Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2019-055353: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Dorsey Place Condominium Association.

Case Number

CV2019-055353

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

11/20/2019

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Julian, Melissa

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

No parties captured.

Minute Entries

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/07/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

01/06/2020

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
A. Wood

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
JIE CAO
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.
EDITH I RUDDER

MICHAEL A SCHERN
STONE XIA
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
HAINING XIA
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
COMM. POPHAM
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO

MINUTE ENTRY

This Court has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application/Motion for Default against
Defendant(s), Lorne Polger in the above-captioned case.

IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above-referenced
document(s).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

01/06/2020

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

The parties are advised that commissioners handle Rule 55(b) Default Judgment
proceedings and that the default proceedings in this matter are to be heard by Commissioner
Popham.

IT IS ORDERED that all documents necessary to support the entry of a default judgment
must be e-filed.

Pursuant to the Maricopa County eFiling Guidelines, Section 2.09, attorneys shall
electronically file all the documents required to request a default judgment, such as the Application for
Entry of Default, Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, Sum Certain Affidavit, and Application for
Attorneys’ Fees when appropriate and Statement of Costs, but shall submit a default judgment packet
required by the Court, including the documents identified on the default judgment packet coversheet,
in paper to the assigned commissioner’s division. A commissioner will not act upon a Motion for Entry
of Default Judgment until the default judgment packet with all the required documents has been
received by the division in paper form.

The parties/counsel can find additional information in the form of frequently asked questions
at: http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/howDoI.asp

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/13/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

01/08/2025

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE M. SCOTT MCCOY
T. Aird

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
COLIN F CAMPBELL

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

FREDRICK APTS L L L P THE
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
LOUIS D LOPEZ
GEOFFREY M STURR
ANDREW B HAYNES
CHARLES E MARKLE
COMM. PALMER
JUDGE MCCOY

DEFAULT REFERRAL

This Division has received the Application for Entry of Default Against Defendant
The Fredrick Apts LLLP, filed January 7, 2025, by counsel for Plaintiff against Defendant
captioned therein, as to the above-numbered case.

IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this Division on the above-referenced
document(s).

The parties are advised that Commissioners handle Rule 55 Default Judgment
proceedings, and that the Default proceedings in this matter are to be heard by The Honorable
Brian Palmer.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all documents necessary to support the entry of a
Default Judgment must be e-filed/filed.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

01/08/2025

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

Pursuant to the Maricopa County eFiling Guidelines, section 2.09, attorneys shall
electronically file all the documents required to request a Default Judgment, such as the
Application and Affidavit for Default, Affidavit for Default (if the Servicemembers Civil Reform
Act applies and the filing party does not otherwise use the form Application and Affidavit for
Default), Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, Sum Certain Affidavit, and Application for
Attorneys’ Fees when appropriate, and Statement of Costs.

Attorneys and Self-Represented Litigants must submit a Default Judgment packet
required by the Court, including the documents identified on the Default Judgment packet
coversheet in paper to the assigned Commissioner’s Division. A Commissioner will not act upon
a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment until the Default Judgment packet with all the required
documents has been received by the Division in paper form.

You may wish to review the following resources for additional information regarding the
Default process:

Applications for Default

https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/llrc/cv_cvc6/

Motions

https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/media/n30m54ah/gn10fz.pdf

Civil Default Checklist

https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/media/jitjlp0s/cvc50fz.pdf

Civil Court Administration Processing Information
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/media/wlojzc53/civil-department-post-filing-
information-and-instructions.pdf

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/16/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

01/14/2025

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE M. SCOTT MCCOY
T. Aird

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
COLIN F CAMPBELL

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

JEFFERSON R HAYDEN
LOUIS D LOPEZ
IVAN GONZALEZ
GEOFFREY M STURR
ANDREW B HAYNES
CHARLES E MARKLE
COMM. PALMER
JUDGE MCCOY

DEFAULT REFERRAL

This Division has received the APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST
DEFENDANTS PFP DORSEY INVESTMENTS, LLC AND DORSEY PLACE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, filed January 13, 2025, by counsel for Plaintiffs against Defendants captioned
therein, as to the above-numbered case.

IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this Division on the above-
referenced document(s).

The parties are advised that Commissioners handle Rule 55 Default Judgment
proceedings, and that the Default proceedings in this matter are to be heard by The Honorable
Brian Palmer.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

01/14/2025

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all documents necessary to support the entry of a
Default Judgment must be e-filed/filed.

Pursuant to the Maricopa County eFiling Guidelines, section 2.09, attorneys shall
electronically file all the documents required to request a Default Judgment, such as the
Application and Affidavit for Default, Affidavit for Default (if the Servicemembers Civil Reform
Act applies and the filing party does not otherwise use the form Application and Affidavit for
Default), Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, Sum Certain Affidavit, and Application for
Attorneys’ Fees when appropriate, and Statement of Costs.

Attorneys and Self-Represented Litigants must submit a Default Judgment packet
required by the Court, including the documents identified on the Default Judgment packet
coversheet in paper to the assigned Commissioner’s Division. A Commissioner will not act upon
a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment until the Default Judgment packet with all the required
documents has been received by the Division in paper form.

You may wish to review the following resources for additional information regarding the
Default process:

Applications for Default

https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/llrc/cv_cvc6/

Motions

https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/media/n30m54ah/gn10fz.pdf

Civil Default Checklist

https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/media/jitjlp0s/cvc50fz.pdf

Civil Court Administration Processing Information
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/media/wlojzc53/civil-department-post-filing-
information-and-instructions.pdf

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/22/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

01/17/2020

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE GARY L. POPHAM JR.
V. Burton

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
JIE CAO
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.
EDITH I RUDDER

MICHAEL A SCHERN
STONE XIA
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
HAINING XIA
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
COMM. POPHAM
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff, Jie Cao’s, Motion for Entry of Default Judgment
Against Matt Quinn (Amended) filed on January 14, 2020.

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff, Jie Cao’s, Motion for Entry of Default Judgment
Against Matt Quinn (Amended).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

01/17/2020

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED referring this matter back to the Honorable Theodore
Campagnolo to address Defendants, Lorne Polger, Matt Quinn and Michael A. Schern’s, Motion
for More Definite Statement filed on December 18, 2019.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/21/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

01/17/2020

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
A. Wood

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
JIE CAO
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.
EDITH I RUDDER

MICHAEL A SCHERN
STONE XIA
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
HAINING XIA
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
JUDGE GATES

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received Defendants’ Notice Requesting Assignment to Commercial Court.
Having determined that the Notice was filed within 20 days of Defendants’ appearance in this case,
and pursuant to Rule 8.1, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure,

IT IS ORDERED referring this case to the Civil Presiding Judge for reassignment to
commercial court.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/22/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

01/21/2020

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
A. Wood

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
JIE CAO
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.
EDITH I RUDDER

MICHAEL A SCHERN
STONE XIA
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
HAINING XIA
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court is in receipt of two pleadings: (1) Motion to Strike Quinn/Polger’s Answer filed
January 14, 2020 and (2) Motion For Treble Damages filed January 6, 2020.

There is no indication on the pleadings that a copy has been provided to or served upon the
other side. The Court cannot consider ex-parte communications. For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED rejecting the above pleadings.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

01/21/2020

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

Should Plaintiff wish to bring a matter before this Court, Plaintiff shall do so by a properly
filed and served Motion.

**Counsel please review the information below**

Becoming familiar with the Court’s requirements is crucial; failure to comply with any of
the requirements can and will delay any resolution to the issue.

Counsel are encouraged to visit Judge Campagnolo’s online profile for information on
the Court’s expectations regarding motion practices and requirements, discovery disputes, and
hearing/trial procedures at the following website:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/judges/profile.asp?jdgID=327&jdg
USID=12118

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/24/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

01/22/2020

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
A. Wood

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
JIE CAO
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.
EDITH I RUDDER

MICHAEL A SCHERN
STONE XIA
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
HAINING XIA
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court is in receipt of Defendants Motion for More Definite Statement filed December
18, 2019.

The Court’s protocol regarding proposed orders provided with motions is as follows:

If a proposed order is applicable to the motion, and it is not e-filed with the motion, the
Court reserves the right to reject your motion until it is accompanied by a proposed order.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

01/22/2020

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED rejecting the above-mentioned pleading. The parties may refile the above
motion with an order in Word format that specifically directs Plaintiffs as to the pleading
deficiencies in the complaint.

**Counsel please review the information below**

Becoming familiar with the Court’s requirements is crucial; failure to comply with any of
the requirements can and will delay any resolution to the issue.

Counsel are encouraged to visit Judge Campagnolo’s online profile for information on
the Court’s expectations regarding motion practices and requirements, discovery disputes, and
hearing/trial procedures at the following website:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/judges/profile.asp?jdgID=327&jdg
USID=12118

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/27/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

01/23/2026

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
A. Cage

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
JIE CAO
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

JEFFERSON R HAYDEN
LOUIS D LOPEZ
STONE XIA
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
HAINING XIA
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
CHARLES E MARKLE
JUDGE JULIAN

STATUS CONFERENCE HELD
CASE STAYED PENDING ARBITRATION

Courtroom 611-VC-CV East Court Building

11:06 a.m. This is the time set for a Status Conference. Plaintiff, Haining Xia is present
on his own behalf. Defendants, PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC, and Dorsey Place Condominium
Association, are represented by counsel, Charles Markle. Defendant, The Fredrick Apts, LLLP, is
represented by counsel, Jefferson Hayden. All parties appear virtually.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

01/23/2026

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 2

A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter. For the reasons
set forth on the record,

IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Improper Joint Status Report,
filed January 20, 2026.

