Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2010-091813: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Jones Skelton & Hochuli P L C.

Case Number

CV2010-091813

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

7/29/2010

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Fox, Dewain

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/19/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
01/13/2012
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
JUDGE PRO TEM COLLEEN L. FRENCH
J. Eaton
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
STEVEN C DAWSON
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
JEREMY E BEAL
MARK P BREYER
DOUGLAS L CHRISTIAN
JOHN W SHAMBLIN
STATUS CONFERENCE SET
In chambers.
9:02 a.m. This is the time set for telephonic status conference. Plaintiffs are represented
by counsel, Steven C. Dawson. Defendants Arch Insurance Group, Inc., and Arch Insurance
Company are represented by Jeremy E. Beal.
Defendant Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC is
represented by counsel, Douglas L. Christian. Defendants Highway Technologies, Inc., and HTS
Holdings, Inc., are represented by counsel, John W. Shamblin.
No court reporter is present.
Case status and scheduling are discussed.
IT IS ORDERED granting the Joint Motion for the Entry of an Amended Scheduling
Order filed January 12, 2012, all in accordance with the formal written Order signed by the Court
on January 13, 2012, and filed (entered) by the Clerk on January 13, 2012.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
01/13/2012
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a telephonic status conference for December 7,
2012 at 9:00 a.m. (15 minutes) in this division for the purpose of selecting a trial date. Counsel
for Plaintiff shall initiate the conference call by calling (602) 506-1541.
9:09 a.m. Matter concludes.
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 chambers. The call may not be placed
from a vehicle. Also, the use of cellular telephones is strongly discouraged.
This is a 15 minute proceeding. The Court will determine if more time is needed. If there
is a failure to appear, the Court may make such orders as are just, including granting the relief
requested by the party who does appear.
No recording will be made nor will there be a court reporter present for telephonic
proceedings held in chambers. Any party may request the presence of a court reporter by
contacting the division three (3) court business days before the scheduled hearing.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/28/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2010-091813

01/23/2014

Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
S. Uppendahl

Deputy

VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
STEVEN C DAWSON

v.

ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.

JEREMY E BEAL
CHARLES M CALLAHAN
THOMAS L HUDSON
JOHN W SHAMBLIN

CASE ON INACTIVE CALENDAR

The Court has received a Notice of Settlement.

IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the Inactive Calendar for dismissal on March
10, 2014, without further notice unless prior to said date a proper Motion to Set and Certificate of
Readiness, a Judgment, a Stipulation to Dismiss, or a proper Motion to Continue is filed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Telephonic Status Conference on January 30,
2014 at 9:45 a.m. (15 minutes).

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 ***
02/15/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
02/11/2011
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE KAREN POTTS
M. Scott
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
MARK P BREYER
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
JEREMY E BEAL
MINUTE ENTRY
11:32 a.m. This is the time set for Rule 16 Telephonic Comprehensive Pretrial
Conference in this matter. Plaintiff is represented by Mark P. Breyer. Defendant(s) are
represented by Jeremy E. Beal.
A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.
The Court has received and reviewed the parties’ Joint Pretrial Memorandum. In
accordance therewith,
IT IS ORDERED setting a Telephonic Status Conference regarding Set Trial Date on
Friday, September 16, 2011 at 9:15 a.m. (15 minutes reserved) before:
HONORABLE KAREN A. POTTS
SOUTHEAST ADULT FACILITY
222 EAST JAVELINA - COURTROOM 207
MESA AZ 85210
The parties remaining in this action shall complete mediation by September 9, 2011.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
02/11/2011
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2
NOTE: Plaintiff shall be responsible for initiating the conference call by calling this
division at 602-372-1160, with all participating parties and counsel on the line, at the date and
time specified above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED if the parties settle the matter, they shall contact this
Division so the hearing can be vacated.
FILED: Scheduling Order, signed 2/11/2011
PLEASE NOTE: This Court utilizes a digital audio recording system to preserve the
official record of proceedings. Persons requesting copies of recorded proceedings do not have to
provide blank CDs. All CDs will be provided by the Court, regardless of when the copies are
made. A fee of $20.00 will apply to all copies requested, either on the day of the hearing or for
hearings recorded on an earlier date. Counsel or litigants must complete the appropriate request
form which may be obtained from the Self-Service Center or from Court staff and present the
completed form to the Self-Service Center. All fees must be handled through the Self-Service
Center. Upon payment of the appropriate fees through the Self-Service Center, a receipt will be
issued which shall then be presented to Court staff for preparation of the CD.
This case is eFiling eligible: http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efiling/default.asp

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/01/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
02/28/2012
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
JUDGE PRO TEM COLLEEN L. FRENCH
J. Eaton
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
STEVEN C DAWSON
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
JEREMY E BEAL
MARK P BREYER
DOUGLAS L CHRISTIAN
JOHN W SHAMBLIN
ORAL ARGUMENT SET
IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument for April 13, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. in this division
on the following motion(s):
•
Defendant Highway Technologies, Inc. and HTS Holding, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss
Counts II and III of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“Bad Faith”), filed January 31,
2012.
The Honorable Colleen L. French
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building
101 West Jefferson
Courtroom 612
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: (602) 506-1541
Time Allotted: 30 minutes

