1 Roy Warden

2 1015 W. Prince Road

3 Suite 131-182
4 Tucson, Arizona 85705
5 (520) 300-4596
6 roywarden1@netzero.net
7
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA
10

ROY WARDEN, ) Case No. C20095747

Plaintiff, IN FORMA )
)
PAUPERIS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
)
Vs COMPENSATORY AND EXEMPLARY
)
DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF ORAL
)
CONTRACT, ABUSE OF PROCESS,
SUZANNE DUGAN, CASSANDRA KING, )
CONSPIRACY, AND INTENTIONAL
BETTE GLOVER, RATHBUN REALTY, )
INFLICTION OF MENTAL DISTRESS
)
INC. and DOES 1-10 )
THE HONORABLE STEPHEN VILLA-
)
Defendants. RREAL
)
)
11

12 COMES NOW ROY WARDEN, Plaintiff in the above entitled action, with a
13 Complaint for Damages against the Defendants, named and unnamed above, and as
14 grounds therefore alleges:
15 I. INTRODUCTION

16 1. This action arises out of breach of oral contract, abuse of process, conspiracy, and
17 intentional infliction of mental distress.
18 II. JURISDICTION & VENUE
19 2. This court has jurisdiction over this action under Article VI § 14 of the Arizona
20 Constitution as the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 (ten thousand dollars).
21 Venue is proper in Pima County, as all of the acts complained of occurred in Pima
22 County Arizona.
23 III. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
24 3. Pursuant to Rule 38(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff requests a trial by
25 jury.
26

27

1
 1 IV. IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES

2 4. Plaintiff Roy Warden, writer and publisher of political newsletters Common

3 Sense II, CS II Press and Director of the Tucson Weekly Public Forum, is a
4 citizen of the United States, a political activist, and was a resident of Pima
5 County Arizona at all times relevant to this complaint.
6 5. Defendant Suzanne Dugan, residing at 4602 E. Glenn Street, Tucson Arizona, is
7 a former landlord of Plaintiff Roy Warden, is believed to be a citizen of the
8 United States and was a resident of Pima County Arizona at all times relevant to
9 this complaint.
10 6. Defendant Cassandra King, employed by Defendant Rathbun Realty, Inc. is
11 believed to be a citizen of the United States and a resident of Pima County at all
12 times relevant to this complaint.
13 7. Defendant Bette Glover, employed by Defendant Rathbun Realty, Inc. is
14 believed to be a citizen of the United States and a resident of Pima County at all
15 times relevant to this complaint.
16 8. Defendant Rathbun Realty, Inc., an Arizona corporation with offices located at
17 7447 E. 22nd Street, Tucson Arizona, was employed by, and acted as, Agent for
18 Defendant Suzanne Dugan at all times relevant to this complaint.
19 9. Does 1-10 are believed to be Tucson City employees, Pima County employees,
20 Arizona State employees, and others, who advised and /or directed Defendants in
21 the commission of unlawful acts which are the subject of this lawsuit.
22 V. FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS

23 10. On July 26, 2006, subsequent to a series of acrimonious Special Detainer Actions
24 initiated by all Defendants and Plaintiff’s eviction from the premises owned by
25 Defendant Suzanne Dugan located at 4602 E. Glenn Road, Tucson Arizona,
26 Plaintiff accepted Defendant’s Cassandra King and Betty Glover’s oral offer to
27 grant Plaintiff an additional three days to return to clean the premises, remove his
28 belongings, etc.
29 11. On the morning of July 27, 2007 Plaintiff met Defendant Rathbun representative
30 “Mathew” at the premises located at 4602 E. Glenn Street, Tucson Arizona.

