Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2015-005625: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for A A M, L L C.

Case Number

CV2015-005625

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

4/24/2015

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Arbitration 01 | Warner

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/12/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-005625

01/08/2016

Docket Code 079
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JO LYNN GENTRY
B. Randhawa

Deputy

VIOLET KAPLAN
DIEGO RODRIGUEZ

v.

ALLEN L SVEC, et al.
J STEVEN SPARKS

MICHAEL J PLATI
DAVID C POTTS
DOCKET-CIVIL-CCC

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received and reviewed Defendants Allen L. Svec’s and Michael W.
Bowers’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint against them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. No Response to the Motion was filed.

Based on the Court's review of the pleadings in this matter,

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants L. Svec’s and Michael W. Bowers’ Motion to
Dismiss filed on October 29, 2015. The Complaint is dismissed as to Defendants Allen L. Svec
and Michael W. Bowers only.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/18/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-005625

04/12/2016

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JO LYNN GENTRY
B. Randhawa

Deputy

VIOLET KAPLAN
DIEGO RODRIGUEZ

v.

ALLEN L SVEC, et al.
J STEVEN SPARKS

MICHAEL J PLATI
DAVID C POTTS

MINUTE ENTRY

Defendant AAM, LLC filed a Motion to Dismiss the claims Plaintiff made against this
Defendant. The Motion was joined by Defendant TBV Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a VSS Security
Services.

IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion as to both Defendants.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/13/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-005625

07/11/2016

Docket Code 352
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JO LYNN GENTRY
A. Quintana

Deputy

VIOLET KAPLAN
DIEGO RODRIGUEZ

v.

ALLEN L SVEC, et al.

MARTIN T JONES
MICHAEL J PLATI
DAVID C POTTS
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK

REMOVE ARBITRATOR FROM CASE

The Court has reviewed the Motion to Strike Arbitrator for Cause filed on May 25, 2016.

THE COURT FINDS that there is good cause to excuse Martin T. Jones as the
appointed arbitrator in this case.

IT IS ORDERED excusing Martin T. Jones as arbitrator in this matter and forwarding
this case to the Civil Court Administration/Arbitration Desk for appointment of a new arbitrator.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Civil Court Administration/Arbitration Desk
shall appoint Martin T. Jones as arbitrator in the next available case.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/13/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-005625

07/12/2017

Docket Code 066
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. RANDALL H. WARNER
K. Ballard

Deputy

VIOLET KAPLAN
DIEGO RODRIGUEZ

v.

ALLEN L SVEC, et al.

EDWIN A BARKEL
DAVID C POTTS
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-CCC
JUDGE MROZ
JUDGE STEPHENS

CASE REASSIGNMENT - CIVIL PRESIDING JUDGE

This case was previously assigned to the Honorable Rosa Mroz, who has disqualified
herself. The case was transferred to the Presiding Civil Judge for reassignment.

IT IS ORDERED reassigning this case to Civil Calendar CVJ-18, the Honorable Sherry
Stephens, for all further proceedings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any and all hearings set by the disqualified judge are
vacated, to be reset by the new division.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall jointly file within 10 days of the
date of this minute entry, a notice with the new division listing any outstanding motions
(including the file dates), whether they are ripe for resolution, and any hearings that need to be
reset.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/28/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-005625

07/25/2017

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. SHERRY K. STEPHENS
T. Cooley

Deputy

VIOLET KAPLAN
DIEGO RODRIGUEZ

v.

ALLEN L SVEC, et al.

EDWIN A BARKEL
DAVID C POTTS

ORAL ARGUMENT SET

The Court has received Defendant AAM, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed
May 12, 2017, Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant AAM, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
filed June 13, 2017, and Defendant AAM’s Reply in Support of its Motions for Summary
Judgment, filed July 3, 2017.

IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument RE: Defendant AAM, LLC’s Motion for
Summary Judgment on August 10, 2017 at 10:30 a.m. (time allotted: 30 minutes) in this division.

JUDGE SHERRY STEPHENS
East Court Building, Courtroom 712
101 West Jefferson Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-4818

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 $30.00 charge. If a CD or videotape is requested,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-005625

07/25/2017

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2

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
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 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.

NOTE: All court proceedings are recorded by audio and video method and not by a
court reporter. Pursuant to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any
proceeding in which a court reporter is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-005625

07/25/2017

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 3

the party must submit a written request to the assigned judicial officer at least ten (10)
judicial days in advance of the hearing, and must pay the authorized fee to the Clerk of the
Court at least two (2) judicial days before the proceeding. The fee is $140 for a half-day
and $280 for a full day.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/15/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-005625

08/10/2017

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. SHERRY K. STEPHENS
C. Avena/T. DeRaddo

Deputy

VIOLET KAPLAN
DIEGO RODRIGUEZ

v.

ALLEN L SVEC, et al.

