01/22/2020 — CV2019052924 AT SUNSET RANCH L L C, WOODSIDE ENCORE 01/22/2020 HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER WHITTEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/23/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-052924
01/22/2020
Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER WHITTEN
D. Tapia
Deputy
3603 CAMPBELL L L C
ARI RAMRAS
v.
WOODSIDE ENCORE AT SUNSET RANCH L
L C, et al.
JEFFREY D. HARRIS
JONATHAN D EBERTSHAUSER
CONFERENCE RESET
On the Court's own motion,
IT IS ORDERED vacating the telephonic Trial Setting Conference set on July 31, 2020
at 10:10 a.m., and resetting same to July 30, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. (time allotted: 10 minutes).
Counsel and the parties, if representing themselves, shall have their calendars available along with
the calendars of any primary witnesses so the Court can set a firm trial date for this matter.
Counsel for Plaintiff shall initiate the telephonic conference by first arranging the presence
of all other counsel or self-represented parties on the conference call and then by calling Judge
Viola’s division promptly at the scheduled time. All parties appearing telephonically must be
joined in a single conference call and be prepared to hold until called to testify.
The call should be placed from a telephone in an area with no background noise as this will
prevent the parties from hearing the proceedings in the courtroom. The call may not be placed
from a speaker phone or a cell phone.
NOTE: Due to rotations, effective February 13, 2020, this Division’s calendar will be
assigned to the Honorable Danielle J. Viola (telephone number: (602)-506-3442, located in
the East Court Building, 101 West Jefferson, 7th Floor, Courtroom 712, Phoenix, Arizona
85003.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-052924
01/22/2020
Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 2
NOTE: All court proceedings are recorded by audio and video method 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.
05/21/2020 — CV2019052924 AT SUNSET RANCH L L C, WOODSIDE ENCORE 05/21/2020 HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/22/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-052924
05/21/2020
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
K. Cabral
Deputy
3603 CAMPBELL L L C
ARI RAMRAS
v.
WOODSIDE ENCORE AT SUNSET RANCH L
L C, et al.
JEFFREY D. HARRIS
JONATHAN D EBERTSHAUSER
JUDGE VIOLA
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
(Liability) filed January 9, 2020 and Woodside’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment filed
March 25, 2020.
IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument regarding the above-mentioned motions on July
1, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (Time allotted: 1 hour) in this division.
The hearing will be held by phone/videoconference via Go to Meeting. The
instructions will be forwarded to the parties prior to the hearing.
THE HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING
101 WEST JEFFERSON
7TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 714
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3442 TEL
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-052924
05/21/2020
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
Failure to appear may result in the Court granting the relief requested by the other party
without further notice.
NOTE: All court proceedings are recorded by audio and video method 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.
07/01/2020 — CV2019052924 AT SUNSET RANCH L L C, WOODSIDE ENCORE 07/01/2020 HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/06/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-052924
07/01/2020
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
J. Celian
Deputy
3603 CAMPBELL L L C
ARI RAMRAS
v.
WOODSIDE ENCORE AT SUNSET RANCH L
L C, et al.
JEFFREY D. HARRIS
JONATHAN D EBERTSHAUSER
JON A TITUS
CARLOTTA L TURMAN
JUDGE VIOLA
MINUTE ENTRY
East Court Building – Courtroom 714
10:05 a.m. This is the time set for a videoconference Oral Argument regrading Plaintiff’s
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Liability) filed January 9, 2020 and Woodside’s Cross
Motion for Summary Judgment filed March 25, 2020. Plaintiff 3603 Campbell, LLC is
represented by counsel, Ari Ramras. Defendants Woodside Encore at Sunset Ranch LLC is
represented by counsel, Jon A. Titus (co-counsel with Jeffrey D. Harris). Defendant Encore at
Sunset Ranch Community Association is represented by counsel, Jonathan D. Ebertshauser and
Carlotta Turman. All parties appear via videoconference.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Liability)
and Woodside’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-052924
07/01/2020
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2
Argument is presented.
Based on the matters presented,
IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.
11:12 a.m. Matter concludes.
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.
