Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2025-038890: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Casa Del Monte Inc.

Case Number

CV2025-038890

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

10/23/2025

Case Type

Civil

Judge

McDowell, David

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

No parties captured.

Minute Entries

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/08/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2025-038890

01/05/2026

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID MCDOWELL
C. Curley

Deputy

JEFF CONNELL, et al.
TIMOTHY A LASOTA

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NIKOLAS T THOMPSON

FLORENCE BRUEMMER
BARBARA WHYTE
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 79
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
JUDGE MCDOWELL

STATUS CONFERENCE

Courtroom 511-VC-CV East Court Building

1:36 p.m. This is the time set for a virtual Status Conference. Plaintiffs, Jeff Connell, who is not
present, and Jon Macy, who is present, are represented by counsel, Timothy Lasota. Plaintiff,
Tamara Block, is not present and represented by counsel, Florence Bruemmer. Defendant, Casa
Del Monte, Inc, is represented by counsel, Nikolas Thompson. No other parties appear. All
present parties appear virtually.

A record of the proceedings is made digitally.

At Plaintiff counsel, Florence Bruemmer’s request,

IT IS ORDERED waiving Plaintiff, Tamara Block’s presence for this hearing only.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2025-038890

01/05/2026

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 2

Discussion is held regarding the status of Casa Del Monte, Inc’s Homeowners Association’s recall
petition.

IT IS ORDERED the parties shall meet and confer to determine whether the recall petition is
fully resolved and to notify the Court whether the issue(s) have been fully resolved or require
further action from the Court.

Discussion is held regarding the preliminary injunction.

Defense counsel, Nickolas Thompson, informs the Court that he is representing Defendant, Casa
Del Monte, Inc, on the CV2025-038890 case only and there may be a conflict if he were to
represent Defendant, Casa Del Monte, Inc, on the CV2025-063702 case.

IT IS ORDERED counsels, Florence Bruemmer and Nikolas Thompson shall meet and confer
regarding representation for Defendant, Casa Del Monte, Inc, on the CV2025-063702 case.

IT IS ORDERED counsels, Timothy Lasota and Nikolas Thompson shall inform the Court not
later than February 5, 2026 whether CV2025-038890 will proceed.

Plaintiff’s counsel, Florence Bruemmer, informs the Court that she does not object to an extension
for the Defense counsel to file its response to the Application for Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunction.

Mark Finlinson addresses the Court.

1:55 p.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/21/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2025-038890

01/20/2026

Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID MCDOWELL
C. Nasui

Deputy

JEFF CONNELL, et al.
TIMOTHY A LASOTA

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NIKOLAS T THOMPSON

FLORENCE BRUEMMER
SOLOMON SCOTT KROTZER
JUDGE MCDOWELL

MINUTE ENTRY

There is an important LATER below.

East Court Building – Courtroom 511-VC-CV

9:08 a.m. This is the time set for a Return Hearing regarding Plaintiff, Tamara Block’s Application
for Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Request for Order to Show Cause to Enforce
A.R.S. §33-1243, filed December 15, 2025. Plaintiffs, Jeff Connell, and John Macy, who is present,
is represented by counsel, Timothy A. Lasota. Consolidated Plaintiff, Tamara Block, who is
present, is represented by counsel, Florence Bruemer. Defendants, Casa Del Monte Inc, and
Barbara Whyte, who is present, are represented by counsel, Solomon Scott Krotzer, and Nikolas
T. Thompson. All parties are present telephonically/virtually via Court Connect.

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

Discussion is held regarding the Plaintiff, Tamara Block’s Application for Restraining Order,
Preliminary Injunction, and Request for Order to Show Cause to Enforce A.R.S. §33-1243, filed
December 15, 2025.

Based on the discussion held on the record, and by agreement of the parties,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2025-038890

01/20/2026

Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED setting this matter for an in-person Evidentiary Hearing regarding Plaintiff,
Tamara Block’s Application for Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Request for Order
to Show Cause to Enforce A.R.S. §33-1243 on February 4, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. (time allotted: 3
hours) before:

THE HONORABLE DAVID MCDOWELL
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING
101 W JEFFERSON 5TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 511
PHOENIX, AZ 85003

All counsel must appear in person and cannot appear virtually/telephonically.

