02/23/2021 — CV2021001280 INC, THE, BROVITZ GROUP 02/23/2021 HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/24/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-001280
02/23/2021
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
K. Cabral
Deputy
BROVITZ GROUP INC, THE, et al.
CHARLES E MARKLE
v.
KASEY THOMPSON
COMM. WHITE
JUDGE VIOLA
MINUTE ENTRY
This Court has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application/Motion for Entry of Default against
Defendant(s) Kasey Thompson 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
White.
IT IS 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
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-001280
02/23/2021
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
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 regarding the default judgment
process at: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/llrc/cv_cvc6/
03/02/2021 — CV2021001280 INC, THE, BROVITZ GROUP 03/02/2021 HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/04/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-001280
03/02/2021
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
K. Cabral
Deputy
BROVITZ GROUP INC, THE, et al.
CHARLES E MARKLE
v.
KASEY THOMPSON
JOSHUA M SNELL
JUDGE VIOLA
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and reviewed Defendant’s Emergency Motion to Stay Court’s
Orders Pending Proper Service filed February 26, 2021.
IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s shall file a response by Friday, March 5, 2021.
04/07/2021 — CV2021001280 INC, THE, BROVITZ GROUP 04/07/2021 HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/14/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-001280
04/07/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
V. Bullock/C. Mai
Deputy
BROVITZ GROUP INC, THE, et al.
CHARLES E MARKLE
v.
KASEY THOMPSON
JOSHUA M SNELL
JONES SKELTON & HOCHULI P L C
40 N CENTRAL AVE STE 2700
PHOENIX AZ 85004
WELLS FARGO BANK N A
LEVY PROCESSING MAC S4001-01E
PO BOX 29779
PHOENIX AZ 85038-9779
JUDGE VIOLA
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed and considered Defendant’s Emergency Motion to Stay Court’s
Orders Pending Proper Service.
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Emergency Motion to Stay Court’s Orders
Pending Proper Service.
05/06/2021 — CV2021001280 INC, THE, BROVITZ GROUP 05/06/2021 HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/07/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-001280
05/06/2021
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
K. Cabral
Deputy
BROVITZ GROUP INC, THE, et al.
CHARLES E MARKLE
v.
KASEY THOMPSON
JOSHUA M SNELL
JONES SKELTON & HOCHULI P L C
40 N CENTRAL AVE STE 2700
PHOENIX AZ 85004
WELLS FARGO BANK N A
LEVY PROCESSING MAC S4001-01E
PO BOX 29779
PHOENIX AZ 85038-9779
JUDGE VIOLA
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed
March 5, 2021.
IT IS ORDERED setting a telephonic Oral Argument on June 2, 2021 at 10:30 a.m.
(time allotted: 1 hour) regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed March 5, 2021
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
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-001280
05/06/2021
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
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/
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.”
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 COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-001280
05/06/2021
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 3
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.
05/26/2021 — CV2021001280 INC, THE, BROVITZ GROUP 05/26/2021 HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/28/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-001280
05/26/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
K. Cabral
Deputy
BROVITZ GROUP INC, THE, et al.
CHARLES E MARKLE
v.
KASEY THOMPSON
JOSHUA M SNELL
JONES SKELTON & HOCHULI P L C
40 N CENTRAL AVE STE 2700
PHOENIX AZ 85004
WELLS FARGO BANK N A
LEVY PROCESSING MAC S4001-01E
PO BOX 29779
PHOENIX AZ 85038-9779
JUDGE VIOLA
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed
March 5, 2021, Response, and Reply and the related statements of fact. Plaintiffs requested oral
argument in their Motion and withdrew their request in the Reply. Defendant did not request oral
argument. Consistent with Rule 7.1(d) and 56(c)(1) of the Ariz. R. Civ. P., the Court concludes
that oral argument is not necessary to decide the issue presented.
Background
This case arises from two written membership purchase agreements dated November 4,
2020—one between Brovitz Group, Inc. (“Brovitz”) and Kasey Thompson (the “Brovitz
Agreement”) and one between Mackinaw Holding Corporation (“Mackinaw”) and Mr. Thompson
(the “Mackinaw Agreement”). Mr. Thompson agreed to purchase a 22.2225% interest in KTLT,
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-001280
05/26/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
LLC from Brovitz for $200,000 under the Brovitz Agreement. Mr. Thompson agreed to purchase
an 11.1125% interest in KTLT, LLC from Mackinaw for $100,000 under the Mackinaw
Agreement. Pursuant to both Agreements, Brovitz and Mackinaw provided the assignments of
their membership interests to Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson signed indicating receipt of the
assignments. The email correspondence between the parties does not include any language
indicating the deal was subject to any contingency. Mr. Thompson has not made the payments
required under the Brovitz and Mackinaw Agreements.
