Holding HOA Boards, Attorneys, and Management Companies Accountable
Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2025-012980
Case Header
Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2025-012980: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Tara Condominiums Association.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/09/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
01/08/2026
Docket Code 025
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ADELE PONCE
L. Gilbert
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
JUDGE PONCE
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court is the motion for reconsideration of the Court’s November 17, 2025,
ruling filed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and this Court now lacks jurisdiction to
rule on any motion for reconsideration.
The Court takes no action at this time.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/12/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
02/11/2026
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ADELE PONCE
L. Gilbert
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
JUDGE PONCE
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court are several pending motions.
On December 1, 2025, Plaintiff Lisa Marx filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Court's November 17, 2025, Minute entry denying leave to file a third amended complaint. The
Court notes that a notice of appeal has been filed for the November 17, 2025, ruling so the Court
lacks jurisdiction to reconsider it at this time.
Before the Court is also the objection by Defendant Tara Condominiums Association,
Inc. to the notice of a change of judge. The case has already been transferred and consolidated
before this division, essentially mooting the objection.
Before the Court is also Plaintiff's Motion for clarification, correction, reconsideration
and for an order setting an evidentiary hearing. The Court has considered the motion, and
vacates the portion of its December 4 consolidation, stating Plaintiff did not include an affidavit
with her motion, as the affidavit was included at the end of her motion.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
02/11/2026
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
There is a fully briefed motion to dismiss pending.
IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument on the motion for March 11, 2026 at 10:00 a.m.
(time allotted: 30 minutes) in this division.
At that time the Court shall also set a time for an evidentiary hearing on the request for a
permanent injunction. The motion for reconsideration is otherwise denied.
Counsel and any unrepresented parties shall appear by videoconference through Court
Connect for this hearing.
Information regarding access to Judge Ponce’s virtual courtroom through Court Connect
is listed below.
Microsoft Teams meeting
Join on your computer or mobile app
Join Microsoft Teams Meeting
tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj06
To call into the meeting using your phone:
+1 917-781-4590 United States, New York City (Toll)
Conference ID: 942 024 389#
NOTE: If you are filing a pleading or document that needs the Court’s attention within
48 hours, you must e-mail the pleading document directly to the division at
[email protected].
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/02/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
02/27/2026
Docket Code 073
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ADELE PONCE
L. Gilbert
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
JUDGE PONCE
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court having received Plaintiff’s February 26, 2026 Notice of Withdrawal of Motion
to Compel, without prejudice.
IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s February 25, 2026 Motion to Compel is deemed withdrawn
and no further action will be taken.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/20/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
03/16/2026
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ADELE PONCE
N. Howard/Y. Rodriguez
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
ARI A BOWHAY
DENNIS ANDERSON
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
MARK GOTTMANN
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
JUDGE PONCE
MINUTE ENTRY
East Court Building- Courtroom 714 VC-CV
9:03 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument regarding Defendant Tara Condominium
Association’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Civil Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive
Relief, filed January 2, 2026. Plaintiff Lisa Marx is present on her own behalf. Defendant Tara
Condominiums Association is represented by counsel, Charles H. Oldham, and Ari Bowhay.
Defendants Mark Gottman, and Dennis Anderson are present on their own behalf. All parties are
present telephonically/virtually via Court Connect.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held, regarding the status of the case and the Parties’ settlement efforts.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
03/16/2026
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2
Argument is presented.
Defendant requests Court convert Plaintiff’s Civil Complaint for Declaratory Judgment
and Injunctive Relief to a Rule 15(d) motion.
Based on the discussion held,
IT IS ORDERED converting Plaintiff’s Civil Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and
Injunctive Relief, filed November 21, 2025, in CV2025-062973 into a Rule 15(d) motion in
current case of CV2025-012980.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendant Tara Condominiums Association shall file
response to the Rule 15(d) motion (Complaint in CV2025-062973) by no later than March 30,
2026.
Discussion is held regarding Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion to Limit or Exclude Testimony of
Jean-Marie Bellington, filed February 26, 2026.
Based on the discussion,
IT IS ORDERED the Parties shall meet and confer as to the specific opinions the
Plaintiff has objections to.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Plaintiff shall file a supplement to her Daubert
Motion to Limit or Exclude Testimony of Jean-Marie Bellington by no later than March 30,
2026.
9:47 a.m. Matter concludes.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/23/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
03/16/2026
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ADELE PONCE
L. Gilbert
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
JUDGE PONCE
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court heard argument on the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Tara
Condominiums Association (“Defendant”) on January 2, 2026. The Court has reviewed the
motion, the response by Plaintiff Lisa Marx (“Plaintiff”) and the reply filed by Defendants. The
Court has considered the briefings as well as the arguments of the parties.
The Court notes that Plaintiff filed her original complaint on April 11, 2025, alleging
Defendants had violated various statutes and breached agreements by taking steps to require
homeowners like Plaintiff to provide individual coverage for areas connected to units that were
previously covered by association insurance policies. The complaint was amended, with the
most recent amendment allowed by the Court filed on September 15, 2025. That case has been
proceeding, with discovery ongoing. At the time the original complaint was filed, Defendants
had not yet amended the declaration to require the homeowners rather than the association to
provide coverage for the areas at issue.
