-PS Doc 41 Filed 09/12/17 Entered 09/12/17 16:01:21 Desc 

Main Document Page 1 of 1 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 6 of 43
District/Off': 0970-2 

Case: 2: l 6-ap-00510-PS 

Recipients of Notice of Electronic Filing: 

Notice Recipients 

User: zachresb 

Fann ID: pdtU5a 

aty Justin V Niedzialek justin@jnlav,roffice.co1n 

aty MICHAEL W. CARMEL 111ichacl@n1cannellaw.con1 

aly llANDY NUSSBAUM randy.nussbat1111@sackstierney.co1n 

aty SCOTT REISS WEINER Scott.Wcincr@SacksTicrncy.co1n 

<1ly STEVEN N BERGER snb@cbla\vyers.co1n 

Date Created: 9/12/2017 

Total: 12 

TOTAL: 5 

Recipients sub1nittcd to the BNC (Bankruptcy Noticing Center): 

dft Gary Abeyta 6711 E. Camelback Rd. Unit 36 Scottsdale, AZ 85251-2065 

dft The Cavanagh Law Finn, P.A. 1850 N Central Avenue Suite 2400 Phoenix, AZ 85004 

dfi Charles H. Delacey 505 Montgon1ery Street 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 

dft The Delacey H.iebel Fainily La\V Group, LLP 505 Montgo1nery Street 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 

94111 

pla Paul Leonard Bruno 5835 N Echo Canyon Circle Phoenix, AZ 85016 

ust U.S. TRUSTEE OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE 230 NORTH l'IRST A VENUE SUITE 

204 PHOENIX, AZ 85003 

ust U.S. TRUSTEE - LY - 11 300 LAS VEGAS BOULEVARDS. SUITE 4300 LAS VEGAS, NV 

89101 

Case 2:16-ap-00510-PS 

All parties 

TOTAL: 7 

Doc 41-1 Filed 09/12/17 Entered 09/12/17 16:01:21 

attys UST: Notice Recipients Page 1 of 1 

Desc 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 7 of 43
Attachment 3 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 8 of 43
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Law Offices of 

MICHAEL W. CARMEL, LTD. 

80 East Columbus A venue 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2334 

Telephone: (602) 264-4965 

Arizona State Bar No. 007356 

Facsimile: (602) 277-0144 

E-mail: Michael@mcarmellaw.com 

SIGNED. 

Dated: September 12, 2017 

? o.--12 . .2> ~o._ Paul Sala, Bankruptcy Judge 

6 Attorney for Debtor/Plaintiff Paul L. Bruno 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT 01< ARIZONA 

In re: 

PAULL. BRUNO, 

Debtor. 

PAUL LEONARD BRUNO, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GARY ABEYTA, an individual. 

Defendant. 

Chapter 11 Proceedings 

Case No. 2: 16-bk-J I 826-PS 

Adversary No. 2: l 7-ap-00126-PS 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

21 Based on the Court's dismissal of the administrative case, the above-captioned adversary 

22 proceeding is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDlCE. 

23 DATED AND SIGNED ABOVE. 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Cas 2:17-ap-00126-PS Doc 18 Filed 09/12/17 Entered 09/12/17 15:57:18 Desc 

Main Document Page 1 of 1 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 9 of 43
District/Off: 0970-2 

Case: 2: l 7-ap-00126-PS 

Recipients of Notice of Electronic Filing: 

Notice Recipients 

User: zachrcsb 

Fonn ID: pdffi5a 

Date Created: 9/12/2017 

Total: 6 

aty DAVID A. SELDEN dscldcn@cavanaghla\v.con1;sdatnon@cavanaghla\V.co1n 

aty MICHAEL W. CARMEL 1nichael@111can11clla\v.co1n 

TOTAL: 2 

H.ecipicnts sub1nittecl to the BNC (Bankruptcy Noticing Center): 

dft Gary Abeyta 6711 E. Camclback Rd. Unit 36 Scottsdale, AZ 85251-2065 

pla Paul Leonard Bruno 5835 N Echo Canyon Circle Phoenix, AZ 85016 

ust U.S. TRUSTEE OFFICE OF T11E U.S. TRUSTEE 230 NORTH FIRST A VENUE SUITE 

204 PHOENIX, AZ 85003 

ust U.S. TRUSTEE- LV - I I 300 LAS VEGAS BOULEVARDS. SUITE 4300 LAS VEGAS, NV 

89101 

TOTAL: 4 

Case 2:17-ap-00126-PS Doc 18-1 Filed 09/12/17 Entered 09/12/17 15:57:18 

All parties attys UST: Notice Recipients Page 1 of 1 

Desc 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 10 of 43
Attachment 4 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 11 of 43
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. CARMEL, LTD. 

Michael W. Carmel (No. 007356) 

80 East Columbus A venue 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2334 

Telephone: (602) 264-4965 

Fax: (602) 277-0144 

E-mai 1: rnichael@rncannellaw .corn 

Counsel for the Debtor 

SHERMAN & HOWARD L.L.C. 

David A. Weatherwax (No. 006996) 

Craig A. Morgan (No. 023373) 

Lindsay H.S. Hesketh (No. 031233) 

201 East Washington Street, Suite 800 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2327 

Telephone: (602) 240-3009 

Fax: (602) 240-6600 

SIGNED. 

Dated: September 12, 2017 

t=2___e ' :b __Q._ 

Paul Sala, Bankruptcy Judge 

E-mail: dweathcrwax@shermanhoward.com 

cmorgan@shermanhoward.com 

lhesketh@sherrnanhoward.com 

Special Counsel for the Debtor 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

In Re 

PAUL LEONARD BRUNO, 

Debtor. 

Chapter 11 Proceedings 

Case No. 2: 16-bk-I 1826-PS 

16 Adversary No. 2:17-ap-00161-PS 

17 PAUL LEONARD BRUNO, an individual, 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Ca 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GARY P. ABEYTA, an individual; GARY P. 

ABEYTA, AS TRUSTEE OF THE GARY P. 

ABEYTA TRUST DATED NOVEMBER 12, 

2014, 

Defendants. 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

Based on the Court's dismissal of the administrative case, the above-captioned 

adversary proceeding is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

DA TED AND SIGNED ABOVE. 

