02/10/2006 — CV2005015360 MOBBS, STACY K 02/10/2006 HONORABLE PETER SWANN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-015360
02/10/2006
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER SWANN
D. Kenney
Deputy
FILED: 02/13/2006
NORTH CANYON RANCH OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV
v.
STACY K MOBBS
STACY K MOBBS
23650 N 36TH DR
GLENDALE AZ 85310
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court having received Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant’s
Response, Plaintiff’s Reply and related briefings thereto,
IT IS ORDERED setting this matter for Oral Argument on March 10, 2006 at 9:15 a.m.
(time allotted: 15 minutes), in this Division.
HONORABLE PETER B. SWANN
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
OLD COURT HOUSE
125 W. WASHINGTON
2nd FLOOR, COURTROOM 202
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-7959 TEL
602-372-8545 FAX
The Court notes that all pending motions shall be heard at Oral Argument.
03/10/2006 — CV2005015360 MOBBS, STACY K 03/10/2006 HONORABLE PETER SWANN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-015360
03/10/2006
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER SWANN
D. Kenney
Deputy
FILED: 03/14/2006
NORTH CANYON RANCH OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV
v.
STACY K MOBBS
STACY K MOBBS
23650 N 36TH DR
GLENDALE AZ 85310
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
MINUTE ENTRY
9:00 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument re: Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment. Plaintiff is represented by counsel, Augustus Shaw, IV. Defendant is present on her
own behalf.
Court reporter, Judie Bryant, is present.
Oral argument is heard.
The Court has considered oral argument and rules as follows:
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment for failure to
comply with ARCP 56(c)(2). The Court notes that the inadequacy of the Motion renders
unlikely any award of fees.
The Court further notes that there appears from the briefing that has been submitted, no
dispute of fact that the principal and interest due for 2004 and 2005 have not yet been made by
Ms. Mobbs. The Court further notes a dispute over the proper amount of those payments and is
unable to discern from any evidence in the record the basis of Plaintiff’s calculations.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-015360
03/10/2006
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall participate in a mandatory Settlement
Conference. This case is referred to the court's Alternative Dispute Resolution 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 Office of Alternative Dispute Resolution will not do
the scheduling of the settlement conference so please do not contact that office.
All counsel and their clients, or non-lawyer representatives who have full and
complete authority to settle this case, shall personally appear and participate in good faith
in this settlement conference, even if no settlement is expected.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the judge pro tempore to submit to this Court, a
report on the status of this matter and indicating whether the parties have settled this matter and
the matter should be dismissed or whether this matter should be set for an evidentiary
proceeding.
9:35 a.m. Hearing concludes.
04/06/2006 — CV2005015360 MOBBS, STACY K 04/06/2006 HONORABLE PETER SWANN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-015360
04/06/2006
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER SWANN
D. Kenney
Deputy
FILED: 04/10/2006
NORTH CANYON RANCH OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV
v.
STACY K MOBBS
STACY K MOBBS
23650 N 36TH DR
GLENDALE AZ 85310
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received a “Request for Order Requiring Defendant to Follow Ethical
Standards”.
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Request.
The Court notes that ER 4.2 applies only to lawyers, and there is nothing inappropriate
about contact between opposing non-lawyer litigants.
The Court has also received correspondence from Defendant indicating that Mr. Shaw
has attempted to collect disallowed by the Court through homeowner association billings. The
Court cannot determine whether Defendant has sent copies of such correspondence to Mr. Shaw,
and she is directed to certify to the Court that she has done so. Though Mr. Shaw has received
the communications, Ms. Mobbs may not communicate ex-parte with the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED admonishing Mr. Shaw that the Court has not granted any
request for fees. Any attempt by Mr. Shaw to circumvent the Court’s order and bill Defendant
for the fees incurred in this matter would – if it occurred – serve as grounds for sanctions against
him.
05/01/2006 — CV2005015360 MOBBS, STACY K 05/01/2006 HONORABLE PETER SWANN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-015360
05/01/2006
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER SWANN
D. Kenney
Deputy
FILED: 05/02/2006
NORTH CANYON RANCH OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV
v.