Plaintiff’s new action was filed on November 21, 2025, and was assigned case number
CV2025-06273. That complaint raises the same concerns regarding the association’s decisions
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
03/16/2026
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2
and actions to require owners to obtain insurance to cover areas previously insured by the
association, but includes allegations regarding events that have occurred since the filing of the
second amended complaint on September 15, 2025. These include actual amendments to the
governing documents that require homeowners rather than the association to insure areas
previously insured by the association. This Court consolidated that case with this previously
filed case.
Defendant filed this motion to dismiss arguing that this was an impermissible duplicative
proceeding, and that Plaintiff was claim splitting. Defendants maintained that the proper
procedure was for Plaintiff to file a motion pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 15(d) to supplement her
allegations to include the most recent actions of the association related to the change in insurance
coverage provided by the association. The Court agrees that it was not appropriate for Plaintiff
to file a new action raising essentially the same claims against the same parties, and that the
filing, insofar as it is a complaint purporting to assert a new action should be dismissed.
At the time of argument, the Court proposed treating the complaint as a motion to
supplement pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 15(d) and Defendant agreed. Plaintiff also agreed. The
Court set a deadline for Defendant to respond to the allegations.
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS ORDERED converting the petition filed by plaintiff November 21, 2025, to a
motion to supplement pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 15(d).
The Court on its own motion also corrects the January 8, 2026, ruling denying Plaintiff’s
December 1, 2025, motion for reconsideration of the Court’s November 17, 2025, ruling. In
denying the December 1, 2025, motion for reconsideration, the Court stated that this matter was
on appeal and the Court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider the November 17, 2025, ruling. That
was incorrect. The portion of the November 17, 2025, ruling Plaintiff challenged denied her
motion for leave to file a third amended complaint to reassert claims against defendants Mark
Gottmann and Dennis Anderson after the Court had dismissed those claims and entered
judgment, which Plaintiff appealed. Although Plaintiff appealed the judgment, the Court can
still reconsider the ruling denying the motion to amend. The Court, having considered the prior
ruling and the briefing concerning the motion to amend, finds no reason to alter the ruling
denying the motion to amend.
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS ORDERED correcting the January 8, 2026, ruling to reflect the Court denies the
motion for reconsideration as stated above.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
03/16/2026
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3
Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s December 5, 2025, motion for reconsideration of the
Court’s December 4, 2025, order consolidating Plaintiff’s new complaint with the first matter,
and denying Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order without notice as well as
Plaintiff’s request for an evidentiary hearing. At the time, the Court noted that “Plaintiff has
previously raised these issues in another matter, which is pending before this Court…[T]he Court
has already conducted a preliminary injunction hearing addressing similar matters and denied
relief,” on June 24, 2025. The Court concluded a hearing was not warranted on the new motion
“given the similarity of the issues raised.”
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration emphasizes that in denying Plaintiff’s request for a
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order after a hearing, the June 24, 2025, order
emphasized, in part, the fact that the association had not actually amended the declarations to
change the level of insurance provided by the association. At the time of argument on the
motion to dismiss, the parties were in agreement that the association has in fact amended the
declarations to change the insurance coverage it provides, so that homeowners are now required
to purchase different/additional coverage. The Court notes, however, that Plaintiff’s actual
requests for a preliminary injunction and temporary order filed December 1, 2025, were
essentially identical to that filed in the previous action on October 29, 2025 (and attached an
October 5, 2025, filing) which the Court denied November 3, 2025 and November 17, 2025.
Plaintiff maintains Defendant’s procedures were improper, that Defendants failed to
comply with the law, and violated the parties’ agreements among other claims—this is the
subject of the current litigation. Even accepting the change in insurance has been implemented,
however, the Court maintains Plaintiff has failed to establish “immediate and irreparable injury,
loss or damage will likely result” without a preliminary injunction based on the current written
submissions renewing her request for a preliminary injunction hearing. Aside from being
identical to previously denied requests, the motion does not, for example, explain how this
requirement that she obtain additional or different insurance coverage constitutes irreparable
harm that cannot otherwise be averted while this litigation is pending by, for example, obtaining
additional coverage.
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS ORDERED denying the motion for reconsideration.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/30/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
03/26/2026
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ADELE PONCE
L. Gilbert
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
JUDGE PONCE
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s statement of Discovery Dispute filed February 17, 2026,
filed by Plaintiff Lisa Marx (“Plaintiff”). The Court has reviewed the statement, the response
filed by Defendant Tara Condominiums Association, Inc, (“Defendant”) and Plaintiff’s reply.
The motion outlines a dispute between the parties regarding delayed production of
documents by Colby Management subpoenaed by Plaintiff. Per the filings, the production was
going to be issued on February 20, 2026. The reply brief in this case was filed on February 19,
2026. Given the representation that production would occur February 20, 2026, the Court
declines to take action on this filing at this time. The Court also does not find the sanctions
requested by Plaintiff to be appropriate at this time. The Court notes that Plaintiff has now filed
a motion to compel in connection with this production. Plaintiff’s motion outlines the
documentation Plaintiff believes has not been disclosed with the production that was the subject
of this dispute over delayed production. The Court will wait until that motion is fully briefed to
further address the issues regarding any production by Colby.
