Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2017-053367: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Sahl, Mark – DOB: N/A.

Case Number

CV2017-053367

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

5/19/2017

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Ponce, Adele

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/27/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

02/26/2019

Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE BRUCE R. COHEN
W. Tenoever

Deputy

SANDRA ZINN
THOMAS C HORNE

v.

SUSANNE HAASS, et al.
SUSANNE HAASS
20100 N 78TH PL # 1111
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

JOHN A KLECAN
MARK K SAHL
CARLOTTA L TURMAN
JUDGE BRUCE COHEN

ORDER SIGNED

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion to Associate Counsel Pro Hac Vice all in
accordance with the formal written Amended Order signed by the Court on February 26, 2019 and
entered (filed) by the clerk on February 26, 2019.

Please note: The court has signed a paper copy of the order which was originally provided
electronically. After the order has been scanned and docketed by the Clerk of Court, copies of this
order will be available through the ECR online at www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov or through
www.AZTurboCourt.gov and from the Public Access Terminals at the Clerk of Court’s offices
located throughout Maricopa County.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/16/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

04/15/2019

Docket Code 375
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE BRUCE R. COHEN
W. Tenoever

Deputy

SANDRA ZINN
THOMAS C HORNE

v.

SUSANNE HAASS, et al.
SUSANNE HAASS
20100 N 78TH PL # 1111
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

JOHN A KLECAN
MARK K SAHL
CARLOTTA L TURMAN
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK
JUDGE BRUCE COHEN

CASE ON DISMISSAL CALENDAR

A Civil Settlement Conference Report has been received.

IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the Dismissal Calendar for dismissal on June 17,
2019 without further notice unless prior to said date Judgment is entered or filed, a Stipulation for
Dismissal is presented, or one or both parties make such filing(s) as the Rules of Civil Procedure
may require in order for the action to proceed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Pretrial Conference set on May 3, 2019 in this
division.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/18/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

05/17/2018

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSAN M. BRNOVICH
K. Hartley

Deputy

SANDRA ZINN
SANDRA ZINN
8262 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

v.

SUSANNE HAASS, et al.
SUSANNE HAASS
20100 N 78TH PL # 1111
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

GARY DEAN
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
GREGG HOPLEY
8261 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255
DAWN HOPLEY
8261 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255
JEM WELSH
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Joint Report filed April 9, 2018.

IT IS ORDERED setting this matter for an in-person Rule 16 comprehensive pretrial
conference on June 14, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. (15 minutes allotted) before:

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

05/17/2018

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2

THE HONORABLE JUDGE SUSAN BRNOVICH
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
NORTHEAST REGIONAL COURT CENTER
18380 NORTH 40TH STREET
COURTROOM 112
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85032
(602) 372-2020

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/13/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

06/12/2018

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE AIMEE L. ANDERSON
W. Tenoever
FOR HONORABLE SUSAN M. BRNOVICH
Deputy

SANDRA ZINN
SANDRA ZINN
8262 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

v.

SUSANNE HAASS, et al.
SUSANNE HAASS
20100 N 78TH PL # 1111
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

GREGG HOPLEY
8261 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255
DAWN HOPLEY
8261 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255
CARLOTTA L TURMAN

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has read and considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Appear by Telephone or, in the
Alternative, to Postpone Hearing as well as Defendant Susanne Haass Motion to Appear
Telephonically.

IT IS ORDERED granting both motions.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is responsible for initiating the telephonic
conference call to the Court by calling 602-372-2020 on June 14, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/20/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

06/14/2018

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSAN M. BRNOVICH
K. Hartley

Deputy

SANDRA ZINN
SANDRA ZINN
8262 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

v.

