01/17/2019 — CV2018097752 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, PALM VALLEY 01/17/2019 HONORABLE ANDREW J. RUSSELL View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/18/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-097752
01/17/2019
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ANDREW J. RUSSELL
M. Kay
Deputy
PALM VALLEY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION SAMUEL C RICHARDSON
v.
CARLOS GALINDO
CARLOS GALINDO
13621 W MONTE VISTA DR
GOODYEAR AZ 85395
COMM. LYNCH
COMM. RUSSELL
MINUTE ENTRY
This Division has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application for Default Judgment against
Defendant(s) CARLOS GALINDO 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
Steven Lynch.
IT IS ORDERED that all documents necessary to support the entry of a Default
Judgment must be e-filed.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-097752
01/17/2019
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
Pursuant to the Maricopa County eFiling Guidelines, section 2.09, attorneys shall
electronically file all the documents required to request a Default Judgment, such as the
Application for Entry of Default, Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, Sum Certain Affidavit,
and Application for Attorneys’ Fees when appropriate and Statement of Costs, but shall submit a
Default Judgment packet required by the Court, including the documents identified on the
Default Judgment packet coversheet in paper to the assigned Commissioner’s Division. A
Commissioner will not act upon a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment until the Default
Judgment packet with all the required documents has been received by the Division in paper
form.
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
03/28/2019 — CV2018097752 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, PALM VALLEY 03/28/2019 HONORABLE ANDREW J. RUSSELL View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/29/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-097752
03/28/2019
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ANDREW J. RUSSELL
M. Kay
Deputy
PALM VALLEY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION SAMUEL C RICHARDSON
v.
CARLOS GALINDO
CARLOS GALINDO
313621 W MONTE VISTA RD
GOODYEAR AZ 85395
COMM. RUSSELL
RULING ON MOTION
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court has
reviewed the Motion, together with the exhibits filed with that Motion, the record in this matter,
and the Response and Objection filed by Defendant. No Reply has been filed, and the deadline
for doing so has passed. Although Plaintiff requested oral argument, the Court does not believe
that additional argument would assist the Court in ruling on the Motion.
Summary Judgment is appropriate if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the
movant (here, Plaintiff) is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See, e.g., Ariz. R. Civ. P.
56. The party moving for summary judgment must produce evidence demonstrating the absence
of a genuine issue of material fact and must explain why summary judgment is warranted. See
Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Thruston, 218 Ariz. 112, 114-15, ¶ 12, 180 P.3d 977, 979-80 (App.
2008). If the moving party does so, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party (here,
Defendant) to present sufficient evidence demonstrating the existence of a disputed fact. See id.,
218 Ariz. at ¶ 26. The nonmoving party cannot merely rest on its pleadings, but instead must
call the Court’s attention to evidence that explains why the motion should be denied. Id. “The
opponents of a motion for summary judgment do not raise a genuine issue of fact by merely
stating in the record that such an issue exists. Rather, they must show that competent evidence is
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-097752
03/28/2019
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
available which will justify a trial on the issue.” See Flowers v. K-Mart Corp., 126 Ariz. 495,
499, 616 P.2d 955, 959 (App. 1980).
Here, Plaintiff produced evidence demonstrating that Defendant took title to certain real
property, subject to a recorded Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
(CC&Rs). Among other things, the CC&Rs require Defendant to pay certain assessment,
charges, fees, etc. Plaintiff also produced evidence showing that Defendant has breached his
obligations under the CC&Rs. Although Defendant filed a Response to the Motion for Summary
Judgment, his Response only identified a few irrelevant typographical errors in Plaintiff’s
Motion, and discussed his attempts to negotiate a resolution of this dispute. Defendant presented
no evidence to contradict Plaintiff or to otherwise show the existence of a genuine issue of
material fact.
Because there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute in this matter and Plaintiff
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an Application for Attorneys’ Fees
and Costs, together with an Affidavit in support of that Application, and a proposed form of
Judgment, on or before April 12, 2019. If Plaintiff files such an Application/Affidavit/proposed
form of Judgment, Defendant may file a Response on or before April 26, 2019. The Court will
rule thereafter.
