Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2015-094118: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for A A M, L L C.

Case Number

CV2015-094118

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

7/21/2015

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Valenzuela, Michael

Location

Southeast

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/28/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-094118

01/26/2016

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROBERT H. OBERBILLIG
I. Ostrander

Deputy

STEPHEN S EDWARDS
STEPHEN S EDWARDS
1765 N LEMON ST
MESA AZ 85205

v.

SANDRA L SMITH, et al.
AMANDA BREEMES

F RICHARD CANNATA JR.

RULING

The Court has read the following:

 Defendant AAM, LLC and Sandra L. Smith’s Motion for Involuntary Dismissal
electronically filed on January 7, 2016;
 Plaintiff Opposition to Defendant AAM, LLC and Sandra L. Smith’s Motion for
Involuntary Dismissal filed on January 11, 2016;
 Defendant Mulvaney’s Joinder in Motion for Involuntary Dismissal electronically
filed on January 19, 2016;
 Defendant AAM, LLC and Sandra L. Smith’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion for Involuntary Dismissal electronically filed on January 20,
2016; and
 Plaintiff Stephen S. Edwards Motion to File Surreply to Defendant AAM, LLC and
Sandra L. Smith’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for
Involuntary Dismissal electronically filed on January 25, 2016.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-094118

01/26/2016

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to File Surreply.

In his Surreply, the Plaintiff has explained why he was unable to appear at the deposition.
Plaintiff has not explained why he has failed to file a Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED the Plaintiff shall file a Rule 26.1 Disclosure
Statement by February 19, 2016, and the Plaintiff shall make himself available for a deposition
by February 29, 2016.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/16/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-094118

02/10/2016

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROBERT H. OBERBILLIG
I. Ostrander

Deputy

STEPHEN S EDWARDS
STEPHEN S EDWARDS
1765 N LEMON ST
MESA AZ 85205

v.

SANDRA L SMITH, et al.
AMANDA BREEMES

F RICHARD CANNATA JR.

RULING

The Court has read the following:

 Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause as to Why Sanctions Should Not Be Granted re
Misconduct of Defendants Attorneys Jeffrey L. Smith and F. Richard Cannata, Jr.
filed on February 2, 2016; and
 Defendant Sandra L. Smith and AAM, LLC’s Response to Plaintiff’s Order to Show
Cause as to Why Sanctions Should Not Be Granted re Misconduct of Defendants
Attorneys Jeffrey L. Smith and F. Richard Cannata, Jr. electronically filed on
February 9, 2016.

The Plaintiff has no proper legal basis to request sanctions.

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause as to Why Sanctions Should
Not Be Granted re Misconduct of Defendants Attorneys Jeffrey L. Smith and F. Richard
Cannata, Jr.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/23/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-094118

03/22/2016

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROBERT H. OBERBILLIG
I. Ostrander

Deputy

STEPHEN S EDWARDS
STEPHEN S EDWARDS
1765 N LEMON ST
MESA AZ 85205

v.

SANDRA L SMITH, et al.
AMANDA BREEMES

F RICHARD CANNATA JR.

RULING

The Court has read the following:

 Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint electronically filed on December 22, 2015;
 Defendant AAM, LLC and Sandra L. Smith’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion to
Amend Complaint and/or Motion to Extend Response Time electronically filed on
January 26, 2016;
 Defendant Mulvaney’s Joinder in Defendant AAM, LLC, and Sandra L. Smith’s
Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint and/or Motion to Extend
Response Time electronically filed on January 27, 2016; and
 Defendant AAM, LLC and Sandra L. Smith’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
Complaint electronically filed on January 28, 2016.

The Motion to Strike is denied.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-094118

03/22/2016

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

The Motion to Amend Complaint is not opposed as to the claim against Defendant
Mulvaney.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint as to
the claim against Defendant Mulvaney.

As to the claim for declaratory relief, there is no such claim under Arizona law.

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint as to the Declaratory
relief claim against Defendants Sandra Smith and AAM, LLC.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Filed ***

03/28/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-094118

03/25/2016

Docket Code 042
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROBERT H. OBERBILLIG
I. Ostrander

Deputy

STEPHEN S EDWARDS
STEPHEN S EDWARDS
1765 N LEMON ST
MESA AZ 85205

v.

SANDRA L SMITH, et al.
AMANDA BREEMES

F RICHARD CANNATA JR.

CASE DISMISSED

The Court has read the following:

 Defendant AAM, LLC and Sandra L. Smith’s Motion to Dismiss for Plaintiff’s Non-
Appearance at Deposition electronically filed on March 2, 2016;
 Defendant Mulvaney’s Joinder in Motion to Dismiss electronically filed on March 3,
2016;
 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants AAM, LLC and Sandra L. Smith’s Motion to
Dismiss for Plaintiff’s Nonappearance at Deposition filed on March 14, 2016;
 Defendants AAM, LLC and Sandra L. Smith’s Reply to Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss for Plaintiff’s Nonappearance at Deposition electronically filed on March
17, 2016;
 Plaintiff Motion for Protective Order Regarding Deposition of Stephen Edwards filed
on March 3, 2016;

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-094118

03/25/2016

Docket Code 042
Form V000A
Page 2

 Defendants Sandra L. Smith and AAM, LLC Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Protective Order Regarding Deposition of Stephen Edwards electronically filed on
March 3, 2016; and
 Defendant Mulvaney’s Joinder in Response to Motion for Protective Order
Regarding Deposition of Stephen Edwards electronically filed on March 4, 2016.