SUSANNE HAASS, et al.
SUSANNE HAASS
20100 N 78TH PL # 1111
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

GARY DEAN
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
GREGG HOPLEY
8261 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255
DAWN HOPLEY
8261 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255
CARLOTTA L TURMAN
JEM WELSH
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom 112-NER

9:34 a.m. This is the time set for a Rule 16 comprehensive pretrial conference regarding
Plaintiff’s Joint Report. Plaintiff appears telephonically on her own behalf. Present are

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

06/14/2018

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 2

Defendants Susanne Haass, Dawn Hopley, and Greg Hopley. No other parties are present nor
represented by counsel.

A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.

Matters are discussed.

The Court determines that the Joint Report filed by Plaintiff on April 9, 2018 was filed
without the Defendants’ input or signatures. Therefore, the Court took no action regarding same.

Defendants orally request to dismiss this matter.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

LET THE RECORD REFLECT the Court provides Defendants with the Court’s copy of
the Joint Report submitted by Plaintiff.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants shall file their Joint Report in accordance to Rule 16 of
the Ariz. Rules of Civ. P. no later than June 25, 2018. The form and instructions may be
downloaded at http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/sscDocs/pdf/cvt54z.pdf .

Matters are further discussed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Defendants to email all the returned mail that
they have received and any future filings to Plaintiff’s email at: [email protected].
Plaintiff shall mail any Court filings to Defendants appropriate addresses as set forth above.
Defendants have not authorized email communications.

The Court Notes that Defendant Pinnacle Peak Country Club Estates Association filed a
Motion to Consolidate Related Actions was filed on May 24, 2018. Judge Anderson will be
ruling on this motion, as the earliest related case is before her.

The Court further notes that Defendants have filed separate Motions to Dismiss filed on
June 4, 2018 and the response time has not passed. Therefore, the Court will take no action until
either the motions are fully briefed or the response time has expired.

9:55 a.m. Matter concludes.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

06/14/2018

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 3

All parties representing themselves must keep the Court updated with address changes.
That form as well as additional forms may be downloaded at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/LawLibraryResourceCenter/Forms/alph
aList.asp

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/09/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367
CV 2017-053551
CV 2017-053552

07/05/2018

Docket Code 053
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CYNTHIA J. BAILEY
A. Wood

Deputy

SANDRA ZINN
SANDRA ZINN
8262 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

v.

SUSANNE HAASS, et al.
SUSANNE HAASS
20100 N 78TH PL # 1111
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

GREGG HOPLEY
8261 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255
DAWN HOPLEY
8261 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255
CARLOTTA L TURMAN
DOCKET-CIVIL-CCC
JUDGE BAILEY
JUDGE BRUCE COHEN
JUDGE CAMPAGNOLO

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367
CV 2017-053551
CV 2017-053552

07/05/2018

Docket Code 053
Form V000A
Page 2

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court received Defendant’s Pinnacle Peak Country Club Estates Association Motion
to Consolidate Related Actions filed May 24, 2018.

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Pinnacle Peak Country Club Motion to
Consolidate Related Actions.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED consolidating case numbers CV2017-053552 and CV2017-
053551 under cause number CV2017-053367 for all further proceedings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED transferring this cause to the Honorable Bruce Cohen for
all further proceedings,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Pre-Trial Conference scheduled for November
16, 2018 in CV2017-053552.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/13/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

07/10/2018

Docket Code 041
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE BRUCE R. COHEN
W. Tenoever

Deputy

SANDRA ZINN
SANDRA ZINN
8262 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

v.

SUSANNE HAASS, et al.
SUSANNE HAASS
20100 N 78TH PL # 1111
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

GARY DEAN
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
GREGG HOPLEY
8261 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255
DAWN HOPLEY
8261 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255
JOHN A KLECAN
MARK K SAHL
CARLOTTA L TURMAN
JEM WELSH
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE SET

On the Court’s own motion,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

07/10/2018

Docket Code 041
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED setting a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference on August 22, 2018 at 8:45
a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes) in this division for the purpose of establishing pretrial deadlines
in this case. The parties shall have their calendars available for this proceeding. Counsel and the
parties (if self-represented) are to appear in person before Honorable Bruce R. Cohen.

