Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2023-052094: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Legend Trail Community Association, The.

Case Number

CV2023-052094

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

6/1/2023

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 ***

02/16/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-052094

02/15/2024

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
A. Delgado

Deputy

SUSAN M MARCELLA
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

LEGEND TRAIL COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
TESSA KNUEPPEL

JUDGE JULIAN

Vacating Order Granting Motion to Join Indispensable Parties, Denying Motion on the
Merits, and Staying Pending Deadlines for 30 Days

Currently pending are Plaintiff’s Request for Clarification Regarding January 22, 2024,
Order, filed February 2, 2024, Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay All Discovery and Other Deadlines in the
Scheduling Order, filed February 2, 2024, Defendant’s Motion Seeking Clarification of Court’s
Ruling Regarding to Join Indispensable Parties, filed February 2, 2024, and Defendant’s Motion
to Stay Deadlines, filed February 2, 2024. Upon receipt of the above motions, this Court reviewed
the docket and found that the order granting a prior motion for the joinder of indispensable parties
was entered by mistake when it appeared that no response opposing the joinder was on docket and
the time for responding had expired.

A. Factual Background

This case arises from a dispute between a homeowner and the community association,
responsible for approving renovations pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (the “CC&Rs”). Plaintiff Susan Marcella
owns a home in the Legend Trail master planned community. Lorenzo and Martin own a
neighboring home in the community. The community is managed by Defendant Legend Trail

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-052094

02/15/2024

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

Community Association (the “Association”) and is responsible for enforcement of the CC&Rs as
well as for approving renovations to community homes. Plaintiff filed suit asserting several
damages claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, “breach of duty,” and for violations of A.R.S. § 33-1805 relating to the production of
association records. Although Plaintiff’s suit alleges other breaches, her lawsuit is premised in
part on the Association’s approval of renovations to her neighbor’s home which she contends
violated the terms of the CC&Rs. Her complaints are that her neighbor’s improperly approved
renovations constitute a “nuisance and interfere with [the] quiet enjoyment” of her
home. Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract includes a damage that she was damages by the
Association’s failure to enforce the CC&Rs architectural requirements with respect to
Lorenzo/Kraus home.

B. Indispensable Parties Motion Granted as Unopposed by Mistake

On December 13, 2023, Defendant’s filed a motion seeking the joinder of Plaintiff’s
neighbors Martin Lorenzo and Peter Kraus as indispensable parties. A response was due 15 days
later. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 6 & 7.1(a). No timely response was filed nor did the parties file a notice
extending the deadline pursuant to Rule 7.1(g). The Court granted the motion as unopposed on
January 22, 2024, not realizing that Plaintiff filed a belated response on January 10, 2024, and
Defendant’s filed a reply on January 22, 2024. The varying speed with which filings are processed
and uploaded into the Court’s individual que (particularly during the holiday season) can
sometimes result in an order being entered as unopposed by mistake, especially where a responsive
brief is not timely filed, and no notice of extension has been filed to alert the court that the parties
have agreed to extend a response deadline. After reviewing the docket, that is what apparently
occurred here. Accordingly, and because this Court did not consider the motion to join
indispensable parties on its merits, the Court vacates the Order granting the motion and entered on
January 2, 2024. For the reasons set forth below and after considering the parties’ complete
briefing on the merits, this Court finds that Lorenzo and Kraus are not indispensable to Plaintiff’s
existing claims.

C. Motion to Join Indispensable Parties on the Merits

The motion was predicated on the argument that Lorenzo and Kraus are “indispensable”
because “in Count one of her complaint, Plaintiff Susan M. Marcella seeks a declaratory judgment”
that the Association violated its CC&Rs when it approved renovations to the Lorenzo/Kraus
home. Although Plaintiff opposes the motion, she does not dispute that she seeks declaratory relief
establishing that the approval of the Lorenzo/Kraus renovations constituted a violation of the
CC&Rs, and her response vaguely implies that she is seeking to compel the Association to enforce
these alleged violations as to the Lorenzo/Kraus property. If that were the case, then certainly

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-052094

02/15/2024

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3

Lorenzo/Kraus would have an indispensable interest in defending against a declaration that would
directly impact their property.