Discussion is held regarding the Arizona Supreme Court’s Mandate Remanding to the
Superior Court.

Plaintiff provides to a statement to the Court.

Mr. Markle provides a statement to the Court.

In accordance with the Supreme Court’s mandate, and for the reasons set forth on the
record,

IT IS ORDERED compelling the parties to initiate arbitration proceedings to adjudicate
the remaining fair market value determination based upon the Supreme Court’s mandate and in
accordance with the termination agreement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED staying the case pending completion of the arbitration
proceedings until March 26, 2026. If a motion to extend this stay for good cause or an application
for confirmation of the arbitration award is not filed by that date, the remaining claims will be
dismissed without prejudice and without further notice.

Discussion is held regarding the impact of the Arizona Supreme Court’s mandate as to
Defendant The Fredrick Apts LLLP. This Defendant was added as a result of a pleading
amendment permitted by the trial court in December 2024. That ruling was vacated by the Supreme
Court mandate such that parties and claims added by the Third Amended Complaint must now be
dismissed.

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that on or before February 20, 2026, Defendant The Fredrick Apts
LLLP may apply for an award of attorney’s fees and statement of costs. If an application or
statement is submitted that Plaintiffs wish to oppose, a response must be filed not later than 20
calendar days after service. Defendant The Fredrick Apts LLLP is not permitted to file a reply
unless requested to do so by the court.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

01/23/2026

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before February 20, 2026, Defendant The
Fredrick Apts LLLP 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 and, in the Arizona, Supreme Court's mandate but otherwise should be confined to a dismissal
order, proposed fee and cost awards along with Rule 54(b) language.

11:31 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/27/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

01/24/2020

Docket Code 066
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. PAMELA GATES
S. Ortega

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
JIE CAO
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.
EDITH I RUDDER

MICHAEL A SCHERN
STONE XIA
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
HAINING XIA
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
DOCKET-CIVIL-CCC
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
JUDGE DANIEL MARTIN

CASE REASSIGNMENT – COMMERCIAL COURT – CIVIL PRESIDING JUDGE

Pursuant to Judge Campagnolo’s January 17, 2020 minute entry, this case was referred to
the Civil Presiding Judge for reassignment to commercial court pursuant to Rule 8.1, Arizona
Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Transferring this case to commercial court.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

01/24/2020

Docket Code 066
Form V000A
Page 2

2. Reassigning this case from Judge Campagnolo, Civil Calendar CVJ-16, to Commercial
Court Judge Martin, Civil Calendar CVJ-08, for all further proceedings.

3. Any objection/opposition to the transfer to commercial court will be filed with and
ruled on by the commercial court judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall jointly file within 10 days of the date
of this minute entry, a notice with the new division listing any outstanding motions (including
the file dates), whether they are ripe for resolution, and any hearings that need to be reset.

Please note that commercial court has special procedural rules that you MUST follow.
Commercial court is governed by Rule 8.1. The goal of the commercial court is to process cases
efficiently and to help reduce the cost of commercial litigation. To achieve these goals, the court
may manage the pretrial matters in this case differently than it would otherwise.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED transferring this case to the Central Court Complex for all
further proceedings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED all parties are advised that this case will retain its current
case number.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the docket system be amended by the Clerk of Court
staff to reflect that this case is assigned to the Central Court Complex.

SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY
CENTRAL COURT COMPLEX
201 WEST JEFFERSON
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003

Note: Electronic versions of Rule 8.1, Forms 14(a) and 14(b), and the ESI checklist are available
on the Maricopa County Superior Court Website at

https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/civil/commercial-court/.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/14/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

02/11/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE M. SCOTT MCCOY
J. Eaton

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
COLIN F CAMPBELL

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

JEFFERSON R HAYDEN
LOUIS D LOPEZ
JUDGE MCCOY

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has reviewed and considered Defendants’ January 31, 2025 Motion to Stay Until
the Court of Appeals Rules on the Pending Petition for Special Action and Supplement to Motion
to Stay. No good cause shown,

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Stay.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/14/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

02/11/2025

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE M. SCOTT MCCOY
J. Eaton

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
COLIN F CAMPBELL

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

JEFFERSON R HAYDEN
LOUIS D LOPEZ
JUDGE MCCOY

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has reviewed and considered Defendants’ Motion to Strike, filed January 31,
2025. No good cause shown,

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Strike.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/18/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

02/13/2020

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIEL G. MARTIN
J. Eaton

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
JOHN DOUGLAS WILENCHIK

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.
MICHAEL A SCHERN

JUDGE DANIEL MARTIN

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court is in receipt of Defendants’ February 5, 2020 Notice of Outstanding Motions on
this recently re-assigned matter.

On the Court's own motion,

IT IS ORDERED setting a telephonic Status Conference on February 25, 2020, at 8:45
a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes).

Counsel for Plaintiffs shall initiate the call by arranging the presence of all parties and
contacting this Division at 602-372-2925.

NOTE: The proceedings will take place in the Superior Court’s “e-courtroom.” A record
of the proceedings will be made digitally in lieu of a court reporter. Should you want an unofficial
copy of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may request a digital copy of the proceedings for a
$30.00 charge. For copies of hearings or trial proceedings recorded previously, please call
Electronic Records Services at 602-506-7100.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

02/13/2020

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2

NOTE: 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.

Failure to timely request a court reporter will be deemed consent to proceed without a court
reporter.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/24/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

02/22/2021

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIEL G. MARTIN
J. Eaton

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
JOHN DOUGLAS WILENCHIK

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

STEPHANIE K GINTERT
NICHOLAS C NOGAMI
EDITH I RUDDER
ROSS P MEYER
D&C MATERIALS-CSC
JUDGE DANIEL MARTIN

MINUTE ENTRY

On February 22, 2021 the Court electronically signed the Order Granting Motion to File
Under Seal.

The parties have several conditions that require documents to be filed under seal as outlined
in the order.

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall present a copy of the February 22, 2021
electronically signed order to the filing counter clerk upon presenting a document to file under
seal.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/27/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

02/25/2020

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIEL G. MARTIN
J. Eaton

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
JOHN DOUGLAS WILENCHIK

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.
MICHAEL A SCHERN

ROSS P MEYER
JUDGE DANIEL MARTIN

MINUTE ENTRY

East Court Building – Courtroom 412

8:45 a.m. This is the time set for a telephonic Status Conference. Plaintiffs are represented
by counsel, Ross P. Meyer. Defendants are represented by counsel, Michael A. Schern.

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

Discussion is held regarding pending motions.

The Court informs counsel they may contact the Division by telephone or email should any
matters or disputes arise that require the Court’s prompt attention.

Following discussion with counsel,

IT IS ORDERED that counsel for the Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint not later
than March 27, 2020.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

02/25/2020

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 2

On that basis,

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ January 24, 2020 Motion for More Definite
Statement as moot.

Plaintiffs have withdrawn the following motions:

 Request to Lock up of Unit and Injunction on Defendants, filed January 22,
2020;
 Motion to Strike Defendants’ Answer, Notice and Motion, filed January 22,
2020; and
 Motion to Compel Defendants to Comply with Mailing Requirements, filed
January 14, 2020.

8:52 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/13/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

03/11/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
A. Cage

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
JIE CAO
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

JEFFERSON R HAYDEN
LOUIS D LOPEZ
STONE XIA
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
HAINING XIA
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
JUDGE JULIAN

RULING
Re: Pending Motions

This case has been partially stayed in accordance with the Arizona Supreme Court
mandate, filed November 17, 2025. This Court held a status conference on January 23, 2026 to
discuss the terms of the mandate and the next steps to implement its directives. (See Minute
Entry, filed 1/27/26). At that hearing, the Court set a briefing schedule and deadline for a
proposed judgment for the dismissal of Defendant The Fredrick Apts LLLP and it’s fee
application. The Court stayed the remaining issue to be litigated and referred the parties to
arbitration as required by the mandate.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

03/11/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

After the hearing, several motions and other documents were filed, including those listed
below:

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Judgment of Attorneys’ Fees, filed January 27, 2026
2. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Judgment of Attorneys’
Fees, filed January 27, 2026;
3. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quiet Title, filed January 27, 2026;
4. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quiet Title, filed January 27,
2026;
5. Motion For Entry of Order for Contempt Against Plaintiffs for Refusal To
Comply With Order Compelling Arbitration, filed February 5, 2026;
6. Motion To Strike Defendants’ Motion For Entry Of Order For Contempt Against
Plaintiffs For Refusal To Comply With Order Compelling Arbitration, filed
February 8, 2026;
7. Motion To Disqualify Counsel For The Dorsey Place Condominium Association,
To Require Independent Counsel, And For Related Relief, filed February 9, 2026;
8. Defendant The Fredrick Apts LLLP’s Application For Attorneys’ Fees And Costs,
filed February 20, 2026;
9. Defendant The Fredrick Apts LLLP’s Notice Of Lodging Proposed Form Of
Judgment, filed February 20, 2026;
10. Motion To Strike Defendant The Fredrick Apts LLLP’s Notice Of Lodging
Proposed Form of Judgment, filed March 2, 2026; and
11. Motion to Compel Initiation of Arbitration, Appoint Independent Counsel and
Arbitrator, and Extend Stay; filed March 9, 2026.

The Court will address the above motions herein and has set forth orders below regarding
any future filings in this matter, which are subject to the pending stay. Any motions, pleadings,
or other filings that do not comply with the Court’s orders below will be summarily denied.

