05/16/2025 — CV2025015220 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, SAFARI DRIVE 05/16/2025 HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/20/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-015220
05/16/2025
Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
M. R. Diaz
Deputy
JIMBO L L C
KIM ROBERT MAEROWITZ
v.
SAFARI DRIVE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
SAFARI DRIVE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
4739 N SCOTTSDALE RD
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
ERIN E MCMANIS
JUDGE COFFEY
EVIDENTIARY HEARING SET
East Court Building – Courtroom 511
2:31 p.m. This is the time set for a telephonic Order to Show Cause Hearing regarding
Plaintiff JIMBO LLC’S Motion For Preliminary Injunction, filed April 30, 2025. Plaintiff
JIMBO, LLC, is represented by counsel of record, Kim Robert Maerowitz. Defendant Safari
Drive Condominium Association is represented by counsel, Erin E. McManis. All participants
appear telephonically.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held regarding service.
Discussion is held regarding the resolution of this matter.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-015220
05/16/2025
Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 2
Discussion is held in regards to setting an Evidentiary Hearing.
Based upon the discussion held on the record,
IT IS ORDERED setting an Evidentiary Hearing regarding Plaintiff JIMBO LLC’S
Motion For Preliminary Injunction, filed April 30, 2025, on June 30, 2025, 2:00 p.m. (2 hours
allotted) before:
THE HONORABLE DAVID MCDOWELL
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING
5TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 511
101 W. JEFFERSON STREET
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
NOTE: Due to judicial rotations, the Honorable David McDowell is assuming this
calendar effective June 30, 2025.
The parties/attorneys are advised that the failure to appear for the hearing may result
in sanctions, including dismissal of the action per Rule 16(F) of the Arizona Rules of Civil
Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED counsel shall file no later than (seven days prior to hearing)
a Joint Prehearing Statement signed by all counsel/parties. The Joint Prehearing Statement shall
include a final hearing witness list. This list shall contain the name of each witness a party actually
intends to call at the hearing, the day on which he/she intends to call each witness, and the estimated
time needed for direct, cross, and re-direct examination.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall indicate in the Joint Pretrial Statement
which exhibits they have agreed will be admissible at trial as well as any specific objections that
will be made to any exhibit if offered at trial which is not agreed to be admitted. Reserving all
objections to the time of trial will not be permitted.
Continuances, postponements and schedule changes will not ordinarily be granted. Any
postponement or change will be granted only in accordance with appropriate rules, based on a
showing of good cause, and requires the express written approval of the Court.
Discussion is held regarding discovery.
2:54 p.m. Matter concludes.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-015220
05/16/2025
Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 3
EXHIBIT REQUIREMENTS
IT IS ORDERED that the parties submit any proposed hearing exhibits as follows:
1. Submit Hearing Exhibits through Case Center. This division is using Case Center
(also known as Case Lines), a statewide electronic exhibit portal. Attorneys must submit
exhibits through Case Center; Self-Represented Litigants can request to opt-out of Case
Center by contacting the judge’s division at [email protected]. Unless
otherwise ordered, Exhibits must be submitted at least 5 business days (not including
weekends) before the hearing as provided below.
2. Opting Out of Case Center (Self-Represented Litigants only). A Self-Represented
Litigant may opt out of Case Center no less than 10 calendar days before the
trial/evidentiary hearing (or within 24 hours of being served with notice if the party is
served less than 10 calendar days before the evidentiary hearing). The Self-Represented
Litigant must email the other Self-Represented Litigants or counsel and the assigned
judicial division to notify the court that they are opting out and to request instructions for
submitting exhibits. Self-Represented Litigants must comply with the deadline for
submitting Exhibits. Each party must make sure the Court has the party’s valid current
email address. If you do not have an email address, you can obtain a free one through
accounts.google.com. Each party must register for Case Center at
www.azcourts.gov/digitalevidence. The website has links to training resources that will
guide you through uploading exhibits and navigating Case Center. The Clerk of Court
will email each party (or their attorney of record) a case-specific Case Center link that the
party will use to upload exhibits. For assistance with Case Center invitations only, email
the Clerk of Court at [email protected]. The email subject line
should include the case number. The body of the email should include the parties’ names,
the assigned judge’s name, and explain that the sender is requesting help with a Case
Center invitation.
3. Exhibit Format. Case Center accepts most digital formats (including photographs, PDFs,
Word files, audio files, and video files). Case Center automatically numbers the exhibits.
