Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2018-001666: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Estates At Sierra Vista Community Association.

Case Number

CV2018-001666

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

1/22/2018

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Ryan-Touhill, Jennifer

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/22/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

01/16/2019

Docket Code 012
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROSA MROZ
D. Charbagi

Deputy

ESTATES AT SIERRA VISTA COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
CHANDLER W TRAVIS

v.

STEVE H VIGIL JR., et al.
STEVE H VIGIL JR.
3116 W DESERT LN
LAVEEN AZ 85339

MICHELE N VIGIL
3116 W DESERT LN
LAVEEN AZ 85339
JUDGE MROZ

MINUTE ENTRY

East Court Building– Courtroom 414

Prior to commencement of trial, Plaintiff’s exhibits 1 through 19 and Defendants exhibits
20 through 30 are marked for identification.

Upon stipulation, the Parties’ invoke the Rule of Exclusion of Witnesses.

9:30 a.m. This is the time set for Trial to the Court. Plaintiff, Estates at Sierra Vista
Community Association, is represented by counsel, Chandler W. Travis. Defendants, Steve H.
Vigil, Jr., and Michelle N. Vigil are present on their own behalf. Carol Cerreto-Burke, Board
Director, Estates at Sierra Vista Community Association, is also present.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

01/16/2019

Docket Code 012
Form V000A
Page 2

A record of the proceeding is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.

Opening statements.

Plaintiff’s case:

Betsy Andona is sworn and testifies.

Plaintiff’s exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 are received in evidence.

10:46 a.m. Court stands at recess.

10:55 a.m. Court reconvenes with respective counsel and parties present.

A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.

Betsy Andona continues to testify.

Defendants’ exhibit 31 is marked for identification and received in evidence.

Plaintiff’s exhibit 12 is received in evidence.

Defendants’ exhibit 23 is received in evidence.

Discussion is held regarding Defendants’ exhibit 24.

Betsy Andona is excused.

Carol Cerreto-Burke is sworn and testifies.

11:58 a.m. Court stands at recess.

1:28 p.m. Court reconvenes with respective counsel and parties present.

A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.

Carol Cerreto-Burke continues to testify.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

01/16/2019

Docket Code 012
Form V000A
Page 3

Plaintiff’s exhibits 8, and 13, are received in evidence.

Carol Cerreto-Burke is excused.

Tom Bilyea is sworn and testifies.

Plaintiff’s exhibit 32 is marked for identification and received in evidence.

Plaintiff’s exhibits 18, and 16 are received in evidence.

3:00 p.m. Court stands at recess.

3:18 p.m. Court reconvenes with respective counsel and parties present.

A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.

Tom Bilyea continues to testify.

Defendants’ exhibit 20 is received in evidence.

Defendants’ exhibit 33 is marked for identification and received in evidence.

Defendants’ exhibits 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 are received in evidence.

Tom Bilyea is excused.

4:49 p.m. Court stands at recess until 9:30 a.m. on January 17, 2019.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/22/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

01/17/2019

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROSA MROZ
D. Charbagi

Deputy

ESTATES AT SIERRA VISTA COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
CHANDLER W TRAVIS

v.

STEVE H VIGIL JR., et al.
STEVE H VIGIL JR.
3116 W DESERT LN
LAVEEN AZ 85339

MICHELE N VIGIL
3116 W DESERT LN
LAVEEN AZ 85339
JUDGE MROZ

MINUTE ENTRY

East Court Building– Courtroom 414

9:30 a.m. Trial to the Court continues from January 16, 2019. Plaintiff, Estates at Sierra
Vista Community Association, is represented by counsel, Chandler W. Travis. Defendants,
Steve H. Vigil, Jr., and Michelle N. Vigil are present on their own behalf. Carol Cerreto-Burke,
Representative, is also present. Darren Greer, Board Director, Estates at Sierra Vista
Community Association, is also present.

A record of the proceeding is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.

Discussion is held regarding Plaintiff’s exhibit 15.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

01/17/2019

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2

Plaintiff rests.

Defendants’ case:

Michelle N. Vigil is sworn and testifies.

Michelle N. Vigil is excused.

Steve H. Vigil, Jr. is sworn and testifies.

Defendants’ exhibit 21 is received in evidence.

Plaintiff’s exhibit 19 is received in evidence.

11:05 a.m. Court stands at recess.

11:16 a.m. Court reconvenes with respective counsel and parties present.

A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.

Steve H. Vigil, Jr. continues to testify.

Defendants’ rest.

Both sides rest.

11:52 a.m. Court stands at recess.

1:30 p.m. Court reconvenes with respective counsel and parties present.

A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.

Closing arguments.

IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.

2:43 p.m. Matter concludes.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

01/17/2019

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 3

This matter having been taken under advisement, and there being no further need to retain
the exhibits not offered in evidence in the custody of the Clerk of Court,

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk permanently release all exhibits not offered in evidence
to the counsel/party causing them to be marked, or to their written designee. Counsel/party or
written designee shall have the right to refile relevant exhibits as needed in support of any appeal.
Refiled exhibits must be accompanied by a Notice of Refiling Exhibits and presented to the
Exhibits Room of the Clerk’s Office. The Court’s exhibit tag must remain intact on all refilled
exhibits.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel party or written designee take immediate
possession of all exhibits referenced above.

