Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2021-018876: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Canterra At Squaw Peak Condominium Association Inc.

Case Number

CV2021-018876

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

12/10/2021

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Blaney, Scott

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/22/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

01/20/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT A. BLANEY
A. Navarro Albor/Y. Rodriguez

Deputy

PAT MAH
PAT MAH
1747 E NORTHERN AVE UNIT 132
PHOENIX AZ 85020

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
KYLE BANFIELD

JUDGE BLANEY

RULING

The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Relief Under Rule
60(b)(6), as well as the lengthy record in this case.

THE COURT FINDS that Plaintiff has not established good cause for the relief she seeks.

On a failure to show good cause, and in the Court’s discretion,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Relief Under Rule 60(b)(6), as
well as the lengthy record in this case.

/s/ HONORABLE SCOTT A. BLANEY

HONORABLE SCOTT A. BLANEY

JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/22/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

01/21/2025

Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT A. BLANEY
P. McKinley

Deputy

PAT MAH
PAT MAH
1747 E NORTHERN AVE UNIT 132
PHOENIX AZ 85020

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
HENRY NICKOLAS EICHER

JUDGE BLANEY

ORDER SIGNED

The Court has considered Canterra At Squaw Peak Condominium Association, Inc.’s
Supplemental Motion to Enter Third Amended Scheduling Order, filed December 12, 2024.

IT IS ORDERED approving and settling the formal written Third Amended Scheduling
Order as modified and signed by the Court on January 21, 2025 and entered (filed) by the Clerk
on January 21, 2025.

Please note: The Court has signed a paper copy of the Order which 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
www.AZTurboCourt.gov and from the Public Access Terminals at the Clerk of Court’s offices
located throughout Maricopa County.

NOTE: Please allow 4-5 court days for the Order to be processed and available on docket.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/10/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

02/09/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT A. BLANEY
P. McKinley

Deputy

PAT MAH
PAT MAH
1747 E NORTHERN AVE UNIT 132
PHOENIX AZ 85020

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
KYLE BANFIELD

JONATHAN D EBERTSHAUSER
CV ARBITRATION
JUDGE BLANEY

RULING

The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Plaintiff’s
Request for Relief Under Rule 60(b)(6). The Court has already denied Plaintiff’s Motion to
Request Relief Under Rule 60(b)(6) on January 20, 2026, and thus, there is no active motion to
supplement.

On good cause, and in the Court’s discretion,

IT IS ORDERED rejecting Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Plaintiff’s Request for Relief
Under Rule 60(b)(6).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

02/09/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

If you are not represented by a lawyer, you must keep the Court updated regarding your
current mailing address, email address and telephone number. If your mailing address, email
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 (general form – GN91f – Update Information on
Address and/or Name with the Court) can be downloaded at no charge from the following website:
https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/services/filings/civil-and-tax-filing

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/15/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

02/13/2024

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT A. BLANEY
P. McKinley

Deputy

PAT MAH
JONATHAN A DESSAULES

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
HENRY NICKOLAS EICHER

JACOB A KUBERT
JONATHAN D EBERTSHAUSER
JUDGE BLANEY

RULING

The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Leave to File First
Amended Complaint, Defendant’s Objection to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint,
Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, and the record
in this case.

“Leave to amend must be freely given when justice requires.” Rule 15(a)(2); Cagle v.
Carr, 101 Ariz. 225, 227, 418 P.2d 381, 383 (1966). But the Court may deny the requested
amendment based upon, inter alia, “undue delay, dilatory action, or undue prejudice to the
opposing party.” Owen v. Superior Court, 133 Ariz. 75, 79 (1982). “Prejudice is the
inconvenience and delay suffered when the amendment raises new issues or inserts new parties
into the litigation.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).

This case involves a dispute over assessments issued by the condominium association for
a condominium community. Plaintiff Homeowner brought this action against the Association,
seeking, inter alia, declaratory relief stating that cost of repair to balconies in the complex cannot

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

02/13/2024

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

be assessed against her because a 1996 Amendment to the CC&Rs limits the allocation of such
expenses to only those homeowners who benefit from the exclusive use of the balconies (the “1996
Amendment Claim”). Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss as to this and Plaintiff’s other claims,
which was fully briefed. The Court ultimately resolved this particular issue in its September 26,
2022 Ruling (filed 09/28/2022) and dismissed the 1996 Amendment Claim.

Approximately two weeks later, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Clarification, which was
actually a mislabeled motion for reconsideration, simply reasserting some of the same arguments
Plaintiff had already asserted during the briefing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. The Court
nevertheless ordered the parties to fully brief Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification. After reviewing
and considering the briefing, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to establish good cause to support
the relief she was seeking.

