Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2016-006034: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Las Hadas Villas Association.

Case Number

CV2016-006034

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

7/25/2016

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Pineda, Susanna

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/21/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

03/17/2017

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH
D Arrieta

Deputy

LES RODIN
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

LAS HADAS VILLAS ASSOCIATION, et al.
BRIAN E DITSCH

WILLIAM J CUROSH

MINUTE ENTRY

So that the court may determine whether either or both of the claims asserted against
Nancy Fahy and June Francisco are subject to compulsory arbitration, the court requires what
follows.

Plaintiff must, within 21 days of the date of entry of this order, serve a comprehensive
disclosure on each defendant, with a copy provided to this division, that addresses the issue of
plaintiff’s claimed "compensatory, consequential, and incidental damages." In addition to what
otherwise may suffice as compliance with Rule 26.1, “comprehensive” includes an itemized list
of each element of monetary damages that plaintiff seeks from each defendant (not merely Fahy
and Francisco), together with a detailed description that would allow one to understand how each
such amount of claimed damages was calculated (i.e., merely reciting a number will not be
sufficient). If plaintiff is serious about seeking recovery for any damages that do not lend
themselves to more than an approximate calculation, then plaintiff must disclose the approximate
amount or range that plaintiff anticipates requesting as an award at trial and a detailed
explanation showing that the approximation or range is reasonable. With that disclosure,
plaintiff must attach all documents that in any way support the claimed damages.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

03/17/2017

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

Given the nature of the claims for financial injury asserted in the verified complaint, there
should be no need for plaintiff to undertake discovery, nor should there be any need for plaintiff
to require additional time to comply with what is required here. If plaintiff has experienced
financial injury attributable to any of the acts alleged in the complaint, he surely has felt it, and
thus knows it, by now. Thus, failure to comply with what is required here, which includes a
failure to provide sufficient detail, will be treated as a concession that plaintiff's claimed
monetary damages are not compensable.

SO ORDERED.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/24/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

04/21/2017

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH
D Arrieta

Deputy

LES RODIN
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

LAS HADAS VILLAS ASSOCIATION, et al.
BRIAN E DITSCH

WILLIAM J CUROSH

MINUTE ENTRY

With respect to the pending motions for summary judgment that have been filed on
behalf of (i) Las Hadas Villas Association, Nancy Fahy, and June Francisco, and (ii) Diana
Buchholt, counsel for plaintiff must file a supplemental statement of facts consistent with what
Rule 56 requires showing the fact and amount or amounts of financial injury that plaintiff Les
Rodin claims to have experienced for each act or failure to act that is alleged in the complaint.
The statement must be more than conclusory and must allow one to understand the basis for the
amount or amounts attributable to each defendant instead of reciting an aggregate sum attributed
to the group.

The deadline for submission of the supplemental statement is May 12, 2017. Failure to
submit the statement will be treated as an admission that plaintiff has no claim for compensable
financial injury.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/26/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

04/24/2017

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH
D Arrieta

Deputy

LES RODIN
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

LAS HADAS VILLAS ASSOCIATION, et al.
BRIAN E DITSCH

WILLIAM J CUROSH

ORAL ARGUMENT SET

On the court's own motion,

IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument for May 24, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. (1 hour
allotted on the following motions:

1. Las Hadas Villas Association, Nancy Fahy and June Francisco's Motion for
Summary Judgment, filed on December 20, 2016.

2. Defendant Diania Buchholt's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against
Plaintiff, filed on February 27, 2017.

Counsel and the parties, if representing themselves, are to appear in person before:

THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING
101 W. JEFFERSON
5TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 513
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
PHONE: 602-372-5851

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

04/24/2017

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2

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.

If the parties are not familiar with the courtroom’s technology, they are encouraged to set
up an appointment with the court’s technology liaison at 602.506.3269.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/30/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

05/24/2017

Docket Code 350
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH
D Arrieta

Deputy

LES RODIN
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

LAS HADAS VILLAS ASSOCIATION, et al.
BRIAN E DITSCH

WILLIAM J CUROSH
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK

MINUTE ENTRY

East Court Building – Courtroom 513

10:01 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument on Las Hadas Villas Association,
Nancy Fahy and June Francisco's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on December 20, 2016;
and Defendant Diania Buchholt's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff, filed
on February 27, 2017.