Motion to Stay Judgment of Attorneys’ Fees/Related Motion to Strike

With respect to the motion to strike, the Court finds that Defendants are not prejudiced to
the extent the motion does not fully comply with the court’s procedural rules and that a ruling on
the merits will be most beneficial to the parties at this juncture. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay
Judgment of Attorneys’ Fees, filed January 27, 2026 seeks a stay of the attorneys’ fees awarded
by the Arizona Supreme Court to Defendants pursuant to the mandate. As this Court explained
at the January 23, 2026 status conference, this Court “is absolutely bound by the decision and
mandate of an appellate court and . . . it is not within the jurisdiction of the trial court to review
the appellate court's determination.” Tovrea v. Superior Court In & For Maricopa Cnty., 101
Ariz. 295, 297 (1966).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

03/11/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3

Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction to modify the fee award by allowing
for installment payments over a three-year period as Plaintiffs request in the alternative. No basis
for imposing a stay of entry of judgment on the fees awarded has otherwise been supported.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Judgment of
Attorneys’ Fees, filed January 27, 2026 and denying Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’
Motion to Stay Judgment of Attorneys’ Fees, filed January 27, 2026;

Motion to Quiet Title/Related Motion to Strike

As noted by Defendant’s Motion to Strike, Plaintiffs’ motion to quiet title violates the
limits imposed by the Supreme Court mandate as well as this Court’s order staying the case and
directing the parties’ to arbitrate the sole remaining issue identified in the mandate. For these
reasons,

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quiet
Title, filed January 27, 2026.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quiet Title, filed January
27, 2026.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Disqualify Counsel

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Disqualify Counsel For The Dorsey Place Condominium
Association, To Require Independent Counsel, And For Related Relief, filed February 9, 2026 is
not properly supported by any citation to authority that stands for the proposition that an attorney
representing a condominium association has fiduciary duties to the individual association
members, which is the premise of the motion seeking counsel’s disqualification. While this
Court appreciates that Plaintiffs are now pursuing this matter as self-represented parties, the
Court cannot excuse their failure to support the motion with proper legal authority as the Court is
required to hold self-represented parties to the same standard as attorneys.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion To Disqualify Counsel
For The Dorsey Place Condominium Association, To Require Independent Counsel, And For
Related Relief, filed February 9, 2026.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

03/11/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 4

Fredrick Apts LLLP’s Fee Application/Lodged Judgment & Related Motion to Strike

As set forth in this Court’s minute entry orders, filed January 27, 2026, the Supreme
Court mandate resulted in the affirmed dismissal of the claims filed against Defendant The
Fredrick Apts, LLLP. Accordingly, the Court ordered the filing of a fee application and
proposed form of judgment to reflect the dismissal and to allow the parties to brief the request
for an award of attorneys’ fees.

Fredrick’s fee application was filed together with a statement of taxable costs and a
proposed judgment dismissing the claims asserted against it in the Third Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs responded to the fee application and filed a motion to strike the notice of lodging.

The Court has considered the merits of these filings and the entire record in this matter
and finds, and orders as follows:

A review of the motion to strike reveals that it partially reflects Plaintiffs’
misunderstanding of the relief ordered by the Supreme Court in 2024, which Plaintiffs seem to
believe revested them with an ownership interest in the condominium based upon its finding that
“the forced sale of the Xias’ unit alone rather than as part of a sale of all common elements and
units of the condominium was impermissible under § 33-1228(C).” Cao v. PFP Dorsey
Investments, LLC, 257 Ariz. 109, 117, ¶ 40 (2024). But the Supreme Court’s later mandate
clarified its order by noting that “the trial court[’s dismissal of all claims with prejudice] is
affirmed and the sole remaining issue to be determined is the fair market value of the Xias’
condominium unit, to be paid to the Xias as their total compensation in this matter.” (Aug. 20,
2025 Order at 3.) A.R.S. § 33-1228(G)(1)(2018) is the procedure that must be followed to
determine the amounts owed to the Plaintiffs, but nothing in the statute or the Supreme Court’s
orders revests them with an ownership interest in the condominium.

The remainder of the motion to strike merely makes substantive arguments opposing the
request for fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A). A motion to strike is not an appropriate vehicle to
use for responding to or opposing a motion and, in this case, Plaintiffs already filed a separate
response to the fee application. There is no basis for striking the proposed form of judgment
Fredrick lodged.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion To Strike Defendant The Fredrick Apts
LLLP’s Notice Of Lodging Proposed Form of Judgment, filed March 2, 2026.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

03/11/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 5

Fredrick seeks an award of $83,591.50 in attorneys’ fees and $328.20 in costs against
Plaintiffs Fredrick cites A.R.S. §§ 12-341, 12-341.01(A), and 12-1840 as providing the basis for
a fee award.

The Court declines to award fees to Fredrick under Section 12-341.01(A). The operative
pleading asserted six claims against Fredrick: declaratory judgment, quiet title, wrongful
recordation, continuing trespass/ouster, ejectment, and unjust enrichment. As pled against
Fredrick, these are principally property-based, statutory, and equitable theories directed at the
current holder of title and possession, rather than claims seeking to enforce, interpret, or obtain
relief for breach of an agreement between Plaintiffs and Fredrick. Plaintiffs do allege generally
that a recorded condominium declaration established CC&Rs applicable to owners. But on this
record the declaration and the condominium termination history function as background to the
chain of title and the asserted right to possession, not a clearly identified contract that supplies
the duty allegedly violated by Fredrick or that must be construed to resolve Fredrick’s liability.
That distinguishes the claims against Fredrick from the claims historically litigated against the
Association and other defendants, which more directly implicate the condominium governance
documents and the termination process and thus more naturally present contract-centered issues.
Here, by contrast, Fredrick was added in the Third Amended Complaint as the alleged
downstream purchaser and current possessor. The Court is not persuaded that the claims against
Fredrick clearly arise out of contract for purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).

Because Fredrick has not shown that the claims against it arise out of contract and did not
request an award of fees on any other grounds, the Court denies Fredrick’s request for attorneys’
fees. The Court does not reach the remaining discretionary and reasonableness arguments.

Fredrick is the successful party as to the claims asserted against it in the Third Amended
Complaint, which the Court dismissed pursuant to the mandate as reflected in the January 23,
2026 Minute Entry. The Court awards Fredrick its taxable costs under A.R.S. § 12-341, in the
amount requested of $328.20.

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant The Fredrick Apts LLLP’s Application for
Attorneys’ Fees.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Defendant The Fredrick Apts LLLP taxable
costs of $328.20. An award of these costs is included in the judgment of dismissal filed
concurrently herewith.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

03/11/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 6

Contempt Motion
Related Motion to Strike
Motion to Compel Initiation of Arbitration

The Court has reviewed Defendants’ Motion for Entry of Order for Contempt Against
Plaintiffs for Refusal to Comply with Order Compelling Arbitration, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike
that contempt motion, and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Initiation of Arbitration, Appoint
Independent Counsel and Arbitrator, and Extend Stay. The Court has also reviewed its January
23, 2026 Minute Entry compelling arbitration and staying this case. Finally, the Court has
reviewed the Arizona Supreme Court’s March 22, 2024 opinion, the Arizona Supreme Court’s
August 20, 2025 clarification order, and the November 17, 2025 mandate. See Cao v. PFP
Dorsey Investments, LLC, 257 Ariz. 109 (2024); Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order, PFP Dorsey Invs., LLC v.
Cao, No. CV-25-0071-PR (Aug. 20, 2025); Mandate, PFP Dorsey Invs., LLC v. Cao, No. CV-
25-0071-PR (Ariz. Nov. 17, 2025).

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are in contempt of the Arizona Supreme Court’s mandate
and this Court’s January 23, 2026 order because Plaintiffs have “refuse[d] to submit to
arbitration,” and Defendants request an order enforcing the Termination Agreement provision
stating that failure to submit the valuation issue to arbitration results in the Association’s
appraisal being “final and binding.” Defendants further contend that the Supreme Court required
arbitration “as set forth” in both A.R.S. § 33-1228 and the Termination Agreement, and they ask
the Court to deem the Association’s $234,000 appraisal the final sale amount based on Plaintiffs’
alleged nonparticipation.

Plaintiffs deny that they are refusing arbitration. Plaintiffs characterize Defendants’
motion as an effort to evade “real arbitration,” contend Defendants are relying on an
“impermissible” Termination Agreement, and argue that A.R.S. § 33-1228 requires arbitration
“by an arbitrator affiliated with a national arbitration association and under the rules of that
association at the association’s expense.” Plaintiffs contend Defendants are misreading the
statute and misrepresenting Plaintiffs’ willingness to arbitrate; Plaintiffs ask the Court to strike
the contempt motion and request sanctions against Defendants for bad faith.

In their separate Motion to Compel Initiation of Arbitration, Plaintiffs assert Defendants
have not “meaningfully initiated” arbitration and request that the Court compel initiation, appoint
independent counsel for the Association, appoint a qualified arbitrator, and extend the stay.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

03/11/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 7

A. Contempt is denied; the record reflects a dispute over the required arbitration
procedure, not a willful refusal to comply with the Court’s order.

The Court’s January 23, 2026 order compelled the parties “to initiate arbitration
proceedings to adjudicate the remaining fair market value determination based upon the Supreme
Court’s mandate and in accordance with the termination agreement.” (Minute Entry (Jan. 23,
2026).) The parties’ current filings show a genuine, ongoing disagreement about what
“arbitration” procedure is required, including whether the Termination Agreement’s appraisal-
and-third-appraiser mechanism controls, whether the statute requires an arbitrator affiliated with
a national arbitration association, and how those directives fit together.