Plaintiff now seeks to amend her Verified Complaint: (1) more than two years after she
initiated this action; (2) after the parties already prepared for and participated in a settlement
conference; and (3) with only one month left before the close of discovery. More specifically,
Plaintiff seeks to buttress her already-dismissed 1996 Amendment Claim with new factual
allegations that were known to her at the time she filed her Verified Complaint, or that she would
have known with the exercise of reasonable diligence. Moreover, although Plaintiff responded in
opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, she did not seek leave to amend her Verified
Complaint at the time. Plaintiff has already made two attempts to save that portion of her claim
that was based on the 1996 Amendment. She now seeks a third bite at the apple. See Amended
Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint at pg. 6:12-16.

THE COURT FINDS those portions of the proposed First Amended Complaint
supporting Plaintiff’s 1996 Amendment Claim are futile, as they purport to buttress a claim that
the Court has already rejected twice in this litigation.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS Plaintiff has unduly delayed in seeking to amend her
Verified Complaint. Plaintiff did not seek leave to amend the 1996 Amendment claim two years
ago when she responded in opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Instead, she waited more
than one year after the Court dismissed the claim, after the parties prepared for and participated in
a settlement conference, and after the parties completed all but the last few weeks of discovery.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that permitting Plaintiff to amend her Verified
Complaint to add supporting allegations to her 1996 Amendment claim – obviously with an eye
toward attempting to reassert the claim later in the litigation – would unduly prejudice Defendant.
Defendant has been forced to expend time and resources successfully arguing against the 1996
Amendment Claim twice already – three times if the Court considers the current briefing.
Plaintiff’s continued assertion of the dismissed claim has caused Defendant, and the Court, to

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

02/13/2024

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3

unnecessarily expend time and resources and has improperly expanded this litigation. See Rule 1,
Ariz.R.Civ.P. (courts are to employ and administer the Rules of Civil Procedure to ensure the just,
speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, in the Court’s discretion, rejecting Plaintiff’s request
to add allegations to a first amended complaint that are intended to support the dismissed 1996
Amendment Claim.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS good cause to permit the filing of a first amended
complaint to include the claims/allegations addressed in the Amended Motion to File First
Amended Complaint, pp. 5:25 – 6:11.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Plaintiff has so comingled the allegations in the
proposed First Amended Complaint supporting the dismissed 1996 Amendment Claim and the
other allegations/claims that she seeks to add that the Court is unable to determine which
paragraphs apply to which claims.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, in the Court’s discretion, granting Plaintiff’s Amended
Motion in part and permitting Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint that asserts those
claims/allegations found on pp. 5:25 – 6:11 of the Amended Motion. The first amended complaint
shall not contain the 1996 Amendment Claim or any allegations in support thereof, as the claim
has been dismissed from this case. Plaintiff shall file and serve the first amended complaint by
February 26, 2024. Defendant shall file and serve its answer within ten days thereafter.

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.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/18/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

04/17/2024

Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT A. BLANEY
P. McKinley

Deputy

PAT MAH
JONATHAN A DESSAULES

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
HENRY NICKOLAS EICHER

JUDGE BLANEY

ORDER SIGNED

The Court has considered Defendant’s Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed February 28, 2024, and Plaintiff’s Notice of Non-
Objection Re: Defendant’s Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond to First Amended Complaint, filed
March 8, 2024.

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion, all in accordance with the formal written Order
Granting Defendant’s Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint signed by the Court on April 12, 2024 and entered (filed) by the Clerk on April 17,
2024.

Please note: The Court has signed a paper copy of the Order which 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
www.AZTurboCourt.gov and from the Public Access Terminals at the Clerk of Court’s offices
located throughout Maricopa County.

NOTE: Please allow 4-5 court days for the Order to be processed and available on docket.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/01/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

04/30/2026

Docket Code 049
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT A. BLANEY
Z. Wilhelm

Deputy

PAT MAH
PAT MAH
1747 E NORTHERN AVE UNIT 132
PHOENIX AZ 85020

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
KYLE BANFIELD

JONATHAN D EBERTSHAUSER
JUDGE BLANEY

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has considered the Defendant, Canterra at Squaw Peak Condominium
Association Inc’s Application for Attorney’s Fees and Cost, filed January 16, 2026 and Declaration
of Kyle Banfield in Support of Attorney’s Fees and Cost, and Statement of Cost, filed January 16,
2026.

IT IS ORDERED approving and settling the formal written Judgment against Plaintiff Pat
Mah signed by the Court April 29, 2026 and filed (entered) by the Clerk on April 30, 2026.

Please note: The Court has signed a paper copy of the Judgment which was originally
provided electronically. After the Judgment has been scanned and docketed by the Clerk of Court,
copies
of
this
Judgment
will
be
available
through
the
ECR
online
at
www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov or through www.AZTurboCourt.gov and from the Public Access
Terminals at the Clerk of Court’s offices located throughout Maricopa County.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/08/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

05/07/2024

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT A. BLANEY
P. McKinley

Deputy

PAT MAH
JONATHAN A DESSAULES

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
HENRY NICKOLAS EICHER

JONATHAN D EBERTSHAUSER
JACOB A KUBERT
JUDGE BLANEY

RULING

The Court has reviewed and considered Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint Filed February 23, 2024, Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Strike First
Amended Complaint, and the record in this case.