The parties/attorneys are advised that the failure to appear for the hearing may result in
sanctions, including dismissal of the action per Rule 16(F) of the Arizona Rules of Civil
Procedure.

IT IS ORDERED counsel shall file no later than February 2, 2026, at 5:00 p.m., a Prehearing
Statement.

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall indicate in the Pretrial Statement which exhibits they have
agreed will be admissible at trial as well as any specific objections that will be made to any exhibit
if offered at trial which is not agreed to be admitted. Reserving all objections to the time of trial
will not be permitted.

IT IS ORDERED disclosure of exhibits and witnesses must be made as soon as practicable but
in any event no later than five business days prior to the hearing.

Continuances, postponements, and schedule changes will not ordinarily be granted. Any
postponement or change will be granted only in accordance with appropriate rules, based on a
showing of good cause, and requires the express written approval of the Court.

9:21 a.m. Matter concludes.
EXHIBIT REQUIREMENTS
IT IS ORDERED that the parties submit any proposed hearing exhibits as follows:
1. Submit Hearing Exhibits through Case Center. This division is using Case Center (also
known as Case Lines), a statewide electronic exhibit portal. Attorneys must submit exhibits
through Case Center; Self-Represented Litigants can request to opt-out of Case Center by
contacting the judge’s division at [email protected]. Unless otherwise ordered,
Exhibits must be submitted at least 5 business days (not including weekends) before the
hearing as provided below.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2025-038890

01/20/2026

Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 3

2. Opting Out of Case Center (Self-Represented Litigants only). A Self-Represented
Litigant may opt out of Case Center no less than 10 calendar days before the
trial/evidentiary hearing (or within 24 hours of being served with notice if the party is
served less than 10 calendar days before the evidentiary hearing). The Self-Represented
Litigant must email the other Self-Represented Litigants or counsel and the assigned
judicial division to notify the court that they are opting out and to request instructions for
submitting exhibits. Self-Represented Litigants must comply with the deadline for
submitting Exhibits. Each party must make sure the Court has the party’s valid current
email address. If you do not have an email address, you can obtain a free one through
accounts.google.com.
Each
party
must
register
for
Case
Center
at
www.azcourts.gov/digitalevidence. The website has links to training resources that will
guide you through uploading exhibits and navigating Case Center. The Clerk of Court will
send an email invitation to each party (or their attorney of record) with a case-specific Case
Center link for uploading exhibits before the first hearing. For subsequent hearings in the
same case, parties will not receive another email and should access the case on the Case
List page. For instructions, See azcourts.gov/Portals/0/222/TrainingVideos/Invitation-
CaseList-CaseFilter-3-2-2022.mp4 For assistance with Case Center invitations only,
email the Clerk of Court at [email protected]. The email subject line
should include the case number. The body of the email should include the parties’ names,
the assigned judge’s name and explain that the sender is requesting help with a Case Center
invitation.

3. Exhibit Format. Case Center accepts most digital formats (including photographs, PDFs,
Word files, audio files, and video files). Case Center automatically numbers the exhibits.
Plaintiff/Petitioner’s exhibits have a P- prefix (Exhibit P1, P2, etc.) and
Defendant/Respondent’s exhibits have a D- prefix (Exhibit D1, D2, etc.). During the
hearing, the parties must refer to exhibits using the Case Center exhibit numbers. For
assistance with Case Center, contact AOC Support Services at (602) 452-3519 (option 5)
or [email protected], Monday – Friday 7 AM – 6 PM, excluding State holidays.
4. Exhibit Upload Assistance.  Scanners are available at each of the regional court Law
Library Resource Centers. Each scanner has an attached computer and instructions on how
to upload exhibits into Case Center.
5. Exchange Exhibits. At least 5 business days before the Prehearing Statements are due,
you must give the other party copies of all exhibits you submitted for use at the hearing.
6. Physical Exhibits. Objects and very large audio-video files cannot be uploaded to Case
Center and must be submitted to the Division as a physical exhibit. The Courtroom Clerk
will handle marking physical exhibits for Self-Represented Litigants who opt out of Case
Center. Attorneys who submit physical exhibits must create a placeholder in Case Center
and include “Physical Exhibit” in the name of the exhibit prior to submitting the physical
exhibit(s) to the judge’s division. The collection of physical exhibits must have a Physical
Exhibit Case Coversheet that includes the following: (1) the name of the party submitting
the exhibit(s); (2) the case number; (3) the date of hearing; and (4) the exhibit number(s)

