02/11/2019 — CV2017015460 ASSOCIATION, TROON NORTH 02/11/2019 HON. PAMELA GATES View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/13/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-015460
02/11/2019
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. PAMELA GATES
K. Ballard
Deputy
TROON NORTH ASSOCIATION
DOUGLAS A JORDEN
v.
CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, et al.
ERIC C ANDERSON
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING
INTRODUCTION
The Scottsdale Zoning Administrator issued an interpretation of Scottsdale Zoning Case No. 3-
ZN-94 as applied to Parcel 6 of Troon North, currently owned by Petitioner MBA Development
Partners, LLC. See COS-MBA-000001-0004. The Zoning Administrator interpreted the zoning
ordinances to allow 31 resort units on Parcel 6. Id. Thereafter, MBA appealed the Zoning
Administrator’s decision to the Scottsdale Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment
affirmed the Zoning Administrator’s decision, and MBA appealed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
As a statutory special action pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-462.06(K), review is limited to the record
considered by the Board of Adjustment. See Neal v. City of Kingman, 169 Ariz. 133, 135 (1991);
Lane v. City of Phoenix, 169 Ariz. 37, 39-40 (1991)(“[T]he superior court is bound by the evidence
presented to the Board, and cannot receive additional evidence or reweigh the evidence previously
considered by the Board in order to arrive at a different factual determination.”).
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-015460
02/11/2019
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2
In this procedural posture, the court presumes the validity of the Board of Adjustment’s
determination unless it is “against the weight of the evidence, unreasonable, erroneous, or illegal
as a matter of law.” Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix, 242 Ariz. 547, 551, ¶9 (2017)(quoting
Mueller v. City of Phoenix ex rel. Phoenix Bd. of Adjustment II, 102 Ariz. 575, 581 (1967)(“The
court shall affirm the agency action unless . . . the court concludes that the action is not supported
by substantial evidence, is contrary to law, is arbitrary and capricious or is an abuse of
discretion.”); Pingitore v. Town of Cave Creek, 194 Ariz. 261, 264, ¶ 18 (App. 1998)(“[The] court
may not substitute its opinions of facts for that of the Board . . [r]ather, if there is credible evidence
to support the Board’s decision, it must be affirmed.”).
As part of this review, however, the court analyzes statutory and ordinance interpretation de novo.
See Pawn 1st, 242 Ariz. at 551, ¶9 (citing Baker v. Univ. Physicians Healthcare, 231 Ariz. 379,
387 ¶30 (2013); see also City of Phoenix v. Superior Court (Rosen), 110 Ariz. 155, 158 (1973).
(“If, upon examination of the record, the Superior Court finds undue haste, unfair procedures,
mistakes of law, etc., the court may return the record to the Board with instructions to give the
aggrieved person more time and fairer procedures and to apply correct rules of law in accordance
with the court’s opinion.”); U.S. Parking Sys. v. City of Phoenix,160 Ariz. 210, 211, 772 P.2d 33,
34 (App. 1989)(acknowledging that an agency’s interpretation of a statute or regulation is given
weight; however, the court remains the final authority on critical questions of statutory
construction). Because zoning ordinances are in “derogation of common law property rights,” the
ordinances are strictly construed, resolving any ambiguity or uncertainty in favor of the property
owner. See Kubby v. Hammond, 68 Ariz. 17, 22 (1948).
BACKGROUND
The original master plan for Troon North anticipated development of a resort. The zoning for the
Resort Parcel was approved by the Scottsdale City Council in Case No. 28-Z-89 and established
the internal resort core of the Troon North community. See COS-MBA-000609-000648
(identifying Parcels V1 assigned R-4R HD/HC zoning - including what is now known as Parcel 6,
and V2 assigned R1-7 HD/HC zoning). Case No. 28-Z-89 included a stipulation (No. 10A)
pertaining to what was referred to as the North Resort Site, requiring the commencement of
construction of a resort hotel within five years; and, if commencement did not timely occur, the
property would be deeded to the City of Scottsdale, who would then develop the resort hotel. See
COS-MBA-000619. The combined Parcels V1 and V2 were allocated 280 resort rooms, plus 144
dwelling units. See COS-MBA-000609-000648.