Maricopa County Superior Court
Northeast Regional Court Center
18380 N. 40th Street
Courtroom 112
Phoenix, Arizona 85032

NOTE: All court proceedings are recorded digitally and not by a court reporter.
Pursuant to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any proceeding in which a
court reporter is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30, the party must submit a
written request to the assigned judicial officer at least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the
hearing, and must pay the authorized fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial days
before the proceeding. The fee is $140 for a half-day and $280 for a full day.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/26/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

07/24/2018

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE BRUCE R. COHEN
W. Tenoever

Deputy

SANDRA ZINN
SANDRA ZINN
8262 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

v.

SUSANNE HAASS, et al.
SUSANNE HAASS
20100 N 78TH PL # 1111
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

GARY DEAN
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
GREGG HOPLEY
8261 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255
DAWN HOPLEY
8261 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255
JOHN A KLECAN
MARK K SAHL
CARLOTTA L TURMAN
JEM WELSH
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
JUDGE BRUCE COHEN

ORDER ALLOWING TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE

The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Appear Telephonically.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

07/24/2018

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Appear Telephonically at the Rule 16
Pretrial Conference set on August 22, 2018 at 8:45 a.m. in this division. Plaintiff shall call this
Division at (602) 372-0686 promptly at the scheduled time.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/10/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

08/08/2017

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSAN M. BRNOVICH
T. Pavia

Deputy

SANDRA ZINN
SANDRA ZINN
8262 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

v.

SUSANNE HAASS, et al.

GREGG HOPLEY
8261 E.VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received Defendant Greg Hopley’s Motion to Dismiss.

The Court cannot consider the Motion for a couple of reasons:

1) The pleading is an improper ex-parte communication with the Court because there is
no indication anywhere that a copy of the pleading was mailed to Plaintiff;

2) The Motion is not signed as required by Rule 11, Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant Greg Hopley’s Motion to Dismiss without
prejudice.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/24/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

08/22/2018

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE BRUCE R. COHEN
W. Tenoever

Deputy

SANDRA ZINN
SANDRA ZINN
8262 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

v.

SUSANNE HAASS, et al.
SUSANNE HAASS
20100 N 78TH PL # 1111
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

GARY DEAN
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
GREGG HOPLEY
8261 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255
DAWN HOPLEY
8261 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255
JOHN A KLECAN
CARLOTTA L TURMAN
JEM WELSH
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
DOCKET - NE
JUDGE BRUCE COHEN

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE HELD

Northeast Regional Court - Courtroom 112

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

08/22/2018

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2

8:47 a.m. This is the time set for Rule 16 Scheduling Conference. Plaintiff Sandra Zinn
is present telephonically on her own behalf. Defendants Susanne Haass, Dawn Hopley and Gregg
Hopley are present on their own behalves. Defendant Pinnacle Peak Country Club Estates
Association is represented by counsel, Carlotta L. Turman. Defendant Safeguard Security and
Communications, Inc. is represented by counsel, Robert Smith, who appears for John A. Klecan.

A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.

Discussion is held.

IT IS ORDERED amending the court docket to reflect that the law firm of Renaud Cook
Drury Mesaros is not a party but rather serve as counsel of record for Defendant Safeguard Security
and Communications Inc.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to remove Renaud Cook Drury
Mesaros as a party Defendant in this matter.

The Court notes that Defendants Gary Dean and Jem Welsh will be treated as non-
participating parties as service of process has not been effectuated.

The parties are advised that all original documents/pleadings must be filed with the Clerk
of Court and copies must be sent to every other party involved in the case.

In addition, each document must include a signed certificate that says whether it was mailed
or hand delivered, on what date it was mailed/delivered, and who the specific people and what the
specific addresses are to which copies were mailed or hand delivered. If a party is represented by
a lawyer, the copy must be sent or delivered to the lawyer, not to the party.

