Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2023-002759: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Royal Riviera H O A.

Case Number

CV2023-002759

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

2/21/2023

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Arbitration 01 | Pineda

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/26/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

01/23/2026

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
T. Williams

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Signed Order Regarding
November 7, 2025 Minute Entry (ARIZ. R. CIV. P. 58), filed January 15, 2026.

IT IS ORDERED amending the Minute Entry Dated November 7, 2025, to include the
following language:

IT IS ORDERED, dismissing this matter without prejudice as to all claims against all
parties. No further matters remain pending, and the Court signs this minute entry as a final
judgment pursuant to Rule 54(c), Ariz. R. Civ. P.

DATED this 23rd day of January, 2026.

/s/ Susanna C. Pineda
THE HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
Judicial Officer of the Superior Court of Arizona

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/03/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

03/28/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOHN REA
J. Holguin

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

COMM. JOHN REA

MINUTE ENTRY

Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default judgment. The record reflects that the
defendant was served and time filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civil Rule 12. Entry of
default is therefore inappropriate.

IT IS ORDERED Motion for entry of default judgment is denied.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/07/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

04/06/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOHN REA
N. Johnson

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

COMM. JOHN REA

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has considered Defendant's motion to dismiss, Plaintiff's opposition, and
Defendant's reply. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the reply. This is not allowed by the rules and
Plaintiff did not seek leave to file the document. The Court has not considered the opposition to
the reply.

The Complaint is not in compliance with several Civil Rules, most notably Rule 8 and Rule
10. The Court is strongly inclined to treat the pleadings of self-represented litigants liberally, but
even a self-represented litigant must show some sign of attempting to comply with the rules. This
Complaint does not.

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss complaint is granted. Plaintiff is granted leave
to file an amended complaint in compliance with rules, including, but not limited, page numbers,
numbered paragraphs, and specific statements of the relief sought for each claim. Plaintiff must
file the amended complaint by April 21, 2023.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/29/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

04/25/2024

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
T. DeRaddo

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

CODY FIERRO
CV ARBITRATION
JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions on Arbitrator and Find
Defendant Defaulted and Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff, filed March 18, 2024; Defendant’s
Response to Plaintiff Motion for Sanctions on Arbitrator and Find Defendant Defaulted and
Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff, filed April 4, 2024; and Plaintiff’s Reply(s), filed April 10, 2024.

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion(s).

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/26/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

04/25/2024

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
T. DeRaddo

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

CV ARBITRATION
JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions on Defendant on
His Filing of 3-21-24 and Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff, filed March 21, 2024; and Defendant’s
April 4, 2024 Response thereto.

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/01/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

04/30/2024

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
T. DeRaddo

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

JUDGE GORDON
JUDGE PINEDA

VIRTUAL STATUS CONFERENCE SET

The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiff’s Objection to Arbitrator’s Decision on 2-
22-2024 and Motion for Default Judgment for Plaintiff on All 84 Counts, Arbitrator Find in
Favor of a Non Existent Defendant (Royal Riviera HOA), filed March 3, 2024.

IT IS ORDERED setting a virtual/telephonic Status Conference on May 23, 2024 at
11:30 a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are directed to contact the division via video
conference using Court Connect on the date and time of the hearing. Information regarding access
to this division’s virtual courtroom is listed below.

Enter the following address into your web browser and connect through Microsoft Teams
or your browser

www.tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj12

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

04/30/2024

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2

Use of the above link can be made easier by downloading the Microsoft Teams application first;
for more on the new platform, including an introduction video and participant guide, please visit
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect/

If necessary, you may connect to the meeting via telephone:

+1 (917) 781-4590

Microsoft Conference ID: 508 176 593#

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. Should you want an unofficial copy of the
proceedings, the parties or counsel may request a CD of the proceedings. For copies of
hearings or trial proceedings recorded previously, please call Electronic Records Services
at 602-506-7100, or order online at [email protected].

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/29/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

05/23/2024

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
M. Dern

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

CV ARBITRATION
JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

East Court Building – Courtroom 913

11:39 a.m. This is the time set for a virtual Status Conference regarding Plaintiff’s
Objection to Arbitrator’s Decision on 2-22-2024 and Motion for Default Judgment for Plaintiff
on All 84 Counts, Arbitrator Find in Favor of a Non Existent Defendant (Royal Riviera HOA),
filed March 3, 2024. Plaintiff, Paul Gounder, is present on his own behalf. Defendant, Royal
Riviera HOA, is represented by counsel of record, Charles D. Onofry.

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

THE COURT NOTES the receipt of Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue, Defendant’s Motion
to Strike all Pending Motions Filed by Plaintiff (and Enter Judgment on the Arbitration Award),
and Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue, all filed today, May 23, 2024. Due
to the pending Motions,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

05/23/2024

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a Response to Defendant’s Motion to Strike no
later than June 24, 2024.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED continuing this Status Conference to June 28, 2024 at
11:30 a.m. in this Division to discuss all pending Motions.

The Court expects the parties to appear by videoconference unless permission is otherwise
given by the Court.

