You are on page 1of 54

1 2 3 4 5

Raushanah N. Najeeullah, N.D. 1109 W. Raven Drive Chandler, AZ 85286 MARICOPA COUNTY JUSTICE COURTS, ARIZONA ENCANTO JUSTICE COURT ) Case No.: CC2011-219758RC ) ) NOTICE OF MOTION ) ) ) ) ) ) )

RAUSHANAH NAJEEULLAH,
6

Plaintiff,
7

vs.
8

HOLLY MARSHALL ,
9

Defendant
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Plaintiff, Raushanah Najeeullah, hereby gives notice that on June 7, 2012, at 2:00 P.M.. or as soon thereafter as Plaintiff may be heard, I shall appear before the Magistrate at the Encanto Justice Court, 620 W. Jackson Street, Phoenix, AZ, to present the attached PLAI TIFFS MOTIO FOR LEAVE TO AME D THE COMPLAI T, a copy of which is herewith served upon you. Dated this ___ day of June, 2012 ______________________________ Raushanah Najeeullah, NMD 1109 W. Raven Drive Chandler, AZ 85286 (480) 375-5167 rnajee@phoenixnaturalmedicine.com In Propia Persona I CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing Delivered this ____ day of June, 2012 to: Clerk of the Court Maricopa County Justice Courts Encanto Justice Court 620 W. Jackson Street, #1045 Phoenix, AZ 85003 And a copy mailed this ____ day of June, 2012 to:

25 26 27 28

Defendant Holly Marshall 141 E. Palm Lane, #107 Phoenix, AZ 85004

1 2 3 4 5

Raushanah N. Najeeullah, N.D. 1109 W. Raven Drive Chandler, AZ 85286 MARICOPA COUNTY JUSTICE COURTS, ARIZONA ENCANTO JUSTICE COURT ) Case No.: CC2011-219758RC ) ) PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE ) TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT ) ) ) ) ) )

RAUSHANAH NAJEEULLAH,
6

Plaintiff,
7

vs.
8

HOLLY MARSHALL ,
9

Defendant
10 11

NOW COMES Plaintiff, RAUSHANAH NAJEEULLAH, proceeding Pro Per, who is unschooled
12

in law and notices the Court of enunciation of principles as stated in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 52013

521 (1972), wherein the Court has directed that those who are unschooled in law, making pleadings and/
14

or complaints shall have the Court look to the substance of the pleadings rather than the form, respectfully
15

submits to this Honorable Court her Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint in this matter. In support
16

of this motion, Plaintiff states as follows:


17 18 19 20 21 22

1. On March 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for intentional tort against Defendant, HOLLY MARSHALL. 2. On April 5, 2012, Defendants moved pursuant to Section 2-619(a)(2) and (a)(1) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief might be granted.

23 24 25 26 27 28

3. On May 3, 2012, Defendants motion to dismiss was denied. 4. Upon review of documents relevant to the complaint to be submitted as evidence, Plaintiff discovered additional facts upon which relief may be requested and granted against the Defendant.

5. The Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 15(a) 1 provides that, A party may amend the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, the party may so amend it at any time within twenty days after it is served. Otherwise a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party. Leave to amend shall be freely given when justice requires. 6. There will be no prejudice against the Defendant if Plaintiff is granted leave to amend, as the Court has yet to issue a dispositive ruling. Moreover, this Amended Complaint may cure the defect(s) complained of in the Defendants previously denied Motion to Dismiss. 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of the proposed amendment. Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, the additional language added to the complaint is underlined. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully moves this honorable Court to enter an Order granting

15

Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. A proposed form of motion accompanies this motion.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Respectfully submitted this ____ of June, 2012 ______________________________ Raushanah Najeeullah, NMD 1109 W. Raven Drive Chandler, AZ 85286 (480) 375-5167 rnajee@phoenixnaturalmedicine.com I CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing Delivered this ____ day of June, 2012 to: Clerk of the Court Maricopa County Justice Courts Encanto Justice Court 620 W. Jackson Street, #1045 Phoenix, AZ 85003

