Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2017-094721: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Woodmar I V Association Inc.

Case Number

CV2017-094721

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

7/31/2017

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Valenzuela, Michael

Location

Southeast

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/25/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

01/23/2018

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOSHUA D. ROGERS
I. Ostrander

Deputy

WOODMAR I V ASSOCIATION INC
CLINT G GOODMAN

v.

PAUL S RUBIN INC
BRIAN E DITSCH

JOHN C MASCARI
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK

STATUS CONFERENCE

Courtroom 206 SEF

1:46 p.m. This is the time set for telephonic Status Conference regarding the following:

 Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite Ruling filed on January 19, 2018
 Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint filed on January 19, 2018
 Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Arbitration and Amend Certificate of Compulsory
Arbitration filed on January 19, 2018

Plaintiff Woodmar IV Association, Inc., is represented telephonically by counsel Clint G.
Goodman. Defendant Paul S. Rubin, Inc., is represented telephonically by counsel Brian E.
Ditsch.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

01/23/2018

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 2

Discussion is held.

Based upon the discussion held and the information presented,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the Arbitration Hearing on January 29, 2018.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED extending the deadline to complete arbitration to April
30, 2018.

Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite Ruling is moot.

The Court will await briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint and Plaintiff’s
Motion to Vacate Arbitration and Amend Certificate of Compulsory Arbitration.

1:52 p.m. Hearing concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/31/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

01/28/2019

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID J. PALMER
K. Tiero

Deputy

WOODMAR I V ASSOCIATION INC
CLINT G GOODMAN

v.

PAUL S RUBIN INC
JAMES A ROBLES JR.

MARK A HOLMGREN
MICHAEL JOHN HRNICEK
JUDGE PALMER

MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT
ORAL ARGUMENT SET
MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom – 206 - SEA

10:31 a.m. This is the time set for a Status Conference and an Oral Argument on
Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Motion to Compel. Counsel, Mark
Holmgren, is present on behalf of the Plaintiff. Counsel, James Robles and Michael Hrnicek, are
present on behalf of the Defendant.

A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.

Argument is held.

The Court notes that pursuant to the Minute Entry dated December 17, 2018, Plaintiff’s
Motion for Discovery Sanctions will abide the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion for
Reconsideration of Order Granting Motion to Compel. Therefore, the Court will take both
Motions under advisement this date.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

01/28/2019

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.

Discussion is held.

The Court has received Defendant’s Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order filed
December 13, 2018 and Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed December 14,
2018.

IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on February 7, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (45 minutes
allotted) in this division.

Oral argument is limited to 45 minutes, with the time divided equally between the parties.
Counsel and the parties, if representing themselves, are to appear in person before:

THE HONORABLE DAVID J. PALMER
Maricopa County Superior Court
Southeast Judicial District
222 E. Javelina Avenue
Courtroom 206
Mesa, Arizona 85210
(602) 372.3980

The parties/attorneys are advised that failure to appear for the hearing may result in
sanctions, including dismissal of the action per Rule 16(F), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.

The proceeding will take place in the Superior Court’s e-courtroom. A record of the
proceedings will be made digitally in lieu of a court reporter. Should you want an unofficial copy
of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may request a videotape or CD of the proceedings for a
$30.00 charge. If a CD or videotape is requested, please obtain a form from the courtroom clerk
or from the Self-Service Center to request a daily copy of a court hearing or trial proceeding being
conducted. Pay the applicable fee at the Self-Service Center. Attach the receipt showing
payment of the fee and present both the receipt and the form to the bailiff. For copies of hearings
or trial proceedings recorded previously, please call Electronic Records Services at (602)
506.7100. Should an official transcript be required, you may request that the court prepare it. The
party ordering the transcript must pay for it. To request a transcript, call (602) 506.7100 and
provide the date of the proceeding, the case number, the case caption, if the transcript is for an
appeal, and your name, address, and telephone number.

With this technology, a court reporter likely is not required and the parties are
encouraged to experience the court's video recording system before requesting a court

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

01/28/2019

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 3

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.

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

11:15 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/01/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

01/30/2019

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID J. PALMER
I. Ostrander

Deputy

WOODMAR I V ASSOCIATION INC
CLINT G GOODMAN

v.

PAUL S RUBIN INC
JAMES A ROBLES JR.

JUDGE PALMER

UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING

The Court is in receipt of the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Defendant Paul S. Rubin
(“Rubin”). Upon order of this Court, Woodmar IV Association, Inc., (“Woodmar IV”) filed a
Response to the Motion for Reconsideration. Oral argument was held on the Motion on January
28, 2019.

Defendant asks the Court to reconsider its order dated September 19, 2018, which granted
Woodmar IV’s June 28, 2018, Motion to Compel. Rubin filed a Response to that Motion and
Woodmar IV a Reply to that Response.

