Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2020-001329: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Management Trust Inc, The.

Case Number

CV2020-001329

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

1/28/2020

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Polk, Jay

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/16/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

03/14/2022

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
K. Cabral

Deputy

MARYBETH ABODEELY
MARK W HORNE

v.

OASIS ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
JEREMY C JOHNSON

JUDGE VIOLA

MINUTE ENTRY

Pursuant to the Stipulation filed March 7, 2022,

IT IS ORDERED setting a telephonic Trial Setting Conference for June 10, 2022 at
9:30 a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes) via Court Connect in this division. A link to join the
hearing will be emailed to Counsel of Record in advance of the hearing. Parties may appear
telephonically or by video using the following information:

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
www.tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj02

You can also dial in using your phone (audio only)
+1 (917) 781-4590
Phone Conference ID: 642 102 793#

More information regarding Court Connect can be found at:
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect/

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

03/14/2022

Docket Code 028
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.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/15/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

03/14/2022

Docket Code 070
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
PRO TEM, PAULA WILLIAMS
J. Lizardi

Deputy

MARYBETH ABODEELY
MARK W HORNE

v.

OASIS ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
JEREMY C JOHNSON

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
COMM. P. WILLIAMS
JUDGE VIOLA

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET

This matter has been referred to this division by Judge Danielle J. Viola to conduct a
Settlement Conference.

Pursuant to Rule 16.1, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure,

IT IS ORDERED setting a Settlement Conference on May 23, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. (time
allotted: 1 day). The Court has set aside one day for this conference. Counsel and the parties, if
representing themselves, are to appear in person before:

HONORABLE PAULA WILLIAMS
JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
CENTRAL COURT BUILDING – 4TH FLOOR
COURTROOM 401
201 W. JEFFERSON
PHOENIX, AZ 85003

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

03/14/2022

Docket Code 070
Form V000A
Page 2

(602) 506-0039

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel, the clients, and non-lawyer representatives,
who have full authority to settle this case, shall be present.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s representatives with settlement
authority shall be available by phone during the pendency of the Settlement Conference.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing all counsel and self-represented parties to review
the docket in this matter and to ensure that they have current, accurate email addresses on file with
the Court in this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each party shall prepare a Settlement Memorandum
and e-mail same to this Court’s Judicial Assistant: [email protected]. The
memoranda are due by 12:00 p.m. on May 12, 2022. Each party’s Settlement Memorandum shall
fully comply with Rule 16.1(b), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 3.11 (c), Local Rules
of Maricopa County Superior Court, including but not limited to a detailed description of prior
negotiations and offers of settlement. In addition, each Settlement Memorandum: (i) shall
identify any claims and defenses that have been dismissed, and (ii) cite any law that the parties
believe to be controlling. Merely duplicating a pleading or Joint Pretrial Statement, in most
instances, will not be deemed to comply with Rule 16.1(b)(2) and Local Rule 3.11(c).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if there are exhibits attached to a Settlement
Memorandum that exceed 15 total pages, counsel shall provide a hard copy of all of the attached
exhibits to the division.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the memoranda are not to be filed with the Clerk of
the Court. Counsel shall exchange their Settlement Conference Memoranda with each other, or if
counsel agree to furnish their memoranda confidentially, they shall still exchange the portions of
the memoranda that relate to prior offers of settlement and offers of judgment.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to the Settlement Conference
Memorandum that parties exchange, each party may provide an additional confidential
memorandum to this judicial officer not to exceed ten (10) pages in length.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing all parties to participate in the Settlement
Conference in good faith.

NOTE: Counsel shall upload and eFile all proposed orders IN WORD FORMAT ONLY
to allow for possible modifications by the Court.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

03/14/2022

Docket Code 070
Form V000A
Page 3

NOTE: Every person should have a face covering in his/her possession because face
masks may be required at the discretion of the Judge.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/28/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

04/27/2023

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

MARYBETH ABODEELY
JONATHAN A DESSAULES

v.

OASIS ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
JEREMY C JOHNSON

JUDGE AGNE

CONFERENCE RESET

On the Court’s own motion, good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED resetting the Status Conference in this matter to May 5, 2023, at 4:30
PM (15 minutes allotted) on Court Connect. The previous setting is vacated.

Please join the hearing via:
https://tinyurl.com/ECB912
You may need to type the link directly into your browser in lieu of clicking.

You can also dial in using your phone.
Phone: +1 917-781-4590 and Conference ID: 642 102 793#

You may wish to download the Microsoft Teams application first before using the above
link or typing it into your browser; for more on Court Connect, please
visit: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect

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 2020-001329

04/27/2023

Docket Code 083
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.

The Arizona Constitution requires the Arizona Commission on Judicial
Performance Review to conduct performance evaluations of superior court judges.
The Commission is asking for your help to evaluate Maricopa County Superior
Court judges currently undergoing performance review. After your hearing, if the
judge you are in front of is undergoing review, a survey will either be given to
you by court staff or will be emailed to you and you can take the survey online.
The survey is conducted by the Docking Institute of Public Affairs at Fort Hays
State University and is anonymous and confidential. Your participation in the
review process is important! More information on Judicial Performance Review
can be found at www.azjudges.info.

