02/17/2026 — CV2022006622 ASUQUO, EDET EFFIONG 02/17/2026 HONORABLE SCOTT MINDER View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/18/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-006622
02/17/2026
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT MINDER
M. R. Diaz
Deputy
EDET EFFIONG ASUQUO
EDET EFFIONG ASUQUO
1701 W TUCKEY LN UNIT 201
PHOENIX AZ 85015
v.
LA FUENTE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
LYDIA P LINSMEIER
JUDGE MINDER
RULING
The Court having received and reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Reistate [sic] a Dismissed
Case, filed January 5, 2026,
IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion.
08/02/2022 — CV2022006622 ASUQUO, EDET EFFIONG 08/02/2022 HONORABLE KATHERINE COOPER View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/03/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-006622
08/02/2022
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE KATHERINE COOPER
C. Ladden
Deputy
EDET EFFIONG ASUQUO
EDET EFFIONG ASUQUO
1701 W TUCKEY LN UNIT 201
PHOENIX AZ 85015
v.
LA FUENTE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
NICHOLAS C NOGAMI
COMM. RICHARD ALBRECHT
JUDGE COOPER
DEFAULT REFERRAL
The Court has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application/Motion and Affidavit for Default
filed July 27, 2022 against Defendant(s) La Fuente Condominium Associates 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
Richard Albrecht.
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 2022-006622
08/02/2022
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 additional information in the form of frequently asked
questions at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/howDoI.asp.
09/13/2022 — CV2022006622 ASUQUO, EDET EFFIONG 09/13/2022 HONORABLE KATHERINE COOPER View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/14/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-006622
09/13/2022
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE KATHERINE COOPER
C. Ladden
Deputy
EDET EFFIONG ASUQUO
KEVIN R HARPER
v.
LA FUENTE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
NICHOLAS C NOGAMI
JUDGE COOPER
ORAL ARGUMENT SET
The Court has received Defendant’s fully-briefed Motion to Dismiss, or in the
Alternative, Motion for a More Definite Statement filed July 29, 2022.
IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument regarding Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or
in the Alternative, Motion for a More Definite Statement filed July 29, 2022 for October 12,
2022 at 9:30 a.m. (time allotted: 30 minutes) in this division. All counsel and self-represented
parties shall appear in-person or via Court Connect before:
The Honorable Katherine Cooper
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building
101 W. Jefferson
7th Floor, Courtroom 711
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: 602-506-8311
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-006622
09/13/2022
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
Court Connect is the Superior Court in Maricopa County’s new video court hearing
platform. For more information about Court Connect, please visit:
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect.
Join on your computer or mobile app
Click here to join the meeting
Or call in (audio only)
+1 917-781-4590,,860084431# United States, New York City
Phone Conference ID: 860 084 431#
All persons are strongly urged to appear by video instead of audio alone. For questions,
please call Judge Cooper’s division at 602.506.8311, or email this division’s Courtroom
Assistant Brandon Powell at [email protected] or Judicial Assistant Avery
Vaughn at [email protected].
Oral argument shall be limited to 30 minutes with the time divided equally between the
sides.
NOTE: If/when a party files a pleading within 5 days or less of a scheduled event, the
party should also e-mail same to this division’s Courtroom Assistant Brandon Powell at
[email protected] or Judicial Assistant Avery Vaughn at
[email protected].
NOTE: All Court proceedings are recorded digitally and not by a court reporter. Pursuant
to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any proceeding in which a court reporter
is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30, the party must submit a written request to
the assigned judicial officer at least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the hearing, and must
pay the authorized fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial days before the
proceeding. The fee is $140 for a half-day and $280 for a full day.
Should you want an unofficial copy (CD) of the proceedings, please email Electronic
Records Services at [email protected] or call (602) 506-7100. Please note that
there is a $30.00 fee. To obtain a copy of a hearing on the day it is conducted, you must first fill
out a “Request for Daily Copy” form and pay the fee at the Court’s Law Library Resource
Center. Forms are available at the Law Library Resource Center. To order transcripts of digitally
recorded court proceedings, call Electronic Records Services for instructions.
