Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2013-010588: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Sun Groves Homeowners Association, The.

Case Number

CV2013-010588

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

8/2/2013

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Arbitration 01 | Pineda

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/05/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-010588

01/04/2016

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH
S. LaFontaine/A. Quintana

Deputy

SUN GROVES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, THE
LINDSEY O STEARNS

v.

MICHAEL ROBERTS
ERIN SELENE IUNGERICH

RULING

A motion for partial summary judgment was filed on behalf of defendant Michael
Roberts. The motion seeks the denial of injunctive relief, which plaintiff The Sun Groves
Homeowners Association has requested. The court has considered the motion, the Sun Groves’
response, Roberts’ reply, and the statements of fact accompanying the motion and response.

The motion maintains that the request for injunctive relief is moot because the conduct
that would be enjoined (street parking) is no longer occurring. The motion does not dispute the
occurrence of that conduct once upon a time.

“It is settled that an action for an injunction does not become moot merely because the
conduct complained of has terminated, if there is a possibility of recurrence.” Allee v. Medrano,
416 U.S. 802, 810 (1974); State ex rel. Babbitt v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 128 Ariz. 483,
486, 626 P.2d 1115, 1118 (App. 1981) (same). Otherwise, “the defendant is free to return to his
old ways.” United States v. W.T. Grant, 345 U.S. 629, 632 (1953).

The court assumes for purposes of the motion that Roberts has a long history of engaging
in conduct that was sufficient to warrant the requested injunctive relief. E.g., Esplendido

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-010588

01/04/2016

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

Apartments v. Olsson, 144 Ariz. 355, 361, 697 P.2d 1105, 1111 (App. 1985) (stating that, on
summary judgment, the court must “view the facts in the light most favorable to [the party
opposing summary judgment],” and must “assume the truth of [that party’s] allegations”).
Whether such conduct can be reasonably expected to recur is, on the record here, a genuinely
disputed issue of material fact.

IT IS ORDERED denying the motion for partial summary judgment that was filed on
behalf of defendant Michael Roberts.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/09/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-010588

01/06/2014

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH
S. Heras/R. Tomlinson

Deputy

SUN GROVES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, THE
LINDSEY O STEARNS

v.

MICHAEL ROBERTS
J ROGER WOOD

TRIAL SETTING MINUTE ENTRY

East Court Building - Courtroom 513

10:01 a.m. This is the time set for Order to Show Cause Hearing. Present on behalf of
the Plaintiff is counsel, Lindsey O. Stearns. Present on behalf of the Defendant are counsel,
James Roger Wood and Eden Mara Brown.

A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.

Court and counsel discuss the status of the case and scheduling matters. Counsel agree to
consolidate the preliminary injunction hearing with the trial on the merits. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED setting a Half-Day Trial to the Court on April 24, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.
before:

THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-010588

01/06/2014

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 2

101 W. JEFFERSON
5TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 513
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
PHONE: 602-372-5851

THIS IS A FIRM TRIAL SETTING.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED all trial exhibits shall be submitted for marking not later
than April 17, 2014. Counsel shall submit two sets of their exhibits, one for marking and one for
the bench, following the procedures for preparing the exhibits for marking attached hereto. The
bench copy shall be submitted in a binder(s).

No information disclosed after the dates contained in the order may be used at the trial
absent court order on motion and affidavit.

IT IS ORDERED that should any discovery disputes arise, prior to filing discovery
motions, counsel shall MEET AND CONFER FACE TO FACE. If counsel are not able to
resolve the dispute,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any discovery motion must be accompanied by a
Rule 37(2)(C) certification, to include that counsel have met face to face.

The proceedings will take place in the Superior Court’s new “e-courtroom.” A record of
the proceedings will be made by FTR in lieu of a court reporter. With this new technology, a
court reporter is not required and the parties are encouraged to experience the court's video
recording system before requesting a court reporter. If a court reporter is required, the Court
must receive a written request three (3) days prior to trial. Failure to timely request a court
reporter will be deemed consent to proceed without a court reporter. Should you want an
unofficial copy of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may request a CD of the proceedings
for a $20.00 charge. If a CD is requested, please obtain a form from the Self Center to request a
daily copy of a court hearing or trial proceeding being conducted and pay the applicable fee.
Should an official transcript be required, you may request that the court prepare it. The party
ordering the transcript must pay for it.