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
02/28/2012
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
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.
Any party may request the presence of a court reporter by contacting the division three
(3) court business days before the scheduled hearing. There will be no audio/video recording
available of this oral argument.
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 ***
03/15/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
03/12/2012
Docket Code 095
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
JUDGE PRO TEM COLLEEN L. FRENCH
J. Eaton
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
STEVEN C DAWSON
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
JEREMY E BEAL
MARK P BREYER
DOUGLAS L CHRISTIAN
JOHN W SHAMBLIN
ORAL ARGUMENT RESET
On the Court's own motion,
IT IS ORDERED vacating oral argument on Defendant Highway Technologies, Inc. and
HTS Holding, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Counts II and III of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
(“Bad Faith”) on April 13, 2012 at 9:00 a.m., and resetting same for May 4, 2012 at 11:00 a.m.
(time allotted: 30 minutes) in this division.
Any party may request the presence of a court reporter by contacting the division three
(3) court business days before the scheduled hearing. There will be no audio/video recording
available of this oral argument.
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 ***
03/26/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
03/21/2012
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
JUDGE PRO TEM COLLEEN L. FRENCH
J. Eaton
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
STEVEN C DAWSON
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
JEREMY E BEAL
MARK P BREYER
DOUGLAS L CHRISTIAN
JOHN W SHAMBLIN
RULING
The Court has reviewed and considered Defendant, Arch Insurance Company’s Motion
and Consent of Local Counsel for Pro Hac Vice Admission of James E. Bullard, Out of State
Counsel, filed February 28, 2012.
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant, Arch Insurance Company’s Motion and Consent
of Local Counsel for Pro Hac Vice Admission of James E. Bullard, Out of State Counsel.
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 ***
04/06/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
04/04/2012
CV 2011-055131
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
JUDGE PRO TEM COLLEEN L. FRENCH
J. Eaton
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
THOMAS L HUDSON
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
JEREMY E BEAL
DOUGLAS L CHRISTIAN
KATHLEEN O'MEARA
JOHN W SHAMBLIN
JAMES J BELANGER
STEVEN C DAWSON
ORAL ARGUMENT SET
IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument for May 25, 2012 @ 11:00 a.m. in this division
on the following motion(s):
•
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate this Action with CV2011-055131, Arch Insurance
Company v. Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., et al, filed February 21, 2012;
•
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate this Action with CV2010-091813, Arch Insurance
Company v. Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., et al, filed February 21, 2012;
•
Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel Defendant Arch Insurance Company, filed February
27, 2012.
Arguments will be heard in the order as listed above. 30 minutes are scheduled for the
Motions to Consolidate and 30 minutes are scheduled for the Motion to Compel.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
04/04/2012
CV 2011-055131
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
The Honorable Colleen L. French
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building
101 West Jefferson
Courtroom 612
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: (602) 506-1541
Time Allotted: 1 hour total
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.
Any party may request the presence of a court reporter by contacting the division three
(3) court business days before the scheduled hearing. There will be no audio/video recording
available of this oral argument.
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 ***
04/15/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
04/11/2013
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
D. Glab
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
STEVEN C DAWSON
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
JEREMY E BEAL
CHARLES M CALLAHAN
THOMAS L HUDSON
JOHN W SHAMBLIN
ORAL ARGUMENT SET
STATUS CONFERENCE VACATED
The Court has received Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint,
filed February 21, 2013, responses and replies.
The Court has also received Highway Technologies, Inc.’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, filed February 21, 2013.
IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Third
Amended Complaint and Highway Technologies, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment on
May 17, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. (45 minutes) in this division.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Telephonic Status Conference set on May 16,
2013 at 9:00 a.m. (15 minutes) in this division.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
04/11/2013
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/23/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
04/18/2012
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
JUDGE PRO TEM COLLEEN L. FRENCH
J. Eaton
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
THOMAS L HUDSON
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
JEREMY E BEAL
DOUGLAS L CHRISTIAN
KATHLEEN O'MEARA
JOHN W SHAMBLIN
ORDER TO FILE JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER
The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiffs’ Request for the Setting of a Pretrial
Conference, filed April 16, 2012. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
Counsel are to meet personally to discuss all of the matters set forth in Rule 16(b), Ariz.
R. Civ. P. Counsel shall prepare and file with the Court, no later than 5:00 p.m. May 18, 2012, a
Joint Pretrial Memorandum, and a proposed Order, for discovery, motion and disclosure
deadlines.
If the parties agree to the dates, they should prepare an Order in the form set forth below,
containing the provisions which are applicable to their case. For example, paragraph 1 of the
Order set forth below need not be included in the parties’ proposed Order if the parties intend to
disclose their experts’ identity and opinions at the same time they disclose their experts’ areas of
testimony. Similarly, if the parties agree to simultaneously disclose the identity and opinions of
their expert witnesses, they need not include in their proposed Order the language set forth in
paragraph 2a. and b., below.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
04/18/2012
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
The proposed Order shall include specific dates (“December 5, 2012” is a specific date.
“90 days prior to trial” is a date in reference to a trial date and is not a specific date). Do not
incorporate a firm trial date in the proposed Order.
NOTE: COUNSEL SHALL UPLOAD AND E-FILE ALL PROPOSED ORDERS
IN WORD FORMAT ONLY TO ALLOW FOR POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS BY THE
COURT.
If counsel are unable to agree on any of the items that are to be included in the Order, the
reasons for their inability to agree shall be set forth in their Pretrial Memorandum and each shall
prepare a separate proposed Order.
The Court will review the Joint Pretrial Memorandum and proposed Scheduling Order. If
all is in order, the Court will set a status conference close to the discovery cutoff date. At the
status conference, if the parties have completed discovery and are ready for trial, the Court will
set firm dates for the final pretrial management conference and the trial. There will be no
telephonic appearances at the status conference without prior Court approval. Counsel who will
be the trial lawyers in the case must appear in person with their trial calendar. If the parties are
not ready for trial, the matter will be placed on the Inactive Calendar for dismissal within 60
days.
If counsel feel a pretrial conference is still necessary at this stage of the litigation, they
should address the reasons why in the first paragraph of the Joint Pretrial Memorandum.
If a Joint Pretrial Conference Memorandum and proposed Scheduling Order are not
timely submitted, the Court will place the matter back on the Inactive Calendar for dismissal.
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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
04/18/2012
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 3
PROPOSED ORDER LANGUAGE:
The Court has received and reviewed the parties’ Joint Pretrial Memorandum and
proposed Scheduling Order.
In accordance therewith,
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. The parties shall mutually and simultaneously disclose areas of expert testimony by
5:00 p.m. on ________, 2012. [or]
a. Plaintiffs shall disclose areas of expert testimony by 5:00 p.m. on _________,
2012.
b. Defendants shall disclose areas of expert testimony by 5:00 p.m. on _________,
2012.
2. The parties shall mutually and simultaneously disclose the identity and opinions of
their expert witnesses by 5:00 p.m. on ________, 2012. [or]
a. Plaintiffs shall disclose the identity and opinions of their expert witnesses by
5:00 p.m. on ________, 2012.
b. Defendants shall disclose the identity and opinions of their expert witnesses by
5:00 p.m. on ________, 2012.
3. Any and all discovery requests shall be served by 5:00 p.m. on ________, 2012.
4. The parties shall disclose all non-expert witnesses by 5:00 p.m. on ________, 2012.
[or]
a. Plaintiffs shall disclose areas of non-expert testimony by 5:00 p.m. on ________,
2012.
b. Defendants shall disclose areas of non-expert testimony by 5:00 p.m. on
________, 2012.
5. The parties shall mutually and simultaneously disclose their rebuttal expert witnesses
and opinions by 5:00 p.m. on ________, 2012.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
04/18/2012
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 4
6. All discovery shall be concluded by 5:00 p.m. on ________, 2012.
7. The parties shall have exchanged up-to-date final Rule 26.1 Supplemental Disclosure
Statements by 5:00 p.m. on ________, 2012. This Order does not replace the parties’
obligation to seasonably disclose on an on-going basis under Rule 26.1 as information
becomes available.
8. Settlement Conference (choose one):
a. The parties shall participate in private mediation by 5:00 p.m. on ________,
2012.
OR
b. The parties shall participate in a mandatory Settlement Conference and this matter
is referred to the Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution for the appointment of a
judge pro tempore to conduct a settlement conference. Counsel and any "pro per"
parties will contact the appointed judge pro tempore to arrange the time and
location for the settlement conference. The judge pro tempore is requested to
conduct a settlement conference not later than ________, 2012. 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 5:00 p.m. on ________,
2011.
9. No expert witnesses, expert opinions, lay witnesses, or exhibits shall be used at trial
other than those disclosed in a timely manner, except for good cause shown or written
agreement of the parties.
