Baird Williams & Greer Law provides legal counsel to ATF Agent Jay Dobyns in a $4 million lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in the U.S. District Court of Arizona, alleging defamation of character and the failure to protect him and his family. The lawsuit follows the release of Dobyns’ best seller, “No Angel: My Harrowing Undercover Journey to the Inner Circle of the Hells Angels,” written with Nils Johnson-Shelton. In the book, Dobyns’ describes his undercover mission with the Hells Angels and the subsequent fall out.
ARIZONA COURT RULES ‘LONG-ARM’ CASES MUST FOLLOW HOME-STATE LAW TO THE LETTER
Local law firm Baird Williams & Greer triumphs in Arizona Court of Appeals.
PHOENIX (May 29, 2013) – Companies that hope to enforce out-of-state judgments against Arizona firms must follow procedures to the letter of the law, the Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled.
The judges vacated a bid by Texas-based Hillcrest Bank to enforce a default judgment obtained in a Texas court against Phoenix resident Richard Sodja.
In their unanimous decision, the appellate judges acknowledged there are ways for out-of-state companies to sue Arizonans in their own state courts. And some states, such as Texas, do have applicable “long arm” laws. But Judge Margaret Downie, writing for the court, said Arizona courts will honor those out-of-state judgments only when they are in strict compliance with the applicable laws of the other state.
J. Ernest Baird, P.C. Attorney Craig LaChance represented Sodja in his appeal.
“The bank sued Sodja in Texas, alleging breach of three guaranty agreements,” LaChance said. “Because Sodja is not a Texas resident, the bank relied on the Texas ‘long arm’ law to serve him with the papers, which involves serving the Texas secretary of state.”
That office forwarded the petition and citation, the equivalent of a complaint and a summons, to the Phoenix business address for Sodja listed in the bank’s petition, but not to his home. When Sodja failed to respond, a default judgment was entered against him.
The bank eventually filed a notice in Maricopa County Superior Court to enforce the Texas judgment. A trial judge here rejected Sodja’s bid to void that judgment, resulting in the appeal.
The judges ruled that Arizona courts are not required to enforce judgments if the originating court did not have jurisdiction over the defendant. Under Texas laws, there must be proper service of a claim against a defendant.
“One requirement is a statement of the name and address of the nonresident’s home or home office,” LaChance said. “The bank in this case failed to meet the requirement so the judgment against Sodja was vacated.”
The East Valley Tribune wrote a piece about the appeal: “Out-of-state judgments must follow Arizona law to sue, judges rule.“
As lead counsel, Baird Williams & Greer Attorney James B. Reed makes an appearance on a National Rifle Association News Special Report from Ginny Simone, weighing in on the Dobyns vs. United States case. Reed represents retired Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent Jay Dobyns in a contract dispute suit in which Dobyns maintains while serving as an undercover agent paid to infiltrate the Hells Angels, the ATF failed to adequately protect him and his family against threats and violence made by the gang.
Baird Williams & Greer Attorney James Reed answers questions from the media after conducting closing arguments for Dobyns verse United States.
Baird Williams & Greer filed a $10M federal lawsuit against the Department of Justice on behalf of former ATF Agent Jay Dobyns, maintaining he was betrayed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Dobyns claimed the ATF ignored death threats against him and his family, as well as tried to frame him in an effort to cover-up their own corruption. J. Ernest Baird, P.C. Attorney James B. Reed served as lead counsel on the case, which made headlines in Washington D.C. and Tucson, Ariz. for its riveting evidence and stunning testimony. ABC (KGUN9-TV) located in Tucson covered the story locally and included an interview with J. Ernest Baird, P.C. Attorney Reed. You can watch the entire story here.
Today, Federal Judge Francis M. Allegra of the United States Court of Federal Claims released his trial court opinion following a three week trial to the bench, finding in favor of 27 year United States Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) undercover Special Agent Jay Dobyns (ret’d), against the defendant United States and the U.S. Department of Justice.
A full press release with information about the case can be found here:
*UPDATED*
Multiple media outlets covered the Jay Dobyns victory in the case against the ATF. J. Ernest Baird, P.C. attorney James Reedwas quoted extensively in the coverage.
ABC News: Retired Agent Awarded $173,000 in ATF Lawsuit
USA Today: Court favors ex-agent in suit against ATF
Arizona Republic and Channel 12 NBC TV News: Judge: ATF to pay $173K to ex-agent
Phoenix New Times: “Vindication” for Jay Dobyns, Ex-ATF Agent Who Infiltrated Hells Angels, After Court Ruling
Examiner: ‘No Angel’ Dobyns wins ‘David and Goliath’ challenge against ATF
Fox News: Judge rebukes ATF over treatment of agent who infiltrated Hells Angels
Twitchy: Federal Judge: ATF ‘Fast and Furious’ official’s testimony ‘unworthy of belief’
AP: Retired agent awarded $173,000 in ATF lawsuit (various other outlets picked up the AP story)
Arizona Daily Independent: Dobyns vindicated, awarded $173,000 in monetary damages
Miami Herald: Retired agent awarded $173,000 in ATF lawsuit
Town Hall: Vindicated: Agent Jay Dobyns Wins Long Court Battle With ATF
Daily Mail (UK): Retired agent awarded $173,000 in ATF lawsuit
Courthouse News Service: Feds Owe Ex-Undercover Agent for Gang Threats
Arizona Republic profiles reporter Richard Ruelas featured an article on Baird Williams & Greer partner Jim Reed in Sunday’s Republic. The article focuses on Jim’s work in the Federal Court of Claims on behalf of retired ATF Agent Jay Dobyns entitled “Jay Dobyns v. United States“. The lawsuit went seven years, resulting in a plaintiff’s verdict and the denial of the Justice Department’s counterclaims for royalties for Mr. Dobyns bestseller “No Angel: My Harrowing Undercover Journey to the Inner Circle of the Hells Angels.” The litigation law firm of Baird Williams & Greer congratulates our partner Jim Reed.
