Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2011-008669: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Camelback Village Improvement Association Inc.

Case Number

CV2011-008669

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

4/20/2011

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Thorson, Erik

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/10/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
02/09/2012
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
BRIAN D MYERS
BETH MULCAHY
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has read and considered the Joint Motion for Expedited Case Management
Conference and To Extend Deadlines filed February 3, 2012.
IT IS ORDERED granting the Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines and the request to stay
discovery.
IT IS FUTHER ORDERED denying the Joint Motion for Expedited Case Management
Conference.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED converting the telephonic trial scheduling conference set
April 16, 2012 at 9:15 a.m. to a status conference. Counsel for Plaintiff is requested to initiate
the call to the Court at 602-506-3776.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/16/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
02/15/2012
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
BRIAN D MYERS
BETH MULCAHY
MINUTE ENTRY
Pursuant to the Court’s February 10, 2012 minute entry granting the Joint Motion to
Extend Deadlines,
Defendant Camelback Village’s Motion to Alter Scheduling Order filed January 27, 2012
is denied as moot.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
02/15/2012
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/09/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
03/06/2012
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
BRIAN D MYERS
BETH MULCAHY
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has read and considered Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial Re: Granting of
Pinnacle Restoration’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed January 31, 2012, Pinnacle
Restoration’s Response filed February 8, 2012 and Plaintiff’s Response thereto filed February
21, 2012.
The flaw in Ms. Brown’s argument is that it depends, not on what the insurance policy
under which Pinnacle was contracted said, but on what it should have said. Ms. Brown claims
that CVIA breached the CC&Rs by purchasing a policy that made benefits payable to it alone
instead of to it and the unit owner jointly. Be that as it may (and that claim against CVIA remains
in the case), it has no bearing on Pinnacle. It is not alleged that Pinnacle was in any way
complicit in CVIA’s alleged breach. Nor is it at all realistic to impute to Pinnacle, a simple
contractor, knowledge of CVIA’s specific contractual obligation to Ms. Brown. Thus, accepting
her position arguendo, that the enrichment Pinnacle is alleged to have received ought to have,
although in fact it did not, come from Ms. Brown does not change the Court’s conclusion that
Pinnacle was not unjustly enriched at Ms. Brown’s expense. Murdock-Bryant Const. Co. v.
Pearson, 146 Ariz. 48 (1985), makes unjust enrichment a flexible remedy, but not that flexible: it
still requires an enrichment of the defendant resulting from the plaintiff’s impoverishment. Such
is not the situation in this case.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
03/06/2012
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
For these reasons, as well as the arguments set forth in the Response brief,
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial Re: Granting of Pinnacle
Restoration’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
The Court does not find that oral argument would be of assistance in resolving this issue.
Therefore,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s request for oral argument.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/09/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
03/07/2012
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
BRIAN D MYERS
BETH MULCAHY
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court is in receipt of the Stipulation to Extend Time for Defendant Camelback
Village to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed February 24, 2012.
IT IS ORDERED granting the Stipulation and extending the time for Defendant
Camelback Village to file its Response to March 5, 2012.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/28/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
03/26/2012
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
BRIAN D MYERS
BETH MULCAHY
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has read and considered Defendant Camelback Village Improvement
Association’s Motion for Continuance to Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Pursuant to Rule 56(F) filed February 17, 2012, Plaintiff’s Response filed February 27, 2012 and
the Reply thereto filed March 12, 2012.
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant Camelback Village Improvement Association’s
Motion for Continuance to Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to
Rule 56(F). The requested discovery shall be undertaken immediately. Defendant shall file a
renewed Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment by May 21, 2012. Plaintiff may file its
Reply in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment by June 12, 2012.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/28/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
03/26/2012
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
BRIAN D MYERS
BETH MULCAHY
ORAL ARGUMENT SET
IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment on Contract Liability Against Camelback Village Improvement Association, Inc.
on June 18, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. (15 minutes) in this division.
Honorable Dean M. Fink
125 W. Washington, Old Courthouse, Suite 202
Phoenix, 85003
(602) 506-3776
IT IS ORDERED that all Motions, Responses, Replies and other Court requested
filings in this case must be submitted individually. Counsel shall not combine any Motion
within a responsive pleading. All Motions are to be filed separately and designated as such.
No pleadings will be accepted if filed in combination with another.
A record of the proceedings will be made by videotape and CD in lieu of a court reporter.
Should you want an unofficial copy of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may request a
videotape or CD of the proceedings for a $20.00 charge. If a CD or videotape is requested,
please obtain a form from the courtroom clerk or from the Self Service Center to request a daily

