Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2013-003636: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Chauncey Ranch Office Condominium Association.

Case Number

CV2013-003636

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

4/18/2013

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Fox, Dewain

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/20/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

01/16/2015

Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
S. Brown

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
JOHN A BURIC

HEARING SET

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Protective Order and Request for
Emergency Hearing filed January 14, 2015.

IT IS ORDERED setting a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion on January 20, 2015 at
9:00 a.m. (30 minutes) before:

HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
201 W. JEFFERSON
EAST COURT BUILDING, SUITE 412
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
(602) 506-4164

A record of the proceedings will be made by CD in lieu of a court reporter. Should you
want an unofficial copy of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may request a CD of the
proceedings for a $20.00 charge. If a CD is requested, please obtain a form from the bailiff or
from the Self Center to request a daily copy of a court hearing or trial proceeding being

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

01/16/2015

Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 2

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 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.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/22/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

01/20/2015

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
COMMISSIONER PATRICIA ANN STARR
T. DeRaddo

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
JOHN A BURIC

PETER J FOSTER
LYDIA P LINSMEIER

HEARING

East Court Building – Courtroom 412

9:04 a.m. This is the time set for an Emergency Hearing regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for
Entry of Protective Order and Request for Emergency Hearing, filed on January 14, 2015.
Appearing on behalf of Plaintiffs are counsel, Lydia Peirce Linsmeier and Augustus H. Shaw.
Appearing on behalf of Defendant, North Scottsdale Pain Center, LLC, is counsel, Peter Foster.

A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.

Discussion is held regarding the status of the matter at issue. Defendant cites Ariz. R.
Civ. P. 26 (c)(2), as the governing rule regarding releasing litigation material to non-parties.

The parties present their arguments.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

01/20/2015

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2

The Court has determined that although Defendants have redacted portions of the
depositions of Renee Hanson, and Gladys Effio, part of the Chauncey Ranch Office
Condominium Association, there remains a safety issue.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the depositions of Renee Hanson and Gladys Effio shall not be re-
posted for at least two weeks, until a determination is made by this Court after oral arguments are
presented on February 3, 2015, and a final ruling is made by this Court.

At this time, Oral Argument will be presented on the following:

(1) Defendant North Scottsdale Pain Center’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on
October 15, 2014; and
(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Suppress Deposition Transcript (re: Renee Hanson), filed on
December 24, 2014.

There is a stipulation by the parties that Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Suppress shall be due by January 23, 2015. Additionally,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Protective Order by no later than January 23, 2015.

9:00 a.m. Matter concludes.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/27/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

01/26/2015

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
T. DeRaddo

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
JOHN A BURIC

PETER J FOSTER
LYDIA P LINSMEIER

MINUTE ENTRY

A clerical error having been made,

IT IS ORDERED correcting the minute entry dated January 20, 2015, page 1, to include
the correct title of the Judicial Officer as the Honorable Patricia Ann Starr, in place and instead
of Commissioner Patricia Ann Starr.

The balance of the minute entry remains unchanged.

The minute entry dated January 20, 2015, is available for viewing at:
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/31/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

01/29/2014

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
S. Uppendahl

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
QUINTEN T CUPPS
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
SCOTT H ZWILLINGER

D ROSAS INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE
DESIGN GROUP
C/O DINA ROSAS
5958 E CORRINE DR STE 102
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85254
DINA ROSAS
5958 E CORRINE DR
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85254

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court received Defendant North Scottsdale Pain Center, LLC’s Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings, filed November 22, 2013, response and reply.

IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on February 10, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. (30
minutes) 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 ***

02/12/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

02/10/2014

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
M. Nielsen

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
QUINTEN T CUPPS

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
SCOTT H ZWILLINGER

D ROSAS INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE
DESIGN GROUP
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
DINA ROSAS
5958 E CORRINE DR
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85254
JOE ROSAS
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom 412 – East Court Building

10:05 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument regarding Defendant North Scottsdale
Pain Center, LLC’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed November 22, 2013. Plaintiff is
represented by counsel, Augustus Shaw. Defendant North Scottsdale Pain Center, LLC is
represented by counsel, Scott H. Zwillinger.

A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.

Discussion is held regarding case status.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

02/10/2014

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2

Oral argument is presented.

IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.

10:28 a.m. Matter concludes.

LATER:

The Court heard oral argument on Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
filed November 22, 2013. A response and reply were filed.

The Court considered the parties’ papers, and requested to be provided with a complete
copy of the articles of the CC&R’s that were referenced in their arguments. Counsel for both
parties agreed to allow the Court to consider the articles of the CC&R’s that were discussed but
not attached to the complaint.

For reasons more fully stated in Plaintiff’s response, the Court finds that the Article 11
“Dispute Resolution” process does not apply to this situation in which Defendant admittedly
installed a door along a common wall without Association approval. The Association filed suit
to compel the Unit Owner to comply CC&R § 4.3 which requires prior written consent of the
Association Board before altering a perimeter or party wall or making any structural alteration
within a unit. Although part of Article 12 which is titled “General Provisions,” §12.1 quite
specifically applies to enforcement of the CC&R’s and clearly authorizes the Association to file
a suit at law or in equity to enjoin a violation of, or compel compliance with, the CC&R’s.

