08/22/2022 — CV2022092857 MELLO, JAMES R 08/22/2022 HONORABLE STEPHEN M. HOPKINS View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/23/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-092857
08/22/2022
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE STEPHEN M. HOPKINS
C. Avena
Deputy
DOVE VALLEY RANCH COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
CHAD M GALLACHER
v.
JAMES R MELLO, et al.
JAMES R MELLO
4610 E LAREDO LN
CAVE CREEK AZ 85331
KIRA C MELLO
4610 E LAREDO LN
CAVE CREEK AZ 85331
ARIZONA RESISTRAR OF
CONTRACTORS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL
2005 N CENTRAL AVE
PHOENIX AZ 85007
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE
DIRECTORS OFFICE
1600 W MONROE FL 9
PHOENIX AZ 85007
KHANRAT KWAN PIENSOOK
JUDGE HOPKINS
MINUTE ENTRY
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-092857
08/22/2022
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
The Court is in receipt of a proposed form of Order, submitted pursuant to Rule 54 (b) of
the Arizona Rules of Civil. The Court now rules as follows.
Rule 54 (b) is designed as a compromise between the policy against interlocutory appeals
and the desirability “in a few cases” of an immediate appeal to prevent an injustice. See, e.g.,
Southern California Edison Co. v. Peabody Western Coal Co., 194 Ariz. 47, 977 P.2d 769
(1999). Our appellate courts have emphasized the strong policy and desire to prevent piecemeal
appeals. McHazlett v. Otis Engineering Corp., 133 Ariz. 530, 652 P.2d 1377 (1982). Stated
another way Rule 54 (b) language may be appropriate in those “few cases” where no appellate
court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were subsequent
appeals. Dabrowsi v. Bartlett, 246 Ariz. 504, 442 P.3d 811 (App. 2019). As confirmed by the
Southern California Edison court:
Rule 54 . . is designed as a compromise between the policy against interlocutory appeals
and the desirability, in a few cases, of an immediate appeal to prevent an injustice.
Pulaski, 127 Ariz. at 218, 619 P.2d at 490. A trial judge has discretion to decide whether
an order or judgment should be accorded finality; the judge should certify the order or
judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) only in those cases in which some hardship or injustice
would result from a delay in entering a final judgment. See id.; see also 10 CHARLES
ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER & MARY KAY KANE, FEDERAL
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: CIVIL 3D § 2659. Our decision today does not depart
from our policy against piecemeal appeals, nor from our policy in favor of arbitration.
We emphasize that 54(b) orders should not be entered routinely or as a courtesy or
accommodation to counsel. The power which this Rule confers upon the trial judge
should be used only ‘in the infrequent harsh case’ as an instrument for improved
administration of justice and the more satisfactory disposition of litigation in light of the
public policy indicated by statute [as to the appealability of final judgments] and rule.
Pulaski, 127 Ariz. at 218, 619 P.2d at 490 (quoting Panichella v. Pennsylvania R.R., 252
F.2d 452, 455 (3d Cir.1958)).
194 Ariz. at 53, 977 P.2d at 769.
The Court cannot conclude based upon the Court record that this is the “infrequent harsh
case” where an immediate appeal is necessary to prevent an injustice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying the any request for 54 (b) certification, and
denying the request for entry of a final Order at this time.
08/31/2022 — CV2022092857 MELLO, JAMES R 08/31/2022 HONORABLE STEPHEN M. HOPKINS View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/01/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-092857
08/31/2022
Docket Code 375
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE STEPHEN M. HOPKINS
C. Avena
Deputy
DOVE VALLEY RANCH COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
CHAD M GALLACHER
v.
JAMES R MELLO, et al.
JAMES R MELLO
4610 E LAREDO LN
CAVE CREEK AZ 85331
KIRA C MELLO
4610 E LAREDO LN
CAVE CREEK AZ 85331
ARIZONA RESISTRAR OF
CONTRACTORS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL
2005 N CENTRAL AVE
PHOENIX AZ 85007
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE
DIRECTORS OFFICE
1600 W MONROE FL 9
PHOENIX AZ 85007
KHANRAT KWAN PIENSOOK
JUDGE HOPKINS
MINUTE ENTRY
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-092857
08/31/2022
Docket Code 375
Form V000A
Page 2
Plaintiff has requested service by alternative means pursuant to Rule 4.1 of the Arizona
Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 4.1 (k) provides as follows:
(k) Alternative Means of Service.
