01/03/2022 — CV2020001518 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, PALM VALLEY 01/03/2022 HONORABLE RICHARD ALBRECHT View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/05/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-001518
01/03/2022
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RICHARD ALBRECHT
J. Lizardi
Deputy
PALM VALLEY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ALLISON T PRESTON
v.
RHONDA ORR
RHONDA ORR
13578 W CYPRESS ST
GOODYEAR AZ 85395
COMM. RICHARD ALBRECHT
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom: ECB 813.
10:00 a.m. This is the time set for Order to Show Cause Hearing requiring Defendant,
Rhonda Orr, to appear and show cause why she should not be held in contempt for failing to
abide by this Court’s Order dated December 8, 2020. Plaintiff, Palm Valley Community
Association, is represented telephonically by counsel, Allison T. Preston. Defendant, Rhonda
Orr, is neither present nor represented by counsel. All participants are appearing via Microsoft
Teams/Court Connect. No other parties are present.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held.
Defendant having failed to appear,
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-001518
01/03/2022
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall lodge a proposed form of Judgment against the
Defendant in accordance with the information stated on the record.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Judgment against the Defendant, pending receipt
of Affidavit of Service and subject to the Court’s review of Plaintiff’s proposed form of
Judgment.
10:05 a.m. Matter concludes.
04/17/2020 — CV2020001518 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, PALM VALLEY 04/17/2020 HONORABLE MARGARET R. MAHONEY View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/20/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-001518
04/17/2020
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MARGARET R. MAHONEY
K. Ballard
Deputy
PALM VALLEY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ALLISON T PRESTON
v.
RHONDA ORR
RHONDA ORR
13578 W CYPRESS ST
GOODYEAR AZ 85395
COMM. GARBARINO
JUDGE MAHONEY
ORDER ENTERED BY COURT
This Court has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application for Entry of Default, filed 4/13/2020,
against Defendant Rhonda Orr in the above-captioned case.
IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this Division on the above-referenced
document(s).
The parties are advised that Commissioners handle Rule 55(b) Default Judgment
proceedings and that the default proceedings in this matter are to be heard by Commissioner
David Garbarino.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all documents necessary to support the entry of a
default judgment must be e-filed.
Pursuant to the Maricopa County e-Filing Guidelines, section 2.09, attorneys shall
electronically file all the documents required to request a default judgment, such as the Application
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-001518
04/17/2020
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
for Entry of Default, Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, Sum Certain Affidavit, and
Application for Attorneys’ Fees when appropriate and Statement of Costs, but shall submit a
default judgment packet required by the Court, including the documents identified on the default
judgment packet coversheet in paper to the assigned Commissioner’s Division. A Commissioner
will not act upon a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment until the default judgment packet with
all the required documents has been received by the Division in paper form.
The parties/counsel can find additional information in the form of frequently asked
questions at: http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/howDoI.asp
The parties/counsel can find additional information regarding the default judgment process
at: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/llrc/cv_cvc6/
05/27/2020 — CV2020001518 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, PALM VALLEY 05/27/2020 HONORABLE DAVID W. GARBARINO View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/15/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-001518
05/27/2020
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID W. GARBARINO
K. Cabral
Deputy
PALM VALLEY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ALLISON T PRESTON
v.
RHONDA ORR
RHONDA ORR
13578 W CYPRESS ST
GOODYEAR AZ 85395
COMM. GARBARINO
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom: ECB 812.
1:30 p.m. This is the time set for telephonic Default Hearing. Plaintiff, Palm Valley
Community Association, is represented by counsel, Allison T. Preston. Susie Lumley,
representative of the home owners association is also present telephonically. Defendant, Rhonda
Orr is present on her own behalf.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held regarding Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside or Dismiss filed May 16,
2020.
Counsel for Plaintiff requests the Motion be stricken.
For the reasons stated on the record,
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-001518
05/27/2020
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s request to strike the motion. Plaintiff shall file a
Response to the Motion within 10 days of today’s hearing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment
without prejudice at this time.
