Case 2:17-cv-03576-DJH Document 25 Filed 03/08/18 Page 1 of 4

1 Josh M. Snell, Bar #021602

Andrew I. Clark, Bar #030206
2 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.
40 North Central Avenue, Suite 2700
3 Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Telephone: (602) 263-1700
4 Fax: (602) 200-7815
jsnell@jshfirm.com
5 aclark@jshfirm.com
6 Attorneys for Defendants Terry Dishon and Luci Dishon
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 GARY K. HAAK NO. 2:17-CV-03576-PHX-DJH
10 Plaintiff,
AGREED MOTION REGARDING
11 v. AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT
AND EXTENSION OF TIME TO
12 TERRY DISHON and LUCI DISHON, RESPOND
husband and wife; VESS HURLEY and
13 SHEYENNE HURLEY, husband and wife,
14 Defendants.
15
16 TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:
17 Plaintiff Gary K. Haak (“Haak”) and Defendants Terry Dishon and Luci Dishon
18 (collectively, the “Dishons”) file this Agreed Motion Regarding Amendment of
19 Complaint and Extension of Time to Respond (the “Agreed Motion”) pursuant to Federal
20 Rule of Civil Procedure 6. The parties have conferred regarding the merits of the Agreed
21 Motion, and agree to the relief requested herein. In support thereof, the parties state as
22 follows:
23 1. On December 21, 2017, Haak filed a First Amended Complaint (the
24 “Complaint”) seeking damages for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and fraud.
25 [Doc. 6]. Previously, on October 13, 2017, the Court entered an Order discouraging
26 motions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) if the defect can be cured by
27 filing an amended pleading, and directing the parties to meet and confer to determine
28 whether such a motion can be avoided. [Doc. 4].
611245.1

1
 Case 2:17-cv-03576-DJH Document 25 Filed 03/08/18 Page 2 of 4

1 2. Pursuant to the Order, counsel for the Dishons sent Haak an e-mail outlining
2 the Dishons’ position that the Complaint failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
3 Procedure in certain respects, and that the Dishons intended to file a Motion to Dismiss
4 based on the alleged deficiencies. Thereafter, the parties conferred via telephone on
5 March 7, 2018. During that conference, the Dishons explained their objections to the
6 allegations of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, including that the allegations therein
7 fail to meet the standard of a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled
8 to relief, that the allegations of the Complaint do not establish that the Court has subject
9 matter jurisdiction, and that Haak’s fraud claims are not stated with particularity or
10 accompanied by the “who, what, when, where, and how” of the alleged misconduct.
11 Mr. Haak indicated that he was willing to amend the Complaint in an attempt to cure the
12 deficiencies.
13 3. As a result of the conference, the parties request that the Court allow
14 Mr. Haak to amend his Complaint, and the parties propose March 15, 2018, as the
15 deadline for Haak to file a Second Amended Complaint. The parties further propose
16 April 5, 2018, as the deadline for the Dishons to answer or otherwise respond (including,
17 by way of example, a Rule 12 motion) to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.
18 4. The parties further propose this extension of time for the Dishons to file an
19 answer or otherwise respond to the Second Amended Complaint shall likewise extend the
20 Dishons’ obligations pursuant to the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project, whereby
21 the parties are required to file answers, counterclaims, and replies within the time set forth
22 in Rule 12(a)(1)-(3) even if they have filed or intend to file a motion to dismiss or other
23 preliminary motion.
24 5. The relief requested herein is for good cause and will not result in undue
25 delay or prejudice to any party. Therefore, the parties respectfully request the Court grant
26 such extensions.
27
28
611245.1

2
 Case 2:17-cv-03576-DJH Document 25 Filed 03/08/18 Page 3 of 4

1 PRAYER
2 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Haak and the Dishons respectfully
3 request that Haak have until March 15, 2018, to file an amended complaint, and that the
4 Dishons have until April 5, 2018, to answer or otherwise respond (including, by way of
5 example, a Rule 12 motion) to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, and that the
6 extension of time for the Dishons to file an answer or otherwise respond to the Second
7 Amended Complaint shall likewise extend the Dishons’ obligations pursuant to the
8 Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project.
9
DATED this 8th day of March 2018.
10
JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.
11
12
By
13 Josh M. Snell
Andrew I. Clark
14 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.
40 North Central Avenue, Suite 2700
15 Phoenix, Arizona 85004
16 Attorneys for Defendants Terry Dishon and
Luci Dishon
17
18
By s/Gary K. Haak (with permission)
19 Gary K. Haak
2929 W. Yorkshire Drive, #1113
20 Phoenix, Arizona 85027
21 Pro Se
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
611245.1

3
 Case 2:17-cv-03576-DJH Document 25 Filed 03/08/18 Page 4 of 4

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I hereby certify that on this 8th day of March 2018, I caused the foregoing
3 document to be filed electronically with the Clerk of Court through the CM/ECF System
4 for filing; and served on counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF system.
5 I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not registered
6 CM/ECF users. I have mailed the foregoing document to the following non-CM/ECF
7 participants:
8 Thomas S. Moring
9 JABURG & WILK, PC
3200 N. Central Avenue, 20th Floor
10 Phoenix, AZ 85012

11 Connie R. Gorham
6933 N. Galaxy Place
12 Tucson, AZ 85741
13
s/Rachel Barajas
14
15 6556445.1
3/8/18
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
611245.1