Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2017-055942: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Leisure World Community Association.

Case Number

CV2017-055942

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

11/9/2017

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Cushner, Quintin

Location

Northeast

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/10/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

01/08/2020

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CYNTHIA J. BAILEY
W. Tenoever

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
CHAD PHILIP MIESEN

JUDGE BAILEY

STATUS CONFERENCE SET

Northeast Regional Court - Courtroom 108

10:02 a.m. This is the time set for Telephonic Status Conference Re: Trial. Plaintiffs Gene
D. Watson and Ellyn Jane McKinley are represented by counsel, Frederick E. Davidson.
Defendant Leisure World is represented by counsel, Chad P. Miesen.

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

Discussion is held.

Counsel inform the Court that they stipulate to proceeding with a Bench Trial instead of a
Jury Trial for the trial set to commence on March 31, 2020. Counsel estimate that they will need
4 trial days.

IT IS ORDERED setting a Telephonic Status Conference to finalize the exact trial dates
on March 2, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. (15 minutes allotted) in this division. Counsel for the Plaintiff
shall initiate the telephonic conference by first arranging the presence of all other counsel on the

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

01/08/2020

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2

conference call and by calling this division at: (602) 506-5121 at least five minutes before the
scheduled time. The parties and counsel shall not be permitted to participate in conferences
via cell phones or speakerphone.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming the Final Trial Management Conference set for
February 21, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in this division.

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.

10:11 a.m. Hearing concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/29/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

01/28/2021

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ANDREW J. RUSSELL
S. Motzer

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

COMM. RUSSELL

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received and reviewed the Expedited Motion to Stay Proceedings to
Enforce Judgment and Order filed January 26, 2021.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a response to the above Motion no later than
February 9, 2021.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/06/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

02/04/2020

Docket Code 081
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CYNTHIA J. BAILEY
W. Tenoever

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
CHAD PHILIP MIESEN

JUDGE BAILEY

MINUTE ENTRY

This matter having been taken under advisement and the Court having considered the
matters presented,

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment and
denying Defendant’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment, all in accordance with the formal
written Order signed by the Court on February 3, 2020 and entered (filed) by the clerk on February
4, 2020.

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.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Trial Management Conference set on
February 21, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., the Telephonic Status Conference set on March 2, 2020 at 8:30
a.m. and the Trial set on March 31, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in this division.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/01/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

02/25/2021

Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ANDREW J. RUSSELL
S. Motzer

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

COMM. RUSSELL

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received and reviewed Defendant’s Expedited Motion to Stay Proceedings
to Enforce Judgment and Order, as well as Plaintiffs’ Response. Defendant asks the Court to
enjoin Plaintiffs from recording the Judgment and Order entered in this case, and stay any
collection proceedings related to the monetary portion of that Judgment. In the alternative,
should the Court decline to stay those proceedings, Defendant asks for “a hearing for the Court
to set the amount of the supersedeas bond at zero dollars.” See Motion, page 5, lines 16-17.

The Court may enter a stay of any judgment or any enforcement proceedings during the
pendency of various motions (see Ariz. R. Civ. P. 62(b)(1)-(4)), and “when justice so requires in
other instances until such time as the court may fix.” See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 62(b)(5). But the
Court does not see, and Defendant has not shown, how justice would require a stay under these
circumstances. The case centers on Defendant’s attempts to amend various CC&Rs. “The 2014
Amendment merely adjusts the approval requirement for subsequent amendments to the Plat
Declarations from 75% of the owners in each plat to 75% of all owners in all plats.” See
Defendant Leisure World Community Association’s Rule 59(a) Motion for New Trial, page 10,
lines 10-12. The rulings in this case generally invalidate the purported amendments, but how
Defendant will be damaged by allowing the rulings to take effect (returning the amendment
percentages to their original levels) is not evident.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

02/25/2021

Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s request for a stay of proceedings to enforce the
Judgment, including recordation of same.

As for Defendants’ request that the Court schedule a hearing to set a supersedeas bond,
and that the Court set that bond at zero dollars, Rule 62(c) provides that a party may obtain a
post-judgment supersedeas bond “as provided in Rule 7 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate
Procedure.” See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 62(c). Rule 7 of those appellate rules requires that, if requested,
“the superior court must hold a hearing on a motion to set bond.” See ARCAP 7(a)(2).
Defendant having requested a hearing to set the amount of a supersedeas bond,

IT IS ORDERED setting a hearing to consider the amount of the supersedeas bond on
March 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (30 minutes allotted).

The conference will be held via Court Connect (the Court’s new video-conference/remote
hearing platform).

Tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj13

Or call in (audio only)
+1 917-781-4590 Phone Conference ID: 776 371 089#

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/01/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

02/28/2022

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SARA J. AGNE
J. Holguin

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

JUDGE AGNE

MINUTE ENTRY

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED resetting the Status Conference in this matter to 11:45 AM on Friday,
March 4, 2022 (15 minutes allotted) on Court Connect. (The hearing previously set for March
3, 2022, is vacated.)

Please join the hearing via:
https://tinyurl.com/Courtroom108

You can also dial in using your phone.
Phone: +1 917-781-4590 and Conference ID: 929 847 029#

Use of the above link can be made easier by downloading the Microsoft Teams application first;
for more on the new platform, including an introduction video and participant guide, please
visit: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

02/28/2022

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 2

NOTE: Due to the spread of COVID-19, the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative
Order 2020-79 requires all individuals entering a court facility to wear a mask or face covering at
all times they are in the court facility. With limited exceptions, the court will not provide masks
or face coverings. Therefore, any individual attempting to enter the court facility must have an
appropriate mask or face covering to be allowed entry to the court facility. Any person who
refuses to wear a mask or face covering as directed will be denied entrance to the court facility or
asked to leave. In addition, all individuals entering a court facility will be subject to a health
screening protocol. Any person who does not pass the health screening protocol will be denied
entrance to the court facility.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/10/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

03/04/2022

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SARA J. AGNE
J. Holguin

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

CHAD PHILIP MIESEN
JUDGE AGNE

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom 108 – Northeast Regional Court

11:50 a.m. This is the time set for a Status Conference via Court Connect. Plaintiffs Gene
D. Watson and Ellyn Jane McKinley are represented by counsel, Frederick E. Davidson.
Defendant Leisure World Community Association is represented by counsel, Chad Philip Miesen
on behalf of Katherine J. Merolo.

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

Discussion is held regarding the status of the case.

The Court has received and reviewed the Order of Mandate and Appeals Letter of
Transmittal both filed on January 31, 2022.

