Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2021-051550: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Cottonfields Community Association.

Case Number

CV2021-051550

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

5/6/2021

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Cushner, Quintin

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

No parties captured.

Minute Entries

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

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

CV 2021-051550

04/01/2022

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SARA J. AGNE
C. Lett

Deputy

COTTONFIELDS COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
TROY B STRATMAN

v.

R C P SOUTHERN RIDGE L L P
ASHA SEBASTIAN

JUDGE AGNE

UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING

This matter is under advisement after the submission of written closing arguments
following an evidentiary hearing held regarding Plaintiff’s Application for Order to Show Cause
and Motion for Sanctions, filed August 17, 2021 (“Application”), which was also the subject of
prehearing briefs. Based on the evidence presented by Plaintiff and Defendant RCP Southern
Ridge, LLP, the Court makes the following findings, conclusions, and orders.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.
This case has a long and detailed history, but for purposes of the Application, the
operative facts begin on August 3, 2021, when this Court’s Judgment (Pltf’s Exh. 1), based on a
Final Arbitration Award (Pltf’s Exh. 2), was filed. Both the Judgment and the Final Arbitration
Award set forth Defendant’s breach of a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement.
(Pltf’s Exh. 6.)

2.
The Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement (“REMA”) sets forth
restrictions and obligations with respect to the proper use, operation and enjoyment of the Golf
Course Property owned and operated by Defendant for the purpose of enhancing and protecting

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-051550

04/01/2022

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2

the value, desirability, and attractiveness of the 450 homes within Plaintiff Cottonfields
Community Association and the adjacent Golf Course Property itself. (See Pltf’s Exh. 1, at 1–2.)

3.
The Judgment is specific and definite in its terms that a permanent and continuing
injunction requires Defendant to (i) bring the Golf Course Property into compliance with the
REMA no later than December 31, 2020; (ii) cease violating Section 5.1 of the REMA by
desisting from operating other businesses on the Golf Course Property; (iii) regularly irrigate the
Golf Course Property; (iv) maintain the Golf Course Property in good condition and to the
Maintenance Standard required by Section 5.2 of the REMA; and (v) maintain the related lakes
in good condition as required by Section 3.1 of the REMA. (Pltf’s Exh. 1, at 2.)

4.
Testimony and evidence are largely unequivocal that Defendant is in violation of
the Judgment and injunction; Plaintiff met its burden to prove the same by clear and convincing
evidence, and Defendant’s principal admitted the condition of the Golf Course Property is not
what he would like, though he said he has tried to do what he could. He credibly testified that
proper maintenance of the Golf Course Property used to cost him $115,000 to $120,000 per year
when he was engaged in it.

5.
Defendant’s actual defenses include impossibility based on its lack of finances
and that the judgment is insufficiently specific and definite enough to be enforced through
contempt-of-court proceedings. As explained below, these defenses are unavailing, and
Defendant’s principal’s testimony that he was unaware of the Judgment’s specific terms based
on the Final Arbitration Award was not credible. He also testified to having two golf courses
prior, as investment properties; Defendant, through its principal, Mr. White, understands the
applicable terms of the Judgment and how to comply with them.

6.
No evidence was elicited regarding the individual partners of Defendant sufficient
to allow the Court to hold them personally liable for any sanctions order or on the Judgment.
Similarly, no evidence was adduced sufficient to allow the Court to ascertain Defendant’s
finances or alleged lack thereof.

7.
Finally, no evidence was adduced that Defendant misunderstood or could not
understand this Court’s judgment or the specific provisions of the REMA necessary to comply.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.
As an initial matter, IT IS ORDERED granting in part Defendant’s motion to
strike Plaintiff’s Closing Argument, which motion was contained within Defendant’s Closing
Argument, filed January 19, 2022, at 3, for attaching exhibits disallowed during the Evidentiary

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-051550

04/01/2022

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3

Hearing, in that the Court will strike and not consider all exhibits to Plaintiff’s Closing
Argument, filed December 29, 2021.

2.
However, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant’s requests that the
Court further sanction Plaintiff. Most of the exhibits stricken are either duplicate copies of items
in evidence or authorities cited for persuasive value that were attached as courtesy copies for the
Court but that the Court can view on its own via Westlaw or docketed sources, and the Court
finds no prejudice occurred to Defendant from Plaintiff’s, now-stricken, exhibits.

