04/20/2007 — CV2006092333 COMMUNITY CLUB INC, DREAMLAND VILLA 04/20/2007 HONORABLE HELENE ABRAMS View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/23/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-092333
04/20/2007
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE HELENE ABRAMS
A. Sedillo
Deputy
VICKI WIRTZ
STEVEN W CHEIFETZ
v.
DREAMLAND VILLA COMMUNITY CLUB
INC
CHARLES E MAXWELL
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court having reviewed and considered the following:
•
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
•
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
•
Reply Regarding Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
THE COURT NOTES a request for oral argument, pursuant to Rule 7.1(c)(2), Ariz.
R.Civ.P.
Therefore, the request for oral argument is denied.
Defendants seek dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are not favored.
However, the Court notes that Plaintiff, in lieu of dismissal, was granted the opportunity to file
an amended complaint. The Amended Complaint is the subject of this motion.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-092333
04/20/2007
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
While both parties used this opportunity to advise the Court about previous discussions
between the parties, the Motion is to be decided on the allegations in the Complaint. The Court
must accept all allegations as true and resolve all inferences in favor of Plaintiff.
Dreamland argues for dismissal for three reasons:
1. Because the documents requested were produced, and presumably, provided to prior
counsel for Plaintiff.
2. Because Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to A.R.S. §33-1805 is not ripe. Mandatory
assessments will not apply until April 1, 2008, and
3. Because Plaintiff accepted the revocation/termination of her voluntary membership.
The Court will not consider the documents outside the Amended Complaint and the
arguments in the papers filed regarding the Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff alleges that she is still a member of Dreamland. She argues that Dreamland
attempted to revoke her membership. Accordingly, if still a member, Plaintiff has rights to the
records.
Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss is denied.
All parties representing themselves must keep the Court updated with address changes.
A form may be downloaded at http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/sschome.html.
11/06/2007 — CV2006092333 COMMUNITY CLUB INC, DREAMLAND VILLA 11/06/2007 HONORABLE JOSEPH KREAMER View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/08/2007 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-092333
11/06/2007
Docket Code 042
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOSEPH KREAMER
T. Soto
Deputy
VICKI WIRTZ
STEVEN W CHEIFETZ
v.
DREAMLAND VILLA COMMUNITY CLUB
INC
CHARLES E MAXWELL
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and reviewed Defendant Dreamland Villa Community Club,
Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff’s Response and Motion to Dismiss, Defendant’s
Reply and Response to Plaintiff’s Motion, and Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of her Motion.
The parties both want this matter dismissed. Instead of making that happen, perhaps with
a stipulation to allow both sides to seek their fees and costs, the parties have treated the Court to
a healthy stack of documents urging that the Court grant summary judgment (Defendant) or
simply dismiss (Plaintiff). The parties frankly admit that this action is now moot and they are
essentially positioning themselves to submit applications for attorneys’ fees. Further, the papers
reflect ample gamesmanship on both sides.
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss. This matter is dismissed with
prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-092333
11/06/2007
Docket Code 042
Form V000A
Page 2
By granting Plaintiff’s Motion and denying Defendant’s Motion, the Court is not
deciding who the prevailing party is for purposes of a possible fee application. However, the
Court advises the parties that based on what was contained in the two motions ruled on above,
both parties will have an uphill battle to convince the Court to award fees.
12/22/2006 — CV2006092333 COMMUNITY CLUB INC, DREAMLAND VILLA 12/22/2006 HONORABLE HELENE ABRAMS View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/25/2006 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-092333
12/22/2006
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE HELENE ABRAMS
T. Soto
Deputy
VICKI WIRTZ
VICKI WIRTZ
655 N 57TH PL
MESA AZ 85205
v.
DREAMLAND VILLA COMMUNITY CLUB
INC
DREAMLAND VILLA COMMUNITY
CLUB INC
320 N 55TH PL
MESA AZ 85205
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and reviewed Defendant Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc’s
Motion to Dismiss, Motion for More Definite Statement and/or Motion to Strike, Plaintiff’s
Motion to Stay Dismissal Proceedings, and Defendant’s Reply Regarding Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss, Motion for More Definite Statement and/or Motion to Strike, Response to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Stay Dismissal Proceedings and Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s November
11, 2006 Correspondence.
The Court also received Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for Judicial Order to Compel
Production of Club Documents, Motion for Summary Judgment, Response to Letter and Motion
for Sanctions, Response to Letter and Motion for Sanctions, Response to Motions Complaining
of Form and Non-Specific Claims and Response to Motions to Dismiss and Defendant’s
Response/Reply to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for Judicial Order to Compel Production of
Club Documents, Motion for Summary Judgment, Response to Letter and Motion for Sanctions,
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2006-092333
12/22/2006
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
Response to Letter and Motion for Sanctions, Response to Motions Complaining of Form and
Non-Specific Claims and Response to Motions to Dismiss. Two cassettes were also sent to the
Court. Because it is unclear whether Defendant’s also received them, the Court will not listen to
them.
Defendant request for dismissal for failure to state a claim is denied. Dismissal for
failure to state a claim is not favored. Defendant’s request for more definite statement is granted
pursuant to Rule 12(e), A.R.C.P., Plaintiff shall have until January 31, 2007 to provide more
definite statement of the relief requested. The Court may strike the pleading to which the motion
was directed if this order is not complied with. Defendant’s request to strike the 261 pages of the
documents submitted with the Complaint is denied as the Court did not receive the attachments
with the Court’s copy of the Application. (A list of the documents was provided) Defendant’s
request for attorney’s fees is also denied. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay is denied as moot because the
motion for definite statement has been granted. Defendant’s Motion to Strike the November 11,
2006 correspondence is granted as it is not properly before the Court in this manner.
Plaintiff’s incorporation of numerous pleadings into one document without separating the
five parts is not in a form that the Court can review. If Plaintiff seeks to amend her original
Complaint, this needs to be a separate pleading. A Summary Judgment Motion must comply
with Rule 56, A.R.C.P. The Responses to the Motion for More Definite Statement or to the
Motion to Strike must be specific.
Parties who are not represented by counsel in litigation are required to understand and
follow the rules and applicable law. If a party is in need of legal assistance, consultation with an
attorney may be arranged by contacting the Maricopa County Lawyer Referral Service at (602)
257-4434.
In the present form, the Court will not consider Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, et.al. The
Court will allow and consider a more definite statement regarding relief requested, an Amended
Complaint, if appropriate, and any Motions or Responses in conformance with the Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant will be allowed to Respond to any Motion or Response filed by Plaintiff
on or after January 31, 2007.