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2025-038890

01/20/2026

Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 4

and description(s). In addition, each individual exhibit must have an Exhibit Coversheet
printed on color paper indicating the physical exhibit’s exhibit number in Case Center. For
Self-Represented Litigants, if any individual exhibit is a document that is longer than ten
(10) pages, each page of the exhibit should be numbered. Division staff will provide the
exhibits to the Courtroom Clerk for marking. The Courtroom Clerk will mark physical
exhibit(s) with the same exhibit number used in Case Center. Physical exhibits must be
submitted to the Division five calendar days in advance of the hearing.
7. Devices and WiFi. If needed, hearing participants may request to use a court-provided
devices to view and present exhibits during an evidentiary hearing. All requests for access
to a court-provided device must be submitted to the division via email 5 calendar days
before the Hearing. Hearing participants can connect to the court’s free MCPUBLIC WiFi
for up to 90 minutes. For evidentiary hearings/trials longer than 90 minutes, WiFi users,
the parties may request access to MCSponsored WiFi which will allow access to WiFi
without the need to reconnect after 90 minutes by emailing the assigned division 10
calendar days in advance of any Hearing. Self-Represented Litigant access will be valid
for 60 days; lawyer and nonlawyer representative access will be valid for 365 days.
8. Remote Witnesses. Any party who calls a witness who is appearing remotely (i.e., by
telephone or videoconference) should either (1) provide the witness with a copy of all
exhibits or (2) ensure that the remote witness has an electronic device available that allows
them to view exhibits displayed on a screen through either Case Center or Teams.
9. Exhibit Presentation During Hearings. Unless indicated otherwise in any hearing-
specific court minute entry or order, offerors may, but are not required to, use Case Center
to present (e.g., show to the court, a witness, or the jury) evidence during a Hearing.
Options for presentation of evidence include but are not limited to the following: (1) use
of paper copies of the exhibits that have been uploaded to Case Center; (2) use of evidence
presentation software and/or PDF viewers to display PDFs of exhibits that have been
uploaded to Case Center; (3) screen sharing of Case Center through Court Connect
(Teams); and (4) use of Case Center “Presentation” mode to share exhibits. Parties are
strongly encouraged to download PDFs of their Case Center exhibits and/or have paper
copies available in the event there are technological difficulties in the courtroom.
10. Additional resources. For Case Center related training and questions, the parties many
wish to visit the Arizona Courts Digital Evidence Training Resources Website at:
https://www.azcourts.gov/digitalevidence/Training/AttorneyandSelf-
RepresentedLitigants. For technical issues with Case Center, parties may contact AOC
Support Services Monday – Friday from 7:00 AM – 6:00 PM, excluding State holidays, at
(602) 452-3519, 1-800-720-7743 (toll free), or [email protected]. The parties may
also wish to review A.O. 2024-080 at https://www.azcourts.gov/digitalevidence.com for
additional information regarding Case Center.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2025-038890

01/20/2026

Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 5

NOTE: Depositions will not be marked as exhibits. If you plan to read from a deposition or
use the deposition for impeachment purposes, you will need to supply an ORIGINAL
transcript to the courtroom clerk for filing. Copies will not be filed with the clerk.

NOTE: 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.

LATER

If it was not clear, the Court declines to enter a temporary restraining order prior to holding an
evidentiary hearing to address the request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/09/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2025-038890

02/04/2026

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID MCDOWELL
A. Navarro Albor

Deputy

JEFF CONNELL, et al.
TIMOTHY A LASOTA

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NIKOLAS T THOMPSON

FLORENCE BRUEMMER
SOLOMON SCOTT KROTZER
JUDGE MCDOWELL

EVIDENTIARY HEARING
MINUTE ENTRY

Prior to the commencement of today’s proceedings, Plaintiff’s exhibits 1-9, and Defendant’s
exhibits 1-7 are submitted electronically via the Case Center Platform.

