Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2001-002724: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Grayhawk Community Association.

Case Number

CV2001-002724

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

2/15/2001

Case Type

Civil

Judge

McDowell, David

Location

Southeast

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

No parties captured.

Minute Entries

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2001-002724
01/10/2003
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER C. REINSTEIN
A. Reinhart
Deputy
FILED: 01/15/2003
ROBERT NELSON, et al.
ELLIOT G WOLFE
v.
GRAYHAWK PROPERTIES LLC, et al.
JOSEPH B SWAN JR
JURY TRIAL &
PRETRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SET
IN CHAMBERS:
8:30 a.m. This is the time set for a telephonic pretrial conference. Plaintiff is represented
by counsel Richard Traulsen. Defendant is represented by counsel Scott Hunbel.
A court reporter is not present.
Pretrial matters are discussed.
IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
I.
Setting a Firm Jury Trial in this matter for Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at
9:30 a.m., in this division. Estimated length of trial: 6 days.
II.
Adopting by reference, as an Order of the Court, the Rule 16 Joint Pretrial
Scheduling Memorandum. The terms of the memorandum shall govern, unless inconsistent with
any provisions of this minute entry.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2001-002724
01/10/2003
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 2
III.
PRETRIAL MOTIONS
All pretrial motions, other than motions in limine shall be filed no later than 60
days before trial.
IV.
MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Any motions in limine shall be filed thirty (30) days before the PTMC and such
motions must meet the test of State v. Superior Court, 108 Ariz. 396, 397, 499 P.2d 152 (1972):
"The primary purpose of a motion in limine is to avoid disclosing to the jury prejudicial matters
which may compel a mistrial." See also, Ariz. Rules of Evidence, Rule 103(c). A written
response to a motion in limine may be filed no later than ten (10) days thereafter. The Court
will rule on the motions in limine without oral argument. No motions will be considered
outside of those filing limits. No replies shall be filed. Each motion shall be limited to one
issue and no more than 5 such motions per side will be considered by the Court.
V.
PRETRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
The Pretrial Management Conference (PTMC) is set for August 28, 2003, at
8:30 a.m., in this division
At the PTMC, counsel shall be prepared to discuss:
A.
Time limits in voir dire, opening statements, examination of witnesses and
closing arguments.
Pursuant to Rule 611(a), Arizona Rules of Evidence, the following
presumptive maximum time limits will be enforced during the trial:
• Mini-opening statements: 3 minutes each party
• Lawyer voir dire: 15 minutes each party
• Opening statements: 30 minutes each party
• Witnesses:
Direct examination: 60 minutes
Cross examination 40 minutes
Redirect examination: 15 minutes
• Closing arguments: 45 minutes each party
• Good cause must be shown for extensions
B.
Stipulations for the foundation and authenticity of exhibits.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2001-002724
01/10/2003
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 3
C.
Jury instructions (preliminary and final), juror notebooks (Counsel shall
bring any proposed jury notebooks to the Conference), mini-opening statements,
voir dire and forms of verdict.
D.
Agreed-upon deposition summaries and excerpts from deposition
transcripts and the editing of videotaped depositions.
E.
Use of "short trial" or summary jury trial.
F.
Any special scheduling or equipment issues.
G.
Status of settlement of the case.
COUNSEL WHO WILL BE THE TRIAL LAWYERS ON THE CASE ARE
REQUIRED TO ATTEND THE PRETRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE.
FAILURE OF TRIAL COUNSEL TO ATTEND THE PRETRIAL
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE MAY RESULT IN PERSONAL SANCTIONS.
VI.
JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT
The Joint Pretrial Statement (JPTS) in accordance with Rule 16(d), A.R.C.P., is
due in this Division by 5:00 p.m., five (5) judicial days before the PTMC.
In addition to the information required by A.R.C.P. Rule 16(d), Counsel shall
identify in/with the JPTS all deposition or other transcribed testimony that may be offered at
trial. The proposed testimony is to be identified by reference to page and line numbers.
Objections to such testimony, if any, and the reasons for such objections, shall also be indicated.
Along with the JPTS, Counsel shall deliver copies of the following to this
Division:
A.
Proposed voir dire questions.