2
 1 12. Mathew provided Plaintiff access and informed Plaintiff he (Matthew) would
2 return by 4:00 pm to secure the premises until the following day, when Plaintiff,
3 as per agreement, was to return and resume his move out / cleaning activities.
4 13. Shortly thereafter Defendant Dugan called the Tucson Police Department and re-
5 ported that Plaintiff was trespassing.
6 14. Tucson Police Department then informed Plaintiff the Defendants “did not want
7 to honor their agreement,” and gave Plaintiff 5 minutes to vacate.
8 15. Shortly thereafter Plaintiff faxed a letter to Defendant’s counsel, Blyth Edmon-
9 on, requesting an inventory of his property and permission to return to clean the
10 premises because he could not afford a cleaning crew.
11 16. On August 09, 2006 Plaintiff informed Defendants of his new mailing address.
12 17. On or about September 27, 2006 Plaintiff spoke with “Sharon”, a Rathbun em-
13 ployee, who informed Plaintiff Rathbun planned to store his property for “the
14 next several months,” that Plaintiff could arrange for the release of his property
15 upon payment of storage fees due, and promised that Rathbun would contact
16 Plaintiff should there be any change in their plans.
17 18. On or about October 26, 2006, Plaintiff called Rathbun and spoke with “Susan,”
18 who informed Plaintiff Rathbun had “disposed” of Plaintiff’s property.
19 19. On November 03, 2006 Plaintiff sent a letter to Rathbun requesting the inventory
20 of his property, the name and location of the facility where his property was
21 allegedly “disposed” and the names of the Rathbun employees who had taken his
22 property from storage.
23 20. On November 10, 2006 Plaintiff sent a “follow up” letter to Defendant Rathbun,
24 again requesting the location of his “disposed” property, so he could attempt to
25 recuperate his property, which included “…priceless family memorabilia, in-
26 cluding irreplaceable family photos, and tens of thousands of dollars of art,
27 antiques, electronics, stereos, computer equipment, clothing, books, etc” as well
28 as numerous hand knotted oriental carpets.
29 21. On or about November 29, 2006 Plaintiff received a letter written by Defendant
30 Cassandra King confirming Defendants had “thrown away” Plaintiff’s property,

3
 1 and that “(a)s far as items worth thousands of dollars, we did not see anything of
2 the sort.”
3 22. On November 14, 2007 Plaintiff filed in Pima County Superior Court his first
4 Complaint for Damages against Suzanne Dugan, Cassandra King and Rathbun
5 Realty, Inc. Plaintiff’s first complaint did not plead breach of oral contract.
6 23. On December 12, 2007, as a direct response to Plaintiff filing his first Complaint
7 for Damages as set forth in paragraph 22, Defendants Cassandra King and Betty
8 Glover conspired with persons presently unknown to Plaintiff and, as a tactic
9 intended to cause Plaintiff mental anguish and to gain advantage in the suit
10 Plaintiff had filed against them, filed Petitions for Injunction Against Harass-
11 ment in Tucson City Court.
12 24. In their Petitions, Defendants King and Glover alleged Defendant physically
13 assaulted Defendant Glover outside the Pima County Justice Court in July 2006,
14 screamed at both Defendants and threatened both Defendants with a gun.
15 25. Subsequent to the alleged July 2006 incident, neither Defendant King or Glover
16 filed a police report or sought Plaintiff’s arrest, even though Plaintiff’s alleged
17 conduct amounted to Felony Assault.
18 26. In their Petitions filed December 12, 2007, Defendants King and Glover claimed
19 Plaintiff “has begun to contact us again,” and “he has now reappeared and is
20 continuing this behavior” even though Plaintiff had no contact with either
21 Defendant since July 2006.
22 27. Subsequent to the Court granting Defendants King and Glover their Petitions for
23 Injunction Against Harassment on December 12, 2007, neither Defendant
24 attempted to serve Plaintiff or notify him of said Injunctions.
25 28. On or about October 03, 2008 Defendants King and Glover appeared in Tucson
26 City Court and made material misrepresentations regarding Plaintiff’s alleged
27 harassment.
28 29. On November 07, 2008, on the Plaintiff’s motion, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s
29 first Complaint for Damages against the above named Defendants, without pre-
30 judice, pursuant to Rule 38.1 (d).

