Holding HOA Boards, Attorneys, and Management Companies Accountable
Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2020-092936
Case Header
Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2020-092936: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Silverton Deer Village Homeowners Association Inc.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/11/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
04/10/2023
Docket Code 375
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
K. Tiero
Deputy
SILVERTON DEER VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
MARK W WALDRON
v.
JANET DEFINE
MICHAEL S DEFINE
HAVEN LEE DOVE
CHAD M GALLACHER
SCOTT B HUMBLE
JUDGE COFFEY
DISMISSAL CALENDAR
MINUTE ENTRY
A Notice of Settlement has been received.
IT IS ORDERED placing this case on the Court’s Dismissal calendar for dismissal,
without further notice, on June 12, 2023. Unless a stipulated judgment or a stipulation for
dismissal, along with a proposed form of order, is submitted prior to that date, or the Court
otherwise extends the deadline for good cause shown, all remaining claims and parties will be
dismissed.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/03/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
06/02/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JANICE CRAWFORD
V. Felix
Deputy
SILVERTON DEER VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
MARK W WALDRON
v.
JANET DEFINE
MICHAEL S DEFINE
FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL
ARIZONA L L C
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
DIRECT ACCESS LEGAL SERVICES
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
MAXWELL AND MORGAN P C
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
COMM. KAISER
JUDGE CRAWFORD
MINUTE ENTRY
This Court has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application/Motion for Default against
defendant(s), Direct Access Legal Services, 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 Brian
Kaiser.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
06/02/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
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 eFiling Guidelines, section 2.09, attorneys shall
electronically file all the documents required to request a default judgment, such as the Application
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 and
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/llrc/cv_cvc6/
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/03/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
06/02/2021
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JANICE CRAWFORD
V. Felix
Deputy
SILVERTON DEER VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
MARK W WALDRON
v.
JANET DEFINE
MICHAEL S DEFINE
FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL
ARIZONA L L C
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
DIRECT ACCESS LEGAL SERVICES
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
MAXWELL AND MORGAN P C
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
COMM. KAISER
JUDGE CRAWFORD
MINUTE ENTRY
This Court has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application/Motion for Default against
defendant(s), Maxwell and Morgan, P.C., 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 Brian
Kaiser.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
06/02/2021
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
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 eFiling Guidelines, section 2.09, attorneys shall
electronically file all the documents required to request a default judgment, such as the Application
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 and
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/llrc/cv_cvc6/
06/09/2021 — CV2020092936 DEFINE, JANET 06/09/2021 HONORABLE BRIAN D. KAISER View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/10/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
06/09/2021
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE BRIAN D. KAISER
S. Dickinson
Deputy
SILVERTON DEER VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
MARK W WALDRON
v.
JANET DEFINE
MICHAEL S DEFINE
FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL
ARIZONA L L C
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
HAVEN LEE DOVE
MAXWELL AND MORGAN P C
PIERPOINT COMMERCE CNETER
4854 E BASELINE RD STE 104
MESA AZ 85206
COMM. KAISER
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court is in receipt of Third Party Plaintiff’s Application for Default filed May 25,
2021.
THE COURT NOTES the Default packet is incomplete. Third Party Plaintiff is
directed to submit a complete Default packet.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/14/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
06/10/2021
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JANICE CRAWFORD
V. Felix
Deputy
SILVERTON DEER VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
MARK W WALDRON
v.
JANET DEFINE
MICHAEL S DEFINE
FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL
ARIZONA L L C
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
HAVEN LEE DOVE
MAXWELL AND MORGAN P C
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
JUDGE CRAWFORD
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court having received Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate filed on April 26, 2021,
Defendant’s Response to Motion to Consolidate filed on May 17, 2021, and Plaintiff’s Reply in
Support of Motion to Consolidate filed on May 24, 2021,
IT IS ORDERED setting an Oral Argument on July 23, 2021, at 10:30 a.m. (allotted time:
30 minutes) before Judge Janice Crawford. The hearing shall be held virtually through Court
Connect. All parties and their counsel will be provided with the Court Connect link invitation in
advance of the hearing.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
06/10/2021
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
Judge Crawford’s Remote Courtroom
Hearings will be held via video conference through Court Connect utilizing the Microsoft Teams
application. An invite to the hearing will be sent out to the email on file for each party or counsel
of record. It is the party’s responsibility to ensure receipt of the invitation prior to the hearing
date. The information is included below as well:
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://www.tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj05
You can also dial in using your phone.