Doc 18 Filed 09/12/17 Entered 09/12/17 15:59:18 Desc 

Main Document Page 1 of 1 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 12 of 43
District/Off: 0970-2 

Case: 2: I 7-ap-00161-PS 

Notice Recipients 

User; zachresb 

Fonn ID: pdlDSa 

Date Created: 9112/2017 

Total: 8 

Recipients subn1itted to the BNC (Bankruptcy Noticing Center) 'vithout an address: 

dft c/o Gary P. Abeyta, Gary P Abeyta Trust Dated Nove1nber 12, 2014 

Recipients of Notice of Electronic Filing: 

aty DA YID A. SELDEN dseldcn@cavanaghla\v.con1;sda1non@cavanaghla\v.co111 

aty MICHAEL W. CARMEL n1ichael@1ncannclla\V.con1 

aty PHILIP G. MITCHELL Philip.Mitchcll@azbar.org 

H.ccipients sub1nitted to the BNC (Bankruptcy Noticing Center): 

dft Gary Abeyta 6711 E. Ca111elback Rd. Unit 36 Scottsdale, AZ 85251-2065 

TOTAL: I 

TOTAL: 3 

pla Paul Leonard Bruno 5835 N Echo Canyon Circle Phoenix, AZ 85016 

usl U.S. TRUSTEE OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE 230 NORTH FIRST A VENUE SUITE 

204 PHOENIX, AZ 85003 

usl U.S. TRUSTEE - LV - 11 300 LAS VEGAS BOULEVARDS. SUITE 4300 LAS VEGAS, NV 

89101 

Case 2:17-ap-00161-PS 

All parties 

TOTAL: 4 

Doc 18-1 Filed 09/12/17 Entered 09/12/17 15:59:18 

attys UST: Notice Recipients Page 1 of 1 

Desc 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 13 of 43
Attachment 5 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 14 of 43
Case 2:17-cv-04129-GMS Document 17 Filed 12/07/17 Page 1of6 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTIUCT OF ARIZONA 

9 Gary Abeyta, 

10 P laintiil 

11 v. 

12 GP Meeting & Events Incorporated, et al., 

13 Defendants. 

14 PB Company Inc., et al. 

15 Connter-Claimants, 

16 v. 

17 Gary Abeyta, 

18 Counter-Defendant. 

19 

No. CV-17-04129-PHX-GMS 

ORDER SETTING RULE 16 CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

20 Pursuant to Rnle 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a Case Management 

21 Conference is set for February 1, 2018 at 9:15 a.m. in Comiroom 602, Sandra Day 

22 O'Connor U.S. Federal Conrthouse, 401 W. Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona 85003-

23 2151. In preparation for this Case Management Conference, it is hereby ordered as 

24 follows: 

25 A. Rule 26(0 Meeting and Case Management Report. 

26 The pa1iies are directed to meet and confer at least 10 days before the Case 

27 Management Conference as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). At this 

28 meeting the pmiies shall develop a joint Case Management Report which contains the 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 15 of 43
Case 2:17-cv-04129-GMS Document 17 Filed 12/07/17 Page 2 of 6 

information called for in section B below. 

2 B. Mandat01y Initial Discovery Pilot Project. 

3 The Comi is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project 

4 ("MIDP"). The MIDP was approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States and 

5 has been implemented in this District by General Order 17-08. The MIDP applies to all 

6 civil cases filed on or after May 1, 2017, other than cases listed in Rule 26(a)(l)(B), 

7 actions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), and cases 

8 transferred for consolidated administration in this District by the Judicial Panel on 

9 Multidistrict Litigation. The discovery obligations in the MIDP supersede the disclosures 

10 required by Rule 26(a)(l) and are framed as court-ordered mandatory initial discovery. 

11 Unlike initial disclosures required by current Rule 26(a)(l)(A) & (C), the MIDP does not 

12 allow paliies to opt out. Thus, if your case was filed after May 1, 2017, and does not fall 

13 within one of the exceptions identified above, you must comply with the discovery 

14 obligation of the MIDP. You should have received a notice regarding the pilot project 

15 when your case was filed or you were served, and you should already be complying with 

16 the MIDP. Resources related to the MIDP are available on the Cami's website at 

17 www.azd.uscomis.gov/attorneys/mandatory-initial-discovery-pilot. 

18 c. 

19 

Joint Case Management Report. 

The parties' Joint Case Management Report shall contain the following 

20 information in separately numbered paragraphs. 

21 I. The pmiies who attended the Rule 26(£) meeting and assisted in developing 

22 the Case Management Report; 

23 2. A list of the parties in the case, including any parent corporations or entities 

24 (for recusal purposes); 

25 

26 

3. 

4. 

A short statement of the nature of the case (3 pages or Jess); 

The jurisdictional basis for the case, describing the basis for jurisdiction 

27 (see the accompanying footnote) and citing specific jurisdictional statutes; 1 

28 

1

If jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, the report shall include a 

- 2 -

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 16 of 43
Case 2:17-cv-04129-GMS Document 17 Filed 12/07/17 Page 3 of 6 

1 5. Any parties which have not been served and an explanation of why they 

2 have not been served, and any parties which have been served but have not answered or 

3 otherwise appeared; 

4 6. A statement of whether any party expects to add additional parties to the 

5 case or otherwise to amend pleadings (the Court will set a deadline at the Case 

6 Management Conference for joining pmiies and amending pleadings); 

7 7. A listing of contemplated motions and a statement of the issues to be 

8 decided by these motions (including motions under Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, 

9 704, and 705); 

10 8. Whether the case is suitable for reference to a United States Magistrate 

11 Judge for a settlement conference or trial; 

12 9. The status of related cases pending before other courts or other judges of 

13 this Comi; 

14 10. A discussion of any issues relating to preservation, disclosure, or discovery 

15 of electronically stored information, including the parties' preservation of electronically 

16 stored information and the form or forms in which it will be produced (see 

17 Rules 16(b)(3), 26(1)(3)); 

18 11. A discussion of any issues relating to claims of privilege or work product 

19 (see Rules 16(b)(3), 26(1)(3)); 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

12. A discussion of whether an order under Federal Rule of Evidence 502( d) is 

statement of the citizenship of eve1y pmiy and a description of the amount in dispute. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The parties are reminded that (l) a corporation is a citizen of the 

state where it is incorporated and the state of its principal place of business, and (2) 

partnerships and limited liability companies are citizens of every state in which one of 

their partners or members resides. See 28 U.S.C. §1332(c); Indus. Tectonics v. Aero 

Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, I 092 (9th Cir. 1990); Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market 

Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 692 (7th Cir. 2003). The parties arc further reminded that 

the use of fictitious parties ("John Doe" or "ABC Corporation") "casts no magical spell 

011' a complaint otherwise lacking in diversity jurisdiction." FifiY Assocs. v. Prudential 

Ins. Co. of Am., 446 F.2d 1187, 1191 (9th Cir. 1970) (citations omitted). 

