Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2020-017523: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Casa Del Monte Inc.

Case Number

CV2020-017523

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

12/31/2020

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Ryan-Touhill, Jennifer

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

No parties captured.

Minute Entries

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/23/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

01/19/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
S. Ortega

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
CARLOTTA L TURMAN

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
JUDGE WARNER

MINUTE ENTRY

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ December 5, 2022 Motion for Finding of Fact Under Rule
52(b) and Rule 6(b)(2). Because this matter is on appeal,

IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/08/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

03/04/2021

Docket Code 928
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
C. Ladden

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NICOLE PAYNE

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK
JUDGE WARNER

MINUTE ENTRY

Before the Court and fully briefed is Defendant’s January 25, 2021 Motion to Dismiss
and alternative Motion for More Definite Statement. This case is a dispute between members of
an HOA Board. Judging by the allegations, the dispute has become personal.

When this happens in a community—and this Court has seen many such disputes—there
are clear winners and losers at the end of the day. The clear winners are lawyers, who can earn
tens of thousands of dollars in fees litigating such an acrimonious dispute. This is not a criticism
of lawyers. This is their job and they are entitled to be paid for it.

The clear losers are the people who live in the community, many of whom have no dog in
the fight and who probably want their board members to stop fighting and just do their jobs. If
significant attorneys’ fees are incurred, it is the HOA members who usually bear the financial

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

03/04/2021

Docket Code 928
Form V000A
Page 2

cost, and who often bear the emotional cost of living in a community where neighbors are taking
sides against each other.

For these reasons, the Court finds it in the best interest of the HOA for these parties to at
least attempt resolution before engaging in all-out, acrimonious litigation.

IT IS ORDERED setting a Status Conference for March 23, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. (time
allotted: 15 minutes) in this division for purposes of discussing means of dispute resolution in
this division. This matter will be heard by video/audio conference using Court Connect. Court
Connect is the Superior Court in Maricopa County’s new video court hearing platform. For more
information about Court Connect, please visit: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect.

A Court Connect video link will be emailed to counsel of record (or self-represented
parties) the day before the hearing. All persons are strongly urged to appear by video instead
of audio alone. For questions, please call Judge Warner’s division at 602.372.2966, or email
Courtroom Assistant Rebekah Richardson at [email protected].

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED staying this case pending further order of the Court. The
Court will set argument on the pending Motion after the parties have participated in dispute
resolution in good faith.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs, Counsel for Defendant, and a
representative of Defendant with authority over the litigation shall appear by video at the status
conference.

NOTE: All Court proceedings are recorded digitally and not by a court reporter. Pursuant
to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any proceeding in which a court reporter
is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30, the party must submit a written request to
the assigned judicial officer at least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the hearing, and must
pay the authorized fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial days before the
proceeding. The fee is $140 for a half-day and $280 for a full day.

NOTE: Due to the spread of COVID-19, the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative
Order 2020-79 requires all individuals entering a Court facility to wear a mask or face covering
at all times they are in the Court facility. With limited exceptions, the Court will not provide
masks or face coverings. Therefore, any individual attempting to enter the Court facility must
have an appropriate mask or face covering to be allowed entry to the Court facility. Any person
who refuses to wear a mask or face covering as directed will be denied entrance to the Court
facility or asked to leave. In addition, all individuals entering a Court facility will be subject to a

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

03/04/2021

Docket Code 928
Form V000A
Page 3

health screening protocol. Any person who does not pass the health screening protocol will be
denied entrance to the Court facility.

The Arizona Constitution requires the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance
Review to conduct performance evaluations of superior court judges. The Commission is asking
for your help to evaluate Maricopa County Superior Court judges currently undergoing
performance review. After your hearing, if the judge you are in front of is undergoing review, a
survey will be emailed to you and you can take the survey online. The survey is conducted by the
Docking Institute of Public Affairs at Fort Hays State University and is anonymous and
confidential. Your participation in the review process is important! More information on Judicial
Performance Review can be found at www.azjudges.info.

Lawyers with an email address on file will receive a JPR survey. Witnesses and
litigants must provide an email address if they wish to receive a JPR survey. Email
addresses should be emailed to Judge Warner’s Courtroom Assistant at
[email protected].

La Constitución de Arizona exige que la Comisión de la Evaluación del
Desempeño Judicial realice evaluaciones de desempeño de los jueces de los tribunales
superiores. La comisión pide su ayuda para evaluar a los jueces del Tribunal Superior del
Condado de Maricopa a quienes actualmente se les está evaluando su desempeño. Después de su
audiencia, si el juez ante el cual comparece está sometido a una evaluación se le enviará por
correo electrónico una encuesta que usted podrá tomar por Internet. La encuesta es realizada por
el Docking Institute of Public Affairs de la Fort Hays State University y se mantiene anónima y
confidencial. ¡Su participación en el proceso de la evaluación es importante! Para obtener más
información sobre la evaluación del desempeño judicial, diríjase a www.azjudges.info.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/25/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

03/23/2021

Docket Code 085
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
C. Ladden

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NICOLE PAYNE

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
JUDGE MCCOY
JUDGE WARNER

MINUTE ENTRY

East Court Building - Courtroom 414

9:01 a.m. This is the time set for a Status Conference for the purposes of discussing
means of dispute resolution in this matter. Plaintiffs Rowland Short and Pamela Short are present
on their own behalf. Defendant is represented by counsel, Carlotta L. Turman and Nicole Payne.
Also present are board members Jon Ryder, Sandra Williams, and Dennis Feagles on behalf of
Defendant. All parties appear via Court Connect.

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

Discussion is held regarding options for dispute resolution.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

03/23/2021

Docket Code 085
Form V000A
Page 2

By agreement of the parties,

IT IS ORDERED staying resolution of Defendant’s January 25, 2021 Motion to Dismiss
pending further order of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties shall file a joint status memorandum on or
before May 4, 2021. The status memorandum shall address the results of the April 20, 2021
election and what efforts have been made towards dispute resolution. The Court notes that it will
try to find a judge to conduct a settlement conference and will provide a minute entry to the
parties reporting on those efforts.

9:21 a.m. Matter concludes.

LATER:

Judge Scott McCoy having agreed to conduct a settlement conference,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties contact Judge McCoy’s division to schedule a
settlement conference.

