03/14/2011 — CV2010017644 FRIEDLAND, GINITA A 03/14/2011 HONORABLE J. KENNETH MANGUM View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/17/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-017644
03/14/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE J. KENNETH MANGUM
D. Glab
Deputy
TED ARNOLD FRIEDLAND
HARVEY S BROWN
v.
GINITA A FRIEDLAND, et al.
ROGER A BURRELL
PARTIES TO FILE JOINT PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM
The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion to Set and Certificate of
Readiness.
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
Counsel are to meet personally to discuss all of the matters set forth in Rule 16(b), Ariz.
R. Civ. P. Counsel shall prepare and file with the Court, no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 25,
2011, a Joint Pretrial Memorandum, and a proposed Order, for discovery, motion and disclosure
deadlines.
If the parties agree to the dates, they should prepare an Order in the form set forth below,
containing the provisions which are applicable to their case. Please provide copies of the
proposed Order to be conformed, along with stamped, self-addressed envelopes. For
example, paragraph 1 of the Order set forth below need not be included in the parties’ proposed
Order if the parties intend to disclose their experts’ identity and opinions at the same time they
disclose their experts’ areas of testimony. Similarly, if the parties agree to simultaneously
disclose the identity and opinions of their expert witnesses, they need not include in their
proposed Order the language set forth in paragraph 2a. and b., below.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-017644
03/14/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
The proposed Order shall include specific dates (“December 5, 2011” is a specific date.
“90 days prior to trial” is a date in reference to a trial date and is not a specific date). Do not
incorporate a firm trial date in the proposed Order.
If counsel are unable to agree on any of the items that are to be included in the Order, the
reasons for their inability to agree shall be set forth in their Pretrial Memorandum and each shall
prepare a separate proposed Order.
The Court will review the Joint Pretrial Memorandum and proposed Scheduling Order. If
all is in order, the Court will set a status conference close to the discovery cutoff date. At the
status conference, if the parties have completed discovery and are ready for trial, the Court will
set firm dates for the final pretrial management conference and the trial. There will be no
telephonic appearances at the status conference without prior Court approval. Counsel who will
be the trial lawyers in the case must appear in person with their trial calendar. If the parties are
not ready for trial, the matter will be placed on the Inactive Calendar for dismissal within 60
days.
If counsel feel a pretrial conference is still necessary at this stage of the litigation, they
should address the reasons why in the first paragraph of the Joint Pretrial Memorandum.
If a Joint Pretrial Conference Memorandum and proposed Scheduling Order are not
timely submitted, the Court will place the matter back on the Inactive Calendar for dismissal.
PROPOSED ORDER LANGUAGE:
The Court has received and reviewed the parties’ Joint Pretrial Memorandum and
proposed Scheduling Order.
In accordance therewith,
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. The parties shall mutually and simultaneously disclose areas of expert testimony by
5:00 p.m. on ________, 2011. [or]
a. Plaintiffs shall disclose areas of expert testimony by 5:00 p.m. on _________,
2011.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-017644
03/14/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 3
b. Defendants shall disclose areas of expert testimony by 5:00 p.m. on _________,
2011.
2. The parties shall mutually and simultaneously disclose the identity and opinions of
their expert witnesses by 5:00 p.m. on ________, 2011. [or]
a. Plaintiffs shall disclose the identity and opinions of their expert witnesses by
5:00 p.m. on ________, 2011.
b. Defendants shall disclose the identity and opinions of their expert witnesses by
5:00 p.m. on ________, 2011.
3. Any and all discovery requests shall be served by 5:00 p.m. on ________, 2011.
4. The parties shall disclose all non-expert witnesses by 5:00 p.m. on ________, 2011.
[or]
a. Plaintiffs shall disclose areas of non-expert testimony by 5:00 p.m. on ________,
2011.
b. Defendants shall disclose areas of non-expert testimony by 5:00 p.m. on
________, 2011.
5. The parties shall mutually and simultaneously disclose their rebuttal expert witnesses
and opinions by 5:00 p.m. on ________, 2011.
6. All discovery shall be concluded by 5:00 p.m. on ________, 2011.
7. The parties shall have exchanged up-to-date final Rule 26.1 Supplemental Disclosure
Statements by 5:00 p.m. on ________, 2011. This Order does not replace the parties’
obligation to seasonably disclose on an on-going basis under Rule 26.1 as information
becomes available.
8. Settlement Conference (choose one):
a. The parties shall participate in private mediation by 5:00 p.m. on ________,
2011.