In 1994, prior to the expiration of the five-year deadline for the commencement of resort
construction, Case Nos. 3-ZN-94 and 2-GP-94 were commenced to address the impending five-
year construction deadline imposed by the City on the Developer and to further specify the zoning
for the six parcels included within the Resort Parcel. See COS-MBA-000698-000809. The former
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-015460
02/11/2019
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3
Parcel V2 was re-zoned from R1-7 ESL (HD/HC) to R-4R ESL,1 and the development standards
for the area were amended. See COS-MBA-000698-000699. Stipulation 2 in Case No. 3-ZN-94
stated:
Maximum densities and dwelling unit counts shall be as indicated on the approved
development plan except that in no case shall [the] unit count exceed 385 (for units
which are not used or available as resort rooms) and 424 units maximum (of which
at least 90 units shall be used as resort rooms) without a subsequent public hearing.
The specific location of each parcel shall be determined at the time of site plan
review. Redistribution of the units is subject to maximum densities and Project
Coordination staff approval. All such requests shall include a revised master
development plan and a revision to the table on page 2 indicating the parcels with
the corresponding reduction/increase.
See COS-MBA-000700.
The table in Stipulation 2 sets forth information regarding the various parcels and identified: 1)
Parcel Number; 2) Gross Acreage; 3) Zoning; 4) Proposed Dwelling Units Per Acre; 5) Maximum
Dwelling Units Per Acre; 6) Proposed Number of Units; and 7) Maximum Number of Units. Id.
In this table, Parcel 6, identified as 1.49 acres, was assigned a density of 15 du/acre (15 dwelling
units per acre) and a maximum number of units of 22. Id.
Of note, after the City Council report had been prepared, but before the City Council approved
Case No. 3-ZN-94, Don Hadder received a letter dated March 28, 1994, alerting him that the
acreage listed in table for Parcel 6 was incorrect. See COS-MBA- 000571-000572. Despite receipt
of the March 28, 1994 letter, the table was not corrected.
Case No. 3-ZN-94 also included Stipulation 12 from Case 28-Z-89, which provided that “density
will be based on the gross development area of each parcel.” See COS-MBA-000710. Case 3-
ZN-94 was adopted by the City Council as enabling Ordinance 2650. See COS-MBA-000698-
809.
On or about July 22, 2016, MBA acquired title to Parcel 6 via a warranty deed recorded as
Document No. 2016-0519301, Official Records of Maricopa County, Arizona. Parcel 6 was
acquired with the intention of completing a resort project. See COS-MBA-001297- 001304.
1 In Scottsdale, the land use category for R-4R is for Resort/Townhouse Residential. See Scottsdale Revised
Code, Appendix B, §5.900 et seq., which establishes the minimum gross land area per guest room as 4,100
square feet and the minimum gross land per dwelling unit is 5,770 square feet. See Scottsdale Revised
Code, Appendix B, §5.904(C).
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-015460
02/11/2019
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 4
MBA’s initial submittal to the City Development Review Board occurred on or about October 20,
2016. See COS-MBA-000895-897. On November 21, 2016, the Planning Coordination Staff
instructed MBA to review the project narrative to explain what section of the Zoning Ordinance
was being utilized to equate the maximum allocated 372 units to 53 of the proposed units and to
address how the 64 proposed flex units would comply with the established zoning while exceeding
both of those unit counts. See COS-MBA-000899-903. At no time did MBA receive the formal
approval of the Development Review Board or the Planning Coordination Staff for more than 22
dwelling units or 31 resort rooms. See R.T. 11/01/17 (Bamford) at 21 & 47-48.
On July 24, 2016, Troon North Association requested a Zoning Administrator Interpretation. See
COS-MBA-000528-000574. The Zoning Administrator’s Interpretation issued on August 24,
2017. See COS-MBA-000001-004. On November 1, 2017, the Board of Adjustment affirmed the
decision of the Zoning Administrator, finding that the decision was neither arbitrary, capacious,
nor an abuse of discretion. See generally R.T. 11/01/17.