The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural posture of this case. In the interest
of brevity, the Court will not restate the facts and history. To the extent necessary for context and
clarity, the Court incorporates the language of its February 13, 2024 Ruling on Plaintiff’s Amended
Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (filed 02/15/2024). Defendant now moves to
strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, arguing that it violates the February 13 Ruling by
including the already-dismissed 1996 Amendment Claim and allegations in support thereof.

THE COURT FINDS that Plaintiff did, in fact, violate the Court’s February 13, 2024
Ruling. The Court finds little merit to Plaintiff’s argument that she interpreted the Ruling to only
preclude new allegations in support of the 1996 Amendment Claim. The Ruling was clear: “The

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

05/07/2024

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

first amended complaint shall not contain the 1996 Amendment Claim or any allegations in support
thereof, as the claim has been dismissed from this case.” Id. at pg. 3.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS, however, that the record is sufficiently clear that the
1996 Amendment Claim has been dismissed – a fact that Plaintiff readily concedes on page 2 of
her present Response. Plaintiff states, inter alia: “Plaintiff understood, and still does, that the
dismissed balcony claim has been adjudicated. She has no intention of pursuing those dismissed
claims, except perhaps in conjunction with a future appeal.” Id. at pg. 2:20-22. Defendant will
suffer no material prejudice if the First Amended Complaint is adjudicated in its present form.
Additionally, the Court is concerned that forcing Plaintiff to refile will further unnecessarily
expand these proceedings and lead to increased costs.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying as moot Defendant’s Motion to Strike
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint Filed February 23, 2024.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying any relief not expressly granted herein.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/15/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

05/12/2023

Docket Code 375
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT BLANEY
P. McKinley

Deputy

PAT MAH
JONATHAN A DESSAULES

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
HENRY NICKOLAS EICHER

JUDGE BLANEY

CASE ON DISMISSAL CALENDAR

A review of the electronic docket in this matter reflects that no activity has been taken in
this matter since the filing of the Order Granting Plaintiff’s Substitution of Counsel With Consent
on January 6, 2023.

IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the Dismissal Calendar for dismissal of all
unadjudicated claims on July 10, 2023 without further notice unless prior to that date a Judgment
is entered or filed, a Stipulation for Dismissal is filed, or a Joint Report and Proposed Scheduling
Order is filed.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/20/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

05/18/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT A. BLANEY
E. Valadez

Deputy

PAT MAH
PAT MAH
1747 E NORTHERN AVE UNIT 132
PHOENIX AZ 85020

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
KYLE BANFIELD

JUDGE BLANEY

RULING

The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay pending Appeal and
Request the Bond Be Set and any associated briefing.

THE COURT FINDS that Plaintiff has not established good cause for the relief she seeks.

On a failure to show good cause, and in the Court’s discretion,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay pending Appeal and Request the
Bond Be Set.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/07/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

06/06/2022

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MARGARET R. MAHONEY
P. McKinley

Deputy

PAT MAH
JOHN SUD

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
HENRY NICKOLAS EICHER

ANDREW B TURK
JONATHAN D EBERTSHAUSER
JUDGE MAHONEY

ORAL ARGUMENT SET

The Court has received:
1. Defendant’s Partial Motion To Dismiss, filed 1/26/22;
2. Plaintiff’s Response To Defendant’s Partial Motion To Dismiss, filed 2/24/22;
3. Defendant’s Reply In Support Of Partial Motion To Dismiss, filed 3/25/22;
4. Plaintiff’s Motion To Supplement The Record, filed 4/11/22;
5. Defendant’s Motion To Strike Or, In The Alternative, Defendant’s Response To
Plaintiff’s Motion To Supplement The Record, filed 4/19/22; and
6. Plaintiff’s Response To Motion To Strike, filed 5/2/22.

IT IS ORDERED setting virtual Oral Argument on 9/26/22 at 9:00 a.m. (time allotted:
1 hour with the time divided equally between the parties) on the filings identified above, before
this Division.

* * * *

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

06/06/2022

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that when the Court so directs expressly, or when a filing
is time-sensitive, the parties shall also email it contemporaneously to all parties and Court staff,
when eFiling the document due to the processing time in the Clerk’s Office for all e-filed
documents.

Email address for Court staff is as follows:
JA, Jennifer “JJ” Sommerville, [email protected]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any party who intends to ask the Court to vacate or
reset any scheduled hearing shall notify this Division of said request as soon as possible, and absent
extraordinary circumstances, in any event no later than two (2) full Court days before the scheduled
proceeding. Reasons for such a request may include, but are not limited to, the movant intends to
withdraw the motion which is set for hearing, the parties have resolved the issue, the motion has
become moot, or scheduling conflicts have arisen.