OR
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-017644
03/14/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 4
b. The parties shall participate in a mandatory Settlement Conference and this matter
is referred to the Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution for the appointment of a
judge pro tempore to conduct a settlement conference. Counsel and any "pro per"
parties will contact the appointed judge pro tempore to arrange the time and
location for the settlement conference. The judge pro tempore is requested to
conduct a settlement conference not later than ________, 2011. The Office of
Alternative Dispute Resolution will not do the scheduling of the settlement
conference so please do not contact that office. If counsel prefer to use a private
mediator to conduct the Settlement Conference, a Stipulation and Order re:
Alternative to ADR must be presented to the Court by 5:00 p.m. on ________,
2011.
9. No expert witnesses, expert opinions, lay witnesses, or exhibits shall be used at trial
other than those disclosed in a timely manner, except for good cause shown or written
agreement of the parties.
10. All pretrial motions, other than motions in limine, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. on
________, 2011.
11. A telephonic Status Conference is set for ________, 2011, at ________*.m. for the
purpose of assigning a trial date if the case has not settled. Plaintiff is to initiate the
call.
12. Should any discovery disputes arise, counsel, prior to filing discovery motions, shall
meet and confer pursuant to Rule 37, Ariz.R.Civ.P., then telephonically contact the
Court to set up a telephonic conference to discuss any remaining issues.
13. The dates set forth in this Order are FIRM dates and will not be extended or modified
by this Court absent good cause. Lack of preparation will not ordinarily be
considered good cause.
14. This case is removed from the Inactive Calendar and all requirements of Rule 38.1,
Ariz.R.Civ.P., are waived unless and until otherwise ordered by the Court.
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp.
Attorneys are encouraged to review Supreme Court Administrative Orders 2010-117 and 2011-
10 to determine their mandatory participation in eFiling through AZTurboCourt.
03/23/2012 — CV2010017644 COUNTRY CLUB ASSOCIATION INC, CORTE BELLA 03/23/2012 HONORABLE KATHERINE COOPER View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/26/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-017644
03/23/2012
Docket Code 042
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE KATHERINE COOPER
A. Melchert
Deputy
TED ARNOLD FRIEDLAND, et al.
HARVEY S BROWN
v.
CORTE BELLA COUNTRY CLUB
ASSOCIATION INC
JOSEPH T TADANO
STEPHEN M BUSHARD
DISMISSAL MINUTE ENTRY
IT IS ORDERED approving/granting Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, all in
accordance with the formal written Order signed by the Court on March 23, 2012 and filed
(entered) by the Clerk on March 23, 2012.
Please note: The Court has signed a hard-copy version of the order provided with an
electronically filed pleading. Therefore, copies of the order were not available for mailing to the
parties. Copies of this order may be obtained from the Customer Service Center located at 601
W. Jackson St., Phoenix, AZ 85003.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.
03/25/2011 — CV2010017644 FRIEDLAND, GINITA A 03/25/2011 HONORABLE J. KENNETH MANGUM View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/30/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-017644
03/25/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE J. KENNETH MANGUM
D. Glab
Deputy
TED ARNOLD FRIEDLAND
HARVEY S BROWN
v.
GINITA A FRIEDLAND, et al.
ROGER A BURRELL
MINUTE ENTRY
The court has reviewed the Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions and Reply, and the
Defendant’s Response and Cross Motion to Compel Disclosure and Sanctions.
The Plaintiff, Ted and Ginita Friedland contend that the court should strike Defendant’s
Answer, deliver a default judgment, and impose sanctions upon the Defendant due to the
Defendant’s tardy response to uniform interrogatories.
The Defendant, Corte Bella Country Club Association, Inc., aptly points out that the
Plaintiff failed to serve a Disclosure Statement in a timely fashion and never made a Motion to
Compel regarding interrogatories. The Defendant in turn makes a Cross Motion for Sanctions.
The court finds both motions harsh and unfair to the clients. Given the sophomoric
nature of the gamesmanship between counsel, the court will not facilitate further legal
inefficiency at either party’s expense.
With these considerations in mind,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions is denied.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-017644
03/25/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Disclosure is granted.
The court expects the parties in the future to act more promptly in abiding by the
discovery and disclosure deadlines and to correspondence from each other.
04/26/2011 — CV2010017644 FRIEDLAND, GINITA A 04/26/2011 HONORABLE J. KENNETH MANGUM View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/29/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-017644
04/26/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE J. KENNETH MANGUM
D. Glab
Deputy
TED ARNOLD FRIEDLAND
HARVEY S BROWN
v.
GINITA A FRIEDLAND, et al.
ROGER A BURRELL
MINUTE ENTRY
This matter is in Arbitration.
IT IS ORDERED vacating the March 14, 2011, minute entry ordering a Joint Pretrial
Memorandum, and a proposed order for discovery, motion and disclosure deadlines.