Nevertheless, and despite the parties’ briefing, the Court can find no actual request in
Plaintiff’s complaint for declaratory relief or for other affirmative relief (e.g., an injunction)
seeking to compel the Association to take any action against Lorenzo/Kraus with respect to
Plaintiff’s complaints. Rather, her only claim for declaratory relief/injunctive relief seeks a
declaration “requiring the Association to produce records.” That request has no bearing on the
Lorenzo/Kraus home and does not require their joinder.

In the absence of an affirmative claim that seeks declaratory or injunctive relief with respect
to the Lorenzo/Kraus home, they are not indispensable to the adjudication of Plaintiff’s damages
claims. In the event either party wishes to amend their pleadings to assert a claim or third-party
complaint which does seek such a declaration, then certainly Lorenzo and Kraus would need to be
joined and served. But in the absence of such an amendment to the pleadings, there is no basis to
compel their participation in this case.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED vacating the Order Granting Rule 19 Motion to Join
Indispensable Parties, filed January 22, 2024.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to Join Indispensable Parties,
filed December 13, 2023, without prejudice to any motion to amend the complaint or verified
answer as appropriate under Rule 15 and considering the court’s comments above.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED deeming moot Plaintiff’s Request for Clarification
Regarding January 22, 2024, and Defendant’s Motion Seeking Clarification of Court’s Ruling
Regarding to Join Indispensable Parties, filed February 2, 2024.

D. Stay of Proceedings

Both parties requested a stay of the proceedings and existing deadlines considering the
Court’s previous order directing Lorenzo and Kraus’s joinder. This should have been filed as a
stipulation but was not. As noted, it appears that both parties were operating under the assumption
that a declaratory judgment as to the neighboring property and a request for enforcement even
though neither a declaratory nor injunctive remedy as to the neighboring property was requested
in the original complaint. Under these circumstances, it may be appropriate for the parties to seek
amendment of the pleadings to add a claim for declaratory relief as to the Lorenzo/Kraus home. It
may also be that the parties may agree upon an amendment and joinder when they meet and confer
in good faith. In either case, the parties will need to stipulate to extend the existing deadlines and
to reset the settlement conference and trial conference in this matter. The Court will give the

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-052094

02/15/2024

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 4

parties an additional 35 days to meet and confer and submit a proposed amended scheduling order
under the circumstances.

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay All Discovery and Other Deadlines
in the Scheduling Order, filed February 2, 2024, and Defendant’s Motion to Stay Deadlines, filed
February 2, 2024. The deadlines set forth in the October 26, 2023, are hereby stayed until
Wednesday, March 20, 2024. On or before March 20, 2024, the parties shall file a stipulation to
amend the scheduling order together with an amended scheduling order which sets forth any
agreed upon extensions to the existing deadlines and includes blanks for a new trial setting
conference to be set. If the parties fail to submit a stipulation and proposed scheduling order by
that deadline, the Court will place this case on the dismissal calendar without further notice under
Rule 38.1. The parties shall meet and confer in person or by telephone or videoconference
regarding any pleading amendments and discovery/mediation deadlines prior to filing the
required stipulation.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/04/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-052094

02/28/2025

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
A. Cage

Deputy

SUSAN M MARCELLA
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

LEGEND TRAIL COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
TESSA KNUEPPEL

EDITH I RUDDER
JUDGE JULIAN

STATUS CONFERENCE HELD
DEADLINES SET

Courtroom 611 - East Court Building

9:02 a.m. This is the time set for a Status Conference. Plaintiff, Susan Marcella, is
represented by counsel, Mark Bainbridge. Defendant, The Legend Trial Community Association,
is represented by counsel, Tessa Knueppel, and Edith Rudder. All parties appear virtually.

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

Discussion is held regarding the participation in mediation, an amended scheduling order,
discovery dispute and the status of the case.

