Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2005-019613: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Mirage Crossing Resort Casitas Homeowners Association Inc.

Case Number

CV2005-019613

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

12/28/2005

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Fox, Dewain

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/22/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
01/17/2008
Docket Code 079
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
SUSANNE E INGOLD
LARRY D LANGLEY
CRAIG A MCCARTHY
ANDREW R PESHEK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
NEAL B THOMAS
WILLIAM R METTLER JR.
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court is in receipt of and has considered the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Dismiss
Declaratory Relief Counts Seven, Eight, Nine, and Ten of Third-Party Plaintiffs’ Second
Amended Complaint, As Alleged Against Eagle Ventures USA, Inc.
IT IS ORDERED granting said Motion.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/29/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
01/28/2009
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
STATUS CONFERENCE / ORAL ARGUMENT SET
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Request for a Conference Pursuant to Rule 16(a) and
16(b) filed on January 15, 2009.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
01/28/2009
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
Good cause appearing,
IT IS ORDERED setting a Status Conference on February 23, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.
(allotted time: 45 minutes) in this division.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting Oral Argument on same date for the following
motions:
§
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss/Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
§
Plaintiff’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY, II
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-7806

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/06/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
01/29/2008
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
LARRY D LANGLEY
CRAIG A MCCARTHY
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
NEAL B THOMAS
ORAL ARGUMENT SET
IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on Plaintiff’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial and
Status Conference to Set Trial Date for March 7, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (time allotted: 45 minutes),
before:

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
01/29/2008
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY, II
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-7806
NOTE: If a pleading is filed within 48 hours of a hearing it must be hand-delivered to the
Bailiff or Judicial Assistant of this Division to assure that it is available for the Court at the
hearing. Delivery to an administrative mailbox will not assure its timely delivery.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/07/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
02/03/2011
Docket Code 042
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
RICHARD L RIGHI
CASE DISMISSED
Pursuant to the Minute Entry dated December 21, 2010,
IT IS ORDERED dismissing this matter without prejudice as to any parties remaining in
the case.
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3343
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/11/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
02/05/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
JILL ANN HERMAN
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
SUSANNE E INGOLD
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
KACI YOUNG BOWMAN
JOHN A ELARDO
WILLIAM R METTLER JR.
F LISA ALLEN
LLOYD J ANDREWS
MARK ANDREW NICKEL

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
02/05/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
MINUTE ENTRY
This matter has been under advisement on numerous motions for summary judgment.
The Court has considered the memoranda and the voluminous attachments, heard oral argument
and now rules as follows:
Standing
Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs Mirage Homes Construction, Inc. and Mirage Homes,
LLC (“Mirage”) and Third-Party Defendant Castle Drywall move for summary judgment
regarding Plaintiff’s right to bring a dwelling action pursuant to A.R.S. §33-2002. The statute
allows a homeowner’s association (“HOA”) to file a dwelling action if certain prerequisites are
met. To fulfill these requirements, the HOA must provide full written disclosure to every
association member setting forth “all material information” relating to the filing of the civil
action. Once the disclosure is issued, the HOA must have a meeting with the association
members and its board of directors. The board of directors may then vote to file an action.
A.R.S. §33-2002(A)(1)-(3).
Plaintiff contends that it has substantially complied with §33-2002, that its suit is allowed
by §33-1242 because “common elements” within the Association is the focus, not defects within
the unit owners’ boundaries. Furthermore, even if it has not complied with the statute, Mirage
and Castle Drywall lack the ability to challenge compliance.
The Court finds that Defendants and Third-Party Defendants have the right to challenge
Plaintiff’s standing. Otherwise, individual unit owners may not be bound by the outcome of the
present suit, resulting in further liability to Mirage and Castle Drywall.
The Court further finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish its compliance with §33-2002.
Mr. Jeffrey Hennick’s Affidavit does not prove statutory compliance nor does Plaintiff’s
counsel’s September 20, 2005 letter to the “homeowners”or his December 19, 2005 letter to the
board of director’s comply with the statute. There is no evidence that the HOA ever provided its
members with the necessary “material information” required by §33-1242(A)(1). Therefore, any
board authorization to file an action was premature.
The Court further finds that A.R.S. §33-1242 does not allow the requirements of §33-
2002 to be ignored. Instead, A.R.S. §33-2002 begins: “[n]ot withstanding any provision to the
contrary in . . . chapters 9 . . . of this title and in addition to any requirements prescribed in the
community documents of a homeowners’ association, a homeowners’ association may file a
homeowners’ association dwelling action only after” material information is disclosed to all

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
02/05/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3
members. See 33-2002(A) and (A)(1). This information includes how any action “will be
funded.” Id. At (A)(1). Here, no written information was provided by the HOA to its members.
Finally, Plaintiff’s argument that it is merely seeking redress for damages to the common
elements or the limited common elements which the association has a duty to maintain or repair,
and thus does not need the approval of the Association’s members, does not relieve the HOA
from its statutory obligation. Because the HOA is funded by its members, the Association has a
duty to inform them whenever HOA monies are to be used to prosecute a lawsuit. Accordingly,
finding that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the Defendants are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law,
IT IS ORDERED granting Mirage’s Motion for Summary Judgment re: Compliance with
A.R.S. §33-2002, as well as Castle Drywall’s similar Motion re: Standing.
With respect to the Third-Party Defendant GAC, Inc.’s (“GAC”) Motion for Summary
Judgment re: HVAC Claims, for the reasons set forth above the Court finds that GAC is entitled
to summary judgment. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED granting GAC’s Motion for Summary Judgment re: HVAC Claims.
The Court’s ruling does not address whether the Plaintiff can file claims on behalf of the
individual unit owners.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting summary judgment in favor of all Third-Party
Defendants who joined in one or more of the above motions.
Liability Motions
While the Court believes that Plaintiff’s own Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re:
Liability, as well as its argument in support of the issue of extrapolation, is untenable considering
the facts and the methodology used in this case, in light of the above rulings the Court finds that
it is unnecessary to address either Plaintiff’s motion or the Defendants or Third-Party
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims for Damages for Allegations of Defect
Not Supported by Evidence, or Mirage’s motions regarding Plaintiff’s breach of contract and
breach of fiduciary duty claims.
The Court’s rulings on the Defendants and the Third-Party Defendants’ motions
regarding the issues of indemnification and/or the duty to defend will be issued via separate
minute entry.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/25/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
02/13/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
JILL ANN HERMAN
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
SUSANNE E INGOLD
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
KACI YOUNG BOWMAN
JOHN A ELARDO
WILLIAM R METTLER JR.
F LISA ALLEN
LLOYD J ANDREWS
MARK ANDREW NICKEL
MINUTE ENTRY

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
02/13/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
This matter has been under advisement on various Third-Party Motions for Summary
Judgment on the issue of indemnification, as well as on Third-Party Defendant Markham’s
Motion to Dismiss Defendants’ breach of implied warranty claim. Defendants/Third-Party
Plaintiffs (“Defendants”) and several of the Third-Party Defendants move for summary judgment
on the issues of contractual indemnity and/or defense obligations. Defendants contend that the
subcontractor agreements signed by Third-Party Defendants include an indemnity provision and
the duty to defend. The Third-Party Defendants still subject to these Motions are: Castle
Drywall (“Castle”); GAC; Century Roofing (“Century”); David Howard Electric (“DHE”); Alvin
Concrete, Arizona Door and Trim, Eagle Valley Construction, Gypsum Floor Masters and
Maycon Iron Design (collectively, “Alvin Concrete”); Jedco Construction, ACC; Sunrise Stucco,
Inc.; and Jordan Windows & Doors (“Jordan”).
Castle argues that the issue of indemnity is a factual one, saying there must first be a
determination as to who or what caused the defect. As to the duty to defend, Castle maintains
that such a duty is not specifically stated in the subcontractor agreement and, unlike an insurance
contract, the contractual relationship between Castle and the Defendants does not impose an
express duty to defend.
Depending on the type of indemnification, the right to indemnification begins when the
indemnitee incurs a legal obligation to pay or a sum has been paid. INA Ins. Co. of North
America v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 150 Ariz. 248, 252-253, 722 P.2d 975 (App. 1986). This is
different than an indemnitor’s duty to defend, which generally exists regardless of liability.
Hawkins v. McGillacuddy, 175 Ariz. 42, 50, 852 P.2d 1226 (App. 1992) citing INA. This latter
duty begins when a claim is made against the indemnitee and covers all reasonable expenses
incurred in defending the claim, since a party is not held harmless if it must suffer the costs of its
own defense. INA, 150 Ariz. at 255, citing Northwestern Pacific Indemnity co. v. Junction City
Water Control District, 296 Or. 365, 677 P.2d 671 (1984).
The Court finds that the right to indemnification turns on questions of fact, which
requires a determination of both the Defendants’ and Third-Party Defendants’ liability. However,
with respect to the duty to defend, the Court finds that the subcontractor agreement imposes said
duty in the phrase “hold Contractor harmless from any and all claims, demands, liabilities,
losses, expenses, suites, and actions, including attorneys’ fees and costs . . . .” Id. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of
indemnity, and granting their Motion as to the duty to defend.
Like Castle’s argument, Third-Party Defendant GAC also asserts that the duty to
indemnify requires a factual determination, so it is inappropriate for summary judgment. GAC
also maintains that the duty to defend fails because the contract does not impose a present duty to

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
02/13/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3
defend and that the Defendants’ tender of said duty was insufficient since Defendants did not
relinquish control of the case.
For the reasons set forth above, and because the issue is premature,
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of
indemnity.
With respect to the present duty to defend argument, the Court finds that GAC does not
truly distinguish the holding in INA. Furthermore, the Court finds that Defendants explicitly
tendered their defense to GAC through two separate letters, both of which permit GAC to
assume control of the defense. For these reasons,
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as it pertains to
GAC’s duty to defend.
Century attacks the indemnity provision on the basis that it does not unequivocally
address the Defendants’ active negligence and that the provision is overbroad, which goes
against public policy. Century also points to the two subcontractor agreements it has with the
Defendants. The first contract has an indemnity agreement, while the second contract’s
indemnity provision is crossed out. These agreements are the basis for Century’s own Motion
for Summary Judgment re: Express Indemnity. With respect to the duty to defend, Century
argues that the indemnity agreement under the first contract does not include any language that
would manifest a present obligation to defend. Instead, the agreement references the duty to
indemnify and hold harmless, the latter not being the same as a present duty to defend.
However, Century concedes that it may have a duty under the first contract to reimburse
Defendants’ defense costs depending upon the scope of the indemnity agreement. Century also
argues that the Defendants’ tender was improper because they never surrendered control of the
defense.
The Defendants counter that their September 12, 2005 letter is clear on its face regarding
the tender of defense. The Court finds that the first subcontractor agreement unequivocally
addresses liability by stating that Defendants are only responsible for their sole negligence.
Thus, because of this limitation, Century’s public policy argument fails. However, the indemnity
provision is crossed out in the second agreement. Because it is unclear as to which job order
applies to which contract, the intent of the parties must be determined. Furthermore, Century
alleges that Mirage was the designer of and the framer on certain aspects of the project, thereby
impacting the roofing issues. Accordingly, because there are issues of whether the second
contract is retroactive and what work is covered by both agreements,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
02/13/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 4
IT IS ORDERED denying both the Defendants’ and Century’s Motions for Summary
Judgment regarding the issue of indemnity.
In regard to Century’s duty to defend, the Court finds that Defendants timely tendered to
the subcontractor, but only the first contract creates a duty to defend. Therefore, up to the date
the second contract was signed,
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Because of the
questions of fact set forth above,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment re:
the Duty to Defend after the execution of the second contract. Finally, as to the first
subcontractor agreement,
IT IS ORDERED denying Century’s Motion for Summary Judgment re: the Duty to
Defend.
Alvin Concrete, et al, maintain that the duty to indemnify is not proper until there is a
finding of fault, and there is an issue of fact as to what caused the damages. As to the duty to
defend, Alvin Concrete argues that Defendants failed to properly tender the defense of their case
and that the duty is not specifically stated in the subcontractor agreement.
With respect to the duty to indemnify, the Court finds that there is no present duty to do
so, and there is a question of fact as to whom or what caused the defect. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as it pertains to
indemnification.
As to Alvin’s duty to defend, the Court finds that the duty, as discussed above, is
contained in the language “hold Contractor harmless.” The Court further finds that Alvin
Concrete, Eagle Valley and Gypsum Floor received appropriate tenders of defense. The Court
further finds that a tender of defense was never made to Maycon Iron Design or to Arizona Door
& Trim. Accordingly, as to Alvin Concrete, Eagle Valley and Gypsum Floor,
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
As to Maycon Iron Design and Arizona Door & Trim,
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
02/13/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 5
DHE raises similar arguments: there is no duty to indemnify until there is an obligation,
and that a factual determination of fault is required. As to the duty to defend, DHE says
Defendants’ tender was not explicit, and DHE did not receive a proper tender because it was not
made early on in the case. DHE also argues that the duty to defend creates a conflict of interest
because liability could be imposed on one of many subcontractors or because of the Defendants’
sole negligence.
For the reasons stated above regarding the issue of indemnity,
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Court finds that the Mirage Defendants properly tendered the defense to DHE. The
Court further finds that there is no conflict of interest which prohibits DHE from assuming the
defense because, first, the duty to defend is separate from the issue of liability. DHE can either
appear and defend or decline the tender. This choice does not depend on who is ultimately liable
for Plaintiff’s damages. Second, DHE has not shown that Plaintiff’s claims against the
Defendants are outside the scope of any obligation to indemnify, thereby possibly creating a
conflict of interest. The determination of whether Plaintiff’s claims are outside the scope of the
indemnity agreement is usually considered in a separate proceeding. Finally, before much, if any
litigation was actually conducted, Defendants tendered the defense to DHE. Thus, there was
little or no prejudice to the Third-Party Defendant. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the duty to
defend.
Third-Party Defendant Jedco Construction, ACC responds to Defendants’ Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment re: Contractual Indemnity and Defense Obligations by arguing that
material issues of fact exist and that Mirage Homes, LLC is not entitled to summary judgment
because it was never a party to any contract involving Jedco. Jedco admits that a tender of
defense was made to it, but that the duty to defend has not yet accrued or is precluded because of
an inherent conflict of interest. Jedco also alleges that the duty to indemnify has not accrued.
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS ORDERED denying Third-Party Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment re: Contractual Indemnity.
With respect to Defendants’ Motion re: defense obligations,
The Court finds that proper tender of defense was made and, for the reasons above, Jedco
has the duty to defend the Defendants. Accordingly,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
02/13/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 6
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the
Duty to Defend.
As with all the Third-Party Defendants who have been presented with a tender of
defense, it is up to Jedco to decide whether it wishes to accept or deny the tender of defense.
As to Third-Party Defendant Sunrise Stucco, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment re:
No Right to Common Law Indemnity,
The Court finds that implied indemnity is unavailable in this situation where the parties
have entered into a written contract containing an indemnity provision. See INA Insurance,
supra. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED granting Sunrise Stucco’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Jordan moves for summary judgment on the issue of whether it owes Mirage Homes a
duty to indemnify. Jordan alleges there was no agreement that it was to install any windows, nor
any evidence that Jordan actually installed windows at the project. Mirage responds that the
defects alleged by Plaintiff are at least in part due to Jordan’s manufacture of the windows and
that there is a question of fact as to whether Jordan also assisted in the installation process.
Finding that genuine issues of material fact exist,
IT IS ORDERED denying Jordan’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Third-Party Defendant Markham, Inc. (“Markham”) has moved for partial summary
judgment re: express contractual claims, arguing that the indemnity provision does not apply.
The basis for this argument is that Markham started the Mirage Crossings project without a
contract but, before the job was finished, signed a subcontractor agreement. Markham maintains
that the parties intended that the contract only apply to those jobs that began after the signing of
the contract.
While Defendants argue that the contract was to apply from its effective date, the Court
finds that the applicability of the agreement must be determined by the intent of the parties;
therefore, it is a question of fact. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying Markham’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Markham also moves to dismiss Defendants’ breach of implied warranty claim, and
Century has joined in the motion. These Third-Party Defendants assert that such a warranty is