The Court rejects Defendant’s effort to cast the dispute as one over a design defect to
shoehorn it into Article 11’s dispute resolution provisions. While the design of Defendant’s
build-out would have been considered by the Board when it decided whether to approve, the
problem here is that Defendant failed to seek approval at all.

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED denying on Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed
November 22, 2013.

On the Court’s own motion,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

02/10/2014

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 3

IT IS ORDERED ordering the parties to submit a Joint Scheduling Order, as follows:

Counsel and/or the parties are to meet personally to discuss all of the matters set forth in
Rule 16(b), Ariz. R. Civ. P. Counsel and/or the parties shall prepare and file with the Court, no
later than 5:00 p.m. on March 12, 2014, a Joint Scheduling Order, for discovery, motion and
disclosure deadlines.

If the parties agree to the dates, they should prepare an Order in the form attached
hereto, containing the provisions which are applicable to their case. For example, paragraph one
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 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 (June 1, 2013, rather than 45 days from
close of discovery). Do not incorporate a firm trial date in the proposed Order.

If counsel 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 a separate document and
not in the proposed Order.

The Court will review the proposed Scheduling Order. If all is in order, the Court will set
a status conference close to the discovery cutoff date. At the 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 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 proposed Scheduling Order.

If a Joint Scheduling Order is not timely submitted, the Court will place the matter back
on the Inactive Calendar for dismissal.

NOTE: COUNSEL SHALL UPLOAD AND E-FILE ALL PROPOSED ORDERS
IN WORD FORMAT ONLY TO ALLOW FOR POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS BY THE
COURT.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

02/10/2014

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 4

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 ***

03/03/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

03/02/2015

Docket Code 095
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
S. Brown

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
JOHN A BURIC

ORAL ARGUMENT RESET

IT IS ORDERED vacating the Oral Argument on Defendant North Scottsdale Pain
Center’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed October 15, 2014, and Plaintiff’s Motion to
Suppress Deposition Transcript (re: Renee Hanson), filed December 24, 2014, set on February
20, 2015 and resetting same to March 27, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. (30 minutes) in this division.

Honorable Patricia A. Starr
101 W. Jefferson, East Court Building, Suite 412
Phoenix, 85003

(602) 506-4164

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
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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

03/02/2015

Docket Code 095
Form V000A
Page 2

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.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/04/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

03/03/2015

Docket Code 095
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
S. Brown

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
JOHN A BURIC

ORAL ARGUMENT RESET

Due to a calendar conflict,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the Oral Argument date of March 27, 2015 and resetting
same to April 3, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. (30 minutes).

HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
201 W. JEFFERSON
EAST COURT BUILDING, SUITE 412
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
(602) 506-4164

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/11/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

03/09/2015

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
S. Brown

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
JOHN A BURIC

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received the Motion to Consolidate filed by Dr. Vengurlekar, along with
the Motion for Expedited Consideration.

The Court finds no basis to decide the Motion without considering a Response, and
therefore, the Motion for Expedited Consideration is denied. The Court will consider whether
the matters should be consolidated after the Motion is fully briefed.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/17/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

03/14/2014

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
S. Uppendahl

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
QUINTEN T CUPPS

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
SCOTT H ZWILLINGER

D ROSAS INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE
DESIGN GROUP
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
DINA ROSAS
5958 E CORRINE DR
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85254
JOE ROSAS
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court received the parties’ proposed scheduling order, filed March 11, 2014.

After review of the docket, the Court notes that the complaint in this matter was filed
April 18, 2013 and involves a dispute over the placement of a door which Defendant admits to
installing without Association approval, which was required by the CC&R’s. The Court already
denied Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and Plaintiff recently filed its own
motion for summary judgment.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

03/14/2014

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

Despite the age and posture of the case, the parties proposed a scheduling order that
would allow discovery to continue until February 2, 2015 and to allow dispositive motions to be
filed as late as January 20, 2015. If these deadlines are adopted by the Court, the case likely
would not be set for trial until the summer of 2015. The Court requests that the parties revisit
these deadlines to determine whether they truly need another nine months to file dispositive
motions and another ten months to complete discovery. If so, the parties must provide an
explanation of complexity of the issues or other good cause for the additional time. If not, the
parties may propose a different schedule. If neither an explanation nor a new schedule is filed by
April 4, 2014, the proposed scheduling order, filed March 11, 2014, will be rejected.

Effective April 15, 2014 new civil rules and forms are in effect for managing cases
moving to trial. Be sure to review the new Civil Rules 16, 26, 37, 38, 72 through 74 and 77.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/08/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

04/03/2015

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
B. Roberts/S. Brown

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
JOHN A BURIC

LYDIA P LINSMEIER

MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT

Courtroom: East Court Building 412

1:30 p.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument on Defendant North Scottsdale Pain
Center’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed October 15, 2014, and Plaintiff’s Motion to
Suppress Deposition Transcript (re: Renee Hanson), filed December 24, 2014. Plaintiff is
represented by counsel, Lydia Liensmeirer. Defendant, North Scottsdale Pain Center, LLC, is
represented by counsel, John Buric and Peter Foster.

A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.

Pursuant to the agreement of counsel, no argument will be presented on Plaintiff’s
Motion to Suppress Deposition Transcript, and the Court will rule on the pleadings submitted as
to this motion.

Oral argument is presented on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

04/03/2015

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.

Discussion held regarding the Motion to Consolidate filed March 4, 2015.