Teams Phone Number: +1 (917) 781-4590 Access Code: 916 796 193#
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS IN ADVANCE OF YOUR
SCHEDULED HEARING
(1) Court Connect Invitation: An invitation to join the video conference will be provided via
email. If you do not receive the invitation via email within 3 business days before your
hearing, email this division at [email protected] and request an
invitation to the hearing.
(2) Downloading & Testing Software: Upon your receipt of the invitation, click on the link
provided to download the Microsoft Teams application software. The software can be
downloaded via a computer, smart phone, or other smart device. You should ensure that you
download the application software on the device you intend to use at the actual hearing.
Ensure that device has a microphone and webcam (most laptops, smart phones, and Ipads
already do).
New to Microsoft Teams? Get the app now and be ready when your first meeting starts:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/microsoft-teams/group-chat-software
(3) Admonitions:
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
06/10/2021
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 3
a. You are responsible for ensuring that you have downloaded the Microsoft Teams
software in advance of the hearing. In the event that you have any technical issues
with the software or access to a device, you must contact this division in advance so
that we can assist you in resolving any such issues.
b. You are responsible for ensuring that you provide your clients (if represented) and any
third-party witnesses with a copy of the link so that they can testify during the hearing
without delay.
c. You must ensure that you have access to a quiet, secure room during the hearing that
is free from audio and visual distractions.
Public Access for Observers: More information regarding Court Connect can be found at:
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect/
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 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 ante el cual
comparece está sometido a una evaluación se le enviará por correo electrónico una encuesta que
usted podrá tomar por Internet. 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 ***
06/12/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
06/11/2020
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JANICE CRAWFORD
V. Felix
Deputy
SILVERTON DEER VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
MARK W WALDRON
v.
JANET DEFINE
JANET DEFINE
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
COMM. LYNCH
JUDGE CRAWFORD
MINUTE ENTRY
This Court has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application/Motion for Default against
defendant(s), Janet Define, 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
Steven Lynch.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all documents necessary to support the entry of a
default judgment must be e-filed.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
06/11/2020
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
Pursuant to the Maricopa County eFiling Guidelines, section 2.09, attorneys shall
electronically file all the documents required to request a default judgment, such as the Application
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 and
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/llrc/cv_cvc6/
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/30/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
CV 2021-090259
07/23/2021
Docket Code 053
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
K. Tiero
Deputy
SILVERTON DEER VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
MARK W WALDRON
v.
JANET DEFINE
MICHAEL S DEFINE
HAVEN LEE DOVE
CHAD M GALLACHER
SCOTT B HUMBLE
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK
DOCKET-CIVIL-SE
JUDGE COFFEY
JUDGE THOMPSON
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom 205 - SEA
10:32 a.m. This is the time set for Telephonic Oral Argument on Plaintiff’s Motion to
Consolidate filed April 26, 2021. Counsel, Chad Gallacher, is present on behalf of Plaintiff(s),
who is not present. Counsel, Michael Define, Scott Humble and H. Lee Dove, are present on
behalf of Defendant(s), who are not present.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Argument is held.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
CV 2021-090259
07/23/2021
Docket Code 053
Form V000A
Page 2
Based upon the matters presented,
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED consolidating cause numbers CV2020-092936 and
CV2021-090259 under cause number CV2020-092936 for all further proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED transferring this cause to the Honorable Rodrick Coffey
for all further proceedings.
10:54 a.m. Matter concludes.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/03/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
07/30/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
K. Tiero
Deputy
SILVERTON DEER VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
MARK W WALDRON
v.
JANET DEFINE
MICHAEL S DEFINE
HAVEN LEE DOVE
CHAD M GALLACHER
SCOTT B HUMBLE
JUDGE COFFEY
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has considered Third-Party Defendant, Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.’s (“M&M”)
Motion to Dismiss Third Party Complaint Against Defendant Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.; Third-
Party Plaintiff, Janet DeFine’s Response to that Motion and M&M’s Reply in support of its
Motion.
Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted are not
favored. Archer v. CSO Cehvira, 188 Ariz. 252, 934 P.2d 816 (App. 1997). When considering
such motions the Court must: 1) limit its consideration to the factual allegations that have been
pled; 2) assume the truth of those allegations while considering all reasonable inferences
therefrom; and 3) dismiss only if the non-moving party is entitled to no relief as a matter of law
on any interpretation of the alleged facts. Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 189 P.3d
344 (2008). Moreover, all material allegations are taken as true and read in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party. Logan v. Forever Living Products Int’l, Inc., 203 Ariz. 191, 52 P.3d 760
(2002). When considering motions to dismiss, the Court does not weigh the evidence or dismiss
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
07/30/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
claims simply because it seems unlikely that the party asserting the claim will prevail at an eventual
trial on the merits.