La Constitución de Arizona exige que la Comisión de la Evaluación del
Desempeño Judicial realice evaluaciones de desempeño de los jueces de los
tribunales superiores. La comisión pide su ayuda para evaluar a los jueces del
Tribunal Superior del Condado de Maricopa a quienes actualmente se les está
evaluando su desempeño. Después de su audiencia, si el juez frente a usted está
siendo revisado, el personal de la corte le entregará una encuesta o se le enviará
por correo electrónico y usted puede realizar la encuesta en línea. La encuesta es
realizada por el Docking Institute of Public Affairs de la Fort Hays State
University y se mantiene anónima y confidencial. ¡Su participación en el proceso
de la evaluación es importante! Para obtener más información sobre la evaluación
del desempeño judicial, diríjase a www.azjudges.info.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/10/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

05/05/2023

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

MARYBETH ABODEELY
JONATHAN A DESSAULES

v.

OASIS ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
JEREMY C JOHNSON

F ROBERT CONNELLY II
JUDGE AGNE

STATUS CONFERENCE

Courtroom 912 – East Court Building

4:31 p.m. This is the time set for a Status Conference via Court Connect. Plaintiff
Marybeth Abodeely is represented by counsel, F Robert Connelly II on behalf of Jonathan A.
Dessaules. Defendants The Oasis Association and The Management Trust, Inc. are represented
by counsel, Jeremy C. Johnson. No other Parties appear nor represented.

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

Discussion is held regarding the status of the case.

Plaintiff states that an official settlement was reached on September 1, 2022, and as of
now funding has not yet been received.

Defendants state that a Medicare consent form is pending signature.

Further discussion ensues thereon.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

05/05/2023

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 2

For the reasons stated on the record,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall sign the Medicare consent to release form no later
than, May 12, 2023.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than May 19, 2023, a Motion to Enforce the
Settlement agreement shall be submitted if needed.

4:43 p.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/11/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

05/10/2021

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
T. DeRaddo

Deputy

MARYBETH ABODEELY
MARK W HORNE

v.

OASIS ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
JEREMY C JOHNSON

JUDGE VIOLA

TELEPHONIC ORAL ARGUMENT SET

On the Court’s own Motion and with the agreement of counsel,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the telephonic Trial Setting Conference set for May 13, 2021
at 9:00 a.m.

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed April 9,
2021 and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed April 9, 2021.

IT IS ORDERED setting Telephonic Oral Argument for June 21, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.
(time allotted: 1 hour) via Court Connect in this division. A link to join the hearing will be
emailed to Counsel of Record in advance of the hearing. Parties may appear telephonically or by
video using the following information:

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
www.tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj02

You can also dial in using your phone (audio only)
+1 (917) 781-4590
Phone Conference ID: 642 102 793#

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

05/10/2021

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2

More information regarding Court Connect can be found at:
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect/

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.

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 ***

05/11/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

05/10/2022

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PAULA A. WILLIAMS
S. Motzer

Deputy

MARYBETH ABODEELY
MARK W HORNE

v.

OASIS ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
JEREMY C JOHNSON

COMM. P. WILLIAMS
JUDGE VIOLA

MINUTE ENTRY

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the virtual Settlement Conference on May 23, 2022 at 9:00
a.m. and resetting same for June 16, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. (1 day allotted).

Join on your computer or mobile app
Click here to join the meeting
Or join by entering a meeting ID
Meeting ID: 244 717 760 780
Or call in (audio only)
+1 917-781-4590,,12629100# United States, New York City
Phone Conference ID: 126 291 00#

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/25/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

05/23/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

MARYBETH ABODEELY
JONATHAN A DESSAULES

v.

OASIS ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
JEREMY C JOHNSON

JUDGE AGNE

RULING

The Court has received and reviewed the Motion for Extension of Time for Plaintiff to
Submit a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion, extending the time previously set by the Court to
and including June 16, 2023.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

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

CV 2020-001329

05/29/2020

Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
E. Tran/C. Mai

Deputy

MARYBETH ABODEELY
MARK W HORNE

v.

OASIS ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
JEREMY C JOHNSON

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE VIOLA

MINUTE ENTRY

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order signed on May 29, 2020,

IT IS ORDERED the parties shall participate in a mandatory settlement conference to be
held no later than September 7, 2020. This case is hereby referred to the Court’s Alternative
Dispute Resolution Department 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 self-represented parties are ordered to contact the appointed judge
pro tempore to arrange the date, time, and location for the settlement conference. The Office of
Alternative Dispute Resolution will not schedule 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 comply with their orders.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

05/29/2020

Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a telephonic status/scheduling conference on
January 15, 2021 at 9:15 a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes) for the purpose of setting a trial date.
The conference will be held by:

HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING - 7TH FLOOR
COURTROOM 714
101 W. JEFFERSON
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
(602) 506-3442

Plaintiff’s counsel shall initiate the conference call to this Division at 602-506-3442. All
persons appearing shall appear on land lines and not on cellular phones, and shall not use the
speakerphone features of their telephones, in order to maximize all participants’ ability to hear and
be heard. Additionally, counsel shall have their calendars available for this proceeding.

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.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/06/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

06/03/2022

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
K. Cabral

Deputy

MARYBETH ABODEELY
MARK W HORNE

v.