NOTE: Due to the spread of COVID-19, the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative
Order 2020-79 requires all individuals entering a Court facility to wear a mask or face covering
at all times they are in the Court facility. With limited exceptions, the Court will not provide
masks or face coverings. Therefore, any individual attempting to enter the Court facility must
have an appropriate mask or face covering to be allowed entry to the Court facility. Any person
who refuses to wear a mask or face covering as directed will be denied entrance to the Court
facility or asked to leave. In addition, all individuals entering a Court facility will be subject to a
health screening protocol. Any person who does not pass the health screening protocol will be
denied entrance to the Court facility.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/05/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

03/31/2022

Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
A. Meza

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NICOLE PAYNE

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
JUDGE WARNER

HEARING SET

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ March 22, 2022 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order; and Memorandum of Points and Authorities.

IT IS ORDERED setting a return hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion on April 21, 2022 at
10:30 a.m. (time allotted: 30 minutes) in this division. Counsel and the parties, if representing
themselves, are to appear in person before:

The Honorable Randall H. Warner
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building
101 W. Jefferson
4th Floor, Courtroom 414
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: 602-372-2966
Fax: 602-372-8746

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

03/31/2022

Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 2

NOTE: Due to the evolving state of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the fact that
attendance in court is often involuntary, this Court requires everyone in the courtroom to wear a
mask that covers both nose and mouth. Any questions or health concerns should be addressed to
court staff.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/07/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

04/06/2021

Docket Code 070
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE M. SCOTT MCCOY
K. Ballard

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NICOLE PAYNE

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
JUDGE MCCOY
JUDGE WARNER

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET

IT IS ORDERED setting a Settlement Conference on June 18, 2021 at 1:30 pm. (time
allotted: 2 hours) before:

HONORABLE M. SCOTT MCCOY
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING
6TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 612
101 WEST JEFFERSON
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
(602) 372-3603

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

04/06/2021

Docket Code 070
Form V000A
Page 2

NOTE: Due to public health concerns, all counsel, self-represented parties, clients and
non-lawyer representatives who have full authority to settle this case, shall appear via Court
Connect videoconference unless otherwise ordered.

Microsoft Teams meeting – Court Connect
Join on your computer or mobile app
Click here to join the meeting
Or call in (audio only)
1-917-781-4590, 828262029#
Phone Conference ID: 828 262 029#
Find a local number | Reset PIN
Learn More | Meeting options

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each party shall prepare a Settlement Conference
Memorandum (describing the factual background, the procedural history and all upcoming court
events, any applicable liens or obligations that must be paid from any settlement, and estimating
the costs, fees and time that would be expended if the matter were not to settle) and e-mail same
to this Court’s Judicial Assistant at: [email protected]. The memoranda
are due by June 11, 2021. The memoranda shall comply with Rule 16.1(b), Arizona Rules of
Civil Procedure and Rule 3.11, Local Rules of Maricopa County Superior Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the memoranda are not to be filed with the Clerk of
the Court or exchanged between the parties unless the parties/counsel agree to exchange the
memoranda.

Counsel and/or the parties themselves should be prepared to give the Court a very brief
(3-5 minute) opening statement, to be delivered in general session with all parties present.
Counsel is advised against using inflammatory or derogatory language in their opening
statement.

NOTE: Pursuant to Rule 16.1 (g) and 16(h), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure
failure to comply with this Order may result in the Court imposing sanctions.

NOTE: No record of the proceedings will be made.

NOTE: The Arizona Constitution requires the Arizona Commission on Judicial
Performance Review to conduct performance evaluations of superior court judges. The
Commission is asking for your help to evaluate Maricopa County Superior Court judges
currently undergoing performance review. After your hearing, if the judge you are in front of is
undergoing review, a survey will be emailed to you and you can take the survey online. The

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

04/06/2021

Docket Code 070
Form V000A
Page 3

survey is conducted by the Docking Institute of Public Affairs at Fort Hays State University and
is anonymous and confidential. Your participation in the review process is important! More
information on Judicial Performance Review can be found at www.azjudges.info.

Lawyers with an email address on file will receive a JPR survey. Witnesses and
litigants must provide an email address if they wish to receive a JPR survey. Email
addresses should be emailed to this division’s Courtroom Assistant, John Inman, at
[email protected]

NOTA: La Constitución de Arizona exige que la Comisión de la Evaluación del
Desempeño Judicial realice evaluaciones de desempeño de los jueces de los tribunales
superiores. La comisión pide su ayuda para evaluar a los jueces del Tribunal Superior del
Condado de Maricopa a quienes actualmente se les está evaluando su desempeño. Después de su
audiencia, si el juez ante el cual comparece está sometido a una evaluación se le enviará por
correo electrónico una encuesta que usted podrá tomar por Internet. La encuesta es realizada por
el Docking Institute of Public Affairs de la Fort Hays State University y se mantiene anónima y
confidencial. ¡Su participación en el proceso de la evaluación es importante! Para obtener más
información sobre la evaluación del desempeño judicial, diríjase a www.azjudges.info.

Due to the spread of COVID-19, the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order
2020-79 requires all individuals entering a court facility to wear a mask or face covering at
all times they are in the court facility. With limited exceptions, the court will not provide
masks or face coverings. Therefore, any individual attempting to enter the court facility
must have an appropriate mask or face covering to be allowed entry to the court
facility. Any person who refuses to wear a mask or face covering as directed will be denied
entrance to the court facility or asked to leave. In addition, all individuals entering a court
facility will be subject to a health screening protocol. Any person who does not pass the
health screening protocol will be denied entrance to the court facility.

Self-Represented Litigant advisory

ATTENTION SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS: Unless an attorney files a notice
that he or she represents a party, the person(s) not represented by an attorney will act as his or
him own attorney. The law requires the court to hold all persons representing themselves to
the same standard as a licensed attorney. Self-represented litigants are encouraged to review
the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, paying particular attention to Rule 26. Please note that
only a licensed attorney may represent a corporation, LLC, or similar business entity in the
Superior Court. Ramada Inns v. Lane & Bird Advertising, 102 Ariz. 127, 426 P.2d 395
(1967). You may not file motions or request for relief on behalf of another self-represented
party.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

04/06/2021

Docket Code 070
Form V000A
Page 4

Before the judge can consider anything you send him, you must show him that you have
given a copy of your request:

1. To the Clerk of the Court. The Clerk of the Court is a separately elected official. It is
the clerk’s job to keep an independent record of everything that happens at the
court. The court cannot act on a document that has not been made a part of that
record; and

2. To every other party involved in the case. This is so all parties have a fair chance to
tell the judge what they think before she makes a decision.

