Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2010-026289: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Dreamland Villa Community Club Inc.

Case Number

CV2010-026289

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

8/30/2010

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Whitten, Christopher

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

No parties captured.

Minute Entries

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Filed ***
01/24/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
01/17/2011
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
A. Melchert
Deputy
DONALD R GATTS, et al.
MATTHEW ALLEN KLOPP
v.
DREAMLAND VILLA COMMUNITY CLUB
INC
ANDREW F MARSHALL
RULING
The Court has received and considered Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss First Amended
Complaint, Plaintiffs’ responsive pleading and the reply, sur-reply submitted by Defendant.
In the interest of expediting its business the Court does, pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P., Rule
7.1[c][2], waive oral arguments. The parties have provided the Court with adequate briefing on
the issues presented for its consideration.
Plaintiffs are homeowners, all of whom have filed this action seeking remedies of quiet
title, fraudulent recording, unjust enrichment and declaratory/injunctive relief. The history of the
underlying litigation involving some of these parties is well documented in a recent appellate
decision. 1 This Court will not duplicate that history here. Briefly stated, the appellate court held
that the homeowner’s association enactment of the Second Amended Declaration was invalid.
That is, that the Second Amended Declaration was itself, invalid and unenforceable. The matter
was mandated back to the trial court for execution of a judgment consistent with the opinion. The
mandated judgment has been formally entered in that action.
In the context of this action, these Plaintiffs are all property owners in the same
homeowner’s subdivision who allege that their respective property titles are clouded and
wrongfully encumbered by the same Second Amended Declaration, which was the subject of the

1 Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Raimey, et.al., 224 Ariz. 42, 226 P.3d 411 [App. 2010].

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
01/17/2011
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
above referenced appellate decision. The same CC&R’s which were addressed by the appellate
court are at issue in this case.
A number of these Plaintiffs actually live in the subdivision sections which were the
subject of the appellate decision. Some live in subdivision sections not expressly considered by
the opinion but over which the Second Amended Declaration is applicable. The language of the
Second Amended Declaration in those subdivisions is virtually identical to the language
considered by the appellate court.
For the reasons stated in Plaintiffs’ pleadings, this Court does find that these Plaintiffs
have asserted cognizable claims for quiet title, fraudulent recording, declaratory and injunctive
relief and unjust enrichment. There are existing facts which establish a colorable controversy.
The Court does find that Plaintiffs’ claims are permitted by A.R.S. §33-420 and further
that the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint are not barred by the statute of limitation.
As for Plaintiffs Jones and Wirtz, the Court further finds that these parties are not precluded from
maintaining this action. The prior litigation filed by these parties were dissimilar to the narrow
issues raised in this action.
As for Plaintiff Rogers, Defendant asserts an alleged error regarding his ownership of the
property. Briefly stated, Defendant alleges that the only Rogers identified on the title is
“unmarried” and the current party Rogers is “a married man”. The Court will grant leave of this
Plaintiff to amend his pleading to address this issue. Further, the Court will, at this time, deny
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as it pertains to this party but grant Defendant leave to re-file this
motion should this party fail to make the necessary amendments.
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, allowing Plaintiff Rogers to amend his pleading, and
granting leave to Defendants to re-file its motion to dismiss as to this party.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Defendant shall file a formal answer within 20 days
of this minute entry or by February 7, 2011.
Dated: 1/21/2011
/ s / HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/30/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
03/29/2012
Docket Code 314
Form V314A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
J. Polanco
Deputy
DONALD R GATTS, et al.
MATTHEW ALLEN KLOPP
v.
DREAMLAND VILLA COMMUNITY CLUB
INC
CHARLES E MAXWELL
BANKRUPTCY
The Court has received notification that a petition under the Bankruptcy Code has been
filed by Defendant Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. (debtor) in case number

