01/08/2014 — CV2013052203 HERSHEY, KATRINA 01/08/2014 HONORABLE ALFRED M. FENZEL View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/13/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-052203
01/08/2014
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ALFRED M. FENZEL
W. Tenoever
Deputy
KATRINA HERSHEY
CAROLYN GOLDMAN
v.
MANAGEMENT TRUST INC F N, THE, et al.
CLINT G GOODMAN
ORDER ENTERED BY COURT
The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiff’s Request for Rule 16(b) Conference.
IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall submit a Joint Pretrial Memorandum as set forth
below.
The Court will review the Joint Pretrial Memorandum and proposed Scheduling Order
prescribed herein. The Court may adopt or modify the discovery and disclosure schedule order
and set a scheduling conference for purposes of setting a trial date. If counsel still believe that a
pretrial conference is still necessary at this stage of the litigation, they should address the reasons
for the need for a pretrial conference in the first paragraph of the Joint Pretrial Memorandum.
If the parties fail to file a timely memorandum, sanctions may issue pursuant to Rule
16(f).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:
All counsel are directed to meet personally to discuss all of the matters set forth in Rule
16(b). Counsel shall prepare and file with the Court by 5:00 p.m. on February 14, 2014, a Joint
Pretrial Memorandum, and prepare a proposed order for Discovery and Disclosure deadlines.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-052203
01/08/2014
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
The proposed order shall include dates for the following items and conform substantially with
the attached sample order. Once a scheduling order has been approved by the court, the 150-day
minute entry, issued by Civil Court Administration, is no longer in effect.
NOTICE: The proposed order shall be filed in Word format to conform with the court’s e-file
requirements. Any proposed order not conforming with this requirement may be rejected.
1.
An agreed upon schedule and date for completion of non-expert depositions.
As far as can reasonably be anticipated, each party shall set forth the depositions
they anticipate taking and the approximate time required for each; any and all
medical examinations which may be required of any of the parties; the person or
persons to conduct such examinations; all requests for production; and all tangible
evidence to be disclosed or exchanged.
2.
A date for the final disclosure of the identities subject matters and reports of
expert witnesses, and/or to supplement disclosures made to date.
3.
A date or dates for the initial and final disclosure of all non-expert witnesses,
and/or to supplement disclosures made to date.
4.
A date by which all written discovery will be propounded and concluded.
Further, counsel shall set forth any written discovery outstanding and a date when it
will be complete.
5.
The position of each counsel on whether the Rule 38.1 time limits should be
waived.
6.
A proposed date for a Mandatory Settlement Conference pursuant to Rule
16.1. Alternatively, the parties may propose a deadline by which they will
participate in private mediation. Please specify whether the parties are
requesting a referral to the court’s ADR Office or if they will proceed by private
mediation.
7.
A date for completion of all discovery, including expert discovery.
8.
A date by which all dispositive or partially-dispositive motions shall be filed.
9.
A proposed trial date agreed upon by all counsel and anticipated length of trial.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-052203
01/08/2014
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 3
If the parties agree as to the dates, they need to only prepare and submit the proposed
order attached hereto. If counsel are unable to agree on any of the items set forth in the attached
form of order, the reasons for their inability to agree shall be set forth in the Pretrial
Memorandum and each shall prepare a separate proposed order. All proposed deadlines shall
be set forth as calendar dates, and not in the form “XX days before trial.”