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 602.372.1059.

10:08 a.m. Matter concludes.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-010588

01/06/2014

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 3

PRETRIAL MANAGEMENT ORDERS

IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Pretrial Statement (JPTS) in accordance with Rule 16(d),
A.R.Civ.P., is due in this division by 5:00 p.m. April 19, 2014,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED with the JPTS, counsel shall deliver to this division,
copies of the following:

A.
A jointly completed time and witness estimate list.

B
Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, if a request has been or will
be filed. If no proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law is received, the request shall
be deemed waived.

C.
Whether or not the Rule of Exclusion of Witnesses has been invoked.

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

All motions, other than motions in limine, shall be filed not later than ninety (90) days
prior to the date set for trial.

Notices of Settlement

In accordance with the provisions of ARCP 41(a), to be effective, any Notice of
Settlement or Dismissal providing for resolution of one or more pending claims that is filed
after service by the opposing party’s answer or dispositive motion, must be signed by each
affected party (or appropriate counsel) prosecuting or defending against the claim(s)
covered by the Notice. Each filed Notice shall state whether it resolves all pending issues in
the case and constitutes a representation to the Court that the claims subject to the Notice
have been fully resolved with respect to Notice signatories, and that the only further relief
to be sought with respect to such claims is entry of an order that each signatory confirms is
consistent with the agreement that gave rise to filing of the Notice.

ATTACHED: SAMPLE FORMAT FOR TIME ESTIMATE FORM AND EXHIBIT
PROCEDURES

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-010588

01/06/2014

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 4

CAUSE NUMBER

CASE CAPTION

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL

DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL
(NOTE: Add additional lines as needed for additional parties and or witnesses.)

TIME ESTIMATES FOR TRIAL

Opening Statement and Closing Argument

PLAINTIFF'S OPENING STATEMENT

DEFENDANT'S OPENING

PLAINTIFF'S CLOSING

DEFENDANT'S CLOSING

PLAINTIFF'S REBUTTAL

Estimate of Time for Witness Examination

PLAINITIFF'S
WITNESSES
DIRECT
EXAMINATION
CROSS
EXAMINATION
REDIRECT
EXAMINATION

Estimate of Time for Witness Examination

DEFENDANT'S
WITNESSES
DIRECT
EXAMINATION
CROSS
EXAMINATION
REDIRECT
EXAMINATION

The foregoing are based on the best estimates of counsel of the time reasonably needed to
complete the necessary examination of the witnesses listed.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-010588

01/06/2014

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 5

____________________________________
Counsel for Plaintiff

____________________________________
Counsel for Defendant

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-010588

01/06/2014

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 6

GUIDELINES FOR COUNSEL WHEN PREPARING EXHIBITS FOR USE IN COURT

COUNSEL PLEASE READ

Exhibits are due to the Court not later than five (5) business days prior to the trial.

Counsel shall submit two sets of their exhibits, one for marking and one for the bench.
The bench copy shall be submitted in a binder(s) with number tab dividers.

Exhibits will be marked consecutively. If your list refers to an exhibit and it is not
provided at the time of marking, the numbers of all following exhibits will be moved up. In
addition, if duplicate exhibits are submitted, the clerk will remove the duplicate and the
numbering will be adjusted accordingly. To avoid confusion during trial, it is essential that
counsel avoid submitting duplicate exhibits. The clerk cannot reserve numbers for exhibits that
will be provided at a later date. Exhibits will be marked as they are received. If Defendant’s
exhibits are received prior to Plaintiff’s exhibits, the Clerk may mark them first with Plaintiff’s
exhibits following. Do not list “Any and all exhibits listed by ….” Depositions will not be
marked as an exhibit. Original depositions to be used for impeachment purposes shall be
provided to the clerk on the first day of trial to be hand-filed by the clerk.