On this record, the Court is not prepared to find that Plaintiffs have willfully violated the
Court’s order or the mandate in a manner warranting contempt. The dispute is better addressed
by clarifying the required procedures and setting firm deadlines to ensure compliance going
forward. The Court therefore denies Defendants’ contempt request without prejudice to seeking
sanctions if either side fails to comply with the directives below.

Because the Court is denying contempt and issuing a detailed compliance order,
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike is denied to the extent it seeks sanctions against Defendants on this
record. The Court will not litigate reciprocal accusations of contempt and bad faith by motion
practice. The Court’s focus is completion of the valuation arbitration ordered by the Arizona
Supreme Court.

B. Interpretation and Application of Arizona Supreme Court Orders/Mandate

The only remaining issue on remand is fair market value. As noted by the Supreme
Court’s clarification order, that valuation will be Plaintiffs’ total compensation. In March 2024,
the Arizona Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision, affirmed the trial court
except as to issues encompassed in Part II of the opinion, and remanded for further proceedings
consistent with the opinion. Cao, 257 Ariz. at 123, ¶ 48. In its later clarification order, the
Arizona Supreme Court expressly resolved the parties’ post-remand dispute by clarifying that the
trial court’s dismissal was affirmed and that “the sole remaining issue to be determined is the fair
market value of the Xias’ condominium unit, to be paid to the Xias as their total compensation in
this matter.” (Aug. 20 2025 Order at 3.) The Court rejects both parties’ attempts to broaden
arbitration into a relitigation of the previously dismissed claims or the overall legality of the
termination. Those issues are not within the scope of the remand as clarified.

The Supreme Court required “final and binding arbitration” and directed that it proceed
as set forth in both the statute and the Termination Agreement. The clarification order further

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

03/11/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 8

states that the superior court’s August 8, 2024 and December 3, 2024 minute entries were
vacated, and that the matter is remanded “for the parties to engage in final and binding
arbitration, as set forth in A.R.S. § 33-1228 and the Condominium Termination Agreement,
to determine the fair market value of the Xias’ unit.” (Aug. 20, 2025 Order at 3 (emphasis
added).) The November 17, 2025 mandate commands that proceedings be held as required to
comply with the Supreme Court’s decision attached to the mandate. (Mandate at 2.)

Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendants’ framing that Plaintiffs’ insistence on a
statutory arbitration process is contemptuous on its face. The statute itself contains an arbitration
directive and specific arbitration features. A.R.S. § 33-1228(G)(1) (2018) The Court also rejects
Plaintiffs’ framing that the Termination Agreement can be ignored in favor of whatever
arbitration format Plaintiffs prefer. The Supreme Court expressly incorporated the Termination
Agreement into the arbitration directive.

In March 2024, the Arizona Supreme Court held that “the 2018 version of § 33-1228,
which was in effect when the condominium was terminated, applied.” Cao, 257 Ariz. at 122, ¶
45. Defendants are correct that the 2018 amended version of the statute governs. Plaintiffs are
incorrect to the extent they argue an earlier statutory version controls.

The parties argue past each other on a key point because the statute does not merely say
“arbitrate” in the abstract. Subsection (G)(1) provides that if the unit owner obtains a second
independent appraisal and that appraisal determines compensation more than five percent higher
than the association’s appraisal, “the unit owner shall submit to arbitration by an arbitrator
affiliated with a national arbitration association and under the rules of that association at the
association’s expense and the arbitration amount is the final sale amount.” § 33-1228(G)(1).
Plaintiffs are correct that the statutory text includes an affiliation and rules requirement.
Defendants are incorrect to the extent they suggest the statute provides “no additional direction”
beyond arbitration.

At the same time, the Termination Agreement sets out a detailed sequence for appraisal
review, notice of arbitration, and arbitrator appointment, including a provision that the owner’s
appraiser and the association’s appraiser jointly appoint a third independent appraiser to act as
arbitrator, and that failure to submit the arbitrable issue to arbitration by the contractual deadline
results in the Association’s appraisal becoming final and binding as to that unit. Defendants are
correct that the Termination Agreement contains these procedural mechanics. Plaintiffs are
incorrect to the extent they argue the Termination Agreement is categorically irrelevant to the
required arbitration procedure on remand.

The Supreme Court’s directive requires this Court to harmonize and implement both
sources for the arbitration procedure as to the remaining issue. The Court will therefore order a

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

03/11/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 9

procedure that follows the Termination Agreement’s procedural steps for arbitration where
practicable, while also enforcing the statute’s requirement that arbitration, when triggered by the
statutory threshold, be conducted by an arbitrator affiliated with a national arbitration association
and under that association’s rules, at the Association’s expense.

Defendants ask the Court to enforce the Termination Agreement’s default provision and
deem the Association’s $234,000 appraisal final due to alleged refusal to arbitrate. The Court
denies that request at this time. The Supreme Court directed the parties to “engage in final and
binding arbitration” to determine fair market value. Given the parties’ documented disagreement
about what procedure complies with the remand directive, the Court will not short circuit
arbitration by imposing a valuation outcome as a contempt remedy. The Court’s order below is
designed to remove ambiguity and ensure arbitration proceeds promptly. If a party fails to
comply with the clarified procedure and deadlines, the Court will then consider sanctions based
on a clearer record.

Plaintiffs ask the Court to appoint independent counsel for the Association and to appoint
an arbitrator. As noted above, there is no basis to disqualify the Association’s counsel nor does
this Court have authority to “appoint” new counsel for any party in a civil matter.

Further, Supreme Court’s mandate does not contemplate a court-administered arbitration
proceeding outside of the procedures set forth in the statute and termination agreement. The
Court will not select an arbitrator in the first instance. However, the Court will impose a short,
specific schedule and will set a backup procedure to prevent either side from stalling the process
any further.

C. Arbitration Procedure Orders

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion for Entry of Order for Contempt Against
Plaintiffs for Refusal to Comply with Order Compelling Arbitration. The denial is without
prejudice to the Court imposing sanctions, including monetary sanctions and other appropriate
relief, if any party fails to comply with the directives and deadlines in this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion
for Contempt.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Initiation of
Arbitration in part and denying it in part. The motion is granted to the extent the Court orders
immediate initiation and completion of the arbitration process described below and extends the
stay; it is denied to the extent it seeks appointment of counsel or appointment of an arbitrator by
the Court at this time.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

03/11/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that arbitration must proceed and be completed consistent
with the Arizona Supreme Court’s clarification order and mandate, as follows:

1. Scope. The sole issue for arbitration is the fair market value of Plaintiffs’ condominium
unit, and the amount determined will be paid to Plaintiffs as their total compensation in
this matter. No party may expand arbitration into claims or issues beyond valuation.
2. Governing procedure. Arbitration must be “final and binding” and must be conducted
“as set forth in A.R.S. § 33-1228 and the Condominium Termination Agreement.” The
parties must therefore comply with A.R.S. § 33-1228(G)(1) and the Termination
Agreement’s appointment mechanics for selection of a single arbitrator. The Court notes
that the parties previously exchanged appraisals, and the remaining step is selection of the
arbitrator required to determine fair market value.
3. Notice of arbitration On or before March 26, 2026, the parties must meet and confer in
good faith by telephone, videoconference, or in person to select a single arbitrator to
conduct the final and binding arbitration required by the Arizona Supreme Court’s
clarification order and mandate. The Court clarifies that any contractual “Submission
Deadline” tied to dates in 2019 is not workable in this posture and is replaced by the
deadlines in this Order.
4. Arbitrator selection and arbitration rules. The arbitration must be conducted by an
arbitrator affiliated with a national arbitration association and under that association’s
rules, at the Association’s expense, as required by A.R.S. § 33-1228(G)(1). In selecting
that arbitrator, the parties shall proceed consistently with the Termination Agreement to
the extent practicable. The Court notes that Defendants previously identified Mark
Lassiter as a proposed arbitrator when Plaintiffs were represented by counsel. The Court
does not require the parties to select Mr. Lassiter, but expects the parties to consider that
prior proposal in good faith along with any other qualified candidates. If the parties are
unable to agree on an arbitrator on or before March 26, 2026, then thereafter each side
may file a notice, not to exceed two pages and without exhibits, identifying up to three
proposed arbitrators and briefly stating each candidate’s qualifications and arbitration-
association affiliation. Any notice of proposed arbitrators must be filed on or before
April 6, 2026. The Court will then select the arbitrator from the proposed list(s) or issue
further orders as necessary to ensure prompt compliance with the mandate. Prior to
including an individual on the list of proposed arbitrators, the parties shall ensure they

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

03/11/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 11

have communicated with the individual and that the individual is willing and able to
conduct the arbitration within the timeframe set forth herein.
5. Completion deadline. The parties must complete the valuation arbitration and obtain a
written arbitration decision determining fair market value on or before June 5, 2026. The
decision must be final and binding as directed by the Arizona Supreme Court.
6. Joint status report. On or before May 8, 2026, the parties must file a joint status report
confirming the retention of the selected arbitrator, the arbitration association affiliation,
and the rules to be used, and (e) the scheduled date for submission or hearing and the
anticipated decision date. If the parties cannot file jointly, each side may file its own
status report limited to the same items and limited to two pages.
7. Stay and dismissal deadline. The stay of this case is extended to enable the parties to
complete arbitration in compliance with these orders until June 18, 2026. If an
application to confirm the arbitration award or a motion to extend the stay for good cause
is not filed by June 18, 2026, the remaining claims will be dismissed without prejudice
and without further notice.
8. Sanctions warning. The Court expressly warns all parties that noncompliance with this
Order, including failure to meet deadlines, failure to participate in good faith in selection
of an arbitrator, or attempts to derail or expand the arbitration beyond valuation, will
result in sanctions. Sanctions may include monetary sanctions, evidentiary sanctions,
dismissal, entry of appropriate valuation-related relief consistent with the mandate, or
other remedies within the Court’s authority.
9. Filing restriction. Effective immediately, no party may file any further motions,
documents, or pleadings in this case apart from the filings, motions, reports, or notices
specifically authorized in this order without first obtaining leave of Court. Any request
for leave must be made by a motion not exceeding two pages, must identify the proposed
motion to be filed, and must explain why it is necessary in light of the Arizona Supreme
Court’s limitation of the remand to valuation and this Court’s orders herein. If leave to
file a motion is granted, the order will set a deadline for a response and reply. Any
motions, pleadings, or other filings that do not comply with the Court’s orders below will
be summarily denied.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/18/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