And a copy mailed this ____ day of June, 2012 to:


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

Defendant Holly Marshall 141 E. Palm Lane, #107 Phoenix, AZ 85004

1 2 3

MARICOPA COUNTY JUSTICE COURTS, ARIZONA ENCANTO JUSTICE COURT

RAUSHANAH NAJEEULLAH,
4

Plaintiff,
5

vs.
6

HOLLY MARSHALL ,
7

Defendant
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

) Case No.: CC2011-291758RC ) ) ORDER FOR PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ) LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT ) ) ) ) ) )

Upon motion of the Plaintiff and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint is hereby granted/ denied.

DATED this ______ day of _____________, 2012. _____________________________ Magistrate

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

Exhibit A

Raushanah N. Najeeullah, N.D. 1109 W. Raven Drive Chandler, AZ 85286 MARICOPA COUNTY JUSTICE COURTS, ARIZONA ENCANTO JUSTICE COURT

RAUSHANAH NAJEEULLAH, Plaintiff, vs. HOLLY MARSHALL , Defendant

) Case No.: CC2011-291758RC ) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ) ) ) ) ) ) )

NOW COMES Plaintiff, RAUSHANAH NAJEEULLAH, proceeding Pro Per, who is unschooled in law and notices the Court of enunciation of principles as stated in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520521 (1972), wherein the Court has directed that those who are unschooled in law, making pleadings and/ or complaints shall have the Court look to the substance of the pleadings rather than the form, respectfully submits to this Honorable Court her First Amended Complaint in the above styled matter, alleging as follows: I TRODUCTIO 1. Plaintiff Raushanah Najeeullah, N.D., was irrevocably harmed by Defendant Holly

Marshalls refusal to return monies related to an attorney-client contract for representation in an ongoing child custody matter. Plaintiffs attempts to recover funds paid to Defendant for services not rendered proved fruitless, compelling submission of a complaint to the Arizona Bar Association (State Bar). The State Bar referred the case to the Attorney Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Arizona who found in favor of the Plaintiff, sentencing the Defendant to diversion for violating Rules of Professional Conduct. As the State Bar does not grant recovery of costs directly related to violations, Plaintiff brings the matter before the Court to seek relief.

JURISDICTIO AL ALLEGATIO S 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Raushanah Najeeullah resides in Maricopa County. Holly Marshall is an attorney whos practice is located within Maricopa County. The events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred within Maricopa County. The amount in controversy is less than $10,000.00. This Court has jurisdiction. GE ERAL ALLEGATIO S OF FACT A D LAW 7. On or about May 24, 2010, Plaintiff hired the Defendant to act as attorney of record in a

child custody case. 8. Plaintiff signed a contract initiating business relationship. See Exhibit A, Contract for

Legal Representation, Raushanah Najeeullah and the Law Office of Holly Marshall, attached and made a part hereto. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Defendant is sole practitioner at the Law Firm of Holly Marshall. An initial deposit was paid to retain the services of the Defendant and her office. The initial deposit was in the amount of $2,500.00. Collaboration on this issue fully ensued the following month in June 2010. Plaintiff consulted with Defendant concerning online harassment on the part of the

respondent named in the related suit. 14. harassment. 15. Defendant acted in no way to address Plaintiffs request for assistance in addressing Plaintiff received no reply regarding emails sent to Defendant regarding online

online harassment. 16. Per the invoice from Defendant for services rendered through June 30 2010, Plaintiff was

charged for receipt of harassment emails. See Exhibit B, Invoice from Law Office of Holly Marshall, dated June 30, 2010, attached and made a part hereto.

