Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2023-010115: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Orchard House Condominium Homeowners Association.

Case Number

CV2023-010115

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

7/6/2023

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Blaney, Scott

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/01/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

02/29/2024

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

MICHAL REILLY, et al.
JASON A CLARK

v.

JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L L C, et
al.
JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L
L C
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140

MONA BASKIN
STEWART JACKSON
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140
JAMES J OSBORNE
EDITH I RUDDER
MARCUS D TAPPE
JUDGE BLANEY

STATUS CONFERENCE SET

The Court has received the parties’ Joint Statement of Discovery Dispute, filed February
14, 2024.

IT IS ORDERED setting a virtual Rule 26(d) Conference on March 12, 2024 at 10:00
a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes) to discuss the parties’ discovery dispute.

PLEASE NOTE: The proceeding set above will be held via Court Connect (the Court’s
videoconference/virtual hearing platform). An auto-generated email will or has been sent to

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

02/29/2024

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2

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/

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 ***

03/13/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

03/12/2024

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

MICHAL REILLY, et al.
JASON A CLARK

v.

JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L L C, et
al.
JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L
L C
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140

MONA BASKIN
JAMES J OSBORNE
EDITH I RUDDER
MARCUS D TAPPE
KYLE A VON JOHNSON
BRIAN J POUDEROYEN
RICHARD L RIGHI
JUDGE BLANEY

UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING

The Court has reviewed and considered the parties’ Joint Statement of Discovery Dispute,
as well as the arguments received at the March 12, 2024 oral argument.

THE COURT FINDS as follows:

1. Both parties to this discovery dispute are defendants in this case.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

03/12/2024

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2

2. This discovery dispute arises out of a larger construction defect case in which
Defendants Ryan Sieker and Katie Rogers (“Sieker and Rogers”) contracted with
another Defendant/contractor to perform work on their condominium unit. The work
performed on Defendants Sieker and Rogers’ unit was allegedly faulty and led to
damage to Plaintiffs’ unit.

3. During the course of discovery, Defendant Orchard House Condominium
Homeowners’ Association (“Orchard House”) and Defendants Sieker and Rogers, after
agreeing and rescheduling multiple times, agreed that Orchard House could inspect the
repair work being performed by Defendants Sieker and Rogers’ replacement
contractor.

4. On December 11, 2023, the two parties agreed that Orchard House and its expert
witness could conduct the inspection on January 25, 2024. Orchard House served a
Rule 34 Request for Inspection that memorialized the stipulated date, and listed the
scope of the inspection: “[The] inspection is to observe and photograph the visible
conditions within the unit including new structural connectors, field measure the
location and size of the new microlam beams and wood posts, and where accessible,
field measure the size, length and spacing of the existing floor joists, wood posts, wood
floor beams, and wood headers.” Joint Statement at pg. 2.

5. On January 22, 2024, the City of Phoenix conducted an inspection of the newly repaired
structural framing in Defendants Sieker and Rogers’ unit.

6. On January 25, 2024, when Orchard House and its expert arrived to conduct the agreed-
upon Rule 34 inspection, they found that Defendants Sieker and Rogers had already
put drywall up over the area that was to be inspected. Thus, Orchard House’s expert
was unable to conduct the inspection.

The standard for discovery is broad under the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. In
Arizona, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case….” Rule
26(b)(1). Information need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Further, “the rules
of discovery are to be broadly and liberally construed to facilitate identifying the issues, promote
justice, provide a more efficient and speedy disposition of cases, avoid surprise, and prevent the
trial of a lawsuit from becoming a guessing game.” Cornet Stores v. Superior Court In and For
the County of Yavapai, 108 Ariz. 84, 86 (1972). The party objecting to a discovery request bears
the burden of proving the validity of its objection. Id.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

03/12/2024

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3

THE COURT FINDS that the areas Orchard House seeks to inspect are relevant to the
claims and/or defenses of the parties. The scope of the inspection – the area in which the prior,
shoddy construction work is being remediated – is proportional to the needs of this case.
Defendants Sieker and Rogers waived any objections to the inspection (if any valid objections
existed) by agreeing to allow the inspection on January 25, 2024.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Defendants Sieker and Rogers violated the
parties’ stipulation and Rule 34, Ariz.R.Civ.P. Defendants Sieker and Rogers have offered no
valid justification for why they violated the parties’ stipulation and their duty to allow inspection
pursuant to Rule 34.