OASIS ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
JEREMY C JOHNSON

JUDGE VIOLA

MINUTE ENTRY

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the telephonic Trial Setting Conference set for June 10, 2022
and resetting same to July 15, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes) via Court Connect
before the Honorable Sara Agne. A link to join the hearing will be emailed to Counsel of Record
in advance of the hearing. Parties may appear telephonically or by video using the following
information:

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
www.tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj02

You can also dial in using your phone (audio only)
+1 (917) 781-4590
Phone Conference ID: 642 102 793#

More information regarding Court Connect can be found at:
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect/

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

06/03/2022

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 2

NOTE: Effective June 27, 2022, this Division’s calendar will be assigned to the Honorable Sara
Agne (telephone number: 602-506-8288), located in the East Court Building, 101 West Jefferson,
Suite 912, Phoenix, Arizona 85003. The previously issued Court Connect information will remain
the same.

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.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/10/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

06/08/2020

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
K. Cabral

Deputy

MARYBETH ABODEELY
MARK W HORNE

v.

OASIS ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
JEREMY C JOHNSON

JUDGE VIOLA

The Management Trust, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss filed April 15, 2020 - Granted

The Court has received and considered The Management Trust, Inc.'s (TMT) Motion to
Dismiss filed April 15, 2020, the Response, and Reply. The Plaintiff has not alleged that TMT
owed statutory or common law duties to Plaintiff nor that TMT acted outside the course and scope
of its agency with the Association.

IT IS ORDERED granting The Management Trust, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss filed April
15, 2020.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/22/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

06/21/2021

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
L. Stogsdill

Deputy

MARYBETH ABODEELY
MARK W HORNE

v.

OASIS ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
JEREMY C JOHNSON

JUDGE VIOLA

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom ECB 714

10:02 a.m. This is the time set for a virtual Oral Argument re: Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgement and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff Marybeth
Abodeely is represented by counsel, Mark W. Horne. Defendants The Oasis Association are
presented by counsel, Evann M. Waschuk.

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

The Court outlines the pleadings reviewed in preparation for this argument.

Argument is presented on the motions.

Based on the matters discussed and for the reasons stated on the record,

IT IS ORDERED taking the matter under advisement.

10:58 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/01/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

06/30/2021

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
K. Cabral

Deputy

MARYBETH ABODEELY
MARK W HORNE

v.

OASIS ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
JEREMY C JOHNSON

JUDGE VIOLA

PLAINTIFF ABODEELY’S PARTIAL MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT – Denied

DEFENDANT THE OASIS ASSOCIATION’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT – Granted in part; denied in part

The Court has received and considered the following:

1. Plaintiff’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment and Separate Statement of Facts filed
April 9, 2021;
2. Defendant The Oasis Association’s Response to Plaintiff’s Partial Motion for Summary
Judgment, Controverting Statement of Facts, and Additional Statement of Facts filed
May 17, 2021;
3. Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Partial Motion for Summary Judgment filed June 7,
2021.
The Court has further considered the following:

1. Defendant The Oasis Association’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Statement of
Facts filed April 9, 2021;
2. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Controverting
Statement of Facts filed May 21, 2021; and

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

06/30/2021

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2

3. Defendant’s Reply in Support of Defendant The Oasis Association’s Motion for
Summary Judgment filed June 14, 2020.
The Court further considered the arguments of counsel presented on June 21, 2021.

Relevant Background

Marybeth Abodeely owns a condominium located at 5550 N. 12th St. #14, Phoenix, AZ
85014 (the “Property”).1 The Oasis Association (“Oasis”) is the homeowners association of the
condominium complex. The Management Trust, Inc. is the management company hired by Oasis
to manage the condominium complex.2 The Property is subject to the governing documents which
include Oasis’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”) and the operating rules of the
Oasis (“House Rules”). In May 2018, Ms. Abodeely began receiving notices to clean up her patio
which included directives to remove the empty planters from the common areas. The House Rules
in place at the time stated:

Only appropriate furniture and small potted plants will be used on
porch areas. All unsightly items shall be removed upon the request
of the HOA. Textile items, including towels, bathing apparel and
clothing, brooms, mops, cartons, etc., shall not be placed on porch
areas so as to be in view from the outside of the building.

DSOF ¶ 3. Section 15.2 of the CC&Rs states:

Except for customary patio furniture and potted plants on patios or
balconies, nothing shall be stored, placed, erected, hung or permitted
on any patio, balcony, roof, the Common Elements, the exterior of
the building, or upon the windows or outside the doors of any Unit.
DSOF ¶ 4. Ms. Abodeely did not comply with the request to remove the empty planters. As a
result, Oasis began fining Ms. Abodeely on June 8, 2018. Ms. Abodeely hired an attorney to

1 Ms. Abodeely also owns another unit (Unit #3) at the condominium complex. See Defendant’s
Controverting SOF, Ex. K. Plaintiff’s Complaint does not specifically reference the other unit.
Notices in the record include violation notices for Unit #3. See Plaintiff’s Controverting SOF,
TMT00138-TMT000143. It is unclear from the record whether Plaintiff’s claims involve Unit #3
and any associated violation notices for that unit or if Plaintiff’s claims are limited to Unit #14.
2 The Management Trust, Inc. was previously dismissed from this action pursuant to the Court’s
Minute Entry dated June 8, 2020. The other defendants named in the complaint, Sadie Marsh and
Gregory Marsh, were dismissed pursuant to the Notice of Dismissal filed March 5, 2020. The only
remaining defendant is Oasis.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

06/30/2021

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3

dispute the fines. Counsel for the parties exchanged several letters relating to the fines and
associated policies. Oasis continued assessing fines for Ms. Abodeely’s failure to comply with the
violation notices.