10. All pretrial motions, other than motions in limine, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. on
________, 2012.
11. A telephonic Status Conference is set for ________, 2012, at ________*.m. for the
purpose of assigning a trial date if the case has not settled. Plaintiff is to initiate the
call. (This date will be filled in by the Court)
12. Should any discovery disputes arise, counsel, prior to filing discovery motions, shall
meet and confer pursuant to Rule 37, Ariz.R.Civ.P., then telephonically contact the
Court to set up a telephonic conference to discuss any remaining issues.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
04/18/2012
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 5
13. 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.
14. This case is removed from the Inactive Calendar and all requirements of Rule 38.1,
Ariz.R.Civ.P., are waived unless and until otherwise ordered by the Court.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/30/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
04/25/2013
Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
D. Glab
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
STEVEN C DAWSON
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
JEREMY E BEAL
CHARLES M CALLAHAN
THOMAS L HUDSON
JOHN W SHAMBLIN
ORDER SIGNED
IT IS ORDERED approving/granting the formal written Order Granting Stipulation
Regarding Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of Highway Technologies, Inc.’s Motion
for Summary Judgment signed and modified by the Court on April 25, 2013, and entered (filed)
by the clerk on April 25, 2013.
Please note: The Court has signed a hard-copy version of the order provided with an
electronically filed pleading. Therefore, copies of the order and self-addressed, stamped
envelopes were not available for mailing to the parties. After the order has been scanned and
docketed by the Clerk of Court, copies of this order may be available through ECR Online at
clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov or through AZTurboCourt.gov and from the Public Access Terminals
at the Clerk of Court’s offices located throughout Maricopa County.
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 ***
05/08/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
05/04/2012
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
JUDGE PRO TEM COLLEEN L. FRENCH
J. Eaton
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
STEVEN C DAWSON
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
JEREMY E BEAL
CHARLES M CALLAHAN
THOMAS L HUDSON
JOHN W SHAMBLIN
UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING
East Court Building – Courtroom 612
11:02 a.m. This is the time set for oral argument regarding Defendant Highway
Technologies, Inc. and HTS Holding, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Counts II and III of Plaintiffs’
First Amended Complaint (“Bad Faith”). Plaintiffs are represented by counsel, Steven C.
Dawson and Anita Rosenthal. Defendant, Arch Insurance Company, Inc., is represented by
counsel, Jeremy E. Beal. Defendant, Jones Skelton & Hochuli, PLC, is represented by counsel,
Charles M. Callahan. Defendants, Highway Technologies, Inc. and HTS Holding, Inc., are
represented by counsel, John W. Shamblin and Daniel G. Dowd.
Court Reporter, Kim McAndrews, is present.
Argument is heard.
IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
05/04/2012
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2
Counsel informs the Court that the current deadline to file a Joint Pretrial Memorandum
and proposed Order do not comport with the oral argument regarding the Motions to Consolidate
and Motion to Compel currently scheduled for May 25, 2012.
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
Counsel are to meet personally to discuss all of the matters set forth in Rule 16(b), Ariz.
R. Civ. P. Counsel shall prepare and file with the Court, no later than 5:00 p.m. July 6, 2012, a
Joint Pretrial Memorandum, and a proposed Order, for discovery, motion and disclosure
deadlines.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED suspending deadlines on both cases until a decision is
made regarding case consolidation.
11:35 a.m. Matter concludes.
LATER:
The Court has considered the pleadings, arguments of counsel, and the pertinent statutes,
rules and case law.
In considering Defendants Highway Technologies, Inc. and HTS Holding, Inc.’s Motion
to Dismiss Counts II and III of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim
under Rule 12(b)(6) ARCP, this Court must consider all material allegations contained in the
complaint to be true, and must read them in a light most favorable to PlaintiffS. Logan v.
Forever Living Products International, Inc., 203 Ariz. 191, ¶ 2, 52 P.3d 760, ¶2 (2002). Motions
to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) can only be granted if it is clear, as a matter of law, that the
plaintiff would not be entitled to relief on any interpretation of those facts. Doe ex rel. Doe v.
State, 200 Ariz. 174, ¶ 2, 24 P.3d 1269, ¶ 2 (2001).
Applying this standard to Counts II and III of Plaintiffs’ First-Amended Complaint, the
Court finds that, even taking those allegations to be true, it is clear, as a matter of law, that
Plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief against Defendants Highway Technologies, Inc. and/or
HTS Holding, Inc. for the tort of insurance bad faith, or, by extension, for resulting loss of
consortium, under any interpretation of the facts alleged. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants Highway Technologies, Inc. and HTS Holding,
Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Counts II and III of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“Bad Faith”).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
05/04/2012
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3
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 ***
05/31/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
05/17/2013
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
S. Uppendahl
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
STEVEN C DAWSON
KATHLEEN O'MEARA
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
JEREMY E BEAL
CHARLES M CALLAHAN
THOMAS L HUDSON
JOHN W SHAMBLIN
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom 412 – East Court Building
9:58 a.m. This is the time set for Scheduling Conference and Oral Argument. Plaintiffs
are represented by counsel, Kathleen O’Meara, Steven C. Dawson, Thomas L. Hudson and Anita
Rosenthal. Defendant, Highway Technologies, Inc., is represented by counsel, Daniel G. Dowd
and John W. Shamblin. Defendant, Arch Insurance Company is represented by counsel, Jeremy
E. Beal. Defendant, Jones Skelton & Hochuli, P.C., is represented by counsel, Stephen M.
Dichter and Charles M. Callahan.
A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held regarding scheduling and resetting oral argument on Defendant
Highway Technologies, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Further discussion is held
regarding mediation.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
05/17/2013
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED no later than June 7, 2013, the parties shall submit a revised Joint
Pretrial Scheduling Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED resetting Oral Argument regarding Defendant Highway
Technologies Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment for June 25, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. (time
allotted: 1 hour), in this division.
Argument is held regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Third Amended
Complaint, filed February 21, 2013, Highway Technologies, Inc.’s Response in Opposition to
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, filed March 14, 2013, Jones
Skelton & Hochuli’s Response to Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, filed
March 14, 2013, Arch Insurance Company’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, filed March 14, 2013, Reply to Jones Skelton &
Hochuli Response to Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, Filed April 8, 2013,
and Reply to Highway Technologies, Inc.’s and Arch Insurance Group, Inc.’s Responses to
Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, filed April 8, 2013.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED taking Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Third
Amended Complaint under advisement.
10:57 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 ***
05/31/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
05/25/2012
CV 2011-055131
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
JUDGE PRO TEM COLLEEN L. FRENCH
J. Eaton
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
STEVEN C DAWSON
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
JEREMY E BEAL
CHARLES M CALLAHAN
THOMAS L HUDSON
JOHN W SHAMBLIN
DOUGLAS L CHRISTIAN
KATHLEEN O'MEARA
JAMES J BELANGER
DANIEL G DOWD
BRIAN E CIENIAWSKI
MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT
East Court Building – Courtroom 612
11:06 a.m. This is the time set for oral argument on the following motion(s):
•
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate this Action with CV2011-055131, Arch
Insurance Company v. Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., et al, filed February 21,
2012;
•
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate this Action with CV2010-091813, Arch
Insurance Company v. Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., et al, filed February 21,
2012; and
•
Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel Defendant Arch Insurance Company, filed
February 27, 2012 (CV2010-091813).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
05/25/2012
CV 2011-055131
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2
Case number CV2010-091813:
Plaintiffs, Vincent Quiroz and Barbara Quiroz, are represented by counsel, Steven C.
Dawson. Defendant, Arch Insurance Company, is represented by counsel, Jeremy E. Beal.
Defendant, Jones Skelton & Hochuli, PLC, is represented by counsel, Charles M. Callahan.
Defendants, Highway Technologies, Inc. and HTS Holding, Inc., are represented by counsel,
Daniel G. Dowd.
Case number CV2011-055131:
Plaintiffs, Arch Insurance Company, is represented by counsel, Brian Cieniawski.
Defendants, Jones Skelton & Hochuli, PLC, Mark D. Zukowski, and David L. Stout, are
represented by counsel, Charles M. Callahan.
Court Reporter, Marylynn LeMoine, is present.
Argument is heard.
IT IS ORDERED taking these matters under advisement.
12:01 p.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 ***
06/05/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
05/30/2012
CV 2011-055131
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
JUDGE PRO TEM COLLEEN L. FRENCH
J. Eaton
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
STEVEN C DAWSON
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
JEREMY E BEAL
CHARLES M CALLAHAN
THOMAS L HUDSON
JOHN W SHAMBLIN
DOUGLAS L CHRISTIAN
KATHLEEN O'MEARA
JAMES J BELANGER
DANIEL G DOWD
BRIAN E CIENIAWSKI
UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING
This matter was heard by this Court May 25, 2012.
The Court has read and considered the following:
•
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate This Action With CV2011-055131, Arch
Insurance Company v. Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., et al;
•
Arch Insurance Company’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate This
Action with CV2011-055131, Arch Insurance Co. v. Jones, Skelton & Hochuli,
P.L.C., et al;