The following counsel/parties are present:
 Plaintiff Les Rodin is present and represented by counsel, Mark Bainbridge.
 Defendant Las Hadas Villa Association is represented by counsel, Brian E. Ditsch.
 Defendants Nancy Fahy and June Francisco are present and represented by counsel,
Brian E. Ditsch.
 Defendant Diana Buchholt is present and represented by counsel, William J. Curosh.
 Managers of PRM Association Management Paul Rubin and Susan Rubin are also
present.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

05/24/2017

Docket Code 350
Form V000A
Page 2

Discussion is held regarding the Motion for Summary Judgment and the Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment.

Argument is heard and considered.

For the reasons stated on the record,

IT IS ORDERED granting Las Hadas Villas Association, Nancy Fahy and June
Francisco's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on December 20, 2016.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendant Diania Buchholt's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff, filed on February 27, 2017.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED transferring the remaining issues to the Civil Court
Administration Arbitration Desk for appointment of an arbitrator.

10:34 a.m. Matter concludes.

LATER:

During the oral argument, counsel for Rodin urged that, even if Rodin has not
experienced any compensable financial injury attributable to any defendant's act or failure to act,
he is, nevertheless, entitled to declaratory relief regarding the defendants' purported misconduct.

Two separate statements of fact have been submitted on Rodin's behalf in an effort to
withstand summary judgment. [See Pltf's. Fact State. (1/24/17), Pltf's. Fact State. (4/3/17)] In
both of those statements, the asserted wrongful conduct on which Rodin bases his claimed
entitlement to declaratory relief occurred at times in the past, i.e., in both statements of fact,
every act identified as wrongful is, without exception, described in the past tense. Moreover, in
neither of the Rodin statements of fact is there a contention, much less a contention supported
with admissible evidence, that any wrongdoing is ongoing, nor is there a contention supported
with admissible evidence that any of the wrongful conduct on which Rodin bases his claim is
likely to occur again in the future.1

1 A statement of facts is the only means by which a party opposing summary judgment may create a record showing
the existence of facts that warrant denying the motion. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). The statement of facts must be
supported by specific citations to evidence that either accompanies the statement or appears elsewhere in the record.
Id. (statements of fact must "cite the specific part of the record where support for each fact may be found"). And,
the cited evidence must be admissible. Orme School v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 309, 802 P.2d 1000, 1008 (1990)
("inadmissible evidence [is] . . . insufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment").

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

05/24/2017

Docket Code 350
Form V000A
Page 3

Declaratory relief requires the existence of a controversy, and whether that controversy
exists is determined "at the time the court acts. It is not enough that there may have been a
controversy when the action was commenced." 10B Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal
Practice & Procedure §2757 (4th ed. April 2017 Westlaw update); see also Golden v. Zwickler,
394 U.S. 103, 108 (1969) (same). And, it is well-settled that declaratory relief is not available to
a party that seeks to adjudicate conduct that occurred in the past absent evidence (not in the
record here) that the conduct is likely to reoccur. E.g., Ysais v. New Mexico, 373 Fed.Appx. 863,
866 (10th Cir. 2010) ("A declaratory judgment is . . . not [meant] to proclaim liability for a past
act"); Fieger v. Ferry, 471 F.3d 637, 643 (6th Cir. 2006) ("In the context of a declaratory
judgment action, allegations of past injury alone are not sufficient"); see also City of Los Angeles
v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 (1983) (concluding in part that trial court's dismissal of request for
declaratory relief was appropriate: "[P]ast wrongs do not in themselves amount to that real or
immediate threat of injury necessary to make out a case or controversy" sufficient to warrant
equitable relief).2