Woodmar IV is a homeowner’s association; Defendant Rubin is a property management
company that previously managed Woodmar IV. Woodmar IV alleges that while Rubin managed
the property, it stole approximately $244,000.00 from the homeowner’s association.

Woodmar IV filed its Motion to Compel when after a year into this litigation Rubin failed to
comply with discovery requests; specifically, it failed to allow Woodmar IV to enter land and do
forensic computer inspections on its computers relative to the claims made in the Complaint.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

01/30/2019

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2

There was some discussion between the parties regarding protective orders relative to the
examination, but the parties did not agree to the parameters of any such order, nor did either side
move this Court to enter such a protective order.

In the order this Court signed, it cited to Ariz. R.Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B), which provides that a
party may move the Court for an order to compel a discovery response when a party fails to respond
to appropriate requests.

In arguing that it need not respond to discovery requests in its original Response to the
Motion to Compel, and then again in the Motion for Reconsideration, Rubin argues that Defendant
did comply with some discovery requests; that the parties failed to agree on an appropriate
confidentiality/protective order due primarily to the “bad faith” of the Plaintiff; that their concerns
about the discovery of proprietary information were borne out by someone sending copies of this
Court’s Order to Compel, with the implication being that Woodmar IV was the culprit, a claim
Woodmar IV denies.

Rubin also claims that the information that is sought is privileged pursuant to the fiduciary
duty owed by Rubin to individual homeowners in the Association. Woodmar IV denies that the
information is privileged, arguing that the Association has no fiduciary duty to individual members
and that as agent of the Association, Rubin has no duty either. The Court finds the Association’s
argument to be correct.

Rubin also claims that the Court failed to provide “substantial support” for its ruling and is
thus not within the Court’s discretion. In making that claim, they improperly cite an unpublished
opinion of the Court of Appeals, Manzutto v. Gass, 2018 WL 3731006, relative to the release of
medical information of an incapacitated person, which is clearly different than the situation at issue
here.

Ignoring for the moment the effect of the decision being unpublished, Manzutto deals with
medical records that are protected by the patient-physician privilege. The records at issue in the
instant case are not so protected. Manzutto is therefore easily distinguishable and the Court finds
it unpersuasive to the issue at hand.

The Court finds no error in its granting of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. Its basis is found
in the record before the Court. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant Paul S. Rubin, Inc.’s, Motion for Reconsideration
of Order Granting Motion to Compel.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/01/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

01/31/2019

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID J. PALMER
I. Ostrander

Deputy

WOODMAR I V ASSOCIATION INC
CLINT G GOODMAN

v.

PAUL S RUBIN INC
JAMES A ROBLES JR.

JUDGE PALMER

UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING

The Court is in receipt of the Motion for Discovery Sanctions filed by Plaintiff Woodmar
IV Association, Inc., (“Woodmar”), as well as Defendant Paul S. Rubin, Inc., d/b/a PRM
Association Management’s (“PRM”) Response.

The Motion for Sanctions is related to the Motion to Compel filed by Woodmar on June
28, 2018, which was granted by this Court on September 25, 2018, after the issue was briefed by
the parties.

PRM filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by this Court in an order issued
on January 30, 2019, after a Response was filed and oral argument was held on January 28, 2019.

The Court previously ordered that this Motion for Sanctions would abide the Court’s ruling
on the Motion for Reconsideration, which, as stated above, has been issued in Plaintiff’s favor.

In its Motion for Discovery Sanctions, Plaintiff argues that Defendant failed to respond to
written discovery requests regarding interrogatories and production of documents propounded by
Plaintiff relative to the issues in the case and had to be ordered by the Court to do so before they

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

01/31/2019

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2

would respond. They also claim that Plaintiff has still refused to allow the forensic computer
investigation ordered by the Court.

Due to these failures and particularly the dilatory conduct related to the computer
examination, Plaintiffs ask that the Court, pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A), issue an order striking
Defendant’s Answer and order Default Judgment against Defendant in the amount of $244,567.00,
arguing that by refusing to permit the inspection “the defendant has deprived the Association of
evidence necessary to prove its case.”

Alternatively, Plaintiff urges the Court to prohibit Defendants from opposing Woodmar’s
claims for breach of contract, negligence, conversion and breach of contract, finding damages to
be $244,567.00.

The Court has already awarded fees to the Plaintiff in conjunction with the Motion to
Compel.

The relief sought by Plaintiff is clearly allowed by law. However, the Court finds those
sanctions at this point to be too extreme given that the Motion for Reconsideration has been under
advisement and has just been ruled on. However, the Court is ready to move past that point in the
very near future and will seriously reconsider such sanctions if Defendant is found to have
unreasonably delayed the disclosure of any discovery material deemed to be relevant and
discoverable.

