01/04/2018 — CV2017054740 MULLEIAN, DOUGLAS C 01/04/2018 HONORABLE JOHN R. HANNAH JR View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/05/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-054740
01/04/2018
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOHN R. HANNAH JR
A. Wood
Deputy
DESERT OASIS OF SURPRISE MASTER
ASSOCIATION
TROY B STRATMAN
v.
DOUGLAS C MULLEIAN, et al.
COMM. HOLDING
MINUTE ENTRY
This division has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application/Motion for Default Judgment
against Defendant(s) Douglas C. Mulleian 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
Holding.
IT IS FURTHER 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
default coversheet and copies of the necessary filed documents to the commissioner’s division
for the entry of a default judgment.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-054740
01/04/2018
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, no further action will be taken by the assigned
commissioner 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 at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/forms.asp
The parties/counsel can find additional information in the form of frequently asked
questions at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/howDoI.asp
02/05/2018 — CV2017054740 MULLEIAN, DOUGLAS C 02/05/2018 HON. RANDALL H. WARNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/06/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-054740
02/05/2018
Docket Code 066
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. RANDALL H. WARNER
K. Ballard
Deputy
DESERT OASIS OF SURPRISE MASTER
ASSOCIATION
TROY B STRATMAN
v.
DOUGLAS C MULLEIAN, et al.
LAUREN P MULLEIAN
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
JUDGE AIMEE ANDERSON
JUDGE HANNAH
CASE REASSIGNMENT - CIVIL PRESIDING JUDGE
This case was previously assigned to the Honorable John Hannah. A Notice of Change
of Judge has been filed by Plaintiff. The case was transferred to the Civil Presiding Judge for
reassignment.
IT IS ORDERED that this case be assigned to Civil Calendar CVJ-03, the Honorable
Aimee Anderson, for all further proceedings. If any objections to the Notice of Change of Judge
are filed, the noticed judge retains jurisdiction to hear and decide the objections. Any objections
must be filed and a copy delivered to the noticed judge within 20 days of the date of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any and all hearings set by the noticed 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.
05/14/2018 — CV2017054740 MULLEIAN, DOUGLAS C 05/14/2018 HONORABLE AIMEE L. ANDERSON View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/15/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-054740
05/14/2018
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE AIMEE L. ANDERSON
A. Wood
Deputy
DESERT OASIS OF SURPRISE MASTER
ASSOCIATION
TROY B STRATMAN
v.
DOUGLAS C MULLEIAN, et al.
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has read and considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and
Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed March
20, 2018. Defendant, Lauren P. Mulleian has not filed a written memorandum in opposition to
this Motion.
“A failure to respond to a motion for summary judgment with a written memorandum or
opposing affidavits cannot, by itself, entitle the moving party to summary judgment. The trial
court must consider the entire record before deciding a summary judgment motion.” Schwab v.
Ames Const., 207 Ariz. 56, 60, 83P.3d 56, 60 (App. 2004).
Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all or any part of a claim or defense.
Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Western Corrections Croup, Inc. v. Tierney,208 Ariz. 583, 586, 96 P. 3d
1070, 1073 (App. 2004), Samsel v. Allstate Ins., 204 Ariz. 1, 4, 59 P. 3d 281, 284 (App. 2002).
The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine
dispute of fact. Wells Fargo v. Allen, 231 Ariz. 209, 213, 292 P. 3d 195, 199 (App. 2012).
When the moving party makes the necessary showing that no material facts are genuinely in
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2017-054740
05/14/2018
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
dispute, the adverse party cannot rest on the pleadings but must show by competent evidence the
existence of a genuine dispute of material fact requiring a trial. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(4); Schwab
v. Ames Const. 207 Ariz. at, 60, 83 P.3d at 60 (App. 2004); Kelly v. NationsBanc Mortgage
Corp.,199 Ariz. 284, 287, 17 P.3d 790, 793 (App. 2000).
In considering the motion, the Court must view all facts and reasonable inferences
flowing from those facts in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary
judgment is sought. Gipson v. Casey, 214 Ariz. 141, 142, 150 P.3d 228, 229 (2007); Meyers v.
City of Tempe, 212 Ariz. 128, 130, 148 P.3d 751, 753 (2006); Nat’l Bank of Ariz. V. Thruston,
218 Ariz. 112, 116, 180 P.3d 977, 981 (app. 2008). The motion should only be granted “if the
facts 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 School v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 309,
802 P.2d 1000, 1008 (1990). In making this determination, the Arizona Supreme Court has
cautioned that “[s]ummary judgment should not be used as a substitute for jury trials, simply
because the trial judge may believe the moving party will probably win the jury’s verdict, nor
even when the trial judge believes the moving party should win the jury’s verdict.” Id. 166 Ariz.
at 210, 802 P.2d at 1009 (emphasis in original). However, a motion for summary judgment
should not be denied “simply on the speculation that some slight doubt…some scintilla of
evidence or some dispute over irrelevant or immaterial facts might blossom into a real
controversy in the midst of trial.” Id.
Therefore, considering all facts and reasonable inferences flowing from those facts in the
light most favorable to the Defendant, Lauren P. Mulleian, the court finds that there are no
genuine issues of material fact.
The Court finds that Defendant violated the Declaration by failing to pay assessments
and/or other related charges.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for Plaintiff file a proposed form of judgment
consistent with this Court’s ruling, no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 4, 2018 .