Good cause appearing, and in the Court’s discretion,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Defendants Sieker and Rogers shall, by March 22,
2024, provide three possible dates for an inspection, to occur between the dates of April 5 and
May 3, 2024. Defendants Sieker and Rogers shall ensure that the areas that need to be inspected
are accessible by removing drywall from those areas, at their expense. The Court notes that, during
the March 12 oral argument, Counsel for Orchard House listed five locations in the unit where the
drywall would need to be removed. The parties shall work together to identify those areas in
advance of the date of inspection.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendants Sieker and Rogers shall reimburse Orchard
House for the cost incurred in having their expert attend the January 25, 2024 inspection.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/13/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

03/12/2024

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

MICHAL REILLY, et al.
JASON A CLARK

v.

JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L L C, et
al.
JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L
L C
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140

MONA BASKIN
JAMES J OSBORNE
EDITH I RUDDER
MARCUS D TAPPE
KYLE A VON JOHNSON
BRIAN J POUDEROYEN
RICHARD L RIGHI
JUDGE BLANEY

HEARING

East Court Building – Courtroom 411

10:00 a.m. This is the time set for virtual Status Conference on the parties’ Joint Statement
of Discovery Dispute, filed February 14, 2024. Plaintiffs Michal Reilly and Jennifer Reilly are
represented by Counsel Brian J. Pouderoyen. Defendant Orchard House Condominium
Homeowners Association is represented by Counsel Edith I. Rudder and Kyle A. Von Johnson.
Also present is Jack Gordon, engineering expert for Orchard House Condominium Homeowners

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

03/12/2024

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2

Association. Defendants Ryan Sieker and Katie Rogers are represented by Counsel Marcus D.
Tappe. No other parties are present or represented. All appearances are virtual and/or telephonic.

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

The Court inquires as to the status of Defendant Jackson Builders of Arizona, LLC.
Plaintiffs’ counsel informs the Court that default judgment has been entered against Defendant
Stewart Jackson personally but not against Defendant Jackson Builders of Arizona, LLC. Jackson
Builders of Arizona LLC remains a party to this litigation.

The Court poses questions to counsel as to the parties’ Joint Statement of Discovery
Dispute, filed February 14, 2024.

Oral argument is presented.

IT IS ORDERED taking under advisement the parties’ Joint Statement of Discovery
Dispute, filed February 14, 2024.

10:17 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/21/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

03/20/2025

Docket Code 375
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

MICHAL REILLY, et al.
MICHAL REILLY
6124 N 12TH PL UNIT 6
PHOENIX AZ 85014

v.

JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L L C, et
al.
JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L
L C
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140

MONA BASKIN
STEWART JACKSON
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140
JENNIFER REILLY
6124 N 12TH PL UNIT 6
PHOENIX AZ 85014
EDITH I RUDDER
MARCUS D TAPPE
JUDGE BLANEY

CASE ON DISMISSAL CALENDAR

A review of the docket in this matter reflects that no activity has been taken in this matter
since the filing of the Order Directing Payment From the Arizona Registrar of Contractors’
Recovery Fund on January 3, 2025. Therefore,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

03/20/2025

Docket Code 375
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the Dismissal Calendar for dismissal of all
unadjudicated claims on April 21, 2025 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 ***

04/01/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

03/29/2024

Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MARY C. CRONIN
L. Palmert

Deputy

MICHAL REILLY, et al.
JASON A CLARK

v.

JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L L C, et
al.
JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L
L C
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140

MONA BASKIN
R L I INSURANCE COMPANY
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
STEWART JACKSON
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140
JAMES J OSBORNE
EDITH I RUDDER
MARCUS D TAPPE
COMM. CRONIN

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court having received Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against
Jackson Builders of Arizona, LLC with Hearing filed March 21, 2024. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED setting a Default Hearing on April 16, 2024, at 11:10 a.m. in this
Division via Microsoft Teams/Court Connect.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

03/29/2024

Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 2

HEARING WEBSITE LINK:
https://Tinyurl.com/jbazmc-pcc05

Or call in (audio only)
+1 917-781-4590 Phone ID: 755 033 080#

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff shall deliver a physical default packet to the
division no later than 5 (five) business days prior to the hearing. Failure to do so may result in
the hearing being vacated.

The Court prefers video appearances, if possible, as it ensures it is easier to know
who is appearing at the hearing and being able to see the other parties reduces
interruptions and delays. Additionally, appearing by video increases the chance that the
Court can use features such as shared screens to show everyone exhibits or forms that may
be helpful for the hearing. However, no party shall be penalized for appearing by phone.
Whether parties appear by videoconference, phone, or a hybrid of the two, they should try
as much as possible to contact the court from an area with no background noise as noise
and echoes prevent the parties from hearing the proceedings in the courtroom and prevent
the court from making a good record of the proceedings. The parties are especially
discouraged from appearing virtually from an outdoor location.