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
03/26/2012
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
copy of a court hearing or trial proceeding being conducted. Pay the applicable fee at the Self
Service Center. Attach the receipt showing payment of the fee and present both the receipt and
the form to the courtroom clerk or bailiff. For copies of hearings or trial proceedings
recorded previously, please call Electronic Records Services at 602-506-7100.
Should an official transcript be required, you may request that the court prepare it. The
party ordering the transcript must pay for it. To request a transcript call 602-506-7100 and
provide the date of the proceeding, the case number, the case caption, if the transcript is for an
appeal, and your name, address and telephone number. With this new technology, a court
reporter is likely not required and the parties are encouraged to experience the court's video
recording system before requesting a court reporter. If a court reporter is required, the court must
receive a written request at least 3 court days before the commencement of the proceeding.
Failure to timely request a court reporter will be deemed consent to proceed without a court
reporter.
IF ANY ISSUES IN THE MOTION RELATE TO DISCOVERY PROBLEMS,
COUNSEL SHALL CONFER TO ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THEIR DIFFERENCES OR TO
REDUCE THE AREAS OF DISPUTE. COUNSEL ARE REMINDED THAT THE COURT
WILL LIKELY IMPOSE SANCTIONS AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY IN ACCORDANCE
WITH RULE 37(a)(4), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:
Any motion or stipulation for continuance must be filed with the Court no later than four
court days prior to the date set for hearing. After that date, no continuances will be granted
except for extraordinary circumstances.
All memoranda and affidavits regarding the motion must be filed and copies lodged with
this division no later than four court days prior to the date set for hearing.
Counsel are advised that if the answering memorandum is not timely filed in accordance
with the Arizona Rules Of Civil Procedure, oral argument may be vacated and the motion will be
ruled upon in accordance with Rule 7.1 (b), A.R.C.P.
No agreement by the parties to modify the pleading schedule will be honored by the
Court unless the Court is notified and approves the parties’ agreement. Any such agreement
will not change the argument date without a court Order and will, in any event, require that all
motions are fully briefed and at issue not later than one full week before the argument date.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
03/26/2012
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 3
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/13/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
04/11/2012
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
BRIAN D MYERS
BETH MULCAHY
ERIN E MCMANIS
PATRICK J VAN ZANEN
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has considered the parties’ respective briefing as well as the factors set forth in
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 567, 694 P.2d 1181 (1985). Here, the Court in
its discretion determines that it is appropriate under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 to award some, but not
all, of the attorneys’ fees requested by Pinnacle Restoration, L.L.C. against Plaintiff Caroline
Brown. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED awarding attorneys’ fees in the amount of $12,500.00.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding taxable costs of $241.00.
The Court agrees with Plaintiff’s objection to the Proposed Form of Judgment filed
January 4, 2012. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED declining to execute the proposed Form of Judgment
lodged with the Court.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
04/11/2012
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/17/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
04/16/2012
Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
BRIAN D MYERS
BETH MULCAHY
ERIN E MCMANIS
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom 202-OCH
9:18 a.m. This is the time set for a telephonic status conference. Plaintiff is represented
by counsel, Mark Depasquale. Defendant Camelback Village Improvement Association is
represented by counsel, Erin McManis.
A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.
The status of the case is discussed. Based thereon,
IT IS ORDERED counsel shall file a revised Scheduling Order by April 23, 2012,
consistent with the agreed-upon deadlines and with blank spaces for a new trial scheduling
conference and inactive calendar dates to be set.
9:27 a.m. Matter concludes.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
04/16/2012
Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 2
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/23/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
05/20/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
COMM. BARTH
MINUTE ENTRY
This division has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application/Motion for Default Judgment against
Defendant(s) Pinnacle Restoration, LLC in the above-captioned case.
IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above-referenced
document(s).
The parties are advised that commissioners handle Rule 55(b) Default Judgment proceedings and
that the default proceedings in this matter are to be heard by Commissioner Michael Barth.
IT IS ORDERED that all documents necessary to support the entry of a default judgment must
be e-filed.
Pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 2010-117, default judgment packets are
not permitted to be e-filed. Accordingly, parties are directed to hand-deliver a default coversheet
and copies of the necessary filed documents to the commissioner’s division for the entry of a
default judgment.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
05/20/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, no further action will be taken by the assigned commissioner until
the necessary filed documents and coversheet are delivered to the division.
The parties/counsel can find the default judgment coversheet on the Court’s website at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/forms.asp
The parties/counsel can find additional information in the form of frequently asked questions at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/howDoI.asp
ALERT: eFiling through AZTurboCourt.gov is mandatory in civil cases for attorney-
filed documents effective May 1, 2011. See Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Orders
2010-117 and 2011-010. The Court may impose sanctions against counsel to ensure compliance
with this requirement after May 1, 2011.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/24/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
05/23/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
CAMELBACK VILLAGE
IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION INC
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
COMM. BARTH
MINUTE ENTRY
This division has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application/Motion for Default Judgment against
Defendant(s) Camelback Village Improvement Association, Inc. in the above-captioned case.
IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above-referenced
document(s).
The parties are advised that commissioners handle Rule 55(b) Default Judgment proceedings and
that the default proceedings in this matter are to be heard by Commissioner Michael Barth.
IT IS ORDERED that all documents necessary to support the entry of a default judgment must
be e-filed.
Pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 2010-117, default judgment packets are
not permitted to be e-filed. Accordingly, parties are directed to hand-deliver a default coversheet

