03/12/2019 — CV2018003753 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, LANDMARK TOWERS 03/12/2019 HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER WHITTEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/14/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-003753
CV 2018-011123
03/12/2019
Docket Code 053
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER WHITTEN
T. Cooley
Deputy
LANDMARK TOWERS CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
STEVEN R BEEGHLEY
v.
INTEGRITY BUILDERS GENERAL
CONTRACTORS INC
EVERETT S BUTLER
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-CCC
DOCKET-CIVIL-CCC
JUDGE WHITTEN
MINUTE ENTRY
IT IS ORDERED consolidating cause numbers CV2018-003753 and CV2018-011123
under cause number CV2018-003753 for all further proceedings as set forth in the order
electronically signed by the Court on March 12, 2019 and filed (entered) by the Clerk on March
12, 2019.
05/16/2018 — CV2018003753 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, LANDMARK TOWERS 05/16/2018 HONORABLE KERSTIN LEMAIRE View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/23/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-003753
05/16/2018
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE KERSTIN LEMAIRE
D. Charbagi
Deputy
LANDMARK TOWERS CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
STEVEN R BEEGHLEY
v.
INTEGRITY BUILDERS GENERAL
CONTRACTORS INC
EVERETT S BUTLER
JUDGE WARNER
MINUTE ENTRY
The court has reviewed Defendant/Counterclaimant’s Motion to Transfer to Commercial
Court filed on April 12, 2018. The court finds this case meets the criteria in Experimental Rule
8.1 (a) through 8.1(d), Ariz. R. Civ. P., for participation in the commercial court pilot program.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion and referring this case to the Civil Presiding
Judge Warner for reassignment to a commercial court calendar.
05/24/2018 — CV2018003753 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, LANDMARK TOWERS 05/24/2018 HON. RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/29/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-003753
05/24/2018
Docket Code 066
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. RANDALL H. WARNER
K. Ballard
Deputy
LANDMARK TOWERS CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
STEVEN R BEEGHLEY
v.
INTEGRITY BUILDERS GENERAL
CONTRACTORS INC
EVERETT S BUTLER
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-CCC
DOCKET-CIVIL-CCC
JUDGE BERGIN
JUDGE LEMAIRE
CASE REASSIGNMENT - COMMERCIAL COURT
The assigned judge having determined that this case meets the definition of “commercial
court” as defined in Experimental Rule 8.1, Ariz.R.Civ.P., for participation in the commercial
court pilot program,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Designating this case as a commercial court case.
2. Reassigning this case from the Honorable Kerstin LeMaire, Civil Calendar CVJ-20, to
the Honorable Dawn Bergin, Civil Calendar CVJ-23, for all further proceedings.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-003753
05/24/2018
Docket Code 066
Form V000A
Page 2
Please note that commercial court has special procedural rules that you MUST follow.
Commercial court is governed by Experimental Rule 8.1. The following are some of the
procedures which apply:
You must confer no later than 60 days after an answer to the complaint is filed, or 180
days after commencement of the action, whichever occurs first, regarding all of the topics set
forth in Rule 16(d). In addition to the Rule 16(d) topics, you must also confer regarding
Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”), as set forth in the commercial court’s ESI checklist.
No later than 14 days after you confer, you must file a Joint Report and Proposed Scheduling
Order using Forms 14(a) and 14(b), which are different from the forms used in expedited or
standard civil cases.
Rule 8.1(f)(1) makes the Rule 16(d) scheduling conference in this case mandatory. The
assigned judge will set the scheduling conference after you file your Joint Report and Proposed
Scheduling Order.
The goal of the commercial court is to process cases efficiently and to help reduce the
cost of commercial litigation. To achieve these goals, the court may manage the pretrial matters
in this case differently than it would otherwise.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED within 10 days of this minute entry, counsel shall confer
and file a joint list of pending motions or other matters.
ATTENTION: If there are any matters pending and/or previously scheduled events
(oral argument, hearings, conferences, trial, etc.), counsel are directed to immediately contact the
newly assigned division to determine whether the new division is able to maintain the current
schedule in this matter.
* Note: Electronic versions of Experimental Rule 8.1, Forms 14(a) and 14(b), and the
ESI checklist are available on the Maricopa County Superior Court Website at
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/commercial-court/.
06/01/2018 — CV2018003753 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, LANDMARK TOWERS 06/01/2018 HON. RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/04/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-003753
06/01/2018
Docket Code 066
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. RANDALL H. WARNER
K. Ballard
Deputy
LANDMARK TOWERS CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
STEVEN R BEEGHLEY
v.
INTEGRITY BUILDERS GENERAL
CONTRACTORS INC
EVERETT S BUTLER
JUDGE BERGIN
JUDGE WHITTEN
CASE REASSIGNMENT - CIVIL PRESIDING JUDGE
This case was previously assigned to the Honorable Dawn Bergin. A Notice of Change
of Judge has been filed by Plaintiff. The case was transferred to the Civil Presiding Judge for
reassignment.
