02/25/2011 — CV2010053552 GRAND COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INC, SUN CITY 02/25/2011 HONORABLE LINDA H. MILES View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/02/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-053552
02/25/2011
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LINDA H. MILES
L. Crawford
Deputy
SUN CITY GRAND COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION INC
ANGELA L POTTS
v.
DONALD E WOHLBRANDT, et al.
DONALD E WOHLBRANDT
18443 N BORGATA DR
SURPRISE AZ 85374
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and considered Defendant Donald E. Wohlbrandt’s Motion of
Continuance filed on January 4, 2011. The Court did not receive a Response to the Motion.
Pursuant to Rule 7.1(b), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court deems the failure to
respond as consent to the granting of the Motion.
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion. Although Defendant effectively already
has had an additional 30 days to file his Answer to the Complaint, the Court nonetheless grants
additional time. Defendant shall file his Answer to the Complaint on or before March 18, 2011.
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp.
Attorneys are encouraged to review Supreme Court Administrative Orders 2010-117 and 2011-
10 to determine their mandatory participation in eFiling through AZTurboCourt.
06/15/2011 — CV2010053552 GRAND COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INC, SUN CITY 06/15/2011 HONORABLE LINDA H. MILES View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/20/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-053552
06/15/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LINDA H. MILES
L. Carlson
Deputy
SUN CITY GRAND COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION INC
NICOLE ANN MILLER
v.
DONALD E WOHLBRANDT, et al.
DONALD E WOHLBRANDT
16317 N 168TH AVE
SURPRISE AZ 85388
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and considered Defendant Donald Wohlbrandt’s Motion to
Dismiss, filed March 17, 2011, and Plaintiff’s Response thereto. The Court did not receive a
Reply.
Although Defendant’s Motion is entitled “Motion to Dismiss,” the substantive provisions
of the Motion do not request dismissal of the case or explain why dismissal is appropriate. For
this reason,
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
In its Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff requests that the Court treat
the Motion as an Answer to the Complaint. Defendant has not opposed this request, and the
Court finds that the request is reasonable in light of the statements contained in the Motion.
Accordingly,
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-053552
06/15/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is deemed an Answer to the
Complaint.
ALERT: eFiling through AZTurboCourt.gov is mandatory in civil cases for attorney-
filed documents effective May 1, 2011. See Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Orders
2010-117 and 2011-010. The Court may impose sanctions against counsel to ensure compliance
with this requirement after May 1, 2011.