1:36 p.m. Matter concludes.
06/23/2020 — CV2020001518 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, PALM VALLEY 06/23/2020 HONORABLE MARGARET R. MAHONEY View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/24/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-001518
06/23/2020
Docket Code 025
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MARGARET R. MAHONEY
K. Ballard
Deputy
PALM VALLEY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ALLISON T PRESTON
v.
RHONDA ORR
RHONDA ORR
13578 W CYPRESS ST
GOODYEAR AZ 85395
JUDGE MAHONEY
CASE STATUS MINUTE ENTRY
ATTENTION SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS: Unless an attorney files a notice
that he or she represents a party, the person(s) not represented by an attorney will act as his or her
own attorney. The law requires the Court to hold all persons representing themselves to the
same standard as a licensed attorney. Kelly v. NationsBanc Mortgage Corp., 199 Ariz. 284,
287 (App. 2001); Homecraft Corp. v. Fimbres, 119 Ariz. 299, 301 (App. 1978). Self-represented
litigants are encouraged to review and become familiar with the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure,
paying particular attention to Rule 26. Please note that only a licensed attorney may represent
a corporation, LLC, or similar business entity in the Superior Court. Ramada Inns v. Lane &
Bird Advertising, 102 Ariz. 127, 426 P.2d 395 (1967).
Before the Judge can consider anything you send her, you must show her that you have
given a copy of your request:
1. To the Clerk of the Court. The Clerk of the Court is a separately elected official. It is
the Clerk’s job to keep an independent record of everything that happens at the Court.
The Court cannot act on a document that has not been made a part of that record; and
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-001518
06/23/2020
Docket Code 025
Form V000A
Page 2
2. To every other party involved in the case. This allows all parties a fair chance to tell the
Judge what they think before the Judge makes a decision.
Because of that, if you want the Judge to consider something you send her, you must file
the original document with the Clerk of the Superior Court, mail or deliver a copy directly to this
Division (that is, to the Judge, using her specific courtroom address), and mail or deliver a copy to
all opposing parties. In addition, on each document, you must include a signed certificate that says
whether you mailed or hand-delivered each copy, when you did so, and states the specific people
and the specific addresses to which you mailed or hand-delivered each copy. If a party is
represented by a lawyer, you must send or deliver the copy to the lawyer, not to the party. All
proposed Orders submitted to this Division in hard copy form must include copies of the Order
with self-addressed, stamped envelopes for all parties/counsel.
Do not mail or send papers for the Clerk or other parties to the Judge.
Information on filing documents with the Clerk of the Court can be found at:
https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/services/filings/filing-counters
Information on eFiling documents with the Clerk of Court can be found at:
https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/records/filings
Additionally, information regarding eFiling in civil cases can be found at:
https://www.azcourts.gov/efilinginformation
If you are not represented by a lawyer, you must keep the Court updated regarding your
current address and telephone number. If your address or phone number changes at any time, you
must file a notice of change of address/phone number with the Clerk of Court. That form can be
downloaded at no charge from the following website:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/LawLibraryResourceCenter/
Alternatively, you may purchase printed forms at any of the following Superior Court
Law Library Resource Center locations (Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.):
Downtown Phoenix Facility
Southeast Facility
East Court Building
222 E. Javelina Ave.
101 W. Jefferson St.
Mesa, AZ 85210-6201
Phoenix, AZ 85003-2243
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-001518
06/23/2020
Docket Code 025
Form V000A
Page 3
Northeast Court Facility
Northwest Regional Center
18380 N. 40th Street
14264 W. Tierra Buena Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85032
Surprise, AZ 85374
ALERT: 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 while 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.
PLEASE NOTE: This Division requires that all motions, responses, replies and other
Court 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 filing
will be accepted if filed in combination with another. Additionally, all filings shall be fully
self-contained and shall not “incorporate by reference” other, separate filings for review and
consideration as part of the pending filing.
