- 7 -
to have a new address for his former spouse, who (according to
Mr. Luca) had remarried and taken the last name of “London”.7
While Mr. Luca did not provide such address on the phone
message,8 petitioners’ counsel stated that he expected to have
such address within a week and that he would provide it to the
Court and respondent at that time.
In addition to information regarding potential addresses for
Ms. Luca, counsel for petitioners further represented to the
Court that (1) Ms. Luca at one point had possession of the 16
boxes of copied business records, (2) Mr. Luca had been informed
by his attorney in the divorce proceeding that Ms. Luca had
destroyed such copies, and (3) the records pertaining to Mr.
Luca’s business (originally seized by the Arizona Attorney
General’s office) allegedly had been turned over to Federal
prosecutors.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court continued the
case and took respondent’s motion to dismiss under advisement.
The Court also ordered respondent to serve the motion to dismiss
on Ms. Luca using the Warm Springs address. This attempted
service by certified mail was returned to respondent as
undeliverable with a notation of “Forwarding Order Expired”.
7 Petitioners’ counsel was unsure of whether Ms. Luca’s new
last name was spelled “London” or “Londen”.
8 Petitioners’ counsel indicated that this failure was due
to the time constraints imposed by his answering machine.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011