Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 24 Filed 10/10/11 Page 1 of 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

Quarles & Brady LLP

Firm State Bar No. 00443100 Renaissance One, Two North Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004-2391
TELEPHONE 602.229.5200

John S. Craiger (#021731) John.Craiger@quarles.com David E. Funkhouser III (#022449) David.Funkhouser@quarles.com Krystal M. Aspey (#026609) Krystal.Aspey@quarles.com Attorneys for Defendant Lisa Jean Borodkin IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. LISA JEAN BORODKIN and JOHN DOE BORODKIN, husband and wife; RAMOND MOBREZ and ILIANA LLANERAS, husband and wife; DANIEL BLACKERTS and JANE DOE BLACKERTS, husband and wife; ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC, a California limited liability company, DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants. Defendant Lisa Jean Borodkin ("Ms. Borodkin") submits this reply in further support of her motion for a reasonable extension of time, through and including October 31, 2011, by which she must file an answer or response to Plaintiff's Complaint. This reply is supported by the Declaration of Lisa Jean Borodkin in Further Support of Motion for Extension of Time to Answer/Respond (the "Declaration of Borodkin") filed concurrently herewith and the entire record herein. Lisa J. No. 2:11-CV-01426-PHX-GMS DEFENDANT LISA JEAN BORODKIN'S REPLY IN FURTHUR SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER/RESPOND

(Assigned to the Honorable G. Murray Snow) (Expedited Consideration Requested)

-1QB\145800.00002\14760198.1

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 24 Filed 10/10/11 Page 2 of 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

Plaintiff Xcentric Ventures, L.L.C. (Xcentric) makes no claim in its opposition that it would be prejudiced by an extension. See Response of Xcentric to Borodkins Request for Extension of Time to Respond (Oct. 6, 2011) (Docket No. 22), passim. Based on that alone, this reasonable request should be granted. In addition, due to the peculiar nature of this action, briefly described below, equity and good conscience support the granting of the requested extension. As Xcentric concedes, this is an action for malicious prosecution. See Docket No. 22 at 1:22. However, Ms. Borodkin was not the attorney that instituted the underlying litigation. See Compl. 31. Defendant Daniel F. Blackert was the attorney that instituted the underlying litigation. See Compl. 28. Xcentrics claims against Ms. Borodkin are wholly derivative of Xcentrics claims against Blackert and the other defendants.1 As such, Blackert would likely be found a necessary party or indispensible party, under Federal Rule 19(2). See Walsh v. Centeio, 692 F.2d 1239, 1242 (9th Cir. 1982). Moreover, Xcentric claims that it has evidence to support its allegations regarding Blackerts improper motive and state of mind. However, Xcentric does not dispute that it has not served Blackert. See Docket No. 22, passim. Equity and good conscience would favor granting this extension unless Xcentric has shown that it has made a diligent effort to locate and serve Blackert. Second, and as briefly alluded to in Ms. Borodkin's initial Motion for Extension of Time, Ms. Borodkin has good grounds for seeking dismissal of the action as a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. This case is brought primarily to harass Ms. Borodkin and extort testimony about a third party, as demonstrated by the written demand of Ed Magedson. See Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin. Magedson is the Manager of

Xcentrics claims against Ms. Borodkin are styled Wrongful Continuation of Civil Proceedings and Aiding and Abetting Tortious Conduct.

-2QB\145800.00002\14760198.1

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 24 Filed 10/10/11 Page 3 of 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

Xcentric and verified the Complaint. This Court has wide latitude to manage its own calendar for the expeditious resolution of cases. Because Xcentric does not claim that it would be prejudiced by the extension, and Ms. Borodkin has submitted strong prima facie evidence that this Complaint was filed for an improper purpose, Ms. Borodkin respectfully requests that this Court exercise its discretion and grant the requested extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint to October 31, 2011. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 10th day of October, 2011. QUARLES & BRADY LLP Renaissance One, Two North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85004-2391 By /s/ David E. Funkhouser III John S. Craiger David E. Funkhouser III Krystal Aspey Attorneys for Lisa Jean Borodkin

-3QB\145800.00002\14760198.1

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 24 Filed 10/10/11 Page 4 of 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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 10, 2011, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrant: David S. Gingras, Esq. (David@GingrasLaw.com) Attorneys for Plaintiff Hartwell Virginia Harris (hartwell@hartwellharris.com) Attorney for Defendants Mobrez, Llaneras and Asia Economic Institute LLC /s/ David E. Funkhouser III

-4QB\145800.00002\14760198.1