ANALYSIS
The City of Scottsdale is empowered to enact zoning ordinances pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-462.01 et
seq. Section 9-462.05(C) directs the City to establish an Office of Zoning Administrator who has
the responsibility of enforcing zoning ordinances. The Scottsdale City Code directs the Zoning
Administrator to interpret and apply the zoning ordinances. See Scottsdale Rev. Code, Appendix
B, §1.201 et seq. Here, the Zoning Administrator fulfilled the duty by providing an August 24,
2017 interpretation, concluding that “Parcel 6 is currently allowed 22 dwelling units or 31 resort
rooms.” See COS-MBA-000001-000004. On appeal, the Board of Adjustment determined that
the Zoning Administrator’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
After considering the pleadings, the argument, and conducting a thorough review of the record
considered by the Board of Adjustment, this court affirms the Board of Adjustment’s decision. In
doing so, the court affirms the Board of Adjustment’s determination that the Zoning Administrator
articulated a rational connection between the facts and the decision and that the Zoning
Administrator’s decision was based on relevant facts.
As part of this review, the court analyzed the Board of Adjustment’s legal determinations de novo.
See Pawn 1st, 242 Ariz. at 551, ¶9. When interpreting statutes or ordinances, the court follows the
ordinary or plain meaning of the text unless: 1) it appears from the context that a special meaning
2 In Case No. 48-DR-2007, the Development Review Board Report lists 37 as the number of units allowed.
See COS-MBA-000858-000891. Of note, this approval, from 2007, expired after two years. Any new
project required Board approval based on current conditions and standards.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-015460
02/11/2019
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 5
was intended; 2) the text suggests an absurd result; or 3) the text contains a scrivener’s error.
Austin Shea (Ariz.) 7th St. & Van Buren, L.L.C. v. City of Phoenix, 213 Ariz. 385, 391 ¶23 (App.
2006).
The parties agree the acreage of Parcel 6 listed in Stipulation 2 of Case No. 3-ZN-94 is incorrect.
However, the court does not find that the inclusion of 1.49 acres and the resulting maximum
number of units of 22 is a simple scrivener’s error. See United States Nat’l Bank of Oregon v.
Independent Ins. Agents of America, Inc., 113 S.Ct. 2173, 2186 (1993)(re-punctuating a statute
when the true meaning of the language is clear beyond question and the scrivener’s error, a mistake
made by someone unfamiliar with the law’s object and design, is too weak to trump the
overwhelming evidence from the structure, language, and subject matter of the statute).
Read as a whole, the Stipulations in Case No. 3-ZN-94 set the maximum densities per parcel and
the maximum number of units per parcel with a mechanism for “[r]edistributi[ng] . . . the [number
of] units [per parcel] . . . subject to maximum densities and Project Coordination Staff approval.”
See COS-MBA-000700; see also COS-MBA-001361 (the site plan listing the correct acreage for
Parcel 6 and retaining the maximum number of units for Parcel 6 as 22); Smith v. United States,
113 S.Ct. 2050, 2056 (1993)(“Statutory construction . . . is a holistic endeavor.”)(quoting United
Savings Assn. of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U.S. 365, 371, 108 S.Ct.
626, 630 (1988)). The ordinary or plain meaning of the text, read holistically, is consistent with
the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation that absent Project Coordination staff approval,3 the
maximum number of dwelling units for Parcel 6 is 22 or 31 resort rooms.
Guided by the ordinary and plain meaning of the text, the court rejects MBA’s argument that the
Stipulations require at least 90 units to be resort rooms. Instead, the court finds that the
requirement of 90 units “used as resort room” applies when the unit count exceeds 385. See COS-
MBA-000700 (“Maximum densities and dwelling unit counts shall be as indicated on the approved
development plan except that in no case shall [the] unit count exceed 385 (for units which are not
used or available as resort rooms) and 424 units maximum (of which at least 90 units shall be used
as resort rooms) without a subsequent public hearing. . . . The 385 unit maximum is the
maximum allowed for residential units.”)(Emphasis added); see also R.T. 11/01/17 (Bamford)
at 39-42. Cannons of interpretation and grammar tenets are also consistent with this interpretation.