Counsel are to provide a workable list of exhibits. The list should include a description
of each exhibit. (See blank sample of an exhibit table below as a reference.) Do not put
numbers on the exhibits; however a COLORED slip sheet with the exhibit number on it
should be placed in front of each exhibit.

****Each multiple page exhibit must be securely fastened together by staple or
other means. NO PAPER CLIPS, BINDER CLIPS, OR RUBBER BANDS may be used. If
Acco fasteners are used they must be long enough to fasten securely.****

Exhibit Description Information:

The descriptions should be verifiable when viewing the first page of the exhibit.

No bates stamp references or number of pages in documents should be used.

If counsel are submitting large charts, blow-ups or maps, please include a small version
which can be marked as the exhibit and can go into the jury if in evidence. The blow-ups, charts
and/or maps can be used as demonstrative but will not be marked as exhibits and will be returned
to counsel.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-010588

01/06/2014

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 7

For additional assistance in preparation of exhibits contact the courtroom clerk at 602-
506-8145.

Sample of List of Exhibits to be provided to the courtroom clerk:

EXHIBIT LIST

Exhibit
No.
Ideniti-
fied By

Description

Legal Ground
for Objection

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.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/18/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-010588

01/13/2017

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH
D Arrieta

Deputy

SUN GROVES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, THE
GREGORY A STEIN

v.

MICHAEL ROBERTS
ERIN SELENE IUNGERICH

ROGER A BURRELL

MINUTE ENTRY

A Motion for Reconsideration was filed on behalf of plaintiff The Sun Groves
Homeowners Association. The motion asks the court to reconsider its decision to deny Sun
Groves' motion for summary judgment.

The November 11, 2016 Minute Entry in this case explains why summary judgment
could not be granted. Nothing said in the Motion for Reconsideration warrants changing that
result.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Motion for Reconsideration that was filed on behalf of plaintiff The Sun Groves
Homeowners Association is denied.

2. Within seven days of the entry of this order, the attorneys for the parties should
contact the court-appointed arbitrator for the purpose of scheduling a date for the arbitration
hearing.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/24/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-010588

02/23/2015

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH
C. Keller

Deputy

SUN GROVES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, THE
LINDSEY O STEARNS

v.

MICHAEL ROBERTS
J ROGER WOOD

COMM. BARTH

MINUTE ENTRY

This division has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application for Entry of Default against
Defendant(s) Michael Roberts 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
Barth.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all documents necessary to support the entry of a
default judgment must be e-filed.

Pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 2010-117, default judgment
packets are not permitted to be e-filed. Accordingly, parties are directed to hand-deliver a
default coversheet and copies of the necessary filed documents to the commissioner’s division
for the entry of a default judgment.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-010588

02/23/2015

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no further action will be taken by the assigned
commissioner until the necessary filed documents and coversheet are delivered to the division.

The parties/counsel can find the default judgment coversheet on the Court’s website at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/forms.asp

The parties/counsel can find additional information in the form of frequently asked
questions at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/howDoI.asp

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/13/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-010588

04/12/2017

Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH
D Arrieta

Deputy

SUN GROVES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, THE
GREGORY A STEIN

v.

MICHAEL ROBERTS
ERIN SELENE IUNGERICH

ROGER A BURRELL

ORDER SIGNED

The court has reviewed and considered defense counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as
Counsel, filed March 13, 2017. Good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED approving/granting the motion all in accordance with the formal
written Order signed by the court on April 12, 2017, and filed (entered) by the clerk on April 12,
2017.

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 ***

08/29/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-010588

08/26/2016

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH
D Arrieta

Deputy

SUN GROVES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, THE
GREGORY A STEIN

v.

MICHAEL ROBERTS
ERIN SELENE IUNGERICH

MINUTE ENTRY

At the request of counsel,

IT IS ORDERED setting a Telephonic Status Conference on August 30, 2016, at 10:00
a.m. (15 minutes allotted) regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on June 9,
2016. Counsel for Plaintiff shall initiate the telephonic conference by first arranging the
presence of all other counsel on the conference call and by calling this division at: (602) 372-
5851 promptly at the scheduled time. The parties and counsel shall not be permitted to
participate in conferences via cell phones or speakerphone.