PLEASE NOTE: The proceeding set above will be held via Court Connect (the Court’s
video-conference/virtual hearing platform). An auto-generated email will or has been sent to
counsel of record and any parties representing themselves who have a valid email address on file
in this matter with information for joining the proceeding virtually. If for some reason you did not
receive the email, you may join the proceeding using the following link: Tiny URL:
https://www.tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj09, or you may appear via telephone by calling 1-917-781-
4590, conference ID# 867 494 109#. For further information regarding Court Connect, please visit:
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect/

PLEASE NOTE: Counsel are responsible for sharing the invitation with any clients,
client representatives and witnesses who will appear at the proceeding.

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.

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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

06/06/2022

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 3

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

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/26/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

06/23/2023

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT BLANEY
P. McKinley

Deputy

PAT MAH
JONATHAN A DESSAULES

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
HENRY NICKOLAS EICHER

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE BLANEY

ORDER ENTERED BY COURT

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order electronically signed by the Court on June 22, 2023,
IT IS ORDERED that the parties participate in a mandatory settlement conference. This
case is referred to the Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Department for the
appointment of a judge pro tempore to conduct a settlement conference. The judge pro tempore is
requested to conduct the settlement conference no later than October 11, 2023.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than July 13, 2023 the parties file with the
Court a Joint Request and Certification of Readiness for Setting Settlement Conference Under
Rule 16(i), Ariz. R. Civ. P. The Joint Request and Certification of Readiness for Setting
Settlement Conference Under Rule 16(i), Ariz. R. Civ. P. is available through the Law Library
Resource
Center
website: https://tinyurl.com/CV-JointReq-English; https://tinyurl.com/CV-
JointReq-Spanish

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to file a Joint Request and Certification of
Readiness for Setting Settlement Conference will result in the Court vacating the ADR referral for

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

06/23/2023

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

appointment of a judge pro tempore, with leave for the parties to seek another ADR referral upon
completion of the certification process.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/02/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

07/01/2024

Docket Code 099
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT A. BLANEY
P. McKinley

Deputy

PAT MAH
PAT MAH
1747 E NORTHERN AVE UNIT 132
PHOENIX AZ 85020

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
HENRY NICKOLAS EICHER

KYLE BANFIELD
JONATHAN A DESSAULES
JACOB A KUBERT
DOCKET CV TX
JUDGE BLANEY

WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record
for Plaintiff Without Consent, filed May 16, 2024.

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion and permitting Jonathan A. Dessaules, Jacob A.
Kubert and Dessaules Law Group to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff Pat Mah for all
further proceedings, all in accordance with the Order Granting Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of
Record for Plaintiff signed by the Court on July 1, 2024 and filed (entered) by the Clerk on July
1, 2024.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED unless and until Plaintiff Pat Mah retains new counsel, all
future correspondence shall be sent directly to Plaintiff at the following address.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

07/01/2024

Docket Code 099
Form V000A
Page 2

Pat Mah
1747 E. Northern Ave., # 132
Phoenix, AZ 85020
(602) 944-5863
[email protected]

THE COURT FINDS that unless and until a lawyer files a notice of appearance on behalf
of Plaintiff Pat Mah, Plaintiff, as a self-represented litigant, shall comply with all obligations as
such.

If you are not represented by a lawyer, you must keep the Court updated regarding your
current mailing address, email address and telephone number. If your mailing address, email
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 (general form – GN91f – Update Information on
Address and/or Name with the Court) can be downloaded at no charge from the following website:
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/llrc/fc_gn9/

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/09/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

07/08/2024

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT A. BLANEY
P. McKinley

Deputy

PAT MAH
PAT MAH
1747 E NORTHERN AVE UNIT 132
PHOENIX AZ 85020

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
HENRY NICKOLAS EICHER

JONATHAN D EBERTSHAUSER
JUDGE BLANEY

RULING

The Court has reviewed and considered Defendant’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions, the
related briefing, and the record in this case.

THE COURT FINDS that this issue was already addressed in the Court’s May 7, 2023
Ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (filed 05/08/2024).
The Court does not find good cause for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11, Ariz.R.Civ.P.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions.

If you are not represented by a lawyer, you must keep the Court updated regarding your
current mailing address, email address and telephone number. If your mailing address, email
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 (general form – GN91f – Update Information on
Address and/or Name with the Court) can be downloaded at no charge from the following website:
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/llrc/fc_gn9/

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/05/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

08/02/2024

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT A. BLANEY
P. McKinley

Deputy

PAT MAH
PAT MAH
1747 E NORTHERN AVE UNIT 132
PHOENIX AZ 85020

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
HENRY NICKOLAS EICHER

JONATHAN D EBERTSHAUSER
KYLE BANFIELD
JUDGE BLANEY

RULING

The Court has reviewed and considered Defendant’s Request for Entry of Rule 54(b)
Judgment; Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Request for Entry of Rule 54(b) Judgment;
Defendant’s Reply in Support of Request for Entry of Rule 54(b) Judgment; and the record in this
case.