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
05/23/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
and copies of the necessary filed documents to the commissioner’s division for the entry of a
default judgment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, no further action will be taken by the assigned commissioner until
the necessary filed documents and coversheet are delivered to the division.
The parties/counsel can find the default judgment coversheet on the Court’s website at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/forms.asp
The parties/counsel can find additional information in the form of frequently asked questions at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/howDoI.asp
ALERT: eFiling through AZTurboCourt.gov is mandatory in civil cases for attorney-
filed documents effective May 1, 2011. See Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Orders
2010-117 and 2011-010. The Court may impose sanctions against counsel to ensure compliance
with this requirement after May 1, 2011.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/18/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
06/14/2012
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
BRIAN D MYERS
BETH MULCAHY
MINUTE ENTRY
A Judgment in Favor of Pinnacle Restoration having been signed on June 4, 2012,
IT IS ORDERED Defendant’s Notice of Filing Form of Judgment filed April 30, 2012
is denied as moot.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/20/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
06/18/2012
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
THOMAS P BURKE II
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom 202-OCH
8:56 a.m. This is the time set for oral argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment on Contract Liability Against Camelback Village Association, Inc. Plaintiff
is represented by counsel, Mark Depasquale. Defendant, Camelback Village Inc. is represented
by counsel, Thomas Burke, II.
A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.
The Court notes it received Defendant’s Supplemental Response filed June 15, 2012 and
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Supplemental Response filed June 15, 2012.
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Supplemental Response but as the
Supplemental Response was untimely filed, the Court will not consider it.
Oral argument is presented.
IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
06/18/2012
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2
9:27 a.m. Matter concludes.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/21/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
06/18/2013
Docket Code 081
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
BRIAN D MYERS
THOMAS P BURKE II
ELIZABETH L FLEMING
TRIAL VACATED
Courtroom 202-Old Courthouse
2:17 p.m. This is the time for an impromptu telephonic status conference initiated by the
Court. Plaintiff is represented by counsel, Mark Depasquale. Defendant, Pinnacle Restoration,
LLC is represented by counsel, Bryan Myers. Defendant, Camelback Village Improvement
Association, Inc. is represented by counsel, Elizabeth Fleming appearing for Thomas Burke, II.
A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held regarding the Court of Appeals decision on Pinnacle Restoration’s
unjust enrichment claim and potentially resetting the trial date so all claims can be tried at one
time. Counsel are directed to consult with their clients regarding the issues discussed today.
IT IS ORDERED vacating the 4-day jury trial set on July 30, 2013.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming the Final Trial Management Conference date
set on July 1, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. but changing it to a telephonic/electronic Status Conference to
discuss how the parties wish to proceed.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
06/18/2013
Docket Code 081
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing any party who is appearing to provide a
current and valid email address only to the division’s Judicial Assistant no later than 15 days
prior to the scheduled hearing. Counsel and/or the parties shall provide this address by email to
Mica Inman: [email protected]
At least ten (10) minutes prior to the hearing, the parties will receive an email with an
electronic link access to the hearing and phone number. Counsel/parties are required to provide
their own camera with microphone if they wish to appear by video (via WebEx), otherwise a
telephone will be required for an audio only appearance.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating all previously set deadlines from the Court’s
December 3, 2012 minute entry with the exception of the motion in limine deadline which has
already passed.
2:34 p.m. Matter concludes.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/27/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
06/25/2012
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
THOMAS P BURKE II
UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING
The Court took this matter under advisement following oral argument on June 18, 2012.
Upon further consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Contract
Liability Against Camelback Village Association, Inc., the Court finds as follows.
There is no dispute that the Declaration required CVIA to “procure a blanket insurance
policy insuring the Owners” such that “proceeds payable from [it] shall be payable to the Unit
Owner and the Association jointly.” CVIA does not argue that it did so. It is not a defense that
CAU and not CVIA made the decision on how to issue the checks. It was CVIA’s obligation to
make sure, if necessary by including express language in the contract, that checks would be
issued as the Declaration required; if CAU would not agree, there are many other insurance
companies. CVIA’s breach is clear.
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on
Contract Liability Against Camelback Village Association, Inc.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/03/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
07/01/2013
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
BRIAN D MYERS
THOMAS P BURKE II
TRIAL/TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SET
Courtroom 202-Old Courthouse
10:16 a.m. This is the time set for telephonic status conference. Plaintiff is represented
by counsel, Mark Depasquale. Defendant Pinnacle Restoration, LLC is represented by counsel,
Brian Myers. Defendant Camelback Village Improvement Association is represented by counsel,
Thomas Burke, II.
A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held regarding how counsel wish to proceed in light of the Court of
Appeals decision regarding Pinnacle Restoration. The Court is advised that Pinnacle Restoration
will be filing a Petition for Review and the remaining parties wish to proceed forward to trial.
Discussion is held regarding Plaintiff’s previously filed Motions in Limine.
IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff shall re-file its narrowed Motion in Limine by July 12, 2013.
Defendant’s Responses to both motions in limine are due by August 2, 2013. Once received, the
Court will either rule on the pleadings or set an oral argument.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
07/01/2013
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 2
Discussion is held regarding trial date. Based thereon, the Court enters the following
orders:
1. This matter is set for a 4-day Jury Trial on December 10, 11, 12, and 13, 2013 at
9:30 a.m. in this division. THIS IS A FIRM TRIAL DATE. Additional orders in
this regard shall be contained later in this minute entry.
A record of the proceedings will be made by CD in lieu of a court reporter. If a CD
is requested, please obtain a form from the Self Service Center to request a daily copy
of a court hearing or trial proceeding being conducted. Pay the applicable fee at the
Self Service Center. Attach the receipt showing payment of the fee and present both
the receipt and the form to the courtroom clerk or bailiff. For copies of hearings or
trial proceedings recorded previously, please call Electronic Records Services at
602-506-7100. The CD-R disk may be viewed using Microsoft’s Media Player or
JAVS’ CaseViewer. “CaseViewer” is available for free from Jefferson Audio Visual
Systems at:
http://www.javs.com/downloads/programs.htm
Should an official transcript be required, you may request that the court prepare it.
The party ordering the transcript must pay for it. With this new technology, a court
reporter is likely not required and the parties are encouraged to experience the court's
digital video recording system before requesting a court reporter. To request a
transcript, call 602-506-7100 and provide the date of the proceeding, the case
number, the case caption, if the transcript is for an appeal, and your name, address,
and telephone number.
If a court reporter is required, the Court must receive a written request at least 3 court
days before the commencement of the proceeding. Failure to timely request a court
reporter will be deemed consent to proceed without a court reporter.
2. A Final Pretrial Management Conference is set on November 4, 2013 at
10:00 a.m. in this division. All lead trial counsel are required to personally
appear. The Court has set aside 1 hour for said hearing.
The joint pretrial statement in accordance with Rule 16(d), A.R.C.P., is due by
5:00 p.m., on October 28, 2013. Plaintiff shall provide a draft of the pretrial
statement to Defendant(s) no later than October 21, 2013. In addition to the
information required by Rule 16(d), counsel are to identify in/with the joint pretrial