Apart from that, to grant Rodin the declaratory relief that he has requested would be
meaningless. "A declaratory judgment does not command" anyone to do anything. E.g.,
Marshall v. Crotty, 185 F.2d 622, 629 (1st Cir. 1951); Deglau v. Franke, 184 F.Supp. 225, 228
(D. R.I. 1960) ("A declaratory judgment per se does not command action"). Thus, for example,
if the court were merely to declare that the individual defendants failed to carry out their duties
as members of the Association's board of directors in response to parking issues [see Complaint
(7/25/16) at 4-5, paras. 20(b), 21(b), 29], nothing would change other than, perhaps, Rodin
feeling some measure of satisfaction. Under no authority to which the court's attention has been
directed, however, nor any that the court's independent research has uncovered, is declaratory

2 In addition, see Excelsior Garage Parking, Inc. v. 1250 North Dearborn Cond. Ass'n, 394 Ill. Dec. 700, 708, 36
N.E.2d 991, 999 (App. 2015) (recognizing that a declaratory judgment action that seeks "a declaration of liability on
past conduct" warrants dismissal); Steveson v. Lanham, 127 Md. App. 597, 619, 621, 736 A.2d 363, 375, 377 (1999)
("[T]here was no justiciable controversy when the [trial] court issued the declaratory judgment in this action"
because the "appellant had stopped engaging in the conduct at issue"); and Bluestar Energy, Inc. v. Murphy, 205
S.W.3d 96 (Tex. App. 2006) (stating that a determination of liability "for past conduct is not normally a function of
the declaratory judgment statute"). Because Illinois, Maryland, and Texas, like Arizona, have adopted the Uniform
Declaratory Judgment Act, it is appropriate to rely on cases from those jurisdictions for guidance. See Chandler
Med. Bldg. Partners v. Chandler Dental Group, 175 Ariz. 273, 279, 855 P.2d 787, 793 (App. 1993) (looking to
"cases from other jurisdictions that have adopted . . . the Uniform Partnership Act" for guidance); see also Moore v.
Browning, 203 Ariz. 102, 106, ¶10, 50 P.3d 852, 856 (App. 2002) (recognizing that legislatures adopt uniform laws
intending “to make uniform the law of those states which enact it”); Canon School Dist. No. 50 v. W.E.S. Const. Co.
Inc., 180 Ariz. 148, 154, 882 P.2d 1274, 1280 (1994) (stating that “[i]t is axiomatic that a purpose in enacting
uniform laws is to achieve conformity, not uniqueness. . . . This court should strive to maintain the standardization
of construction of uniform acts to carry out the legislative intent of uniformity” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

05/24/2017

Docket Code 350
Form V000A
Page 4

relief available when, as here, it would accomplish nothing other than to allow a plaintiff to say
to a defendant, "So there, I told you so."

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/22/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

06/21/2017

Docket Code 352
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH
D Arrieta

Deputy

LES RODIN
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

LAS HADAS VILLAS ASSOCIATION, et al.
BRIAN E DITSCH

CLARE H ABEL

WILLIAM J CUROSH

COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK

REMOVE ARBITRATOR FROM CASE

The court has reviewed the Request to Remove Clare H. Abel as Arbitrator, filed on June
20, 2017.

THE COURT FINDS that there is good cause to excuse Clare Abel as the appointed
arbitrator in this case.

IT IS ORDERED excusing Clare Abel as arbitrator in this matter and forwarding this
case to the Civil Court Administration/Arbitration Desk for appointment of a new arbitrator.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Civil Court Administration/Arbitration Desk
shall appoint Clare Abel as arbitrator in the next available case.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/17/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

07/12/2017

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH
D Arrieta

Deputy

LES RODIN
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

LAS HADAS VILLAS ASSOCIATION, et al.
BRIAN E DITSCH

WILLIAM J CUROSH
DON C FLETCHER

MINUTE ENTRY

The court has received a Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs that was filed on behalf of
defendant Diania Buchholt, an Application for Award of Attorney's Fees that was filed on behalf
of defendant Las Hadas Villas Association, and a Statement of Costs that was filed on behalf of
defendants Las Hadas, Nancy Fahy, and June Francisco.