M&M first argues that the claims against it should be dismissed because the Third-Party
Complaint was not timely served. Rule 4(i) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
If a defendant is not served with process within 90 days after the complaint is
filed, the court--on motion, or on its own after notice to the plaintiff--must
dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service
be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the
failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.
M&M was served more than 90 days after the Third-Party Complaint was filed. However,
“under Rule 4(i), a trial court has the authority to extend the period for service without a showing
of good cause.” Sholem v. Gass in & for Cty. of Maricopa, 248 Ariz. 281, 287, 460 P.3d 273, 279
(2020). “In determining whether to grant a discretionary extension, courts have considered several
factors, including whether: (1) the applicable statute of limitations bars the plaintiff from re-filing
the action; (2) the defendant evaded service; and (3) the defendant would be prejudiced if the court
grants the extension.” Id. at 290, 460 P.3d at 282. Nothing in the record indicates that: 1) any
applicable statutes of limitations would bar the refiling of any of the pending claims; 2) M&M
evaded service; or 3) M&M would be prejudiced if the Court extends the deadline for serving
M&M. Indeed, M&M received a copy of the Third-Party Complaint months before M&M was
formally served with it. At the same time, Third-Party Plaintiff has not shown good cause for her
failure to timely serve M&M. After considering all of those factors, the Court will exercise its
discretion to extend the deadline for serving M&M to the date on which M&M was actually
served. As a result, M&M cannot prevail on its request for dismissal on the grounds that the claims
against it are time barred under Rule 4(i).
M&M also argues that Third-Party Plaintiff’s claims against it, which arise out of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. are time barred by the one
year statute of limitations provision of that statute. M&M acknowledges that the discovery rule
applies to claims arising under the FDCPA. It is unclear to the Court precisely when Third-Party
Plaintiff knew of the filing of the lawsuit that gives rise to her claims. Because that issue remains
unresolved and because the Court cannot determine whether any events alleged in the Third-Party
Complaint arose less than one year after the Third-Party Complaint was filed, the Court declines
to dismiss the FDCPA claim against M&M under the applicable statute of limitations. M&M’s
argument that the FDCPA does not apply because Third-Party Plaintiff was a landlord also fails
because there is nothing in the Third-Party Complaint establishing that as a fact.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
07/30/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3
“[T]o establish a claim for abuse of process there must be a showing that the defendant has
(1) used a legal process against the plaintiff; (2) primarily to accomplish a purpose for which the
process was not designed; and, (3) harm has been caused to the plaintiff by such misuse of
process.” Nienstedt v. Wetzel, 133 Ariz. 348, 353, 651 P.2d 876, 881 (App. 1982). “It is
immaterial that the process may have been properly obtained or issued as a normal incident of the
litigation involved. It is the subsequent misuse which constitutes the misconduct for which liability
is imposed.” Id. The Third-Party Complaint alleges sufficient facts, which, if proven true, could
warrant a judgment in favor of Third-Party Plaintiff. Whether M&M used the legal process
primarily to accomplish a purpose for which the process was not designed is a factual issue that
cannot be resolved through a motion to dismiss.
“Slander of title requires proof of ‘the uttering and publication of the slanderous words by
the defendant, the falsity of the words, malice and special damages.’ Malice, a required element
of the claim, means acting ‘from improper motives or without reasonable belief in the efficacy of
the claim.’” SWC Baseline & Crismon Invs., L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. P'ship, 228 Ariz. 271,
287, 265 P.3d 1070, 1086 (App. 2011) (internal citations omitted). Like the abuse of process claim,
this claim involves disputes issues of fact. The Court agrees that the purpose of a lis pendens is to
give notice that a party is disputing title in real property. But, if a lis pendens is recorded for an
improper purpose, that can give rise to a claim against the party who recorded it.
For all of those reasons,
IT IS ORDERED denying M&M’s Motion to Dismiss Third Party Complaint Against
Defendant Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
08/05/2020 — CV2020092936 DEFINE, JANET 08/05/2020 HONORABLE STEVEN P. LYNCH View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/06/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
08/05/2020
Docket Code 004
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE STEVEN P. LYNCH
S. Cheney
Deputy
SILVERTON DEER VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
MARK W WALDRON
v.
JANET DEFINE
MICHAEL S DEFINE
COMM. LYNCH
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom 303 – SEA
9:06 a.m. This is the time set for Default Judgment Hearing. Counsel, Rod Sauaia,
appears telephonically on behalf of Plaintiff. Counsel, Michael Define, appears telephonically
on behalf of Defendant.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT prior to the commencement of today’s proceeding,
Rod Sauaia is sworn.