THE COURT FINDS that Defendant has not established good cause for its request.

In the Court’s discretion:

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Request for Entry of Rule 54(b) Judgment.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/21/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

08/20/2024

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT A. BLANEY
P. McKinley

Deputy

PAT MAH
PAT MAH
1747 E NORTHERN AVE UNIT 132
PHOENIX AZ 85020

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
HENRY NICKOLAS EICHER

JONATHAN D EBERTSHAUSER
KYLE BANFIELD
JUDGE BLANEY

ORDER ENTERED BY COURT

The Court has received Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification, filed August 12, 2024.

IT IS ORDERED Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiff’s motion, of no more than
four (4) pages in length, by September 4, 2024.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/27/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

08/26/2025

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT A. BLANEY
P. McKinley

Deputy

PAT MAH
PAT MAH
1747 E NORTHERN AVE UNIT 132
PHOENIX AZ 85020

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
HENRY NICKOLAS EICHER

JUDGE BLANEY

ORAL ARGUMENT SET

The Court has received the following:
1. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed May 14, 2025, and all related
briefing; and
2. Defendant’s Motion to Strike in Part Plaintiff’s Response to Motion for Summary
Judgment, filed June 25, 2025, and all related briefing.

IT IS ORDERED setting in-person Oral Argument on October 27, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.
(time allotted: 45 minutes) on the filings identified above, before this Division:

Honorable Scott A. Blaney
East Court Building
101 West Jefferson, Courtroom 411
Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2202
Telephone: (602) 372-1095

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

08/26/2025

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2

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.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

09/27/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

09/26/2022

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT BLANEY
P. McKinley

Deputy

PAT MAH
JOHN SUD

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
HENRY NICKOLAS EICHER

ANDREW B TURK
JONATHAN D EBERTSHAUSER
JUDGE BLANEY

ORAL ARGUMENT

East Court Building – Courtroom 411

8:59 a.m. This is the time set for virtual Oral Argument on Defendant’s Partial Motion to
Dismiss, filed January 26, 2022. Plaintiff Pat Mah is present and represented by Counsel John
Sud and Andrew Turk. Defendant is represented by Counsel Jonathan Ebertshauser for counsel
of record Henry Nickolas Eicher. All appearances are virtual and/or telephonic via Court
Connect/ Microsoft Teams.

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

The Court advises counsel of his preliminary analysis.

For the reasons stated on the record,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

09/26/2022

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED striking all attachments to Defendant’s Reply as those documents
were improperly raised for the first time on reply.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement the Record,
filed April 11, 2022, and all attachments thereto. The Motion constitutes additional argument
submitted without first seeking leave from the Court.

Oral argument is presented.

IT IS ORDERED taking under advisement Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss, filed
January 26, 2022.

9:41 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

09/28/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

09/26/2022

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT BLANEY
P. McKinley

Deputy

PAT MAH
JOHN SUD

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
HENRY NICKOLAS EICHER

ANDREW B TURK
JONATHAN D EBERTSHAUSER
JUDGE BLANEY

UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING

The Court has reviewed and considered Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss,
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Defendant’s Reply in Support of Partial
Motion to Dismiss, and the arguments received at the September 26, 2022 oral argument.

As a general policy matter, “motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are not favored
under Arizona law.” State ex rel. Corbin v. Pickrell, 136 Ariz. 589, 594 (1983). When
considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court will look only to the pleading
itself and consider the well-pled factual allegations contained therein. Cullen v. Auto-Owners
Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 419 (2008). The Court must assume the truth of the well-pled factual
allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences therefrom. Id. (internal citations omitted).

“Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) only if ‘as a matter of law []plaintiffs
would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of
proof.’” Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352, 356 ¶ 8 (2012) (quoting Fid. Sec. Life Ins. Co.
v. State Dep’t of Ins., 191 Ariz. 222, 224 (1998).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

09/26/2022

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2

THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:

1. This case involves a dispute over assessments issued by the condominium association
(the “Association”) for a condominium community.

2. The Association is governed by an elected volunteer Board of Directors.

3. The Association, all owners of property within the Association, and all property or
“units” within the community are bound by the CC&Rs (the “Declaration”).

4. Some of the units in the condominium community have balconies and “walk decks” that
are designed to serve a single unit, as opposed to all units in the community. Other units,
such as Plaintiff’s unit, do not have balconies and walk decks but instead have two patios
connected to the unit.

