Holding HOA Boards, Attorneys, and Management Companies Accountable
Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2018-053929
Case Header
Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2018-053929: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Stratman, Troy – DOB: N/A.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Filed ***
01/06/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
01/05/2021
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
G. Chavez
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
KATHRYN A BATTOCK
TROY B STRATMAN
MARK ZINMAN
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the Court's December 3, 2020 Minute Entry,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' renewed Motion to Vacate as requested in its Reply to
Defendants [sic] Response to Motion to Vacate is denied.
HON. THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/08/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
02/06/2019
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
K. Hartley
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
KATHRYN A BATTOCK
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to file Response,
Motion, or Appeal to Jason Tarrell Request Attorney’s Fees filed February 1, 2019.
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s above mentioned motion.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/21/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
03/20/2019
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
K. Slabaugh
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
KATHRYN A BATTOCK
COMM. HOLDING
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
This Court has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application/Motion for Default against
defendant(s), Jason Tarrell, in the above-captioned case.
IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above-referenced
document(s).
The parties are advised that commissioners handle Rule 55(b) Default Judgment
proceedings and that the default proceedings in this matter are to be heard by Commissioner
Steven Holding.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all documents necessary to support the entry of a
default judgment must be e-filed.
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
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
03/20/2019
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
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
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/14/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
CV 2020-051900
04/13/2020
Docket Code 053
Form V053
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
V. Burton
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
KATHRYN A BATTOCK
ERIK WRIGHT
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
MARK ZINMAN
TROY B STRATMAN
MARK W HORNE
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK
DOCKET-CIVIL-CCC
JUDGE BAILEY
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
CASE CONSOLIDATION
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate filed on April 2, 2020, and
Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s Response.
IT IS ORDERED consolidating cause numbers CV2018-053929 and CV2020-051900
under cause number CV2018-053929 for all further proceedings.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
CV 2020-051900
04/13/2020
Docket Code 053
Form V053
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Telephonic Scheduling Conference for the
purpose of scheduling an evidentiary hearing on April 21, 2020, at 11:30 a.m. (time allotted: 30
minutes) before the Honorable Theodore Campagnolo. Counsel for Defendant shall initiate the
telephonic conference by first arranging the presence of all other counsel on the conference call
and by calling this division at: (602) 372-0537 no later than 5 minutes before the scheduled time.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Evidentiary Hearing in CV2020-051900, set
for April 24, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. before the Honorable Cynthia Bailey.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/23/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
04/21/2020
Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
A. Wood
Deputy
SKY BOLES
MARK W HORNE
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
EMILY H MANN
MARK ZINMAN
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom 102-NER
11:34 a.m. This is the time set for a Telephonic Scheduling Conference. Plaintiff Sky
Boles is represented by counsel, Mark W Horne. Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse
Association is represented by counsel, Emily H Mann, Joseph Hoffman, and Kathryn A Battock.
Defendant Maricopoly LLC is represented by counsel, Mark Zinman.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held.
IT IS ORDERED setting this matter for a Video Evidentiary Hearing as a “GoToMeeting”
on May 12, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. (time allotted: 3 hours) in this division. The division Judicial
Assistant will be sending the parties a GoToMeeting invite via email a week prior to the hearing
date.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
04/21/2020
Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED counsel shall email any exhibits along with a description
of each exhibit to [email protected] for marking no later than May 5, 2020.
Each exhibit must be separated by an Exhibit Slip Sheet to clearly identify individual exhibits, if
not, the exhibit will be counted as one exhibit.
As required by this Division’s protocol, each party shall submit bench copies of their
respective exhibits no later than the beginning of the trial. Each exhibit in the bench copies shall
be tabbed for ease of reference by the Court.
11:52 a.m. Matter concludes.
.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/30/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
04/29/2020
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
A. Wood
Deputy
SKY BOLES
MARK W HORNE
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
KATHRYN A BATTOCK
TROY B STRATMAN
MARK ZINMAN
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY CONVERTING MOTION TO DISMISS
TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The Court has reviewed Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s Motion to
Dismiss, Defendant Maricopoly’s Joinder therein, Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss, Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s Reply, Maricopoly’s Reply in Support of
Motion to Dismiss, the Complaint, and the applicable law. For the reasons stated below and
pursuant to Rule 12(d), ARIZ. R. CIV. P., the Motion to Dismiss is being converted to a Motion for
Summary Judgment.
Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse Association (NMTA) attached numerous exhibits
to its Motion to Dismiss. In considering a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, if the
trial court considers matters outside the pleadings (extraneous matters), it must treat the motion as
a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, and allow the parties a reasonable opportunity to present
all pertinent material. Strategic Development and Construction, Inc. v. 7th and Roosevelt Partners,
LLC, 224 Ariz. 60, ¶1 (App. 2010). Matters of public record or matters that are central to a
complaint are not considered “extraneous matters.” Id. at ¶¶13 & 14.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
04/29/2020
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2
In this case, some of the exhibits are public records, and some may be deemed to be central
to the Complaint. However, some of the exhibits may not fall within the categories of non-
extraneous matters. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, the Court believes it is appropriate
to convert this matter to a Rule 56 proceeding, and allow the parties a reasonable opportunity to
present all pertinent material to the Motion, pursuant to Rule 12(d).
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s Motion to
Dismiss is converted to a Motion for Summary Judgment under Rule 56.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a 15-minute telephonic scheduling conference shall be
heard on May 19, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. for the purpose of determining a scheduling for the submission
of all pertinent materials, and to set oral arguments on the converted motion for summary
judgment. Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s counsel shall initiate the
telephone conference, and shall call into the Division at 602-372-0537 at the designated time.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/01/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
04/29/2020
Docket Code 041
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
G. Chavez
Deputy
SKY BOLES
MARK W HORNE
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
KATHRYN A BATTOCK
TROY B STRATMAN
MARK ZINMAN
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY CONVERTING MOTION TO DISMISS
TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The Court has reviewed Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s Motion to
Dismiss, Defendant Maricopoly’s Joinder therein, Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss, Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s Reply, Maricopoly’s Reply in Support of
Motion to Dismiss, the Complaint, and the applicable law. For the reasons stated below and
pursuant to Rule 12(d), ARIZ. R. CIV. P., the Motion to Dismiss is being converted to a motion
for summary judgment.
Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse Association (NMTA) attached numerous exhibits
to its Motion to Dismiss. In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, if the trial
court considers matters outside the pleadings (extraneous matters), it must treat the motion as a
Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, and allow the parties a reasonable opportunity to present
all pertinent material. Strategic Development and Construction, Inc. v. 7th and Roosevelt
Partners, LLC, 224 Ariz. 60, ¶1 (App. 2010). Matters of public record or matters that are central
to a complaint are not considered “extraneous matters.” Id. at ¶¶13 & 14.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
04/29/2020
Docket Code 041
Form V000A
Page 2
In this case, some of the exhibits are public records, and some may be deemed to be
central to the Complaint. However, some of the exhibits may not fall within the categories of
non-extraneous matters. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, the Court believes it is
appropriate to convert this matter to a Rule 56 proceeding, and allow the parties a reasonable
opportunity to present all pertinent material to the Motion, pursuant to Rule 12(d).