Counsel are advised that if the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, then the
Motion to Consolidate is moot. If the Court denies the Motion for Summary Judgment, an Oral
Argument will be set for the Motion to Consolidate.

1:56 p.m. Matter concludes.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/14/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

04/11/2014

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
S. Uppendahl

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
JOHN A BURIC

DINA ROSAS
D ROSAS INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE
5958 E CORRINE DR
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85254
SCOTT H ZWILLINGER

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court received Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to Respond
to Motion for Summary Judgment, filed April 9, 2014.

IT IS ORDERED setting a Telephonic Status Conference on April 15, 2014 at 9:15 a.m.
(15 minutes). Plaintiff’s counsel shall initiate the call to the Court by calling 602-372-0825.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying, as moot, Scott Zwillinger’s Application for Leave
to Withdraw as Counsel of Record and to Stay Matter Pending Appearance of New Counsel,
filed March 21, 2014.

Effective April 15, 2014 new civil rules and forms are in effect for managing cases
moving to trial. Be sure to review the new Civil Rules 16, 26, 37, 38, 72 through 74 and 77.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/20/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

04/14/2015

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
S. Brown

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
JOHN A BURIC

LYDIA P LINSMEIER

UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING

Motion to Suppress Deposition Transcript, filed December 24, 2014

Plaintiff Chauncey Ranch Office Condominium Association (“the Association”) seeks to
suppress the deposition of Renee Hanson for purposes of the motion for summary judgment. The
Court has considered the Motion, Response, and Reply.

As NSPC points out, Ms. Hanson reviewed and signed her deposition, and changed
nothing of substance. Notably, none of the cited excerpts of Ms. Hanson’s deposition transcript
were changed. Moreover, it is undisputed that Defendant North Scottsdale Pain Center
(“NSPC”) attempted to depose Ms. Hanson prior to the dispositive motion deadline, but could
not because of scheduling issues. Finally, Ms. Hanson’s explanation of page 184 of her
deposition testimony has been provided to and considered by the court. For all those reasons,

IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion to Suppress.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the request for attorneys’ fees regarding the
Motion to Suppress.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

04/14/2015

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed October 15, 2015

NSPC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on December 15, 2014, to which the
Association filed its Response on November 14, 2014. NSPC replied on December 11, 2014.

The Court has considered the papers, related pleadings, as well as the argument of
counsel and applicable law.

A court may enter summary judgment only if “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 56(a), Ariz.
R. Civ. P. See also Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp, 228 Ariz. 134, 137-38, ¶ 7, 263 P. 3d
683, 686-87 (App. 2011).

In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the facts and the
reasonable inferences to be drawn from those facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party. See, e.g., Espinoza v. Schulenburg, 212 Ariz. 215, 216, ¶ 6, 129 P.3d 937, 938 (2006).

NSPC seeks summary judgment, arguing that the Association cannot, as a matter of law,
prove the elements of its claims for Breach of Contract and Injunctive Relief. (Motion at 1.)

Breach of Contract

To bring its breach of contract claim, the Association must prove “the existence of the
contract, its breach and the resulting damages.” Graham v. Asbury, 112 Ariz. 184, 185, 540 P.2d
656, 657 (1975).

In response to NSPC’s argument that the Association cannot establish damages, the
Association asserts that it “is in the process of conducting further discovery and will argue its
damages at trial.” (Response at 8.) However, with the exception of depositions, all discovery
concluded on December 31, 2014. (See Scheduling Order, entered June 2, 2014; Order
Extending Cutoff Date for Depositions, entered November 18, 2014.) The date for the
Association to provide a computation and measure of damages and the documents or testimony
on which the computation and measure of damages is based has come and gone. See Rule
26.1(a)(7), Ariz. R. Civ. P.

At oral argument, the Association disclosed, for the first time, a theory of “nominal
damages” based on the tax value of the “stolen” portion of the Common Elements. But that
disclosure is neither timely nor sufficient.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

04/14/2015

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3

Injunctive Relief

The Association also seeks injunctive relief, which would require NSPC to move the door
which is the subject of the action, at an undisputed expense of approximately $245,000, and then
seek permission to move the door back to its current location. It is also undisputed that this
process would require the closing of NSPC, a medical facility, for months.

For specific performance to be appropriate, five elements must be met. The Power
P.E.O., Inc. v. Employees Ins. Of Wausau, 201 Ariz. 559, 563, ¶ 22, 38 P.3d 1224, 1229 (App.
2002). Most pertinent here is the fourth requirement: “specific performance must not inflict
hardship on the other party or public that outweighs the anticipated benefit to the party seeking
specific performance . . .” Id.

Based on the undisputed facts in this matter, no reasonable factfinder could find that
specific performance would not inflict hardship on either NSPC and/or the public. Nor could any
reasonable factfinder find that the anticipated benefit to the Association would outweigh the
hardship inflicted by requiring relocation of the door.

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion for Summary Judgment.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Defendant to submit a proposed Form of
Judgment, along with any request for attorneys’ fees and/or costs, within thirty (30) days of this
order.

Motion to Consolidate, filed March 4, 2015

Based on the Court’s ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court deems the
Motion to Consolidate to be moot. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate.

Motion for Entry of Protective Order, filed January 14, 2015

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

04/14/2015

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 4

The Court has considered the Association’s Motion for Protective Order, filed January
14, 2015, the Response filed by NSPC on January 23, 2015, and the Association’s Reply, filed
January 28, 2015.

