02/21/2020 — CV2019096071 ASSOCIATION, SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY 02/21/2020 HONORABLE TRACEY WESTERHAUSEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/27/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
02/21/2020
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE TRACEY WESTERHAUSEN
T. Haaser
Deputy
JOHN SANDERS, et al.
CHRISTOPHER D HILL
v.
SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
DEAN R COX
JUDGE WESTERHAUSEN
MINUTE ENTRY
On the Court’s own motion,
IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument re: all pending motions on March 11, 2020 at
10:30 a.m. (1 hour allotted) in this in this division before:
Honorable Tracey Westerhausen
Maricopa County Superior Court
Southeast Judicial Facility
Courtroom 207
222 E. Javelina
Mesa, AZ 85210
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:
If extended oral argument is necessary, counsel must so advise the Court no later than four
(4) court days prior to the date set for hearing so that oral argument can be rescheduled.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
02/21/2020
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
Any motion or stipulation for continuance must be filed with the Court no later than four
(4) court days prior to the date set for hearing. After that date, no continuances will be granted
except for extraordinary circumstances.
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), ARCP.
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.
03/03/2021 — CV2019096071 ASSOCIATION, SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY 03/03/2021 HONORABLE TRACEY WESTERHAUSEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/04/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
03/03/2021
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE TRACEY WESTERHAUSEN
C. Avena
Deputy
JOHN SANDERS, et al.
CHRISTOPHER D HILL
v.
SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
DEAN R COX
JUDGE WESTERHAUSEN
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received Defendant’s Request for Ruling filed February 26, 2021.
This matter having been closed by the Clerk of the Court after the Court’s last ruling,
there is no pending case to issue a minute entry for.
If the Parties wish to re-open the case, they may move to do so.
03/11/2020 — CV2019096071 ASSOCIATION, SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY 03/11/2020 HONORABLE TRACEY WESTERHAUSEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/16/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
03/11/2020
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE TRACEY WESTERHAUSEN
T. Haaser
Deputy
JOHN SANDERS, et al.
CHRISTOPHER D HILL
v.
SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
DEAN R COX
JUDGE WESTERHAUSEN
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom 207 – SEA
10:33 a.m. This is the time set Oral Argument regarding Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss,
the Response and the Reply thereto and Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
re: Settlement of Claims, the Response and the Reply thereto. Counsel Christopher Hill is present
on behalf of Plaintiffs John Sanders, Robert Sanders and Lori Venberg. Counsel Dean Cox is
present on behalf of the Defendant Springfield Community Association. No one else appears.
Court Reporter, Kristin DeCasas, is present. A record of the proceeding is also made
digitally.
Arguments are heard and matters are discussed as set forth on the record.
For reasons as stated on the record,
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re:
Settlement of Claims as premature.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
03/11/2020
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED taking the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the Response
and the Reply, the oral request for sanctions and sanctions hearing under advisement.
11:28 a.m. Matter concludes.
PLEASE NOTE: For digital copies or transcripts of any recorded proceedings a Request
for Daily Copy may be made here: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/e-courtrooms/
04/16/2021 — CV2019096071 ASSOCIATION, SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY 04/16/2021 HONORABLE TRACEY WESTERHAUSEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/20/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
04/16/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE TRACEY WESTERHAUSEN
C. Avena
Deputy
JOHN SANDERS, et al.
CHRISTOPHER D HILL
v.
SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
DEAN R COX
JUDGE WESTERHAUSEN
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received a request from Plaintiffs to enter a signed order with certification
of finality pursuant to Rule 54.c. Item 23 (“Item” refers to the document’s number in iCIS, the
in-house docketing system used by the Clerk and the Court) Filing ID 12702755. The defense
responded. Item 24 Filing ID 12713814. And, Plaintiff replied. Filing ID 12739835. The Court
has reviewed these filings and grants the request to enter a Rule 54.c order.
04/19/2021 — CV2019096071 ASSOCIATION, SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY 04/19/2021 HONORABLE TRACEY WESTERHAUSEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Filed ***
04/20/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
04/19/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE TRACEY WESTERHAUSEN
C. Avena
Deputy
JOHN SANDERS, et al.