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall notify the Court of any agreed-upon
extension of any time period provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure. The purpose of this order
is not to discourage extensions as a matter of professionalism, but to ensure that no party suffers
summary disposition of any issue by virtue of an extension of which the Court is not aware.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-052203
01/08/2014
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 4
[Proposed] Scheduling Order
The Court having received the parties’ Joint Comprehensive Pretrial Conference
Memorandum,
IT IS ORDERED entering the following schedule for disclosure as set forth unless the
parties obtain written modifications by the Court:
(1)
Initial disclosures shall be exchanged by: (MM/DD/YYYY)
(2)
The identities and subject areas of expert testimony shall be disclosed by:
(MM/DD/YYYY)
(3)
Plaintiff’s final expert disclosures shall be served by: (MM/DD/YYYY)
Defendant’s final expert disclosures shall be exchanged by: (MM/DD/YYYY)
Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be exchanged by: (MM/DD/YYYY)
(4)
Final non-expert disclosures shall be exchanged by: (MM/DD/YYYY)
(5)
Written discovery shall be propounded by: (MM/DD/YYYY)
(6)
Dispositive motions shall be filed by: (MM/DD/YYYY)
(7)
Depositions shall be completed by: (MM/DD/YYYY)
(8)
Discovery shall be completed by: (MM/DD/YYYY)
(9)
Any motions to amend pleadings shall be filed by: (MM/DD/YYYY)
(10)
The parties remaining in this action shall participate in comprehensive mediation
by (MM/DD/YYYY). Please specify whether the parties are requesting a
referral to the court’s ADR Office or if they will proceed by private
mediation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Telephonic Status Conference in this matter on
[counsel to leave this date blank], (time allotted: 15 minutes), in this Division. Counsel for the
Plaintiff shall initiate the phone conference.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-052203
01/08/2014
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 5
Honorable Alfred M. Fenzel
Maricopa County Superior Court
Northeast Regional Court Center
18380 N. 40th St
Courtroom 102
Phoenix, AZ 85032
(602) 506-7080
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in no less than five days prior to the Status Conference
set herein, the parties shall report to the Court the history and status of the efforts at Alternative
Dispute Resolution.
DISCOVERY DISPUTES: In the event of any dispute concerning discovery, counsel
are directed to confer pursuant to ARCP 26(g). If such conference is unsuccessful, counsel are
directed to initiate a conference call with this Division BEFORE filing a motion to compel or
motion for protective order.
Dated:
________________________
Alfred M. Fenzel
Judge of the Superior Court
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.
02/18/2014 — CV2013052203 HERSHEY, KATRINA 02/18/2014 HONORABLE ALFRED M. FENZEL View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/20/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-052203
02/18/2014
Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ALFRED M. FENZEL
W. Tenoever
Deputy
KATRINA HERSHEY
CAROLYN GOLDMAN
v.
MANAGEMENT TRUST INC F N, THE, et al.
CLINT G GOODMAN
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
ORDER SIGNED
IT IS ORDERED granting the parties’ Joint Pretrial Memorandum electronically filed
on February 14, 2014, all in accordance with the formal written Order signed by the Court on
February 18, 2014 and entered (filed) by the clerk on February 18, 2014.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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 November 1, 2014. The Office of Alternative Dispute
Resolution will not do the scheduling of the settlement conference so please do not contact that
office. If counsel prefer to use a private mediator to conduct the Settlement Conference, a
Stipulation and Order Re: Alternative to ADR must be presented to the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Telephonic Status Conference in this matter on
December 4, 2014 at 8:45 a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes) in this division. Counsel for the
Plaintiff shall initiate the conference call.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-052203
02/18/2014
Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 2
Effective June 30, 2014, all cases assigned to Judge Alfred M. Fenzel will be re-assigned to
Judge John R. Hannah, Jr. due to judicial calendar rotations. Judge Hannah will be located at the
Northeast Regional Court, 18380 N. 40th St., Courtroom 102, Phoenix, Arizona 85032 (telephone:
602-372-0759).
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.
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.
07/03/2013 — CV2013052203 HERSHEY, KATRINA 07/03/2013 HONORABLE ALFRED M. FENZEL View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/05/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-052203
07/03/2013
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ALFRED M. FENZEL
W. Tenoever
Deputy
KATRINA HERSHEY
CAROLYN GOLDMAN
v.
MANAGEMENT TRUST INC F N, THE, et al.
CLINT G GOODMAN
RULING
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Have the Allegations of the Complaint Be
Taken as Confessed Pursuant to Rule 11(c), Defendant’s Response to Motion to Have
Allegations of the Complaint Taken as Confessed as well as Plaintiff’s Reply thereto.
Oral argument has been requested. However, the parties have thoroughly briefed their
respective positions, and the Court deems oral argument unnecessary for a determination of the
issue. The request for oral argument is denied.
For the reasons stated by Defendant,
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Have the Allegations of the Complaint
Be Taken as Confessed Pursuant to Rule 11(c).
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.
07/23/2013 — CV2013052203 HERSHEY, KATRINA 07/23/2013 HONORABLE ALFRED M. FENZEL View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/25/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-052203
07/23/2013
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ALFRED M. FENZEL
W. Tenoever
Deputy
KATRINA HERSHEY
CAROLYN GOLDMAN
v.
MANAGEMENT TRUST INC F N, THE, et al.
