Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2006-008033: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Montelena Master Community Association.

Case Number

CV2006-008033

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

5/26/2006

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Herrod, Michael

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

No parties captured.

Minute Entries

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/07/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
01/03/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
T. Melius
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
FRANCES J HAYNES
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
WILLIAM J SIMON
SEAN P ST CLAIR
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and reviewed Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude
Testimony of Lynn Idleman as to “Industry Practice” in the Alternative, Motion to Allow
Disclosure and Presentation of Expert Testimony on the Issue filed November 26, 2007.
Pursuant to Rule 7.1(b), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court deems the failure to
respond within the time permitted by the rules to be a consent to the granting of the motion. In
addition, the Court has considered the motion(s) and all attachments.
Oral argument has been requested. In order to expedite its business, the Court determines
pursuant to Rule 7.1(c)(2) of Civil Procedure that this matter shall be decided without oral
argument.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony of Lynn Idleman as to “Industry
Practice” in the Alternative, Motion to Allow Disclosure and Presentation of Expert Testimony
on the Issue is GRANTED.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/07/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
01/04/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
T. Melius
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
FRANCES J HAYNES
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
WILLIAM J SIMON
SEAN P ST CLAIR
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and reviewed all the Defendants’, except Requip, L.L.C., Motion
For Partial Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike the same.
Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Defendants’ Motion For Partial Summary Judgment is
DENIED.
Defendants’ motion is not fully briefed. Once it has been fully briefed the Court will
issue a ruling.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/10/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
01/04/2008
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
T. Melius
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
FRANCES J HAYNES
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
WILLIAM J SIMON
SEAN P ST CLAIR
KIRSTEN L COPELAND
MINUTE ENTRY
IN CHAMBERS: 2:25 p.m. This is the time set for telephonic Status Conference in this
matter. Plaintiff is represented by counsel, Kirsten L. Copeland. Defendants are represented by
counsel, William J. Simon and Sean P. St. Clair.
Court reporter is not present.
Case status is discussed.
IT IS ORDERED vacating the 5-day Bench Trial date set in this matter for January 15,
2008.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a stay in this matter will not be issued in this matter
until the Court rules on the Apportionment issue.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall Response to the Motion for
Apportionment by January 25, 2008. Defendants shall reply on or before February 5, 2008.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
01/04/2008
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting Oral Argument on the Motion for Apportionment
on February 15, 2008, at 11:15 a.m. (15 min.) before:
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
Judge of Superior Court of Arizona
125 W. Washington - OCH
Courtroom 103 – 1st Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 506-6538
The Court will not honor agreements by the parties to modify the briefing schedule set
forth in the Rules of Civil Procedure unless it is notified by stipulation in writing of the terms of
the agreement before the rule-imposed deadline expires and the motion is fully briefed at least 5
judicial days prior to the hearing.
Counsel and any self-represented parties are advised that the Clerk of the Maricopa
County Superior Court has converted its case files to an electronic format and case files are
no longer made available to the divisions. Therefore it is imperative that counsel follow
Maricopa County Local Rule 3.2 which requires counsel to deliver copies of motions and
responses to the division.
2:45 p.m. Conference concludes.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/26/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
01/23/2009
Docket Code 530
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
L. Nixon
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
FRANCES J HAYNES
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
M & I MARSHALL ILSLEY BANK
P O BOX 366
SUN PRAIRIE WI 53590-0366
JAMES J OSBORNE
WILLIAM J SIMON
SEAN P ST CLAIR
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK
DEPUTY CT ADMINISTRATOR,
COURTWIDE SERVICES
DOCKET-CIVIL-CCC
E-FILE CASE MANAGEMENT
FILE ROOM-CSC
CASE DESIGNATED FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE COURT'S E-FILING PROGRAM
The Superior Court is transitioning civil cases to an electronic filing system. Pursuant to
Administrative Order 2007-140,
IT IS ORDERED that all pleadings in this case be electronically filed.
ALL PLEADINGS NOT eFILED WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE DIVISION
UNTIL PROPERLY eFILED. If service has not yet been completed as to some or all of the
Defendants, it is the Plaintiff's responsibility to forward this minute entry to later appearing
parties.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
01/23/2009
Docket Code 530
Form V000A
Page 2
You may now choose to use the Clerk of Court hosted eFiling system, or one of the
Court's qualified eFiling service providers to electronically file your pleadings. Please visit the
following web site for more information on your options for eFiling.
http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov
To assist in the transition to eFiling, the Office of the Clerk of the Superior Court has
prepared instruction and training concerning the eFiling system. All parties and attorneys of
record in this case are strongly encouraged to study this material before the mandatory eFiling
date. The web site address for training materials is:
http://eventures.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/training.asp
Additionally, please be sure to review the eFiling Guidelines set forth by Administrative
Order 2007-140 at the following web site address:
https://efiling.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/efilingguidelines
Upon the mandatory eFiling date, all attorneys of record shall eFile all pleadings in
accordance with the guidelines set forth in Administrative Order 2007-140. Self-represented
parties or pro per litigants, and other case participants like Mediators, Arbitrators, and Special
Discovery Masters are strongly encouraged to eFile all pleadings. If a self-represented party, or
other case participant chooses to file their pleading in paper, they shall include a notation just
under the case number on the first page of the pleading that the case is an “EFILE CASE”.
The eFiling system can be accessed from any computer that has an Internet connection.
Free internet access terminals are available in the Superior Court Law Library, and other public
locations such as most public libraries.
Where filing fees may incur on an electronic filing, they may be paid by credit card at the
time of filing if the filing party choose to use a qualified eFiling service provider. If the filing
party chooses to use the Clerk of Court's hosted eFiling system, the filing party will be contacted
by the Clerk's Office by phone for credit card payment. If we are unable to process payment by
phone, the filing party will be billed by the Billing Unit of the Clerk of Superior Court.
eFiled Orders from the Court will be distributed to attorneys in the same manner each
attorney has elected to receive Minute Entries from the Court. Attorneys may enroll with the
Clerk of the Court to receive their Minute Entries electronically via e-mail. The Minute Entry
Distribution Agreement form may be downloaded at:

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
01/23/2009
Docket Code 530
Form V000A
Page 3
http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/forms.asp
NOTE: COUNSEL SHALL UPLOAD AND E-FILE ALL PROPOSED ORDERS IN
WORD FORMAT TO ALLOW FOR POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS BY THE COURT.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PARTIES SHALL PROVIDE THIS DIVISION WITH HARD
COPIES OF ANY DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS, THE RESPONSES, REPLIES AND ANY
FILED DOCUMENT THAT EXCEEDS 10 PAGES, INCLUDING ANY EXHIBITS AND
ATTACHMENTS.
Motion practice: The movant determines the caption of the filing and all captions on
subsequent related filings shall bear the same designation. For example, the filing of a motion
captioned "Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Negligence" shall result in any
subsequent related filings referring to that title in the caption: "Plaintiff's Response to
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Negligence." No response to a motion shall
contain a separate motion, except in the case of a cross-motion bearing the same designation.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/19/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
02/15/2008
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
L. Nixon
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
FRANCES J HAYNES
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
WILLIAM J SIMON
SEAN P ST CLAIR
MINUTE ENTRY
11:15 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument on Defendants’ Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, United Metro Materials Inc., is represented by counsel, Kirsten L.
Copeland for Frances J. Haynes. Defendants, US Development Land LLC and Western Surety
Company, are represented by counsel, William J. Simon. Defendants, Beazer Homes Holdings
Corp., Standard Pacific of Arizona Inc., Montelena Master Community Association, and
Compass Bank, are represented by counsel, Sean P. St. Clair.
Court Reporter, Scott Coniam, is present and a record of the proceedings is made by audio
and/or videotape.
Argument is heard.
The parties both request oral argument on the form of the judgment to be entered.
IT IS ORDERED taking these matters under advisement.
11:34 a.m. Hearing concludes.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/20/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
02/19/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
L. Nixon
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
FRANCES J HAYNES
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
WILLIAM J SIMON
SEAN P ST CLAIR
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has had Defendants, Beazer Homes Holding Corp., Standard Pacific of
Arizona, Inc., U.S. Development Land, LLC, Montelena Master Community Association, and
Western Surety Company’s Motions For Partial Summary Judgment under advisement and
enters the following ruling.
FACTS
1.
Defendants moved for Partial Summary Judgment against Plaintiff, United Metro
Materials, Inc. dba Rinker Materials (“Rinker”) on the issues of whether and how
Rinker’s Mechanic’s Lien (the “Lien”) is to be apportioned among the lots and tracts
which comprise the development known as Montelena and/or including the tracts
deeded to the Town of Queen Creek.
2. The Montelena subdivision is comprised of 403 lots and 27 tracts for a total of 430
parcels.
3.
Tracts A through F and H through W are common areas owned by the Montelena
Master Community Association.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
02/19/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
4. Tracts G, X, Y, and A-A were deeded to the Town of Queen Creek and are
designated as public parks and open space.
5. On March 15, 2005, ReQuip, L.L.C. entered into a construction contract whereby
ReQuip was to, among other things, install onsite and offsite roadways at Montelena.
6. Rinker furnished road materials to ReQuip for improvements to the Montelena
Subdivision.
7. ReQuip ceased operating in December, 2005, and failed to pay Rinker.
8. Rinker recorded a Notice and Claim of Lien (the “Lien”) against Montelena on March
9, 2006, and served a copy on the owners of the property. The Lien covered all the
lots and tracts in Montelena, except the tracts deeded to the Town of Queen Creek.
RULING
Defendants contend that Rinker’s lien must be apportioned equally among all the lots and
tracts in Montelena, including Tracts W, X, Y, and A-A which were deeded to the Town of
Queen Creek.
Plaintiff, Rinker claims that because the Lien attached to the residential lots (1-403) and
Tracts A through F, and H through W and not to tracts X, Y, and A-A, which were deeded to the
Town of Queen Creek, the Lien can only be apportioned among the parcels to which it attached.
In Wahl v. Southwest Savings& Loan Association, 12 Ariz. App. 90, 467 P.2d 930
(1970) the court held that a mechanic’s lienor cannot apportion its lien only to those lots on
which its lien has priority, but, rather the lien had to be apportioned among all the lots to which it
attached, saying:
“…we have concluded that the primary intent of the legislature was to relate
mechanics’ and materialmen’s liens to the particular building or improvement to which
their services or materials have contributed value…. Further, we do not believe that he
legislature intended that the priority given by A.R.S. § 33-962 to mechanic and
materialman lien claimants would be greater in amount than the reasonable value of
materials furnished for the actual buildings or improvements concerning which priority is
granted” 12 Ariz. App. 90, 99.
In CS & W Contractors, Inc. v. Southwest Savings & Loan Association, 180 Ariz. 167,
883 P.2d 404 (1994) our Supreme Court said:
“A lienor cannot extract the improvements made to several lots from fewer than
all those lots. Apportionment is required when the superior lien runs to fewer than all the
total number of improved lots.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
02/19/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3
Wahl did not address the issue of the value or method of apportionment when
improvements benefit all lots in a subdivision instead of individual lots. Basic
infrastructure such as roads, sewers, and water lines, benefit the entire subdivision and
are only fortuitously located on any given lot. Each lot is equally benefited. Every
future homeowner will use the same streets, water lines, sewers, and fire hydrants. The
‘equitable principle’ in Wahl requires proof of specific benefit to specific lots in a
subdivision when the value of that benefit is easy to determine. But if all lots benefit
equally from infrastructure an equal apportionment is satisfactory, unless the claimant
can prove disproportionate value was put into a lot over which it had priority.” 180 Ariz.
167, 169.
Applying these principles to this case the Court concludes that Rinker’s materials, which
were used for the roadways, benefited the entire subdivision, including the areas deeded to the
Town of Queen Creek. The fact that Rinker has no lien rights against the Town of Queen Creek
is no different than the situation in Wahl where the lien claimant did not have priority against
most of the lots that were benefited. The tracts deeded to the Town of Queen Creek certainly
benefited by having roads built to them and the residential lots and common area tracts should
not be charged with the cost of running the roads past the Town’s tracts.
The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion For Partial Summary Judgment as follows:
Rinker’s lien must be apportioned amongst all the lots and tracts in Montelena, including the
tracts deeded to the Town of Queen Creek. The facts presented to the Court in the motion papers
do not specifically spell out the lineal footage of the roads which border the tracts deeded to the
Town as opposed to the lineal footage of all other the lots and tracts in Montelena, not do they
give the square footage of each lot and tract for use as a means to fairly apportion Rinker’s lien.
However, Exhibit A attached to Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts indicates that at least one of the
tracts deeded to the Town of Queen Creek is substantially larger than a residential lot.
The Court suggests that the most logical way to apportion Rinker’s lien would be based
on the total square footage of each of the parcels. Absent the receipt of such information from
the parties, the Court is left with only the illogical option to apportion Rinker’s lien equally
among the 430 parcels, with each parcel bearing the equivalent of 1/430 of the total lien.
The parties may submit additional briefing concerning the best method of apportionment
or simply stipulate to a form of judgment.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/26/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
03/23/2007
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
W. Yank
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
P O BOX 52140
PHOENIX AZ 85072
KIRSTEN L COPELAND
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
WILLIAM J SIMON
SEAN P ST CLAIR
TRIAL SETTING
9:08 a.m. This is the time set for a Status Conference in this matter. Plaintiff is
represented by counsel, Kirsten Copeland. Defendants are represented by counsel, William
Simon and Sean St. Clair.
Court Reporter, Scott Coniam, is present.
The parties have stipulated to a schedule for dates for disclosure and submit the proposed
schedule to the court. Discussion is held thereon.
IT IS ORDERED adopting the dates set for discovery as set forth in the parties’ joint
pretrial scheduling memorandum filed March 21, 2007 with the following additions and
modifications:
Dispositive motions shall be filed no later than November 16, 2007.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
03/23/2007
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 2
Whether the trial set this day is a trial to the court or a jury trial is to be
determined. Counsel for the Plaintiff shall notify the court on or before March 30, 2007
as to her client’s preference as Defendants are requesting a trial to the court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Status Conference in this matter on September
24, 2007 at 8:45 a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes), in this Division.
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
Judge of Superior Court of Arizona
125 W. Washington - OCH
Courtroom 103 – 1st Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 506-6538
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in no less than five days prior to the Status Conference
set herein, the parties shall submit a joint memorandum supplementing the previous joint
memorandum and reporting the history and status of the efforts at Alternative Dispute Resolution
pursuant to ARCP Rule 16(g).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting this matter for a 5-day Trial (Jury or Bench, to be
determined) for January 15, 2008 1 at 9:30 a.m. in this division.
THIS IS A FIRM TRIAL SETTING
NO CONTINUANCE SHALL BE GRANTED
Trial days are normally 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Tuesday through Friday.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED all dispositive motions shall be filed at least 90 days before
trial. Motions in limine shall be filed in accordance with Rule 7.2, Ariz.R.Civ.P. Motions not
filed in accordance with these deadlines will not be considered.
A joint pretrial statement (JPTS) is due five judicial days before the trial. The following
shall be filed with the JPTS:
A.
A list of the names of all witnesses who may testify to be read to the jury.