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s Motion to
Dismiss is converted to a Motion for Summary Judgment under Rule 56.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a 15-minute telephonic scheduling conference shall be
heard on May 19, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. for the purpose of determining a scheduling for the
submission of all pertinent materials, and to set oral arguments on the converted motion for
summary judgment. Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s counsel shall initiate
the telephone conference, and shall call into the Division at 602-372-0537 at the designated time.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/29/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
05/12/2020
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
A. Wood
Deputy
SKY BOLES
MARK W HORNE
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
EMILY H MANN
MARK ZINMAN
COMM. GARBARINO
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
Prior to commencement, Defendant’s exhibits 1-8 and Plaintiff’s exhibits 9-21 were
marked for identification.
Courtroom 102-NER
1:30 p.m. This is the time set for a Video Conference Evidentiary Hearing on Plaintiff’s
application for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the eviction proceeding before the Honorable
David Garbarino in Maricopoly, LLC v. Jason Tarrell and Sky Boles, CV2019-014934. Plaintiff
Sky Boles is represented by counsel, Mark W Horne. Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse
Association is represented by counsel, Emily H Mann and Kathryn A Battock. Defendant Steve
Villarreal, as representative for Maricopoly LLC, is represented by counsel, Mark Zinman.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
05/12/2020
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2
The Rule of Exclusion of Witnesses is invoked and the following are sworn:
Dave Knapper, Jason Tarrell, Steve Villarreal, and Kristen Hoffman are sworn.
Discussion is held.
Opening arguments are presented.
Plaintiff’s case:
Sky Boles, having been sworn, testifies.
Plaintiff’s exhibit 9-13, 15 and 18-21 are received in evidence.
Plaintiff’s exhibit 22 is marked for identification.
2:50 p.m. Due to technical difficulties, Defendants were urged to disconnect the video call
and connect again.
2:52 p.m. Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse Association is represented by counsel,
Emily H Mann and Kathryn A Battock. Defendant Steve Villarreal, as representative for Maricopoly
LLC, is represented by counsel, Mark Zinman.
Defendant’s case:
Kristen Hoffman, having been sworn, testifies.
Defendant’s exhibit 1-7 are received in evidence.
Kristen Hoffman is excused.
Jason Tarrell, having been sworn, testifies.
Jason Tarrell is excused.
Steve Villarreal, having been sworn, testifies.
Steve Villarreal is excused.
Both sides rest.
Closing arguments presented.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
05/12/2020
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 3
Based on the testimony and evidence presented in court, and the parties’ oral arguments, the
Court will not enjoin the eviction proceeding in CV 2019-014934. Pursuant to A.R.S. §12-
1802(1), the Court has little discretion to enjoin the eviction proceeding, which was filed prior to
Plaintiff’s injunctive action in CV 2020-051900. Plaintiff’s argument that she can take advantage
of the 2018 filing date of the quiet title action in this consolidated case to make her 2020 lawsuit
prior in time to the eviction proceeding is to no avail. A consolidation of actions only joins
multiple cases involving common questions of law or facts for efficiency and economy of
judicial resources. It does not modify the rights, deadlines or filing dates of each action, which
remain as if the cases had not been consolidated.
THE COURT FINDS that Plaintiff has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on
the merits, in regards to enjoining the eviction proceeding before Commissioner Garbarino.
Based on the title chain of record, the foreclosure action in CV 2018-002470, the resulting
Sheriff’s sale, and Plaintiff’s failure to challenge those actions on a timely basis, the evidence
showed that Defendant Maricopoly has the right to assert a claim of possession in the eviction
proceeding.
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Plaintiff failed to show sufficient evidence that she
will suffer irreparable harm if the eviction proceeding goes forward. If Plaintiff is successful in
the eviction proceeding, the only potential damage would be monetary. A claim for monetary
damages does not amount to irreparable harm. Even if Plaintiff is unsuccessful in the eviction
proceeding, she will still have a right to appeal that action, and to seek a stay of the Court’s
ruling pending appeal. Even if she is ultimately evicted prior to the conclusion of the instant
case, Plaintiff failed to show how she would suffer irreparable harm. If she is successful in this
quiet title action, her alleged damages would again be monetary.
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that
the balancing of hardships weighs in her favor. The issue of the right of possession in an eviction
proceeding is separate from an action to quiet title. The balancing of hardships weighs in favor of
Maricopoly, who would be stymied in a lawful eviction proceeding, in which it presented
sufficient evidence that it has a legitimate claim of possession. The eviction proceeding was filed
prior to Plaintiff’s 2020 injunction action case, and A.R.S. §12-1802(1) generally precludes the
injunctive relief requested in this case.
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that
public policy would weigh in favor of an injunction. The law allows for the speedy resolution of
the eviction proceeding in this case that was filed prior in time to Plaintiff’s 2020 lawsuit.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
05/12/2020
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 4
THE COURT FINDS that Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration under A.R.S. §12-
1802(1) that the Court should exercise its discretion to enjoin the eviction proceeding to avoid a
multiplicity of proceedings is not well-taken. The eviction action is not part of the quiet title
action. Enjoining the former will not create a multiplicity of actions, because the actions already
exist. Even if an injunction would create a multiplicity of actions, the Court believes that the
evidence does not support the exercise of its discretion to enjoin the eviction proceeding.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying the Application for Preliminary Injunction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration for the Court to
exercise its discretion under A.R.S. §12-1802(1) to enjoin the eviction proceeding based on the
avoidance of a multiplicity of proceedings is denied.
4:50 p.m. Matter concludes.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/18/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
05/14/2020
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
W. Tenoever
Deputy
SKY BOLES
MARK W HORNE
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
EMILY H MANN
TROY B STRATMAN
MARK ZINMAN
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
Pursuant to the Court's ruling during the evidentiary hearing on May 12, 2020,
IT IS ORDERED that Exhibit A to Defendant's Notice of Lodging Party's Identification
was untimely, and was not considered by the Court in its May 12, 2020 Ruling on Plaintiff's
Application for Preliminary Injunction.
05/18/2020 — CV2018053929 BOLES, SKY 05/18/2020 HONORABLE GARY L. POPHAM JR. View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/19/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
05/18/2020
Docket Code 002
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE GARY L. POPHAM JR.
J. Escarcega
Deputy
SKY BOLES
MARK W HORNE
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
EMILY H MANN
TROY B STRATMAN
MARK ZINMAN
COMM. POPHAM
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Hearing for Default
Judgment, filed April 17, 2020.
IT IS ORDERED vacating the Default Hearing scheduled for May 21, 2020 at 9:00 a.m.
The Court will reserve ruling on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Hearing for Default Judgment
following the Court’s ruling on the pending summary judgment hearing.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/21/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
05/19/2020
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
W. Tenoever
Deputy
SKY BOLES
MARK W HORNE
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
JASON TARRELL
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
EMILY H MANN
SCOTT E WILLIAMS
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
Northeast Regional Court - Courtroom 102
9:37 a.m. This is the time set for telephonic Scheduling Conference. Plaintiff Sky Boles
is represented by counsel, Mark W. Horne. Defendant Jason Tarrell is neither present nor
represented by counsel. Defendant Maricopoly, LLC is represented by counsel, Scott E. Williams.
Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse Association is represented by counsel, Emily H. Mann
and Kathryn A. Battock.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held.