Further discussion is held.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

03/04/2022

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a proposed new Form of Judgment no later
than March 18, 2022.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall respond no later than April 1, 2022.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall reply no later than April 8, 2022.

11:57 Matter concludes.

NOTE: Due to the most recent updates and CDC guidelines regarding COVID-19,
effective March 7, 2022, public health-related restrictions will be as follows: Health screenings
at all court facility entry points will continue. Persons exhibiting any symptoms (aside from a
fever) and who have tested negative for COVID-19 within the last 48 hours will be permitted to
enter and will be directed to wear a mask. Likewise, anyone who reports close contact with a
COVID-positive individual within the past 10 days will also be required to wear a mask upon
entering. The Court continues to recommend that staff and visitors wear masks inside Branch
facilities, but it will be optional for most people, aside from those noted above (symptomatic or
close contact). In addition, social spacing in Court facilities will now remain at 3 feet. The
division retains discretion to require masking during jury trials when necessary to avoid
prejudice.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/29/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

03/26/2021

Docket Code 095
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ANDREW J. RUSSELL
S. Motzer

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

COMM. RUSSELL

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received and reviewed the Stipulation to Re-Schedule Oral Argument filed
March 24, 2021. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED granting the above filing, vacating the virtual Oral Argument on March
29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and resetting same on April 6, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. (30 minutes allotted).

The hearing will be held via Court Connect (the Court’s new video-conference/remote
hearing platform).

Tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj13

Or call in (audio only)
+1 917-781-4590 Phone Conference ID: 776 371 089#

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/06/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

04/03/2020

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CYNTHIA J. BAILEY
A. Wood

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

JUDGE BAILEY

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has read and reviewed Plaintiffs’ Application for Attorney’s Fees and Statement
of Costs, filed February 24, 2020, Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Application for Attorneys’
Fees and Statement of Costs, filed March 16, 2020 and Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Application
for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, filed March 29, 2020.

An award of attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01 is permissive; there is
no requirement that the trial court grant fees to the prevailing party in a contested contract action.
Title Ins. Co. of Minn. v. Acumen Trading Co., 121 Ariz. 525, 526 (1979). The trial court has broad
discretion to determine whether a party is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. §
12-341.01(A). Associated Indem. Corp. v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 567, 570 (1985).

The Court has considered the merits of the Defendant’s claims, whether Plaintiffs’ efforts
were completely superfluous in achieving the ultimate result, whether the assessing fees against
Defendant would cause extreme hardship, whether Plaintiffs prevailed with respect to all relief
sought, whether the legal question(s) presented was/were novel or had been previously adjudicated
and whether a fee award would discourage other parties with tenable claims from litigation. The
Court has also considered the reasonableness of the billing rate, the hours expended and the amount

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

04/03/2020

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

of the attorney fees requested. See A.R.S. §12-341.01, A.R.S. § 12-349, Rule 54 (g)(2), Ariz.
R.Civ.P., Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., 228 Ariz. 9, 13, 261 P.3d 784, 788 (App. 2011), and
ABC Supply, Inc. v. Edwards, 191 Ariz. 48, 51, 952 P.2d 286, 290 (App. 1996), and Schweiger v.
China Doll Restaurant, Inc., 138 Ariz. 183, 673 P.2d 927 (App. 1983). The Court has also
considered Defendant’s objections. See Geller v. Lesk, 230 Ariz. 624, 628 (App. 2012) (once the
party requesting fees makes a prima facie case the fees are reasonable, the burden shifts to the
opposing party to establish the amount requested is clearly excessive), Canon School Dist. No. 50
v. W.E.S. Constr. Co., 177 Ariz. 431, 443, 868 P.2d 1014, 1026 (App. 1993)(opposing party must
make specific objections with factual detail pointing out which particular billing entries are
unreasonable) and Smith v. American Express Travel Related Servs. Co., 179 Ariz. 131, 140, 876
P.2d 1166, 1175 (App. 1994)(an opponent must make more than sweeping and conclusory
allegations to demonstrate unreasonableness of a fee request).

The Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S.
§§ 12-341 and 12-341.01.

The Court further finds the billing rates set forth in the Plaintiffs’ application were
reasonable and the hours expended were reasonably expended.

The Court further finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant
to A.R.S. §§ 12-1103 and 33-420. Defendant’s argument regarding the statute of limitations
barring relief pursuant to A.R.S. §33-420 is unpersuasive for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs’
Reply and pursuant to A.R.S. §12-550 which allow a four-year statute of limitations for causes
arising out of statutes that contemplate a penalty.

The Court finds attorney’s fees in the amount of $116,482.00 are reasonable and were
incurred for the reasons set forth above.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED awarding attorney’s fees to Plaintiff in the amount of $116,482.00 and
costs in the amount of $4,003.32 as reflected in the Judgment signed on April 2, 2020.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/06/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

04/03/2020

Docket Code 049
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CYNTHIA J. BAILEY
A. Wood

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

JUDGE BAILEY

MINUTE ENTRY

IT IS ORDERED granting judgment in favor of Plaintiffs all in accordance with the formal
written Judgment signed by the Court, as modified, on April 2, 2020 and filed (entered) by the
Clerk on April 3, 2020.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/07/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

04/06/2021

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ANDREW J. RUSSELL
S. Motzer

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

COMM. RUSSELL

MINUTE ENTRY

East Court Building – Courtroom 911

9:33 a.m. This is the time set for a virtual Hearing to consider the amount of the
supersedeas bond. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel, Frederick E Davidson. Defendant is
represented by counsel, Katherine J. Merolo.

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

Discussion is held regarding the status of the case as it relates to the supersedeas bond.

Based on the foregoing, and over Defendant’s objection,

IT IS ORDERED setting the supersedeas bond in the amount of $120,485.32.

9:53 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/21/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

04/16/2021

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SARA J. AGNE
J. Holguin

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

JUDGE AGNE

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification Re: Supersedeas
Bond Posting Deadline, filed April 9, 2021. Good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED clarifying that the appropriate time for posting the bond amount
ordered on April 6, 2021, is within ten days of the date this Minute Entry Order is filed by the
Clerk of the Superior Court.