For the reasons outlined above, the Court takes no action at this time.
04/14/2025 — CV2025012980 ASSOCIATION, TARA CONDOMINIUMS 04/14/2025 HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/15/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
04/14/2025
Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
T. Williams
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
JUDGE WARNER
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has been presented with a request for a Temporary Restraining Order. The
request does not satisfy the requirements under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65 for a TRO. The Court will
therefore set a return hearing on a request for a preliminary injunction.
IT IS ORDERED denying the request for a Temporary Restraining Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a return hearing on the request May 15, 2025, at
9:15 a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes).
Counsel and any unrepresented parties shall appear by videoconference through Court
Connect for this hearing.
Information regarding access to Judge Warner’s virtual courtroom through Court Connect
is listed below.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
04/14/2025
Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 2
Microsoft Teams meeting
Join on your computer or mobile app
Click here to join the meeting
tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj18b
Or call in (audio only) +1 917-781-4590
Phone Conference ID: 146 905 558#
Defendants must appear at the hearing. If a Defendant fails to appear, the Court
may grant the relief requested as uncontested. If Plaintiff fails to appear, the case will be
dismissed for lack of prosecution.
NO EVIDENCE WILL BE TAKEN at the hearing. Instead, the Court will discuss
setting an evidentiary hearing and other matters necessary to bring the issue to resolution.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order along with
the Summons, Complaint, and request for TRO on all defendants no later than May 1, 2025.
Plaintiff must file proof of service before the hearing evidencing service in the manner required
by the Rules of Civil Procedure.
/ s / RANDALL H. WARNER
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
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 either be given to you
by court staff or 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 azjudges.info.
La Constitución de Arizona exige que la Comisión de la Evaluación del Desempeño
Judicial realice evaluaciones de desempeño de los jueces de los tribunales
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
04/14/2025
Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 3
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 frente a usted está siendo revisado,
el personal de la corte le entregará una encuesta o se le enviará por correo
electrónico y usted puede realizar la encuesta en línea. 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 azjudges.info.
05/15/2025 — CV2025012980 ASSOCIATION, TARA CONDOMINIUMS 05/15/2025 HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/16/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
05/15/2025
Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
J. Zinkowich
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
JUDGE WARNER
MINUTE ENTRY
East Court Building - Courtroom 712
9:16 a.m. This the time set for a virtual Order to Show Cause regarding Plaintiff’s
request for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff, Lisa Marx, is present on her own behalf.
Defendants are represented by counsel, Charles H. Oldham.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held regarding current case status.
For the reasons stated on the record,
IT IS ORDERED setting a Preliminary Injunction Hearing on June 23, 2025 at 9:00
a.m. (time allotted: 3 hours) in this division.
Counsel and the parties, if representing themselves, are to appear in person before:
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
05/15/2025
Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 2
The Honorable Randall H. Warner
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building
101 W. Jefferson
7th Floor, Courtroom 712
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: 602-372-2966
Fax: 602-372-8746
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED parties shall file a witness and exhibit list and upload
exhibits with the court no later than June 16, 2025.
Further discussion is held regarding Defendant’s intent to file a Partial Motion to
Dismiss.
9:35 a.m. Matter concludes.
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
her 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).
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 he 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), and mail or deliver a copy to
all opposing parties. In addition, on each document you must include a signed certificate that
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
05/15/2025
Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 3
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
The clerk’s guidelines for filing by mail can be found at:
http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/filing-by-mail.asp
If you are not represented by a lawyer, you must keep the Court updated regarding your
current address and telephone number. If your address or phone number changes at any time, you
must file a notice of change of address/phone number with the Clerk of Court. That form can be
downloaded at no charge from the following website:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/LawLibraryResourceCenter/
Or you may purchase printed forms at any of the following Superior Court Law Library
Resource Center locations (Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.):
Downtown Phoenix Facility
Southeast Facility
East Court Building
222 E. Javelina Ave.
101 W. Jefferson St.
Mesa, AZ 85210-6201
Phoenix, AZ 85003-2243
Northeast Court Facility
Northwest Regional Center
18380 N. 40th Street
14264 W. Tierra Buena Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85032
Surprise, AZ 85374
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
05/15/2025
Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 4
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 either be given to you
by court staff or 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 azjudges.info.
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 frente a usted está siendo revisado,
el personal de la corte le entregará una encuesta o se le enviará por correo
electrónico y usted puede realizar la encuesta en línea. 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 azjudges.info.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/03/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
06/01/2026
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ADELE PONCE
L. Gilbert
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
JUDGE PONCE
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court is the Motion by Plaintiff Lisa Marx (“Plaintiff”) to Limit or Exclude
the Testimony of Jean-Marie Bellington. The Court has reviewed the motion, the Response by
Defendant Tara Condominiums Association, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Plaintiff’s reply. The Court
has also considered Plaintiff’s supplement to the motion, which includes the parties’ stipulation
essentially resolving the issues raised in the motion.