Ms. Zinn is advised that as to the Hopleys, she may leave copies of any previously filed
documents at the guard gate.

The Court will assume that Ms. Zinn is representing herself until an official notice of
appearance is filed on her behalf.

The Court will issue a scheduling order that sets an in-person Trial Setting Conference in
addition to ruling on Defendants’ pending Motions to Dismiss by separate minute entry.

9:33 a.m. Matter concludes.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Filed ***

08/28/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

08/23/2018

Docket Code 079
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE BRUCE R. COHEN
W. Tenoever

Deputy

SANDRA ZINN
SANDRA ZINN
8262 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

v.

SUSANNE HAASS, et al.
SUSANNE HAASS
20100 N 78TH PL # 1111
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

GARY DEAN
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
GREGG HOPLEY
8261 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255
DAWN HOPLEY
8261 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255
JOHN A KLECAN
CARLOTTA L TURMAN
JEM WELSH
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
DOCKET - NE
JUDGE BRUCE COHEN

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Both Defendant Susanne Haass (hereinafter referred to as “Haass”) and Defendants Dawn
and Greg Hopley (hereinafter referred to collectively as “Hopley”) have filed Motions to Dismiss.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

08/23/2018

Docket Code 079
Form V000A
Page 2

The court further notes that these motions have not been previously ruled upon, as specifically
noted in Judge Brnovich’s minute entry dated June 14, 2018.1

The court has considered the motions, as well as the responses filed by Plaintiff, Sandra
Zinn (hereinafter referred to as “Zinn”), the presentations made in open court on August 22, 2018,
the case file and prior orders. For the purpose of this order, the court is treating each motion as
seeking relief under Rule 12(b)(6).

Issue Presented

There are two counts that have been alleged against Haass and Hopley. The first count is
for Civil Trespass and the second count is for Conversion. Both Haass and Hopley claim or appear
to claim that Zinn failed to satisfy the “minimal notice” pleading requirements under Rule 12(b)(6).

Legal Standards and Analysis

Arizona follows a notice pleading standard.” Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352, 356
(2012), quoting Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 419 (2008). A “liberal pleading
standard” in favor of a plaintiff is to be applied. Verduzco v American Valet, 240 Ariz. 221, 225,
377 P.3d. 1016, 1020 (2016). A claim based upon fraud requires a heightened level of notice in
accordance with Rule 9(b). See Vess v Ciba-Geigy Corp USA, 317 F.3d. 1097, 1104 (9th Circuit,
2003).

The purpose of a complaint is to “give the opponent fair notice of the nature and basis of
the claim and indicate generally the type of litigation involved.” Cullen, id., quoting Mackey v.
Spangler, 81 Ariz. 113, 115 (1956). However, a complaint that states only legal conclusions,
without supporting factual allegations, does not comply with the notice pleading standard under
Rule 8. Cullen, id. If a complaint does not comply with Rule 8, the defendant may move to dismiss
for failure to state a claim. Cullen, id.; Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court will “assume the truth of the well-
pled factual allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences therefrom.” Cullen v. Auto-Owners
Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 419 (2008). The Court will grant the motion only if the plaintiff is not
entitled to relief “under any facts susceptible of proof in the statement of the claim.” ELM Ret.
Ctr., LP v. Callaway, 226 Ariz. 287, 289 (App. 2010), quoting Mohave Disposal, Inc. v. City of
Kingman, 186 Ariz. 343, 346 (1996). This level of scrutiny is particularly appropriate “given the

1 The court notes that there was an oral motion to dismiss raised by Haass that was denied but at the end of the minute
entry from June 14, 2018, Judge Brnovich specifically referenced the written motions and that they were not ripe for
judicial determination.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

08/23/2018

Docket Code 079
Form V000A
Page 3

limited record on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which does not include
disclosures, discovery or other external evidence.” Verduzco, id.