CHRISTOPHER D HILL
v.
SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
DEAN R COX
JUDGE WESTERHAUSEN
MINUTE ENTRY
Order granting Defendant Springfield Community Association’s Motion to Dismiss;
denying Defendant Springfield’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs, without prejudice;
granting Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of a final judgment.
In the Court’ Minute Entry of May 11, 2020, it granted Defendants Springfield
Community Association’s motion to dismiss, “with an expanded minute entry to follow.” This is
that expanded Minute Entry.
1. Background.
On January 19, 2018, Coeta Sanders was walking on a sidewalk in the Springfield Adult
Resort Community (“Springfield”), where she and her husband John, were residents. She tripped
over a “raised lip” that rose at an expansion joint of the sidewalk. Her fall caused her physical
injuries which required treatment, including hospitalization and rehabilitation. Complaint, Item
1 in iCIS, the in-house docketing system used by the Court and the Clerk.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
04/19/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
Attorney Christopher D. Hill was hired to make a claim regarding the trip-and-fall. In a
December 28, 2018 letter to the insurance adjuster for Springfield’s insurance company,
Cincinnati Insurance Company (“CIC”). Hill wrote, “The Sanders family has authorized me to
extend this counteroffer to the settlement offer you extended on behalf of CIC on December 11,
2018.” Item 5 Filing ID 11229984, Exhibit 2. At the end of the letter, Hill wrote, “Based on the
foregoing, the Sanders would agree to a lump-sum settlement amount of $500,000.00, if paid
within 30 days.” Id.
On February 9, 2010, Hill wrote again to the adjuster. That letter begins “Thank you for
your counteroffer of $85,000 you extended on behalf of CIC in your January 28, 2019, letter to
me. I have reviewed and discussed the counteroffer with the Sanders family.” In the second
paragraph, Hill wrote, “The counteroffer is substantially below the $500,000 counteroffer the
Sanders family authorized me to extend on December 28, 2018.” The fourth paragraph read, in
part, “Additionally as I explained in the counteroffer, Coeta and her family are unlikely to
receive any benefit from a settlement amount that is less than $200,000 since Ms. Sanders’
medical expenses are being paid under a Medicare Advantage Plan.” Included in the fifth
paragraph was, “Based on the foregoing, the Sanders family has authorized me to extend this
counteroffer. The Sanders would agree to a lump-sum settlement amount of $400,000.00, if paid
within 30 days and contemporaneous settlement with the Plan for receipt of $100,000 of the
lump-sum to extinguish its Medicare reimbursement rights.” Item 5, Exhibit 3.
After that, on July 11, 2019, Ms. Sanders signed a Release of All Claims with CIC, for
“the total sum of $350,000 (paid as follows: $200,000 paid to SANDERS through her attorney
and $15,000 paid directly to the Rawlings Company (Medicare lien) along with $5,000 of
available medical payment coverage to completely satisfy the existing Cigna HealthCare of
Arizona, Inc’s Medicare Advantage lien) . . . .” Item 5, Exhibit 1.
2. Procedural history.
John Sanders, Lori Venberg and Robert Sanders (Coeta’s husband, daughter and son,
respectively) then sued Springfield for their loss of consortium claims. Before the Court are:
a. Springfield’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Item 5 Filing ID 11229984;
b. Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion to Dismiss and Cross-Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment re: Settlement of Claims, Item 7 Filing ID 11244283
a. (with a request also for leave to amend the Complaint);
b. Springfield’s reply re: Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion to Dismiss and Cross-Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment re: Settlement of Claims, Item 8 Filing ID 11266458.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
04/19/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3
c. Springfield’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement of Facts in Support of Cross-
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re: Settlement of Claims, Item 9;
d. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss, Item 10 Filing ID 11284665 ;
e. Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re: Settlement of Claims,
Item 11 Filing ID 11284707 (DENIED AS PREMATURE, ME 03-11-20, Item 19 );
f. Springfield’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re:
Settlement of Claims, Item 12 Filing ID 11289038;
g. Springfield’s Reply re Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion to Dismiss, Item 13 Filing ID
11288995;
h. Plaintiffs’ Reply in Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re: Settlement of
Claims, Item 14 Filing ID 11292408;
i. Springfield’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Leave to Amend (Their) Complaint,
Item 15 Filing ID 11314864;
j. Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Leave to Amend
Complaint, Item 16 Filing ID 11335174;