- 3 -

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 17 of 43
Case 2:17-cv-04129-GMS Document 17 Filed 12/07/17 Page 6 of 6 

I Orders, Forms and Procedures. The Court fully intends to enforce the deadlines in the 

2 Case Management Order. The parties should plan their litigation activities accordingly. 

3 E. Other Matters. 

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 

The pmiics are expected to comply fully with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil 

Procedure and to minimize the expense of discovery. The parties should ensure that all 

filings comply with Local Rules of Civil Procedure 7.1 and 7.2. In addition, in all filings, 

citations in supp01i of any asse1iion in the text shall be included in the text, not in 

footnotes. The Clerk of the Comi shall send copies of this order to all counsel of record 

and to any unrepresented parties. 

Dated this 7th day of December, 2017. 

- 6 -

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 18 of 43
Attachment 6 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 19 of 43
PAULL. BRUNO 

3104 E. Camelback Road #539 

Phoenix, AZ 85016 

602-777-0601 Phone 

Paul@PaulBrunoGroup 

CORRECTED 

By Clt!rk of tht! Court Ml.ct!AEL l\. J>1HJ'S ('LE"'" BY ... ·- .... '. .DEF11 

If ll/1t:{c;fuic/ · 

R.11/\Lli\RD. FILED 

l7 OEC 26 PH Ii: 16 · 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE ST A TE OF ARIZONA 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARI COP A 

SHERMAN & HOW ARD, LLC 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PAUL LEONARD BRUNO, et al. 

Defendant, 

CV2017-014106 

CASE NO. CV26l'i'-614016 

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION 

AND FOR SUMMARY DENIAL OF 

PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR 

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES 

Assigned to Hon. Christopher Whitten 

Pursuant to Ariz. R.Civ.P.7.1 and A.R.S § 12-3007, and the Federal Arbitration Act 9 U,S.C. § 2, 

Defendant Paul Bruno moves to dismiss this action and compel arbitration of this action in its entirety 

including summary denial of Plaintiffs Application for Provisional Remedies, because; (!.) It is 

undisputed that this action arises out of a contract that has a binding arbitration provision. The Plaintiff 

filed a late Notice of Errata on October 24, 2017, which cloaked the policies and procedures containing 

the purported contracts, which contain the binding arbitration provision on p.2 ~ 7 of"The Memorandum 

of Finn's Policies." (2.) the arbitration provision mandates binding arbitration for all disputes before a 

committee of the State Bar of Arizona. (3.) "All Disputes" includes "Applications for Provisional 

Remedies." 

1 

MOTION TO JOIN DEFENDANTS 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 20 of 43
Howev-er, all of that is irrelevant. The United States Supreme Court mandates this case be dismissed and 

the matter be compelled to arbitration, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 2 of the American Arbitration Act. The 

matter arises from interstate commerce, so the FAA preempts any Arizona State Law to the contrary. The 

application for provisional remedies seems inappropriate. Mr. Bruno is a vulnerable adult with a disability, 

and Sherman & Howard had a fiduciary duty to protect his well-being. Bruno respectfully requests (!.) 

this Court dismiss the action in its entirety, as Mr. Bruno is a live person, and not commercial; (2.) The 

matter has been submitted to the State Bar of Arizona, who is now handling the matter; (3.) Summarily 

deny Sherman & Howard's application for provisional remedies; (4.) Any other order deemed just and 

proper; (5.) Since this matter arises out of contract, Mr. Bruno is entitled to his attorney's fees as the 

prevailing party in a contract dispute. Mr. Bruno only drafted this simple motion from an existing 

template, because his attorney is on Holiday break; (6.) an order that Mr. Bruno's counsel submit a fee 

application. Existing Arizona case law deems the party to prevail on a motion to compel arbitration is 

indeed a "prevailing party" in a contract. 

Respectfully submitted December 26, 2017. 

2 

MOTION TO JOIN DEFENDANTS 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 21 of 43
Under penalty of perjury the following was mailed and emailed thi4 Day of December, 2017. 

Sherman & Howard 

201 East Washington Street, Suite 800 

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2327 

Phone: 602-240-3009 

email@shermanhoward.com 

attorney for plaintiff 

MOTION TO JOIN DEFENDANTS 

3 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 22 of 43
Attachment 7 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 23 of 43
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

PAUL BRUNO 

3104 E. CAMELBACKROAD #539 

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016 

PHONE: 602-777-0601 

P AUL@PAULBRUNOGROUP.COM 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA 

SHERMAN & HOWARD, LLC 

Plaintiff8, 

COP 

14 v. 

(i.) SUPPLEMENT TO DEFENDANTS 

AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL 

15 ARBITRATION 

16 PAULL. Bnmo, et al. 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Defendants, (ii.) OBJECTION TO COMMERCIAL 

COURT 

EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION 

REQUESTED 

(Assigned Hon. Christopher Whitten) 

Pursuant to Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure and A.R.S. § 12-3007 and the Federa 

Arbitration Act 9 U.S.C. § 2, Defendant Paul Bruno, (hereafter "Mr. Bruno" or "Bruno") file 

1 

Mot. Consolidate -006905 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 24 of 43
1 

2 

this supplement to his December 26, 2017 Motion to Compel Arbitration. 

3 Attached, see EXHIBIT A, is the State Bar of Arizona's letter to Defendant dated 

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 

December 27, 2017. Plaintiff "Notice of Errata" filed on October 24, 2017 on p.2 11 7 

"Memorandum of Firm's Policies" indicates that both Plaintiff and Defendant(s) agreed to 

submit disputes to the State Bar of Arizona. Although Plaintiffs bills seemingly lack 

authenticity, the State Bar of Arizona offers FREE services to consumers. The Plaintiff is a la 

firm, and in keeping with the public's support of the legal community's selt~regulation, this 

matter is proper before a Consumer Protection Agency, which 110 doubt levels the playing field. 

