01/31/2012 — CV2011016014 & TRUST COMPANY, FIRST-CITIZENS BANK 01/31/2012 HONORABLE BENJAMIN E. VATZ View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/01/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-016014
01/31/2012
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE BENJAMIN E. VATZ
S. Hack
Deputy
FIRST-CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY
KENT E CAMMACK
v.
DONNA PIEKUTOWSKI, et al.
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom: OCH 005.
9:11 a.m. This is the time set for Default Hearing. Plaintiff is represented by counsel,
Kent Cammack. Defendant is not present or represented by counsel.
A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.
Kent Cammack is sworn and discussion is held regarding service.
Counsel is directed to submit a supplemental affidavit regarding due diligence by close of
business, February 3, 2012.
9:13 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.
09/30/2011 — CV2011016014 & TRUST COMPANY, FIRST-CITIZENS BANK 09/30/2011 HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Filed ***
10/04/2011 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-016014
09/30/2011
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
D. Harding
Deputy
FIRST-CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY
KENT E CAMMACK
v.
DONNA PIEKUTOWSKI, et al.
DONNA PIEKUTOWSKI
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
VENTANA LAKES PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATION
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Approve Alternative
Service.
Ariz. R. Civ. P., Rule 4.1(d) provides that service upon an individual shall be effected by
delivering a copy of the summons and of the pleadings to that individual personally and/or by
leaving copies of these documents with some person of suitable age and discretion residing
within the residence.
The purpose of process is, of course, to provide effective notice to the Defendant that he
is being called to Court by the Plaintiff to account for the matters set forth in the complaint. Such
notice is required by the Due Process Clauses of both the United States and Arizona
Constitutions. Where service of process on a Defendant does not comply with the prescribed
procedural requirements, the Court does not obtain jurisdiction, and any judgment rendered
against that Defendant is void for lack of jurisdiction. 1
1 Postal Instant Press, Inc. v. Corral Restaurants, Inc. , 186 Ariz. 535, 925 P.2d 260 [1996].
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-016014
09/30/2011
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
A fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded
finality is that such notice must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to appraise
a Defendant of the pendency of the action and afford that defendant an opportunity to present
whatever legal objections he may have.
Ariz. R. Civ. P., Rule 4.1(m) provides an alternative means of service only if service by
on of the means set forth in the rule proves “impractical”. Although, the term is not synonymous
with the term impossibility, it does require a showing that service is extremely difficult, and
impractical. That is, caused by extreme or unreasonable difficulty or expense. The term
impractical equates with the term futility.2
A Defendant has a right to receive notice of the pendency of an action against him.
Process which is mere gesture and is not reasonably calculated to give Defendant notice of the
pending proceedings is insufficient. Such notice does not comply with the requirements of due
process.
The actual means employed to effectuate service upon a Defendant must be reasonably
calculated to provide notice. The reasonableness and hence the constitutional validity of any
chosen method must be capable of being defended on the ground that it is in itself reasonably
certain to inform those affected.
The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Alternative Service. Under
the circumstances described, the service proposed by Plaintiff would not be reasonably
calculated to give defendant notice of these proceedings.
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Alternative Service.
Dated: October 3, 2011
/ s / HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA
JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
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.
2 Blair v. Burgener, 598 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 26.