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.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/31/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-010588

08/30/2016

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH
D Arrieta

Deputy

SUN GROVES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, THE
GREGORY A STEIN

v.

MICHAEL ROBERTS
ERIN SELENE IUNGERICH

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom 513 (ECB)

10:01 a.m. This is the time set for a Telephonic Status Conference regarding Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on June 9, 2016. Plaintiff Sun Groves Homeowners
Association is represented telephonically by counsel, Gregory A. Stein. Defendant Michael
Roberts is represented telephonically by counsel, Erin Selene Iungerich.

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

Discussion is held with the Court regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Based upon the matters presented,

IT IS ORDERED that a supplemental memorandum and a supplemental statement of
fact regarding the issue of damages should be filed on behalf of plaintiff not later than September
16, 2016. A response should be filed on behalf of defendant not later than October 14, 2016. No
reply should be filed unless requested by the court.

10:12 a.m. Matter concludes.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

11/15/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-010588

11/14/2016

Docket Code 350
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH
D Arrieta

Deputy

SUN GROVES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, THE
GREGORY A STEIN

v.

MICHAEL ROBERTS
ERIN SELENE IUNGERICH

COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK

MINUTE ENTRY

A motion for summary judgment was filed on behalf of plaintiff The Sun Groves
Homeowners Association. The motion prompted the court to convene a telephonic conference.
[See Minute Entry (8/30/16)] During that conference, the court informed the parties that the
submitted record did not permit the court to grant summary judgment on the issue of damages
and that, because the amount claimed was much less than $50,000.00, this matter required
referral to a court-appointed arbitrator. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 72.

Upon hearing that, the parties asked for an opportunity to submit supplemental briefing in
the hope that the issue could be decided as a matter of law. To accommodate that request, the
court asked counsel for the Association to "file a supplemental memorandum . . . and a
supplemental statement of facts establishing the amount or amounts of damages that [the
Association] would want to see in a final judgment in this case." The court reminded the parties
that "if there is a dispute about damages, the motion cannot be granted." After that, plaintiff's
counsel indicated that he anticipated filing a "lengthy" statement of facts to support the damages
claim, and the court indicated its approval for that approach.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-010588

11/14/2016

Docket Code 350
Form V000A
Page 2

Despite that, no statement of facts was filed with the Association's supplemental
memorandum, even though (and leaving aside what the court requested) a statement of facts is
the only recognized means by which a party seeking summary judgment may establish "the
specific facts relied upon in support of the motion." Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); cf. Velez v. Puerto
Rico Elec. Power Auth., 170 F.Supp.2d 158, 162 (D.P.R. 2001) (applying rule similar to Ariz. R.
Civ. P. 56(c)(3) and stating that the rule serves as a warning that failure to comply will be
grounds for a ruling against the noncomplying party).

Even more problematic, no sworn statement was submitted to establish that the amount
claimed by the Association is correct in all respects, including and especially that defendant
Michael Roberts has been credited correctly for all payments that he has made. Indeed, in a
significant sense, the Association's supplemental memorandum is self-defeating: it attempts to
account for Roberts' payments with an unsworn statement (at 3 n.2) that is unsupported by a
citation to anything specific in the record. That attempt is ineffective, leaving the amount that
Roberts should be credited and, thus, the correct amount of the Association's claimed damages
unresolved. See e.g., Prairie State Bank v. Internal Revenue Service, 155 Ariz. 219, 221 n.1A,
745 P.2d 966, 968 n.lA (App. 1987) (recognizing that an unsworn assertion in a party's legal
memorandum is not a fact that a court may consider when ruling on a summary judgment
motion); Borbon v. City of Tucson, 27 Ariz. App. 550, 551, 556 P.2d 1153, 1154 (1976)
("Summary judgment cannot be granted on the basis of [unsworn] statements of fact in the
moving party’s brief even though they are uncontroverted by an opponent").