This Com·t should order the same, which does right by both the law and public policy, [indeed ' 

combo]. The plain, unambiguous language present in p. 2 11 7 of the lvfemorandum of Firm' 

Policies is only what this Court need reference versus Plaintiff's rhetoric lo the contrary. Th 

United States Supreme Cout and deep rooted public policy supporl Defendant's position ove1 

Plaintiffs, and this decision promotes judicial efficiency, reduces the Court's docket, and more. 

WHEREFORE DEFENDANT RESPECTFULLY SEEKS ORDERS 

(I.) Summarily Dismiss Plah1tiff's Complaint 

(2.) Compel Arbitration 

(3.) Summarily Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Provisional Remedies 

(4.) All other orders deemed just and proper 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 3"d DAY OF ,January, 2018. 

r '\" : ~--- ~- "' 

Paul Bruno, Pro Se Litigant 

2 

Mot. Consolidate -006905 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 25 of 43
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 

Under penalty of pe~jury, the forgoing with mailed and/or electronically mailed this -i- =:>AY\ '2018 

To: 

David Weatherwax 

Sherman & Howard 

201 East Washington Street, Suite 800 

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2327 

Phone: 602-240-3000 

3 

Mot. Consolidate -006905 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 26 of 43
Attachment 8 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 27 of 43
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

SHERMAN & HOWARD L.L.C. 

David A. Weatherwax (No. 006996) 

Craig A. Morgan (No. 023373) 

201 East Washington Street, Suite 800 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2327 

Telephone: (602) 240-3009 

Fax: (602) 240-6600 

E-mail: dweatherwax@shermanhoward.com 

cmorgan@shermanhoward.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SUPEIUOR COURT OF ARIZONA 

MARICOPA COUNTY 

SHERMAN & HOWARD, LLC, a 

Delaware limited liability company, 

Plaintiff 

v. 

PAUL LEONARD BRUNO, an individual; 

PB Co., INC., an Arizona corporation, 

Defendants. 

Case No. CV2017-014106 

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE OBJECTING 

TO DEFENDANT PAUL BRUNO'S (1) 

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION 

AND FOR SUMMARY DENIAL OF 

PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR 

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES; (2) 

SUPPLEMENT TO DEFENDANTS' 

AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL 

ARBITRATION; AND (3) OBJECTION 

TO COMMERCIAL COURT 

(Before the Hon. Christopher Whitten) 

(Oral Argument Requested) 

18 Defendant Paul Bruno ("Mr. Bruno") asks the Court to (i) dismiss this case and 

19 compel arbitration, and (ii) summarily deny plaintiffs application for provisional 

20 remedies (the "Application"). In addition, Mr. Bruno objects to the Commercial Court 

21 handling this case. 1 

22 As shown below, the Court should deny Mr. Bruno's Motion in its entirety, because 

1 Although Mr. Bruno states that (i) he is represented by an attorney, and (ii) he filed this 

Motion on his own, because "his attorney is on Holiday break", to plaintiffs knowledge, 

24 Mr. Bruno is not represented by an attorney in this State Court proceeding. In this regard, 

while both defendants in this case (Mr. Bruno and PB Co.) were represented by Wisconsin 

attorney, Ms. Heins, in the District Court during the removal--Ms. Heins has advised 

26 

plaintiffs' counsel that she is not representing defendants in this State Comi case. See 

23 

25 

27 

Attachment 1. Moreover, if Mr. Bruno really is represented by counsel, then it would be 

inappropriate for him to file this Motion on his own behalf. Further, to the extent Mr. 

Bruno also seeks relief on behalf of PB Co. (of which he owns 100% of record), his 

28 

Motion should not be considered, because a corporation cannot represent itself before the 

Superior Comi). 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 28 of 43
1 Mr. Brw10 has waived any right to arbitrate. More specifically, (i) Mr. Bruno and PB Co. 

2 refused to sign the required State Bar of Arizona arbitration forms that were sent to them 

3 nearly a month before plaintiff filed this action (see Attachments 2 and 3); and (ii) both 

4 Mr. Bruno and PB Co. have been litigating this matter aggressively for more than two 

5 months after they were served with process--all at great expense to plaintiff (in both time 

6 and money). 

7 Second, the Motion should be denied, because even if this Court orders the parties to 

8 arbitrate the "fee dispute" aspect of plaintiffs contract claims, the State Bar does not have 

9 jurisdiction to (i) award provisional remedies or (ii) resolve Mr. Bruno's counterclaim. 

10 Third, as a result of the State Bar's limited jurisdiction, this Court retains jurisdiction 

11 over, and should decide, plaintiffs Application for provisional remedies (and Mr. Bruno's 

12 counterclaim). See e.g. PMS Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Huber & Sul111er, A.G., 863 F.2d 639, 

13 642 (9th Cir. 1988). In this regard: (i) on January 16, 2018, plaintiff filed its "Affidavit of 

14 Default ... ",because defendants did not request a hearing on the Application within the 

15 I 0-day period allowed by A.R.S. § 12-2407; 2 (ii) defendants are in default; and (iii) the 

16 Court should sign the proposed "Order Granting Provisional Remedies With Notice, Writs 

17 Of Attachment And Garnishment (Non-Earnings)" that was filed with the Affidavit, in 

18 accordance withA.R.S. §12-2408. 

19 Finally, Mr. Bruno's argument that this case is not properly before the Commercial 

20 should be denied, because it is unsupported (legally or factually) and lacks merit. 

21 I. MR. BRUNO HAS WAIVED ANY RIGHT HE MIGHT HAVE HAD TO ARBITRATE THE 

FEE DISPUTE. 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

The following facts cannot be contested--

I. In September 2017, plaintiff advised defendants that unless (i) the full amounts 

owed by Mr. Bruno and PB Co. were paid by certain dates, 3 or (ii) the parties had reached 

2 Indeed, almost two months have passed since defendants were served with the 

Application, and they still have not requested a hearing. Moreover, even if Mr. Bruno's 

Motion somehow could be construed as a request for hearing (it cannot be), that request 

would have been 44 days late. 