The Court does find an award of attorney’s fees and costs, in addition to those previously
ordered, to be appropriate in connection with this Motion for Sanctions and also for fees in
connection with Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff may file with the Court an Application for Attorney’s Fees and
Costs relative to amounts expended pursuant to those issues.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/21/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

02/07/2019

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID J. PALMER
M. Kay

Deputy

WOODMAR I V ASSOCIATION INC
CLINT G GOODMAN

v.

PAUL S RUBIN INC
JAMES A ROBLES JR.

MARK A HOLMGREN
CHRISTOPHER M HANLON
MICHAEL JOHN HRNICEK
JUDGE PALMER

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom 206 – SEF

2:04 p.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument re: Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Complaint (filed December 5, 2018), Defendant’s Motion to Amend the
Scheduling Order (filed December 13, 2018), and Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (filed December 14, 2018). Counsel, Mark A. Holmgren, appears telephonically on
behalf of Plaintiff. Counsel, Michael J. Hrnicek, appears telephonically on behalf of Defendant.

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

The Court has reviewed the case file and the memoranda filed by counsel.

Oral argument is presented on the pending motions.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

02/07/2019

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2

With regard to Defendant’s Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order, the Motion was
granted by the Court on December 17, 2018.

IT IS ORDERED directing counsel to confer and submit a Proposed Amended
Scheduling Order to the Court on or before February 22, 2019.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED taking Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint and Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings under advisement.
The matter will be deemed submitted, and the Court will rule by Minute Entry within 60 days.

2:29 p.m. Matter concludes.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/22/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

02/21/2018

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOSHUA D. ROGERS
I. Ostrander

Deputy

WOODMAR I V ASSOCIATION INC
CLINT G GOODMAN

v.

PAUL S RUBIN INC
BRIAN E DITSCH

JOHN C MASCARI

ORAL ARGUMENT SET

The Court is in receipt of the following:

 Motion to Amend Complaint filed on January 19, 2018;
 Defendant’s Response to Motion to Amend Complaint filed on February 7, 2018; and
 Plaintiff’s Reply to Response to Motion to Amend Complaint filed on February 19,
2018.

Good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on March 12, 2018, at 11:00 a.m. (30
minutes allotted) in this division.

Oral argument is limited to 30 minutes, with the time divided equally between the parties.
Counsel and the parties, if representing themselves, are to appear in person before:

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

02/21/2018

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2

The Honorable Joshua D. Rogers
Maricopa County Superior Court
Southeast Judicial District
222 E. Javelina Avenue
Courtroom 206
Mesa, Arizona 85210
(602) 506.1603

The parties/attorneys are advised that failure to appear for the hearing may result
in sanctions, including dismissal of the action per Rule 16(F), Arizona Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The proceeding will take place in the Superior Court’s e-courtroom. A record of the
proceedings will be made digitally in lieu of a court reporter. Should you want an unofficial
copy of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may request a videotape or CD of the proceedings
for a $30.00 charge. If a CD or videotape is requested, please obtain a form from the courtroom
clerk or from the Self-Service Center to request a daily copy of a court hearing or trial
proceeding being conducted. Pay the applicable fee at the Self-Service Center. Attach the
receipt showing payment of the fee and present both the receipt and the form to the bailiff. For
copies of hearings or trial proceedings recorded previously, please call Electronic Records
Services at (602) 506.7100. Should an official transcript be required, you may request that the
court prepare it. The party ordering the transcript must pay for it. To request a transcript, call
(602) 506.7100 and provide the date of the proceeding, the case number, the case caption, if the
transcript is for an appeal, and your name, address, and telephone number.

With this technology, a court reporter likely is not required and the parties are
encouraged to experience the court's video recording system before requesting 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.

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

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/29/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

03/26/2018

Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOSHUA D. ROGERS
K. Tiero

Deputy

WOODMAR I V ASSOCIATION INC
CLINT G GOODMAN

v.

PAUL S RUBIN INC
BRIAN E DITSCH

JOHN C MASCARI
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom 206 – SEA

1:59 p.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
Complaint filed January 19, 2018. Counsel, Clint Goodman, is present on behalf of Plaintiff,
Woodmar I V Association Inc. Counsel, Brian Ditsch, is present on behalf of Defendant, Paul S.
Rubin Inc.

A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.

Discussion is held.

Argument is held.

Based upon the matters presented,

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint.

Discussion is held regarding discovery.

2:32 p.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/04/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

04/03/2019

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID J. PALMER
K. Tiero

Deputy

WOODMAR I V ASSOCIATION INC
CLINT G GOODMAN

v.

PAUL S RUBIN INC
JAMES A ROBLES JR.