B.
A joint set of agreed-upon Preliminary and Final Jury Instructions.
Before to the due date for the proposed jury instructions, counsel shall
personally consult for the purpose of preparing and submitting a joint set
of agreed-upon preliminary and final jury instructions and clean copies of
them. Counsel are requested to submit a copy of the jury instruction
requests on an IBM-compatible, double sided, high-density 3.5 diskette in
Microsoft Word 97 and a clean copy of each requested instruction. If
counsel request any of the Recommended Arizona Jury Instructions,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2001-002724
01/10/2003
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 4
counsel should submit the instruction by designating the RAJI requested
along with a clean copy of the instructions.
Non- RAJI instructions should be typed, each on a separate page with a
heading (i.e.: Plaintiff's Instruction No. 2 etc.), and provide authority for
the instruction. Please number each instruction consecutively, rather than
leaving a blank space for someone else (such as the Court) to number.
Counsel should also submit a clean copy of each non-RAJI instruction.
The Court will not start the trial if counsel have not submitted a
comprehensive set of jury instructions as indicated above.
C.
Separate sets of requested instructions that have not been agreed upon in
the form indicated in paragraph B, above. Please read Rosen v. Knaub,
175 Ariz. 329, 857 P.2d 381 (1993), and the RAJI Civil 3d Statement of
Purpose and Approach before preparing the request for non-RAJI
instructions.
D.
Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, if a request has been
or will be filed. If no proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
are received, the request shall be deemed waived. No more than 5 pages
will be considered and each issue shall be in a separate numbered
paragraph.
E.
A jointly-completed time and witness estimate form. The Court will use
the form to predict the length of the trial for the jurors and to direct
Counsel to follow the trial time limits established pursuant to paragraph
III, B, above.
F.
In jury trial cases the parties shall jointly prepare a brief summary of the
case which the Court will read to the jury at the commencement of voir
dire.
VII.
MARKING EXHIBITS
At least five (5) judicial days before the trial, the trial lawyers, or their
knowledgeable assistants, shall appear in this Division to present all exhibits. The exhibits will
be marked serially as they are listed in the LIST OF EXHIBITS - Plaintiff’s first, Defendant’s
second, which will be prepared by counsel and saved onto an IBM compatible 3.5 diskette in
Microsoft Word 97 and given to the Clerk with the exhibits. The parties shall advise the Clerk,
referring specifically to the pretrial statement, which exhibits may be marked directly in
evidence. All exhibits will be clearly labeled by Counsel to correspond with the list provided.
Counsel are directed to meet in person to exchange the exhibits before coming to court. Counsel

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2001-002724
01/10/2003
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 5
will make sure that they do not bring to the clerk a set of exhibits that include duplicate
exhibits. Counsel should not reserve exhibit numbers for "all Defendant’s exhibits," "all
Plaintiff’s exhibits," "miscellaneous demonstrative exhibits," and the like. Counsel shall also
present original depositions for filing at that time.
VIII.
SETTLEMENT
If the case is set for a jury trial, one day’s jury fees will be assessed unless the
Court is notified of settlement before 2:00 p.m. on the judicial day before trial.
If the parties wish a Settlement Conference under Rule 16.1, A.R.C.P., they are to
file a request with the Court whereupon a Judge Pro Tem will be appointed by the Alternate
Dispute Resolution Office ("ADRO"). Alternatively, the parties are encouraged to hire their
own mediator to conduct a conference.
8:36 a.m. Matter concludes.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2001-002724

04/08/2005

Docket Code 066
Form J000
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. MARGARET H. DOWNIE
A. Gonzalez

Deputy

FILED: 04/12/2005

ROBERT NELSON, et al.
ELLIOT G WOLFE

v.

GRAYHAWK PROPERTIES LLC, et al.
JOSEPH B SWAN JR.