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
05/30/2012
CV 2011-055131
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2
•
Defendant Jones, Skelton & Hochuli’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Consolidate;
•
Plaintiff Arch Insurance Company’s Response to Plaintiffs Quiroz’s Motion to
Consolidate;
•
Plaintiffs’ Joint Reply to Three Responses to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate;
•
Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel Defendant Arch Insurance Company;
•
Arch Insurance Company’s Response to Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel;
•
Reply to Arch Insurance Company’s Response to Plaintiffs’ First Motion to
Compel;
•
Arch Insurance Company’s Sur-Reply to Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of its
Motion to Compel; and
•
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Arch Insurance Company’s Sur-Reply to Plaintiffs’
Reply in Support of its Motion to Compel.
The Court has also considered all relevant statutes, procedural rules and case law, as well
as the arguments of counsel.
I.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate
The Court finds that consolidation of CV2010-091813 (the “Bad Faith” case) with
CV2011-055131 (the “Legal Malpractice” case) would be inappropriate. First, the Court finds
that, contrary to Plaintiffs’ claim, consolidation is not mandated by A.R.S. § 12-2506. Second,
the Court finds that consolidation is not warranted under Rule 42(a) ARCP. Plaintiffs have no
interest in the outcome in the Legal Malpractice case, therefore they have no legitimate reason to
seek consolidation, except as a matter of strategy. Plaintiffs cite “practical concerns” warranting
consolidation. However, the Court finds, as a practical matter, that presentation of legal
malpractice evidence against Defendant Jones, Skelton & Hochuli to the jurors, who must then
also decide tort claims and other claims alleged against Jones, Skelton & Hochuli in the Bad
Faith case, would be unduly prejudicial to Jones, Skelton & Hochuli. Additionally, the Court
finds that consolidation of the bad faith claims against Jones, Skelton & Hochuli with the legal
malpractice claims against it would present an unduly confusing evidentiary matrix for the jurors
to decipher. For these reasons,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
05/30/2012
CV 2011-055131
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate This Action With CV2011-
055131, Arch Insurance Company v. Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., et al.
II.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
There appear to be three unresolved issues relative to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel.
Specifically, still at issue are Plaintiffs’ requests for: (1) the personnel files of individuals
involved in handling the claim; (2) information regarding the reserves set on Plaintiffs’ claim;
and (3) e-mails between current counsel for Arch, in-house counsel for Arch, other counsel for
Arch, and representatives of Arch generated after Plaintiffs filed their Complaint.
According to Rule 26(b)(1)(A), ARCP, discovery can be sought regarding any matter that
is not privileged, which is relevant to the pending action. This is the rule, regardless of whether
the information sought will be admissible at trial so long as the information sought appears to be
“reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The scope of discovery,
as defined in Rule 26(b), is broadly construed “to facilitate identifying the issues, promote
justice, provide for a more efficient and speedy disposition of cases, avoid surprise, and prevent
the trial of a lawsuit from becoming a guessing game.” U-Totem Store v. Walker, 142 Ariz. 549,
552, 691 P.2d 315, 314 (App. 1984).
A.
Personnel Files
Plaintiff seeks the personnel files of Arch employees involved in handling Plaintiffs’
claim. The Court finds that information relating to monetary incentives and other incentives
relating to claim decisions contained in the personnel files of individuals who handled Plaintiffs’
claim could be relevant to Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim. The Court finds this information to be
relevant despite the fact that Plaintiffs have not specifically alleged that the employees possessed
financial incentives relating to Plaintiffs’ claim. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel production of the personnel
files as follows: Defendant is ordered to disclose information in the personnel files of the
employee(s) who had the responsibility of approving or denying Plaintiffs’ claim, relating to
compensation/monetary incentives/other incentives to that employee to grant or deny claims.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
05/30/2012
CV 2011-055131
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 4
B.
Reserve Information
Plaintiffs seek information from Arch regarding the reserves set on Plaintiffs’ claim.
Defendant Arch contends that this information is irrelevant, and that the documents at issue
contain confidential and proprietary information.
A particular reserve amount does not necessarily reflect the insurer’s valuation of a
particular claim. Silva v. Basin Western, Inc., 47 P.3d 1184, 1189 (Colo. 2002) While reserve
information may therefore have limited relevance to the claims at issue, the Court finds that it
still could have some relevance to Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim and is subject to disclosure. This is
true despite Defendant’s claim that the documents at issue contain confidential/proprietary
information.
An insurance company owes a duty to its insured to adjust its claims in good faith. See,
Lennar Corp. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 227 Ariz. 238, ¶¶ 8, 9, 256 P.3d 635 ¶¶ 8, 9 (App. 2011).
The scope of discovery of insurance information is broader in cases involving claims between an
insured and an insurer than in a personal injury case brought by a third party. Silva, 47 P.3d at
1192. Courts have been more likely to find reserves discoverable in claims between insureds and
insurers, such as in bad faith claims, than in 3rd party claims. Id. In bad faith claims, reserve
information can be relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence regarding
whether the insurer adjusted the claim in good faith or made a prompt investigation, assessment
or settlement of a claim. Id, at 1193, citing Lipton v. Superior Court, 48 Cal. App. 4th 1599,
1614 (1996).
The Court finds that the reserve information pertaining to Plaintiffs’ underlying
uninsured motorist claim, contained in documents that were created prior to or contemporaneous
with the denial of Plaintiffs’ uninsured motorist claim, are discoverable and must be produced.
Defendant Arch’s claim that these documents contain confidential or proprietary
information does not automatically shield them from discovery. Defendant Arch’s claims in this
regard are too general to warrant protection; Defendant Arch has the burden of demonstrating
good cause for confidentiality under Rule 26(c)(2), ARCP, and it has not met this burden. The
Court declines Defendant Arch’s invitation to undertake its own in camera inspection of these
documents, in order to discern what Defendant Arch deems should be kept confidential. The
manner in which the disclosed information can be used/disseminated, however, is a matter of