ISSUED: Exhibit Release Form (2)

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/22/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

01/18/2019

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROSA MROZ
D. Charbagi

Deputy

ESTATES AT SIERRA VISTA COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
CHANDLER W TRAVIS

v.

STEVE H VIGIL JR., et al.
STEVE H VIGIL JR.
3116 W DESERT LN
LAVEEN AZ 85339

MICHELE N VIGIL
3116 W DESERT LN
LAVEEN AZ 85339
JUDGE MROZ

MINUTE ENTRY

This lawsuit is between the Estates at Sierra Vista Community Association (“Association”)
and Steve and Michele Vigil (“the Vigils”). The Vigils own a home located at 3116 West Desert
Lane, Laveen, Arizona, otherwise known as Lot 29 of the Estates at Sierra Vista. In January 2017,
the Vigils submitted a Design Review Application to the Association to install front yard
landscaping with three-foot fences, RV gates and a grass crete driveway. After some back and
forth, on July 20, 2017, the Architectural Review Committee (“Association”) approved parts of
the Vigils’ revised design review application. Among the parts approved is as follows:

Item 1 - New CMU Curb - CURBING/EDGING is NOT to exceed a maximum
of 8 inches in height from the existing wall down the property line to the
sidewalk on both East and West property lines. The 24-inch wall is

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

01/18/2019

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2

disapproved. 07/20/17 - The rebar is allowed for the installation of the curbing
NOT to exceed a maximum of 8 inches in height as stated above.

(Emphasis in original).

The Association alleges that the Vigils violated Article 7, Section 7.8 and Article 3,
Sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of the Declaration, in connection with the installation of CMU
wall/curb in the front yard of the Lot 29.

I.
Did the Vigils install a CMU wall/curb that exceeded 8 inches in height, or will
exceed 8 inches in height?

The Association’s position is that the Vigils have installed curbing that exceeds 8 inches
in height, which is in direct violation of the approval granted. The Vigils’ position is that the
curbing is or will be in compliance with the approval set forth in the Association's July 20, 2017
letter after the landscaping is completed. The landscaping on the Property has not been completed
because of the cease and desist letter issued by Plaintiff’s attorney.

The evidence supports that the installed CMU curb is greater than eight inches in height.
The curb is anywhere from 8 inches in height to 17.5 inches in height, depending on which portion
of the stepped curb was being measured, and from what vantage point. Steve Vigil acknowledged
that some portions of the stepped CMU curb are currently greater than 8 inches in height because
of the exposed footing. However, he also testified that by the time the landscaping is completed
on Lot 29, from the vantage point of Lot 29 only, the CMU curb will be eight inches in height all
around. He also testified that the curb is and will be greater than eight inches in height viewed
from the vantage point of Lot 28 and Lot 30. From the photos, the Court also saw that from the
vantage point of the sidewalk in front of Lot 29, the curb is greater than 8 inches in height.

The Court rejects the Vigils’ argument that they only have to be concerned about the height
of the curb from the vantage point of Lot 29. The Association approved a curb that is not to exceed
a maximum of 8 inches in height. It is plain to the Court that the approval is for a curb that shall
not exceed a maximum of 8 inches in height from any vantage point, not just Lot 29.

THE COURT FINDS that the Vigils installed a CMU curb that exceeded 8 inches in height,
and the curb will exceed 8 inches in height even after the landscaping is completed. The Court
finds for the Association on this issue.

II.
Did the Vigils change the grade/elevation of the front yard of Lot 29 without
prior written approval of the Association?

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

01/18/2019

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3

The Association asserts that the Vigils have changed the grade of Lot 29. The Vigils
admitted that before they submitted their first design review application in January 2017, they
excavated and graded Lot 29. The Vigils further admitted that they did not seek prior written
approval from the Architectural Review Committee as required by Article 3, Section 3.1.1 of the
Declaration, which states: “No excavation or grading work shall be performed on any Lot without
the prior written approval of the Architectural Review Committee.”

The Vigils testified that the Association retroactively approved the excavation/grading to
Lot 29 done prior to January 2017. The Vigils testified that there has not been any further
excavation or grading done since that time. The Association does not dispute the Vigils’
testimony.

THE COURT FINDS that the Vigils did change the grade/elevation of the front yard of
their Property without prior written approval of the Association. However, the Association
retroactively approved the change in the grade/elevation, and there has been no further changes in
the grade/elevation since then.

Steve Vigil testified during the trial that he will have to do further excavation and grading
work to finish the landscaping. Steve Vigil does not believe that he has to seek approval from the
Architectural Review Committee because it is common sense that you have dig and re-grade to
plant trees, lay sod, and/or to pour concrete.

The Association requests that the Court order the Vigils to comply with Article 3, Section
3.1.1 of the Declaration. The Declaration says what it says. If the Vigils want to do further
excavation or otherwise change the grade/elevation of Lot 29 to finish their landscaping, the Vigils
will need to seek prior written approval from the Architectural Review Committee.