For example, the Chicago Manual of Style notes that words within a parenthetical typically modify
the nearest word or phrase. Applying this tenet to the language of Stipulation 2, “of which at least
90 units shall be used as resort rooms” modifies unit count in excess of 385. See The Chicago
Manual of Style § 6.97 (15th ed. 2003). Similarly, under general cannons of interpretation, when
3 Among other requirements, all such requests to the Projection Coordination staff must include a revised
master development plan and a proposed revision to the table on page 2 of the Stipulations, indicating the
parcels with the corresponding reduction/increase. See COS-MBA-000700.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-015460
02/11/2019
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 6
the syntax involves something other than a parallel series of nouns or verbs, a prepositive or
postpositive modifier normally applies only to the nearest reasonable referent. See Antonin Scalia
& Bryan Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (2012).
The Board of Adjustment acted within its discretion. In making this decision, the court finds that
neither the Zoning Administrator nor the Board of Adjustment misappropriated the authority of
the City Council. Moreover, the court finds that neither the Zoning Administrator nor Board of
Adjustment failed to consider relevant vested rights. Finally, the court does not find a violation of
due process.
IT IS ORDERED accepting jurisdiction and affirming the decision of the Board of Adjustment’s
decision upholding the Zoning Administrator’s determination.
02/15/2018 — CV2017015460 ASSOCIATION, TROON NORTH 02/15/2018 HON. RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/20/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-015460
02/15/2018
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. RANDALL H. WARNER
K. Ballard
Deputy
TROON NORTH ASSOCIATION
FRANCIS J SLAVIN
v.
CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, et al.
ERIC C ANDERSON
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
HEARING
Courtroom: ECB-912
10:03 a.m. This is the time set for oral argument on (1) Plaintiff MBA Development
Partners, LLC’s January 19, 2018 Motion to Disqualify Counsel and (2) Plaintiff MBA
Development Partners, LLC’s January 19, 2018 Motion to Dismiss Troon North Association
Appeal. Plaintiff MBA Development Partners, LLC is represented by Counsel Frederick E.
Davidson and Chad R. Kaffer. MBA’s client representatives, Mike Anderson, Mike Lofton, and
Buddy Satterfield, are also present. Plaintiff Troon North Association is represented by Counsel
Francis J. Slavin and Daniel J. Slavin. Defendants City of Scottsdale, Board of Adjustment of
the City of Scottsdale, the individual members of the Board of Adjustment of the City of
Scottsdale, and the Zoning Administrator of the City of Scottsdale are represented by Counsel
Eric C. Anderson.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Oral argument is presented on the Motion to Disqualify.
Oral argument is presented on the Motion to Dismiss.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-015460
02/15/2018
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED taking these matters under advisement.
Discussion is held regarding further proceedings.
Counsel for MBA requests leave to conduct limited discovery prior to submitting briefs
in this matter.
Counsel are directed to confer regarding what constitutes the official transcript in the
lower court proceedings. If counsel are unable to come to agreement, counsel shall contact the
court for resolution and should be prepared at that conference to advise the court of their legal
arguments regarding this issue.
IT IS ORDERED that MBA file a memorandum, no later than the close of business on
February 16, 2018, specifying what discovery it believes it needs and the amount of time it will
take to complete that discovery. By the close of business on February 23, 2018, the City will
file any objection to that memorandum.
11:20 a.m. Matter concludes.
Later
1.
Motion to Disqualify.
The court finds no conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety that would preclude
the City Attorney’s Office from representing Defendants in this special action. And MBA has
articulated no prejudice it suffers by having the City Attorney’s Office defend the Board of
Adjustment’s decision than a private attorney.
IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion.
2.
Motion to Dismiss.
MBA makes several arguments for dismissal of Troon’s appeal from the Board of
Adjustment’s decision, but one is dispositive. Troon acknowledges that, as a property owner, it
has no “special damage” that would give it standing to complain about a zoning decision on
adjacent property. Buckelew v. Town of Parker, 188 Ariz. 446, 450, 937 P.2d 368, 372 (App.
1996). It is therefore representing the property interests of its members. But its CC&R’s do not
authorize it to file a zoning appeal like this on behalf of its members’ collective interests.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-015460
02/15/2018
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 3
The court will, however, permit Troon to file an amicus brief in opposition to MBA’s
brief if it wishes.
IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Troon may file a brief in opposition to MBA’s
opening brief.
03/26/2018 — CV2017015460 ASSOCIATION, TROON NORTH 03/26/2018 HON. RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/28/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-015460
03/26/2018
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. RANDALL H. WARNER
K. Ballard
Deputy
TROON NORTH ASSOCIATION
FRANCIS J SLAVIN
v.
CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, et al.
ERIC C ANDERSON
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
RULING
Before the court is Plaintiff/Appellant MBA Development Partners, LLC’s Amended
Memorandum re: Discovery and Defendants/Appellees’ Response. For the reasons stated in the
Response, the request for discovery is denied. Plaintiff has not demonstrated a legal or factual
basis for the discovery it requests.
IT IS ORDERED denying the request for discovery.
04/11/2018 — CV2017015460 ASSOCIATION, TROON NORTH 04/11/2018 HON. RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/13/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-015460
04/11/2018
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. RANDALL H. WARNER
K. Ballard
Deputy
TROON NORTH ASSOCIATION
FRANCIS J SLAVIN
v.
CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, et al.
ERIC C ANDERSON
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
RULING
Before the court is Plaintiff MBA Development Partners, LLC’s March 15, 2018 Motion
for Clarification of Denial of Motion to Disqualify. The court only ruled on the issue before it,
i.e. whether the City Attorney’s office could represent Defendants in this action.
IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion and clarifying the court’s February 15, 2018
ruling (filed February 20, 2018) as set forth above.
04/27/2018 — CV2017015460 ASSOCIATION, TROON NORTH 04/27/2018 HON. RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/01/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-015460
04/27/2018
Docket Code 099
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. RANDALL H. WARNER
K. Ballard
Deputy
TROON NORTH ASSOCIATION
FRANCIS J SLAVIN
v.
CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, et al.
ERIC C ANDERSON
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON
DOCKET-CIVIL-CCC
TROON NORTH ASSOCIATION
C/O FIRST SERVICE RESIDENTIAL
STE 211
28190 N ALMA SCHOOL PKWY
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85262
WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL
Before the court is Francis J. Slavin, Daniel J. Slavin, and the law firm of Francis J.
Slavin, P.C.’s March 29, 2018 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record. Good cause
appearing,
IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion and permitting Francis J. Slavin, Daniel J. Slavin,
and the law firm of Francis J. Slavin, P.C. to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff Troon
North Association for all further proceedings, all in accordance with the Order, electronically
signed by the court on April 27, 2018.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED unless and until Plaintiff Troon North Association retains
new counsel, all future correspondence shall be sent directly to Plaintiff at the following address.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-015460
04/27/2018
Docket Code 099
Form V000A
Page 2
Troon North Association
c/o First Service Residential
28190 N. Alma School Pkwy, Ste. 211
Scottsdale, AZ 85262
[email protected]
No telephone number provided
An LLC or other similar entity may not represent itself in court. Therefore, this matter
will be dismissed as to Plaintiff Troon North Association in 60 days unless an attorney appears
on its behalf.
NOTE: Due to judicial rotations in June, beginning June 25, 2018 Judge Pamela Gates
will assume Judge Warner’s civil calendar. Judge Gates will be located in the East Court
Building, Courtroom 912. Telephone: 602-506-6391.
ATTENTION SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS: Unless an attorney files a notice
that he or she represents a party, the person(s) not represented by an attorney will act as his or
her own attorney. The law requires the court to hold all persons representing themselves to
the same standard as a licensed attorney. Self-represented litigants are encouraged to review
the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, paying particular attention to Rule 26. Please note that
only a licensed attorney may represent a corporation, LLC, or similar business entity in the
Superior Court. Ramada Inns v. Lane & Bird Advertising, 102 Ariz. 127, 426 P.2d 395
(1967).
Before the judge can consider anything you send him, you must show him that you have
given a copy of your request:
1. To the Clerk of the Court. The Clerk of the Court is a separately elected official. It is
the clerk’s job to keep an independent record of everything that happens at the court.