As a general policy matter, Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss are not favored under Arizona
law. State ex. rel. Corbin v. Pickrell, 136 Ariz. 589, 594, 667 P.2d 1304, 1309 (1983). That is
especially true when such motions are based on pleading insufficiencies. E.g., Cagle v. Carr, 101
Ariz. 225, 227, 418 P.2d 381, 382 (1966); see generally Rowland v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.,
210 Ariz. 530, 533, ¶10, 115 P.3d 124, 127 (App. 2005) (reversing summary judgment for
defendant and recognizing sufficiency of complaint despite “numerous technical deficiencies in
the document”). Further, a motion to dismiss is not a procedure for resolving disputes about the
facts or merits of a case. Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352, 363, ¶46, 284 P.3d 863, 874
(2012).

In addressing the specific counts, it is clear to the court that nowhere within to Complaint
does Zinn even allude to the fact that Haass had been previously residing in the residence and that
her presence therein was lawful. This court believes that this is a fact that is central to the trespass
claim. In fact, Haass supplied the court with court documentation that suggested not only that she
was permitted in and on the subject property, but that her use was to the exclusion of others. This
is quite persuasive in her favor. However, as noted above in citing Coleman, factual disputes are
not to be resolved by this procedure.

As for Hopley, a different conclusion is reached that is not based upon a factual dispute.
Nowhere within the Complaint does Zinn allege that Hopley had knowledge that Haass was not
authorized to enter the premises. It is not sufficient to state that Haass was not authorized and,
therefore, when Hopley accompanied Haass, they were not authorized. Zinn must allege some
element of knowledge that when Hopley assisted Haass, they knew or should have known that
Haass was trespassing. The mere allegation that someone entered a property is not, in itself,
sufficient to meet the threshold of trespass. There are no facts alleged even to provide notice to
Hopley to support a claim that their actions were intentional or with reckless disregard to Zinn

Therefore, only as to Hopley, the Motion to Dismiss the Civil Trespass count is well-taken.

Addressing the Conversion count, nothing factually appears within the Complaint as to
how Hopley engaged in conduct that would give rise to a Conversion claim. Rather, taken as a
whole, the Complaint alleges that it was Haass that removed property. Since the complaint
allegations against Hopley are that they exercised dominion and control over Zinn’s property, there
must be more than a conclusory legal statement to that effect for the Complaint to be supported.
None exist. At best, the interpretation of the actions alleged by Zinn against Hopley is that they
aided and abetted in some form, but that is not the claim herein.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

08/23/2018

Docket Code 079
Form V000A
Page 4

Therefore, only as to Hopley, the Motion to Dismiss the Conversion count is well-taken.

As to Haass, her “defense” is that she removed her own property. Therefore, there is at
least the minimal showing of a factual basis to support the claim of Conversion in that Zinn alleges
that Haass removed Zinn’s property. Only as to Haass, these claims made against her by Zinn may
not withstand the scrutiny of a motion for summary judgment or be sufficient for a jury to render
a verdict in favor of Plaintiff. They are, however, more than sufficient to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6)
challenge.

Conclusions of Law

Defendants Dawn and Greg Hopley have met their burden under Rule 12(b)(6) as the two
counts against them in the Complaint do not even meet the low bar of providing sufficient notice
as to the basis for the claims against them, together or individually.

Order/Ruling

IT IS ORDERED granting Dawn and Greg Hopley’s Motions To Dismiss and they
are no longer part of this litigation.

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant Haass’ Motion To Dismiss.

/s/ Bruce R. Cohen

________________________

Bruce R. Cohen

Judge of the Superior Court

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/29/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

08/23/2018

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE BRUCE R. COHEN
W. Tenoever

Deputy

SANDRA ZINN
SANDRA ZINN
8262 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

v.