The Court is in receipt of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to A.R.C.P, Rule
12(b)(6) filed August 4, 2020 and Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Default Hearing Scheduled for
August 5, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. filed August 4, 2020.
Discussion is held.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
08/05/2020
Docket Code 004
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED continuing the Default Hearing from this date to August 31, 2020 at
10:00 a.m. (1 hour allotted) in this Division, Southeast Court Facility, 222 E. Javelina Avenue,
Courtroom 303, Mesa, Arizona 85210.
In response to the COVID-19 virus, the Court is limiting the amount of people in the
courthouse. With that being said, Commissioner Lynch’s division is allowing the Default
Hearing to be telephonic. Please call the division on August 31, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. at: 602-
506-9695 and you will be prompted to enter a code which is 290623. Please call the division 5
minutes before your hearing.
IT IS ORDERED deferring ruling on these Motions.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Counsel to notify the Court if an agreement has
been reached.
9:10 a.m. Hearing concludes.
All parties representing themselves must keep the Court updated with address changes.
A form may be downloaded at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/LawLibraryResourceCenter/
PLEASE NOTE: For digital copies or transcripts of any recorded proceedings a
Request for Daily Copy may be made here: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/e-courtrooms/
For electronic and in-person exhibit submission, please visit,
https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/services/exhibits-submission. The webpage will provide
instructions and guidance for electronic submission as well as locations for in-person submission
of exhibits.
NOTE: All court proceedings are recorded digitally and not by a court
reporter. Pursuant to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any
proceeding in which a court reporter is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30,
the party must submit a written request to the assigned judicial officer at least ten (10)
judicial days in advance of the hearing, and must pay the authorized fee to the Clerk of the
Court at least two (2) judicial days before the proceeding. The fee is $140 for a half-day
and $280 for a full day.
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
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
08/05/2020
Docket Code 004
Form V000A
Page 3
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 ***
08/31/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
08/30/2023
Docket Code 042
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
K. Tiero
Deputy
SILVERTON DEER VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
MARK W WALDRON
v.
JANET DEFINE
MICHAEL S DEFINE
HAVEN LEE DOVE
CHAD M GALLACHER
SCOTT B HUMBLE
JUDGE COFFEY
CASE DISMISSED
MINUTE ENTRY
Pursuant to the order filed June 14, 2023, and nothing further having been filed,
IT IS ORDERED dismissing this matter without prejudice, as to all parties and claims.
08/31/2020 — CV2020092936 DEFINE, JANET 08/31/2020 HONORABLE STEVEN P. LYNCH View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/01/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
08/31/2020
Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE STEVEN P. LYNCH
S. Cheney
Deputy
SILVERTON DEER VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
MARK W WALDRON
v.
JANET DEFINE
MICHAEL S DEFINE
COMM. LYNCH
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom 303 – SEA
10:02 a.m. This is the time set for a continued Default Hearing. Counsel, Chad
Gallacher, appears telephonically on behalf of Plaintiff. Counsel, Michael Define, appears
telephonically on behalf of Defendant.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held regarding Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to A.R.C.P, Rule
12(b)(6) filed August 4, 2020.
Argument is presented to the Court.
For the reasons stated on the record,
IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
08/31/2020
Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting Evidentiary Hearing on September 22, 2020 at
10:00 a.m. (2 hours allotted) in this Division, Southeast Court Facility, 222 E. Javelina Avenue,
Courtroom 303, Mesa, Arizona 85210.
In response to the COVID-19 virus, the Court is limiting the amount of people in the
courthouse. With that being said, Commissioner Lynch’s division is allowing the Evidentiary
Hearing to be telephonic. Please call the division on September 22, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. at: 602-
506-9695 and you will be prompted to enter a code which is 290623. Please call the division 5
minutes before your hearing.
The parties are advised to notify the Court if an agreement has been reached.
10:40 a.m. Hearing concludes.
For electronic and in-person exhibit submission, please visit,
https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/services/exhibits-submission. The webpage will provide
instructions and guidance for electronic submission as well as locations for in-person submission
of exhibits.
All parties representing themselves must keep the Court updated with address changes.
A form may be downloaded at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/LawLibraryResourceCenter/
PLEASE NOTE: For digital copies or transcripts of any recorded proceedings a
Request for Daily Copy may be made here: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/e-courtrooms/
NOTE: All court proceedings are recorded digitally and not by a court
reporter. Pursuant to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any
proceeding in which a court reporter is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30,
the party must submit a written request to the assigned judicial officer at least ten (10)
judicial days in advance of the hearing, and must pay the authorized fee to the Clerk of the
Court at least two (2) judicial days before the proceeding. The fee is $140 for a half-day
and $280 for a full day.