MICHAEL A LUDWIG

CASE REASSIGNMENT - CIVIL PRESIDING JUDGE

This case was previously assigned to the Honorable Peter Reinstein. A Notice of Change
of Judge has been filed by the plaintiffs. The case was transferred to the Presiding Civil Judge
for reassignment.

IT IS ORDERED that this case be assigned to Civil Calendar CVJ-05, the Honorable
Richard J. Gama, 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 twenty days of the date of this
order.

Pending: See attached coversheet. Pending matters will be affirmed or reset by the
newly assigned division.

c: Judge Richard J. Gama.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2001-002724

04/12/2005

Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
S. Brown

Deputy

FILED: 04/19/2005

ROBERT NELSON, et al.
ELLIOT G WOLFE

v.

GRAYHAWK PROPERTIES LLC, et al.
JOSEPH B SWAN JR.

MICHAEL A LUDWIG

PRETRIAL STATUS CONFERENCE SET

This Court having received this case on reassignment,

IT IS ORDERED setting this matter for pretrial status conference on July 5, 2005 at
9:00 a.m. in this division.

HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
MARICOPA COUNTY
101 WEST JEFFERSON
EAST COURT BUILDING, 6TH FLOOR
COURTROOM/SUITE 611
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
602-506-1245

The Court has set aside 15 minutes for this conference. If all counsel feel significantly
more or less time is required for the conference, the Court should be notified immediately.

All counsel are directed to meet personally no later than 10 days prior to the Pretrial
Conference, with their respective calendars, to discuss all of the matters set forth in Rules 16(a)
and (b), A.R.C.P. Counsel shall prepare and file with the Court no later than 5 days prior to the
pretrial conference, with a copy delivered to this division, a Joint Pretrial Statement
addressing at least the following items (due date: June 28, 2005):

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2001-002724

04/12/2005

Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 2

1.
An agreed-upon schedule for completion of discovery and a list of all discovery
that has been completed through July 5, 2005. As far as can reasonably be anticipated, each
party shall set forth the depositions they anticipate taking and the approximate time required for
each; any and all medical examinations which may be required of any of the parties; the person
or persons to conduct such examinations; all requests for production; and all tangible evidence to
be disclosed or exchanged.

2.
A date for the simultaneous disclosure of expert witnesses.

3.
A date or dates for the disclosure of all non-expert witnesses.

4.
The number of additional non-uniform interrogatories requested by each party and
the reasons for the requests.

5.
The position of each counsel on whether the Rule 38.1 A.R.C.P. time limits
should be waived.

6.
A proposed date for a mandatory settlement conference pursuant to Rule 16.1,
A.R.C.P.

7.
An agreed-upon date for compliance with Rule 16(d), A.R.C.P.

8.
A proposed trial date agreed upon by all counsel.

If counsel are unable to agree on any of the items in the Pretrial Statement, the reasons
for their inability to agree shall be set forth in the Pretrial Statement.

Counsel are reminded that the Court will impose sanctions against counsel and/or their
clients for failure to participate in good faith in the Pretrial Statement for the pretrial conference.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 04/19/2002
04/17/2002
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HONORABLE COLLEEN MCNALLY
K. Ballard
Deputy
CV 2001-002724
Docket Code 019
Page 1
FILED: _________________
ROBERT NELSON, et al.
ELLIOT G WOLFE
v.
GRAYHAWK PROPERTIES LLC, et al.
JOSEPH B SWAN JR
MICHAEL A LUDWIG
RULING
The Court received Defendants Grayhawk Properties’ motion
for leave to file third party complaint, Plaintiffs' response and
Defendants' reply. The Court notes that this matter is set for
trial on July 15, 2002.
This matter is a tort action arising from a motor vehicle
accident. Plaintiffs allege negligence in the design of the road
and its median, negligence in opening the road before the
electric light signals were activated and failure to display
adequate signage to control traffic. The proposed third party
complaint seeks to raise a claim of indemnification against
proposed third party defendants arising from contracts between
Defendants and the proposed third party defendants.
The Court finds that allowing the third party complaint at
this point in the proceedings would needlessly complicate and
delay the case. The issues of law and fact regarding the tort
and contract claims are not the same. Although some matters may
overlap, the apportionment of fault and the indemnification
issues expand the nature of the litigation greatly. Granting