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
05/30/2012
CV 2011-055131
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 5
continuing concern for the Court, and if Defendant Arch desires to limit the dissemination/use of
this information, it may seek a protective order.
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel production of the reserve
information pertaining to Plaintiffs’ underlying uninsured motorist claim.
III.
Emails
Plaintiffs seek e-mails between current counsel for Arch, in-house counsel for Arch, other
counsel for Arch, and representatives of Arch generated after Plaintiffs filed their Complaint.
The Court finds that these documents are subject to the attorney/client privilege and therefore not
discoverable. Defendant Arch has not waived the attorney/client privilege with regard to these
communications. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel production of the e-mails
between current counsel for Arch, in-house counsel for Arch, other counsel for Arch, and
representatives of Arch generated after Plaintiffs filed their Complaint.
III.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Arch Insurance Company’s Sur-
Reply to Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of its Motion to Compel.
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 ***
06/21/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
06/20/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
S. Uppendahl
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
STEVEN C DAWSON
KATHLEEN E BRODY
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
JEREMY E BEAL
CHARLES M CALLAHAN
THOMAS L HUDSON
JOHN W SHAMBLIN
MINUTE ENTRY
Defendant Highway Technologies, Inc. ( “HTI”) having filed for bankruptcy,
IT IS ORDERED staying Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant HTI. These claims are
placed on the Inactive Calendar until December 20, 2013. Plaintiffs’ claims against HTI will be
dismissed on December 20, 2013 unless, prior to that date, one of the following occurs: (1) stay
relief is obtained from the bankruptcy court and the Court is so advised; (2) the bankruptcy
proceedings are dismissed and the Court is so advised; or (3) a motion to continue on the inactive
calendar is filed.
As of this date, HTI has a motion for summary judgment pending.
IT IS ORDERED denying, as moot, HTI’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed
February 19, 2013. HTI may reurge this motion if the bankruptcy stay is lifted or the bankruptcy
proceedings are dismissed.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
06/20/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating Oral Argument on HTI’s Motion for Summary
Judgment set June 25, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. (1 hour) in this division.
The Court also received Plaintiffs’ Notice of Withdrawal of Motion for Leave to File
Third Amended Complaint, filed June 20, 2013, and which the Court had under advisement. The
Court shall take no further action with regard to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Third
Amended Complaint.
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 ***
07/02/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
06/26/2013
Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
S. Uppendahl
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
STEVEN C DAWSON
KATHLEEN E BRODY
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
JEREMY E BEAL
CHARLES M CALLAHAN
THOMAS L HUDSON
JOHN W SHAMBLIN
MINUTE ENTRY
IT IS ORDERED approving/granting the formal written Order regarding Fifth Amended
Scheduling Order and Pretrial Deadlines signed and modified by the Court on June 24, 2013, and
entered (filed) by the clerk on June 26, 2013.
Please note: The Court has signed a hard-copy version of the order provided with an
electronically filed pleading. Therefore, copies of the order and self-addressed, stamped
envelopes were not available for mailing to the parties. After the order has been scanned and
docketed by the Clerk of Court, copies of this order may be available through ECR Online at
clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov or through AZTurboCourt.gov and from the Public Access Terminals
at the Clerk of Court’s offices located throughout Maricopa County.
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 ***
07/20/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
07/19/2012
Docket Code 003
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID O. CUNANAN
C. Montoya
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
STEVEN C DAWSON
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
JEREMY E BEAL
CHARLES M CALLAHAN
THOMAS L HUDSON
JOHN W SHAMBLIN
MINUTE ENTRY
Pursuant to the parties’ Second Amended Proposed Order Re Pretrial Deadlines,
IT IS ORDERED vacating the Telephonic Status/Scheduling Conference set on
December 7, 2012 and resetting the same to May 20, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. (time allotted: 10
minutes). Counsel/parties shall have their trial calendars available for the conference.
NOTE: 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 (602-372-1710) at the scheduled time.
PLEASE NOTE: This division requires that all motions, responses, replies and other
Court requested filings in this case must be submitted individually. Counsel shall not combine
any motion with a responsive pleading. All motions are to be filed separately and designated as
such. No pleadings will be accepted if filed in combination with another.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
07/19/2012
Docket Code 003
Form V000A
Page 2
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/26/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
08/23/2013
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
S. Uppendahl
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
STEVEN C DAWSON
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
JEREMY E BEAL
CHARLES M CALLAHAN
THOMAS L HUDSON
JOHN W SHAMBLIN
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received Defendant Arch Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to File
Notice of Non-Party at Fault as to Mark Breyer, Esq., filed June 19, 2013, response and reply;
and Defendant Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC’s Motion for Leave to Name Attorney Mark
Breyer as a Non-Party at Fault, filed July 11, 2013, response and reply.
IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on both motions on September 13, 2013 at
9:30 a.m. (30 minutes) in this division.
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 ***
09/16/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
09/13/2013
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
S. Uppendahl
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
STEVEN C DAWSON
v.
ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
JEREMY E BEAL
CHARLES M CALLAHAN
THOMAS L HUDSON
JOHN W SHAMBLIN
ORAL ARGUMENT/ MATTER TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT
Courtroom 412 – East Court Building
9:33 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel,
Steven C. Dawson and Thomas L. Hudson. Defendant Arch Insurance Company is represented
by counsel, Jeremy C. Beal. Defendant Jones Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C. is represented by
counsel, Stephen Dichter and Charles M. Callahan. No one else appears.
A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.
Argument is held regarding Arch Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to File Notice
of Non-Party at Fault as to Mark Breyer, Esq., filed June 19, 2013 and Defendant Jones, Skelton
& Hochuli, PLC’s Motion for Leave to Name Attorney Mark Breyer as a Non-Party at Fault,
filed July 11, 2013.
Upon agreement of Court and Counsel,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
09/13/2013
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED directing the Clerk’s Office to remove Arch Insurance Group, Inc. as a
defendant from the Court’s docket and caption in this matter effective immediately.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED taking Arch Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to File
Notice of Non-Party at Fault as to Mark Breyer, Esq. and Defendant Jones, Skelton & Hochuli,
PLC’s Motion for Leave to Name Attorney Mark Breyer as a Non-Party at Fault under
advisement.
10:22 a.m. Hearing 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 ***
09/24/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
09/20/2013
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
S. Uppendahl
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
STEVEN C DAWSON
v.
ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
JEREMY E BEAL
CHARLES M CALLAHAN
THOMAS L HUDSON
JOHN W SHAMBLIN
UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING
The Court heard argument on two motions for leave to name Attorney Mark Breyer as a
non-party at fault. Defendant Arch Insurance Company filed its motion on June 19, 2013 and
Defendant Jones, Skelton & Hochuli filed its motion July 11, 2013. Responses and replies were
filed to each motion. After considering the written and oral arguments, the Court finds as
follows.
Both defendants sought to name Plaintiffs’ prior attorney, Mark Breyer, as a non-party at
fault on the theory that Breyer’s delays contributed to Plaintiffs’ alleged damages. The parties
agreed that Breyer likely would be a witness at trial regardless of the outcome of the pending
motions. At the end of the argument, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that the elements of the tort of
bad faith capture the reasonableness of Defendants’ conduct; in other words, whether Defendants
were reasonable in light of all the circumstances including Breyer’s actions. Defendants stated
that there was no need for a non-party at fault designation if Breyer’s actions are attributable to
Plaintiffs and his alleged delays cannot be held against Defendants.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
09/20/2013
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2
The Arizona Supreme Court made it very clear that the attorney-client relationship is
governed by principles of agency law, and acts of the agent within his apparent authority are
binding on the principal. Panzino v. City of Phoenix, 196 Ariz. 442, 447, 999 P.2d 198, 203
(2000). Breyer’s conduct is attributable to Plaintiffs, and the jury will be so instructed as part of
any comparative fault instruction that is given.
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ motions for leave to name Attorney Mark Breyer
as a non-party at fault.
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 ***
09/24/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
09/21/2012
Docket Code 066
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROBERT H. OBERBILLIG
R. Gomez
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
STEVEN C DAWSON
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
JEREMY E BEAL
CHARLES M CALLAHAN
THOMAS L HUDSON
JOHN W SHAMBLIN
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-CCC
JUDGE CUNANAN
JUDGE FLORES
CASE REASSIGNMENT - CIVIL PRESIDING JUDGE
This case was previously assigned to the Honorable David Cunanan, who has disqualified
himself. The case was transferred to the Presiding Civil Judge for reassignment.
IT IS ORDERED reassigning this case to Civil Calendar CVJ08, the Honorable Lisa
Flores, for all further proceedings.
Pending:
⋅Telephonic Status Conference set for 5/20/2013 at 9:00 a.m. (vacated,
to be reset by new division)
⋅Stipulation and Protective Order Re: Confidential Information