IT IS ORDERED Defendant’s supplemental motion for summary judgment shall be filed
no later than June 12, 2020.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
05/19/2020
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff’s response to the amended motion for summary
judgment shall be filed no later than July 24, 2020.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendant’s reply shall be filed no later than August 10,
2020.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting Oral Argument on Defendant Northern Manor
Townhouse Association’s Motion to Dismiss that was converted to a Motion for Summary Judgment
on August 14, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (2 hours allotted) before:
The Honorable Judge Theodore Campagnolo
Superior Court of Arizona
Northeast Regional Court Center
18380 North 40th Street
Courtroom 102
Phoenix, Arizona 85032
(602) 372-0537
**Counsel please review the information below**
Becoming familiar with the Court’s requirements is crucial; failure to comply with any of
the requirements can and will delay any resolution to the issue.
Counsel are encouraged to visit Judge Campagnolo’s online profile for information on
the Court’s expectations regarding motion practices and requirements, discovery disputes, and
hearing/trial procedures at the following website:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/judges/profile.asp?jdgID=327&jdg
USID=12118
9:55 a.m. Matter concludes.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/04/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
06/03/2020
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
A. Wood
Deputy
SKY BOLES
MARK W HORNE
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
EMILY H MANN
TROY B STRATMAN
MARK ZINMAN
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received Defendants Notice of Revocation of Notice and Request for In
Camera Review.
Defendants failed to explain in their Notice as to why the issue was moot.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants shall provide the Court with an amended Notice
explaining the reason or reasons for their claim that the matter is moot no later than June 26,
2020.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/08/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
06/04/2020
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
A. Wood
Deputy
SKY BOLES
MARK W HORNE
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
EMILY H MANN
TROY B STRATMAN
MARK ZINMAN
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has set oral arguments on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on
August 14, 2020.
Plaintiff is currently represented by counsel. A.R.S. Sec. 12-3201(C) pertains only to
unrepresented litigants.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Declare Sky Boles a Vexatious Litigant is
denied, without prejudice to re-urge the Motion after the Court has ruled on the motion for
summary judgment.
06/07/2018 — CV2018053929 BOLES, SKY 06/07/2018 HONORABLE JOHN R. HANNAH JR View Minute Entry ↑ top
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/11/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
06/07/2018
Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOHN R. HANNAH JR
W. Tenoever
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
JASON TARRELL
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
NORTHERN MANOR TOWNHOUSE
ASSOCIATION
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
ERIK WRIGHT
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
ORDER SIGNED
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Defendants filed
on June 4, 2018, all in accordance with the formal written Order signed by the Court on June 7,
2018 and entered (filed) by the clerk on June 7, 2018.
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.
06/07/2018 — CV2018053929 BOLES, SKY 06/07/2018 HONORABLE JOHN R. HANNAH JR View Minute Entry ↑ top
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/11/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
06/07/2018
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOHN R. HANNAH JR
W. Tenoever
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
JASON TARRELL
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
NORTHERN MANOR TOWNHOUSE
ASSOCIATION
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
ERIK WRIGHT
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
RULING
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s “Motion for Alternative Service per ARCP 4.1(k)”
THE COURT FINDS that personal service on defendant Jason Tarrell has proven
impracticable.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for alternative service is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall serve the summons, complaint, civil
cover sheet and certificate of compulsory arbitration, and a copy of this order, on defendant
Jason Tarrell by each of the following methods:
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
06/07/2018
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
By posting on the front door and First Class Mail to 5311 W. Pinnacle Vista Dr.,
Phoenix, AZ; and
By First Class Mail to the defendant’s last known address (if different from above);
and
Electronically, by email or text message transmission of electronic copies of the
documents, to any known email address or cell phone number associated with the
defendant.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/15/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
06/09/2020
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
A. Wood
Deputy
SKY BOLES
MARK W HORNE
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
TROY B STRATMAN
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time for Plaintiff to Respond to
Defendants Motion/s and Order Defendants to Serve Plaintiff as Party filed April 8, 2020.
IT IS ORDERED taking no action on Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time for Plaintiff to
Respond to Defendants Motion/s and Order Defendants to Serve Plaintiff as Party because the
motion appears to be moot.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/16/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
06/12/2020
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
A. Wood
Deputy
SKY BOLES
MARK W HORNE
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
EMILY H MANN
MARK ZINMAN
JASON TARRELL
1643 W HAZELWOOD ST
PHOENIX AZ 85015
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Motion for Finding of Facts and Law and Request for
Emergency Temporary Restraining Order Without Notice filed June 10, 2020.
The Court is denying this Motion on two grounds. First, to the extent that the Motion can
be deemed a Motion for Recosnideration under Rule 7.1(e), Plaintiff has failed to make a showing
that the Court should reconsider its ruling on May 12, 2020. Second, Plaintiff is represented by
counsel, who is the only party that can file motions on behalf of Plaintiff. The Court is aware that
Plaintiff's counsel appeared under a notice of limited representation. However, the limited
representation pertained to the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff. This Motion pertains to the
same issue. Further, Plaintiff's counsel has not notified the Court that his limited representation
has ended. It also appears that Plaintiff's counsel has remained on the case for further proceedings.
Additionally, Plaintiff admitted that she still has counsel, because the Motion was filed "without
advise [sic] of my counsel."
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
06/12/2020
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion for Finding of Facts and Law and Request for
Emergency Temporary Restraining Order Without Notice filed June 10, 2020 for the reasons stated
above.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/15/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
06/12/2020
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
A. Wood
Deputy
SKY BOLES
MARK W HORNE
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
EMILY H MANN
MARK ZINMAN
JASON TARRELL
1643 W HAZELWOOD ST
PHOENIX AZ 85015
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s Amended
Notice of Revocation of Notice and Request for In Camera Review filed on June 9, 2020.
IT IS ORDERED that based on the Notice of Revocation, the Court will not rule on the
request for in camera review.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/19/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
06/17/2020
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
A. Wood
Deputy
SKY BOLES
MARK W HORNE
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
EMILY H MANN
TROY B STRATMAN
MARK ZINMAN
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s Separate
Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed June 15, 2020, which the
Court cannot consider because the Motion does not comply with the Court’s protocol on
bookmarking exhibits.
IT IS ORDERED rejecting Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s
Separate Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment for failure to comply
with the Court’s protocol on bookmarking exhibits.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse Association
shall refile the Separate Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment in
compliance with the Court’s protocol on bookmarking exhibits no later than July 6, 2020.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
06/17/2020
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
**Counsel please review the information below**
Motions with Exhibits: All e-filed pleadings, including, but not limited to, summary
judgment pleadings, that contain more than 5 exhibits shall contain bookmarks to all exhibits
attached to your pleading(s). All bookmarks must be contained in your e-filed pleading in pdf
format. The bookmarking to exhibits is crucial, so that the Court can readily locate an exhibit
without undue delay. The Court does not want hard copies of the exhibits, and the Court does not
want the materials on CD, thumb drive or email. DO NOT bookmark or hyperlink case citations.