2-12-bk-05862-JJM on March 22, 2012.
IT IS ORDERED placing this case/claim(s) on the Inactive Calendar until
September 25, 2012, (180 days) as to Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. (debtor) only.
This case/claim(s) will be dismissed on September 25, 2012, unless prior to the scheduled
dismissal date plaintiff demonstrates he/she/they/it have moved to lift the stay but the request has
not been ruled upon or has been denied; or he/she/they/it have sought to reduce the claim(s)
against the debtor to judgment in the Bankruptcy Court in an adversary proceeding and the
adversary proceeding has not yet been resolved despite diligence in seeking such a resolution; or
he/she/they/it have obtained severance of the claim(s) against the debtor from the claim(s)
against the other parties to the action, if any; or he/she/they/it have demonstrated a reasonable
basis for continuance of the case on the inactive calendar.
Any party may ask the Court to schedule an informal status conference before the

180-day period expires to inform the Court what action, if any, is undertaken in the Bankruptcy
Court that would permit this case to proceed.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
03/29/2012
Docket Code 314
Form V314A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED that as to the remaining defendants, the provisions of Rule 38.1,
A.R.C.P. shall continue to apply.
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 ***
04/15/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
04/14/2011
Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
D. Harding
Deputy
DONALD R GATTS, et al.
MATTHEW ALLEN KLOPP
v.
DREAMLAND VILLA COMMUNITY CLUB
INC
CHARLES E MAXWELL
ORDER SIGNED
IT IS ORDERED granting the parties’ Stipulation to Extend Deadline for Defendant to
Respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, dated April 5, 2011, all in accordance
with the formal written Order signed by the Court on April 13, 2011 and entered (filed) by the
Clerk on April 14, 2011.
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.
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.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/27/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
05/26/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
D. Harding
Deputy
DONALD R GATTS, et al.
MATTHEW ALLEN KLOPP
v.
DREAMLAND VILLA COMMUNITY CLUB
INC
CHARLES E MAXWELL
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and considered Plaintiff’s Request to Exceed Page Limit in Their
Rely in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, dated May 19, 2011.
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion.
ALERT: eFiling through AZTurboCourt.gov is mandatory in civil cases for attorney-
filed documents effective May 1, 2011. See Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Orders
2010-117 and 2011-010. The Court may impose sanctions against counsel to ensure compliance
with this requirement after May 1, 2011.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/11/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
06/02/2012
Docket Code 025
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
D. Harding
Deputy
DONALD R GATTS, et al.
MATTHEW ALLEN KLOPP
v.
DREAMLAND VILLA COMMUNITY CLUB
INC
CHARLES E MAXWELL
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court recently received a notice that Defendant had filed for bankruptcy and issued
its March 29, 2012 order staying this matter through September 25, 2012. In its prior minute
entry, the Court failed to mention that there were pending, at the time of the filing by Defendant
of its bankruptcy, several pleadings including Plaintiff’s proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law and Defendant’s motion for a new trial on issues previously ruled upon by
this Court. As stated in the Court’s March 29, 2012 minute entry, a determination on these
issues will be stayed pending subsequent notification by these parties that the stay imposed by
the Bankruptcy Court has been lifted.
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 ***
08/17/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
08/15/2012
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
D. Harding
Deputy
DONALD R GATTS, et al.
MATTHEW ALLEN KLOPP
v.
DREAMLAND VILLA COMMUNITY CLUB
INC
CHARLES E MAXWELL
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed and considered the parties’ Stipulation, filed August 13, 2012.
IT IS ORDERED extending the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their response to
Defendant’s Amendment to Defendant’s November 7, 2011 Motion for New Trial and
Supplemental to Objection to Attorneys’ Fees, Form of Judgment and Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law.
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 ***
09/09/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
09/08/2011
Docket Code 078
Form V078A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
D. Harding
Deputy
DONALD R GATTS, et al.
MATTHEW ALLEN KLOPP
v.
DREAMLAND VILLA COMMUNITY CLUB
INC
CHARLES E MAXWELL
INACTIVE CALENDAR
The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue on the Inactive