East Court Building – Courtroom 511–CV

9:00 a.m. This is the time set for an Evidentiary Hearing regarding Plaintiff, Tamara Block’s
Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Request for Order to
Show Cause to Enforce ARS §33-1243, filed December 15, 2025, under consolidated cause number
CV2025-063702. Consolidated Plaintiff, Tamara Block is present and is represented by counsel,
Florence Bruemmer. Consolidated Defendants, Casa Del Monte, Jon Macy, who appears virtually,
and Barbara Whyte, who is present in the courtroom, are represented by counsel, Solomon Scott
Krotzer.

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

Discussion is held regarding the original unconsolidated matter for CV2025-038890 and a Motion
for Dismissal received by the Court on the morning of February 4, 2026.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2025-038890

02/04/2026

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2

LET THE RECORD REFLECT counsel Nikolas Thompson is present in the gallery and
confirms a Motion for Dismissal was filed prior to the commencement of today’s proceedings.

The following witnesses are sworn prior to testimony:

 Tamara Block
 Barbara Whyte
 Julie Brassell

Plaintiff’s Case:

Julie Brassell testifies.

Plaintiff’s exhibits 6, 7, 8, and 3 are received in evidence.

The witness is excused.

Plaintiff Tamara Block testifies.

Upon motion from Plaintiff, Defendant’s exhibit 6, and 1 are received in evidence.

Plaintiff’s exhibit 5 is received in evidence.

Plaintiff rests.

Defendants’ Case:

Upon stipulation of the parties, Plaintiff’s exhibits 1, and 4, and Defendants’ exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5,
and 7 are received in evidence.

Defendant Barbara Whyte testifies.

Over the objection of Counsel Solomon Scott Krotzer, Plaintiff’s exhibit 9 is received in evidence.

11:04 a.m. The Court stands at recess.

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

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

Gina Haynie is sworn and testifies telephonically.

The witness is excused.

Karen Byrne is sworn and testifies telephonically.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2025-038890

02/04/2026

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 3

The witness is excused.

Defendants rest.

LET THE RECORD REFLECT both Parties waive their time for closing statements.

Discussion is held regarding statements of law made by Plaintiff and whether counsel has any
authority for those statements.

Based on the discussion held on the record,

IT IS ORDERED taking this matter Under Advisement.

11:39 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/11/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2025-038890

02/09/2026

Docket Code 079
Form J000
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID MCDOWELL
A. Patel

Deputy

JEFF CONNELL, et al.
TIMOTHY A LASOTA

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NIKOLAS T THOMPSON

FLORENCE BRUEMMER
SOLOMON SCOTT KROTZER
DOCKET CV TX
JUDGE MCDOWELL

PARTIAL DISMISSAL

On February 4, 2026 Plaintiffs Jeff Connell and Jon Macy filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
of their claims against Casa Del Monte Inc. Casa Del Monte has not filed an answer in this matter.
Pursuant to Rule 41(a), Ariz.R.Civ.Proc.,

IT IS ORDERED dismissing the claims of Jeff Connell and John Macy against Casa Del Monte
Inc.,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the dismissal of the claims of Jeff Connell and Jon Macy does not
affect the claims of Tamara Block filed in this consolidated action.

IT IS ORDERED signing this minute entry as a formal order of this Court.

___________________________________________
HONORABLE DAVID MCDOWELL
JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/20/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2025-038890

03/19/2026

Docket Code 926
Form J000
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID MCDOWELL
A. Patel

Deputy

JEFF CONNELL, et al.

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NIKOLAS T THOMPSON

FLORENCE BRUEMMER
SOLOMON SCOTT KROTZER
TIMOTHY A LASOTA
JUDGE MCDOWELL

RULING ON COMPLAINT AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

On February 4, 2026 the Court held a final hearing to address Plaintiff Tamara Block’s December
15, 2025 Complaint and Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction,
and Request for Order to Show Cause to Enforce A.R.S. § 33-1243. The hearing on the application
for preliminary injunction was combined with an evidentiary hearing on the underlying Complaint.
The decision below resolves this matter in its entirety.

Ms. Block contends in September 2025 members of the Casa Del Monte homeowners’ association
circulated a petition to recall board members Jeffrey Connell and Jon Macy. A special meeting
was scheduled for November 6, 2025 to vote on the recall petition for both board members.