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
07/01/2013
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 3
statement all deposition or other transcribed testimony that may be offered at trial.
The proposed testimony is to be identified by reference to page and line numbers.
Objections, if any, to such testimony, and the reasons for such objections, are also to
be set forth.
10:36 a.m. Matter concludes.
Pursuant to the foregoing trial setting, the Court enters the following additional orders:
1. No later than October 28, 2013, counsel (or the parties) shall file:
A. Requested jury instructions, and any voir dire questions counsel request that
the Court ask. The Judge would appreciate counsel providing a copy of the
jury instruction requests on CD, in Microsoft Word;
B. Any trial memoranda (optional), which will be in lieu of post-trial briefs
unless otherwise requested by the Court at the conclusion of the trial; and
C. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (if a request for findings of
fact and conclusions of law has been or will be filed).
2. Counsel shall meet at least five (5) days before the pretrial management conference
to complete the form that is attached to this minute entry. Each attorney will list the
witnesses that will be called and estimate the time for his or her direct examination of
his or her witnesses and his or her cross-examination of opposing witnesses. In
addition, counsel will estimate the time they will need for opening statements and
closing arguments. The form must be brought to the Court at the pretrial
management conference. The Court will use the form to predict the length of the trial
for the jurors and to direct counsel to follow the time limits estimated. IN
PREPARING THIS FORM, BEAR IN MIND THAT ONE TRIAL DAY ALLOWS
FOR APPOXIAMATELY FIVE (5) HOURS OF ACTUAL TRIAL TIME.
ATTACHMENT: Witness Information Form
3. Prior to submitting the exhibits for trial to the division, counsel shall meet and
confer to determine that there are no duplicate exhibits from either party. Duplicate
exhibits and original depositions will not be marked. At least two weeks prior to
trial (or anytime prior), counsel or their knowledgeable assistants shall contact the
clerk of this division at 602-506-8946 to discuss the procedure for the submission of
the exhibits. No later than one week before trial (5 business days), all exhibits shall

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
07/01/2013
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 4
be submitted to the clerk of the division for marking unless otherwise approved by the
clerk. The exhibits will be marked numerically and serially - Plaintiff's first,
Defendant's second. Please advise the clerk if any exhibits may be received directly
in evidence by providing a signed stipulation as to said exhibits (lack of an objection
to an exhibit in the Joint Pretrial Statement does not mean the exhibit
automatically is received in evidence). If large demonstrative exhibits are submitted
for marking, a smaller version of the exhibit must also be provided in case the exhibit
is received into evidence. NOTE: Every exhibit must be securely bound by a
staple, prong or in a binder of some sort. Exhibits not securely bound or bound
with binder clips or rubber bands will not be accepted.
4. Opinions of experts fairly sought and revealed in deposition or other discovery shall
not be supplemented at trial.
5. The witness and exhibit lists shall contain no surprises; any information sought by
other discovery devices and revealed for the first time on the witness or exhibit lists
will be inadmissible at trial.
6. All documents and pleadings described above shall be delivered or telefaxed to
opposing counsel on the date they are delivered to the Court.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
07/01/2013
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 5
WITNESS INFORMATION FORM
Please note that there are approximately 5 hours of trial time which includes two 15-minute
breaks and 1½ hours for lunch. It generally takes about a half day to select a jury unless it’s a
long trial.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
TIME ESTIMATE FOR:
PLAINTIFF(S) VOIR DIRE
DEFENDANT(S) VOIR DIRE
WITNESSES FOR PLAINTIFF(S)
WITNESS NAME
DIRECT &
RE-DIRECT
CROSS
1
2
3
4
5
6
DIRECT, RE-DIRECT & CROSS
TOTAL:_________________

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
07/01/2013
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 6
WITNESSES FOR DEFENDANT(S)
WITNESS NAME
DIRECT &
RE-DIRECT
CROSS
1
2
3
4
5
6
DIRECT, RE-DIRECT & CROSS
TOTAL:_______________
TOTAL WITNESS TIME ESTIMATE:___________________________
TIME ESTIMATE FOR:
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
OPENING STATEMENT
CLOSING ARGUMENT
1st:
2nd:
TOTAL ESTIMATED TRIAL TIME: 4 days
Estimate should not exceed 20 total hours
.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/19/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
08/15/2013
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
C. Keller/S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
THOMAS P BURKE II
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and considered the following:
• Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence or Argument Regarding
Alleged Comparative Fault, filed June 3, 2013,
• Defendant Camelback Village Improvement Association, Inc.’s Response to
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence or Argument Regarding
Alleged Comparative Fault, filed August 5, 2013,
• Defendant Camelback Village Improvement Association, Inc.’s Notice of Errata
in Defendant Camelback Village’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine re:
Comparative Fault, filed August 8, 2013,
• Plaintiff’s Amended Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Evidence of Farmers
Insurance Company Payments, filed July 12, 2013, and
• Defendant Camelback Village Improvement Association, Inc.’s Response to
Plaintiff’s Amended Motion in Limine re: Farmers Insurance Company Payments,
filed August 5, 2013.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
08/15/2013
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
Comparative Fault
The Court does not see how the involvement of Mutual Management or CAU is even
relevant. CVIA is liable for the consequential damages from its breach; conversely, if an
element of damages did not derive from the breach, CVIA is not liable for it. Thus, to the extent
that alleged damages derive from Ms. Brown’s decision to undertake work outside what should
have been in CVIA’s policy, she cannot recover, and it is immaterial whether she got the money
to pay for that extra work from another insurance company or out of her own pocket. In theory,
the same would apply to Pinnacle, but as a practical matter it may be impossible to separate the
two kinds of work, as well as Ms. Brown’s involvement if any in overseeing the work. The
Court therefore grants the Motion with respect to Mutual Management and CAU, and denies it
with respect to Pinnacle.
Farmers
The same considerations apply here. CVIA is liable only for the damages resulting from
its breach. It is of course entitled to explore just what those damages were; if, as it suggests,
Pinnacle billed to its insurance expenses from the extra work, that is fair game. But again,
whether the source of Ms. Brown’s contribution was an insurance policy or her own funds is
immaterial.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/23/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
08/20/2013
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
BRIAN D MYERS
THOMAS P BURKE II
MINUTE ENTRY
Based on the Court having ruled on the related Motions in Limine,
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of Responses to Motions
in Limine filed August 16, 2013.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/24/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
08/23/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
BRIAN D MYERS
BETH MULCAHY
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and reviewed the Request for Rule 16 Pretrial Conference filed
by Plaintiff. (Please note: It is this division’s general practice to not set a conference date at this
time, but rather to have the parties submit a joint pretrial memorandum and scheduling order for
the Court’s signature as set forth below.)
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
Counsel/parties are to meet personally to discuss all of the matters set forth in Rule 16(b),
A.R.Cv.P. Counsel/parties shall prepare and file with the Court, no later than September 22,
2011, a Joint Pretrial Memorandum, and a form of Order, for discovery, motion and disclosure
deadlines.
If the parties agree to the dates, they should prepare an Order in the form set forth below,
containing the provisions which are applicable to their case. For example, paragraph 1 of the
Order set forth below need not be included in the parties’ proposed Order if the parties intend to
disclose their experts’ identity and opinions at the same time they disclose their experts’ areas of
testimony. Similarly, if the parties agree to simultaneously disclose the identity and opinions of