3.
This Court has the inherent power to enforce its own Judgment. See Daley v.
Earven, 166 Ariz. 461, 463 (App. 1990). Ariz. R. Civ. P. 70(e) also provides the power of the
contempt findings regarding the disobedient Party to the Court, here. Civil contempt uses
coercion—as opposed to punishment—to secure compliance. See Korman v. Strick, 133 Ariz.
471, 474 (1982).

4.
The Court cannot impose monetary sanctions on a party that does not have the
ability to pay them, but the party asserting impossibility as a defense bears the burden of
production. See United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 757 (1983). Here, Defendant produced
no evidence of its financials showing any inability to pay appropriate monetary sanctions
designed to coerce compliance. Instead, its principle, Mr. White, testified that Defendant has a
nominal income, and he did not know the amount. This does not meet the burden of production
on an impossibility defense.

5.
And, Defendant’s principal having owned golf courses before, there was no
apparent confusion about the specific and definite terms of the Judgment or how to comply with
them. See BMO Harris Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Bluff, 229 Ariz. 511, 513 (App. 2012).

The Court having made these findings and conclusions,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part the relief sought by the Application.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant must comply with the Judgment and bring
the Golf Course Property into full compliance with the REMA prior to June 1, 2022, and must
e-file via Notice of Filing a written, midpoint progress report to Plaintiff and the Court as to its
completed and any still-to-be-completed efforts to comply with this Order no later than May 1,
2022. Should Defendant miss either of the above deadlines, it must pay a monetary sanction of
$60,000 to the Clerk of the Superior Court to be held as bond for future maintenance of the Golf
Course Property no later than June 15, 2022.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-051550

04/01/2022

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 4

Should Defendant continue to fail to comply with the Judgment and the REMA, another
monetary sanction of $60,000 is due to be paid to the Clerk of the Superior Court no later than
December 15, 2022. Plaintiff shall notify the Court timely of non-compliance necessitating the
second monetary sanction no later than November 15, 2022, to allow the Court to issue further
orders as appropriate.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff an easement in its favor to access the
Golf Course Property when necessary to perform emergency repairs that, if not otherwise
performed, would impact adjacent homeowners within Plaintiff’s Community Association.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to the terms of the REMA, that these Orders run
with the land, and they shall apply with full force and effect to the owner/operator of the Golf
Course Property, whether that be Defendant or another person or entity obtaining title to it. (See
Pltf’s Exh. 6, at 2.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying any other relief sought by Plaintiff not
specifically granted above, particularly as a $10,000 per occurrence prospective sanction on
Defendant for operating businesses in violation of the Judgment and REMA would require
additional evidentiary hearing proceedings for due process reasons before it could be assessed
and enforced. See BMO Harris Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Bluff, 229 Ariz. at 514 (disapproving
anticipatory contempt orders). Additionally,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s requests that this Court pierce the veil
of the Defendant entity to hold its individual partners personally liable on these Order and on the
Judgment. As noted above, no evidence was adduced sufficient to allow the Court to do so. (See
also Deft’s Closing Argument, at 2.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs
in connection with this proceeding and enforcement of the Judgment. A claim for attorney’s fees
must be made in the pleadings, and one was not, here. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(g)(1).

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/12/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-051550

05/11/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
A. Delgado

Deputy

COTTONFIELDS COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
TROY B STRATMAN

v.

R C P SOUTHERN RIDGE L L P
ASHA SEBASTIAN

JUDGE JULIAN

RULING

Re: Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Order Granting Stipulation for Dismissal of Lawsuit
Without Prejudice, filed April 5, 2023.

This Court has considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Order Granting Stipulation for
Dismissal of Lawsuit Without Prejudice, filed April 5, 2023. After considering what the parties
have submitted, the court has concluded that the issue presented has been fully briefed and oral
argument will not assist a decision. See Maricopa Cty. Loc. R. 3.2(d). On March 21, 2023,
Plaintiff’s prior counsel signed a stipulation to dismiss this matter without prejudice on the ground
that defendant RCP Southern Ridge LLP no longer owns the property subject to the August 2021
judgment and April 2022 sanctions order. The Court granted the stipulation and entered the
dismissal order on March 29, 2023.

Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), Plaintiff now moves to vacate that dismissal order. It asserts
that its prior counsel signed the stipulation without Plaintiff’s consent and shortly before Plaintiff
retained new counsel. Further, Plaintiff seeks to vacate the dismissal order because the new
property owner (Laveen 140, LLC) is allegedly violating the terms of the August 2021 Judgment
and April 2022 sanctions order. Rule 60(b)(6) permits the court to “relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding” for “any other reason justifying relief”

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-051550

05/11/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

apart from the first five subparts of the rule. In determining whether relief should be granted, this
Court has “extensive discretion” and must be mindful that our procedural rules should be construed
in favor of “resolution[s] on the merits.” Gonzalez v. Nguyen, 243 Ariz. 531, 534 (2018). Thus,
“if the trial court has doubt about whether to vacate a[n] . . . order it should rule in favor of the
moving party.” Id.

The Court finds that Rule 60(b)(6) relief is warranted. A final judgment was entered on
August 3, 2021, pursuant to Rule 54(c). That judgment imposed a permanent and continuing
injunction against Defendant RCP regarding its maintenance of the golf course property. Once a
final judgment was entered, the only method by which that order could be vacated or modified
would have been by appeal, by a stipulation to vacate or modify it, or by a Rule 60(b)
motion. Instead, the parties here (and apparently without Plaintiff’s consent), stipulated to dismiss
the case “without prejudice.” The Court granted the stipulation, but in so doing the court erred.

At the time the dismissal order was entered, there was nothing to dismiss because the claims
asserted in the lawsuit had already been resolved in a final, unappealed Rule 54(c) judgment. The
later proceedings in 2022 were post-judgment enforcement proceedings and did not revive the
claims already adjudicated. In short, the dismissal order was ineffective because it did not vacate
the prior August 2021 judgment or the sanctions ruling from April 2022 arising therefrom. It also
conflicts with the existing, continuing injunctive order that remains in effect. Under these unusual
circumstances, relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is appropriate.

Both Plaintiff and RCP agree RCP should be removed as a party to this matter given that it
no longer owns the property. But a “dismissal” is not the proper remedy under these
circumstances. Rather, the parties should move for a substitution of Laveen 140, LLC as a
successor defendant pursuant to Rule 25(c) so that any further enforcement proceedings as to the
continuing injunction may be pursued against the proper defendant. Because no such motion has
been filed, the Court will not order a substitution unless and until a motion compliant with Rule
25(c) is filed and the proposed party to be substituted has been served and afforded an opportunity
to respond.

In the interim, and pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), the Court vacates the Order of Dismissal,
entered March 29, 2023.

HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

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

CV 2021-051550

07/06/2021

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SARA J. AGNE
J. Holguin

Deputy

COTTONFIELDS COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
TROY B STRATMAN

v.

R C P SOUTHERN RIDGE L L P
R C P SOUTHERN RIDGE L L P
5740 W BASELINE RD
LAVEEN AZ 85339

JUDGE AGNE

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received and reviewed Cottonfields Community Association’s
Application/Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, which was filed on May 6, 2021, and served
on May 25, 2021. The time allowed for opposition in A.R.S. § 12-1511 having passed,

IT IS ORDERED that counsel for Cottonfields Community Association e-file and lodge
a Notice of Filing with a proposed form of judgment in Word document form no later than July
30, 2021. The Court will enter judgment thereafter the filing.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-051550

07/06/2021

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

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

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/18/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-051550

08/17/2023

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
A. Delgado

Deputy

COTTONFIELDS COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
TROY B STRATMAN

v.

R C P SOUTHERN RIDGE L L P
ASHA SEBASTIAN

JUDGE JULIAN

SUBSTITUTION DENIED

This Court has considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Substitute Defendant, filed July 14,
2023. While no response or objection has been filed, the Court notes that the motion does not
appear to have been served on the transferee/proposed substituted party in accordance with Rule
4.1, which is required for substitution of a non-party under Rule 25(c). Because Laveen 140, LLC
is not yet a party to the case, service by mail under Rule 5(c) is not sufficient.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion to
Substitute Defendant, filed July 14, 2023, which may be refiled with appropriate service and will
be considered upon compliance.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/20/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-051550

10/15/2021

Docket Code 003
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SARA J. AGNE
T. DeRaddo

Deputy

COTTONFIELDS COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
TROY B STRATMAN

v.