There remain areas about which the parties still disagree regarding the opinions offered
by Jean-Marie Bellington. These were highlighted in green on a copy of the expert’s report
attached to the supplement.
The highlighted statements include:
The date January 11, 2024, as the date a meeting occurred.
A statement that A.R.S. § 33–1250 appears to have been Plaintiff’s preferred
method of amendment.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
06/01/2026
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
A statement that the expert “found the steps taken by the Board to be appropriate”
A statement that the board’s amendment of the declaration was “an option taken
by communities who are unable to obtain insurance or unable to control the
staggering increases in their premiums”
A statement that “[t]he Plaintiff included in their Complaint that the Association
had an obligation to vote upon the formulation of a committee”
A statement that “[t]he Plaintiff included in their Complaint that the Association
did not solicit membership to fill a vacancy on the Board of Management”
A statement that “[m]any of the claims made by the Plaintiff appear to be her
opinion on how she believes the Board should manage the community.”
Rule 702 provides that:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the
proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will
help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in
issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts
of the case.
Ariz. R. Evid. 702. The Rule “recognizes that trial courts should serve as gatekeepers in assuring
that proposed expert testimony is reliable and thus helpful to the jury's determination of facts at
issue.” Ariz. R. Evid. 702 cmt. (2012). But the comment to the Rule also notes that “[t]he trial
court's gatekeeping function is not intended to replace the adversary system.” Id. Rather,
“[c]ross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of
proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.” Id.;
cf. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 596 (1993).
The Court notes as an initial matter, that the issues regarding these highlighted statements
were not specifically raised in Plaintiff’s motion and reply—they were mentioned in the
stipulation the parties submitted. The Court also notes that it is not clear to the Court exactly
what Plaintiff’s objection to each statement is or what Defendants’ response would be. Plaintiff
is requesting preclusion of the expert’s specific opinions or her entire report because they
indicate a flawed methodology pursuant to Ariz. R. Evid. 702.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
06/01/2026
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3
To the extent Plaintiff believes the statements are either inaccuracies, improper
assumptions, or mischaracterizations of her complaint, these are issues for cross examination
rather than a basis for preclusion at this stage. The Court also notes that to the extent a dispute
remains regarding specific opinions or mischaracterizations, and whether it is improper for
Defendants’ expert to frame Plaintiff’s complaint in a particular way, Plaintiff may raise the
issue in a motion in limine prior to trial. At the time the motions are argued, if the parties remain
unable to resolve the issue, the Court can hear from the parties, precisely what Plaintiff’s
objection to the statements is and any response from the Defendants and determine whether to
limit the expert’s testimony.
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS ORDERED denying the motion as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the requests in Plaintiffs’ supplement requesting
additional limitation or exclusion of the testimony of Jean-Marie Bellington.
06/23/2025 — CV2025012980 ASSOCIATION, TARA CONDOMINIUMS 06/23/2025 HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/24/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
06/23/2025
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
C. Lacey
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
ARI A BOWHAY
JUDGE WARNER
MINUTE ENTRY
Prior to the commencement of the proceedings, Plaintiff's exhibits 1 through 39 are
submitted electronically. Plaintiff Lisa Marx, and Defendants Mark Gottmann and Dennis
Anderson are sworn.
9:00 a.m. This is the time set for a Preliminary Injunction Hearing. Plaintiff Lisa Marx
is present on her own behalf. Defendants Tara Condominiums Association, Mark Gottmann, and
Dennis Anderson are represented by counsel, Charles H. Oldham and Ari A. Bowhay.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Brief discussion is held regarding Defendants' exhibits.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT that Defendants did not submit exhibits through Case
Center, nor did they submit hard copies of their exhibits to the Clerk of the Court.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
06/23/2025
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2
Argument is presented by the parties regarding Plaintiff's request for preliminary
injunction.
Plaintiff's case:
Plaintiff's exhibits 1, 2, 5 through 34, and 36 are received in evidence.
10:24 a.m. Court stands at recess.
10:33 a.m. Court reconvenes with respective parties and counsel present.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Defendants' case:
Lisa Marx testifies.
Upon motion of Defendants, Plaintiff's exhibit 37 is received in evidence.
Lisa Marx finishes testifying.
Mark Gottmann testifies.
Mark Gottman finishes testifying.
For reasons stated on the record,
IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.
11:56 a.m. Matter concludes.
06/24/2025 — CV2025012980 ASSOCIATION, TARA CONDOMINIUMS 06/24/2025 HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/26/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
06/24/2025
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
L. Gilbert
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
JUDGE WARNER
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court and fully briefed is Defendant Tara Condominium Association’s May
28, 2025 Partial Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims That Are Derivative In Nature Pursuant
To Rule 12(B)(6). The Motion argues that several of Plaintiff’s claims are derivative. Oral
argument is not necessary.