03/15/2021

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIEL G. MARTIN
J. Eaton

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
JOHN DOUGLAS WILENCHIK

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

STEPHANIE K GINTERT
NICHOLAS C NOGAMI
EDITH I RUDDER
ROSS P MEYER
JUDGE DANIEL MARTIN

MINUTE ENTRY

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this matter on November 20, 2019, a First Amended
Complaint on March 27, 2020, and a Second Amended Complaint on July 6, 2020. On August
13, 2020, Defendant PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC (“PFP”) filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), Ariz. R. Civ. P. Also on August 13, 2020, Defendant
Dorsey Place Condominium Association (the “Association”) filed a Motion to Dismiss. The Court
heard oral argument on December 15, 2020, and granted both motions, with prejudice.

On January 7, 2021, PFP filed an Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Also on
January 7, 2021, the Association filed an Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.

On January 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to PFP’s and the
Association’s applications, urging, among other things, that pursuant to Rule 54(g), Ariz. R. Civ.
P., both defendants had forfeited their right to seek an award of attorney’s fees by failing to make
the requests in their respective motions to dismiss. On February 8, 2021, PFP filed a Reply by

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

03/15/2021

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

which it contended that “Plaintiffs were on notice that Defendants intended to seek attorneys’ fees
prior to the filing of the Motion to Dismiss, and thus, the purpose of Rule 54(g)(1) is met, allowing
PFP to seek an award of its attorneys’ fees.” PFP Reply, at pages 1-2. Also on February 8, 2021,
the Association filed a Reply urging that “Plaintiffs’ position is mistaken as the contractual
documents between these Parties controls disposition of this issue and Plaintiffs were on notice of
the same at all times relevant hereto.” Association Reply, at page 2. Plaintiffs requested oral
argument; however, such argument would not assist the Court in resolving the matter at bar. See
Rule 7.1(d), Ariz. R. Civ. P.

Having considered the positions of the parties, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that by
virtue of having failed to request an award of fees in their respective motions to dismiss, PFP and
the Association are now barred from seeking such awards. Rule 54(g) unambiguously requires
that “A claim for attorney's fees must be made in the pleadings or in a Rule 12 motion filed before
the movant's responsive pleading.” (Emphasis added.) Neither defendant complied with this
requirement; accordingly, each is deemed to have waived its right to seek an award of attorney’s
fees. The applications for taxable costs will be granted.

IT IS ORDERED denying PFP’s and the Association’s applications for attorney’s fees.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding PFP costs in the amount of $265.75.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding the Association costs in the amount of $304.28.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/23/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

03/20/2026

Docket Code 906
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
A. Cage

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
JIE CAO
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

JEFFERSON R HAYDEN
LOUIS D LOPEZ
STONE XIA
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
HAINING XIA
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
CHARLES E MARKLE
JUDGE JULIAN

RESPONSE ORDERED

The Court has received Defendants Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the March 13,
2026 Minute Entry, filed March 18, 2026.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a Response on or before March 27, 2026. No
reply shall be permitted, and the Court will rule on the motion following receipt of the response.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/14/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

04/13/2026

Docket Code 002
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
A. Cage

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
JIE CAO
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

JEFFERSON R HAYDEN
LOUIS D LOPEZ
STONE XIA
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
HAINING XIA
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
CHARLES E MARKLE
JUDGE JULIAN

TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE VACATED

Due to the case being partially stayed, and on the Court’s own Motion,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the Trial Setting Conference set for April 17, 2026, at 9:00
a.m. in this division.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/22/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

04/17/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
A. Cage

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
JIE CAO
14850 E GRANDVIEW RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

JEFFERSON R HAYDEN
LOUIS D LOPEZ
STONE XIA
14850 E GRANDVIEW DR
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
HAINING XIA
14850 E GRANDVIEW RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
CHARLES E MARKLE
JUDGE JULIAN

RULING
Re: Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Motion for Leave to File Response

Pending before this Court are (1) Defendants’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the
March 13, 2026 Minute Entry, filed March 18, 2026; (2) Defendants’ Motion to Confirm
Arbitration Award, filed March 18, 2026; and (3) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Response to
Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, filed April 9, 2026, by
which Plaintiffs seek leave to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

04/17/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

As explained in further detail below, partial reconsideration of the Court’s March 13, 2026
order is required as the Court erred in relying on the 2019 version of the statute, rather than the
version that became “effective in 2018.”

The Court also finds good cause to allow Plaintiffs to substantively respond to the merits
of the confirmation motion, given Plaintiffs’ apparent misunderstanding regarding the scope of the
Court’s orders prohibiting further motion practice without leave.

ANALYSIS

Reconsideration Motion

In its March 11, 2026 ruling, filed March 13, 2026, this Court correctly recognized that the
2018 version of A.R.S. § 33-1228 governs the valuation procedure at issue on remand. The Court
erred, however, by then quoting and relying on language that appears only in the later version of
the statute, effective August 27, 2019, rather than in the 2018 version that controls here.

The 2019 version of A.R.S. § 33-1228(G)(1) requires arbitration by an arbitrator affiliated
with a national arbitration association and under that association’s rules. The 2018 version does
not contain that language. Instead, the 2018 statute provides that if the second appraisal exceeds
the association’s appraisal by more than five percent, the unit owner shall submit to arbitration at
the association’s expense, and the arbitration amount is the final sale amount. The Court’s March
13, 2026 order relied on the wrong statutory text after correctly identifying the governing version.
See also Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC, 257 Ariz. 109, 118, ¶ 45 (2024) (holding that “the
2018 version of § 33-1228, which was in effect when the condominium was terminated, applied.”).

For these reasons, the partial reconsideration motion is granted, and the March 13, 2026
order is modified, as set forth below.

Leave to File Response to Motion to Confirm

Plaintiffs’ request for leave to respond to the Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award is also
granted. The Court’s March 11, 2026 ruling permitted the filing of a motion to confirm the
arbitration award, notwithstanding the order’s prohibition on other, unrelated motions. (See 3-13-
26 Minute Entry at p. 11, ¶ 7, requiring the filing of an “application to confirm the arbitration
award” before the dismissal deadline.) The same order imposed broad filing restrictions and stated
that future filings outside those specifically authorized would require leave, with response and
reply deadlines to be set by court order.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

04/17/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3

In light of the broad order limiting unauthorized motion practice, Plaintiffs’ belief that they
were not permitted to respond to the pending Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award without a
further order from the Court was reasonable. Cf. Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger, 178 Ariz. 151, 164
(App. 1993) (trial court abuses discretion when leave to file untimely response is denied where
untimely response was the result of excusable neglect). Good cause exists to permit Plaintiffs to
file a substantive response to the pending motion to confirm the award.

DISPOSITION

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the March
13, 2026 Minute Entry.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the following portions of the Court’s March 11,
2026 ruling, filed March 13, 2026:

1. Page 8, the paragraph beginning, “The parties argue past each other on a key
point because the statute does not merely say ‘arbitrate’ in the abstract” and
continuing onto page 9 through the sentence ending, “at the Association’s
expense.”

2. Page 10, under section “C. Arbitration Procedure Orders,” numbered
paragraphs 2, 3, and 4.
3. Page 11, under section “C. Arbitration Procedure Orders,” numbered paragraph
6, to the extent that paragraph requires the parties to identify an arbitration
association affiliation and rules to be used.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court clarifies that the governing arbitration
procedure is set by the Termination Agreement and A.R.S. § 33-1228(G)(1) (2018), as mandated
by the Arizona Supreme Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, except as modified by this ruling, all other orders set
forth in the Court’s March 11, 2026 ruling, filed March 13, 2026, remain in effect.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Response to
Defendants’ Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award and extending the deadline for Plaintiffs to file
a response to Defendants’ Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award to May 4, 2026.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

04/17/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants may file a new reply brief in support of
the Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award as permitted under Rule 7.1(a)(3) once Plaintiffs’
response is filed and served.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED holding Defendants’ Motion to Confirm Arbitration
Award, filed March 18, 2026, in abeyance pending filing of the supplemental briefing ordered
herein.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/30/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

04/29/2026

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
A. Cage

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
JIE CAO
14850 E GRANDVIEW RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

JEFFERSON R HAYDEN
LOUIS D LOPEZ
STONE XIA
14850 E GRANDVIEW RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
HAINING XIA
14850 E GRANDVIEW RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
CHARLES E MARKLE
JUDGE JULIAN

Order Denying Motion for Partial Reconsideration

This Court has considered Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Response in
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, filed April 26, 2026. In
accordance with Rule 7.1(e)(2), Ariz. R. Civ. P, this Court has not ordered any response or reply
brief to be filed in connection with this reconsideration motion.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

04/29/2026

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

The motion appears to seek reconsideration of this Court’s March 13, 2026 ruling, as
corrected by the minute entry issued on April 22, 2026. The Court finds no basis for
reconsideration and affirms the applicable version of A.R.S. § 33-1228(G)(1) as the version in
effect in 2018. No circumstances warranting reconsideration exist in this case.