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
02/13/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 7
intended to provide a claim to the homeowner against the homebuilder, not to the homebuilder
against the subcontractors. Defendants maintain that their claim is based on a different warranty,
the “implied warranty of good workmanship,” and it provides the homebuilder with a cause of
action against its subcontractors. Defendants cite numerous cases, but they all were brought by
the actual property owner. Here, the title to the property was vested in the individual unit owners
and not with the Defendants. Finding that there is no real distinction between the alleged
warranties and that the Defendants lack standing to bring their claim,
IT IS ORDERED granting Markham’s and Century’s Motion to Dismiss Implied
Warranty Claim.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/19/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
02/18/2009
Docket Code 095
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
ORAL ARGUMENT RESET
On the Court's own motion,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
02/18/2009
Docket Code 095
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED resetting the Oral Argument / Status Conference set for February 23,
2009 at 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. (allotted time: 45 minutes) in this division.
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY, II
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-7806

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/03/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
02/23/2009
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
ORAL ARGUMENT
Courtroom CCB-401

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
02/23/2009
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2
3:45 p.m. This is the time set for an Oral Argument/Status Conference.
Present in the courtroom are:
•
Counsel John E. Chaix representing Plaintiff Mirage Crossing Resort Casitas
Homeowners Association;
•
Counsel Jill Ann Herman representing Defendant, Mirage Home Construction;
•
Counsel William H. Doyle, Teresa H. Wales, and Louis Horowitz representing
Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs Mirage Homes and Mirage Homes
Construction;
•
Counsel Michael J. Frazelle representing Third-Party Defendant, Bill Sisson
Plumbing;
•
Counsel Michael L. Green representing Third-Party Defendant, Eagle Ventures
USA;
•
Counsel Daniel A. Beatty representing Third-Party Defendants, Alvin Concrete,
Arizona Door & Trim, Dotty and Sons Contracting, Eagle Valley Construction,
Gypsum Floor Masters, Maycon Iron Design;
•
Counsel Susie Ingold representing Third-Party Defendant, Sunrise Stucco;
•
Counsel Erin Evans representing Third-Party Defendant, Castle Drywall Inc.;
•
Counsel Christopher Stickland representing Alvin Concrete and Jedko
Construction;
•
Counsel Melissa Lin representing Third-Party Defendants, Castle Drywall and
David R. Howard Electric;
•
Counsel Jason Bliss representing Third-Party Defendant, GAC Inc.;
•
Counsel Jack G. Barone representing Third-Party Defendant, Century Roofing,
Inc.;
•
Counsel Douglas H. Fitch representing Third-Party Defendant, Jordan Windows;
•
Counsel Jan-Georg Roesch representing Third-Party Defendant, Markham
Contracting appears telephonically.
Court Reporter, Judie Bryant, is present.
Argument is held regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial.
For the reasons set forth on the record,
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion.
Argument is held regarding Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
02/23/2009
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 3
For the reasons set forth on the record,
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion.
As to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s October 3, 2008 Minute Entry
or, in the Alternative, Motion for Extension of Expert Reporting Deadlines,
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. With respect to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension,
IT IS ORDERED allowing the parties to file responses to Plaintiff’s Motion. The parties
shall consider Plaintiff’s Motion received this date. Plaintiff may file a Reply pursuant to the
rule.
Argument is held regarding Third-Party Defendant’s [Castle Drywall] Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court’s February 13, 2008 Minute Entry.
For the reasons set forth on the record,
IT IS ORDERED allowing responses to be filed to the Motion for Reconsideration. The
parties shall consider said Motion received this date. No reply is requested.
Argument is held regarding Third-Party Defendant GAC, Inc.’s Renewed Application For
Attorneys’ Fees, Expert Fees and Costs as Against Plaintiff.
Pursuant to counsel’s agreement,
IT IS ORDERED that the Court will rule on the Renewed Application for Attorneys’
Fees without oral argument.
4:02 p.m. Matter concludes.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/01/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
02/26/2007
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RUTH H. HILLIARD
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
KYLE A ISRAEL
LARRY D LANGLEY
CRAIG A MCCARTHY
MITCHELL J RESNICK
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
ADAM B CAMPBELL
DENISE O'ROURKE
E HARDY SMITH
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed Defendant Mirage Homes, LLC’s Motion for Leave to Amend
Third-Party Complaint and all responsive memoranda.
Good cause appearing,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
02/26/2007
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend Third-Party
Complaint. No ruling is made at this time as to severance of any claims.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/28/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
02/26/2008
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
JILL ANN HERMAN
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
SUSANNE E INGOLD
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
KACI YOUNG BOWMAN
JOHN A ELARDO
WILLIAM R METTLER JR.
F LISA ALLEN
LLOYD J ANDREWS
MARK ANDREW NICKEL
MINUTE ENTRY

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
02/26/2008
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s
February 5, 2008 Minute Entry and/or Stay Entry of Judgment for Sixty (60) Days.
IT IS ORDERED any response shall be filed within 20 days of the issuance of this
minute entry. The Court will rule thereafter without oral argument.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/09/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
03/05/2007
Docket Code 079
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RUTH H. HILLIARD
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
ADAM B CAMPBELL
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
KYLE A ISRAEL
LARRY D LANGLEY
CRAIG A MCCARTHY
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DENISE O'ROURKE
E HARDY SMITH
NEAL B THOMAS
RICHARD L RIGHI
PARTIAL CASE DISMISSAL MINUTE ENTRY
A Notice of Dismissal without prejudice has been presented to the court as to American
Best, LLC dba Goettl Air Conditioning.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
03/05/2007
Docket Code 079
Form V000A
Page 2
DISPOSITION:
Pursuant to Rule 41(a), ARCP, the dismissal is effective without court order as to
American Best, LLC dba Goettl Air Conditioning.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/17/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
03/06/2008
Docket Code 025
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
LARRY D LANGLEY
CRAIG A MCCARTHY
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
NEAL B THOMAS
WILLIAM R METTLER JR.
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court is in receipt of Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike or to
Compel Production of Documents Submitted to the Court and to Compel the Production of

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
03/06/2008
Docket Code 025
Form V000A
Page 2
Letters Referred to in Motion as Support for Plaintiff’s Claims in which Defendants/Third-Party
Plaintiffs have requested expedited oral argument.
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs’ Request for Expedited Oral
Argument.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED any response or reply shall be filed in accordance with the
Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. Once the matter is fully briefed, the Court will review the
pleadings to determine if oral argument is necessary. If the Court should find that oral argument
is necessary, the Court will set a date and time and the parties will be notified via minute entry.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/09/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
03/07/2007
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RUTH H. HILLIARD
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
ADAM B CAMPBELL
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
KYLE A ISRAEL
LARRY D LANGLEY
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DENISE O'ROURKE
MATTHEW DAVID BEDWELL
E HARDY SMITH
RICHARD L RIGHI
NEAL B THOMAS
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed the parties’ Joint Request to Extend Destructive Testing
Deadline.
IT IS ORDERED granting aid Motion.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/18/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
03/13/2009
Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE RESET
On the Court's own motion,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
03/13/2009
Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED vacating the Trial Management Conference on June 29, 2009 at 1:30
p.m. and resetting same to July 13, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. (allotted time: 45 minutes) in this
division.
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY, II
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-7806

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
03/24/2006
Docket Code 079
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. THOMAS DUNEVANT, III
S. Bindenagel/S. Brown
Deputy
FILED: 03/28/2006
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
JILL ANN HERMAN
DOCKET-CIVIL-CCC
PARTIAL DISMISSAL MINUTE ENTRY
A Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice As To Construction Inspection And Testing,
Inc. having been presented to the Court; and good cause appearing,
DISPOSITION:
Pursuant to Rule 41(a), ARCP, the dismissal without prejudice as to Construction
Inspection And Testing, Inc. only is effective without court order.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/01/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
03/31/2009
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
RULING
The Court is in receipt of Third-Party Defendants’ [Castle Drywall] Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court’s February 13, 2008 Minute Entry as well as Third-Party Plaintiffs’
Response thereto. Having considered the foregoing memoranda, the Court finds as follows.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
03/31/2009
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
The Third-Party Defendants move the Court to reconsider its February 13, 2008 Minute
Entry finding that Third-Party Defendants have a duty to defend Third-Party Plaintiffs for the
claims and damages alleged by Plaintiff pursuant to the subcontract agreements. Relying on MT
Builders, LLC v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., Third-Party Defendants submit that an upfront duty to
defend is not required because Third-Party Plaintiffs are only entitled to reimbursement from
Third-Party Defendants for its defense costs if a jury determines that Third-Party Plaintiffs are
entitled to indemnification. 219 Ariz. 297 (Ariz. App. Nov. 13, 2008).
In MT Builders, the parties agreed that the subcontractor’s obligation to indemnify and
hold the contractor harmless from and against all claims would be limited “to the extent caused
in whole or in part” by the fault of the subcontractor. 219 Ariz. at 766. The appellate court found
that the phrase ‘to the extent’ “prevents any interpretation of the indemnity provision as creating
a duty to defend.” Id. As this language “envisioned a determination of [the subcontractor’s] fault
before [the subcontractor] would be required to indemnify and hold [the contractor] harmless
against all claims,” the appellate court could not reconcile “the language of th[e] indemnity
provision with a duty to defend existing in advance of a determination of fault.” Id.
Here, Third-Party Defendants’ obligation to indemnify and hold Third-Party Plaintiffs’
harmless from and against all claims is not conditioned ‘to the extent’ that Third-Party Plaintiffs
are determined to be at fault. Thus, a determination of the subcontractor’s fault is not required
before the duty to defend the contractor is triggered. Accordingly, as the Court finds that MT
Builders is distinguishable from the case at bar,
IT IS ORDERED denying Third-Party Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court’s February 13, 2008 Minute Entry.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the same as to all parties who joined in this
motion.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/26/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
04/23/2007
Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RUTH H. HILLIARD
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
ADAM B CAMPBELL
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
CRAIG A MCCARTHY
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DOUGLAS A TOLENO
DENISE O'ROURKE
E HARDY SMITH
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed the parties’ Stipulation to Extend Deadline for Del Rio Drywall,
Inc. to Serve Final Expert Opinions.
IT IS ORDERED granting said Motion all in accordance with the formal written Order
signed by the Court on April 18, 2007 and entered (filed) by the Clerk on April 23, 2007.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Filed ***
05/15/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
05/09/2008
Docket Code 079
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
SUSANNE E INGOLD
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
CRAIG A MCCARTHY
ANDREW R PESHEK
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
NEAL B THOMAS
KYLE A ISRAEL
PARTIAL DISMISSAL MINUTE ENTRY
This case was on the inactive calendar for dismissal on February 4, 2008, as toThird-
Party Defendant E.N.T.L., Ltd, unless specified action was taken before a certain date. The date
has passed and the action has not been taken.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
05/09/2008
Docket Code 079
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED dismissing this case, as toThird-Party Defendant E.N.T.L., Ltd, without
prejudice for lack of prosecution.
/S/ A. CRAIG BLAKEY, II
______________________________________

HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY, II
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/11/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
06/06/2007
Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RUTH H. HILLIARD
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
JACK G BARONE
LEE P BLAKE
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
KYLE A ISRAEL
KEVIN K BROERMAN
MATTHEW DAVID BEDWELL
E HARDY SMITH
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed Third-Party Defendant Markham Contracting, Inc.’s Motion to
Expedite Ruling re: Stipulation to Extend Deadline to Complete Expert Depositions.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
06/06/2007
Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED granting said Motion all in accordance with the formal written Order
signed by the Court on June 4, 2007 and entered (filed) by the Clerk on June 6, 2007.
The Court has reviewed the parties’ Amended Stipulation to Extend Deadline to
Complete Expert Depositions.
IT IS ORDERED granting said Motion all in accordance with the formal written Order
signed by the Court on June 4, 2007 and entered (filed) by the Clerk on June 6, 2007.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/30/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
06/25/2009
Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
TRIAL MANAGMENT CONFERENCE VACATED AND RESET
On the Court's own motion,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
06/25/2009
Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED vacating the Trial Management Conference in this matter set on July
13, 2009 and resetting same on July 17, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. (time allotted: 3 hours), in this
Division.
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3343
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in no less than five days prior to the Conference set
herein, the parties shall submit a Joint Statement pursuant to ARCP 16(b) and report to the Court
the history and status of the efforts at Alternative Dispute Resolution pursuant to ARCP Rule
16(g).
DISCOVERY DISPUTES: In the event of any dispute concerning discovery, counsel are
directed to confer pursuant to ARCP 26(g). If such conference is unsuccessful, counsel are
directed to initiate a conference call with this Division BEFORE filing a motion to compel or
motion for protective order.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/03/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
06/29/2007
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
E. Parrish
FOR HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
LEE P BLAKE
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
CRAIG A MCCARTHY
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
NEAL B THOMAS
E HARDY SMITH
DENISE O'ROURKE
MINUTE ENTRY

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
06/29/2007
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
The Court has received and reviewed Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiff’s Request for
Accelerated Consideration of Joint Request to Extend Expert Deposition Deadline.
Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiff’s Request is GRANTED.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/13/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/09/2009
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
RULING
Pending is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Expert Reporting Deadlines, Castle
Drywall’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s February 13, 2008 Minute Entry, and GAC
Inc.’s Renewed Application for Attorneys’ Fees. Having considered the parties memoranda
regarding the aforesaid,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/09/2009
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Expert Reporting
Deadlines.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all additional inspections shall occur within three (3)
weeks of the issuance of this Minute Entry and that all experts’ reports shall be supplemented
within three (3) weeks thereafter. The parties are free to take brief, follow-up depositions solely
on the issue of any expert’s supplemental opinions.
With respect to Castle Drywall’s Motion for Reconsideration, and Third-Party
Defendants Alvin Concrete’s, Arizona Door & Trim’s, Eco-Valley’s, Gypsum Floor and Maycon
Iron Design’s Joinder therein, the Court finds that the indemnity provisions at issue do not
require these parties to defend Mirage Homes Construction, Inc. and Mirage Homes, LLC.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion to Reconsider.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Court’s February 13, 2008 Order granting
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of the duty to defend and,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating any prior orders denying any Third-Party
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the identical issue and type of contractual
provision.
In light of the foregoing, Third-Party Defendant GAC shall advise the Court of any
remaining issues pending against it, and submit a new proposed form of judgment with a
supplemental application for attorneys’ fees and costs. Counsel for GAC shall carefully go
through his previously submitted billing records and delete those entries that are irrelevant to
GAC’s Judgment against the Plaintiff (e.g. 3-20-08 entry regarding Plaintiff’s Objection to
Howard Electric’s Application for Attorney’s Fees and Costs; 3-21-08 entry regarding
Defendant’s Objection to GAC’s Costs and Fees Application; etc.). Plaintiff and the Defendants
may file responsive memoranda as they see fit.
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/15/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/13/2009
Docket Code 079
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
INACTIVE CALENDAR
The Court having received Defendants/Third-Plaintiffs Mirage Homes, LLC and Mirage
Homes Construction, Inc.’s Notice of Settlement and Request for Status Conference, filed June
17, 2009,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/13/2009
Docket Code 079
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED placing this case on the Inactive Calendar for dismissal without further
notice on August 13, 2009 as to Plaintiff Mirage Crossing and Defendants Mirage Homes LLC
and Mirage Homes Construction, Inc., only.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming the Pre-Trial Management Conference on July
17, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3343
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/23/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/21/2008
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
WILLIAM H DOYLE
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
ALLEN D BUCKNELL
JILL ANN HERMAN
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received Plaintiff’s Request for a Rule 16(a) Conference.
IT IS ORDERED setting a Status Conference for September 23, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (time
allotted: 15 minutes), in this Division.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/28/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/21/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
INACTIVE CALENDAR
The Court having received Notice of Settlement, filed by Third-Party Defendant on June
24, 2009,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/21/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the inactive calendar, as to Third-Party Defendant
David R. Howard Electric only, for dismissal without further notice on August 20, 2009, unless
prior to said date a judgment is entered or filed, a stipulation of dismissal is presented, or a
motion to set and certificate of readiness is filed.
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3343
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/27/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/21/2009
Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
TRIAL MANAGMENT CONFERENCE RESET
On the Court's own motion,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/21/2009
Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED vacating the Trial Management Conference in this matter set on July
17, 2009 and resetting same on July 23, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. (time allotted: 3 hours), in this
Division.
HONORABLE EILEEN WILLETT
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3343

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/28/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/22/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
INACTIVE CALENDAR
The Court having received Notice of Settlement, filed by Defendants/Third-Party
Plaintiffs on June 25, 2009,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/22/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the inactive calendar, as to Third-Party Defendant
Eagle Ventures USA, Inc. only, for dismissal without further notice on August 24, 2009, unless
prior to said date a judgment is entered or filed, a stipulation of dismissal is presented, or a
motion to set and certificate of readiness is filed.
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3343
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/28/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/23/2009
Docket Code 027
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
DOCKET-CIVIL-CCC
PRETRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Courtroom CCB-401

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/23/2009
Docket Code 027
Form V000A
Page 2
1:40 p.m. This is the time set for a Pre-Trial Management Conference.
•
Plaintiff Mirage Crossing Resort is represented by counsel Kenneth W. McCain;
•
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiffs Mirage Homes, LLC, and Mirage Homes
Construction, Inc., are represented by counsel Bruce W. Lorber, Jill Ann Herman,
Louis W. Horowitz, and Teresa H. Wales;
•
Third-Party Defendant Century Roofing, Inc. is represented by counsel Jack
Barone;
•
Third-Party Defendants Castle Drywall, Inc. and David R. Howard Electric, Inc.,
are represented by counsel Melissa Lin;
•
Third-Party Defendants Alvin Concrete, Inc., Arizona Door & Trim, Inc., Dotty
& Sons Contracting, Eagle Valley Construction, Inc., Maycon Iron Design, and
Gypsum Floor Masters, Inc., are represented by counsel Kyle A. Israel and Daniel
Beatty;
•
Third-Party Defendant Alvin Concrete, Inc., is represented by counsel
Christopher Stickland;
•
Third-Party Defendant GAC, Inc., is represented by counsel Jason J. Bliss;
•
Third-Party Defendant Sunrise Stucco, Inc., is represented by counsel Richard
Brumbaught and Tonya MacBeth; and
•
Third-Party Defendant Jordan Windows is represented by counsel Douglas H.
Fitch.
Court Reporter, Karen Bolton, is present.
Argument is presented regarding Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike
and/or Vacate Minute Entry Dated July 9, 2009, filed July 17, 2009.
Discussion is held regarding the pending motions and requests as set forth in the parties’
Joint Statement Regarding Pending Motions and Requests, filed July 15, 2009
Mr. Lorber requests a continuance of the argument on the pending substantive motions
and requests until the Court issues its ruling with respect to the Motion to Strike and/or Vacate
Minute Entry Dated July 9, 2009.
For the foregoing reason and for those set forth on the record, there being no objections,
IT IS ORDERED directing the parties to file their responses to the Motion no later than
5:00 p.m. July 27, 2009. No reply is requested. Once the Court issues its ruling on the Motion
to Strike, the Court shall set hearing on any remaining motions, if necessary.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/23/2009
Docket Code 027
Form V000A
Page 3
The Court having reviewed and considered Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Mandatory Settlement Conference and to Compel Attendance, filed July 15, 2009, and Third-
Party Defendant Sunrise Stucco, Inc.’s Opposition to Motion For Settlement Conference, filed
July 17, 2009,
IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion and directing all remaining parties in this action to
participate in the settlement conference scheduled for July 29, 2009.

The Court having reviewed and considered Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Withdraw as Counsel, filed June 22, 2009, and the Response thereto,
IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion and allowing the law firm of Doyle, Berman
Murdy, P.C. to withdraw as counsel for Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs from any further
proceedings in this matter.
The Court having reviewed Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Exceed Presumptive Page
Limit for Reply, filed June 8, 2009, and noting that the Reply has already been filed,
IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion for Leave.
The Court having reviewed the Third-Party Defendant Century Roofing, Inc.’s Notice of
Conflict with Trial Management Conference, filed July 17, 2009, the request by Ms. Rina Rai to
be excused from this conference is granted.
The Court having reviewed the Third-Party Defendant Sunrise Stucco, Inc.’s Notice of
Conflict, filed July 17, 2009, denies the request to reset this conference. However, the Court
notes that Mr. Brumbaught is present at this conference on Ms. Ingold’s behalf.
The Court having reviewed the Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs’ Request for Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filed June 23, 2009,
IT IS ORDERED denying the Request.
Discussion is held regarding Mr. Lorber’s request for a protective order with respect to
the settlement agreement reached between Plaintiffs and Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs. The
Court will take no action as to this matter, unless and until a specific request is made by the
parties.
2:15 p.m. Matter concludes.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/23/2009
Docket Code 027
Form V000A
Page 4
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3343
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/28/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/23/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
INACTIVE CALENDAR
The Court having received Notice of Settlement as to Third-Party Defendant Jordan
Windows only, filed on July 9, 2009,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/23/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the inactive calendar, as to Third-Party Defendant
Jordan Windows only, for dismissal without further notice on August 24, 2009, unless prior to
said date a judgment is entered or filed, a stipulation of dismissal is presented, or a motion to set
and certificate of readiness is filed.
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3343
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/28/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/24/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
INACTIVE CALENDAR
The Court having received Castle Drywall, Inc.’s Notice of Settlement, filed by Third-
Party Defendant Castle Drywall, Inc. on June 24, 2009,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/24/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the inactive calendar, as to Third-Party
Defendant Castle Drywall, Inc., only for dismissal without further notice on August 24, 2009,
unless prior to said date a judgment is entered or filed, a stipulation of dismissal is presented, or a
motion to set and certificate of readiness is filed.
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3343
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/05/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/28/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
PARTIAL SETTLEMENT/PLACED ON INACTIVE CALENDAR
The Court is in receipt of Third-Party Defendant Jedko Construction, AAC’s Notice of
Settlement, filed July 27, 2009.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/28/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED placing this matter, as to all claims against Third-Party Defendant
Jedko Construction, AAC only, on the inactive calendar for dismissal without further notice on
August 27, 2009, unless prior to said date a judgment is entered or filed, a stipulation of
dismissal is presented, or a motion to set and certificate of readiness is filed.
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3343
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/30/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/28/2009
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed Third-Party Defendant Sunrise Stucco, Inc.’s Request for
Temporary Relief, filed July 27, 2009.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/28/2009
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
This Motion was previously urged orally and denied by the Court at the Pre-Trial
Conference held on July 23, 2009. The Court has granted Ms. Ingold leave to substitute another
attorney from her firm to attend the settlement conference personally on Ms. Ingold’s behalf, due
to her previously scheduled vacation. The Court has ordered that all counsel and clients with full
authority to resolve all issues attend mediation set for July 29, 2009.
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3343
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/30/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/29/2009
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
MOTION GRANTED
The Court has received and considered Third-Party Defendants’ Joint Response to
Mirage Homes L.L.C. and Mirage Homes Construction, Inc.’s Motion to Strike and/or Vacate
Minute Entry Order Dated July 9, 2009, filed July 27, 2009 and Plaintiff’s Joinder in
Defendants’ Motion to Strike and/or Vacate Minute Entry Dated July 9, 2009 and Supplemental

