Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2014-011316: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Camelback Garden Farms Homeowners Association.

Case Number

CV2014-011316

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

9/2/2014

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Julian, Melissa

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

No parties captured.

Minute Entries

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/24/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

02/19/2016

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROGER E. BRODMAN
S. LaFontaine

Deputy

MATTHEW HILLEBRAND, et al.
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

CAMELBACK GARDEN FARMS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al.

JAY J HALL
MARK E LINES

ORAL ARGUMENT SET

The Court having received and reviewed the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
and the plaintiffs’ Motion for Oral Argument on the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment,

IT IS ORDERED setting this matter for oral argument on March 18, 2016 at 11:00
a.m. (Time allotted: 30 minutes) before:

The Honorable Roger Brodman
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building, Fourth Floor
101 West Jefferson, Courtroom 413
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: 602-372-2943

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

02/19/2016

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED that all Motions, Responses, Replies and other Court requested
filings in this case must be submitted individually. Counsel shall not combine any Motion
within a responsive pleading. All Motions are to be filed separately and designated as such.

The proceedings will take place in the Superior Court’s “e-courtroom.” A record of the
proceedings will be made by videotape and CD in lieu of a court reporter. Should you want an
unofficial copy of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may request a videotape or CD of the
proceedings for a $30.00 charge. For copies of hearings or trial proceedings recorded
previously, please call Electronic Records Services at 602-506-7100.

Should an official transcript be required, you may request that the court prepare it. The
party ordering the transcript must pay for it. To request a transcript call 602-506-7100 and
provide the date of the proceeding, the case number, the case caption, if the transcript is for an
appeal, and your name, address and telephone number. If a court reporter is required, the court
must receive a request at least 3 court days before the commencement of the proceeding. Failure
to timely request a court reporter will be deemed consent to proceed without a court reporter.

IF ANY ISSUES IN THE MOTION RELATE TO DISCOVERY PROBLEMS,
COUNSEL SHALL CONFER TO ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THEIR DIFFERENCES OR TO
REDUCE THE AREAS OF DISPUTE. COUNSEL ARE REMINDED THAT THE COURT
WILL LIKELY IMPOSE SANCTIONS AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY IN ACCORDANCE
WITH RULE 37(a)(4), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:

If extended oral argument is necessary, counsel must so advise the Court no later than
four court days prior to the date set for hearing so that oral argument can be rescheduled.

Any motion or stipulation for continuance must be filed with the Court no later than four
court days prior to the date set for hearing. After that date, no continuances will be granted
except for extraordinary circumstances.

All memoranda and affidavits regarding the motion must be filed and copies lodged with
this division no later than four court days prior to the date set for hearing.

Counsel are advised that if the answering memorandum is not timely filed in accordance
with the Arizona Rules Of Civil Procedure, oral argument may be vacated and the motion will be
ruled upon in accordance with Rule 7.1 (b), A.R.C.P.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

02/19/2016

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 3

No agreement by the parties to modify the pleading schedule will be honored by the
Court unless the Court is notified and approves the parties’ agreement. Any such agreement
will not change the argument date without a court Order and will, in any event, require that all
motions are fully briefed and at issue not later than one full week before the argument date.

NOTE: All court proceedings are recorded by audio and video method 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 ***

03/17/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

03/16/2016

Docket Code 095
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROGER E. BRODMAN
S. LaFontaine

Deputy

MATTHEW HILLEBRAND, et al.
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

CAMELBACK GARDEN FARMS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al.

JAY J HALL
MARK E LINES

ORAL ARGUMENT RESET

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the Oral Argument set on April 5, 2106 at 8:30 a.m. and
resetting same on April 5, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. in this division. (time allotted: 30 minutes)

The Honorable Roger Brodman
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building, Fourth Floor
101 West Jefferson, Courtroom 413
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Phone: 602-372-2943

The parties are notified of the new date by Court staff this date.

A record of the proceedings will be made by videotape and CD in lieu of a court reporter.
Should you want an unofficial copy of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may request a
videotape or CD of the proceedings for a $20.00 charge. If a CD or videotape is requested,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

03/16/2016

Docket Code 095
Form V000A
Page 2

please obtain a form from the courtroom clerk or from the Self Service Center to request a daily
copy of a court hearing or trial proceeding being conducted. Pay the applicable fee at the Self
Service Center. Attach the receipt showing payment of the fee and present both the receipt and
the form to the courtroom clerk or bailiff. For copies of hearings or trial proceedings
recorded previously, please call Electronic Records Services at 602-506-7100.

Should an official transcript be required, you may request that the court prepare it. The
party ordering the transcript must pay for it. To request a transcript call 602-506-7100 and
provide the date of the proceeding, the case number, the case caption, if the transcript is for an
appeal, and your name, address and telephone number. With this new technology, a court
reporter is likely 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 at least 48 hours before the commencement of the proceeding. Failure
to timely request a court reporter will be deemed consent to proceed without a court reporter.