10/11/2022 — CV2022006622 ASUQUO, EDET EFFIONG 10/11/2022 HONORABLE KATHERINE COOPER View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/12/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-006622
10/11/2022
Docket Code 901
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE KATHERINE COOPER
C. Ladden
Deputy
EDET EFFIONG ASUQUO
KEVIN R HARPER
v.
LA FUENTE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
NICHOLAS C NOGAMI
JUDGE COOPER
DOCKET CV TX
RULING RE MOTION TO DISMISS
Pending before the Court is the fully-briefed Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative
Motion for a More Definite Statement filed July 29, 2022. The Court has reviewed the Motion,
Response, and Reply as well as Defendant’s Motion to Strike filed August 18, 2022 and
Plaintiff’s Response to the Motion to Strike.
The Motion to Dismiss is granted. The Complaint and Plaintiff’s Response to the Motion
to Dismiss make clear that Plaintiff’s allegations in this matter relate to the same HVAC, roof,
and wall complaints underlying Plaintiff’s previous lawsuit against La Fuente Condominiums
Association (“Association”) in CV2019-015684 (“Prior Lawsuit”). The parties settled the Prior
Lawsuit. On September 2, 2021, the Court found that the parties entered into an enforceable
Settlement Agreement and entered the terms of the Agreement, including Plaintiff agreed “not to
initiate or assert any future claims of any kind relating to the matters released by this Agreement”
(¶5) and that “[a]ny disputes regarding the terms of this Agreement, and the breach thereof, shall
be decided by Judge pro tempore Gregory Gillis.” The Parties further agreed to an “express
waiver of the right to initiate suit or other action in connection with the terms and/or breach of
this Agreement.” (¶12).
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-006622
10/11/2022
Docket Code 901
Form V000A
Page 2
The present lawsuit arises from the terms and/or alleged breach of the Settlement
Agreement. Plaintiff waived the right to file suit for these grievances which must be decided by
Judge Pro Tem Greg Gillis.
IT IS ORDERED dismissing the Complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the Motion to Strike.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating Oral Argument set on October 12, 2022 at 9:30
a.m. in this division.
There being no issues or claims pending, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this is a
final order pursuant to Rule 54(c).
/ s / KATHERINE COOPER
KATHERINE COOPER
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
10/30/2024 — CV2022006622 ASUQUO, EDET EFFIONG 10/30/2024 HONORABLE SCOTT MINDER View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/31/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-006622
10/30/2024
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT MINDER
M. R. Diaz
Deputy
EDET EFFIONG ASUQUO
EDET EFFIONG ASUQUO
1701 W TUCKEY LN UNIT 201
PHOENIX AZ 85015
v.
LA FUENTE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
LYDIA P LINSMEIER
JUDGE MINDER
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint to Plaintiff’s
September 26, 2024 Filing: Roof, Condo Unit 201. Demand for Relief, filed October 2, 2024; and
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint #2 Roof, Condo Unit 201. Demand for Relief, filed October 4,
2024.
IT IS ORDERED rejecting the two amended complaints due to the Judgment entered on
December 13, 2022, that terminated the case.
11/13/2024 — CV2022006622 ASUQUO, EDET EFFIONG 11/13/2024 HONORABLE SCOTT MINDER View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/15/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-006622
11/13/2024
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT MINDER
M. R. Diaz
Deputy
EDET EFFIONG ASUQUO
EDET EFFIONG ASUQUO
1701 W TUCKEY LN UNIT 201
PHOENIX AZ 85015
v.
LA FUENTE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
LYDIA P LINSMEIER
JUDGE MINDER
REGARDING DOCUMENT ENTITLED “IMPROPER SERVING . . .”