Mr. Thompson asserts that payment of the $300,000 under the Brovitz and Mackinaw
Agreements was contingent on a private company sale and his receipt of the proceeds of such sale
as a shareholder. Plaintiffs argue that the language of the Agreements is not ambiguous and
required payment by November 4, 2020. Section 1.3 of the Agreements states:
The purchase and sale of the Purchased Membership Interest shall
take place on November 4, 2020. At closing, Buyer shall deliver to
Seller wire or other immediately available funds in an amount equal
to the Purchase Price. Upon receipt of the Purchase Price, Seller
shall deliver to Buyer an Assignment of Membership Interest in the
Company in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, transferring the
Purchase Membership Interest to Buyer.
Both Agreements contain an integration clause: “This Agreement and the Exhibits attached hereto
constitute the entire contract between the parties hereto concerning the subject matters hereof and
no party shall be liable or bound to the other except as specifically set forth herein.” Section 4.1.
Further, the Agreements “may not be amended or supplemented except by written agreement of
Buyer and Seller.” Section 4.3. Mr. Thompson asserts that the Court should consider parol
evidence regarding the parties’ intent and the alleged condition.
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
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-001280
05/26/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3
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).
Analysis
It is undisputed that the parties entered into the Brovitz and Mackinaw Agreements and
that Brovitz and Mackinaw provided the assignments of membership interest to Mr. Thompson
according to the terms of the Agreements. It is also undisputed that Mr. Thompson has not made
the payments required under the Agreements to Brovitz and Mackinaw. The issue before the court
is whether a disputed fact remains that precludes summary judgment as to Mr. Thompson’s
contention that the payments under the Agreements were contingent on the finalization of another
private company sale.
“[I]n Arizona, a court will attempt to enforce a contract according to the parties’ intent.”
Taylor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 175 Ariz. 148, 152, 854 P.2d 1134, 1138 (1993). To
determine the parties’ intent, the court must “‘look to the plain meaning of the words as viewed in
the context of the contract as a whole.’” ELM Retirement Center, LP v. Callaway, 226 Ariz. 287,
290-91, ¶ 15, 246 P.3d 938, 941-42 (App. 2010) (quoting United Cal. Bank v. Prudential Ins. Co.,
140 Ariz. 238, 259, 681 P.2d 390, 411 (App. 1983)). When the terms of a contract are plain and
unambiguous, its interpretation is a question of law for the court. Chandler Med. Bldg. Partners v.
Chandler Dental Grp., 175 Ariz. 273, 277, 855 P.2d 787, 791 (App.1993). “Each part of a contract
must be read together, ‘to bring harmony, if possible, between all parts of the writing.’” Id. at 291,
¶ 18, 246 P.3d at 942 (quoting Gesina v. Gen. Elec. Co., 162 Ariz. 39, 45, 780 P.2d 1380, 1386
(App.1988)). If the contract language is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning,
extrinsic evidence may be admitted to interpret the contract. Taylor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 175 Ariz. 148, 158–59, 854 P.2d 1134, 1144–45 (1993). Mere disagreement about a contract's
meaning, however, does not establish an ambiguity that requires admission of extrinsic evidence.
Chandler, 175 Ariz. at 277, 855 P.2d at 791. “It is firmly established that where an agreement is
reduced to writing in such terms as to express a complete contract, evidence of a contemporaneous
oral agreement relating to the same subject matter, varying, contradicting or enlarging the written
agreement, is inadmissible, in the absence of an allegation of fraud or mistake.” U.S. Fidelity &
Guaranty Co. v. Olds Bros. Lumber Co., 102 Ariz. 366, 368 (1967) (citations omitted).
