02/06/2023 — LC2022000398 AT COOLEY STATION COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, FULTON HOMES 02/06/2023 HONORABLE JOSEPH P. MIKITISH View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/07/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2022-000398-001 DT
02/06/2023
Docket Code 504
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOSEPH P. MIKITISH
J. Eaton
Deputy
FULTON HOMES AT COOLEY STATION
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
NICHOLAS C NOGAMI
v.
AMRO HASSAN (001)
HALA M SHAMS (001)
AMRO HASSAN
2714 S BAR DIAMOND ST
GILBERT AZ 85295
HALA M SHAMS
2714 S BAR DIAMOND ST
GILBERT AZ 85295
COMM. LAFAVE
HIGHLAND JUSTICE COURT
JUDGE MIKITISH
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
CIVIL
RECORD APPEAL ASSIGNMENT
Highland Justice Court Case No. CC2021137641RC.
The parties’ memoranda having been filed in the above-mentioned appeal,
IT IS ORDERED assigning this appeal on February 6, 2023, to the Honorable Julie LaFave
for determination of the appeal within sixty (60) days from this date based upon the record of the
proceedings and the parties’ memoranda, pursuant to Rule 9.9, Maricopa County Superior Court
Local Rules of Practice.
504.CIVIL.NOA
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a
document, the system does not generate a courtesy copy for the Judge. Therefore, you will have to
deliver to the Judge a conformed courtesy copy of any filings.
02/28/2023 — LC2022000398 AT COOLEY STATION COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, FULTON HOMES 02/28/2023 HONORABLE JULIE A. LAFAVE View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Filed ***
03/01/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2022-000398-001 DT
02/28/2023
Docket Code 512
Form L512
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JULIE A. LAFAVE
S. Motzer
Deputy
FULTON HOMES AT COOLEY STATION
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
NICHOLAS C NOGAMI
v.
AMRO HASSAN (001)
HALA M SHAMS (001)
AMRO HASSAN
2714 S BAR DIAMOND ST
GILBERT AZ 85295
HALA M SHAMS
2714 S BAR DIAMOND ST
GILBERT AZ 85295
COMM. LAFAVE
HIGHLAND JUSTICE COURT
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
RECORD APPEAL RULING – AFFIRMED & REMANDED
CC2021-137641 RC
Defendants/Appellants, AMRO A. HASSAN and HALA M. SHAMS
(“Homeowners”), appeal from a civil judgment entered in the Highland Justice Court. The trial
court granted a Judgment on the Pleadings (“JOP”) in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee, FULTON
HOMES AT COOLEY STATION COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION (“Fulton Homes”). It
subsequently issued a Judgment and Attorneys’ Fees and Costs in favor of Fulton Homes. This
Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 16 and A.R.S. §§ 12-124, 22-261. For
the following reasons, this Court affirms.
I.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2022-000398-001 DT
02/28/2023
Docket Code 512
Form L512
Page 2
The underlying facts of this case are uncontested. On August 27, 2021, Fulton Homes
filed its lawsuit. See Complaint. It alleged that Homeowners deposited $3,500 in their account
with Fulton Home for landscaping which was then refunded to them upon completion. Id. at
2:20-25. Fulton Homes also alleged that it “then inadvertently issued a duplicate reimbursement
of $3,500 to Defendants a short time later, due to an administrative error”. Id. at 2:25-27. Fulton
Homes attached to the Complaint a copy of its ledger which it represented illustrated the
erroneous additional payment. Id. at Exhibit “A”. Fulton Homes alleged when it sought return
of the funds, Homeowners refused to do so. Id. at 3:2-6. Fulton Homes demanded relief in the
amount of $3,500, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. at 5:16-23.
In their Answer, Homeowners denied any allegation of wrongdoing, but admitted the
funds belonged to Fulton Homes. See Answer, dated November 12, 2021. Homeowners
acknowledged the funds had been given to them in error and that they were owed to Fulton
Homes, but indicated they wanted to pay them back in a payment plan due to financial hardship.
Id.
On December 20, 2021, Fulton Homes filed its Motion for JOP. See Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings. On December 29, 2021, Homeowners filed a response which read in
full “We are unable financially to afford the whole amount”. See Response. The trial court
granted the JOP on January 12, 2022. See Ruling on Motion. The parties then briefed the issue
of attorneys’ fees and the final award, including attorneys’ fees and costs was entered on April
28, 2022. See Ruling on Motion.
