Member Standing & Association Records | A.R.S. § 33-1805 | CV2015-091129
In this Maricopa County Superior Court case, two plaintiffs sued the Westglen Villas Homeowners Association and an individual co-defendant. On the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment, Judge David K. Udall held that a jury should decide whether the defendants violated the duties owed to the plaintiffs and whether they violated A.R.S. § 33-1805 as to Christine Davis — but that co-plaintiff David Opstein, who is not a member of the homeowners association, had no standing on the statutory count, which was dismissed against him with prejudice.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Christine Davis, et al. v. Westglen Villas Homeowners Association Inc, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2015-091129.
Scope note: This page covers Christine Davis, et al. v. Westglen Villas Homeowners Association Inc, et al. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2015-091129) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, centered on the March 31, 2016 under-advisement ruling on the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the collected minute entries end with a November 28, 2016 order denying the plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the case to the active calendar and compulsory arbitration. They do not show a trial, judgment, or other final disposition, so the ultimate outcome of the case is not reflected in these records. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The superior court largely denied the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. On Count 1, the court found “there is enough evidence to go to the jury on the question of whether or not Defendants violated the duties owed to the Plaintiffs.” On Count 2, breach of A.R.S. § 33-1805, it found enough evidence for a jury as to plaintiff Christine Davis. But the court found that co-plaintiff David Opstein “is not a member of the Homeowners Association and has no standing with respect to this Count”, granted the motion against him on Count 2, and dismissed that count as to him with prejudice. Opstein’s Count 1 claim survived.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Christine Davis (Plaintiff)
Lead plaintiff. The court found enough evidence for a jury on both of her claims — Count 1 (duties owed to the plaintiffs) and Count 2 (breach of A.R.S. § 33-1805) — and denied the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment as to her on both counts. - David Opstein (Plaintiff)
Co-plaintiff. The court found he is not a member of the homeowners association and has no standing on the A.R.S. § 33-1805 count, which was dismissed against him with prejudice; his Count 1 claim survived summary judgment. - Erin Selene Iungerich (Counsel)
Counsel of record for plaintiffs Christine Davis and David Opstein throughout the collected minute entries. - James Roger Wood (Counsel)
Appeared at the March 31, 2016 oral argument on behalf of Erin Iungerich for the plaintiffs.
Respondent Side
- Westglen Villas Homeowners Association Inc (Defendant)
Homeowners association defendant. Its motion for partial summary judgment was denied as to Christine Davis on both counts and granted only as to David Opstein’s statutory count. - Phil Gardner (Defendant)
Individual co-defendant named alongside the association. The collected minute entries do not describe his role further. - Terry Wayne Straughn (Counsel)
Counsel of record for the defendants; argued the motion for partial summary judgment at the March 31, 2016 hearing.
Neutral Parties
- David K. Udall (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who presided over the collected minute entries, heard the March 31, 2016 oral argument, issued the under-advisement ruling the same day, and denied the November 2016 motion to reinstate.
What happened
Christine Davis and David Opstein sued the Westglen Villas Homeowners Association Inc and Phil Gardner in Maricopa County Superior Court under case number CV2015-091129. Erin Selene Iungerich represented the plaintiffs and Terry Wayne Straughn represented the defendants. The collected minute entries pick up in late 2015, with a defense motion for partial summary judgment already pending. The complaint itself is not among these records, but the court’s later ruling shows the case included at least two counts: Count 1, addressing whether the defendants violated the duties owed to the plaintiffs, and Count 2, alleging breach of A.R.S. § 33-1805 — the Arizona Planned Communities Act provision governing association records.
On November 20, 2015, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to continue the deadline for responsive pleadings, extending the plaintiffs’ time to respond to the pending motion for partial summary judgment through November 23, 2015. After receiving and reviewing the motion, the response, and the reply, Judge David K. Udall issued a January 11, 2016 order setting a one-hour oral argument for March 18, 2016 at the Southeast Courthouse in Mesa.
Oral argument was ultimately held on the morning of March 31, 2016. Counsel James Roger Wood appeared on behalf of Erin Iungerich for the plaintiffs, who were not present; Terry Straughn appeared for the defendants, who were also not present. After argument running from 9:02 to 9:26 a.m., the court took the motion under advisement.
The court issued its under-advisement ruling the same day. On Count 1, it found “there is enough evidence to go to the jury on the question of whether or not Defendants violated the duties owed to the Plaintiffs.” On Count 2, breach of A.R.S. § 33-1805, it found enough evidence for a jury as to Christine Davis. As to David Opstein, however, the court found he “is not a member of the Homeowners Association and has no standing with respect to this Count.” The court therefore denied the motion as to Davis on Counts 1 and 2 and as to Opstein on Count 1, granted the motion against Opstein on Count 2, and dismissed Count 2 with prejudice as to him.
The final collected minute entry is dated November 28, 2016: the court received, considered, and denied the plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate to Active Calendar and Compulsory Arbitration. The collected minutes do not show a trial, judgment, or other final disposition, so how the case ultimately ended is not reflected in these records.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/christine-davis-v-westglen-villas-homeowners-association/raw/: 5 PDFs. Files are ordered by the date/sequence embedded in the normalized filename; AI-generated review materials are labeled separately and should not be treated as court filings.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Oral Argument Set
Type: Court/source PDF
Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.
Under Advisement Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
FAQ
What did the court decide in the March 31, 2016 ruling?