Calendar, filed August 24, 2011.
IT IS ORDERED continuing this matter on the Inactive Calendar for dismissal on
February 27, 2012 without further notice unless prior to that date a proper judgment is entered
or filed, a Stipulation for Dismissal is presented, or a Motion to Set and Certificate of Readiness
is filed.
ALERT: Effective September 1, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order
2011-87 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 ***
09/19/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
09/18/2012
Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
D. Harding
Deputy
DONALD R GATTS, et al.
MATTHEW ALLEN KLOPP
v.
DREAMLAND VILLA COMMUNITY CLUB
INC
CHARLES E MAXWELL
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiffs’ Expedited Request for Rule 16
Conference, filed September 17, 2012.
IT IS ORDERED setting a telephonic pretrial conference on October 24, 2012 at 9:15
a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counsel for the Plaintiff is to initiate the telephonic
conference by first arranging the presence of all other counsel or self-represented parties on the
conference call and by calling this division (602-506-1245) promptly at the scheduled time. All
parties appearing telephonically must be joined in a single conference call and be prepared to
hold until called to testify.
The call should be placed from a telephone in an area with no background noise as this
will prevent the parties from hearing the proceedings in the courtroom. The call may not be
placed from a vehicle. Also, the use of cellular telephones to call into the hearing is strongly
discouraged.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
09/18/2012
Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED counsel shall submit a Status Memorandum to the Court
no later than October 15, 2012.
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
*** Filed ***
10/04/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
09/27/2011
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
D. Harding
Deputy
DONALD R GATTS, et al.
MATTHEW ALLEN KLOPP
v.
DREAMLAND VILLA COMMUNITY CLUB
INC
CHARLES E MAXWELL
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court received and considered Defendant Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc.’s
(Defendant) Motion to Stay and Motion to Abate, Plaintiffs responsive pleading and the reply.
Defendant brought this motion requesting that this Court stay these proceedings pending
a decision from the Arizona Court of Appeals on its request for a special action on a related
claim entitled Raimey et. al. v. Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc., 1 CA-SA 10-0255.
Defendant asserts that the case on appeal raises similar issues which will be partial dispositive of
the issues presented in this litigation.
The Court of Appeal has, in fact, recently ruled in the special action case cited by
Defendant. As a consequence, this Court finds no good cause to stay these proceedings. In
addition, the Court finds no substantive legal basis which would justify an abatement of this
action.
As a consequence,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
09/27/2011
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to Stay and Motion To Abate.
Dated: September 30, 2011
/ s / HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
ALERT: Effective September 1, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order
2011-87 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
*** Filed ***
10/04/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
09/28/2011
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
D. Harding
Deputy
DONALD R GATTS, et al.
MATTHEW ALLEN KLOPP
v.
DREAMLAND VILLA COMMUNITY CLUB
INC
CHARLES E MAXWELL
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court received and considered Plaintiffs’ Motion For Summary Judgment,
Defendant Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. (Defendant) responsive pleading and the
subsequent reply submitted by Plaintiffs’ in this matter.
In the interest of expediting the business of the Court and pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. rule
7.1(c)(2) oral arguments are herein waived. The parties’ pleadings adequately address the issues
presented for this Court’s consideration. In addition, there have been several appellate decisions
which have addressed the issues raised by these parties.
General Background. The Plaintiffs’ all own real property which is located within a
community known as the Dreamland Villa. The deed restrictions on these properties for nearly a
half century made no mention of mandatory membership in any homeowner’s club organization.
Historically, the Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. operated as a voluntary organization
that maintained private recreational facilities for its members. There were no common areas in
the community and member who wished to join this association and use these recreational
facilities did so voluntarily. The Defendant subsequently modified the deed restrictions in the
area making it mandatory for all residents to join and pay dues. The Second Amended