R C P SOUTHERN RIDGE L L P
R C P SOUTHERN RIDGE L L P
5740 W BASELINE RD
LAVEEN AZ 85339

SHIFTON WHITE
RCP SOUTHERN RIDGE LLP
5470 W. BASELINE RD.
LAVEEN AZ 85339
JUDGE AGNE

HEARING RESET

North East Facility – Courtroom 108

3:00 p.m. This is the time set for a Telephonic/Virtual Return Hearing on an Order to
Show Cause. Appearing on behalf of Plaintiff, Cottonfields Community Association, is counsel,
Troy B. Stratman. Defendant, RCP Southern Ridge, LLP, is not represented by counsel;
however, the sole proprietor, Shifton White, is present. Also present are board members of the
Cottonfields Community Association, Keesha Hodge, Denise Suchy and Mitchell Smith.

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

The Court has read and considered the filings in this matter.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-051550

10/15/2021

Docket Code 003
Form V000A
Page 2

Discussion is held regarding Plaintiff Cottonfields Community Association’s Application
for Order to Show Cause and Motion for Sanctions, filed August 17, 2021.

Counsel for Plaintiff informs the Court that service on Defendant at the property on
record was not effectuated. Mr. Stratman states that he served the ACC secretary of State, and
filed an affidavit on August 17, 2021.

Defendant, Mr. White, states that he has not been served and wants to retain counsel.

LET THE RECORD REFLECT that Mr. Stratman requested that Mr. White accept
service as sole proprietor of Defendant, RCP Southern Ridge, LLP. Defendant objected to and
refused accepting service.

IT IS ORDERED Defendant, RCP must appear through counsel and have counsel file a
notice of appearance by not later than November 5, 2021.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED resetting the Hearing on an Order to Show Cause for
November 12, 2021 via Court Connect.

3:13 p.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/21/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-051550

10/20/2021

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SARA J. AGNE
J. Holguin

Deputy

COTTONFIELDS COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
TROY B STRATMAN

v.

R C P SOUTHERN RIDGE L L P
R C P SOUTHERN RIDGE L L P
5740 W BASELINE RD
LAVEEN AZ 85339

JUDGE AGNE

MINUTE ENTRY

A clerical error having been made,

IT IS ORDERED correcting the Hearing Reset minute entry dated October 15, 2021 and
filed October 20, 2021 to include the time and location of Order to Show Cause Hearing as
follows:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED resetting the Hearing on an Order to Show Cause for
November 12, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes) via Court Connect:

Please join the hearing via:
https://tinyurl.com/Courtroom108

You can also dial in using your phone.
Phone: +1 917-781-4590 and Conference ID: 929 847 029#

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-051550

10/20/2021

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

Use of the above link can be made easier by downloading the Microsoft Teams application first;
for more on the new platform, including an introduction video and participant guide, please
visit: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect

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

EXHIBIT NOTICE

This division is piloting CaseLines, a state-wide electronic exhibit portal. All exhibits
being submitted electronically must be submitted through CaseLines. When the case has been
initiated by the Clerk of Court, the attorney of record will receive an email invitation to the case
created in CaseLines. The division welcomes counsel to participate in CaseLines testing either
for an individual case or as part of a group mock trial event with a variety of counsel. Please call
(602) 506-8288 to be added to an email list for a mock trial event or to set up an appointment to
test for your case. Please access self-guided training and register for an account here:

https://www.azcourts.gov/digitalevidence/Training/Attorney-and-Self-Represented-
Litigants

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

11/16/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-051550

11/12/2021

Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SARA J. AGNE
J. Holguin

Deputy

COTTONFIELDS COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
TROY B STRATMAN

v.

R C P SOUTHERN RIDGE L L P
ASHA SEBASTIAN

KESHA A HODGE
JUDGE AGNE

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom 108 – Northeast Regional Court

9:30 a.m. This is the time set for a Return Order to Show Cause hearing via Court
Connect. Plaintiff Cottonfields Community Association is represented by counsel, Troy B.
Stratman. Defendant RCP Southern Ridge LLP is represented by counsel, Asha Sebastian.