The court merely granted partial summary judgment in Buchholt's favor. In other words,
other issues that pertain to her remain unresolved. Accordingly, the Buchholt motion is, at best,
premature.

Neither a response nor a request for additional time to submit a response in opposition to
either the Las Hadas motion or the defendants' statement of costs was filed by or on behalf of
plaintiff Les Rodin. Rodin's failure to respond may be treated as consent to the application and
statement being granted. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 7.1(b). As such, there appears to be no impediment to
granting both of the requests.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

07/12/2017

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs that was filed on behalf of defendant Diania
Buchholt is denied as premature.

2. The Application for Award of Attorney's Fees that was filed on behalf of defendant
Las Hadas Villas Association, and the request for an award of taxable costs that was filed on
behalf of defendants Las Hadas, Nancy Fahy, and June Francisco are both granted. Las Hadas is
awarded $61,231.00 in attorneys' fees and Las Hadas, Fahy, and Francisco are jointly awarded
$267.00 in taxable costs.

FILED: Order Re: Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Please note: The Court has signed a hard-copy version of the order provided with an
electronically filed pleading. After the order has been scanned and docketed by the Clerk of
Court, additional copies of the order may be available through ECR Online at
clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov or through AZTurboCourt.gov and from the Public Access Terminals
at the Clerk of Court’s offices located throughout Maricopa County.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/24/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

07/21/2017

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH
D Arrieta

Deputy

LES RODIN
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

LAS HADAS VILLAS ASSOCIATION, et al.
BRIAN E DITSCH

WILLIAM J CUROSH
DON C FLETCHER

MINUTE ENTRY

The court has received a Motion for Reconsideration that was filed on behalf of plaintiff
Les Rodin. The court is unable to grant that motion without allowing for a response. Ariz. R.
Civ. P. 7.1(e).

Therefore, the court requests that, not later than 21 days from the date of entry of this
Minute Entry, a response should be filed on behalf of any party that wishes to oppose the motion.
In addition to addressing whether reconsideration is warranted because the court was unaware of
and, thus, did not consider Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Las Hadas Villas Association's
Application for Award of Attorneys' Fees, the response should also address the merits of that
response.

No reply should be filed on behalf of plaintiff Rodin unless requested. Ariz. R. Civ. P.
7.1(e).

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

09/05/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

08/30/2017

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH
D Arrieta

Deputy

LES RODIN
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

LAS HADAS VILLAS ASSOCIATION, et al.
BRIAN E DITSCH

WILLIAM J CUROSH
ANTHONY J PALUMBO

MINUTE ENTRY

An application for an award of attorney's fees was filed on behalf of defendant Las Hadas
Villas Association, which the court granted in large part because it appeared to be unopposed,
not knowing that the parties had stipulated to allow plaintiff Les Rodin additional time to
respond. The court's ruling was met with a motion for reconsideration that incorporated the
Rodin response to Las Hadas' application. At the court's request, Las Hadas filed both a
response to the motion for reconsideration (which Las Hadas did not oppose) and a reply that
addressed contentions raised by the Rodin response.

Rodin initiated this action against multiple parties, including Las Hadas. Rodin's
complaint asserted that Las Hadas was liable to him for breaching (i) a contract (i.e., the
covenants, conditions, and restrictions that pertain to the Las Hadas Villas condominium
complex and related recorded documents), (ii) the covenant of good faith and fair dealing that is
implied in the CC&R's (and the other recorded documents), and (iii) a fiduciary duty that Las
Hadas purportedly owes its members.

The Las Hadas application seeks an award of attorney's fees under A.R.S. §12-341.01(A),
which permits such an award to the successful party in any action "arising out of a contract."
Between Las Hadas and Rodin, Las Hadas is the successful party, having been granted summary
judgment in its favor on Rodin's claims.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

08/30/2017

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

The Rodin response disputes the Las Hadas application in two ways: (i) the Rodin claim
is principally a tort claim that does not permit an award of attorney's fees, and (ii) the amount
requested by the application is unreasonable.