IF ANY ISSUES IN THE MOTION RELATE TO DISCOVERY PROBLEMS,
COUNSEL SHALL CONFER TO ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THEIR DIFFERENCES OR TO
REDUCE THE AREAS OF DISPUTE. COUNSEL ARE REMINDED THAT THE COURT
WILL LIKELY IMPOSE SANCTIONS AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY IN ACCORDANCE
WITH RULE 37(a)(4), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:

Any motion or stipulation for continuance must be filed with the Court no later than four
court days prior to the date set for hearing. After that date, no continuances will be granted
except for extraordinary circumstances.

All memoranda and affidavits regarding the motion must be filed and copies lodged with
this division no later than four court days prior to the date set for hearing.

Counsel are advised that if the answering memorandum is not timely filed in accordance
with the Arizona Rules Of Civil Procedure, oral argument may be vacated and the motion will be
ruled upon in accordance with Rule 7.1 (b), A.R.C.P.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/07/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

04/05/2016

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROGER E. BRODMAN
S. LaFontaine

Deputy

MATTHEW HILLEBRAND, et al.
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

CAMELBACK GARDEN FARMS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al.

JAY J HALL
MARK E LINES

MINUTE ENTRY

1:33 p.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument on defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment and the plaintiffs’ Motion for Oral Argument on the defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment. . Plaintiff, Kristi Hillebrand, is present and represented by counsel, Mark
Bainbridge. Plaintiff, Matthew Hillebrand, is not present but also represented by counsel, Mark
Bainbridge. Defendants, Sylvia Leatherman and Christopher Luttrell, are not present but
represented by counsel, Jay J. Hall.

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

Argument is presented.

IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.

2:14 p.m. Matter concludes.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/14/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

04/12/2016

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROGER E. BRODMAN
S. LaFontaine

Deputy

MATTHEW HILLEBRAND, et al.
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

CAMELBACK GARDEN FARMS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al.

JAY J HALL
MARK E LINES
EDM-QC-CCC
MEEDS ADMINISTRATOR

DELETE MINUTE ENTRY

A clerical error having been made, said error being that the minute entry was approved
accidentally before the judge’s approval.

IT IS ORDERED deleting the minute entry with case number CV2014-011316, dated
April 8, 2016, with docket code 926 in its entirety.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the MEEDS Administrator shall remove the minute entry
from the Clerk’s Office minute entry website.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED EDM-QC shall remove the minute entry from the Clerk’s
Office Docket and OnBase system.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/14/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

04/12/2016

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROGER E. BRODMAN
S. LaFontaine

Deputy

MATTHEW HILLEBRAND, et al.
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

CAMELBACK GARDEN FARMS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al.

JAY J HALL
MARK E LINES

RULING ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Court reviewed defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and plaintiffs’ Cross
Motion for Summary Judgment, the responses and reply. The Court held oral argument on April
5, 2016.

1. Background
This is a dispute between neighbors. Defendants, two landowners, constructed
outbuildings without permission of the Camelback Garden Farms Homeowners’ Association.
The Association’s “Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, Camelback Garden
Farms” (CC&Rs) require that the Association’s Board must approve in writing of all
outbuildings. After receiving after-the-fact submissions from the defendants, the Association’s
Board issued a letter saying that the outbuildings violated the CC&Rs. The defendants appealed,
and the Board changed its mind. The outbuildings were approved. See Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 16,
May 13, 2014 letter from Association (“the Board met in Executive session and approved your
appeal to leave the steel building in place on your property. . . .Thank you for working with us in
bringing your property into compliance with the CC&R’s”).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

04/12/2016

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2

Plaintiffs, who own property near defendants, allege that the Board’s approval of the
outbuildings was improper. Plaintiffs allege that the outbuildings violate the CC&Rs. As a
result, plaintiffs sued the Association and the defendants. Counts 1-3 were against the
Association. Plaintiffs alleged in Count 4 that defendants breached the contract established by
the CC&Rs and in Count 5 breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Count 6 was a
claim for injunctive relief.

The Association has been dismissed from this lawsuit. Thus, the only remaining claims
are against the defendants.

2. Do the CC&Rs require the Association to find a violation before plaintiffs may
directly sue another landowner?
The Court believes the threshold issue in this case is whether plaintiffs have the ability to
directly sue the defendants. The Court finds that the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ relationship is
governed by the CC&Rs.

As an initial matter, “the interpretation of restrictive covenants is a question of law for the
court. . . In interpreting the meaning of a covenant, the superior court does not defer to the
interpretation given by the association.” Johnson v. Pointe Community Ass’n, Inc., 205 Ariz. 485,
490 ¶ 23 (App. 2003).

The CC&Rs govern the parties’ relationship with each other. As noted in Arizona
Biltmore Estates Ass’n v. Tezak, 177 Ariz. 447, 448 (App. 1993), CC&Rs are “contracts between
the subdivision’s property owners as a whole and the individual lot owners.” The CC&Rs are not
a contract between plaintiffs and defendants. Rather, the CC&Rs are a contract between the
subdivision community and defendants. See Dreamland Villa Cmty. Club, Inc. v. Raimey, 224
Ariz. 42, 47, ¶ 19 (App. 2010). Here, the CC&Rs establish the relationship between the
homeowners and limit when one can sue another. The Court will not read into the contract a
right of action where none is expressly provided.

