01/05/2015 — CV2014008445 BILBRO, GREG 01/05/2015 HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/06/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2014-008445
01/05/2015
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
C. Watling
Deputy
GREG BILBRO, et al.
JAMES O BELL
v.
OPTIMA CAMELVIEW VILLAGE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, et al.
LYDIA P LINSMEIER
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
REFERRAL TO ADR FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
IT IS ORDERED 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 5:00 p.m. on May 5, 2015. The Office of
Alternative Dispute Resolution will not do the scheduling of the settlement conference so please
do not contact that office.
All counsel and their clients, or non-lawyer representatives who have full and
complete authority to settle this case, shall personally appear and participate in good faith
in this settlement conference even if no settlement is expected.
02/19/2015 — CV2014008445 BILBRO, GREG 02/19/2015 HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/20/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2014-008445
02/19/2015
Docket Code 375
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
S. Brown
Deputy
GREG BILBRO, et al.
JAMES O BELL
v.
OPTIMA CAMELVIEW VILLAGE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, et al.
LYDIA P LINSMEIER
DISMISSAL CALENDAR
The Court is advised this case has been settled.
IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the Dismissal Calendar for dismissal on
April 20, 2015 without further notice unless prior to said date Judgment is entered or filed or a
Stipulation for Dismissal is presented.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating any previous order placing/continuing this matter
on the inactive/dismissal calendar.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED any pending motions are hereby deemed moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the trial setting conference set on May 26, 2015 in
this division.
09/29/2014 — CV2014008445 BILBRO, GREG 09/29/2014 HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/03/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2014-008445
09/29/2014
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
S. Brown
Deputy
GREG BILBRO, et al.
JAMES O BELL
v.
OPTIMA CAMELVIEW VILLAGE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, et al.
LYDIA P LINSMEIER
MINUTE ENTRY
On June 3, 2014, Plaintiffs Greg Bilbro, Richard F. Haitbrink and Jo. B. Haitbrink filed a
Complaint against Defendants Optima Camelview Village Condominium Association and
Optima Camelview Village, LLC, seeking declaratory judgment.
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 25, 2014, to which Plaintiffs responded and
Defendants replied. On September 8, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the
Complaint (with no objection from Defendants); the Court has thus considered the Motion to
Dismiss in reference to the First Amended Complaint.
Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are disfavored, and should be granted only
when it appears certain that the non-movant would not be entitled to relief under any state of the
facts susceptible to proof. Fid. Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. State Dep’t of Ins., 191 Ariz. 222, 224, ¶ 4,
954 P.2d 580, 582 (1998). In considering such a motion, the Court must assume all the material
allegations of the complaint to be true. Turley v. Ethington, 213 Ariz. 640, 642, ¶ 2, 146 P.3d
1282, 1284 (App. 2006). However, the court is not required to accept the truth of legal
conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2014-008445
09/29/2014
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
Plaintiffs Bilbro and the Haitbrinks seek Declaratory Relief, in the form of a judgment
stating that Defendants have violated A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)(11), as well as the Arizona and
United States Constitutions. (First Amended Complaint at 5-6). In their Reply, Plaintiffs
concede that dismissal of their claims based upon alleged due process violations under the
Arizona and United States Constitutions is appropriate.
Bilbro argues he has standing to bring this action because he will be required to pay any
fines levied by Defendants, and thus has a personal economic stake in the litigation. However,
Arizona law provides that condominium unit owners’ associations may “after notice and an
opportunity to be heard, impose reasonable monetary penalties upon unit owners for violations
of the declaration, bylaws and rules of the association.” A.R.S. § 33-1242 (11) (emphasis
added). As Defendants point out, this statute does not authorize the association to impose any
penalty on Bilbro, who is not the unit owner, but instead a tenant.
Standing requires an injury in fact, caused by the complained-of conduct, which results in
a distinct and palpable injury, thus giving the plaintiff a personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy. Karbal v. Arizona Dept. of Revenue, 215 Ariz. 114, 116, ¶ 7, 158 P.3d 243, 245
(App. 2007). Here, as set forth in the Complaint, Defendants imposed fines against the
Haitbrinks. (First Amended Complaint at 3-4.) The fact that the Haitbrinks and Bilbro have a
separate agreement that passes the cost on the Bilbro does not confer standing on him, when
Defendants have no claim against him. Moreover, while fines have been imposed against the
Haitbrinks, none have been paid, either by them or Bilbro.
The Court also notes that Plaintiffs seek attorneys’ fees, because their action arises out of
a contract. (First Amended Complaint at 5.) But that contract is between Defendants and the
Haitbrinks; Bilbro is not a party to it.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff Bilbro, and as to the
claim that the Defendants violated the due process provisions of the United States and Arizona
Constitutions. In all other respects, the Motion to Dismiss is denied.
12/04/2014 — CV2014008445 BILBRO, GREG 12/04/2014 HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/08/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2014-008445
12/04/2014
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
S. Brown
Deputy
GREG BILBRO, et al.
JAMES O BELL
v.
OPTIMA CAMELVIEW VILLAGE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, et al.
LYDIA P LINSMEIER
MINUTE ENTRY
The parties submitted a joint report and proposed scheduling order for the Court’s review.
That report indicates that the parties will engage in either a private mediation or settlement
conference, but does not indicate which option the parties have chosen. The report also indicates
that a Rule 16(d) conference is requested, but also indicates that there are no items upon which
the parties cannot agree, which would seem to obviate the need for such a conference. Finally,
the proposed order propounds several dates that are either incomplete or in the past. For those
reasons,
IT IS ORDERED the parties submit an amended and corrected joint report and proposed
scheduling order for the Court’s review within 21 days of this order. The parties must address the
following issues: (1) whether they are agreeing to private mediation or whether they are
requesting the appointment of a judge pro tem to conduct a settlement conference; (2) if a Rule
16(d) conference is requested, and if so, why; and (3) all dates must be corrected.