Because of that, if you want the judge to consider something you send him, you must file
the original document with the Clerk of the Superior Court, mail or deliver a copy directly to this
division (that is, to the judge, using his specific courtroom address)

HONORABLE M. SCOTT MCCOY
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING
6TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 612
101 WEST JEFFERSON
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
(602) 372-3603

and mail or deliver a copy to all opposing parties. In addition, on each document you must
include a signed certificate that says whether you mailed or hand delivered each copy, when you
did so, and states the specific people and the specific addresses to which you mailed or hand
delivered each copy. If a party is represented by a lawyer, you must send or deliver the copy to
the lawyer, not to the party. All proposed orders submitted to this division must include copies
of the order with self-addressed, stamped envelopes for all parties/counsel.

Do not mail or send papers for the clerk or other parties to the judge.

If you want to file papers with the Clerk of the Court by mail, please send them to:

Clerk of the Superior Court’s Office
Civil File Counter
201 W. Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ 85003

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

04/06/2021

Docket Code 070
Form V000A
Page 5

The clerk’s guidelines for filing by mail can be found at:

https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/records/filings

If you are not represented by a lawyer you must contact this division immediately and
give us a current address, telephone number, and email address. If your address, phone number,
or email address changes in the future, you must file a notice of change of address/phone
number/email address. That form can be downloaded at no charge from the following website:

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/LawLibraryResourceCenter/

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/13/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

04/12/2021

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
C. Ladden

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NICOLE PAYNE

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
JUDGE WARNER

MINUTE ENTRY

Before the Court is Defendant’s March 9, 2021 Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Second
Response to the Association’s Motion to Dismiss Filed on February 18, 2021.

IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/13/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

04/12/2022

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
A. Meza

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NICOLE PAYNE

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
JUDGE WARNER

STATUS CONFERENCE SET

Before the Court is the parties’ March 31, 2022 Joint Statement of Discovery Dispute.

IT IS ORDERED setting a Status Conference on April 15, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. (time
allotted: 15 minutes) in this division for the purpose of discussing the dispute. This matter will
be heard by video/audio conference using Court Connect. Court Connect is the Superior Court
in Maricopa County’s new video court hearing platform. For more information about Court
Connect, please visit: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect. Counsel shall have their
calendars available for this proceeding.

A Court Connect video link will be emailed to counsel of record (or self-represented
parties) the day before the hearing. All persons are strongly urged to appear by video instead
of audio alone. For questions, please call Judge Warner’s division at 602.372.2966, or email
Courtroom Assistant Jenna Levine at [email protected].

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

04/12/2022

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2

NOTE: All Court proceedings are recorded digitally and not by a court reporter. Pursuant
to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any proceeding in which a court reporter
is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30, the party must submit a written request to
the assigned judicial officer at least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the hearing, and must
pay the authorized fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial days before the
proceeding. The fee is $140 for a half-day and $280 for a full day.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/15/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

04/13/2022

Docket Code 003
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
A. Meza

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NICOLE PAYNE

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
JUDGE WARNER

HEARING RESET

Before the Court is Defendant’s April 5, 2022 Motion to Continue Return Hearing. Good
cause shown,

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the return hearing regarding Plaintiffs’ March
22, 2022 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order; and
Memorandum of Points and Authorities set on April 21, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. and resetting same to
April 18, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. (time allotted: 30 minutes) in this division. Counsel and the
parties, if representing themselves, are to appear in person before:

The Honorable Randall H. Warner
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building
101 W. Jefferson
4th Floor, Courtroom 414

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

04/13/2022

Docket Code 003
Form V000A
Page 2

Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: 602-372-2966

NOTE: All Court proceedings are recorded digitally and not by a court reporter. Pursuant
to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any proceeding in which a court reporter
is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30, the party must submit a written request to
the assigned judicial officer at least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the hearing, and must
pay the authorized fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial days before the
proceeding. The fee is $140 for a half-day and $280 for a full day.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/18/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

04/15/2022

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
A. Meza

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NICOLE PAYNE

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
JUDGE WARNER

MINUTE ENTRY

East Court Building – Courtroom # 414

9:01 a.m. This is the time set for virtual Status Conference regarding the parties’ March
31, 2022 Joint Statement of Discovery Dispute. Plaintiffs, Rowland Short and Pamela Short, are
present on their own behalf. Defendant, Casa Del Monte, Inc., is represented by counsel, Carlotta
L. Turman and Nicole Payne. All appearances are virtual via Court Connect.

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

The Court has reviewed the parties’ Joint Statement of Discovery Dispute.

Discussion is held regarding the parties’ positions in the dispute.

Based on the matters presented,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

04/15/2022

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall respond to Defendant’s discovery requests no later
than April 22, 2022.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED extending the deadline to serve written discovery to
April 22, 2022.

The Court advises that if the parties wish to extend other deadlines, a motion or
stipulation may be filed for the Court to consider.

9:13 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/19/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

04/18/2022

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
A. Meza

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NICOLE PAYNE

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
JUDGE WARNER

TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE RESET

Pursuant to the Second Amended Scheduling Order electronically signed by the Court on
January 7, 2022 and filed (entered) by the Clerk on January 11, 2022,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the Trial Setting Conference set on April 28, 2022 at 9:00
a.m. and resetting same to June 17, 2022 at 8:45 a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes) in this
division for the purpose of setting trial, if the case is ready to set trial. Counsel shall have their
calendars available for this proceeding. This matter will be heard by video/audio conference
using Court Connect. Court Connect is the Superior Court in Maricopa County’s new video
court hearing platform. For more information about Court Connect, please visit:
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect.

A Court Connect video link will be emailed to counsel of record (or self-represented
parties) the day before the hearing. All persons are strongly urged to appear by video instead
of audio alone. For questions, please call Judge Warner’s division at 602.372.2966, or email
Courtroom Assistant Jenna Levine at [email protected].

