HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistorical Records - Incorporation (50) 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PINAL
3
JOSEPH B . SEAMAN, JOHN F. SPAULDING, Y
4 )
•
C ; )
)
) No .
6 - )
)
7 Plaintiffs , )
8 -vs- )
)
9 THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, KENNETH W. )
HOLFORD, in his capacity as Mayor )
10 of the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, H. LAUREN )
RHUDE , in his capacity as Councilman )
11 for the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY; RICHARD )
KOLT, in his capacity as Councilman ) COMPLAINT
12 for the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY; ROBERT E . )
HANSON, in his capacity as Councilman )
13 for the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY; DOROTHY )
. MONTGOMERY, in her capacity as )
m 14 Councilwoman for the TOWN OF ORO )
VALLEY; and E. S . "Bud" WALKER, )
15 CONRAD JOYNER, JAMES MURPHY, JOSEPH )
CASTILLO and RONALD ASTA, in their )
< .4g 16 capacity as duly elected BOARD OF )
cn SUPERVISORS OF PIMA. COUNTY, ARIZONA, )
< 17 )
o wo Defendants . )
• tn 18 )
w
0
" 19
Plaintiffs for their causes of action against Defendants
allege as follows :
20
I.
21
Plaintiffs are residents of Pima Count3i., Arizona, and
22
reside in the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA.
23
• 24 11.
. 25 , Due to substantial publicity, and due to the fact that
. 26 the members of the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
27 are parties to the present action, Plaintiffs have filed this
28 action in The Superior Court of Pinal County, Arizona.
29
III.
30
Plaintiffs , as taxpayers and residents of ORO VALLEY,
31
ARIZONA, have an interest in, and a stake in, the preservation of
32
"good government" as provided in A.R. S . 9-240(29) .
1 IV.
2 The interests of Plaintiffs have been harmed due to the
3 political in-fighting, name calling, and trial by press of the
4 issue of the propriety of the incorporation of the TOWN OF ORO
5 VALLEY; an issue previously settled by the Arizona Supreme Court .
6
V.
7
Plaintiffs believe that the Defendants , and each of them,
8
have to the detriment of the residents of ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA,
9
entered into political arrangements , to sabotage the interest of
10 —r
Pima County' s newest town.
11
12 VI .
13 Plaintiffs believe that rather than conduct the business
ITJ 14 of government, that the Mayor and Council of the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ,
15 have been using their positions , not for the public weal , but to
o tc)
al J ai
1-4 4z 16 further their own political beliefs concerning the incorporation
<
< 17 of ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA.
u
« sal ° 18
—1 w VII.
u: 0
N 19
C74 " The TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, and its duly constituted Mayor
20
and Council, have neglected the affairs of the Town, to gain
21
support at a drive for disincorporation headed by members of the
22
Town Council.
23
24 VIII .
25 Pima County, through its duly Board of Supervisors , and
26 the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, through its duly constituted Mayor and
27 Council, have entered into a Contract , a copy of which is annexed
28 hereto and is enumerated as Exhibit 1 and made a part of this
29 Complaint by reference thereto as is fully set forth herein. Said
30 Contract lacks legal consideration, and is , therefore, void.
31
32
-2-
1 IX.
2 Plaintiffs believe Defendants , TOWN OF ORO VALLEY,
3 KENNETH W. HOLFORD, H. LAUREN RHUDE , RICHARD KOLT, and DOROTHY
4 MONTGOMERY should be restrained by thisCourtfrom spending any
5 of the resources of the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY or any of its residents
6 on a Contract devoid of merit .
7
X.
8
The Contract referred to as Exhibit 1 was entered into
9
by the Town and the County for the sole purpose of aiding the drive
10
for disincorporation of ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA. TO WIT : The Contract
11
was but a guise to impose debt upon the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY.
12
13 XI.
x 2 14 The Contract referred as Exhibit I hereunder provides
rc" 15 for no additional services other than those 'previously rendered
as a)
16 by the County of Pima for the residents of ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA.
co
ZZW <
. 17
XII.
• r cn
< ?(1 U 18
w In addition, the Defendants have performed none of their
u: 0
N 19
N major duties to the residents of ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA.
20
21 XIII.
22 'Though the records of the affairs of the TOWN OF ORO
23 VALLEY are in the hands of the Mayor and Council, it is believed
.24 by the Plaintiffs that the Mayor and Council have been derelict
25 in their duties in numerous occasions and in many ways . Inter
26 alia, Defendants have failed to properly collect traffic fines
27 and citations , revenue property generated via in taxing power,
28 and have failed to seek out that aide, such as revenue sharing
29 funds , and federal funds , available to entities such as the TOWN
30 OF ORO VALLEY.
31
XIV.
32
Plaintiffs believe that Defendants are attempting to
_3_
1 force the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY to disincorporate , despite the rulings
2 of the Arizona Supreme Court to the effect that ORO VALLEY is
3 properly incorporated.
4 WHEREFORE , Plaintiffs pray for the following from
5 Defendants :
6 (1) That Defendants be restrained from taking any action
7 inimical to the best wishes of ORO VALLEY and its residents .
8 (2) That the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY be restrained from pro-
9 viding any money on the Contract referred to herein.
10 (3) That the Court restrain all parties hereto from
11 making ORO VALLEY' s disincorporation a prize in a political game.
12 (4) That the Court cancel the Contract set forth in.
. 13 Exhibit 1 of this Complaint.
• 2 14 (5) That the Court order Defendants KENNETH W. HOLFORD,
o > „)
cc 5• / h
15 H. LAUREN RHUDE, RICHARD KOLT ROBERT E . HANS ON, and DOROTHY
czs
16 MONTGOMERY, to act as provided in A. R. S 9-204.
• >- NJ
•—1 fa) Ed-
Z <- 17 (6) That the Court afford such other and further relief
0 a) g
ct t— cn
« a<1 18 as is reasonable and proper under the circumstances .
tz 0
0- N 19 (7) That the Court award Plaintiffs their costs incurred
17-4
20 herein. •
21
ZIPF, LARKIN, LYLE & ROGERS
22
23 By
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
24 220 East Speedway Boulevard
Tucson, Arizona 85705
25
STATE OF ARIZONA)
26 ) ss :
COUNTY OF PIMA )
27
28 HENRY ZIPF, upon his oath, deposes and says : •That he
29 is the attorney in the aforementioned Complaint ; _that the contents
30 thereof were true to the best of his knowledge and belief, and
31 that he was duly authorized by his clients to execute and file
32
-4-
_
1 said Complaint .
2
3 HENRY ZIPF
4
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
5
December, 1974, by HENRY ZIPF.
6
7
NOTARY PUBLIC
8
My Commission Expires :
9
10
11
12
. 13
to
14
W d
> to
°�
W 51h 15
0 �
di -d� s m
� Qao 16
}� N N
>. D
Za4 17
Y 0 O
� ~ Fr 18
d
WI..
IL: 0
�- 19
�» N
N
20
21
22
23
-24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
-5-