JUDGE PALMER

UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING
MINUTE ENTRY

The court held oral argument on February 7, 2019 on Defendant Paul S. Rubin Inc., d.b.a.
PRM Association Management’s (“PRM”) December 14, 2018 Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings. Plaintiff Woodmar IV Association, Inc. (“Woodmar”) filed a Response in opposition
to that Motion on January 4, 2019, and Defendant filed a Reply on January 17, 2019.

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

In its Motion, PRM seeks an order dismissing the Complaint based upon Plaintiff’s alleged
failure to comply with the mandated conditions precedent before filing this lawsuit. Primarily
those conditions are for (1) the party alleging breach of the contract to provide notice of the alleged
breach; (2) that party providing the alleged breaching party a 30-day opportunity to cure; (3) and
offering to mediate.

Woodmar argues that such a provision is not necessary as the relevant statutes case law
provide the Plaintiffs with authority to engage in litigation resolve issues between the parties.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

04/03/2019

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2

Moreover, Woodmar also argues that the parties have in essence complied with the
requirements. They specifically allege that the provisions allowing the cure period was aimed at
the parties effectively working together in an ongoing business relationship to resolve any
differences. As there is currently no business relationship, they argue the rationale behind the
provision in their agreement is largely moot.

Additionally, Woodmar argued that at one time the parties actually engaged in mediation,
albeit unsuccessfully. It also stated that they offered to dismiss litigation to engage in mediation,
an offer which PRM refused.

Based upon the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED denying PRM’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

Motion to Amend Complaint

The court also heard oral argument on Woodmar’s December 5, 2018 Motion for Leave to
File Second Amended Complaint, to which PRM filed a Response in opposition on December 12,
2018, with Woodmar filing its Reply on December 20, 2018. Woodmar sought leave to amend
the complaint to add a punitive damages claim, based on information it claims has turned up during
discovery during the litigation of this case.

PRM opposes the Motion based on, inter alia, the delay it will allegedly cause, and due to
its belief that the motion is not being filed in good faith.

Civil Rule 15(a)(2) states that “a party may amend its pleading only with leave of court or
with the written consent of all opposing parties who have appeared in the action. Leave to amend
must be freely given when justice requires.”

“Mere delay” – the mere fact that the attempt to amend comes late – is not justification for
denial of leave to amend. “Notice and substantial prejudice to the opposing party are
critical factors in determining whether an amendment should be granted.” To justify denial
of the motion, there must be “undue” delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to
cure deficiencies by previous amendments or undue prejudice to the opposing party.
“Prejudice is ‘the inconvenience and delay suffered when the amendment raises new issues
or inserts new parties into the litigation.’”

Owen v. Superior Court, 133 Ariz. 75, 79, 649 P.2d 278, 282 (1982) (citations omitted).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

04/03/2019

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3

In this case, no trial date has been set yet. The delay in the case was the result of waiting
for the parties’ family court litigation to conclude. There are also no new issues; rather, the
purported new claims are allegedly connected with the same conduct the Plaintiff alleges were
perpetrated by Defendants. Therefore the court finds there is no unfair prejudice to PRM by
granting this Motion.

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint, filed on January 18, 2018.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file and serve the Amended Complaint
within ten (10) days of the filing date of this minute entry pursuant to Civil Rule 15(a)(5).

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/18/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

04/17/2019

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID J. PALMER
K. Tiero

Deputy

WOODMAR I V ASSOCIATION INC
CLINT G GOODMAN

v.

PAUL S RUBIN INC
JAMES A ROBLES JR.

JUDGE PALMER

STATUS/SCHEDULING CONFERENCE SET

IT IS ORDERED setting telephonic Status Conference re: discovery dispute on April 29,
2019 at 11:00 a.m. (15 minutes allotted). The telephonic Status Conference is set before:

THE HONORABLE DAVID J. PALMER
Maricopa County Superior Court
Southeast Judicial District
222 E. Javelina Avenue
Courtroom 206
Mesa, Arizona 85210
(602) 372.3980

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff’s counsel shall initiate the telephonic conference
by first arranging the presence of all other counsel or self-represented parties on the conference
call and then calling this division (602.372.3980) promptly at the scheduled time. All parties
appearing telephonically must be joined in a single conference call and be prepared to hold until
called upon.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

04/17/2019

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2

The call should be placed in an area with no background noise and not in a moving vehicle.
Failure to do so may prevent the parties from hearing the proceedings in the courtroom and/or may
prevent the Court from hearing the parties. State your name so there may be a clear record as to
which party is speaking.