Any bookmarks/hyperlinks to any websites or the internet (e.g., Westlaw) will not work. Failure
to provide the bookmarks as required above will result in the issuance of a Minute Entry
rejecting the pleading. The party will be required to efile a new pleading with proper
bookmarking no later than 14 days after the filing of the Minute Entry rejecting the original
pleading. The Court reserves the right to disallow any pleadings that are not re-efiled within 14
days. You may obtain further information on e-filing with bookmarks by going to the Clerk's
website as follows:
clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov
click on "eFiling(Live)" in the "eGovernment" box
click on "eFiling Guidelines (Applies to all Documents filed with the Clerk): Click Here"
click on "2.03 Document Format" in the Table of Contents
Go to 2.03(b)
I am aware that some attempted book markings may be unsuccessful due to software
incompatibility with the Clerk's software, or because the documents' size exceeds the Clerk's
capacity. In those situations, upon the filing of a notice to that effect signed by the party's
attorney, the bookmarked document may be submitted to the Court on a CD.
Motion Practice: Motions, responses and related pleadings shall comply with the length and
other requirements of the Rules. If an extension of response or reply time is necessary, try to
reach agreement among the parties, and then submit a stipulation. If you file a motion for leave
to exceed the page length of a pleading, you will need to provide specific reasons. A generic
statement that you need more pages may result in denial of your motion.
This division requires that all motions, responses, replies and other Court requested filings in this
case must be submitted individually. The parties 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. Motions or stipulations shall be efiled with
proposed orders. ALL proposed orders when applicable, shall be efiled in Word format.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/01/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
06/30/2020
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
G. Chavez
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
EMILY H MANN
TROY B STRATMAN
MARK ZINMAN
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court is in receipt of Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s Motion for
Reconsideration Re: Motion to Declare Sky Boles a Vexatious Litigant Due to Change in
Circumstance, filed June 25, 2020.
The Court finds that the evidence submitted by Defendant is insufficient to change the
Court's Minute Entry filed on June 8, 2020, even though Plaintiff is now an unrepresented
litigant.
IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion for Reconsideration, without prejudice to re-urge
the Motion after the Court has ruled on the pending motion for summary judgment.
07/17/2019 — CV2018053929 BOLES, SKY 07/17/2019 HONORABLE STEVEN K. HOLDING View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/22/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
07/17/2019
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE STEVEN K. HOLDING
V. Burton
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
COMM. HOLDING
MINUTE ENTRY
On the Court’s own motion,
IT IS ORDERED setting a Default Hearing on August 27, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. before the
Honorable Steven Holding, Maricopa County Superior Court, Northeast Regional Court Center,
18380 N. 40th Street, Courtroom 105, Phoenix AZ 85032.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/07/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
08/06/2020
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
G. Chavez
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
EMILY H MANN
TROY B STRATMAN
MARK ZINMAN
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
IT IS ORDERED converting the Oral Argument set for August 14, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.
(2 hours allotted) before Judge Theodore Campagnolo from in-person to videoconference
through the GoToMeeting application. Information regarding access to this virtual oral
argument is listed below.
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/701092781
You can also dial in using your phone.
United States: +1 (571) 317-3122
Access Code: 701-092-781
Join from a video-conferencing room or system.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
08/06/2020
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
Dial in or type: 67.217.95.2 or inroomlink.goto.com Meeting ID: 701 092 781 Or dial
directly: [email protected] or 67.217.95.2##701092781
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/13/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
08/07/2018
Docket Code 375
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
A. Wood
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment Without a Hearing
filed on June 13, 2018.
The Court can take no action on the Motion until Defendant is properly served pursuant
to Rule 4 and 4.1, Ariz. R. Civ. P.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the Dismissal Calendar until November 15,
2018.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/17/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
08/13/2020
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
C. Ladden/C. Mai
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
EMILY H MANN
TROY B STRATMAN
MARK ZINMAN
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and considered Defendants’ Northern Manor Townhouse
Association and Maricopoly LLC’s Request for Telephonic Hearing Re: Attorney Mark
Horne/Degnan Law Group’s Scope of Appearance on Behalf of Plaintiff Sky Boles, filed on
June 15, 2020.
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion Requesting a Telephonic Hearing as
moot as Plaintiff’s Counsel, Mark Horne/Degnan Law Group, is withdrawn from the case.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/18/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
08/13/2020
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
G. Chavez
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
EMILY H MANN
TROY B STRATMAN
MARK ZINMAN
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Accelerated Motion to Continue Hearing for
Summary Judgment Motion to Accept this Untimely Filed Motion for Excusable Neglect, filed
August 12, 2020, and Defendants Northern Manor Townhouse Association and Maricopoly,
LLC’s Objection to Plaintiff’s “Accelerated Motion to Continue Hearing for Summary Judgment
Motion to Accept this Untimely Filed Motion for Excusable Neglect,” filed August 12, 2020.
The Court will address the aforementioned Motion at the Oral Argument currently set
for August 14, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. before Judge Theodore Campagnolo.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/25/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
08/14/2020
Docket Code 095
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
G. Chavez
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
KATHRYN A BATTOCK
EMILY H MANN
TROY B STRATMAN
MARK ZINMAN
COMM. POPHAM
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom 102 – NER
10:00 a.m. This is the time set for an Oral Argument via GoToMeeting regarding
Defendant Manor Townhouse Association’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed June 15, 2020.
Plaintiff, Sky Boles, appears on her own behalf. Counsel Emily H. Mann and counsel Kathryn A.
Battock are present on behalf of Defendant, Northern Manor Townhouse Association. Counsel
Mark Zinman appears on behalf of Defendant, Maricopoly, LLC.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
08/14/2020
Docket Code 095
Form V000A
Page 2
For the reasons stated on the record, and over Defendants’ objection,
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Accelerated Motion to Continue Hearing for
Summary Judgment Motion to Accept this Untimely Filed Motion for Excusable Neglect, filed
August 12, 2020. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating today’s Oral Argument and resetting same to
October 9, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. (2 hours allotted) before Judge Theodore Campagnolo. Counsel
and any unrepresented parties shall appear by videoconference through GoToMeeting for this
Oral Argument. Information regarding access to this virtual hearing is listed below.
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/210988781
You can also dial in using your phone.
United States: +1 (571) 317-3112
Access Code: 210-988-781
Join from a video-conferencing room or system.
Dial in or type: 67.217.95.2 or inroomlink.goto.com Meeting ID: 210 988 781
Or dial directly: [email protected] or 67.217.95.2##210988781
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendant Manor
Townhouse Association’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed June 15, 2020, no later than
September 11, 2020. The Court will not consider any response filed after September 11, 2020
and will proceed with the Oral Argument on October 9, 2020 relying solely on Plaintiff’s oral
arguments at that time.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file a reply to Plaintiff’s response in
the timeframe allowed by the applicable rules of civil procedure.
Further discussion is held.
The Court is informed that Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Set Default Hearing, filed June
19, 2020, requests that the Court enter a default judgment against Defendant Jason Tarrell as a
sanction for his non-appearance in this matter and at his deposition. Because Jason Tarrell has
appeared in this case, and because a sanction based on a discovery violation should be heard by
the assigned Judge,
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
08/14/2020
Docket Code 095
Form V000A
Page 3
IT IS ORDERED referring Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Set Default Hearing, filed
June 19, 2020, Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Default Hearing, filed May 28, 2020, Plaintiff’s Motion
to Set Hearing for Default Judgement, filed April 17, 2020, Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for
Entry of Default Judgement Under Rule 55, Ariz. R. Civil P. and Notice of Hearing Against
Jason Tarrell, filed June 20, 2019, Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Hearing for Default Judgement, filed
May 23, 2019, and Plaintiff’s Application and Affidavit for Default, filed March 19, 2019, back
to this Division for resolution.