Based on the above,

IT IS ORDERED that the Vigils shall remove any curb which exceeds the approved 8-
inch maximum height requirement in the front yard of Lot 29 from any vantage point, not just
from the vantage point of Lot 29.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Vigils shall not change the grade/elevation of the
front yard of Lot 29 without the prior written approval of the Architectural Review Committee. If
the Vigils are going to seek approval to excavate or change the grade/elevation of the front yard
of Lot 29, they shall do so within thirty (30) days from the date of the signing of the Judgment.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Vigils shall complete the installation of the front
yard landscaping and hardscaping of Lot 29, pursuant to the Association’s approval letter dated

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

01/18/2019

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 4

July 20, 2017, within sixty (60) days from the date of the signing of the Judgment, or sixty (60)
days from the date the Architectural Review Committee issues a written approval to the Vigils’
request to excavate or change the grade/elevation of the front yard of Lot 29, whichever is later.

The Association also requests that the Court award the Association attorney fees and costs
pursuant to A.R.S. §12-341, §12-341.01, the Declaration and case law.

Article 9, section 9.1 of the Declaration states, in relevant part: “If any lawsuit is filed by
the Association or any Owner to enforce the provisions of the Project Documents or in any other
manner arising out of or relating to the Project Documents or the operations of the Association,
the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to recover from the other party all attorney fees
incurred by the prevailing party in the action.”

The Court finds that the Association is the prevailing party in this lawsuit.

The Court also finds that this an action arising out of a contract, which entitles the
Association to apply for an award of attorney’s fees and costs. A.R.S. §12–341 and A.R.S. § 12-
341.01.

IT IS ORDERED that the Association may, within 20 calendar days of the filing of this
order, submit an application for an award of attorney’s fees and statement of costs pursuant to
A.R.S. § 12-341. If an application is submitted that the Vigils want to oppose, a response must be
filed not later than 20 calendar days after service of the application. The Association is not
permitted to file a reply unless requested to do so by the Court.

Before submitting an application for attorneys' fees or a statement of costs, the
Association must undertake good faith efforts to negotiate a stipulation with the Vigils
regarding the amounts to be awarded. If agreement is reached, the Stipulation will NOT
preclude the Vigils from raising any issue or asserting any argument on appeal other than
the reasonableness of the amounts awarded.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that not later than 20 days after the filing of this order, the
Association must also submit a proposed form of Judgment, leaving blank spaces for attorney’s
fees and taxable costs. That form of judgment may incorporate by reference what is said here but
otherwise should be confined to the amounts being awarded along with Rule 54(c) language.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/08/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

04/05/2019

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROSA MROZ
D. Charbagi

Deputy

ESTATES AT SIERRA VISTA COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
CHANDLER W TRAVIS

v.

STEVE H VIGIL JR., et al.
STEVE H VIGIL JR.
3116 W DESERT LN
LAVEEN AZ 85339

MICHELE N VIGIL
3116 W DESERT LN
LAVEEN AZ 85339
JUDGE MROZ

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has considered Defendants’ Motion to Change Prevailing Party filed on
February 28, 2019, and Plaintiff’s Response. The Court finds no good cause to grant Defendants’
Motion.

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Change Prevailing Party filed on
February 28, 2019.

The Court has also considered Plaintiff’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs filed
on February 8, 2019, which included a proposed form of Judgment. Defendants did not file a
Response/Objection, which the Court deems as a consent to the granting of the Motion. Ariz. R.
Civ. P. 7.1(b). The Court has considered the factors set forth in Associated Indemnity Co.
v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 567, 694 P.2d 1181 (1985), and Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, 138

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

04/05/2019

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

Ariz. 183, 187-88, 673 P.2d 927, 932 (App. 1983) in deciding whether and how much to award in
attorneys’ fees. The Court also considered Article 9, section 9.1 of the Declaration which states,
in relevant part: “If any lawsuit is filed by the Association or any Owner to enforce the provisions
of the Project Documents or in any other manner arising out of or relating to the Project Documents
or the operations of the Association, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to recover
from the other party all attorney fees incurred by the prevailing party in the action.” The Court
has already found that Plaintiff is the prevailing party.

IT IS ORDERED awarding Plaintiff $20,000 in reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiff also requested $9,746.01 in taxable costs, consisting of the following:

Court filing fees $ 375.60
Postage $ 2.05
Printing $ 16.68
Expert Fees $ 9,261.68
Process service $ 90.00

A.R.S. §12-341 provides that “[t]he successful party to a civil action shall recover from his
adversary all costs expended or incurred therein unless otherwise provided by law.” However,
Costs are not recoverable unless provided for by statute. Sweis v. Chatwin, 120 Ariz. 249, 585
P.2d 269 (App. 1978).

The Court finds that the only taxable costs that are recoverable are the court filing fees of
$375.60 and the service of process fees of $90.

IT IS ORDERED awarding $465.60 in taxable costs.

The Court signed the Judgment incorporating the above on this date.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/30/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

04/27/2018

Docket Code 041
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROSA MROZ
B. Randhawa

Deputy

ESTATES AT SIERRA VISTA COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
CHANDLER W TRAVIS

v.