On November 3, 2025, this Court held a hearing upon the application of Plaintiff Jeffrey Connell
and Jon Macy for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction aimed at the September
2025 recall petition. The Court determined the recall petition was defective because A.R.S. §33-
1243(H) does not permit a recall petition to be directed at more than one board member. The Court
entered an order restraining the board of directors from holding a vote on the combined recall
petition.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2025-038890

03/19/2026

Docket Code 926
Form J000
Page 2

Immediately after the Court’s entry of its order on the combined Connell/ Macy recall petition,
members of the homeowner’s association circulated two recall petitions: one directed at Jon Macy
and the second directed at Gina Haynie. Ms. Block asserts both recall petitions obtained the
required number of signatures (the Association did not dispute that either petition had the required
number of signatures).

The Haynie and Macy recall petitions were submitted to the board on November 6, 2025. A special
meeting was scheduled for December 5, 2026 to vote on the Haynie petition. No special meeting
was scheduled to vote on the November 2025 Macy recall petition.

Ms. Block contends A.R.S. §33-1243(H)(4)(c) and (d) require the entire board be removed
(including Jon Macy) because the board failed to hold a special meeting to vote on the Macy recall
petition within 30 days of receipt of the recall petition. The board argues the requirements of A.R.S.
§33-1243(H) were not met and therefore removal of the entire board is not compelled by statute.
Specifically, the board argues the November Macy recall petition was a second recall petition and
is invalid under A.R.S. §33-1243(H)(4)(h).

The gravamen of the dispute is whether the September 2025 recall petition aimed at Jon Macy
made the November 2025 recall petition a second (and prohibited) recall petition pursuant to
A.R.S. §33-1243(H)(4)(h) or whether the fact there was no vote on the September 2025 recall
petition permitted the members of the association to submit a second recall petition.

A.R.S. §33-1243(H) provides:

H. Notwithstanding any provision of the declaration or bylaws to the contrary, all
of the following apply to a meeting at which a member of the board of directors,
other than a member appointed by the declarant, is proposed to be removed from
the board of directors:

1. The unit owners who are eligible to vote at the time of the meeting may remove
any member of the board of directors, other than a member appointed by the
declarant, by a majority vote of those voting on the matter at a meeting of the unit
owners.

2. The meeting of the unit owners shall be called pursuant to this section and action
may be taken only if a quorum is present.

3. The unit owners may remove any member of the board of directors with or
without cause, other than a member appointed by the declarant.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2025-038890

03/19/2026

Docket Code 926
Form J000
Page 3

4. For purposes of calling for removal of a member of the board of directors, other
than a member appointed by the declarant, the following apply:

(a) In an association with one thousand or fewer members, on receipt of a
petition that calls for removal of a member of the board of directors and that
is signed by the number of persons who are eligible to vote in the association
at the time the person signs the petition equal to at least twenty-five percent
of the votes in the association or by the number of persons who are eligible
to vote in the association at the time the person signs the petition equal to at
least one hundred votes in the association, whichever is less, the board shall
call and provide written notice of a special meeting of the association as
prescribed by § 33-1248, subsection B.

(b) Notwithstanding § 33-1248, subsection B, in an association with more
than one thousand members, on receipt of a petition that calls for removal
of a member of the board of directors and that is signed by the number of
persons who are eligible to vote in the association at the time the person
signs the petition equal to at least ten percent of the votes in the association
or by the number of persons who are eligible to vote in the association at
the time the person signs the petition equal to at least one thousand votes in
the association, whichever is less, the board shall call and provide written
notice of a special meeting of the association. The board shall provide
written notice of a special meeting as prescribed by § 33-1248, subsection
B.

(c) The special meeting shall be called, noticed and held within thirty days
after receipt of the petition.

(d) If all of the requirements of this subsection for calling a special meeting
are met and the board of directors fails to call, notice and hold a special
meeting within thirty days after receipt of the petition, the members of the
board of directors are deemed removed from office effective at midnight of
the thirty-first day.

(e) For purposes of a special meeting called pursuant to this subsection, a
quorum is present if the number of owners who are eligible to vote in the
association at the time the person attends the meeting equal to at least twenty
percent of the votes of the association or the number of persons who are
eligible to vote in the association at the time the person attends the meeting

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2025-038890

03/19/2026

Docket Code 926
Form J000
Page 4

equal to at least one thousand votes, whichever is less, is present at the
meeting in person or as otherwise allowed by law.

