1 TINA MILUTINOVICS, Pro Se

2901 E. Piute Avenue

2
Phoenix, Arizona 85050
3 Ph.: (480) 332-3000
Plaintiff
4

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY

7 IN AND FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA
8
TINA MILUTINOVICS, an unmarried
9
woman, CASE NO.: CV2024-050068
10
Plaintiff PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE
11 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND
vs. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE
12 COMPLAINT
13 DESERT DESIGN HARDSCAPE, L.L.C.,
an Arizona limited liability company; and
14 WHITE ASSOCIATION 1-10,
15
Defendants.
16

17
Plaintiff, TINA MILUTINOVICS (“Plaintiff”), appearing “pro se” files Plaintiff’s Motion
18
to Strike Defendant’s Answer and Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (“Motion”)
19
pursuant to Rules 11 and 15(a)(2) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (“A.R.C.P.”) and
20
request the Court to strike Defendant’s Answer filed improperly and allow Plaintiff leave of court
21
to amend Plaintiff’s Complaint for the reasons stated herein and attach the proposed First
22

23 Amended Complaint with the amended text underlined. (Exhibit “1”). Plaintiff’s Motion is

24 supported by the accompanying Memorandum of Law and all documents on file with the Court.

25

-1-
 MEMORANDUM OF LAW
1
I. INTRODUCTION
2

3 Plaintiff requests that the Court strike Defendant’s Answer filed on January 29, 2024,

4 for the reason that it was filed by a member of the limited liability company and is required to

5 be represented by an attorney. Specifically, JOSE REYES, an acting member filed the form

6 Answer writing his name in as the Defendant and signing it. Further, because JOSE REYES
7 filed it for himself and Plaintiff’s belief that at all times relevant to this cause of action JOSE
8
REYES was acting as Defendant’s alter ego and for his own personal benefit Plaintiff is seeking
9
leave from the court to amend the Complaint to add both members individually based on the
10
alter ego conduct.
11
II. FACTS
12
1. On, or about January 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed her Complaint against DESERT
13
DESIGN LANDSCAPE, L.L.C. and included WHITE ASSOCIATION I-10 as Defendants who
14
are fictitious stating she would amend the Complaint to add the true names of any Defendants
15

16 who became known to her.

17 2. On, or about January 29, 2024, JOSE REYES, a member of DESERT DESIGN

18 HARDSCAPE, L.L.C., signed and filed the Answer changing Defendant’s name on the form

19 Answer to himself and did not mail a copy to Plaintiff.

20
3. On February 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a timely Application and Affidavit for Default
21
against DESERT DESIGN HARDSCAPE LLC.
22
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
23
The Court is granted authority to strike an Answer pursuant to Rule 11 of the A.R.C.P. if
24
it is improper and in this case the Answer was filed by a member of the limited liability
25
company and individuals not admitted to practice law in Arizona may not represent another
-2-
 individual. Ramada Inns, Inc. v. Lane and Bird Advertising, Inc., 426 P. 2d 395 - Ariz: Supreme
1
Court 1967. “A partnership or a coporation may not be represented by someone who is not
2

3 authorized to practice law. Munger Chadwick v. Farwest Development, 329 P. 3d 229 (2014)

4 235 Ariz. 125. JOSE REYES intentionally changed the name of the Defendant on the from

5 DESERT DESIGN HARDSCAPE LLC to JOSE REYES and he is not named as a Defendant in

6 the Complaint.
7 However, Rule 15(a)(2) of the A.R.C.P. allows a party to amend its pleading after an
8
Answer has been filed with leave of court or with the written consent of all opposing parties
9
who have appeared and must be given freely when justice requires. The Court is required to
10
consider factors in making a determination which include: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to
11
the opposing party and futility. In this case, JOSE REYES by filing Defendant’s Answer
12
admitted he is personally liable for the acts complained of in the Complaint and the Court
13
allowing Plaintiff to amend the Complaint to include him is merely a formality. Further,
14
Plaintiff has evidence to show that JOSE REYES was in control of all the entity’s business
15

16 affairs and (1) commingled funds and assets of the LLC entity, and diverted funds and assets for

17 his own personal use; (2) disregarded legal formalities and failed to maintain arm’s length

18 relationships; (3) uses the same office or business location as his personal residence; (4) held

19 himself out as personally liable for the debts of the entity; (5) used the entity as a mere shell for
20
his individual businesses; and (8) used the entity to procure labor, services or merchandise.
21
“Courts will pierce the corporate veil only in limited circumstances "when the corporation is the
22
alter ego or business conduit of a person, and when to observe the corporation would work an
23
injustice." Dietel v. Day, 16 Ariz. App. 206, 208, 492 P.2d 455, 457 (1972); Honeywell, Inc. v.
24
Arnold Constr. Co., 134 Ariz. 153, 159, 654 P.2d 301, 307 (App. 1982) ("In order for a
25
corporate `veil' to be pierced, the corporation must be considered the alter ego of the individual
-3-
 whose property is sought.") The elements needed to prove “alter ego” have been shown with
1
JOSE REYES’ conduct which is unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its
2

3 equitable owners so that the separate personalities of the corporation and its shareholders do not

4 truly exist and 2) there must be an inequitable result if the acts in question are threated as those

5 of the corporation alone, or alternatively stated, the failure to disregard the corporate entity

6 would sanction a fraud or promote injustice.

7 The injustice in this case would be Plaintiff obtains a judgment against DESERT
8
DESGIN HARDSCAPE LLC and it has no assets because JOSE REYES has diverted them to
9
himself which has already been shown when he instructed her to make checks for the work
10
payable to him personally.
11
Further, JOSE REYES is not a licensed contractor and operates the business with no
12
liability insurance and negligently misrepresented facts and withheld information from Plaintiff.
13
Since filing the Complaint, Plaintiff has obtained information that JOSE REYES is under
14
investigation with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors for not being licensed and the Attorney
15

16 General is investigating the matter and will possibly be filing criminal charges against him..

17 Therefore, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff requests the Court to strike Defendant’s Answer or

18 instruct Defendant DESERT DESIGN to obtain an attorney and file an Answer within a

19 reasonable time and allow Plaintiff to amend the Complaint to add the members as individuals.
20
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an Order striking the Answer and
21
allow Plaintiff to file the First Amended Complaint, and for such other and further relief as the
22
...
23
...
24

25

-4-
 Court deems proper.
1
DATED this _____ day of February, 2024.
2

3
/s/ Tina Milutinovics
4 TINA MILUTINOVICS, Pro Se
Plaintiff
5 Original e-filed; with a copy mailed this
___ day of February, 2024, to:
6
DESERT DESIGN HARDSCAPE LLC
7 c/o Jose Reyes
8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

-5-