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 04/19/2002
04/17/2002
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HONORABLE COLLEEN MCNALLY
K. Ballard
Deputy
CV 2001-002724
Docket Code 019
Page 2
leave to file a third party complaint less than three months
before trial would result in unnecessary delay.
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants Grayhawk Properties’
motion for leave to file a third party complaint.
The parties are advised that the Court will not grant a
motion to continue or a stipulation to continue the trial date
absent good cause.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2001-002724
06/25/2003
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER C. REINSTEIN
D. Fitzpatrick
Deputy
FILED: 06/30/2003
ROBERT NELSON, et al.
RICHARD P TRAULSEN
v.
GRAYHAWK PROPERTIES LLC, et al.
JOSEPH B SWAN
MICHAEL A LUDWIG
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court having received the Defendant’s Stipulation to Continue Discovery and
Disclosure Deadline,
IT IS ORDERED approving and settling formal written Order signed by the Court on
June 23, 2003 and filed (entered) by the Clerk on June 25, 2003.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2001-002724

06/27/2005

Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
S. Brown

Deputy

FILED: 07/01/2005

ROBERT NELSON, et al.
ELLIOT G WOLFE

v.

GRAYHAWK PROPERTIES LLC, et al.
JOSEPH B SWAN JR.

MICHAEL A LUDWIG

INACTIVE CALENDAR

The Court having received Plaintiffs’ Notice of Settlement,

IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the inactive calendar for dismissal without
further notice on July 25, 2005 unless a judgment is entered or a stipulation for dismissal is
submitted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating all pending matters before the Court.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 07/17/2002
07/16/2002
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HON. MARGARET H. DOWNIE
A. Sandoval
Deputy
CV 2001-002724
Docket Code 083
Page 1
FILED: _________________
ROBERT NELSON, et al.
ELLIOT G WOLFE
v.
GRAYHAWK PROPERTIES LLC, et al.
JOSEPH B SWAN JR
MICHAEL A LUDWIG
MINUTE ENTRY
On the Court’s own motion,
IT IS ORDERED vacating the telephonic conference set for
July 29, 2002 at 8:45 a.m. in front of Judge McNally and
resetting same to July 30, 2002 at 8:45 a.m. in this division.
Plaintiffs’ counsel to initiate the call.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 08/01/2002
07/30/2002
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HON. MARGARET H. DOWNIE
L. Rasmussen
Deputy
CV 2001-002724
Docket Code 002
Page 1
FILED: _________________
ROBERT NELSON, et al.
RICHARD P TRAULSEN
v.
GRAYHAWK PROPERTIES LLC, et al.
JOSEPH B SWAN JR
MICHAEL A LUDWIG
MINUTE ENTRY
8:45 a.m. In chambers. This is the time set for
telephonic conference. Above-named counsel are present.
Court reporter is not present.
Discussion
is
interrupted
by
failure
of
telephone
communication lines.
LATER:
The parties have advised the court that they will submit a
joint pretrial memorandum for the court’s consideration.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2001-002724
08/06/2003
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER C. REINSTEIN
M. Sahli
Deputy
FILED: 08/08/2003
ROBERT NELSON, et al.
ELLIOT G WOLFE
v.
GRAYHAWK PROPERTIES LLC, et al.
JOSEPH B SWAN
MICHAEL A LUDWIG
ORAL ARGUMENT SET
The Court having received Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's
Cross Motion,
IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument for August 19, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., before:
The Honorable PETER C. REINSTEIN
Maricopa County Superior Court
Old Courthouse
125 W. Washington, Courtroom 303
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 506-6368
If counsel cite significant out-of-state case law, the Court will appreciate receiving a copy
of the case law with the Court’s copy of the pleading.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2001-002724
08/19/2003
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER C. REINSTEIN
M. Sahli
Deputy
FILED: 08/21/2003
ROBERT NELSON, et al.
ELLIOT G WOLFE
v.
GRAYHAWK PROPERTIES LLC, et al.
JOSEPH B SWAN
MINUTE ENTRY
9:30 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument re Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment and Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff is represented by
counsel, Elliot Wolfe and Richard Traulsen. Defendant Grayhawk is represented by counsel,
Joseph Swan.
Court reporter, Judie Bryant is present.
Argument is heard.
IT IS ORDERED taking the matter under advisement.
10:00 a.m. Matter concludes.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2001-002724