A claim based on the breach of a duty established by law is not a claim arising out of a
contract. Dooley v. O’Brien, 226 Ariz. 149, 152, ¶¶11, 12, 244 P.3d 586, 589 (App. 2010); see
also Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners, 155 Ariz. 519, 523, 747 P.2d 1218, 1222 (1987)
(recognizing that a claim "sounds in contract" only when "the duty breached is not imposed by
law"); O’Keefe v. Grenke, 170 Ariz. 460, 472, 825 P.2d 985, 997 (App. 1992) (recognizing that
attorney’s fees are not available when a claim is based on a duty created by statute). Although
under Arizona law, a homeowners association does not owe a fiduciary duty to a member of the
association [Rohde v. Beztak of Arizona, Inc., 164 Ariz. 383, 388, 793 P.2d 140, 145 (App.
1990)], it remains necessary to determine whether, as here, the unsuccessful assertion of such a
claim permits an award of attorney's fees under section 12-341.01(A) in the same way that the
unsuccessful assertion of a contract's existence does [Lacer v. Navajo County, 141 Ariz. 392,
394, 687 P.2d 400, 402 (App. 1984) ("A party is entitled to an award of its attorney's fees under
A.R.S. §12–341.01 if judgment in its favor is based upon the absence of the contract sued upon
by the adverse party")]. Courts in other jurisdictions have recognized that a fiduciary duty owed
by a homeowners association to its members is a duty that exists as a matter of public policy,
independent of any contract (including any restrictive covenants). See Colorado Homes, Ltd. v.
Loerch-Wilson, 43 P.3d 718, 721-22 (Colo. App. 2001) (citations omitted). As such, the
asserted, albeit ill-conceived, fiduciary duty claim that Rodin asserted warrants treatment as a
tort, and not a contract, claim.

Yet, even if one assumes that the purportedly breached fiduciary duty is a tort, the
treatment of the Las Hadas application remains unaffected. That is because an award of
attorney's fees under section 12-341.01(A) is not foreclosed when a tort claim is intertwined with
a claim arising out of a contract. E.g., Campbell v. Westdahl, 148 Ariz. 432, 441, 715 P.2d 288,
297 (App. 1985) (“Attorney's fees may be awarded under [§ 12–341.01(A)] for tort claims that
are intertwined with contract claims”). Here, and contrary to how the Rodin response
memorandum would have it, the claims asserted by Rodin against Las Hadas were predicated
principally on the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (and other recorded documents)
applicable to the condominium complex, and those recorded documents are recognized as
contracts. E.g., Ahwatukee Custom Estates Mgt. Ass’n v. Turner, 196 Ariz. 631, 634, ¶5, 2 P.3d
1276, 1279 (App. 2000).1 Moreover, the Rodin response fails to show how the time charges
accompanying the Las Hadas application would have been different, much less significantly

1 The Rodin complaint (at 6-7, paras. 30-35, 40-44) effectively concedes this point.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

08/30/2017

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3

different, if Rodin had pursued only breach of contract and implied covenant claims.
Accordingly, Las Hadas is entitled to an award under section 12-341.01(A).

An objection to a request for attorney’s fees must be supported by factual detail with
reference to the record. State ex rel. Corbin v. Tocco, 173 Ariz. 587, 594-95, 845 P.2d 513, 520-
21 (App. 1992) (“[A]n opposing party does not meet his burden by asserting broad challenges to
the application"). The objections in the Rodin response memorandum (at 6-7) to the
reasonableness of the requested fees consist of a few general statements. As such, the objections
are insufficient. To assert an objection properly, the Rodin response should have identified
specifically each time charge in the Las Hadas application that is purportedly unreasonable
instead of merely referring broadly (at 7) to time entries that are not described sufficiently and
entries that pertain to governance.