On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Improper Serving of Judge
Katherine Cooper’s Judgment Dated Dec. 13, 2022.” The document appears to claim fraud
because an email chain, last dated December 16, 2022 attaches a judgment dated December 13,
2022. More to the point, Plaintiff appears to misinterpret the email chain to assert that the
December judgment was sent in November, a temporal impossibility. But this Court’s review of
the email clarifies that the judgment was not sent in November. Rather it was sent in a December
16, 2022 reply to the November email. The judgment was, therefore, sent to Plaintiff after it was
actually issued.
To the extent that Plaintiff complains about service, there is no specific requirement to
separately serve filed documents when Plaintiff’s attorney is receiving the same documents. The
Court also notes that the emails contain attorney-client privileged information specifically advising
about the propriety of filing an appeal.
This case terminated long ago. The Court will not re-open it for what appears to be a
misunderstanding by Plaintiff.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-006622
11/13/2024
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking any relief in his November 12, 2024 filing, the Court
denies the relief due to lack of jurisdiction and on the merits as discussed above.
11/21/2022 — CV2022006622 ASUQUO, EDET EFFIONG 11/21/2022 HONORABLE KATHERINE COOPER View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/23/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-006622
11/21/2022
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE KATHERINE COOPER
C. Ladden
Deputy
EDET EFFIONG ASUQUO
KEVIN R HARPER
v.
LA FUENTE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
LYDIA P LINSMEIER
JUDGE COOPER
RULING RE: MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial and Motion for
Reconsideration filed October 26, 2022, the Response filed November 1, 2022, and Reply filed
November 14, 2022.
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial and Motion for
Reconsideration filed October 26, 2022.
12/13/2022 — CV2022006622 ASUQUO, EDET EFFIONG 12/13/2022 HONORABLE KATHERINE COOPER View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Filed ***
12/14/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-006622
12/13/2022
Docket Code 901
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE KATHERINE COOPER
C. Ladden
Deputy
EDET EFFIONG ASUQUO
KEVIN R HARPER
v.
LA FUENTE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
LYDIA P LINSMEIER
DOCKET CV TX
JUDGE COOPER
RULING & JUDGMENT RE: ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
Pending before the Court is the Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs filed by
Defendant La Fuente Condominium Association (“the Association”) October 27, 2022. The
Court reviewed the Application, Plaintiff Edet Effiong Asuquo’s (“Asuquo”) Response, and the
Association’s Reply.
The Association is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 which
gives the Court discretion to award the “successful party” in a “contested action arising out of a
contract’ to ‘mitigate the burden of the expense of litigation to establish a just claim or a just
defense.’” Fulton Homes Corp. v. BBP Concrete, 214 Ariz. 566, 569, ¶ 9, (App. 2007) (citing
A.R.S. § 12–341.01(A), (B)). It is entitled to recover taxable costs pursuant to § 12-342.
In determining whether the fees requested are reasonable under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A),
the Court considers the factors identified in Associated Indemnity. Corp. v. Warner, 143 Ariz.
567, 570 (1985):
1. Whether the unsuccessful party’s claims or defenses had merit.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-006622
12/13/2022
Docket Code 901
Form V000A
Page 2
The filing of a lawsuit lacked merit and should not have been filed. Plaintiff entered into
a binding prior Settlement Agreement whereby he agreed to submit any dispute arising from the
Settlement Agreement or the repairs/damages related to the Settlement Agreement to a Judge
Pro-Tem. The Court takes no position on the substantive merit of the claims themselves as the
Court did not reach that issue.
2. Whether litigation could have been avoided or settled.
The Court lacks information on this factor. The Court dismissed the action for a
procedural reason (the prior Settlement Agreement) and did not address the merit of the claims
or whether the claims could or should have been resolved.
3. Whether assessing fees against the unsuccessful party would pose an unreasonable or
undue hardship.
There is no information presented on this factor.
4. Whether the successful party prevailed as to all relief sought.
The Association prevailed in terms of dismissing a lawsuit. There is no information
presented regarding the status of any proceeding before Judge Pro-tem Gillis.