IT IS ORDERED that the parties are directed to contact the division via video conference
using Court Connect on the date and time of the hearing. Information regarding access to this
division’s virtual courtroom is listed below.

Enter the following address into your web browser and connect through Microsoft Teams
or your browser

www.tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj12

Use of the above link can be made easier by downloading the Microsoft Teams application first;
for more on the new platform, including an introduction video and participant guide, please visit
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect/

If necessary, you may connect to the meeting via telephone:

+1 (917) 781-4590

Microsoft Conference ID: 508 176 593#

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.

11:43 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/13/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

06/09/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
A. Meza

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

This Court has reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss filed on May 15, 2023 and
Plaintiff’s Response. No reply has been filed.

Plaintiff has filed a complaint against the HOA of the condominium complex where he is
an owner. No other Defendants have been named or served. Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff
makes any claims against other “Defendants”,

IT IS ORDERED dismissing Counts 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54-1, 54-2, 54-3, 54-4, 68,
79, 80 and 81 to any individual named therein as well as any injunctive relief sought against these
non-defendants.

Plaintiff further alleges “racism” or racist acts by the HOA against an individual “Tina
Gounder.” Plaintiff has no standing to bring a claim of action for a 3rd party.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED dismissing Counts 41, 51, and 54.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

06/09/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

Defendant also properly argue that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for punitive damages.

A motion to dismiss is not a procedure for resolving disputes about the facts or merits of a
case. Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352, 363, ¶46, 284 P.3d 863, 874 (2012). Instead, the
narrow question presented by a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is whether facts
alleged in a complaint are sufficient “to warrant allowing the [plaintiff] to attempt to prove his
case.” Id. at 363, ¶46, 284 P.3d at 874 (emphasis added). Dismissal is permitted only when a
“plaintiff[] would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of
proof.” Fid. Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. State Dep't of Ins., 191 Ariz. 222, 224, ¶4, 954 P.2d 580, 582
(1998) (emphasis added). Moreover, a motion to dismiss requires a court to accept all material
facts alleged by the nonmoving party as true [Acker v. CSO Chevira, 188 Ariz. 252, 255, 934 P.2d
816, 819 (App. 1997) (citing Lakin Cattle Co. v. Engelthaler, 101 Ariz. 282, 284, 419 P.2d 66, 68
(1966)], view those facts “in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party" [Mirchandani v.
BMO Harris Bank, N.A., 235 Ariz. 68, 69, ¶2, 326 P.3d 335, 336 (App. 2014)], and “indulge [the
nonmoving party] all reasonable inferences” that the pleaded facts permit [Cullen v. Auto–Owners
Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 419, ¶7, 189 P.2d 344, 346 (2008)].

“Arizona follows a notice pleading standard.” Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352, 356
(2012), quoting Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 419 (2008). The purpose of a
complaint is to “give the opponent fair notice of the nature and basis of the claim and indicate
generally the type of litigation involved.” Cullen, id., quoting Mackey v. Spangler, 81 Ariz. 113,
115 (1956). A complaint that states only legal conclusions, without supporting factual allegations,
does not comply with Rule 8’s notice pleading standard. Cullen, id. If a complaint does not
comply with Rule 8, the defendant may move to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Cullen, id.;
Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

A court must submit the issue of punitive damages to a jury if any reasonable view of the
evidence would support an award of punitive damages. Quintero v. Rogers, 221 Ariz. 536, 542
(App. 2009). The issue of punitive damages should be left to the jury if there is any reasonable
evidence to support them; however, the evidence must be more than slight and inconclusive so as
to border on conjecture. Farr v. Transam. Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Cal., 145 Ariz. 1, 9 (App.
1984); see also Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Prods. Co., 171 Ariz. 550, 558 (1992).

To recover punitive damages, a plaintiff must show more than the “mere commission of a
tort”; among other things, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s conduct was aggravated
and outrageous and guided by an “evil mind.” Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 161 (1986);
Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 150 Ariz. 326, 330 (1986). Punitive damages are awarded
in the most egregious of cases, where there is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant
engaged in reprehensible conduct and acted with an evil mind. Sec. Title Agency, Inc. v. Pope,
219 Ariz. 480, 498 (App. 2008) (citations omitted). Such proof may be found where the defendant

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

06/09/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3

intended to injure the plaintiff or “consciously pursued a course of conduct knowing that it created
a substantial risk of significant harm to others.” Rawlings, id. at 162. A defendant acts with the
requisite evil mind when he intends to injure or defraud, or deliberately interferes with the rights
of others, consciously disregarding the unjustifiable substantial risk of significant harm to them.”
Hyatt Regency Phx. Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, 184 Ariz. 120, 132 (App. 1995) (internal
quotation and citations omitted). In determining whether a defendant acted with an evil mind, “a
court examines factors such as the reprehensibility of the conduct, the severity of harm that was
actually or potentially imposed and the defendant’s awareness of it, the duration of the
misconduct, and any concealment of the risk of harm.” Hudgins v. Sw. Airlines, Co., 221 Ariz.
472, 487 (App. 2009). “An evil mind can be established by a defendant’s statements or inferred
from its expressions, conduct, or objectives.” Id. “[T]he right to an award of punitive damages
must be grounded upon a cause of action for actual damages.” Quiroga v. Allstate Ins. Co., 151
Ariz. 127, 129 (App. 1986); see also Saucedo ex rel. Sinaloa v. Salvation Army, 200 Ariz. 179,
185- 86 (App. 2001) (“[C]ommon law mandates that a plaintiff suffer actual damages as a result
of the underlying tort before a claim of punitive damages can be entertained.”). The requirement
for actual damages does not require that the party claiming punitive damages be the net winner
after setoffs. It simply means that the “requisite intent and outrageous and egregious conduct must
occur in tandem with the conduct giving rise to the injury in order to recover punitive damages.”
Saucedo, id. at 182.

Due process principles limit the size of a punitive damage award. Nardelli v. Metro. Grp.
Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 230 Ariz. 592, 609 (App. 2012). “The United States Supreme Court has
instructed courts to consider three guideposts when reviewing punitive damages awards: “(1) the
degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or
potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference
between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed
in comparable cases.” Security Title Agency, Inc. v. Pope, 219 Ariz. 480, 501 (App. 2008),
quoting State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 418 (2003).

An appropriate amount of punitive damages is a fact sensitive; there is no bright-line ratio
between compensatory and punitive damages. Nardelli, id. at 611. However, “single-digit
multipliers are more likely to comport with due process, [and] a factor more than four comes
‘close to the line’ of constitutional impropriety.” Hudgins v. Sw. Airlines, Co., 221 Ariz. 472, 491
(App. 2009), quoting BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 581-82 (1996).

Here, with the above-stated law in mind, review of Plaintiff’s complaint indicates that it
contains absolutely no facts upon which the relief sought (punitive damages) can be granted.
Plaintiff merely makes conclusory requests for punitive damages without providing any facts
which would permit such an award.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

06/09/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 4

IT IS ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages as listed in
allegation p.3 ¶7, and Counts 1-3, 54-1, 54-2, 54-3, 54-4 and 55-81.

Defendant’s asks that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Allegation 7 and 9, as well as Count 1
¶ 7 regarding his allegation of emotional distress. His claim that the HOA failed to have a quorum
or used improper procedure in conducting meetings does not raise a claim for emotional distress.

IT IS ORDERED dismissing Allegation 7 and 9, as well as Count 1 ¶ 7.

Defendant also ask that Counts 46, 47 and 48, as well as similar allegations in Counts 49,
50, 51, 52, 53, 54-1, 54-2, 54-3, and 54-4 be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be obtained. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s allegation fails to state any basis for
damages. Plaintiff argues that the Bylaws were violated. Without more, Plaintiff fails to state a
colorable claim of action.

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts 46, 47 and 48, as well
as similar allegations contained in Counts 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54-1, 54-2, 54-3, and 54-4.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/22/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

06/21/2023

Docket Code 021
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
A. Hayes/C. Ladden

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

Upon judicial review,

IT IS ORDERED nunc pro tunc amending the Court’s June 9. 2023, minute entry to
reflect the Court reviewed Defendant’s Motion for Partial Dismissal of the Amended Complaint
filed May 10, 2023.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/28/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

06/27/2023

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
Y. Rodriguez

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

EDM-QC-CCC
JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

Pursuant to Plaintiff's Motion to Correct Defendant Name filed 6/14/2023 and
Defendant's Notice of No Objection filed 6/16/2023,

IT IS ORDERED directing the Clerk's Office to reflect Defendant's name as Royal
Riviera Condominium Association, in the caption of the case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing EDM-QC to reflect the above change as the
party's name in the electronic record.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/01/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

06/28/2024

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
K. Cabral

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

RENAE A NACHMAN
JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom 913 – East Court Building.

11:31 a.m. This is the time set for a virtual Status Conference. Plaintiff is present on his
own behalf. Defendant is represented by counsel, Renae A. Nachman.

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

Discussion is held regarding the arbitration award and Defendant’s Motions that have
been filed since the arbitrator’s ruling was issued.

Defendant states he is not appealing the arbitrator’s award.

For the reasons stated on the record,

IT IS ORDERED striking all of Plaintiff’s motions filed after April 8, 2024 because
Plaintiff’s failure to appeal from the Arbitrator’s Award has resulted in the award being binding

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

06/28/2024

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 2

upon the parties and moots all subsequent pleadings. The Arbitrator’s Award as issued on March
18, 2024, shall stand. This completes this matter with the Court.

Defendant further argues Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court notes the
application for attorneys’ fees and costs was timely filed and handled by the arbitrator. The
Court again notes that Plaintiff has not filed a timely appeal from the Arbitrator’s award of
attorneys’ fees and award.

At Defendant’s request,

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s April 30, 2024 Motion to Enter Judgment on the
Arbitration Award. The judgment will be entered electronically this day.

11:58 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/17/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

07/13/2023

Docket Code 021
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
S. Ortega

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

Pursuant to the Request for Clarification Re: Partial Motion for Dismissal of the Amended
Complaint, filed June 29, 2023,

IT IS ORDERED nunc pro tunc amending the Minute Entry dated June 9, 2023 and filed
June 13, 2023, page 4, paragraph 1, to indicate Count 1-53 in place and instead of Count 1-3.

The remainder of the minute entry stands in effect as stated therein.

The above referenced Minute Entry dated June 9, 2023 is available for viewing at:
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/27/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

07/26/2023

Docket Code 033
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
N. Johnson

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

JUDGE PINEDA
JUDGE VIOLA

REASSIGNMENT REQUEST DENIED – CIVIL PRESIDING JUDGE

The court received Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse filed July 19, 2023. The Motion was
forwarded to the Civil Presiding Judge for a determination. The Court determines that Plaintiff
seeks a ruling removing the assigned judge for cause under Rule 42.2 of the Arizona Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Rule 42.2 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party seeking a change
of judge for cause must establish grounds by affidavit as required by A.R.S. § 12-409. Plaintiff
failed to include an affidavit in support of his motion. Even if an affidavit was included, the issues
raised by Plaintiff fail to establish a basis to grant Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff lists several motions
which he claims have not been addressed by Judge Pineda. Upon review of the court docket, Judge
Pineda has either ruled on the “motion objecting to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.” Judge
Pineda treated the objection as a response to the Defendant’s Motion to dismiss as noted in the
June 9, 2023 ruling.

The Motion to Vacate the Court's ruling on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, filed on
June 29, 2023 is not yet ripe for a ruling. The Defendant has an opportunity to respond to the

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

07/26/2023

Docket Code 033
Form V000A
Page 2

Motion and the Plaintiff has an opportunity to file a Reply. The same analysis applies to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Vacate Nunc Pro Tunc order of June 21, 2023, and Motion for Default Judgment filed
on June 30, 2023. Plaintiff further complains about the July 13, 2023, Nunc Pro Tunc order that
was filed on July 17, 2023, because Plaintiff objected stating that Defendant used the wrong name
for clarification of the June 9, 2023, ruling correction. Disagreement with the Court action is not
a basis to remove a judge for cause. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555-56 (1994)
(finding that judicial rulings, routine trial administrative efforts, and ordinary admonishments
occur in the course of judicial proceedings and fail to stand as a proper basis to request removal of
a judge for cause absent a finding of knowledge acquired outside such proceeding or the display
of a deep-seated and unequivocal antagonism that would render fair judgment impossible); State
v. Henry, 189 Ariz. 543, 546 (1997) (citing State v. Curry, 187 Ariz. 623, 631 (App. 1996)).

Finally, Plaintiff references a number of other motions that this judicial officer was unable
to locate on the Court docket. Accordingly, Plaintiff may wish to contact the Clerk of Court to
verify the Motions that have been filed and docketed.

In sum, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy his burden to establish that a change of judge is
appropriate.

IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion to Recuse filed July 19, 2023.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/12/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

08/08/2024

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
J. Holguin

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Ruling by Judge,
Pineda Dated 6-28-2024 and Motion to Rule on the Pending Motions.Outlined[sic] filed on, July
8, 2024.

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Ruling by Judge, Pineda
Dated 6-28-2024 and Motion to Rule on the Pending Motions.Outlined[sic] filed on, July 8,
2024.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/14/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

08/10/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
N. Johnson

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

JUDGE PINEDA
JUDGE VIOLA

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has reviewed the Affidavit of Paul Gounder filed July 31, 2023 and the related
Motion to Include Affidavit and Motion to Reconsider Denial. The affidavit and motion fail to
provide any additional substantive basis for a change of judge not already raised. The Court
correctly noted that Mr. Grounder’s filings were not accurately reflected in the Court docket. As
the Motion acknowledges, several of the motions were attachments to other motions that were
docketed. Regardless, the assigned judge issued a minute entry on August 10, 2023 indicating the
various outstanding motions that were ripe for ruling, including those upon which Mr. Gounder
relies to support his motion. Based on the current Motion for Reconsideration, the assigned judge
has not had an opportunity to rule on the motions about which Mr. Gounder complains.

Going forward, Mr. Gounder may wish to review the procedures for filing documents to
ensure that each motion is filed separately so that the parties and the Court can address his various
requests for relief. Including separate motions as exhibits is not appropriate and frustrates an
efficient resolution of issues presented to the Court. Additionally, Mr. Gounder may wish to
review the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure which set forth the deadlines for responses and
replies.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

08/10/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion to Reconsider.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/11/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

08/10/2023

Docket Code 021
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
A. Meza

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED nunc pro tunc amending the Court’s Minute Entry dated June 9, 2023,
on page 1, paragraph 1 to reflect the following:

“This Court has reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss filed on May 15, 2023
and Plaintiff’s Response entitled Objection to Dismiss and Motion to Strike. No reply has
been filed. As Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss must be addressed prior to an Answer
being filed, it is Ordered Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Insufficient Answer) as
premature. No answer has been filed as of this date.”

in place and instead of:

“This Court has reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss filed on May 15, 2023
and Plaintiff’s Response. No reply has been filed.”

The balance of the Court’s Minute Entry dated June 9, 2023 remains unchanged.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

08/10/2023

Docket Code 021
Form V000A
Page 2

The minute entry dated June 9, 2023 is available for viewing at:
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/11/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

08/10/2023

Docket Code 025
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
A. Meza

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

JUDGE PINEDA
JUDGE VIOLA

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received the following Motions filed by Plaintiff: 1) Motion to Vacate
Nunc Pro Tunc Order; 2) Motion to Vacate June 9, 2023 Ruling; 3) Motion for Default; 4)
Modified Motion to Strike Defendant’s Motion Response on Plaintiff [sic] Motion for Default
and Motion for Sanctions for violating Rule 11 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure by Filing
Late Motion, and 5) Motion to Compel Judge Pineda to Rule on Motions filed by Plaintiff on
5/19/2023 [Objection to Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike], 6/29/2023 [Moton to Vacate
Nunc Pro Tunc Order] and 6/30/23 [Motion for Default.]

The Court notes that the Court has ruled on Plaintiff’s May 19, 2023 Objection to Motion
to Dismiss and Motion to Strike which the Court referred to as Plaintiff’s “Response” to
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. This Court has issued a Nunc Pro Tunc minute entry clarifying
that it determined this pleading to be Plaintiff’s Response to the Motion to Dismiss.

The Court notes that while readying to address Plaintiff’s remaining Motions (Defendant
has responded to Plaintiff’s Motions and for the most part, time for reply has passed or will soon

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

08/10/2023

Docket Code 025
Form V000A
Page 2

be passing) Plaintiff filed another Motion asking that this judicial officer be removed from the
case. Until that Motion is addressed, this judicial officer will not take any action on Plaintiff’s
pending Motions.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/16/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

08/15/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
N. Johnson

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

On July 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Recuse this judicial officer. On July 26, 2023,
the presiding civil judge denied his requests, returning this matter to this judicial officer. Five days
later, on July 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed his second motion seeking to remove this judicial
officer. Due to these motions, this Court was unable to rule on a number of pending motions. The
presiding judge, in a minute entry dated August 10, 2023, has subsequently denied Plaintiff’s
requests that the case be reassigned to another judicial officer. As a result, this Court will now
address the numerous motions filed by Plaintiff that could not be addressed previously. The Court
notes that the Rulings below will address all motions currently pending and will moot Plaintiff’s
Motion entitled “Motion to Compel Judge Pineda, [sic] to rule on Motions Filed by Plaintiff on 5-
19-2023. 6-29-2023 and 6-30-2023.”

“Motion to Vacate Nunc Pro Tunc Order”

On April 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint. On May 10, 2023, Defendant’s
filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal of the Amended Complaint. When ruling on this motion, the
Court inadvertently noted that the Motion for Partial Dismissal was filed on May 15, 2023. It
corrected this error by minute entry on June 21, 2023. Plaintiff, misreading the correction, has

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

08/15/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

filed a Motion entitled “Motion to Vacate Nunc Pro Tunc Order” asking that the Court vacate its
Nunc Pro Tunc Order issued on June 21, 2023. Defendant has responded.

IT IS ORDERED denying his Motion. The June 21, 2023 nunc pro tunc order
appropriately corrected the date that Defendant’s filed their Motion for Partial Dismissal.

“Motion to Vacate the Court’s June 9, 2023 Order”

Plaintiff has also filed a “Motion to Vacate the Court’s June 9, 2023 Order” granting
Defendant’s Motion for Partial Dismissal. In his Motion, Plaintiff alleges that the Court failed to
consider his response and did not address his Motion to Strike. On August 10, 2023, the Court
clarified it’s ruling by explaining that it considered Plaintiff’s pleading entitled “Objection to
Dismiss and Motion to Strike” as his Response to Defendant’s Motion for Partial Dismissal. It
further denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike as premature. In ruling on this current motion, the Court
has also considered “Defendant’s Response to Motion to Vacate June 19, 2023 Ruling” which was
filed on August 10, 2023. Because the Court clarified its June 9, 2023 Ruling to reflect the actual
caption of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Partial Dismissal of the Amended
Complaint,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate the Court’s June 9, 2023 Order
granting Defendant’s Motion for Partial Dismissal and any nunc pro tunc orders correcting that
order.

Misfiled Pleadings entitled “Motion to Object to Defendant’s Motion for Clarification on
06-29-2023 and Motion to Barring [sic] Any Further Motions” and “Motion for Order to
Return Money Paid Under Illegal Name and to Exempt Plaintiff from Paying
Condominium Fees”

On June 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment. Attached to his Motion,
as noted by Judge Viola in her Minute Entry dated August 10, 2023, Plaintiff attached other
Motions that appear to have not been docketed by the Clerk of the Court. Specifically, Plaintiff
filed a Motion entitled “Motion to Object to Defendant’s Motion for Clarification on 06-29-2023
and Motion to Barring [sic] Any Further Motions” and a Motion entitled “Motion for Order to
Return Money Paid Under Illegal Name and to Exempt Plaintiff from Paying Condominium
Fees.” These two motions, which appear to have been attached to Plaintiff’s Motion for Default
Judgement have not been docketed. Review of the docket shows that Plaintiff filed three motions
simultaneously as one document. The clerk of the court has clarified that each efiled document
must be filed separately and each has a separate service fee. The Court does not believe that
Plaintiff was trying to avoid additional fees. However, now that he is on notice that each motion

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

08/15/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3

filed must be done separately if he is using the efile system, the Court will reject any future filings
that do not comply with the efiling requirements of the Clerk of the Court.

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court docket each of the above-entitled motions
that were attached to Plaintiff’s June 30, 2023 Motion for Default separately so that the docket is
clear.

“Motion to Object to Defendant’s Motion for Clarification on 06-29-2023 and Motion to
Barring [sic] Any Further Motions”

With regards to Plaintiff’s misfiled motion entitled “Motion to Object to Defendant’s
Motion for Clarification on 06-29-2023 and Motion to Barring [sic] Any Further Motions”, it
appears that this pleading is Plaintiff’s objection to Defendant’s June 29, 2023 Motion for
Clarification regarding the Court’s inadvertent omission of certain counts from its June 9, 2023
ruling granting Defendant’s Motion for Partial Dismissal. The Court notes that the typographical
error was corrected on July 17, 2023. Defendant’s Objection, which appears to challenge
Defendant’s ability to ascertain which counts of Plaintiff’s Amended complaint were dismissed,
would have not changed the Court’s correction. The Court is permitted to correct a typographical
error. See Ariz.R.Civ.P., Rule 60(a). The Court will take no further action on this motion as it is
considered his responsive pleading to Defendant’s Motion for Clarification.

“Motion for Order to Return Money Paid Under Illegal Name and to Exempt Plaintiff
from Paying Condominium Fees”

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion as well as his Amended Complaint. It appears
that Plaintiff seeks to raise a new claim not contained in his Amended Complaint. Specifically, he
claims that the Defendant HOA has improperly collected HOA fees under a fictitious
name. Because this claim is not raised in his Amended Complaint,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion. Should Defendant seek to amend his
complaint, he must follow the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure in doing so.

“Motion for Default” and “Modified Motion to Strike Defendant’s Response on Plaintiff
[sic] Motion for Default and Motion for Sanctions for violating Rule 11 of the Arizona
Rules of Civil Procedure by filing late motion”

As noted above, Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Default on June 30, 2023, alleging that
Defendant has failed to answer his April 20, 2023 Amended Complaint. Defendant opposes the
Motion as they filed a timely Rule 12 motion and the Court’s ruling on that matter has been
pending. The Court notes that the rulings made above have now fully addressed Defendant’s Rule

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

08/15/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 4

12 motion, including all motions for clarification and Plaintiff’s motions to vacate the Court’s
Ruling granting Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default, filed June 30, 2023, is
premature as a Rule 12(b) motion is a responsive pleading precluding Plaintiff from proceeding
by default.

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s June 30, 2023 Motion for Default.

On July 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed his “Modified Motion to Strike Defendant’s Response on
Plaintiff [sic] Motion for Default and Motion for Sanctions for violating Rule 11 of the Arizona
Rules of Civil Procedure by filing late motion.” Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s opposition to
his Motion for Default was untimely and must be struck and that Defendant’s did not use their
correct name when responding. Plaintiff also seeks Rule 11 sanctions against Defendant. As noted
above, Defendant’s Motion for Default was premature, irrespective of the timeliness of
Defendant’s Opposition to his motion. As a result, Plaintiff has not been prejudiced.

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s “Modified Motion to Strike Defendant’s Response
on Plaintiff [sic] Motion for Default and Motion for Sanctions for violating Rule 11 of the Arizona
Rules of Civil Procedure by filing late motion” in its entirety.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/30/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

08/27/2024

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
J. Holguin

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received Defendant Royal Riviera Condominium Association’s Motion to
Strike Plaintiff's July 20, 2024 Pleading Titled Appeal filed on August 9, 2024.

The issue regarding the scope of appeal is before the Court of Appeals, therefore, no
further action will be taken.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

09/07/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

09/06/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
E. Wong

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

CV ARBITRATION
JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received and reviewed Defendant Royal Riviera Condominium
Association's Certificate of Compulsory Arbitration, filed August 28, 2023, and finds that based
on the dismissal of claims pursuant to Minute Entries dated June 9, 2023, and July 13, 2023, the
amount in controversy is less than $50,000.00 and is now subject to compulsory arbitration.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED transferring this matter to the Civil Court Administration Arbitration
Desk for the appointment of an arbitrator.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and/or the parties shall direct all future
pleadings, except motions listed under Arizona Rules of Civil P. 74(d), to the arbitrator for
consideration and ruling.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

09/11/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

09/10/2024

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
J. Holguin

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

A clerical error having been made in the Minute Entry dated August 8, 2024 and filed on
August 12, 2024,

IT IS ORDERED amending the Minute Entry to include the following:

The Court finds this minute entry disposes of all outstanding claims and issues in this
case. Because no further matters remain pending, the court signs this minute entry as a final
judgment entered pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(c).

/s/ Susanna C. Pineda

HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/02/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

09/29/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIELLE J. VIOLA
N. Johnson

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

JUDGE PINEDA
JUDGE VIOLA

REASSIGNMENT REQUEST DENIED – CIVIL PRESIDING JUDGE

The court received Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse filed September 12, 2023. The Motion was
forwarded to the Civil Presiding Judge for a determination. The Court determines that Plaintiff
seeks a ruling removing the assigned judge for cause under Rule 42.2 of the Arizona Rules of Civil
Procedure. This is the second Motion filed by Plaintiff requesting removal of the assigned judge.

Rule 42.2 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party seeking a change
of judge for cause must establish grounds by affidavit as required by A.R.S. § 12-409. Plaintiff
provided an affidavit but fails to establish a basis to grant the motion. Plaintiff asserts that he
believes the Court has repeatedly ruled in favor of the Defendant even when the Defendant’s
argument have been without merit, the Court has ignored or denied Plaintiff’s motions, even when
those motions were legally sufficient, Judge Pineda failed to discharge her duties by intentionally
ignoring another judge’s order, and Judge Pineda showed bias by granting Defendant’s Motion to
transfer the case to arbitration. Plaintiff references two motions without explanation as to how
Judge Pineda failed to discharge her duties or how she ignored another judge’s order. Upon
review, Plaintiff simply makes conclusory allegations about the lack of merit or insufficiency of
the Defendant’s positions.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

09/29/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

Plaintiff further complains that this case was transferred to arbitration on September 6,
2023. Plaintiff certified at the time of filing his complaint that this case was not subject to
compulsory arbitration. Defendant filed a controverting certificate explaining that all claims for
punitive damages, emotional distress, racism, and injunctive relief, were dismissed pursuant to
Minute Entry Orders dated June 9, 2023, and July 17, 2023, and there are no damages disclosed
as to the remaining allegations. Judge Pineda ordered the case transferred to arbitration after
reviewing Defendant Royal Riviera Condominium Association's Certificate of Compulsory
Arbitration, filed August 28, 2023, and finding that based on the dismissal of claims pursuant to
Minute Entries dated June 9, 2023, and July 13, 2023, the amount in controversy is less than
$50,000.00 and is now subject to compulsory arbitration. That other motions may be pending or
that additional motions may be filed does not on its own reflect bias nor does Plaintiff’s affidavit
provide any explanation to support his conclusory allegation. Additionally, the Civil Rules of
Procedure govern cases subject to mandatory arbitration and Plaintiff has not provided any
explanation as to why mandatory arbitration is not required based on the status of this
case. Disagreement with the judge’s rulings is not a basis for granting a change of judge. At the
heart of Plaintiff’s motion is a disagreement with Judge Pineda’s decisions. See Liteky v. United
States, 510 U.S. 540, 555-56 (1994) (finding that judicial rulings, routine trial administrative
efforts, and ordinary admonishments occur in the course of judicial proceedings and fail to stand
as a proper basis to request removal of a judge for cause absent a finding of knowledge acquired
outside such proceeding or the display of a deep-seated and unequivocal antagonism that would
render fair judgment impossible); State v. Henry, 189 Ariz. 543, 546 (1997) (citing State v. Curry,
187 Ariz. 623, 631 (App. 1996)).

Finally, “[a] change of judge for cause is not warranted if based merely on speculation,
suspicion, apprehension, or imagination.” See Stagecoach Trails MHC, LLC v. City of Benson,
232 Ariz. 562, 568 ¶21 (App. 2013); see also United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583
(1966) (“[T]o be disqualifying,” a judge’s “alleged bias and prejudice…must stem from an
extrajudicial source” and result in a decision “on some basis other than what the judge learned
from his participation in the case.”). To overcome this presumption, a litigant must “set forth a
specific basis for the claim of partiality and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
judge is biased or prejudiced.” State v. Cropper, 205 Ariz. 181, 185 (2003) (citation and internal
quotations omitted). Plaintiff has wholly failed to meet his burden.

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse filed September 12, 2023.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/06/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

10/04/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
J. Holguin

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

JUDGE PINEDA

RULING

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion entitled “Plaintiff’s Objection on Ruling by
the Court dated 8-15-2023 and Motion to Order Defendant to have page and paragraph number
and redo his Motion to Partial Dismiss filed on 5-10-2023 and Vacate the Ruling.” The Court
has also reviewed Defendant’s Response filed on September 18, 2023. In Defendant’s Response,
Defendant’s ask that the Court impose sanctions on Plaintiff for misuse of the court process,
including repetitive motions seeking to have the court reverse its previous rulings. Plaintiff’s
current Motion is repetitive, again asking the Court to reconsider dismissal of numerous counts
and the other 3rd party “plaintiffs” from Plaintiff’s Pro Se Amended Complaint. Plaintiff, as of
today’s date, has not responded to Defendant’s requests for sanctions.