STACY K MOBBS
STACY K MOBBS
23650 N 36TH DR
GLENDALE AZ 85310
MINUTE ENTRY
On the Court’s own Motion,
IT IS ORDERED setting Status Conference in this matter on May 9, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.
(time allotted: 15 minutes), in this Division.
HONORABLE PETER B. SWANN
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
OLD COURT HOUSE
125 W. WASHINGTON
2nd FLOOR, COURTROOM 202
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-7959 TEL
602-372-8545 FAX
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all parties and/or their counsel shall personally appear
for the Status Conference set herein. No telephonic appearances will be permitted by the Court.
05/09/2006 — CV2005015360 MOBBS, STACY K 05/09/2006 HONORABLE PETER SWANN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-015360
05/09/2006
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER SWANN
D. Kenney
Deputy
FILED: 05/12/2006
NORTH CANYON RANCH OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV
v.
STACY K MOBBS
STACY K MOBBS
23650 N 36TH DR
GLENDALE AZ 85310
MARK E LINES
RICHARD E CHAMBLISS
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
STATE BAR OF ARIZONA
MINUTE ENTRY
10:02 a.m. This is the time set for Status Conference. Plaintiff is represented by counsel,
Mark Lines. Defendant is present on her own behalf.
Court reporter, Judie Bryant, is present.
Discussion is held.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT that Plaintiff’s counsel is advised that no attorney’s fees
will be awarded in this case, based upon the Court’s earlier ruling on plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment and its concern over counsel’s subsequent conduct.
The Court notes its disappointment regarding the professional conduct of Mr. Shaw in
this matter. This is a small case – exclusive of fees and interest, the amount sought to be
collected was less than $400.00. Though the Court has previously agreed that Plaintiff would
have been entitled to summary judgment on the principal amount due, the Motion for Summary
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-015360
05/09/2006
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 2
Judgment was unaccompanied by a statement of facts or evidence that would have permitted
calculation of that amount.1 Had the Motion been prepared in a manner consistent with Rule
56(c), this matter could have been resolved efficiently. Had Mr. Shaw presented Ms. Mobbs
with accurate billing records, a motion would likely not have been required at all. Indeed, Ms.
Mobbs has indicated her willingness to stipulate to judgment in the amount due, and she has
attempted in good faith to pay far more than that amount simply to dispose of this litigation.
[Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, at 3] Sadly, however, this case
has become an example of the risk to the public of abusive litigation practices run amok. The
Court is simply a forum for the resolution of disputes, not a weapon to be used to generate
leveraged fee awards.
After the Court indicated that there would likely be no award of fees in this case,
Defendant was billed approximately $6,000 for Plaintiff’s fees. Though this billing was
retracted after Ms. Mobbs brought the matter to the Court’s attention, Mr. Shaw continued to
demand that she “settle” the case for $2,000.00 – more than 400% of the amount actually owed.
Coupled with this monetary demand (which counsel could not justify at today’s hearing) was a
demand that Defendant drop complaints that she had filed with the State Bar of Arizona against
Mr. Shaw and with the State Board of Accountancy against a member of the Association. The
Court is not privy to the contents of these complaints and expresses no view on their merit. But
the use of a threat of continued litigation in an attempt to dispense with possible disciplinary
proceedings is highly inappropriate.
The Court specifically noted to Mr. Shaw at the March 10, 2006 hearing the unlikelihood
of any award of fees being entered in this matter and admonished Mr. Shaw of the same in the
Court’s minute entry dated April 6, 2006. Although the Court recognizes its obligation to award
reasonable attorney’s fees when warranted in cases such as this, it is the Court’s view that no
award of attorney’s fees would be reasonable in this matter and that any fees incurred would be
outweighed by an award of damages to Ms. Mobbs pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-349. Mr. Line’s
citation in open court of Heritage Heights Homeowners Ass’n. v. Esser, 115 Ariz. 330 (Ct. App.