EDWIN A BARKEL
DAVID C POTTS

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom ECB (712)

10:31 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument regarding Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. Appearing on behalf of Plaintiff is counsel, Diego Rodriguez. On behalf of
Defendant, AAM, LLC, is counsel, David C. Potts. No one else appears.

A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.

The Court has read the Motion to Dismiss, Defendant, AAM, LLC’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, filed on May 12, 2017 and Plaintiff’s Response; and Defendant, AAM,
LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Claims for Emotional Injuries, filed
on May 4, 2017.

The parties present their arguments to the court.

IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.

10:48 a.m. Matter concludes.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/15/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-005625

08/14/2017

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. SHERRY K. STEPHENS
T. DeRaddo

Deputy

VIOLET KAPLAN
DIEGO RODRIGUEZ

v.

ALLEN L SVEC, et al.

EDWIN A BARKEL
DAVID C POTTS

UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING

The Court has considered Defendant AAM, LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment on Plaintiff’s Claims for Emotional Injuries filed May 4, 2017, Defendant AAM,
LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed May 12, 2017, Defendant AAM, LLC’s Statement
of Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment filed May 12, 2017, the Response to
Defendant AAM, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed June 13, 2017, Defendant AAM’s
Reply in Support of its Motions for Summary Judgment filed July 3, 2017, and the oral argument
conducted on August 10, 2017.

Plaintiff owned a residential unit at Regency House. Defendant AAM is the property
manager for Regency House. Two other defendants, Allen Svec and Michael Bowers, who have
since been dismissed from the case, owned units at Regency House. Svec used his unit as a
temporary residence and allowed guests to stay in his unit. Alex Rodriguez was a long term
guest of Svec and received a key fob from Defendant which provided access to the common
areas. To obtain a key fob, an application was submitted to AAM with the consent of the owner
of the unit. Rodriguez, Plaintiff and another resident of Regency House were socializing in a
unit at Regency House located across the hall from Plaintiff’s unit. Rodriguez left that unit and
went to Plaintiff’s unit and stole items (an engagement ring, necklace and $1,200 in cash) from

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-005625

08/14/2017

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

her unit. Plaintiff had left her unit unlocked. Plaintiff claims AAM was negligent in the drafting
and implementation of rules controlling access to the property, including the procedures tenants
were required to follow to provide a guest with a security key fob. Further, Plaintiff alleges
Defendant failed to properly maintain security on the property as required by the duty of care
owed to the unit owners.

At oral argument, Defendant conceded she is not entitled to punitive damages on any
claim and that summary judgment should be granted on her claim for emotional distress and her
claim for negligent entrustment.

Summary judgment is appropriate only if no genuine issue of material fact exists and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Johnson v. Earnhardt’s Gilbert Dodge,
Inc., 212 Ariz. 381, 385, 132 P.3d 825, 829 (2006). Thus, a motion for summary judgment
should only be granted if the acts produced in support of the claim or defense have so little
probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree
with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense. Orme Sch. v. Reeves,
166 Ariz. 301, 309, 802 P.2d 1000, 1008 (1990). The facts must be viewed in a light most
favorable to the party against whom it was direct and summary judgment is inappropriate if there
is any doubt as to whether an issue of material fact exists. Joseph v. Markovitz, 27 Ariz.App.
122, 125, 551 P.2d 571, 574 (1976).

To establish a claim for negligence, Plaintiff must prove the existence of: (1) a duty
requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of care; (2) a breach by the defendant of
that standard of care; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting
injury; and (4) actual damages. Gipsey v. Kasey, 150 P.3d 228, 230 (2007). Plaintiff’s theory is
that Defendant had a duty to create rules and regulations for issuing key fobs that would result in
maintaining proper security for the common areas at Regency House. Apparently, Plaintiff
theory is that Rodriguez would not have had access to Plaintiff’s unit unless he had the key fob
issue by Defendant. Plaintiff agrees Defendant had no duty to control the conduct of a third
person.

The Court finds that by issuing key fobs to guests, a jury could conclude Defendant
created a duty to the residents of Regency House to monitor the issuance of those key fobs in a
manner consistent with maintaining security in the common areas. The Court finds there are
issues of material fact that include: (1) Did Rodriguez use a key fob to access the common areas
at Regency House on the day the theft occurred? (2) Did Defendant breach a duty to Plaintiff in
the issuance of the key fob to Rodriguez? (3) Was Defendant’s conduct in the issuance of the key
fob reasonable? (4) By leaving her unit unlocked, was Plaintiff solely or partially responsible for
the theft of items taken from her unit? See Restatement (Second) Torts, § 283.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-005625

08/14/2017

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3

For the reasons stated above:

IT IS ORDERED denying the motion for summary judgment as to the negligence claim.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing the negligent entrustment claim, the emotional
distress/mental anguish claim, and the claim for punitive damages.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

09/22/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-005625

09/19/2016

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JO LYNN GENTRY
M Neves

Deputy

VIOLET KAPLAN
DIEGO RODRIGUEZ

v.