1 One day’s jury fees will be assessed unless the court is notified of settlement by 2:00 p.m. on the judicial day
before trial.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
03/23/2007
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 3
B.
A set of agreed-upon jury instructions with an additional copy on a disk, in
Word format.
C.
Separate sets of requested instructions that have not been agreed upon
with an additional copy on a disk, in Word format.
D.
Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (if a request for same has
been or will be filed).
E.
A stipulated brief summary of the case, which the court can read at the
outset of voir dire.
All exhibits shall be exchanged 30 days before trial. Counsel shall confer
regarding exhibits so duplicates are avoided and list any stipulations to those exhibits
which can be received in evidence. At least ten days before trial, counsel or their
knowledgeable assistants shall call the division clerk at (602) 506-3553 to discuss
procedures for marking exhibits. Original depositions are provided to the clerk for the
record and not marked as exhibits.
If discovery issues should arise, the aggrieved party should submit a letter to the court
outlining the problem and proposed resolution(s). The other party may respond in writing within
forty-eight (48) hours. The court will either rule by minute entry or initiate a conference call.
9:26 a.m. Matter concludes.
TRIAL MANAGEMENT ORDER
PURPOSE: These trial procedures are designed to enhance jury comprehension of the
facts and issues; to assist counsel in making the maximum, effective use of their trial time; and to
assure the “just, speedy and inexpensive determination” of the parties’ dispute.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
Voir dire. Counsel may conduct a limited and reasonable examination of the
panel following the Court’s questioning. In the normal case, 15 to 20 minutes is reasonable.
Jury “conditioning” will not be allowed. Use of “mini-openings” before voir dire in lieu of a
brief statement of the case will be discussed with counsel at the pretrial management conference.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
03/23/2007
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 4
2.
Time allocations. The Court may make tentative, reasonable, presumptive time
allocations for each side. If so, your time will be charged when you have the floor, e.g., voir
dire, opening statement, direct examination, cross-examination, closing argument and lost time
caused by failure to have witnesses available. You will be regularly informed of time used and
time remaining. As this case proceeds, the court will consider the necessity of imposing
presumptive time limits on the parties.
3.
Notification of order of proof. Each side will notify the other on a “rolling” forty-
eight hours’ basis of the order in which witnesses will be called. From time to time, counsel may
be asked to inform the jury of their order of proof. (Witnesses may be scheduled out of order on
agreement of counsel or, if necessary, by order of Court.)
4.
Absent witnesses. The Court encourages the use of brief, agreed-upon deposition
summaries. If the deposition was videotaped, the Court encourages use of a brief, edited extract
of pertinent portions of the deposition. Videoconferencing may be arranged at the offering
party’s expense.
5.
Bench conferences are discouraged. They interrupt the trial, show a certain
rudeness in excluding the jury and do not fool the jurors, who understand that someone is trying
to keep information from them. If counsel wishes to be heard on an objection outside the
presence of the jury, he or she need merely indicate such, and the Court will direct inquiring
counsel to move to another subject. The matter will be considered at the next available recess.
One exception is jury questions. Counsel may be called to the bench when they are submitted.
6.
Jury questions will be reviewed with counsel and, if appropriate, answered at the
first available opportunity.
7.
Introduction of witnesses. If counsel wish, they may introduce each witness to
the jury after the witness is sworn and before the witness begins his or her testimony. An
introduction might include the witness’ name and occupation and a brief summary of the
witness’s proposed testimony. Alternatively, the Court will not sustain an objection to an
opening question such as, “Please tell the jury who you are and why you are here.”
8.
Expert opinions. Counsel are strongly encouraged to elicit the expert’s opinion at
the earliest, available opportunity. The hypothetical question has been abolished, and the
witness’ qualifications should have been established before trial. In the first two to five minutes,
the jury should know who the witness is and why the witness is present.
9.
Expert witnesses’ resumes (brief and descriptive) will be admitted over a hearsay
objection. Questions of length and content will be resolved before trial.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
03/23/2007
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 5
10.
Objections will be stated succinctly and clearly without extended dissertation or
argument. The Court will supply the jury with a glossary of terms, which includes a definition of
some common objections, at the time the Court reads the preliminary instructions. A copy of the
glossary is attached.
11.
Permission to approach and/or publish. Counsel need not ask the Court’s
permission to approach the clerk or a witness, nor need counsel ask the Court’s permission to
publish or pass an exhibit to the jury.
12.
Interim commentaries. On request, counsel may be permitted to give interim
commentaries as the case progresses. Commentaries will consist of statements of fact as to
evidence presented or to be presented and will not contain argument.
13.
Microphones. Because of the acoustics of our courtroom, it is often difficult to
hear a speaker. For the benefit of the jurors and court staff, it is appreciated if all speakers use
the assistance of a microphone, whether at the podium or the attorney tables. A microphone is
also provided for witnesses.
14.
Technology. Counsel are encouraged to make maximum, effective use of the
many forms of trial and courtroom technology which are available. Counsel should ensure that
the technology is appropriately set up and working properly before its use is attempted in court.
15.
Daily schedule. A trial day is from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., with lunch usually
from noon until 1:30 p.m., one fifteen-minute break in the morning and one in the afternoon.
16.
Trial interruptions. Trial will not be interrupted for discussion of legal matters.
The Court is available daily before or after trial or during regular recesses to consider such
matters.
Glossary: (to be supplied to the jurors)
Some Words and Phrases You May Hear
During the trial, you may hear these words or phrases:
“Deposition.” A deposition is the testimony of a witness taken before trial. The witness is
placed under oath, and the lawyers may ask questions. The questions and answers are recorded.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
03/23/2007
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 6
“Disclosure.” Our rules require the parties to exchange certain information before trial. An
objection of “non-disclosure” is a claim that the other party has not disclosed the information before
trial.
“Discovery.” Discovery is another way the parties may obtain information from other
parties or third persons before trial. Depositions and interrogatories are examples of discovery.
“Foundation.” An objection to lack of foundation is a claim that more preliminary
information is needed before a question can be answered or a document admitted into evidence.
“Hearsay.” Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the contents of
the statement. Hearsay is generally not admissible. There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule,
and some out-of-court statements are not hearsay.
“Interrogatory.” An interrogatory is a written question submitted before trial to a party or
witness to be answered under oath.
“Leading.” A leading question is one which suggests the answer. The law prefers the
answer to come from the witness’s own knowledge and words. Leading questions are sometimes
allowed; examples are cross-examination of an opposing party or hostile witness, preliminary
questions and questions about technical subjects.
“Rule____.” Proceedings in court are governed by rules of evidence and rules of procedure.
A lawyer may cite a specific rule in arguing for or against an objection.
“Voir dire.” This French phrase means “to tell the truth.” It describes a preliminary
examination of a witness or juror sworn to tell the truth. Jury selection is often referred to as “voir