Although the Association's supplemental memorandum is accompanied by a "Business
Records Affidavit" from a custodian of records for the Association's management company, that
affidavit does not go far enough. To be sure, it establishes the admissibility of 50-plus pages of
business records, but it does not establish which of the many numbers appearing among those
pages is the amount of damages that may be awarded after Roberts has been credited.

Although the "legal defenses of mootness and impossibility" referenced in Roberts'
supplemental memorandum (at 3) are ineffective because they not supported with admissible
evidence or citations to applicable authority, and they otherwise do not apply to the issue of
damages, nevertheless, that does not compel granting summary judgment. Because the
Association has not presented admissible evidence sufficient to support the amount claimed,
Roberts was under no obligation to rebut what the Association submitted. E.g., United Bank of
Arizona v. Allyn, 167 Ariz. 191, 196, 805 P.2d 1012, 1017 (App. 1990) (stating that "when the
[summary judgment] motion fails to show an entitlement to judgment, the adverse party need not
respond to the motion with controverting evidence").

The court explained during the August 30 telephone conference what needed to be
submitted before summary judgment on the issue of damages could be granted. That has not

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-010588

11/14/2016

Docket Code 350
Form V000A
Page 3

occurred. Thus, the court has no alternative: given the record presented, summary judgment
must be denied and this matter must be referred to the Civil Court Arbitration Desk.

IT IS ORDERED transferring this matter to the Civil Court Administration Arbitration
Desk for appointment of an arbitrator.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and/or the parties shall direct all future
filings, except those motions listed in Ariz. R. Civ. P. 74 (c)(1), to the arbitrator for consideration
and ruling.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/20/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-010588
12/19/2013
Docket Code 003
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH
S. Heras/R. Tomlinson
Deputy
SUN GROVES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, THE
LINDSEY O STEARNS
v.
MICHAEL ROBERTS
J ROGER WOOD
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court notes that this matter was properly noticed and set for an Order to Show Cause
15 Minute Return Hearing to commence at 9:00 a.m. on this date. Counsel for Plaintiff has
appeared, however counsel for Defendant has not. Plaintiff’s counsel having no objection,
IT IS ORDERED vacating the Order to Show Cause Hearing set for this date, and
resetting same for January 6. 2014 at 10:00 a.m. (15 minutes allotted). No evidence will be
taken at this hearing. If the matter cannot be resolved during this hearing, the Court will
consider Plaintiff’s request to consolidate the preliminary injunction hearing with the trial on the
merits. Counsel, and any party not represented by counsel, shall 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-010588
12/19/2013
Docket Code 003
Form V000A
Page 2
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.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/21/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-010588

12/19/2016

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH
D Arrieta

Deputy

SUN GROVES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, THE
GREGORY A STEIN

v.

MICHAEL ROBERTS
ERIN SELENE IUNGERICH

ROGER A BURRELL

MINUTE ENTRY

The court has received a Motion for Reconsideration that was filed on behalf of plaintiff
The Sun Groves Homeowners Association. The court is unable to grant that motion, even in
part, 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 by any party who wishes to oppose the motion. In so
doing, the court is not suggesting in any way that it has already decided how it will rule. By
asking for the response, the court is simply saying that it would like the benefit of the opposing
view.

It seems that the response can be straight-forward. Either defendant Michael Roberts is
willing to stipulate to the amount of damages asserted in Sun Groves' motion for summary
judgment or he is not. There is no need to spend time briefing whether the evidence that Sun
Groves has now had two opportunities to submit is sufficient to warrant summary judgment. To
the extent that the motion for reconsideration requests a third opportunity, the motion is denied.
To the extent that the motion requests an evidentiary hearing, the motion is denied because the
presentation of evidence is more appropriate for mandatory arbitration where the summary

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-010588

12/19/2016

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

judgment standard will not influence the decision. Meanwhile, Sun Groves' attorneys may wish
to contact Roberts' attorneys in an attempt to resolve this matter without court intervention.

No reply in support of the motion for reconsideration should be filed unless requested.
Ariz. R. Civ. P. 7.1(e).

Documents