04/22/2015 — CV2015090214 EDMISTON, CLOVER L 04/22/2015 HON. MARK F. ACETO View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Filed ***
04/24/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2015-090214
04/22/2015
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. MARK F. ACETO
M. Scott
Deputy
SUNDANCE RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
JAVIER B DELGADO
v.
CLOVER L EDMISTON, et al.
CLOVER L EDMISTON
23312 W HOPI ST
BUCKEYE AZ 85326
ROBERT D EDMISTON
23312 W HOPI ST
BUCKEYE AZ 85326
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
MINUTE ENTRY
On March 24, 2015, defendants filed a document entitled “Response to Plaintiff’s
Petition for Relief”. Under the circumstances, on court’s own motion,
IT IS ORDERED extending to May 26, 2015 the deadline for defendants to file answers
or to otherwise properly respond to plaintiff’s complaint. The court notes that it is quite unlikely
that this deadline will be further extended.
The court notes that the “Response to Plaintiff’s Petition for Relief” filed by defendants
on March 24, 2015 does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 8(b), is not an answer or other
proper response, and will not prevent entry of default against any defendant who does not file a
timely answer or other proper response.
The court makes note of the following:
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2015-090214
04/22/2015
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
Defendant Robert Edmiston is now representing himself. Regarding the claims
against him, Defendant Robert Edmiston now has all of the obligations and
responsibilities that would otherwise be the obligations and responsibilities of
counsel.
Defendant Clover Edmiston is now representing herself. Regarding the claims
against her, Defendant Clover Edmiston now has all of the obligations and
responsibilities that would otherwise be the obligations and responsibilities of
counsel.
The court does not expect to delay the progression of this case. Thus, if either
defendant intends to retain counsel, it can truly be said that time is of the essence
regarding efforts to do so.
If a party fails to obey a scheduling or pretrial order, or if no appearance is made
on behalf of a party at a Scheduling Conference, Pretrial Conference, or Trial
Management Conference, sanctions may be imposed. For example, such
sanctions against a defendant could include striking any answer filed by that
defendant and allowing the plaintiff to proceed against that defendant by default.
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDERED
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
The parties shall participate in a mandatory Settlement Conference by
August 14, 2015. This case is referred to the Court’s Alternative Dispute
Resolution Office for 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 “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 no later than August 14,
2015. The Office of Alternative Dispute Resolution will not do the
scheduling of the settlement conference so please do not contact that office.
If the parties decide to use a private mediator, they must forthwith advise
the Office of Alternative Dispute Resolution and any judge pro tempore
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2015-090214
04/22/2015
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3
who has been assigned to conduct the settlement conference.
Additionally, private mediation must be completed by the deadline
established above.
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/Mediation.
Sanctions may be imposed for failure to participate.
/ s / HON. MARK F. ACETO
JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
05/28/2015 — CV2015090214 EDMISTON, CLOVER L 05/28/2015 HON. MARK F. ACETO View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/01/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2015-090214
05/28/2015
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. MARK F. ACETO
M. Scott
Deputy
SUNDANCE RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
JAVIER B DELGADO
v.
CLOVER L EDMISTON, et al.
CLOVER L EDMISTON
23312 W HOPI ST
BUCKEYE AZ 85326
ROBERT D EDMISTON
23312 W HOPI ST
BUCKEYE AZ 85326
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK
MINUTE ENTRY
The court makes note of the following:
On May 22, 2015, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Removal of Case from the
Maricopa County Compulsory Arbitration Program”.
Through a minute entry dated April 22, 2015, the court ordered that the parties
participate in a settlement conference. On May 12, 2015, the court issued a
minute entry appointing Kathleen Tyson McCoy to conduct a Settlement
Conference as a judge pro tem.
The court is currently unaware of any order appointing an arbitrator or ordering
the parties to participate in compulsory arbitration.
The court affirms that this case is not subject to compulsory arbitration.
06/15/2015 — CV2015090214 EDMISTON, CLOVER L 06/15/2015 HON. MARK F. ACETO View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/17/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2015-090214
06/15/2015
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. MARK F. ACETO
M. Scott
Deputy
SUNDANCE RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
JAVIER B DELGADO
v.
CLOVER L EDMISTON, et al.
CLOVER L EDMISTON
23312 W HOPI ST
BUCKEYE AZ 85326
ROBERT D EDMISTON
23312 W HOPI ST
BUCKEYE AZ 85326
KATHLEEN TYSON MCCOY
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
MINUTE ENTRY
On May 26, 2015, defendants filed a document entitled “Response and Denial to
Plaintiffs Petition for Relief”.
In the above referred to document, defendants requested “30 Business Days to Consult
with Legal Counsel on This Matter.” Defendants certainly have a right to consult with counsel.
That said, the court declines to issue an order delaying the progression of this case.
The document filed by defendants also requests a “Mediation Process…for Both Sides to
Attempt to Settle This Dispute Outside of Court and to the Mutual Satisfaction of Both Sides.”
Through a minute entry dated April 22, 2015, the court ordered that the parties participate in a
Settlement Conference with a judge pro tem by August 14, 2014. Further, attorney Kathleen
Tyson McCoy has been assigned to preside over a Settlement Conference. The foregoing are
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2015-090214
06/15/2015
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
binding orders and the court declines to issue any other orders regarding alternative dispute
resolution at this time.
Defendants request that the court set a review hearing. The court declines to do so. That
said, approximately 150 after plaintiff filed its complaint, court administration has or will issue
an order dictating that the parties comply with Rule 38.1 by a date certain.
IT IS ORDERED denying any other relief requested in the above identified document.