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
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
08/31/2020
Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 3
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.
09/22/2020 — CV2020092936 DEFINE, JANET 09/22/2020 HONORABLE STEVEN P. LYNCH View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/23/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
09/22/2020
Docket Code 003
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE STEVEN P. LYNCH
S. Cheney
Deputy
SILVERTON DEER VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
MARK W WALDRON
v.
JANET DEFINE
MICHAEL S DEFINE
CHAD M GALLACHER
COMM. LYNCH
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom 303 – SEA
10:03 a.m. This is the time set for Evidentiary Hearing. Counsel, Chad Gallacher,
appears telephonically on behalf of Plaintiff. Counsel, Michael Define, appears telephonically
on behalf of Defendant.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Court and Counsel discuss matters. Counsel advise the Court settlement discussions are
ongoing.
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties,
IT IS ORDERED vacating Evidentiary Hearing set this date and resetting same to
October 28, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (2 hours allotted) in this Division, Southeast Court Facility,
222 E. Javelina Avenue, Courtroom 303, Mesa, Arizona 85210.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
09/22/2020
Docket Code 003
Form V000A
Page 2
In response to the COVID-19 virus, the Court is limiting the amount of people in the
courthouse. With that being said, Commissioner Lynch’s division is allowing the Evidentiary
Hearing to be telephonic. Please call the division on October 28, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. at: 602-
506-9695 and you will be prompted to enter a code which is 290623. Please call the division 5
minutes before your hearing.
10:06 a.m. Hearing concludes.
For electronic and in-person exhibit submission, please visit,
https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/services/exhibits-submission. The webpage will provide
instructions and guidance for electronic submission as well as locations for in-person submission
of exhibits.
All parties representing themselves must keep the Court updated with address changes.
A form may be downloaded at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/LawLibraryResourceCenter/
PLEASE NOTE: For digital copies or transcripts of any recorded proceedings a
Request for Daily Copy may be made here: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/e-courtrooms/
NOTE: All court proceedings are recorded digitally and not by a court
reporter. Pursuant to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any
proceeding in which a court reporter is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30,
the party must submit a written request to the assigned judicial officer at least ten (10)
judicial days in advance of the hearing, and must pay the authorized fee to the Clerk of the
Court at least two (2) judicial days before the proceeding. The fee is $140 for a half-day
and $280 for a full day.
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 ***
10/10/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
10/06/2023
Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
I. Ostrander
Deputy
SILVERTON DEER VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
MARK W WALDRON
v.
JANET DEFINE
MICHAEL S DEFINE
HAVEN LEE DOVE
CHAD M GALLACHER
SCOTT B HUMBLE
JUDGE COFFEY
ORDER SIGNED
The Court is in receipt of the parties’ Stipulation to Reinstate filed on September 25, 2023.
IT IS ORDERED adopting as an order of the Court the parties’ stipulation, all in
accordance with the formal written Order of Reinstatement signed by the Court on October 4,
2023, and filed (entered) by the clerk on October 6, 2023.
Please note: The Court has signed a paper copy of the order that was originally provided
electronically. After the order has been scanned and docketed by the Clerk of Court, copies of this
order will be available through the ECR online at www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov or through the
public access terminals at the Clerk of Court’s offices located throughout Maricopa County.
10/28/2020 — CV2020092936 DEFINE, JANET 10/28/2020 HONORABLE STEVEN P. LYNCH View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/30/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
10/28/2020
Docket Code 004
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE STEVEN P. LYNCH
S. Cheney
Deputy
SILVERTON DEER VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
MARK W WALDRON
v.
JANET DEFINE
MICHAEL S DEFINE
CHAD M GALLACHER
RODRIGO V SAUAIA
COMM. LYNCH
MINUTE ENTRY
Prior to the commencement of today’s proceeding, Plaintiff’s exhibits 1-13 are marked
for identification.
Courtroom 303 – SEA
10:03 a.m. This is the time set for Evidentiary Hearing. Counsel, Chad Gallacher and
Rodrigo Sauaia, appear telephonically on behalf of Plaintiff. Counsel, Michael Define, appears
telephonically on behalf of Defendant, Janet Define, who also appears telephonically.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Court and Counsel discuss matters.
Plaintiff’s case:
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
10/28/2020
Docket Code 004
Form V000A
Page 2
Jonathan Sweat is sworn and testifies.