10:28 a.m. Matter concludes.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/25/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
08/20/2020
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
G. Chavez
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
KATHRYN A BATTOCK
EMILY H MANN
TROY B STRATMAN
MARK ZINMAN
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse
Association Statement of Facts, which the Court cannot consider because the Statement of Facts
does not comply with the Court’s protocol on bookmarking exhibits.
IT IS ORDERED rejecting Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Northern Manor
Townhouse Association Statement of Facts for failure to comply with the Court’s protocol on
bookmarking exhibits.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall refile Plaintiff’s Response to
Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse Association Statement of Facts in compliance with the
Court’s protocol on bookmarking exhibits no later than September 7, 2020.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
08/20/2020
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
**Counsel please review the information below**
Motions with Exhibits: All e-filed pleadings, including, but not limited to, summary
judgment pleadings, that contain more than 5 exhibits shall contain bookmarks to all exhibits
attached to your pleading(s). All bookmarks must be contained in your e-filed pleading in pdf
format. The bookmarking to exhibits is crucial, so that the Court can readily locate an exhibit
without undue delay. The Court does not want hard copies of the exhibits, and the Court does not
want the materials on CD, thumb drive or email. DO NOT bookmark or hyperlink case citations.
Any bookmarks/hyperlinks to any websites or the internet (e.g., Westlaw) will not work. Failure
to provide the bookmarks as required above will result in the issuance of a Minute Entry
rejecting the pleading. The party will be required to efile a new pleading with proper
bookmarking no later than 14 days after the filing of the Minute Entry rejecting the original
pleading. The Court reserves the right to disallow any pleadings that are not re-efiled within 14
days. You may obtain further information on e-filing with bookmarks by going to the Clerk's
website as follows:
clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov
click on "eFiling(Live)" in the "eGovernment" box
click on "eFiling Guidelines (Applies to all Documents filed with the Clerk):Click Here”
click on "2.03 Document Format" in the Table of Contents
Go to 2.03(b)
I am aware that some attempted book markings may be unsuccessful due to software
incompatibility with the Clerk's software, or because the documents' size exceeds the Clerk's
capacity. In those situations, upon the filing of a notice to that effect signed by the party's
attorney, the bookmarked document may be submitted to the Court on a CD.
Motion Practice: Motions, responses and related pleadings shall comply with the length
and other requirements of the Rules. If an extension of response or reply time is necessary, try to
reach agreement among the parties, and then submit a stipulation. If you file a motion for leave
to exceed the page length of a pleading, you will need to provide specific reasons. A generic
statement that you need more pages may result in denial of your motion.
This division requires that all motions, responses, replies and other Court requested filings
in this case must be submitted individually. The parties 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. Motions or stipulations shall be efiled with
proposed orders. ALL proposed orders when applicable, shall be efiled in Word format.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/25/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
08/21/2020
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
G. Chavez
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
KATHRYN A BATTOCK
EMILY H MANN
TROY B STRATMAN
MARK ZINMAN
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court affirms Commissioner Gary Popham’s Minute Entry dated May 18, 2020 that
no action will be taken on Plaintiff’s Application for Default until the Court has ruled on
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Set Default Hearing, filed June 19,
2020, Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Default Hearing, filed May 28, 2020, Plaintiff’s Motion to Set
Hearing for Default Judgement, filed April 17, 2020, Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Entry of
Default Judgement Under Rule 55, Ariz. R. Civil P. and Notice of Hearing Against Jason Tarrell,
filed June 20, 2019, Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Hearing for Default Judgement, filed May 23,
2019, and Plaintiff’s Application and Affidavit for Default, filed March 19, 2019, shall all be
held in abeyance pending the Court’s ruling on Defendant Manor Townhouse Association’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on June 15, 2020.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
08/21/2020
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any further motions seeking the same relief will be
considered duplicative and will be automatically rejected by the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent the Motion to Set Default Hearing, filed
on May 28, 2020, was seeking a reconsideration of the Court's Minute Entry, filed on May 19,
2020, which vacated the default hearing, such request for reconsideration is denied.
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/18/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
09/13/2018
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
K. Hartley
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court is in receipt of Motion/Petition To Serve Summons By Alternative Means.
The above stated Motion was not accompanied with a proposed form of Order as required
by the Court. For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED rejecting the above motion.
The moving party shall refile the motion with the Order required by the Court.
Please note the Court’s protocol regarding Motions:
A proposed order/judgment must be attached any motion requesting the court to do
something. Orders must be submitted in Word Format using the proper turbo court code. All
stipulations, joint scheduling reports, unopposed motions, etc., MUST contain a proposed order.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
09/13/2018
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
The parties are encouraged to view Judge Campagnolo’s online profile for additional information
on the Court’s expectations regarding motion practices and requirements, discovery disputes, and
hearing/trial procedures at the following website:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/judges/profile.asp?jdgID=327&jdg
USID=12118
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/27/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
09/26/2018
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
K. Hartley
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
KATHRYN A BATTOCK
ERIK WRIGHT
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court is in receipt of a letter addressed to Judge Campagnolo, from Jason Neil Terrell
and Kimberly Julie Terrell dated September 12, 2018.
There is no indication on the letter that a copy has been provided to or served upon the
other side or that it has been filed with the Clerk of Court. The Court cannot consider un-filed, ex-
parte communications. For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED rejecting the letter from Jason Neil Terrell and Kimberly Julie Terrell
Should Defendants wish to bring a matter before this Court, Defendants shall do so by a
properly filed and served Motion.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
09/26/2018
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
FILED:
Letter dated September 12, 2018
Please note the Court’s protocol regarding Motions:
A proposed order/judgment must be attached any motion requesting the court to do
something. Orders must be submitted in Word Format using the proper turbo court code. All
stipulations, joint scheduling reports, unopposed motions, etc., MUST contain a proposed order.
The parties are encouraged to view Judge Campagnolo’s online profile for additional information
on the Court’s expectations regarding motion practices and requirements, discovery disputes, and
hearing/trial procedures at the following website:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/judges/profile.asp?jdgID=327&jdg
USID=12118
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/01/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
09/28/2018
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
K. Hartley
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
KATHRYN A BATTOCK
ERIK WRIGHT
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court is in receipt of a Defendant’s Jason Terrell’s 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss.
The motion was not accompanied by a proposed form of order in word format.
IT IS ORDERED rejecting the above mentioned motion.
Please note the Court’s protocol regarding Motions:
A proposed order/judgment must be attached any motion requesting the court to do
something. Orders must be submitted in Word Format using the proper turbo court code. All
stipulations, joint scheduling reports, unopposed motions, etc., MUST contain a proposed order.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
09/28/2018
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
The parties are encouraged to view Judge Campagnolo’s online profile for additional information
on the Court’s expectations regarding motion practices and requirements, discovery disputes, and
hearing/trial procedures at the following website:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/judges/profile.asp?jdgID=327&jdg
USID=12118
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Filed ***
10/19/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
10/09/2020
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
G. Chavez
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
KATHRYN A BATTOCK
TROY B STRATMAN
MARK ZINMAN
COMM. POPHAM
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
NOTE: There is a “LATER” at the end of this Minute Entry.