NOTE: Due to the spread of COVID-19, the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative
Order 2020-79 requires all individuals entering a court facility to wear a mask or face covering at
all times they are in the court facility. With limited exceptions, the court will not provide masks
or face coverings. Therefore, any individual attempting to enter the court facility must have an
appropriate mask or face covering to be allowed entry to the court facility. Any person who
refuses to wear a mask or face covering as directed will be denied entrance to the court facility or
asked to leave. In addition, all individuals entering a court facility will be subject to a health
screening protocol. Any person who does not pass the health screening protocol will be denied
entrance to the court facility.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/15/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

05/11/2018

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE AIMEE L. ANDERSON
A. Wood

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has read and considered the following:

 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (filed March 2, 2018)
 Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
(filed March 2, 2018)
 Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (filed April 6, 2018)
 Plaintiff’s Controverting Separate Statement of Facts in Support of Response to
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (filed April 6, 2018)
 Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (filed May 10, 2018)
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).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

05/11/2018

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

When the moving party makes the necessary showing that no material facts are genuinely in
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 Plaintiffs, the court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact
that are in dispute.

The Court finds the following to be among the material issues in dispute: whether the
Consolidated Declaration is an Amendment; whether the Consolidated Declaration was required
to be “adopted”; whether the 2014 Amendment was properly adopted; whether the 2014
Amendment required unanimous consent; whether the consent forms utilized were sufficient to
amend the Plat Declarations (including the Plat 24 Declarations); whether the 2013 & 2014
Amendments should have been recorded. As these material issues remain in dispute, Defendant
is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/12/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

05/11/2020

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CYNTHIA J. BAILEY
W. Tenoever

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

JUDGE BAILEY

STATUS CONFERENCE SET

IT IS ORDERED setting a Telephonic Status Conference Re: Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(a)
Motion to Correct Judgment and Release, filed April 30, 2020 on May 13, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. (15
minutes allotted) in this division. Counsel for the Plaintiff shall initiate the telephonic conference
by first arranging the presence of all other counsel on the conference call and by calling this
division at: (602) 506-5121 at least five minutes before the scheduled time. The parties and
counsel shall not be permitted to participate in conferences via cell phones or speakerphone.

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.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/14/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

05/13/2020

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CYNTHIA J. BAILEY
W. Tenoever

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

JUDGE BAILEY

MINUTE ENTRY

Northeast Regional Court - Courtroom 108

8:56 a.m. This is the time set for Telephonic Status Conference Re: Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(a)
Motion to Correct Judgment and Release, filed April 30, 2020. Plaintiffs Gene D. Watson and
Ellyn Jane McKinley are represented by counsel, Frederick E. Davidson. Defendant Leisure
World Community Association is represented by counsel, Katherine J. Merolo.

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

Discussion is held.

IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Davidson will submit an amended judgment and order pursuant
to the discussion held on the record today for the Court’s signature. The documents shall be hand-
delivered to this Court by no later than 10:00 a.m. on May 15, 2020.

9:10 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/18/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

05/15/2020

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CYNTHIA J. BAILEY
W. Tenoever

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

JUDGE BAILEY

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has reviewed and considered Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings to
Enforce Judgment and Order, filed April 10, 2020, Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant’s Motion to
Stay Proceedings to Enforce Judgment and Order, filed May 1, 2020 and Defendant’s Reply In
Support of Motion to Stay Proceedings to Enforce Judgment and Order, filed May 13, 2020.

Pursuant to Rule 62(b), Ariz.R.Civ.P,

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion to Stay execution on and recording of the
Amended Judgment and Amended Order pending disposition of the Rule 59(b) Motion.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no bond is required at this time.

Plaintiff may re-urge the bond request if the request to stay is extended past the
determination of the Motion for New Trial.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/21/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

05/17/2018

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE AIMEE L. ANDERSON
A. Wood

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has reviewed the materials filed in support of and in opposition to Plaintiffs’
Gene Watson and Ellyn McKinley Motion for Summary Judgment filed on March 2, 2018.

IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on the above-noted Motion(s) for July 5, 2018
at 10:00 a.m. (1 hour allotted). Counsel and any unrepresented parties shall appear in person
for this hearing before:

THE HONORABLE CYNTHIA BAILEY
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
NORTHEAST REGIONAL COURT CENTER
18380 NORTH 40TH ST., COURTROOM 108
PHOENIX, AZ 85032
PHONE: 602-506-5121

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

05/17/2018

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2

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.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/26/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

06/23/2020

Docket Code 094
Form V094
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ANDREW J. RUSSELL
J. Celian

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

COMM. RUSSELL

ORAL ARGUMENT SET

The Court has reviewed the materials filed in support of and in opposition to Defendant
Leisure World Community Association’s Rule 59(A) Motion for New Trial filed on April 20,
2020.

IT IS ORDERED setting Telephonic Oral Argument on the above-noted Motion for July
17, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. (1 hour allotted) in this division. Counsel for the Plaintiff shall initiate the
telephonic conference by first arranging the presence of all other counsel on the conference call
and by calling this division at: (602) 506-5121 at least five minutes before the scheduled time. The
parties and counsel shall not be permitted to participate in conferences via cell phones or
speakerphone.

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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

06/23/2020

Docket Code 094
Form V094
Page 2

Due to the spread of COVID-19, the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order
2020-79 requires all individuals entering a court facility to wear a mask or face covering at
all times they are in the court facility. With limited exceptions, the court will not provide
masks or face coverings. Therefore, any individual attempting to enter the court facility
must have an appropriate mask or face covering to be allowed entry to the court
facility. Any person who refuses to wear a mask or face covering as directed will be denied
entrance to the court facility or asked to leave. In addition, all individuals entering a court
facility will be subject to a health screening protocol. Any person who does not pass the
health screening protocol will be denied entrance to the court facility.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/16/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

07/05/2018

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CYNTHIA J. BAILEY
A. Wood

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

MINUTE ENTRY

On July 5, 2018 parties presented oral argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment filed March 2, 2018. The Court has read and reviewed the Response and Reply to the
Motion and the attached documents, including each party’s Statement of Facts and Exhibits as
well as Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s Controverting Statements of Fact and the oral argument heard
today.

On May 11, 2018, the Court previously denied Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment on many of the same issues raised today, without hearing oral argument.

The parties’ conflict is described in their Joint Report,

Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendant improperly recorded two alleged amendments to the
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”), one in 2013 and one in 2014,
in Plaintiffs’ master planned community Leisure World. Plaintiffs allege that:

1) both instruments constitute amendments to the CC&Rs, and therefore negative easements
against Plaintiffs’ title

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

07/05/2018

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2

2) neither amendment was properly adopted
3) both of the instruments include revisions which constitute unforeseeable and material
changes to the character of the community
4) both instruments create negative easements that constitute clouds on the Plaintiffs’ title to
their residence.

Plaintiffs seek to quiet title to their property and to collect damages.

