warden second amended complaint against rathbun realty for breach of contract
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/7/2019 WARDEN SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST RATHBUN REALTY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
1/12
1
Roy Warden11015 W. Prince Road2Suite 131-1823Tucson, Arizona [email protected]
6
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA7
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA89
ROY WARDEN,Plaintiff, IN FORMAPAUPERIS
Vs
SUZANNE DUGAN, CASSANDRA KING,BETTE GLOVER, RATHBUN REALTY,
INC. and DOES 1-10
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
Case No. C20095747
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTFOR COMPENSATORY AND EXEM-PLARY DAMAGES FOR BREACHOF ORAL CONTRACT / PROMISE /PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
THE HONORABLE STEPHEN VILLA-RREAL
10
COMES NOW ROY WARDEN, Plaintiff in the above entitled action, with his11
Second Amended Complaint for Damages against the Defendants, named and unnamed12
above, and as grounds therefore alleges:13
I. INTRODUCTION14
1. This action for promissory estoppel arises out of breach of an oral contract /15promise Defendants made to Plaintiff on or about July 26, 2006. Plaintiff, who16
acted in reliance upon Defendants promise, contends the doctrine of promissory17
estoppel, as set forth in Arizona law1, binds the parties to their agreement, and18
that all Plaintiffs damages alleged herein arise out of Defendants failure to honor19
their promise / oral contract..20
II. JURISDICTION & VENUE21
2. This court has jurisdiction over this action under Article VI 14 of the Arizona22Constitution as the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 (ten thousand dollars).23
1 See paragraphs 45-48.
-
8/7/2019 WARDEN SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST RATHBUN REALTY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
2/12
2
Venue is proper in Pima County, as all of the acts complained of occurred in Pima1
County Arizona.2
III. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL3
3. Pursuant to Rule 38(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff requests a trial by4jury.5
IV. IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES6
4. Plaintiff Roy Warden is a citizen of the United States, and was a resident of Pima7County Arizona at all times relevant to this complaint.8
5. Defendant Suzanne Dugan, residing at 4602 E. Glenn Street, Tucson Arizona, is9a former landlord of Plaintiff Roy Warden, is believed to be a citizen of the10
United States and was a resident of Pima County Arizona at all times relevant to11
this complaint.12
6. Defendant Cassandra King, employed by Defendant Rathbun Realty, Inc. is13believed to be a citizen of the United States and a resident of Pima County at all14
times relevant to this complaint.15
7. Defendant Bette Glover, employed by Defendant Rathbun Realty, Inc. is16believed to be a citizen of the United States and a resident of Pima County at all17
times relevant to this complaint.18
8. Defendant Rathbun Realty, Inc., an Arizona corporation with offices located at197447 E. 22nd Street, Tucson Arizona, was employed by, and acted as, Agent for20
Defendant Suzanne Dugan at all times relevant to this complaint.21
9. Does 1-10 are believed to be Rathbun Realty, Inc. employees, Tucson City22employees, Pima County employees, Arizona State employees, and others, who23
advised and/or assisted Defendants in the commission of the unlawful act which24
is the subject of this lawsuit.25
V. FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS26
10. On July 26, 2006 at approximately 10:30 am, after a series of acrimonious Special27Detainer Actions initiated by all Defendants, Plaintiff was served a Writ of28
Restitution which required him to immediately depart his residence, located at29
4602 E. Glenn Street, Tucson Arizona 85712.30
-
8/7/2019 WARDEN SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST RATHBUN REALTY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
3/12
3
11. Three Rathbun employees were present when the Writ was served, including1Cris, Matt, and Casey, a Rathbun property manager believed to be named2
Rathbun Defendant Cassandra King, as clearly set forth upon the Writ.3
12. Immediately upon exiting the premises Plaintiff exercised his right to clean up,4pack, and move his personal belongings which were still located within his former5
residence.6
13. The Rathbun employees, who had begun changing the locks, told Plaintiff they7could not delegate a property manager that day to supervise Plaintiff while he8
exercised his right to pack his belongings, move out and clean up.9
14. After more discussion Plaintiff asked the Rathbun employees to set a time and a10date as to when he could return to his former residence to effect his move out and11
clean up because, as Plaintiff explained to them in sum and substance: I have to12
arrange for storage, packing boxes, a mover, a truck and someone to help me13