08/22/2003
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER C. REINSTEIN
M. Sahli
Deputy
FILED: 08/25/2003
ROBERT NELSON, et al.
ELLIOT G WOLFE
v.
GRAYHAWK PROPERTIES LLC, et al.
JOSEPH B SWAN
MICHAEL A LUDWIG
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs' Response
and the Reply. The Court has also reviewed Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment,
Defendants' Response, and the Reply. Based upon the Court's review, the Court makes the
following findings and rulings.
This case arose out of an accident that occurred on March 27, 1999, at the intersection of
East Thompson Peak Parkway and North 76th Street in Scottsdale, Arizona. The Plaintiff was
injured when his motorcycle, which was traveling west on Thompson Peak Parkway, collided
with a vehicle traveling through the intersection from the south. At the time of the accident,
traffic approaching the intersection from the north and south on 76th Street was controlled by
stop signs.
Defendants Grayhawk were involved in the development and construction of the above
intersection. This included the landscaping in the median. The Plaintiffs contend that the
landscaping plan was inappropriate for the intersection and contributed to the accident that
injured Mr. Nelson.
In 1997, Defendants Grayhawk dedicated the subject intersection to the City of
Scottsdale. The Defendants maintain that upon dedication of the intersection to the City, the
City was totally responsible for the intersection.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2001-002724
08/22/2003
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
Plaintiffs argue that Grayhawk had a non-delegable duty to construct the roadway and
intersection in a safe manner, and the fact that the roadway was dedicated to the City two years
prior to the accident does not immunize the Defendants from liability.
The question before the Court is whether as a matter of law, Grayhawk owed a duty to
maintain the intersection in a reasonably safe condition.
Both parties rely on Wiggs v. City of Phoenix, 198 Ariz. 367 (2000) to support their
positions. In Wiggs, the court found that the City of Phoenix had a non-delegable duty to
maintain its highways in a reasonably safe condition
The Court believes that both parties have briefed the issue at bar comprehensively.
However, the Court agrees with Grayhawk's analysis of the issue in this case, as set forth is
Grayhawk's Reply dated July 21, 2003.
Accordingly, the Court finds that given the underlying facts of the case, Grayhawk did
not, as a matter of law, have a duty to maintain the intersection. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED granting Grayhawk's Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2001-002724
09/02/2003
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER C. REINSTEIN
M. Sahli
Deputy
FILED: 09/04/2003
ROBERT NELSON, et al.
ELLIOT G WOLFE
v.
GRAYHAWK PROPERTIES LLC, et al.
JOSEPH B SWAN
MICHAEL A LUDWIG
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's granting
of Summary Judgment for the Defendant.
The Court declines to reconsider its prior ruling. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion for Reconsideration.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 09/17/2001
09/13/2001
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HONORABLE COLLEEN MCNALLY
K. Ballard
Deputy
CV 2001-002724
Docket Code 041
Page 1
FILED: _________________
ROBERT NELSON, et al.
ELLIOT G WOLFE
v.
GRAYHAWK PROPERTIES LLC, et al.
JOSEPH B SWAN JR
MICHAEL A LUDWIG
TELEPHONIC SCHEDULING CONFERENCE SET
Pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request,
IT IS ORDERED setting this matter for telephonic scheduling
conference on Tuesday, October 2, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiffs’
counsel shall initiate the conference call. Counsel are advised
to confer with each other in an attempt to reach an agreement
regarding pretrial deadlines and submit a written order to that
effect if an agreement can be reached prior to the conference.
Counsel should note that a pretrial management conference will
be set 10 days prior to the trial date. The Court requires
motions to be filed no less than 90 days prior to trial with the
exception of motions in limine, which must be filed no less than
20 days before the pretrial management conference. Counsel are
further advised to have their trial calendars available during
the scheduling conference.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2001-002724

09/18/2003

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER C. REINSTEIN
M. Sahli

Deputy

FILED: 09/19/2003

ROBERT NELSON, et al.
ELLIOT G WOLFE

v.