Defendant denies that the 2013 instrument constitutes an amendment to the CC&Rs and
affirmatively alleges that it restates the previously existing restrictions. Defendant further alleges
that the 2014 instrument was properly adopted; that neither of the instruments were
unforeseeable, nor cause a material change to the character of the community; and, that neither
of the instruments constitute a cloud against Plaintiffs’ title to their property.

On summary judgment, the Court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences
that such evidence will permit in the way that is most favorable to the party opposing summary
judgment and must assume the truth of that party’s allegations. Esplendido Apartments v.
Olsson, 144 Ariz. 355, 361, 697 P.2d 1105, 1111 (App. 1985); Airfreight Express Ltd v.
Evergreen Air Center, Inc., 215 Ariz. 103, 106, ¶2, 158 P.3d 232, 235 (App. 2008). Determining
credibility, weighing the evidence, and drawing legitimate inferences from the facts are functions
for a jury, not the judge. Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ridgely, 214 Ariz. 440, 444 (App. 2007)
(citations omitted).

THE COURT FINDS that there are genuine issues of material facts that preclude the
granting of the motion for summary judgment. Factual disputes include, but are not limited to,

1. Whether the 2013 Consolidation Declaration is an “amendment”
2. Whether the 2013 Consolidation Declaration was required to be adopted by the
association members prior to being recorded
3. Whether the 2014 amendment imposed an “unforeseeable” impact on Plaintiff and
therefore required unanimous consent
4. Whether the consent forms utilized by Defendant were sufficient in form and number
to affirm the 2014 amendment
5. Whether the 2013 and 2014 declaration/amendments should have been recorded
6. Whether the amendments, if allowed to stand, constitute a cloud on Plaintiff’s title

As material factual issues remain,

IT IS THERFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed
on March 2, 2018.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/09/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

07/05/2018

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CYNTHIA J. BAILEY
A. Wood

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE BAILEY

MINUTE ENTRY

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order signed by the Court on July 5, 2018 and filed (entered)
by the clerk on July 6, 2018,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall participate in a mandatory Settlement
Conference. 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 October 15, 2018. The Office of Alternative Dispute
Resolution will not do the scheduling of the settlement conference so please do not contact that
office. If counsel prefer to use a private mediator to conduct the Settlement Conference, a
Stipulation and Order Re: Alternative to ADR must be presented to the Court.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/09/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

07/05/2018

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CYNTHIA J. BAILEY
A. Wood

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
CHAD PHILIP MIESEN

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom 108-NE

9:54 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument re: Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment filed March 2, 2018. Counsel Frederick Davidson is present on behalf of Plaintiff
Gene Watson, et al. Counsel Chad Miesen is present on behalf of Leisure World Community
Association.

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

Discussion held.

Arguments presented.

Based on the arguments presented,

IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

07/05/2018

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2

10:49 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/24/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

07/17/2020

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ANDREW J. RUSSELL
G. Chavez

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

COMM. RUSSELL

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom 108 – NER

10:32 a.m. This is the time set for an Oral Argument via GoToMeeting regarding
Defendant Leisure World Community Association’s Rule 59(a) Motion for New Trial, filed
April 20, 2020. Counsel Frederick E. Davidson and co-counsel Josh G. Funkhouser appear on
behalf of Plaintiffs, Gene D. Watson and Ellyn Jane McKinley. Counsel Katherine J. Merolo
appears on behalf of Defendant, Leisure World Community Association.

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

Discussion is held.

Oral arguments are heard.

IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.

11:31 a.m. Matter concludes.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/31/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

07/30/2018

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CYNTHIA J. BAILEY
A. Wood

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

JUDGE BAILEY

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration re: Denial of Watson
Motion for Summary Judgment filed July 16, 2018.

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration re: Denial of Watson
Motion for Summary Judgment.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/05/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

08/01/2019

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CYNTHIA J. BAILEY
W. Tenoever

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

JUDGE BAILEY

JURY TRIAL SET
FINAL TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SET
DEADLINES AND PROCEDURES

Northeast Regional Court - Courtroom 108

9:00 a.m. This is the time set for Telephonic Trial Setting Conference. Plaintiffs Gene D.
Watson and Ellyn Jane McKinley are represented by counsel, Frederick E. Davidson. Defendant
Leisure World Community Association is represented by counsel, Katherine J. Merolo.

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

Discussion is held.

Case status is discussed. The Court is advised that the parties participated in a settlement
conference but were unable to settle the matter.

The Court will send out an email to all civil judges to see if there is a volunteer willing to
conduct a settlement conference.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

08/01/2019

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 2

The Court notes that Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment and
Defendant’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment are pending. The Court will await the full
briefing on the motions and then set oral argument, if necessary.

TRIAL SETTING

IT IS ORDERED setting this matter for a 7-day Trial to a Jury on March 31 to April 2
and April 6-9, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in this division before:

THE HONORABLE JUDGE CYNTHIA BAILEY
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
NORTHEAST REGIONAL COURT
18380 NORTH 40TH STREET
COURTROOM 108
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85032
(602) 506-5121

Trial days are normally 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Thursday.

Counsel/parties shall make note that the Court reserves for itself one (1) day for the
purpose of jury selection and jury deliberations.

THIS IS A FIRM TRIAL SETTING. Motions to continue based on lack of preparation
will ordinarily not be granted.

If counsel have any pre-existing conflicts with said trial date, they shall notify the Court,
in writing, within five (5) days from today's date.

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.

Requests for interpreters, court reporters or video conference must be made at least
fourteen (14) days prior to the trial/hearing date.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

08/01/2019

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 3

Trial time will be divided between Plaintiff and Defendant. “When you are out of time,
you are out of words.”

JURY PANEL

A panel of 8 jurors shall decide this matter. The court, after input from the parties at the
Final Trial Management Conference, shall determine the number of required alternates. The court
intends to order a total panel of 35 jurors for jury selection. If either party believes that this would
be inadequate, the issue may be addressed at the Final Trial Management Conference.

One day’s jury fees will be assessed against the parties (evenly divided) unless the Court
is notified of settlement by 10:00 a.m. on the judicial day before trial. Counsel are reminded to
promptly notify the Court of any settlement pursuant to Rule 5.3(d). The preferred method of
communication is via e-mail marked “Urgent” directed to the Judicial Assistant, April Johnson, at
[email protected].

FINAL TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE/ORAL ARGUMENT

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Final Trial Management Conference on
February 21, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. (time allotted: 1 hour) in this division. Trial counsel shall appear
in person for the conference. Any self-represented party shall appear in person for the conference.
This minute entry order sets forth tasks that must be completed by trial counsel. Any party that is
self-represented is advised that all tasks imposed upon “counsel” in this minute entry Order apply
to self-represented litigants.