Standard

A party is entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56(c) only if “there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
National Bank of Arizona v. Thruston, 218 Ariz. 112, 115 (App. 2008). The moving party bears
both the initial burden of producing sufficient, competent evidence that demonstrates the absence
of any genuine issue of material fact (the “burden of production”) and the ultimate burden of
persuading the Court that it is entitled to prevail on its summary judgment motion (the “burden of
persuasion”). Id. “The burden of persuasion on the summary judgment motion is heavy. ‘[W]here
the evidence or inferences would permit a jury to resolve a material issue in favor of either party,
summary judgment is improper.’” Id. at 116 (citations omitted). Furthermore, in reviewing
summary judgment pleadings “a court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-
moving party and draw all justifiable inferences in its favor.” Id. (citations omitted). Each motion
must be considered independent of the other. E.g., Arizona Land Title & Trust Co. v. Safeway
Stores, Inc., 6 Ariz. App. 52, 58, 429 P.2d 686, 692 (App. 1967).

Plaintiff’s Motion

Ms. Abodeely asks this Court to grant partial summary judgment as to Count One of the
Complaint for breach of statutory and common law duties to homeowner and Count Four for a
declaratory judgment. Ms. Abodeely also asks this Court to enter an injunction against further
harassment. Ms. Abodeely asserts that the only issue that should remain for the jury is the
amount of damages.

For Count One, Ms. Abodeely asserts that the Oasis has breached the following duties: (1)
the duty to treat Plaintiff fairly; (2) the duty to act reasonably in the exercise of Oasis’s
discretionary powers, including rulemaking and enforcement; (3) the duty to give Ms. Abodeely
notice and the opportunity to be heard prior to assessing her with fines; and (4) the duty to give
her twenty-one calendar days to respond to a violation notice and request information from Oasis.
See Plaintiff’s Motion at 2. Ms. Abodeely asserts that Oasis violated these duties by (1) refusing
to enforce the CC&Rs against Gregory Marsh and Sadie Marsh; (2) sending numerous successive,
harassing and frivolous violation notices to Ms. Abodeely; (3) constantly photographing Ms.
Abodeely’s property and harassing her despite pleas to stop; and (4) adopting arbitrary and
unreasonable rules solely to target and harass Ms. Abodeely. See Plaintiff’s Motion at 4. Ms.
Abodeely’s motion is based on conclusory statements regarding the duties she claims Oasis owed
to her and does not demonstrate an absence of disputed facts.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

06/30/2021

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 4

Ms. Abodeely contends that Oasis did not enforce the CC&Rs against Gregory and Sadie
Marsh by allowing them to keep a dog at their condo. Ms. Abodeely seems to concede in her
Motion that the Marsh’s dog is a “compassion” dog. See Plaintiff’s Motion at 3, n. 1. However,
Ms. Abodeely maintains that Oasis has a duty to ensure that the dog is not a nuisance to the
neighbors regardless of the dog’s status as a compassion dog. The facts presented by Oasis show
that it did address the issue with the dog. See Defendant’s Additional SOF ¶ 1 (community
manager exchanged emails with Ms. Abodeely regarding the Marsh’s dog). Ms. Abodeely’s
conclusory statements are insufficient to provide a basis for the Court to enter summary judgment
that Oasis breached its duty to her by allowing the Marsh’s to keep their dog at their condo.

Ms. Abodeely also asserts that Oasis should have given her twenty-one days to respond to
the violation notices and that the violation notices were deficient as a result of Oasis’s failure to
give her the required time to respond. Under A.R.S. § 33-1803(C), “[a] member who receives a
written notice that the condition of the property owned by the member is in violation of the
community documents without regard to whether a monetary penalty is imposed by the notice may
provide the association with a written response by sending the response by certified mail within
twenty-one calendar days after the date of the notice.” The association has 10 business days to
respond to the member. A.R.S. § 33-1803(D). Ms. Abodeely has acknowledged that the first
notice did give her the opportunity to respond but asserts that the subsequent notices did not. See
Plaintiff’s Motion at 2. As noted by Oasis, Ms. Abodeely has not provided any authority to
substantiate her position that each notice must contain the required opportunity to respond even if
they are related to the same violation. However, there is a dispute as to the reasonableness of
imposing a fine 14 days after the initial notice when Ms. Abodeely still had 7 days to respond to
the notice under A.R.S. § 33-1803. This is a question for the jury.