Here, Mr. Thompson argues that his payment obligation under the Agreements did not arise
until the private company sale was finalized and he had received his portion of the proceeds from
such sale. However, the Agreements are silent as to any such condition. Mr. Thompson’s position
fails because the actual language of the Agreements is not reasonably susceptible to the proposed
interpretation. The Agreements are fully integrated and do not contain any provisions identifying
the condition Mr. Thompson asserts existed. The alleged condition that Mr. Thompson asserts
Plaintiffs agreed to would contradict the plain language of the Agreements regarding the closing
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-001280
05/26/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 4
date, the integration clause, and written amendment requirement. The Court finds that summary
judgment is appropriate.
In his Response, Mr. Thompson states “As Plaintiffs agreed to at the time of contracting,
Defendant is not obligated to issue payment to Plaintiffs until he has received the funds from this
deal—a condition that has not yet occurred.” Response at 4. Mr. Thompson asserts that “[t]his
condition was confirmed with Plaintiffs Brovitz and Mackinaw both through phone calls and
through various text messages, and they were aware in making these Agreements that this was a
necessary condition to payment being issued.” Dec. of K. Thompson ¶ 6. Included in Mr.
Thompson’s Response are text messages between Jon Brovitz and Mr. Thompson that Mr.
Thompson argues should be considered as parol evidence. Mr. Thompson has not provided any
foundation for such text messages. Even if proper foundation had been established, such text
messages are insufficient to establish a disputed material fact to preclude entry of summary
judgment. The text messages attached by Mr. Thompson are all in reference to payment of the
$300,000 in exchange for dismissing the lawsuit—not to the original terms of the Agreements.
Mr. Thompson does indicate in the messages that he was going to use the proceeds from the private
company sale to buy out Plaintiffs:
-
“I told you I would buy you guys out from the Pala sale and my liquidity.” Response, Ex.
B at 2.
-
“I told you I was buying you out with my Pala liquidity.” Response, Ex. B at 3.
-
“You knew I was buying you guys out from my proceeds of this sale and we are now there.”
Response, Ex. B at 5.
However, these statements fall short of showing the asserted condition in the Agreements. Rather,
they show that Mr. Thompson planned on funding the buyout with proceeds from the private
company sale not that the buyout was contingent on receipt of funds from the sale proceeds. Mr.
Thompson even states that the private sale had nothing to do with Plaintiffs:
-
“Not sure how this could have been more clear in regards to my sale situation of Pala
(although has nothing to do with you): ‘On another note, the buyer for Pala that won and
we accepted their bud [sic] has confirmed they have the funds and ready to put in escrow
and Jim has called a Board meeting for this Wednesday to sign the purchase and sale
agreement and close…:)’” Response, Ex. B at 4 (emphasis added).
Rule 56(e) requires that Mr. Thompson, “by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, set
forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.” Mr. Thompson’s affidavit and text messages
fail to set forth any specific facts sufficient to prevent summary judgment.
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-001280
05/26/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiffs shall lodge a form of judgment and file any
application for attorneys’ fees and costs on or before June 28, 2021.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating oral argument set June 2, 2021.
06/23/2021 — CV2021001280 INC, THE, BROVITZ GROUP 06/23/2021 HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/24/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-001280
06/23/2021
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
K. Cabral
Deputy
BROVITZ GROUP INC, THE
CHARLES E MARKLE
v.
KASEY THOMPSON
JOSHUA M SNELL
JONES SKELTON & HOCHULI P L C
40 N CENTRAL AVE STE 2700
PHOENIX AZ 85004
BANK OF AMERICA N A
ATTN CUSTOMER SERVICE
800 SAMOSET DR
NEWARK DE 19713
WELLS FARGO BANK N A
LEVY PROCESSING MAC S4001-01E
PO BOX 29779
PHOENIX AZ 85038-9779
JUDGE VIOLA
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has received and reviewed the parties’ Rule 26(d) Statement of Discovery
Dispute filed June 15, 2021,
IT IS ORDERED setting a telephonic Status Conference for June 28, 2021 at 11:00 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:
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-001280
06/23/2021
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2
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/
“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.”
06/28/2021 — CV2021001280 INC, THE, BROVITZ GROUP 06/28/2021 HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/30/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-001280
06/28/2021
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
K. Cabral
Deputy
BROVITZ GROUP INC, THE, et al.
CHARLES E MARKLE
v.