The Court previously ordered that the depositions of Renee Hanson and Gladys Effio not
be posted on the website set up by Defendant, pending a final resolution of this Motion by the
court.

First, given that the Court has granted summary judgment in this matter, many of the
concerns raised by the Association are now moot. Second, most of the material which the
Association seeks to protect is available in the public record, because it has been included in
documents filed with the court.

Under Rule 26(c), Ariz. R. Civ. P., the Association bears the burden of showing good
cause for a protective order, and any order restricting the release of information to nonparties
must use “the least restrictive means to maintain any needed confidentiality.”

After consideration of the arguments, review of the redacted transcripts, which were
provided to the court, and the requirements of Rule 26(c), the court finds: (1) the deponents have
a legitimate need to maintain the privacy of their personally identifying information; (2) any
nonparty has no identifiable need to obtain the deponents personal information; and (3) release of
the deponents’ personal identifying information constitutes a risk to the deponents’ personal
safety and/or financial welfare. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion for Protective Order to the following extent: any
depositions posted to the website at issue must be redacted. The information to be redacted
includes: personal or confidential information such as spouse’s name, home address, email
address, phone number, date of birth, or any other personally identifying information.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order does not supersede or in any way affect
orders entered in CV 2015-051049. If the judicial officer in that matter enters an order regarding
the information in this matter that is more restrictive than the order entered by this court, the
parties must abide by it.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the request for attorneys’ fees as to the Motion
for Protective Order.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/17/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

04/15/2014

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
D. Harding

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
PETER J FOSTER

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom ECB-514

9:20 a.m. This is the time set for telephonic status conference. Plaintiff is represented by
counsel, Augustus H. Shaw, IV. Defendant North Scottsdale Pain Center, LLC (“NSPC”) is
represented by counsel, John A. Buric.

A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.

Discussion is held regarding case status.

The Court has received Defendant NSPC’s Motion to Extend Time to Respond to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed April 9, 2014; and Plaintiff’s Objection to
Motion Extend Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed April 11,
2014.

Argument is held regarding Defendant NSPC’s Motion.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

04/15/2014

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion to Extend Time to Respond to May 16,
2014.

9:37 a.m. Matter concludes.

Effective April 15, 2014 new civil rules and forms are in effect for managing cases
moving to trial. Be sure to review the new Civil Rules 16, 26, 37, 38, 72 through 74 and 77.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/29/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

04/28/2015

Docket Code 021
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
S. Brown

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
JOHN A BURIC

LYDIA P LINSMEIER

MINUTE ENTRY

IT IS ORDERED nunc pro tunc amending the Under Advisement Ruling minute entry
dated April 14, 2015, page 2, to indicate the date in the heading of the first paragraph should read
as Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed October 15, 2014, in place of October 15,
2015.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED amending the second paragraph on page 2, to indicate
that NSPC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on October 15, 2014, in place of December 15,
2014.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/03/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-003636
04/30/2013
Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
D. Glab
Deputy
CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
QUINTEN T CUPPS
v.
NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C
ORDER SIGNED
IT IS ORDERED approving/granting the formal written Order to Show Cause signed and
modified by the Court on April 30, 2013, and entered (filed) by the clerk on April 30, 2013.
The modification is as follows:
Defendant, North Scottsdale Pain Center, LLC shall appear on the 29th day of May,
2013, at 9:45 a.m. at the Maricopa County Superior Court, Court Room 412, before the
Honorable Lisa Daniel Flores, and show cause, if any it may have, why a permanent injunction
should not be issued requiring Defendant to bring its Property into compliance with the
Plaintiff’s CC&Rs and Amended CC&Rs.
Please note: The Court has signed a hard-copy version of the order provided with an
electronically filed pleading. Therefore, copies of the order and self-addressed, stamped
envelopes were not available for mailing to the parties. After the order has been scanned and
docketed by the Clerk of Court, copies of this order may be available through ECR Online at
clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov or through AZTurboCourt.gov and from the Public Access Terminals
at the Clerk of Court’s offices located throughout Maricopa County.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-003636
04/30/2013
Docket Code 022
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 ***

05/02/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

05/01/2014

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
S. Uppendahl

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
PETER J FOSTER

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court received the parties Notice of Lodging Joint Scheduling Order, filed March 11,
2014.

IT IS ORDERED rejecting the Joint Scheduling Order for the reasons stated in the March
14, 2014 minute entry.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED counsel shall file a new proposed scheduling order no later
than May 19, 2014.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/08/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

05/07/2014

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
S. Uppendahl

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
PETER J FOSTER

MINUTE ENTRY

A clerical error having been made,

IT IS ORDERED correcting the Minute Entry, Docket Code 029, dated April 15, 2014 to
replace the first line of page one which reads “Courtroom ECB-514” and instead to reflect
“Courtroom 412 - East Court Building”.