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
09/21/2012
Docket Code 066
Form V000A
Page 2
ATTENTION: If there are any matters pending and/or previously scheduled events
(oral argument, hearings, conferences, trial, etc.), counsel are directed to immediately
contact the newly assigned division to determine whether the new division is able to
maintain the current schedule in this matter.
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 ***
09/24/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
09/23/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
S. Uppendahl
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
STEVEN C DAWSON
v.
ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
JEREMY E BEAL
CHARLES M CALLAHAN
THOMAS L HUDSON
JOHN W SHAMBLIN
DOCKET-CIVIL-CCC
CORRECTING MINUTE ENTRY
A clerical error having been made,
IT IS ORDERED correcting the minute entry dated September 13, 2013, to include an
endorsement to Docket-Civil-CCC.
The minute entry dated September 13, 2013
is available for viewing at:
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov and a copy of the minute entry is also set forth below:
“Courtroom 412 – East Court Building
9:33 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel,
Steven C. Dawson and Thomas L. Hudson. Defendant Arch Insurance Company is represented
by counsel, Jeremy C. Beal. Defendant Jones Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C. is represented by
counsel, Stephen Dichter and Charles M. Callahan. No one else appears.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
09/23/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.
Argument is held regarding Arch Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to File Notice
of Non-Party at Fault as to Mark Breyer, Esq., filed June 19, 2013 and Defendant Jones, Skelton
& Hochuli, PLC’s Motion for Leave to Name Attorney Mark Breyer as a Non-Party at Fault,
filed July 11, 2013.
Upon agreement of Court and Counsel,
IT IS ORDERED directing the Clerk’s Office to remove Arch Insurance Group, Inc. as a
defendant from the Court’s docket and caption in this matter effective immediately.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED taking Arch Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to File
Notice of Non-Party at Fault as to Mark Breyer, Esq. and Defendant Jones, Skelton & Hochuli,
PLC’s Motion for Leave to Name Attorney Mark Breyer as a Non-Party at Fault under
advisement.
10:22 a.m. Hearing 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 ***
09/28/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
09/26/2012
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
D. Glab
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
STEVEN C DAWSON
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
JEREMY E BEAL
CHARLES M CALLAHAN
THOMAS L HUDSON
JOHN W SHAMBLIN
STATUS CONFERENCE SET
This case having been reassigned to this division,
IT IS ORDERED setting a Telephonic Status Conference on May 16, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.
(15 minutes). Plaintiff’s counsel shall initiate the call by calling (602) 372-0825.
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 ***
10/03/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
09/30/2013
Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
C. Keller
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
STEVEN C DAWSON
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
JEREMY E BEAL
CHARLES M CALLAHAN
THOMAS L HUDSON
JOHN W SHAMBLIN
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and considered Defendant Arch Insurance Company’s Motion to
Exceed the Civil Motion Page Limit Pursuant to Maricopa Superior Court Local Rule of Practice
No. 3.2(f), filed September 19, 2013. Good cause appearing,
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant Arch Insurance Company’s Motion to Exceed the
Civil Motion Page Limit Pursuant to Maricopa Superior Court Local Rule of Practice No. 3.2(f)
all in accordance with the formal written Order signed by the Court on September 27, 2013 and
filed (entered) by the Clerk on September 30, 2013.
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 ***
10/27/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
10/25/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE KAREN POTTS
M. Scott
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
MARK P BREYER
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
JEREMY E BEAL
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court having considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (First) and no
objection having been made thereto,
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (First). Plaintiff
shall file and serve the First Amended Complaint in accordance with Ariz.R.Civ.P. 15(a).
/ s / HONORABLE KAREN POTTS
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 ***
11/21/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
11/17/2011
Docket Code 003
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE KAREN POTTS
M. Scott
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
MARK P BREYER
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
JONES SKELTON & HOCHULI P L C
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
JEREMY E BEAL
HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
H T S HOLDING INC
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
MINUTE ENTRY
Upon mutual request of counsel,
IT IS ORDERED vacating the telephonic Status Conference currently set on November
18, 2011 at 10:30 a.m. Re: Set Trial Date and resetting same to January 13, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.
(15 minutes reserved) before:
HONORABLE KAREN A. POTTS
SOUTHEAST ADULT FACILITY
222 EAST JAVELINA - COURTROOM 207
MESA AZ 85210
NOTE: Plaintiff shall be responsible for initiating the conference call by calling this
division at 602-372-1160, with all participating parties and counsel on the line, at the date and
time specified above.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
11/17/2011
Docket Code 003
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED if the parties settle the matter, they shall contact this
Division so the hearing can be vacated.
PLEASE NOTE: This Court utilizes a digital audio recording system to preserve the
official record of proceedings. Persons requesting copies of recorded proceedings do not have to
provide blank CDs. All CDs will be provided by the Court, regardless of when the copies are
made. A fee of $20.00 will apply to all copies requested, either on the day of the hearing or for
hearings recorded on an earlier date. Counsel or litigants must complete the appropriate request
form which may be obtained from the Self-Service Center or from Court staff and present the
completed form to the Self-Service Center. All fees must be handled through the Self-Service
Center. Upon payment of the appropriate fees through the Self-Service Center, a receipt will be
issued which shall then be presented to Court staff for preparation of the CD.
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 ***
12/16/2010 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
12/15/2010
Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE KAREN POTTS
T. Soto
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
MARK P BREYER
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
JEREMY E BEAL
COMPREHENSIVE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SET
The Court has received Plaintiff’s Request for Rule 16 Conference.
IT IS ORDERED setting a telephonic Comprehensive Pretrial Conference on February
11, 2011 at 11:30 a.m. (Time allotted: 15 minutes)
HONORABLE KAREN A. POTTS
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
SOUTHEAST COURTHOUSE
COURTROOM 207
222 EAST JAVELINA
MESA AZ 85210
NOTE: Plaintiff shall be responsible for initiating the conference call by calling this
division at 602-372-1160 with all participating parties and counsel on the line at the date and
time specified above.
JOINT PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
12/15/2010
Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED:
Counsel and any self-represented litigants are to meet personally to discuss all of the
matters set forth in Ariz. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The parties shall prepare and file with the Court, no
later than 5:00 p.m. on (1 week prior to Pretrial Conference), a Joint Pretrial Memorandum
with discovery, motion, and disclosure deadlines.
If the parties agree to the dates, they should file a Joint Pretrial Memorandum and prepare
an Order in the form set forth below, containing the provisions which are applicable to their case.
If the parties are unable to agree on any of the provisions that are to be included in the Order, the
reasons for their inability to agree shall be set forth in the Joint Pretrial Memorandum, and the
parties shall submit a proposed Order without dates included.