4
 1 30. On July 22, 2009 Plaintiff filed in Pima County Superior Court a Complaint for
2 Compensatory and Exemplary Damages for Breach of Oral Contract, Abuse of
3 Process, Conspiracy, Conversion and Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress.
4 31. On November 09, 2009, Plaintiff filed in Pima County Superior Court his First
5 Amended Complaint which corrected several grammatical, spelling and typo-
6 graphical errors and deleted Conversion as a cause of action.
7 VI. COUNT ONE: BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT
8 32. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
9 1-31 as fully set forth within.
10 33. On July 27, 2006 Defendants’ breached their oral contract with Plaintiff as set
11 forth in paragraphs 10-14, resulting in Plaintiff’s loss of personal items; a direct
12 and proximate cause of all Plaintiff’s damages alleged herein.
13 VII. COUNT TWO: ABUSE OF PROCESS
14 34. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
15 1-33 as fully set forth within.
16 35. On December 12, 2007 Defendants King and Glover made material misrepre-
17 sentations to the Court for the purpose of obtaining an Order of Protection in
18 order to besmirch Plaintiff’s credibility and gain themselves advantage in
19 Plaintiff’s suit for damages, as set forth in paragraphs 22-27 above.
20 36. On or about October 03, 2008 Defendants King and Glover again made material
21 misrepresentations to the Court for the purpose of maintaining an Order of Pro-
22 tection in order to besmirch Plaintiff’s credibility and gain themselves advantage
23 in Plaintiff’s suit for damages, as set forth in paragraphs 22-28 above.
24 37. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s material misrepresentations were a direct and
25 proximate cause of Plaintiff’s claims for emotional damages, as set forth herein.
26 VIII. COUNT THREE: CONSPIRACY
27 38. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
28 1- 37 as fully set forth within.
29 39. Defendants conspired with each other, and with others whose identity is pre-
30 sently unknown to Plaintiff, and implemented a plan to commit a series of un-

5
 1 lawful acts against Plaintiff, commencing on or about July 27, 2006 and con-
2 tinuing on through October 03, 2008.
3 40. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s conspiracy was the direct and proximate cause
4 of Plaintiff’s claim for damages as set forth herein.
5 IX. COUNT FOUR: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF MENTAL DISTRESS
6 41. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
7 1-40 as fully set forth within.
8 42. Defendants knew Plaintiff was under medical treatment for stress related illness.
9 Defendant’s acts, especially their destruction of Plaintiff’s irreplaceable family
10 photographs and memorabilia of great historical significance, and their filing
11 Petitions for Injunction Against Harassment on December 12, 2007 and testi-
12 mony offered the Court on October 03, 2008, were intentionally calculated to
13 cause Plaintiff great emotional anguish, and in fact did cause Plaintiff great
14 emotional distress, as set forth herein..
15 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

16 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court:

17 a) Award Plaintiff compensatory damages in the amount of $150,000 (one hundred
18 fifty thousand dollars) for Defendants’ Breach of Oral Contract, Abuse of Pro-
19 cess, Conspiracy, and Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress.
20 b) Award Plaintiff exemplary damages in the amount of $350,000 (three hundred
21 fifty thousand dollars) as an example to Defendants, and, to deter other land-
22 lords and their agents from acting in a similar malicious and unlawful manner;
23 c) Grant such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper.

24 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 09th day of November, 2009

25
26 _________________________
27 Roy Warden, Plaintiff
28
29
30
31
32
33

6
 1 State of Arizona
2 County of _____________
3
4 On this ____day of ____________________, 2009, before me the
5 undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared Roy Warden, known to me to be
6 the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the same
7 to be his free act and deed.
8
9 My Commission Expires:_______________ ___________________________
10 Notary
11