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
09/28/2011
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
Declarations was the product of this effort by Defendant and it was eventually recorded in all of
the sections of Dreamland Villa.
Some but not all of the homeowners refused to pay the assessments levied by Defendant.
As a consequence, the Defendant sued those homeowners who refused to pay these assessments.
The central legal issue in that related lawsuit centered on the validity of the Second Amended
Declarations. Eventually that issue made its way to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals
issued an opinion in this related action on March 16, 2010. The Court in that appellate decision
concluded that the Second Amended Declarations were invalid and unenforceable in all sections
of the Dreamland Villa community.1
The Plaintiffs’ in this action are all homeowners in this same community and are all
similarly situated to the owners involved in the original Dreamland Villa case. They initiated
this action to quiet title to their properties and remove the encumbrance imposed by these
declarations.
On remand in the Dreamland Villa case the trial court made several rulings which were
subsequently appealed and heard as a special action by the Court of Appeals. The Court of
Appeal recently issued a supplemental opinion which addresses the issues presented by the
parties’ in this action.2
In the context of this motion, these Plaintiffs’ seek summary judgment on their quite title
claim pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1103, seek removal of the disputed declarations, seek statutory
damages for the fraudulent recording of these declarations, pursuant to A.R.S. §33-420, seek a
declaration from this Court that the disputed declarations are, in fact, invalid and unenforceable,
seek injunctive relief against any efforts by Defendants to enforce the disputed declarations and
seek restitution for of dues and late fees paid pursuant to the disputed declarations to Defendant.
The Second Amended Declarations are void and unenforceable, as a matter of law.
The appellate court in the Raimey case made clear that the Second Amended Declarations in
Sections 7, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are invalid and unenforceable as to every homeowner within
these sections. The court specifically precluded Defendant from enforcing the restrictions
against any homeowner living within the applicable six sections. These Plaintiffs all reside
within the Dreamland Villa community. The appellate court’s multiple rulings on this issue
clearly applied to these Plaintiffs.