It mostly denied the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. The court found enough evidence for a jury on Count 1 — whether the defendants violated the duties owed to the plaintiffs — and on Count 2, the A.R.S. § 33-1805 claim, as to Christine Davis. The only relief the defendants won was against co-plaintiff David Opstein: his Count 2 claim was dismissed with prejudice because he is not a member of the homeowners association and had no standing under that count.
Why was David Opstein’s statutory claim dismissed?
Standing. The court found that Opstein “is not a member of the Homeowners Association and has no standing with respect to this Count”, so it granted the defendants partial summary judgment on the A.R.S. § 33-1805 count as to him and dismissed it with prejudice — meaning he cannot refile it. His Count 1 claim, however, survived and was allowed to proceed.
What is A.R.S. § 33-1805?
It is the provision of Arizona’s Planned Communities Act that governs members’ access to a homeowners association’s records. The minute entries identify Count 2 only as “breach of ARS 33-1805” and do not describe the underlying factual allegations. What the ruling does show is who could pursue the claim: the court let it go to a jury for member-plaintiff Christine Davis, while dismissing it for David Opstein because he is not a member of the association.
Does denial of summary judgment mean the plaintiffs won?
No. Denying summary judgment means only that the court found “enough evidence to go to the jury” — a jury would still have to decide whether the defendants actually violated the duties owed to the plaintiffs or A.R.S. § 33-1805. The collected minute entries do not include a trial or verdict, so these records do not show who ultimately prevailed.
What is an under-advisement ruling?
When an Arizona superior-court judge takes a motion “under advisement” after briefing or argument, the later written decision is filed as an under-advisement ruling in the court’s minute entries. These rulings are the trial court’s substantive written decisions — here, the March 31, 2016 ruling set out the court’s findings on each count and its orders on the motion for partial summary judgment — and they are public records available through the Clerk of the Superior Court.
How did the case end?
The collected minute entries do not say. The last entry, dated November 28, 2016, denies the plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate to Active Calendar and Compulsory Arbitration; no trial, judgment, or dismissal order appears in the collected records after the March 2016 ruling. Superior-court decisions also bind only the parties to the case and are not precedent for other Arizona HOA disputes.
Case Dossier
This generated dossier mirrors the structured data surfaced on the OAH/ADRE case pages. It is added from the curated court-case record and the custom page source package, while the hand-authored analysis below remains intact.
Case Summary
| Case ID / citation | CV2015-091129 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | March 31, 2016 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. David K. Udall |
| Parties | Christine Davis and David Opstein (Plaintiffs) v. Westglen Villas Homeowners Association Inc and Phil Gardner (Defendants) |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | meetings-and-recordsprocedure |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court denied the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment as to Christine Davis on both counts, finding enough evidence to go to the jury on whether the defendants violated the duties owed to the plaintiffs and whether they violated A.R.S. § 33-1805, and as to David Opstein on Count 1; but it granted the motion against Opstein on the A.R.S. § 33-1805 count and dismissed it as to him with prejudice because he is not a member of the homeowners association and has no standing. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 5 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 5 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | No video embed currently configured |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Christine Davis and David Opstein sued the Westglen Villas Homeowners Association Inc and Phil Gardner in Maricopa County Superior Court. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment on two counts: Count 1, addressing whether the defendants violated the duties owed to the plaintiffs, and Count 2, alleging breach of A.R.S. § 33-1805, the Planned Communities Act provision governing association records. After oral argument on March 31, 2016, Judge David K. Udall issued an under-advisement ruling the same day denying the motion as to Davis on both counts — finding enough evidence to go to the jury — and as to Opstein on Count 1, but granting it against Opstein on Count 2 because he is not a member of the homeowners association and has no standing; that count was dismissed as to him with prejudice. The collected minute entries end with a November 28, 2016 order denying the plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the case to the active calendar and compulsory arbitration, and do not show a trial or final judgment.
The March 31, 2016 under-advisement ruling followed full briefing and a morning oral argument the same day, after which the court took the motion under advisement. On Count 1, the court found “there is enough evidence to go to the jury on the question of whether or not Defendants violated the duties owed to the Plaintiffs”, so summary judgment was inappropriate as to both plaintiffs on that count.
On Count 2, breach of A.R.S. § 33-1805, the court drew a line between the two plaintiffs based on association membership. As to Christine Davis, it found enough evidence for a jury on whether the defendants violated the statute, and denied the motion. As to David Opstein, the court found he “is not a member of the Homeowners Association and has no standing with respect to this Count” — so it granted the defendants partial summary judgment against him on Count 2 and dismissed that count as to him with prejudice, while his Count 1 claim survived.
The ruling left the surviving claims for a jury, but the collected minute entries do not show a trial or verdict. The last collected entry, dated November 28, 2016, denies the plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate to Active Calendar and Compulsory Arbitration, and the ultimate disposition of the case is not reflected in these records.
The ruling is a compact illustration of who may enforce Arizona’s planned-community statutes. The court dismissed the A.R.S. § 33-1805 count brought by a plaintiff who is not a member of the homeowners association — with prejudice — for lack of standing, while letting the identical count proceed for the member plaintiff. For anyone considering a records-related claim against an HOA, membership in the association was the threshold the court applied before reaching the merits.
It also shows what surviving summary judgment does and does not mean: the court’s finding of “enough evidence to go to the jury” kept the claims alive but decided nothing about who was right. Because the collected minute entries end in November 2016 without a trial or judgment, these records show the procedural posture rather than a final winner. As a superior-court decision, the ruling binds only the parties and is not precedent.