Court and Counsel discuss matters further
To allow time for Plaintiff to file a Response to Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, and
Defendant file a Reply,
IT IS ORDERED continuing the Evidentiary Hearing to November 20, 2020 at 9:00
a.m. (3 hours allotted) in this Division, Southeast Court Facility, 222 E. Javelina Avenue,
Courtroom 303, Mesa, Arizona 85210. The Court will also hear oral argument on the Motion at
this time.
CV2020-092936 (Define)
Fri, Nov 20, 2020 9:00 AM - 1:00 PM (MST)
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/420279829
You can also dial in using your phone.
United States (Toll Free): 1 866 899 4679
United States: +1 (571) 317-3116
Access Code: 420-279-829
Join from a video-conferencing room or system.
Dial in or type: 67.217.95.2 or inroomlink.goto.com
Meeting ID: 420 279 829
Or dial directly: [email protected] or 67.217.95.2##420279829
New to GoToMeeting? Get the app now and be ready when your first meeting starts:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/install/420279829
LET THE RECORD REFLECT the deadline for Plaintiff to file a Response is
November 11, 2020.
10:29 a.m. Court stands in recess until November 20, 2020 at 9:00 a.m.
All parties representing themselves must keep the Court updated with address changes.
A form may be downloaded at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/LawLibraryResourceCenter/
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
10/28/2020
Docket Code 004
Form V000A
Page 3
PLEASE NOTE: For digital copies or transcripts of any recorded proceedings a
Request for Daily Copy may be made here: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/e-courtrooms/
NOTE: All court proceedings are recorded digitally and not by a court
reporter. Pursuant to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any
proceeding in which a court reporter is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30,
the party must submit a written request to the assigned judicial officer at least ten (10)
judicial days in advance of the hearing, and must pay the authorized fee to the Clerk of the
Court at least two (2) judicial days before the proceeding. The fee is $140 for a half-day
and $280 for a full day.
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 ***
11/05/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
11/04/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
K. Tiero
Deputy
SILVERTON DEER VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
MARK W WALDRON
v.
JANET DEFINE
MICHAEL S DEFINE
HAVEN LEE DOVE
CHAD M GALLACHER
SCOTT B HUMBLE
JUDGE COFFEY
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has considered Third-Party Defendant, Direct Access Legal Services’ Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings; Third-Party Plaintiff, Janet Define’s Response to that Motion; and
Third-Party Defendant’s Reply in support of its Motion. Although oral argument was requested,
the Court does not believe that oral argument would assist the Court in deciding the pending
Motion.
Third-Party Defendant seeks judgment on the pleadings on the abuse of process claim that
has been asserted against it. A Rule 12(c) motion tests the sufficiency of the complaint and should
be granted if the complaint fails to state a claim for relief. Emmett McLoughlin Realty, Inc. v. Pima
Cty., 203 Ariz. 557, 558 (App. 2002); Giles v. Hill Lewis Marce, 195 Ariz. 358, 359 (App. 1999).
A motion for judgment on the pleadings is appropriately granted if the complaint fails to set forth
a claim for which relief can be granted. Save Our Valley Ass’n v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 216 Ariz.
216, 218 (App. 2007). “On a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all of the allegations of the
opposing party's pleadings must be accepted as true and the moving party is entitled to judgment
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
11/04/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
only if the position of the opposing party, as stated in its pleadings, clearly entitles the moving
party to judgment.” Wenrich v. Household Fin. Corp., 5 Ariz. App. 335, 338 (1967).
“[T]o establish a claim for abuse of process there must be a showing that the defendant has
(1) used a legal process against the plaintiff; (2) primarily to accomplish a purpose for which the
process was not designed; and, (3) harm has been caused to the plaintiff by such misuse of
process.” Nienstedt v. Wetzel, 133 Ariz. 348, 353, 651 P.2d 876, 881 (App. 1982). “It is
immaterial that the process may have been properly obtained or issued as a normal incident of the
litigation involved. It is the subsequent misuse which constitutes the misconduct for which liability
is imposed.” Id. The Third-Party Complaint alleges sufficient facts, which, if proven true, could
warrant a judgment in favor of Third-Party Plaintiff and against Direct Access Legal Services
(“DALS”). Whether DALS used the legal process primarily to accomplish a purpose for which
the process was not designed is a factual issue that cannot be resolved through a motion for
judgment on the pleadings. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying DALS’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
11/20/2020 — CV2020092936 DEFINE, JANET 11/20/2020 HONORABLE STEVEN P. LYNCH View Minute Entry ↑ top
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/23/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
11/20/2020
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE STEVEN P. LYNCH
S. Cheney
Deputy
SILVERTON DEER VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
MARK W WALDRON
v.
