|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... |
In CASE NO: CV25-04158-PHX-SMB: In the Arizona Federal District Court, Plaintiffs Filed Omnibus Reply to Defendants’ Responses to Vacate May 28, 2026, Order as Void.
On July 6, 2026, plaintiffs in the Arizona federal case submitted an “Omnibus Reply to Responses from Defendants MetLife, CubeSmart, and Katie Hobbs et al.”, renewing their demand that the court vacate its May 28, 2026, order.
The filing argues that the order is not merely interlocutory but functions as a final disposition that removed the minor children and surviving parents from the case. Plaintiffs contend the order violates Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-612 by stripping the children of party-in-interest status in a matter involving the death of their father, Timothy.
Core Arguments in the Reply
The Plaintiffs Assert the May 28 Order Is Void for Multiple Reasons:
- Fraud on the Court: They assert the order was obtained through suppression of evidence, including a 106-page certified criminal complaint sent to federal and state officials regarding alleged kidnapping and felony murder.
- Jurisdictional Nullity: Citing Stump v. Sparkman and Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., they argue Judge Brnovich acted in the clear absence of jurisdiction by adjudicating issues tied to ongoing criminal allegations and by denying statutory party status to the children.
- Child Endangerment Claims: The reply states the court had a mandatory duty to act on evidence of the children’s safety (including protection orders and a paternity order) but instead facilitated continued endangerment. Two of the minor children are described as autistic.
- ADA and Vulnerable Adult Violations: Plaintiffs claim violations of Title II of the ADA and Arizona’s vulnerable adult statutes (ARS § 46-451 et seq.), stating the court failed to provide meaningful access and exploited the disabilities and youth of the children.
The filing also accuses the responding defendants’ attorneys of breaching Rule 11 by defending an order the plaintiffs describe as corrupt and void.
Defendants’ Position (as Characterized)
The reply characterizes the defendants’ responses as relying on a technical reading of Rule 60(b) to label the order interlocutory. Plaintiffs counter that, under *Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp.* and the collateral order doctrine, the practical effect of the order was final because it gutted the First Amended Complaint on the core issue of the children’s status and safety.
Requested Relief
Plaintiffs ask the court to:
- Vacate the May 28, 2026, Order in full.
- Recognize the children and parents as parties in interest under ARS § 12-612.
- Refer the alleged criminal conduct to appropriate authorities.
The plaintiffs’ motion maintains that judicial immunity does not protect orders used to shield ongoing felonies and that the order constitutes a “manifest injustice.”
This is the latest in a series of pro se filings in the case. No hearing date on the motion to vacate has been set as of the filing. See video, Broken System, A Fight for Children’s Rights.
Help Restore the Children’s Civil and Human Rights. Click Here to Donate to the Stone’s Legal Fund.