Courtroom 102 – NER
10:00 a.m. This is the time set for an Oral Argument via GoToMeeting regarding
Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s Motion for Summary Judgment and
Defendant Maricopoly’s Joinder in Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, both filed on June 15, 2020. Plaintiff, Sky Boles, is neither present nor
represented by counsel. Counsel Troy B. Stratman, Kathryn A. Battock, and Joseph M. Hoffman
appear on behalf of the Defendant, Northern Manor Townhouse Association (“Northern
Manor”). Counsel Mark Zinman appears on behalf of the Defendant, Maricopoly, LLC.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
10/09/2020
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2
LET THE RECORD REFLECT that Plaintiff Sky Boles had notice of today’s proceeding
and has failed to appear. Accordingly, the Court shall proceed with today’s oral argument in her
absence.
Discussion is held.
Oral argument from Defendants is heard.
Based on the information presented, and for the reasons stated on the record,
THE COURT FINDS that it has the authority to grant Defendant Northern Manor
Townhouse Association’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant Maricopoly’s Joinder
in Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s Motion for Summary Judgment, because Plaintiff
Sky Boles had the opportunity to respond to the motions and to present argument at today’s oral
arguments hearing, of which she had notice, but failed to appear.
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Plaintiff Sky Boles has wholly failed to show that
she has ownership, title, or any right of possession to the property located at 8421 N. 33rd
Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85051, Lot 86, Northern Manor, according to Book 156 of Maps, page 6,
records of Maricopa County, Arizona, Parcel No. 15009087 (hereinafter “subject property”).
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Plaintiff Sky Boles has failed to meet her burden
to present sufficient evidence to support her case. Specifically, there is no deed from Mr. Wright
to Mr. Tarrell to support any of Plaintiff’s claims, due to the absence of chain of title.
Additionally, Mr. Tarrell testified at a previous hearing that he never transferred title to Ms.
Boles, and he provided an affidavit to the same effect. Even if the purported deed from Mr.
Tarrell was actually signed by him, there was no showing through the chain of title that Mr.
Tarrell had any legal title to the property. This does not create a genuine issue of material fact,
because under either scenario, Plaintiff could not have received title.
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that there are no genuine issues of material fact.
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that even if Ms. Boles had ownership, title, or right of
possession to the subject property, which she does not, she had notice of the sheriff’s sale, and
failed to make the necessary payment to avoid the sale.
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that in light of the sheriff’s sale, anybody that had
ownership, title, or right of possession to the subject property lost that right upon the sheriff’s
sale of the property to Maricopoly, LLC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
10/09/2020
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 3
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the sheriff’s sale is conclusive evidence of
Maricopoly, LLC’s title ownership. Maricopoly, LLC, was the bona fide purchaser of the subject
property.
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that any claims that Ms. Boles makes now or will make
in the future as to the subject property is precluded by collateral estoppel and res judicata.
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Maricopoly, LLC’s Joinder in Northern Manor
Townhouse Association’s Motion for Summary Judgment equated to a Motion for Summary
Judgment.
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Defendants Northern Manor Townhouse
Association and Maricopoly, LLC are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Plaintiff has no legal right to continue to file
pleadings and motions claiming title, ownership, or right to possession of the subject property.
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant Manor Townhouse Association’s Motion for
Summary Judgment filed on June 15, 2020, and Maricopoly’s Joinder in Northern Manor
Townhouse Association’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on June 15, 2020.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing case no. CV2020-051900 (consolidated) in its
entirety with prejudice as to all Defendants.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing case no. CV2018-053929 (consolidated) with
prejudice as to Defendant/Intervenor Northern Manor Townhouse Association only. (See
“LATER”).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the default proceedings as to Jason Tarrell in case
no. CV2018-053929 shall be referred to the Commissioner. Plaintiff Sky Boles may not seek a
default judgment against Mr. Tarrell as to any claim of ownership, title, or right of possession to
the subject property. (See “LATER”).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any further pleadings filed by Plaintiff Sky Boles
claiming or seeking ownership, title, or right of possession to the subject property, and/or against
the Defendants in the consolidated cases as to the subject property, shall be deemed frivolous and
without legal basis, and shall be automatically dismissed with prejudice without further notice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED quashing the Notice of Lis Pendens recorded by Sky
Boles on May 18, 2018 as to the subject property.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
10/09/2020
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse
Association shall file an Application and Affidavit for Attorney’s Fees with a Statement of
Verified Costs no later than October 30, 2020. Plaintiff shall be permitted to file a response to
the Application and Affidavit within the timeframe allowed by the applicable Rules of Civil
Procedure. No Reply shall be allowed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse Association
shall lodge a form of judgment of dismissal, consistent with the Court’s rulings herein, for the
Court’s review and signature no later than October 30, 2020.
Counsel for Defendant Northern Manor makes an oral motion for the Court to reconsider
Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s Motion to Declare Sky Boles a Vexatious Litigant,
filed on April 6, 2020.
IT IS ORDERED granting the oral motion to reconsider the aforementioned oral
motion. If the Court decides to grant the motion, then the ruling will be included in Judgment of
Dismissal.
10:56 a.m. Matter concludes.
LATER:
Having reconsidered Defendants’ request to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant under
A.R.S. §12-3201, the Court declines to grant the request. Under §12-3201, the sanction that the
Court can impose is to require that a pro se litigant must obtain court approval before filing any
further pleadings. The only basis to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant is her repeated attempts
to claim some right to possession of the subject property. Technically, the Court could find
Plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant in regard to the subject property, because of her numerous and
repeated filings. There is no evidence, however, that Plaintiff has been involved in vexatious
conduct in regard to other matters. The Court has already ordered that Plaintiff is prohibited from
filing any further pleadings in which she would attempt to claim some title, ownership or right to
possession of the subject property. Under the Court’s Order, she has no right to seek leave to file
any pleadings in regard to the subject property. They will be subject to automatic dismissal.
However, the Court has no basis to require her to seek leave to file pleadings unrelated to the
subject property. In light of the Order prohibiting any further filings as to the subject property,
finding her to be a vexatious litigant at this point would only create procedural confusion.
After further consideration, the Court mistakenly referred the default proceedings against
Jason Tarrell to the Commissioner. Because the Court ruled that Jason Tarrell has no ownership,
title, or right to possess the property, the Court’s dismissal of CV2018-053929 (consolidated) as
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
10/09/2020
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 5
to Northern Manor Townhouse Association must also apply to Jason Tarrell. Dismissal against
Jason Tarrell renders any default proceedings against him as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ request to declare Plaintiff to be a
vexatious litigant is denied for the reasons stated above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing case no. CV2018-053929 (consolidated) in its
entirety with prejudice as to all Defendants and Intervenor. Any proceedings or hearings related
to the default proceedings against Jason Tarrell are, therefore, vacated as moot.
/S/ HON. THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
_______________________________________
HON. THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/25/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
10/24/2018
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
K. Hartley
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
KATHRYN A BATTOCK
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court is in receipt of a Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s Motion to Intervene
and Request for Status Conference filed September 24, 2018.
The motion was not accompanied by a proposed form of order as required.
IT IS ORDERED rejecting the above mentioned motion. The parties may refile the above
motion with an order in word format.
