Ronald Sell vs. Cynthia Beakly Injunction Prohibiting Harassment – Maricopa

ronald_sell_cynthia_beakly_injuction_harassment

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA COUNTY OF Maricopa STATE OF ARIZONA

Defendant

EIRNING THIS IS AN OFFICIAL COURT ORDER. IF YOU DISOBEY THIS ORDER, THE COURT MAY FIND YOU IN CONTEMPT OF COURT. YOU MAY ALSO BE ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED FOR THE CRIME OF INTERFERING WITH JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AND ANY OTHER CRIME YOU MAY HAVE COMMITTED IN DISOBEYING THIS ORDER.

NOTE: THIS INJUNCTION IS EFFECTIVE ON THE DEFENDANT ON SERVICE OF A COPY OF TEE INJUNCTION UPON THE DEFENDANT AND THE INJUNCTION EXPIRES, UNLESS RENEWED, SIX MONTHS AFTER SERVICE ON THE DEFENDANT. YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING IF YOU FILE A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR HEARING WITH THE COURT. A- HEARING WILL BE HELD WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM THE DATE REQUESTED UNLESS THE COURT FINDS COMPELLING REASONS TO CONTINUE TEE HEARING.

E/The Court has reviewed:

‘ D/ The Plaintiff’s petition D Other pleadings D/ Other evidence offered by the Plaintiff ‘ Upon finding that there is reasonable evidence of harassment of the Plaintiff by the‘Defendant and that good cause exists to believe great or irreparable harm would result to the Plaintiff if the injunction is not granted before-the Defendant or his attorneypan be heard in opposition, After hearing and the Court-finding good cause,

IT IS ORDERED pursuant to A.R.S. § 12—1809:

D/ TH 1,. the Defendant shall nt: , . If, I f I 111/ ’ yuan: ‘{u .41 .11.; I amt a: ’1 KL: 4-1 I .. zlégfli ‘ v ” ’

WHITE-Court CANARY-Defendant PINK-Plaintiff GOLDENROD-Retum of Service to Court

3899-14121 R533 ‘ Page 1 dz(t y c. d

\”

B/THAT the Defendant stay away from the following locations or persons (addresses provided):

[j Plaintiffs home: 303/ élzc £29m: fl pt 3’72/ @Mg/g 4??”

E/Plaintiff’s place of employment: 55”. 39’? g ‘7’ W £W/X 522.

, / , , [2/ Other locati (s: .1471: I “he” ” ,1 III ” ’-’ ” “A 1…;

D GRANTING Other Relief:

Date ‘ //92″97

DBSCRIPTIOH OP barman

Efi-fi

3899-141 :2 R533 Page 2 of 2

Charles Kendall vs Melanie Kelly and East Valley Family Physicians

charles_kendall_vs_melanie_kelly_eastvalleyfamily

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA CHARLES KENDALL, a single man, Case No.2 Plaintiff, vs . COMPLAINT

(Medical Negligence) EAST VALLY FAMILY PHYSICIANS, P.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company; MELANIE KELLY and JOHN DOE KELLY, wife and husband Defendants.

For his Complaint against Defendants, Plaintiff Charles

Kendall alleges as follows:

1. Plaintiff is a single man residing in Maricopa County, Arizona.

2. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have caused events to occur in Maricopa County, Arizona, out of which his

claims arise, therefore, venue is proper in this Court.

3. The amount in controversy exceeds the

jurisdictional minimum of this Court, therefore, jurisdiction is

proper in this Court.

4. Defendant East Valley Family Physicians is an Arizona corporation doing business in Maricopa County, Arizona.

5. Defendant Melanie Kelly’ was married to John Doe

Kelly and was acting on behalf of their marital community at all times material to this Complaint.

6. Defendant Melanie Kelley and. East Valley Family Physicians were licensed healthcare providers as defined in A.R.S. S 12—561 at all times material to this Complaint.

7. Defendant Melanie Kelly’ was the actual agent of Defendant East Valley Family Physicians, acting in the course and scope of her agency, at all times material to this Complaint.

26, 2003, Defendant Melanie Kelly

8. On December

improperly injected Toradol into Plaintiff’s left arm.

9. Defendant Melanie Kelly’s actions fell below the

standard of care applicable to her. 10. Plaintiff sustained a severe left radial neuropathy

as a direct and. proximate result of Defendant Melanie Kelly’s

negligence.