(1) Generally.
If a party shows that the means of service provided in Rule 4.1(c) through Rule 4.1(j) are
impracticable, the court may--on motion and without notice to the person to be served--
order that service may be accomplished in another manner.
(2) Notice and Mailing. If the court allows an alternative means of service, the serving
party must make a reasonable effort to provide the person being served with actual notice
of the action's commencement. In any event, the serving party must mail the summons,
the pleading being served, and any court order authorizing an alternative means of service
to the last-known business or residential address of the person being served.
(3) Service by Publication. A party may serve by publication only if the requirements of
Rule 4.1(l), 4.1(m), 4.2(f), or 4.2(g) are met and the procedures provided in those rules
are followed.
Whether traditional service is “impractical,” defined as “extremely difficult or
inconvenient” is a fact specific inquiry. See Blair v. Burgener, 226 Ariz. 213, 245 P.3d 898
(App. 2010. The Court finds in this case that personal is impractical.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED authorizing Plaintiff to serve Defendants at
Defendants’ last known place of abode by posting this Order as well as the Summons and
Complaint and any other related papers on the front door of Defendants’ last known residence
address or on the front gate of Defendants’ property if unable to gain access to the front door.1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall also mail this Order as well as the
Summons and Complaint and any other related papers by regular first class mail as provided in
Rule 4.1 (k) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall also e-mail this Order as well as the
Summons and Complaint and any other related papers to Defendants at any e-mail address
believed by Plaintiff to be associated with Defendants.2
1 All of the orders for service shall be in addition to what has already been done, i.e., even if the
Complaint was mailed before it must be mailed again, with a copy of this Order.
2 See generally Baidoo v. Blood-Dzraku, 48 Misc. 3d 309, 310 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015) (discussing
service via e-mail or Facebook as supplemental methods of providing actual notice to a
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-092857
08/31/2022
Docket Code 375
Form V000A
Page 3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED extending the time to complete service to December 7,
2022.
The Court has granted an extension of time for Plaintiff to serve the Complaint and
accompanying documents in this case which supersedes the original time computation for
dismissal on the Inactive Calendar. Therefore,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED placing this case on the Inactive Calendar for
dismissal without further notice on December 8, 2022 unless an Affidavit of Service of Process
is filed before that date indicating that service has been effected in accordance with the Arizona
Rules of Civil Procedure.
defendant of a pending legal proceeding); see also generally Solving Sewer Service: Fighting
Fraud With Technology, Arkansas Law Review, Vol. 70, number 4 (2018); “Hacking” Service
of Process: Using Social Media to Provide Constitutionally Sufficient Notice of Process, 38 U.
Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 559 (2016).
11/02/2022 — CV2022092857 MELLO, JAMES R 11/02/2022 HONORABLE STEPHEN M. HOPKINS View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/03/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-092857
11/02/2022
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE STEPHEN M. HOPKINS
C. Avena
Deputy
DOVE VALLEY RANCH COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
CHAD M GALLACHER
v.
JAMES R MELLO, et al.
JAMES R MELLO
4610 E LAREDO LN
CAVE CREEK AZ 85331
KIRA C MELLO
4610 E LAREDO LN
CAVE CREEK AZ 85331
ARIZONA RESISTRAR OF
CONTRACTORS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL
2005 N CENTRAL AVE
PHOENIX AZ 85007
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE
DIRECTORS OFFICE
1600 W MONROE FL 9
PHOENIX AZ 85007
KHANRAT KWAN PIENSOOK
COMM. KAISER
JUDGE HOPKINS
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-092857
11/02/2022
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
ORDER ENTERED BY THE COURT
MINUTE ENTRY
This division has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application/Affidavit for Entry of Default
against Defendant(s), James R. Mello and Kira C. Mello 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 Brian
Kaiser.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all documents necessary to support the entry of a
default judgment must be e-filed.
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, and
Application for Attorneys’ Fees when appropriate and Statement of Costs, but shall 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.
The parties/counsel can find additional information in the form of frequently asked
questions at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/howDoI.
asp
The parties/counsel can find additional information regarding the default judgment process
at:
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/llrc/cv_cvc6/.