Oral Argument on any pretrial motions, including Motions in Limine, shall be conducted
at the time of the Final Trial Management Conference.

JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT

A Joint Pretrial Statement (JPTS) must be filed no later than February 14, 2020. In
addition to the materials required by Ariz.R.Civ.P. 16(f), counsel shall meet prior to the Final Trial
Management Conference in order to discuss and prepare the following, which shall be filed with
or included in the JPTS:

A.
Voir Dire: Proposed agreed-upon voir dire questions.

B.
Witnesses: Within the Joint Pretrial Statement, there shall be a list of all
witnesses each party intends to call at trial in the order in which the party

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

08/01/2019

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 4

intends to call the witness, together with the estimated time needed for
direct, cross, and redirect examinations.

C.
Jury Instructions and Verdict Forms: A joint set of agreed-upon jury
instructions and verdict forms. Each party shall provide separate sets of any
requested instructions that have not been agreed upon. (Please review
Rosen v. Knaub, 175 Ariz. 329, 857 P.2d 381 (1993) before requesting non-
RAJI instructions.) Recommended Arizona Jury Instructions (please use the
most current version) need not be retyped, but may be listed by name and
number, such as: (a) RAJI Preliminary 1 -Duty of Jurors; (b) RAJI Standard
2 -Burden of Proof; (c) RAJI Negligence 1 -Violation of Statute.

NON-RAJI INSTRUCTIONS shall be typed in Word Format, numbered
consecutively, one per page, with legal authority in support of the
instruction. A CD of any non-RAJI instructions shall be provided to this
Division. (No CD is required for RAJI instructions.)

D.
Claims: A brief statement of the claims for inclusion in RAJI Preliminary
14 – Claims Made and Issues To Be Proved.

E.
Summary of Case: A stipulated brief summary of the case, to be read by
the court during voir dire.

F.
Deposition Transcripts: A list, by page and line numbers, of all deposition
or other transcribed testimony that may be offered at trial, other than for
impeachment, including designations of testimony that a party believes
ought in fairness to be introduced pursuant to Ariz.R.Civ.P. 32(a) together
with any testimony to be offered by an opposing/other party. The court
shall also be provided with copies of those parts of any such testimony to
which objection is made, indicating the testimony objected to and the
reasons for such objection. Any objection not so included is waived. Since
jurors generally prefer narrative summaries or brief excerpts of questions
and answers, the parties should confer and prepare agreed-upon summaries.
Counsel shall present original depositions for filing at the same time they
present exhibits. Original depositions are provided to the clerk for the record
and are not marked as exhibits.

G.
Exhibit List: A list of all marked exhibits containing a brief description of
each exhibit and any objections to such exhibits. Any objection not so
included is waived.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

08/01/2019

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 5

H.
Expert Disclosures: Copies of all expert disclosures made pursuant to
Ariz.R.Civ.P. 26.1(a)(6).

I.
The number of jurors and alternates agreed on, whether the alternates may
deliberate and the number of jurors required to reach a verdict.

DUTIES AT THE FINAL TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Counsel who will try the case shall appear and be prepared to discuss and resolve:

A.
Allocation of trial time among the parties and, if appropriate, time limits for
voir dire, opening statements, witness examinations, and closing
arguments;

B.
Stipulations regarding witnesses testimony and the admission of exhibits;

C.
Jury instructions, juror notebooks, and verdict forms;

D.
Deposition summaries and excerpts from depositions including objections
thereto;

E.
Scheduling, equipment, or interpreter issues;

F.
Status of settlement negotiations;

G.
Motions in limine; and

H.
Other matters addressed in the JPTS.

DUTIES PRIOR TO TRIAL

In advance of the Final Trial Management Conference and/or Trial, the parties shall attend
to the following:

A. Discovery Disputes: If a discovery dispute needs judicial intervention, the parties
must first comply with the “meet and confer” provision of Rule 37. Absent resolution,
counsel for the movant shall email the Court’s Judicial Assistant, April Johnson, at
[email protected], and all other counsel to advise them of his/her
request for a telephonic hearing. Each party shall thereafter email the Court’s Judicial

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

08/01/2019

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 6

Assistant a summary of the dispute in Times New Roman 13 point font, limited to no
more than two pages. The submitted written summary shall include the case number,
names of parties and name of party from whom the summary is submitted. All parties
shall be copied on the email. The emails will be filed with the Clerk. Once the Court
receives a summary from each party and a certification of compliance with Rule 37,
the Judicial Assistant will email the parties to schedule a telephonic conference with
the Judge. These are generally held within one to three business days.

B. Motions in Limine: The granting or denial of a motion in limine turns on whether the
admission of evidence reaches the level of reversible error or a mistrial. Said motions
must meet the test of State v. Superior Court, 108 Ariz. 396, 499 P.2d 152 (1972):
"The primary purpose of a motion in limine is to avoid disclosing to the jury
prejudicial matters which may compel a mistrial." Motions in Limine are not granted
“except upon a clear showing of non-admissibility.” The parties shall not file motions
denominated as “in limine” that are, in substance, late-filed motions for summary
judgment.

1. Page Limit and Format: Neither the motion in limine nor the response
may exceed three pages, including the caption. Showing that the motion
has merit should not require more than that. Motions in limine shall be
consecutively numbered in the caption identifying the party filing it and the
subject of the motion; e.g. “Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1 Re:
Insurance Agreement,” and shall deal with one discrete subject per motion.
Do not respond to more than one motion in limine in each response.

2. Substance: Any motion in limine or response to such a motion should
begin with a simple declarative sentence that identifies the evidence that is
the subject of the motion, with the understanding that the broader the scope
of the evidence to be excluded, the less likely it is that a motion in limine
will be granted. The remainder of the motion or response should then
explain why a mistrial or reversible error would or would not result if the
motion is denied, with citations to authority that have reached the same
conclusion in the same or similar circumstances (this also applies to motions
in limine based on any failure to disclose, keeping in mind that
nondisclosure implicates Ariz. R. Civ. P. 37(c)). If the motion is unable to
explain why its denial would result in a mistrial or reversible error, the
remainder should then demonstrate persuasively what efficiency, economy,
or other benefit is to be gained by granting the motion.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

08/01/2019

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 7

3. Rule 7.2: Motions in limine shall be filed in accordance with
Ariz.R.Civ.P. 7.2. Prior to filing any motion in limine, the parties through
counsel must meet and confer to attempt to resolve issues to be raised by
such motions, and any motions in limine must include a certification that
counsel have so conferred.