IT IS ORDERED that this COMMERCIAL COURT case be assigned to Civil Calendar
CVJ-02, the Honorable Christopher Whitten, for all further proceedings. If any objections to the
Notice of Change of Judge are filed, the noticed judge retains jurisdiction to hear and decide the
objections. Any objections must be filed and a copy delivered to the noticed judge within 20
days of the date of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any and all hearings set by the noticed 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.
08/23/2019 — CV2018003753 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, LANDMARK TOWERS 08/23/2019 HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER WHITTEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/26/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-003753
08/23/2019
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER WHITTEN
D. Tapia
Deputy
LANDMARK TOWERS CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
STEVEN R BEEGHLEY
v.
INTEGRITY BUILDERS GENERAL
CONTRACTORS INC
EVERETT S BUTLER
NELSON A F MIXON
TROY B STRATMAN
ORAL ARGUMENT SET
The Court has Truesdell’s Motion for Summary Judgment Re Non-Payment, filed May 15,
2019, Defendant Integrity Builders General Contractors, Inc.’s response, filed July 25, 2019 and
Truesdell’s reply, filed August 13, 2019.
At the request of counsel and good cause appearing,
IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on September 12, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. (time
allotted: 30 minutes) on Truesdell’s Motion for Summary Judgment Re Non-Payment, filed May
15, 2019.
Counsel and parties, if representing themselves, shall appear in person before:
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-003753
08/23/2019
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER WHITTEN
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING
101 WEST JEFFERSON
6TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 612
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
(602) 372-1164
NOTE: The proceedings will take place in the Superior Court’s “e-courtroom.” A record
of the proceedings will be made digitally in lieu of a court reporter. Should you want an unofficial
copy of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may request a digital copy of the proceedings for a
$30.00 charge. For copies of hearings or trial proceedings recorded previously, please call
Electronic Records Services at 602-506-7100.
NOTE: 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.
Failure to timely request a court reporter will be deemed consent to proceed without a court
reporter.
IF ANY ISSUES IN THE MOTION RELATE TO DISCOVERY PROBLEMS,
COUNSEL SHALL CONFER TO ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THEIR DIFFERENCES OR TO
REDUCE THE AREAS OF DISPUTE. COUNSEL ARE REMINDED THAT THE COURT
WILL LIKELY IMPOSE SANCTIONS AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY IN ACCORDANCE
WITH RULE 37(a)(4), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:
Any motion or stipulation for continuance must be filed with the Court no later than four
court days prior to the date set for hearing. After that date, no continuances will be granted except
for extraordinary circumstances.
All memoranda and affidavits regarding the motion must be filed and copies lodged with
this division no later than four court days prior to the date set for hearing.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-003753
08/23/2019
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 3
Counsel are advised that if the answering memorandum is not timely filed in accordance
with the Arizona Rules Of Civil Procedure, oral argument may be vacated and the motion will be
ruled upon in accordance with Rule 7.1(b), A.R.C.P.
No agreement by the parties to modify the pleading schedule will be honored by the Court
unless the Court is notified and approves the parties’ agreement. Any such agreement will not
change the argument date without a court Order and will, in any event, require that all motions are
fully briefed and at issue not later than one full week before the argument date.
08/30/2019 — CV2018003753 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, LANDMARK TOWERS 08/30/2019 HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER WHITTEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/04/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-003753
08/30/2019
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER WHITTEN
D. Tapia
Deputy
LANDMARK TOWERS CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
STEVEN R BEEGHLEY
v.
INTEGRITY BUILDERS GENERAL
CONTRACTORS INC
EVERETT S BUTLER
NELSON A F MIXON
TROY B STRATMAN
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has “Truesdell’s Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Nonpayment,” filed May
15, 2019 and fully briefed as of August 13, 2019. No oral argument is necessary.
A.R.S. § 32-1129.02(B) states, “If a subcontractor or material supplier has performed in
accordance with the provisions of a construction contract, the contractor shall pay to its
subcontractors or material suppliers and each subcontractor shall pay to its subcontractors or
material suppliers, within seven days of receipt by the contractor or subcontractor of each progress
payment, retention release or final payment, the full amount received for such subcontractor’s
work and materials supplied based on work completed or materials supplied under the
subcontract.” According to this language, the contractor must indeed pay the subcontractor, but
the time in which it must be paid does not begin until the contractor has received the pertinent
progress payment, retention release, or final payment.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-003753
08/30/2019
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
The statute does not say if its provisions can be modified by contract. The language of this
contract, though, contains its own ambiguity as to the date of payment. “The contractor agrees to
pay the Subcontractor for Completed work within 30 days from invoice date and/or when the
payment from the owner has been received for such work.” The import of “and/or” is uncertain,
as is whether the earlier or the later of the two dates controls. It must be left to the factfinder to
resolve the ambiguity.
ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