dire.” An opposing lawyer may ask to “voir dire” a witness to ask questions about a document or
testimony the witness is about to offer.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/04/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
04/02/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
L. Nixon
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
FRANCES J HAYNES
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
REQUIP L L C
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
WILLIAM J SIMON
SEAN P ST CLAIR
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion For Attorneys’ Fees and Taxable
Costs, Defendants’ Response, and Plaintiff’ Reply; Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Defendants’
Response to Plaintiff’s Motion For Attorneys’ Fees and Taxable Costs as Untimely and
Defendants’ Response; Defendants’ Objections To Statement of Costs; Plaintiff’s Proposed
Form of Partial Final Judgment and Defendants Objection to Plaintiff’s Form of Partial Final
Judgment; Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Apportioning The Amount of Plaintiff’s
Lien and Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and Response to Memorandum in Support of
Apportioning the Amount of Plaintiff’s Lien; and enters the following rulings and orders.
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion For
Attorneys’ Fees and Taxable Costs as Untimely is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration regarding equitable apportionment is
DENIED.
3. IT IS ORDERED setting a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion For Attorneys Fees and
Costs and Defendants’ objections thereto, on April 18, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
04/02/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a hearing on the proposed forms of partial final
judgment on April 18, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.
5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the proper
apportionment of the liability of Plaintiff’s lien on April 18, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. (90
minutes; each side will have 45 minutes). Counsel’s witnesses and exhibits should
address the following issues at a minimum:
A. Calculation of the square footage of the lots and tracts claimed to have been
benefited by Plaintiff’s materials;
B. Calculation of the lineal footage of those portions of the lots and tracts bordering
streets and/or other improvements claimed to have been benefited by Plaintiff’s
materials;
C. The location of the roads and other improvements which Plaintiff’s materials were
used to construct;
D. Evidence regarding the uses made of the tracts dedicated to the Town of Queen
Creek and their relationship to the improvements made with the Plaintiff’s materials;
and
E. Any other evidence which supports any party’s position on the proper
apportionment of the lien.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/22/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
04/18/2008
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
L. Nixon
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
FRANCES J HAYNES
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
WILLIAM J SIMON
SEAN P ST CLAIR
KIRSTEN L COPELAND
MINUTE ENTRY
Prior to commencement of this hearing, Defendants’ Exhibit 1, and Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2
through 8 are marked for identification.
9:30 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys Fees
and Costs and Objections, and Evidentiary Hearing re Issue of Proper Apportionment of the
Liability of Plaintiff’s Lien. Plaintiff, United Metro Materials Inc, is represented by counsel,
Kirsten L. Copeland for Frances J. Haynes. Defendants, U.S. Development Land LLC, and
Western Surety Company, are represented by William J. Simon. Defendants, Beazer Homes
Holdings Corp., Standard Pacific of Arizona Inc., Montelena Master Community Association,
and Compass Bank, are represented by Sean P. St. Clair.
Court reporter, Scott Coniam is present and a record of the proceedings is made by audio
and/or videotape.
Oral argument is heard on the Issue of Proper Apportionment of the Liability of
Plaintiff’s Lien.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
04/18/2008
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2
James N. Carlson is sworn and testifies.
Defendants’ exhibit 1 is received in evidence.
James N. Carlson testifies further.
IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.
Argument is heard on Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.
Defendants ask the Court for leave to file amended objections to Plaintiff’s Application
for Attorneys Fees submitting a more detailed statement of their objections. Defense counsel
shall have until Friday, April 25, 2008, to file their amended objections. Plaintiff’s counsel shall
have 2 weeks from then to file a response regarding these amended objections.
Plaintiff’s counsel shall have until 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 23, 2008, to file a
supplemental fee application regarding attorneys fees incurred since the previous filing.
Defendant shall be allowed to file a response by 4:30 p.m. on Friday, April 25, 2008. Once fully
briefed, the Court shall rule on these matters.
Plaintiff’s Exhibits 3 and 4 are received in evidence.
Further discussion is held.
10:24 hearing concludes.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/23/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
04/21/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
L. Nixon
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
FRANCES J HAYNES
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
WILLIAM J SIMON
SEAN P ST CLAIR
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court, having conducted an Evidentiary Hearing on the issue of the apportionment of
the amount of Plaintiff’s lien, enters the following ruling.
The evidence produced at the hearing clearly established that the materials supplied by
the Plaintiff (asphalt base course, “ABC”), were used only on the interior roadways of the
Montelena subdivision. Exhibit 1 in evidence.
The Court had been under the impression, that Tracts G, X, Y, and AA were serviced by
the roads constructed by use of Plaintiff’s ABC.
The Court was mistaken. None of the interior streets in the subdivision, on which
Plaintiff’s materials were used, serviced Tract G. Tract G is separated from the nearest street by
a common area planted and turf according to Mr. Carlson.
There are only six points in the subdivision at which the interior streets contact Tracts
AA, X and Y and five of six of those are at cul-de-sacs. Those particular points abut a 10 to
15-foot wide public equestrian trail.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
04/21/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
Mr.Carlson specifically testified that the streets were put in for the benefit of the
homeowners in the subdivision.
Because the streets constructed by the use of Plaintiff’s materials do not directly benefit
any of the tracts owned by the Town of Queen Creek, and because the Plaintiff’s lien did not
extend to those tracts, there can be no apportionment of the lien amount to those tracts. Adams
Tree Service, Inc. v. Transamerica Title Insurance Company, 20 Ariz. App. 214, 218 511 P.2d
658 (App. 1973) Accordingly that part of the Court’s February 19, 2008, minute entry which
states:
“The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as follows:
Rinker’s lien must be apportioned amongst all the lots and tracts in Montelena, including
the tracts deeded to the Town of Queen Creek”
is vacated. Plaintiff’s lien extends only to the 426 residential lots in this subdivision.
Once the issue of Plaintiff’s claims for attorneys fees have been resolved, Plaintiff shall
submit an appropriate form of judgment reflecting this ruling.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/09/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
05/07/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
L. Nixon
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
FRANCES J HAYNES
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
WILLIAM J SIMON
SEAN P ST CLAIR
KIRSTEN L COPELAND
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees
and Taxable Costs, Defendants’ Response, Plaintiff’s Reply, and Plaintiffs’ Supplemental
Application for Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Defendants’ Response to Supplemental Application
for Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Plaintiff’s Reply, Plaintiff’s Supplemental Application for Costs
and Defendants’ Response, and having heard the arguments of counsel and considered the cases
cited, makes the following ruling.
Plaintiff’s Applications for Award of Attorneys’ Fees are GRANTED in the total sum of
$200,312.65. The court reduced that applications for attorneys fees in the following amounts:
Wooten Application:

$14,892.50
Lewis and Roca Original Application: $41,038.50, and
L & R Supplemental Application: $ 5,819.50
Total Reduction

$61,750.50

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
05/07/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
The court reduced the block billed amounts by 20%. Welch v. Metropolitasn Life
Insurance Company, 480 F. 3d 942 (9th Cir. 2007). In the exercise of its discretion the court also
made partial reductions on Plaintiff’s applications for unclear reasons for conferences and no
recitation of who attended, charges made on other cases, charges for the transfer of the file from
attorney Wooten, charges for work on unjust enrichment and quantum merit claims, and work on
claims that were decided against Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s application for taxable costs is GRANTED in the sum of $3622.08.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/21/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
05/18/2007
Docket Code 002
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
M. Corriveau
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
FRANCES J HAYNES
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
REQUIP L L C
ATTN: ROBERT LUIS
24215 N 14TH ST
PHOENIX AZ 85024
WILLIAM J SIMON
MATTHEW A KLOPP
CHEIFETZ IANNITELLI MARCOLINI
1850 N CENTRAL AVE 19TH FL
PHOENIX AZ 85004
MINUTE ENTRY
IT IS ORDERED approving Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Debtor’s Exam Without
Prejudice and vacating hearing currently set on May 21, 2007 in this division.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/23/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
05/21/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
L. Nixon
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
FRANCES J HAYNES
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
REQUIP L L C
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
WILLIAM J SIMON
SEAN P ST CLAIR
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and reviewed the Supplemental Reply in Support of Motion for
Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Taxable Costs or in the alternative Motion for Reconsideration
filed by Plaintiff.
The Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. Plaintiff is correct in pointing out that
the Court’s ruling although made on the same day that the Supplemental Reply was filed, was
made without benefit of reviewing the Supplemental Reply.
The Court spent a substantial amount of time reviewing the “block billing” time entries
made by Plaintiff’s counsel because of Defendant’s citation to the 9th Circuit’s opinion in Welch
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2007). Neither side initially cited the Court
to Orfaly v. Tucson Symphony Society, 209 Ariz. 260, 99 P.3d 1030 (App. 2004) or State v.
Gravano, 210 Ariz. 101, 108 P.3d 251 (App. 2005), in which both Divisions One and Two of our
Court of Appeals found that the “block billing” did not run afoul of Schweiger v. China Doll
Restaurant, Inc., 138 Ariz. 183, 673 P.2d 927 (App. 1983).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
05/21/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
Defendants Response to the Motion for Reconsideration shall be filed no later than
June 6, 2008, and shall specifically address the issue of block billing in light of the Gravano and
Orfaly opinions.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/13/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
06/11/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
L. Nixon
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
FRANCES J HAYNES
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
WILLIAM J SIMON
SEAN P ST CLAIR
MINUTE ENTRY
The court has received and reviewed Plaintiff’s Supplemental Reply In Support Of
Motion For Award Of Attorneys’ Fees And Taxable Costs or, in the Alternative, Motion For
Reconsideration, and Defendants’ Response.
The court, hereby revises its award of attorneys fees awarded to Plaintiff from
$200,312.65 to $235,456.15, to eliminate most of its prior discount attributable to the issue of
“block billing”. The court finds that Arizona law does not require an automatic reduction in
attorneys fees for block billing. Orfaly v. Tucson Symphony Society, 209 Ariz. 260, 99 P.3d
1030 (App. 2004) and State v. Gravano, 210 Ariz. 101, 108 P.3d 251 (App. 2005).