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 ***

04/17/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

04/16/2024

Docket Code 049
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MARY C. CRONIN
K. Cabral

Deputy

MICHAL REILLY, et al.
JASON A CLARK

v.

JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L L C, et
al.
JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L
L C
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140

MONA BASKIN
STEWART JACKSON
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140
JAMES J OSBORNE
EDITH I RUDDER
MARCUS D TAPPE
COMM. CRONIN

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom 812 – East Court Building.

11:10 a.m. This is the time set for a virtual Default Hearing. Plaintiffs Michal Reilly and
Jennifer Reilly, who is present, is represented by counsel, Brian Pouderoyen. Defendants are not
present.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

04/16/2024

Docket Code 049
Form V000A
Page 2

Plaintiff’s construction expert, Philip Coppola, is sworn and testifies.

Based upon matters, testimony, and evidence presented to the Court,

IT IS ORDERED granting judgment against Defendant Jackson Builders of Arizona,
LLC all in accordance with formal written Default Judgment signed by the Court on April 16,
2024 and filed (entered) by the Clerk on April 16, 2024.

11:20 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/24/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

04/23/2024

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

MICHAL REILLY, et al.
JASON A CLARK

v.

JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L L C, et
al.
JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L
L C
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140

MONA BASKIN
STEWART JACKSON
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140
JAMES J OSBORNE
EDITH I RUDDER
MARCUS D TAPPE
KYLE A VON JOHNSON
BRIAN J POUDEROYEN
RICHARD L RIGHI
JUDGE BLANEY

ORDER ENTERED BY COURT

The Court has received and reviewed Defendants Ryan Sieker and Katie Rogers’ Rule
7.1(e) Motion for Reconsideration of Under Advisement Ruling, filed on April 19, 2024.

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiffs shall file any response to Defendants’ motion within ten
(10) business days of this Minute Entry.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/29/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

04/28/2025

Docket Code 047
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

MICHAL REILLY, et al.
MICHAL REILLY
6124 N 12TH PL UNIT 6
PHOENIX AZ 85014

v.

JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L L C, et
al.
JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L
L C
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140

MONA BASKIN
STEWART JACKSON
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140
JENNIFER REILLY
6124 N 12TH PL UNIT 6
PHOENIX AZ 85014
EDITH I RUDDER
MARCUS D TAPPE
CV ARBITRATION
JUDGE BLANEY

JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

By Minute Entry dated March 20, 2025 and filed March 21, 2025, this case was placed on
the Dismissal Calendar for dismissal on April 21, 2025, unless specified action was taken before
a certain date. The date has passed, and the action has not been taken. Therefore,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

04/28/2025

Docket Code 047
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED nunc pro tunc dismissing this case without prejudice effective April 21,
2025.

/s/ HONORABLE SCOTT A. BLANEY

HONORABLE SCOTT A. BLANEY

JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/10/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

05/09/2024

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

MICHAL REILLY, et al.
JASON A CLARK

v.

JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L L C, et
al.

MONA NMN BASKIN
STEWART JACKSON
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140
JAMES J OSBORNE
EDITH I RUDDER
MARCUS D TAPPE
BRIAN J POUDEROYEN
KYLE A VON JOHNSON
RICHARD L RIGHI
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE BLANEY

ORDER ENTERED BY COURT

Pursuant to the Second Amended Scheduling Order electronically signed by the Court on
May 8, 2024,
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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

05/09/2024

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

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 September 3, 2024.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than June 5, 2024 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
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 ***

05/10/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

05/09/2024

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SCOTT A. BLANEY
S. Ortega

Deputy

MICHAL REILLY, et al.
JASON A CLARK

v.

JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L L C, et
al.

MONA NMN BASKIN
JAMES J OSBORNE
EDITH I RUDDER
MARCUS D TAPPE
JUDGE BLANEY

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has reviewed and considered Defendants Ryan Sieker and Katie Rogers’ Rule
7.1(e) Motion for Reconsideration of Under Advisement Ruling, the Association’s Response to
Siekers’ Motion for Reconsideration, and the record in this case.