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
07/29/2009
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
Objection to GAC, Inc.’s Renewed Motion for Attorney’s Fees, filed July 29, 2009, submitted in
accordance with the Minute Entry dated July 23, 2009. The Court has also reviewed and
considered the Motion to Strike and argument presented at the Trial Management Conference on
July 23, 2009.
IT IS ORDERED granting Mirage Homes, LLC and Mirage Homes Construction, Inc.’s
Motion to Strike.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking the Minute Entry dated July 9, 2009.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all remaining parties in the action and their
representative with full settlement authority shall appear in person and participate in the
settlement conference scheduled for July 29, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable Lawrence
Fleischman, Retired.
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3343
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/07/2006 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/03/2006
Docket Code 041
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
JUDGE DOUGLAS L. RAYES
C. Johnston
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LEE P BLAKE
JACK G BARONE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
KYLE A ISRAEL
CRAIG A MCCARTHY
MITCHELL J RESNICK
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
RULE 16 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE SET
A Request for Scheduling Conference having been filed,
IT IS ORDERED setting this matter for a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference on
September 15, 2006, at 10:30 a.m. in this division. Counsel shall personally appear for the
purposes of the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference.
The proceedings will take place in the Superior Court’s “e-courtroom.” A record of the
proceedings will be made by videotape and CD in lieu of a court reporter. Should you want an
unofficial copy of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may request a videotape or CD of the
proceedings for a $20.00 charge. If a CD or videotape is requested, please obtain a form from
the courtroom clerk or from the Self Service Center to request a daily copy of a court hearing or

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/03/2006
Docket Code 041
Form V000A
Page 2
trial proceeding being conducted. Pay the applicable fee at the Self Service Center. Attach the
receipt showing payment of the fee and present both the receipt and the form to the courtroom
clerk or bailiff. For copies of hearings or trial proceedings recorded previously, please call
Electronic Records Services at 602-506-7100. Should an official transcript be required, you
may request that the court prepare it. The party ordering the transcript must pay for it. To
request a transcript, call 602-506-7100 and provide the date of the proceeding, the case number,
the case caption, if the transcript is for an appeal, and your name, address, and telephone number.
With this new technology, a court reporter is likely not required and the parties are
encouraged to experience the court's video recording system before requesting a court
reporter. If a court reporter is required, the Court must receive a written request at least 48
hours before the commencement of the proceeding. Failure to timely request a court reporter
will be deemed consent to proceed without a court reporter.
The Court has set aside 30 minutes for this conference. If all counsel feel
significantly more or less time is required for the conference, the Court should be notified
immediately.
All counsel are directed to meet personally before the scheduling conference to discuss
all of the matters set forth in Rules 16(a) and (b), A.R.C.P. Counsel shall prepare and file with
the Court three working days before the conference, a Joint Pretrial Memorandum
addressing at least the following items:
1. An agreed-upon schedule for completion of discovery. As far as can reasonably be
anticipated, each party shall set forth the depositions they anticipate taking and the
approximate time required for each; any and all medical examinations which may be
required of any of the parties; the person or persons to conduct such examinations; all
requests for production; and all tangible evidence to be disclosed or exchanged.
2. A date for the final disclosure of expert witnesses, and/or to supplement disclosures
made to date.
3. A date or dates for the final disclosure of all non-expert witnesses, and/or to
supplement disclosures made to date.
4. The number of additional non-uniform interrogatories requested by each party and the
reasons for the requests. Further, counsel shall set forth any written discovery
outstanding and a date when it will be complete.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/03/2006
Docket Code 041
Form V000A
Page 3
5. The position of each counsel on whether the Rule 38.1 A.R.C.P. time limits should be
waived.
6. A proposed date for a Mandatory Settlement Conference pursuant to Rule 16.1,
A.R.C.P.
7. An agreed-upon date for compliance with Rule 16(d), A.R.C.P. The parties shall
attach a copy of the Rule 16(g) form so the Court can issue the appropriate order for
Alternate Dispute Resolution.
8. Set forth any discovery disputes to date or Rule 26.1 compliance issues.
9. A proposed trial date agreed upon by all counsel.
If counsel are unable to agree on any of the items of the Pretrial Statement, the reasons
for their inability to agree shall be set forth in the Pretrial Statement.
Counsel are reminded that the Court will impose sanctions against counsel and/or their
clients for failure to participate in good faith in the preparation of the Pretrial Statement or the
conference.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/10/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/03/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
PARTIAL SETTLEMENT/PLACED ON INACTIVE CALENDAR
The Court having been advised this case has settled as to Third-Party Defendant GAC,
Inc., only,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/03/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED placing this matter, as to all claims against Third-Party Defendant
GAC, Inc., only, on the inactive calendar for dismissal without further notice on September 2,
2009, unless prior to said date a judgment is entered or filed, a stipulation of dismissal is
presented, or a motion to set and certificate of readiness is filed.
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3343
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/10/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/05/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
PARTIAL SETTLEMENT/PLACED ON INACTIVE CALENDAR
The Court having been advised this case has settled as to Third-Party Defendant Alvin
Concrete, Inc., only,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/05/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED placing this matter, as to all claims against Third-Party Defendant Alvin
Concrete, Inc., only, on the inactive calendar for dismissal without further notice on September 4,
2009, unless prior to said date a judgment is entered or filed, a stipulation of dismissal is
presented, or a motion to set and certificate of readiness is filed.
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3343
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/12/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/06/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
PARTIAL SETTLEMENT/PLACED ON INACTIVE CALENDAR
The Court having been advised this case has settled as to Third-Party Defendant Maycon
Iron Design only,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/06/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED placing this matter, as to all claims against Third-Party Defendant
Maycon Iron Design only, on the inactive calendar for dismissal without further notice on
September 4, 2009, unless prior to said date a judgment is entered or filed, a stipulation of
dismissal is presented, or a motion to set and certificate of readiness is filed.
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3343
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/12/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/07/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
PARTIAL SETTLEMENT/PLACED ON INACTIVE CALENDAR
The Court having received Notice of Settlement, as to Third-Party Defendant AZ Door
& Trim, Inc. only, filed by on August 4, 2009,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/07/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED placing this matter, as to all claims against Third-Party Defendant AZ
Door & Trim, Inc. only, on the inactive calendar for dismissal without further notice on
September 4, 2009, unless prior to said date a judgment is entered or filed, a stipulation of
dismissal is presented, or a motion to set and certificate of readiness is filed.
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3343
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/12/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/10/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
PARTIAL SETTLEMENT/PLACED ON INACTIVE CALENDAR
The Court having received the Notice of Settlement, as to Third-Party Defendant Eagle
Valley Construction, Inc., only, filed on August 4, 2009,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/10/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED placing this matter, as to all claims against Third-Party Defendant
Eagle Valley Construction, Inc., only, on the inactive calendar for dismissal without further notice
on September 4, 2009, unless prior to said date a judgment is entered or filed, a stipulation of
dismissal is presented, or a motion to set and certificate of readiness is filed.
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3343
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/15/2006 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/11/2006
Docket Code 002
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
JUDGE DOUGLAS L. RAYES
C. Johnston
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LEE P BLAKE
JACK G BARONE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
KYLE A ISRAEL
CRAIG A MCCARTHY
MITCHELL J RESNICK
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
HEARING VACATED
Defendant having filed a Notice of Change of Judge,
IT IS ORDERED vacating Rule 16 Scheduling Conference on September 15, 2006 at
10:30 a.m. to be reset by the newly assigned division.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/14/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/11/2009
Docket Code 064
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
TRIAL RESET
As a result of a Telephonic Status Conference held on August 7, 2009, and due to a
conflict on the Court’s calendar,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/11/2009
Docket Code 064
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED vacating trial set on August 11, 2009 and resetting same on August 18,
2009 at 10:30 a.m. (4 days).
ORAL ARGUMENT SET
IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on all pending motions for August 12, 2009 at
10:30 a.m. (time allotted: 2 days), in this Division.
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3343
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp
The Court notes that all pending motions shall be heard at Oral Argument.
NOTE: Any party may request the presence of a court reporter by contacting the
division three (3) court business days before the scheduled hearing.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/17/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/12/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
PARTIAL SETTLEMENT/PLACED ON INACTIVE CALENDAR
The Court having received Notice of Settlement, as to Third-Party Defendant Sunrise
Stucco only, filed on August 10, 2009,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/12/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED placing this matter, as to all claims against Third-Party Defendant
Sunrise Stucco only, on the inactive calendar for dismissal without further notice on September
10, 2009, unless prior to said date a judgment is entered or filed, a stipulation of dismissal is
presented, or a motion to set and certificate of readiness is filed.
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3343
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/17/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/13/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
PARTIAL SETTLEMENT/PLACED ON INACTIVE CALENDAR
The Court having received Notice of Settlement, as to Third-Party Defendant Century
Roofing, Inc., only, filed on August 11, 2009,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/13/2009
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED placing this matter, as to all claims against Third-Party Defendant
Century Roofing, Inc., only, on the inactive calendar for dismissal without further notice on
September 14, 2009, unless prior to said date a judgment is entered or filed, a stipulation of
dismissal is presented, or a motion to set and certificate of readiness is filed.
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3343
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/16/2006 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/15/2006
Docket Code 066
Form J000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
THE HONORABLE ANNA M. BACA
A. Gonzalez
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LEE P BLAKE
JACK G BARONE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
KYLE A ISRAEL
JAMES K KLOSS
CRAIG A MCCARTHY
MITCHELL J RESNICK
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
CASE REASSIGNMENT - CIVIL PRESIDING JUDGE
This case was previously assigned to the Honorable Douglas Rayes. A Notice of Change
of Judge has been filed by Defendant. The case was transferred to the Presiding Civil Judge for
reassignment.
IT IS ORDERED that this case be assigned to Civil Calendar CVJ04, the Honorable
Pendleton Gaines, 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 twenty days of the date of this
order.
cc: Judge Pendleton Gaines
Pending:
⋅Rule 16 Conference to be reset

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/21/2006 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/17/2006
Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
JUDGE PENDLETON GAINES
A. Beery
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LEE P BLAKE
JACK G BARONE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
KYLE A ISRAEL
JAMES K KLOSS
CRAIG A MCCARTHY
MITCHELL J RESNICK
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
TELEPHONIC PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SET
This matter having been reassigned to this division after a Notice of Change of Judge,
IT IS ORDERED setting this matter for a pretrial conference on October 24, 2006 at
9:00 a.m. in this division. Counsel are to appear in person for this hearing.
All counsel and unrepresented parties are to meet personally before the Pretrial
Conference to discuss the subjects listed in Civil Rule 16(b). Counsel shall prepare and file a

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/17/2006
Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 2
Joint Pretrial Conference Memorandum no later than noon on October 10, 2006 (10 judicial days
before the conference), addressing all applicable subjects listed in Civil Rule 16. Suggested
dates for disclosure and discovery will be stated as dates certain and not, for example, as “____
days before trial.”
If counsel are unable to agree on any of the items in the Joint Pretrial Conference
Memorandum, the reasons for their inability to agree shall be set forth in the memorandum.
Counsel are reminded that the Court may impose sanctions against counsel and/or the
parties for failure to participate in good faith in the Joint Pretrial Conference Memorandum or
the Pretrial Conference.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/27/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/18/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
ALLEN D BUCKNELL
JILL ANN HERMAN
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s
February 5, 2008 Minute Entry and/or Stay Entry of Judgment for Sixty (60) Days, Plaintiff’s
Supplement to its Motion for Reconsideration and Defendants’ and Third-Party Defendants’
Responses thereto. Plaintiff requests the Court to reconsider its February 5, 2008 Minute Entry