ALLEN L SVEC, et al.

EDWIN A BARKEL
MICHAEL J PLATI
DAVID C POTTS

ORAL ARGUMENT SET

The Court has received Defendant TBV Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A VSS Security Services’
Motion for Summary Judgment filed on July 11, 2016. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on October 10, 2016 at 8:45 a.m. (time
allotted: 30 minutes with the time divided equally between the parties), before:

HONORABLE JO LYNN GENTRY
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING
101 W. JEFFERSON
4TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 414
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-372-3091

NOTE: All court proceedings are recorded by audio and video method and not by a
court reporter. Pursuant to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any proceeding
in which a court reporter is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30, the party must

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-005625

09/19/2016

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2

submit a written request to the assigned judicial officer at least ten (10) judicial days in advance
of the hearing, and must pay the authorized fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial
days before the proceeding. The fee is $140 for up to three hours and $280 for any hearing in
excess of three hours. This fee does not include preparation of transcripts.

Should you want an unofficial copy of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may
request a CD of the proceedings for a $30.00 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. Attach the receipt showing
payment of the fee and present both the receipt and the form to the bailiff. For copies of
hearings or trial proceedings recorded previously, please call Electronic Records Services
at 602-506-7100.

PLEASE NOTE: This division requires that all motions, responses, replies and other
Court requested filings in this case must be submitted individually. Counsel shall not combine
any motion with a responsive pleading. All motions are to be filed separately and designated as
such. No pleadings will be accepted if filed in combination with another.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

09/22/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-005625

09/21/2017

Docket Code 375
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. SHERRY K. STEPHENS
T. DeRaddo

Deputy

VIOLET KAPLAN
DIEGO RODRIGUEZ

v.

ALLEN L SVEC, et al.

EDWIN A BARKEL
DAVID C POTTS
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK

DISMISSAL CALENDAR

The Court is advised this case has been settled.

IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the Dismissal Calendar for dismissal on
November 20, 2017 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.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/05/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-005625

10/04/2016

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JO LYNN GENTRY
T. Pavia

Deputy

VIOLET KAPLAN
DIEGO RODRIGUEZ

v.

ALLEN L SVEC, et al.

EDWIN A BARKEL
MICHAEL J PLATI
DAVID C POTTS

RULING

Pursuant to Rule 56, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant TBV Enterprises,
Incorporated, d/b/a VSS Security Services (“VSS”) moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff
Violet Kaplan’s (“Plaintiff”) claims. The Motion for Summary Judgment was filed July 11,
2016. No response has been filed.

Plaintiff allegedly suffered a loss as a result of a burglary. Plaintiff alleges that the
burglary stemmed from the negligent issuance of a key fob to an individual named Alex
Rodriguez, a guest of another owner within the condominium complex. Plaintiff claims Alex
Rodriguez was able to use the key fob to access the condominium community and burglarize her
unit.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges Defendant VSS was negligent in the issuance of the key fob
to Alex Rodriguez. Defendant argues it cannot be held liable for the issuance of the key fob
because the evidence is uncontroverted that Co-Defendant property manager AAM, LLC
(“AAM”) administered the issuance of key fobs for the condominium community, not VSS.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-005625

10/04/2016

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

Plaintiff’s complaint further alleges VSS was negligent in the hiring/supervision and
training of the contracted supervisors who manned the community desk and who managed the
property. Defendants argue that negligent hiring/supervisions claims require proof that harm
was caused by an employer’s hiring of an improper person to work where such person involved a
risk of harm to third parties and/or proof that the employer failed to adequately train and
supervise such employees. Plaintiff has offered no such evidence and summary judgment is
therefore appropriate on the negligent hiring/supervision claim.

Because Plaintiff failed to respond to the Motion, the court will deem the lack of response
as consent to the position taken by Defendants in the Motion.

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant VSS.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the oral argument set for October 10, 2016.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

11/02/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-005625

10/28/2016

Docket Code 079
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JO LYNN GENTRY
B. Randhawa

Deputy

VIOLET KAPLAN
DIEGO RODRIGUEZ

v.

ALLEN L SVEC, et al.

EDWIN A BARKEL
MICHAEL J PLATI
DAVID C POTTS
DOCKET-CIVIL-CCC

PARTIAL CASE DISMISSAL

The Court having received and considered the parties’ Stipulation to Dismiss Claims
Against Defendant TBV Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A VSS Security Services filed September 29,
2016,

IT IS ORDERED partially dismissing the above-entitled action as to Defendant TBV
Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A VSS Security only, with prejudice, each party to bear their own
attorney’s fees and costs, all in accordance with the formal written Order signed by the Court on
October 27, 2016, and filed (entered) by the Clerk on October 28, 2016.

Documents