In Article XI, the CC&Rs set forth an owner’s ability to sue another owner in the
“Remedies” provision. In order to analyze the issues presented in this case, the Court breaks the
Remedies provision into three separate sections. The first paragraph (I’ll call it Section 1)
provides that the Association has the authority to prosecute an action against any Owner
violating the CC&Rs. It states:

In the event of any default by any Owner under the provisions of this Declaration, the
Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws, or the rules and regulations of the Association, the

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

04/12/2016

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3

Association, or its successors or assigns, or the Board, or its agents shall have each and
all of the rights and remedies which may be provided for in the Articles of Incorporation,
the Bylaws or said rules and regulations, or which may be available by law, and may
prosecute any action or other proceeding against such defaulting Owner and others for
enforcement or foreclosure of the Association’s lien and the appointment of a receiver for
the defaulting Lot without notice, without regard to the value of such Lot or the solvency
of such Owner, or for damages or injunction, or specific performance, or for a judgment
for payment of money and collection thereof, or the right to sell the Lot as hereinafter in
this paragraph provided, or for any combination of remedies or for any other relief.

Section 1 thus reserves the right of the Association to bring litigation to enforce the terms
of the CC&Rs. Nothing in this first section allows an individual Owner to bring suit. In other
words, if the Association believes that the defendants’ structures violate the CC&Rs, the
Association is clearly empowered to seek judicial relief.

The next paragraph (I’ll call it Section 2) specifically provides an Owner a limited right
to bring an action against other owners for violations of the CC&Rs. It states:

Without in any way limiting the rights of the Association as set forth in Section 1 of
Article III above, if any Owner (either by his conduct or by the conduct of any other
Occupant of his Lot or Unit) shall violate any of the provisions of this Declaration, the
Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws or the rules and regulations, as then in effect, and
such violation shall continue for ten (10) days after notice in writing from the Board or
shall occur repeatedly during any ten day period after written notice or request to cure
such violation, the Association, Board or any aggrieved owner shall have the power to
file an action against the defaulting Owner or Occupant requiring the defaulting Owner
to comply with the provisions of this Declaration, the Articles of Incorporation, the
Bylaws or the rules and regulations, and granting other appropriate relief, including
monetary damages. (Emphasis added)

Section 2 allows an aggrieved owner to bring a lawsuit against a defaulting owner. The
precondition for such suit, however, is that the Board must find a violation and provide written
notice to the defaulting owner. This provision therefore provides the defaulting owner notice of a
violation and an opportunity to cure.

Plaintiffs allege two separate violations. First, plaintiffs allege that the outbuildings
themselves are violations of the CC&Rs. Second, plaintiffs allege that the defendants are
improperly storing their RV/trailer.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

04/12/2016

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 4

As a matter of undisputed fact with regard to the outbuildings themselves, the Court finds
that plaintiffs have not satisfied the conditions of Section 2 of the Remedies provision. Although
the Board originally issued letters indicating that the outbuildings violated the CC&Rs, after
consultation with a lawyer the Board changed its mind and approved of the outbuildings. As a
result, as a matter of undisputed fact there is no finding from the Board of any current violation
of the CC&Rs by defendants. There was no written notice of default and no request to cure. In
fact, the Board’s May 13, 2014 specifically stated that the outbuildings were in “compliance with
the CC&R’s.”

With regard to RV/trailer storage, plaintiffs acknowledge that the Board never provided
defendants with current written notice that the RV or trailer violated the CC&Rs. Plaintiffs claim
that notice from plaintiffs themselves satisfies the notice requirement in Section 2.

The Court disagrees. Here, the notice must be “in writing from the Board.” The words
“after written notice or request to cure such violation” modify the words “writing from the
Board.” The notice provision could not be satisfied by notice from one disgruntled owner to
another owner. If the only prerequisite for a lawsuit was notice from one owner to another, there
would be no reason to take the dispute to the Board and receive a written warning from the
Board and opportunity to cure.

In conclusion, the Court finds that Section 2 does not provide plaintiffs a right to sue
defendants under the undisputed facts in this case.

The next sentence of Article XI (I’ll call it Section 3) continues as follows:

If the Association, its successors or assigns or the Board or its agents shall violate or fail
to comply with any of the provisions of this Declaration, the Articles of Incorporation,
the Bylaws or the rules and regulations, as then in effect, then any aggrieved owner
shall have the power to file an action against the Association or Board to comply with
the Declaration, the Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws or the rules and regulations,
and granting other appropriate relief, including money damages. (Emphasis added)

In other words, Section 3 gives an aggrieved owner the power to file an action “against
the Association.” As opposed to Section 2 where the aggrieved owner specifically has a claim
against the defaulting owner, no authorization is provided in Section 3 to allow an aggrieved
owner to file a suit directly against a defaulting owner.

If the Association approves of an action that allegedly violates the CC&Rs, the
Association’s conduct – not that of the alleged defaulting owner – is in question. The Court

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

04/12/2016

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 5

believes the language of Section 3 limits the aggrieved owner’s action in such a case to a claim
against the Association.