11. The neuropathy has caused Plaintiff to suffer

painful physical and emotional injuries including the loss of most of the use of his left arm. He has incurred medical expenses and likely will need medical treatment in the future. He has lostincome and likely will lose future income.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully asks this Court to

enter judgment in his favor and against Defendants as follows:

A. Awarding him an amount sufficient to compensate him

for his past and future pain, suffering, hedonic damages, and

economic losses arising out of the injuries caused by Defendant Melanie Kelly’s negligence;

B. Awarding hi“! the costs and fees associated with this suit to which he is entitled under Arizona law; and

C. Awarding such further relief as the Court deems

just and proper. , DATED this 2!: day of October, 2004.

ROBBINS & GREEN, P.A.

BY ‘0 R1 Vh~Adehl John P. Ager 3300 North Central Avenue Suite 1800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012—2518 Attorneys for Plaintiff

265647V1

Matthew Kelly vs. Melanie Kelly-Brit – Maricopa Family Court

matthew_kelly_vs_melanie_kelly_britt

MICHAELK. JEANES Clerk of the Superior Court By sheila panicki, Denny

Date 10/20/2014 Time 14:64:17

Matthew J. Kelly Descriptim 811381111: 1126 W. Elliot Road, #2032 –——– CRSEll 17132014095670 Chandler, AZ 85224 11H) 11 (480)221-0083 mum WI}in 601 338.00 mkelly@kelly—mccoy.com W» ——

181911. min $56.00

Razeiptli 24096045

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA FC2014-095670

In re the Marriage of:

MATTHEW J. KELLY,

No.

PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION OF NON-COVENANT MARRIAGE

and (With Children) MELANIE M. KELLY,

Petitioner,

Respondent.

Petitioner Matthew J. Kelly, for his Petition for Dissolution of Non-Covenant Marriage, alleges as follows:

1. Petitioner, Matthew J. Kelly (“Petitioner”), was born on October 21, 1974 (age 39), his Social Security Number is listed on the Family Court Sensitive Data Coversheet included with this Petition, and his occupation is attorney. Petitioner’s address is 1126 W. Elliot Road, #2032, Chandler, AZ 85224, and he has been domiciled in Arizona for more than 90 days.

2. Respondent, Melanie M. Kelly (“Respondent”), was born on July 1, 1973

(age 41), her Social Security Number is listed on the Family Court Sensitive Data

Coversheet included with this Petition, and her occupation is physician assistant.I)

N

\DOONQU’I-b

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

‘18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Respondent’s address is 1633 W. Manor Street, Chandler, AZ 85224, and she has been domiciled in Arizona for more than 90 days.

3. The parties were married on June 8, 1996, in Flagstaff, Coconino County, Arizona and since that time have been and are now husband and wife. —-

4. This marriage is not a covenant marriage.

5. The parties’ marriage is irretrievably broken and there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. The conciliation provisions of A.R.S. § 25-38109 either do not apply or have been met. Petitioner has complied with, or prior to finalizing this case, will comply with the domestic relations education provisions of A.R.S. § 35—3 52.

6. The parties have three children in common: Lucas Matthew Kelly, age 12; Owen Rivers Kelly, age 9; and Tate Skinner Kelly, age 6. The children’s residential address, Social Security Number and date of birth are not listed to maintain confidentiality and privacy, but instead are listed on the Family Court Sensitive Data Coversheet filed simultaneously herewith.

7. Petitioner has not participated as a party or witness or in any other capacity in any other proceeding concerning the custody of or visitation with any child listed herein.

8. Petitioner does not know of any proceeding that could affect the current proceeding, including proceedings for enforcement and proceedings relating to domestic violence, protective orders, termination of parental rights and adoptions.

9. Petitioner does not know of any person who is not named as a party in this proceeding that has physical custody of, or claims rights of legal custody or physical custody of, or visitation with any child subject of this action.

10. Wife is not currently pregnant.

11. Neither party has committed an act of domestic violence against the other party.

12. This Court currently has jurisdiction to determine custody of the minor

children common to the parties because the minor children have lived with Petitioner or 21 Respondent in Arizona for at least the last six months or other factors exist that confer jurisdiction upon Arizona in accordance with A.R.S. § 25—1031(A).

13. Upon information and belief, the parties have reached the following

hWN

agreements on custody, parenting time, child support and spousal maintenance: Child Custody: The parties shall have joint custody. Parenting Time: The parties shall have essentially equal parenting time. Child Support: Except in the event of a substantial and continuous change in

circumstances, no party shall have a child support obligation to the other party.

\OOO‘QOM

Spousal Maintenance: Neither party shall be entitled to spousal maintenance.