3 The dates were September 27, 2017 for PB Co., and October 4, 2017 for Mr. Bruno. On 

October 12, 2017, plaintiff extended those dates to October 17, 2017. 

2 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 29 of 43
I 

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 

and executed an acceptable payment plan by the same dates, then plaintiff would 

"undertake actions to collect the amount[s] due, plus interest costs and attorneys' fees." 

2. On September 23, 2017, Mr. Bruno responded by, among other things, asking 

plaintiff to submit the "fee dispute" the State Bar. 

3. On September 25, 2017, plaintiffs general counsel (Mr. Bronesky) sent an email to 

Mr. Bruno stating, among other things: 

"Attached is the form required by the State Bar of Arizona for fee 

arbitrations. 4 If you and PB Co want to arbitrate, then ~on need to complete it 

and return the form to me immediately. After we have t1e form, we will mitiate 

the arbitration. Please understand, however, that: 

* * * 

• By participating in the State Bar arbitration, Sherman & Howard is not 

waiving (and expressly reserves) all of its rights and remedies to pursue any 

relief that may be outside of the jurisdict10n of the State Bar; ... " (See 

Attachment 2, partially redacted) (emphasis added). 

Mr. Bruno did not complete or return the State Bar form for himself or PB Co. 

4. On September 27, 2017, Mr. Bronesky sent another email to Mr. Bruno stating: 

"On Monday (9/25), I sent you an email ... that attached the form required 

by the State Bar of Arizona for fee arbitrations. If you really want to arbitrate, 

you need to complete the form and return it to me immediately, and we will 

mitiate the arbitration. By participating in the State Bar arbitration, S&H is not 

waiving (and expressly reserves) all of its rights and remedies to pursue any 

relief that may be outside of the jurisdiction of the State Bar. If you have 

decided to waive any right that you might have to arbitrate, you should not 

return the form. Your failure to respond by Wednesday, October 4, 2017 

will be construed as a waiver." (See Attachment 3, partially redacted and 

attachments omitted) (some emphasis added). 

Once again, Mr Bruno did not complete or return the State Bar form. 5 

5. Defendants failed to pay (or attempt any reasonable arrangements to pay) plaintiff. 

In addition, plaintiff learned that several other creditors had sued defendants for amounts 

they (other creditors) were owed. As a result, on October 23, 2017, plaintiff filed this 

lawsuit against defendants, with its Application for provisional remedies. 

6. Defendants were aware of the lawsuit and avoided service by, among other things, 

4 See State Bar of Arizona Rules of Arbitration of Fee Disputes (the "State Bar Rules"), 

which requires an agreement to arbitrate signed by all partles on the State Bar's official 

forms, to begin the State Bar arbitration process. 

5 Indeed, notwithstanding Mr. Bruno's belated Motion, he and PB Co. still have not 

submitting the paperwork required to initiate a State Bar arbitration of the fee dispute. 

3 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 30 of 43
1 refusing to allow his community's guard gate attendant to grant access to plaintiffs 

2 process servers. As a result, on November 1, 2017, plaintiff filed a Motion for an Order 

3 Authorizing Alternative Service. 

4 7. On November 2, 2017 (i) this Comi granted plaintiffs Motion and issued its Order 

5 Authorizing Alternative Service, and (ii) defendants were served with process, in 

6 accordance with the Order. 

7 8. Notably, rather than seek State Bar arbitration of the fee dispute, defendants (i) 

8 chose to litigate, and (ii) have been litigating vigorously for more than two months, all at 

9 great cost to plaintiff of time and money. In this regard: 

10 (a) on November 7, 2017, Mr. Bruno filed a "Notice of Filing Notice of Removal ... ", 

11 in which he falsely stated that this case had been removed to the United States District 

12 Comi for the District of Arizona (see Attachment 4); 6 

13 (b) on November 8, 2017, Mr. Bruno (by Wisconsin attorney Janet Heins) 

14 improperly removed this case to the District Court of Arizona (the "District Court") (see 

15 Attachment S, lengthy Exhibits omitted), and forced plaintiff to file a Motion to Remand 

16 (see Attachment 6, lengthy Exhibits omitted); 

17 (c) on November 20, 2017, Mr. Bruno (by attorney Heins) filed a Corporate 

18 Disclosure Statement in the District Court (see Attachment 7); 

19 ( d) on December 6, 2017, attorney Heins filed an "Answer & Counter Claim Of 

20 Defendants" (see Attachment 8), in which 

21 (i) both defendants answered the Complaint, and asked the Court to "dismiss the 

22 Complaint with prejudice, and with attorney fees and costs to Defendants", not to order a 

23 State Bar arbitration (Id.), 

24 (ii) Mr. Bruno counterclaimed against plaintiff for alleged violations of the 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6 Notably, Mr. Bruno took similar action in Case No. CV2016-015771, pending before 

Commissioner Abramson in this Court, by: (i) falsely reeresenting he had removed that 

case on November 13, 2017, and (ii) then wrongfully hling a Notice of Removal on 

November 16, 2017. Significantly, Mr. Bruno is not even a party in that case. 

Neve1iheless, his improper removal filing has delayed plaintiff's garnishment proceeding 

for more than two months now. 

4 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 31 of 43
1 "Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq.", and "demand[ed] 

2 Judgment against Plaintiff [for] A. .. . compensatory, liquidated, consequential, and/or 

3 punitive damages against Plaintiff in an amount to be proven at the time of trial [-not 

4 arbitration-]; B .... an award of Defendants' reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 

5 42 U.S.C. § 3613, and all other applicable laws; ... and D .... such other and further relief 

6 as the Comi [-not an arbitrator-] deems proper under the circumstances" (Id) (emphasis 

7 added), and 

8 (iii) Mr. Bruno (actually both defendants) "DEMAND[ED] A JURY OF 

9 TWELVE AS TO [-NOT AN ARBITRATION OF-) ALL TRIABLE ISSUES." (Id.) 

10 (emphasis in original); 

11 (e) on December 7, 2017, Mr. Bruno (again both defendants), through attorney 

12 Heins (i) filed a Motion to Consolidate (not arbitrate) this case with tlu·ee other cases that 

13 also were removed improperly by Mr. Bruno, (ii) asked the Court to set a Rule 16 