5. Whether the claims involved complex or novel legal issues.
No. The enforcement of an ADR clause in a Settlement Agreement is not novel or
complex.
6. Whether the claims or defenses at issue have been previously adjudicated in this
jurisdiction.
There is no information presented on this issue.
7. Whether a fees award would unreasonably discourage litigants from pursuing or
defending valid claims or defenses.
Yes, the relationship between a homeowners’ association and homeowner is generally an
uneven playing field in terms of resources, such as access to information and the financial ability
to pursue a claim. The additional potential burden of paying an HOA’s attorneys’ fees could
further deter homeowners from pursuing valid claims. The Court also considers, however that in
this case, there was mechanism in place to avoid costly litigation and Plaintiff chose not to
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-006622
12/13/2022
Docket Code 901
Form V000A
Page 3
implement it. In balancing these considerations, the Court finds that an award of fees under
circumstances similar to this case – where the parties negotiated and agreed to an alternative
dispute resolution process – would not discourage other litigants with valid claims.
The Court finds that the Warner factors favor an award of attorneys’ fees.
Reasonableness of Fees
Next, the Court considers the Declaration in Support of Application for Attorneys’ Fees
and Costs. Requests for an award of fees must be supported by proof of their reasonableness.
Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., 138 Ariz. 183, 187 (App. 1983). The Court determines the
billing rate charged by counsel, relying on the rate charged by the lawyer to the client “as the
best indication of what is reasonable under the circumstances of a particular case.” Id. at 187.
The Court must also decide whether the lawyer billed a reasonable number of hours for proper
tasks. Id. at 188. A fee application must describe the type of legal services provided, the date
the service was provided, the attorney providing the service, and the time spent in providing the
service. Id. The description of the tasks performed should include enough detail to “allow the
court to determine whether the hours claimed are justified.” Orfaly v. Tucson Symphony Soc’y,
209 Ariz. 260, 266 ¶ 23 (App. 2004). The party seeking an award of attorneys’ fees has the
burden of establishing not only the time and effort incurred, but also that the time expended was
reasonable and necessary. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983); Woerth v. City of
Flagstaff, 167 Ariz. 412, 419, (App. 1990).
Asuquo does not object to the rates charged for counsel or paralegals.
As to the time entries, the Court reviewed them and also considered Asuquo’s objections
– that the amount of time billed was unreasonable and excessive because multiple timekeepers
charged for the same work and/or for administrative, “form” type tasks; entries are vague; and
the limited work necessary to defend the Association does not justify over $18,000 in fees. This
case did not involve discovery, disclosure statements, depositions, or hearings. It required a
Motion to Dismiss.
The Court agrees. This matter did not require six timekeepers, and there is no
explanation offered. Why did two timekeepers bill a total of 2.1 hours to prepare a one-sentence
Notice of Appearance? Why were three timekeepers necessary to prepare a Statement of Costs
listing only five filing fees? Or three timekeepers to prepare the Motion to Dismiss and Reply?
The number of timekeepers on this file exacerbated the attorneys’ fees. Three timekeepers were
routinely involved in tasks that could have been done by one timekeeper.
Statement of Costs
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-006622
12/13/2022
Docket Code 901
Form V000A
Page 4
There is no objection to the costs of $285.85 for the filing fees for the Answer, Motion to
Dismiss, Good Faith Consultation Certificate and Reply.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, IT IS ORDERED awarding the Association reasonable attorneys’
fees of $8,286.00 and costs of $285.85.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED entering Judgment in favor of La Fuente Condominium
Association and against Edet Effiong Asuquo in the amount of $8,571.85 plus interest at the
legal rate of 8% accruing from the date that this Judgment is filed until paid.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that there are no issues or claims pending in this matter
and entering this ruling as a final order pursuant to Rule 54(c), A.R.C.P. Because no further
matters remain pending, the Court signs this minute entry as a final judgment.
/ s / KATHERINE COOPER
KATHERINE COOPER
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