The proceeding will take place in the Superior Court’s e-courtroom. A record of the
proceedings will be made digitally in lieu of a court reporter. Should you want an unofficial copy
of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may request a videotape or CD of the proceedings for a
$30.00 charge. If a CD or videotape is requested, please obtain a form from the courtroom clerk
or from the Self-Service Center to request a daily copy of a court hearing or trial proceeding being
conducted. Pay the applicable fee at the Self-Service Center. Attach the receipt showing
payment of the fee and present both the receipt and the form to the bailiff. For copies of hearings
or trial proceedings recorded previously, please call Electronic Records Services at (602)
506.7100. Should an official transcript be required, you may request that the court prepare it. The
party ordering the transcript must pay for it. To request a transcript, call (602) 506.7100 and
provide the date of the proceeding, the case number, the case caption, if the transcript is for an
appeal, and your name, address, and telephone number.

With this technology, a court reporter is likely not required and the parties are
encouraged to experience the court's video recording system before requesting a court
reporter. 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.

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

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/01/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

04/29/2019

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID J. PALMER
K. Tiero

Deputy

WOODMAR I V ASSOCIATION INC
CLINT G GOODMAN

v.

PAUL S RUBIN INC
JAMES A ROBLES JR.

JUDGE PALMER

UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING
MINUTE ENTRY

The court heard oral argument relative to a discovery dispute between the parties in this
matter. In essence, Plaintiff Woodmar IV Homeowner’s Association (“Woodmar”) is seeking
computer data relative to Defendant Paul S. Rubin, Inc., d/b/a/ PRM Association Management’s
(“PRM”) business operations. In this litigation Woodmar is alleging that PRM has economically
damaged Woodmar by mismanagement of the funds of Woodmar, of the Association’s financial
records through both its failure to keep accurate financial records and its failure to properly
disclose those records to Woodmar.

From the statements made by counsel, it appears that there is an agreement that the
Woodmar has been granted the ability to copy all relevant data files from PRM’s server through
conducting an “imaging” of it. However, the parties disagree on whether such imaged material
may be removed from the premises of PMR’s facilities.

It is the understanding of the court that the imaged copies of the data would be provided to
Woodmar with PRM retaining the original versions of that information. It is PRM’s desire that it
only be required to make the imaged material available to Woodmar’s expert for review and
inspection at the premises of PRM and that Woodmar only be allowed to examine that material

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

04/29/2019

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2

with PRM’s expert “looking over their shoulder.” PRM cites privacy concerns regarding
information of association members from other locations other than Woodmar.

Woodmar seeks to take the copies “imaged” from the PRM records, and be allowed to
remove the copies they are entitled to from PRM’s premises to a separate location, presumably
their own business premises or that of their expert, for examination.

Based upon pleadings and arguments made in this case regarding any duties owed by PRM
(through it being an agent of the associations itself) to member homeowners, or more appropriately
that it does not owe to those homeowners,

IT IS ORDERED Woodmar be allowed to remove from PRM’s premises, Woodmar’s
imaged copies of information taken from PRM’s computer servers, lap top and desk top computers
and Quick Book files.

With respect to the issue of imaging the cell phones belonging to the owners of PRM, the
court makes no orders in that regard at this time as that issue has not been briefed by the parties.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/01/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

04/29/2019

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID J. PALMER
K. Tiero

Deputy

WOODMAR I V ASSOCIATION INC
CLINT G GOODMAN

v.

PAUL S RUBIN INC
JAMES A ROBLES JR.

MARK A HOLMGREN
MICHAEL JOHN HRNICEK
JUDGE PALMER

MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT
MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom – 206 - SEA

11:00 a.m. This is the time set for Telephonic Status Conference re: discovery dispute.
Counsel, Mark Holmgren, is present on behalf of the Plaintiff. Counsel, Michael Hrnicek, is
present on behalf of the Defendant.

A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.

Discussion is held.

Counsel for Defendant addresses the Court.

Counsel for Plaintiff addresses the Court.

IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.

11:21 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/01/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

04/30/2019

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID J. PALMER
K. Tiero

Deputy

WOODMAR I V ASSOCIATION INC
CLINT G GOODMAN

v.

PAUL S RUBIN INC
JAMES A ROBLES JR.

JUDGE PALMER

MINUTE ENTRY

The court has read and considered the April 18, 2018 Motion for Reconsideration filed by
Defendant Paul S. Rubin, Inc., d/b/a/ PRM Association Management. Defendant seeks review of
the April 3, 2018 ruling issued by this court relevant to this court’s denial of Defendant’s Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings.

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/06/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

06/04/2019

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID J. PALMER
K. Tiero

Deputy

WOODMAR I V ASSOCIATION INC
CLINT G GOODMAN

v.

PAUL S RUBIN INC
JAMES A ROBLES JR.

JUDGE PALMER

MINUTE ENTRY

The court is in receipt of the Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, and the
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication of Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney’s Fees and
Costs for its Motion for Sanctions.

Defendants did not file a Response to the Motions.