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
08/23/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
their expert witnesses, they need not include in their proposed Order the language set forth in
paragraph 2a. and b., below.
The proposed Order shall include specific dates (“December 5, 2009” is a specific date.
“90 days prior to trial” is a date in reference to a trial date and is not a specific date). All
applicable blanks should be filled in, except for the date of the Scheduling/Status Conference, as
indicated. Do not incorporate a firm trial date in the proposed Order.
If counsel/parties are unable to agree on any of the items that are to be included in
the Order, the reasons for their inability to agree shall be set forth in their Pretrial
Memorandum and each shall prepare a separate proposed Order.
The Court will review the Joint Pretrial Memorandum and Scheduling Order. If all is in
order, the Court will set a scheduling/status conference after the discovery cutoff date. At the
scheduling/status conference, if the parties have completed discovery and are ready for trial, the
Court will set firm dates for the final pretrial management conference and the trial. If the parties
are not ready for trial, the matter will be placed on the Inactive Calendar for dismissal within 60
days.
If counsel/parties feel a pretrial conference is still necessary at this stage of the litigation,
they should address the reasons why in the first paragraph of the Joint Pretrial Memorandum.
If a Joint Pretrial Conference Memorandum and Scheduling Order are not timely
submitted, the Court will place the matter on the Inactive Calendar for dismissal.
Counsel/parties shall provide prepaid return-addressed envelopes for the return
mailing of the Scheduling Order and the appropriate number of copies of the Scheduling
Order for all parties involved in this case, unless the parties are taking advantage of the e-
filing program.
The following is the general format to be used in the scheduling order:
SCHEDULING ORDER LANGUAGE:
The Court has received and reviewed the parties’ Joint Pretrial Memorandum and
proposed Scheduling Order.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
08/23/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 3
In accordance therewith,
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1.
The parties shall mutually and simultaneously disclose areas of expert testimony
by 5:00 p.m. on ________, 2010. [or]
a. Plaintiffs shall disclose areas of expert testimony by 5:00 p.m. on _________,
2010.
b. Defendants shall disclose areas of expert testimony by 5:00 p.m. on _________,
2010.
2.
The parties shall mutually and simultaneously disclose the identity and opinions
of their expert witnesses by 5:00 p.m. on ________, 2010. [or]
a. Plaintiffs shall disclose the identity and opinions of their expert witnesses by
5:00 p.m. on ________, 2010.
b. Defendants shall disclose the identity and opinions of their expert witnesses by
5:00 p.m. on ________, 2010.
3.
Any and all discovery requests shall be served by 5:00 p.m. on ________, 2010.
4.
The parties shall disclose all non-expert witnesses and areas of testimony by 5:00
p.m. on ________, 2010.
5.
The parties shall mutually and simultaneously disclose their rebuttal expert
witnesses and opinions by 5:00 p.m. on ________, 2010.
6.
All discovery shall be concluded by 5:00 p.m. on ________, 2010.
7.
The parties shall have exchanged up-to-date final Rule 26.1 Supplemental
Disclosure Statements by 5:00 p.m. on ________, 2010. This Order does not
replace the parties’ obligation to seasonably disclose on an on-going basis under
Rule 26.1 as information becomes available.
8.
Settlement conference (choose one):
a.
PRIVATE MEDIATION

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
08/23/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 4
The parties shall participate in private mediation by 5:00 p.m. on ________,
2010;
All counsel/parties 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 mediation, even if no settlement is expected.
The mediator may permit a non-lawyer representative to appear
telephonically if such appearance is requested and granted prior to the
hearing.
OR
b.
REFERRAL TO ADR FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
**Referral will be issued by Clerk via separate minute entry.**
The parties request a referral to the Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Office
(ADR) for the appointment of a judge pro tempore to conduct a settlement
conference. The parties request that the judge pro tempore conduct a settlement
conference not later than ________________, 2010. (NOTE: The ADR Office
requires a minimum of 90 days to set a conference date.)
9.
No expert witnesses, expert opinions, lay witnesses, or exhibits shall be used at
trial other than those disclosed in a timely manner, except for good cause shown
or written agreement of the parties.
10.
All dispositive motions shall be filed by 5:00 p.m. on ____________, 2010.
11.
A Telephonic Status/Scheduling Conference is set for the purpose of assigning a
trial date on _____LEAVE DATE AND TIME BLANK___(time allotted: 15
minutes). Counsel/parties shall have their trial calendars available for the
conference.
NOTE: Counsel for the ________________ is to initiate the telephonic
conference by first arranging the presence of all other counsel or self-represented
parties on the conference call and by calling this division (602-506-3776) at the
scheduled time.
12.
Should any discovery disputes arise, counsel/parties, prior to filing discovery
motions, shall meet and confer pursuant to Rule 37, Ariz.R.Civ.P.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
08/23/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 5
13.
The dates set forth in this Order are FIRM dates and will not be extended or
modified by this Court absent good cause. Lack of preparation will not ordinarily
be considered good cause.
14.
If the parties stipulate to extend any of these deadlines, the Court must be
notified of said stipulation and must enter an order granting same. If no
order is obtained, the foregoing orders shall not be altered, despite any
agreement of the parties.
15.
Rule 38.1 of Ariz.R.Civ.P. is waived unless and until otherwise ordered by the
Court.
16.
Continuing this case on the inactive calendar until ________________.
_____________________
______________________________
Date
Honorable Dean M. Fink