10 WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, Petitioner respectfully requests that the 11 Court:

12 A. Order that the marriage between the parties be dissolved, and the parties 13 restored to the status of single persons.

14 B. Award both parties the joint legal custody of the parties’ minor children in 15 accordance with the agreements of the parties set forth in a written parenting plan to be 16 submitted to the Court and such other provisions determined by the Court to be in the best 17 interests of the children.

18 C. Award essentially equal parenting time in accordance with the written 19 parenting plan to be submitted with the final Decree or Judgment, or alternatively in the 20 best interests of the children. I

21 D. Order that, except in the event of a substantial and continuous change in

22 circumstances, neither party be awarded child support.

23 E. Order that neither party be awarded spousal maintenance.

24 F. Order the equitable division of the parties’ assets and liabilities;

25 G. Confirm the parties’ respective sole and separate assets;

26 H. Order that each party pay all debts incurred by him or her, respectively,

27 from the date this Petition is served;

28 I. Order each party to pay their own attorneys’ fees and costs; and 310 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

J. Order such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.

DATED: October 20, 2014.

STATE OF ARIZONA

County of Maricopa

Petitioner Matthew J. Kelly, being first duly sworn upon oath, states that he is the Petitioner in the above-entitled matter; that he has read the foregoing Petition and that the

)

) ss.

)

Q

Matthew J. Kelly Petitioner

same is true, correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 20th day of October 2014, by

Matthew J. Kelly.

My Commission Expires:

LlL/Hp {15/

f mam-mum

Q,

Matthew J. Kelly

(wt

Notary Public

0m SEN. LISA PIJSKO

MARICOPA COUNTY m Comm. mm 16. 2015

Susan Sell vs Ronald Sell – Maricopa County Family Court

susan_sell_vs_ronald_sell_maricopa

Maria P; Stein. Esq. State No. 009568 STEIN and STEIN, P.C.

1 2826 south Carriage Lane VSuite 100

1 Mesa, Arizona_ 85202 (602) 820-1421

Attorneys for Petitioner

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE 8131. O? AIIIOIR IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF HRIICDRB In Re the marriage of: SUSAN H. SELL, Petitioner, *and

PETITION FOR DISSOLUTHN‘ OF MARRIAGE

(with Children)

RONALD J. SELL,

Respondent.

vwvwvvvvvvvv

R

Petitioner. SUSAN H. SELL, by and through her counsel, Maria 9. Stein of 3mm and swam, P.C. , hereby alleges as f llows:

1. Petitioner is, 39- years ‘of £93. her ‘ ~-

address is 2494 NOrth El Dorado Circle, Chandler, Agizaugs“

Petitioner is a homemaker. > i _ > 23”».Respondent is 38 Years of age ané his Illiyh, address is 2494 Nbrth El Dorado.Circ1e, Chandler; Arizona 87 Respondent’s occupation is a physician. 7‘ ~f3r . The parties hereto Here harried on or aboute¥> .11, ‘1979-7inv Greenville, Pennsylvania, and ever since that ‘

been and are now husband and uifegtr’v4. Respondent is not pregnant. 5. Respondent is not in the military service ‘ United States of America.

~ Themarriag‘ebetween the-pan“ <~ r v

i : broken and there is no reasonable prolpcct for

conciliation provisions of 33.8. 15481.09 It lug. Oi ‘ apply or have been met.‘

7. .-Petitioner and lie-pendent have boon ’ Maricopa County,r~Arizona,, for more than ninety (90) d!!! ‘ the filing of this Petition.

8. The parties [have four minor childron m the :,parties} namely: RYAN’P. SELL, born June 4. 1986, ‘ born June 4, 1986,‘ ADAM’SELL, born November 15. 1997 and SELL, born September 4, 1990. I V

I The Court has jurisdiction I has ”

‘ decide child custody matters because the minor

domiciled in Arizona and Arizona is ’11:!» state“ children. _ L V ‘ 1C2 Petitioner should be awarded sole custody

minor children; Respondent should have reasonable 1 the children pursuant to: visitation v’ ‘Maricopa County Domestic Relations I; 11. ‘ Respondent, should pay cayreasonabile amount child support consistentwith Child, I n _.and..A.R..s..5259320,.W.melamunt of shim support should be {as each, child turns (V18),years of age, and if

Vi- reaches the age: of majority the child is attendinéschool, child.- suppert should continue to be ,meperiod,which the child is actually.attand1ng high schoolr .A;