On May 12, 2022, Homeowners filed their Motion to Set Aside Judgment. They argued
only that the arbitration clause in the party’s agreement necessitated arbitration rather than
litigation and thus the trial court had no jurisdiction over the matter. See Motion to Set Aside
Judgment. Fulton Homes responded that the nature of the action sought was not contemplated
by the claims provision of the governing documents and thus arbitration was not necessary. On
June 17, 2022, the trial court denied the Motion to Set Aside Judgment. See Calendar Events and
Hearings at P:4.1 This timely appeal followed.
II.
GENERAL APPELLATE CONSIDERATIONS
When reviewing a trial court judgment, the reviewing court views “the evidence in a light
most favorable to sustaining the verdict.” Castro v. Ballesteros-Suarez, 222 Ariz. 48, 51–52
(App. 2009). This Court does not “reweigh the evidence or substitute [its] evaluation of the
facts” for that of the trial court. Id.
1 This court was not provided a copy of the ruling on appeal.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2022-000398-001 DT
02/28/2023
Docket Code 512
Form L512
Page 3
In this contract case, Homeowners bore the burden of proof by a preponderance of the
evidence. See, e.g., Aileen H. Char Life Interest v. Maricopa County, 208 Ariz. 286, 291 (2004).
The preponderance standard “essentially allocates the risk of error equally between the parties
involved.” Gila River Indian Community. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 238 Ariz. 531, 536–37 (App.
2015) (internal quotation omitted). A witness’ testimony, if believed by the trial court, is
sufficient proof to sustain a verdict and judgment. Cf. State v. Montano, 121 Ariz. 147, 149
(App. 1978) (“one witness, if relevant and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction”).
The validity and enforceability of a contract and arbitration clause are mixed questions of
fact and law, subject to de novo review. See Estate of DeCamacho ex rel Guthrie v. La Solana
Care & Rehab, Inc., 234 Ariz. 18, 20, ¶ 9 (App. 2014)(Denial of a motion to compel arbitration
is reviewed de novo); See also Sun Valley Ranch 308 Ltd. v. Robson, 231 Ariz. 287, 291, ¶ 9
(App. 2012); National Bank of Ariz. v. Schwartz, 230 Ariz. 310, 311, ¶ 4 (App. 2012).
Schoneberger v. Oelze, 208 Ariz. 591, ¶ 12 (App.2004); City of Tucson v. Clear Channel
Outdoor, Inc., 218 Ariz. 172, 178, ¶ 5, (App.2008) (statutory construction is a matter of law);
Grosvenor Holdings, L.C. v. Figueroa, 222 Ariz. 588, 593, ¶ 9 (App.2009)(contract
interpretation is a matter of law).
Whether conduct amounts to waiver of the right to arbitrate is also a question of law
reviewed de novo. See In re Estate of Cortez, 226 Ariz. 207, 210, ¶ 3 (App. 2010). “When the
facts are undisputed, this [C]ourt is not bound by the trial court’s conclusions and may make its
own analysis of the facts or legal instruments on which the case turns.” Broemmer v. Abortion
Services of Phoenix, Ltd., 173 Ariz. 148, 150 (1992).
III.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
On appeal, Homeowners raise the following issues: 1) Fulton Homes’ lawyers signed the
pleadings2; 2) the fees were not reasonable3; 3) there was no contractual relationship between the
parties4; 4) there was a mandatory arbitration clause which divested the trial court of jurisdiction,
and; 5) the JOP reply was untimely5.
Issues raised for the first time on appeal cannot be considered. See McDowell Mountain
Ranch Land Coalition v. Vizcaino, 190 Ariz. 1, 5 (1997) (issues not raised in the proceeding
below are not considered on appeal); National Broker Assocs., Inc. v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals,
Inc., 211 Ariz. 210, 216, ¶30 (App. 2005) (appellate courts "will not address issues raised for the
2 Permitted under Arizona Justice Court Rules of Civil Procedure (“JCRCP”) Rule 109(a)
3 Left to the discretion of the trial court under JCRCP Rule 139(e)
4 A restrictive covenant deed is a contract. See Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 555 (2006)
5 There is no evidence the Reply was even considered and none is required. JCRCP Rule 128(e). However, based
on the docket, the Reply was timely filed.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2022-000398-001 DT
02/28/2023
Docket Code 512
Form L512
Page 4
first time on appeal"); City of Tempe v. Fleming, 168 Ariz. 454, 456 (App. 1991) ("arguments
not made at the trial court cannot be asserted on appeal"); Palmer v. City of Phoenix, 242 Ariz.
158, 165, ¶26 (App. 2017) (stating that "a party must timely present his legal theories to the trial
court so as to give it an opportunity to rule properly" (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)). As a result, the only issue before this court for determination is if the JOP was
properly granted and if the matter was subject to arbitration6.