Plaintiff’s claims against the Association are not derivative. A derivative action is
brought in the name of and on behalf of a company against others, typically the company’s
officers or directors. Plaintiff’s claims are all brought to assert her rights as a member against the
Association under the CC&R’s. To the extent she seeks damages, Plaintiff may only recover
damages she herself has suffered and can prove. She may not recover damages for harm to the
others or to the community in general.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to compel the Association to take certain
actions required by the CC&R’s or other law, that is not a derivative claim. The Court does not
decide—because the issue is not before it—whether any of Plaintiff’s claims requires joining
other members of the Association.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
06/24/2025
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
At page 10 of the Motion, the Association argues that a claim for sanctions against two
board members is derivative. The Motion only purports to be filed by the Association. See Page
1 (“Defendant, Tara Condominium Association (the ‘Association’) hereby requests. . . .”); Page
11 (“Defendant Tara Condominium Association hereby respectfully requests. . . .”). If those
board members wish to seek dismissal, they may file a motion.
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant Tara Condominium Association’s May 28, 2025
Partial Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims That Are Derivative In Nature Pursuant To Rule
12(B)(6).
06/24/2025 — CV2025012980 ASSOCIATION, TARA CONDOMINIUMS 06/24/2025 HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/25/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
06/24/2025
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
C. Lacey
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
ARI A BOWHAY
JUDGE WARNER
MINUTE ENTRY
Plaintiff Lisa Marx’s request for preliminary injunction is under advisement following an
evidentiary hearing. Marx is a homeowner and member of Defendant Tara Condominium
Association. She alleges that the Association and the individual Defendants are taking action in
violation of the CC&R’s. She seeks a preliminary injunction on several issues.
1.
Legal Standard.
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show:
1.
A strong likelihood of success at trial on the merits;
2.
The possibility of irreparable injury not remediable by damages if a
preliminary injunction is not granted;
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
06/24/2025
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2
3.
The balance of hardships favors a preliminary injunction; and
4.
Public policy favors an injunction.
IB Property Holdings, LLC v. Rancho Del Mar Apartments Ltd. Partnership, 228 Ariz. 61, 64-65
(App. 2011). “Alternatively, the movant can seek to prove one of two conjunctive pairings: (1)
probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) the presence of
serious questions and the balance of hardships tipping sharply in the movant’s favor.” City of
Flagstaff v. Arizona Dep’t of Admin., 255 Ariz. 7, 12 (App. 2023).
2.
Insurance.
Ms. Marx first seeks injunctive relief to prevent the Association from pursuing a
proposed change in its insurance. The proposal, Ms. Marx argues, violates the CC&R’s and
Arizona statute.
To date, all the Association Board has done is vote to hire a lawyer to “begin the process
to prepare amended CC&R’s to change our building insurance from ‘Walls-in’ H06 plans to H03
homeowner plans.” It is therefore premature for the Court to intervene on this issue. To amend
the CC&R’s first requires a concrete amendment, then it requires a vote of the members. The
Court has no way of deciding whether an amendment is lawful without knowing what the
amendment says. And the members might not even approve such an amendment. The Court will
not issue an injunction to prevent the Association from even considering an amendment that
might or might not be lawful, and that might or might not be approved.
Ms. Marks has not proven serious questions on the merits as to this issue.
3.
Taking Action Outside Of An Open Board Meeting.
Ms. Marks alleges that the Association and its officers have done things outside of an
open board meeting which, under the CC&R’s, must be voted on in an open meeting. It is clear
that the Board has taken certain actions without a vote that should have required a vote. These
include appointing a new member of the Board, and hiring legal counsel. It is not clear that the
deficiency cannot be ratified at a properly-notice Board meeting.
Other items of which Ms. Marks complains are less clear. She testified that some
landscaping work can be done without a Board vote while other landscaping work requires a
Board vote, but was unable to identify a standard in the CC&R’s by which to distinguish the two.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
06/24/2025
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3
On this this issue, Ms. Marks did not meet her burden of proving irreparable harm
pending the resolution of this case on the merits. The Board—which does not have the assistance
of a management company—needs to be more vigilant about ensuring important matters are
considered and voted upon in open meetings. But there is no present harm identified which must
be remedied by a preliminary injunction.
4.
Production Of Records.
Ms. Marx presented evidence of delay in obtaining records from the Association. The
evidence shows Ms. Marks has made dozens of records requests to the Association in the past
months, and that the unpaid volunteer officers have done their best to comply. On this issue, Ms.
Marks has not proven irreparable harm.
5.
Criticizing Ms. Marx To Other Members.
Ms. Marks seeks injunctive relief preventing the Association and officers from criticizing
her to other members of the community. She identified nothing unlawful or defamatory about the
statements made about her. On this issue, Ms. Marks has not proven substantial questions on the
merits.
6.
Association Financials.
Ms. Marks seeks injunctive relief with regard to the Association’s financial statements.
The evidence showed that the Board has done its best to properly report financial information,
and that it has relied on a professional to assist it. The reporting may have flaws, but it does not
violate the CC&R’s. Ms. Marks has not proven substantial questions on the merits as to this issue
or irreparable harm.
7.
Conclusion And Orders.