The court cannot act on a document that has not been made a part of that record; and
2. To every other party involved in the case. This is so all parties have a fair chance to
tell the judge what they think before he makes a decision.
Because of that, if you want the judge to consider something you send him, you must file
the original document with the Clerk of the Superior Court, mail or deliver a copy directly to this
division (that is, to the judge, using his specific courtroom address), and mail or deliver a copy to
all opposing parties. In addition, on each document you must include a signed certificate that
says whether you mailed or hand delivered each copy, when you did so, and states the specific
people and the specific addresses to which you mailed or hand delivered each copy. If a party is
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-015460
04/27/2018
Docket Code 099
Form V000A
Page 3
represented by a lawyer, you must send or deliver the copy to the lawyer, not to the party. All
proposed orders submitted to this division must include copies of the order with self-addressed,
stamped envelopes for all parties/counsel.
Do not mail or send papers for the clerk or other parties to the judge.
If you want to file papers with the Clerk of the Court by mail, please send them to:
Clerk of the Superior Court’s Office
Civil File Counter
201 W. Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ 85003
The clerk’s guidelines for filing by mail can be found at:
http://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/filing-by-mail.asp
If you are not represented by a lawyer, you must keep the court updated regarding your
current address and telephone number. If your address or phone number changes at any time,
you must file a notice of change of address/phone number with the Clerk of Court. That form
can be downloaded at no charge from the following website:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/LawLibraryResourceCenter/
Or you may purchase printed forms at any of the following Superior Court Law Library
Resource Center (Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.):
Downtown Phoenix Facility
Southeast Facility
East Court Building
222 E. Javelina Ave.
101 W. Jefferson St.
Mesa, AZ 85210-6201
Phoenix, AZ 85003-2243
602-506-7353
Northeast Court Facility
Northwest Regional Center
18380 N. 40th Street
14264 W. Tierra Buena Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85032
Surprise, AZ 85374
05/25/2018 — CV2017015460 ASSOCIATION, TROON NORTH 05/25/2018 HON. RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/30/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-015460
05/25/2018
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. RANDALL H. WARNER
K. Ballard
Deputy
TROON NORTH ASSOCIATION
TROON NORTH ASSOCIATION
C/O FIRST SERVICE RESIDENTIAL
STE 211
28190 N ALMA SCHOOL PKWY
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85262
v.
CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, et al.
ERIC C ANDERSON
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
ORDER ENTERED BY COURT
On the court’s own motion,
IT IS ORDERED that, no later than June 8, 2018, the parties shall lodge a proposed
scheduling order setting forth briefing deadlines.
NOTE: Due to judicial rotations in June, beginning June 25, 2018 Judge Pamela Gates
will assume Judge Warner’s civil calendar. Judge Gates will be located in the East Court
Building, Courtroom 912. Telephone: 602-506-6391.
06/19/2018 — CV2017015460 ASSOCIATION, TROON NORTH 06/19/2018 HON. RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/20/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-015460
06/19/2018
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. RANDALL H. WARNER
K. Ballard
Deputy
TROON NORTH ASSOCIATION
DOUGLAS A JORDEN
v.
CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, et al.
ERIC C ANDERSON
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
STATUS CONFERENCE SET
The court having entered the parties’ Scheduling Order,
IT IS ORDERED setting a telephonic status conference on September 27, 2018 at
9:00 a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes) in this division for the purpose of setting a hearing.
Counsel for Plaintiff MBA Development Partners, LLC shall initiate the conference call to this
division. All persons appearing shall appear on land lines and not on cellular phones, and shall
not use the speakerphone features of their telephones, in order to maximize all participants’
ability to hear and be heard. Counsel shall have their calendars available for this proceeding.
NOTE: Due to judicial rotations in June, beginning June 25, 2018 Judge Pamela Gates
will assume Judge Warner’s civil calendar. Judge Gates will be located in the East Court
Building, Courtroom 912. Telephone: 602-506-6391.
NOTE: All court proceedings are recorded digitally 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 submit a
written request to the assigned judicial officer at least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-015460
06/19/2018
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2
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.