The reconsideration motion was combined with a response to the pending motion to
confirm the arbitration award. Accordingly, the responsive portion of Plaintiffs’ April 26, 2026
filing will be held for any further reply to be filed by Defendants in accordance with this Court’s
April 22, 2026 order.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/20/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

05/12/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
A. Cage

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
JIE CAO
14850 E GRANDVIEW DR
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

JEFFERSON R HAYDEN
LOUIS D LOPEZ
STONE XIA
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
HAINING XIA
14850 E GRANDVIEW DR
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
CHARLES E MARKLE
JUDGE JULIAN

RULING
Re: Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award

This Court has considered Defendants PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC, and Dorsey Place
Condominium Association’s Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, filed March 18, 2026,
Plaintiffs’ Response, filed April 26, 2026, and Defendants’ Reply, filed May 5, 2026. For the
following reasons, the arbitration award will be confirmed.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

05/12/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

BACKGROUND

This case arises from the termination of Dorsey Place Condominiums and the valuation
procedure applicable to Plaintiffs’ former Unit 106. The Arizona Supreme Court ordered the
parties to engage in final and binding arbitration, as set forth in A.R.S. § 33-1228 and the
Condominium Termination Agreement, to determine the fair market value of the Plaintiffs’ unit,
and this Court later ordered the parties to do the same.

Under the governing 2018 version of A.R.S. § 33-1228(G)(1), the relevant valuation is
the fair market value of the unit “immediately before the termination.” The statute further
provides that if the second appraisal exceeds the association’s appraisal by more than five
percent, the unit owner shall submit to arbitration at the association’s expense and the arbitration
amount is the final sale amount.

The Condominium Termination Agreement contains a similar dispute resolution
procedure. It provides that if an owner’s appraisal differs from the Association’s appraisal by
more than five percent, the dispute shall be resolved by final and binding arbitration before a
single arbitrator selected by the two appraisers, with the arbitrator’s fair market value
determination to be final and binding.

Here, Defendants’ appraisal valued Plaintiffs’ unit at $234,000, while Plaintiffs’ appraisal
valued it at $270,000. Because the competing appraisals differed by more than five percent, the
matter proceeded to arbitration under the statute and the Termination Agreement. On February 9,
2026, Defendants’ appraiser selected Frank Ugenti as the arbitrator without objection from
Plaintiffs’ appraiser.

Mr. Ugenti then reviewed the two 2019 appraisals and issued his report on March 16,
2026. In that report, he concluded that one appraisal undervalued the unit and the other
overvalued it, and he rendered his own opinion that the fair market value of Unit 106 was
$250,000 as of April 22, 2019. (Motion, Ex. C at 7.) Defendants then filed the pending Motion to
Confirm Arbitration Award on March 18, 2026.

ANALYSIS

Under the Arizona Revised Uniform Arbitration Act, a party may ask the superior court
to confirm an arbitration award. A.R.S. § 12-3022. The opposing party may ask the court to
vacate the award, but only on specific grounds set out in the statute. A.R.S. § 12-3023. Those
grounds include corruption, fraud, or other undue means; evident partiality, corruption, or
misconduct by the arbitrator; an arbitrator’s refusal to postpone a hearing on sufficient cause
shown or to consider material evidence, or other conduct that substantially prejudiced a party’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

05/12/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3

rights; the arbitrator exceeding his powers; the absence of an agreement to arbitrate; or lack of
required notice that substantially prejudiced a party’s rights. A.R.S. § 12-3023(A). The party
objecting to the award has the burden of making an adequate showing that one of those grounds
exists. Park Imperial, Inc. v. E. L. Farmer Const. Co., 9 Ariz. App. 511, 513 (1969). A trial
court’s role in confirming, vacating, or modifying an arbitration award is limited. It “may reject
an arbitration award only on narrow statutorily enumerated grounds.” Nolan v. Kenner, 226 Ariz.
459, 461, ¶ 5 (App. 2011).

Plaintiffs’ response does not identify any statutory basis to vacate, modify, or correct the
arbitration award. Plaintiffs do not argue that the award was procured by corruption or fraud, that
the arbitrator was partial or engaged in misconduct, that the arbitrator exceeded his powers, or
that the arbitration proceeded without required notice. See A.R.S. §§ 12–3023, -3024. Instead,
Plaintiffs repeat their earlier arguments regarding which version of A.R.S. § 33-1228 applies and
assert that valuation should be based on a current market value rather than value as of the 2019
termination.

Those arguments do not provide a basis to disturb the award. This Court has already ruled
that the governing arbitration procedure is controlled by the 2018 version of A.R.S. § 33-
1228(G)(1), together with the Termination Agreement. Under that statute, arbitration is required
when the owner’s second appraisal exceeds the association’s appraisal by more than five percent,
and the arbitration amount is the final sale amount. See Cao v. PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC,
257 Ariz. 109, 118, ¶ 45 (2024). Plaintiffs’ renewed reliance on later statutory language requiring
affiliation with a national arbitration association does not alter the governing law in this case and,
in any event, is not a ground for vacating the award.

Plaintiffs’ request that the Court require a current valuation date likewise fails. Plaintiffs
contend that because the 2019 sale was “impermissible,” valuation must be based upon today’s
market value. (Resp. at 3-5.) But Plaintiffs identify no language in the Arizona Supreme Court’s
mandate, the 2018 version of A.R.S. § 33-1228, or the Termination Agreement supporting that
position. The mandate directed the parties to engage in final and binding arbitration under A.R.S.
§ 33-1228 and the Termination Agreement to determine the fair market value of the Plaintiffs’
unit; it did not authorize a different valuation framework or a reset valuation date. The 2018
statute expressly measures fair market value “immediately before the termination,” and the
Termination Agreement likewise ties the appraisal and arbitration process to the original
termination event and the competing appraisals exchanged as part of that process. Neither source
provides that valuation is recalculated years later based on the date arbitration concludes or
payment is made. The Court therefore cannot require a new valuation date simply because
Plaintiffs disagree with the 2019 termination date used in the arbitration process.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

05/12/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 4

Mr. Ugenti’s report shows that he reviewed the two 2019 appraisals, found neither fully
reliable, and then provided his own opinion of market value as of April 22, 2019. (Motion, Ex.
C.) His opinion followed the procedure required to arbitrate the parties’ valuation dispute under
the 2018 version of the statute and the Termination Agreement, which is what the Supreme Court
mandate requires.

Because Plaintiffs have not carried their burden to show any ground under A.R.S. § 12–
3023 or § 12–3024 for setting aside or altering the award, A.R.S. § 12–3022 requires
confirmation. The Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award is therefore granted.

DISPOSITION

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendants PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC
and Dorsey Place Condominium Association’s Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, filed
March 18, 2026.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED confirming the March 16, 2026 Arbitration Award and
determining that the final sale amount for Plaintiffs’ former Unit 106 is $250,000.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 20 days of the filing date of this minute entry,
Defendants shall submit any application for attorneys’ fees and taxable costs together with a
proposed form of judgment. The proposed judgment shall leave a blank space for the amount
awarded and shall include Rule 54(c) language. After considering any objections to the
application and form of judgment, this Court will enter final judgment in this matter.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/21/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

05/19/2026

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
A. Cage

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
JIE CAO
14850 E GRANDVIEW DR
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

JEFFERSON R HAYDEN
LOUIS D LOPEZ
HAINING XIA
14850 E GRANDVIEW DR
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
JUDGE JULIAN

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Reply In Support of motion to
Confirm Arbitration Award, filed May 15, 2026.

IT IS ORDERED rejecting Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Reply In Support of
motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, filed May 15, 2026, a surreply is not permitted by Rule 7.1
of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/26/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

05/22/2026

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
A. Cage

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
JIE CAO
14850 E GRANDVIEW DR
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

JEFFERSON R HAYDEN
LOUIS D LOPEZ
STONE XIA
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
HAINING XIA
14850 E GRANDVIEW DR
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
JUDGE JULIAN

DENYING - MOOT

The Court has received Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’
Reply In Support of Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, filed May 18, 2026.

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Response to
Defendants’ Reply In Support of Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, filed May 18, 2026, as
moot. The Court issued an order rejecting Plaintiff’s filing.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/24/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

05/23/2024

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEWAIN D. FOX
J. Eaton

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
ANDREW B HAYNES

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

STEPHANIE K GINTERT
NICHOLAS C NOGAMI
CHARLES E MARKLE
TIMOTHY SANDEFUR
JONATHAN A DESSAULES
JAMES T BRASELTON
QUINTEN T CUPPS
JAMES MANLEY
ANDREW T FOX
DEREK DEBUS
JUDGE FOX

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court is in receipt of the Mandate Remanding to the Superior Court issued by the
Supreme Court of Arizona on May 16, 2024.

IT IS ORDERED setting a virtual Status Conference to address the Mandate on June 5,
2024, at 9:00 a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes).