Based on the foregoing, Ms. Marx has not met her burden of proving both a likelihood of
success on the merits or serious questions on the merits, and irreparable harm if a preliminary
injunction is not issued. The request for a preliminary injunction is therefore denied.
IT IS ORDERED denying the motion for preliminary injunction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, in order to bring this matter to resolution, that the parties
file a joint report and proposed scheduling order by August 15, 2025.
07/23/2025 — CV2025012980 ASSOCIATION, TARA CONDOMINIUMS 07/23/2025 HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/25/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
07/23/2025
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
J. Zinkowich
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
JUDGE WARNER
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court and fully briefed is Defendant’s July 15, 2025 Motion for More Definite
Statement and to Strike Redundant Matter. Plaintiff’s Complaint does not comply with Rule 8’s
requirement that a complaint contain a “short and plain statement of the claim.” See Anserv Ins.
Servs., Inc. v. Superior Court (King), 192 Ariz. 48, 49 (1998) (finding that lengthy complaint did
not comply with Rule 8).
IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff file an amended complaint by August 15,
2025 that complies with Rule 8.
07/31/2025 — CV2025012980 ASSOCIATION, TARA CONDOMINIUMS 07/31/2025 HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/05/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
07/31/2025
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
J. Zinkowich
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
JUDGE WARNER
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court and fully briefed is Defendants’ Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson’s
July 15, 2025 Motion to Dismiss. The Motion is granted. As a member of the Tara
Condominium Association, Plaintiff Lisa Marx may assert claims asserting violations of the
CC&R’s and her rights as a member. But these claims are against the Association, not individual
board members. As officers or directors in the Association, Gottmann and Anderson do not have
personal liability for breaches of the CC&R’s or other obligations that the Association owes to
its member.
To the extent Marx alleges that Gottmann or Anderson exceeded their powers or acted
contrary to the interests of the Association, these are derivative claims which must be brought on
behalf of the Association.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
07/31/2025
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion and dismissing all claims asserted against
Defendants Gottmann and Anderson.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants lodge a form of judgment and file any
application for attorneys’ fees or costs within 30 days.
08/12/2025 — CV2025012980 ASSOCIATION, TARA CONDOMINIUMS 08/12/2025 HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/14/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
08/12/2025
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
J. Zinkowich
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
JUDGE WARNER
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s August 10, 2025 Motion for Partial Reconsideration of
July 31, 2025 Ruling Dismissing All Claims Against Individual Directors Mark Gottmann and
Dennis Anderson.
IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion.
09/10/2025 — CV2025012980 ASSOCIATION, TARA CONDOMINIUMS 09/10/2025 HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/12/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
09/10/2025
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
J. Zinkowich
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
JUDGE WARNER
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court and fully briefed is Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of Amended
Complaint. The Court’s order granting the Motion for More Definite Statement and ordering that
an amended complaint be filed was not permission to assert new claims against dismissed
parties. If Plaintiff wishes to add new claims she must file a motion to amend under Rule 15.
IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion. Within 15 days, Plaintiff must file an amended
complaint that does not include the dismissed individual parties.
09/12/2025 — CV2025012980 ASSOCIATION, TARA CONDOMINIUMS 09/12/2025 HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/15/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
09/12/2025
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
A. Walker
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
JUDGE WARNER
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s September 10, 2025 Motion to Strike Defendant’s Reply in
Support of Motion to Strike Portions of Amended Complaint.
IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion.
09/30/2025 — CV2025012980 ASSOCIATION, TARA CONDOMINIUMS 09/30/2025 HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/02/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
09/30/2025
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
J. Zinkowich
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
JUDGE WARNER
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court are Defendants’ Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and
Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Order on Attorney Fees, which includes Plaintiff’s objection to
Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees.
By virtue of the CC&R’s, the dismissed Defendants are entitled to an award of
reasonable attorneys’ fees. And Plaintiff’s filing of an amended complaint which included
already-dismissed parties did not revive claims against those dismissed parties.
The amount of attorneys’ fees sought is reasonable and the costs sought are properly
taxable.
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
09/30/2025
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Order on Attorney
Fees.
The Court has entered judgment in the form lodged as modified.
10/03/2025 — CV2025012980 ASSOCIATION, TARA CONDOMINIUMS 10/03/2025 HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/07/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
10/03/2025
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
J. Zinkowich
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
JUDGE WARNER
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. The Motion is correct that the
Court granted the attorneys’ fees request prematurely according to the parties’ stipulation.
IT IS ORDERED vacating the September 30, 2025 minute entry filed October 2, 2025.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s September 7, 2025 Motion to Vacate
Order on Attorneys’ Fees. The dismissal of the individual defendants was proper, and Plaintiff’s
filing of an amended complaint including already-dismissed parties did not revive claims against
them.