Based upon the contents of the pleadings filed along with exhibits attached thereto,

IT IS ORDERED awarding to Plaintiffs and against Defendants attorneys’ fees in the
amount of $8000.00, and costs in the amount of $54.20.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/21/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

06/20/2018

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOSHUA D. ROGERS
I. Ostrander

Deputy

WOODMAR I V ASSOCIATION INC
CLINT G GOODMAN

v.

PAUL S RUBIN INC
JAMES A ROBLES JR.

JOHN C MASCARI
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC

ORDER ENTERED BY THE COURT

Pursuant to the parties’ joint Scheduling Order signed by the Court on June 19, 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 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 shall
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
November 30, 2018. The Office of Alternative Dispute Resolution will not do the scheduling of
the settlement conference, so please do not contact that office.

All counsel and their clients, or non-lawyer representatives who have full and
complete authority to settle the case, shall personally appear and participate in good faith
in the settlement conference. Sanctions may be imposed for failure to participate.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/13/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

08/09/2019

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID J. PALMER
K. Tiero

Deputy

WOODMAR I V ASSOCIATION INC
CLINT G GOODMAN

v.

PAUL S RUBIN INC
JAMES A ROBLES JR.

JUDGE PALMER

MINUTE ENTRY

The court has read and considered the Motion for Reconsideration RE: April 4 Ruling, in
which Paul Rubin Management (“PRM”) asked the court to reconsider its Motion for Judgment
on the pleadings. In that motion, PRM had asked the court dismiss Plaintiff Woodmar IV
Association’s (“Woodmar”) Complaint due to the Plaintiff’s alleged failure to comply with
conditions precedent to the filing of this lawsuit. The ruling also dealt with Woodmar’s Motion
for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint which was granted by the court. In issuing its ruling
the court found that any delays caused by the filing of the amended complaint were not unduly
prejudicial to PRM. In that context, the court made a statement regarding delays caused by
purported family court litigation involving the parties. In all candor, the court does not recall the
source for that statement at this point. Nonetheless, the court does not find undue delay at this
point was caused by the granting of the Motion for Leave to Amend. After considering its ruling
in both of those matters,

IT IS ORDERED denying PRM’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/13/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

08/12/2019

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID J. PALMER
K. Tiero

Deputy

WOODMAR I V ASSOCIATION INC
CLINT G GOODMAN

v.

PAUL S RUBIN INC
JAMES A ROBLES JR.

JUDGE PALMER

MINUTE ENTRY

Defendant Paul Rubin Management (“PRM”) filed its Motion for Clarification on May 16,
2019, with Plaintiff Woodmar IV Association (“Woodmar”) filing its Response on May 24, 2019
and PRM its Reply on June 4, 2019.

PRM seeks clarification on a Minute Entry order issued on April 29, 2019. That order was
issued pursuant to a discovery dispute between the parties regarding the discovery and disclosure
of data contained with PRM’s data files.

In that Minute Entry, the Court ordered that:

Woodmar be allowed to remove from PRM’s premises, Woodmar’s imaged copies of
information taken from PRM’s computer servers, lap top and desk top computers and
Quick Book files.

With respect to the issue of imaging the cell phones belonging to the owners of PRM, the
court makes no orders in that regard at this time as that issue has not been briefed by the
parties.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

08/12/2019

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

(April 29, 2019 Under Advisement Ruling, p.2)

The Court notes the following discussion in that portion of the ruling that preceded the
actual order:

From the statements made by counsel, it appears that there is agreement that the Woodmar
has been granted the ability to copy all relevant data files from PRM’s server through
conducting an “imaging” of it. However, the parties disagree on whether such imaged
material may be removed from the premises of PMR’s facilities.

It is the understanding of the court that the imaged copies of the data would be provided to
Woodmar with PRM retaining the original versions of that information. It is PRM’s desire
that it only be required to make the imaged material available to Woodmar’s expert for
review and inspection at the premises of PRM and that Woodmar only be allowed to
examine that material with PRM’s expert “looking over their shoulder.” PRM cites privacy
concerns regarding information of association members from other locations other than
Woodmar.

Woodmar seeks to take the copies “imaged” from the PRM records, and be allowed to
remove the copies they are entitled to from PRM’s premises to a separate location,
presumably their own business premises or that of their expert, for examination.

(April 29, 2019 Under Advisement Ruling, p. 1-2)

PRM’s position, inter alia, in that previous dispute concerned the privacy of individual
homeowners/association members, with the court expressly determining that the management
company owed no duty to those folks.

PRM now seeks “clarification” of that order, specifically arguing that the Court should
“clarify” the order to protect any attorney-client privileged information, an issue that has never
been raised during the entirety of this case, and specifically not within the pleadings and arguments
that framed the Court’s April 29, 2019 order.