As a result, nothing in Sections 1, 2 or 3 provides plaintiffs a right to sue defendants in
this case. This interpretation is logical. In the event an owner is accused of violating the CC&Rs,
notice must be provided to the Association. If the Association finds a violation, the defaulting
owner must be provided notice and an opportunity to cure. If the defaulting owner refuses to
cure the situation, the Association may -- but is not required to -- bring litigation to enforce the
CC&Rs. If the Association elects not to bring litigation, then the aggrieved owner is entitled to
bring an action on his or her own behalf.

In the event an owner is accused of violating the CC&Rs but the Association does not
find a violation (such as the case here), the aggrieved owner may bring a claim against the
Association to force the Association “to do your job” -- but has no direct claim against the
alleged defaulting owner. The Court believes this process focuses on the consistent application
of the CC&Rs by the Association, therefore avoiding ad hoc litigation by one owner against
another resulting in possibly inconsistent results.

Johnson v. Pointe Community Ass’n, Inc., supra, is distinguishable. In that case, the
court of appeals held that one homeowner could sue directly to enforce the declaration. Of
course, in that case the court noted that “The Declaration provides for the enforcement of its
provisions by either the Association or its members.” Id. at 486, n. 1. By contrast, the CC&Rs
in the instant case specifically set forth limited situations where the members may directly
enforce the declarations -- none of which apply here.

Plaintiffs argue that Continental Oil Co. v. Fennemore, 38 Ariz. 277, 281 (1931), gives
plaintiffs the right to directly sue the defendants. The Court is not persuaded. Not only does
Continental Oil predate homeowners’ associations, but the case stands for the proposition that
one grantee can enforce covenants running with the land against another. Here, the CC&Rs run
with the land. But the CC&Rs provide an express definition for remedies by one grantee against
another. By disallowing plaintiffs’ direct cause of action against defendants, the Court is simply
enforcing the terms of the restrictive covenants placed on the land.

Citing Colorado law, plaintiffs argue that a homeowner’s association does not have
discretionary power to approve of conditions that violate deed restrictions. The Court has no
quarrel with this general proposition. But plaintiffs’ argument fails to take the next step. The
issue is framed as follows: What is the remedy if an association erroneously approves an
improper deed restriction? Under the CC&Rs in this case, the answer is “sue the Association to
enforce compliance.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

04/12/2016

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 6

Finally, plaintiffs have not established a claim for monetary damages. To the extent
plaintiffs have any standing to sue at all (and the Court does not believe they do), the claims for
monetary damages would be dismissed.

3. Other matters
Although not necessary for its decision, the Court will briefly address plaintiffs’ claim
that the outbuildings in question violate the CC&Rs as a matter of law.

Plaintiffs’ argument is premised on Article II, Section 2 of the CC&Rs. That section
provides:

Construction. All Units and structures on the lots shall be of new construction and no
buildings or structures shall be moved from any other location on to any of the lots.
Erection of modular, modular type construction or manufactured housing shall not be
permitted on said lots.

Plaintiffs contend that this provision prohibits the type of outbuildings constructed in the
instant case since the structures are constructed of pre-fabricated steel. Plaintiffs move for
summary judgment on the issue.

As a practical matter, the Court was not persuaded that the outbuildings violate the
CC&Rs. The phrase “modular type construction” is vague and subject to varying interpretations.
Does it mean construction that is preassembled off site such as a manufactured home or a Tuff
Shed? Or does it mean pre-fabricated steel buildings such as the structures in question?

In interpreting this provision, the Court would, among other items, look at previously
constructed buildings in the subdivision. Plaintiffs acknowledge that there are numerous
noncomplying structures in the subdivision. See, e.g., defendants’ Exhibit E. The Court would
be more inclined to adopt plaintiffs’ interpretation if every outbuilding in the subdivision was a
classic “stick and frame” construction. On the other hand, if evidence shows that outbuildings in
the subdivision were regularly constructed of pre-fabricated steel, the Court would be less
inclined to adopt plaintiffs’ interpretation of “modular type construction.” In other words, past
practices in the subdivision are relevant to determine how the members of the subdivision
interpret the contract. See Associated Students of Univ. of Arizona v. Arizona Bd. of Regents,
120 Ariz. 100, 105 (App. 1978) (in interpreting contract, “acts of parties under a contract, before
disputes arise, are the best evidence of the meaning of doubtful contractual terms”). Moreover, a
plethora of prefabricated steel structures (or uncovered RVs) could suggest that any ban against
prefabricated steel structures -- to the extent one ever existed -- may have been abandoned or
waived. See College Book Centers, Inc. v. Carefree Foothills Homeowners’ Ass’n, 225 Ariz.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

04/12/2016

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 7

533, 539, ¶ 18 (App. 2010) (deed restrictions may be considered abandoned or waived if frequent
violations of those restrictions have been permitted; when CC&Rs contain a non-waiver
provision, a restriction remains enforceable, despite prior violations, so long as the violations do
not constitute a “complete abandonment” of the CC &Rs).

The Court is similarly unpersuaded by plaintiffs’ claim that, as a matter of law, the
defendants are improperly storing their RV/trailer.