CLINT G GOODMAN
ORAL ARGUMENT SET
IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on Defendants’ A.R.C.P. 12(B)(6) Motion to
Dismiss on September 20, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. (30 minutes allotted) before:
Honorable Alfred M. Fenzel
Maricopa County Superior Court
Northeast Regional Court Center
18380 N. 40th St
Courtroom 102
Phoenix, AZ 85032
(602) 506-7080
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 this
division three (3) court days before the scheduled hearing.
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.
09/03/2013 — CV2013052203 HERSHEY, KATRINA 09/03/2013 HONORABLE ALFRED M. FENZEL View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/05/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-052203
09/03/2013
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ALFRED M. FENZEL
W. Tenoever
Deputy
KATRINA HERSHEY
CAROLYN GOLDMAN
v.
MANAGEMENT TRUST INC F N, THE, et al.
CLINT G GOODMAN
ORAL ARGUMENT SET
IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on Defendants’ A.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on September 20, 2013 at 9:00 a.m., to be heard in conjunction
with the oral argument previously set that date before:
Honorable Alfred M. Fenzel
Maricopa County Superior Court
Northeast Regional Court Center
18380 N. 40th St
Courtroom 102
Phoenix, AZ 85032
(602) 506-7080
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 this
division three (3) court days before the scheduled hearing.
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.
09/05/2014 — CV2013052203 HERSHEY, KATRINA 09/05/2014 HONORABLE JOHN R. HANNAH JR View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/11/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-052203
09/05/2014
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOHN R. HANNAH JR
W. Tenoever
Deputy
KATRINA HERSHEY
CAROLYN GOLDMAN
v.
MANAGEMENT TRUST INC F N, THE, et al.
CLINT G GOODMAN
RULING
IT IS ORDERED the Motion of Attorneys for Plaintiff to Withdraw From Representation
is denied without prejudice because the certificate of service does not show the motion was
served on the client as required by Civil Rule 5.1(a)(2)(B).
09/20/2013 — CV2013052203 HERSHEY, KATRINA 09/20/2013 HONORABLE ALFRED M. FENZEL View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/24/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-052203
09/20/2013
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ALFRED M. FENZEL
W. Tenoever
Deputy
KATRINA HERSHEY
CAROLYN GOLDMAN
v.
MANAGEMENT TRUST INC F N, THE, et al.
CLINT G GOODMAN
RULING
Courtroom 102 - NE
9:01 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument on Defendants’ A.R.C.P. 12(b)(1)
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Defendants’ A.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) Motion to
Dismiss. Plaintiff Katrina Hershey is represented by counsel, Carolyn Goldman. Defendants
The Management Trust, Inc., FN, Cactus Flats Condominium Association, Inc. and Robert
Harmer are represented by counsel, Clint G. Goodman.
A record of the proceeding is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.
Arguments are heard.
IT IS ORDERED taking Defendants’ A.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction and Defendants’ A.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss under advisement.
9:25 a.m. Hearing concludes.
LATER:
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-052203
09/20/2013
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
This matter having been taken under advisement and the Court having considered the
matters presented,
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ A.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants’ A.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss.
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.
10/01/2013 — CV2013052203 HERSHEY, KATRINA 10/01/2013 HONORABLE ALFRED M. FENZEL View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/03/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-052203
10/01/2013
Docket Code 906
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ALFRED M. FENZEL
W. Tenoever
Deputy
KATRINA HERSHEY
CAROLYN GOLDMAN
v.
MANAGEMENT TRUST INC F N, THE, et al.
CLINT G GOODMAN
RESPONSE TIME SET
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration
Regarding the Court’s Ruling upon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and In Particular with
Respect to Defendant, The Management Trust, Inc.
Pursuant to Rule 7.1(e), A.R.C.P., Defendants will be permitted to respond to the motion.
Any response shall be filed no later than October 23, 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.
12/19/2013 — CV2013052203 HERSHEY, KATRINA 12/19/2013 HONORABLE ALFRED M. FENZEL View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/23/2013 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-052203
12/19/2013
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ALFRED M. FENZEL
W. Tenoever
Deputy
KATRINA HERSHEY
CAROLYN GOLDMAN
v.
MANAGEMENT TRUST INC F N, THE, et al.
CLINT G GOODMAN
RULING
The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification and/or
Reconsideration Regarding the Court’s Ruling upon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and in
Particular with Respect to Defendant, The Management Trust, Inc. and Defendants’ Response
thereto.
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration
Regarding the Court’s Ruling upon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and in Particular with
Respect to Defendant, The Management Trust, 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.
