1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 859 F.Supp.
  5. 859 F.Supp. 1273 (1994)
 

TONNEMACHER v. SASAK

CIV 89-0201-PHX-SMM.

859 F.Supp. 1273 (1994)

Pat TONNEMACHER and Charles B. Ackerman, individually and as representatives of a class, Plaintiffs, v. Timothy L. SASAK and Paula Sasak, husband and wife; et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Arizona.

February 28, 1994.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Joseph W. Bell, Fredrick P. Furth, Daniel S. Mason, Brien Kirk, Furth Fahrner & Mason, San Francisco, CA, R. Chip Larsen, James J. Farley, Farley Robinson & Larsen, Mesa, AZ, for Pat Tonnemacher and Charles B. Ackerman.

David W. Dow, Robert Clifford Hackett, John R. Hoopes, Mohr Hackett Pederson Blakley, Randolph & Haga, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Anchor Nat. Financial Services, Inc., Sunamerica and Broad, Inc.

David B. Rosenbaum, Edwin F. Hendricks, Catherine O'Grady, Meyer Hendricks Victor Osborn & Maledon, PA, Phoenix, AZ, for McDermott, Will & Emery.

David Lawrence Abney, Dan M. Durrant, Streich Lang, PA, Hal Michael Clyde, Michael W. Patten, Lynne Christensen Adams, Charles Buren Cliett, Jr., Carol A. Colombo, Brown & Bain, PA, Phoenix, AZ, for Touche, Ross & Co.

Kathleen Coughenour DeLaRosa, Jennings Kepner & Haug, Craig R. Kepner, Michael John Raymond, Raymond Greer & Sassaman, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Alexander Koller, J. Patrick McCarthy and Richard R. Morrow, III.

Larry G. Haddy, Larry G. Haddy, Ltd., Phoenix, AZ, Curtis D. Smith, Moss & Barnett, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for Creative Equity Resources, Inc.

David G. Burlingame, Denver, CO, Neil Vincent Wake, Nancy G. Oyen, Law Offices of Neil Vincent Wake, Phoenix, AZ, for Multi-Financial Securities.

Tom Galbraith, Jenae Rose Naumann, Lewis & Roca, Phoenix, AZ, for Washington Life.

Lawrence E. Wilk, Leon Benjamin Silver, Bonnie Lee Booden, Jaburg & Wilk, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for James C. Sell.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

McNAMEE, District Judge.

Defendant Touche Ross & Co. (Touche) has moved for summary judgment on Counts Three and Eight of the Amended Complaint. Touche's motion is based upon the United States Supreme Court's decision earlier this year in Reves v. Ernst & Young, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 1163, 122 L.Ed.2d 525 (1993). For the reasons set forth below, the motion for summary judgment is granted.

I. BACKGROUND...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases