02/14/2022 — CV2021095221 SINGH, GURPREET 02/14/2022 HONORABLE STEPHEN M. HOPKINS View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
02/15/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-095221
02/14/2022
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE STEPHEN M. HOPKINS
C. Avena
Deputy
CANYON TRAILS UNIT 4 SOUTH
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
CHARLES B SELLERS
v.
GURPREET SINGH, et al.
GURPREET SINGH
16824 W TORONTO WAY
GOODYEAR AZ 85338
SATWINDER S BANSAL
16824 W TORONTO WAY
GOODYEAR AZ 85338
ARWINDER KAUR
16824 W TORONTO WAY
GOODYEAR AZ 85338
COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK
JUDGE HOPKINS
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed and considered the Plaintiff’s proposed form of Judgment. The
Court now rules as follows.
The proposed form of Judgment is submitted pursuant to Rule 54 (b) of the Arizona
Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 54 (b) is designed as a compromise between the policy against
interlocutory appeals and the desirability “in a few cases” of an immediate appeal to prevent an
injustice. See, e.g., Southern California Edison Co. v. Peabody Western Coal Co., 194 Ariz. 47,
977 P.2d 769 (1999). Our appellate courts have emphasized the strong policy and desire to
prevent piecemeal appeals. McHazlett v. Otis Engineering Corp., 133 Ariz. 530, 652 P.2d 1377
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-095221
02/14/2022
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
(1982). Stated another way Rule 54 (b) language may be appropriate in those “few cases” where
no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were
subsequent appeals. Dabrowsi v. Bartlett, 246 Ariz. 504, 442 P.3d 811 (App. 2019). As
confirmed by the Southern California Edison court:
Rule 54 . . is designed as a compromise between the policy against interlocutory appeals
and the desirability, in a few cases, of an immediate appeal to prevent an injustice.
Pulaski, 127 Ariz. at 218, 619 P.2d at 490. A trial judge has discretion to decide whether
an order or judgment should be accorded finality; the judge should certify the order or
judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) only in those cases in which some hardship or injustice
would result from a delay in entering a final judgment. See id.; see also 10 CHARLES
ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER & MARY KAY KANE, FEDERAL
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: CIVIL 3D § 2659. Our decision today does not depart
from our policy against piecemeal appeals, nor from our policy in favor of arbitration.
We emphasize that 54(b) orders should not be entered routinely or as a courtesy or
accommodation to counsel. The power which this Rule confers upon the trial judge
should be used only ‘in the infrequent harsh case’ as an instrument for improved
administration of justice and the more satisfactory disposition of litigation in light of the
public policy indicated by statute [as to the appealability of final judgments] and rule.
Pulaski, 127 Ariz. at 218, 619 P.2d at 490 (quoting Panichella v. Pennsylvania R.R., 252
F.2d 452, 455 (3d Cir.1958)).
194 Ariz. at 53, 977 P.2d at 769.
This is not the “infrequent harsh case” where an immediate appeal is necessary to prevent
an injustice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying the any request for 54 (b) certification, and
denying the request for entry of Judgment at this time.
04/06/2022 — CV2021095221 SINGH, GURPREET 04/06/2022 HONORABLE STEPHEN M. HOPKINS View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/07/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-095221
04/06/2022
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE STEPHEN M. HOPKINS
C. Avena
Deputy
CANYON TRAILS UNIT 4 SOUTH
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
CHARLES B SELLERS
v.
GURPREET SINGH, et al.
GURPREET SINGH
16824 W TORONTO WAY
GOODYEAR AZ 85338
SATWINDER S BANSAL
16824 W TORONTO WAY
GOODYEAR AZ 85338
ARWINDER KAUR
16824 W TORONTO WAY
GOODYEAR AZ 85338
COMM. KAISER
JUDGE HOPKINS
ORDER ENTERED BY THE COURT
MINUTE ENTRY
This division has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application/Affidavit for Entry of Default
against Defendant(s), Gurpreet Singh, Arwinder Kaur, and Satwinder S. Bansal in the above-
captioned case.
IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above referenced
document(s).
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2021-095221
04/06/2022
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
The parties are advised that commissioners handle Rule 55(b) Default Judgment
proceedings and that the default proceedings in this matter are to be heard by Commissioner Brian
Kaiser.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all documents necessary to support the entry of a
default judgment must be e-filed.
Pursuant to the Maricopa County eFiling Guidelines, Section 2.09, attorneys shall
electronically file all the documents required to request a default judgment, such as the Application
for Entry of Default, Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, Sum Certain Affidavit, and
Application for Attorneys’ Fees when appropriate and Statement of Costs, but shall submit a
default judgment packet required by the Court, including the documents identified on the default
judgment packet coversheet, in paper to the assigned commissioner’s division. A commissioner
will not act upon a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment until the default judgment packet with
all the required documents has been received by the division in paper form.
The parties/counsel can find additional information in the form of frequently asked
questions at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/howDoI.
asp
The parties/counsel can find additional information regarding the default judgment process
at:
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/llrc/cv_cvc6/.