GRAYHAWK PROPERTIES LLC, et al.
JOSEPH B SWAN

MICHAEL A LUDWIG

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has reviewed the Statement of Costs submitted by Defendant along with the
form of judgment submitted. The Court has also reviewed Plaintiffs’ objection.

The Court finds that the suggested form of judgment submitted by Plaintiff is the
appropriate form for the Court’s signature. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

The Court having reviewed the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, the
Plaintiffs’ Response, the Defendants’ Reply, the Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, The Defendants’ Response and the Plaintiffs’ Reply and having heard oral argument,
finds that the Defendants Grayhawk Properties, L.L.C., Grayhawk Development, Inc., and
Grayhawk Residential, Inc. did not, as a matter of law, owe the Plaintiffs a duty regarding the
construction and maintenance of the subject intersection.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment be entered in favor of the Defendants
herein and that this action shall be dismissed, and that the Plaintiffs will take nothing by their

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2001-002724

09/18/2003

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

complaint, and that Judgment be entered in favor of Defendants herein in the amount of
$7,497.16 and for Defendants’ taxable costs incurred herein.

/ s / HONORABLE PETER C. REINSTEIN

JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 10/04/2001
10/02/2001
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HONORABLE COLLEEN MCNALLY
K. Ballard
Deputy
CV 2001-002724
Docket Code 089
Page 1
FILED: _________________
ROBERT NELSON, et al.
ELLIOT G WOLFE
v.
GRAYHAWK PROPERTIES LLC, et al.
JOSEPH B SWAN JR
MICHAEL A LUDWIG
TRIAL SET
IN CHAMBERS. This is the time set for telephonic
scheduling conference. Present by telephone on behalf of the
Plaintiffs is Richard R. Traulsen for Elliot G. Wolfe; present
by telephone on behalf of Defendants Grayhawk Development, Inc.,
Grayhawk Residential, Inc., and Grayhawk Properties, LLC is
Joseph B. Swan, Jr.; and present by telephone on behalf of
Defendant Grayhawk Community Association is Michael A. Ludwig.
No court reporter is present.
Based upon the Court's discussion with counsel, and given
the agreement of counsel,
IT IS ORDERED setting the trial to start on Monday, July
15, 2002 at 10:30 a.m. in this division, Central Court Building,
201 West Jefferson, 7th Floor, Courtroom 702, Phoenix, Arizona.
It shall be a jury trial, and it is estimated it will last seven
(7) days.
The proceeding will take place in the Superior Court’s new

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 10/04/2001
10/02/2001
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HONORABLE COLLEEN MCNALLY
K. Ballard
Deputy
CV 2001-002724
Docket Code 089
Page 2
“e-courtroom”. A record of the proceedings may be made by
videotape in lieu of a court reporter. Should you want an
unofficial copy of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may
give the Court a blank, previously unused videotape at least
fifteen (15) minutes before the trial and a copy will be made at
no cost. A specific type of videotape must be used for this
system in order to ensure the most reliable record: Maxell or
Fuji Super HG 120 (VHS) or equivalent. If the proceedings last
for more than one day, a new tape must be provided each day.
For the convenience of the parties, the store in the courthouse
cafeteria sells the appropriate videotape. The Court can also
provide a digital log, if the party provides an unused CD-R.
Should an official transcript be required, you may request
that the Court prepare it. The party ordering the transcript
must pay for it. With this new technology, a court reporter is
likely not required and the parties are encouraged to experience
the Court's video recording system before requesting a court
reporter. If a court reporter is required, the Court must
receive a written request at least 48 hours before the
commencement of the proceeding. Failure to timely request a
court reporter will be deemed consent to proceed without a court
reporter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the deadlines and agreements
set
forth
in
the
parties’
joint
comprehensive
pretrial
conference memorandum except as they conflict with the following
deadlines. The Court’s deadlines shall control.
IT IS ORDERED that simultaneous disclosure of expert
witnesses and their opinions shall be made on February 28, 2002.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all parties shall disclose
supplemental or rebuttal experts and opinions by March 28, 2002.
IT IS ORDERED setting a pretrial management conference on
Friday, June 28, 2002 at 11:00 a.m. in this division. The Court
has allotted 30 minutes for said conference. The purpose of the