Please note the Court’s protocol regarding Motions:
The Court requires any motion must be accompanied by a proposed form of order/judgment
with the motion requesting the court to do something. Orders must be submitted in Word Format
using the proper turbo court code. All stipulations, joint scheduling reports, unopposed motions,
etc., MUST contain a proposed order.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
10/24/2018
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
The parties are encouraged to view Judge Campagnolo’s online profile for additional information
on the Court’s expectations regarding motion practices and requirements, discovery disputes, and
hearing/trial procedures at the following website:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/judges/profile.asp?jdgID=327&jdg
USID=12118
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Filed ***
12/03/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
11/30/2020
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
G. Chavez
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
KATHRYN A BATTOCK
TROY B STRATMAN
MARK ZINMAN
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s Accelerated Motion to Vacate,
Plaintiff’s Amended Accelerated Motion to Vacate Order Granting Summary Judgment
Dismissing Plaintiff’s Claim, Defendants Joint Notice of Non-Filing, and the applicable law.
The oral arguments hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was held on
October 9, 2020. Plaintiff failed to appear at that hearing. Based on the summary judgment
evidence and Defendant’s oral arguments, the Court granted summary judgment at the
conclusion of the hearing.
The Motions to Vacate seek reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(1) for excusable neglect. A
non-lawyer filed the above Motions on behalf of Plaintiff, claiming that the latter was unable to
attend the oral arguments hearing, and unable to file the Motions due to a head trauma. The
Motions referenced a police report, but a copy of that report was not attached to the Motion.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
11/30/2020
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
First of all, a non-lawyer may not appear on behalf of a party litigant. Second, the only
evidence presented by the non-lawyer was a copy of a purported doctor’s note dated October 13,
2020 that said Plaintiff could not drive or work due to a “recent” head trauma. There was nothing
in the note that prevented Plaintiff from speaking on the telephone or appearing by video. Third,
the purported doctor’s note did not contain any type of medical terminology or prognosis, which
might be expected from a medical physician. Fourth, the oral arguments hearing was held on
October 9, 2020, and the doctor’s note, dated October 13, 2020, did not specify when the alleged
head trauma occurred. The Motions stated that the alleged head trauma occurred on October 1,
2020. If so, Plaintiff or her non-lawyer representative had more than ample time to notify the
Court prior to the hearing. That was not done. In light of the circumstances, and without any
evidence to support the claim that the alleged injury occurred on October 1, 2020, it is just as
believable that the alleged head trauma could have occurred after the oral arguments hearing, if it
occurred at all.
To obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(1), Plaintiff has the burden to show (1) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) that relief was sought promptly; and (3) that a
meritorious claim existed. Copeland v. Arizona Veterans Memorial Coliseum and Exposition
Center, 176 Ariz. 86, 89 (App. 1993).
Plaintiff has failed to prove excusable neglect, and has failed to show that a meritorious
claim existed. The Court finds that there is insufficient evidence to grant relief to Plaintiff under
Rule 60(b)(1). The Court’s Ruling granting summary judgment to Plaintiff on October 9, 2020
remains in full force and effect.
Plaintiff also requested a stay under Rule 62. Having denied the Rule 60(b)(1) Motion,
there are no grounds for a Rule 62 Stay.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Accelerated Motion to Vacate, and Plaintiff’s Amended
Accelerated Motion to Vacate Order Granting Summary Judgment Dismissing Plaintiff’s Claim
are denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for a Rule 62 Stay is denied as moot.
/ s / HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
_______________________________________
HON. THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/03/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
12/01/2020
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
G. Chavez
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
KATHRYN A BATTOCK
TROY B STRATMAN
MARK ZINMAN
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed and considered Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse
Association’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Memorandum of Points and Authorities,
Stratman Law Firm’s Joinder in Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s Application for
Attorneys’ Fees, Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s Statement of Costs and Notice of
Taxation of Costs, and the applicable law. No Response was filed.
During the oral arguments hearing on October 9, 2020, the Court ordered that Northern
Manor Townhouse Association (the Association) could file an application for attorneys’ fees.
The Court notes that such Order did not presume that the Association would be entitled to
attorneys’ fees, and it did not serve as a waiver of the Court’s inherent right to determine if an
award of attorneys’ fees was appropriate.
The Association’s only request for an award of attorneys’ fees was made pursuant to
A.R.S. §12-341.01. Under A.R.S. §12-341.01, the Court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees to
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
12/01/2020
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
the successful party in a disputed action arising out of a contract. Attorney’s fees are not
recoverable where there is no contractual or statutory basis for their award. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company v. O’Brien, 24 Ariz. App. 18, 21-2 (1975).
Plaintiff did not assert a cause of action for breach of contract. Therefore, the Court must
first determine whether some or all of the causes of action arose out of a contract. The fact that
Plaintiff did not respond to the Application does not vitiate the Court’s duty to determine if this
matter arose out of contract.
Plaintiff’s Complaint in CV2020-051900 (consolidated) against the Association and
Maricopoly, LLC asserted causes of action to quiet title, for declaratory judgment that
Maricopoly’s action for forcible detainer was improper, wrongful foreclosure, trespassing, bad
faith, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff’s Complaint in CV2018-053929 (consolidated) against the
Association asserted a cause of action to quiet title. The Association contended that Plaintiff’s
causes of action arose out of the Declaration of Covenants, Condition and Restrictions (CCR)
between the Association and Jason Tarrell, the listed owner of the property. The CCR would be
deemed to be a contract between the association and Jason Tarrell. Plaintiff never claimed that
she had signed the CCR or had a contract with Defendants. All of Plaintiff’s causes of action in
both cases arose out of a claim that she had title to the property, and that the foreclosure against
another defendant in this case was wrongful based on Plaintiff’s claim of title. Plaintiff was not
successful on her claims.
Section 12-341.01 does not apply if the contract is a factual predicate to the action, but
not the essential basis of it. Hanley v. Pearson, 204 Ariz. 147, ¶17 (App. 2003). When a cause of
action is based on a statute rather than a contract, the peripheral involvement of a contract does
not support the application of the fee statute. Id. See also Keystone Floor & More, LLC v.
Arizona Registrar of Contractors, 223 Ariz. 27, ¶18 (App. 2009 (holding that the sole basis for
the substantive result of disciplinary action against a contractor was a violation of statutory and
regulatory requirements, and not the underlying contract).
The modifying phrase “arising out of” refers to a cause or origin, thereby describing an
action in which a contract was a factor causing the dispute. ASH, Inc. v. Mesa Unified School
District No. 4, 138 Ariz. 190, 192 (App. 1983). If the lawsuit was initiated because of a contract,
the non-contract cause of action arises out of the contract. Id.
In this case, some of Plaintiff’s claims arose out of statutes. No statutory request for
attorneys’ fees was made, other than under A.R.S. §12-341.01. A claim for attorney’s fees is
forfeited if not made in the pleadings or a Rule 12 motion to dismiss. King v. Titsworth, 221
Ariz. 597, ¶10 (App. 2009) (holding that “pleadings” are defined in Rule 7(a) as a complaint, an
answer, a counterclaim, a cross-claim, a third-party complaint, a third-party answer, and a reply);
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
12/01/2020
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3
Rule 54(g)(1), ARIZ. R. CIV. P. The purpose of Rule 54(g)(1) is to put the other party on notice
that attorney’s fees will be sought in a certain way, so that the other party can properly evaluate
whether and when to settle. Halt v. Gama ex rel. County of Maricopa, 238 Ariz. 352, ¶151 (App.