The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Joinder therein are well taken. A video
deposition is permitted by Rule 30, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Edwards has
unreasonably refused to participate in discovery.

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Plaintiff’s failure to
prosecute.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing this entire action, with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the requests for monetary sanctions.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED signing this minute entry as a final written order of the
Court. The Court notes that no further matters remain pending and the order is entered
pursuant to Rule 54(c) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 25th day of March 2016.

/S/ HONORABLE ROBERT H. OBERBILLIG
______________________________________________________________
HONORABLE ROBERT H. OBERBILLIG
JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

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

CV 2015-094118

05/06/2016

Docket Code 025
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROBERT H. OBERBILLIG
I. Ostrander

Deputy

STEPHEN S EDWARDS
STEPHEN S EDWARDS
1765 N LEMON ST
MESA AZ 85205

v.

SANDRA L SMITH, et al.
AMANDA BREEMES

F RICHARD CANNATA JR.

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has read Defendants AAM, LLC, and Sandra L. Smith’s Notice of Lodging
Form of Judgment and Verified Statement of Costs both electronically filed on April 4, 2016.

The Court signed a final order on March 25, 2016, as to all defendants. This Court will
need a Motion from this defendant to vacate the earlier judgment and enter this new judgment to
include costs if such relief is still requested. Any proposed new judgment must contain final
order language as required by Rule 54, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court will take no
further action at this time.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/28/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-094118

06/20/2016

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROBERT H. OBERBILLIG
S. McCoy

Deputy

STEPHEN S EDWARDS
STEPHEN S EDWARDS
1765 N LEMON ST
MESA AZ 85205

v.

SANDRA L SMITH, et al.
AMANDA BREEMES

F RICHARD CANNATA JR.

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer & Consolidate
Plaintiffs’ Claims Against Maureen G. Mulvaney filed on May 19, 2016.

THE COURT FINDS that the Motion is improper. The case has been dismissed.
Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/28/2016 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-094118

06/23/2016

Docket Code 025
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROBERT H. OBERBILLIG
I. Ostrander

Deputy

STEPHEN S EDWARDS
STEPHEN S EDWARDS
1765 N LEMON ST
MESA AZ 85205

v.

SANDRA L SMITH, et al.
AMANDA BREEMES

F RICHARD CANNATA JR.

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has read Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse Judge Robert Oberbillig electronically
filed on June 12, 2016.

This case was dismissed on March 25, 2016. This Motion is untimely and will not be
considered by the Court.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

09/17/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-094118

09/15/2015

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROBERT H. OBERBILLIG
I. Ostrander

Deputy

STEPHEN S EDWARDS
STEPHEN S EDWARDS
1765 N LEMON ST
MESA AZ 85205

v.

SANDRA L SMITH, et al.
AMANDA BREEMES

RONALD TOCCHINI
COMM. BENNY

MINUTE ENTRY

This division has received Stephen S. Edwards, Application for Entry of Default
Judgment against Defendant Maureen G. Mulvaney in the above-captioned case.

IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above referenced
document(s).

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
Margaret Benny.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-094118

09/15/2015

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

default coversheet and copies of the necessary filed documents to Commissioner Benny’s
division for the entry of a default judgment.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no further action will be taken by Commissioner Benny
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:

 http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/forms.asp.

The parties/counsel can find additional information in the form of frequently asked
questions:

 http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/howDol.asp.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

09/24/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-094118

09/22/2015

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. ROBERT H. OBERBILLIG
I. Ostrander

Deputy

STEPHEN S EDWARDS
STEPHEN S EDWARDS
1765 N LEMON ST
MESA AZ 85205

v.

SANDRA L SMITH, et al.
AMANDA BREEMES

RONALD TOCCHINI

RULING

The Court has read Defendant AAM, LLC and Sandra L. Smith’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint electronically filed on August 6, 2015, Plaintiff’s Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion for Dismissal electronically filed on September 8, 2015, and Defendant
AAM, LLC’s and Sandra L. Smith’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss electronically filed on September 21, 2015.

The Court is of the opinion that the parties have fully and adequately briefed the issue(s)
in their pleadings and therefore oral argument would not assist the Court. Consequently,
pursuant to Rule 7.1(c), Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure, the Court will resolve the motion
without oral argument.

The Motion is well taken on the law as it applies to the allegations in Counts I and II.

IT IS ORDERED dismissing Counts I and II.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2015-094118

09/22/2015

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

As to the remaining counts, they are broadly written and do allege, in part, defamation
that occurred unrelated to judicial proceedings.

IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion to Dismiss as to the remaining counts.

Documents