Judge of the Superior Court
ALERT: eFiling through AZTurboCourt.gov is mandatory in civil cases for attorney-
filed documents effective May 1, 2011. See Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Orders
2010-117 and 2011-010. The Court may impose sanctions against counsel to ensure compliance
with this requirement after May 1, 2011.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/05/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
10/04/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
BRIAN D MYERS
BETH MULCAHY
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
MINUTE ENTRY
Pursuant to the parties Scheduling Order,
IT IS ORDERED the parties shall participate in a mandatory settlement conference. This
case is referred to the Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Office 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 Judge Pro Tempore is requested to conduct a settlement conference
not later than February 19, 2012. 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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
10/04/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
ALERT: Effective September 1, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order
2011-87 directs the Clerk's Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil
cases must still be initiated on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through
AZTurboCourt unless an exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/11/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
10/07/2011
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
BRIAN D MYERS
BETH MULCAHY
ORAL ARGUMENT SET
IT IS ORDERED setting this matter for oral argument on Defendant Pinnacle
Restoration, LLC’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Rule12(c), Ariz.
R. Civ. P. on November 23, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. (20 minutes) in this division.
Honorable Dean M. Fink
125 W. Washington, Old Courthouse, Suite 202
Phoenix, 85003
(602) 506-3776
IT IS ORDERED that all Motions, Responses, Replies and other Court requested
filings in this case must be submitted individually. Counsel shall not combine any Motion
within a responsive pleading. All Motions are to be filed separately and designated as such.
No pleadings will be accepted if filed in combination with another.
A record of the proceedings will be made by videotape and CD in lieu of a court reporter.
Should you want an unofficial copy of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may request a
videotape or CD of the proceedings for a $20.00 charge. If a CD or videotape is requested,
please obtain a form from the courtroom clerk or from the Self Service Center to request a daily

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
10/07/2011
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
copy of a court hearing or trial proceeding being conducted. Pay the applicable fee at the Self
Service Center. Attach the receipt showing payment of the fee and present both the receipt and
the form to the courtroom clerk or bailiff. For copies of hearings or trial proceedings
recorded previously, please call Electronic Records Services at 602-506-7100.
Should an official transcript be required, you may request that the court prepare it. The
party ordering the transcript must pay for it. To request a transcript call 602-506-7100 and
provide the date of the proceeding, the case number, the case caption, if the transcript is for an
appeal, and your name, address and telephone number. With this new technology, a court
reporter is likely not required and the parties are encouraged to experience the court's video
recording system before requesting a court reporter. If a court reporter is required, the court must
receive a written request at least 3 court days before the commencement of the proceeding.
Failure to timely request a court reporter will be deemed consent to proceed without a court
reporter.
IF ANY ISSUES IN THE MOTION RELATE TO DISCOVERY PROBLEMS,
COUNSEL SHALL CONFER TO ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THEIR DIFFERENCES OR TO
REDUCE THE AREAS OF DISPUTE. COUNSEL ARE REMINDED THAT THE COURT
WILL LIKELY IMPOSE SANCTIONS AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY IN ACCORDANCE
WITH RULE 37(a)(4), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:
If extended oral argument is necessary, counsel must so advise the Court no later than
four court days prior to the date set for hearing so that oral argument can be rescheduled.
Any motion or stipulation for continuance must be filed with the Court no later than four
court days prior to the date set for hearing. After that date, no continuances will be granted
except for extraordinary circumstances.
All memoranda and affidavits regarding the motion must be filed and copies lodged with
this division no later than four court days prior to the date set for hearing.
Counsel are advised that if the answering memorandum is not timely filed in accordance
with the Arizona Rules Of Civil Procedure, oral argument may be vacated and the motion will be
ruled upon in accordance with Rule 7.1 (b), A.R.C.P.
No agreement by the parties to modify the pleading schedule will be honored by the
Court unless the Court is notified and approves the parties’ agreement. Any such agreement