4. Deadlines: The deadline for motions in limine is 30 days before the final
pretrial management conference. Responses must be filed no later than 15
days after service of the motion in limine. No replies should be filed, unless
requested and approved by the court.

5. Under Advisement: Although motions in limine will be considered as
quickly as the court’s schedule permits, they will not be taken under
advisement any sooner than 15 days before the start of the trial, regardless
of when they are filed. If the parties believe that a ruling on such a motion
early in the case will facilitate settlement, they should notify this division
(by telephone at (602) 506-5121 or e-mail to the judicial assistant) and every
effort will be made to decide the issue as soon as time allows.

C. Daubert Motions: The deadline for any motion brought for a Daubert hearing or
brought under Ariz.R.Evid. 702, is the same as the dispositive motion deadline.
Failure to file such a motion by this date shall constitute a waiver of (1) any objection
that the expert is not qualified to render expert testimony, and/or (2) any objection that
any opinion of the expert should be excluded under Ariz.R.Evid. 702.

D. Exhibits: The following procedure applies as to all exhibits sought to be utilized at
trial:

1. Due Date: Exhibits to be offered at trial shall be delivered to the division
clerk no later than March 17, 2020. If you have any questions regarding
the guidelines set forth below or procedures relating to exhibits, contact this
division’s clerk at (602) 372-7736.

2. Organization: Exhibits should be submitted to the Clerk separated by a
tabbed and numbered divider. Staple or otherwise secure each individual
exhibit so that pages do not become separated. If an exhibit is too heavy or
large for a hanging file folder, place it in a binder. Exhibits not securely
bound or bound with binder clips, paper clips, or rubber bands will not be
accepted.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

08/01/2019

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 8

The list of exhibits should contain the case number and caption, the
scheduled trial date, the party submitting the exhibits, the exhibit number,
and a simple description of the exhibit. Keep the descriptions of the exhibits
simple. Do not use a description that cannot be verified by looking at the
document or item. Do not include Bates numbers in your description of the
exhibits.

Exhibits shall be marked numerically and consecutively beginning with
Plaintiff’s exhibits and continuing sequentially with Defendant’s exhibits
(e.g. Plaintiff’s exhibits 1, 2, 3, Defendant’s exhibits 4, 5, 6). Do not skip
numbers. Numbers will not be skipped or saved in anticipation of
additional exhibits not yet submitted. Any missing or skipped exhibits shall
be designated as “Unused.” Additional exhibits, if necessary, may be
marked during the course of trial, although the parties are discouraged from
waiting until trial to mark additional exhibits.

Counsel shall eliminate duplication of exhibits; duplicate exhibits will not
be marked. If duplicate exhibits exist and they are removed by the Clerk
and not marked, the Court’s numbering will not be consistent with the
numbering counsel provided. Counsel shall, therefore, confer regarding
exhibits to ensure that there are no duplicates.

3. Use of Depositions: Depositions should not be listed on the exhibit
description list because depositions are not marked as exhibits. Original
depositions shall be provided to the Clerk at the time of trial for filing
directly into the court record. Counsel shall retain a copy of the depositions
for their use during the trial. The original depositions remain with the Clerk
to be used as reference by the trial judge during testimony.

4. Demonstrative Evidence: Poster boards and large items may only be used
for demonstrative purposes. Counsel shall advise opposing/other counsel of
any demonstrative poster boards or other items at least three (3) judicial
days prior to trial. Counsel may bring poster boards and large items to court
to use during trial. However, if counsel intends any poster boards or large
items marked as an exhibit, they must provide the clerk with an 8-1/2 x 11
photograph/copy of the item and include the photograph/copy in the
submitted list of exhibits.

5. Failure to Comply: If a party fails to comply with the terms set forth about,
it may result in that party’s exhibit(s) being precluded at trial.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

08/01/2019

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 9

6. Disclosure Objections: If an objection is made at trial relating to untimely
or non-disclosure, the burden is on the proponent of the evidence to
establish that disclosure was properly made. The parties are strongly
encouraged to create their own log for each trial exhibit as to the date and
manner of disclosure.

USE OF COURTROOM EQUIPMENT

All parties are expected to be familiar with the workings of the courtroom’s electronic
equipment. If there is a need to becoming familiar this division’s electronic equipment, please
make an appointment through this division’s judicial assistant, April Johnson, via email at
[email protected], to test the equipment by no later than one week prior to
the scheduled proceeding.

COMMUNICATION WITH DIVISION

Preferred communication with this division is via email to the judicial assistant, April
Johnson, at [email protected]. For any and all such written communication,
all other parties to the case shall be endorsed. The phone number for this division is (602) 506-
5121.

TIME ESTIMATE FORM

Counsel shall consider the following in filling out the witness information form and
adjust the estimated time accordingly. Trial is held from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Mondays
through Thursdays. Each trial day is budgeted to be 6 hours of actual in court time, exclusive
of breaks and bench conferences. The Court reserves for itself 6 hours for the Court to do
its portion of voir dire, read preliminary and final jury instructions, and for jury
deliberations. The parties will then be splitting the remaining time for each party's portion
of voir dire, opening statements, witness examinations, and closing arguments. The Court
uses a timer to keep track of your time. When you are out of time, you are out of words.

WITNESSES FOR PLAINTIFF:

WITNESS NAME
DIRECT
CROSS
REDIRECT
1

2

3

4

5

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

08/01/2019

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 10

PLAINTIFF’S TOTAL WITNESS TIME ESTIMATE: ___________________________

WITNESSES FOR DEFENDANT:

WITNESS NAME
DIRECT
CROSS
REDIRECT
1

2

3

4

5

DEFENDANT’S TOTAL WITNESS TIME ESTIMATE: _________________________

TIME ESTIMATE FOR:
PLAINTIFF(S)
DEFENDANT(S)
VOIR DIRE

OPENING STATEMENT

CLOSING ARGUMENT
1st:
2nd:

PLAINTIFF’S TOTAL TIME ESTIMATE: ________________________

DEFENDANT’S TOTAL TIME ESTIMATE: _______________________

NOTE: if there are multiple parties on the same side who are represented by different
attorneys, then each party being represented by different attorneys shall fill out his/her own time
estimates.

9:23 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Filed ***

09/15/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

09/14/2020

Docket Code 926
Form J000
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ANDREW J. RUSSELL
J. Escarcega

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

COMM. RUSSELL

MINUTE ENTRY

After an oral argument on July 17, 2020, the Court took Defendant Leisure World
Community Association’s Rule 59(a) Motion for New Trial under advisement. The Court
has considered that Motion, as well as Plaintiffs’ Response, Defendant’s Reply, the
arguments from counsel for all parties, and the record in this matter. For the reasons that
follow, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion, in part, revise the Amended Judgment, in
part, and deny any other relief sought in Defendant’s Motion.