07/05/2020 — CV2019052924 AT SUNSET RANCH L L C, WOODSIDE ENCORE 07/05/2020 HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/08/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-052924
07/05/2020
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
K. Cabral
Deputy
3603 CAMPBELL L L C
ARI RAMRAS
v.
WOODSIDE ENCORE AT SUNSET RANCH L
L C, et al.
JEFFREY D. HARRIS
JONATHAN D EBERTSHAUSER
JUDGE VIOLA
UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING
The Court has received and considered the following:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Liability) filed January 9, 2020 and
the related Statement of Facts;
2. Woodside Encore at Sunset Ranch, LLC’s (“Woodside) Response filed March 25, 2020
and the Controverting and Separate Statement of Facts;
3. Encore at Sunset Ranch Community Association’s (“Association”) Response and
Controverting and Separate Statement of Facts;
4. Woodside’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment filed March 25, 2020;
5. Plaintiff’s Reply and Response to Woodside’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed
April 14, 2020; and
6. Woodside’s Reply filed April 29, 2020.
The Court further considered the arguments of counsel on Wednesday, July 1, 2020.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-052924
07/05/2020
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2
Plaintiff’s Motion
Plaintiff asks the Court to grant judgment in its favor as to liability only. Specifically,
Plaintiff asks the Court to find that Woodside and the Association breached the easement and the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and committed a trespass. The Court concludes
issues of fact preclude the entry of judgment in Plaintiff’s favor.
This matter arises from a dispute over an easement. Plaintiff purchased an access easement
over a neighboring parcel. The grantor later sold the servient property to a developer, Woodside.
Woodside discovered the easement and attempted to have it removed. Woodside was unsuccessful
and proceeded with developing the property into a planned community. Woodside later transferred
the servient property to the Association. The area of the servient property that Plaintiff claims
under the easement has been developed as a retention basin for the planned residential community.
Analysis
According to the Commercial Reciprocal Access Easement and Non Barrier Agreement
(“Agreement”), Plaintiff and the Presbytery of Grand Canyon (“Church) agreed to grant each other
reciprocal easements for ingress and egress on certain terms and conditions (“Easement”). Those
terms included: “Subject to Section 3, below, . . . a nonexclusive perpetual easement for vehicular
and pedestrian ingress and egress on, over and across any access drives, driveways or drive arises
from time to time located on that portion of the [Church property] shown on the Site Plan attached
hereto as Exhibit C “Presbytery Drive Area.” The Drive Area contained approximately 4,767
square feet of land. The Site Plan was not attached to the Agreement that was recorded.
Section 3 of the Easement includes the following: “[a]s a condition to either party using
the easements set forth in Section 1 and Section 2 above, Campbell shall cause the following
improvements to be made to the Presbytery Drive Area, together with the construction of the
following wall adjacent to the Presbytery Drive, together with the delivery of certain following
utilities. . .” In summary, Plaintiff was required to install new paving, curb, and landscaping.
Additionally, Plaintiff was required to install a screen wall and an electronic gate. Plaintiff was
also required to pay for the related electrical service. Plaintiff did not cause any of the
improvements above to be made. The Court finds this fact to be fatal to Plaintiff’s Motion.
Plaintiff asserts that it was prevented from performing the condition set forth in Section 3
of the Easement. Plaintiff has not set forth facts to establish that it was prevented from performing.
Plaintiff merely cites to cases discussing the doctrine of prevention and the testimony of Plaintiff’s
principal that by the time Plaintiff had a tenant and was ready to improve the drive area, it was too
late because Woodside had already developed over it. But Plaintiff presents no evidence that it
was prevented from doing so or even that it tried to do so. As noted in Sec. Nat. Life Ins. Co. v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-052924
07/05/2020
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3
Pre-Need Camelback Plan, Inc., 19 Ariz. App. 580, 582 (App. 1973), the general rule is that if one
prevents fulfillment of a condition precedent one cannot thereafter rely on such failure of the
condition to defeat the agreement. Here, the factual issue remains that Plaintiff has not established
that Defendants prevented Plaintiff from performing the improvements. There is no question that
the evidence supports a conclusion that the servient property was developed over the ten plus years
since the Easement was entered. The Easement expressly contemplated that the surface and sub-
surface drainage/retention systems would traverse across the Church property. At this point, a
drainage/retention system traverses the property. The Easement further expressly contemplated
that the general improvements that Plaintiff was required to make “shall take into account and not
impair such systems.”