(f) If a civil action is filed regarding the removal of a board member, the
prevailing party in the civil action shall be awarded its reasonable attorney
fees and costs.

(g) The board of directors shall retain all documents and other records
relating to the proposed removal of the member of the board of directors
and any election or other action taken for that director's replacement for at
least one year after the date of the special meeting and shall allow members
to inspect those documents and records pursuant to § 33-1258.

(h) A petition that calls for the removal of the same member of the board of
directors shall not be submitted more than once during each term of office
for that member.

Neither party provided the Court with any cases interpreting A.R.S. §33-1243(H). While Ms.
Block argued legislative history indicated that the term “submitted” required a vote by the
members of the association, she provided no legislative history or anything else to support her
testimony, even when asked for a citation to authority at the conclusion of the hearing.

This case requires the Court to interpret A.R.S. §33-1243 and determine how it applies to the fact
pattern before it. The primary rule of statutory construction is to find and give effect to legislative
intent.” Mail Boxes v. Indus. Comm’n of Ariz., 181 Ariz. 119, 121 (1995); J.D. v. Hegyi, 236 Ariz.
39, 40-41 (2014), citing Sell v. Gama, 231 Ariz. 323, 327 (2013).

The best and most reliable indicator of a statute’s meaning is its language. N. Valley Emergency
Specialists, L.L.C. v. Santana, 208 Ariz. 301, 303 (2004); Bentley v. Building Our Future, 217
Ariz. 265, 270 (App. 2007). “In construing a statute, [the Court] look[s] to the plain language of
the statute, giving effect to every word and phrase, and assigning to each word its plain and
common meaning.” Ponderosa Fire Dist. v. Coconino Cty., 235 Ariz. 597, 602 (App. 2014), citing
Bilke v. State, 206 Ariz. 462, 464 (2003) and Cochise Cty. v. Broken Arrow Baptist Church, 161
Ariz. 406, 409 (App. 1989). If the language is clear, the Court will apply it without resorting to
other methods of statutory interpretation, unless application of the statute’s plain meaning would
lead to impossible or absurd results. N. Valley Emergency Specialists, id., citing Bilke, id; State ex
rel. Montgomery v. Harris, 234 Ariz. 343, 345 (2014).

In determining the ordinary meaning of a word, the court may refer to an established and widely
used dictionary.” State v. Mahaney, 193 Ariz. 566, 568 (App. 1999). If the language is “subject to

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2025-038890

03/19/2026

Docket Code 926
Form J000
Page 5

only one reasonable meaning,” the Court will apply that meaning. J.D. v. Hegyi, 236 Ariz. 39, 40-
41 (2014), quoting Baker v. Univ. Physicians Healthcare, 231 Ariz. 379, 383 (2013). “Words in
statutes, however, cannot be read in isolation from the context in which they are used.” J.D., Id. at
41; see Adams v. Comm'n on Appellate Court Appointments, 227 Ariz. 128, 135 (2011). “The
plainness or ambiguity of statutory language is determined by reference to the language itself, the
specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole.”
Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341 (1997). “We must construe a statute to fulfill
legislative intent by considering it as a whole and giving harmonious effect to all of its sections.”
RSP Architects, Ltd. v. Five Star Dev. Resort Communities, LLC, 232 Ariz. 436, 439 (App. 2013);
see City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 218 Ariz. 172, 183 (App. 2008).

However, courts are “not at liberty to rewrite [a] statute under the guise of judicial interpretation.”
New Sun Bus. Park, LLC v. Yuma Cty., 221 Ariz. 43, 47 (App. 2009), quoting State v. Patchin,
125 Ariz. 501, 502 (App. 1980). Rather, the choice of appropriate wording rests with the
legislature. City of Phx. v. Butler, 110 Ariz. 160, 162 (1973).

The term “submitted” is not defined in A.R.S. Title 33. (See A.R.S. §33-1202).

The term submit is defined as, “to present (a proposal, application, or other document) to a person
or body for consideration or judgement”. Merriam Webster Dictionary (online version, consulted
03/16/2025). In this case, a recall petition is submitted to the board and then if the recall petition
meets the appropriate requirements (number of signatures, signatures of members of the
association, etc.,) a special meeting is called, a special meeting is held, and a vote is conducted.