The minute entry dated April 15, 2014 is available for viewing at:

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/30/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-003636
05/28/2013
Docket Code 002
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
D. Glab
Deputy
CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
QUINTEN T CUPPS
v.
NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C
MARK D GOLDMAN
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court received Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Order to Show Cause Hearing, filed
May 24, 2013. Good cause appearing,
IT IS ORDERED vacating the Order to Show Cause Hearing set May 29, 2013 at 9:45
a.m. (15 minutes) 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 ***
06/21/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-003636
06/20/2013
Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
S. Uppendahl
Deputy
CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
QUINTEN T CUPPS
v.
NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C
SCOTT H ZWILLINGER
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom 412 – East Court Building
10:03 a.m. This is the time set for Order to Show Cause Return Hearing. Plaintiff is
represented by counsel, August Shaw for Quinten T. Cupps. Jessica Myers, Property Manager
for Chauncey Ranch Office Condominium Association is also present. Defendant is represented
by counsel, Scott Zwillinger and Clifford Frisbie.
A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.
Counsel request an Evidentiary Hearing to be scheduled.
IT IS ORDERED setting an Evidentiary Hearing on September 13, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.
(time allotted: one day) before:
HON. LISA DANIEL FLORES
Judge of Superior Court of Arizona
East Court Building
101 W. Jefferson

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-003636
06/20/2013
Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 2
4th Floor – Courtroom 412
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 372-0825
Hearings are normally held 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and resume at 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
with breaks at approximately 10:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED parties shall file a joint pretrial memorandum no later than
September 6, 2013.
10:10 a.m. Matter concludes.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the JPTS shall also include:
1. Whether the parties wish to waive opening statements and/or to present closing
arguments in writing.
2. Stipulations to the foundation, authenticity and/or admission of exhibits prior to the
Bench Trial or Evidentiary Hearing. The Court may read or review exhibits that are
stipulated into evidence.
3. Whether the parties agree to deposition summaries and excerpts from deposition
transcripts and the editing of videotaped depositions.
4. Any special scheduling or equipment issues.
5. Possibility of settlement of the case.
E-COURTROOM POLICIES
The hearing will take place in the Superior Court’s “e-courtroom.” A record of the
proceedings will be made by audio and CD in lieu of a court reporter. Should you want an
unofficial copy of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may request a CD of the proceedings
for a $20.00 charge. 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. 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-003636
06/20/2013
Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 3
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 three
(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.
EXHIBIT GUIDELINES
•
Exhibits shall be marked serially by number, plaintiff’s first; defendant’s exhibit
numbers will begin where plaintiff’s numbers end.
•
Confer with the other party to eliminate duplicate exhibits before presenting to the
clerk.
•
Submit a written list or inventory describing each exhibit; descriptions should be
concise and can be as simple as “letter,” “e-mail,” or “photo.”
•
Do not skip numbers, or describe exhibits as “blank” or “withdrawn”; do not
“reserve” numbers for items not submitted to the clerk.
•
Do not submit exhibits with subparts (e.g. Exhibit 1a, 1b, 1c);
•
Staple or otherwise secure each individual exhibit so that pages do not become
separated.
•
Do not mark depositions as exhibits; original depositions may be submitted to the
division clerk to be filed and will be available for use during the trial.
•
If you have questions regarding these guidelines or anything related to exhibits,
contact the division clerk at (602) 506-0981.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-003636
06/20/2013
Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 4
TIME ESTIMATES FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING
CAUSE NUMBER_______________________________________
CASE CAPTION________________________________________
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL__________________________________
DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL________________________________
(NOTE : Add additional lines as needed for additional parties and or witnesses.)
Opening Statement and Closing Argument
PLAINTIFF'S OPENING STATEMENT
DEFENDANT'S OPENING
PLAINTIFF'S CLOSING
DEFENDANT'S CLOSING
PLAINTIFF'S REBUTTAL
Estimate of time for Witness Examination
PLAINTIFF'S
WITNESSES
DIRECT
EXAMINATION
CROSS
EXAMINATION
REDIRECT
EXAMINATION
DEFENDANT'S
WITNESSES
DIRECT
EXAMINATION
CROSS
EXAMINATION
REDIRECT
EXAMINATION
The foregoing are based on the best estimates of counsel of the time reasonably needed to
complete the necessary examination of the witnesses listed.
__________________________
_______________________
Counsel for Plaintiff
Counsel for Defendant
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 ***

06/24/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

06/23/2014

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
L. Stogsdill

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
PETER J FOSTER

DINA ROSAS
D ROSAS INTERIOR DESIGN
5958 E CORRINE DR
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85254

ORAL ARGUMENT SET

The Court received Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed March 3, 2014,
response and reply.

IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on
August 14, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. (30 min.) before:

The Honorable Patricia Starr
101 W. Jefferson, Courtroom 412
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-4164

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/26/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

06/24/2014

Docket Code 079
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
H. Suprak

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
PETER J FOSTER

DOCKET-CIVIL-CCC

PARTIAL CASE DISMISSAL

The Court is in receipt of the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal without prejudice of
Third-Party Defendant, filed on June 23, 2014; accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the above-entitled action is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice
as to the Third Party Complaint in its entirety, each party to bear their own attorney’s fees and
costs.

LET THE RECORD REFLECT a formal Order in accordance with the above is signed
by the Court on June 24, 2014 and filed (entered) by the Clerk on June 24, 2014.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/31/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

07/28/2015

Docket Code 049
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
B. Roberts

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
JOHN A BURIC

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has considered the Proposed Form of Judgment, Application for Award of
Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expert Witness Fees, and Statement of Costs filed by Defendant
North Scottsdale Pain Center (“NSPC”) on May 20, 2015, the Objection filed by Plaintiff
Chauncey Ranch Office Condominium Association (“Chauncey Ranch”) on May 22, 2015, the
Response filed by Chauncey Ranch on June 1, 2015, and the Reply filed by NSPC on June 15,
2015.1 The Court also notes that while NSPC originally requested a hearing, it withdrew that
request on June 18, 2015.