KASEY THOMPSON
JOSHUA M SNELL
JONES SKELTON & HOCHULI P L C
40 N CENTRAL AVE STE 2700
PHOENIX AZ 85004
BANK OF AMERICA N A
ATTN CUSTOMER SERVICE
800 SAMOSET DR
NEWARK DE 19713
WELLS FARGO BANK N A
LEVY PROCESSING MAC S4001-01E
PO BOX 29779
PHOENIX AZ 85038-9779
JUDGE VIOLA
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom 714 ECB
11:04 a.m. This is the time set for a virtual Status Conference regarding Discovery Dispute.
Plaintiffs are represented by counsel, Charles E. Markle. Defendant is represented by counsel,
Joshua M. Snell.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-001280
06/28/2021
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2
Discussion is held regarding the status of the case.
The parties state their respective positions.
The Court instructs Defendant to review Rule 69 of the Ariz. R. Civ. P. before finalizing
the Responses. Mr. Snell should contact Mr. Markle if his client’s circumstances impedes his
ability to produce the Responses as ordered. The Court further notes Defendant shall respond to
the outstanding discovery requests by July 2, 2021.
For the reasons stated on the record,
IT IS ORDERED taking under advisement Plaintiff’s request for Attorneys’ Fees and
Cost.
11:13 a.m. Matter concludes.
LATER:
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees related to the
Rule 26(d) dispute presented earlier today. The Court is allowing Plaintiff to file an application
and affidavit to support the request after considering the following: 1) Defendant’s failure to
timely serve responses; and 2) Defendant’s failure to participate in the Rule 26(d) statement. The
conference with the Court could have been avoided had Defendant communicated with counsel.
IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s application and affidavit shall be filed on or before July 9,
2021.
08/02/2021 — CV2021001280 INC, THE, BROVITZ GROUP 08/02/2021 HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/06/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-001280
08/02/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
K. Cabral
Deputy
BROVITZ GROUP INC, THE, et al.
CHARLES E MARKLE
v.
KASEY THOMPSON
JOSHUA M SNELL
JONES SKELTON & HOCHULI P L C
40 N CENTRAL AVE STE 2700
PHOENIX AZ 85004
BANK OF AMERICA N A
ATTN CUSTOMER SERVICE
800 SAMOSET DR
NEWARK DE 19713
WELLS FARGO BANK N A
LEVY PROCESSING MAC S4001-01E
PO BOX 29779
PHOENIX AZ 85038-9779
JUDGE VIOLA
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiffs’ Application for Attorneys’ Fees and
Costs filed June 4, 2021, the Response, and Reply.
The Court will address the substance of the ruling below. Before doing so, the Court
strongly encourages counsel to evaluate their presentations to this Court and to each other and to
consider the expectation of professionalism when working with each other as officers of the Court
and when submitting written information to the Court. Throughout this litigation, the Court has
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-001280
08/02/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
reviewed and heard personal attacks and unsubstantiated allegations related to certain motives or
conduct. This type of rhetoric is not persuasive and instead reflects poorly on all involved.
Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees or costs but instead
object to the requested fee award as unreasonable for four reasons: 1) block billing; 2) double
billing; 3) billing for paralegal tasks and staff communication; and 4) billing for legal research that
based on their expertise, and hourly rate should be unnecessary.
As a result, the Court considers the reasonableness of the fee request. In determining the
reasonableness of a request for fees, the following factors are relevant:
1. The qualities of the advocate: his/her ability, training, education, experience,
professional standing and skill;
2. The character of the work to be performed: its intricacy, importance, etc.;
3. The work actually performed: the skill, time and attention given to the work;
4. The result;
5. The billing rate: the court need not determine the reasonable hourly rate prevailing in
the community for similar work; rather, the rate charged is the best indication of
reasonableness in the particular case; however, if the opposing side sets forth reasons
for objecting to the hourly rate, the court has the discretion to utilize a lower rate; and
6. The number of hours expended: generally, the successful party is entitled to a
reasonable fee for items of service which, at the time rendered, would have been
undertaken by a reasonable and prudent lawyer to advance his/her client’s interests.
Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, 138 Ariz. 183, 187-88, 673 P.2d 927, 932 (App. 1983);
Schwartz v. Schwerin, 85 Ariz. 242, 336 P.2d 144 (1959)).