Ms. Abodeely further asserts that Oasis was harassing her by photographing the Property.
Ms. Abodeely specifically asserts that Mr. Humphreys took pictures of the Property. PSOF ¶ 18.
Ms. Abodeely has failed to substantially address this issue beyond these statements. Ms. Abodeely
also claims that Oasis adopted arbitrary and unreasonable rules solely to target and harass her. Ms.
Abodeely asserts that Oasis adopted rules prohibiting artificial plants and flower pots that were
empty or contained dead plants in October 2018 that were targeted at her. PSOF ¶ 24. The House
Rules at issue when the initial violation notice was sent had been in effect since January 2016.
DSOF ¶ 3. The CC&Rs were recorded on July 17, 1980. DSOF, Ex. D. Ms. Abodeely asserts
that Oasis adopted rules prohibiting artificial plants and flower pots that were empty or contained
dead plants in October 2018 that were targeted at her. PSOF ¶ 24. Oasis acknowledges that new
House Rules were adopted in October 2018 but disputes that they were targeted at Ms. Abodeely.
Defendant’s Controverting SOF ¶ 24. While it is plausible that Oasis wanted to clarify the rules
regarding plants and pots on the patio following the dispute with Ms. Abodeely earlier in 2018,
the rules at issue in the initial violations were in place long before the Board adopted the rules
allegedly targeted at Ms. Abodeely. Again, Ms. Abodeely did not specifically support her position

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

06/30/2021

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 5

that the rules improperly targeted her. Ms. Abodeely has not provided anything beyond her
conclusory statements that would allow the Court to enter summary judgment on Count One in her
favor.

In Count Four, Ms. Abodeely asserts she is entitled to a declaratory judgment that she is
not in violation of the CC&Rs, that she does not have to pay the fines imposed by Oasis, that Oasis
has not complied with A.R.S. § 33-1803(C), and that rules were adopted unreasonably by Oasis
and targeted Ms. Abodeely improperly. Ms. Abodeely’s claim for declaratory judgment fails for
the same reasons as stated for Count One. Ms. Abodeely’s conclusory motion is inadequate in
establishing that she is entitled to summary judgment.

Ms. Abodeely indicates in the initial paragraph of her Motion that she is seeking summary
judgment for an injunction against further harassment. However, Ms. Abodeely does not mention
anything further in the Motion regarding the injunction. As a result, Ms. Abodeely has failed to
show she is entitled to summary judgment for an injunction.

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment.

Defendant’s Motion

Defendant Oasis seeks summary judgment on all claims asserted by Plaintiff against it
(breach of statutory and common law duties to homeowner; permanent injunction; and declaratory
relief) as well as the issue of emotional distress damages.

For Count One, Oasis asserts that it did not breach any duty owed to Ms. Abodeely. First,
Oasis contends that its treatment of the Marsh’s dog is not a breach of any duties owed to Ms.
Abodeely because it cannot enforce the no-pet policy against Ms. Marsh. Oasis asserts that the
Marsh’s dog is a service dog. Oasis claims it had to make reasonable accommodations to its no-
pet policy and cannot enforce the no-pet policy against Ms. Marsh. Ms. Abodeely seems to
concede in her Motion that the Marsh’s dog is a “compassion” dog. See Plaintiff’s Motion at 3, n.
1. Oasis has not breached any duty based on the allegations surrounding the Marsh’s dog. As a
result, Oasis is entitled to summary judgment that it has not breached any duty owed to Ms.
Abodeely in its treatment of the Marsh’s dog.

Oasis argues that Ms. Abodeely was in violation of the House Rules and CC&Rs by having
pots in the common areas and having an unsightly patio containing restricted items. Oasis asserts
that it did not breach its duties to Ms. Abodeely by exercising its rights to fine Ms. Abodeely as a
result of the violations. Oasis also asserts that it has not violated A.R.S. § 33-1803(C). The notice
sent to Ms. Abodeely on May 24, 2018 included information regarding the process identified in
A.R.S. § 33-1803. DSOF, Ex. B. The notice indicates that Ms. Abodeely had 14 days to remedy

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

06/30/2021

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 6

the violation but also states she has 21 days to request a written explanation of the violation. Id.
Oasis asserts that Ms. Abodeely did not respond according to A.R.S. § 33-1803(C). DSOF ¶ 5.3
The record includes several courtesy notices and fine notices, some referencing the unsightly patio
and some the common areas. See Plaintiff’s Controverting SOF, TMT000036-TMT00039,
TMT00056, TMT00078, TMT00080-TMT00081. It appears from the record there are still
genuine disputes as to what notices are at issue, whether Oasis violated § 33-1803, and whether it
was reasonable for Oasis to begin imposing fines on Ms. Abodeely 14 days after the courtesy
notice. As a result of the disputed facts (or at least an unclear record), the Court concludes that
Oasis is not entitled to summary judgment on the violation notices.

In Count Two, Ms. Abodeely alleges that she is entitled to a permanent injunction directing
Oasis to enforce the CC&Rs against the Marsh’s and enjoining Oasis from sending the unjustified
violation notices and enforcing the unlawful fines against her. In order to obtain a permanent
injunction, “[a] plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that
remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury;
(3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in
equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent
injunction.” eBay v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006) (citations omitted). Oasis
asserts that Ms. Abodeely has not established the required elements to obtain an injunction.
Because Oasis is entitled to summary judgment on Count One regarding the Marsh’s dog, Oasis
is also entitled to summary judgment on Count Two regarding the dog. Oasis is not entitled to
summary judgment on the remainder of Count Two because of the outstanding items in dispute as
stated above.