SUSANNE HAASS, et al.
SUSANNE HAASS
20100 N 78TH PL # 1111
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

GARY DEAN
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
JOHN A KLECAN
CARLOTTA L TURMAN
JEM WELSH
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE BRUCE COHEN

SCHEDULING ORDER ENTERED

TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE SET

The Court orders as follows:

1. Initial disclosure: The parties have exchanged their initial disclosure statements, or
will exchange them no later than September 26, 2018.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

08/23/2018

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2

2. Expert witness disclosure: Plaintiff shall disclose areas of expert testimony by
October 10, 2018, and Defendant shall disclose areas of expert testimony by October
24, 2018.

Plaintiff shall disclose the identity and opinions of experts by November 14, 2018, and
Defendant shall disclose the identity and opinions of experts by November 28, 2018.

The parties shall simultaneously disclose their rebuttal expert opinions by December
19, 2018.

3. Lay (non-expert) witness disclosure: The parties shall disclose all lay witnesses by
November 28, 2018.

4. Final supplemental disclosure: Each party shall provide final supplemental disclosure
by January 11, 2019. This order does not replace the parties’ obligation to reasonably
disclose Rule 26.1 information on an on-going basis and as it becomes available.

No party shall use any lay witness, expert witness, expert opinion, or exhibit at
trial not disclosed in a timely manner, except upon order of the court for good
cause shown or upon a written or an on-the-record agreement of the parties.

5. Discovery deadlines: The parties will propound all discovery undertaken pursuant to
Rules 33 through 36 by February 28, 2019. The parties will complete the depositions
of parties and lay witnesses by March 28, 2019, and will complete the depositions of
expert witnesses by March 28, 2019. The parties will complete all other discovery by
March 28, 2019. (“Complete discovery” includes conclusion of all depositions and
submission of full and final responses to written discovery.)

6. Settlement conference: The parties shall participate in a mandatory Settlement
Conference. This case is referred to the Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution Office
for the appointment of a judge pro tempore to conduct a settlement
conference. Counsel and/or the parties will receive a minute entry from ADR
appointing the judge pro tempore. Counsel and any "pro per" parties will contact the
appointed judge pro tempore to arrange the date, time and location for the settlement
conference. The judge pro tempore is requested to conduct a settlement conference not
later than January 11, 2019. The Office of Alternative Dispute Resolution will not do
the scheduling of the settlement conference so please do not contact that office. If
counsel prefer to use a private mediator to conduct the Settlement Conference, a
Stipulation and Order Re: Alternative to ADR must be presented to the Court.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

08/23/2018

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 3

7. Dispositive motions: The parties shall file all dispositive motions by April 19, 2019.

8. Trial setting conference: On May 3, 2019 at 9:15 a.m., the court will conduct an in-
person trial setting conference (30 minutes allotted). Attorneys and self-represented
parties shall have their calendars available for the conference.

9. Firm dates: No stipulation of the parties that alters a filing deadline or a hearing date
contained in the scheduling order will be effective without an order of this court
approving the stipulation. Dates set forth in this order that govern court filings or
hearings are firm dates, and may be modified only with this court’s consent and for
good cause. This court ordinarily will not consider a lack of preparation as good cause.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/04/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

10/02/2018

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE BRUCE R. COHEN
W. Tenoever

Deputy

SANDRA ZINN
SANDRA ZINN
8262 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

v.

SUSANNE HAASS, et al.
SUSANNE HAASS
20100 N 78TH PL # 1111
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

JOHN A KLECAN
MARK K SAHL
CARLOTTA L TURMAN
JUDGE BRUCE COHEN

NO ACTION TAKEN ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff filed a Motion For Reconsideration on September 26, 2018. She alleges that the
court erred in its August 23, 2018 order when the court dismissed Dawn and Gregg Hopley from
this action. When considering the Motion and determining whether a responsive pleading would
be sought from Defendants Hopley in accordance with Rule 7.1(e)(2), the court found that a Notice
of Appeal had been filed by Plaintiff (September 27, 2018).