1 Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Raimey, et. al., 224 Ariz. 42, 226 P.3d 411 [App. 2010].
2 Raimey v. Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc., 1 CA-SA 10-0255 filed on July 21, 2011.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
09/28/2011
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3
Defendant’s Defenses. The appellate court in both of its decisions in the related action,
substantively addressed the defenses being advanced by Defendant in this matter. In that action
the Defendant raised a statute of limitations defense and the defense that these declarations
applied to all homeowners who purchased with notice of these provisions.
Statute of Limitation is not a bar to these claims. As for the statute of limitations
defense that Defendants advanced in this case. The Court of Appeals in its Raimey decision
specifically rejected the legal argument that the statute of limitations precludes any homeowners
from attacking the invalidity of the Second Amended Declarations. The Court specifically held
that the declarations are invalid and therefore void, thus they cannot be confirmed or ratified by
the running of the statute of limitations. Thus, the Court held that the statute of limitations was
not a bar to those homeowners’ claims.
Declarations invalid despite the fact that homeowners purchased with notice. In
addition, the court in the Raimey decision addressed another defense being made by Defendant in
this matter. That is, that the restriction is binding as to all subsequent purchasers who brought
their property with notice of a recorded amended declaration. The Court stated as follows, “we
decline to adopt a principle that would allow the Second Amended Declarations to be enforced
against homeowners who purchased with notice.” “In sum, we conclude that the Second
Amended Declarations are invalid as to all homeowners in the Six Sections, regardless of the
purchase date.”
As a means of quieting the titles of all properties affected, the Raimey court also allowed
its petitioners to record a simply notice informing all homeowners in the six sections that the
Second Amended Declarations are invalid and unenforceable. The appellate court in the Raimey
decision also addressed the issue of restitution, holding that those plaintiffs were entitled to
restitution on prior judgments entered for unpaid assessments and late fees they paid.
Discussion. This Court concurs with Plaintiffs that the cumulative impact of the two
appellate decisions (Dreamland Villa and Raimey) are dispositive of the most of the issues
presented for this Court’s determination. It is clear that the Second Amended Declarations are
invalid as a matter of law in the six applicable sections and that this ruling applied to every
homeowner in those sections. Further, that the multiple defenses raised by Defendants are
inapplicable. This Court finds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and further
that Plaintiff are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That summary judgment is proper on
Plaintiffs’ quiet title, fraudulent recording, declaratory judgment and injunction claims. The
issues surrounding the validity of the Second Amended Declarations have been litigated and the
appellate decisions are now final. As a consequence, Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment
on Counts I-III of their First Amended Complaint.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
09/28/2011
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 4
As for the unjust enrichment claim the Court finds that there exist genuine issues of
material fact which preclude the granting of summary judgment on that claim.
For the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs’ pleadings and the dispositive appellate decisions
discussed, this Court grants Plaintiffs summary judgment on Count I-III of their First Amended
complaint.
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiffs’ Motion For Summary Judgment on Counts I-III of
their First Amended Complaint;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion For Summary Judgment on
Count IV (unjust enrichment claim) of their First Amended Complaint;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ shall file a Findings of Fact and
Conclusion of Law, Affidavit of Fees, Statement of Costs, together with a formal judgment in
this matter.
Dated: September 30, 2011
/ s / HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
ALERT: Effective September 1, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order
2011-87 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
*** Filed ***
10/07/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
09/29/2011
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
D. Harding
Deputy
DONALD R GATTS, et al.
MATTHEW ALLEN KLOPP
v.
DREAMLAND VILLA COMMUNITY CLUB
INC
CHARLES E MAXWELL
MINUTE ENTRY
Defendant Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. (Defendant) requests Rule 56(f) relief
from Plaintiffs’ pending Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court having reviewed
Defendant’s request, Plaintiff’s responsive pleading and the reply submitted by Defendant, the
Court herein denies the request.
The dispositive issue in this matter centers on the validity of the Second Amended
Declarations recorded by Defendant against the individual Plaintiffs’ (homeowners) property.
The nature of these claims has been well known to these parties for years and these legal issues
have been addressed in another action and also addressed in several appellate decisions. In
addition, the issue presented in the dispositive motion filed by Plaintiffs presents legal issues for
this Court’s consideration. Counts I-III are claims for quiet title, fraudulent recording and
declaratory and injunctive relief.
It also appears that this action has been pending for approximately one year and to date,
Defendant has not requested discovery on the legal issue presented in relation to Counts I-III.
The legal issue centers on the validity of the Second Amended Declarations.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
09/29/2011
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
This Court finds that the summary judgment motion filed by Plaintiffs is not premature,
that there has been sufficient time to conduct discovery and further that further discovery will not
lead to evidence concerning material facts or giving rise to defenses in connection with Counts I-
III of Plaintiffs’ complaint. Defendant has failed to meet its burden of proof with the specificity
required to justify a Rule 56(f) continuance.
For these reasons and those set forth in Plaintiffs’ responsive pleading,
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Rule 56(f) request.
Dated ___________________
/ s / HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
ALERT: Effective September 1, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order
2011-87 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 ***
10/07/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
10/04/2011
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
D. Harding
Deputy
DONALD R GATTS, et al.