The Joint Pretrial Memorandum shall include specific dates (“December 5, 2007” is a
specific date; “90 days prior to trial” is not a specific date). Do not include a trial date in the
Joint Pretrial Memorandum.
If a Joint Pretrial Conference Memorandum is not timely submitted, the Court will place
the matter on the Inactive Calendar for dismissal.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR ORDER:
The Court has received and reviewed the parties’ Joint Pretrial Memorandum. In
accordance therewith,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s final expert disclosure (in accordance with Ariz.R.Civ.P. 26.1 (a)(6))
shall be served by
, 2010.
2. Defendant’s final expert disclosures (in accordance with Ariz.R.Civ.P. 26.1
(a)(6)) shall be served by
, 2010.
3. Any rebuttal expert disclosures (in accordance with Ariz.R.Civ.P. 26.1 (a)(6))
shall be served by
, 2010.
4. Final non-expert disclosures (in accordance with Ariz.R.Civ.P. 26.1 (a)(6)) shall
be served by
, 2010.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
12/15/2010
Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 3
5. All discovery shall be completed by
, 2010.
6. The parties remaining in this action shall complete mediation by
, 2010.
IT IS ORDERED: The parties shall participate in private mediation. The cost of
private mediation shall be paid proportionately by the parties.
OR
The parties shall participate in a mandatory Settlement Conference. This matter
is referred to the court's Alternative Dispute Resolution for the appointment of a
judge pro tempore to conduct a settlement conference. Counsel and any self-
represented litigants will contact the appointed judge pro tempore to arrange the
time and location for the settlement conference. The judge pro tempore is
requested to conduct a settlement conference not later than
, 2010. The
Office of Alternative Dispute Resolution will not do the scheduling of the
settlement conference so please do not contact that office.
7. No expert witnesses, expert opinions, lay witnesses, or exhibits shall be allowed
at trial other than those disclosed in a timely manner, except for good cause
shown or written agreement of the parties.
8. A telephonic status conference is set for
, 2010 at
m. for the
purpose of assigning a trial date if the case has not settled.
NOTE: Plaintiff shall be responsible for initiating the conference call by calling
this division at 602-372-1160, with all participating parties and counsel on the
line, at the date and time specified above.
9. Should any discovery disputes arise, any party seeking a discovery order shall,
prior to filing discovery motions, meet and confer pursuant to Ariz.R.Civ.P.
37(a)(2)(C). If a discovery issue is time sensitive, the Court will hear the matter
on an expedited basis.
PLEASE NOTE: This Court utilizes a digital audio recording system to preserve the
official record of proceedings. Persons requesting copies of recorded proceedings do not have to
provide blank CDs. All CDs will be provided by the Court, regardless of when the copies are
made. A fee of $20.00 will apply to all copies requested, either on the day of the hearing or for
hearings recorded on an earlier date. Counsel or litigants must complete the appropriate request
form which may be obtained from the Self-Service Center or from Court staff and present the
completed form to the Self-Service Center. All fees must be handled through the Self-Service