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

04/18/2022

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no less than five (5) days before the conference set
above, the parties shall file a joint status report containing (1) a very brief description of the case;
(2) a statement of the status of discovery and other pertinent matters; (3) a list of pending
motions or other matters, whether at issue or not; (4) the status of alternative dispute resolution;
(5) when the parties anticipate the case will be ready for trial; and (6) how many trial days the
parties estimate will be needed.

NOTE: All Court proceedings are recorded digitally and not by a court reporter. Pursuant
to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any proceeding in which a court reporter
is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30, the party must submit a written request to
the assigned judicial officer at least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the hearing, and must
pay the authorized fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial days before the
proceeding. The fee is $140 for a half-day and $280 for a full day.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/19/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

04/18/2022

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
A. Meza

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NICOLE PAYNE

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
JUDGE WARNER

MINUTE ENTRY

East Court Building – Courtroom # 414

9:30 a.m. This is the time set for Order to Show Cause Return Hearing regarding
Plaintiffs’ March 22, 2022 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order;
and Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Plaintiffs, Rowland Short and Pamela Short, are
present on their own behalf. Defendant, Casa Del Monte, Inc., is represented by counsel, Carlotta
L. Turman and Nicole Payne. All appearances are in person.

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

The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary
Restraining Order and Defendant’s Objection. Discussion is held regarding same.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

04/18/2022

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2

THE COURT FINDS based on the avowal of counsel for the association, that the
applied-for line of credit is not going to be approved by the lending institution until this litigation
is complete. Based on that avowal, the Court finds that neither a temporary restraining order nor
a preliminary injunction is needed. For those reasons,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ March 22, 2022 Motion for Preliminary Injunction
and Temporary Restraining Order; and Memorandum of Points and Authorities.

However, in the event that circumstance changes, and in order to give Plaintiffs an
opportunity to come back to court if necessary, should the association be approved for any other
line of credit, the association may not draw against the line of credit until Plaintiffs have had the
opportunity to come to court to seek relief.

9:37 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/10/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

05/06/2021

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
C. Ladden

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NICOLE PAYNE

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
JUDGE WARNER

MINUTE ENTRY

Before the Court is the parties' Joint Status Memorandum. Following the settlement
conference with Judge McCoy, the parties should submit a Joint Report and Proposed
Scheduling Order with a plan for promptly bringing this matter to resolution. The Joint Report
should specifically address whether the parties are requesting and have the right to a jury trial.

IT IS ORDERED that a Joint Report and Proposed Scheduling Order be filed no later
than July 6, 2021.

The Court prefers that lodged orders be in a word processing format that will permit it to
make modifications.

NOTE: Due to the spread of COVID-19, the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative
Order 2020-79 requires all individuals entering a Court facility to wear a mask or face covering

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

05/06/2021

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

at all times they are in the Court facility. With limited exceptions, the Court will not provide
masks or face coverings. Therefore, any individual attempting to enter the Court facility must
have an appropriate mask or face covering to be allowed entry to the Court facility. Any person
who refuses to wear a mask or face covering as directed will be denied entrance to the Court
facility or asked to leave. In addition, all individuals entering a Court facility will be subject to a
health screening protocol. Any person who does not pass the health screening protocol will be
denied entrance to the Court facility.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/21/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

06/17/2022

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
A. Meza

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NICOLE PAYNE

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
JUDGE WARNER

BENCH TRIAL SET

East Court Building – Courtroom # 414

8:46 a.m. This is the time set for virtual Trial Setting Conference. Plaintiffs, Rowland
Short and Pamela Short, are present on their own behalf. Defendant, Casa Del Monte, Inc., is
represented by counsel, Carlotta L. Turman and Nicole Payne. All appearances are virtual via
Court Connect.

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

The Court has reviewed the parties’ June 9, 2022 Joint Status Report. Discussion is held
regarding the status of the case and the parties’ readiness to set trial.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

06/17/2022

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 2

The Court notes that Defendant has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on May 27,
2022, which is not yet fully briefed. The Court will either rule or set oral argument after the
Motion is fully briefed.

Discussion is held regarding a potential discovery dispute. The Court encourages the
parties to confer in attempt to resolve any disputes regarding discovery. If the parties are unable
to resolve their disputes regarding discovery, then the parties may file a joint statement of
discovery dispute in accordance with Rule 26(d) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.

Based on the matters presented to the Court,

IT IS ORDERED setting this matter for a 4-day bench trial on October 17, 18, 19 and
20, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. in this division before,

The Honorable Randall H. Warner
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building
101 W. Jefferson
4th Floor, Courtroom 414
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: 602-372-2966
Fax: 602-372-8746

Trial hours and days are normally 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (with a lunch recess from noon
to 1:30 p.m. and two 15-minute recesses, daily), Monday through Thursday.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Final Trial Management Conference for
September 23, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. (time allotted: 1 hour) in this division. All counsel and self-
represented parties must appear in person and cannot appear telephonically.

8:57 a.m. Matter concludes.

NOTE: All Court proceedings are recorded digitally and not by a court reporter. Pursuant
to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any proceeding in which a court reporter
is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30, the party must submit a written request to
the assigned judicial officer at least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the hearing, and must
pay the authorized fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial days before the
proceeding. The fee is $140 for a half-day and $280 for a full day.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

06/17/2022

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 3

Based on the trial setting, the Court sets the following deadlines and makes the following
orders. The dates set forth in this order are firm dates and will not be extended or modified by
this Court absent good cause. Lack of preparation will not ordinarily be considered good cause.

DUTIES PRIOR TO THE TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

All motions in limine shall be filed no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 2, 2022. Written
responses to motions in limine may be filed no later than 10 calendar days after service of the
motion. No replies shall be filed. The Court may hear argument at the final trial management
conference or may rule without oral argument. The parties must comply with Ariz. R. Civ. P. Rule
7.2(a) before filing any motion in limine. Each side will be limited to filing no more than 5
motions in limine. However, either side may file a brief of unlimited length addressing
evidentiary issues anticipated to arise at trial.

The parties shall file with the Court no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 16, 2022, a
Joint Pretrial Statement, signed by all counsel (and any self-represented party) and containing the
following. This order modifies the requirements of Ariz. R. Civ. P. 16(f).