In short, the Court would deny plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

4. Conclusion and Orders

The Court finds that plaintiffs have no direct cause of action against the defendants and
therefore no viable defendants remain in this case. This finding applies to plaintiffs’ claims for
both monetary damages and injunctive relief.

The Court further finds that plaintiffs have no claim for monetary damages.

IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

In light of the Court’s finding that 1) plaintiffs do not have standing to sue the
defendants; and 2) plaintiffs’ interpretation of the CC&Rs does not prevail as a matter of
undisputed fact,

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants file a proposed form of judgment and any
applications for fees and costs within 20 days of the date of this order. The judgment should
include Rule 54(c) language.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/03/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

05/02/2016

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROGER E. BRODMAN
S. LaFontaine

Deputy

MATTHEW HILLEBRAND, et al.
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

CAMELBACK GARDEN FARMS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al.

JAY J HALL
MARK E LINES

MINUTE ENTRY

Due to Court scheduling issues,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the telephonic final pretrial conference set for September 3,
2016 and resetting same to September 2, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. (15 minutes allotted). 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) 372-2943 promptly at the
scheduled time. The parties and counsel shall not be permitted to participate in conferences
via cell phones or speakerphone.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/26/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

05/23/2016

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROGER E. BRODMAN
S. LaFontaine

Deputy

MATTHEW HILLEBRAND, et al.
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

CAMELBACK GARDEN FARMS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al.

JAY J HALL
MARK E LINES

RULING ON APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

The Court reviewed defendants’ Application for Award of Attorney’s Fees, the Response
and Reply. The Court reviewed the supporting China Doll affidavit.

It is indeed unfortunate that neighbors got into this expensive dispute with one another.
The case was intently litigated. It appears that the parties deposed at least five witnesses
(Vaccaro, Freeman, Luttrell, Leatherman and Gallardo) and attended a settlement conference.
The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment complete with detailed statements of fact.

There is no question that defendants prevailed. The Court granted defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment and denied plaintiffs’ motion. Not only did defendants have a purely legal
defense to plaintiffs’ complaint (i.e., plaintiffs had no standing to sue), but the Court was not
impressed with plaintiffs’ factual arguments, either. See Minute Entry dated April 12, 2016 at p.
6-7. The Court rejects plaintiffs’ suggestion that the Court is at fault because they added the
defendants in response to Judge Brain’s December 4, 2014 ruling. Judge Brain specifically noted
that the non-party homeowners are not indispensable parties. More importantly, Judge Brain had
not been presented with the argument that the CC&Rs did not allow an action against the non-

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

05/23/2016

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

party homeowners in this case. Indeed, suits by one homeowner against another are authorized
under some CC&Rs. See Johnson v. Pointe Community Ass’n, 205 Ariz. 485, 486, n.1 (App.
2003).

This case arises out of contract. A.R.S. § 12-341.01 provides that the court “may award
the successful party reasonable attorney fees.” The Court finds that defendants are the successful
party and are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees. In Associated Indemnity Co. v. Warner, 143
Ariz. 567 (1985), the supreme court set forth a number of factors for the trial court to consider in
determining whether to award fees. The Court will address those factors.

As noted above, defendants’ position was meritorious while plaintiffs’ position was not.
Plaintiffs argue that “this litigation could have been avoided if Defendants properly applied to
build the buildings.” Response at 4:11-12. The Court rejects this argument. To be sure,
defendants did not properly apply in advance to build their buildings. They should have done so.
But the situation was remedied and the Association retroactively approved the structures, holding
that they conformed with the CC&Rs. In other words, defendants cured the situation long before
plaintiffs brought suit.

There is no evidence that plaintiffs made any effort to resolve this matter without
litigation; indeed, plaintiffs initiated the action even though the Association’s Board found that
defendants’ structures did not violate the CC&Rs. The Court finds that assessing fees against
plaintiffs would not cause extreme hardship; having brought this litigation, plaintiffs bear the risk
of losing it. The defendants prevailed with respect to all of the relief sought. The Court does not
believe that the issues presented were novel. There is no evidence that this claim has been
previously adjudicated in this jurisdiction. Finally, an award of fees is socially beneficial because
it may discourage other parties from litigating non-meritorious claims against their neighbors. As
noted by defendants in the reply, an award of fees “would improve adherence to and enforcement
of the CC&Rs while also encouraging everyone involved to consider alternative methods of
dispute resolution, such as those remedies specifically prescribed by the CC&Rs and other
governing documents.” Reply at 5:11-13.

In Fulton Homes Corp. v. BBP Concrete, 214 Ariz. 566, 570 (App. 2007), courts were
additionally instructed to determine whether a claim was properly brought, or whether it was
unduly expanded or delayed. In addition, the Court should address potential outcomes against the
cost of litigation in pursuing a claim or defense. Here, the Court has no quarrel with defendants
waiting until discovery was completed before filing the motion for summary judgment. Other
than unnecessarily objecting to Mr. Freeman’s deposition, the Court was not persuaded that
defendants’ actions unduly expanded the case. There is no bar against recovering fees for time
spent on unsuccessful legal theories. Ofaly v. Tucson Symphony Society, 209 Ariz. 260, 266, ¶ 24
(App. 2005).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

05/23/2016

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3

In general, the Court finds that some time devoted to opposing Mr. Freeman’s deposition
and some time spent on the cross motions was unnecessary. In addition, the Court notes that the
attorney’s affidavit indicates $45,205 in legal fees has been charged. There is no indication of
what has been paid.