10/07/2020 — CV2020001518 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, PALM VALLEY 10/07/2020 HONORABLE MARGARET R. MAHONEY View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/08/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-001518
10/07/2020
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MARGARET R. MAHONEY
K. Ballard
Deputy
PALM VALLEY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ALLISON T PRESTON
v.
RHONDA ORR
RHONDA ORR
13578 W CYPRESS ST
GOODYEAR AZ 85395
COMM. GARBARINO
JUDGE MAHONEY
RULING
The Court has considered Defendant Rhonda Orr’s (“Defendant”) filing entitled Breach of
Contract, filed 5/16/2020, which is in substance a Motion to Set Aside or Dismiss The Case (see
first sentence of the filing) (hereinafter, the “Motion”), and Plaintiff Palm Valley Community
Association’s (“Plaintiff”) Response to same (“Response”), filed 7/31/2020. No Reply has been
filed.
The Response is in large part a motion for reconsideration of matters that were presented
to and heard by another Judicial Officer, Commissioner David Garbarino. Commissioner
Garbarino held a default hearing on 5/27/2020, at which the parties appeared telephonically. At
the default hearing, Plaintiff was represented by Counsel Allison Preston, while Defendant
represented herself.
In the Response, Plaintiff repeatedly (on 6 of the 7 pages of the Response) argues that
Commissioner Garbarino incorrectly set aside Plaintiff’s entry of default, as he did so sua sponte,
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-001518
10/07/2020
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
with no Rule 60(b) motion from Defendant pending, and therefore the entry of default should be
reinstated and Plaintiff is entitled to a default judgment against Defendant.
This Court has read the Minute Entry from the 5/27/2020 default hearing but cannot
determine what occurred as the Minute Entry does not provide sufficient or specific details as to
who argued what, how and when, nor could this Court know what Commissioner Garbarino was
thinking in making his ruling. It is unclear why Plaintiff did not file a Motion for Reconsideration
with Commissioner Garbarino. However, in any event, another Judicial Officer cannot entertain
the types of arguments Plaintiff makes in its Response as this Court was not the Court presiding
over the proceeding with which Plaintiff takes issue in the Response.
Accordingly, this Court respectfully requests that Commissioner Garbarino rule on
the Motion and Response identified above for the reasons discussed.
The Court has also considered Defendant’s separate filing entitled Home Exterior Colors
Breach of Contract, filed 7/30/2020, and Plaintiff’s Response to same, filed 8/3/2020. Plaintiff
argues in this Response that Defendant is conflating two separate disputes as the Complaint in this
cause relates only to an alleged violation of the CC&R’s and Design Guidelines relative to the
color Defendant painted her house. Plaintiff states that it is not seeking to recover in this lawsuit
an unpaid balance on Defendant’s account with the HOA but that issue is in fact being handled by
a different law firm separate and apart from this lawsuit.
No Reply has been filed and thus the Court accepts Plaintiff’s uncontested description of
the two matters. On that basis, IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s filing entitled Home
Exterior Colors Breach of Contract, filed 7/30/2020.
PLEASE NOTE: This Division requires that all motions, responses, replies and other
Court 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 filing
will be accepted if filed in combination with another. Additionally, all filings shall be fully
self-contained and shall not “incorporate by reference” other, separate filings for review and
consideration as part of the pending filing.
ALERT: 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 while 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
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-001518
10/07/2020
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3
screening protocol. Any person who does not pass the health screening protocol will be denied
entrance to the Court facility.
ATTENTION SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS: Unless an attorney files a notice
that he or she represents a party, the person(s) not represented by an attorney will act as his or her
own attorney. The law requires the Court to hold all persons representing themselves to the
same standard as a licensed attorney. Kelly v. NationsBanc Mortgage Corp., 199 Ariz. 284,
287 (App. 2001); Homecraft Corp. v. Fimbres, 119 Ariz. 299, 301 (App. 1978). Self-represented
litigants are encouraged to review and become familiar with the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure,
paying particular attention to Rule 26. Please note that only a licensed attorney may represent
a corporation, LLC, or similar business entity in the Superior Court. Ramada Inns v. Lane &
Bird Advertising, 102 Ariz. 127, 426 P.2d 395 (1967).