STEVE H VIGIL JR., et al.
STEVE H VIGIL JR.
3116 W DESERT LN
LAVEEN AZ 85339

MICHELE N VIGIL
3116 W DESERT LN
LAVEEN AZ 85339
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC

REFERRAL TO ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR)

TELEPHONIC TRIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE SET

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order granted by the Court on April 26, 2018 and filed by the
Clerk,

IT IS ORDERED this case is referred to the Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution
Office for the appointment of a Judge Pro Tempore to conduct a settlement conference. Counsel
and/or the parties will receive a minute entry from ADR appointing the Judge Pro Tempore.
Counsel and any “pro per” parties will contact the appointed Judge Pro Tempore to arrange the
date, time and location for the settlement conference. The Judge Pro Tempore is requested to
conduct a settlement conference not later than July 27, 2018. The Office of Alternative Dispute

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

04/27/2018

Docket Code 041
Form V000A
Page 2

Resolution will not do the scheduling of the settlement conference so please do not contact that
office.

All counsel and their clients, or non-lawyer representatives who have full and
complete authority to settle this case, shall personally appear and participate in good faith
in this settlement conference even if no settlement is expected.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Telephonic Trial Scheduling Conference for
the purpose of assigning a trial date on November 26, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. (15 minutes allotted)
in this division, before:

HONORABLE JUDGE ROSA MROZ
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING
101 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 414
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-372-0384

Counsel/parties shall have their trial calendars available for the conference.

NOTE: Counsel for the Plaintiff is to initiate the telephonic conference by first
arranging the presence of all other counsel or self-represented parties on the conference call and
by calling this division’s courtroom directly at (602) 506-5518 at the scheduled time.

PRETRIAL ORDERS

The Court having been assigned to this case, the parties shall make note of the pretrial
orders identified below. To the extent that the orders are inconsistent with any order that has
been entered in this matter, including any scheduling order, this minute entry controls and the
inconsistent language in any such previous order is vacated.

Discovery Disputes:

If a discovery dispute needs judicial intervention, the parties must first comply with Rule
37’s meet and confer provision. Absent resolution, counsel for the movant shall email the
Court’s Judicial Assistant, Sandra Nageotte, at [email protected], and all
other counsel to advise them of his/her request for a telephonic hearing. Each party shall
thereafter email the Court’s Judicial Assistant a summary of the dispute in Times New Roman 13
point font, limited to no more than two pages. Please make certain all parties are copied on the

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

04/27/2018

Docket Code 041
Form V000A
Page 3

email. The emails will be filed with the clerk. Once the Court receives a summary from each
party and a certification of compliance with Rule 37, the Judicial Assistant will email the parties
to schedule a telephonic conference with the Judge. These are generally held within one to three
business days.

Motion Practice:

Do not combine pleadings. (Responses, replies, cross motions, etc., should each be filed
as a separate pleading).

A proposed order/judgment must be attached as a Word doc. using the proper turbo court
code. All stipulations, joint scheduling reports, unopposed motions, etc., MUST contain a
proposed order. If your system is not allowing you to attach a Word order, you must email a
copy
to
this
division’s
judicial
assistant,
Sandra
Nageotte,
at
[email protected], and she can attach it on our end.

ALL motions are held for a briefing period. If you need a determination sooner than a
normal briefing period would allow, please do the following: 1. Speak with opposing counsel to
make certain if they have an objection. If there is no objection, file a stipulation. 2. E-file the
motion and email the filed document in Word format to the judicial assistant and opposing
counsel. 3. Indicate that you are asking for a shortened briefing schedule and when you need a
ruling. 4. The Court will review your request and email all parties with a briefing schedule if
necessary.

If the parties have agreed to an extension of time for filing responses/replies, email my
judicial assistant regarding the agreement. Otherwise, the Court may assume that no
responses/replies will be filed and rule without the benefit of the response/reply.

Unless another order in this case establishes an earlier deadline, the deadline for filing a
summary judgment motion is 120 days before trial. No modification, including a stipulated
modification, of this deadline will be honored absent a motion explaining why the 120-day
deadline is impractical in the circumstances.

Motions in Limine:

The granting or denial of a motion in limine turns on whether the admission of evidence
reaches the level of reversible error or a mistrial. Motions in limine are not granted “except
upon a clear showing of non-admissibility.” The parties shall not file motions denominated as
“in limine” that are, in substance, late-filed motions for summary judgment.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

04/27/2018

Docket Code 041
Form V000A
Page 4

1. Page Limit and Format: Neither the motion in limine nor the response may exceed
three pages, including the caption. Showing that the motion has merit should not require more
than that. Motions in limine shall be consecutively numbered in the caption identifying the party
filing it and the subject of the motion; e.g. “Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1 Re: Insurance
Agreement,” and shall deal with one discrete subject per motion. Do not respond to more than
one motion in limine in each response.