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/18/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
(“prior Ruling”) granting Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. Having considered the
arguments set forth in the parties’ memoranda, the Court issues the following Ruling.
Plaintiff contends the Court erred in finding Defendants and Third-Party Defendants had
standing to challenge Plaintiff’s non-compliance with A.R.S. § 33-2002. Alternately, Plaintiff
contends its failure to comply with A.R.S. § 33-2002 is not a jurisdictional requirement
warranting judgment against Plaintiff and, therefore, that the Court should allow Plaintiff an
opportunity to cure any technical defects by issuing a Stay Entry of Judgment.
The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the Court’s previous finding that A.R.S. § 33-2001, et
seq., binds individual homeowners to the outcome of a homeowners’ association’s suit was in
error. However, the Court finds it did not err in the result of its prior Ruling. Although A.R.S §
10-304 places certain limits on who can challenge the validity of a corporate act, a corporation’s
authority to bring suit is limited by express statutory law. In the case at bar, the Court finds that
Plaintiff’s non-compliance with A.R.S. § 33-2002 is properly raised as a jurisdictional bar by
Defendants and Third-Party Defendants. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. As to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Stay Entry of Judgment for Sixty (60) Days, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s notice
letter sent to its individual members on February 19, 2008 (“the Notice Letter”), submitted in
camera, as well as Plaintiff’s Supplement to its Motion for Reconsideration. The Court finds
that Plaintiff is currently in compliance with A.R.S. § 33-2002. Therefore, the Court declines to
sign any judgment relating to its prior Ruling. As the Court is mindful of the intent of A.R.S. §
33-2001, et seq., in protecting the interests of homeowners’ association members, and as the
Court determines justice demands that Plaintiff’s individual members not be further penalized by
going through the expense of re-filing the present action,
IT IS ORDERED allowing Plaintiff thirty (30) days to amend its Complaint to show
compliance with A.R.S. § 33-2002. The Court finds that the aforesaid Notice Letter is
discoverable. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Plaintiff to provide the Notice Letter to the
Defendants within ten (10) days of the issuance of this minute entry. Because of this disclosure,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Strike or to Compel
Production of Documents Submitted to the Court and to Compel Production of Letters Referred
to in Motion as Support for Plaintiff’s Claims.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying, without prejudice, all pending applications for
fees and statements of costs lodged against the Plaintiff.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/20/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/18/2009
Docket Code 081
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
DON D SKYPECK
TRIAL VACATED
The Court having been notified that this case has settled,
IT IS ORDERED vacating the trial set on August 18, 2009.
The Court deems as moot all pending motions.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/18/2009
Docket Code 081
Form V000A
Page 2
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3343
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/23/2006 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/21/2006
Docket Code 021
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
JUDGE PENDLETON GAINES
S. Bindenagel
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LEE P BLAKE
JACK G BARONE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
KYLE A ISRAEL
JAMES K KLOSS
CRAIG A MCCARTHY
MITCHELL J RESNICK
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
Nunc Pro Tunc Minute Entry
IT IS ORDERED nunc pro tunc amending the Telephonic Pretrial Conference setting
minute entry dated August 17, 2006 to indicate counsel must appear in person for this hearing.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/29/2006 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/28/2006
Docket Code 066
Form J000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
THE HONORABLE ANNA M. BACA
A. Gonzalez
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LEE P BLAKE
JACK G BARONE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
KYLE A ISRAEL
CRAIG A MCCARTHY
MITCHELL J RESNICK
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
CASE REASSIGNMENT - CIVIL PRESIDING JUDGE
This case was previously assigned to the Honorable Pendleton Gaines. A Notice of
Change of Judge has been filed by Plaintiff. The case was transferred to the Presiding Civil
Judge for reassignment.
IT IS ORDERED that this case be assigned to Civil Calendar CVJ08, the Honorable Ruth
H. Hilliard, 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 twenty days of the date of this
order.
cc: Judge Ruth H. Hilliard
Pending:
⋅Pretrial Conference on October 24, 2006

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/04/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/29/2008
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
ALLEN D BUCKNELL
JILL ANN HERMAN
MINUTE ENTRY
In order for the Court to get this matter back on track, the remaining parties to the
litigation shall provide the following:

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/29/2008
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2
1.
The parties shall, in writing, update the Court with respect to the remaining
issues and each party’s position regarding same, the status of discovery,
whether or not the appointment of a discovery referee would be helpful, as
well as the appointment of a mediator to meet with each party’s expert
witness(es) to facilitate settlements, particularly with the subcontractors, and a
schedule for period progress reports from the parties to the Court.
2.
A complete, descriptive and specific statement of any alleged defects on the
subject properties and the parties’ positions regarding same;
3.
The status of any inspections and destructive testing;
4.
A schedule setting forth the disclosure deadlines regarding expert witnesses
and their opinions;
5.
The parties’ suggestion of a second mediator to conduct a settlement
conference should the initial mediator report that such a conference is
recommended.
IT IS ORDERED setting a Status Conference for September 29, 2008 at 2:45 p.m.
(time allotted: 30 minutes), in this Division.
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY, II
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/01/2006 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/30/2006
Docket Code 041
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RUTH H. HILLIARD
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LEE P BLAKE
JACK G BARONE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
KYLE A ISRAEL
JAMES K KLOSS
CRAIG A MCCARTHY
MITCHELL J RESNICK
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
PRETRIAL STATUS/SCHEDULING CONFERENCE SET
This case has been reassigned to this Division. A review of the file shows that a Request
for Rule 16 Pretrial Scheduling Conference has been filed.
IT IS ORDERED vacating the October 24, 2006 Pretrial Conference (previously set by
Judge Gaines).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Rule 16(b) Pretrial Status/Scheduling Conference for
November 6, 2006 at 9:00 a.m., before Judge Ruth Hilliard, Suite 4C, Fourth Floor, Central Court
Building, 201 West Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ 85003.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
08/30/2006
Docket Code 041
Form V000A
Page 2
All counsel are directed to meet personally before the scheduling conference to discuss
all of the matters set forth in Rules 16(a) and (b), A.R.C.P. Counsel shall prepare and file with
the Court five working days before the conference, a Joint Pretrial Memorandum in accordance
with Rule 16(a) and (b) and include a proposed trial date agreed upon by all counsel.
Counsel are reminded that the Court will impose sanctions against counsel and/or their
clients for failure to participate in good faith in the preparation of the Pretrial Statement or the
conference.
NOTE: This Court requires a 120 day lead time for the filing of dispositive motions.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/09/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
09/08/2008
Docket Code 002
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
ALLEN D BUCKNELL
JILL ANN HERMAN
MINUTE ENTRY
On the Court’s own motion,
IT IS ORDERED vacating the Status Conference set for September 23, 2008.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming the Status Conference set for
September 29, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (time allotted: 30 minutes).

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/18/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
09/13/2007
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
CRAIG A MCCARTHY
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
NEAL B THOMAS
WILLIAM R METTLER JR.
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court is in receipt of and has considered the parties’ Stipulation to Extend Deadline
for Depositions.
IT IS ORDERED approving said Stipulation.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/02/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
09/29/2008
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
MELISSA LIN
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
KACI YOUNG BOWMAN
TONYA MACBETH
JURY TRIAL SET
2:50 p.m. This is the time set for Status Conference. Plaintiff is represented by counsel,
John E. Chaix. Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs Mirage Homes, LLC and Mirage Homes
Construction, Inc. are represented by counsel, William H. Doyle, Teresa Hayashi Wales and
Louis W. Horowitz. Third-Party Defendant Castle Drywall, Inc. is represented by counsel, Kaci
Young Bowman. Third-Party Defendant Sunrise Stucco, Inc. is represented by counsel, Tonya
MacBeth. Third-Party Defendants Alvin Concrete, Inc., Maycon Iron Design, Dotty & Sons

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
09/29/2008
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 2
Contracting, Eagle Valley Construction, Inc., Arizona Door and Trim, Inc. and Gypsum Floor
Masters, Inc. are represented by counsel, Daniel Beatty. Third-Party Defendants David R.
Howard Electric, Inc. and Castle Drywall, Inc. are represented by counsel, Melissa Lin. Third-
Party Defendant Century Roofing, Inc. is represented by counsel, Jack G. Barone. Third-Party
Defendant GAC, Inc. is represented by counsel, Jason J. Bliss. Third-Party Defendant Jordan
Windows is represented by counsel, Douglas H. Fitch. Third-Party Defendant Bill Sisson
Plumbing, Inc. is represented by counsel, Michael J. Frazelle. Third-Party Defendant Markham
Contracting Co., Inc. is represented by counsel, Jan-Georg Roesch. Third-Party Defendant Eagle
Ventures, USA, Inc. is represented by counsel, Michael L. Green. Third-Party Defendants Alvin
Concrete, Inc. and Jedko Construction, ACC is represented by counsel, Don D. Skypeck.
Court Reporter, Marylynn LeMoine, is present.
Discussion is held regarding the status of the case and the parties’ attempts to settle this
matter.
IT IS ORDERED setting Trial to a Jury on August 11, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. (time allotted:
Twenty-Four (24) days) before:
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY, II
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-7806
THIS IS A FIRM TRIAL SETTING.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Trial Management Conference (TMC) on
July 6, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. (time allotted: 3 hours). The Trial Management Conference shall be
governed by the Pretrial Management Orders issued this date.
No information disclosed after the dates contained in the order may be used at the trial
absent court order on motion and affidavit.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should any discovery disputes arise, counsel shall
MEET AND CONFER pursuant to Rule 37 and file a motion to compel or motion for protective
order.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
09/29/2008
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 3
PRETRIAL MANAGEMENT ORDERS
IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Pretrial Statement (JPTS) in accordance with Rule 16(d),
A.R.Civ.P., is due in this division by 5:00 p.m. on June 29, 2009.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED with the JPTS, counsel shall deliver to this division, copies
of the following:
A. A joint set of agreed-upon preliminary and final jury instructions.
This does not include Preliminary Civil RAJI or Standard Civil RAJI 1 – 15, which the
Court will give without request.
B. Separate sets of requested instructions that have not been agreed upon.
Please read Rosen v. Knaub, 175 Ariz. 329, 857 P.2d 381 (1993), and the RAJI Civil
Statement of Purpose and Approach before preparing the request for non-RAJI
instructions.
C. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, if a request has been
or will be filed Pursuant to Rule 52. If no proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law is received, the request shall be deemed waived.
D. Proposed voir dire questions that the Court will give.
E. Counsel shall jointly prepare a brief summary of the case which the Court
will read to the jury at the commencement of voir dire.
F. Counsel are to identify in/with the JPTS all deposition or other transcribed
testimony that may be offered at trial. The proposed testimony is to be identified by
reference to page and line numbers. Objections, if any, to such testimony, and the
reasons for such objections, are also to be set forth.
MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Motions in limine shall be filed only in accordance with Rule 7.2, Ariz. R. Civ. P.
Motions in limine shall be filed 30 days before the TMC and such motions must meet the test of
State v. Superior Court, 108 Ariz. 396, 397, 499 P.2d 152 (1972). A written response to a motion
in limine may be filed no later than ten (10) days thereafter. The Court will rule on the motions
in limine without oral argument. If the Court wishes to hear argument, the argument will be
heard at the PTMC. No replies shall be filed.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
09/29/2008
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 4
Unless prior leave of the Court is obtained for good cause shown, no party may file
more than five motions in limine, including all subparts.
MARKING EXHIBITS
All parties must contact the Clerk of this division at 602-506-7451, no later than
July 21, 2009, regarding the proper procedures for submitting exhibits to be marked for trial in
this Division.
No later than July 28, 2009, all parties shall deliver their exhibits. The parties are
directed to meet in person to exchange the exhibits before coming to court. The parties will
make sure that they do not bring to the clerk a set of exhibits that include duplicate exhibits.
The parties should not reserve exhibit numbers for all Defendant’s exhibits, all Plaintiff’s
exhibits, miscellaneous demonstrative exhibits, and the like. The parties shall also present
original depositions for filing at that time.
If the parties agree to stipulate exhibits into evidence prior to commencement of
trial, a written stipulation to admit specified exhibits in evidence must be provided to the
Clerk of this division with the exhibits.
Exhibits are marked in numerical order per party, making it necessary to mark all of one
party’s exhibits before marking the other party’s. Accordingly, the Defendant’s exhibits
numbering shall start at the next number following the last of Plaintiff’s exhibits. (For example,
Plaintiff submits 82 exhibits, which are marked Exhibit 1 through 82. Defendant submits 63
exhibits, which are marked 83 through 145). Please do not combine the parties’ exhibits. Each
side’s exhibits must be submitted separately and in numerical order.
With regard to trial exhibits, the parties are strongly discouraged from marking
exhibits they do not anticipate using during trial. The parties shall include a section in the
Joint Pretrial Statement regarding exhibits that may be used during trial (and need not be
initially marked), separate and apart from those exhibits the parties know will be used and
should be initially marked as trial exhibits in this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties, at the TMC, shall be prepared to discuss:
A. Limits on voir dire.
B. Jury instructions (preliminary and final), mini-opening statements and voir
dire.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
09/29/2008
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 5
C. Agreed-upon deposition summaries and excerpts from deposition
transcripts and the editing of videotaped depositions.
Narrative summaries with brief excerpts of deposition question and
answer testimony are preferred at trial rather than the reading of deposition
testimony.
D. Any special scheduling or equipment issues.
E. Status of settlement of the case.
COUNSEL WHO WILL BE THE TRIAL LAWYERS ON THE CASE ARE REQUIRED TO
ATTEND THE PRETRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE.
FAILURE OF TRIAL COUNSEL TO ATTEND THE PRETRIAL MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE MAY RESULT IN PERSONAL SANCTIONS.
SETTLEMENT
One-day’s jury fees will be assessed unless the Court is notified of settlement before 2:00
p.m. on the judicial day before trial.
Counsel for Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs Mirage Homes, LLC and Mirage Homes
Construction, Inc. withdraws its Motion for Mandatory Settlement Conference. Accordingly,
said Motion is considered withdrawn and no action will be taken.
3:16 p.m. Matter concludes.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/08/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
10/03/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
T. Melius
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
MINUTE ENTRY
In the Court’s Minute Entry dated February 5, 2008, the Court granted Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Compliance with A.R.S. § 33-2002 as to All Claims
and as to Claims Based on Rights of Individual Members, Third-Party Defendant Castle