NSPC seeks an award of attorneys’ fees under the terms of the Condominium Declaration
for Chauncey Ranch Office Condominium (“the Declaration”) and A.R.S. § 12-341.01, an award

1 The Court notes that the Application, Response and Reply all fail to comply with Rule 3.2(f),
Local Rules of Practice for Maricopa County. The Court has considered the documents as filed,
in the interest of avoiding further cost for the parties. Counsel are advised to be aware of and
comply with the Local Rule in future matters.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

07/28/2015

Docket Code 049
Form V000A
Page 2

of fees and expenses pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-349, an award of costs pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341,
and expert witness fees and double its costs pursuant to Rule 68, Ariz. R. Civ. P.

The Declaration

Section 12.1 of the Declaration provides that the prevailing party in an action such as this
one shall be entitled to recover “all attorney fees incurred by the prevailing party in the action.”
When a contract includes an attorneys’ fees provision, a court must award fees in accordance
with the terms of the contract; the court lacks the discretion to refuse an award under the
contractual provision. A. Miner Contracting, Inc. v. Toho-Tolani, County Imp. Dist., 233 Ariz.
249, 261, ¶ 40, 311 P.3d 1062, 1075 (App. 2013).

Here, the Court finds that NSPC is the prevailing party, and thus the Court must, under
the terms of the parties’ contract, award reasonable attorneys’ fees to NSPC. The Court finds the
Indemnification provision citied by Chauncey Ranch to be inapplicable here.

The Court agrees with Chauncey Ranch that the fees incurred in relation to the
injunction against harassment matter are not recoverable in this action, and they will not be
awarded.

Fee Affidavit

The Court also finds the fee affidavit submitted meets the requirements set forth in
Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., 138 Ariz. 183, 188, 673 P.2d 927, 932 (1983). Specifically,
the affidavit indicates the agreed upon hourly rate, the attorneys providing service, the time
spent, and has sufficient detail to enable the court to assess the reasonableness of the time
expended.

The Court finds that fees requested are not clearly excessive.

IT IS ORDERED awarding NSPC attorneys’ fees in the amount of $276,666.14.

A.R.S. § 12-341.01

Because the action arose out of contract, A.R.S. § 12-341.01 also applies. A.R.S. § 12-
341.01 allows a court to award a successful party reasonable attorney fees “to mitigate the
burden of the expense of litigation . . .” § 12-341.01(B). The award “need not equal or relate to
the attorney fees actually paid or contracted, but the award may not exceed the amount paid or
agreed to be paid.” Id. As noted above, however, the Declaration specifically provides that the
prevailing party is entitled to “all attorneys’ fees.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

07/28/2015

Docket Code 049
Form V000A
Page 3

Rule 68, Ariz. R. Civ. P.

Rule 68(g) provides that if an offer is rejected, and the offeree does not later obtain a
more favorable judgment, “the offeree must pay, as a sanction, reasonable expert witness fees
and double the taxable costs . . . incurred after the making of the offer . . .”

Here, NSPC made an offer of judgment on April 18, 2014. Thus, NSPC is entitled to
double the taxable costs incurred after that date, as well as reasonable expert witness fees.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding NSPC costs in the amount of $8,555.30.

The Court finds that the expert witness fees incurred for the standard of care expert, Mr.
Wood, are not reasonable, and NSPC is not entitled to reimbursement for those fees.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding NSPC expert witness costs in the amount of
$8,621.24.

Fees & Costs under A.R.S. § 12-349 & Rule 11, Ariz. R. Civ. P.

Defendants also seek an award of fees and expert witness costs as a sanction under
A.R.S. § 12-349, arguing Plaintiff brought its claims without substantial justification. The term
“without substantial justification” is defined as a claim of defense that is groundless and not
made in good faith. A.R.S. § 12-349(F). “Groundless” is equivalent to “frivolous.” Rogone v.
Correia, 236 Ariz. 43, 49, ¶ 22, 335 P.3d 1122, 1128 (App. 2014). A claim is frivolous “if the
proponent can present no rational argument based upon the evidence or law in support of that
claim.” Id., quoting Evergreen W., Inc. v. Boyd, 167 Ariz. 614, 621, 810 P.2d 612, 619 (App.
1991). The fact that the claims did not survive summary judgment does not mandate an award of
sanctions. Sallomi v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 160 Ariz. 144, 149, 771 P.2d 469, 474 (App.
1989).

The Court finds that Chauncey Ranch did not bring or maintain its claims without
substantial justification, nor did it unreasonably expand the proceedings. Therefore, the Court
finds sanctions under A.R.S. § 12-349 inappropriate and declines to make such an award.

The Court further finds that NSPC has not established that an award of attorneys’ fees
and/or costs is appropriate under Rule 11, Ariz. R. Civ. P.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the request for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant
to A.R.S. § 12-349 and/or Rule 11, Ariz. R. Civ. P.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

07/28/2015

Docket Code 049
Form V000A
Page 4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED entering judgment as modified by the Court and as
indicated on the form of judgment signed this date.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/04/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

07/31/2014

Docket Code 095
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
S. Uppendahl

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
PETER J FOSTER

MINUTE ENTRY

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the Oral Argument regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment on August 14, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. (30 minutes) and resetting same on August 21, 2014
at 9:00 a.m. (1 hour) in this division.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/25/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

08/21/2014

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
S. Brown

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV
LYDIA P LINSMEIER

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
JOHN A BURIC

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom 412 – East Court Building

8:59 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment. Plaintiff is represented by counsel, Augustus Shaw, and Lydia Linsmeier. Defendant,
North Scottsdale Pain Center LLC is represented by counsel, John Buric.