The term “submitted” is not synonymous with “vote”, “call a special meeting”, or “conduct a
special meeting”, or the other terms used in the other sections of A.R.S. §33-1243(H) which relate
to recall petitions. Instead of using the term “vote” in A.R.S. §33-1243(H)(4)(h), the legislature
chose to use the word “submitted”. If the legislature had only intended to prevent multiple votes
on recall petitions for the same board member, it could easily have used the word “vote” or
indicated that no more than one special meeting shall be called or held to address recall petitions
addressed at the same board member. However, the legislature used the term submitted, which
implies - because the submission is made by the members of the association - that the legislature
intended to stop repeated recall petitions before a special meeting was called, a special meeting
was held, or a vote was held. The legislature also did not state “submitted to members” which
would imply its intent that a vote is required. If the legislature had intended that a recall petition
reach a vote before future recall petitions are prohibited, it could have said so. It did not.

The plain definition of “submitted” does not make any other provision of this statute ambiguous,
nor does it render any other provision of this statute superfluous, contradictory, or absurd.
However, if the Court were to read the term “submitted” as advocated by Ms. Block, i.e. the same

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2025-038890

03/19/2026

Docket Code 926
Form J000
Page 6

as ”voting” then an incongruity of terms would result. As advocated by Ms. Block two terms with
different ordinary and plain meanings would be interpreted synonymously to achieve a result not
supported by the plain language of the specific clause or the statute as a whole. Ms. Block’s
position would require the Court to do what it cannot – substitute its judgment for that of the
legislature.

While the plain definition of “submitted” may not achieve the result desired by some members of
this association, the Court’s role is to determine the intent of the legislature, not substitute its
judgment for that of the legislature. If a party believes the language of a statute does not meet the
present needs of the citizens of this state or that certain terms need to be defined to aid in the
application of the statutes, his/her recourse is to return to the legislature to modify the statutes. The
Court can only interpret what is written, the Court cannot re-write the statute for the legislative
branch.

The Court does not find that the first recall petition for Jon Macy needed to be voted upon by the
members before it would act to prohibit a second recall petition under A.R.S. §33-1343(H)(4)(h).
The first recall petition for John Macy was submitted to the board and the board called a special
meeting for November 6, 2025. The November 2025 recall petition for Jon Macy was also
submitted to the board and constituted a second recall petition “submitted” for the same board
member within that member’s term. As such the November 2025 recall petition violated A.R.S.
§33-1342(H)(4)(h).

Because the November 2025 recall petition for Jon Macy was a second recall petition within Mr.
Macy’s same term, it was not permitted by the statute. Because the November 2025 recall petition
was not valid, “all of the requirements of this subsection for calling a special meeting” (as provided
in the introductory clause of A.R.S. §33-1243(H)(4)(d)) were not met and the board’s failure to
call a special meeting was not improper and the sanction clause of A.R.S. §33-1243(H)(4)(d) does
not apply. The Court finds the board did not violate A.R.S. §33-1243(H)(4)(d)

IT IS ORDERED denying the request to remove the entire board of directors as requested in
Plaintiff Tamara Block’s December 15, 2025 Complaint and Application for Temporary
Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Request for Order to Show Cause to Enforce
A.R.S. § 33-1243

Based upon Plaintiff’s failure to prevail on the merits, IT IS ORDERED denying the request for
a preliminary and permanent injunction.

Ms. Block also asserted Ms. Whyte, another board member, should be removed because she was
holding secret meetings of the board and retained counsel without approval of the board.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2025-038890

03/19/2026

Docket Code 926
Form J000
Page 7

Ms. Block failed to produce sufficient persuasive evidence to support either of those allegations.

IT IS ORDERED denying the request to remove Barbara Whyte as a board member.

IT IS ORDERED denying any other relief sought by Tamara Block in her December 15, 2025
Complaint and Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and
Request for Order to Show Cause to Enforce A.R.S. § 33-1243

IT IS ORDERED Defendant shall submit a proposed form of judgment containing Rule 54(c)
language by April 20, 2026. If Defendant intends to assert a claim for fees or costs, the application
and supporting affidavits shall be submitted no later than April 3, 2026.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/12/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2025-038890

05/11/2026

Docket Code 375
Form J000
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID MCDOWELL
A. Patel

Deputy

JEFF CONNELL, et al.