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
10/03/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
Drywall, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Standing, and Third-Party Defendant
GAC, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment re: HVAC Claims on the ground that Plaintiff failed
to comply with A.R.S. § 33-2002. Therefore, the Court found it unnecessary to address
Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re: Liability, Defendants’ and Third-Party
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims for Damages for Allegations of Defect
Not Supported by Evidence, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s
claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.
In its Minute Entry dated August 18, 2008, the Court found that Plaintiff is now in
compliance with A.R.S. § 33-2002. Accordingly, the Court addresses the merits of the following
motions.
I.
DEFENDANTS’ AND THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING STANDING
Defendants and Third-Party Defendants submit that Plaintiff lacks standing to assert
claims for damages within the individual units or pertaining to limited common elements.
Defendants and Third-Party Defendants maintain that claims for such damages belong to the
individual homeowners because the Condominium Declaration (“the declaration”) confers the
obligation to maintain and repair those areas solely on the homeowners. Plaintiff responds by
arguing that A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(4) statutorily grants Plaintiff the authority to pursue all claims
for damages, regardless of whether the alleged defect is within the individual unit or pertains to a
limited common element. Plaintiff alternatively submits that it has standing to pursue all claims
in the interest of judicial economy.
“Subject to the provisions of the declaration,” a homeowners’ association may litigate
“on behalf of itself or two or more unit owners on matters affecting the condominium.” A.R.S. §
33-1242(A) and (A)(4). According to the declaration at issue, the association has authority and
control over all common elements including the obligation to maintain, repair, and make
necessary improvements to the same. Declaration Art. 5.0. The declaration further provides that
the individual homeowners have authority and control over all areas within their individual unit
as well as all limited common elements allocated to their individual unit. Declaration Art. 5.1.
Because Plaintiff’s authority is expressly limited by the declaration, the Court finds that
A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(4) does not grant Plaintiff standing to assert claims on behalf of its
homeowners for all damages to the condominium complex. Indeed, without a specific
agreement with the individual homeowners permitting Plaintiff to assert claims for damages

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
10/03/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3
beyond the common elements, granting standing to the association could usurp a homeowner’s
right to bring an individual action or, if allowed for some but not all the members, subject the
Defendants and Third-Party Defendants to multiple claims.
Although not specifically argued, to the extent Plaintiff believes its compliance with
A.R.S. § 33-2002 is sufficient to constitute acquiescence to Plaintiff’s counsel’s representation,
the Court rejects this proposition. Notice to the association’s members does not constitute a
retention of Plaintiff’s law firm by each of the individual homeowners.
As to Plaintiff’s position that judicial economy is best served by conferring standing on
Plaintiff to pursue claims for damages wherever located in the complex, the association relies on
Armory Park Neighborhood Ass'n v. Episcopal Community Services in Arizona, 148 Ariz. 1
(1985). There, the Arizona Supreme Court held that an association had standing to assert a claim
for injunctive relief on behalf of its members. Id. at 6. However, on the issue of judicial
economy, the Court found it significant that the association sought “an injunction rather than
damages for separate property owners” because “the relief sought [was] universal to all of [the
association’s] members and require[d] no individual quantification by the court.” Id.
In the case at bar, the remedy sought is legal and the damages are not necessarily uniform
across all of the homeowners and some members may not have suffered any damages.
Accordingly, judicial economy is not a persuasive reason for permitting Plaintiff to pursue
claims for damages within the individual units or pertaining to limited common elements.
With respect to the alleged HVAC defects, Third-Party Defendant GAC, Inc (“GAC”)
contends that the HVAC units are limited common elements within the exclusive authority and
control of the homeowners. In support, GAC submits the deposition testimony of Plaintiff’s
property manager, Mr. Hennick, that HVAC problems are generally the responsibility of the
homeowners and not the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff contends that summary judgment is inappropriate because there is no evidence
showing the location of any of the alleged defects. However, the declaration states that even if a
“heating or air conditioning unit…lies partially within and partially outside the designated
boundaries of a [u]nit,” it will nonetheless be considered a limited common element if the
heating or air conditioning system serves only one condominium unit. Declaration Art.
2.4(A)(3). Mr. Hennick testified that each of the HVAC units serves only one condominium.
Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to rebut GAC’s prima facie showing that the
HVAC systems are limited common elements solely within the responsibility of the individual
homeowner.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
10/03/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 4
Because it has standing to assert claims for damages occurring as a result of a defect in a
common area, Plaintiff argues that it may nonetheless pursue the HVAC claims. However,
Plaintiff offers no evidence to show that any HVAC problems were caused by faulty
workmanship, etc., to a common area. Accordingly, as there is no genuine issue of material fact
that Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue claims for damages pertaining to limited common
elements,
IT IS ORDERED granting GAC’s and the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment
regarding HVAC claims.
As to Plaintiff’s standing to seek damages for all remaining alleged defects, the Court
finds that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the defects fall under the definition
of a common element, a limited common element or are within the boundaries of the individual
units. Accordingly, on these issues,
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’, Castle Drywall’s and Sunrise Stucco Inc.’s
motions for summary judgment.
II.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: LIABILITY
Plaintiff submits that Defendants are liable for breach of the implied warranty of
workmanship and habitability because Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ experts are in agreement that
certain alleged problem areas are defects. Regardless of any agreement, Plaintiff maintains that
Defendants are at least liable for what Defendants’ expert considers to be problem areas.
To establish liability in the builder-vendor for breach of the implied warranty of
workmanship and habitability, the plaintiff must prove that the defect is the result of “improper
construction, design or preparation.” Woodward v. Chirco Construction Co., Inc., 141 Ariz. 514,
516 (1984). “The standard to be applied in determining whether or not there has been a breach
of warranty is one of reasonableness in light of the surrounding circumstances. The age of a
home, its maintenance, the use to which it has been put, are but a few factors entering into this
factual determination at trial.” Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc., 139 Ariz. 242, 245 (1984).
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants are liable for the alleged defects because the parties’
experts purportedly agree that certain problem areas are caused by defects. However, it is not
enough for Plaintiff to present expert testimony that the conditions are defective in some manner.
Plaintiff must also show that the alleged defect was caused by the “improper construction, design
or preparation” of Defendants. Woodward, 141 Ariz. at 516. The Court finds that a genuine

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
10/03/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 5
issue of material fact exists as to whether the alleged problem areas are attributable to the
improper construction, design or preparation by the Defendants as opposed to improper
homeowner maintenance, age or ordinary wear and tear. Having failed “to show that the
[alleged] defect had its origin and cause in the builder-vendor,” Plaintiff is not entitled to
summary judgment. Richards, 139 Ariz. at 245. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment re: Liability.
III.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DAMAGES FOR ALLEGATIONS OF DEFECT NOT SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE
The issue raised by Defendants is whether Plaintiff’s use of extrapolation is sufficiently
reliable so as to constitute admissible evidence supporting Plaintiff’s claim for damages.
Plaintiff desires to use extrapolation as the primary proof of establishing internal defects (i.e.,
using a small sample of units to predict the likelihood of internal defects in all the other units).
Regardless of the Court’s rulings in Section I, supra, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s
proffered extrapolation evidence is problematic. Two critical assumptions of extrapolation are
that: 1) the inspected units are the same or substantially similar to the units not inspected; and 2)
the alleged internal defects caused the same damage in all the units. It is apparent from the
record that most, if not all, of the condominium units that comprise the test sample had reported
problem areas to the association’s secretary prior to the testing and Plaintiff’s expert followed up
on the same. If only units that experienced problems formed the basis for extrapolation, there is
no reliability that the sample is representative of the units as a whole. Thus, not being truly
random, the test sample is ripe with bias.
Additionally, it is not clear from the record which subcontractor is responsible for the
work performed at each of the units. This information is critical to the assumption that the
internal defects and resulting damages are substantially uniform throughout all of the units. If
the units were built by different subcontractors, using different workers and supervisors, this
assumption is undermined. On the other hand, if it can be shown that the same subcontractor
consistently performed the same mistake in a number of units, extrapolation is strengthened in
that the same mistake is more likely to be present in other units as well. The Court finds the
record shows no sufficient correlation between the methodology of the construction work and the
extrapolation so as to make the sample reliable.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
10/03/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 6
The sample being unreliable, the Court finds that the extrapolation evidence is
inadmissible because it will not assist the jury in determining either the extent of the alleged
defects or the alleged total cost of repairs. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims for
Damages for Allegations of Defect Not Supported by Evidence.
IV.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY HENNICK
Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ motions for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s claims for
breach of contract and fiduciary duty by submitting the affidavit of Mr. Hennick which
purportedly establishes Defendants’ improper reserve funding as well as Defendants’ failure to
pay their respective homeowners’ association assessments (“assessments”). Defendants move to
strike Mr. Hennick’s affidavit on the grounds that it is contradictory, hearsay, lacks personal
knowledge, lacks foundation and is untimely.
For an affidavit to defeat a motion for summary judgment, it must set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Florez v. Sargeant, 185 Ariz. 521, 526 (App.
1996). An affidavit which contradicts the affiant’s own prior deposition testimony should be
disregarded on a motion for summary judgment. MacLean v. State Dept. of Educ., 195 Ariz. 235,
241 (App. 1999). However, exceptions exist “if the affiant was confused at deposition and the
affidavit explains those aspects of the deposition testimony or if the affiant lacked access to
material facts and the affidavit sets forth the newly discovered evidence.” Id.
The Court finds that the affidavit has been properly submitted. Mr. Hennick, as the
Association’s property manager, is the proper person to verify the records set forth in the
affidavit and is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. ARIZ.R.CIV.P. Rule 56(e).
Accordingly, Defendants’ objections pertaining to hearsay, lack foundation, and lack of personal
knowledge are rejected at this time; however, Defendants may re-argue these objections if
Plaintiff introduces this evidence at trial.
Additionally, although Mr. Hennick did not have knowledge of Defendants’ alleged
unpaid assessments at the time of his deposition, the Court finds that Mr. Hennick later obtained
this knowledge upon gaining access to Plaintiff’s bank statements, balance and budget sheets,
and reserve account balance sheets. Therefore, Mr. Hennick’s affidavit should not be
disregarded as contradictory.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
10/03/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 7
The Court further finds that Defendants are not harmed by Plaintiff’s reference to damage
calculations produced after the discovery deadline. Mr. Hennick’s affidavit is based on bank
statements and records that were timely submitted and disclosed. Additionally, Defendants’
contention that the damage calculation is based on the wrong assumption can be developed at
trial.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Strike Affidavit of Jeffrey Hennick.
V.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract must fail because there is
no evidence in the record showing that Defendants failed to pay their respective assessments.
However, the Court finds that Mr. Hennick’s affidavit, accompanied by Plaintiff’s bank
statements, balance and budget sheets, and reserve account balance sheets, creates a genuine
issue of material fact as to whether or not Defendants paid their assessments. Defendants’
arguments concerning the weight and credibility of this evidence may be properly addressed at
trial.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding
Plaintiff’s Cause of Action Number Four, Breach of Contract.
VI.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim was not brought within
the two year statute of limitations imposed on tort actions. In response, Plaintiff submits that: 1)
the applicable statute of limitations is six years because the claim arises out of contractual duties;
2) Plaintiff was not put on notice that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties until they were
so informed by their expert witness; and 3) the statute of limitations has not begun to run because
there has been no appreciable harm to Plaintiff.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
10/03/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 8
Generally, for a cause of action to accrue, the plaintiff must have knowledge of the facts
underlying the cause, or would have been able to obtain the requisite knowledge in the exercise
of reasonable diligence. Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Ins. Co.,182 Ariz. 586, 588
(1995). Once a plaintiff is aware, even in part, of an injury, she is imposed with a duty to
investigate with due diligence. Doe v. Roe, 191 Ariz. 313, 324 (1998). However, “the
limitations period does not commence until actionable negligence exists, that is, negligence that
results in appreciable, non-speculative harm.” Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Lewis and Roca,
183 Ariz. 250, 254 (App. 1995).
The Court finds the date of accrual for Plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim is the
date of Douglas Vlaming’s August 5, 2002 reserve report. In this report, Mr. Vlaming advised
the association’s board of directors of abnormally low reserve contributions and recommended
that a large increase in funding was warranted. Although Mr. Vlaming did not specifically state
who was at fault for the underfunding, the report gives more than sufficient knowledge of both
the injury and the facts underlying the cause of action so as to impose a duty to Plaintiff to
investigate who was at fault. Doe, 191 Ariz. at 324.
Plaintiff contends that the statute of limitations has yet to run because the monies set
aside in reserve have not yet been needed for repairs or improvements to the common areas.
Plaintiff relies on several legal malpractice cases to advocate tolling the statute of limitations on
the ground that actual harm has not yet occurred. However, these cases stand for the proposition
that a victim cannot know if the negligent conduct of her attorney will result in damages until
resolution of the litigation in which the malpractice occurred. In this sense, “[h]arm is actual and
appreciable when it becomes ‘irremedial’ or ‘irrevocable.’” Commercial Union Ins. Co., 183
Ariz. at 254.
The alleged harm to Plaintiff has been calculated by its expert to be a specific amount of
monies that should have been deposited into the reserve fund. Thus, the damage has in fact
occurred and is “irrevocable.” Id. The rationale that favors extending the statute of limitations in
legal malpractice cases is not present here because Plaintiff’s alleged damages are not
conditioned on anything other than a successful verdict in the present action. Although experts
may speculate as to the proper amount of damages, this fact does not render Plaintiff’s alleged
damages unascertainable. The reserves were either appropriate or not. Merely because there has
been no need to delve into the reserve funds does not change the fact that an alleged duty was
breached.
As to the alleged breach, at oral argument Plaintiff stated that its fiduciary duty claim was
premised on professional negligence. The association filed the present action in December of
2005. Section 12-542 provides for a two year limitation on “actions for accountant malpractice,
breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation.” CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts &

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
10/03/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 9
Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C., 198 Ariz. 173, 175 (App. 2000). See also Barmat v. John and Jane Doe
Partners A-D, 155 Ariz. 519, 523 (1987) (“essential nature of actions to recover for breach of
[professional] duties is not one ‘arising in contract’ but rather one arising out of tort-breach of
legal duties imposed by law”). As more than two years elapsed between the filing of the present
lawsuit and Plaintiff’s knowledge of the alleged conduct, the statute of limitations bars Plaintiff’s
claim for breach of fiduciary duty.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding
Plaintiff’s Cause of Action Number Three, Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/26/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
10/25/2007
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
JACK G BARONE
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
CRAIG A MCCARTHY
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
NEAL B THOMAS
JILL ANN HERMAN
WILLIAM R METTLER JR.
KYLE A ISRAEL
ORAL ARGUMENT SET

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
10/25/2007
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on November 15, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. (time
allotted: 4 hours), on the following Motions:
1. Third-Party Defendant Castle Drywall, Inc.’s Reply in Support of Its Motion for
Summary Judgment re: Standing.
2. Third-Party Defendant Sunrise Stucco, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment re: No
Right to Common Law Indemnity.
3. Mirage’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims for Damages for Allegation of
Defect Not Supported by Evidence.
4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re: Liability.
5. Mirage’s Motion for Summary Judgment re: Compliance with A.R.S. §33-2002 as to All
Claims Based on Rights of Individual Members.
6. Mirage’s Motion for Summary Judgment re: Plaintiff’s Cause of Action Number Four,
Breach of Contract.
7. Third-Party Defendant Century Roofing, Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re:
Negligence and Strict Liability.
8. Third-Party Defendant Century Roofing’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re:
Express Indemnity.
9. Third-Party Defendant Markham Contracting Co., Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment re: Express Contractual Claims.
10. Third-Party Defendant GAC, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment re: HVAC Claims.
11. Mirage’s Motion for Summary Judgment re: Plaintiff’s Cause of Action Number Three,
Breach of Fiduciary Duty.
12. Mirage’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re: Contractual Indemnity and Defense
Obligations.
NOTE: If a pleading is filed within 48 hours of a hearing it must be hand-delivered to the
Bailiff or Judicial Assistant of this Division to assure that it is available for the Court at the
hearing. Delivery to an administrative mailbox will not assure its timely delivery.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/08/2006 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
11/06/2006
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RUTH H. HILLIARD
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LEE P BLAKE
JACK G BARONE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
KYLE A ISRAEL
JAMES K KLOSS
CRAIG A MCCARTHY
MITCHELL J RESNICK
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
MINUTE ENTRY
9:10 a.m. In chambers: This is the time set for Rule 16 Comprehensive Pretrial
Status/Scheduling Conference. Plaintiff is represented by counsel, John E. Chaix. Defendants
Mirage Homes Construction, Inc., Mirage Homes, LLC and Mirage Construction, LLC are
represented by counsel, Lee P. Blake. Defendants A-1 Steel, Inc. and Markham Contracting
Company, Inc. are represented by counsel, Jan-Georg Roesch. Defendant Alvin Concrete, Inc. is
represented by counsel, Adam B. Campbell. Defendant Century Roofing, Inc. is represented by
counsel, Joseph E. Dylo. Defendants Dotty & Sons Contracting, Inc. and Maycon Iron Design
are represented by counsel, Douglas A. Tolino. Defendant Eagle Ventures U S A, Inc. is
represented by counsel, Michael L. Green. Defendant E N T L, Ltd. is represented by counsel,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
11/06/2006
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 2
Matthew David Bedwell. Defendant Jordan Windows is represented by counsel, Douglas H.
Fitch. Defendant Bill Sisson Plumbing, Inc. is represented by counsel, Michel J. Frazelle.
Defendant Sunrise Stucco, Inc. is represented by counsel, Susanne E. Ingold.
No court reporter is present.
Discussion is held regarding the status of the case and setting a trial date.
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1.
TRIAL DATE: Jury Trial is set on January 7, 2008 at 9:30 a.m., before Judge
Ruth Hilliard, Courtroom 402, Central Court Building, 201 West Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ 85003.
Counsel/parties to be here at 9:15 a.m. Jury selection will begin as soon as the jury panel arrives.
NOTE: Counsel/Parties shall notify the Judicial Assistant of this division of any
scheduled witnesses residing outside of Maricopa County, the State of Arizona or the
United States, no later than 30 days prior to trial.
2.
LENGTH OF TRIAL: Thirty-two (32) Days.
3.
JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT: A Joint Pretrial Statement, jury
instructions, voir dire for the panel as a whole, and exhibits must be delivered to this division
no later than November 30, 2007. Failure to deliver documents by said date may result in loss
of trial date.
4.
TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE: Court and counsel/parties will meet
for a Trial Management Conference, argument on motions in limine and settlement of jury
instructions on December 7, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. (time allotted: 2 hours).
5.
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS: The last day to file dispositive motions is
September 7, 2007. This is a firm date and will not be changed without changing the trial date.
6.
MOTIONS IN LIMINE: The last day to file motions in limine is
November 19, 2007. Responses are due by November 30, 2007. Late motions for summary
judgment or for dismissal are not motions in limine. See, State v. Superior Court, 108 Ariz. 396,
499 P.2d 152 (1972). Motions in Limine will be ruled on at the Trial Management Conference.
Counsel/parties are to review Rule 7.2 A.R.C.P. and provide an avowal stating compliance with
Rule 7.2.
7.
CUTOFF FOR DISCOVERY: September 7, 2007.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
11/06/2006
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 3
8.
EXCHANGE AND DESIGNATION OF EXHIBITS: Except illustrative
exhibits made during trial, all exhibits are to be exchanged thirty (30) days before the Trial
Management Conference. Counsel/parties are directed to meet and confer regarding exhibits so
that duplicates are avoided. **Trial lawyers or their knowledgeable assistants must contact
the clerk of this division at 602-506-3348, no later than one week prior to the due date for
exhibits, regarding the proper procedures for submitting exhibits to be marked for trial.**
Exhibits shall be delivered to the clerk of this division no later than November 30, 2007.
9.
JUROR NOTEBOOKS:
Jurors use and appreciate tabbed, indexed, juror
notebooks. The contents must be in evidence by stipulation or, for exhibits, by court ruling. Key
exhibits, diagrams, photographs, timelines, non-argumentative summaries of positions on
liability and damages and other information helpful to jurors may be included.
10.
DEPOSITIONS: Jurors prefer narrative summaries, with brief excerpts of
deposition question and answer testimony, to reading many pages of testimony.
11.
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE:
Counsel/parties advise that the parties are
referring this matter to a private mediator; however, if counsel wish to use the services of the
court’s ADR Office, a notice regarding referral to ADR must be filed with the court. Please be
advised the ADR Office requires a minimum 90 days to schedule a settlement conference.
The Court adopts and incorporates all other deadlines set forth in the parties’ Joint
Pretrial Statement filed, October 31, 2006, except as modified by this minute entry and the
following orders:
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
Defendants and Third-party Defendants will conduct all visual inspections and
intrusive testing by December 15, 2006.
2.
Third-party Defendants will serve final expert opinions, including their cost of
repair estimates, by March 15, 2007.
3.
All non-expert witnesses shall be disclosed no later than May 15, 2007.
4.
The deadline to conduct initial mediation May 31, 2007.
9:41 a.m. Matter concludes.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/12/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
11/06/2009
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
C. Hernden
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
DON D SKYPECK
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has considered Third Party Defendant GAC Inc.’s Motion for Clarification re:
Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Statement of Costs Pending as Against Plaintiff filed on
September 2, 2009, Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition filed September 22, 2009, and Third Party
Defendant GAC Inc.’s Reply filed October 5, 2009.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
11/06/2009
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
For good cause shown,
IT IS ORDERED denying Third Party Defendant GAC Inc.’s Motion for Clarification.
The minute entry of July 9, 2009 was stricken, and all issues were resolved by settlement,
rendering all motions pending moot. The Court declines reopening any issues in this case.
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/19/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
11/13/2007
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
BRUCE W LORBER
MATTHEW DAVID BEDWELL
SETTLEMENT/PLACED ON INACTIVE CALENDAR
The court having been advised this case has settled as to Third-Party Defendant A-1 Steel,
Inc.,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
11/13/2007
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the Inactive Calendar for dismissal without further
notice on January 8, 2008, unless prior to said date a judgment is entered or filed, a stipulation of
dismissal is presented, or a motion to set and certificate of readiness is filed as to Third-Party
Defendant A-1 Steel, Inc. only.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/19/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
11/13/2007
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
CRAIG A MCCARTHY
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
NEAL B THOMAS
WILLIAM R METTLER JR.
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court is in receipt of and has considered the parties’ Stipulation to Extend Deadline
for Exchange and Designation of Exhibits.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
11/13/2007
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
Good cause appearing,
IT IS ORDERED granting said Stipulation.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/19/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
11/13/2007
Docket Code 064
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
BRUCE W LORBER
MATTHEW DAVID BEDWELL
MINUTE ENTRY
On the Court’s own motion,
IT IS ORDERED vacating the trial date of January 7, 2008 and resetting same to
January 8, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/21/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
11/15/2007
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
WILLIAM R METTLER JR.
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
SUSANNE E INGOLD
MELISSA LIN
ANDREW R PESHEK
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
F LISA ALLEN
MARK ANDREW NICKEL
LLOYD J ANDREWS
MINUTE ENTRY
10:07 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument. Plaintiff is represented by counsel,
John E. Chaix and John Elardo. Mirage Defendants are represented by counsel, William R.
Mettler, Jr., Louis W. Horowitz, Jill Ann Herman and David Stout. Defendants A-1 Steel,
Norcraft Holdings and Markham Contracting are represented by counsel, Jan-Georg Roesch.
Defendants Century Roofing and Opt. Co. are represented by counsel, Jack Barone. Defendant
Bill Sisson Plumbing is represented by counsel, Lloyd J. Andrews. Defendant Castle Drywall is
represented by counsel, Andrew Peshek. Defendant Jordan Windows is represented by counsel,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
11/15/2007
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2
Mark Nickel and Douglas H. Fitch. Defendant GAC, Inc. is represented by counsel, Jason Bliss.
Defendants Sunrise Stucco and Opt. Co. are represented by counsel, Susanne E. Ingold.
Defendants Jedko and Alvin Concrete are represented by counsel, Adam Campbell. Defendants
Alvin Concrete, Arizona Door and Trim, Inc., Dotty and Sons Plumbing, Eagle Valley
Construction, Gypsum Floor Masters and Maycon Iron Designs are represented by counsel,
Daniel A. Beatty. Defendant Eagle Ventures is represented by counsel, F. Lisa Allen.
Defendants Castle Drywall, Del Rio Drywall and David R. Howard Electric, Inc. are represented
by counsel, Melissa Lin.
Court reporter, Marylynn LeMoine, is present.
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Replies to Joinders in which
Plaintiff did not file a response to the underlying Motion.
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Associated Statement of Facts.
Argument is presented.
IT IS ORDERED taking the following Motions under advisement:
1.
Defendants Mirage Homes’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims for
Damages for Allegations of Defect Not Supported by the Evidence.
2.
Defendants Mirage Homes’ Motion for Summary Judgment re: Compliance
With A.R.S. §33-2002 as to All Claims and as to All Claims Based on Rights
of Individual Members.
3.
Defendant Castle Drywall’s Motion for Summary Judgment re: Standing.
Discussion is held regarding the trial date of January 8, 2008.
In light of the motions pending before the Court,
IT IS ORDERED vacating the trial date of January 8, 2008.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Trial Management Conference set for
December 7, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. and setting a Status Conference re: trial date on said date and
time.
11:55 a.m. Matter concludes.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
11/15/2007
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 3