Any motion in limine or response to such a motion should begin with a simple declarative
sentence that identifies the evidence that is the subject of the motion, with the understanding that
the broader the scope of the evidence to be excluded, the less likely it is that a motion in limine
will be granted. The remainder of the motion or response should then explain why a mistrial or
reversible error would or would not result if the motion is denied, with citations to authority that
have reached the same conclusion in the same or similar circumstances (this also applies to
motions in limine based on any failure to disclose, keeping in mind that nondisclosure implicates
Ariz. R. Civ. P. 37(c)). If the motion is unable to explain why its denial would result in a
mistrial or reversible error, the remainder should then demonstrate persuasively what efficiency,
economy, or other benefit is to be gained by granting the motion.

2. Rule 7.2: Motions in limine shall be filed in accordance with Ariz.R.Civ.P. 7.2. Prior
to filing any motion in limine, the parties through counsel must meet and confer to attempt to
resolve issues to be raised by such motions, and any motions in limine must include a
certification that counsel have so conferred.

3. Deadlines: The deadline for motions in limine is 30 days before the final pretrial
management conference. In both instances, responses must be filed 15 days after service, and no
replies should be filed unless requested.

4. Under Advisement: Although motions in limine will be considered as quickly as the
court’s schedule permits, they will not be taken under advisement any sooner than 15 days before
the start of the trial, regardless of when they are filed. If the parties believe that a ruling on such
a motion early in the case will facilitate settlement, they should notify this division (by telephone
at (602) 372-0384 or e-mail to the judicial assistant) and every effort will be made to decide the
issue as soon as time allows.

Daubert Motions:

Any motion brought for a Daubert hearing or brought under Ariz.R.Evid. 702, shall be
filed at least 120 days before the Final Trial Management Conference). Failure to file such a
motion by this date shall constitute a waiver of (1) any objection that the expert is not qualified

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

04/27/2018

Docket Code 041
Form V000A
Page 5

to render expert testimony, and/or (2) any objection that any opinion of the expert should be
excluded under Ariz.R.Evid. 702.

Miscellaneous Issues:

All court proceedings are recorded digitally and not by a court reporter. Pursuant to
Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any proceeding in which a court reporter is
not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30, the party must submit a written request to the
assigned judicial officer at least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the hearing, and must pay
the authorized fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial days before the
proceeding. The fee is $140 for up to three hours and $280 for any hearing in excess of three
hours. This fee does not include preparation of transcripts.

Should you want an unofficial copy of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may
request a CD of the proceedings for a $30.00 charge. If a CD is requested, please obtain a form
from the Self Service Center to request a daily copy of a court hearing or trial proceeding being
conducted. Pay the applicable fee at the Self Service Center. Attach the receipt showing
payment of the fee and present both the receipt and the form to the bailiff. For copies of
hearings or trial proceedings recorded previously, please call Electronic Records Services
at 602-506-7100.

Requests for interpreters, court reporters or video conference must be made at least two
weeks prior to your hearing date.

Oral Argument/Trial time will be divided equally between Plaintiff and Defendant.
“When you are out of time, you are out of words.”

If you are not familiar with this division’s electronic equipment, please make an
appointment
with
this
division’s
bailiff,
Markus
Taylor,
via
email
at
[email protected], to test the equipment at least one week prior to your
hearing.

Preferred communication with this division is via email to the judicial assistant, Sandra
Nageotte, at [email protected]. We are able to respond much quicker to an
email. Please make sure you endorse all parties involved in the case.

All inquiries regarding exhibit procedures should be directed to this division’s courtroom
clerk, Bal Randhawa, at (602) 506-8806.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

04/27/2018

Docket Code 041
Form V000A
Page 6

Please take the time to review the full protocol for Judge Mroz on the Maricopa County
Superior Court website.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/05/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

06/04/2019

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROSA MROZ
S. Perez

Deputy

ESTATES AT SIERRA VISTA COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
CHANDLER W TRAVIS

v.

STEVE H VIGIL JR., et al.
STEVE H VIGIL JR.
3116 W DESERT LN
LAVEEN AZ 85339

MICHELE N VIGIL
3116 W DESERT LN
LAVEEN AZ 85339
JUDGE MROZ

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s Supplemental Application for Attorneys’ Fees and
Costs filed on May 9, 2019. Defendants did not file a Response.

Plaintiff’s request is based on the attorneys’ fees and costs it has incurred since it
submitted its original application for attorneys’ fees and costs because Plaintiff had to respond to
Defendants’ Motion to Change Prevailing Party filed on February 28, 2019. Although Plaintiff
did not cite or quote the rule, Plaintiff is essentially asking the Court to amend the signed
Judgment, which contains the Rule 54(c) language certifying that no further matters are
pending. The Court will treat Plaintiff’s Supplemental Application for Attorneys’ Fees and
Costs as a motion to amend the Judgment entered on April 8, 2019.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

06/04/2019

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

“A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 15 days after the entry
of judgment. This deadline may not be extended by stipulation or court order, except as allowed
by Rule 6(b)(2).” Civil Rule 59(d). The Judgment was entered on April 8, 2019. Plaintiff filed
the motion on May 9, 2019. This is more than 15 days after the entry of judgment. Accordingly,
the motion to amend the judgment is untimely.

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Supplemental Application for Attorneys’ Fees and
Costs filed on May 9, 2019.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/19/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

06/13/2019

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROSA MROZ
D. Charbagi

Deputy

ESTATES AT SIERRA VISTA COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
CHANDLER W TRAVIS

v.