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/26/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
09/24/2007
Docket Code 028
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
S. Bindenagel
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
P O BOX 52140
PHOENIX AZ 85072
KIRSTEN L COPELAND
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
WILLIAM J SIMON
STATUS CONFERENCE SET
8:51 a.m. This is the time set for a Status Conference in this matter. Plaintiff is
represented by counsel, Kirsten L. Copeland. Defendants are represented by counsel, William J.
Simon.
A recording of this proceeding is made by CD (FTR) in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held.
The Court is advised depositions are being taken. The Court confirms the trial date
previously scheduled.
IT IS ORDERED extending the settlement conference deadline to October 31, 2007.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Status Conference in this matter on December 3,
2007, at 9:30 a.m. (15 min.) in this division. The parties may appear telephonically. Plaintiff
shall initiate the conference call.
9:01 a.m. Matter concludes.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
09/24/2007
Docket Code 028
Form L000
Page 2
Counsel and any self-represented parties are advised that the Clerk of the Maricopa
County Superior Court has converted its case files to an electronic format and case files are
no longer made available to the divisions. Therefore it is imperative that counsel follow
Maricopa County Local Rule 3.2 which requires counsel to deliver copies of motions and
responses to the division.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/27/2006 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
09/25/2006
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE BARRY C. SCHNEIDER
W. Yank
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
PHILIP R WOOTEN
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
WILLIAM J SIMON
MINUTE ENTRY
The court has received Defendants U.S. Development Land, L.L.C., Western Surety
Company, Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., Standard Pacific of Arizona, Inc., and Montelena
Master Community Association’s Motion to Dismiss Counts Five and Six of Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint, the Response, and the Reply.
The court notes oral argument has been requested. Pursuant to Rule 7.1(c)(2), Arizona
Rules of Civil Procedure, the court determines that, in order to expedite its business, this matter
shall be decided without oral argument. The court is fully informed of the issues.
IT IS ORDERED GRANTING said motion.
The court agrees with movants that the economic loss rule bars recovery.
In addition, if Defendants failed to provide the information required by A.R.S. § 33-
992.01(I), the statute itself provides Plaintiff with an adequate remedy by prohibiting the owner
or other interested party from raising as a defense any inaccuracy in the preliminary twenty (20)
day notice.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/10/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
10/08/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
L. Nixon
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
FRANCES J HAYNES
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
WILLIAM J SIMON
SEAN P ST CLAIR
MINUTE ENTRY
The court, having received and reviewed Defendants’ Motion to Alter or Amend the
Judgment Entered on July 29, 2008, Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Alter or Amend the
Judgment and Objection to Proposed Form of Amended Judgment, and Defendants’ Reply to
Response to Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment, enters the following ruling.
Defendants’ Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment Entered on July 29, 2008 is
DENIED.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff is only entitled to recover damages and attorney’s fees in
an amount that does not exceed the value of the bond. A.R.S. §33-1004(E) states that a
judgment for a claimant on the bond “shall be against the principal and his sureties.” The
judgment recites that it is limited to the penal sum of the bond.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/01/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
10/31/2007
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
E. Parrish
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
FRANCES J HAYNES
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
SEAN P ST CLAIR
MATTER TAKEN UNDER ADVISMENT
8:47 a.m. This is the time set for an Oral Argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions
for Failure to Disclose. Plaintiff is represented by counsel, Frances J. Haynes and Kirsten
Copeland. Defendants are represented by counsel, William J. Simon.
Court Reporter, Scott Coniam, is present.
Discussion is held regarding Plaintiff’s Rinker Materials’ Motion for Protective Order re:
Deposition of Lynn Idleman. Plaintiff informs the Court that this motion has been withdrawn.
Defendants request an order from the Court giving them consent to take the deposition of Lynn
Idleman.
IT IS ORDERED Defendant may take the deposition of Lynn Idleman. Counsel will
make every effort to work together to set up the deposition.
Discussion is held regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint. The Court shall review the briefs on this matter.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
10/31/2007
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2
Oral argument is presented to the Court regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for
Failure to Disclose.
IT IS ORDERED taking Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Disclose under
advisement.
9:10 a.m. Hearing concludes.
Counsel and any self-represented parties are advised that the Clerk of the Maricopa
County Superior Court has converted its case files to an electronic format and case files are
no longer made available to the divisions. Therefore it is imperative that counsel follow
Maricopa County Local Rule 3.2 which requires counsel to deliver copies of motions and
responses to the division.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/07/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
11/01/2007
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
T. Melius
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
FRANCES J HAYNES
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
SEAN P ST CLAIR
BARRY C SCHNEIDER
ORAL ARGUMENT SET
The Court is in receipt of the following Motions:
1. Plaintiff Rinker Materials’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment #3 re: (1)
Validity of Rinker Materials’ Lien Claim as to Entire Montelena Subdivision
Property; and (2) Owner Defendants’ Counterclaim;
2. Plaintiff Rinker Materials’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment #2 re: Validity
of Notice and Claim of Lien as to USDL and Beazer Homes;
3. Renewed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Defendants U.S.
Development Land, LLC, Western Surety Company, Beazer Homes Holdings
Corp., Standard Pacific of Arizona, Inc., and Montelena Mater Community
Association; and
4. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Defendant U.S. Development Land,
LLC, Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., and Standard Pacific of Arizona, Inc., re:
Count Three of Plaintiff’s Complaint (unjust Enrichment/Quantum Meruit).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
11/01/2007
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on said motions on December 3, 2007, at 10:00
a.m. (30 minutes) before:
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
Judge of Superior Court of Arizona
125 W. Washington - OCH
Courtroom 103 – 1st Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 506-6538
The Court will not honor agreements by the parties to modify the briefing schedule set
forth in the Rules of Civil Procedure unless it is notified by stipulation in writing of the terms of
the agreement before the rule-imposed deadline expires and the motion is fully briefed at least 5
judicial days prior to the hearing.
Counsel and any self-represented parties are advised that the Clerk of the Maricopa
County Superior Court has converted its case files to an electronic format and case files are
no longer made available to the divisions. Therefore it is imperative that counsel follow
Maricopa County Local Rule 3.2 which requires counsel to deliver copies of motions and
responses to the division.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/08/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
11/06/2007
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
T. Melius
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
FRANCES J HAYNES
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
WILLIAM J SIMON
SEAN P ST CLAIR
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To File Second
Amended Complaint and to Compel Expedited Disclosure and Defendants, U.S. Development
Land, L.L.C. et. al.’s Response and enters the following ruling.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint and to Compel
Expedited Disclosure is GRANTED. The information requested on page 5 of Plaintiff’s motion
shall be produced to Plaintiff no later than November 15, 2007.
The Court, having received and reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions, Defendants,
U.S. Development Land, L.L.C. et. al.’s Response, and Plaintiff’s Reply, enters the following
ruling.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED as follows;
1. The Owner Defendants’ Motion For Partial Summary Judgment re Count Three of
Plaintiff’s Complaint is STRICKEN.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
11/06/2007
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
2. If they have not already done so, Defendants U.S. Development Land, L.L.C. et. al.
shall deliver to Plaintiff’s counsel by November 12, 2007, the entire project file, the
entire file re the Requip, L.L.C. settlement, a copy of the recorded mechanic’s lien
recorded by Requip, L.L.C. and all documentation in Defendants’ possession
regarding the same, and all settlement documents, correspondence, and other written
material pertaining to the settlement with Requip, L.L.C.
3. Defendants and their counsel shall pay the sum of $1500.00 to Plaintiff’s counsel as
an additional sanction to cover the cost of the motions filed by Plaintiff.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/18/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
11/14/2008
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
L. Nixon
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
P O BOX 52140
PHOENIX AZ 85072
KIRSTEN L COPELAND
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
WILLIAM J SIMON
SEAN P ST CLAIR
MINUTE ENTRY
11:24 a.m. In Chambers: This is the time set for Telephonic Conference regarding the
Court’s October 8, 2008 Minute Entry Order. Plaintiff United Metro Materials Inc. is
telephonically represented by counsel, Kirsten L. Copeland. Defendants, U.S Development
Land, LLC, Western Surety Company, Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., Standard Pacific Of
Arizona, Inc., Montelena Master Community Association and Compass Bank are telephonically
represented by counsel, William J. Simon and Sean P. St. Clair.
No court reporter is present.
The court has received and reviewed the parties Stipulated Motion For Telephonic
Conference Regarding The Court’s October 8, 2008 Minute Entry Order. Discussion is held on
the court’s intent of the minute entry and whether the judgment shall be held against the surety
bond or the property itself.
IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.
11:32 a.m. Hearing concludes.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/19/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
11/18/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
L. Nixon
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
KIRSTEN L COPELAND
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
WILLIAM J SIMON
SEAN P ST CLAIR
MINUTE ENTRY
Based upon two telephone conferences with counsel the court has reconsidered the ruling
it made in its October 8, 2008 minute entry in regard to Defendants’ Motion To Alter or Amend
the Judgment Entered July 29, 2008, and enters the following ruling.
Paragraph 2 of the July 29, 2008, judgment awarded Plaintiff judgment against both
Defendant U.S. Development Land, LLC as principal and Western Surety Company as surety in
the principal sum of $669,543.75 plus pre-judgment at the rate of 10% per annum from February
14, 2006. As of November 14, 2008 the accrued interest is $195,283.59 and the total due for
principal and interest is $864,827.34.
Paragraph 3 of the July 29, 2008, judgment awarded Plaintiff judgment against both
Defendant U.S. Development Land, LLC as principal and Western Surety Company as surety in
the sum of $235,456.15 for attorneys’ fees and $3622.08 for costs, plus interest at the judgment
rate of 10% per annum from the date of judgment until paid. The interest will total $7039.53 as
of November 14, 2008.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
11/18/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
The total amount of the judgment against both Defendants as of November 14, 2008, is
$1,110,945.10. The penal sum of the Statutory Discharge of Lien Bond recorded by Western
Surety Company is $1,004,316.00.
Plaintiff argues that both Defendants are liable on the judgment for all sums awarded to it
and for all accrued and accruing interest and attorneys fees even though they exceed the penal
sum of the bond, citing A.R.S. §33-1004(E) and Coppenbarger Homes, Inc. v. Williamson, 611
So.2d 33, 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Defendants argue that their total liability is limited to the penal sum of the Statutory
Discharge of Lien Bond, citing James Weller, Inc. v. Hansen, 21 Ariz. App. 217, 223, 517 P.2d
1110 (App. 1973); Stratton v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co., 140 Ariz. 528, 531, 683 P.2d
327 (App. 1984); and Keefer v. Lavender, 74 Ariz. 24, 25, 243 P.2d 457 (1952).
At the time the Statutory Discharge of Lien Bond was recorded by Western Surety
Company A.R.S. §33-1004(E) provided:
“In an action to foreclose a lien under this article, where a bond has been filed and served
as provided herein, a judgment for the claimant on the bond shall be against the principal
and his sureties for the reasonable value of the labor and material furnished and shall not
be against the property.”
As a result of a 2008 amendment, A.R.S. §33-1004(E) now provides:
“In an action to foreclose a lien under this article, where a bond has been filed and served
as provided herein, a judgment for the claimant on the bond shall be against the principal
and his sureties for the reasonable value of the labor and material furnished and shall not
be against the property. A judgment for the claimant on the bond, including any recovery
for interest, expenses, costs and attorney fees awarded by the court, shall not exceed the
penal sum of the bond. If the amount the claimant recovers exceeds the penal sum of the
bond, the claimant shall also be entitled to judgment against the principal for the excess
amount.”
The 2008 amendment to A.R.S. §33-1004(E) would answer the questions the parties have
posed. However, the parties agree and the court finds that the pre-2008 provisions of
A.R.S. §33-1004(E) govern this case.
The court finds that under either version of A.R.S. §33-1004(E) the principal, Defendant
U.S. Development Land, LLC, is liable for the entire judgment. Coppenbarger Homes, Inc. v.
Williamson, 611 So.2d 33, 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The court further finds that because the pre-