Paragraph 4 of the Easement gives Plaintiff the right to determine when to make the
improvements, but the Easement does not become effective until they are made. The Easement
therefore remained only conditional as of the time Woodside built its improvements, and so at that
time Woodside did nothing wrong. Woodside remains obligated to allow Plaintiff to build the
required items and thereby activate the Easement. The question of who will have to pay for any
increased expense brought by Woodside’s construction is not raised in this motion.
Simply, Plaintiff has not carried its burden because it has not established that it is prevented
from making the improvements contemplated either because Defendants built over the Easement
or because Defendants have refused to allow Plaintiff to make the improvements. For this reason
alone, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Motion must fail.
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Liability)
filed January 9, 2020.
Woodside’s Motion
Woodside asks the Court to grant summary judgment in its favor for three reasons: 1) the
Easement is void and unenforceable against Woodside; 2) Plaintiff has no contract with Woodside;
and 3) Woodside cannot be liable for trespass.
Enforceability
The record presented to the Court confirms that Woodside had actual notice of the
Easement. See Onekama Realty Co. v. Carothers, 59 Ariz. 416, 424 (1942) (“the only purpose of
recording is to give constructive notice, and constructive notice is never required when actual is
had”). The record also establishes that Exhibit B to the Easement described the burdened servient
property which is what is required for a valid Easement. See Restatement (Third) of Property
(Servitudes) § 2.7, cmt. f. To the extent Woodside’s request is based on a claim that the reciprocal
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-052924
07/05/2020
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 4
right is uncertain, that is not a basis to conclude that the Easement is unenforceable to the extent
that the servient property was described – which it was in this case. See Exhibit A to Easement.
Because the Easement was not one of necessity, the existence of alternate access is immaterial.
Woodside has not established as a matter of law that the Easement is void or unenforceable.
Contract
There is no question that Woodside is no longer the owner of the property. Woodside was
the owner of the property after the Easement was granted and while it was developed. To the
extent that the Court finds the Easement to be enforceable, it can be enforced as a contract between
land owners. See Ellerman v. Snyder, 2013 WL 636728, at *23 (App. Feb. 21, 2013).
Trespass
A trespass is an invasion of another's property right. 74 C.J.S. Trespass § 1 (2013). In order
to establish a claim of trespass against another, the claimant must possess a legal interest in the
land against which the trespass is alleged. See, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Torts § 161 cmt. b
(1965) (“The actor's failure to remove from land in the possession of another a structure, chattel,
or other thing which he has tortiously erected or placed on the land constitutes a continuing trespass
....”) (emphasis added); Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Kelton, 79 Ariz. 126, 134-135 (1955)
(defendant's interference with plaintiff's express easement over defendant's property amounted to
trespass). Here, as outlined above, as a condition to Plaintiff using the Easement, Plaintiff was
required to make certain improvements. If Plaintiff had no present right to use the Easement then
Woodside cannot be deemed to have trespassed. Whether or not Plaintiff was prevented from
making the improvements as a result of Woodside’s actions remains a question of fact.
IT IS ORDERED denying Woodside’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment.
07/15/2020 — CV2019052924 AT SUNSET RANCH L L C, WOODSIDE ENCORE 07/15/2020 HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/16/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-052924
07/15/2020
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
A. Walker
Deputy
3603 CAMPBELL L L C
ARI RAMRAS
v.
WOODSIDE ENCORE AT SUNSET RANCH L
L C, et al.
JEFFREY D. HARRIS
JONATHAN D EBERTSHAUSER
JUDGE VIOLA
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and considered Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration filed July 10, 2020.
07/23/2020 — CV2019052924 AT SUNSET RANCH L L C, WOODSIDE ENCORE 07/23/2020 HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/24/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-052924
07/23/2020
Docket Code 002
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
K. Cabral
Deputy
3603 CAMPBELL L L C
ARI RAMRAS
v.
WOODSIDE ENCORE AT SUNSET RANCH L
L C, et al.