A record of the proceeding is made by audio and/or video tape in lieu of a court reporter.

Argument is presented to the Court.

IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.

9:43 p.m. Matter concludes.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/12/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-003636
09/10/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
S. Uppendahl
Deputy
CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
QUINTEN T CUPPS
v.
NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
SCOTT H ZWILLINGER
D ROSAS INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE
DESIGN GROUP
5958 E CORRINE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85254-4355
DINA ROSAS
5958 E CORRINE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85254-4355
JOE ROSAS
5958 E CORRINE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85254-4355
COMM. MORROW
MINUTE ENTRY
This division has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application for Entry of Default Against
Third Party Defendants, Joe Rosas, Dina Rosas and D. Rosas Interior Architecture Group in the
above-captioned case.
IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above-referenced
document(s).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-003636
09/10/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
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
James Morrow.
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.
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: 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 ***
09/27/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-003636
09/26/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
S. Uppendahl
Deputy
CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
QUINTEN T CUPPS
v.
NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
SCOTT H ZWILLINGER
D ROSAS INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE
DESIGN GROUP
DESIGN GROUP
5958 E CORRINE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85254-4355
DINA ROSAS
5958 E CORRINE DR
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85254
JOE ROSAS
5958 E CORRINE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85254-4355
MINUTE ENTRY
The parties are directed to submit any and all exhibits for the Evidentiary Hearing set
December 12, 2013 at 9:30 a.m., no later than December 5, 2013, to the clerk in this division.
EXHIBIT GUIDELINES
•
Exhibits shall be marked serially by number, plaintiff’s first; defendant’s exhibit
numbers will begin where plaintiff’s numbers end.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-003636
09/26/2013
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
•
Confer with the other party to eliminate duplicate exhibits before presenting to the
clerk.
•
Submit a written list or inventory describing each exhibit; descriptions should be
concise and can be as simple as “letter,” “e-mail,” or “photo.”
•
Do not skip numbers, or describe exhibits as “blank” or “withdrawn”; do not
“reserve” numbers for items not submitted to the clerk.
•
Do not submit exhibits with subparts (e.g. Exhibit 1a, 1b, 1c);
•
Staple or otherwise secure each individual exhibit so that pages do not become
separated.
•
Do not mark depositions as exhibits; original depositions may be submitted to the
division clerk to be filed and will be available for use during the trial.
•
If you have questions regarding these guidelines or anything related to exhibits,
contact the division clerk at (602) 506-0981.
NOTE: All Court proceedings are recorded by audio method and not by a court reporter.
Any party may request the presence of a court reporter by contacting the division at 602-372-
0825 three (3) court business days before the scheduled hearing.
E-COURTROOM POLICIES
The hearing will take place in the Superior Court’s “e-courtroom.” A record of the
proceedings will be made by audio and CD in lieu of a court reporter. Should you want an
unofficial copy of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may request a CD of the proceedings
for a $20.00 charge. 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. 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.
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 ***

09/29/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

09/26/2014

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
S. Brown

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV
LYDIA P LINSMEIER

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
JOHN A BURIC

UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING

Plaintiff Chauncey Ranch office Condominium Association (“Chauncey Ranch”) filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment on March 3, 2014, to which Defendant North Scottsdale Pain
Center, LLC (“NSPC”) responded on May 30, 2014; Chauncey Ranch filed their Reply on June
20, 2014. The Court has considered the papers, related pleadings, and the argument of counsel.
A court may enter summary judgment only if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 56(a), Ariz. R. Civ. P.
See also Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp, 228 Ariz. 134, 137-38, ¶ 7, 263 P. 3d 683, 686-87
(App. 2011).

In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the facts and the
reasonable inferences to be drawn from those facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party. See, e.g., Espinoza v. Schulenburg, 212 Ariz. 215, 216, ¶ 6, 129 P.3d 937, 938 (2006).
“[W]here the evidence or inferences would permit a jury to resolve a material issue in favor of
either party, summary judgment is improper.” National Bank of Arizona v. Thurston, 218 Ariz.
112, 116, ¶ 17, 180 P.3d 977, 981 (App. 2008), quoting United Bank of Arizona v. Allyn, 167
Ariz. 191, 195, 805 P.2d 1012, 1016 (App. 1990).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

09/26/2014

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2

In this case, Chauncey Ranch seeks a finding that NSPC breached its contractual
obligation to obtain written authorization from Chauncey Ranch before installing a door through
the common element wall. NSPC counters that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary
judgment, as do the doctrines of estoppel and laches, as well as the Arizona Civil Rights Act.
Chauncey Ranch argues that NSPC is bound by the “judicial admission,” made in NSPC’s initial
disclosure statement, and in argument regarding the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, that
NSPC did not seek approval before installing the door at issue. NSPC responds that the prior
statements were due to a mistake made by prior defense counsel, and that numerous facts support
its contention that it received permission before moving the door.

