01/21/2025 — CV2024090662 LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, THE, VAL VISTA 01/21/2025 HONORABLE ADAM D. DRIGGS View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/22/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2024-090662
01/21/2025
Docket Code 016
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ADAM D. DRIGGS
C. Curley
Deputy
VAL VISTA LAKES COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, THE
CHARLES B SELLERS
v.
BEN J RODRIGUEZ, et al.
BEN J RODRIGUEZ
1827 E CORTEZ DR
GILBERT AZ 85234
STEPHANIE L COX
1827 E CORTEZ DR
GILBERT AZ 85234
MEGGAN ELIZABETH MEDINA
JUDGE DRIGGS
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed October 2,
2024, the Defendants’ response titled Motion to Deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
or in the alternative to Extend Time to Respond filed November 1, 2024, and Plaintiff’s Reply in
Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed November 20, 2024.
Plaintiff asserts that they are entitled to a judgment in the amount of $1,003.64, which
represents past due assessments, service fees, late charges, and/or other fees.
Defendants assert that they are not in breach of contract, and that disputed issues of material
fact exist. Defendants dispute portions of Plaintiff's Statement of Facts and raises questions related
to whether counsel for Plaintiffs adequately communicated with them in their efforts to resolve the
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2024-090662
01/21/2025
Docket Code 016
Form V000A
Page 2
dispute and whether they provided sufficient information to Defendants. Defendants’ response
did not conform to Rule 56 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, which they appear to
acknowledge, in that they requested additional time to respond so that they can retain an attorney.
THE COURT FINDS that it is reasonable to allow Defendants an additional 30 days to
retain counsel and file a Response to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or attempt
to resolve the dispute with Plaintiff without further increasing attorney’s fees.
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that if the Defendants are unable to retain counsel,
they may still file a proper response in the form prescribed by Rule 56, including conforming with
Rule 56(c)(3)(A), specifying: (i) the numbered paragraphs in the moving party's statement that are
disputed; and (ii) those facts that establish a genuine dispute or otherwise preclude summary
judgment in favor of the moving party.
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s request to extend time to respond by allowing
Defendants additional time to file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment no
later than February 21, 2025.
04/14/2025 — CV2024090662 LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, THE, VAL VISTA 04/14/2025 HONORABLE ADAM D. DRIGGS View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/22/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2024-090662
04/14/2025
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ADAM D. DRIGGS
C. Curley
Deputy
VAL VISTA LAKES COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, THE
CHARLES B SELLERS
v.
BEN J RODRIGUEZ, et al.
BEN J RODRIGUEZ
1827 E CORTEZ DR
GILBERT AZ 85234
STEPHANIE L COX
1827 E CORTEZ DR
GILBERT AZ 85234
MEGGAN ELIZABETH MEDINA
CV ARBITRATION
JUDGE DRIGGS
RULING
The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed October 2,
2024, the Defendants’ response titled Motion to Deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
or in the alternative to Extend Time to Respond filed November 1, 2024, and Plaintiff’s Reply in
Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed November 20, 2024.
Plaintiff asserts that they are entitled to a judgment in the amount of $1,003.64, which
represents past due assessments, service fees, late charges, and/or other fees.
Defendants assert that they are not in breach of contract, and that disputed issues of material
fact exist. Defendants dispute portions of Plaintiff's Statement of Facts and raises questions related
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2024-090662
04/14/2025
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
to whether counsel for Plaintiffs adequately communicated with them in their efforts to resolve the
dispute and whether they provided sufficient information to Defendants. Defendants’ response
did not conform to Rule 56 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, which they appear to
acknowledge, in that they requested additional time to respond so that they can retain an attorney.
On January 21, 2025, the Court issued a minute entry after it made a determination that it
was reasonable to allow Defendants an additional 30 days to retain counsel and file a Response to
the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or attempt to resolve the dispute with Plaintiff
without further increasing attorney’s fees.