Before the Judge can consider anything you send her, you must show her that you have
given a copy of your request:
1. To the Clerk of the Court. The Clerk of the Court is a separately elected official. It is
the Clerk’s job to keep an independent record of everything that happens at the Court.
The Court cannot act on a document that has not been made a part of that record; and
2. To every other party involved in the case. This allows all parties a fair chance to tell the
Judge what they think before the Judge makes a decision.
Because of that, if you want the Judge to consider something you send her, you must file
the original document with the Clerk of the Superior Court, mail or deliver a copy directly to this
Division (that is, to the Judge, using her specific courtroom address), and mail or deliver a copy to
all opposing parties. In addition, on each document, you must include a signed certificate that says
whether you mailed or hand-delivered each copy, when you did so, and states the specific people
and the specific addresses to which you mailed or hand-delivered each copy. If a party is
represented by a lawyer, you must send or deliver the copy to the lawyer, not to the party. All
proposed Orders submitted to this Division in hard copy form must include copies of the Order
with self-addressed, stamped envelopes for all parties/counsel.
Do not mail or send papers for the Clerk or other parties to the Judge.
Information on filing documents with the Clerk of the Court can be found at:
https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/services/filings/filing-counters
Information on eFiling documents with the Clerk of Court can be found at:
https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/records/filings
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-001518
10/07/2020
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 4
Additionally, information regarding eFiling in civil cases can be found at:
https://www.azcourts.gov/efilinginformation
If you are not represented by a lawyer, you must keep the Court updated regarding your
current address and telephone number. If your address or phone number changes at any time, you
must file a notice of change of address/phone number with the Clerk of Court. That form can be
downloaded at no charge from the following website:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/LawLibraryResourceCenter/
Alternatively, you may purchase printed forms at any of the following Superior Court
Law Library Resource Center locations (Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.):
Downtown Phoenix Facility
Southeast Facility
East Court Building
222 E. Javelina Ave.
101 W. Jefferson St.
Mesa, AZ 85210-6201
Phoenix, AZ 85003-2243
Northeast Court Facility
Northwest Regional Center
18380 N. 40th Street
14264 W. Tierra Buena Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85032
Surprise, AZ 85374
10/21/2020 — CV2020001518 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, PALM VALLEY 10/21/2020 HONORABLE DAVID W. GARBARINO View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/22/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-001518
10/21/2020
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID W. GARBARINO
L. Brown
Deputy
PALM VALLEY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ALLISON T PRESTON
v.
RHONDA ORR
RHONDA ORR
13578 W CYPRESS ST
GOODYEAR AZ 85395
COMM. GARBARINO
JUDGE KEMP
MINUTE ENTRY
On May 27, 2020, this Division (Downtown Civil Commissioner Division –
Garbarino) held a default judgment hearing in this matter (the “May 27th Hearing”). At
the time of the May 27th Hearing, default against Defendant Rhonda Orr had been
effective since April 27, 2020. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Nevertheless, on May 16, 2020,
Ms. Orr filed a document titled “Breach of Contract” seeking to “set aside or dismiss this
case” (the “Motion to Dismiss”). Accordingly, prior to the default judgment hearing, the
record reflected an appearance by Ms. Orr and an attempt to defend against the
Complaint, to have the matter dismissed, and/or to have something set aside. Neither the
Court nor Plaintiff became aware of the Motion to Dismiss until just prior to the May 27th
Hearing.