17. 2010. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

Plaintiff was charged for 11 unanswered emails dated the 1st through the 18th of June

Plaintiff was charged $75 per email. This practice continued the following month of July 2010. Plaintiff sent Defendant two emails regarding harassment in July 2010. Defendant did not answer the emails sent July 2010. Defendant did not address concerns contained within email sent July 2010. Plaintiff was charged for receipt on the two emails sent July 2010. See Exhibit C, Invoice

from Law Office of Holly Marshall, dated July 31, 2010, attached and made a part hereto. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. activities. 29. Defendant informed Plaintiff that portion case being investigated was a criminal matter. 30. June invoicing from the Law Office of Holly Marshall shows an entry dated 06/18/2010 Plaintiff was charged $75 per email. On or about June 2010 Plaintiff did enter into an agreement with a private investigator. Plaintiff hired the private investigator to assist in matters pertaining to the custody case. Plaintiff notified Defendant of the agreement. Plaintiff was informed by Defendant that she could not be involved in those investigative

wherein Plaintiff was charged for Agreement between client and PI. See Exhibit B. 31. Plaintiff never received document(s) drafted by Defendant nor her office pertaining to

arrangement with the private investigator. 32. 33. 34. Plaintiff paid Defendants invoice for June 2010 services. Plaintiff paid Defendants invoice for July 2010 services. During a consultation in late June, Plaintiff paid Defendant a second installment of the

retainer in the amount of $2,500.00 35. During the consultation in late June, Defendant made the comment that Plaintiff should

Take [her boyfriend] for all hes got, then drop him.
3

36. 37. 38. 39. office. 40. 41. 42.

Plaintiff was disturbed by Defendants statement. Plaintiff no longer trusted Defendants advice. Plaintiff ceased communication with Defendant in late June 2010. On or about August 2, 2010, Plaintiff received an email from the paralegal at Defendants

Plaintiff had not contacted Defendant or her office in over a month. Plaintiff had not been contacted by Defendant or her office in over a month. The following day, August 3, 2010, Plaintiff called Defendants office stating that she no

longer wished to retain Defendants services. 43. 44. Defendant. 45. Plaintiff informed Defendant she no longer felt comfortable working with her after the On or about mid-August 2010, Plaintiff was able to speak with Defendant directly. During this conversation, Plaintiff again stated she no longer wished to retain the

comment about Plaintiffs boyfriend. 46. 47. of time. 48. Per the related contract, any monies owed upon termination of business relationship, Plaintiff expressed concern that she would be subjected to similar tactics. Defendant assured Plaintiff any monies owed would be refunded in a reasonable amount

upon request, all monies owed will be returned. See Exhibit A, page 2, item 9. 49. On or about September 1, 2010, Plaintiff received an invoice from Defendants paralegal.

See Exhibit E, Invoice from Law Office of Holly Marshall, dated August 30, 2010, attached and made a part hereto. 50. 51. The invoice received on or about September 1, 2010 showed a charge for an email sent. The invoice dated August 30, 2010 was received by Plaintiff after not hearing from

Defendants office for over a month.

52.

The invoice received on or about September 1, 2010 showed a charge for three (3) hours

of Parental kidnapping research dated 08/02/2010. 53. 54. 55. 56. with Plaintiff. 57. Between May 24, 2010 and August 1, 2010, Defendant filed two court documents on The charge for 3 hours of research is inconsistent with previous billings by Defendant. None of Defendants billing exceeded one hour. See Exhibits B, C, and D. Charges for Defendants services averaged one quarter hour. Charge for 3 hours of research was made during the month Defendant had no contact

behalf of Plaintiff 58. Defendant failed to litigate in any fashion the matter for which she was contracted on or

about May 24, 2010. 59. 60. Defendants representation was of no benefit to the Plaintiff. On October 7, 2010 Plaintiff contacted Defendant and her office again requesting to have

the balance of monies owed returned to her. 61. Plaintiffs October 7, 2 010 request for a refund was among many issued within the two