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 10/04/2001
10/02/2001
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HONORABLE COLLEEN MCNALLY
K. Ballard
Deputy
CV 2001-002724
Docket Code 089
Page 3
conference is to hear oral argument on pending motions in limine
and to discuss various pretrial matters, including objections to
deposition testimony, exhibits and/or witnesses, review proposed
voir dire and settle jury instructions, so that jury selection
can
commence
on
July
15,
2002.

If
all
counsel
feel
significantly more or less time is required for the conference,
the Court should be notified immediately.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the joint pretrial statement in
accordance with Rule 16(d), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure,
proposed voir dire and jury instruction are all due by 5:00 p.m.
two business days before the pretrial management conference. In
addition to the information required by Rule 16(d), counsel are
to identify in the joint pretrial statement all deposition or
other transcribed testimony that may be offered at trial, other
than for impeachment. The proposed testimony is to be
identified by reference to page and line numbers. Objections,
if any, to such testimony, and the reasons for such objections,
are also to be set forth.
COUNSEL ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO PROVIDE THE COURT WITH
COPIES OF ALL CASES AND STATUTES CITED IN MEMORANDA AND
PLEADINGS, WHICH THEY WANT THE JUDGE TO READ AND CONSIDER,
CONCERNING THE MOTION(S) TO BE RULED ON, INCLUDING ARIZONA CASES
AND STATUTES.
BASED UPON THE TRIAL SETTING, THE COURT ENTERS THE
FOLLOWING ORDERS:
1. No less than two judicial days prior to the pretrial
management conference, counsel (or the parties) shall file:
A.
Requested jury instructions, and any
voir dire questions counsel wish the
Court to ask.
The
Judge
would
appreciate
counsel

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 10/04/2001
10/02/2001
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HONORABLE COLLEEN MCNALLY
K. Ballard
Deputy
CV 2001-002724
Docket Code 089
Page 4
providing a copy of the non-R.A.J.I.
jury
instruction
requests
on
IBM-
compatible
double-sided,
high-density
3.5 inch diskettes, in Microsoft Word.
B.
Any trial memoranda (optional).
C.
Agreed-upon instructions on substantive
issues which may be read to the jury at
the beginning of the case to assist
them in understanding the law. If
counsel cannot agree on the law to be
read
or
the
instructions
are
not
provided, the Court will read only the
standard and preliminary instructions
set out in R.A.J.I. (which counsel need
not provide to the Court.)
2.
Motions in limine, which must meet the test of State
v. Superior Court, 108 Ariz. 396, 499 P.2d 152 (1972): "The
primary purpose of a motion in limine is to avoid disclosing to
the jury prejudicial matters which may compel a mistrial," shall
be filed 20 days prior to the pretrial management conference.
Written Responses to motions in limine may be filed no later
than 10 days prior to the pretrial management conference.
3. All motions (except motions in limine) shall be filed
no later than 90 days prior to trial so they can be scheduled,
briefed, argued and decided prior to trial.
4. All exhibits are to be exchanged between the parties
30 days before trial so that objections can be made at the
pretrial management conference. Written stipulations to admit
specific exhibits in evidence are encouraged. All objections to
known exhibits and witnesses must be made before or during the
pretrial management conference. At least one week before trial,
the trial lawyers shall make an appointment for themselves or
their knowledgeable assistants to meet with the clerk of this