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
10/07/2011
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 3
will not change the argument date without a court Order and will, in any event, require that all
motions are fully briefed and at issue not later than one full week before the argument date.
ALERT: Effective September 1, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order
2011-87 directs the Clerk's Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil
cases must still be initiated on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through
AZTurboCourt unless an exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/12/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
10/11/2012
Docket Code 084
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
BRIAN D MYERS
THOMAS P BURKE II
INACTIVE CALENDAR
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE RESET
The Court is in receipt of the Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadline filed October 5,
2012.
IT IS ORDERED granting the Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadline.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the telephonic trial scheduling conference set
October 15, 2012 and resetting same to December 3, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. Counsel for Plaintiff is
requested to initiate the call to the Court at 602-506-3776.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED continuing this case on the inactive calendar until
December 17, 2012.
As there have been multiple extensions of this deadline, no further extensions will be
granted.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/18/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
10/17/2011
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
BRIAN D MYERS
BETH MULCAHY
MINUTE ENTRY
IT IS ORDERED adding Defendant Camelback Village’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings to the oral argument set on November 23, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. and adding an additional
ten minutes for a total allotted time of 30 minutes.
ALERT: Effective September 1, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order
2011-87 directs the Clerk's Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil
cases must still be initiated on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through
AZTurboCourt unless an exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/01/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
10/30/2013
Docket Code 078
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
C. Keller
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
THOMAS P BURKE II
INACTIVE CALENDAR
The Court is advised this case has been settled.
IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the Inactive Calendar for dismissal on
December 23, 2013 without further notice unless prior to said date Judgment is entered or filed
or a Stipulation for Dismissal is presented.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating any previous order placing/continuing this
matter on the inactive calendar.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED any pending motions are hereby deemed moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Final Trial Management Conference set for
November 4, 2013 and Trial set for December 10, 2013 in this division.
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/25/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
11/23/2011
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Swanson
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
BRIAN D MYERS
BETH MULCAHY
ERIN E MCMANIS
PATRICK J VAN ZANEN
UNDER ADVISEMENT
OCH Courtroom 202
9:02 a.m. This is the time set for oral argument on Defendant Pinnacle Restoration LLC’s
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Rule 12(c), Ariz.R.Civ.P. and Defendant
Camelback Village Improvement Association Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
Plaintiff is represented by counsel, Mark Depasquale, Defendant Pinnacle Restoration LLC is
represented by counsel, Patrick Van Zanen and Defendant Camelback Village Improvement
Association Inc. is represented by counsel, Erin McManis.
A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.
The Court notes that all filed documents related to these motions have been received and
reviewed.
Oral argument is presented.
IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
11/23/2011
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2
The Court notes that discovery deadlines are approaching and may need to be changed
dependent upon the Court’s ruling. The Court advises party discussions to best determine how to
handle deadlines. If an agreement is reached, counsel should keep the Court apprised by
submitting a Stipulation and Order regarding same. If no agreement is reached, this should be
brought to the Court’s attention as soon as possible.
9:49 a.m. Matter concludes.
ALERT: Effective September 1, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order
2011-87 directs the Clerk's Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil
cases must still be initiated on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through
AZTurboCourt unless an exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/01/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
11/30/2011
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
BRIAN D MYERS
BETH MULCAHY
ERIN E MCMANIS
PATRICK J VAN ZANEN
UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING
The Court took this matter under advisement following oral argument on November 23,
2011. Upon further consideration of Defendant Pinnacle Restoration, LLC’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Rule 12(c) Ariz. R. Civ. P. and Defendant Camelback
Village Improvement Association, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, the Court finds
as follows.
Pinnacle Restoration
Ms. Brown has no claim in equity for unjust enrichment because, even if Pinnacle was
enriched by its failure to perform, she did not enrich it. It is not enough that the defendant is
unjustly enriched; it must be unjustly enriched at the expense of the claimant. Western
Corrections Group, Inc. v. Tierney, 208 Ariz. 583, 590 ¶ 27 (App. 2004). Here, if there was an
enrichment, it was by the CVIA and/or its insurer, not by Ms. Brown. Complaint ¶ 18-19. She
may have been impoverished by the work she had to contract for as a result of Pinnacle’s
nonperformance, but her impoverishment did not enrich Pinnacle. Neither was Pinnacle enriched
by Ms. Brown’s payment of insurance premiums to CVIA; Pinnacle was not part, directly or

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
11/30/2011
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2
indirectly, of that transaction merely by virtue of later being contracted to perform covered
repairs, so as far as it was concerned, Ms. Brown was receiving its services gratuitously.
The Court cannot consider an alternative claim that Ms. Brown was an intended third-
party beneficiary of the contract between Pinnacle and CVIA and/or its insurer because no such
claim is pled in the complaint. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED granting Pinnacle Restoration, L.L.C.’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings Pursuant to Rule 12 (c) Ariz. R. Civ. P.
CVIA
According to paragraph 9 of the complaint, CVIA had the right, which it exercised, to
“procure a blanket insurance policy [which] shall insure each of the Units within the Properties.”
A “blanket” insurance policy is a single policy covering the entirety, not a conglomeration of
policies each covering one unit. It is therefore clear from the language of the CC&Rs that Ms.
Brown and the other owners cannot each be named insureds on the single policy, as they had no
insurable interest in each others’ units. This of course does not mean that CVIA was not
obligated as part of its blanket policy to insure the individual owners and to make proceeds
payable to them and it “jointly,” both of which the CC&Rs require. To the extent that these
breaches are alleged, the complaint states a claim.
The claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing appears to be duplicative
of the breach of contract claim. There is thus no harm in leaving it in, subject to later removal if
necessary.
The Court is not certain whether a fiduciary duty existed between CVIA and Ms. Brown,
but a motion for judgment on the pleadings is not the proper vehicle for resolving such legal
questions. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant Camelback Village (sic) Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings.
ALERT: Effective September 1, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order
2011-87 directs the Clerk's Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil
cases must still be initiated on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through
AZTurboCourt unless an exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/05/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
12/03/2012
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK
S. Brown
Deputy
CAROLINE BROWN
MARK J DEPASQUALE
v.
PINNACLE RESTORATION L L C, et al.
THOMAS P BURKE II
TRIAL/TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SET
Courtroom 202-Old Courthouse
2:12 p.m. This is the time set for a telephonic trial scheduling conference. Plaintiff is
represented by counsel, Mark DePasquale. Defendant Camelback Village Improvement
Association, Inc. is represented by counsel, Thomas Burke.
A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held regarding the parties’ Stipulation Regarding Discovery filed
November 20, 2012.
IT IS ORDERED granting the Stipulation and extending the discovery deadline to
March 15, 2013.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED extending the dispositive motion deadline until
March 29, 2013.
Discussion is held regarding trial date. Based thereon, the Court enters the following
orders:

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
12/03/2012
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 2
1. This matter is set for a 4-day Jury Trial on July 30 and 31 and August 1 and 2,
2013 at 9:30 a.m. in this division. THIS IS A FIRM TRIAL DATE. Additional
orders in this regard shall be contained later in this minute entry.
A record of the proceedings will be made by CD in lieu of a court reporter. If a CD
is requested, please obtain a form from the Self Service Center to request a daily copy
of a court hearing or trial proceeding being conducted. Pay the applicable fee at the
Self Service Center. Attach the receipt showing payment of the fee and present both
the receipt and the form to the courtroom clerk or bailiff. For copies of hearings or
trial proceedings recorded previously, please call Electronic Records Services at
602-506-7100. The CD-R disk may be viewed using Microsoft’s Media Player or
JAVS’ CaseViewer. “CaseViewer” is available for free from Jefferson Audio Visual
Systems at:
http://www.javs.com/downloads/programs.htm
Should an official transcript be required, you may request that the court prepare it.
The party ordering the transcript must pay for it. With this new technology, a court
reporter is likely not required and the parties are encouraged to experience the court's
digital video recording system before requesting a court reporter. To request a
transcript, call 602-506-7100 and provide the date of the proceeding, the case
number, the case caption, if the transcript is for an appeal, and your name, address,
and telephone number.
If a court reporter is required, the Court must receive a written request at least 3 court
days before the commencement of the proceeding. Failure to timely request a court
reporter will be deemed consent to proceed without a court reporter.
2. A Final Pretrial Management Conference is set on July 1, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. in
this division. Lead trial counsel shall personally appear. The Court has set aside 1
hour for said hearing.
The joint pretrial statement in accordance with Rule 16(d), A.R.C.P., is due by
5:00 p.m., on June 24, 2013, five (5) business days prior to the management
conference. Plaintiff shall provide a draft of the pretrial statement to
Defendant(s) no later than June 17, 2013. In addition to the information required by
Rule 16(d), counsel are to identify in/with the joint pretrial statement all deposition or
other transcribed testimony that may be offered at trial. The proposed testimony is to

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
12/03/2012
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 3
be identified by reference to page and line numbers. Objections, if any, to such
testimony, and the reasons for such objections, are also to be set forth.
2:26 p.m. Matter concludes.
Pursuant to the foregoing trial setting, the Court enters the following additional orders:
1. No less than five (5) judicial days prior to management conference, counsel (or the
parties) shall file:
A. Requested jury instructions, and any voir dire questions counsel request that
the Court ask. The Judge would appreciate counsel providing a copy of the
jury instruction requests on CD, in Microsoft Word;
B. Any trial memoranda (optional), which will be in lieu of post-trial briefs
unless otherwise requested by the Court at the conclusion of the trial; and
C. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (if a request for findings of
fact and conclusions of law has been or will be filed).
2. Counsel shall meet at least five (5) days before the pretrial management conference
to complete the form that is attached to this minute entry. Each attorney will list the
witnesses that will be called and estimate the time for his or her direct examination of
his or her witnesses and his or her cross-examination of opposing witnesses. In
addition, counsel will estimate the time they will need for opening statements and
closing arguments. The form must be brought to the Court at the pretrial
management conference. The Court will use the form to predict the length of the trial
for the jurors and to direct counsel to follow the time limits estimated. IN
PREPARING THIS FORM, BEAR IN MIND THAT ONE TRIAL DAY ALLOWS
FOR APPOXIAMATELY FIVE (5) HOURS OF ACTUAL TRIAL TIME.
ATTACHMENT: Witness Information Form
3. Motions in limine shall be filed no later than June 3, 2013, thirty (30) days prior to
the pretrial management conference. Prior to filing any motion in limine, the parties
must meet and confer. Unless prior written leave of court is obtained for good cause
shown, no party may file more than three (3) motions in limine, including all
subparts.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
12/03/2012
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 4
4. Prior to submitting the exhibits for trial to the division, counsel shall meet and
confer to determine that there are no duplicate exhibits from either party. Duplicate
exhibits and original depositions will not be marked. At least two weeks prior to
trial (or anytime prior), counsel or their knowledgeable assistants shall contact the
clerk of this division at 602-506-8946 to discuss the procedure for the submission of
the exhibits. No later than one week before trial (5 business days), all exhibits shall
be submitted to the clerk of the division for marking unless otherwise approved by the
clerk. The exhibits will be marked numerically and serially - Plaintiff's first,
Defendant's second. Please advise the clerk if any exhibits may be received directly
in evidence by providing a signed stipulation as to said exhibits (lack of an objection
to an exhibit in the Joint Pretrial Statement does not mean the exhibit automatically is
received in evidence). If large demonstrative exhibits are submitted for marking, a
smaller version of the exhibit must also be provided in case the exhibit is received
into evidence. NOTE: Every exhibit must be securely bound by a staple, prong
or in a binder of some sort. Exhibits not securely bound or bound with binder
clips or rubber bands will not be accepted.
5. Opinions of experts fairly sought and revealed in deposition or other discovery shall
not be supplemented at trial.
6. The witness and exhibit lists shall contain no surprises; any information sought by
other discovery devices and revealed for the first time on the witness or exhibit lists
will be inadmissible at trial.
7. All documents and pleadings described above shall be delivered or telefaxed to
opposing counsel on the date they are delivered to the Court.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
12/03/2012
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 5
WITNESS INFORMATION FORM
Please note that there are approximately 5 hours of trial time which includes two 15-minute
breaks and 1½ hours for lunch. It generally takes about a half day to select a jury unless it’s a
long trial.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
TIME ESTIMATE FOR:
PLAINTIFF(S) VOIR DIRE
DEFENDANT(S) VOIR DIRE
WITNESSES FOR PLAINTIFF(S)
WITNESS NAME
DIRECT &
RE-DIRECT
CROSS
1
2
3
4
5
6
DIRECT, RE-DIRECT & CROSS
TOTAL:_________________

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-008669
12/03/2012
Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 6
WITNESSES FOR DEFENDANT(S)
WITNESS NAME
DIRECT &
RE-DIRECT
CROSS
1
2
3
4
5
6
DIRECT, RE-DIRECT & CROSS
TOTAL:_______________
TOTAL WITNESS TIME ESTIMATE:___________________________
TIME ESTIMATE FOR:
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
OPENING STATEMENT
CLOSING ARGUMENT
1st:
2nd:
TOTAL ESTIMATED TRIAL TIME: 4 days
Should not exceed 20 total hours
ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's
Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated
on paper; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboCourt unless an
exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

Documents