IV.
DISCUSSION
A. The JOP was properly granted.
After the pleadings have been filed, any party may file a motion for judgment on the
pleadings. The motion will be granted if, for purposes of the motion only, all of the
allegations in the opposing party's pleadings are considered to be true, and the party who
filed the motion would be entitled to judgment on the pleadings in their favor as a matter of
law. If matters outside the pleadings are presented to the court, the court will treat the
motion as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 129. [ARCP 12(c)]
JCRCP Rule 128(g)
A court may properly grant a Judgment on the Pleadings if the complaint sets forth a
claim for relief and the answer fails to assert a legally sufficient defense. See Walker v. Estavillo,
73 Ariz. 211 (1952); Pac. Fire Rating Bureau v. Ins. Co. of North America, 83 Ariz. 369 (1958).
Such was the case here. Homeowners did not raise any legal defense to the Complaint. They
argued only that it would be a financial hardship to return the funds all at once. Fulton Homes
had no legal obligation to offer a payment plan for a refund of monies erroneously transferred to
Homeowners. They admitted the money was Fulton Homes’ and needed to be repaid. “The law
is well settled that an admission in an answer is binding on the party making it, and is conclusive
as to the admitted fact. No evidence may be shown to contradict the admitted fact, a finding
contrary thereto is erroneous.” Schwartz v. Schwerin, 85 Ariz. 242, 249 (1959).
B. Arbitration was not required in this case, nor was it requested.
Homeowners argue that Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Fulton
Homes at Cooley Station (“the contract’) required the parties to arbitrate this matter rather than
litigate it in the trial court. See Appellant’s Memorandum at P:5. Homeowners raised this
6 The Court briefly directed Homeowners to the law which would have made their appeal unsuccessful even if
considered on the merits simply to allow them to understand those provisions but they did not substantively effect
this appeal.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2022-000398-001 DT
02/28/2023
Docket Code 512
Form L512
Page 5
jurisdictional issue in their Motion to Set Aside Judgment. Section 10.2 of the contract requires
parties to arbitrate “claims” which arise in two specific ways:
related in any way to an Alleged Defect, including, without limitation, any claim or cause
of action for breach of express or implied warranties or that a Declarant Party was
negligent in the planning, design, engineering, grading, construction or development of
the Project; or
related to the development of the Project or the management or operation of the
Association, including, without limitation, any claim for negligence, fraud, intentional
misconduct or breach of fiduciary duty.
See Contract Section 10.2(c)(1) and(2).
Fulton Homes argues the instant lawsuit did not contain the type of claim which required
arbitration. See Plaintiff/Appellee’s Response Memoranda at 7:16-23. This court agrees. The
remainder of the arbitration provision in the contract clearly sets out that it is meant to allow
remedy of defects and other claims related to the community. See Contract at Sections 10.3 and
10.4. The binding arbitration is meant to resolve claims “not resolved by direct negotiations”.
Id. at section 10.5. Here, there was no negotiation necessary. Fulton Homes made an accounting
error and gave Homeowners $3,500 that it should not have. Homeowners acknowledged that but
apparently no longer had the funds to repay. The lawsuit did not involve any alleged defect or
any issue in the development of the Project. Id. at Section 10.2. It simply did not fall within the
parameters of the arbitration clause. Further, to the extent the trial court would have made that
decision, it was never asked to do so. Thus, homeowners have waived the right to ask this Court
to review the need for arbitration as it never sought that relief prior to the JOP.
If a party makes a motion to the court to order arbitration, the court on just terms shall stay
any judicial proceeding that involves a claim alleged to be subject to the arbitration until
the court renders a final decision under this section.
ARS 12-3007(F)(emphasis added); See also A.R.S. §12-1502(setting forth requirements for a
trial court once “an application” has been made to refer to arbitration).
Homeowners failed to raise a legal defense to the action. They admitted owing Fulton
Homes $3,500. Judgment on the Pleading was appropriate. This court could reach no other
conclusion in its review. Further, the arbitration clause of the contract did not contemplate an
action of the nature filed. While the trial court may have considered referring the matter to
arbitration, no motion was made to do so prior to Homeowner’s admission the money was owed.
There was no negotiation to be had, nothing an arbitration could have resolved. The Complaint
and Answer alone establish Homeowner’s owed Fulton Homes $3,500. The attorneys’ fees and
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2022-000398-001 DT
02/28/2023
Docket Code 512
Form L512
Page 6
costs generated thereafter were a result of Homeowners refusal to repay funds. The trial court
properly awarded those fees, as this court will on appeal should Fulton Homes file the
appropriate request for same.