The Court finds that $35,000 in attorneys’ fees is a fair and reasonable amount for the
litigated issues.

IT IS ORDERED that defendants are awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees in the amount
of $35,000.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/02/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

06/01/2015

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MARK H. BRAIN
T. Springston

Deputy

MATTHEW HILLEBRAND, et al.
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
CAMELBACK GARDEN FARMS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
MARK E LINES

JAY J HALL
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC

STATUS CONFERENCE SET
REFERRAL TO ADR

IT IS ORDERED granting the parties’ proposed joint scheduling order, all in
accordance with the formal written order electronically signed by the court on May 31, 2015, and
filed (entered) by the clerk on June 2, 2015.

FILED: Scheduling Order

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a telephonic trial setting conference for
December 3, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes) in this division.

Counsel for plaintiff shall initiate the conference call by calling 602.372.2943 (Judge
Brodman’s phone number). The call should be placed from a telephone in an area with no
background noise. The call may not be placed from a vehicle. Cellular telephones and
speakerphones are prohibited.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

06/01/2015

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2

Parties are admonished to meet and confer as to the date and length of trial, as the court
will not grant continuances nor will the court enlarge the number of days once a trial date has
been scheduled, in view of the court’s calendar.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties shall participate in a mandatory settlement
conference. This case is referred to the Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Office 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 November 24, 2015. 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 October 9, 2015.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall simultaneously submit confidential
memoranda to the Judge Pro Tempore at least 5 days prior to the date set for settlement
conference.

All counsel and their clients, or non-lawyer representatives who have full and
complete authority to settle this case, shall personally appear and participate in good faith
in this settlement conference, even if no settlement is expected.

Judge Mark H. Brain
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building
101 West Jefferson Street
4th Floor, Courtroom 413
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Tel: 602.372.1141

Please Note: Judge Brain’s division is now an FTR division. Any requests for a court
reporter will need to be made three (3) days prior to a hearing.

DISCOVERY DISPUTES: In the event of any dispute concerning discovery, counsel are
directed to confer pursuant to ARCP 26(g). If such conference is unsuccessful, counsel are

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

06/01/2015

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 3

directed to initiate a conference call with this Division BEFORE filing a motion to compel or
motion for protective order.

The parties are reminded that, effective July 1, 2013, Maricopa County Local Rule of
Practice 3.2 requires notices of settlement, stipulations to dismiss, and stipulations for the entry
of judgment to contain a statement regarding whether such settlements or stipulations dispose of
the entire case.

Note: As of the date of this minute entry, Judge Roger Brodman is scheduled to take
over Judge Brain’s civil calendar (including this case) on June 22, 2015 as part of the court’s
standard judicial rotations. He is also moving into Judge Brain’s chambers and courtroom on the
4th Floor of the East Court Building. The general phone number will change to 602-372-2943.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/07/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

08/06/2015

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROGER E. BRODMAN
D. Harding

Deputy

MATTHEW HILLEBRAND, et al.
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

CAMELBACK GARDEN FARMS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al.
MARK E LINES

JAY J HALL

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has reviewed plaintiffs’ Motion to Request Court Approval to Depose Michael
Freeman, the objections filed by defendants Leatherman, Luttrell and Camelback Garden Farms
Homeowners Association, and plaintiffs' reply.

Rule 30(a) permits the depositions of parties or expert witnesses, or any other person by
"order of the court following a motion demonstrating good cause." Here, the Court finds that
plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause to take Mr. Freeman's deposition. Based on plaintiffs’
avowals and documents attached to the motion and reply, Mr. Freeman lives at the subject
property and was intimately involved in the issues directly related to this litigation. Plaintiffs
allege that Mr. Freeman submitted an application to Maricopa County to build a metal carport on
Lot 52 during his tenure on the Board of Directors for the Camelback Garden Farms
Homeowner’s Association. Inquiry into the process and discussions Mr. Freeman had with the
Board as a member of the Board and as a representative of Lot 52 appear reasonable and
appropriate. The letter dated March 3, 2014 suggests to the Court that Mr. Freeman has relevant
information pertaining to the parties' dispute. He appears to have been active in communicating
with the neighborhood regarding the approval process. To the extent he made threats to the

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

08/06/2015

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

Board which -- as alleged by plaintiffs -- caused the Board to refuse to take action against the
disputed building, such comments are relevant.

By allowing the deposition, however, the Court is not giving plaintiffs free reign to ask
questions on irrelevant topics pertaining to an unrelated lawsuit.

IT IS ORDERED granting plaintiffs' motion to take the deposition of third party witness
Michael Freeman.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/10/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

08/09/2017

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
COMMISSIONER DAVID W. GARBARINO
L. Brown

Deputy

MATTHEW HILLEBRAND, et al.
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

CAMELBACK GARDEN FARMS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al.

