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

David R. Schwartz - #009264

das@udallshumway.com

Attorney for Defendants Maricopa County Community

College District, Maricopa Skill Center and Lisa Hemming

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Schaun Owens,

Plaintiff,

v.

Maricopa County Community College 

District, Maricopa Skill Center, and Lisa 

Hemming, 

Defendants.

NO. CV-15-01769-PHX-SPL

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION REQUESTING 

TO ALLOW CASE TO CONTINUE 

Defendants Maricopa County Community College District (“District”), Maricopa 

Skill Center, and Lisa Hemming (“Hemming”), collectively “Defendants”, submit this 

response to Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting to Allow Case to Continue (Dkt 10). Plaintiff 

simply chose not do anything to comply with this Court’s order. Her paperwork submitted 

to this Court is incomplete and wholly inadequate to show reasonable efforts. In fact, the 

motion reflects that Plaintiff remains unrepresented even now and she still has done nothing 

to move forward with the meet and confer required by this Court. (Dkt 6)

1138 NORTH ALMA SCHOOL ROAD, SUITE 101

MESA, ARIZONA 85201

Telephone: 480.461.5300 | Fax: 480.833.9392

Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 12 Filed 12/11/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

On October 20, 2015, this Court entered its order regarding the Joint Case 

Management Report and Joint Proposed Case Management Order with a copy being mailed 

to the only address listed by Plaintiff with this Court. (Dkt 6) On October 26, Defense 

counsel communicated via email with Plaintiff regarding the obligation to meet and confer. 

(Ex. 1, Schwartz affidavit ¶ 3 and ex. A) On November 4, 2015, a draft of the required 

documents were mailed and sent via email to Plaintiff with a request for Plaintiff to contact 

Defense Counsel by November 10 about the meet and confer regarding the drafts. (Ex. 1, 

Schwartz affidavit ¶ 4 and ex. B) The letter was sent to the Buchanan address listed by the 

Plaintiff with this Court. (Ex. 1, Schwartz affidavit ¶ 4 and ex. B) Plaintiff did not respond 

to these efforts, so on November 13 a follow up letter was sent via email and regular mail 

(again to the same Buchanan address). (Ex. 1, Schwartz affidavit ¶ 5 and ex. C) Finally, 

after hours on November 18 Plaintiff called and left a message that she was not ignoring my 

emails and letters, but was trying to find a lawyer to represent her. (Ex. 1, Schwartz 

affidavit ¶ 6) No name of any lawyer was mentioned in the voicemail. (Ex. 1, Schwartz 

affidavit ¶ 6) No mention was made in the voicemail that the letters should be sent to any 

other address other than the Buchanan address. (Ex. 1, Schwartz affidavit ¶ 6) Given the 

voicemail, Defense Counsel sent on November 19 an email to Plaintiff advising her that she 

was responsible for complying with the Court’s order and suggested that if she needed more 

time that she should file a motion with this Court. (Ex. 1, Schwartz affidavit ¶ 7 and ex. D) 

Plaintiff did not contact Defense Counsel thereafter nor has Defense Counsel been contacted 

by any lawyer even considering representing Plaintiff. (Ex. 1, Schwartz affidavit ¶ 8) 

Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 12 Filed 12/11/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Something smells fishy. There is no date provided for any alleged contact with 

attorney Montoya and no corroboration from attorney Montoya. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit 

in early September and apparently waited until mid-November before beginning a search for 

counsel with a November 23 deadline looming. According to Plaintiff Attorney Montoya 

never communicated with her suggesting no lawyer-client relationship was ever established. 

Mr. Treadwell assumed that if Montoya took the case he would contact either Treadwell or 

Plaintiff. (Dkt 11, p. 2, ¶ 5) If such a relationship existed, then attorney Montoya’s acts and 

omissions are those of Plaintiff. Plaintiff simply ignored this Court’s order for her to meet 

and confer and has continued to do so through today.

This case should be dismissed.

DATED: December 11, 2015.

UDALL SHUMWAY PLC

/s/ David R. Schwartz

David R. Schwartz

1138 North Alma School Road

Suite 101

Mesa, AZ 85201

Attorneys for Defendants 

Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 12 Filed 12/11/15 Page 3 of 4
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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 11, 2015, I electronically filed the attached 

document using ECF for filing and transmitted the document as follows:

By mail to:

Schaun Owens

7701 W. St. Johns Rd., Apt. 1056

Glendale, AZ 85308

Plaintiff

/s/ Kimberly Kershner

4514826.1\109883-5\

Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 12 Filed 12/11/15 Page 4 of 4