MATTHEW ALLEN KLOPP
v.
DREAMLAND VILLA COMMUNITY CLUB
INC
CHARLES E MAXWELL
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed and considered Defendant’s Motion for Rule 16.1(a) Mandatory
Settlement Conference, Plaintiffs’ response and Defendant’s subsequent reply.
The Court having previously granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment,
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion for Rule 16.1(a) Mandatory Settlement
Conference.
ALERT: Effective September 1, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order
2011-87 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 ***
10/17/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
10/16/2012
Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
T. Springston
Deputy
DONALD R GATTS, et al.
MATTHEW ALLEN KLOPP
v.
DREAMLAND VILLA COMMUNITY CLUB
INC
CHARLES E MAXWELL
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE RESET
Due to a conflict with the Court’s calendar,
IT IS ORDERED vacating the Telephonic Pretrial Conference set for October 24, 2012,
and resetting the same for October 23, 2012 at 9:15 a.m. (15 mins.) in this division.
HON. J. RICHARD GAMA
Judge of Superior Court of Arizona
201 W. Jefferson - CCB
7th Floor – Courtroom 701
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 506-1245
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counsel for the Plaintiff is to initiate the telephonic
conference by first arranging the presence of all other counsel or self-represented parties on the
conference call and by calling this division (602-506-1245) promptly at the scheduled time. All
parties appearing telephonically must be joined in a single conference call and be prepared to
hold until called to testify.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
10/16/2012
Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 2
The call should be placed from a telephone in an area with no background noise as this
will prevent the parties from hearing the proceedings in the courtroom. The call may not be
placed from a vehicle. Also, the use of cellular telephones to call into the hearing is strongly
discouraged.
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 ***
10/30/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
10/23/2012
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
T. Nosker
Deputy
DONALD R GATTS, et al.
MATTHEW ALLEN KLOPP
v.
DREAMLAND VILLA COMMUNITY CLUB
INC
CHARLES E MAXWELL
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
STATUS CONFERENCE/
REFERRAL TO ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR)/
STATUS CONFERENCE SET
Courtroom CCB-701.
9:20 a.m. This is the time set for Telephonic Status Conference. Plaintiffs are represented
by counsel, Matthew Allen Klopp. Defendant is represented by counsel, Charles E. Maxwell.
A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held regarding pending matters including Defendant’s Motion for New Trial;
Plaintiffs’ Application for Attorney Fees and Statement of Costs. The Court ruled on these pending
motions without oral argument pursuant to Rule 7.1(c)2. Counsel for Defendant objects to the
Court ruling without oral argument.
The Court waives oral argument and rules as follows;
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion for New Trial.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
10/23/2012
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Attorneys’ Fees in the amount
$9,240.00 and Costs in the amount of $515.50.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting Plaintiff’s proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law in total.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED approving and settling the formal written Judgment
modified and signed by the Court on October 23, 2012 and filed (entered) by the Clerk on
October 23, 2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting bond in this matter at $70,000.00
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED all remaining discovery shall be completed by no later than
March 25, 2013.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Status Conference in this matter on April 10,
2013 at 9:00 a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes) before:
HON. J. RICHARD GAMA
Judge of Superior Court of Arizona
201 W. Jefferson - CCB
7th Floor – Courtroom 701
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 506-1245
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counsel for the Plaintiff is to initiate the telephonic
conference by first arranging the presence of all other counsel or self-represented parties on the
conference call and by calling this division (602-506-1245) promptly at the scheduled time. All
parties appearing telephonically must be joined in a single conference call and be prepared to
hold until called to testify.
The call should be placed from a telephone in an area with no background noise as this
will prevent the parties from hearing the proceedings in the courtroom. The call may not be
placed from a vehicle. Also, the use of cellular telephones to call into the hearing is strongly
discouraged.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties shall submit a Joint Pretrial Status
Memorandum to the Court no later than April 1, 2013.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
10/23/2012
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties shall participate in a mandatory settlement
conference. This case is referred to the Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution for the
appointment of a judge pro tempore to conduct a settlement conference. Counsel and/or the
parties will receive a minute entry from ADR appointing the judge pro tempore. Counsel and
any “pro per” parties will contact the appointed judge pro tempore to arrange the date, time, and
location for the settlement conference. The judge pro tempore is requested to conduct a
settlement conference not later than January 31, 2013. 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 no later than
5:00 p.m. on November 30, 2012. All counsel and their clients, or non-lawyer representatives
who have full and complete authority to settle the case, shall personally appear and participate in
good faith in the Settlement Conference. Sanctions may be imposed for failure to participate.
9:55 a.m. Matter concludes.
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 ***
11/28/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-026289
11/27/2012
Docket Code 042
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
C. Castro
Deputy
DONALD R GATTS, et al.
MATTHEW ALLEN KLOPP
v.
DREAMLAND VILLA COMMUNITY CLUB
INC
CHARLES E MAXWELL
CASE DISMISSED
The Court has received the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal of Litigation with Prejudice,
filed on November 6, 2012. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED dismissing the above-entitled action with prejudice, each party to bear
their own attorneys’ fees and costs, in accordance with the formal written Order signed by the
Court on November 7, 2012, and filed (entered) by the Clerk on November 27, 2012.
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.

Documents