BANK OF AMERICA N A
800 SAMOSET DR
NEWARK DE 19713
JAY J HALL
MARK E LINES

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court received and reviewed the Petition and Order Discharging Garnishee (Non-
Earnings) (the "Petition"). The Petition is hereby granted.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/29/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

10/28/2014

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MARK H. BRAIN
T. Springston

Deputy

MATTHEW HILLEBRAND, et al.
TODD S KARTCHNER

v.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
CAMELBACK GARDEN FARMS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
MARK E LINES

ORAL ARGUMENT SET

IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument for November 24, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. (time
allotted: 30 minutes) in this division on the following Motion(s):

 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (filed October 20, 2014)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows:

If extended oral argument is necessary, counsel must so advise the court no later than
four (4) court days prior to the date set for hearing so that oral argument can be rescheduled.

Any motion or stipulation for continuance must be filed with the court no later than four
(4) court days prior to the date set for hearing. After that date, no continuances will be granted
except for extraordinary circumstances.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

10/28/2014

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2

Judge Mark H. Brain
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building
101 West Jefferson Street
4th Floor, Courtroom 413
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Tel: 602.372.1141

Please Note: Judge Brain’s division is now an FTR division. Any requests for a court
reporter will need to be made three (3) days prior to a hearing.

The parties are reminded that, effective July 1, 2013, Maricopa County Local Rule of
Practice 3.2 requires notices of settlement, stipulations to dismiss, and stipulations for the entry
of judgment to contain a statement regarding whether such settlements or stipulations dispose of
the entire case.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/04/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

11/24/2014

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MARK H. BRAIN
T. Springston

Deputy

MATTHEW HILLEBRAND, et al.
TODD S KARTCHNER

v.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
CAMELBACK GARDEN FARMS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
MARK E LINES

RULING

East Court Building – Courtroom 413

10:00 a.m. This is the time set for oral argument on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
(filed October 20, 2014). Plaintiffs are represented by counsel, Todd S. Kartchner. Defendants
are represented by counsel, Mark E. Lines.

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

Oral argument is presented.

IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.

10:18 a.m. Matter concludes.

LATER:

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

11/24/2014

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

Plaintiffs have sued the board of directors, and named the individuals. The board is not,
however, a jural entity. Plaintiffs claim that Article XI of the CC&Rs allows them to sue the
board members. As a matter of law, the CC&Rs do not, however, grant the board legal status,
nor does Article XI allow plaintiffs to sue the individual members of the board. Accordingly,
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs are entitled to file an amended complaint, and the court hereby establishes
December 23, 2014 as the deadline to do so. As discussed during the argument, the proper
defendant (which owes plaintiffs contractual duties) is Camelback Garden Farms pursuant to the
CC&Rs. At this juncture, the court does not believe that the offending non-party homeowners
are indispensable parties, but the court notes that the failure to join such parties may, as a
practical matter, significantly limit the remedies which plaintiff may seek against the
homeowners’ association.

The parties are reminded that, effective July 1, 2013, Maricopa County Local Rule of
Practice 3.2 requires notices of settlement, stipulations to dismiss, and stipulations for the entry
of judgment to contain a statement regarding whether such settlements or stipulations dispose of
the entire case.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/04/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

12/03/2015

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROGER E. BRODMAN
D. Harding

Deputy

MATTHEW HILLEBRAND, et al.
MARK BAINBRIDGE

v.

CAMELBACK GARDEN FARMS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al.

GERARDO IVAN HANNEL

TRIAL SET
FINAL TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SETTING

Courtroom ECB-413

8:30 a.m. This is the time set for telephonic trial setting conference. Plaintiffs are
represented by counsel, Mark Bainbridge. Defendants Leatherman and Luttrell are represented
by counsel, G. Ival Hannel.

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

The parties advise that Camelback Garden Farms Homeowners Association has settled
and a Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice will be filed.

Case status and scheduling are discussed.

The dispositive motion deadline is December 15, 2015 and both counsel advise they will
be filing dispositive motions in this matter. Oral argument will be set after briefing is complete.

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

12/03/2015

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 2

1.
Setting a 3-day jury trial on June 13, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. in this division. Trial
days shall be: June 13, 14 and 15, 2016. PLEASE NOTE: Trials do not proceed
on Fridays as Fridays are law and motion day for this division.

2.
Setting a final trial management conference on June 3, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.
(time allotted: 1 hour) in this division.

All parties must appear in person and may not appear telephonically.

Counsel are admonished that the court will not likely grant continuances or enlarge the
number of days once a trial date has been scheduled, in view of the court’s calendar.

8:40 a.m. Matter concludes.

DUTIES PRIOR TO THE FINAL TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

MOTIONS IN LIMINE. All motions in limine shall be filed no later than 5:00 p.m. on
April 15, 2016 and such motions must meet the test of State v. Superior Court, 108 Ariz. 396, 397;
499 P.2d 152 (1972): The primary purpose of a motion in limine is to avoid disclosing to the jury
prejudicial matters which may compel a mistrial. See also, Ariz. R. Evid. 103(c). A written
response to a motion in limine may be filed no later than ten (10) calendar days thereafter. The
court may rule on motions in limine without oral argument. No replies shall be filed. The parties
must comply with Rule 7.2(a) Ariz.R.Civ.P., prior to filing any motion in limine.

JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT. Counsel shall file and deliver to the trial Judge no
later than 5:00 p.m. on June 6, 2016, a copy of the joint pretrial statement signed by all counsel.

a)
Deposition Summary: In addition to the information required by
Rule 16(d), counsel shall at the final trial management conference provide to the
court copies of any deposition transcripts to be read to the jury. The offering party
will highlight the portions to be read, the other side will highlight Rule 106
additions, and any objections for the court to rule on will be clearly marked in the
margin. The parties are encouraged to agree on narrative summaries of deposition
testimony, using brief question and answer excerpts only to emphasize very
important testimony or to cover areas of testimony that cannot be summarized to the
satisfaction of all counsel. No stipulation should be unreasonably refused.

b)
Final Trial Witnesses: In addition to the information required by
Rule 16(d), the joint pretrial statement shall include an exhibit titled: Final Trial
Witness List. This list shall contain the name of each witness a party actually

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

12/03/2015

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 3

intends to call at trial, the day on which they intend to call each witness and the
estimated time needed for direct, cross and re-direct examination.

JURY INSTRUCTIONS; VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS. Counsel shall meet and agree on as
many proposed jury instructions as possible. Counsel shall deliver to the trial Judge, with their joint
pretrial statement, copies of:

c) Proposed voir dire questions.
d) A joint set of agreed-upon preliminary and final jury instructions and
proposed forms of verdicts.
e) Separate sets of requested instructions that have not been agreed upon.
Please read Rosen v. Knaub, 175 Ariz. 329; 857 P.2d 381 (1993) and the
RAJI Civil 3d Statement of Purpose and Approach before preparing
requests for non-RAJI instructions.

Recommended Arizona Jury Instructions (RAJI) and non-RAJI instructions should be typed
and submitted in WORD format. Each instruction should cover only one subject.

DUTIES AT FINAL TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Counsel shall be prepared to discuss:

f) Time limits in voir dire, opening statements, examination of witnesses
and closing arguments.
g) Stipulations for the foundation and authenticity of exhibits.
h) Preliminary jury instructions, juror notebooks (counsel shall bring any
proposed juror notebooks to the conference), mini opening statements
and voir dire.
i) Agreed-upon deposition summaries and excerpts from deposition
transcripts and the editing of any videotaped depositions.
j) Use of short-trial or summary jury trial.
k) Any special scheduling or equipment issues.

One day's jury fees will be assessed unless the court is notified of settlement before
2:00 p.m. on the judicial day before the trial. Counsel are reminded to promptly notify the court of
any settlement pursuant to Rule 5.1(d), Ariz.R.Civ.P.

The dates set forth in this Order are FIRM dates and will not be extended or modified by
this court absent good cause. Lack of preparation will not ordinarily be considered good cause.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

12/03/2015

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 4

Judge Roger E. Brodman
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building
101 West Jefferson Street
4th Floor, Courtroom 413
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Tel: 602-372-2943

NOTE: All court proceedings are recorded by audio and video method 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.

ATTORNEYS AND ASSISTANTS
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY

Exhibits to be offered at trial shall be delivered to this division no later than 4:30 p.m. on
May 27, 2016. (This date is set independently of the joint pretrial statement deadline.) Do not
provide a “Judge’s Copy” of the exhibits.

EXHIBIT GUIDELINES:

 Exhibits shall be marked serially by number, plaintiff’s first; defendant’s exhibit
numbers will begin where plaintiff’s numbers end.
 Confer with the other party to eliminate duplicate exhibits before presenting to the
clerk.
 Submit a written list or inventory describing each exhibit; descriptions should be
concise and can be as simple as “letter,” “e-mail,” or “photo”.
 Do not skip numbers, or describe exhibits as “blank” or “withdrawn”; do not
“reserve” numbers for items not submitted to the clerk.
 Do not submit exhibits with subparts (e.g. exhibit 1a, 1b, 1c).
 Staple or otherwise secure each individual exhibit so that pages do not become
separated.
 Separate exhibits by a colored sheet of paper with the exhibit number written on
front.
 If an exhibit is too heavy or large for a hanging file folder, place it in a binder.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2014-011316

12/03/2015

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 5

 Do not mark depositions as exhibits; original depositions may be submitted to the
division clerk to be filed and will be available for use during the trial.
 Blow-up charts and large items may only be used for demonstrative purposes.
Counsel may bring blow-up charts and large items to court to use during trial;
however, if counsel would like any blow-up charts or large items marked as an
exhibit, they must provide the clerk with an 8-1/2 x 11 photograph of the item.
 Contact the clerk at 602-506-6928 if you have questions regarding exhibits.

The parties are reminded that, effective July 1, 2013, Maricopa County Local Rule of
Practice 3.2 requires notices of settlement, stipulations to dismiss, and stipulations for the entry
of judgment to contain a statement regarding whether such settlements or stipulations dispose of
the entire case.

Documents