1977), for the proposition that the Court is required to award fees regardless of their
disproportionality to the amount in controversy is unavailing. The contractual language at issue
in that case required an award of “all attorneys’ fees and costs.” Here, both the contract and the
statute require an award of “reasonable” fees, and counsel conceded in open court that the
determination of reasonableness is one for the Court.
Compounding the Court’s concern is Mr. Shaw’s filing of a plainly frivolous motion –
purportedly pursuant to ER 4.2 -- to prohibit Ms. Mobbs from contacting her own homeowner’s
association regarding this matter. As a nonlawyer, Ms. Mobbs is not bound to the strictures of
1 To the extent that there might be other amounts due, such as late fees and other fines to support the $1,479 lien, the
motion was not accompanied by evidence that substantiated or explained such liabilities. At today’s status
conference, counsel conceded that “a final determination of the amounts chargeable pursuant to the governing
documents” has still not yet been made – despite the filing of the Motion for Summary Judgment months earlier.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-015360
05/09/2006
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 3
ER 4.2. The Court has also reviewed Mr. Shaw’s March 21, 2006 correspondence to Ms. Mobbs
in this regard, and finds it to be abusive and inconsistent with the fundamental principles of
professionalism sought to be advanced by the Supreme Court and the State Bar.2 Lawyers
should perform their function with the dignity rightly expected of officers of the Court. When a
lawyer communicates in such fashion while representing a client in connection with a judicial
proceeding, the profession as a whole suffers, and mounting public criticism of lawyers is more
difficult to defend.
IT IS ORDERED endorsing this minute entry to the State Bar of Arizona.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the appointment of Judge Pro Tempore Richard
Chambliss in this matter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Bench Trial on May 15, 2006 at 10:45 a.m. (30
minutes) before:
HONORABLE PETER B. SWANN
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
OLD COURT HOUSE
125 W. WASHINGTON
2nd FLOOR, COURTROOM 202
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-7959 TEL
602-372-8545 FAX
THIS IS A FIRM TRIAL SETTING.
The Court further notes that Plaintiff may submit a stipulated form of Judgment
containing an accounting of unpaid assessments and interest collected thereon prior to trial.
Upon approval of the proposed Judgment, the Court shall vacate the trial.
10:37 a.m. Hearing concludes.
2 The correspondence began:
Ms. Mobbs:
I HAVE WARNED YOU TIME AND TIME AGAIN NOT TO CONTACT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. YOU
ARE NOT THE ASSOCIATION’S ATTORNEY AND MUST REFRAIN FROM GIVING THE ASSOCIATION
ADVICE. SINCE YOU DO NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THIS, I WILL SAY IT AGAIN. IF YOU
CONTACT THE ASSICIATION WITHOUT FIRST CONTACTING ME ONE MORE TIME. [sic] I WILL FILE
A MOTION WITH THE COURT TO REQUEST THAT YOU BE CENSORED. ALL COMMUNICATION GOES
THROUGH ME AND THEN I WILL PRESENT IT TO THE ASSOCIATION.
(Emphasis in original).
05/15/2006 — CV2005015360 MOBBS, STACY K 05/15/2006 HONORABLE PETER SWANN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-015360
05/15/2006
Docket Code 081
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER SWANN
D. Kenney
Deputy
FILED: 05/17/2006
NORTH CANYON RANCH OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV
v.
STACY K MOBBS
STACY K MOBBS
23650 N 36TH DR
GLENDALE AZ 85310
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court having approved Plaintiff’s Stipulated Judgment on Foreclosure on May 12,
2006,
IT IS ORDERED vacating Bench Trial set in this matter this date.
07/18/2006 — CV2005015360 MOBBS, STACY K 07/18/2006 HONORABLE PETER SWANN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2005-015360
07/18/2006
Docket Code 905
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER SWANN
D. Kenney
Deputy
FILED: 07/20/2006
NORTH CANYON RANCH OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV
v.
STACY K MOBBS
STACY K MOBBS
23650 N 36TH DR
GLENDALE AZ 85310
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received correspondence re: lis pendens in this matter. Final judgment has
already been entered. Absent a properly framed motion under a rule permitting post-judgment
relief, no further action by the Court is warranted.