JANET DEFINE
MICHAEL S DEFINE
CHAD M GALLACHER
RODRIGO V SAUAIA
COMM. LYNCH
DOCKET-CIVIL-SE
JUDGE CRAWFORD
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom 303 – SEA
9:02 a.m. This is the time set for Evidentiary Hearing. Counsel, Chad Gallacher, appears
telephonically on behalf of Plaintiff. Counsel, Michael Define, appears telephonically on behalf
of Defendant, Janet Define, who also appears telephonically.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
The GoToMeeting platform is open.
The Court has received and reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Hearing re: Default
Application Scheduled for October 28, 2020 and Schedule Deadline for Filing of Answer or
Responsive Pleading filed October 28, 2020; Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
11/20/2020
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2
“Motion to Vacate Hearing re: Default Application Scheduled for October 28, 2020 and
Schedule Deadline for Filing of Answer or Responsive Pleading” filed November 6, 2020; and
Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Vacate
Hearing re: Default Application Scheduled for October 28, 2020 and Schedule Deadline for
Filing of Answer or Responsive Pleading filed November 18, 2020.
Argument is presented to the Court.
Based on the argument presented,
IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion and setting aside the Default Judgment. The
Court notes Defendant shall file a timely Answer.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Status Conference on December 18, 2020 at
10:00 a.m. (15 minutes allotted) before Judge Crawford.
9:37 a.m. Hearing concludes.
LATER:
LET THE RECORD REFLECT the Status Conference set on December 18, 2020 at
10:00 a.m. shall be telephonic. Counsel for the Plaintiff shall initiate the telephonic conference
by first arranging the presence of all other counsel or self-represented parties on the conference
call and by calling this Division at 602-372-0844 promptly at the scheduled time.
Pursuant to the orders entered, and there being no further need to retain the exhibits not
offered in evidence in the custody of the Clerk of Court,
LET THE RECORD REFLECT the Court indicates off the record that the courtroom
clerk may dispose of electronic exhibits 1-13 not offered or received in evidence.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/23/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
11/22/2021
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
K. Tiero
Deputy
SILVERTON DEER VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
MARK W WALDRON
v.
JANET DEFINE
MICHAEL S DEFINE
HAVEN LEE DOVE
CHAD M GALLACHER
SCOTT B HUMBLE
JUDGE COFFEY
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and reviewed the Third Party Defendant Direct Access Legal
Services’ Motion for Reconsideration filed November 10, 2021.
IT IS ORDERED denying the Third Party Defendant Direct Access Legal Services’
Motion for Reconsideration.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/02/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
12/01/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
K. Tiero
Deputy
SILVERTON DEER VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
MARK W WALDRON
v.
JANET DEFINE
MICHAEL S DEFINE
HAVEN LEE DOVE
CHAD M GALLACHER
SCOTT B HUMBLE
JUDGE COFFEY
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has considered Defendant/Counterclaimant/Third-Party Defendant, Janet
DeFine’s (“DeFine”) Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Counterdefendant Silverton Deer Valley
Homeowners Association; and Third-Party Defendants Maxwell & Morgan, P.C. (“M&M”) and
Silverton Deer Village Homeowners Association, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Response to that Motion. No
reply was filed and the deadline for filing a reply has expired.
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the original Plaintiff in this case is Silverton
Deer Village Homeowners Association, Inc. But, DeFine’s “Counterclaim” asserts claims against
Silverton Deer Valley Homeowners Association, Inc. Based upon those pleadings, it does not
appear that DeFine’s “Counterclaim” actually named the Plaintiff as a Counterdefendant and
instead names a separate entity, which may not even exist. As such, if it exists, Silverton Deer
Valley Homeowners Association, Inc. should have been designated as a Third-Party Defendant
rather than a Counterdefendant. Curiously, despite Plaintiff not even being listed as a party to the
Counterclaim, Plaintiff filed an Answer to the Counterclaim anyway. The Court strongly
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
12/01/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
encourages counsel to confer about this important issue and work together to determine how to
best address it.
In the pending Motion, DeFine seeks to disqualify M&M as counsel for the entity that she
designated as a Counterdefendant. M&M and Plaintiff oppose the Motion.
E.R. 3.7(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona provides:
A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a
necessary witness unless:
(1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue;
(2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the
case; or
(3) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the
client.