This Court’s predecessor1 granted Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion for Summary
Judgment on February 4, 2020, and later entered judgment on Plaintiffs’ behalf. See
February 4, 2020 Order, April 3, 2020 Judgment, and May 15, 2020 Amended Judgment.
Defendant asks this Court to vacate the Amended Judgment and grant a new trial on the

1 The Governor of the State of Arizona appointed this Court’s predecessor (Judge Bailey) to
Division One of the Court of Appeals before the completion of briefing on Defendant’s Motion
for New Trial. Typically, this Court would forward such a Motion to the Judicial Officer who
issued the Judgment in question, but Judge Bailey’s elevation to the appellate court prevents
such a procedure. This Court generally declines requests to alter the decision of a fellow Judicial
Officer, and does not lightly do so here.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

09/14/2020

Docket Code 926
Form J000
Page 2

issues in dispute. In support of its request, Defendant presents six arguments, which the
Court will address individually.

Application of A.R.S. § 33-1812

Section 33-1812(A) sets forth requirements for a homeowners’ association to take
action “at an annual, regular or special meeting of the members” if the association utilizes
“absentee ballots or ballots provided by some other form of delivery.” In adopting the
amendments in question, Defendant did not schedule a meeting of its members, but instead
sought written consents from the members. Section 10-3704 specifically allows an
association’s members to approve the association’s actions “by one or more written
consents describing the action taken, signed by those members representing at least the
requisite amount of the voting power.” See A.R.S. § 10-3704(A).

Plaintiff notes that a written consent “has the effect of a meeting vote,” see A.R.S.
§ 10-3704(C), and claims they must therefore comply with § 33-1812. The Amended
Judgment agreed. See Amended Judgment, ¶ 18. However, § 10-3704(C) does not say
that written consents must comply with the requirements of meeting votes – it merely states
that such consents have “the effect of a meeting vote.” The Court presumes that had the
Legislature intended that written consents meet the requirements outlined in § 33-1812, the
Legislature would have so stated. It did not. Instead, the Legislature set up a separate
alternative to § 33-1812’s meeting/ballot requirement. Any findings to the contrary are
stricken from the Amended Judgment.

Sufficiency of Consent Forms

The process Defendant used in its attempt to obtain approval for the 2014
Amendment was convoluted at best. For reasons that remain unclear to this Court,
Defendant used several different forms throughout that process. The Amended Judgment
found that those forms were “insufficient in both number and form” and did not comply
with the applicable CC&R provisions. See Amended Judgment, ¶ 17. The Court agrees.
At least one version of the written consents did not include a return date, and another

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

09/14/2020

Docket Code 926
Form J000
Page 3

version made it unclear whether the 2013 documents or the original documents were being
amended.2 The Court will not grant a new trial on this issue.

Unanimous Consent Requirement

Defendant claims that the 2014 Amendment only required approval from 75% of
the Plat 24 owners. That Amendment changed the method for making future amendments
to certain Plats’ controlling documents. Under the original documents (and the 2013
documents), such amendments would require approval from 75% of the individual Plat
owners. The 2014 Amendment purported to change that requirement, now allowing
amendment approval by 75% of the owners in each Plat.

Plat 24 consists of 54 owners, while the entire community consists of 2,664 owners.
Thus, whereas 41 of the Plat 24 owners could previously amend their Plat’s documents,
now such an amendment would require votes from as many as 1,998 owners (75% of all
owners in the community). This radical change effectively prevents the Plat 24 owners
from making decisions regarding their Plat, and puts them at the mercy of the other Plats’
owners. Essentially, 75% of the Plat 24 owners voted to remove self-governance from
themselves and from those owners who voted against the amendment. The loss of this
ability to control – or at least have a substantial voice in controlling – the rules that apply
to their own Plat was not a foreseeable alteration of the Plat 24 owners’ contract with each
other. This Court believes that Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Raimey 224 Ariz.
42, 578 P.3d 411 (App. 2010) prohibits such an amendment absent approval from 100% of
the Plat 24 owners, and will not grant a new trial on this issue.

Release of “Consolidated Declaration” and 2014 Amendment as to All Lots

The Amended Judgment releases the 2013 documents and the 2014 Amendment as
against all lots, instead of limiting such release to Plaintiff’s property. Defendant suggests
that the issue of a blanket release was not before the court, but CC&Rs must apply to all
units. See O’Malley v. Central Methodist Church, 67 Ariz. 245, 194 P.2d 444 (1948).
Releasing the 2014 Amendment as against Plaintiff’s unit, while keeping the Amendment
in place as to other units, would violate that requirement, and set the stage for yet more

2 Defendant claims that the 2013 documents merely consolidated earlier documents, but the reference in
several of the written consent forms to both 2103 and earlier documents suggests that Defendant may
once have had a different view.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

09/14/2020

Docket Code 926
Form J000
Page 4

litigation should Defendant attempt further amendments. The Court will not grant a new
trial on this issue.

Adoption of “Consolidated Declaration”

In 2013, Defendant recorded a document entitled “Consolidated and Restated
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Leisure World Plats 6 through
15, Plat 16F and Plats 17 through 27.” Plaintiff refers to the document as the “2013
Amendment,” and claims its adoption did not comply with legal requirements. Defendant
refers to the document as the “Consolidated Declaration,” and claims it merely
consolidated earlier documents and made no amendments. This Court agrees with
Defendant – the 2013 documents did not amend the previously recorded CC&Rs such as
to require a full vote of the Association’s members. As such, the Amended Judgment
should not have invalidated the 2013 documents. Any provisions to the contrary are
stricken from the Amended Judgment.

Alleged Violation of § 33-420

The Amended Judgment found that Defendant’s recording of the 2013 Consolidated
Declaration and the 2014 Amendment violated A.R.S. § 33-420 (A) and (C). Plaintiff was
awarded statutory damages for the invalid recordations (see Amended Judgment, page 12,
¶¶ D-G), and attorneys’ fees pursuant to §§ 33-420(A), 33-420(C), 12-341.01, and 12-
1101. See Amended Judgment, pages 12-13, ¶ H.

As noted above, this Court has determined that the written consents used to adopt
the 2014 Amendment did not need to comply with § 33-1812, and the 2013 “Consolidated
Declaration” did not constitute an amendment requiring member approval. As such,
Plaintiff is not entitled to statutory damages stemming from Defendant’s recordation of the
Consolidated Declaration. The Consolidated Declaration also cannot constitute an
impermissible cloud on Plaintiff’s title. Any provisions to the contrary are stricken from
the Amended Judgment.

