04/18/2022 — CV2021090777 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, SUN VILLAGE 04/18/2022 HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/19/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-090777
04/18/2022
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
K. Tiero
Deputy
SUN VILLAGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CHAD M GALLACHER
v.
LELAND D SEARLES, et al.
LELAND D SEARLES
14494 W BUFFALO TRL
SURPRISE AZ 85374
CAROL A SEARLES
14494 W BUFFALO TRL
SURPRISE AZ 85374
DOUGLAS SEARLES
1034 HAVEN CT
FIRCREST WA 98466
JUDGE COFFEY
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. No response was filed
and the deadline for filing a response has expired.
Motions for summary judgment “should be granted if the facts produced in support of the
claim or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that
reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or
defense.” Orme School v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 309 (1990). When considering a motion for
summary judgment, all evidence of the non-moving party is to be believed, and all justifiable
inferences are to be drawn in the non-movant’s favor. Id. at 309-10. Summary judgment should
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-090777
04/18/2022
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
not be used as a substitute for a trial simply because the Court may believe the moving party will
probably prevail or that the moving party should prevail at trial. Id.
The party moving for summary judgment must produce evidence that it believes
demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and must explain why summary
judgment is warranted. Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Thruston, 218 Ariz. 112, 115 (App. 2008). If the
non-moving party has the burden of proof of the claim or defense at trial, the moving party need
not disprove the nonmoving party's claim or defense, but need only point out the lack of evidence
on an essential element of the claim or defense. Id. at 117. If the moving party meets its burden,
the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to present sufficient evidence demonstrating the existence
of a disputed fact. Id. at 119. The nonmoving party cannot then rest on its pleadings, but must call
to the Court's attention evidence to explain why the motion should be denied. Id. The opponents
of a motion for summary judgment do not raise a genuine issue of fact by merely stating in the
record that such an issue exists. Rather, they must show that competent evidence is available which
will justify a trial on the issue. Flowers v. K-Mart Corp., 126 Ariz. 495, 499 (App. 1980). “If the
party with the burden of proof on the claim or defense cannot respond to the motion by showing
that there is evidence creating a genuine issue of fact on the element in question, then the motion
for summary judgment should be granted.” Orme School at 310.
Plaintiff’s Motion establishes that Defendants owe Plaintiff the money that is set forth in
their Complaint and in the Motion. Defendant has not come forward with any arguments or
evidence that would prevent the Court from granting Plaintiff’s Motion. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff may
submit a proposed form of judgment consistent with this Order.
06/14/2021 — CV2021090777 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, SUN VILLAGE 06/14/2021 HONORABLE JANICE CRAWFORD View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/15/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-090777
06/14/2021
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JANICE CRAWFORD
V. Felix
Deputy
SUN VILLAGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CHAD M GALLACHER
v.
LELAND D SEARLES, et al.
LELAND D SEARLES
14494 W BUFFALO TRL
SURPRISE AZ 85374
CAROL A SEARLES
14494 W BUFFALO TRL
SURPRISE AZ 85374
DOUGLAS SEARLES
1034 HAVEN CT
FIRCREST WA 98466
JUDGE CRAWFORD
MINUTE ENTRY
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The
deadline for a response has passed and no response has been filed. However, because Plaintiff
bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, Defendants are not
required to respond to controvert the motion.
A plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment only if the motion is supported by admissible
evidence that would compel any reasonable juror to find in its favor on all elements of the claim.
See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Allen, 231 Ariz. 209, 292 P.3d 195 (Ct. App. 2012). In this case,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment relies on Exhibits attached to the Separate Statement of
Facts contained as part of the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Exhibits include the Affidavit
of David Gauvin, various business records, a print-out titled Rule 1006 Summary, letters, and other
documents.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-090777
06/14/2021
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
A business record is admissible, regardless of its classification as hearsay, if a custodian
testifies it was: (1) “made at or near the time by—or from information transmitted by—someone
with knowledge;” (2) kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity; (3) the making
of the record was a regular practice; and (4) “the opponent does not show that the source of
information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.”
Ariz. R. Evid. 803(6). Although, Plaintiff submitted the Affidavit of Mr. Gauvin, the Affidavit
does not refer to any of the specific documents submitted with the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Accordingly, the Affidavit falls short of the requirements set forth in Wells Fargo Bank, 231 Ariz.
At 200, 292 P.3d at 214; see also State v. Johnson, 184 Ariz. 521, 524, 911 P.2d 527, 530 (Ct.
App. 1994) (holding that when documents are attached and/or referenced in an affidavit, the affiant
must establish that he or she reviewed the documents and was familiar with the manner in which
they were prepared for them to be admissible).
Additionally, the Affidavit does not substantively address the accompanying evidence well
enough to establish its admissibility or credibility. Finally, neither the Affidavit nor the documents
attached as Exhibits allow the Court to evaluate the accuracy or the method of calculation of the
alleged deficiency.
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