Based upon the pleadings of the parties filed with respect to the Motion for Clarification,
the court makes the following ruling as it relates to the materials that PRM is to disclose to
Woodmar pursuant to the previous order of the Court:

IT IS ORDERED that in the event Woodmar and its counsel receive a document that would
reasonably be deemed as attorney-client privileged material, they are to stop reading it, make no
use of it and notify opposing counsel.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

08/12/2019

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3

In all other respects, the Court’s April 29, 2019 order remains unchanged.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/13/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

08/12/2019

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID J. PALMER
K. Tiero

Deputy

WOODMAR I V ASSOCIATION INC
CLINT G GOODMAN

v.

PAUL S RUBIN INC
JAMES A ROBLES JR.

JUDGE PALMER

MINUTE ENTRY

Defendant Paul Rubin Management (“PRM”) filed a Notice Requesting Assignment to
Commercial Court on April 4, 2019. Plaintiff Woodmar IV Association (“Woodmar”) filed a
Response to the Notice on May 14, 2019, with PRM filing a Motion to Strike the Response on
May 17, 2019, and Woodmar a Reply on June 6, 2019.

IT IS ORDERED denying PRM’s Motion to Strike the Response to the Notice.

With respect to the request itself, the Court notes that the complaint in this matter was filed
on July 31, 2017. Plaintiff points out that the current version of Rule 8.1(e) requires that, as of
January 1, 2019, any such notice must be filed within 20 days of the requesting party’s appearance
in the case, a point in time that occurred nearly 2 years ago. Plaintiff also argues that by the
definitions of Rule 8.1, the case does not qualify for Commercial Court placement.

Under the version of Rule 8.1 in effect at the time of the filing of the complaint, a Plaintiff
was required to designate the case as commercial court eligible at the time of its filing which did
not happen. After that designation, the court or any party could file a motion within 20 days of
the defendant filing an answer requesting reconsideration of whether the case belonged in
commercial court. Moreover, it was contemplated that within certain time limits, either the court

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

08/12/2019

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

on its own or one of the parties could file a motion to transfer the case to commercial court on a
motion filed under Rule 8.1(e)(3), which did carry time limits of 20 days after appearance, not
unlike the current rule.

Notwithstanding the above paragraph, under the prior version of Rule 8.1 a “general civil
court MAY order a case transferred to commercial court after the filing of a motion if it meets the
criteria of the rule, but there is no requirement under the rule that he or she do so.

This court finds that the request for transfer of this matter to commercial is impermissibly
late under either version of Rule 8.1 regarding transfers to Commercial Court.

Moreover, the decision to transfer the case to Commercial Court is discretionary with the
court, provided this case type qualifies it for commercial court treatment.

Finding at a minimum, that the spirit of the applicable time requirements has not been
satisfied, and given that this case is now over two years old with significant discovery having taken
place, and still taking place, the court does not find it be appropriate at this time to transfer the
matter to Commercial Court.

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Request to transfer this matter to Commercial
Court.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/19/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

08/14/2019

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID J. PALMER
K. Tiero

Deputy

WOODMAR I V ASSOCIATION INC
CLINT G GOODMAN

v.

PAUL S RUBIN INC
JAMES A ROBLES JR.

JUDGE PALMER

ORAL ARGUMENT SET
MINUTE ENTRY

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Sanctions which was filed on
June 13, 2019.

Sixty days have passed since the filing of Plaintiff’s Motion and Defendant has filed no
Response to the Motion.

IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument re: Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Sanctions
on August 28, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (1 hour allotted) in this division.

Oral argument is limited to 1 hour, with the time divided equally between the parties.
Counsel and the parties, if representing themselves, are to appear in person before:

THE HONORABLE DAVID J. PALMER
Maricopa County Superior Court
Southeast Judicial District
222 E. Javelina Avenue
Courtroom 206

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

08/14/2019

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2

Mesa, Arizona 85210
(602) 372.3980

The parties/attorneys are advised that failure to appear for the hearing may result in
sanctions, including dismissal of the action per Rule 16(F), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.

The proceeding will take place in the Superior Court’s e-courtroom. A record of the
proceedings will be made digitally in lieu of a court reporter. Should you want an unofficial copy
of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may request a videotape or CD of the proceedings for a
$30.00 charge. If a CD or videotape is requested, please obtain a form from the courtroom clerk
or from the Self-Service Center to request a daily copy of a court hearing or trial proceeding being
conducted. Pay the applicable fee at the Self-Service Center. Attach the receipt showing
payment of the fee and present both the receipt and the form to the bailiff. For copies of hearings
or trial proceedings recorded previously, please call Electronic Records Services at (602)
506.7100. Should an official transcript be required, you may request that the court prepare it. The
party ordering the transcript must pay for it. To request a transcript, call (602) 506.7100 and
provide the date of the proceeding, the case number, the case caption, if the transcript is for an
appeal, and your name, address, and telephone number.