IT IS ORDERED that on or before March 24, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide a
redlined copy of his proposed amended complaint to Defendants’ counsel and the parties shall
thereafter meet and confer regarding whether the proposed amendment may be agreed to by
stipulation. If no stipulation can be reached, then a motion to amend the complaint shall be filed
no later than March 28, 2025.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-052094

02/28/2025

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer regarding extending
the deadlines under the existing scheduling order as needed, as well as resetting the Trial Setting
Conference. The parties shall submit a stipulation together with a proposed scheduling order on or
before March 28, 2025.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall continue their attempts to meet and
confer regarding the document discovery dispute discussed at today’s hearing. In the event the
dispute cannot be resolved, the parties shall file a Rule 26(d) statement on the issues, no later than
March 28, 2025. If the parties submit a joint statement pursuant to Rule 26(d), the statement
shall be emailed a copy to this division at [email protected] on the same date it is
filed to ensure expedited processing.

9:16 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/03/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-052094

07/02/2024

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
I. Ostrander

Deputy

SUSAN M MARCELLA
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

LEGEND TRAIL COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
TESSA KNUEPPEL

PETER KRAUS
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
MARTIN LORENZO
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
JUDGE JULIAN

ORAL ARGUMENT SET

The Court has received Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply filed on June 26,
2024.

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. Oral argument
will be set on Defendant’s Request to Amend March 28, 2024 Scheduling Order filed on May 24,
2024. Any additional points may be raised at oral argument rather than by surreply.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting Oral Argument on July 17, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. (30
minutes allotted) via Teams.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-052094

07/02/2024

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2

Judge Melissa Iyer Julian's Virtual Courtroom
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#
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

Counsel/parties are encouraged to visit Judge Julian’s online profile for information on the
Court’s expectations regarding motion practices and requirements, discovery disputes, and
hearing/trial procedures at the following website:

 http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/profile.asp?jdgID=531
&jdgUSID=13868

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 judicial days in advance of the hearing and must pay the
authorized fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two judicial days before the proceeding. The fee
is $140 for a half-day and $280 for a full day.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/30/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-052094

07/25/2024

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
A. Delgado

Deputy

SUSAN M MARCELLA
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

LEGEND TRAIL COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
TESSA KNUEPPEL

EDITH I RUDDER
JUDGE JULIAN

ORAL ARGUMENT HELD/AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER ENTERED

Courtroom 108 – Northeast Regional Court Center

1:30 p.m. This is the time set for an Oral Argument on Defendant’s Request to Amend
March 28, 2024 Scheduling Order, filed May 24, 2024. Plaintiff, Susan M. Marcella, is represented
by counsel Mark Bainbridge. Defendants, The Legend Trail Community Association, et al. are
represented by counsel, Tessa Knueppel, and Eadie Rudder. Jodi Roberts, a Community Manager
for Legend Trail, and Pepie Due De Voire, are present. All parties appear virtually.

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

The Court has received Defendant’s Request to Amend March 28, 2024 Scheduling Order,
filed May 24, 2024, the Response/Opposition, filed June 11, 2024, and the Reply filed June 24,
2024; the Motion is fully briefed.

Oral argument begins.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-052094

07/25/2024

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2

Based upon the matters presented,

IT IS ORDERED granting in part and denying in part, Defendant’s Request to Amend
March 28, 2024 Scheduling Order, filed May 24, 2024.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED approving and settling formal written Amended
Scheduling Order Tier 2 signed by the Court on July 25, 2024, and filed by the Clerk on July 26,
2024.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoena or in the Alternative
Motion for Protective Order, filed July 10, 2024, is moot and deemed denied, in light of the Court’s
ruling extending the deadlines.

LET THE RECORD REFLECT as to the discovery dispute regarding written discovery
discussed on the record, the Court encourages the parties to meet and confer in good faith before
submitting a Rule 26(d) to the Court. In the event the parties are unable to reach agreements, they
may attach copies of Plaintiff’s discovery responses to their Rule 26(d) statement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall be entitled to conduct a rule 34
inspection of Plaintiff’s home on or before August 16, 2024.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide dates where Plaintiff
or an agent of her choosing will make her home available for inspection to Defendants’ counsel
and Defendants’ experts by no later than 5:00 p.m. July 29, 2024. The dates provided shall be on
or before August 16, 2024.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s counsel shall select one of the available
dates provided for the Rule 34 inspection and Defendant’s counsel shall issue a Rule 34 inspection
notice by no later than August 2, 2024.