14 Scheduling Conference, and (iii) filed a proposed "Order Consolidating Cases". (See 

15 Attachments 9 and 10). Notably, none one of these three other cases would be subject to 

16 arbitration before the State Bar; 

17 (f) on December 18, 2018, as a result of the improper removal, plaintiff was forced 

18 to file a Motion to Stay the parties' deadline to engage in mandatory initial discovery, 

19 ordered pursuant to General Order 17-08, until after this Comi ruled on Plaintiffs Motion 

20 to Remand (see Attachment 11); 

21 (g) on December 19, 2017, the District Comi issued its Order remanding this case 

22 back to this Court (see Attachment 12). That same day, the District Court issued another 

23 Order remanding one of the other cases improperly removed by Mr. Bruno in which 

24 plaintiff was involved (see Attachment 13, which sets out the reason for remand in 

25 detail); 

26 (h) on December 20, 2017, defendants, through attorney Heins, filed a Rule 60 

27 Motion For Relief From Order Remanding Case. (See Attachment 14). Notably, rather 

28 than demand arbitration, defendants asked the Court to "reopen the matter and vacate its 

s 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 32 of 43
1 Order remanding the case to Arizona Superior Court in the interest of justice."; 

2 (i) on January 4, 2018, in an effort to avoid any summary disposition for failing to 

3 respond to the Rule 60 Motion, plaintiff was forced to file a Motion for Leave to Respond 

4 to the Rule 60 Motion, and a Response Objecting to the Rule 60 Motion (see Attachment 

5 15)-which was granted that day. (See Attachment 16); and 

6 U) on January 15, 2018 (just yesterday), rather than seek to arbitrate, Mr. Bruno 

7 sent two emails to plaintiff's counsel, seeking plaintiff's consent to add Toby Brenner and 

8 Par Avion as patiies to this case (see Attachment 17)--neither of which could participate 

9 in a State Bar arbitration. 

10 The law is clear. Specifically: 

11 ( 1) "It is well-established ... that a party to a contract may waive its right to enforce an 

12 arbitration agreement by its conduct." Meineke v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 181 Ariz. 576, 

13 581, 892 P.2d 1365, 1370 (Ct. App. 1994) (affirming trial comi's finding of arbitration 

14 waiver because defendant filed answer); 

15 (2) "Waiver occurs when a party relinquishes a known right or exhibits conduct that 

16 clearly warrants inference of an intentional relinquishment.", and a pmiy demonstrates 

17 waiver by engaging in "conduct that shows an intent not to arbitrate." Id.; 

18 (3) A party's conduct which demonstrates waiver includes filing an answer. See e.g. In 

19 re Estate of Cortez, 226 Ariz. 207, 211, if 6, 245 P.3d 892, 896 (Ct. App. 2010) (reversing 

20 trial comi's order to compel arbitration after defendant filed answer and patiicipated in the 

21 litigation); Meineke, 181 Ariz. at 582; 892 P.2d at 1371 ("In our view, a party's filing of a 

22 lawsuit without invoking arbitration ... would nearly always indicate a clear repudiation 

23 of the right to arbitrate .. ., and tile filing of an answer normally has tile same effect.") 

24 (emphasis added); 

25 (4) Similarly, a party waives its right to compel arbitration under the FAA, if that party 

26 !mew of an existing right to compel arbitration, acted inconsistently with it, and prejudiced 

27 the party opposing arbitration. See e.g. Ameriprise Fin. Servs. Inc. v. Ekweani, 2015 WL 

28 1737417, at *4 (D. Ariz. April 16, 2015) (finding movant waived his right to arbitrate). 

6 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 33 of 43
1 Acts inconsistent with enforcing a party's right to arbitrate include extended silence and 

2 delay in moving for arbitration, actively litigating in a Court action, and refusing a request 

3 to arbitrate (all three of which are present here). See Martin v. Yasuda, 829 F.3d 1118, 

4 1125 (9th Cir. 2016); Brown v. Dillard's, Inc., 430 F.3d 1004, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 2005). 

5 The uncontestable facts in our case show that Mr. Bruno (actually both defendants) 

6 waived whatever right they may have had to arbitrate the fee dispute under Arizona and 

7 federal law. 

8 First (1) Mr. Bruno knew of defendants' right to arbitrate the fee dispute, and (2) 

9 repeatedly refused to sign the State Bar's required forms needed to initiate an arbitration. 

10 In fact, plaintiff specifically told defendants (i) not to sign and return the State Bar forms 

11 "!i'lf you have decided to waive any right that you might have to arbitrate", and (ii) 

12 "[y]our failure to respond by Wednesday, October 4, 2017, will be construed as a 

13 waiver." Not only did defendants fail to respond by October 4, 2017, they sat on their 

14 hands for almost three months, and forced plaintiff to file a lawsuit to protect its rights. 

15 In this regard, the State Bar Rules make it clear that the State Bar does not even have 

16 jurisdiction over a fee dispute "[i]f any Party declines to execute the Agreement to 

17 Arbitrate in the form provided by the State Bar." State Bar Rules,§ II.B.1. As a result, 

18 defendants' refusal to sign the State Bar forms (i) precluded plaintiff from proceeding with 

19 arbitration of the fee dispute, and (ii) forced plaintiff to file a lawsuit to collect the 

20 amounts owed and protect its rights. Needless to say, defendants' refusal to sign the 

21 arbitration forms required by the State Bar is wholly inconsistent with, and shows a waiver 

22 of, any right defendants may have had to arbitrate the fee dispute. Accordingly, the Comi 

23 should deny Mr. Bruno's Motion, for this reason alone. See Meineke, supra, lvfartin, 

24 supra, and Brown, supra. 