3. Ruling granting Springfield’s motion to dismiss.
Springfield moved to dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12.b.6, failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. It argued that the loss-of-consortium claims of Coeta’s family
are derivative, so that when Coeta signed the release of all claims, those loss-of-consortium
claims were extinguished.1 This is accurate. “Loss of consortium is a derivative claim, which
means that the success of a loss-of-consortium claim is dependent on the success of another
claim.” Martin v. Staheli, 248 Ariz. 87, 92, ¶ 17 (App. 2019). Coeta no longer has a claim,
which means that her family members now have no claim.
1 Springfield relied on the release and correspondence regarding the claim in its motion to
dismiss. These were matters outside the four-corners of the complaint. When that happens, the
Court must review the motion as one for summary judgment, not to dismiss. Rule 12.d, “Result
of Presenting Matters outside the Pleadings. If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or (c), matters
outside the pleadings are presented to, and not excluded by, the court, the motion must be treated
as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. All parties must be given a reasonable opportunity
to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.” Plaintiffs cross-moved for summary
judgment on almost all of the same facts. Plaintiffs did not file a Rule 56.d request to propose a
plan to respond to the motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment. The Court applied the
principles of Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301 (1990) in reviewing the motion. An Orme
School prism causes the same result.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
04/19/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 4
Further, Plaintiffs’ attorney represented the Sanders family not Coeta and Coeta only.
His correspondence with the adjuster created a written, binding contract under Rule 80.a,
“Agreement or Consent of Counsel or Parties. If disputed, no agreement or consent between
parties or attorneys in any matter is binding, unless: (1) it is in writing; or (2) it is made orally in
open court and entered in the minutes.” That contract – the release – bound Coeta and her
family.
The Court grants Springfield’s motion to dismiss.
4. Ruling denying Springfield’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs, without
prejudice.
At the end of Springfield’s Motion to Dismiss, in the conclusion, the defense wrote,
“This Court should also order that Plaintiffs pay the association’s attorneys’ fees incurred in
filing this Motion to Dismiss as the Complaint that was filed was without substantial justification
under A.R.S. § 12-349, along with other appropriate sanctions pursuant to Rule 11, Ariz. R. Civ.
P., as the Court deems just and proper.” This is not a motion under Rule 7.1.a.1 as it lacks any
particularity. Nor does the final sentence of the Motion to Dismiss comply with Rule 11.c. The
Court denies, without prejudice, the concluding sentence, because it is not a proper motion.
5. Ruling granting Plaintiffs’ request for a final judgment.
Plaintiffs requested that the Court provide a signed order with Rule 54.c certification of
finality. They did not submit their own proposed form of judgment.
The Court grants Plaintiffs’ request for a final judgment. The Court finds that no further
matters remain pending and that the judgment is entered under Rule 54.c.
Dated this 19th day of April, 2021.
\s\ TRACEY WESTERHAUSEN
_______________________________________
Honorable Tracey Westerhausen
Judicial Officer of the Superior Court
04/19/2022 — CV2019096071 ASSOCIATION, SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY 04/19/2022 HON. PAMELA GATES View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/20/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
04/19/2022
Docket Code 066
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. PAMELA GATES
S. Ortega
Deputy
JOHN SANDERS, et al.
CHRISTOPHER D HILL
v.
SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
DEAN R COX
JUDGE GATES
JUDGE HOPKINS
JUDGE THOMPSON
CASE REASSIGNMENT - CIVIL PRESIDING JUDGE
This case was previously assigned to the Honorable Stephen Hopkins, who has disqualified
himself. The case was transferred to the Presiding Civil Judge for reassignment.
IT IS ORDERED reassigning this case to Civil Calendar CVJ-21, the Honorable Peter
Thompson, for all further proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any and all hearings set by the disqualified judge are
vacated, to be reset by the new division.
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.