months following termination of the business relationship. See Exhibit E, Emails to Law Office of Holly Marshall-Request for Refund, attached and made a part hereto. 62. On October 7, 2010, Plaintiff received and email from Defendants office stating that any

outstanding money would be refunded immediately. 63. Per the related contract, any monies owed upon termination of business relationship will

be refunded in a timely manner. See Exhibit A, page 2, item 9. 64. Plaintiffs October 7, 2 010 request for a refund was among many issued within the two

months following termination of the business relationship. 65. As of November 10, 2010, Plaintiff received no refund for the balance of her retainer

paid to the Defendant. 66. On November 11, 2010, the above stated facts were submitted to the State Bar of Arizona

as part of a Petition for Arbitration of Fee Dispute. 67. 68. The Defendant did not reply to the dispute. The Defendant refused to participate in arbitration.

69.

On or about January 2, 2011, Plaintiff sent to the State Bar of Arizona (State Bar) a letter

initiating a formal complaint against the Defendant. 70. On or about February 2, 2011, Plaintiff received a reply from the State Bar confirming

receipt of her complaint. See Exhibit F, Reply from State Bar dated January 31, 2011, attached and made a part hereto. 71. On or about February 28, 2011, Defendant replied to Plaintiffs State Bar complaint.

Document currently part of production and a copy of which to be requested from State Bar. 72. Defendant claimed she was unable to refund Plaintiffs money due to numerous family

emergencies that required her to be out of town. 73. Defendant claimed family emergencies took place roughly around the same time

Defendants requests for payments were received. 74. On or about March 15, 2011, Plaintiff received notice of Defendants request for a

protective order sealing the record of the complaint against her. See Exhibit G, Request for Protective Order Sealing the Record, attached and made a part hereto. 75. Defendant claims the request for the protective order was in the interest of the Plaintiff.

Exhibit G, page 4. 76. On or about April 29, 2011, Plaintiff replied to the State Bar Notice of Request for

Protective Order. Document currently part of production and a copy of which to be requested from State Bar. 77. On or about April 29, 2011, Plaintiff supplied additional information as part of response

to Defendants reply. 78. Plaintiff supplied proof of payment toward a federal tax lien made around the same time

period Defendant claims she was unable to refund Plaintiffs money. See Exhibit H, Federal Income Tax Lien Release for Law Office of Holly Marshall, dated December 8, 2011, attached and made a part hereto.b

79.

On or about May 6, 2011, Plaintiff received confirmation of receipt of additional

information. See Exhibit I, Receipt of Reply to Marshall Response, dated May 4, 2011, attached and made apart hereto. 80. On or about May 30, 2011, Plaintiff received notice of completion the complaint

investigation from the State Bar. See Exhibit J, Recommendation to ADPCC, dated May 26, 2011, attached and made a part hereto. 81. State Bars recommendation was that Defendant should be recommended to the Attorney

Discipline Probable Cause Committee for an Order of Diversion, Law Office Management Assistant Program, and Fee Arbitration. 82. 1.5(d)(3). 83. E.R. 1.5(b) states The scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and State Bar recommendation was that Defendants actions violated Ethic Rules 1.5(b) and

expenses for which the client will be responsible shall be communicated to the client in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation, except when the lawyer will charge a regularly represented client on the same basis or rate. Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or expenses shall also be communicated in writing. 84. E.R 1.5(d)(3) states (d) A lawyer shall not enter into an arrangement for, charge, or

collect: (3) a fee denominated as "earned upon receipt," "nonrefundable" or in similar terms unless the client is simultaneously advised in writing that the client may nevertheless discharge the lawyer at any time and in that event may be entitled to a refund of all or part of the fee based upon the value of the representation pursuant to paragraph. 85. On or about July 15, 2011, Plaintiff received notice from the State Bar regarding the

findings of the Attorney Discipline Probable Cause Committee. See Exhibit K, Notice of Diversion Referral, dated July 13, 2011, attached and made a part hereto. 86. The State Bar Notice dated July 13, 2011 stated the Defendant was to be referred to the

State Bars diversion program to address the issues that lead to initial complaint.
7

87.