With this technology, a court reporter likely is not required and the parties are
encouraged to experience the court's video recording system before requesting 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.

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

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/22/2019 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

08/21/2019

Docket Code 375
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID J. PALMER
K. Tiero

Deputy

WOODMAR I V ASSOCIATION INC
CLINT G GOODMAN

v.

PAUL S RUBIN INC
JAMES A ROBLES JR.

COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK
JUDGE PALMER

DISMISSAL CALENDAR
MINUTE ENTRY

A Notice of Settlement has been received.

IT IS ORDERED placing this case on the Court’s Dismissal calendar for dismissal,
without further notice, on October 21, 2019. Unless a stipulated judgment or a stipulation for
dismissal, along with a proposed form of order, is submitted prior to that date, or the Court
otherwise extends the deadline for good cause shown, all remaining claims and parties will be
dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Oral Argument set for August 28, 2019 in
this Division.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

09/26/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

09/25/2018

Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
JUDGE DAVID J. PALMER
I. Ostrander

Deputy

WOODMAR I V ASSOCIATION INC
CLINT G GOODMAN

v.

PAUL S RUBIN INC
JAMES A ROBLES JR.

JUDGE PALMER

ORDER SIGNED

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel filed on June 28, 2018, Defendant’s
Response to Motion to Compel filed on July 20, 2018, and Plaintiff’s Reply to Motion to Compel
filed on August 1, 2018.

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s motion, all in accordance with the formal written
Order Granting Motion to Compel signed by the Court on September 19, 2018, and filed (entered)
by the clerk on September 25, 2018.

Please note: The Court has signed a paper copy of the order that was originally provided
electronically. After the order has been scanned and docketed by the Clerk of Court, a copy of the
order will be available online through the ECR online at www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov, through
www.AZTurboCourt.gov, and from the public access terminals at the Clerk of Court’s offices
located throughout Maricopa County.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/19/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

12/17/2018

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID J. PALMER
I. Ostrander

Deputy

WOODMAR I V ASSOCIATION INC
CLINT G GOODMAN

v.

PAUL S RUBIN INC
JAMES A ROBLES JR.

MARK A HOLMGREN
MICHAEL JOHN HRNICEK
JUDGE PALMER

STATUS CONFERENCE SET

Courtroom 206 SEF

9:54 a.m. This is the time set for telephonic Status/Scheduling Conference to set trial.
Plaintiff Woodmar IV Association, Inc., is represented telephonically by counsel Mark A,
Holmgren. Defendant Paul S. Rubin, Inc., is represented telephonically by counsel James A.
Robles, Jr., and Michael John Hrnicek.

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

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order filed on
December 13, 2018.

Counsel for Plaintiff addresses the Court regarding the Motion to Amend the Scheduling
Order.

Counsel for Defendant responds.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

12/17/2018

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2

Discussion is held.

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order.

Also pending before the Court are the following:

 Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery Sanctions filed on October 25, 2018; and
 Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Motion to Compel filed on
November 5, 2018.

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration
of Order Granting Motion to Compel by no later than January 4, 2019.

The Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery Sanctions will abide the Court’s
ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Motion to Compel.

The Court has before it Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint
filed on December 5, 2018, and Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Complaint filed on December 12, 2018. Counsel for Plaintiff will be filing a
reply.

IT IS ORDERED setting Status Conference on January 28, 2019, at 10:30 a.m. (45
minutes allotted). Counsel and the parties, if representing themselves, are to appear in person
before:

THE HONORABLE DAVID J. PALMER
Maricopa County Superior Court
Southeast Judicial District
222 E. Javelina Avenue
Courtroom 206
Mesa, Arizona 85210
(602) 372.3980

The Court will hear oral argument on Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order
Granting Motion to Compel, if necessary.

The proceeding will take place in the Superior Court’s e-courtroom. A record of the
proceedings will be made digitally in lieu of a court reporter. Should you want an unofficial copy
of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may request a videotape or CD of the proceedings for a

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2017-094721

12/17/2018

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 3

$30.00 charge. If a CD or videotape is requested, please obtain a form from the courtroom clerk
or from the Self-Service Center to request a daily copy of a court hearing or trial proceeding being
conducted. Pay the applicable fee at the Self-Service Center. Attach the receipt showing
payment of the fee and present both the receipt and the form to the bailiff. For copies of hearings
or trial proceedings recorded previously, please call Electronic Records Services at (602)
506.7100. Should an official transcript be required, you may request that the court prepare it. The
party ordering the transcript must pay for it. To request a transcript, call (602) 506.7100 and
provide the date of the proceeding, the case number, the case caption, if the transcript is for an
appeal, and your name, address, and telephone number.

With this technology, a court reporter likely is not required and the parties are
encouraged to experience the court's video recording system before requesting 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.

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

10:05 a.m. Hearing concludes.

Documents