Plaintiff/Petitioner’s exhibits have an A- prefix (Exhibit A1, A2, etc.), and
Defendant/Respondent’s exhibits have a B- prefix (Exhibit B1, B2, etc.). During the
hearing, the parties must refer to exhibits using the Case Center exhibit numbers. For
assistance with Case Center, contact AOC Support Services at (602) 452-3519 (option 5)
or [email protected], Monday – Friday 7 AM – 6 PM, excluding State holidays.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-015220
05/16/2025
Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 4
4. Exhibit Upload Assistance. Scanners are available at each of the regional court Law
Library Resource Centers. Each scanner has an attached computer and instructions on
how to upload exhibits into Case Center.
5. Exchange Exhibits. At least 5 business days (not including weekends) before the
hearing, you must give the other party copies of all exhibits you submitted for use at the
hearing.
6. Physical Exhibits. The Courtroom Clerk will handle marking physical exhibits for Self-
Represented Litigants who opt out of Case Center. Attorneys who submit physical
exhibits must create a placeholder in Case Center and include “Physical Exhibit” in the
name of the exhibit prior to submitting the physical exhibit(s) to the judge’s division. The
collection of physical exhibits must have a Physical Exhibit Case Coversheet that
includes the following: (1) the name of the party submitting the exhibit(s); (2) the case
number; (3) the date of hearing; and (4) the exhibit number(s) and description(s). In
addition, each individual exhibit must have an Exhibit Coversheet printed on color paper
indicating the physical exhibit’s exhibit number in Case Center. For Self-Represented
Litigants, if any individual exhibit is a document that is longer than ten (10) pages, each
page of the exhibit should be numbered. Division staff will provide the exhibits to the
Courtroom Clerk for marking. The Courtroom Clerk will mark physical exhibit(s) with
the same exhibit number used in Case Center
7. Devices and WiFi. If needed, hearing participants may request to use a court-provided
devices to view and present exhibits during an evidentiary hearing. All requests for
access to a court-provided device must be submitted to the division via email 5 calendar
days before the Hearing (not including weekends). Hearing participants can connect to
the court’s free MCPUBLIC WiFi for up to 90 minutes. For evidentiary hearings/trials
longer than 90 minutes, WiFi users, the parties may request access to MCSponsored WiFi
which will allow access to WiFi without the need to reconnect after 90 minutes by
emailing the assigned division 10 calendar days in advance of any Hearing. Self-
Represented Litigant access will be valid for 60 days; lawyer and nonlawyer
representative access will be valid for 365 days.
8. Remote Witnesses. Any party who calls a witness who is appearing remotely (i.e., by
telephone or videoconference) should either (1) provide the witness with a copy of all
exhibits or (2) ensure that the remote witness has an electronic device available that
allows them to view exhibits displayed on a screen through either Case Center or Teams.
9. Exhibit Presentation During Hearings. Unless indicated otherwise in any hearing-
specific court minute entry or order, offerors may, but are not required to, use Case
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-015220
05/16/2025
Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 5
Center to present (e.g., show to the court, a witness, or the jury) evidence during a
Hearing. Options for presentation of evidence include but are not limited to the
following: (1) use of paper copies of the exhibits that have been uploaded to Case Center;
(2) use of evidence presentation software and/or PDF viewers to display PDFs of exhibits
that have been uploaded to Case Center; (3) screen sharing of Case Center through Court
Connect (Teams); and (4) use of Case Center “Presentation” mode to share exhibits.
Parties are strongly encouraged to download PDFs of their Case Center exhibits and/or
have paper copies available in the event there are technological difficulties in the
courtroom.
10. Additional resources. For Case Center related training and questions, the parties may
wish to visit the Thomson Reuters Case Center Home Page at
https://answers.legalprof.thomsonreuters.com/casecenter-us/search. For technical issues
with Case Center, parties may contact AOC Support Services Monday – Friday from 7:00
AM – 6:00 PM, excluding State holidays, at (602) 452-3519, 1-800-720-7743 (toll free),
or [email protected]. The parties may also wish to review A.O. 2024-080 at
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/departments/superior-court/civil/case-center/ for
additional information regarding Case Center.
NOTE: Depositions will not be marked as exhibits. If you plan to read from a
deposition or use the deposition for impeachment purposes, you will need to supply an
ORIGINAL transcript to the courtroom clerk for filing. Copies will not be filed with the
clerk.
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.
06/25/2025 — CV2025015220 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, SAFARI DRIVE 06/25/2025 HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/26/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-015220
06/25/2025
Docket Code 021
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
M. R. Diaz
Deputy
JIMBO L L C
KIM ROBERT MAEROWITZ
v.