JEFFREY D. HARRIS
JONATHAN D EBERTSHAUSER
JUDGE VIOLA
MINUTE ENTRY
On the Court’s own motion,
IT IS ORDERED vacating the telephonic Trial Setting Conference set for July 30, 2020.
The Court will reset a trial setting conference once a ruling is issued on the pending Motion for
Summary Judgement.
09/21/2020 — CV2019052924 AT SUNSET RANCH L L C, WOODSIDE ENCORE 09/21/2020 HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/22/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-052924
09/21/2020
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
K. Cabral
Deputy
3603 CAMPBELL L L C
ARI RAMRAS
v.
WOODSIDE ENCORE AT SUNSET RANCH L
L C, et al.
JEFFREY D. HARRIS
JONATHAN D EBERTSHAUSER
JUDGE VIOLA
UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING
Defendant Encore at Sunset Ranch Community Association’s (Association) Motion for
Summary Judgment filed May 29, 2020 - Denied
The Court has received and considered the following:
1. Defendant Encore at Sunset Ranch Community Association’s (Association) Motion for
Summary Judgment filed May 29, 2020 and the associated Statement of Facts;
2. Plaintiff’s Response and Response to Statement of Facts;
3. The Association’s Reply.
Defendant requested oral argument but the Court concludes that oral argument will not
assist the Court with determining the issues presented.
The Association asks the Court to grant judgment in its favor as to all of Plaintiff’s claims.
Plaintiff seeks a declaration from the Court that the easement is valid as to the Association.
Plaintiff further alleges a breach of contract and trespass claim against the Association.
Specifically, Plaintiff asks the Court to find that the Association breached the easement and the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and committed a trespass by continuing to maintain
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-052924
09/21/2020
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2
the property in a way that interferes with the easement. The Court concludes issues of fact and
law preclude the entry of judgment in Defendant’s favor.
This matter arises from a dispute over an easement. Plaintiff purchased an access easement
over a neighboring parcel. The grantor later sold the servient property to a developer, Woodside.
Woodside discovered the easement and attempted to have it removed. Woodside was unsuccessful
and proceeded with developing the property into a planned community. Woodside later transferred
the servient property to the Association. The area of the servient property that Plaintiff claims
under the easement has been developed as a retention basin for the planned residential community.
Standard
The party moving for summary judgment must produce evidence that it believes
demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and must explain why summary
judgment is warranted. Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Thruston, 218 Ariz. 112, 115 (App. 2008.) If the
nonmoving party has the burden of proof of the claim or defense at trial, the moving party need
not disprove the nonmoving party's claim or defense, but need only point out the lack of evidence
on an essential element of the claim or defense. Thruston, 218 Ariz. at 117. If the moving party
meets its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to present sufficient evidence
demonstrating the existence of a disputed fact. Thruston, 218 Ariz. at 119. The nonmoving party
cannot then rest on its pleadings, but must call to the court's attention evidence to explain why the
motion should be denied. Id. “If the party with the burden of proof on the claim or defense cannot
respond to the motion by showing that there is evidence creating a genuine issue of fact on the
element in question, then the motion for summary judgment should be granted.” Orme Sch. v.
Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 310 (1990).
Analysis
Both parties incorporated prior filings in support of their respective positions. The Court
discourages such practice for at least two reasons: 1) incorporating prior briefing effectively grants
a page limit extension without approval from the Court; and 2) the Court is required to guess as to
which of the portions of the prior filings should be considered and why. Regardless, the Court has
considered the incorporated documents in evaluating the Motion, Response, and Reply.
Notice
The record presented to the Court confirms, at a minimum, that the Association had record
notice of the Easement. The Commercial Reciprocal Access Easement and Non Barrier
Agreement (Easement) was recorded on July 2, 2007. The recorded Easement contains a legal
description of the entire Presbytery Property (property purchased by Woodside and transferred to
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-052924
09/21/2020
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3
the Association). Exhibit B to the Easement described the burdened servient property which is
what is required for a valid Easement. See Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 2.7,
cmt. f. Additionally, the record reflects Woodside had actual notice and the Association had actual
notice to the extent the Association itself admits that Woodside controlled the Association and all
decision-making for the Association. Even if it did not have actual notice, the Association was on
inquiry notice based on the public records.
