• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 1
Roy Warden
1
1015 W. Prince Road
2
Suite 131-182
3
Tucson, Arizona 85705
4
(520) 300-4596
5
roywarden1@netzero.net
67
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
8
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA
910
ROY WARDEN,Plaintiff,
 IN FORMAPAUPERIS
 VsSUZANNE DUGAN, CASSANDRA KING,BETTE GLOVER, RATHBUN REALTY,INC. and DOES 1-10Defendants.
 )))))))))))))
Case No. C20095747FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FORCOMPENSATORY AND EXEMPLARYDAMAGES FOR BREACH OF ORALCONTRACT, ABUSE OF PROCESS,CONSPIRACY, AND INTENTIONALINFLICTION OF MENTAL DISTRESSTHE HONORABLE STEPHEN VILLA-RREAL
11
COMES NOW ROY WARDEN, Plaintiff in the above entitled action, with a
12
Complaint for Damages against the Defendants, named and unnamed above, and as
13
grounds therefore alleges:
14
I. INTRODUCTION
15
1.
 
This action arises out of breach of oral contract, abuse of process, conspiracy, and
16
intentional infliction of mental distress.
17
II. JURISDICTION & VENUE
18
2.
 
This court has jurisdiction over this action under Article VI § 14 of the Arizona
19
Constitution as the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 (ten thousand dollars).
20
Venue is proper in Pima County, as all of the acts complained of occurred in Pima
21
County Arizona.
22
III. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
23
3.
 
Pursuant to Rule 38(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff requests a trial by
24
 jury.
252627
 
 2
IV. IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES
1
4.
 
Plaintiff Roy Warden, writer and publisher of political newsletters Common
2
Sense II, CS II Press and Director of the Tucson Weekly Public Forum, is a
3
citizen of the United States, a political activist, and was a resident of Pima
4
County Arizona at all times relevant to this complaint.
5
5.
 
Defendant Suzanne Dugan, residing at 4602 E. Glenn Street, Tucson Arizona, is
6
a former landlord of Plaintiff Roy Warden, is believed to be a citizen of the
7
United States and was a resident of Pima County Arizona at all times relevant to
8
this complaint.
 
9
6.
 
Defendant Cassandra King, employed by Defendant Rathbun Realty, Inc. is
10
believed to be a citizen of the United States and a resident of Pima County at all
11
times relevant to this complaint.
 
12
7.
 
Defendant Bette Glover, employed by Defendant Rathbun Realty, Inc. is
13
believed to be a citizen of the United States and a resident of Pima County at all
14
times relevant to this complaint.
 
15
8.
 
Defendant Rathbun Realty, Inc., an Arizona corporation with offices located at
16
7447 E. 22
nd
Street, Tucson Arizona, was employed by, and acted as, Agent for
17
Defendant Suzanne Dugan at all times relevant to this complaint.
 
18
9.
 
Does 1-10 are believed to be Tucson City employees, Pima County employees,
19
Arizona State employees, and others, who advised and /or directed Defendants in
20
the commission of unlawful acts which are the subject of this lawsuit.
 
21
V. FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS
22
10.
 
On July 26, 2006, subsequent to a series of acrimonious Special Detainer Actions
23
initiated by all Defendants and Plaintiff’s eviction from the premises owned by
24
Defendant Suzanne Dugan located at 4602 E. Glenn Road, Tucson Arizona,
25
Plaintiff accepted Defendant’s Cassandra King and Betty Glover’s oral offer to
26
grant Plaintiff an additional three days to return to clean the premises, remove his
27
belongings, etc.
28
11.
 
On the morning of July 27, 2007 Plaintiff met Defendant Rathbun representative
29
“Mathew” at the premises located at 4602 E. Glenn Street, Tucson Arizona.
 
30
 
 3
12.
 
Mathew provided Plaintiff access and informed Plaintiff he (Matthew) would
1
return by 4:00 pm to secure the premises until the following day, when Plaintiff,
2
as per agreement, was to return and resume his move out / cleaning activities.
3
13.
 
Shortly thereafter Defendant Dugan called the Tucson Police Department and re-
4
ported that Plaintiff was trespassing.
 
5
14.
 
Tucson Police Department then informed Plaintiff the Defendants “did not want
6
to honor their agreement,” and gave Plaintiff 5 minutes to vacate.
 
7
15.
 
Shortly thereafter Plaintiff faxed a letter to Defendant’s counsel, Blyth Edmon-
8
on, requesting an inventory of his property and permission to return to clean the
9
premises because he could not afford a cleaning crew.
 
10
16.
 
On August 09, 2006 Plaintiff informed Defendants of his new mailing address.
 
11
17.
 
On or about September 27, 2006 Plaintiff spoke with “Sharon”, a Rathbun em-
12
ployee, who informed Plaintiff Rathbun planned to store his property for “the
13
next several months,” that Plaintiff could arrange for the release of his property
14
upon payment of storage fees due, and promised that Rathbun would contact
15
Plaintiff should there be any change in their plans.
 
16
18.
 
On or about October 26, 2006, Plaintiff called Rathbun and spoke with “Susan,”
17
who informed Plaintiff Rathbun had “disposed” of Plaintiff’s property.
 
18
19.
 
On November 03, 2006 Plaintiff sent a letter to Rathbun requesting the inventory
19
of his property, the name and location of the facility where his property was
20
allegedly “disposed” and the names of the Rathbun employees who had taken his
21
property from storage.
 
22
20.
 
On November 10, 2006 Plaintiff sent a “follow up” letter to Defendant Rathbun,
23
again requesting the location of his “disposed” property, so he could attempt to
24
recuperate his property, which included “…priceless family memorabilia, in-
25
cluding irreplaceable family photos, and tens of thousands of dollars of art,
26
antiques, electronics, stereos, computer equipment, clothing, books, etc” as well
27
as numerous hand knotted oriental carpets.
 
28
21.
 
On or about November 29, 2006 Plaintiff received a letter written by Defendant
29
Cassandra King confirming Defendants had “thrown away” Plaintiff’s property,
30
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...