pack, move my belongings and clean the premises.14
15. After additional discussion, the Rathbun employees informed Plaintiff that Matt15would grant Plaintiff access to the premises for a three day period of time com-16
mencing the following day at 8:00 am on July 27, 2006 and ending at 4:00 pm on17
July 29, 2006.18
16. In reliance upon Defendant Rathbuns promise that Plaintiff would have access to19the premises located at 4602 E. Glenn Street, Tucson Arizona 85712 to com-20
mence his move out and clean up the following day, Plaintiff subsequently: (1)21
cancelled an appointment he had to meet with a client on July 27, 2006, (2) made22
a series of phone calls and eventually employed the services of a workman to23
help pack, move and clean, (3) obtained the use of a pickup truck, and (4) visited24
several storage sites in order to evaluate which one would be able to provide the25
air conditioned storage necessary to protect Plaintiffs family heirlooms, antiques,26
historical photographs and negatives, custom designed oriental rugs, custom27
design work, wool color samples and fine art collection.28
17. At approximately 8:00 am on July 27, 2006 Plaintiff arrived at 4602 E. Glenn29Street, met with Rathbun employee Matt and, as per the agreement made the30
previous day, gained entrance into the premises.31
-
8/7/2019 WARDEN SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST RATHBUN REALTY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
4/12
4
18. Matt told Plaintiff that (1) he had other company business to attend to and (2)1he would return at approximately 4:00 pm to again secure the premises until the2
morning of the following day, when Plaintiff could return and resume his move3
out and clean up as per the agreement.4
19. Shortly after Matt departed, Plaintiffs workman arrived with a pickup truck.520. Plaintiff and his workman were within the premises commencing move out and6
clean up procedures when Defendant Dugan (1) telephoned the Tucson Police7
Department and reported Plaintiff was trespassing, and (2) requested the police8
department to remove Plaintiff from the property, thus breaching the agreement9
her agent, Defendant Rathbun, made with Plaintiff on the previous day.10
21. Tucson Police Department Officers informed Plaintiff that the Defendants ...did11not want to honor their verbal agreement, and gave Plaintiff 5 minutes to vacate.12
See Exhibit One, TPD Incident Report #0607270435.13
22. Shortly thereafter Plaintiff faxed a letter to Defendants Rathbuns counsel, Blyth14Edmonson, which (1) requested an inventory and return of his property and (2)15
requested permission to return to clean the premises because Plaintiff had no16
money to pay for a professional cleaning crew.17
23. Subsequent to Plaintiffs departure from 4602 E. Glenn, Defendants (1) seized his18belongings, (2) refused to allow him re-entry, and (3) refused to return his19
property or allow him opportunity to clean up the premises, resulting in20
Defendant Rathbun assessing Plaintiff several thousands dollars in clean up,21
moving and storage fees, Plaintiffs loss of all his worldly belongings, the22
infliction of consequent and significant emotional distress, etc.23
24. On August 09, 2006 Plaintiff faxed a letter to Defendant Rathbun which (1)24reminded them of their obligations under A.R.S. 33-1368 (F) which provided for25
the return of Plaintiffs clothing, computer and other items needed for his26employment, (2) informed them Plaintiff would pay for all ongoing storage fees27
while the legal issues between Plaintiff and Defendants were litigated, and (3)28
provided them Plaintiffs new phone number and mailing address.29
25. Sometime later, in compliance with the offer Plaintiff made on August 09, 2006,30Plaintiff went to Defendant Rathbuns office with several hundred dollars to pay31
-
8/7/2019 WARDEN SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST RATHBUN REALTY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
5/12
5
for the ongoing costs of storage; however Defendant Rathbun refused to accept1
Plaintiffs payment, and demanded instead payment in full for the costs of2
changing the locks, moving, cleaning, storage, etc. which amounted to more than3
several thousand dollars.4
26. Subsequently; Plaintiff met with a Rathbun employee at the storage facility and5recovered his computer, printer, monitor and some of his clothing as provided by6
A.R.S. 33-1368 (F); however the Rathbun employee prevented Plaintiff from7
taking any other items from the storage facility such as valuable fine art, oriental8
rugs, family photographs, and personal memorabilia, explaining, I am only9
authorized to let you take items you need for work.10
27. On or about September 27, 2006 Plaintiff spoke with Sharon, a Rathbun em-11ployee, who informed him, (1) Rathbun planned to store Plaintiffs property for12
the next several months, (2) Rathbun would release Plaintiffs property upon13