All of that said, it should be remembered that the purpose of section 12-341.01(A) is to
mitigate the expense of litigation: section 12-341.01(A) does not establish an entitlement to a
dollar-for-dollar recovery. A.R.S. §12-341.01(B); see Associated Indem. Corp. v. Warner, 143
Ariz. 567, 570, 694 P.2d 1181, 1184 (1985); see also Autenreith v. Norville, 127 Ariz. 442, 444,
622 P.2d 1, 3 (1981) ("[T]here is no requirement that the trial court grant attorney's fees to the
prevailing party in all contested contract actions”).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The motion for reconsideration that was filed on behalf of plaintiff Les Rodin is
granted. That part of the July 12, 2017, order awarding attorney's fees – and only that part – is
vacated.

2. The application for attorney's fees submitted on behalf of Las Hadas and against
Rodin is granted. Las Hadas is awarded $41,365.00 as an amount that reasonably mitigates the
burden of litigation in this matter.2

2 This amount is reasonable in the circumstances here whether or not one takes into account the supplemental
request for additional fees that accompanied the Las Hadas response to the motion for reconsideration. Accordingly,
further briefing regarding that supplemental request is unnecessary. See generally Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S.
424, 438 (1983) (recognizing that "[a] request for attorney's fees should not result in a second major litigation").

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/11/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

10/09/2017

Docket Code 049
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH
D Arrieta

Deputy

LES RODIN
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

LAS HADAS VILLAS ASSOCIATION, et al.
BRIAN E DITSCH

WILLIAM J CUROSH
ANTHONY J PALUMBO

JUDGMENT SIGNED

The court has reviewed and considered the Notice of Lodging Form of Judgment, filed
September 5, 2017, by counsel for Defendants Las Hadas Villas, Nancy Fahy and June
Francisco. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED approving and settling formal written Judgment, signed by the court
October 9, 2017, and filed (entered) by the clerk October 10, 2017.

Please note: The Court has signed a hard-copy version of the judgment provided with an
electronically filed pleading. After the judgment has been scanned and docketed by the Clerk of
Court, additional copies of the judgment may be available through ECR Online at
clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov or through AZTurboCourt.gov and from the Public Access Terminals
at the Clerk of Court’s offices located throughout Maricopa County.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

11/30/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

11/28/2017

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CONNIE CONTES
D Arrieta

Deputy

LES RODIN
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

LAS HADAS VILLAS ASSOCIATION, et al.
BRIAN E DITSCH

WILLIAM J CUROSH
ANTHONY J PALUMBO

ORAL ARGUMENT SET

The Court has received, reviewed and considered Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Rodin’s
Request for Rule 56(D) Relief and Expedited Hearing, filed November 21, 2017.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED setting Oral Argument on the above filing for
December 1, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. (15 minutes allotted).

Counsel and the parties, if representing themselves, are to appear in person before:

THE HONORABLE CONNIE CONTES
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING
101 W. JEFFERSON
9TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 913
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
PHONE: (602) 506-7768

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

11/28/2017

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2

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.

If the parties are not familiar with the courtroom’s technology, they are encouraged to set
up an appointment with the court’s technology liaison at 602.506.3269.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/08/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

12/01/2017

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CONNIE CONTES
D Arrieta

Deputy

LES RODIN
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

LAS HADAS VILLAS ASSOCIATION, et al.
BRIAN E DITSCH

WILLIAM J CUROSH
ANTHONY J PALUMBO
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK

MINUTE ENTRY

East Court Building – Courtroom 913

2:39 p.m. This is the time set for telephonic Oral Argument on the following filings:

 Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Rodin’s Request for Rule 56(D) Relief and Expedited
Hearing, filed November 21, 2017; and

o Defendant/Counter-Claimant Diana Buchholt’s Response to Rodin’s Request
for Rule 56(D) Relief and Expedited Hearing, filed November 29, 2017.

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Les Rodin is represented by counsel, Mark Bainbridge.
Defendants Las Hadas Villas Association, Nancy Fahy and June Francisco are represented by
counsel, Brian E. Ditsch. Defendant/Counter-Claimant Diana Buchholt is represented by
counsel, William J. Curosh.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

12/01/2017

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2

LET THE RECORD REFLECT that defendants Las Hadas Villas Association, Nancy
Fahy and June Francisco are no longer parties in this matter.