A.R.S. Section 12-349 gives the Court discretion to issue attorneys fees for when a party:
1. Brings or defends a claim without substantial justification, 2. Brings or defends a claim solely
or primarily for delay or harassment, or 3. Unreasonably expands or delays the
proceeding. “Without substantial justification" means that the claim or defense is groundless and
is not made in good faith.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

10/04/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s actions in filing repetitive motions and apparently
failing to meet and confer with Defendant has resulted in delays in litigation. Although the
Court has discretion to do so, the Court will not impose sanctions at this time. Plaintiff,
however, is advised to follow the rules of civil procedure. As noted by Judge Rea, although
Plaintiff is representing himself “pro se,” Plaintiff is required to abide by the rules in presenting
his case.

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion, which the Court treats as a Motion for
Reconsideration.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant’s requests for sanctions without
prejudice.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/09/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

10/06/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
A. Hayes

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

CV ARBITRATION
JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

This Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s “Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Answer on Complaint
and Sanction Defendant,” Defendant’s Response, and Plaintiff’s Reply. The Court notes that
Defendants have answered the remaining counts of the complaint. The Court also notes that
Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant and that the court “order Defendant to sign all the
pleadings, NOT HIS ATTORNEY.” Plaintiff’s requests are not supported by the law or any
procedural rule.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/09/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

10/06/2023

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
A. Hayes

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

CV ARBITRATION
JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Invalidate and Vacate the Ruling of 8-10-
2023, filed August 12, 2023.

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/16/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

10/11/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
J. Holguin

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

CODY FIERRO
JUDGE PINEDA

RULING

This Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s “Motion to Declare all Action Taken in the Meeting
Minutes Null and Void”, Defendant’s response and Plaintiff’s reply. It appears that Plaintiff
seeks summary judgment on the issue of the validity of certain actions of Royal Riviera
Condominium Homeowners Association based on allegedly improperly kept association
minutes.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

A motion 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 Sch. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 309 (1990); Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

10/11/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

judgment is warranted. Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Thruston, 218 Ariz. 112, 115 (App. 2008). If the
nonmoving party has the burden of proof of the claim …at trial, the moving party need not
disprove the nonmoving party’s claim … but need only point out the lack of evidence on an
essential element of the claim. Thruston, 218 Ariz. at 117; see also Vig v. Nix Project II P’ship,
221 Ariz. 393, 396 (App. 2009) (Emphasis added, irrelevant language omitted). 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. Thruston, 218 Ariz. 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. “If the party with the burden of proof on the claim … 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 Sch. v.
Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 310 (1990).

Here, Plaintiff claim that abbreviating the homeowner association name on the minute
entries invalidates the actions of the board is not supported by any law. Nor does he present any
law in support of his motion.

As such,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Declare all Action Taken in the Meeting
Minutes Null and Void.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/25/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

10/23/2023

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
L. Gilbert

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

CODY FIERRO
JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court is in receipt of and has considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Minute Entry
Order, filed September 12, 2023, and Defendant’s Response thereto.

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/25/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

10/23/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
L. Gilbert

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

CODY FIERRO
JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court is in receipt of and has considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Deny Defendant’s
Request for Attorney’s Fees, filed September 22, 2023, and Defendant’s Response thereto.

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion is moot in light of the Court’s order denying
Defendant’s Request for Attorney’s Fees on October 4, 2023.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/25/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

10/24/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
P. McKinley

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

CODY FIERRO
CV ARBITRATION
JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration on the 10-6-2023 Ruling
For the Motion Filed by Plaintiff on 8-12-2023.” Plaintiff again seeks reconsideration of the
Court’s ruling issued on August 12, 2023. The Court notes that this is Plaintiff’s SECOND
Motion for Reconsideration.

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion.

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:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/LawLibraryResourceCenter/

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/26/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

10/25/2023

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
A. Walker

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

CODY FIERRO
CV ARBITRATION
JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

This Court has considered Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration of Ruling of 10-11-
2023.”

IT IS ORDERED Denying the Motion to Reconsider.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

11/12/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-002759

11/07/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
T. Williams

Deputy

PAUL GOUNDER
PAUL GOUNDER
3655 N 5TH AVE # 205
PHOENIX AZ 85013

v.

ROYAL RIVIERA H O A
CHARLES D ONOFRY

JUDGE PINEDA

RULING

This Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, Vacate Fee
Awards, and Compel Rulings.

The Court notes that Plaintiff raised these claims before the Arizona Court of Appeals and the
Arizona Supreme Court. The Arizona Court of Appeals rejected Plaintiff’s Claims of Error and
upheld this Court’s decision to enter judgment on the Arbitration award. After Plaintiff’s
Petition for Review was rejected, the Court of Appeals issued its Mandate. As such, this case is
concluded.

IT IS ORDERED rejecting Plaintiff’s motion as the case has concluded.

The Court will take no further action on this matter.

Documents