25 Second, rather than demand State Bar arbitration of the "fee dispute" --defendants 

26 have actively and vigorously participated in this litigation. In this regard, and without 

27 limitation: (I) defendants improperly removed the case to District Court; (2) defendants 

28 filed an Answer to the Complaint, and demanded a jury trial (not an arbitration) on all 

7 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 34 of 43
I triable issues (which by themselves reflect a waiver of any right to arbitrate the fee 

2 dispute); (3) Mr. Bruno filed a Counterclaim against plaintiff, which (i) clearly would not 

3 be subject to any State Bar arbitration, and (ii) further reflects a waiver of any right to 

4 arbitrate; (4) defendants moved to consolidate this case with three other cases involving 

5 different claims and contracts, (i) none of which could be subject to any State Bar 

6 arbitration, and (ii) which further reflects a waiver of any right to arbitrate; and (5) after 

7 remand, defendants moved to vacate the Remand Order, and requested that this case be 

8 kept in Federal Court, as opposed to requiring arbitration. Put simply, notwithstanding 

9 Mr. Bruno's belated demand for arbitration of the fee dispute, defendants' aggressive and 

10 extensive litigation tactics over the last two months (including the inconsistent positions 

11 taken by defendants in the District Court, both before and after the Remand Order), have 

12 resulted in a waiver of any right defendants might have had to arbitrate the fee dispute. 

13 Accordingly, the Court should deny Mr. Bruno's Motion, for these reasons alone. See 

14 Meineke, supra, In re Estate of' Cortez, supra, lvlartin, supra, Ameriprise, supra, and 

15 Brown, supra. 

16 Finally, plaintiff has been prejudiced by defendants' actions. Given (i) defendants' 

17 refusal to sign the required State Bar forms, and (ii) the fact that defendants' other 

18 creditors had sued defendants to enforce their own claims for money, plaintiff had no 

19 choice but to file this lawsuit to (i) avoid being left with nothing, and (ii) try to keep 

20 defendants from dissipating their assets, while this case proceeds toward finality. See e.g. 

21 Brown, 430 F.3d at 1012-13 (finding prejudice where plaintiff was forced to litigate "as a 

22 last res01i"). 

23 Moreover, since the lawsuit was filed, plaintiff has been forced to endure significant 

24 legal expenses, and months of delay, defending against defendants' improper removal and 

25 other aggressive litigation tactics. If defendants really wanted to arbitrate the fee dispute 

26 before the State Bar, then (i) they would have signed the required State Bar forms, (ii) the 

27 fee arbitration, itself, likely would have been finished (or nearly finished) by now, and (iii) 

28 this action would have been limited to one issue--plaintiffs right to provisional remedies, 

8 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 35 of 43
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 

in order to insure payment of the amount owed to plaintiff. Instead, plaintiff has been 

forced to spend thousands of dollars, and lost months of time, trying to get paid the 

amounts owed for the significant amount of work they did for defendants. Accordingly, 

the Court should deny Mr. Bruno's Motion, for these reasons alone. See e.g. Brown, 

supra, and Martin, supra. 

II. EVEN IF DEFENDANTS HAD NOT WAIVED ANY RIGHT TO ARBITRATE THE }?EE 

DISPUTE BEFORE THE STATE BAR, (1) THE STATE BAR'S JURISDICTION WOULD HE 

LIMITED To RESOLVING ONLY THE FEE DISPUTE, AND (2) THIS COURT WOULD 

NEED TO PROCEED WITH AND RESOLVE PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR 

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES AND MR. BRUNO'S COUNTERCLAIM. 

The State Bar Rules are clear: (1) in order to proceed with a fee arbitration, "[t]he 

approved State Bar form [must be) signed by all Pmiies consenting to arbitration of a Fee 

Dispute" (See State Bar Rules at §I. C.1 ), which defendants refused to sign; (2) "The 

Committee's jurisdiction includes [only] the Arbitration of Fee Disputes" (Id. at §II. A.); 

(3) "The State Bar Fee Arbitration Program onlv has jurisdiction over the reasonableness 

of fees as defined by ER 1.5. For example, the program has no jurisdiction to arbitrate 

liens filed by third parties against awards being held in attorney trust accounts under ER 

1.15." (id at §II. Committee Comment 1) (only underline emphasis added); and (4) "The 

[only] issue before an Arbitrator or a Fee Arbitration panel .. ., in accordance with ER 1.5, 

Ariz. R.S.Ct. 42 .. ., is whether the fees charged were reasonable for the work that was 

performed [and] [i]f disputed, the Arbitrator also may determine the reasonableness of 

costs." (Id. at §III. A., titled "SCOPE OF THE FEE ARBITRATION HEARING"). 

Defendants twice refused to sign the State Bar's required forms, and instead vigorously 

litigated this matter for months. As such, the Court should deny Mr. Bruno's Motion for 

this reason alone. In addition, however, even if defendants' had not waived any right to 

arbitrate before the State Bar--(1) the State Bar "only has jurisdiction over the 

reasonableness of fees as defined by ER 1.5" (something this Court can decide as well), 

and (2) this Cou1i would still need to proceed with and resolve (i) plaintiffs Application 

for provisional remedies, and (ii) Mr. Bruno's counterclaim--neither of which can be 

resolved by the State Bar. As such, the Court should deny Mr. Bruno's Motion for these 

9 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 36 of 43
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 

reasons as well. 

Finally, and in the alternative, if this Court were to grant Mr. Bruno's Motion, then it 

should: (1) order a State Bar arbitration of only the fee dispute; (2) proceed with the 

Application, and sign the proposed "Order Granting Provisional Remedies With Notice, 

Writs Of Attachment And Garnishment (Non-Earnings)" that was filed with the Affidavit, 

in accordance with A.R.S. § 12-2408 (see Plv!S Dis/rib. Co., Inc. v. Huber & Sul111er, A.G., 

863 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1988) (Court had jurisdiction after issuing arbitration order to 

grant a writ possession); 7 and (3) proceed with and resolve Mr. Bruno's counterclaim. 

III. THIS CASE Is PROPERLY IN COMMERCIAL Cornn. 

Although Mr. Bruno includes the words "Objection to Commercial Court" in the 

caption of his Supplemental Brief, his brief does not include any argument as to why this 

case should not be in the Commercial Comi. Pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 

8.1 (2017), the Commercial Court may hear cases in which: (i) at least one plaintiff 

(Sherman & Howard) and one defendant (PB Co.) are business organizations; and (ii) the 

primary issues of law and fact concern a business contract or transaction. If the case 

involves the sale of services by, or to, a business organization, the amount-in-controversy 

must exceed $50,000. As set forth in plaintiffs Complaint, this case meets all of these 

requirements. Accordingly, this case is properly before the Commercial Court. 