10/14/2025 — CV2025012980 ASSOCIATION, TARA CONDOMINIUMS 10/14/2025 HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/16/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
10/14/2025
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
J. Zinkowich
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE WARNER
ADR REFERRAL
Pursuant to the Scheduling Order electronically signed by the Court on October 14, 2025
and filed (entered) by the Clerk on October 15, 2025,
IT IS ORDERED that the parties 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 March 9, 2026.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than November 12, 2025 the parties file
with the Court a Joint Request and Certification of Readiness for Setting Settlement Conference
Under Rule 16(i), Ariz. R. Civ. P. The Joint Request and Certification of Readiness for Setting
Settlement Conference Under Rule 16(i), Ariz. R. Civ. P. is available through the Law Library
Resource Center website:
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/media/o4ilqst5/cvadr40fz.pdf
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
10/14/2025
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/media/cbqbemdl/cvadr40fsz.pdf
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to file a Joint Request and Certification of
Readiness for Setting Settlement Conference will result in the Court vacating the ADR referral
for appointment of a judge pro tempore, with leave for the parties to seek another ADR referral
upon completion of the certification process.
10/15/2025 — CV2025012980 ASSOCIATION, TARA CONDOMINIUMS 10/15/2025 HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/17/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
10/15/2025
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
J. Zinkowich
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
JUDGE WARNER
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court and fully briefed is Defendants’ September 4, 2025 Application for
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.
The CC&R provisions Defendants cite do not authorize an award of attorneys’ fees to the
individual board members, Defendants Gottman and Anderson. But they are entitled to costs in
the amount of $13.40 and a Rule 54(b) judgment is warranted so that they do not have to remain
in this case while claims against the Association are brought to conclusion.
IT IS ORDERED granting the Application as to costs only.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED entering judgment in the form lodged as modified
10/16/2025 — CV2025012980 ASSOCIATION, TARA CONDOMINIUMS 10/16/2025 HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/17/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
10/16/2025
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
J. Zinkowich
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE WARNER
MINUTE ENTRY
A clerical error having been made,
IT IS ORDERED correcting the ADR Referral minute entry dated October 14, 2025 and
filed October 16, 2025 as follows:
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than November 12, 2025 …”
Is corrected to
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than December 9, 2025 …”
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remainder of the October 16, 2025 minute entry
shall remain in full force and effect.
The minute entry dated October 16, 2025 is available for viewing at:
https://courtminutes.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/index.asp.
11/03/2025 — CV2025012980 ASSOCIATION, TARA CONDOMINIUMS 11/03/2025 HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/05/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
11/03/2025
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
J. Zinkowich
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
JUDGE WARNER
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s October 29, 2025 Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (ARCP 65(b); Expedited Consideration Requested). The Motion does not
demonstrate that an emergency exists.
IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion.
11/17/2025 — CV2025012980 ASSOCIATION, TARA CONDOMINIUMS 11/17/2025 HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/18/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
11/17/2025
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RANDALL H. WARNER
J. Zinkowich
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
JUDGE WARNER
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court are several motions.
First are Plaintiff’s October 5, 2025 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Permanent
Injunction and Permanent Injunction and October 9, 2025 Motion to Expedited Hearing. The
Court already conducted a preliminary injunction hearing, and Plaintiff is not entitled to another
preliminary injunction hearing every time the Board is acting or proposing to act in a way
Plaintiff believes is illegal. The matters stated in the October 5 Motion do not warrant another
preliminary injunction hearing.
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s October 5, 2025 Motion for Preliminary Injunction
and Permanent Injunction and Permanent Injunction and October 9, 2025 Motion to Expedited
Hearing.
Next is Plaintiff’s September 22, 2025 Motion for Leave to File Third Amended
Complaint Pursuant to Arizona Rule Of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). Good cause is not shown to re-
assert claims against individual defendants.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
11/17/2025
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s September 22, 2025 Motion for Leave to File
Third Amended Complaint Pursuant to Arizona Rule Of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).
Next are Defendants Mark Gottmann and Dennis Anderson’s November 12, 2025 Motion
for Reconsideration of Order Denying Application for Attorneys’ Fees And, Alternatively,
Motion for Leave to Supplement Fee Application (A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A)), and Plaintiff’s
November 13, 2025 Request For Leave To File Response To Defendants' Motion For
Reconsideration Of Order Denying Application For Attorneys’ Fees And Alternatively, Motion
For Leave To Supplement Fee Application. A notice of appeal was filed as to the judgment in
favor of Defendants Gottmann and Anderson, so the Court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider these
requests.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/26/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
11/25/2025
Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ADELE PONCE
D. Adams
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
JUDGE PONCE
MINUTE ENTRY
This matter having been reassigned to this division,
IT IS ORDERED setting a Trial Setting Conference on August 6, 2026 at 9:15 a.m.
(time allotted: 15 minutes) in this division.
Counsel and any unrepresented parties shall appear by videoconference through Court
Connect for this hearing.
Information regarding access to Judge Ponce’s virtual courtroom through Court Connect
is listed below.
Microsoft Teams meeting
Join on your computer or mobile app
Join Microsoft Teams Meeting
tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj06
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
11/25/2025
Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 2
To call into the meeting using your phone:
+1 917-781-4590 United States, New York City (Toll)
Conference ID: 942 024 389#
NOTE: If you are filing a pleading or document that needs the Court’s attention within
48 hours, you must e-mail the pleading document directly to the division at
[email protected].