05/05/2022 — CV2019096071 ASSOCIATION, SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY 05/05/2022 HONORABLE PETER A. THOMPSON View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/06/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
05/05/2022
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER A. THOMPSON
V. Felix
Deputy
JOHN SANDERS, et al.
CHRISTOPHER D HILL
v.
SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
DEAN R COX
JUDGE THOMPSON
MINUTE ENTRY
On the Court’s own motion,
IT IS ORDERED setting a Status Conference regarding reformation of settlement
agreement on May 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. (30 minutes allotted) before Judge Peter A. Thompson.
The hearing shall be held virtually through Court Connect. All parties and their counsel will be
provided with the Court Connect link invitation in advance of the hearing.
Judge Thompson’s Remote Courtroom
Hearings will be held via video conference through Court Connect utilizing the Microsoft Teams
application. An invite to the hearing will be sent out to the email on file for each party or counsel
of record. It is the party’s responsibility to ensure receipt of the invitation prior to the hearing date.
The information is included below as well:
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://www.tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj21
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
05/05/2022
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2
You can also dial in using your phone.
Teams Phone Number: +1 (917) 781-4590 Access Code: 105 414 319#
Private Dial-in Information: for privacy purposes, you can block you phone number by dialing *67
05/11/2020 — CV2019096071 ASSOCIATION, SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY 05/11/2020 HONORABLE TRACEY WESTERHAUSEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/12/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
05/11/2020
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE TRACEY WESTERHAUSEN
H. Bell
Deputy
JOHN SANDERS, et al.
CHRISTOPHER D HILL
v.
SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
DEAN R COX
JUDGE WESTERHAUSEN
MINUTE ENTRY
Order granting Defendant Springfield Community Association’s Motion to Dismiss;
Order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; Order denying
Plaintiffs’ “request for leave to amend the Complaint to state a claim for breach of
contract,” without prejudice.
Coeta Sanders (not a party in the instant matter) settled her personal injury claim against
the Springfield Community Association (Springfield); Ms. Sanders suffered a trip-and-fall-with-
injuries at the community owned and maintained by Springfield. Plaintiffs John Sanders, Lori
Venberg and Robert Sanders (Ms. Sanders’s husband, daughter and son, respectively) then sued
Springfield for their loss of consortium claims.
Pending before the Court is Springfield’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint and
related filings (Docket Items 5, 10 and 13). The Court grants Springfield’s motion, with an
expanded Minute Entry of this Ruling to follow. The instant Minute Entry does NOT trigger any
action dates for the parties regarding the Motion to Dismiss.
The Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as moot in light of the
above ruling, and that will also be the subject of the expanded Minute Entry. The instant Minute
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
05/11/2020
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
Entry does NOT trigger any action dates for the parties regarding the Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment.
In Plaintiffs’ Reply in Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re: Settlement of
Claims (Docket Item 14), Plaintiffs’ Reply concluded with Part C, “In the alternative, Plaintiffs
request leave to amend the Complaint to state a claim for breach of contract.” Item 14 at pp. 9-
10. Item 14 did not refer in its title to the fact that it contained an attempted motion to amend the
complaint in Part C. Springfield in its Response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Leave to Amend
[Their] Complaint [Item 15] criticized Plaintiffs for their failure to abide by the Rule 15
amendment procedure. Plaintiffs replied, “The alternative request [in Item 14] was essentially a
judicially efficient avenue of allowing Ms. Sanders and Plaintiffs to pursue a breach of contract
action against Defendant without initiating an entirely new action with the filing of a new
complaint.” [Item 16.]
Actually, the Rule 15 procedure is the judicially efficient mechanism to amend a
complaint. First, a Rule 15 motion and related filings appear by title in the court docket, which
is helpful to anyone who might access the docket. Second, it requires the parties – and the Court
– to consider concrete proposed amendments, rather than hypothetical ones. For these reasons,
as well as those Springfield set forth in its Response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Leave to Amend
[Their] Complaint” [Item 15], the Court denies Plaintiffs’ “request for leave to amend the
Complaint to state a claim for breach of contract,” without prejudice.