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
12/15/2010
Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 4
Center. Upon payment of the appropriate fees through the Self-Service Center, a receipt will be
issued which shall then be presented to Court staff for preparation of the CD.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/21/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
12/20/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE KAREN POTTS
T. Soto
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
MARK P BREYER
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
JEREMY E BEAL
DOUGLAS L CHRISTIAN
HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
H T S HOLDING INC
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
MINUTE ENTRY
This division has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application for Entry of Default against
Defendant(s) Highway Technologies 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
Owens.
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 2010-091813
12/20/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
Pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 2010-117, default judgment
packets are not permitted to be e-filed. Accordingly, parties are directed to hand-deliver a
default coversheet and copies of the necessary filed documents to the commissioner’s division
for the entry of a default judgment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, no further action will be taken by the assigned
commissioner until the necessary filed documents and coversheet are delivered to the division.
The parties/counsel can find the default judgment coversheet on the Court’s website at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/forms.asp
The parties/counsel can find additional information in the form of frequently asked
questions at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/howDoI.asp
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 ***
12/30/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
12/29/2011
Docket Code 066
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROBERT H. OBERBILLIG
E. Morgenstern
Deputy
VINCENT QUIROZ, et al.
MARK P BREYER
v.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC, et al.
ARCH INSURANCE GROUP INC
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
JEREMY E BEAL
DOUGLAS L CHRISTIAN
HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
H T S HOLDING INC
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
COMM. FRENCH
JUDGE POTTS
MINUTE ENTRY
This case is currently assigned to the Honorable Karen Potts at the Southeast
Regional Court Center.
This case is being administratively transferred as the result of the elimination of a
Civil Calendar and Zip Code realignment.
IT IS ORDERED that effective January 1, 2012 this case is reassigned to the
Honorable Colleen French at the Downtown Court Center at 201 W. Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ
85003-2243.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2010-091813
12/29/2011
Docket Code 066
Form V000A
Page 2
All hearings set before the Honorable Karen Potts shall be heard before the
Honorable Colleen French at the Downtown Court Center.
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.

Documents