2015). The Association has forfeited any claim for attorneys’ fees other than under A.R.S. §12-
341.01.
The remainder of Plaintiff’s claims sounded in tort. A tort claim arises out of contract if it
could not exist but for the contract. See, e.g., Caruthers v. Underhill, 230 Ariz. 513, 526, ¶57
(App. 2012)(holding that the contract must be the essential basis of the action and not merely a
factual predicate); Sparks v. Republic National Life Insurance Co., 132 Ariz. 529, 543 (1982).
An action arises out of a contract when the contract is “the factor” giving rise to the litigation; it
does not arise out of contract if the contract is merely peripheral to the cause of action. Lewin v.
Miller Wagner & Co., 151 Ariz. 29, 37 (App.1986).
In this case, the CCR is peripherally involved. Plaintiff did not have a contract with the
Association. The CCR was not the essential basis of Plaintiff’s claim of wrongful foreclosure
and to quiet title. At most, the CCR was a factual predicate for Plaintiff’s claim. The basis of
Plaintiff’s claims was a purported transfer of title from Jason Tarrell that the Court found was not
proven. All of her claims flowed from that contention.
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s cause of action did not arise out of a contract, as that
phrase is interpreted under A.R.S. §12-341.01. Therefore, A.R.S. §12-341.01 is inapplicable in
this case, and the Association is not entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees.
The superior court has no discretion to deny taxable costs to the successful party,
pursuant to A.R.S. §12-341. Roddy v. County of Maricopa, 184 Ariz. 625, 627 (App. 1996). The
Court finds that the Association was the successful party. The Association has requested the
amount of $73.70. The Association’s taxable costs appear to be appropriate under A.R.S. §12-
332.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s Application
for Attorneys’ Fees and Memorandum of Points and Authorities is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that costs are awarded to Defendant Northern Manor
Townhouse Association in the amount of $73.70.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/03/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
12/02/2020
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
G. Chavez
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
KATHRYN A BATTOCK
TROY B STRATMAN
MARK ZINMAN
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed and considered Northern Manor Townhouse Association’s
Motion for Reconsideration Re: Motion to Declare Sky Boles a Vexatious Litigant, filed on
October 30, 2020.
IT IS ORDERED denying the aforementioned motion.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/07/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
12/03/2020
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
A. Wood
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
TROY B STRATMAN
MARK ZINMAN
MARK W HORNE
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
On the Court's own motion,
IT IS ORDERED amending minute entry dated May 12, 2020 filed May 29, 2020, page 4
to reflect the following:
LET THE RECORD REFLECT that the Clerk disposes of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8 and
Defendant’s Exhibits 14, 16, 17, and 22 that were not offered/received into evidence.
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/18/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
12/17/2018
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
K. Hartley
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
MARY T HONE
KATHRYN A BATTOCK
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
MINUTE ENTRY
On the Court’s own motion and due to clerical error,
IT IS ORDERED vacating the telephonic Status Conference that was set on December 14,
2018 and resetting same for a 15 minute telephonic status conference in on December 18, 2018,
at 10:30 a.m., in the Maricopa County Superior Court. Intervenor’s (Northern Manor Townhouse
Association) Counsel shall initiate the conference call by arranging for the presence of all counsel
and self-represented parties and by calling the division at 602-372-0537 no later than 5 minutes
before the scheduled time. The parties and counsel shall not be permitted to participate in
conferences via cell phones or speakerphone.
Becoming familiar with the Court’s requirements is crucial, failure to comply with any of
the requirements can and will delay any resolution to the issue.
Counsel are encouraged to visit Judge Campagnolo’s online profile for information on
the Court’s expectations regarding motion practices and requirements, discovery disputes, and
hearing/trial procedures at the following website:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/judges/profile.asp?jdgID=327&jdg
USID=12118
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/19/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
12/18/2018
Docket Code 375
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO
K. Hartley
Deputy
SKY BOLES
SKY BOLES
3307 W ECHO LN
PHOENIX AZ 85051
v.
JASON TARRELL, et al.
KATHRYN A BATTOCK
ERIK WRIGHT
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK
MINUTE ENTRY
LET THE RECORD REFLECT that prior to today’s hearing, the Court’s Judicial
Assistant contacted Plaintiff and counsel and advised them that the time for today’s hearing has
been reset from 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
Courtroom 102 - NE
11:29 a.m. This is the time set for telephonic Status Conference. Plaintiff Sky Boles is
present on her own behalf. Appearing on behalf of Intervenor, Northern Manor Townhouse
Association is counsel, Kathryn A. Battock.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
12/18/2018
Docket Code 375
Form V000A
Page 2
Matters are discussed.
Based on the discussion held and for the reasons set forth on the record,
IT IS ORDERED that counsel for the Intervener file a proposed Confidentiality Order as
set forth on the record no later than January 3, 2018.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Serve by Publication filed
December 12, 2018. The Court will allow Plaintiff to file a motion to extend deadline to effectuate
service.
Matters are further discussed.
On the Court’s own motion,
IT IS ORDERED continuing this matter on the Dismissal Calendar until February 28,
2019. This case will be dismissed on that date without further notice, unless prior to said date a
proper pleading is filed or a Motion to Set and Certificate of Readiness is filed.
Counsel Kathryn Battock orally requests the Court set a telephonic Status Conference.
IT IS ORDERED denying that request.
The Court notes that any discovery issues or disclosure disputes are not before the Court
today and will not be addressed. If parties wish to seek judicial intervention, they are required to
file a Joint Statement of Discovery or Disclosure Dispute, pursuant to Rule 26(d), Ariz. R. Civ. P.
11:52 a.m. Hearing concludes.
**Counsel and Unrepresented parties please review the information below**
Becoming familiar with the Court’s requirements is crucial, failure to comply with any of
the requirements can and will delay any resolution to the issue.
Counsel are encouraged to visit Judge Campagnolo’s online profile for information on
the Court’s expectations regarding motion practices and requirements, discovery disputes, and
hearing/trial procedures at the following website:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/judges/profile.asp?jdgID=327&jdg
USID=12118
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-053929
12/18/2018
Docket Code 375
Form V000A
Page 3
ATTENTION SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS:
Unless an attorney files a notice that he or she represents a party, the person(s) not
represented by an attorney will act as his or her own attorney. The law requires the court to hold
all persons representing themselves to the same standard as a licensed attorney. Self-
represented litigants are encouraged to review the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, paying
particular attention to Rule 26. Please note that only a licensed attorney may represent a
corporation, LLC, or similar business entity in the Superior Court. Ramada Inns v. Lane &
Bird Advertising, 102 Ariz. 127, 426 P.2d 395 (1967).
Below are websites that provide pro per litigants information, instructions, forms and much
more.
Clerk of the Court’s filing guidelines and information:
http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/filing-by-mail.asp
Clerk of Court
http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/
Law Library Resource Center
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/LawLibraryResourceCenter/
Civil Department
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/civil/
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/llrc/civil-court-forms/
Frequently Used Forms
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/llrc/frequently-used-forms/
Arizona Forms/Instructions and Other
https://www.azcourts.gov/selfservicecenter/Resources