The State Bar does not provide for the recovery of monies owed related to an attorney

complaint. See Exhibit F, page 2. 88. On or about November 11, 2011, Plaintiff petitioned this Court to recover money lost as a

result of Defendants unethical business practices. 89. On or about December 21, 2011, Plaintiff received a copy of a notice sent to Defendant

regarding a request for fee arbitration. See Exhibit L, State Bar Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction, dated December 19, 2011, attached and made a part hereto. 90. The notice stated that, as Plaintiff had already begun civil proceedings, the State Bar

lacked jurisdiction to facilitate a fee arbitration. See Exhibit L. 91. Attached to the State Bar notice dated December 19, 2011, was a letter from the

Defendant intent to file a Petition to Arbitrate. 92. On November 11, 2010, Plaintiff submitted to the State Bar of Arizona a Petition for

Arbitration of Fee Dispute. 93. 94. 95. The Defendant did not reply to the dispute. The Defendant refused to participate in arbitration. Defendants refusal to arbitrate resulted in Plaintiffs filing of a formal attorney

complaint with the State Bar. 96. This matter before the Court was brought about to recover money owed to Plaintiff due to

violations committed by the Defendant as found by the State Bar. COU T I: BREACH OF CO TRACT 97. 98. 99. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 96. The parties entered into a written contract. Defendant breached to contract by failing to litigate on Plaintiffs behalf.

100. manner. 101. 102. 103.

Defendant breached to contract by failing to return Plaintiffs retainer balance in a timely

Plaintiff has performed all acts prerequisite to the bringing of this action. Plaintiff made reasonable demand of the Defendant for performance of the contract. Plaintiff suffered money damages as a direct and proximate result.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant, and requests this Court enter an Order finding Defendant liable to Plaintiff in the amount of $5,000.00 for actual damages together with such other and further relief as the Court may deem reasonable and just under the circumstances. COUNT II: FRAUD 104. 105. 106. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 96. Defendant charged Plaintiff for an agreement with a private investigator. Defendant during a prior conversation stated she could in no way participate in activity

involving a private investigator 107. Defendant charged Plaintiff for services she claims were rendered during month of no

contact between the parties. 108. 109. 110. 111. Defendant intended for Plaintiff to act in reliance on the falsely invoiced charges. Charges for services not rendered were deducted from the retainer paid by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered damages by relying on the false statements/ invoices. The State Bar of Arizona recommended referral to the State Bars diversion program for

ethical violations committed by the Plaintiff. 112. The Attorney Discipline Probable Cause Committee of the Supreme Court of Arizona

referred Defendant to the State Bars diversion program for ethical violations committed by the Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant in the amount of $2,500.00 for punitive damages, together with such other and further relief as the Court may deem reasonable and just under the circumstances.

I, RAUSHANAH NAJEEULLAH, certify that I am the Plaintiff in the above entitled action. I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: _____ June, 2012 Respectfully submitted, _______________________ Raushanah Najeeullah, N.D. 1109 W. Raven Drive Chandler, AZ, 85286 (480) 375-5167 rnajee@phoenixnaturalmedicine.com In Propia Persona Sui Juris I CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing Delivered this ____ day of June, 2012 to: Clerk of the Court Maricopa County Justice Courts Encanto Justice Court 620 W. Jackson Street, #1045 Phoenix, AZ 85003 And a copy mailed this ____ day of June, 2012 to: Defendant Holly Marshall 141 E. Palm Lane, #107 Phoenix, AZ 85004

10

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Exhibit D

Exhibit E

Exhibit F

Exhibit G

Exhibit H

Exhibit I

Exhibit J

Exhibit K

Exhibit L