02/20/2026 — CV2025018158 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, LAYTON LAKES 02/20/2026 HONORABLE JENNIFER RYAN-TOUHILL View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/23/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-018158
02/20/2026
Docket Code 375
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JENNIFER RYAN-TOUHILL
A. Navarro Albor
Deputy
LAYTON LAKES COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
JOHN HALK
v.
MEGAN S WHITE
MEGAN S WHITE
3655 E TRINITY LN
CHANDLER AZ 85286
JUDGE RYAN-TOUHILL
RULING
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s January 5, 2026, Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ).
Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff’s MSJ.
Rule 56(a) requires the court to “grant summary judgment 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.; Dinsmoor v. City of Phoenix, 251 Ariz. 370 (2021). The party
moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine dispute of
fact. Wells Fargo, N.A., v. Allen, 231 Ariz. 209, 213 (App. 2012). When the moving party
demonstrates no material facts are genuinely in dispute, the non-moving party must then present
competent evidence demonstrating a disputed fact exists, which then requires a trial. See Nat’l
Bank of Ariz. v. Thurston, 218 Ariz. 112, 1156 (App. 2008); Kelly v. NationsBanc Mortgage Corp.,
199 Ariz. 284, 287 (App. 2000).
When no genuine dispute over material facts exists, summary judgment is warranted.
Orme School v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301 (1990). However, even when facts may be agreed upon, if
the parties have a genuine dispute over inferences to draw from those facts, summary judgment is
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-018158
02/20/2026
Docket Code 375
Form V000A
Page 2
precluded. Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona v. J.C. Penney Ins. Co., 129 Ariz. 108 (Ct. App. Div. 1
1981). When deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court is not free to speculate “that
some slight doubt. . . some scintilla of evidence or some dispute over irrelevant or immaterial facts
might blossom into a real controversy in the midst of trial.” Orme School v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. at
311.
A party seeking summary judgment has a heavy burden. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Allen,
231 Ariz. 209 (Ct. App. Div. 1 2012). The movant must provide “undisputed admissible evidence
that would compel any reasonable juror to find in its favor on every element of its claim.” Id.
(citing Comerica Bank v. Mahmoodi, 224 Ariz. 289 (Ct. App. Div. 1 2010)).
THE COURT FINDS Rule 7.1(b), Ariz. R. Civ. P., allows the Court to “summarily grant
or deny a motion if . . . the opposing party does not file a responsive memorandum.” A party that
fails to respond to a MSJ does so at their own peril. Rudinsky v. Harris, 231 Ariz. 95, 99 (App.
2012). Regardless, the moving party must still show—and the Court must still find—an
entitlement to judgement. See United Bank of Ariz. v. Allyn, 167 Ariz. 191, 196 (App. 1990);
Biondo v. General Motors Corp., 5 Ariz.App. 286, 291 (1967). When, as here, the party against
whom the motion is directed fails to respond, the facts asserted by the moving party are assumed
to be true. E.g., Sato v. Van Denburgh, 123 Ariz. 225 (1979).
Here, Plaintiff has not merely rested on its allegations but, rather, Plaintiff has shown
entitlement to judgment. Moreover, the Court considered the entire record of the case before
deciding Plaintiff’s MSJ, along with Plaintiff’s memorandum for summary judgment. Ariz. R.
Civ. P. 56(e). The motion and the accompanying state of facts demonstrate there are no material
facts in dispute that preclude granting the motion. Good cause appearing,
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff must
provide the Court with a proposed judgment within ten business days of the filing date of this
Ruling or the matter will be dismissed in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED placing the case on the dismissal calendar for April 10,
2026.
07/31/2025 — CV2025018158 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, LAYTON LAKES 07/31/2025 HONORABLE JENNIFER RYAN-TOUHILL View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/04/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-018158
07/31/2025
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JENNIFER RYAN-TOUHILL
A. Larimer
Deputy
LAYTON LAKES COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
JOHN HALK
v.
MEGAN S WHITE
MEGAN S WHITE
3655 E TRINITY LN
CHANDLER AZ 85286
COMM. EASTERDAY
JUDGE RYAN-TOUHILL
MINUTE ENTRY
This Court has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application for Default; Affidavit on Default,
filed July 30, 2025, against defendant, Megan S. White, in the above-captioned case.
IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above-referenced
document(s).
The parties are advised that commissioners handle Rule 55(b) Default Judgment
proceedings and that the default proceedings in this matter are to be heard by Commissioner Jason
Easterday.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all documents necessary to support the entry of a
default judgment must be either e-filed or filed in paper form.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-018158
07/31/2025
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
Pursuant to the Maricopa County eFiling Guidelines, section 2.09, attorneys shall
electronically file all the documents required to request a default judgment, such as the Application
for Entry of Default, Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, Sum Certain Affidavit, Application
for Attorneys’ Fees when appropriate, and Statement of Costs.
Attorneys and Self-Represented Litigants must submit a default judgment packet required
by the Court, including the documents identified on the default judgment packet coversheet in
paper to the assigned commissioner’s division.
A commissioner will not act upon a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment until the
default judgment packet with all the required documents has been received by the division
in paper form.
If the paper packet is not received by the above-named Commissioner division by
September 29, 2025, the matter is placed on the Dismissal Calendar as to the above-named
defaulted party or parties until October 29, 2025.
You may wish to review the following resources for additional information regarding the
default process:
Applications for Default
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/llrc/cv_cvc6/
Motions
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/media/n30m54ah/gn10fz.pdf
Civil Default Checklist
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/media/jitjlp0s/cvc50fz.pdf
Civil Court Administration Processing Information
civil-department-post-filing-information-and-instructions.pdf (maricopa.gov)
10/23/2025 — CV2025018158 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, LAYTON LAKES 10/23/2025 HONORABLE JASON EASTERDAY View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/28/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-018158
10/23/2025
Docket Code 002
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JASON EASTERDAY
S. McGlasson
Deputy
LAYTON LAKES COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
JOHN HALK
v.
MEGAN S WHITE
MEGAN S WHITE
3655 E TRINITY LN
CHANDLER AZ 85286
COMM. EASTERDAY
JUDGE RYAN-TOUHILL
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom 514-VCB East Court Building
9:15 a.m. This is the time set for a virtual Default Hearing. Plaintiff, Layton Lakes
Community Association, is represented by counsel, John Halk. No one else appears.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Counsel for Plaintiff makes his avowals to the Court.
Based on the matters stated on record,
IT IS ORDERED vacating the virtual Default Hearing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED referring this matter to Judge Ryan-Touhill.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-018158
10/23/2025
Docket Code 002
Form V000A
Page 2
9:17 p.m. Matter concludes.
