Page 1

Dennis I. Wilenchik, #005350 John D. Wilenchik, #029353 David A. Timchak, #032095 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE CJ DESIGN & CORPORATION, Corporation;

CONSTRUCTION Court of Appeals No. 1 CA-CV 17-0727 an Arizona Maricopa County Superior Court No.: CV2017-012173 Plaintiff/Appellant,

v. 668 NORTH LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company; DAVID C. TEDESCO and GEMMA TEDESCO, husband and wife;


Defendants/Appellees. Appellant/Plaintiff CJ Design & Construction Corporation (“CJ Design”) hereby files its Response to Defendants/Appellees’ “Motion to Set Accelerated Briefing Schedule” and asks that the Motion be denied. The Court already declined to accelerate the appeal and indicated that a motion could be filed after the appeal is “at issue.” The appeal is not at issue. (Per ARCAP 15(b): “the appeal will be deemed to be ‘at issue’ when the final reply brief

is filed or is due, whichever is earlier.”) Appellee is merely asking for the same thing that the Court just denied. Further, Appellee did not consult with Appellant before filing this Motion and does not explain why it could not (which it certainly could), in violation of ARCAP 6(b)(1)(B). (“A motion for a procedural order must include a statement by the moving party of whether the other parties consent to, or object to, the entry of the order that is sought; or must explain the reasons why the moving party was unable to contact the other parties before filing the motion.”) Finally, Appellant’s deadline to file an Opening Brief has been set for April 10, 2018. Appellee asks for that deadline to be moved to April 1—nine days earlier—for no apparent or compelling reason. Undersigned counsel’s spouse is expected to give birth in March/early April, and he can certainly use the extra nine days. There is also nothing stopping Appellee from filing its Response brief earlier than its own deadline, in order to “move things along” (without gratuitously impinging on Appellant’s time). In sum, the Motion is precluded by the Court’s ruling and raises nothing new; it was filed in violation of ARCAP 6; Appellee provides no new or compelling reason to change the normal briefing schedule; and frankly Appellant’s counsel could use the time.

... ... ... 2

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED March 1, 2018. WILENCHIK & BARTNESS, P.C. /s/ John D. Wilenchik Dennis I. Wilenchik, Esq. John “Jack” D. Wilenchik, Esq. David A. Timchak, Esq. The Wilenchik & Bartness Building 2810 North Third Street Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Attorneys for CJ Design & Construction Corporation



I certify that a copy of Appellant’s Response to Appellee’s Motion to Set Accelerated Briefing Schedule filed by John (“Jack”) D. Wilenchik, Esq. on behalf of Plaintiff CJ Design and Construction Corporation was served by mail and email this 1st day of March 2018, on the following recipients: Cameron C. Artigue, Esq. Gregory Gnepper, Esq. Gammage and Burnham Two North Central, 15th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85004 By /s/ Christine M. Ferreira


03 01 18 resp to mtn to set accelerated briefg schdl  
03 01 18 resp to mtn to set accelerated briefg schdl