05/16/2022 — CV2019096071 ASSOCIATION, SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY 05/16/2022 HONORABLE PETER A. THOMPSON View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/18/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
05/16/2022
Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER A. THOMPSON
V. Felix
Deputy
JOHN SANDERS, et al.
CHRISTOPHER D HILL
v.
SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
DEAN R COX
JUDGE THOMPSON
MINUTE ENTRY
On the Court’s own motion,
IT IS ORDERED vacating the Status Conference scheduled for May 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.
and resetting same to July 18, 2022 at 2:30 p.m. (30 minutes allotted) before Judge Peter A.
Thompson. The hearing shall be held virtually through Court Connect. All parties and their counsel
will be provided with the Court Connect link invitation in advance of the hearing.
Judge Thompson’s Remote Courtroom
Hearings will be held via video conference through Court Connect utilizing the Microsoft Teams
application. An invite to the hearing will be sent out to the email on file for each party or counsel
of record. It is the party’s responsibility to ensure receipt of the invitation prior to the hearing date.
The information is included below as well:
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://www.tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj21
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
05/16/2022
Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 2
You can also dial in using your phone.
Teams Phone Number: +1 (917) 781-4590 Access Code: 105 414 319#
Private Dial-in Information: for privacy purposes, you can block you phone number by dialing *67
05/27/2022 — CV2019096071 ASSOCIATION, SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY 05/27/2022 HONORABLE PETER A. THOMPSON View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/31/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
05/27/2022
Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER A. THOMPSON
K. Tiero
Deputy
JOHN SANDERS, et al.
CHRISTOPHER D HILL
v.
SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
DEAN R COX
JUDGE THOMPSON
STATUS CONFERENCE RESET
MINUTE ENTRY
On the Court’s own Motion,
IT IS ORDERED vacating the Status Conference set July 18, 2022 and resetting same to
July 25, 2022 at 4:00 p.m. (30 minutes allotted) in this Division.
06/01/2022 — CV2019096071 ASSOCIATION, SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY 06/01/2022 HONORABLE PETER A. THOMPSON View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/02/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
06/01/2022
Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER A. THOMPSON
V. Felix
Deputy
JOHN SANDERS, et al.
CHRISTOPHER D HILL
v.
SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
DEAN R COX
JUDGE THOMPSON
MINUTE ENTRY
At the request of counsel,
IT IS ORDERED vacating the Status Conference scheduled for July 25, 2022 and
resetting same to July 26, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. (1 hour allotted) before Judge Peter A. Thompson.
The hearing shall be held virtually through Court Connect. All parties and their counsel will be
provided with the Court Connect link invitation in advance of the hearing.
Judge Thompson’s Remote Courtroom
Hearings will be held via video conference through Court Connect utilizing the Microsoft Teams
application. An invite to the hearing will be sent out to the email on file for each party or counsel
of record. It is the party’s responsibility to ensure receipt of the invitation prior to the hearing date.
The information is included below as well:
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://www.tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj21
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
06/01/2022
Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 2
You can also dial in using your phone.
Teams Phone Number: +1 (917) 781-4590 Access Code: 105 414 319#
Private Dial-in Information: for privacy purposes, you can block you phone number by dialing *67
06/21/2021 — CV2019096071 ASSOCIATION, SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY 06/21/2021 HONORABLE TRACEY WESTERHAUSEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/23/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
06/21/2021
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE TRACEY WESTERHAUSEN
C. Avena
Deputy
JOHN SANDERS, et al.
CHRISTOPHER D HILL
v.
SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
DEAN R COX
JUDGE WESTERHAUSEN
MINUTE ENTRY
Order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial.
Plaintiffs John Sanders, Lori Venberg and Robert Sanders filed a timely Motion for New
Trial from this Court’s judgment entered on April 15, 2021. Defendant Springfield Community
Association responded, and Plaintiffs replied.
The Court stays to its conclusion that when Coela executed the Release of All Claims,
she released all derivative claims, including her family’s claims for loss of consortium.