SAFARI DRIVE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
ERIN E MCMANIS
EDM-QC-CCC
JUDGE COFFEY
NUNC PRO TUNC MINUTE ENTRY
A clerical error having been made,
IT IS ORDERED nunc pro tunc amending the Evidentiary Hearing Set minute entry
dated May 16, 2025, and filed May 20, 2025, to reflect the correct division email address on
page 3 as [email protected].
The balance of the minute entry remains unchanged.
The minute entry dated May 16, 2025, is available for viewing at:
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov.
06/30/2025 — CV2025015220 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, SAFARI DRIVE 06/30/2025 HONORABLE DAVID MCDOWELL View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/02/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-015220
06/30/2025
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID MCDOWELL
K. Tiero
Deputy
JIMBO L L C
KIM ROBERT MAEROWITZ
v.
SAFARI DRIVE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
ERIN E MCMANIS
JOSHUA M BOLEN
JUDGE MCDOWELL
MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom 511– ECB
Prior to commencement of today’s proceeding, Plaintiff’s exhibits 1 through 10 and
Defendant’s exhibits 1 and 2 are submitted electronically.
2:04 p.m. This is the time set for Evidentiary Hearing on Plaintiff JIMBO LLC’S Motion
for Preliminary Injunction, filed April 30, 2025. Plaintiff is represented by counsel, Kim
Maerowitz. Defendants are represented by counsel, Erin McManis and Joshua Bolen.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held.
Oleg Bortman and Suzanne Hawk are sworn.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-015220
06/30/2025
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2
Oleg Bortman testifies.
Plaintiff’s exhibits 9 and 10 are submitted electronically and are received in evidence.
Plaintiff’s exhibit 1 is submitted electronically and is received in evidence.
Plaintiff’s exhibit 2 is submitted electronically and is received in evidence.
Plaintiff’s exhibit 3 is submitted electronically and is received in evidence.
Plaintiff’s exhibit 5 is submitted electronically and is received in evidence.
Defendant’s exhibit 1 is submitted electronically and is received in evidence.
Suzanne Hawk testifies.
Plaintiff’s exhibits 7 and 8 are submitted electronically and are received in evidence.
Plaintiff’s exhibit 6 is submitted electronically and is received in evidence.
Defendant’s exhibit 2 is submitted electronically and is received in evidence.
Fritz Beesemyer is sworn and testifies virtually.
The witness is excused.
Charlie Ray is sworn and testifies virtually.
The witness is excused.
Closing arguments are presented to the Court.
IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.
3:59 p.m. Matter concludes.
08/05/2025 — CV2025015220 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, SAFARI DRIVE 08/05/2025 HONORABLE DAVID MCDOWELL View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/06/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-015220
08/05/2025
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID MCDOWELL
E. Valadez
Deputy
JIMBO L L C
KIM ROBERT MAEROWITZ
v.
SAFARI DRIVE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
ERIN E MCMANIS
JUDGE MCDOWELL
RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS
RULING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
On April 30, 2025 Plaintiff filed Jimbo LLC’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and a Complaint
for Injunctive Relief. In these filings Jimbo LLC seeks injunctive relief ordering Safari not to do
anything inconsistent with Jimbo’s designated representative, Oleg Bortman, being the only
eligible candidate on the 2025 board of directors ballot. Jimbo contends its representative was the
only individual who submitted a completed candidate application prior to the January 19, 2025
deadline and should have been the only individual listed on the Condominium Association board
of directors ballot for the March 2025 election.
A hearing was held on June 30, 2025 to address the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
On May 20, 2025 Defendant Safari Drive Condominium Association filed a Motion to Dismiss
arguing Jimbo’s claim is limited to injunctive relief and the injunctive relief must be sought before
the action is taken. Here, Safari contends Jimbo was required to seek injunctive relief before the
board of directors election in March 2025. Jimbo filed a Response to the motion on June 4, 2025,
and the matter was fully briefed by the June 30, 2025 hearing.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-015220
08/05/2025
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2
BACKGROUND
Jimbo LLC owns a commercial condominium in the Safari Drive Condominiums located in
Scottsdale, Arizona.
Safari Drive Condominium Association is an Arizona non-profit corporation.
In late December/early January 2025 applications were solicited for two open positions on the
condominium association board of directors.
On January 9, 2025 Jimbo LLC’s designated representative, Oleg Bortman, submitted his
application for a position on the board of directors and a signed Board of Director Code of Conduct.