An auto-generated email has been sent to local counsel of record to attend this hearing via
Court Connect and Microsoft TEAMS. Should any of the parties not have an updated email address

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

05/23/2024

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2

on file with the Clerk of Court or not receive the email, please advise the Court. You may join the
hearing using the following link: tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj08

Or you may appear via telephone by calling: 1-917-781-4590 Access Code: 335 045 922#.
For further information, please visit: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect/

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/31/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

05/30/2024

Docket Code 066
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
N. Johnson

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
ANDREW B HAYNES

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

STEPHANIE K GINTERT
NICHOLAS C NOGAMI
TIMOTHY BERG
CHARLES E MARKLE
JUDGE FOX
JUDGE MCCOY
JUDGE VIOLA

CASE REASSIGNMENT - CIVIL PRESIDING JUDGE

This case was previously assigned to the Honorable Dewain D. Fox. A Notice of Change
of Judge has been filed by Defendants. The case was transferred to the Civil Presiding Judge for
reassignment.

IT IS ORDERED that this case be reassigned to Civil Calendar CVJ-19, the Honorable
M. Scott McCoy, for all further proceedings. If any objections to the Notice of Change of Judge
are filed, the noticed judge retains jurisdiction to hear and decide the objections. Any objections
must be filed and a copy delivered to the noticed judge within 20 days of the date of this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any and all hearings set by the noticed judge are
vacated, to be reset by the new division.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

05/30/2024

Docket Code 066
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall jointly file within 10 days of the date
of this minute entry, a notice with the new division listing any outstanding motions (including
the file dates), whether they are ripe for resolution, and any hearings that need to be reset.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/05/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

06/04/2026

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
A. Cage

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
JIE CAO
14850 E GRANDVIEW DR
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

JEFFERSON R HAYDEN
LOUIS D LOPEZ
STONE XIA
15742 E EAGLE CREST RD
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
HAINING XIA
14850 E GRANDVIEW DR
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
JUDGE JULIAN

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - DENIED

The Court has received Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of the May 21, 2026 Ruling,
filed May 25, 2026. No good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of the May 21, 2026
Ruling, filed May 25, 2026.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/01/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

06/28/2024

Docket Code 041
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE M. SCOTT MCCOY
T. DeRaddo

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
COLIN F CAMPBELL

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

STEPHANIE K GINTERT
NICHOLAS C NOGAMI
JUDGE MCCOY

RULE 16(d) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE SET

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED setting a virtual/telephonic Rule 16(d) Scheduling Conference on July
24, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. (time allotted: 30 minutes).

NOTE: All counsel (and any self-represented party) shall appear via Court Connect
videoconference unless otherwise ordered.

Microsoft Teams meeting – Court Connect
Join on your computer or mobile app
Click here to join the meeting
Or using: tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj19
Or call in (audio only)
1-917-781-4590
Phone Conference ID# 441 101 510#
Find a local number | Reset PIN
Learn More | Meeting options

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

06/28/2024

Docket Code 041
Form V000A
Page 2

NOTE: Counsel shall have their calendars available for this proceeding. Additionally,
counsel, if appearing telephonically, shall be available for the conference call on a telephone
land line, if possible, instead of a cellular phone, in order to maximize all participants’ ability
to hear and be heard.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall be prepared to discuss the following
possibilities to limit litigation costs and to expedite early resolution of the case:

1. The scope of discovery, including discovery limitations and proportionality,
particularly with respect to Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”), and the matters
set forth in Rule 16(d)(3), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. Sequencing of discovery to facilitate an early mediation/settlement conference, or the
early resolution of dispositive or partially dispositive motions;

3. Submitting one or more issues for a bench trial;

4. Stipulations regarding ESI, claw-back agreements, protective orders;

5. The timing and forum for alternative dispute resolution;

6. The expected number of experts, their areas of expertise and deadlines for disclosure
of expert opinions;

7. Whether any Daubert challenges are expected;

8. Sequencing of dispositive or partially dispositive motions; and

9. The Court’s dispute resolution order.

LET THE RECORD REFLECT that the discovery dispute resolution procedure for
commercial court matters before this division apply to this case. If there is a discovery dispute,
counsel for the movant shall contact opposing counsel directly to attempt to resolve the
discovery dispute issue pursuant to Rule 37. Absent resolution, counsel for the movant may
contact the Court’s Judicial Assistant and all other counsel to advise them of his/her request for a
telephonic hearing. Each party shall thereafter email to the Court’s staff a one-page summary of
the dispute. After all parties have emailed their summary of the dispute, and in order to preserve
a record of the dispute, the parties are to file a Joint Notice of Filing with the Clerk of Court,
attaching their discovery dispute submissions, as emailed to Court staff. Once the Court

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

06/28/2024

Docket Code 041
Form V000A
Page 3

receives a summary from each party, the Court’s Judicial Assistant will contact the parties to
schedule a telephonic conference.

Email addresses for Court staff are as follows:

Judicial Assistant, Joni La Caria, [email protected]
Courtroom Assistant, John Inman, [email protected]
Division phone number: 602-372-3603

IT IS ORDERED that absent leave of Court for good cause shown, each party may file
only one Motion for Summary Judgment.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no party shall include more than one motion in a single
filing or combine a response and a motion or a reply and a motion in one filing (with the exception
of a true cross-motion for summary judgment). This order applies to requests for attorneys’ fees
or sanctions. Such requests must be made by separate motion.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no party shall file supplemental briefing without leave
of Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all citations shall be included in the body of the brief
and not in footnotes.

Counsel are cautioned against unnecessarily expanding the litigation as the Court will
consider the litigation costs, the scope of discovery and proportionality of the instant matter when
considering attorneys’ fees.

NOTE: All court proceedings are recorded by audio and video method 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.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/29/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

07/24/2024

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE M. SCOTT MCCOY
P. McKinley

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
COLIN F CAMPBELL

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

LOUIS D LOPEZ
ANDREW B HAYNES
GEOFFREY M STURR
CHARLES E MARKLE
JUDGE MCCOY

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND ORAL ARGUMENT

East Court Building – Courtroom 612

1:35 p.m. This is the time set for a Rule 16 (d) Scheduling Conference and oral argument
on Defendants’ Motion to Enforce the Arbitration Provisions Between the Parties. Plaintiffs are
represented by Counsel Geoffrey M. Sturr. Defendants are represented by Counsel Louis D. Lopez
and Charles E. Markle. Also present is Defendants’ client representative Jennifer Barry. All
appearances are virtual/telephonic.

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

The Court shares with counsel his preliminary analysis of Defendants’ Motion to Enforce
the Arbitration Provisions Between the Parties, filed June 19, 2024, and the Supreme Court of
Arizona Opinion in Cao v. PFP Dorsey Invs., LLC, 545 P.3d 459 (Ariz. 2024).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

07/24/2024

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2

Oral argument is presented.

IT IS ORDERED taking under advisement Defendants’ Motion to Enforce the Arbitration
Provisions Between the Parties, filed June 19, 2024.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the time for Defendants to file a responsive pleading to
any Amended Complaint is stayed pending the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Enforce
the Arbitration Provisions Between the Parties.

2:01 p.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/25/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

07/24/2024

Docket Code 099
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE M. SCOTT MCCOY
P. McKinley

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
COLIN F CAMPBELL

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

LOUIS D LOPEZ
ANDREW B HAYNES
GEOFFREY M STURR
CHARLES E MARKLE
EDITH I RUDDER
NICHOLAS C NOGAMI
DOCKET CV TX
JUDGE MCCOY

WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL

The Court has considered Defendant Dorsey Place Condominium Association’s
Application for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel With Client Consent, filed July 11, 2024.

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion and permitting Nicholas C. Nogami, Edith I.
Rudder and CHDB Law, LLP to withdraw as counsel of record for Defendant Dorsey Place
Condominium Association for all further proceedings, all in accordance with the Order Allowing
Withdraw as Counsel With Client Consent for Defendant Dorsey Place Condominium Association
signed by the Court on July 24, 2024 and filed (entered) by the Clerk on July 24, 2024.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED all future correspondence to Defendant Dorsey Place
Condominium Association shall be sent to Defendant’s counsel of record Louis D. Lopez and
Charles E. Markle.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

07/24/2024

Docket Code 099
Form V000A
Page 2

Please note: The Court has signed a paper copy of the Order which was originally provided
electronically. After the Order has been scanned and docketed by the Clerk of Court, copies of
this order will be available through the ECR online at www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov and from
the Public Access Terminals at the Clerk of Court’s offices located throughout Maricopa County.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/08/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

08/07/2024

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE M. SCOTT MCCOY
T. DeRaddo

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
COLIN F CAMPBELL

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

LOUIS D LOPEZ
ANDREW B HAYNES
GEOFFREY M STURR
CHARLES E MARKLE
JUDGE MCCOY

UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING

PFP Dorsey’s Motion to Enforce the Arbitration Provisions Between the Parties is before
the Court. The Court has considered all related filings, the oral argument of counsel, and the
record in this matter. Finding the agreement unenforceable, the Court will deny the motion.
I.
Background

Plaintiffs Cao and XIA owned 1 of 96 units in Dorsey Place Condominiums. When the
condominium terminated in 2019, Plaintiffs objected to the forced sale of their unit to Defendant
PFP Dorsey, which already owned a supermajority of units. Plaintiffs sued both PFP Dorsey and
their condominium association, alleging conversion, trespass, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, and wrongful recording.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

08/07/2024

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2

Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). This Court dismissed, agreeing that
Plaintiffs had no valid claim because A.R.S. § 33-1228 authorized the forced sale in connection
with the condominium termination. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed in part.
It found both that the statute was constitutional as applied and that it permitted the forced
sale of some – but not all – condominium units. But the court reversed and remanded, holding
that the trial court erred by applying the 1986 version of the statute. Cao v. PFP Dorsey Invs.,
LLC, 253 Ariz. 552, 516 P.3d 1 (App. 2022), vacated, 257 Ariz. 82, 545 P.3d 459 (2024).
On review, the Arizona Supreme Court vacated. It reasoned that:
(i)
the forced sale Plaintiffs unit did not present a constitutional
question, because the parties incorporated the Arizona Condominium Act in their
contract.