Counsel Brian E. Ditsch requests to be removed from the distribution list in this matter.

No objection from opposing counsel,

IT IS ORDERED granting Mr. Ditsch’s request and excusing him from this matter.

Counsel Brian E. Ditsch is disconnected from the telephonic conference.

Discussion is held regarding discovery issues and the status of the case.

Argument is heard and considered.

Discussion is held regarding private mediation, arbitration and settlement conference.

For the reasons stated on the record,

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Staying
this
matter
and
tolling
plaintiff’s
time
to
respond
to
Defendant/Counterclaimant Buchholt’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to
Count IV of Verified Complaint and Count 1 of Counter Claim, filed November 6,
2017.

2. Transferring this matter to the Honorable John R. Hannah for the parties to participate
in a settlement conference. Counsel shall contact Judge Hannah’s division by no later
than December 8, 2017 at: (602) 372-0759 to arrange the date and time for the
Settlement Conference. All counsel, their clients, and non-lawyer representatives,
including claim representatives, who have full and complete authority to settle the
case, shall personally appear and participate in good faith in the Settlement
Conference.

3. After completion of the settlement conference, the parties shall notify this division of
the result of the settlement conference.

3:24 p.m. Matter concludes.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/04/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

12/01/2017

Docket Code 095
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CONNIE CONTES
D Arrieta

Deputy

LES RODIN
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

LAS HADAS VILLAS ASSOCIATION, et al.
BRIAN E DITSCH

WILLIAM J CUROSH
ANTHONY J PALUMBO

ORAL ARGUMENT RESET

Upon stipulation of counsel,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the in person Oral Argument scheduled for December 1,
2017 at 9:30 a.m., and resetting as telephonic Oral Argument on December 1, 2017 (same
date) at 2:30 p.m. (15 minutes allotted) on the following filings:

 Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Rodin’s Request for Rule 56(D) Relief and Expedited
Hearing, filed November 21, 2017; and

o Defendant/Counter-Claimant Diana Buchholt’s Response to Rodin’s Request
for Rule 56(D) Relief and Expedited Hearing, filed November 29, 2017;

Counsel and the parties, if representing themselves, are to appear in person before:

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

12/01/2017

Docket Code 095
Form V000A
Page 2

THE HONORABLE CONNIE CONTES
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING
101 W. JEFFERSON
9TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 913
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
PHONE: (602) 506-7768

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.

If the parties are not familiar with the courtroom’s technology, they are encouraged to set
up an appointment with the court’s technology liaison at 602.506.3269.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/13/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

12/11/2017

Docket Code 070
Form V070
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOHN R. HANNAH JR
W. Tenoever

Deputy

LES RODIN
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

LAS HADAS VILLAS ASSOCIATION, et al.
BRIAN E DITSCH

WILLIAM J CUROSH

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET

IT IS ORDERED scheduling a Settlement Conference for March 30, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.
before:

Judge John R. Hannah
Northeast Regional Court
18380 N. 40th St., Courtroom 102
Phoenix, Arizona 85032
(602) 372-0759

The Court has scheduled 3 hour(s) for this conference.

If a sooner date becomes available, the Court will notify counsel with at least one week’s
notice.

IT IS ORDERED that both counsel and the clients, or non-lawyer representatives, who
have authority to settle this case, shall appear in person or, with leave of Court, may appear by
telephone.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2016-006034

12/11/2017

Docket Code 070
Form V070
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED each party shall prepare a Settlement Memorandum and furnish a copy
of it to the Court. The memoranda are due by 5:00 p.m. March 27, 2018. The memorandum
shall comply with Rule 16.1(c), A.R.C.P. and Rule 3.11, Local Rules of Maricopa County
Superior Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the memoranda are NOT to be sealed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the memoranda are NOT to be filed with the Clerk of
the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall exchange the memoranda with each
other.

Documents