09/27/2018 — CV2017015460 ASSOCIATION, TROON NORTH 09/27/2018 HON. PAMELA GATES View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/03/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-015460
09/27/2018
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. PAMELA GATES
K. Ballard
Deputy
TROON NORTH ASSOCIATION
DOUGLAS A JORDEN
v.
CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, et al.
ERIC C ANDERSON
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
ORAL ARGUMENT SET
Courtroom: ECB-912
9:37 a.m. This is the time set for a status conference. Plaintiff MBA Development
Partners, LLC is represented by Counsel Frederick E. Davidson. Defendants City of Scottsdale,
Board of Adjustment of the City of Scottsdale, the individual members of the Board of Adjustment
of the City of Scottsdale, and the Zoning Administrator of the City of Scottsdale are represented
by Counsel Eric C. Anderson. Troon North Association is represented by Counsel Douglas A.
Jorden. All appearances are telephonic.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
The court notes that the briefing is not yet complete in this matter as MBA Development’s
reply brief is due October 8, 2018.
Discussion is briefly held regarding the scope and length of the hearing/oral argument to
be set.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-015460
09/27/2018
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument/hearing on MBA Development’s Complaint for
Special Action for November 30, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. in this division. Counsel and the parties, if
representing themselves, are to appear in person before:
The Honorable Pamela Gates
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building
101 W. Jefferson
9th Floor, Courtroom 912
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: 602-506-6391
Fax: 602-372-8790
Oral argument shall be limited to one (1) hour with the time divided equally between the
sides.
NOTE: All court proceedings are recorded digitally 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 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.
9:44 a.m. Matter concludes.
12/04/2018 — CV2017015460 ASSOCIATION, TROON NORTH 12/04/2018 HON. PAMELA GATES View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/11/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-015460
12/04/2018
Docket Code 095
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. PAMELA GATES
K. Ballard
Deputy
TROON NORTH ASSOCIATION
DOUGLAS A JORDEN
v.
CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, et al.
ERIC C ANDERSON
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
ORAL ARGUMENT RESET
The court has received and considered the City Defendants’ November 28, 2018
Unopposed Motion to Continue Oral Argument.
IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion, vacating the November 30, 2018 oral
argument/hearing regarding MBA Development’s Complaint for Special Action, and resetting the
oral argument to December 12, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. in this division. Counsel and the parties, if
representing themselves, are to appear in person before:
The Honorable Pamela Gates
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building
101 W. Jefferson
9th Floor, Courtroom 912
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: 602-506-6391
Fax: 602-372-8790
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-015460
12/04/2018
Docket Code 095
Form V000A
Page 2
Oral argument shall be limited to one (1) hour with the time divided equally between the
sides.
NOTE: All court proceedings are recorded digitally 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 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.
The foregoing is done all in accordance with the formal written Order Continuing Oral
Argument on Plaintiff’s Complaint for Special Action signed by the court on November 29, 2018
and entered (filed) by the clerk on December 4, 2018.
Please note: The court has signed a paper copy of the order which was originally provided
electronically. After the order has been scanned and docketed by the Clerk of Court, copies of this
order will be available through the ECR online at www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov or through
www.AZTurboCourt.gov and from the Public Access Terminals at the Clerk of Court’s offices
located throughout Maricopa County.
12/12/2018 — CV2017015460 ASSOCIATION, TROON NORTH 12/12/2018 HON. PAMELA GATES View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/17/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-015460
12/12/2018
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. PAMELA GATES
K. Ballard
Deputy
TROON NORTH ASSOCIATION
DOUGLAS A JORDEN
v.
CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, et al.
ERIC C ANDERSON
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
MATTER TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT
Courtroom: ECB-912
9:00 a.m. This is the time set for oral argument/hearing on MBA Development’s
Complaint for Special Action. Plaintiff MBA Development Partners, LLC is represented by
Counsel Frederick E. Davidson and Chad R. Kaffer. Defendants City of Scottsdale, Board of
Adjustment of the City of Scottsdale, the individual members of the Board of Adjustment of the
City of Scottsdale, and the Zoning Administrator of the City of Scottsdale are represented by
Counsel Eric C. Anderson. No other party is present or represented.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Oral argument is presented.
IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.
10:35 a.m. Matter concludes.