A Motion For Reconsideration is not one of the enumerated motions that allow for the
suspending of the appeal, pending determination by the trial court (Rule 9(e) of the Arizona Rules
of Civil Appellate Procedure). As such, this court does not have jurisdiction to decide the Motion
For Reconsideration since jurisdiction is now vested in the Arizona Court of Appeals. Unless
directed by the Arizona Court of Appeals to address the Motion For Reconsideration, no further
action shall be taken by this Court.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Filed ***

10/03/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

10/02/2019

Docket Code 047
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
G. Chavez

Deputy

SANDRA ZINN
THOMAS C HORNE

v.

SUSANNE HAASS, et al.
SUSANNE HAASS
20100 N 78TH PL # 1111
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

JOHN A KLECAN
MARK K SAHL
CARLOTTA L TURMAN
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK
JUDGE FLORES

JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This case was placed on the Dismissal Calendar for dismissal on September 20, 2019
unless specified action was taken before a certain date. The date has passed and the action has
not been taken.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED dismissing this case without prejudice for lack of prosecution.

/ s / HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES

HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/28/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

10/24/2019

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
G. Chavez

Deputy

SANDRA ZINN
THOMAS C HORNE

v.

SUSANNE HAASS, et al.
SUSANNE HAASS
20100 N 78TH PL # 1111
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

JOHN A KLECAN
MARK K SAHL
CARLOTTA L TURMAN
MICHAEL WELCH
JUDGE FLORES

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court received a Stipulated Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice, filed October 17,
2019. This matter was dismissed without prejudice on October 3, 2019. The case would have to
be reinstated for any additional order to be entered.

IT IS ORDERED rejecting the Stipulated Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice, filed
October 17, 2019.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

11/13/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

11/09/2018

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE BRUCE R. COHEN
W. Tenoever

Deputy

SANDRA ZINN
SANDRA ZINN
8262 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

v.

SUSANNE HAASS, et al.
SUSANNE HAASS
20100 N 78TH PL # 1111
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

JOHN A KLECAN
MARK K SAHL
CARLOTTA L TURMAN
JUDGE BRUCE COHEN

STATUS CONFERENCE SET

On the Court's own motion,

IT IS ORDERED setting a Telephonic Status Conference Re: Discovery Dispute on
November 13, 2018 at 2:30 p.m. (15 minutes allotted) in this division. Counsel for the Defendant
shall initiate the conference call by arranging for the presence of all other counsel and self-
represented parties, and by calling this division at (602) 372-0686 at the scheduled time.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

11/15/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

11/13/2018

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE BRUCE R. COHEN
W. Tenoever

Deputy

SANDRA ZINN
SANDRA ZINN
8262 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

v.

SUSANNE HAASS, et al.
SUSANNE HAASS
20100 N 78TH PL # 1111
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

JOHN A KLECAN
CARLOTTA L TURMAN
ROBERT E.M. SMITH
JUDGE BRUCE COHEN

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION

Northeast Regional Court - Courtroom 112

2:31 p.m. This is the time set for Telephonic Status Conference Re: Discovery Dispute.
Plaintiff Sandra Zinn is present on her own behalf. Defendant Susanne Haass is present on her
own behalf. Defendant Pinnacle Peak Country Club Estates Association is represented by counsel,
Carlotta L. Turman and Anjali J. Patel. Defendant Safeguard Security and Communications Inc.
is represented by counsel, Robert Smith.

A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.

Discussion is held.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

11/13/2018

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

This conference was set at the request of counsel for Defendant Pinnacle Peak. The issue
centers on the scheduling of Plaintiff’s deposition. The court will not summarize the events that
have transpired but does note that defense counsel has been extremely accommodating in arranging
for a date and time for Ms. Zinn to be deposed.