Here, the Court concludes the fee request is supported by the quality of counsel, the nature
and extent of the work performed, the result, and the hours worked. See Decl. of. Louis Lopez. The
work was not particularly complex, however, the work performed resulted in a judgment in favor
of Defendants on the claims asserted against Defendants. The Defendants did not challenge the
billing rate and Mr. Lopez’ declaration confirms that the clients agreed to pay the rates charged
which are consistent with the rates regularly charged by the firm. As to the block billing, the Court
agrees that individual time entries are preferred but the billing in the case does not prevent the
Court from evaluating the reasonableness of the fees or related time entries. Defendants have
identified select entries that reference similar work performed by one or more individuals. The
Court does not find the identified instances to be unreasonable given the circumstances of this case
which required coordination between the lawyers, staff, the sheriff’s office, and third parties, such
as locksmiths. The Court does not conclude the time entries reflect double billing or excessive
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-001280
08/02/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3
billing for legal research. Given the nature of the case, Plaintiffs engaged in a significant amount
of work very early in the case.
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiffs’ Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs filed June
4, 2021 and awarding fees in the amount of $59,182.50 and taxable costs in the amount of
$7,194.45. A separate judgment shall issue.
The Court has reviewed docket and did not locate a Notice of Lodging Form of
Judgment. Plaintiffs shall lodge a form of judgment no later than August 9, 2020.
09/08/2021 — CV2021001280 INC, THE, BROVITZ GROUP 09/08/2021 HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/10/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-001280
09/08/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
K. Cabral
Deputy
BROVITZ GROUP INC, THE, et al.
CHARLES E MARKLE
v.
KASEY THOMPSON
JOSHUA M SNELL
JONES SKELTON & HOCHULI P L C
40 N CENTRAL AVE STE 2700
PHOENIX AZ 85004
BANK OF AMERICA N A
ATTN CUSTOMER SERVICE
800 SAMOSET DR
NEWARK DE 19713
WELLS FARGO BANK N A
LEVY PROCESSING MAC S4001-01E
PO BOX 29779
PHOENIX AZ 85038-9779
JUDGE VIOLA
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiffs’ Application for Attorneys’ Fees Related
to Rule 26(d) Discovery Dispute filed July 9, 2021, the Response and the Reply. The Court
previously granted Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees without reduction by minute entry on
August 2, 2021. Accordingly, the Court agrees that the award of fees based on the Rule 26(d)
discovery dispute should be reduced from $1,496 to $748 to reflect the fees previously awarded
but included in the Application filed July 9, 2021.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-001280
09/08/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED awarding Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees in the amount of $748 as a sanction
following the discovery dispute submitted June 15, 2021.
10/04/2021 — CV2021001280 INC, THE, BROVITZ GROUP 10/04/2021 HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/05/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-001280
10/04/2021
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
K. Cabral
Deputy
BROVITZ GROUP INC, THE, et al.
CHARLES E MARKLE
v.
KASEY THOMPSON
JOSHUA M SNELL
JONES SKELTON & HOCHULI P L C
40 N CENTRAL AVE STE 2700
PHOENIX AZ 85004
BANK OF AMERICA N A
ATTN CUSTOMER SERVICE
800 SAMOSET DR
NEWARK DE 19713
WELLS FARGO BANK N A
LEVY PROCESSING MAC S4001-01E
PO BOX 29779
PHOENIX AZ 85038-9779
JUDGE VIOLA
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court received Plaintiffs’ Request for Post-Judgment Relief [Expedited Ruling
Requested] filed September 22, 2021. The Court does not intend to consider this request on an
expedited basis because Plaintiffs failed to provide any explanation as to why expedited
consideration is warranted.
IT IS ORDERED Defendants shall respond to the Request filed September 22, 2021 as
contemplated by the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.
10/04/2021 — CV2021001280 INC, THE, BROVITZ GROUP 10/04/2021 HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/05/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-001280
10/04/2021
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
K. Cabral
Deputy
BROVITZ GROUP INC, THE, et al.
CHARLES E MARKLE
v.
KASEY THOMPSON
JOSHUA M SNELL
JONES SKELTON & HOCHULI P L C
40 N CENTRAL AVE STE 2700
PHOENIX AZ 85004
BANK OF AMERICA N A
ATTN CUSTOMER SERVICE
800 SAMOSET DR
NEWARK DE 19713
WELLS FARGO BANK N A
LEVY PROCESSING MAC S4001-01E
PO BOX 29779
PHOENIX AZ 85038-9779
JUDGE VIOLA
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions and to be held in
Contempt filed July 7, 2021, the Response, and the Reply.
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs' request for sanctions.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendant Thompson shall respond to the outstanding
discovery requests no later than October 11, 2021.