2:14 p.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

09/16/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-052094

09/13/2024

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
S. Ortega

Deputy

SUSAN M MARCELLA
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

LEGEND TRAIL COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
TESSA KNUEPPEL

JUDGE JULIAN

ORAL ARGUMENT SET

The Court has received Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed July 15,
2024, the Response filed August 20, 2024, and the Reply filed September 9, 2024. Good cause
appearing,

IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on the Motion on October 18, 2024, at 10:30
a.m. (45 minutes allotted).

Judge Melissa Iyer Julian's Virtual Courtroom
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 2023-052094

09/13/2024

Docket Code 094
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

Counsel/parties are encouraged to visit Judge Julian’s online profile for information on the
Court’s expectations regarding motion practices and requirements, discovery disputes, and
hearing/trial procedures at the following website:

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/profile.asp?jdgID=531&jdgU
SID=13868

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.

**** NOTICE: As of October 14, 2024, the Honorable Melissa Iyer Julian’s division will be relocating
to the East Court Building, Courtroom 611, 101 W. Jefferson St., Phoenix, AZ 85003. In-person
hearings held on or after October 14, 2024, will be held at this location.

Requests to Convert from Remote to In-Person Argument

The Court has set the above oral argument as a virtual hearing in accordance with the
Arizona Supreme Court’s Administrative Order No. 2022-46, which adopts a presumption that
oral arguments should be held remotely. Nevertheless, the Court is mindful that parties or
attorneys may wish to argue some of these matters in person. The Court encourages
parties/attorneys wishing to present their oral argument in person to make a request to convert the
above hearing from a virtual setting to an in-person hearing. The Court will endeavor to
accommodate timely requests to the best of its ability. To do so, a party must file a Motion to
Convert Remote Oral Argument to In-Person Hearing at least 20 days before the date set for the
oral argument so that the other party or parties may have time to object. Prior to doing so, the
moving party should consult with the opposing party or counsel to confirm whether that party
objects to the request to convert the argument to an in-person proceeding. If no objection will be
asserted, the moving party shall note that in the motion and the Court will thereafter immediately
convert the remote hearing to an in-person proceeding. If an objection is filed, the court will
consider the basis for the objection and rule on the request as appropriate. The Court will treat

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-052094

09/13/2024

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 3

any request on an expedited basis and any motion and objection thereto should be emailed
to
this
court’s
judicial
assistant
at
the
same
time
it
is
filed
at
[email protected] to expedite processing.

In-Person Address:

Honorable Melissa Iyer Julian
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building
101 West Jefferson Street
Courtroom 611
Phoenix, Arizona 85003

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/22/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-052094

10/18/2024

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
T. DeRaddo

Deputy

SUSAN M MARCELLA
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

LEGEND TRAIL COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
TESSA KNUEPPEL

EDITH I RUDDER
JUDGE JULIAN

MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT

East Court Building – Courtroom 611

10:30 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, filed July 15, 2024. Plaintiff, Susan M. Marcella, is present and is
represented by Mark Bainbridge. Defendant, The Legend Trail Community Association, is
represented by Tessa Knueppel and Eadie Rudder. All parties appear virtually.

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

The Court has read and considered the following filings:

 Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Statement of Facts, filed July 15,
2024;

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-052094

10/18/2024

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2

 Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and
Defendant’s Controverting Statement of Facts in Support of its Response to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed August 20, 2024; and

 Plaintiff’s Reply thereto, filed September 9, 2024.

The parties present argument on Plaintiff’s Motion.

IT IS ORDERED taking Plaintiff’s Motion under advisement.