. < Assignment for such amount should inane. _

, Rewmt..’h6u1d, m .. I tr dental insurance for the minor children and aha-11¢! I ELPercent, (1.040%) of all medical and dental W i‘children. ‘ ‘ 1

a ‘m

q

,13.‘ ‘The parties should file joint federal income tax returns for the year of 1994 and equallyvinflthereceipt of any refunds p

1‘ obligation owed.

a _» : v 1.4…Petitioner is without I aufficient fund. support and. is temporarily unable to obtain I V’fRespondent is in control of the bulk of the ecnlunity earning sufficient sums of money from euployuent and sufficient suns of money from investments and should be

a pay a reasonable sum as and for spousal uaintenanoet;

. V . :15. v Respondent should maintain Petitioner irrevocable-beneficiary on a life insurance policy i life in sumsflenfficient to cover any remaining at: rmimzenanee and child support for so long as V

2i and child support are owed. ‘ i

_ , I. x 16.: Petitioner shouldrbe awarded the mid-act

12494 7-31,: Dorado Circle, Chamiler, Arizona 3-52ng

-?§ ~:’ ..»a~~11m¢¢Duringlflutmarr1398,«flutpartieslunNhacquireQT ‘J’Ointpcomon; and community property all of axial: equitably divide; During the marriage, theincurred: joint ,‘ common, and comunity liabilities should equitably divide. ‘ i 18. Petitioner has certain property the marriage and/b: “du’fifi”g'” thaterrfiée. “as ’a” f, _ inheritance, which should be affirmed as her ‘mlof and

property .

19-” ‘1‘“? Personal property. including m

accounts, which were acquired or established for the ciao: of the parties, should remain the property. of _

9 children– arid- should notfbe comingled with ath at

parties. y ‘ ‘ 7 ~20. . Petitioner is without sufficient financier/l to» pay for beret-attorney’s fees (other than. initial.

‘fee) and court1costs ,., accountant’s fees and appraisal Respondent”. should be. ordered to e reasoxiablc contribution to these costs .7 V

21,. The parties have not entered into an oral WHEREFORE. Petitioner prays that- this Court will ‘7 the following Orders: ‘5 L in “1., 1 Entera Decree of Dissolution of ‘ 2.: waardin’gzto the Petitioner sole custody of ”

children ‘ of thiammarriage subject to Petitioner?s iv 7

visitationi-rights-pursuant to the visitation guidel’ihes is

the’Maricopa _- County Don‘testic Relations Handbook; Requiring,.Respondent and for; child“suPPOI-it.consistent with the Axizoua”5Child ‘

Guidelines and ‘A’.R~.S.~_§25-320. A Wage Assignmentflfor such:~

4should issue.

4. Requiring Respondent to pay for and

and dental insurance for the minor children and that , , “‘s‘hOUTd”paY*One Hundred Percent (moir’af ‘ Vdental expenses for the minor children.

5. Ordering the parties to file joint federal and income tax returns_for the year of 199‘ and they Ibflfili”“§ ,equally in the ..-receipt i of any refund. and the

«one ave-a. 3’»- u to

obligation owed.

‘3’. we

w-fi. v Requiring Respondent to pay a reasonable sun as fifié

H H

for spousal maintenance.

H r to

7. Requiring Respondent to maintain Petitioner ijiflfi

‘H V“:

irrevocable beneficiary on a life insurance policy on

H 1‘

~1ife in sums sufficient to cover remaining suns owed an

~01‘

.maintenance and child support for so long as spousal an n J

a . c:

and child support are owed.

8. Ordering the payment of connunity debts and £33

it ~a

equitable division of community property of the parties as Ode

forth herein cove.

‘8 :3″;

9. Ordering *that‘yRespondentr be ordered to p:y~»

N a

,reasonahle amount as contribution to the costs of Petitioner1 rattorneyis fees (other than her initial retainer fee). and coat:

rcosts, accountant’s fees and appraisal fees.

3 a a: :53 rib: ism. r , P d m t 8 an

83

V lSTATE 01″. A3120“ ,.

I e ), as?” _ )

‘ County of Maricopa I,;. ’SUSANH’. SELL, Petitioner in the foregoing glha-ve read the foregoing r-Petition for Dissolution of Herring. ml kntwthev matters set: forth therein to be true to bolt (l _khew1edge,-ex¢ept those matters alleged upon information “V V I “7: ,Ia’ncri, as to such matters, they are believed ta be

4 DATED this m day of February, 1995. ‘

SUBSCRIBED AND ‘SWORN to-before- this of

” ‘_ February, 1995 .

Commissi n Expires: ‘ ‘ ‘ .v fll’ozwdasaexdxsuommam

an a: t t at