The deadline for submission of the application forms was Friday, January 19, 2025.
According to the testimony adduced at the June 30, 2025 hearing, three additional board candidates
(Charlie Ray, Fritz Beesemyer, and Jeff Arthur) submitted applications on January 19, 2025 but
did not sign them until January 20, 2025.
On February 12, 2025 a virtual meeting was held where condominium owners were permitted to
ask questions of the candidates. All four candidates participated in that video meeting.
The election was conducted through an on-line platform. On March 18, 2025 the property manager
for the condominium owners association announced the results. Ray and Beesemyer received the
most votes and were elected to the board of directors.
On April 30, 2025 Jimbo filed this action seeking declaratory relief including a determination that
he was the only candidate who submitted his application timely and he should have been the only
candidate on the ballot.
ARGUMENTS
Jimbo argued in his filings and during the hearing that the Association previously strictly enforced
the submission deadlines and that strict enforcement precluded Mr. Bortman from being on the
ballot in 2024. The Association offered a different explanation indicating why Mr. Bortman was
not on the ballot in 2024.
Jimbo argued strict interpretation of the deadline contained in the invitation for applications
precluded Messers Ray, Beesemyer, and Arthur from appearing on the ballot because their
applications were not signed and dated until the day after the deadline. Jimbo argues because Ray,
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-015220
08/05/2025
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3
Beesemyer, and Arthur were not properly on the ballot, one of the open board positions must go
to Mr. Bortman.
Jimbo also argued the applications of Ray, Beesemyer, and Arthur were not accompanied by a
signed Board of Directors Code of Conduct which made their submission incomplete. The
Property Manager testified the code of conduct did not need to be signed unless an individual is
elected and it was not part of the application.1
The Association argued Jimbo’s sole remedy was to seek an injunction prior to the election and
his delay until after the election prevented him from challenging the validity of the election. The
Association relied on A.R.S. §10-3304(B)(2). Jimbo argued A.R.S. §10-3304(C) authorized it to
sue to “set aside” the wrongful act.
WHAT REMEDIES ARE AVAILABLE TO AN OWNER FOR ACTS OF THE ASSOCIATION?
An owner in an association who suffers individual harm has authority to challenge the acts of the
corporation pursuant to A.R.S. §10-3304. That statute provides,
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, the validity of corporate
action shall not be challenged on the ground that the corporation lacks or lacked
power to act.
B. A corporation's power to act may be challenged by any of the following:
1. In a proceeding by members of a corporation that is not a condominium
association as defined in § 33-1202, or a planned community association as
defined in § 33-1802, having at least ten per cent or more of the voting
1
The “Safari Drive 2025 Annual Membership Meeting and Request for Board Candidates”
form does not specify the code of conduct needs to be signed and returned it states, “If you are
interested in serving on the Board of Directors, please complete the following information as well
as the attached questionnaire to be included with the official ballot sent to all homeowners”. Below
that statement are four lines to be filled in, a request for a brief statement of qualifications, and a
signature and date line. The following page asks nine questions. The Code of Conduct is a separate
two-page document outlining the expectations of Board Members. On the second page there are
four lines, two for dates, and two for the Board Member’s name, title, and signature. The separate
nature of the documents and the signature designation on the Code of Conduct indicates the Code
of Conduct would not need to be signed and submitted with the application (without something
else indicating that a candidate is considered a “board member” with the submission of the
application.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-015220
08/05/2025
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 4
power or by at least fifty members, unless a lesser percentage or number is
provided in the articles of incorporation, against the corporation to enjoin
the act.
2. In a proceeding by any member of a condominium or a planned
community association against the corporation to enjoin the act pursuant to
title 12, chapter 10, article 1.
3. In a proceeding by the corporation, directly, derivatively or through any
receiver, trustee or other legal representative, against an incumbent or
former director, officer, employee or agent of the corporation.
C. In a member's proceeding under subsection B, paragraph 1 of this section to
enjoin an unauthorized corporate act, the court may enjoin or set aside the act, if
equitable and if all affected persons are parties to the proceeding, and may award
damages for loss, other than anticipated profits, suffered by the corporation or
another party because of enjoining the unauthorized act.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF:
A.R.S. §10-3304(B)(2) entitles a member to injunctive relief. Here Jimbo sought injuctive relief
related to the 2025 election more than thirty days after the election was confirmed. The Association
argues his request for an injunction is too late. Jimbo argued irreparable damage would result if an
injunction is not issued.