But the Court has also found that the 2014 Amendment was not properly adopted
because it required but did not receive 100% approval of the Plat 24 members, and the
written consents themselves were insufficient in number and form. Plaintiff notified
Defendant of these deficiencies prior to Defendant recording the 2014 Amendment, but
Defendant recorded it anyway. The Amended Judgment therefore correctly found that

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

09/14/2020

Docket Code 926
Form J000
Page 5

Defendant violated § 33-420 by recording a document it knew or reasonably should have
known was invalid. Plaintiff therefore remains entitled to statutory damages stemming
from Defendant’s recordation of the 2014 Amendment.

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion for New Trial, in part, and revising
the Amended Judgment, in part, as delineated above.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying all other relief requested in Defendant’s
Motion for New Trial not expressly granted herein.

Andrew J. Russell

HON. ANDREW J. RUSSELL
JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/29/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

10/23/2020

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ANDREW J. RUSSELL
J. Escarcega

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

COMM. RUSSELL

MINUTE ENTRY

This Court has received and reviewed the following items:

 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment to Include Attorneys’ Fee Award
 Defendant Leisure World Community Association’s Notice of Appeal
 Motion to Strike Defendant’s Notice of Appeal
 Defendant Leisure World Community Association’s Motion to Reconsider Plaintiff’s
Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment to Include Attorneys’ Fee Award

Plaintiffs’ Request to Include an Additional Award of Attorneys’ Fees

Plaintiffs ask the Court to award them the attorneys’ fees they incurred in defending against
Defendant’s Motion for New Trial. The Court granted Defendant’s Motion, in part. See
September 14, 2020 Minute Entry. With both parties partially prevailing on portions of that
Motion, and given the complexity and novelty of the issues raised, the Court does not believe that
an additional award of attorneys’ fees under § 12-341.01 is appropriate or reasonable at this time.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

10/23/2020

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment to Include
Attorneys’ Fee Award.

Defendant’s Notice of Appeal

Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal on October 15, 2020, purporting to appeal from “the
amended judgment entered in this case on the 14th day of May 2020, as revised by the Minute
Entry Order entered on the 14th day of September 2020.” See Notice of Appeal, page 1. At the
time Defendant filed its Notice of Appeal, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment was
pending before the Court. The filing of a Motion to Alter/Amend under Rule 59(d) tolls the time
for filing a Notice of Appeal. See ARCAP 9(e)(1)(C). And a Notice of Appeal filed “while any
party’s time-extending motion is pending before the trial court, is ‘ineffective’ and a nullity.” See
Craig v. Craig, 227 Ariz. 105, 107, ¶ 13, 253 P.3d 624, 626 (2011).

IT IS ORDERED striking Defendant’s Notice of Appeal, filed October 15, 2020.

Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Attorneys’ Fee Award

Defendant asks this Court to reconsider the award of attorneys’ fees entered as part of the
Amended Judgment, given the Court’s recent ruling that granted part of Defendant’s Motion for
New Trial. The Court sees no reason to reconsider the Amended Judgment’s award of attorneys’
fees to Plaintiff. Despite the Court’s September 14, 2020 Ruling, Plaintiffs clearly remain the
prevailing parties in this matter.

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant Leisure World Community Association’s Motion
to Reconsider Plaintiff’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

11/25/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

11/21/2019

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CYNTHIA J. BAILEY
W. Tenoever

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

JUDGE BAILEY

ORAL ARGUMENT SET

The Court has reviewed the materials filed in support of and in opposition to Defendant’s
Second Motion for Summary Judgment filed July 1, 2019 and Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion for
Summary Judgment filed July 1, 2019.

IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on the above-noted Motion for December 13,
2019 at 9:30 a.m. (1hour allotted). Counsel and any unrepresented parties shall appear in person
for this hearing before:

THE HONORABLE CYNTHIA BAILEY
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
NORTHEAST REGIONAL COURT CENTER
18380 NORTH 40TH ST., COURTROOM 108
PHOENIX, AZ 85032
PHONE: 602-506-5121

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

11/21/2019

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2

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.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/17/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

12/13/2019

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CYNTHIA J. BAILEY
W. Tenoever

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
CHAD PHILIP MIESEN

JUDGE BAILEY

MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT

Courtroom 108 - NE

9:30 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument on Defendant’s Second Motion for
Summary Judgment filed July 1, 2019 and Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion for Summary
Judgment filed July 1, 2019. Plaintiffs Gene D. Watson and Ellyn Jane McKinley are represented
by counsel, Frederick E. Davidson. Defendant Leisure World Community Association is
represented by counsel, Chad P. Miesen.

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

Arguments are heard.

IT IS ORDERED that by January 6, 2020, counsel shall submit language that would be
included in a proposed form of order to the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED taking this matter under advisement as of January 6, 2020.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

12/13/2019

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing counsel to meet and confer prior to the next
hearing to discuss whether this case will be tried to the Court or a jury and the length of trial, if all
issues remain on the table after the Court issues its ruling.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Telephonic Status Conference Re: Trial on
January 8, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (15 minutes allotted) in this division. Counsel for the Plaintiff
shall initiate the telephonic conference by first arranging the presence of all other counsel on the
conference call and by calling this division at: (602) 506-5121 at least five minutes before the
scheduled time. The parties and counsel shall not be permitted to participate in conferences
via cell phones or speakerphone.

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.

11:02 a.m. Hearing concludes.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/21/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

12/19/2017

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
COMMISSIONER ALYSSON H. ABE
A. Wood

Deputy

GENE D WATSON, et al.
FREDERICK E DAVIDSON

v.

LEISURE WORLD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
KATHERINE J MEROLO

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom 108-NE

9:00 a.m. This is the time set for Return Hearing. Counsel Frederick Davidson and Josh
Funkhouser are present with Plaintiff Gene D Watson, et al. Counsel Katherine Merolo and
Mike Fritsche are present with Defendant Robert Kimmel, of Leisure World Community
Association.

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

Matters discussed.

LET THE RECORD REFLECT that a Certificate of Service has been filed.

Based upon the matters presented in Court,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall exchange all discovery disclosures no later than
February 2, 2018.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-055942

12/19/2017

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file any Motion for Summary
Judgments no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 2, 2018.

If counsel requests extensions, a stipulation or motion may be filed.

9:05 a.m. Matter concludes.

Documents