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 10/04/2001
10/02/2001
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HONORABLE COLLEEN MCNALLY
K. Ballard
Deputy
CV 2001-002724
Docket Code 089
Page 5
division to present all exhibits. The exhibits will be marked
serially
as
they
are
listed
in
the
pretrial
statement
(Plaintiff's first, Defendant's next). Counsel shall inform the
clerk at the time for marking of the exhibits that are to be
received directly into evidence pursuant to written stipulation.
5. The Court encourages the use of juror notebooks in
appropriate cases. Stipulating the contents in evidence is
necessary. Key exhibits may be included, along with diagrams,
photographs, timelines, non-argumentative summaries of positions
on liability and damages and other information helpful to
jurors.
6. Full and fair statements of all experts’ opinions and
their factual bases shall be filed and delivered 90 days before
trial. Opinions of experts fairly sought and revealed in
deposition or other discovery shall not be supplemented at
trial.
7. The witness and exhibit lists in the pretrial statement
shall contain no surprises; any information revealed for the
first time on the witness or exhibit lists will be inadmissible
at trial.
8. Narrative summaries with brief excerpts of deposition
question and answer testimony are preferred at trial rather than
the reading in of pages of testimony or the playing of the
videotaped deposition.
9. All documents and pleadings described above shall be
delivered or telefaxed to opposing counsel on the date they are
delivered to the Court.
10. Any stipulation to continue trial will be treated as a
joint motion. Local Rule 3.4 provides that "no trial
continuance shall be granted unless there is a showing of good
cause." Accordingly, a trial continuance will not be granted

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 10/04/2001
10/02/2001
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HONORABLE COLLEEN MCNALLY
K. Ballard
Deputy
CV 2001-002724
Docket Code 089
Page 6
unless there is a showing of good cause, regardless of whether
the parties stipulate to the continuance.
11. If this matter settles, the parties are to notify the
Court immediately as required in Local Rule 2.10. If the Court
is not notified of a settlement before 2:00 p.m. one judicial
day prior to trial, either or both of the parties shall be
responsible for the jury fees pursuant to Rule 2.6, Local Rules
of Practice.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 10/28/2002
10/23/2002
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HON. MARGARET H. DOWNIE
L. Rasmussen
Deputy
CV 2001-002724
Docket Code 023
Page 1
FILED: _________________
ROBERT NELSON, et al.
RICHARD P TRAULSEN
v.
GRAYHAWK PROPERTIES LLC, et al.
JOSEPH B SWAN
MICHAEL A LUDWIG
MINUTE ENTRY
Pursuant to Rule 7.1(e), Ariz.R.Civ.P., plaintiffs shall
file a response to defendants' motion for reconsideration within
10 days. No reply or oral argument is requested.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED ***
MARICOPA COUNTY 11/20/2002
11/15/2002
CLERK OF THE COURT
FORM V000A
HON. MARGARET H. DOWNIE
A. Reinhart
Deputy
CV 2001-002724
Docket Code 019
Page 1
FILED: _________________
ROBERT NELSON, et al.
ELLIOT G WOLFE
v.
GRAYHAWK PROPERTIES LLC, et al.
JOSEPH B SWAN
MICHAEL A LUDWIG
CONFERENCE SET
The
Court
has
considered
Defendant’s
Motion
for
Reconsideration
and
Plaintiff’s
response.
Judge
McNally’s
earlier ruling denying leave to file a third party complaint was
only partially based on the then-pending trial date.
IT
IS
ORDERED
denying
Defendant’s
Motion
for
Reconsideration.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a telephonic conference
before Judge Peter Reinstein for January 8, 20031, at 9:00 a.m.
At that time, the Court will discuss the recently filed joint
pretrial scheduling memorandum, adopt appropriate deadlines, and
set a trial date.

1 Effective December 16, 2002, Judge Peter Reinstein, CCB 1101, will assume Judge
Downie’s calendar.

Documents