As the apparent prevailing party, Fulton Homes may be entitled to its taxable costs and
reasonable attorneys’ fees on appeal. Upon Fulton Homes’ compliance with Rule 13, Superior
Court Rules of Appellate Procedure—Civil, this Court will consider its request for costs and fees
as to the filing of the appeal. If it contends that this Court is required to award reasonable
attorneys’ fees due to a provision of a contract between the parties, Fulton Homes’ Rule 13 filing
must either supply the contractual provision requiring the award of fees or specifically identify
where in the existing record that provision can be found. See Bennett Blum, M.D., Inc. v.
Cowan, 235 Ariz. 204, 206 (App. 2014). Fulton Homes’ Rule 13 filing also “must disclose the
terms of any fee agreement for the services for which the claim is made.” Rule 54(g)(4), Ariz. R.
Civ. P. See also Jerman v. O’Leary, 145 Ariz. 397, 403 (App. 1985) (“[I]t is vital to know what
the agreement was between appellees and their lawyer.”).
V.
DISPOSITION AND ORDERS
Homeowners have not shown reversible error in the trial court proceedings. Nor has a de
novo review of the arbitration clause of the contract supported their argument that it applies.
Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED affirming the judgment of the Highland Justice Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, because the issue of attorneys’ fees and costs remain
pending, this ruling is not a final decision of this Court for purposes of ARCP 54(c) or Superior
Court Rule of Appellate Procedure-Civil 12(d). At an appropriate time, this Court will consider
a motion from either party declaring these review proceedings to be concluded for purposes of
Rule 13 and issue its final order pursuant to ARCP 54 and SCRAP-Civil R. 12 once the
attorneys’ fee issue had been briefed and determined.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED signing this ruling as a formal order of the Court.
/s/ Julie A. LaFave
THE HON. JULIE A. LAFAVE
Judicial Officer of the Superior Court
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a
document, the system does not generate a courtesy copy for the Judge. Therefore, you will have
to deliver to the Judge a conformed courtesy copy of any filings.
03/27/2023 — LC2022000398 AT COOLEY STATION COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, FULTON HOMES 03/27/2023 HONORABLE JULIE A. LAFAVE View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/28/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2022-000398-001 DT
03/27/2023
Docket Code 049
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JULIE A. LAFAVE
D. Tapia
Deputy
FULTON HOMES AT COOLEY STATION
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
NICHOLAS C NOGAMI
v.
AMRO HASSAN (001)
HALA M SHAMS (001)
AMRO HASSAN
2714 S BAR DIAMOND ST
GILBERT AZ 85295
HALA M SHAMS
2714 S BAR DIAMOND ST
GILBERT AZ 85295
COMM. LAFAVE
HIGHLAND JUSTICE COURT
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
JUDGMENT SIGNED
Highland Justice Court Case No. CC2021137641RC
The Court has signed as modified, a Proposed Judgment on March 27, 2023. Same
Judgment has been filed by the Clerk this date.
No matters remain pending in connection with this appeal. This is a final order. See
Sup.Ct.R.App. P. 12(c), 12(d), 14(b), and Ariz.R.Civ.P. 54(c).
Please note: The Court has signed a paper copy of the Judgment. After the Judgment has
been scanned and docketed by the Clerk of Court, copies of this Judgment will be available through
the ECR online at www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2022-000398-001 DT
03/27/2023
Docket Code 049
Form L000
Page 2
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a
document, the system does not generate a courtesy copy for the Judge. Therefore, you will have
to deliver to the Judge a conformed courtesy copy of any filings.
03/29/2023 — LC2022000398 AT COOLEY STATION COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, FULTON HOMES 03/29/2023 HONORABLE JULIE A. LAFAVE View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/30/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2022-000398-001 DT
03/29/2023
Docket Code 019
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JULIE A. LAFAVE
P. McKinley
Deputy
FULTON HOMES AT COOLEY STATION
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
NICHOLAS C NOGAMI
v.
AMRO HASSAN (001)
HALA M SHAMS (001)
AMRO HASSAN
2714 S BAR DIAMOND ST
GILBERT AZ 85295
HALA M SHAMS
2714 S BAR DIAMOND ST
GILBERT AZ 85295
COMM. LAFAVE
HIGHLAND JUSTICE COURT
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
MINUTE ENTRY
Highland Justice Court Case No. CC2021137641RC
On March 1, 2023, this Court issued its ruling in the above referenced matter. On March
15, 2023, Appellants filed a motion to reconsider. Appellee did not file a response, and none
was sought by this Court.
