01/09/2019 — CV2018013307 CUPPS, QUINTEN T 01/09/2019 HON. PAMELA GATES View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/10/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-013307
01/09/2019
Docket Code 066
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. PAMELA GATES
K. Ballard
Deputy
STEPHEN S EDWARDS
STEPHEN S EDWARDS
16030 S 36TH ST
PHOENIX AZ 85048
v.
QUINTEN T CUPPS, et al.
JOHN L CONDREY
CONNIE TOTORICA GOULD
JUDGE CONTES
JUDGE WELTY
CASE REASSIGNMENT - CIVIL PRESIDING JUDGE
This case was previously assigned to the Honorable Joseph Welty, who has disqualified
himself. The case was transferred to the Presiding Civil Judge for reassignment.
IT IS ORDERED reassigning this case to Civil Calendar CVJ-12, the Honorable Connie
Contes, for all further proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any and all hearings set by the disqualified judge are
vacated, to be reset by the new division.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall jointly file within 10 days of the date
of this minute entry, a notice with the new division listing any outstanding motions (including the
file dates), whether they are ripe for resolution, and any hearings that need to be reset.
03/05/2019 — CV2018013307 CUPPS, QUINTEN T 03/05/2019 HONORABLE CONNIE CONTES View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/12/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-013307
03/05/2019
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CONNIE CONTES
K. Cabral/S. Brown
Deputy
STEPHEN S EDWARDS
STEPHEN S EDWARDS
16030 S 36TH ST
PHOENIX AZ 85048
v.
QUINTEN T CUPPS, et al.
JOHN L CONDREY
CONNIE TOTORICA GOULD
JUDGE CONTES
MINUTE ENTRY
The court has read and considered Defendant Eileen Rosel’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
First Amended Complaint (filed Nov. 26, 2018), response (filed Jan. 22, 2019), and reply (filed
Feb. 7, 2018).
Defendant Rosel argues that plaintiff’s first amended complaint should be dismissed with
prejudice because (1) plaintiff did not file a timely notice of claim, see A.R.S. § 12-821.01, and
(2) she is entitled to judicial immunity because her conduct in communicating with litigants and
counsel occurred during the course and scope of her employment as an assistant to a judicial
officer. For the reasons stated in the motion (at 5-6, 13-15) and the reply,
IT IS ORDERED granting the motion and dismissing plaintiff’s first amended complaint
as to defendant Rosel.
03/06/2019 — CV2018013307 CUPPS, QUINTEN T 03/06/2019 HONORABLE CONNIE CONTES View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/12/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-013307
03/06/2019
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CONNIE CONTES
K. Cabral/S. Brown
Deputy
STEPHEN S EDWARDS
STEPHEN S EDWARDS
16030 S 36TH ST
PHOENIX AZ 85048
v.
QUINTEN T CUPPS, et al.
JOHN L CONDREY
CONNIE TOTORICA GOULD
JUDGE CONTES
MINUTE ENTRY
The court has read and considered defendant Lakewood Community Association’s (“the
Association”) motion to dismiss (filed Dec. 19, 2018), the response (filed Dec. 27, 2018), and reply
(filed Jan. 8, 2019). The court has also read and considered defendant Quinten T. Cupps’ motion
to dismiss and notice of errata (filed Nov. 16, 2018 and Dec. 6, 2018, respectively) and the response
(filed Jan. 22, 2019).
Both the Association and Cupps argue that plaintiff’s (first amended) complaint should be
dismissed based on (1) application of the judicial and/or litigation privilege, (2) the doctrines of
issue and claim preclusion, (3) and failure to state a claim. For the reasons stated in the motions,
the court agrees.
Generally, before the court grants a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff is given
an opportunity to amend the complaint if such an amendment would cure its defects. Wigglesworth
v. Mauldin, 195 Ariz. 432, 439, ¶ 26 (App. 1999). In this case, however, the court finds it unlikely
such would be the case. See Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct. Admin. Order No. 2019-029 (finding
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-013307
03/06/2019
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
Stephen Edwards “is engaging in vexatious conduct as defined in A.R.S. § 12-3201”).
Accordingly, based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED granting the Association’s and Cupps’ motions to dismiss plaintiff’s
(first amended) complaint, with prejudice.
03/11/2019 — CV2018013307 CUPPS, QUINTEN T 03/11/2019 HONORABLE CONNIE CONTES View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/12/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-013307
03/11/2019
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CONNIE CONTES
K. Cabral/S. Brown
Deputy
STEPHEN S EDWARDS
STEPHEN S EDWARDS
16030 S 36TH ST
PHOENIX AZ 85048
v.
QUINTEN T CUPPS, et al.
JOHN L CONDREY
CONNIE TOTORICA GOULD
JUDGE CONTES
MINUTE ENTRY
In connection with the above-referenced matter, the court rules as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (against Defendant Eileen Rosel).
The court has read and considered the motion (filed Nov. 16, 2018) and response/cross-
motion for summary judgment (filed Dec. 21, 2018). No further briefing has been filed, nor is any
needed. Based upon the court’s minute entry dated March 5, 2019 (granting defendant Rosel’s
motion to dismiss),
IT IS ORDERED denying as moot plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and
defendant Rosel’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (against Defendants Lakewood Community
Association and Quinten T. Cupps).
The court has read and considered the motion (filed Jan. 22, 2019). A response has not
been filed, nor is one needed. Based upon the court’s minute entry dated March 6, 2019 (granting
defendants Association and Cupps’ motions to dismiss),
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-013307
03/11/2019
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED denying as moot plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
3. Plaintiff’s Request for an Order to Show Cause (regarding Defendant Quinten T.
Cupps).
The court has read and considered the request (filed Jan. 22, 2019), which seeks an Order
to Show Cause why defendant Cupps should not be disbarred. A response has not been filed, nor
is one needed. Under the Arizona Constitution, the power to regulate the practice of law (including
the admission and disbarment of attorneys) is given to the Arizona Supreme Court, not the superior
court. In re Bailey, 30 Ariz. 407, 411-14 (1926). Based thereon,
IT IS ORDERED denying plaintiff’s request for an order to show cause why defendant
Cupps should not be disbarred.
4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss (as to Defendants Lakewood Community
Association and Quinten T. Cupps) “Under the Following Conditions.”
The court has read and considered the motion (filed Dec. 6, 2018). A response has not been
filed, nor is one needed.
IT IS ORDERED denying same as not cognizable under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b) or 41(a).
5. Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Judgment (against Defendant Lakewood Community
Association for “Non Compliance” with A.R.S. § 33-1807(k)).
The court has read and considered the brief (filed Feb. 25, 2019). A response has not been
filed, nor is one needed. To the extent the brief requests the court grant plaintiff relief against
defendant Association, based upon the court’s minute entry dated March 6, 2019 (granting
defendant Association’s motion to dismiss),
IT IS ORDERED denying same.