payment of the cost of changing the locks, cleaning, moving and storage fees and14
(3) Rathbun would contact Plaintiff should there be any change in their plans.15
28. During their conversation, Plaintiff told Sharon he would arrange a loan to pay16for the cost of changing the locks, moving, cleaning, storage, etc., and again17
contact Rathbun within a month to pay all fees due and to recover his belongings.18
29. Approximately three and a half weeks later Plaintiff secured a loan, called Rath-19bun and left a message for Sharon which stated Plaintiff was now prepared to20
pay all fees due and to recover his property.21
30. The following day Sharon called Plaintiffs home and left a message that Plain-22tiffs property was ready to be picked up.23
31. The next day, on or about October 26, 2006, Plaintiff called Rathbun to make an24appointment to pay the requisite fees and to pick up his belongings; however25
Plaintiff was informed that Sharon no longer worked there.26
32. During this conversation Plaintiff spoke with Susan, and was shocked and27utterly dismayed to learn Rathbun had disposed of his property.28
33. On November 03, 2006 Plaintiff sent a letter to Rathbun requesting the inventory29of his property, the name and location of the facility where his property was30
-
8/7/2019 WARDEN SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST RATHBUN REALTY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
6/12
-
8/7/2019 WARDEN SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST RATHBUN REALTY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
7/12
7
41. On November 09, 2009, Plaintiff filed in Pima County Superior Court Plaintiffs1First Amended Complaint which corrected several grammatical, spelling and2
typographical errors and deleted Conversion as a cause of action.3
42. In compliance with an Order of the Court dated January 24, 2011, Plaintiff herein4submits his Second Amended Complaint, deleting several causes of action, as set5
forth above.6
VI.COUNT ONE: BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT / PROMISE /7PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL8
9
43. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs101-42 as fully set forth within.11
44. On July 27, 2006 Defendants breached their oral contract / promise to Plaintiff as12set forth in paragraphs 10-23, resulting in Plaintiffs loss of personal items; a13
direct and proximate cause of all Plaintiffs damages alleged herein.14
VII. DEFENDANTS ARE BOUND TO THEIR AGREEMENT15
BY THE DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL1617
45. In Arizona ...(t)he elements of (promissory) estoppel...are well settled; they are,18essentially: conduct by which one intentionally...induces another to believe and19
have confidence in certain material facts, which inducement results in acts of20
reliance thereon, justifiably taken, which cause injury to the party thus relying.21
Graham v Asbury , 112 Ariz. 184. (1975)22
46. Furthermore; (t)he elements of promissory estoppel are a promise, which the23promissor should reasonably foresee would cause the promisee to rely, upon24
which the promisee actually relies to his detriment. Contempo Const. V. Mt.25
States T & T Co., 153 Ariz 279 (App.)26
47. Moreover; Detrimental reliance is an essential ingredient of estoppel without27which there can be no estoppel. Matter of Estave of Musgrove, 144 Ariz. 168.28
48. And finally, in State Ex Rel. Romley v. Gaines, 205 Ariz 138 (App.) the Court29cited the Restatement (Second) of Contracts Section 90 (1981): A promise which30
the promissor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the31
part of the promisee...and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding32
if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.33
-
8/7/2019 WARDEN SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST RATHBUN REALTY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
8/12
8
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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
-
8/7/2019 WARDEN SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST RATHBUN REALTY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
9/12
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
EXHIBIT ONE1314
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
-
8/7/2019 WARDEN SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST RATHBUN REALTY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
10/12
10
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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
-
8/7/2019 WARDEN SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST RATHBUN REALTY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
11/12
11
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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
-
8/7/2019 WARDEN SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST RATHBUN REALTY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
12/12
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15