5. The balconies and walk decks are considered “Limited Common Elements” pursuant to
the Declaration, Section 3.5.

6. The Association is responsible as part of the Common Expenses for the maintenance,
repair and replacement of the Limited Common Elements pursuant to the Declaration,
Section 4.2, which includes the balconies and walk decks. Thus, as long as the
Association is conducting: (1) maintenance; (2) repair; or (3) replacement associated with
the balconies and/or walk decks, the cost is considered a Common Expense.

7. The Declaration’s allocation of Common Expenses for the repair and maintenance of
Limited Common Elements – such as the balconies and walk decks – to all unit owners
differs from the Arizona Condominium Act, A.R.S. § 33-1255(C)(1)&(2), which
allocates such expenses to the specific unit owners that benefit from the exclusive use of
the Elements. The Declaration’s deviation from the statute’s mandate is permissible, as
recognized by the plain language of the statute. A.R.S. § 33-1255(C) (“Unless otherwise
provided for in the declaration all of the following apply….”) (emphasis added).

8. Pursuant to Section 6.7 of the Declaration, all Assessments – except special Assessments
– are fixed at an equal amount for every unit in the community. This includes Common
Expenses arising from maintenance, repair, or replacement associated with balconies
and/or walk decks, regardless of whether a unit has a balcony or walk deck.

9. “Special Assessments” are levied by the Association against a unit and its owner to
reimburse the association for: (1) costs incurred in bringing a unit and its owner into

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

09/26/2022

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3

compliance; (2) any other charge designated as a special Assessment in the Declaration,
the Bylaws, or the Association Rules; (3) attorney’s fees and related charges as provided
in the Declaration; or (4) materials or services that the Association offers to a specific
owner that the owner voluntarily accepts.

10. Although the Association can undertake maintenance, repair, or replacement associated
with the balconies and walk decks, “structural alterations or additions to any building”
require, inter alia, the prior approval of the majority of the Owners given at a regular or
special meeting of the members of the Association and the prior approval of the majority
of First Mortgagees. The cost for such alterations or additions is paid by means of a
special assessment, levied and collected from each owner in proportion to that owner’s
undivided interest in the common elements.

11. The Association has assessed the cost for repair of certain balconies and walk decks
against all Unit Owners.

Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the cost of the repair to the balconies cannot
be assessed against her because a 1996 Amendment to the CC&Rs limits the allocation of
Common Expenses for Limited Common Elements to only those homeowners who benefit from
the exclusive use of the Limited Common Elements.

THE COURT FINDS specifically that Plaintiff is not entitled to declaratory judgment
on this basis. See Finding Nos. 5 & 6, above.

Plaintiff further seeks a declaratory judgment that the mechanism for assessing the costs
of the repairs of the balconies is through a Special Assessment on the unit owners that benefit
from the exclusive use of the balconies.

THE COURT FINDS specifically that the Court is unable to determine the proper form
of Assessment for the specific work being performed in this case. If the work being performed
on the balconies is in fact, “repair,” the Association is entitled to rely upon Regular Assessments
on all unit owners. But if the work is actually “structural alterations or additions,” as Plaintiff
suggests, the Association may only pay the costs by Special Assessment. See Finding No. 10,
above. Again, the Court is unable to make that determination on the limited evidence in the
record. But Plaintiff has identified a justiciable controversy and the Verified Complaint contains
sufficient facts to support a declaratory judgment on this specific issue, with all well-pled facts
taken as true for purposes of the present motion, to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS for the sake of clarity that a declaratory judgment on
this issue – if issued – would exclude the following language from Count 1: “…as is consistent

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

09/26/2022

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 4

with the admissions of the Association and Sections 1.9 (as amended), 1.10, 1.24, 3.5, 4.1, and
6.5 of the CC&Rs.”

Plaintiff further alleges in Count 2 and Count 3 that the Association violated the CC&Rs
by: (1) making structural changes without prior approval from the Unit Owners and First
Mortgagees; (2) using Regular Assessments and Capital Improvement Assessments to raise
funds for the work performed on the balconies and walk decks; and (3) failing to provide
documentation requested by Plaintiff to which she was entitled pursuant to the Declaration.

THE COURT FINDS specifically that the Verified Complaint contains sufficient facts,
taken as true for purposes of the present motion, to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge to Counts 2
and 3.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss in
part and denying the Motion in part. The portion of Count 1 that relies upon the 1996
Amendment to the CC&Rs is dismissed for the reasons stated herein. The Motion is denied as to
the remaining portions of Count 1 and all of Counts 2 and 3 of the Verified Complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, because the Court has agreed with Defendant’s
interpretation of the Declaration, declining to rule on Defendant’s defenses of res judicata and
collateral estoppel.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties and their attorneys shall meet and confer
informally, in person by November 4, 2022 to discuss possible resolution of this dispute. As an
alternative, the parties may schedule formal mediation to occur prior to January 20, 2023.