Judicial admissions in pleadings conclusively bind a party; that party is estopped from
later denying them. Black v. Perkins, 163 Ariz. 292, 293, 787 P.2d 1088, 1089 (App. 1989). But
the parties may change facts through amendment of a pleading. Id. Here, NSPC filed a motion
to amend its answer on August 1, 2014.

Moreover, the definition of “pleading” under the Rules of Civil Procedure does not
include a motion for judgment on the pleadings brought under 12(c). See Rule 7(a), Ariz. R. Civ.
P. Nor does a disclosure statement qualify as a judicial admission. Clark Equipment Co. v.
Arizona Property and Cas. Ins. Guar. Fund, 189 Ariz. 433, 440, 943 P.2d 793, 800 (App. 1997).
Therefore, neither the statements made in litigating the motion for judgment on the pleadings nor
the statement included in the initial disclosure statement are “judicial admissions” that bind
NSPC.

Even if the statements can be considered an admission, the Court may relieve a party of
an admission when that admission is made through inadvertence, excusable neglect, or mistake
of fact (among other reasons). Rutledge v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 147 Ariz. 534, 549-50, 711
P.2d 1207, 1222-23 (App. 1985). Here, even if the statements were admission, they were made
early on in the litigation, and well before trial (in fact, no trial date has been set at this time).
And NSPC has both impliedly and explicitly retracted its previous statements about whether it
obtained permission to move the door.

For all those reasons, the Court finds that NSPC is not precluded from arguing that it did
in fact have permission to move the door. The Court further finds, based on the information
contained in the papers, that whether NSPC obtained approval to relocate the door is a genuine
issue of material fact that cannot be resolved on summary judgment. For those reasons,

IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion for Summary Judgment

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

09/26/2014

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3

Motion to Amend Answer

As noted above, NSPC filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Answer on August 1, 2014,
seeking to (1) clarify the admissions and denials of its Answer; and (2) specify with greater detail
its affirmative defenses. Chauncey Ranch filed a Response and NSPC replied. Although
Chauncey Ranch requested oral argument, the Court finds that oral argument would not assist its
determination of the matter.

Chauncey Ranch opposes amendment on the bases that: (1) NSPC has delayed its
request to amend; (2) NSPC has engaged in bad faith; and (3) the proposed amendment will
prejudice Chauncey Ranch.

The Court notes that leave to amend pleadings “shall be freely given when justice
requires.” Rule 15(a)(1)(B). Moreover, “[d]elay alone is not usually cause to deny a request to
amend.” Uyleman v. D.S. Rentco, 194 Ariz. 300, 303, ¶ 11, 981 P.2d 1081, 1084 (App. 1999).
Here, the Court finds that Chauncey Ranch has not established bad faith on the part of NSPC,
nor that Chauncey Ranch will be unduly prejudiced by amendment. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion for Leave to Amend Answer. The Amended
Answer shall be filed and served by October 10, 2014.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

11/04/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

10/31/2014

Docket Code 085
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
S. Brown

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV
LYDIA P LINSMEIER

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
JOHN A BURIC

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom 412 – East Court Building

9:01 a.m. This is the time set for a telephonic Trial Setting Conference. Plaintiff is
represented by counsel, Lydia Linsmeier. Defendant, North Scottsdale Pain Center, LLC is
represented by counsel, John Buric. Counsel appear telephonically.

A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.

Discussion is held regarding the pending Motion for Summary Judgment. Counsel agree
to wait until after the Court’s ruling to set a trial date and another trial setting conference will be
set if necessary at that time.

9:03 a.m. Matter concludes.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/05/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-003636
12/02/2013
Docket Code 928
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE LISA DANIEL FLORES
S. Uppendahl
Deputy
CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
QUINTEN T CUPPS
v.
NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
SCOTT H ZWILLINGER
ORDER SIGNED
IT IS ORDERED approving/granting the formal written Order Re: Expedited Motion to
Stay Preliminary Injunction Hearing signed and modified by the Court on November 22, 2013,
and entered (filed) by the clerk on December 2, 2013.
The modification is on page two as follows:
“Upon Motion of Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff North Scottsdale Pain Center, LLC
(“NSPC”), and good cause appearing therefrom and no objection from Plaintiff,”
Please note: The Court has signed a hard-copy version of the order provided with an
electronically filed pleading. Therefore, copies of the order and self-addressed, stamped
envelopes were not available for mailing to the parties. After the order has been scanned and
docketed by the Clerk of Court, copies of this order may be available through ECR Online at
clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov or through AZTurboCourt.gov and from the Public Access Terminals
at the Clerk of Court’s offices located throughout Maricopa County.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-003636
12/02/2013
Docket Code 928
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 ***

12/16/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

12/15/2014

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
S. Brown

Deputy

CHAUNCEY RANCH OFFICE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
AUGUSTUS H SHAW IV

v.

NORTH SCOTTSDALE PAIN CENTER L L C,
et al.
JOHN A BURIC

ORAL ARGUMENT SET

IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on Defendant North Scottsdale Pain
Center’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed October 15, 2014 on February 3, 2015 at
9:00 a.m. (30 minutes) in this division.

Honorable Patricia A. Starr
101 W. Jefferson, East Court Building, Suite 412
Phoenix, 85003

(602) 506-4164

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
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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2013-003636

12/15/2014

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2

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.

Documents