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
11/18/2008
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3
2008 version of A.R.S. §33-1004(E) provided for judgment against the surety for the reasonable
value of the labor and material furnished, Defendant Western Surety Company is also liable for
the entire judgment. If this were not the case there would have been no need for the clarification
the legislature provided in the 2008 amendment.
Therefore, Defendants’ Motion To Alter or Amend the Judgment Entered July29, 2008,
is DENIED.
The court’s October 8, 2008 minute entry is hereby amended to delete the last
sentence thereof.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/19/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
11/18/2008
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
L. Nixon
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
KIRSTEN L COPELAND
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
WILLIAM J SIMON
SEAN P ST CLAIR
MINUTE ENTRY
1:59 p.m. In Chambers: This is the time set for Telephonic Conference. Plaintiff United
Metro Materials Inc. is telephonically represented by counsel, Kirsten L. Copeland. Defendants,
U.S Development Land, LLC, Western Surety Company, Beazer Homes Holdings Corp.,
Standard Pacific Of Arizona, Inc., Montelena Master Community Association and Compass
Bank are telephonically represented by counsel, William J. Simon and Sean P. St. Clair.
No court reporter is present.
Discussion is held regarding the 2008 amendment to A.R.S. §33-1004(E) and whether
this matter is be subject to the pre-2008 provisions.
Court and counsel agree that the 2008 revision to the statute is not applicable to this case
and the court shall rule accordingly.
2:14 p.m. Hearing concludes.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/07/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
12/03/2007
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
L. Nixon
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
FRANCES J HAYNES
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
REQUIP L L C
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
WILLIAM J SIMON
SEAN P ST CLAIR
MINUTE ENTRY
9:51 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument on Plaintiff’s Motions for Partial
Summary Judgment, and Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff, United Metro Materials, Inc., is represented by counsel, Kirsten Copeland and Frances
J. Haynes. Defendants, U.S. Development Land L.L.C. and Western Surety Company, are
represented by counsel, Kevin Nelson for William J. Simon. Defendants, Beazer Homes
Holdings Corp., Standard Pacific of Arizona, Inc., Montelena Master Community Assoc., and
Compass Bank are represented by counsel, Sean P. St. Clair.
Court reporter, Scott Coniam, is present, in addition to a recording of the proceeding by
CD (FTR).
Argument is heard regarding Motions for Partial Summary Judgment.
The Court is notified that the Defendant Requip L.L.C., is no longer a party in this
litigation, and a default judgment had been filed against them.
IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
12/03/2007
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Court will consider the Plaintiff’s trial conflict in Pinal
County. The parties request for Bench Trial is GRANTED.
10:39 a.m. Hearing concludes.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/12/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
12/05/2007
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
T. Tankersley
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
FRANCES J HAYNES
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
WILLIAM J SIMON
SEAN P ST CLAIR
RULING
The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiff Rinker Material’s (“Rinker”) Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment No. 2 Re: The Validity of the Notice and Claim of Lien as to USDL
and Beazer Homes, the Defendants’ Response and the Plaintiff’s Reply; Plaintiff Rinker
Material’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment No. 3 Re: The Validity of Rinker Material’s
Lien Claim as to the Entire Montelena Subdivision Property and Owner Defendants’
Counterclaim, the Defendants’ Response and Plaintiff’s Reply; and Defendants’ U.S.
Development Land L.L.C. (“USDL”), Western Surety Company (“Western”), Beazer Homes
Holding Corp., (“Beazer”) Standard Pacific of Arizona Inc., (“Standard”) and Montelena Master
Community Association’s renewed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Plaintiff Rinker
Material’s Response and the Defendants’ Reply and, having heard oral argument and reviewed
the cases cited, enters the following rulings.
1. Plaintiff Rinker Material’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment No. 2 is
GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff Rinker Material’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment No. 3 Re: The
Validity of Rinker Material’s Lien Claim as to the Entire Montelena Subdivision
Property and Owner Defendants’ Counterclaim is GRANTED.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
12/05/2007
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
3. Defendants’ U.S. Development Land L.L.C., Western Surety Company, Beazer
Homes Holding Corp., Standard Pacific of Arizona Inc., and Montelena Master
Community Association’s Renewed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is
DENIED.
FACTS
1. On January 5, 2004, USDL purchased a parcel of real property that became
known as the Montelena subdivision (“Montelena”).
2. Within 90 days thereafter USDL formed Defendant Montelena Master
Community Association (the “Association”) and deeded what became the
common area of Montelena to the Association..
3. USDL sold two large parcels of Montelena to Beazer and Defendant Standard
Pacific of Arizona, Inc. (“Standard”).
4. USDL entered into a Joint Development and Escrow Agreement (the “Joint
Agreement”) with Beazer, Standard and the Association to construct the
subdivision infrastructure for all of Montelena; i.e. grading and paving the roads,
installing a storm drainage system, connecting each lot to the water main, and
installing fencing, landscaping and recreational facilities, (together the
“Improvements”).
5. USDL was designated in the Joint Agreement as the Contract Administrator to
hire engineers and contractors to construct the Improvements. Part of USDL’s
responsibilities as Contract Administrator was to bill each of the other developers
and collect and pay their pro-rata shares of the cost of the Improvements.
6. USDL owns lots 223-403 of Montelena.
7. Beazer owns lots 1-101 of Montelena
8. On March 15, 2005, USDL contracted with Defendant Requip to perform paving
work on Montelena’s streets. Rinker supplied materials to Requip for use at
Montelena. Requip left the job without fully completing its work.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
12/05/2007
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3
9. On April 5, 2005, USDL and Beazer entered into a joint development and escrow
agreement for the purposes of jointly developing Montelena. USDL was
designated to administer contracts.
10. On May 9, 2005, Rinker mailed a Preliminary Notice Job Information Request to
Requip concerning Montelena.
11. Requip responded in writing stating that Beazer Homes Sales of Arizona was the
owner of the property to which the materials were to be supplied, that Requip was
the general contractor, and that Compass Bank was the lender.
12. On May 13, 2005, Rinker mailed a Preliminary Twenty Day Notice (“Prelim”) to
Beazer, Requip and Compass Bank, as evidenced by a certificate of mailing as
proof of service by first class mail. Beazer claims it did not receive this Prelim.
George L. Robb III, Beazer’s Vice President of land development says he
reviewed the preliminary lien notice file kept by Beazer and did not find a copy of
the Prelim in it.
13. On November 23, 2005, Rinker prepared and served on Beazer, Requip and
Compass Bank an amendment to the May 13, 2005, Prelim. This amended notice
was found in Beazer’s file.
14. October 17, 2005, Rinker sent a Preliminary Notice Job Information Request to