As a general practice, this Division refers all matters back to the assigned Judge if,
after entry of default, but before entry of default judgment, a Defendant has filed a
written answer, motion to dismiss, or motion to set aside entry of default. At the May 27th
Hearing, the Court explained this practice to the parties. Plaintiff Palm Valley
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-001518
10/21/2020
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
Community Association (the “Association”) made an oral motion to strike Ms. Orr’s
filing. The Court denied the oral motion to strike without prejudice as the assigned Judge
typically handles such motions, and informed the Association that it could file a written
motion to strike. The Court gave the Association time to respond to the Motion to
Dismiss. Finally, the Court denied the Association’s Motion for Entry of Default
Judgment and Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. The Court took no further
action.
The Association did not file a motion for reconsideration or a motion to strike the
Motion to Dismiss. Instead, on July 31, 2020,1 the Association filed Response to the
Motion to Dismiss (the “Response”) asking the Court to (1) deny the Motion to Dismiss
and (2) reinstate entry of default against Ms. Orr. The Response does not ask the Court to
strike the Motion to Dismiss. Ms. Orr did not file a reply in support of her Motion to
Dismiss. In the meantime, Ms. Orr filed a second document titled “Home Exterior Colors
Breach of Contract” on July 30th asking the Court for mediation or other remedy. The
Association responded, asking the Court to deny the requested relief or to strike that
document. The parties’ filings prompted review by the assigned Judge. Although
Commissioners usually do not resolve prejudgment motions to dismiss, the assigned
Judge requested the assigned Commissioner to do so in this case. This is the Court’s
decision.
As to the request for dismissal, Ms. Orr has not demonstrated that the Complaint
should be dismissed. Ms. Orr does not identify any factual or legal basis in support of her
request. Further, the Motion to Dismiss was untimely. Accordingly, the Court denies Ms.
Orr’s request that the Court dismiss the Complaint.
As to the Association’s request that the Court reinstate entry of default, the Court
denies the request. The Association claims that “Commission [sic] Garbarino, sua sponte,
set aside the Association’s entry of default, and referred the parties back to the trial
court.” (Resp. at 2:9-10.) This is incorrect. There is no order of the Court that set aside
default. The Court reviewed the FTR recording of the May 27th Hearing and confirmed
that the Court did not set aside the default. In fact, Ms. Orr is still in default as of the date
of this decision. The Court cannot undo what was never done. Accordingly, the Court
denies the Association’s request that the Court reinstate entry of default.
1 The parties’ stipulated to an extension of time for the Association to file its response.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-001518
10/21/2020
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3
As to Ms. Orr’s request to “set aside,” Ms. Orr has not demonstrated what she
wants set aside. Assuming arguendo that Ms. Orr is asking the Court to set aside default,
Ms. Orr has not demonstrated any factual or legal basis that would justify setting aside
the default. Accordingly, the Court denies Ms. Orr’s request that the Court “set aside.”
The Court further finds that the Motion to Dismiss was untimely, and should be stricken
from the record.
In addition to Ms. Orr’s July 30th filing, Ms. Orr has since filed two additional
documents: (1) titled “Civil Contract” on October 13, 2020, and (2) titled “Home Exterior
Colors Breach of Contract” filed on October 14, 2020. Not one of these three documents
asserts any factual or legal basis for relief. Accordingly, all requests for relief therein are
hereby denied, and the documents are stricken from the record.
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS ORDERED denying Ms. Orr’s request that the Complaint be dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Ms. Orr’s request to “set aside.”
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Association’s request that default be
reinstated.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking the Motion to Dismiss as untimely.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the relief requested in these three
documents filed by Ms. Orr: (1) the document titled “Home Exterior Colors Breach of
Contract” filed on July 30th; (2) the document titled “Civil Contract” filed on October 13,
2020; and (3) the document titled “Home Exterior Colors Breach of Contract” filed on
October 14, 2020.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking these three documents filed by Ms. Orr: (1)
the document titled “Home Exterior Colors Breach of Contract” filed on July 30th; (2) the
document titled “Civil Contract” filed on October 13, 2020; and (3) the document titled
“Home Exterior Colors Breach of Contract” filed on October 14, 2020.
.