Read the full article here!
(Left to Right) J. Ernest Baird, P.C. Paralegal Jeff Elder, J. Ernest Baird, P.C. Client Jay Dobyns, J. Ernest Baird, P.C. Attorney James Reed, J. Ernest Baird, P.C. Associate Carson Emmons
Dear Messrs. Baird, Williams and Greer,
With the closing arguments of Dobyns v. USA concluded, I wanted to send you a brief message.
First, thank you for your undying support to me during this case. The courage that you displayed to allow your firm to represent me is immeasurable.
Jim is an extraordinary attorney. I am supremely honored to call him my lawyer. During the five years he has worked on this case and a Department of Justice and ATF that said they would out-resource us from the beginning, Jim never forfeited his commitment or integrity. His work ethic is unlike anything I have ever seen. The stamina and resilience he has displayed over 5 years is nothing short of amazing.
Carson routinely proved himself to be intelligent in his work and eloquent is his writing. His research and legal insights were over and over and over simply tremendous.
Jeff was a remarkable workhorse. There was no task too big, small, complex or simple that he did not overachieve on. During each court appearance, Jeff out-performed the best DOJ had to offer, and his work was not one single time trumped by anything his DOJ peers could muster.
Your staff was always friendly, kind, supportive and displayed to me the hospitality that I believe few firms would ever grace a client with.
Upon exiting the courtroom on Tuesday, all I heard was how “remarkable” and “brilliant” my lawyers were. I took a huge sense of personal pride in that. Jim, Carson and Jeff have become family to both me and my family.
I know that I am not telling you anything that you do not already know. I hope your sense of pride in Jim, Carson and Jeff is overflowing.
Respectfully,
Jay Dobyns
A.R.S. § 12-2506(A) establishes several liability in Arizona. The statute holds that each defendant is liable only for the amount of damages allocated to the defendant in direct proportion to the defendant’s percentage of fault. Section 12-2506 also provides that when assessing the percentages of each defendant’s fault, the fact finder “shall consider the fault of all persons who have contributed to the alleged injury. . . regardless of whether the person was, or could have been, named as a party to the suit.” The percentages of fault assessed against such “non-parties are used only as a vehicle for accurately determining the fault of the named parties.” Assessment of fault against a non-party does not subject a non-party to liability.
This portion of the comparative negligence/fault statutes in Arizona has been interpreted very broadly.
- The defendant is allowed to name a non-party at fault even if the plaintiff is prohibited from directly naming or recovering from such party. For example, the defendant can name the plaintiff’s employer who is otherwise immune from plaintiff’s claim. Dietz v. General Electric Co., 169 Ariz. 505, 821 P.2d 166 (1991).
- So-called “phantom” tortfeasors, which are unknown to all parties may be considered by the jury in apportioning fault. Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc., 188 Ariz. 431, 937 P.2d 353 (App. 1996) rev. denied.
- The fault of intentional tortfeasors may even be included. Natseway v. City of Tempe, 184 Ariz. 374, 909 P.2d 441 (App. 1995).
- Negligent conduct of one tortfeasor may even be compared against the intentional conduct of another. Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix, 192 Ariz. 51, 961 P.2d 449 (1998).
- Even criminal conduct of a non-party may be considered by the jury in allocating fault. Thomas v. First Interstate Bank, 187 Ariz. 488, 930 P.2d 1002 (App. 1996).
While evidence of other tortfeasors’ negligence, intentional wrongdoing, or strict liability, is still subject to Supreme Court interpretation, existing case law supports a very broad inclusion of all entities’ fault comparisons. This is of considerable advantage to a defendant who can designate non-parties at fault, resulting in the “laying off” of defendant’s liability to a non-party, which cannot defend itself. Notice of non-parties at fault must be given early in the case.
A defendant must designate non-parties at fault within one-hundred fifty days of the answer. Rule 26(b)(5). Additional time may be granted upon motion based upon newly discovered evidence.
Practice pointers. Practioners should file suit with time to spare before the statute of limitations runs, so that the 150 day deadline for naming non-parties at fault comes with sufficient time to amend the complaint to add new parties before the statute runs. Uniform Personal Injury Interrogatory, No. 5 should be served with the complaint seeking identity of non-parties at fault, facts supporting such designations and legal theories of why the non-party is at fault.
Blog
In The News
Our Location
6225 N 24th St, Ste 125
Phoenix, AZ 85016-2044