In Count Four, Ms. Abodeely asserts she is entitled to a declaratory judgment that she is
not in violation of the CC&Rs, that she does not have to pay the fines imposed by Oasis, that the
Marsh’s are not allowed to keep a dog at their condo, and that Oasis has not complied with A.R.S.
§ 33-1803(C). Because Oasis is entitled to summary judgment on Count One regarding the
Marsh’s dog, Oasis is entitled to summary judgment on Count Four regarding that issue. Oasis is
not entitled to summary judgment on the remainder of Count Four.

Lastly, Oasis asserts that Ms. Abodeely has claimed during discovery that she is entitled to
damages for emotional distress because of the violation notices sent by Oasis. As Oasis notes, Ms.
Abodeely has not alleged any claim regarding the infliction of emotional distress and has only

3 In her Controverting Statement of Facts, Plaintiff denies this statement of fact and refers to her
Separate Statement of Facts. However, nothing in Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Facts disputes
her statement in her deposition. The Court also notes that on July 5, 2018, although beyond the
statutory deadline, Ms. Abodeely’s previous counsel sent a letter to Oasis requesting information
under A.R.S. § 33-1803(D). DSOF, Ex. G.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

06/30/2021

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 7

referenced emotional damages in the prayer of her Complaint. Ms. Abodeely contends that a
separate claim for infliction of emotional distress is unnecessary because her other claims allow
for damages for emotional distress. The Court agrees. See Thomas v. Goudreault, 163 Ariz. 159,
166 (App. 1989) (“It is not necessary to assert intentional infliction of emotional distress as the
exclusive tort to recover damages for emotional or mental distress.”)

Ms. Abodeely relies on Farr v. Transamerica Occidental Life Ins. Co. of California, 145
Ariz. 1 (App. 1984). Farr involved an insurance bad faith claim resulting from a refusal to pay
benefits for complications of childbirth. The Court found that damages for emotional distress
could be awarded as part of an insurance bad faith claim rather than a separate cause of action once
a plaintiff proves a loss of property. Id. at 7. The Court recognized that “[t]he primary reason for
precluding recovery of mental distress damages ‘is that to permit recovery of such damages would
open the door to fictitious claims.’” Id. quoting Crisci v. Security Insurance Co., 66 Cal.2d 425,
434, 58 Cal.Rptr. 13, 19, 426 P.2d 173, 179 (1967). The Court found that “[i]n the case of bad
faith, however, ‘where . . . the claim is actionable and has resulted in substantial damages apart
from those due to mental distress, the danger of fictitious claims is reduced . . .’” Id. In Thomas v.
Goudreault, the Court allowed emotional distress damages for breaches of the Arizona Residential
Landlord and Tenant Act under the same rationale as Farr. 163 Ariz. 159 (App. 1989). The Court
found, “A tenant who is not provided with necessary services and maintenance of the leased
premises as required under the Act suffers property damage because the value of his leasehold is
decreased by the absence of adequate water, heat, cooling or proper maintenance of the building.
However, the more immediate damage that he suffers is the annoyance and discomfort of living in
inadequate housing.” Id. at 167. In analyzing Farr, Thomas and another case allowing recovery
of damages for emotional distress arising out of tortious loss of property, the Court of Appeals
found, “these cases share a common nucleus—the tortious act directly harmed the plaintiff and
affected or burdened a personal, as opposed to an economic or other interest belonging to the
plaintiff.” Kaufman v. Langhofer, 223 Ariz. 249, 253, ¶ 15 (App. 2009).

Here, the only claim that could potentially involve an award for emotional distress damages
is Count One for breach of common law and statutory duties. As stated above, Oasis is entitled to
summary judgment on Count One relating to the allegations by Ms. Abodeely that Oasis refused
to enforce the CC&Rs against the Marsh’s and their dog. The remaining allegations are those
relating to the notices Oasis sent to Ms. Abodeely, the photographs taken of her Property, and the
rules allegedly targeting Ms. Abodeely. On its face, this case does not appear to be the type of
case that would warrant an award of emotional damages. However, because disputed facts remain
and the record is unclear, the Court cannot rule out such damages at this time.

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant Oasis’s Motion for Summary Judgment in part as
to Counts One, Two, and Four regarding the Marsh’s dog. Any other relief requested is denied.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/07/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

07/05/2022

Docket Code 375
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

MARYBETH ABODEELY
MARK W HORNE

v.

OASIS ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
JEREMY C JOHNSON

SADIE MARSH
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
GREGORY MARSH
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
JUDGE AGNE

DISMISSAL CALENDAR

The Court having received a Notice of Settlement,

IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the Dismissal Calendar until September 3,
2022. The matter will thereafter be dismissed, without further notice, unless prior to that date the
parties take affirmative action to remove the matter from the Dismissal Calendar such as by
complying with Civil Rule 16 or submitting a judgment or order to dismiss.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED all future hearings are vacated and all pending motions
are denied as moot.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/08/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

07/07/2021

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
K. Cabral

Deputy

MARYBETH ABODEELY
MARK W HORNE

v.