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.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/14/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

10/13/2022

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT BLANEY
P. McKinley

Deputy

PAT MAH
JOHN SUD

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
HENRY NICKOLAS EICHER

ANDREW B TURK
JONATHAN D EBERTSHAUSER
JUDGE BLANEY

ORDER ENTERED BY COURT

The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification, filed October
10, 2022.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant file a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion within fourteen
(14) days from the filing date of this Order.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/16/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

10/15/2025

Docket Code 095
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT A. BLANEY
P. McKinley

Deputy

PAT MAH
PAT MAH
1747 E NORTHERN AVE UNIT 132
PHOENIX AZ 85020

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
KYLE BANFIELD

JONATHAN D EBERTSHAUSER
CV ARBITRATION
JUDGE BLANEY

ORAL ARGUMENT RESET

Due to a scheduling conflict, and with the parties’ agreement via email,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the October 27, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. Oral Argument regarding
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed May 14, 2025, and Defendant’s Motion to Strike
in Part Plaintiff’s Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, filed June 25, 2025, and resetting
same virtually to October 29, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. (time allotted: 45 minutes) in this Division.

PLEASE NOTE: The proceeding set above will be held via Court Connect (the Court’s
video-conference/virtual hearing platform). An auto-generated email will or has been sent to
counsel of record and any parties representing themselves who have a valid email address on file
in this matter with information for joining the proceeding virtually. If for some reason you did not
receive the email, you may join the proceeding using the following link: Tiny URL:
https://www.tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj09, or you may appear via telephone by calling 1-917-781-

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

10/15/2025

Docket Code 095
Form V000A
Page 2

4590, conference ID# 867 494 109#. For further information regarding Court Connect, please visit:
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect/

NOTE: All Court proceedings are recorded digitally and not by a court reporter. Pursuant
to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any proceeding in which a court reporter
is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30, the party must submit a written request to the
assigned judicial officer at least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the hearing, and must pay the
authorized fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial days before the proceeding. The
fee is $140 for a half-day and $280 for a full day.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/31/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

10/29/2025

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT A. BLANEY
P. McKinley

Deputy

PAT MAH
PAT MAH
1747 E NORTHERN AVE UNIT 132
PHOENIX AZ 85020

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
KYLE BANFIELD

JONATHAN D EBERTSHAUSER
CV ARBITRATION
JUDGE BLANEY

ORAL ARGUMENT

East Court Building – Courtroom 411-VC-CV

10:00 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument on Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, filed May 14, 2025, and Defendant’s Motion to Strike in Part Plaintiff’s Response to
Motion for Summary Judgment, filed June 25, 2025. Plaintiff Pat Mah is present on her own behalf.
Defendant Canterra At Squaw Peak Condominium Association Inc. is represented by Counsel
Kyle Banfield and Jonathan Ebertshauser. Also present to observe are Bente Hewitt, Cindy Dahn,
Craig Dahn, Roberto DiPaolo and Sean Balog, representatives/residents of Defendant Canterra At
Squaw Peak Condominium Association Inc. All appearances are virtual and/or telephonic.

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

Oral argument is presented.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

10/29/2025

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED taking under advisement Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
filed May 14, 2025, and Defendant’s Motion to Strike in Part Plaintiff’s Response to Motion for
Summary Judgment, filed June 25, 2025.

10:16 a.m. Matter concludes.

If you are not represented by a lawyer, you must keep the Court updated regarding your
current mailing address, email address and telephone number. If your mailing address, email
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 (general form – GN91f – Update Information on
Address and/or Name with the Court) can be downloaded at no charge from the following website:
https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/services/filings/civil-and-tax-filing

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

11/25/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

11/22/2024

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT A. BLANEY
P. McKinley

Deputy

PAT MAH
PAT MAH
1747 E NORTHERN AVE UNIT 132
PHOENIX AZ 85020

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
HENRY NICKOLAS EICHER

JUDGE BLANEY

RULING

The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification, Defendant’s
Response to Plaintiff’s August 12, 2024 Second Motion for Clarification, Plaintiff’s Reply in
Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification, Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Reply in
Support of Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Strike Reply
in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification, and the record in this case.

THE COURT FINDS that Plaintiff has not established good cause for her requested
clarification. The Court’s September 26, 2022 Under Advisement Ruling (filed 09/28/2022) was
sufficiently clear.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to Strike as moot.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

11/22/2024

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying, without prejudice, Defendant’s request for
sanctions pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-349. Defendant may reassert its request in the future if Plaintiff
continues to unnecessarily seek clarification or reconsideration of the Court’s prior ruling.