1. List of Claims. The Joint Pretrial Statement must contain a list of all claims or causes of
action on which a verdict is sought by any party. Such list shall specify (1) the cause of
action (e.g., breach of contract, negligence, etc.), (2) each party asserting that cause of
action, and (3) each party against whom that cause of action is asserted.

2. No List of Issues. The requirements of Ariz. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(2)(A), (B) and (C) are
waived. The parties need not prepare a list of stipulations, agreed contested issues or
other issues considered material. Disputes over what issues are properly in the case will
be decided under Rule 26.1. The parties may, if they wish, submit one or more separate
stipulations regarding facts, evidence or other matters.

3. Final Trial Witnesses. The Joint Pretrial Statement must include an exhibit entitled
Final Trial Witness List, which must list each witness a party expects to call at trial (in
person or by deposition) and the day on which they expect to call that witness. If the
Court finds that a party unreasonably included witnesses not likely to be called at trial, it
may consider appropriate sanctions.

4. Trial Exhibits. As required by Rule 16(f)(E), all trial exhibits must be listed in the Joint
Pretrial Statement along with objections. The Court typically resolves objections to
exhibits at trial, but objections must be listed in the Joint Pretrial Statement to be
preserved. If the Court finds that a party unreasonably included exhibits not likely to be
used at trial, it may consider appropriate sanctions.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

06/17/2022

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 4

5. Deposition Designations. Deposition designations and objections should not be
included in the Joint Pretrial Statement, but must be submitted to the Court three judicial
days before the start of trial. The Court will resolve deposition designations as follows:
By 4:00 p.m. the day before a party plans to read deposition testimony, that party must
provide the Court a hard copy of the deposition transcript with (1) the portions to be read
highlighted, (2) any counter-designations highlighted in a different color, and (3) any
objections written in the margin. The Court will rule on any objections by the next day.
If the party plans to play a video deposition, the transcript must be provided by 4:00 p.m.
two days before the deposition will be played.

6. Other Matters. The Joint Pretrial Statement must include the matters in Ariz. R. Civ. P.
16(f)(2)(H), (I), (J) and (K).

DUTIES AT TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

At the trial management conference, the parties shall be prepared to discuss:

1. Time limits for opening statements, examination of witnesses and closing arguments.

2. Stipulations for the foundation and authenticity of exhibits.

3. Any special scheduling or equipment issues.

The parties may submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (if a request for
findings of fact and conclusions of law has been or will be filed).

The parties are reminded to promptly notify the Court of any settlement pursuant to Rule
5.3(d), Ariz.R.Civ.P.

TRIAL EXHIBITS

Counsel (and any self-represented party) shall deliver all trial exhibits to the Clerk of the
Court no later than 3:00 p.m. on September 23, 2022.

For electronic and in-person exhibit submission, please visit,
https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/services/exhibits-submission. The webpage will provide
instructions and guidance for electronic submission as well as locations for in-person submission
of exhibits.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

06/17/2022

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 5

If filing paper exhibits, please adhere to the following guidelines:

1. Exhibits will be marked consecutively. The clerk cannot reserve numbers for exhibits
that will be provided at a later date. Any missing exhibits will not be considered and
the numbers of all following exhibits will be moved up. If Defendant’s exhibits are
received prior to Plaintiff’s exhibits, the clerk may mark them first with Plaintiff’s
exhibits following.

2. Original Depositions will not be marked as an exhibit. Original depositions to be
used for impeachment purposes shall be provided to the clerk on the first day of trial
to be hand-filed.

3. Do not submit duplicate exhibits, it is essential that the parties confer to avoid
submitting duplicate exhibits

4. If large charts or blow-ups are anticipated to be used, please include a small version
(or photo) which can be marked as the exhibit. The charts and blow-ups are used for
demonstrative purpose only, are not marked as the exhibits, and are returned.

5. Each multiple page exhibit MUST be securely fastened together by staple or pronged
fasteners. DO NOT use paper clips, rubber bands, binder clips or submit loose
sheets of paper.

6. Do not put numbers on the exhibits themselves; instead, use a COLORED sheet
with the exhibit number on it. Place the colored sheet in front of each exhibit,
however, DO NOT staple or paper-clip it to the exhibit itself (this should be the
only loose sheet).

7. The parties are to provide a workable list of exhibits. The list should include a title or
description of each exhibit. (See blank sample of the following table as a reference).

8. If media files or video-recordings are anticipated to be submitted for marking, please
submit them on thumb-drives, not on a CD, and deliver them to the division for
marking.

Exhibit
No.
Identified
By
Description
Should be verifiable when viewing the first page of the exhibit
Stipulated in
Evidence/Objection

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

06/17/2022

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 6

PLEASE NOTE: Each party shall provide a binder of exhibits for the Court’s use. Each
exhibit shall be separated by numbered divider tabs.

For additional assistance in preparation of exhibits contact the courtroom clerk at:
[email protected] or (602) 506-8806

NOTICE: Exhibits Marked But Not Offered

Exhibits submitted to the Court for an evidentiary hearing/trial, whether through hard copy or
submitted electronically, that are marked as exhibits but are not offered into evidence at the
evidentiary hearing/trial will be destroyed following the hearing/trial, unless a party requests that the
evidence be returned at the conclusion of the hearing. Such requests must be filed with the Court and
served on all parties in advance of the hearing/trial or by no later than the conclusion of the
hearing/trial.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/22/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

06/18/2021

Docket Code 331
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE M. SCOTT MCCOY
K. Ballard

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NICOLE PAYNE

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
JUDGE MCCOY
JUDGE WARNER

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

Courtroom: ECB-612

LET THE RECORD REFLECT between approximately 1:50 p.m. and 3:20 p.m., the
Court conducted a settlement conference with the parties in this matter by meeting separately
with each side.

The following parties appeared virtually via Court Connect/Microsoft Teams:

 Plaintiffs Rowland and Pamela Short appeared, representing themselves.
 In support of Plaintiffs, the following homeowners appeared: Diane Dayson, Tyler
Gibson, and Dana Riggall.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

06/18/2021

Docket Code 331
Form V000A
Page 2

 Defendant Casa Del Monte, Inc. was represented by Counsel Carlotta L. Turman and
Nicole Payne.
 Defendant’s client representatives/board members, William McMichael and Jon
Ryder, were present.