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NIKOLAS T THOMPSON

FLORENCE BRUEMMER
SOLOMON SCOTT KROTZER
TIMOTHY A LASOTA
JUDGE MCDOWELL

DISMISSAL DATE SET

The Court is in receipt of the May 5, 2026 Notice of Settlement filed by Defendant.

IT IS ORDERED setting a dismissal date of July 10, 2026. After that date this matter will be
dismissed, without further notice, unless prior to that date, the parties submit a stipulation and
proposed order, a stipulated form of judgment, or file a motion to set and certificate of readiness
indicating all discovery/disclosure is complete and the parties have attended some form of
facilitated settlement discussion.

IT IS ORDERED any pending motions, including Defendant’s request for attorney fees and costs
are deemed moot.

IT IS ORDERED any hearings scheduled after the date of this Minute Entry are vacated.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

11/13/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2025-038890

11/03/2025

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID MCDOWELL
C. Lockhart

Deputy

JEFF CONNELL, et al.
TIMOTHY A LASOTA

v.

CV2025-025535
-10312025.do

CASA DEL MONTE INC
CASA DEL MONTE INC
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD

JUDGE MCDOWELL

MINUTE ENTRY

East Court Building – Courtroom 511

3:35 p.m. This is the time set for an Order to Show Cause Return Hearing regarding
Plaintiffs’ Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Request for
Order to Show Cause, filed October 23, 2025. Plaintiffs, Jeffrey Connell, who is present, and Jon
Macy, who is not present, are represented by counsel, Timothy A. LaSota. Defendant, Casa Del
Monte Inc., is not represented by counsel. All appearances are virtual.

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

LET THE RECORD REFLECT several board members and residents are present.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2025-038890

11/03/2025

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2

The Court advises the board members and residents of Casa Del Monte, Inc., because the
HOA is a corporation, it must be represented by counsel, and the residents cannot appear on behalf
of Casa Del Monte.

Mark Finlinson, a resident, explains why they do not have counsel. The attorney who
accepted service is not authorized to appear for today’s hearing.

Argument is held.

For the reasons set forth on the record,

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the election
from taking place. Plaintiff shall prepare a form of order, and provide copies of the order to the
statutory agent for the HOA, and the original counsel for the Defendant, Mr. Bolen, as a courtesy.

3:52 p.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

11/07/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2025-038890

11/06/2025

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID MCDOWELL
K. Johanson

Deputy

JEFF CONNELL, et al.
TIMOTHY A LASOTA

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
CASA DEL MONTE INC
JOHN SAHERER
4525 N 66TH ST
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

JUDGE MCDOWELL

STATUS CONFERENCE SET

On November 3, 2025 a hearing was held to address Plaintiffs’ request for a Temporary
Restraining Order. To determine the next steps in this matter and to determine how to get it
resolved,

IT IS ORDERED setting a virtual status conference for January 5, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. (allotted
time: 30 minutes). The hearing shall be held by Court Connect.

Join the meeting now
https://tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj05a
Dial in by phone
+1 917-781-4590 United States, New York City
Phone conference ID: 171 232 856#

As indicated during the November 3, 2025 hearing, the Condominium Owner’s Association
MUST appear through counsel. Counsel must be retained and be prepared to proceed on January
5, 2026

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/19/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2025-038890

12/18/2025
CV 2025-063702

Docket Code 053
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID MCDOWELL
K. Johanson

Deputy

JEFF CONNELL, et al.
TIMOTHY A LASOTA

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
CASA DEL MONTE INC
JOHN SAHERER
4525 N 66TH ST
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

DOCKET CV TX
JUDGE MANDELL
JUDGE MCDOWELL

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Tamara Block’s December 5, 2025 Motion to Consolidate
Cases.

The Court finds both cases (CV2025-038890 and CV2025-063702) involve disputes over the
homeowner’s association at Casa Del Monte Inc., and call for determination of substantially the
same question of law and fact.

IT IS ORDERED consolidating cause numbers CV2025-038890 and CV2025-063702 into cause
number CV2025-038890 for all further proceedings.

IT IS ORDERED all further proceedings in this combined case shall be handled by the Honorable
David McDowell

Documents