If you are not represented by a lawyer, you must keep the Court updated regarding your
current mailing address, email address and telephone number. If your mailing address, email
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 (general form – GN91f – Update Information on
Address and/or Name with the Court) can be downloaded at no charge from the following website:
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/llrc/fc_gn9/

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

11/29/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

11/28/2022

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT BLANEY
P. McKinley

Deputy

PAT MAH
JOHN SUD

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
HENRY NICKOLAS EICHER

ANDREW B TURK
JONATHAN D EBERTSHAUSER
JUDGE BLANEY

RULING

The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification, filed October
10, 2022; Defendant’s Response; and Plaintiff’s Reply.

IT IS ORDERED, based on failure to establish good cause, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied.

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.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/30/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

12/29/2025

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT A. BLANEY
M. R. Diaz

Deputy

PAT MAH
PAT MAH
1747 E NORTHERN AVE UNIT 132
PHOENIX AZ 85020

v.

CANTERRA AT SQUAW PEAK
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
KYLE BANFIELD

JUDGE BLANEY

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has reviewed and considered Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and
the parties’ related briefing, as well as the lengthy record in this case and the arguments received
at the October 29, 2025 oral argument.

This action arises from a dispute between a Plaintiff/homeowner and
Defendant/homeowners association (the “Association”). Plaintiff’s residence is located within
the complex that the Association oversees. The relevant background facts are detailed in the
Court’s September 26, 2022 Under Advisement Ruling on Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss
(filed 09/28/2022). For the sake of brevity, the Court incorporates those background facts
herein.

Defendant moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s remaining claims from the First
Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which include: (1) declaratory relief; (2) breach of contract; (3)
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (4) violation of A.R.S. § 33-
1258 based upon Defendant’s purported failure to allow Plaintiff reasonable access to the

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

12/29/2025

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2

Association’s records. Each of the first three claims rely on the same allegations that: (1)
Defendant paid for repairs to balconies without authority; (2) Plaintiff is entitled to
reimbursement for all amounts she has paid to maintain and repair her windows and doors; and
(3) Defendant used improper budgeting and created a “slush fund” without authorization.

Summary judgment is appropriate only if no genuine issue of material fact exists and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Rule 56(a), Arizona Rules of Civil
Procedure; Orme School v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 305 (1990). All facts must be viewed in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Co. v. James,
118 Ariz. 116 (1978); Farmers Ins. Co. v. Vagnozzi, 138 Ariz. 443, 448 (1983). “Credibility
determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the
facts” are not proper on summary judgment. Orme School, 166 Ariz. at 309-10 (citing Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2513, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). But the
Court will not deny a motion for summary judgment on the speculation “that some slight doubt
…, some scintilla of evidence, or some dispute over irrelevant or immaterial facts might blossom
into a real controversy in the midst of trial.” Orme School, 166 Ariz. at 311.

THE COURT FINDS that Defendant has established that no genuine issue of material
fact precludes summary judgment on Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment claim and Defendant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law on that claim. Defendant has established through
competent evidence in the record – as well as this Court’s previous rulings in this case – that the
2020 balcony work was “repair, maintenance, and/or replacement” and not “structural alterations
or additions.” See September 26, 2022 Under Advisement Ruling. Plaintiff has failed to identify
any genuine issue for trial on her declaratory judgment claim.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS, specifically, that the Association was authorized to
use regular assessments to pay for the 2020 balcony work.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that for the same reasons that Plaintiff has not
identified a genuine issue for trial on her declaratory judgment claim, Defendant has established
that no genuine issue of material fact precludes summary judgment on Plaintiff’s breach of
contract claim and Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on that
claim. Additionally, the Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments regarding an impermissible “slush
fund” to be confusing and unsupported by the record.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that for the same reasons that Plaintiff has not
identified a genuine issue for trial on her breach of contract claim, Defendant has established that
no genuine issue of material fact precludes summary judgment on Plaintiff’s breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim and Defendant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law on that claim.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2021-018876

12/29/2025

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Defendant has established that no genuine issue
of material fact precludes summary judgment on Plaintiff’s A.R.S. § 33-1258 claim and
Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on that claim. First, Defendant is correct
that the statute does not create a private right of action for an allegedly aggrieved party. But
more importantly, Defendant has established through citation to the record that the majority of
the documents Plaintiff seeks were already disclosed to Plaintiff prior to and during this
litigation. In other instances, Plaintiff seeks vague, broad categories of documents without
sufficient specificity to overcome summary judgment. Plaintiff has not identified any specific
document that has been improperly withheld by Defendant.

On good cause, and in the Court’s discretion,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendant shall lodge a proposed form of Judgment and
file their attorney’s fee application, if any, and affidavit in support thereof, and their statement
of costs, if any, within 20 days of the filing date of this Minute Entry; Plaintiff shall file any
objections thereto within 20 days thereafter; and Defendants shall file their replies within 10
days thereafter.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Judgment shall contain Rule 54(c) language as upon
resolving attorney’s fees and costs, no further matters will remain pending.

Documents