No court reporter appeared nor were the proceedings recorded digitally.

Despite the parties’ good faith participation, no settlement was reached.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/15/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

07/14/2021

Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
R. Sheppard

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NICOLE PAYNE

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
JUDGE WARNER

TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE SET

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order electronically signed by the Court on July 13, 2021 and
filed (entered) by the Clerk on July 14, 2021,

IT IS ORDERED setting a Trial Setting Conference on February 24, 2022 at 9:15 a.m.
(time allotted: 15 minutes) in this division for the purpose of setting trial, if the case is ready to
set trial. This matter will be heard by video/audio conference using Court Connect. Court
Connect is the Superior Court in Maricopa County’s new video court hearing platform. For more
information about Court Connect, please visit: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect.

A Court Connect video link will be emailed to counsel of record (or self-represented
parties) the day before the hearing. All persons are strongly urged to appear by video instead
of audio alone. For questions, please call Judge Warner’s division at 602.372.2966, or email
Courtroom Assistant Rebekah Richardson at [email protected].

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

07/14/2021

Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no less than five (5) days before the conference set
above, the parties shall file a joint status report containing (1) a very brief description of the case;
(2) a statement of the status of discovery and other pertinent matters; (3) a list of pending
motions or other matters, whether at issue or not; (4) the status of alternative dispute resolution;
(5) when the parties anticipate the case will be ready for trial; and (6) how many trial days the
parties estimate will be needed.

NOTE: All Court proceedings are recorded digitally and not by a court reporter. Pursuant
to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any proceeding in which a court reporter
is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30, the party must submit a written request to
the assigned judicial officer at least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the hearing, and must
pay the authorized fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial days before the
proceeding. The fee is $140 for a half-day and $280 for a full day.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/15/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

07/14/2021

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
R. Sheppard

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NICOLE PAYNE

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE WARNER

ADR REFERRAL

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order electronically signed by the Court on July 13, 2021 and
filed (entered) by the Clerk on July 14, 2021,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall participate in a mandatory settlement conference.
This case is referred to the Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Department for the
appointment of a judge pro tempore to conduct a settlement conference. The judge pro tempore
is requested to conduct the settlement conference no later than October 22, 2021.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/16/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

07/15/2021

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
G. Grantham/S. Brown

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NICOLE PAYNE

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
JUDGE WARNER

MINUTE ENTRY

The parties having already participated in a settlement conference,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the Court’s July 14, 2021 minute entry (filed July 15, 2021).

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/25/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

07/22/2022

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
N. Johnson

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NICOLE PAYNE

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
JUDGE WARNER

ORAL ARGUMENT SET

Before the Court is Defendant Casa Del Monte, Inc.’s May 27, 2022 Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment.

Oral argument having been requested,

IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument regarding Defendant Casa Del Monte, Inc.’s
May 27, 2022 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment for August 19, 2022 at 11:00 a.m.
(time allotted: 30 minutes) in this division. This matter will be heard by video/audio conference
using Court Connect. Court Connect is the Superior Court in Maricopa County’s new video court
hearing
platform.
For
more
information
about
Court
Connect,
please
visit:
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect.

A Court Connect video link will be emailed to counsel of record (or self-represented
parties) the day before the hearing. All persons are strongly urged to appear by video instead of

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

07/22/2022

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2

audio alone. For questions, please call Judge Warner’s division at 602.372.2966, or email
Courtroom Assistant Jenna Levine at [email protected].

Oral argument shall be limited to thirty (30) minutes with the time divided equally
between the sides.

NOTE: All Court proceedings are recorded digitally and not by a court reporter. Pursuant
to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any proceeding in which a court reporter
is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30, the party must submit a written request to the
assigned judicial officer at least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the hearing, and must pay the
authorized fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial days before the proceeding. The
fee is $140 for a half-day and $280 for a full day.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/05/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

08/03/2021

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
A. Meza

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NICOLE PAYNE

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
JUDGE WARNER

MINUTE ENTRY

Before the Court and fully briefed is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative
Motion for More Definite Statement. Oral argument is not necessary.

Plaintiffs allege wrongdoing by the Association in its management, and also allege
improper actions taken against them individually. The relationship between a homeowner’s
association and a member is contractual, not fiduciary. See Rohde v. Beztak of Arizona, Inc., 164
Ariz. 383, 388, 793 P.2d 140, 145 (App. 1990) (homeowners association does not owe a
fiduciary duty to its members). Consequently, Plaintiffs cannot assert a breach of fiduciary duty
claim, but they can assert a breach of contract claim.

The Association’s contractual duties include those specified in statute and those in the
CC&R’s or other governing documents. They also include common law duties as specified in the
Restatement and adopted by Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195,
201, 165 P.3d 173, 179 (App. 2007). These are:

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

08/03/2021

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

(1) In addition to duties imposed by statute and the governing
documents, the association has the following duties to the members
of the common-interest community:

(a) to use ordinary care and prudence in managing the property and
financial affairs of the community that are subject to its control;

(b) to treat members fairly;

(c) to act reasonably in the exercise of its discretionary powers
including rulemaking, enforcement, and design-control powers;

(d) to provide members reasonable access to information about the
association, the common property, and the financial affairs of the
association.

(2) A member challenging an action of the association under this
section has the burden of proving a breach of duty by the
association. Except when the breach alleged is ultra vires action by
the association, the member has the additional burden of proving
that the breach has caused, or threatens to cause, injury to the
member individually or to the interests of the common-interest
community.

Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 6.13 (2000). Breaches of these duties by the
Association are breaches of contract. To the extent Defendant’s alleged actions—if proven—
violate these duties, Plaintiffs may have a claim for breach of contract.

There is no common law cause of action in Arizona against a homeowner’s association
for abuse of authority, malfeasance, whistleblower, SLAPP, retaliation, harassment, intimidation,
or discrimination. Rather, if the actions that form the basis for these allegations violate the duties
under Section 6.13 of the Restatement (or other duties specified in statute or the CC&R’s), they
could be breaches of contract. It does not appear that Plaintiff is asserting any federal or statutory
cause of action. If they are, such statutory claims have not been sufficiently pled.