Comment 4 to that Rule states:
[P]aragraph (a)(3) recognizes that a balancing is required between the interests
of the client and those of the tribunal and the opposing party. Whether the
tribunal is likely to be misled or the opposing party is likely to suffer prejudice
depends on the nature of the case, the importance and probable tenor of the
lawyer's testimony, and the probability that the lawyer's testimony will conflict
with that of other witnesses. Even if there is risk of such prejudice, in
determining whether the lawyer should be disqualified, due regard must be given
to the effect of disqualification on the lawyer's client. It is relevant that one or
both parties could reasonably foresee that the lawyer would probably be a
witness. The conflict of interest principles stated in ERs 1.7, 1.9 and 1.10 have
no application to this aspect of the problem.
“Only in extreme circumstances should a party to a lawsuit be allowed to interfere with the
attorney-client relationship of his opponent.” Alexander v. Superior Court In & For Maricopa
Cty., 141 Ariz. 157, 161, 685 P.2d 1309, 1313 (1984). The moving party bears the burden of
showing “sufficient reason why an attorney should be disqualified from representing his
client.” Id. Moreover,
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
12/01/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3
The prejudice requirement of DR 5-102(B) [the former version of E.R. 3.7(a)]
works to preclude the folly of an attorney giving testimony detrimental to the
interest he is advocating as well as to prevent opposing counsel from contriving
some tactical need for calling the attorney thereby triggering disqualification.
To call for the disqualification of opposing counsel for delay or other tactical
reasons, in the absence of prejudice to either side, is a practice which will not be
tolerated. Cottonwood Estates, Inc. v. Paradise Builders, Inc., 128 Ariz. 99,
104–05, 624 P.2d 296, 301–02 (1981) (internal citations omitted).
The Court does not believe that DeFine has met her burden of proving that the
disqualification of M&M is warranted. Additionally, disqualifying Plaintiff’s counsel would be
prejudicial to Plaintiff. And, because M&M is a party to this case and it is representing itself,
lawyers from M&M will be participating in the trial as counsel of record regardless of whether
they are permitted to represent Plaintiff. Thus, disqualifying M&M as Plaintiff’s counsel would
not eliminate the scenario in which an M&M attorney is testifying in the case while other M&M
attorneys are acting as counsel for a party in the case.
IT IS ORDERED denying DeFine’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/24/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
12/18/2020
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JANICE CRAWFORD
V. Felix
Deputy
SILVERTON DEER VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
MARK W WALDRON
v.
JANET DEFINE
MICHAEL S DEFINE
FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL
ARIZONA L L C
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
DIRECT ACCESS LEGAL SERVICES
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
MAXWELL AND MORGAN P C
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
JUDGE CRAWFORD
MINUTE ENTRY
On the Court’s own motion,
IT IS ORDERED rescinding the minute entry dated December 21, 2020 and filed on
December 22, 2020, which noted the receipt of Plaintiff’s e-filed Application/Motion for Default
against Defendant(s), Janet Define.
Upon review of the case file, the Court finds that Defendants have filed an Answer or
other responsive pleading. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED the Application and Affidavit for Entry of Default is denied.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/21/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
12/18/2020
Docket Code 085
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JANICE CRAWFORD
V. Felix
Deputy
SILVERTON DEER VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
MARK W WALDRON
v.
JANET DEFINE
MICHAEL S DEFINE
FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL
ARIZONA L L C
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
DIRECT ACCESS LEGAL SERVICES
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
MAXWELL AND MORGAN P C
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
JUDGE CRAWFORD
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom 205 – SEA
9:58 a.m. This is the time set for Status Conference. Plaintiff is represented
telephonically by counsel, Chad Gallagher. Defendant is represented telephonically by above-
named counsel, Michael Define.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
12/18/2020
Docket Code 085
Form V000A
Page 2
LET THE RECORD REFLECT counsel indicates that an Application for Default and
an Answer have been filed in this case.
Further discussion is held.
10:01 a.m. Matter concludes.
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
12/22/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
12/21/2020
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JANICE CRAWFORD
V. Felix
Deputy
SILVERTON DEER VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC
MARK W WALDRON
v.
JANET DEFINE
MICHAEL S DEFINE
FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL
ARIZONA L L C
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
DIRECT ACCESS LEGAL SERVICES
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
MAXWELL AND MORGAN P C
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
COMM. LYNCH
JUDGE CRAWFORD
MINUTE ENTRY
This Court has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application/Motion for Default against
defendant(s), Janet Define, 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
Steven Lynch.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2020-092936
12/21/2020
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
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 eFiling Guidelines, section 2.09, attorneys shall
electronically file all the documents required to request a default judgment, such as the Application
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 and
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/llrc/cv_cvc6/