STEVE H VIGIL JR., et al.
STEVE H VIGIL JR.
3116 W DESERT LN
LAVEEN AZ 85339

MICHELE N VIGIL
3116 W DESERT LN
LAVEEN AZ 85339
JUDGE MROZ

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration Re: Denial of
Plaintiff’s Supplemental Fee Application filed on June 12, 2019. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration Re: Denial of
Plaintiff’s Supplemental Fee Application.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/03/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

10/02/2018

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROSA MROZ
D. Charbagi

Deputy

ESTATES AT SIERRA VISTA COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
CHANDLER W TRAVIS

v.

STEVE H VIGIL JR., et al.
STEVE H VIGIL JR.
3116 W DESERT LN
LAVEEN AZ 85339

MICHELE N VIGIL
3116 W DESERT LN
LAVEEN AZ 85339
JUDGE MROZ

MINUTE ENTRY

Pursuant to the parties’ Order Re: Discovery Deadlines filed October 3, 2018,

IT IS ORDERED affirming that the Telephonic Trial Setting Conference for the
purpose of assigning a trial date set on November 26, 2018 is vacated and reset to December 17,
2018 at 9:00 a.m. (15 minutes allotted) in this division, before:

HONORABLE JUDGE ROSA MROZ
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING
101 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 414

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

10/02/2018

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 2

PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-372-0384

Counsel/parties shall have their trial calendars available for the conference.

Counsel shall consider the following in advising the Court how many days are
necessary for trial. Trial is held from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Mondays through Thursdays.
Each trial day is budgeted to be 4.5 hours of actual in court time, exclusive of breaks and
bench conferences. The Court reserves for itself 4.5 hours for the Court to do its portion of
voir dire, read preliminary and final jury instructions, and for jury deliberations. The
parties will then be splitting the remaining time for each party's portion of voir dire, opening
statements, witness examinations, and closing arguments. The Court uses a timer to keep
track of your time. When you are out of time, you are out of words.

NOTE: Counsel for the Plaintiff is to initiate the telephonic conference by first arranging
the presence of all other counsel or self-represented parties on the conference call and by calling
this division’s courtroom directly at (602) 506-5518 at the scheduled time.

PRETRIAL ORDERS

The Court having been assigned to this case, the parties shall make note of the pretrial
orders identified below. To the extent that the orders are inconsistent with any order that has been
entered in this matter, including any scheduling order, this minute entry controls and the
inconsistent language in any such previous order is vacated.

Discovery Disputes:

The Court follows the procedure set forth in Rule 26(d) in resolving discovery disputes.

Motion Practice:

Do not combine pleadings. (Responses, replies, cross motions, etc., should each be filed
as a separate pleading).

A proposed order/judgment must be attached as a Word doc. using the proper turbo court
code. All stipulations, joint scheduling reports, unopposed motions, etc., MUST contain a
proposed order. If your system is not allowing you to attach a Word order, you must email a copy
to this division’s judicial assistant, Sandra Nageotte, at [email protected],
and she can attach it on our end.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

10/02/2018

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 3

ALL motions are held for a briefing period. If you need a determination sooner than a
normal briefing period would allow, please do the following: 1. Speak with opposing counsel to
make certain if they have an objection. If there is no objection, file a stipulation. 2. E-file the
motion and email the filed document in Word format to the judicial assistant and opposing counsel.
3. Indicate that you are asking for a shortened briefing schedule and when you need a ruling. 4.
The Court will review your request and email all parties with a briefing schedule if necessary.

If the parties have agreed to an extension of time for filing responses/replies, email my
judicial assistant regarding the agreement. Otherwise, the Court may assume that no
responses/replies will be filed and rule without the benefit of the response/reply.

Unless another order in this case establishes a date-certain deadline, the deadline for filing
a summary judgment motion is 120 days before the trial management conference. The parties
are limited to filing one motion for summary judgment. No modification, including a stipulated
modification, of this deadline and filing limit will be honored absent a motion explaining why the
deadline or filing limit is impractical in the circumstances.

Motions in Limine:

The granting or denial of a motion in limine turns on whether the admission of evidence
reaches the level of reversible error or a mistrial. Motions in limine are not granted “except upon
a clear showing of non-admissibility.” The parties shall not file motions denominated as “in
limine” that are, in substance, late-filed motions for summary judgment.

1. Page Limit and Format: Neither the motion in limine nor the response may exceed
three pages, including the caption. Showing that the motion has merit should not require more
than that. Motions in limine shall be consecutively numbered in the caption identifying the party
filing it and the subject of the motion; e.g. “Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1 Re: Insurance
Agreement,” and shall deal with one discrete subject per motion. Do not respond to more than one
motion in limine in each response.

Any motion in limine or response to such a motion should begin with a simple declarative
sentence that identifies the evidence that is the subject of the motion, with the understanding that
the broader the scope of the evidence to be excluded, the less likely it is that a motion in limine
will be granted. The remainder of the motion or response should then explain why a mistrial or
reversible error would or would not result if the motion is denied, with citations to authority that
have reached the same conclusion in the same or similar circumstances (this also applies to motions
in limine based on any failure to disclose, keeping in mind that nondisclosure implicates Ariz. R.
Civ. P. 37(c)). If the motion is unable to explain why its denial would result in a mistrial or

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

10/02/2018

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 4

reversible error, the remainder should then demonstrate persuasively what efficiency, economy, or
other benefit is to be gained by granting the motion.