Requip. Requip responded indicating that USDL was the owner of the property to
which materials were to be supplied.
15. October 21, 2005, Rinker served on USDL, Requip and Compass Bank a Prelim.
USDL admits that it was served by mail and received this Prelim. USDL also
admits that it did not provide Rinker with any of the information requested
pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-992.01(I) nor did it notify Rinker of any inaccuracy in the
2005 prelimin.
16. Rinker recorded a Notice and Claim of Lien (the “Lien”) against Montelena on
March 9, 2006, and served a copy on the owners of the property.
17. Beazer claims that because it did not receive the May 13, 2005, Prelim. mailed by
Rinker, Rinker’s claim for materials can only date back to November 3, 2005, i.e.
20 days before Rinker’s November 23, 2005, Amended Prelim it did receive.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
12/05/2007
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 4
18. Defendants claim that Rinker’s Notice and Claim of Lien is invalid as to USDL’s
property for material supplied under the May 13 and November 23, 2005,
Prelims. Beazer claims that the lien is invalid as to its property under the October
21, 2005, Prelim. Defendants also claim that the maximum amounts secured by
the lien on Beazer’s property is $157,265.08 and on USDL’s property $13,638.13.
19. Defendants recorded a statutory discharge of lien bond on April 18, 2006.
RULING
Rinker’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment No. 2
Rinker’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment No. 2 asks the Court to find that:
1.Rinker’s Prelims served on USDL and Beazer substantially comply with A.R.S.
§ 32-992.01 (C) and (D);
2. USDL and Beazer are precluded from asserting any inaccuracies in the Prelims
under A.R.S. § 32-992.01 (I); and
3. Rinker’s lien against Montelena is valid as to USDL and Beazer.
A.R.S. § 32-992.01 (F) states:
F. The notice or notices required by this section may be given by mailing the
notice by first class mail sent with a certificate of mailing, registered or certified
mail, postage prepaid in all cases, addressed to the person to whom notice is to be
given at the person's residence or business address. Service is complete at the time
of
the
deposit
of
notice
in
the
mail.
Rinker substantially complied with the service requirement set forth above as to USDL
and Beazer.
The Court gives very little weight to the affidavit George Robb III because he has no
personal knowledge as to whether Beazer received the May 13, 2005, Prelim and the information
in his affidavit is simply based on his review of a file of Beazer’s accounting department. In any
event, service of the May 13, 2005, Prelim was completed on Beazer on the date of the mailing
certificate and Robb’s affidavit does not rebut the presumption of receipt of an item properly
placed in the United States Mail.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
12/05/2007
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 5
The Court finds that Rinker has established as facts that appear without substantial
controversy the nine items set forth on pages 6-7 of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
No. 2.
Rinker’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment No. 3
Rinker’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment No. 3 asks the Court to find that the Lien
is valid as to all portions of the Montelena subdivision and to dismiss the Defendants’
counterclaim.
The Court has found that USDL and Beazer were served with Rinker’s Prelims. Neither
notified the other developers in Montelena of the Prelims nor advised Rinker of the names and
addresses of the other owners as required by A.R.S. 32-992.01.
For the reasons set forth in Rinker‘s memoranda and the holding in James Weller, Inc. v.
Hansen, 21 Ariz. App. 217, 517 P.2d 1110 (1974), the Court finds that the Lien is valid as to all
portions of the Montelena subdivision.
Defendants, USDL, Western, Beazer, Standard Pacific, and the
Association’s Renewed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Because of the rulings set forth above, Defendants’ U.S. Development Land L.L.C.,
Western Surety Company, Beazer Homes Holding Corp., Standard Pacific of Arizona Inc., and
Montelena Master Community Association’s Renewed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
must be DENIED.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/05/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
12/23/2008
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
COMMISSIONER RICHARD L. NOTHWEHR
M. Perez
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
FRANCES J HAYNES
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
M & I MARSHALL ILSLEY BANK
P O BOX 366
SUN PRAIRIE WI 53590-0366
JAMES J OSBORNE
WILLIAM J SIMON
SEAN P ST CLAIR
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court having received and reviewed Defendant Western Surety Company’s
Motion/Request for Emergency Execution of Orders Quashing Writs of Garnishment,
IT IS ORDERED DENYING the Motion/Request, this Court having signed the
corresponding orders on December 16, 2008.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/30/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
12/24/2008
Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
L. Nixon
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
FRANCES J HAYNES
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
M & I MARSHALL ILSLEY BANK
P O BOX 366
SUN PRAIRIE WI 53590-0366
JAMES J OSBORNE
WILLIAM J SIMON
SEAN P ST CLAIR
MINUTE ENTRY
The court has received and reviewed Plaintiff’s Notice Of Lodging Proposed Form of
Order regarding the October 8, 2008 minute entry denying Defendants’ Motion To Alter or
Amend Judgment entered on July 29, 2008.
IT IS ORDERED approving and settling Plaintiff’s formal written Order signed by the
court on December 22, 2008 and filed with the clerk on December 24, 2008.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/28/2006 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
12/26/2006
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE BARRY C. SCHNEIDER
W. Yank
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
PHILIP R WOOTEN
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
WILLIAM J SIMON
MINUTE ENTRY
The court has received Defendants U.S. Development Land, LLC, Western Surety
Company, Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., Standard Pacific of Arizona, Inc., Montelena Master
Community Association, and Compass Bank’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Plaintiff’s
Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, all the Responses, and all the Replies.
The court notes oral argument has been requested. Pursuant to Rule 7.1(c)(2), Arizona
Rules of Civil Procedure, the court determines that, in order to expedite its business, this matter
shall be decided without oral argument. The court is fully informed of the issues.
IT IS ORDERED DENYING Defendants U.S. Development Land, LLC, Western Surety
Company, Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., Standard Pacific of Arizona, Inc., Montelena Master
Community Association, and Compass Bank’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Summary
Judgment.
At this early stage in the proceedings there appears to be numerous factual issues that
should be developed before judgment for either side may be entered.
This ruling renders moot the Rule 56(f) relief that was requested.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/28/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-008033
12/27/2007
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. EDWARD O. BURKE
T. Melius
Deputy
UNITED METRO MATERIALS INC
FRANCES J HAYNES
v.
REQUIP L L C, et al.
WILLIAM J SIMON
SEAN P ST CLAIR
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court is in receipt of Defendants’ Motion for Clarification of the Court’s Minute
Entry Order Dated December 5, 2007, filed December 12, 2007.
Defendants’ Motion for Clarification of the Court’s Minute Entry Order Dated December
5, 2007 is DENIED.

Documents