Villareal v. State, Dept. of Transp., 160 Ariz. 474, 481 (1989) (“A defendant in a consortium
case is liable to the child because the defendant injured the child's parent and thereby damaged
the parent-child relationship. Both the child's claim and the parent's claim are based on the same
conduct of the defendant. A child's claim for loss of consortium is derivative of the parent's claim
for personal injuries. Defenses good against the parent will be good against the child, and any
percentage of negligence attributable against the parent under Arizona's comparative negligence
statute will reduce the amount of the child's recovery.”)
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
06/21/2021
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
The Court’s conclusion is not inconsistent with Martin v. Staheli, 248 Ariz. 87, 92 ¶ 17
(“Loss of consortium is a derivative claim, which means that the success of a loss-of-consortium
claim is dependent on the success of another claim.”) Under Martin, if Coela had filed a suit for
personal injuries without including her family’s loss of consortium claims, those claims could
have been added, even if Coela died from unrelated causes during the pendency of the case.
There was no personal injury lawsuit, though, at the time that Coela signed the release. When
she did that, she extinguished her family’s claims for loss of consortium.
The Court, however, was wrong about the application of Rule 80.a, because all of the
communication back and forth regarding the negotiations and release occurred before the lawsuit
was filed. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the Rule applies only to litigation then pending
in the courts. That error does not change the outcome as to Plaintiffs’ derivative claims for loss
of consortium.
The Court denies the Motion for New Trial. The parties may submit a proposed final,
appealable judgment to the Court as provided in the Rules.
07/26/2022 — CV2019096071 ASSOCIATION, SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY 07/26/2022 HONORABLE PETER A. THOMPSON View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/27/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
07/26/2022
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER A. THOMPSON
V. Felix
Deputy
JOHN SANDERS, et al.
CHRISTOPHER D HILL
v.
SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
DEAN R COX
JUDGE THOMPSON
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom 206 – SEA
10:01 a.m. This is the time set for Status Conference regarding the Court of Appeals
Mandate. Plaintiffs are represented by above-named counsel, Christopher Hill. Defendant is
represented by above-named counsel, Dean Cox.
Today’s hearing is being held through Court Connect with all parties and/or counsel
appearing virtually. A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held regarding the Court of Appeals ruling.
IT IS ORDERED the parties shall have until August 15, 2022 to file simultaneous
briefing in the form of argument for the Court’s consideration.
Discussion is held regarding the current stay of proceedings. Counsel is advised that any
request to extend the stay is to be submitted in writing.
10:25 a.m. Matter concludes.
08/23/2022 — CV2019096071 ASSOCIATION, SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY 08/23/2022 HONORABLE PETER A. THOMPSON View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Filed ***
08/24/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
08/23/2022
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER A. THOMPSON
V. Felix
Deputy
JOHN SANDERS, et al.
CHRISTOPHER D HILL
v.
SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
DEAN R COX
JUDGE THOMPSON
MINUTE ENTRY
Division One, Arizona Court of Appeals has “remanded this matter to the superior court to
conduct further proceedings to determine whether there is “clear, convincing and satisfactory
proof” to reform the contract to include the names of John, Robert, and Lori, as SCA suggests”.
This Court has provided the parties the opportunity to provide written citations to the record
which they believe demonstrate their respective positions in the issue submitted. The Court has
since reviewed the portions of the communications between the parties, the representations of
counsel to the Court and considered the arguments of the parties.
THE COURT FINDS as follows by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof that:
1. The parties intended to resolve all claims, including those of Plaintiffs in this action via
the terms of the settlement;
2. Counsel for Plaintiffs was aware of the error in the release document and took
advantage of the unilateral mistake of Defendant’s counsel;
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-096071
08/23/2022
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
3. The actions of Plaintiffs’ counsel in taking advantage of what he knew at the time to
be a unilateral mistake on the part of Defendant’s counsel in drafting the agreement of
the parties constitutes inequitable conduct which justifies reformation of the contract
to include the release of Plaintiffs’ claims as part of the settlement agreement.
IT IS ORDERED signing this minute entry as a final written order of the Court. The
Court notes that no further matters remain pending and the order is entered pursuant to
Rule 54(c), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.
DATED this 23rd day of August 2022.
/ s / HONORABLE PETER A. THOMPSON
HONORABLE PETER A. THOMPSON
JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