11:28 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/22/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-052094

10/18/2024

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
T. DeRaddo

Deputy

SUSAN M MARCELLA
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

LEGEND TRAIL COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
TESSA KNUEPPEL

EDITH I RUDDER
JUDGE JULIAN

UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING
Re: Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Pending before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed July
15, 2024.

The motion is fully briefed and this Court heard oral argument from the parties on
October 18, 2024, at which time the motion was taken under advisement.

The Court has considered the filings and arguments of the parties, the relevant authorities
and applicable law, as well as the entire record of the case, and—considering all facts and
reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-movant party—hereby
finds as follows regarding the Motion.
ANALYSIS

This case arises from a dispute between Plaintiff, a homeowner in the Legend Trail
Community and Defendant The Legend Trail Community Association (the “Association”), a

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-052094

10/18/2024

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2

home owner’s association responsible for enforcing the community’s CC&Rs. Plaintiff seeks
“partial summary judgment” on various issues without tying the motion to any of her specific
claims or the elements of her claims. With respect to her claims for breach of contract and breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the Court finds that the record reflects
disputed issues of material fact. Namely, there is conflicting evidence regarding whether the
parties had a meeting of the minds sufficient to form a binding contract and the parties’ intent in
reaching the agreement allowing Plaintiff to erect a temporary fence “during” construction on her
neighbor’s property. As the agreement is reflected only in a very basic description set forth in the
ACC’s meeting minutes, the parties’ intent and any alleged breach must be evaluated by a jury.

Further, Plaintiff has not identified any authority that supports the proposition that the
Association’s failure to promptly produce records as required under A.R.S. § 33-1805 creates a
private right of action for damages, nor does she provide any evidence of damages suffered as a
result of the alleged statutory violations.

Finally, promissory estoppel is an alternative remedy and only available in the absence of
a binding contract. Del Hayes & Sons, Inc. v. Mitchell, 304 Minn. 275, 283 (1975) (“Promissory
estoppel is the name applied to a contract implied in law where no contract exists in fact.”). In
this case, because Plaintiff alleges the existence of a binding contract, she is not entitled to
summary judgment on the estoppel theory unless her contract claim is unsuccessful.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, filed July 15, 2024.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED resetting a trial setting conference in this case for
November 22, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. (Time allotted: 15 minutes)

Judge Melissa Iyer Julian's Virtual Courtroom
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#
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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-052094

10/18/2024

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3

Counsel/parties are encouraged to visit Judge Julian’s online profile for information on the
Court’s expectations regarding motion practices and requirements, discovery disputes, and
hearing/trial procedures at the following website:

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/profile.asp?jdgID=531&jdgU
SID=13868

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

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

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/26/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-052094

10/25/2023

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
A. Delgado

Deputy

SUSAN M MARCELLA
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

LEGEND TRAIL COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, THE
TESSA HUSTEAD

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE JULIAN

ADR REFERRAL

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order signed by the Court on October 26, 2023, and filed
(entered) by the clerk on October 25, 2023,

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 1, 2024.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by no later than December 4, 2023, 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://tinyurl.com/CV-JointReq-English; https://tinyurl.com/CV-
JointReq-Spanish

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-052094

10/25/2023

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

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.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/11/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-052094

12/08/2023

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MELISSA IYER JULIAN
A. Delgado

Deputy

SUSAN M MARCELLA
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

LEGEND TRAIL COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, THE
TESSA HUSTEAD

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE JULIAN

ADR CERTIFICATION - REJECTED

The parties submitted a Joint Request and Certification of Readiness for Setting Settlement
Conference Under Rule 16(i), Ariz. R. Civ. P. filed December 5, 2023.

IT IS ORDERED rejecting the parties Joint Request and Certification of Readiness for
Setting Settlement Conference Under Rule 16(i), Ariz. R. Civ. P. filed December 5, 2023.

The parties may re-file the certificate within 10-days of receipt of this minute entry, if
section b. is corrected to state the following: The parties have engaged in good-faith settlement
discussions and have been unable to reach an agreement. If the parties intend to engage in a
private mediation or settlement conference, they have done so and have exhausted those efforts;

Documents