OASIS ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
JEREMY C JOHNSON

JUDGE VIOLA

MINUTE ENTRY

Pursuant to the Minute Entry dated May 10, 2021,

IT IS ORDERED setting a telephonic Trial Setting Conference on August 9, 2021 at 9:30
a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes) via Court Connect in this division. A link to join the hearing
will be emailed to Counsel of Record in advance of the hearing. Parties may appear telephonically
or by video using the following information:

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
www.tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj02

You can also dial in using your phone (audio only)
+1 (917) 781-4590
Phone Conference ID: 642 102 793#

More information regarding Court Connect can be found at:
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect/

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/23/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

07/22/2021

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
K. Cabral

Deputy

MARYBETH ABODEELY
MARK W HORNE

v.

OASIS ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
JEREMY C JOHNSON

JUDGE VIOLA

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has reviewed and considered Defendant The Oasis Association's Motion for
Reconsideration. After further consideration, the Court deems no response is necessary. In
denying the Defendant's Motion regarding damages, the Court did not conclude that Pliantiff will
ultimately be entitled to recover the damages sought. Nothing about the Court's ruling intended to
conclude that Plaintiff is entitled to recover emotional damages. Instead, the Court simply
concluded that it could not rule out the potential award based on the record before the Court.

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/11/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

08/09/2021

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
G. Grantham/C. Mai

Deputy

MARYBETH ABODEELY
MARK W HORNE

v.

OASIS ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
JEREMY C JOHNSON

JUDGE VIOLA

MINUTE ENTRY

East Court Building - Courtroom 714

9:33 a.m. This is the time set for a Trial Setting Conference. Plaintiff is represented by
counsel, Justin D. Fouts, for counsel of record, Mark W. Horn. Plaintiffs are represented by
counsel, Evann M. Waschuk and Jeremy C. Johnson. All parties/counsel are present virtually
through Court Connect.

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

Discussion is held regarding previous attempts for a settlement.

Counsel for parties shall meet and confer in the next two (2) weeks then inform the court
how they would like to proceed with settlement discussions.

Discussion is held regarding the status of the case and the setting of a trial date.
Accordingly,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

08/09/2021

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED setting this matter for a three (3)-day jury trial on April 18, 2022 at
9:00 a.m. for jury selection. The remaining days of trial, April 19 & 20, 2022, will begin at
9:30 a.m.

The Honorable Danielle J. Viola
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building
101 W. Jefferson
7th Floor, Courtroom 714
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: 602-506-3442

Trial hours and days are normally 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (with a lunch recess from noon to
1:30 p.m. and two 15-minute recesses, daily), Monday through Thursday.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a final trial management conference on April 8,
2022 at 9:00 a.m. (time allotted: 1 hour) in this division. All counsel (and any self-represented
party) shall appear in person unless otherwise ordered.

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.

9:53 a.m. Matter concludes.

Based on the trial setting, the court sets the following deadlines and makes the following
orders. The dates set forth in this order are firm dates and will not be extended or modified by this
court absent good cause. Lack of preparation will not ordinarily be considered good cause.

DUTIES BEFORE THE FINAL TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

MOTIONS IN LIMINE. All motions in limine shall be filed no later than 5:00 p.m. on
March 9, 2022. Written responses to motions in limine may be filed no later than 10 calendar days
after service of the motion. No replies shall be filed. The court may hear argument at the final trial
management conference or may rule without oral argument. The parties must comply with Ariz. R.
Civ. P. Rule 7.2(a) before filing any motion in limine.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

08/09/2021

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 3

JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT. The parties shall file with the court no later than 5:00
p.m. on April 1, 2022, a Joint Pretrial Statement, signed by all counsel (and any self-represented
party) and conforming in all respects to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 16(g), except as follows.

1.
List of Claims. The Joint Pretrial Statement shall contain a list of all claims (i.e.
claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party claims, etc.) on which a verdict is sought. Such list
shall specify (1) the cause of action (e.g. breach of contract, negligence, etc.), (2) the pleading and
count in which such cause of action is pled, (3) each party asserting that cause of action, and (4) each
party against whom relief is sought.

2.
Summary of the Case for Jury Selection. The Joint Pretrial Statement shall include
an agreed-upon brief (generally less than 200 words) summary of the case for jury selection purposes.

3.
Trial Exhibits. As required by Rule 16(g), all trial exhibits shall be listed in the Joint
Pretrial Statement along with objections. The court typically resolves objections to exhibits at trial,
but objections must be listed in the Joint Pretrial Statement to be preserved.

4.
Deposition Designations. As required by Rule 16(g), deposition designations and
objections shall be included in the Joint Pretrial Statement. The court typically does not rule on
objections to deposition designations at the final trial management conference. Rather, it resolves
them at trial as follows. By 3:00 p.m. the day before a party plans to read deposition testimony, that
party shall provide the court with a copy of the deposition transcript with the portions to be read
highlighted. The court will rule on any objections by the next day.

5.
Final Trial Witnesses. In addition, the Joint Pretrial Statement shall include an
exhibit entitled Final Trial Witness List, which shall list each witness a party actually intends to call
at trial, the day on which they intend to call that witness and the estimated time needed for direct,
cross and re-direct examination.