2. Rule 7.2: Motions in limine shall be filed in accordance with Ariz.R.Civ.P. 7.2. Prior
to filing any motion in limine, the parties through counsel must meet and confer to attempt to
resolve issues to be raised by such motions, and any motions in limine must include a certification
that counsel have so conferred.

3. Deadlines: The deadline for motions in limine is 30 days before the final pretrial
management conference. In both instances, responses must be filed 15 days after service, and no
replies should be filed unless requested.

4. Under Advisement: Although motions in limine will be considered as quickly as the
court’s schedule permits, they will not be taken under advisement any sooner than 15 days before
the start of the trial, regardless of when they are filed. If the parties believe that a ruling on such a
motion early in the case will facilitate settlement, they should notify this division (by telephone at
(602) 372-0384 or e-mail to the judicial assistant) and every effort will be made to decide the issue
as soon as time allows.

Daubert Motions:

The deadline for any motion brought for a Daubert hearing or brought under Ariz.R.Evid.
702, is the same as the dispositive motion deadline. Failure to file such a motion by this date shall
constitute a waiver of (1) any objection that the expert is not qualified to render expert testimony,
and/or (2) any objection that any opinion of the expert should be excluded under Ariz.R.Evid. 702.

Miscellaneous Issues:

All court proceedings are recorded digitally and not by a court reporter. Pursuant to Local
Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any proceeding in which a court reporter is not
mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30, the party must submit a written request to the
assigned judicial officer at least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the hearing, and must pay the
authorized fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial days before the proceeding. The
fee is $140 for up to three hours and $280 for any hearing in excess of three hours. This fee does
not include preparation of transcripts.

Should you want an unofficial copy of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may request
a CD of the proceedings for a $30.00 charge. If a CD is requested, please obtain a form from the
Self Service Center to request a daily copy of a court hearing or trial proceeding being conducted.
Pay the applicable fee at the Self Service Center. Attach the receipt showing payment of the fee

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

10/02/2018

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 5

and present both the receipt and the form to the bailiff. For copies of hearings or trial
proceedings recorded previously, please call Electronic Records Services at 602-506-7100.

Requests for interpreters, court reporters or video conference must be made at least two
weeks prior to your hearing date.

Oral Argument/Trial time will be divided between Plaintiff and Defendant. “When you
are out of time, you are out of words.”

If you are not familiar with this division’s electronic equipment, please make an
appointment
with
this
division’s
bailiff,
Markus
Taylor,
via
email
at
[email protected], to test the equipment at least one week prior to your
hearing.

Preferred communication with this division is via email to the judicial assistant, Sandra
Nageotte, at [email protected]. We are able to respond much quicker to an
email. Please make sure you endorse all parties involved in the case.

All inquiries regarding exhibit procedures should be directed to this division’s courtroom
clerk, Diana Charbagi, at (602) 506-8806.

Please take the time to review the full protocol for Judge Mroz on the Maricopa County
Superior Court website.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/18/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

12/17/2018

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROSA MROZ
D. Charbagi

Deputy

ESTATES AT SIERRA VISTA COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
CHANDLER W TRAVIS

v.

STEVE H VIGIL JR., et al.
STEVE H VIGIL JR.
3116 W DESERT LN
LAVEEN AZ 85339

MICHELE N VIGIL
3116 W DESERT LN
LAVEEN AZ 85339
JUDGE MROZ

MINUTE ENTRY

ECB - Courtroom 414

9:00 a.m. This is the time set for a Telephonic Trial Setting Conference. Plaintiff, Estates at
Sierra Vista Community Association is represented by counsel, Chandler W. Travis. Defendant,
Steve H. Vigil, Jr. and Michele N. Vigil are preset on their own behalf. All parties’ appear
telephonically.

A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.

Discussion is held regarding setting a trial in this case.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

12/17/2018

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED setting this matter for a Trial to the Court on January 16 and January
17, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (time allotted: 2 full day/s) in this Division, before:

The Honorable Rosa Mroz
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building, Fourth Floor
101 West Jefferson, Courtroom 414
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: (602) 372-0384

Trial time will be divided equally between the parties.

Trial is held from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Mondays through Thursdays. The Court will take
two 15 minute recesses, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. The lunch recess will be
from noon to 1:30 p.m. Each trial day is budgeted to be 4.5 hours of actual in court time, exclusive
of breaks and bench conferences. The Court uses a timer to keep track of your time. When you
are out of time, you are out of words. Each side is allotted 4.5 hours of time.

PRETRIAL STATEMENT &
DUTIES PROR TO FINAL TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

That the parties shall file a Joint Pretrial Statement no later than January 11, 2019. The
statement shall briefly identify the issues, the witnesses, and a summary of the witnesses’
testimony.