The deposition is presently noticed for November 27, 2018. Ms. Zinn asserts that her
anticipated attorney from California will not be available that date. Further, she has anticipated
travel involving care for a family member which also poses difficulties for her to submit to the
deposition on November 27, 2018. After discussion, there appears to be means by which this issue
can be resolved. This resolution includes selection of the date of first choice for Ms. Zinn and
verbal assurances that she will appear to be deposed whether accompanied by counsel or not. If
an attorney files a notice of appearance at any time before the deposition date, that attorney is
appearing subject to the scheduled deposition. The attorney’s unavailability shall not be a basis to
continue once again the deposition.

Defense counsel shall issue an amended notice of deposition for December 10, 2018 at
10:00 a.m.

IT IS ORDERED that Ms. Zinn shall appear personally and submit to the deposition on
that date at the time and location designated in the notice. Failure to appear without good cause
shall subject Ms. Zinn to sanctions.

By agreement,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED extending the deadline for disclosure of lay witnesses to
December 28, 2018.

3:05 p.m. Matter concludes.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/12/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

12/10/2018

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE BRUCE R. COHEN
W. Tenoever

Deputy

SANDRA ZINN
SANDRA ZINN
8262 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

v.

SUSANNE HAASS, et al.
SUSANNE HAASS
20100 N 78TH PL # 1111
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

CARLOTTA L TURMAN
ROBERT E.M. SMITH
JUDGE BRUCE COHEN

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION

Northeast Regional Court - Courtroom 112

10:18 a.m. Telephonic conference is held. Plaintiff Sandra Zinn is present on her own
behalf. Defendant Susanne Haass is present on her own behalf. Defendant Pinnacle Peak Country
Club Estates Association is represented by counsel, Carlotta L. Turman and Anjali J. Patel.
Defendant Safeguard Security and Communications Inc. is represented by counsel, Robert E.M.
Smith. Also present is Plaintiff’s California counsel, Michael Welch.

A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.

Discussion is held.

The court was contacted by the parties at what would have been the start of Ms. Zinn’s
deposition. In the past, she has referenced the possibility of retaining Michael Welch to represent

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

12/10/2018

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

her in this matter. Mr. Welch is licensed in California and his request for pro hac vice status in
Arizona is pending before the State Bar.

This court is disinclined to allow Mr. Welch to proceed as counsel unless and until
authorized by the State Bar. However, (and despite objection from Defendants) there is no harm
in allowing Mr. Welch to be present during Ms. Zinn’s deposition. In fact, if Mr. Welch becomes
attorney of record his presence at the deposition may help expedite the overall case plan.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the deposition of Ms. Zinn shall proceed as
scheduled. Mr. Welch may be present in the room during the deposition but shall have no right to
participate in any fashion. He shall not pass any notes or communicate in any form with Ms. Zinn
during the deposition except during breaks outside of the presence of the other parties. If Ms. Zinn
or Mr. Welch violate this order, Mr. Welch shall be required to depart for the remainder of the
deposition.

10:34 a.m. Matter concludes.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/13/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-053367

12/11/2018

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE BRUCE R. COHEN
W. Tenoever

Deputy

SANDRA ZINN
SANDRA ZINN
8262 E VISTA DE VALLE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

v.

SUSANNE HAASS, et al.
SUSANNE HAASS
20100 N 78TH PL # 1111
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85255

JOHN A KLECAN
MARK K SAHL
CARLOTTA L TURMAN
THOMAS C HORNE
JUDGE BRUCE COHEN

ORDER DEEMING MOTION TO ASSOCIATE COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE MOOT

The Court has reviewed and considered Thomas C. Horne’s Motion to Associate Counsel
Pro Hac Vice (Limited Appearance, Pending Application Completion).

IT IS ORDERED deeming Thomas C. Horne’s Motion to Associate Counsel Pro Hac Vice
(Limited Appearance, Pending Application Completion) moot given the court’s ruling of
December 10, 2018.

Documents