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

Discussion is held regarding the status of the case.

IT IS ORDERED setting an Evidentiary Hearing on December 9, 2021 at 1:30 p.m.
(time allotted: 3 hours) via Court Connect.

Please join the hearing via:
https://tinyurl.com/Courtroom108

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-051550

11/12/2021

Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 2

You can also dial in using your phone.
Phone: +1 917-781-4590 and Conference ID: 929 847 029#

Use of the above link can be made easier by downloading the Microsoft Teams application first;
for more on the new platform, including an introduction video and participant guide, please
visit: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties shall submit exhibits no later than
November 24, 2021.

This division is piloting CaseLines, a state-wide electronic exhibit portal. All exhibits
being submitted electronically must be submitted through CaseLines. When the case has been
initiated by the Clerk of Court, the attorney of record will receive an email invitation to the case
created in CaseLines. The division welcomes counsel to participate in CaseLines testing either
for an individual case or as part of a group mock trial event with a variety of counsel. Please call
(602) 506-8288 to be added to an email list for a mock trial event or to set up an appointment to
test for your case. Please access self-guided training and register for an account here:

https://www.azcourts.gov/digitalevidence/Training/Attorney-and-Self-Represented-
Litigants

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties shall simultaneously submit a Pre-hearing
briefing no more than 20 pages long no later than, December 2, 2021.

9:40 a.m. Matter concludes.

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

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/14/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-051550

12/09/2021

Docket Code 020
Form J000
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SARA J. AGNE
J. Escarcega

Deputy

COTTONFIELDS COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
TROY B STRATMAN

v.

R C P SOUTHERN RIDGE L L P
ASHA SEBASTIAN

JUDGE AGNE

MINUTE ENTRY

Prior to the commencement of this proceeding Plaintiff’s Exhibits A1 through A14 and
Defendant’s Exhibits B1 through B56 were received electronically.

1:30 p.m. This is the time set for an Evidentiary Hearing regarding Cottonfields
Community Association’s Application for Order to Show Cause and Motion for Sanctions, filed
August 17, 2021. The following parties present are appearing virtually through the Microsoft
Teams application. Plaintiff Cottonfields Community Association is represented by counsel, Troy
B. Stratman. Defendant R C P Southern Ridge LLP is represented by co-counsel Mark Horne and
Asha Sebastian. Shifton White, sole proprietor of RCP Southern Ridge LLP, is present. Kesha
Hodge, President of Homeowner’s Association regarding Cottonfields Community Association, is
present.

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

Discussion is held.

The Rule of Exclusion of Witnesses is invoked.

Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 6 are stipulated to and received in evidence.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-051550

12/09/2021

Docket Code 020
Form J000
Page 2

Opening statements are presented.

Plaintiff’s case:

Shifton White is sworn and testifies.

Shifton White and Kesha Hodge leave the virtual hearing in order to allow Court and
counsel an opportunity to confer.

For the reasons stated on the record,

IT IS ORDERED denying counsel for Plaintiff’s oral motion to submit additional
documents as exhibits for impeachment purposes.

Shifton White and Kesha Hodge return to the virtual hearing.

Shifton White resumes testimony.

2:52 p.m. Court is in recess.

3:06 p.m. Court reconvenes with respective counsel and parties present.

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

Shifton White resumes testimony.

Kesha Hodge is sworn and testifies.

Defendant’s case:

Shifton White testifies further.

Defendant’s Exhibits 22, 36, 25 and 30 are received in evidence.

IT IS ORDERED that counsel for Plaintiff shall file a written closing argument, of no
more than fifteen (15) pages, be no later than December 27, 2021. Defendant’s responsive closing
argument, of no more than twenty (20) pages, shall be filed by no later than January 18, 2022.
Plaintiff’s rebuttal closing argument, of no more than five pages, shall be filed by no later than
January 31, 2022.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-051550

12/09/2021

Docket Code 020
Form J000
Page 3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED taking this matter under advisement as of January 31, 2022.

5:04 p.m. Matter concludes.

Documents