Counsel shall attempt to agree on the admission of as many exhibits as possible. Counsel
shall contact the courtroom clerk, Diana Charbagi, at 602-506-8806 to schedule a time to deliver
exhibits. Counsel shall present all exhibits with a list of exhibit descriptions to the courtroom clerk
no later than 12:00 p.m. (noon) on January 7, 2019 along with a brief description of each exhibit.
Separate exhibits by a colored sheet of paper with the exhibit number written on front. Do not skip
numbers, or describe exhibits as “blank” or “withdrawn”; do not “reserve” numbers for items not
submitted to the clerk. Do not submit exhibits with subparts (e.g. exhibit 1a, 1b, 1c). Staple or
otherwise secure each individual exhibit so that pages do not become separated

Counsel shall present depositions for filing at the same time they present exhibits.
Depositions are provided to the clerk for the record and are not marked as exhibits.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

12/17/2018

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 3

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: Any party who requests Rule 52 Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law shall file a written request no later than thirty (20) days prior to trial.
A party who makes this request shall file Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law no
later than seven calendar (7) days after the trial concludes, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
In addition to filing the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, an electronic version
in Word or Word-compatible format shall be provided to the Division’s Judicial Assistant via
email. If Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are not filed as ordered, the request
shall be deemed waived.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all witness affidavits and expert reports in lieu of
testimony must be exchanged and copies filed and lodged with this division no later than January
11, 2019. The witness must be available to testify at the time of the hearing. Counsel shall identify
the witnesses and a brief description of their testimony. Each side is limited to three (3) witness
affidavits, the affidavits are limited to 10 pages each. Uncontroverted witnesses are not required
to be present at the time of hearing set herein.

DUTIES PRIOR TO TRIAL

To the extent that these orders are inconsistent with any order that has been entered by this
Court in this matter, including any scheduling order, this minute entry controls and the inconsistent
language in any such previous order is vacated.

Discovery Disputes:

The Court follows the procedure set forth in Rule 26(d) in resolving discovery disputes.

Miscellaneous Issues:

All court proceedings are recorded digitally and not by a court reporter. Pursuant to Local
Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any proceeding in which a court reporter is not
mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30, the party must submit a written request to the
assigned judicial officer at least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the hearing, and must pay the
authorized fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial days before the proceeding. The
fee is $140 for a half-day and $280 for a full day.

Requests for interpreters, court reporters or video conference must be made at least two
weeks prior to your hearing date.

Trial time will be divided between Plaintiff and Defendant. “When you are out of time,
you are out of words.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

12/17/2018

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 4

If you are not familiar with this division’s electronic equipment, please make an
appointment
with
this
division’s
bailiff,
Markus
Taylor,
via
email
at
[email protected], to test the equipment at least one week prior to your
hearing.

Preferred communication with this division is via email to the judicial assistant, Sandra
Nageotte, at [email protected]. We are able to respond much quicker to an
email. Please make sure you endorse all parties involved in the case.

Please take the time to review the full protocol for Judge Mroz on the Maricopa County
Superior Court website.

9:08 a.m. Matter concludes.

ATTENTION SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS: Unless an attorney files a notice
that he or she represents a party, the person(s) not represented by an attorney will act as his or her
own attorney. The law requires the court to hold all persons representing themselves to the
same standard as a licensed attorney. Self-represented litigants are encouraged to review the
Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, paying particular attention to Rule 26. Please note that only a
licensed attorney may represent a corporation, LLC, or similar business entity in the
Superior Court. Ramada Inns v. Lane & Bird Advertising, 102 Ariz. 127, 426 P.2d 395 (1967).

Before the judge can consider anything you send her, you must show her that you have
given a copy of your request:

1. To the Clerk of the Court. The Clerk of the Court is a separately elected official. It is
the clerk’s job to keep an independent record of everything that happens at the court.
The court cannot act on a document that has not been made a part of that record; and

2. To every other party involved in the case. This is so all parties have a fair chance to tell
the judge what they think before he makes a decision.

Because of that, if you want the judge to consider something you send her, you must file
the original document with the Clerk of the Superior Court, mail or deliver a copy directly
to this division (that is, to the judge, using her specific courtroom address)

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2018-001666

12/17/2018

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 5

HONORABLE JUDGE ROSA MROZ
101 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 414
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-372-0384

and mail or deliver a copy to all opposing parties. In addition, on each document you must include
a signed certificate that says whether you mailed or hand delivered each copy, when you did so,
and states the specific people and the specific addresses to which you mailed or hand delivered
each copy. If a party is represented by a lawyer, you must send or deliver the copy to the lawyer,
not to the party. All proposed orders submitted to this division must include copies of the order
with self-addressed, stamped envelopes for all parties/counsel.

Do not mail or send papers for the clerk or other parties to the judge.

If you want to file papers with the Clerk of the Court by mail, please send them to:

Clerk of the Superior Court’s Office
Civil File Counter
201 W. Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ 85003

The clerk’s guidelines for filing by mail can be found at:

http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/filing-by-mail.asp

If you are not represented by a lawyer you must contact this division immediately and give
us a current address and telephone number. If your address or phone number changes in the future,
you must file a notice of change of address/phone number. That form can be downloaded at no
charge from the following website:

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/LawLibraryResourceCenter/

Documents