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/20/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
11/16/2007
Docket Code 073
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
RICHARD L RIGHI
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
JILL ANN HERMAN
MATTHEW DAVID BEDWELL
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court is in receipt of Third-Party Defendants Markham Contracting Co., A-1 Steel,
Inc. and Norcraft Holdings, LP’s Motion to Withdraw Motion to Dismiss Contribution Claim.
Said Motion to Withdraw is considered withdrawn and no action will be taken.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/26/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
11/19/2008
Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
MELISSA LIN
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
DON D SKYPECK
KACI YOUNG BOWMAN
TONYA MACBETH
MINUTE ENTRY
On the Court’s own motion,
IT IS ORDERED vacating the Trial Management Conference set for July 6, 2009 and
resetting same for June 29, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. (time allotted: 3 hours). The Trial Management
Conference shall be governed by the Pretrial Management Orders issued this date.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
11/19/2008
Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 2
No information disclosed after the dates contained in the order may be used at the trial
absent court order on motion and affidavit.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should any discovery disputes arise, counsel shall
MEET AND CONFER pursuant to Rule 37 and file a motion to compel or motion for protective
order.
PRETRIAL MANAGEMENT ORDERS
IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Pretrial Statement (JPTS) in accordance with Rule 16(d),
A.R.Civ.P., is due in this division by 5:00 p.m. on June 22, 2009.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED with the JPTS, counsel shall deliver to this division, copies
of the following:
A. A joint set of agreed-upon preliminary and final jury instructions.
This does not include Preliminary Civil RAJI or Standard Civil RAJI 1 – 15, which the
Court will give without request.
B. Separate sets of requested instructions that have not been agreed upon.
Please read Rosen v. Knaub, 175 Ariz. 329, 857 P.2d 381 (1993), and the RAJI Civil
Statement of Purpose and Approach before preparing the request for non-RAJI
instructions.
C. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, if a request has been
or will be filed Pursuant to Rule 52. If no proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law is received, the request shall be deemed waived.
D. Proposed voir dire questions that the Court will give.
E. Counsel shall jointly prepare a brief summary of the case which the Court
will read to the jury at the commencement of voir dire.
F. Counsel are to identify in/with the JPTS all deposition or other transcribed
testimony that may be offered at trial. The proposed testimony is to be identified by
reference to page and line numbers. Objections, if any, to such testimony, and the
reasons for such objections, are also to be set forth.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
11/19/2008
Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 3
MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Motions in limine shall be filed only in accordance with Rule 7.2, Ariz. R. Civ. P.
Motions in limine shall be filed 30 days before the TMC and such motions must meet the test of
State v. Superior Court, 108 Ariz. 396, 397, 499 P.2d 152 (1972). A written response to a motion
in limine may be filed no later than ten (10) days thereafter. The Court will rule on the motions
in limine without oral argument. If the Court wishes to hear argument, the argument will be
heard at the PTMC. No replies shall be filed.
Unless prior leave of the Court is obtained for good cause shown, no party may file
more than five motions in limine, including all subparts.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/07/2006 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
12/04/2006
Docket Code 530
Form V530
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RUTH H. HILLIARD
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LEE P BLAKE
JACK G BARONE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
KYLE A ISRAEL
JAMES K KLOSS
CRAIG A MCCARTHY
MITCHELL J RESNICK
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK
DEPUTY CT ADMINISTRATOR,
COURTWIDE SERVICES
DOCKET-CIVIL-CCC
E-FILE CASE MANAGEMENT
FILE ROOM-CSC
FINANCIAL SERVICES-BILLING-CCC
CASE DESIGNATED FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE COURT'S E-FILING PROGRAM
The Superior Court is transitioning civil cases to an electronic filing system. Pursuant to
Administrative Order 2005-091,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
12/04/2006
Docket Code 530
Form V530
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED that all pleadings in this case be electronically filed.
The electronic filing system will be available for use on December 18, 2006 and
mandatory e-filing will commence on January 8, 2007. Filing by conventional means may
continue until this mandatory date. ALL FILINGS NOT E-FILED AFTER THE
MANDATORY DATE WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE DIVISION UNTIL
PROPERLY E-FILED.
To assist in the transition to e-filing, the Office of the Clerk of the Superior Court has
prepared instruction and training concerning the E-Filing system. All parties and attorneys of
record in this case are strongly encouraged to study this material before the mandatory e-filing
date. The web site address for training materials is:
http://eventures.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/training.asp. The Clerk's Office shall be available for
instruction and training as needed.
The e-filing system web site address is https://efiling.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov. The site
contains supplemental training and other reference materials, including contact names and phone
numbers, to assist with any questions.
Upon the mandatory e-filing date, all attorneys of record shall e-file all pleadings in
accordance with the guidelines set forth in Administrative Order 2005-091. Self-represented
parties or pro per litigants, and other case participants like Mediators, Arbitrators, and Special
Discovery Masters are strongly encouraged to e-file all pleadings. If a self-represented party, or
other case participant chooses to file their pleading in paper, they shall include a notation just
under the case number on the first page of the pleading that the case is an “E-FILE CASE”.
The e-filing system can be accessed from any computer that has an Internet connection.
Free internet access terminals are available in the Superior Court Law Library, and other public
locations such as most public libraries.
Where filing fees may incur on an electronic filing, the filing party will be billed by the
Billing Unit of the Clerk of the Superior Court.
E-Filed Orders from the Court will be distributed to attorneys in the same manner each
attorney has elected to receive Minute Entries from the Court. Attorneys may enroll with the
Clerk of the Court to receive their Minute Entries electronically via e-mail. The Minute Entry
Distribution Agreement form may be downloaded at:
http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/forms.asp

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
12/04/2006
Docket Code 530
Form V530
Page 3
Motion practice: The movant determines the caption of the filing and all captions on
subsequent related filings shall bear the same designation. For example, the filing of a motion
captioned "Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Negligence" shall result in any
subsequent related filings referring to that title in the caption: "Plaintiff's Response to
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Negligence." No response to a motion shall
contain a separate motion, except in the case of a cross-motion bearing the same designation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a copy of all e-filed pleadings shall be hand-delivered
to this division.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/05/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
12/04/2007
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
CRAIG A MCCARTHY
ANDREW R PESHEK
MITCHELL J RESNICK
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
NEAL B THOMAS
WILLIAM R METTLER JR.
ORAL ARGUMENT SET
IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on December 7, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. (time
allotted: 2 hours, to be held in conjunction with Status Conference set on same date and
time), on the following Motions:

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
12/04/2007
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re: Liability.
2. Defendants Castle Drywall, Del Rio Drywall and David Howard Electric’s Motion
for Summary Judgment on Claims for Damages for Allegations of Defect Not
Support by Evidence.
3. Mirage Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re: Contractual Indemnity
and Defense Obligations.
4. Third-Party Defendant Century Roofing’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re:
Duty to Defend.
5. Third-Party Defendant Century Roofing’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re:
Express Indemnity.
6. Third-Party Defendant Century Roofing’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re:
Negligence and Strict Liability.
7. Mirage Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment re: Plaintiff’s Cause of Action
No. 4, Breach of Contract.
8. Mirage Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment re: Plaintiff’s Cause of Action
No. 3, Breach of Fiduciary Duty.
9. Third-Party Defendant Markham Contracting Co., Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment re: Express Contractual Claims.
10. Third-Party Defendant Sunrise Stucco, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment re: No
Right to Common Law Indemnity.
11. Third-Party Defendant GAC, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment re: HVAC
Claims.
NOTE: If a pleading is filed within 48 hours of a hearing it must be hand-delivered to the
Bailiff or Judicial Assistant of this Division to assure that it is available for the Court at the
hearing. Delivery to an administrative mailbox will not assure its timely delivery.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/10/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
12/06/2007
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
JACK G BARONE
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
SUSANNE E INGOLD
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
CRAIG A MCCARTHY
ANDREW R PESHEK
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
NEAL B THOMAS
JILL ANN HERMAN
KYLE A ISRAEL
SETTLEMENT/PLACED ON INACTIVE CALENDAR
The court having been advised this case has settled as to Third-Party Defendant E.N.T.L.,
Ltd. only,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
12/06/2007
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the Inactive Calendar for dismissal without further
notice on February 4, 2008, unless prior to said date a judgment is entered or filed, a stipulation
of dismissal is presented, or a motion to set and certificate of readiness is filed as to Third-Party
Defendant E.N.T.L., Ltd. only.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/13/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
12/07/2007
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
JILL ANN HERMAN
JACK G BARONE
DANIEL A BEATTY
JASON J BLISS
ADAM B CAMPBELL
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
SUSANNE E INGOLD
MELISSA LIN
JAN-GEORG ROESCH
KACI YOUNG BOWMAN
JOHN A ELARDO
MINUTE ENTRY
9:05 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument. Plaintiff is represented by counsel,
John E. Chaix and John A. Elardo. Mirage Homes, LLC and Mirage Homes Construction, Inc.
are represented by counsel, Jill Ann Herman, Louis W. Horowitz and William Mettler. GAC,
Inc. is represented by counsel, Jason J. Bliss. Castle Drywall, Inc., Del Rio Drywall Corp. and
David R. Howard Electric, Inc. are represented by counsel, Melissa Lin. Alvin Concrete,
Arizona Door and Trim, Dotty and Sons Contracting, Inc., Eagle Valley Construction, Inc.,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
12/07/2007
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2
Maycon Iron Design and Gypsum Floor Masters, Inc. are represented by counsel, Daniel A.
Beatty. Castle Drywall, Inc. is represented by counsel, Kaci Bowman. Jordan Windows is
represented by counsel, Mark Nickel. Eagle Ventures USA, Inc. is represented by counsel, F.
Lisa Allen and Michael L. Green. Markham Contracting Co., Inc. is represented by counsel,
Jan-Georg Roesch. Century Roofing and OPTCO are represented by counsel, Jack G. Barone
and Kelly Hedberg. Jedkco Construction ACC and Alvin Concrete, Inc. are represented by
counsel, Adam B. Campbell. Sunrise Stucco, Inc. is represented by counsel, Susanne E. Ingold.
Bill Sisson Plumbing, Inc. is represented by counsel, Michael J. Frazelle.
Court reporter, Marylynn LeMoine, is present.
Argument is presented.
IT IS ORDERED taking the following Motions under advisement:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re: Liability.
2. Third-Party Defendants Castle Drywall, Del Rio Drywall and David Howard
Electric’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims for Damages for Allegations of
Defect Not Supported by Evidence.
3. Third-Party Plaintiff’s Mirage Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re:
Contractual Indemnity and Defense Obligations.
4. Third-Party Defendant Century Roofing’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re:
Duty to Defend.
5. Third-Party Defendant Century Roofing’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re:
Express Indemnity.
6. Third-Party Defendant Century Roofing’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re:
Negligence and Strict Liability.
7. Mirage Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment re: Plaintiff’s Cause of Action
No. 4, Breach of Contract.
8. Mirage Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment re: Plaintiff’s Cause of Action
No. 3, Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
12/07/2007
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 3
9. Third-Party Defendant Markham Contracting Co., Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment re: Express Contractual Claims.
10. Third-Party Defendant Sunrise Stucco, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment re: No
Right to Common Law Indemnity.
11. Third-Party Defendant GAC, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment re: HVAC
Claims.
Discussion is held regarding Defendant Markham’s Motion to Dismiss Implied Warranty
Claim.
The parties agree that the Court can rule on said Motion without oral argument.
Therefore, Defendant Markham’s Motion to Dismiss Implied Warranty Claim is taken under
advisement.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Third-Party Defendant GAC, Inc.’s Motion for
Rule 56(f) Continuance re: Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re: Liability.
11:01 a.m. Matter concludes.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/18/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
12/11/2007
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE A. CRAIG BLAKEY II
E. Griesser/L. Gilbert
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
JACK G BARONE
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
DOUGLAS H FITCH
MICHAEL J FRAZELLE
MICHAEL L GREEN
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
MELISSA LIN
CRAIG A MCCARTHY
MITCHELL J RESNICK
NEAL B THOMAS
JILL ANN HERMAN
DOUGLAS A TOLENO
KACI YOUNG BOWMAN
SETTLEMENT/PLACED ON INACTIVE CALENDAR
The court having been advised this case has settled as to Third-Party Defendant Del Rio
Drywall, Inc.,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
12/11/2007
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the Inactive Calendar for dismissal without further
notice on February 6, 2008, unless prior to said date a judgment is entered or filed, a stipulation
of dismissal is presented, or a motion to set and certificate of readiness is filed as to Third-Party
Defendant Del Rio Drywall, Inc. only.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/23/2010 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-019613
12/21/2010
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
J. Rutledge
Deputy
MIRAGE CROSSING RESORT CASITAS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC
JOHN E CHAIX
v.
MIRAGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.
LOUIS W HOROWITZ
ADAM B CAMPBELL
WILLIAM H DOYLE
JAMES K KLOSS
LARRY D LANGLEY
RICHARD L RIGHI
INACTIVE CALENDAR
A detailed review of the docket and parties entered in this case reflect the following
entities were not named in the Complaint, Third Party Complaint, or Amendments thereto, or
were not served: Del Rio Homes, Mirage Construction LLC, United Subcontractors, Inc., dba
Mesa Insulation. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the inactive calendar for dismissal without further
notice on January 28, 2011 as to any party remaining in this case.
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING
201 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 401
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3343
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp

Documents