Injunctive relief is available for future conduct. Modular Mining Systems Inc., v. Jigsaw Techs
Inc., 221 Ariz. 515 ¶12 (App. 2009). Jimbo asserts the injunction sought is to prevent the board
from taking any action inconsistent with his entitlement to serve on the board. While this is not
phrased as a request to set aside the election, the effect is the same and there is no way to prevent
the board from acting inconsistent with recognizing Jimbo’s representative as a member of the
board without setting aside the election which placed Ray and Beesemyer on the board. The 2025
election has already occurred, so injunctive relief as to that election is no longer available. The
Court cannot enjoin an act that occurred prior to the filing of the complaint.
Jimbo would be entitled to injunctive relief affecting future elections if he demonstrated a
likelihood that the defendant will, in the future, engage in the conduct sought to be enjoined.” State
ex rel. Babbitt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 128 Ariz. 483, 486 (1981). The burden of proof to
establish that likelihood of future occurrence falls on Jimbo. Modular, 221 Ariz. 519 ¶12 (App.
2009). Jimbo did not establish the likelihood of future violations. He demonstrated that an election
occurred in 2024 in which he was unable to participate because his application was approximately
a week after the submission deadline and an election occurred in 2025 in which three individuals
submitted unsigned applications on the deadline, but did not sign them until the day after the
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-015220
08/05/2025
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 5
submission deadline. The two fact patterns established do not indicate the 2024 situation
reoccurred in 2025 or which of the two the Association will use in 2026.
In a strikingly similar case, Tober v. Civano 1: Neighborhood Association, the Court of Appeals
addressed an owner’s challenge to an association election. 2 CA–CV 2012–0129 (App. 2013).
While Tober is unreported, it is instructive as to how courts of this state should interpret this statute
(A.R.S. §10-33042) and apply it in a factually similar case. In Tober an owner of a home in the
association filed an action challenging the association election after it was completed. The Court
of Appeals stated in ¶12,
…because Tober did not seek to enjoin the 2011 election procedure before the
election was finalized, she could not later challenge the election on the ground that
Civano had lacked the power to act.
In Tobler, the Court of Appeals also referenced the case of Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 209 Ariz.
357, ¶14 (2004) for the proposition that “[I]f parties allow an election to proceed in violation of
the law which prescribes the manner in which it shall be held, they may not, after the people have
voted, then question the procedure.”. See Tobler, ¶12. Like the plaintiff in Tobler, Jimbo did not
seek to enjoin the election before it occurred, instead he waited until after the election was
completed. Like the plaintiff in Tober, Jimbo knew of the purported defects in the election process
(permitting three people to appear on the ballot which he claims were not eligible due to
purportedly late submission of applications) but waited until the election was complete before he
challenged it.
The Court finds Jimbo is not permitted to challenge the validity of the election after it occurred.
Jimbo has not established entitlement to injunctive relief related to the board election for 2025 or
future board elections.
IT IS ORDERED denying Jimbo’s request for a preliminary injunction.
REVERSAL OF PRIOR ACTION
Jimbo argues, pursuant to A.R.S. §10-3304(C) he is entitled to set aside the act of the Board.
However, A.R.S. §10-3304(C) only applies to actions filed pursuant to subsection B, paragraph 1;
as indicated in the first line of A.R.S. §10-3304(C) – “In a member's proceeding under subsection
2
The history of this statute indicates the version of A.R.S. §10-3304 which was before the
Court in Tobler contains substantially similar sections B and C.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-015220
08/05/2025
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 6
B, paragraph 1 of this section to enjoin an unauthorized corporate act, the court may…”
[Emphasis added].
Subsection B, paragraph 1 states,
1. In a proceeding by members of a corporation that is not a condominium
association as defined in § 33-1202, or a planned community association as
defined in § 33-1802, having at least ten per cent or more of the voting power or
by at least fifty members, unless a lesser percentage or number is provided in the
articles of incorporation, against the corporation to enjoin the act.
[Emphasis added].
Jimbo’s action is against the Safari Drive Condominium Association – so this action does not fall
within Subsection B, paragraph 1. Because this action is not within Subsection B, paragraph 1, it
does not qualify under Subsection C. Without the ability to qualify as a proceeding under
Subsection C, Jimbo is left with the remedies under Subsection B, paragraph 2 which does not
include the ability to set aside an act of the corporation.
IT IS ORDERED denying Jimbo’s request to set aside the former act of the corporation because
that remedy is not authorized by statute.
Based upon the forgoing analysis, IT IS ORDERED granting the Association’s May 20, 2025
Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS ORDERED dismissing this action in its entirety.