To the extent Plaintiff alleges that the Association did not comply with statutory or
CC&R requirements, those allegations could give rise to a claim for injunctive relief.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

08/03/2021

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3

Finally, Defendant argues that some of Plaintiffs’ claims are derivative claims. The Court
disagrees. The Complaint does not purport to and does not in substance assert derivative claims.

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion in part and denying the Motion in part. Plaintiffs’
breach of contract claim against Defendant, including the request for damages and injunctive
relief, may proceed. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief to enforce statutory or CC&R
requirements may proceed. All other causes of action are dismissed.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/24/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

08/19/2022

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
A. Meza

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NICOLE PAYNE

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
JUDGE WARNER

MINUTE ENTRY

East Court Building – Courtroom # 414

11:00 a.m. This is the time set for virtual Oral Argument regarding Defendant’s May 27,
2022 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs, Rowland Short and Pamela Short, are present on
their own behalf. Defendant, Casa Del Monte, Inc., is represented by counsel, Nicole Payne
Carlotta L. Turman. All appearances are virtual via Court Connect.

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

The Court has reviewed the Motion, Response and Reply.

Oral argument is presented to the Court.

Based on the matters presented,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

08/19/2022

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.

11:31 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/24/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

08/22/2022

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
A. Meza

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NICOLE PAYNE

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
JUDGE WARNER

MINUTE ENTRY

Defendant Casa Del Monte, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is under advisement
after argument. For reasons that follow, the Motion is granted.

1.
Background.

This is a homeowners’ association dispute. Plaintiffs Pamela and Rowland Short live in
the Casa Del Monte community, and Defendant Casa Del Monte, Inc. (“the Association”) is the
homeowners association. Pamela Short was previously a member of the Association’s board.

The Shorts assert multiple claims against the Association arising mostly from its board’s
management of the Association. In its August 3, 2021 ruling, the Court dismissed all claims
except for breach of contract, which includes statutory and common law duties the breach of
which constitutes a breach of the CC&R’s. The issue on summary judgment is whether the
Shorts can prove a breach of contract.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

08/22/2022

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2

2.
Legal Standard.

The purpose of summary judgment is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to
support the legal claims asserted, thus necessitating a trial. Orme School. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz.
301, 311, 802 P.2d 1000, 1010 (1990). A motion for summary judgment must be granted “if the
moving party shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

As the Court noted in its August 3, 2021 ruling, homeowners association boards have
certain duties, including to treat members fairly, to use ordinary care and prudence in managing
the association’s financial affairs, and to act reasonably in the exercise of discretionary powers.
Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 6.13 (2000). But in deciding whether an
association has complied with these duties, the Court must give deference to the association in
areas in which it has discretion. To establish that the Association violated its duties, the Shorts
bear the burden of proving that it acted unreasonably. Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v.
Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 201-02, 165 P.3d 173, 179-80 (App. 2007).

3.
The Shorts Have Not Proven A Breach Of Contract.

The Association’s Motion addresses a number of alleged breaches, but the Shorts focus
mainly on the Association’s communications regarding an approved assessment increase. They
argue that the Association breached its duties by informing residents their monthly fees were
increasing by 9.3% when, in fact, the increase was 15.4%. The Association presents evidence
that its maintenance fees increased by 15.4%, while land lease payments did not increase at all,
so the net total increase was approximately 9.3%. The Shorts call this calculation incorrect and
misleading.

The Shorts cannot meet their burden of proving that the way the Association
communicated the increase was unreasonable or violated any duty imposed by the CC&R’s,
Arizona statute, or common law. The communication to residents told them the actual dollar
amount they would be paying, so they knew what the increase was. How the Association
characterized that increase was not a breach of the CC&R’s.

For the first time at oral argument, the Shorts argued that the Association board lacked
authority under the CC&R’s and by-laws to vote for a fee increase. Rather, fee increases must be
approved by two-thirds of the members. The Court ordinarily would not consider a legal
argument raised for the first time in oral argument. But this argument fails on the merits.
Nowhere in the Association’s governing documents is there a requirement that fee increases be

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

08/22/2022

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3

approved by a two-thirds vote of the members. Rather, the by-laws expressly empower the
Association board to establish monthly maintenance charges.

4.
Other Alleged Breaches.

The Association’s Motion addresses several other alleged breaches. The Shorts’
Response briefly addresses some of them, but not all.

The Shorts state that “the Association committed a Breach of Duty to Plaintiffs by failing
to properly maintain property including, but not limited to, roofs, wood, and sidewalk.” But they
offer no evidence to support that claim. Nor do they offer evidence showing, as they allege, that
the Association mismanaged funds, improperly failed to disclose financial interests, or failed to
maintain or provide financial records.

At oral argument, the Shorts stated that they only recently obtained evidence to support
these claims. But none of those materials are in the record. Nor did the Shorts seek Rule 56(d)
relief to obtain more information before responding to the summary judgment motion. The Court
will not decide the Motion based on an argument made for the first time at oral argument, and
based on evidence that is not in the record. See Mitchell v. Gamble, 207 Ariz. 364, 369-70, 86
P.3d 944, 949-50 (App. 2004) (issues raised for the first time at oral argument are untimely).

If a party moving for summary judgment satisfies its burden of showing there is no
evidence to support a claim, the opposing party must show there is evidence creating a genuine
issue of fact. Orme School, 166 Ariz. at 310, 802 P.2d at 1009. If the opposing party fails to do
so, summary judgment is warranted. Id., 802 P.2d at 1009; Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(e). The Shorts
have not presented evidence from which the trier of fact could find for them on the breach of
contract claim.

If the Shorts believe reconsideration is warranted in light of newly disclosed evidence,
they may file an appropriate motion.

5.
Orders.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Final Trial Management Conference set on
September 23, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. in this division.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

08/22/2022

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the 4-day Bench Trial set on October 17, 2022
at 9:30 a.m. in this division.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant lodge a form of judgment, and that any
request for attorneys’ fees or costs be filed, within 30 days.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/19/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

10/11/2021

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
A. Meza

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NICOLE PAYNE

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
JUDGE WARNER

TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE RESET

Pursuant to the First Amended Scheduling Order electronically signed by the Court on
October 6, 2021 and filed (entered) by the Clerk on October 12, 2021,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the Trial Setting Conference set on February 24, 2022 at 9:15
a.m. and resetting same to April 28, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes) in this
division for the purpose of setting trial, if the case is ready to set trial. Counsel shall have their
calendars available for this proceeding. This matter will be heard by video/audio conference
using Court Connect. Court Connect is the Superior Court in Maricopa County’s new video
court hearing platform. For more information about Court Connect, please visit:
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect.