11/25/2025 — CV2025012980 ASSOCIATION, TARA CONDOMINIUMS 11/25/2025 HONORABLE JOHN L. BLANCHARD View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/26/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
11/25/2025
Docket Code 066
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOHN L. BLANCHARD
N. Johnson
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
DENNIS ANDERSON
13661 N NEWCASTLE DR
SUN CITY AZ 85351
MARK GOTTMANN
13621 N NEWCASTLE DR
SUN CITY AZ 85351
ARI A BOWHAY
JUDGE BLANCHARD
JUDGE PONCE
JUDGE WARNER
CASE REASSIGNMENT - CIVIL PRESIDING JUDGE
This case was previously assigned to the Honorable Randall H. Warner. A Notice of
Change of Judge has been filed by Plaintiff. The case was transferred to the Civil Presiding Judge
for reassignment.
IT IS ORDERED that this case be reassigned to Civil Calendar CVJ-06, the Honorable
Adele Ponce, 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 20 days of the date of this order.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
11/25/2025
Docket Code 066
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any and all hearings set by the noticed judge are
vacated, to be reset by the new division.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall jointly file within 10 days of the date
of this minute entry, a notice with the new division listing any outstanding motions (including
the file dates), whether they are ripe for resolution, and any hearings that need to be reset.
12/03/2025 — CV2025012980 MARX, LISA 12/03/2025 HONORABLE ADELE PONCE View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/04/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-062973
CV 2025-012980
12/03/2025
Docket Code 053
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ADELE PONCE
L. Gilbert
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION INC,
et al.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS
ASSOCIATION INC
13621 N NEWCASTLE DR
SUN CITY AZ 85351
CHARLES H OLDHAM
DOCKET CV TX
JUDGE PONCE
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court is the emergency motion for temporary restraining order without notice
filed by Plaintiff Lisa Marx (“Plaintiff”) in CV2025-062973. The motion asks the court to enter
a lodged temporary restraining order without notice against Tara Condominiums Association Inc.
(“Defendant”). Plaintiff, however, did not file a proposed temporary restraining order, and it is
unclear what specific order she wishes for the Court to enter at this time. Plaintiff’s complaint
and motion outline concerns that the Defendant condominium association, to which Plaintiff
belongs, made changes in their policies that now require homeowners to be responsible for
obtaining individual insurance that was previously provided by the Defendant
association. Plaintiff alleges the changes were made in violation of statutes and the rules and
policies concerning policy changes in the condominium association. Plaintiff’s complaint seeks
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-062973
CV 2025-012980
12/03/2025
Docket Code 053
Form V000A
Page 2
declaratory and injunctive relief including an order stating the policy changes are unlawful and
unenforceable, an order enjoining Defendant from enforcing the changes and nullifying the
recorded declaration including the changes.
The Court denies the motion for a temporary restraining order. Plaintiff’s motion did
not include an affidavit, as required pursuant to Rule 65(b)(1)(A) of the Arizona Rules of Civil
Procedure. Nor does Plaintiff satisfy the requirements of Rule 65(b)(1)(B) indicating efforts to
provide notice and/or explaining why notice should not be required. The substance of Plaintiff’s
complaint motion also does not establish “immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will
likely result,” if the Court fails to enter a temporary restraining order at this time.
The Court also notes that Plaintiff has previously raised these issues in another matter
CV2025-012980, which is pending before this Court. The Court also notes that the Court has
already conducted a preliminary injunction hearing addressing similar matters and denied
relief. The Court does not find that another hearing is warranted at this time given the similarity
of the issues raised.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying the motion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED consolidating cause number(s) CV 2025-062973 and CV
2025-012980 under cause number CV2025-012980 for all further proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Trial Setting Conference in CV2025-062973
set for August 6, 2026, and resetting a Trial Setting Conference in CV2025-012980 for August
6, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in this division.
Counsel and any unrepresented parties shall appear by videoconference through Court
Connect for this hearing.
Information regarding access to Judge Ponce’s virtual courtroom through Court Connect
is listed below.
Microsoft Teams meeting
Join on your computer or mobile app
Join Microsoft Teams Meeting
tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj06
To call into the meeting using your phone:
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-062973
CV 2025-012980
12/03/2025
Docket Code 053
Form V000A
Page 3
+1 917-781-4590 United States, New York City (Toll)
Conference ID: 942 024 389#
NOTE: If you are filing a pleading or document that needs the Court’s attention within
48 hours, you must e-mail the pleading document directly to the division at
[email protected].
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/19/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-012980
12/17/2025
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ADELE PONCE
L. Gilbert
Deputy
LISA MARX
LISA MARX
13610 N 111TH AVE
SUN CITY AZ 85351
v.
TARA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, et al.
CHARLES H OLDHAM
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE PONCE
ADR REFERRAL VACATED
By minute entry dated October 16, 2025, and in accordance with AO 2023-009, this
Court directed parties to submit their certification as to their readiness to proceed with their ADR
settlement conference by no later than December 9, 2025. The certification has not been
submitted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED vacating the ADR referral. The parties may seek a
new ADR referral at such time they can certify their ability to proceed.