The Association relies on Dunlap Investors Ltd. v. Hogan, 133 Ariz. 130, 132 (1982) to
assert that the easement is defective because the recorded document failed to attach a description
of the “Presbytery Drive Area.” Dunlap Investors is distinguishable, however, because the
servient estate was not identified with reasonable certainty. As the court noted, “[i]t might be
different if the deed had contained a legal description of the servient property. This might put a
person searching the record on notice as to the property to be burdened. Id. Here, the recorded
instrument contained a legal description of the servient property and that served to put the
Association on notice as to the property to be burdened. Defendant has not presented evidence
that a surveyor could not go upon the land and locate the easement.
The Association has not established as a matter of law that the Easement is void or
unenforceable as against it.
Contract
There is no question that the Association is the current the owner of the property. Plaintiff
alleged the Association is maintaining the retention basin resulting in a continuing trespass. The
Association does not dispute maintaining the retention basin alleged to interfere with the
Easement. To the extent that the Court finds the Easement to be enforceable, it can be enforced as
a contract between landowners. See Ellerman v. Snyder, 2013 WL 636728, at *23 (App. Feb. 21,
2013).
Trespass
The Association asserts that Plaintiff’s trespass claim is barred by the two-year statute of
limitations. See A.R.S. § 12-542(l); Cheatham v. Sahuaro Collection Service, Inc., 118 Ariz. 452
(App. 1978). Plaintiff asserts that the trespass is continuing. See Garcia v. Sumrall, 58 Ariz. 526
(1942). There is no dispute that the Association did not make the improvements to the property
allegedly subject to the Easement. Plaintiff claims instead that the Association has continued to
maintain the improvements that prevent Plaintiff’s enjoyment of the property. Defendants present
no facts to the contrary. To the extent the trespass is continuing (which the Association does not
address in the Motion), the Court concludes the two-year statute of limitations does not bar
Plaintiff’s claim.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-052924
09/21/2020
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 4
IT IS ORDERED denying the Association’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed May
29, 2020.
09/28/2020 — CV2019052924 AT SUNSET RANCH L L C, WOODSIDE ENCORE 09/28/2020 HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/29/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-052924
09/28/2020
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
K. Cabral
Deputy
3603 CAMPBELL L L C
ARI RAMRAS
v.
WOODSIDE ENCORE AT SUNSET RANCH L
L C, et al.
JEFFREY D. HARRIS
JONATHAN D EBERTSHAUSER
JUDGE VIOLA
MINUTE ENTRY
Pursuant to the ruling issued on September 21, 2020,
IT IS ORDERED setting a telephonic status/scheduling conference on October 28, 2020
at 9:00 a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes) for the purpose of assigning a trial date. The conference
will be held by:
THE HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING
101 WEST JEFFERSON
7TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 714
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-506-3442 TEL
The parties shall call 602-506-9695 to access the Conference Bridge. (The long distance
toll free number is 1-855-506-9695). The system will prompt you to enter the conference pass
code. Enter the code 958767 followed by the # (pound) sign. If disconnected for any reason, repeat
instructions above. Note: Participants who call in prior to the Moderator (Court staff) opening
the bridge will hear music while waiting.
10/19/2020 — CV2019052924 AT SUNSET RANCH L L C, WOODSIDE ENCORE 10/19/2020 HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/20/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2019-052924
10/19/2020
Docket Code 375
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
K. Cabral
Deputy
3603 CAMPBELL L L C
ARI RAMRAS
v.
WOODSIDE ENCORE AT SUNSET RANCH L
L C, et al.
JEFFREY D. HARRIS
JONATHAN D EBERTSHAUSER
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK
JUDGE VIOLA
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received Plaintiff’s Notice of Settlement filed on October 16, 2020.
IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the Dismissal Calendar for dismissal of all
remaining claims and parties on or after November 30, 2020 without further notice unless, prior
to that date, Judgment is entered, a Stipulation for Dismissal is filed, or the dismissal deadline is
otherwise extended by the Court for good cause shown.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED deeming any pending motions moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the telephonic Trial-Setting Conference on
October 28, 2020 in this Division.