A Court Connect video link will be emailed to counsel of record (or self-represented
parties) the day before the hearing. All persons are strongly urged to appear by video instead
of audio alone. For questions, please call Judge Warner’s division at 602.372.2966, or email
Courtroom Assistant Jenna Levine at [email protected].

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

10/11/2021

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no less than five (5) days before the conference set
above, the parties shall file a joint status report containing (1) a very brief description of the case;
(2) a statement of the status of discovery and other pertinent matters; (3) a list of pending
motions or other matters, whether at issue or not; (4) the status of alternative dispute resolution;
(5) when the parties anticipate the case will be ready for trial; and (6) how many trial days the
parties estimate will be needed.

NOTE: All Court proceedings are recorded digitally and not by a court reporter. Pursuant
to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any proceeding in which a court reporter
is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30, the party must submit a written request to
the assigned judicial officer at least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the hearing, and must
pay the authorized fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial days before the
proceeding. The fee is $140 for a half-day and $280 for a full day.

NOTE: Due to the spread of COVID-19, the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative
Order 2021-109 and the Maricopa County Superior Court Administrative Order 2021-119
require all individuals entering a court facility in Maricopa County to wear a mask or face
covering at all times that they are inside the facility. Any person who refuses to wear a mask or
face covering as directed by court personnel will be denied access to the facility. If a participant
is denied physical access to a courthouse for refusing to wear a face covering, the participant
must contact the assigned judicial division to determine whether the person can participate in the
proceeding using an audio or video connection.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

11/09/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

11/08/2022

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
A. Meza

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
NICOLE PAYNE

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
JUDGE WARNER

MINUTE ENTRY

Before the Court and fully briefed are Defendant’s lodged Form of Judgment, Statement
of Cost, and Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Plaintiffs object to an attorneys’ fees
award, but not to the claimed costs or form of judgment.

Defendant is the successful party, having prevailed on all claims. Further, this matter
arises out of contract. Defendant is therefore eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees under
A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).

A fee award under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) is discretionary, and case law requires the
Court to consider several factors. The Court has considered all relevant factors including those
required by Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 567 (1985). It finds as follows.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

11/08/2022

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

1.
The nature of homeowner’s association litigation.

This is not a factor listed in Warner, but it is relevant here. Homeowner’s associations are
like mini-governments, whose boards are elected by the homeowners to govern matters
pertaining to the community. Their powers and duties are specified in statute, in the CC&R’s,
and to some extent in common law. See Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 6.13
(2000). And within the limits of the CC&R’s and legal requirements, they have broad discretion
to make decisions concerning the community.

It is not uncommon for homeowners to disagree with how their association runs the
community, or how its board runs the association. In most instances, the remedy is a democratic
one: if homeowners do not like how the association is being run, they can elect new directors.
Homeowners are entitled to run their own communities free from judicial oversight, as judges
are neither equipped nor authorized to substitute their judgment for that of homeowners and
those they elect. Only when the association or its board violate duties specified in statute or in
the CC&R’s (including those common law duties that are implied as part of the CC&R’s) may
judicial recourse be obtained.

This is a relevant factor because, when a homeowner seeks judicial recourse, it imposes a
burden on the association, and one purpose of A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) is to mitigate such burdens.
Hall v. Read Dev., Inc., 229 Ariz. 277, 282 (App. 2012). It was Plaintiffs’ decision to sue the
Association. They knew it would have to defend the lawsuit, knew that would cost money, and
knew they bore the risk of a fee award if—as turned out to be the case—they had no evidence to
support a valid claim.

2.
Whether the unsuccessful party’s claim or defense was meritorious.

Plaintiffs’ claims were not meritorious. On summary judgment, they bore the burden of
producing evidence to support any claim for trial and they were unable to do so.

3.
Whether the litigation could have been avoided or settled and the successful
party’s efforts were completely superfluous in achieving the result.

It does not appear litigation could have been avoided. The parties tried to settle, and
ultimately Defendant’s efforts were necessary to achieve the result it achieved.

4.
Whether a fee award would be an extreme hardship.

The evidence does not show that a fee award would be an extreme hardship.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

11/08/2022

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3

5.
Whether the successful party prevailed with respect to all of the relief sought.

Defendant prevailed with respect to all the relief sought.

6.
Whether the matter presented a novel legal question.

Although the facts of every homeowner’s association case are different, the legal issues
here were not novel. The duties Defendant owes to its homeowners are well-established in
Arizona law, and the issue here was whether Plaintiffs could prove a violation of any duty.

7.
Whether the award would discourage other parties with tenable claims or
defenses from litigating them.

Any award of attorneys’ fees against a plaintiff in a homeowners’ association dispute
may discourage those with tenable claims from filing suit. But this risk must be weighed against
the risk that denying fees would encourage lawsuits by those with no tenable claim. If
homeowners can assert meritless claims against their association without consequence, it may
incentivize litigation over using democratic processes to resolve disputes concerning the
association.

In this case, Plaintiffs had ample time and opportunity to adduce evidence supporting a
viable claim. They did not do so, and the burden of their attempt should fall on them rather than
on Defendant. For these reasons, the Court finds that an award of attorneys’ fees is merited. It
further finds that the attorneys’ fees requested are reasonable.

IT IS ORDERED granting the Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, awarding
Defendant its requested costs of $493.53, and awarding Defendant its requested attorneys’ fees
of $120,215.50.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED entering judgment in the form lodged as modified.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/08/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-017523

12/06/2022

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
A. Meza

Deputy

ROWLAND SHORT, et al.
ROWLAND SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

v.

CASA DEL MONTE INC
CARLOTTA L TURMAN

PAMELA SHORT
4525 N 66TH ST UNIT 117
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
JUDGE WARNER

MINUTE ENTRY

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ December 5, 2022 Motion for Reconsideration and Relief
from Money Judgment Under Rule 60(b). Good cause is not shown for reconsideration or Rule
60 relief.

IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion.

Documents