(ii)
the 2018 version of the Act applied; and

(iii)
critically, the forced sale of some – but not all 96 – units violated §
33-1228(C) of the Act.

Cao v. PFP Dorsey Invs., LLC, 257 Ariz. 82, ¶¶ 24-40 (2024). The Court then vacated the Court
of Appeals’ opinion, “affirmed in part” this Court’s original dismissal, and remanded without
further instructions. Id., ¶ 48.

II.
The Motion to Compel Arbitration

The parties now vehemently disagree regarding the effect of the Supreme Court’s
opinion. Plaintiffs maintain that “[t]he case effectively is beginning from scratch.” Joint
Scheduling Report, at 2. Defendants by contrast have declared virtually unequivocal victory:
asserting that “[t]hankfully, Defendants’ actions have been vindicated, again . . ..” Id., at 3. After
careful review, the Court finds Plaintiffs have the better understanding.
Defendants now move to compel arbitration, maintaining that the parties’ contract
requires arbitration of what Defendants see as the only dispute on remand – i.e., the fair market
value of Plaintiffs’ unit. Motion at 1-2. Defendants are correct only if two things are true:
 the condominium termination was valid (it was); and

 Defendants’ forced sale of Plaintiffs’ unit also was permitted (it was not).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

08/07/2024

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3

The logic of the Supreme Court’s ruling dictates otherwise:
 The Supreme Court began “with the foundational property law principle that,
ordinarily, one party may not sell another's property.” 257 Ariz. 82, at ¶ 27.

 Continuing, the court reasoned that “[t]he source of the Association's power to
take and sell [Plaintiffs’] unit [therefore] derived from the first sentence of § 33-
1228(C).” Id.

 Interpreting Subsection C, the court found that it authorized a unit’s forced sale
only if done as part of a sale of all condominium units. Bluntly, “[a]ll means all—
not less than all.” Id., ¶ 28.

 Concluding, the court held: “Thus, the forced sale of [Plaintiffs’] unit alone rather
than as part of a sale of all common elements and units of the condominium was
impermissible under § 33-1228(C).” Id., ¶ 40.

Because the sale impermissibly violated § 33-1228(C) – the very source of Defendants’ power to
sell Plaintiffs’ unit – it follows that the forced sale violated “fundamental” public policy. The
parties’ arbitration agreement presupposing a valid sale therefore is unenforceable. See, e.g.,
Zambrano v. M & RC II LLC, 254 Ariz. 53, 58, ¶ 11 (2022) (recognizing contracts violating
statutes or other sources of public policy are unenforceable).

Having ruled against Defendants, the Court nonetheless recognizes the force of their
other arguments. The Plaintiffs no longer live in their unit, and the condominium regime that
brought the parties together is long gone. Even if this case is more than “a $20,000 dispute,”
potential damages are very modest by the standards of the Commercial Court. As this matter
approaches its fifth anniversary, the Court earnestly hopes cooler heads prevail.
III.
Disposition

For all these reasons,
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ motion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED lifting the stay of Defendants’ obligation to respond to
pending motions.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/16/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

10/12/2020

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIEL G. MARTIN
J. Eaton

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
JOHN DOUGLAS WILENCHIK

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

STEPHANIE K GINTERT
NICHOLAS C NOGAMI
SHAWNA M WONER
ROSS P MEYER
JUDGE DANIEL MARTIN

ORAL ARGUMENT SET

The Court has received Defendant PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint and Defendant Dorsey Place Condominium Association’s
Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement, both filed on August
13, 2020.

IT IS ORDERED setting telephonic Oral Argument on December 15, 2020, at 1:30 p.m.
(time allotted: 40 minutes) in this division. All parties shall call 602-506-9695 or toll free 1-855-
506-9695 (participant collaboration code 101760) five (5) minutes prior to the scheduled hearing.

This matter may be converted to a video conference at a later date.

NOTE: All court proceedings are made digitally in lieu of 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

10/12/2020

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2

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.

IF ANY ISSUES IN THE MOTION RELATE TO DISCOVERY PROBLEMS,
COUNSEL SHALL CONFER TO ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THEIR DIFFERENCES OR TO
REDUCE THE AREAS OF DISPUTE. COUNSEL ARE REMINDED THAT THE COURT
WILL LIKELY IMPOSE SANCTIONS AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY IN ACCORDANCE
WITH RULE 37(a)(4), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:

Any motion or stipulation for continuance must be filed with the Court no later than four
court days prior to the date set for hearing. After that date, no continuances will be granted except
for extraordinary circumstances.

All memoranda and affidavits regarding the motion must be filed and copies lodged with
this division no later than four court days prior to the date set for hearing.

Counsel are advised that if the answering memorandum is not timely filed in accordance
with the Arizona Rules Of Civil Procedure, oral argument may be vacated and the motion will be
ruled upon in accordance with Rule 7.1(b), A.R.C.P.

No agreement by the parties to modify the pleading schedule will be honored by the Court
unless the Court is notified and approves the parties’ agreement. Any such agreement will not
change the argument date without a court Order and will, in any event, require that all motions are
fully briefed and at issue not later than one full week before the argument date.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

11/19/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

11/18/2025

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
A. Cage

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
COLIN F CAMPBELL

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

JEFFERSON R HAYDEN
LOUIS D LOPEZ
CHARLES E MARKLE
JUDGE JULIAN

STATUS CONFERENCE SET

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED setting a Status Conference on December 2, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. (time
allotted: 15 minutes) in this division.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no less than five (5) days before the conference set
above, the parties shall file a joint status report containing the status of the case since entry of the
Arizona Supreme Court mandate.

Judge Melissa Iyer Julian's Virtual Courtroom
Please join the hearing via:
https://tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj19

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

11/18/2025

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2

You can also dial in using your phone.
Phone: 1 917-781-4590 and Conference ID: 441 101 510#
Use of the above link can be made easier by downloading the Microsoft Teams application
first; for more on the new platform, including an introduction video and participant guide,
please visit: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect

Counsel/parties are encouraged to visit Judge Julian’s online profile for information on the
Court’s expectations regarding motion practices and requirements, discovery disputes, and
hearing/trial procedures at the following website:

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/profile.asp?jdgID=531&jdgU
SID=13868

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.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

11/26/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

11/25/2025

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
A. Cage

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
COLIN F CAMPBELL

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

JEFFERSON R HAYDEN
LOUIS D LOPEZ
JUDGE JULIAN

STATUS CONFERENCE RESET

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the Status Conference set on December 2, 2025, and resetting
same to January 23, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes) in this division for the
purpose of discussing the dispute.

Judge Melissa Iyer Julian's Virtual Courtroom
Please join the hearing via:
https://tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj19
You can also dial in using your phone.
Phone: 1 917-781-4590 and Conference ID: 441 101 510#

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

11/25/2025

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 2

Use of the above link can be made easier by downloading the Microsoft Teams application
first; for more on the new platform, including an introduction video and participant guide,
please visit: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect

Counsel/parties are encouraged to visit Judge Julian’s online profile for information on the
Court’s expectations regarding motion practices and requirements, discovery disputes, and
hearing/trial procedures at the following website:

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/profile.asp?jdgID=531&jdgU
SID=13868

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.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/06/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

12/03/2024

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE M. SCOTT MCCOY
T. DeRaddo

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
COLIN F CAMPBELL

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

LOUIS D LOPEZ
JUDGE MCCOY

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received the briefing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Third
Amended Complaint, filed July 26, 2024.

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiffs’ Motion.

Please Note: This Motion was granted on October 7, 2024, but the minute entry
associated with this Motion inadvertently was not processed.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/18/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

12/15/2020

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIEL G. MARTIN
J. Eaton

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
JOHN DOUGLAS WILENCHIK

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

STEPHANIE K GINTERT
NICHOLAS C NOGAMI
EDITH I RUDDER
ROSS P MEYER
JUDGE DANIEL MARTIN

MINUTE ENTRY

East Court Building – Courtroom 412

1:33 p.m. This is the time set for a virtual Oral Argument regarding Defendant PFP Dorsey
Investments LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint and Defendant
Dorsey Place Condominium Association’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for
More Definite Statement, both filed on August 13, 2020. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel,
Ross P. Meyer. Defendant PFP Dorsey Investments LLC is represented by counsel, Stephanie K.
Gintert. Defendant Dorsey Place Condominium Association is represented by counsel, Nicholas
C. Nogami and Edith I. Rudder. Defendants’ client representative, Jennifer Barry is present. This
matter proceeds via the Court Connect – Teams platform.

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

Arguments are presented to the Court.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

12/15/2020

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED taking these matters under advisement.

2:05 p.m. Matter concludes.

LATER:

Having considered the positions of the parties, and for the reasons advanced by Defendants
in their motions and reply briefs,

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC’s motion to dismiss,
with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendant Dorsey Place Condominium
Association’s motion to dismiss, with prejudice.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/18/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2019-055353

12/16/2024

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE M. SCOTT MCCOY
T. DeRaddo

Deputy

JIE CAO, et al.
COLIN F CAMPBELL

v.

LORNE POLGER, et al.

LOUIS D LOPEZ
JUDGE MCCOY

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has considered Defendants' Notice of New Authority, which requests
supplemental briefing; and the Response to Defendants' Notice. The Court does not find
supplemental briefing at this time will be productive.

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants' request for supplemental briefing.

Documents