Respectfully Submitted: January 16, 2018. 

SHERMAN & HOWARD L.L.C. 

By: ls/David A. Weatherwax 

David A. Weatherwax 

Craig A. Morgan 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

7 See also Toyo Tire Holdings a/Ams., Inc. v. Continental Tire N. Am., Inc., 609 F.3d 975, 

980-81 (9th Cir. 2010) (notwithstanding an order for arbitration, Courts retain jurisdiction 

to issue mterim injunctive relief). 

10 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 37 of 43
Attachment 9 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 38 of 43
PAULL. BRUNO 

3104 E. Camel back Road #539 

Phoenix, AZ 85016 

602-777-0601 Phone 

Paul@PaulBrunoGroup.com 

Pro Se Litigant 

JAN .~ 5 2018 

IN THE ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA 

SHERMAN & HOWARD, LLC 

Plaintiff, 

v, 

PAUL BRUNO, et al 

Defendant, 

PAUL BRUNO 

Counterclaimant, 

v. 

SHERMAN & HOWARD, LLC 

Counterclaim Defendant, 

PAUL BRUNO; 

Third Party Plaintiff, 

v. 

PROFESSIONAL BEAUTY ASSOCIATION; PAR 

AVION TRAVEL, INC. Travel, Inc. 

Third Party Defendant(s) 

S&H Answer, Third Party 

CASE NO. CV2017·014106 

·FIRST AMENDED-

-VERIFIED ANSWER-

-VERIFIED COUNTERCLAIM-

-VERIFIED THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT-

(Honorable Christopher Whitten) 

1 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 39 of 43
COMES NOW PAUL L BRUNO, (hereafter "Mr. Bruno" or "Bruno"), Oefendant, Counterclaimant and 

Third-Party Plaintiff, on his own behalf answers Plaintiffs Complaint with this Amendment as follows 

FIRST DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs complaint falls to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

SECOND DEFENSE 

Defendant, and Third-Party Plaintiff Bruno denies paragraphs 6, 10-20, 22-78, 

THIRD DEFENSE 

Defendant, Third- Party Plaintiff Bruno has Insufficient information upon which to form belief 

concerning the following paragraphs, and therefore denies them: 2,3,4, 7,8,9, 21 

1, Answering '11, Defendant admits Sherman & Howard, LLC (hereafter "S&H") LLC is a Delaware 

Limited Liability Company, authorized to do, and doing, business Arizona. 

Answering prayers for relief In counts 1, 2, 3-9, Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief requested and 

therefore Defendant denies the relief requested. 

2. Answering the Application for Provisional Remedies, (hereafter the "Application"), Plaintiff Is 

Counsel of Defendant hired and retained for the express goal of protecting assets subject to the 

Application; therefore, the Application constitutes a conflict of Interest, and It Is Inappropriate. 

Notwithstanding Defendant does not own the assets. 

FOURTH DEFENSE 

The Plaintiff at fault, which fault was the proximate cause of the damages complained by Plaintiff 

FIFTH DEFENSE 

The Incidents complained of were proximately caused by events over which the Defendant had 

no control or right of control. 

2 

S&H Answer; Third Party 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 40 of 43
SIXTEENTH DEFENSE 

The Defendant is entitled to counterclaim as set out with specificity, below 

SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE 

The Defendant states that it has or may have further and additional affirmative defenses, which 

are not yet known to the Defendant, but which may become known through future discovery. The 

Defendant asserts each and every affirmative defense as It may be ascertained through future discovery 

herein. 

EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE 

The S&H Operative Contracts, filed on October 27, 2017 with the "Notice of Errata" The Errata 

contains the Operative contracts, including the section "Memorandum of Firm's Policies" on p.2 'II 7 is 

the parties agreement to arbitrate. S&H failed to submit to arbitration, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 2 

NINETEENTH DEFENSE 

On January 3, 2017 Federal District Court Judge, Paul Sala ordered S&H, to Inter al/a: "at the 

time S&H submits its application for compensation for approval and payment of attorneys' fees and costs 

with the Bankruptcy Court, Sherman & Howard should comply fully with oil provisions of Rule 2016, Fed. 

R.Bankr.P." The order goes on to state "the lack offo//owlnq the Order will result In denial offees or costs 

incurred." 

TWENTIENTH DEFENSE 

S&H breached the contract and failed to perform, pursuant to the terms of Its employment application. 

THEREFORE, Defendant Paul L. Bruno hereby demands judgement in his favor against Plaintiff, Sherman 

& Howard, LLC dismissing Its Complaint and Application for provisional remedies with prejudice, 

together with an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to contract and/or pursuant to A.R.S. § 12· 

341and§12-341.01, and such other relief as the Court may deem equitable and just. 

4 

S&H Answer; Third Party 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 41 of 43
,. 

65. Third party plaintiff has been wrongfully pursued for almost two years, by third party defendants, 

which has caused Irreparable harm. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF PRAYS FOR JUDGEMENT AS FOLLOWS: 

1. Awarding actual damages, special, personal' injury, and punitive damages and reasonable 

attorney's fees. 

2. Any additional appropriate equitable relief, including any injunctive or declaratory relief. 

3. Awarding restitution or disgorgement of ail illicit proceeds. 

4. Awarding punitive damages and exemplary damages 

5, Awarding pre-judgement interest, as well as reasonable attorney's foes and other costs. 

6. Awarding such other relief as this Court deem just and proper. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 25 DAY OF JANUARY 2018 

r , .. 2~::;;;v 

Paul " Bruno, Pro Se Litigant 

23 

S&H Answer; Third Party 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 42 of 43
-~ .... 

VERIFICATION 

I Paul Bruno declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing, 1.) Verified Answer; 2.) 

Verified Counterclaim; 3.) Verified Third Party Complaint and know the contents thereof; that the 

matters and things therein stated are true to my own knowledge, except as to those matters therein 

stated upon Information and belief, as to those matters, I believe them to be true. 

DATED: JANUARY 25, 2018 

2 --·- Paul Bruno 

Electronically emailed and regular mail~ 

Sherman & Howard rxv 

Craig Morgan and David Weatherwax \ 

24 

S&H Answer; Third Party 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6-1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 43 of 43