JURY INSTRUCTIONS; VOIR DIRE. The parties shall meet and agree on as many
proposed jury instructions as possible. The parties shall file with the court, with their Joint Pretrial
Statement, copies of:

1.
Proposed voir dire questions.

2.
Agreed-upon preliminary and final jury instructions and proposed forms of
verdicts.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

08/09/2021

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 4

3.
Separate sets of requested instructions that have not been agreed upon. Recommended
Arizona Jury Instructions (“RAJI”) may be referred to name without reprinting, but if the RAJI
contains options for the court the party should indicate which options it is requesting.

Jury instructions not requested by the final trial management conference will be deemed
waived unless good cause exists for the untimely request.

SETTLEMENT. The parties are reminded to promptly notify the court of any settlement
pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 5.1(d). One day’s jury fees will be assessed unless the court is notified of
settlement before 2:00 p.m. on the judicial day before the trial.

TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

At the final trial management conference, the parties shall be prepared to discuss:

1.
The claims and parties as to which a verdict is sought.

2.
The time designated for trial and, if necessary, time limits.

3.
Any scheduling or equipment issues.

4.
Voir dire.

5.
Any special issues regarding exhibits or deposition designations.

6.
Preliminary jury instructions.

7.
The case summary for jury selection purposes.

8.
Motions in limine.

9.
The potential for settlement before trial.

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTING EXHIBITS TO BE MARKED

Exhibits are due to the clerk no later than 3:00 p.m. on March 25, 2022. If you have any
questions, please contact the clerk at [email protected] or by telephone at 602.506.1474.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

08/09/2021

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 5

Bench Copies: Deliver hard copies of the exhibits (same due date as above) in a
notebook/binder and an exhibit list for the Judge into this division’s inbox at the entry to the
division’s courtroom. The exhibits need to be numbered with tabs.

Depositions will NOT be marked as exhibits. If you plan to read from a deposition or
use the deposition for impeachment purposes, you will need to supply an ORIGINAL to the
courtroom clerk for filing. Copies will not be filed with the clerk.

 A list with a generic description of each exhibit should be provided. The list should contain
the case number, the caption, scheduled trial date and the party submitting the exhibits.

 Exhibits will be marked numerically and consecutively, plaintiff’s first and defendant’s
second. If your list refers to an exhibit and it is not provided at the time of marking, the
numbers of all following exhibits will be moved up. In addition, if duplicate exhibits are
submitted, the clerk will remove the duplicate and the numbering will be adjusted
accordingly. To avoid confusion during trial, it is essential that counsel avoid submitting
duplicate exhibits. The clerk cannot reserve numbers for exhibits that will be provided
at a later date. Exhibits will be marked as they are received.

 Each exhibit shall be stapled. If an exhibit is too large to be stapled, that exhibit shall be
securely fastened in order to prevent page separation during witness/jury review.
(Note: Black binder clips are NOT considered securely fastened. I suggest you use
the silver two-prong fasteners).

 Exhibits should be separated by a colored sheet of paper or a tabbed divider sheet. The
colored sheet or tabbed divider shall reflect the number of the exhibit and should be placed
on top of the exhibit.

 Counsel shall submit for marking only those exhibits that they actually intend to use at
trial. If they determine during trial that they wish to use a document not previously marked
as an exhibit, the clerk can mark it at that time.

 Blow-ups and large items may only be used for demonstrative purposes. You may bring
them to court to use during trial; however, if you would like them to be marked as an
exhibit, please submit an 8 ½ x 11 photo of the item.

NOTICE: Exhibits Marked But Not Offered

Exhibits submitted to the court for an evidentiary hearing/trial, whether through hard copy
or submitted electronically, that are marked as exhibits but are not offered into evidence at the

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

08/09/2021

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 6

evidentiary hearing/trial will be destroyed following the hearing, unless a party requests that the
evidence be returned at the conclusion of the hearing. Such requests must be filed with the Court
and served on all parties in advance of the hearing or by no later than the conclusion of the hearing.

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.

FOR ALL IN-PERSON APPEARANCES: Due to the spread of COVID-19, the Arizona
Supreme Court Administrative Order 2021-109 and the Maricopa County Superior Court
Administrative Order 2021-119 require all individuals entering a court facility in Maricopa
County to wear a mask or face covering at all times that they are inside the facility. Any person
who refuses to wear a mask or face covering as directed by court personnel will be denied access
to the facility. If a participant is denied physical access to a courthouse for refusing to wear a
face covering, the participant must contact the assigned judicial division to determine whether
the person can participate in the proceeding using an audio or video connection.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/08/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

12/07/2020

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
K. Cabral

Deputy

MARYBETH ABODEELY
MARK W HORNE

v.

OASIS ASSOCIATION, THE, et al.
JEREMY C JOHNSON

JUDGE VIOLA

MINUTE ENTRY

Pursuant to the Amended Scheduling Order signed on December 7, 2020,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the virtual trial status /scheduling conference set on April 6,
2021 and resetting same on May 13, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes) for the purpose
of setting 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 hearing will be held via Court Connect (the Court’s new video-conference/remote
hearing platform). A link to join the hearing will be emailed in advance of the hearing. You may
visit https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect/ for more information regarding Court
Connect.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2020-001329

12/07/2020

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 2

The Court anticipates that the parties and the Court will call in to participate by
phone and video-conferencing is not required or expected.

Documents