The Court also determined that if the Defendants were unable to retain counsel, they could
still file a proper response in the form prescribed by Rule 56, including conforming with Rule
56(c)(3)(A), specifying: (i) the numbered paragraphs in the moving party's statement that are
disputed; and (ii) those facts that establish a genuine dispute or otherwise preclude summary
judgment in favor of the moving party. The Court provided additional time to file a response to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and ordered that it be filed no later than February 21,
2025. Defendants did not file an additional response.
The party moving for summary judgment must produce evidence that it believes
demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and must explain why summary
judgment is warranted. Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Thruston, 218 Ariz. 112, 115 (App. 2008). If the
moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to present sufficient
evidence demonstrating the existence of a disputed fact. Thruston, 218 Ariz. at 119. The
nonmoving party cannot then rest on its pleadings but must call to the court's attention evidence to
explain why the motion should be denied. Id. “If the party with the burden of proof on the claim
or defense cannot respond to the motion by showing that there is evidence creating a genuine issue
of fact on the element in question, then the motion for summary judgment should be granted.”
Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 310 (1990).
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 available which will justify a trial on the issue.” Flowers v. K-Mart Corp., 126 Ariz.
495, 499 (App. 1980).
THE COURT FINDS that Plaintiff met their burden to demonstrate the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact and explained why summary judgment is warranted. The
Defendants’ response disputed issues of material fact, but they did not meet their burden within
the rules contemplated in Rule 56 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, despite the Court
providing additional time to do so. Therefore,
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2024-090662
04/14/2025
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed October 2, 2024 is
granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may submit a proposed form of Judgment for
the Court’s Signature with an application for attorney fees and statement of costs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant may file any objections to the proposed
judgment or application for attorney fees and statement of costs no later than 10 days after
Plaintiff’s proposed judgment is filed.
04/15/2024 — CV2024090662 LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, THE, VAL VISTA 04/15/2024 HONORABLE ADAM D. DRIGGS View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/16/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2024-090662
04/15/2024
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ADAM D. DRIGGS
C. Avena
Deputy
VAL VISTA LAKES COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, THE
CHARLES B SELLERS
v.
BEN J RODRIGUEZ, et al.
BEN J RODRIGUEZ
1827 E CORTEZ DR
GILBERT AZ 85234
STEPHANIE L COX
1827 E CORTEZ DR
GILBERT AZ 85234
CV ARBITRATION
JUDGE DRIGGS
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and considered Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time to File
Answer, filed March 4, 2024. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time to File Answer and
extending the time to file answer to June 6, 2024.
08/22/2024 — CV2024090662 LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, THE, VAL VISTA 08/22/2024 HONORABLE ADAM D. DRIGGS View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/23/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2024-090662
08/22/2024
Docket Code 352
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ADAM D. DRIGGS
C. Avena
Deputy
VAL VISTA LAKES COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, THE
CHARLES B SELLERS
v.
BEN J RODRIGUEZ, et al.
BEN J RODRIGUEZ
1827 E CORTEZ DR
GILBERT AZ 85234
STEPHANIE L COX
1827 E CORTEZ DR
GILBERT AZ 85234
ISHRA K SOLIEMAN
CV ARBITRATION
JUDGE DRIGGS
EXCUSE ARBITRATOR FROM CASE
The Court has reviewed the Motion to Excuse Arbitrator from Appointment from Ishra
Solieman filed August 19, 2024.
THE COURT FINDS that there is good cause to excuse Ishra Solieman as the appointed
arbitrator in this case.
IT IS ORDERED excusing Ishra Solieman as arbitrator in this matter and forwarding this
case to the Civil Court Administration/Arbitration Desk for appointment of a new arbitrator.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2024-090662
08/22/2024
Docket Code 352
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Civil Court Administration/Arbitration Desk shall
appoint Ishra Solieman as arbitrator in the next available case.