This Court has considered Appellants’ motion, its prior ruling, and the record. While
Appellants continue to disagree with the ruling, they have cited no legal authority not already
considered by the Court in its earlier ruling. Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Appellants’ motion for reconsideration.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2022-000398-001 DT
03/29/2023
Docket Code 019
Form L000
Page 2
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a
document, the system does not generate a courtesy copy for the Judge. Therefore, you will have
to deliver to the Judge a conformed courtesy copy of any filings.
04/03/2023 — LC2022000398 AT COOLEY STATION COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, FULTON HOMES 04/03/2023 HONORABLE JULIE A. LAFAVE View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/04/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2022-000398-001 DT
04/03/2023
Docket Code 025
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JULIE A. LAFAVE
P. McKinley
Deputy
FULTON HOMES AT COOLEY STATION
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
NICHOLAS C NOGAMI
v.
AMRO HASSAN (001)
HALA M SHAMS (001)
AMRO HASSAN
2714 S BAR DIAMOND ST
GILBERT AZ 85295
HALA M SHAMS
2714 S BAR DIAMOND ST
GILBERT AZ 85295
COMM. LAFAVE
HIGHLAND JUSTICE COURT
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
MINUTE ENTRY--NO FURTHER ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Highland Justice Court Case No. CC2021137641RC
On March 27, 2023, this Court issued its ruling awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to
Appellee as the prevailing party in the above referenced matter. As no issues remained pending,
it was signed as a formal order of the Court. This court has received an untimely Objection to
the award of attorneys’ fees and costs on appeal. The time for any filings in this court has
expired. This Court will take no further action on that objection as the matter has been fully
adjudicated herein and remanded to the trial court for any further appropriate proceedings.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2022-000398-001 DT
04/03/2023
Docket Code 025
Form L000
Page 2
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a
document, the system does not generate a courtesy copy for the Judge. Therefore, you will have
to deliver to the Judge a conformed courtesy copy of any filings.
12/15/2022 — LC2022000398 AT COOLEY STATION COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, FULTON HOMES 12/15/2022 HONORABLE DANIEL J. KILEY View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/16/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2022-000398-001 DT
12/15/2022
Docket Code 023
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIEL J. KILEY
S. Motzer
Deputy
FULTON HOMES AT COOLEY STATION
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
NICHOLAS C NOGAMI
v.
AMRO HASSAN (001)
HALA M SHAMS (001)
AMRO HASSAN
2714 S BAR DIAMOND ST
GILBERT AZ 85295
HALA M SHAMS
2714 S BAR DIAMOND ST
GILBERT AZ 85295
HIGHLAND JUSTICE COURT
JUDGE KILEY
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
WEST MCDOWELL JUSTICE COURT
MINUTE ENTRY
Highland Justice Court Case No. CC2021-137641 RC
The Court having reviewed and considered the Procedural Motion seeking to reinstate the
appeal and the Response in opposition thereto, and good cause appearing,
IT IS ORDERED granting the Procedural Motion and reinstating this appeal.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Highland Justice Court shall transmit
the record to the Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court. The Clerk of the West McDowell
Justice Court is requested to transmit the record on or before January 15, 2023.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2022-000398-001 DT
12/15/2022
Docket Code 023
Form L000
Page 2
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a
document, the system does not generate a courtesy copy for the Judge. Therefore, you will have to
deliver to the Judge a conformed courtesy copy of any filings.
12/19/2022 — LC2022000398 AT COOLEY STATION COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, FULTON HOMES 12/19/2022 HONORABLE DANIEL J. KILEY View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/20/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2022-000398-001 DT
12/19/2022
Docket Code 023
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIEL J. KILEY
S. Motzer
Deputy
FULTON HOMES AT COOLEY STATION
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
NICHOLAS C NOGAMI
v.
AMRO HASSAN (001)
HALA M SHAMS (001)
AMRO HASSAN
2714 S BAR DIAMOND ST
GILBERT AZ 85295
HALA M SHAMS
2714 S BAR DIAMOND ST
GILBERT AZ 85295
HIGHLAND JUSTICE COURT
JUDGE KILEY
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
WEST MCDOWELL JUSTICE COURT
CORRECTING MINUTE ENTRY
Highland Justice Court Case No. CC2021-137641 RC
A clerical error having been made,
IT IS ORDERED correcting the Court’s Minute Entry dated December 15, 2022, filed
December 16, 2022, with docket code 023, page 1, paragraph 3 to replace “West McDowell”
with: “Highland”
The balance of the minute entry shall remain the same.