The Court issued its March 12, 2024 Under Advisement Ruling after review of the parties’
Joint Statement of Discovery Dispute and after oral argument, in which both parties’ counsel
participated. Defendants Sieker and Rogers now ask the Court to review the facts again. But
Defendants have not established good cause for their request for a third review of the facts and
procedural history of this dispute.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, in the Court’s discretion, denying Defendants Ryan
Sieker and Katie Rogers’ Rule 7.1(e) Motion for Reconsideration of Underadvisment Ruling.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

05/09/2024

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

The Court’s March 12, 2024 Ruling ordered:

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Defendants Sieker and Rogers shall, by March
22, 2024, provide three possible dates for an inspection, to occur between the dates
of April 5 and May 3, 2024. Defendants Sieker and Rogers shall ensure that the
areas that need to be inspected are accessible by removing drywall from those areas,
at their expense. The Court notes that, during the March 12 oral argument, Counsel
for Orchard House listed five locations in the unit where the drywall would need to
be removed. The parties shall work together to identify those areas in advance of
the date of inspection.

Id. at pg. 3. The Court identified a 30-day period in which Defendants were to make the site ready
and available for inspection, subject to a specific date agreed upon by the parties. But it appears
from the parties’ respective filings that Defendants have not complied with the Court’s
order. Instead, they unilaterally placed conditions on their compliance with the Court’s order (see,
e.g., Exhibit 15 to Response) and attempted to shift the financial burden to the Association, despite
the unambiguous language in the Ruling (“Defendants Sieker and Rogers shall ensure that the
areas that need to be inspected are accessible by removing drywall from those areas, at their
expense.”). Defendants then waited two weeks after the start of the 30-day period identified by
the Court – and more than one month after the Court issued its Ruling – to file the present Motion
for Reconsideration.

THE COURT FINDS that Defendants Sieker and Rogers have unreasonably expanded
these proceedings and have violated this Court’s March 12, 2024 order regarding discovery.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED awarding the Association its reasonable attorneys’ fees
and costs arising from Defendants Sieker and Rogers’ failure to comply with the Court’s order,
which includes the drafting and filing of the present Response and the scheduling and attendance
at the May 1, 2024 inspection. The Association shall file an application for attorneys’ fees and
costs and supporting affidavit of counsel, citing this Order, by May 24, 2024. Defendants Sieker
and Rogers may file any response thereto by June 7, 2024.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendants Sieker and Rogers shall fully comply with the
Court’s March 12, 2024 Ruling by June 13, 2024. Failure to do so will likely result in sanctions,
up to and including a finding of contempt and any other appropriate sanction listed in Rule
37(b)(2)(A)(i) – (vii).

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/13/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

06/12/2024

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

MICHAL REILLY, et al.
JASON A CLARK

v.

JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L L C, et
al.

MONA NMN BASKIN
STEWART JACKSON
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140
JAMES J OSBORNE
EDITH I RUDDER
MARCUS D TAPPE
BRIAN J POUDEROYEN
KYLE A VON JOHNSON
RICHARD L RIGHI
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE BLANEY

ORDER ENTERED BY COURT

By minute entry dated May 9, 2024 and in accordance with AO 2023-009, this Court
directed the parties to submit their certification as to their readiness to proceed with their ADR
settlement conference by no later than June 5, 2024. The certification has not been submitted.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

06/12/2024

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED vacating the ADR referral. The parties may seek a new
ADR referral at such time they can certify their ability to proceed.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/28/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

06/27/2024

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

MICHAL REILLY, et al.
JASON A CLARK

v.

JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L L C, et
al.
JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L
L C
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140

MONA NMN BASKIN
STEWART JACKSON
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140
JAMES J OSBORNE
EDITH I RUDDER
MARCUS D TAPPE
BRIAN J POUDEROYEN
KYLE A VON JOHNSON
RICHARD L RIGHI
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE BLANEY

ORDER ENTERED BY COURT
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 7, 2024.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/26/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

07/25/2024

Docket Code 073
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

MICHAL REILLY, et al.
JASON A CLARK

v.

JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L L C, et
al.
JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L
L C
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140

MONA BASKIN
STEWART JACKSON
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140
JAMES J OSBORNE
EDITH I RUDDER
MARCUS D TAPPE
BRIAN J POUDEROYEN
KYLE A VON JOHNSON
RICHARD L RIGHI
JUDGE BLANEY

MOTION WITHDRAWN

The Court has reviewed Defendants Ryan Sieker and Katie Rogers’ Motion for Protective
Order, filed April 23, 2024, Orchard House Condominium Homeowners’ Association’s Response
to Defendants Sieker’s Motion for Protective Order, filed May 13, 2024, and Defendants Ryan
Sieker and Katie Rogers’ Reply and Withdrawal of Motion for Protective Order, filed May 28,
2024.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

07/25/2024

Docket Code 073
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED deeming Defendants Ryan Sieker and Katie Rogers’ Motion for
Protective Order, filed April 23, 2024, withdrawn based on Defendants Ryan Sieker and Katie
Rogers’ Reply and Withdrawal of Motion for Protective Order, filed May 28, 2024.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/03/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

08/02/2023

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOAN M. SINCLAIR
K. Chocoj

Deputy

MICHAL REILLY, et al.
JASON A CLARK

v.

JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L L C, et
al.
JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L
L C
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140

STEWART JACKSON
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140
COMM. CRONIN
JUDGE SINCLAIR

MINUTE ENTRY

This Court has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application for Entry of Default against
Defendants Stewart Jackson and Jackson Builders of Arizona LLC in the above-captioned case.

IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above-referenced
document(s).

The parties are advised that commissioners handle Rule 55(b) Default Judgment
proceedings and that the default proceedings in this matter are to be heard by Commissioner
Cronin.

IT IS ORDERED that all documents necessary to support the entry of a default judgment
must be e-filed.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

08/02/2023

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

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 regarding the default judgment
process at: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/llrc/cv_cvc6/

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/06/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

08/05/2024

Docket Code 049
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

MICHAL REILLY, et al.
JASON A CLARK

v.

JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L L C, et
al.
JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L
L C
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140

MONA BASKIN
STEWART JACKSON
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140
JAMES J OSBORNE
EDITH I RUDDER
MARCUS D TAPPE
BRIAN J POUDEROYEN
KYLE A VON JOHNSON
RICHARD L RIGHI
JUDGE BLANEY

JUDGMENT SIGNED

IT IS ORDERED approving and settling the formal written Regarding Defendant
Orchard House Condominium Homeowners’ Association’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees
against Defendants Ryan Sieker and Katie Rogers signed by the Court August 5, 2024 and filed
(entered) by the Clerk on August 5, 2024.

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,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

08/05/2024

Docket Code 049
Form V000A
Page 2

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.

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

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

09/01/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

08/30/2023

Docket Code 066
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

MICHAL REILLY, et al.
JASON A CLARK

v.

JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L L C, et
al.
JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L
L C
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140

STEWART JACKSON
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140
JAMES J OSBORNE
EDITH I RUDDER
MARCUS D TAPPE
JUDGE PINEDA
JUDGE SINCLAIR
JUDGE VIOLA

CASE REASSIGNMENT - CIVIL PRESIDING JUDGE

This case was previously assigned to the Honorable Joan Sinclair. A Notice of Change of
Judge has been filed by Defendant Orchard House Condominium Homeowners’ Association. The
case was transferred to the Civil Presiding Judge for reassignment.

IT IS ORDERED that this case be reassigned to Civil Calendar CVJ-12, the Honorable
Susanna C. Pineda, for all further proceedings. If any objections to the Notice of Change of Judge
are filed, the noticed judge retains jurisdiction to hear and decide the objections. Any objections
must be filed and a copy delivered to the noticed judge within 20 days of the date of this order.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

08/30/2023

Docket Code 066
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any and all hearings set by the noticed judge are
vacated, to be reset by the new division.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall jointly file within 10 days of the date
of this minute entry, a notice with the new division listing any outstanding motions (including
the file dates), whether they are ripe for resolution, and any hearings that need to be reset.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

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

CV 2023-010115

09/10/2024

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

MICHAL REILLY, et al.
JASON A CLARK

v.

JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L L C, et
al.
JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L
L C
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140

MONA BASKIN
STEWART JACKSON
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140
JAMES J OSBORNE
EDITH I RUDDER
MARCUS D TAPPE
BRIAN J POUDEROYEN
KYLE A VON JOHNSON
RICHARD L RIGHI
JUDGE BLANEY

STATUS CONFERENCE SET

The Court has received Defendants/Counterclaimants Ryan Sieker and Katie Rogers’
Response in Objection to Plaintiffs and Defendant Orchard House Condominium Homeowners’
Association’s Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, filed August 14, 2024.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

09/10/2024

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED setting a virtual Status Conference on September 27, 2024 at 9:30
a.m. (time allotted: 30 minutes), to discuss Defendants/Counterclaimants’ filing, before 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-
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 ***

09/13/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

09/12/2023

Docket Code 066
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

MICHAL REILLY, et al.
JASON A CLARK

v.

JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L L C, et
al.
JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L
L C
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140

STEWART JACKSON
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140
JAMES J OSBORNE
EDITH I RUDDER
MARCUS D TAPPE
JUDGE BLANEY
JUDGE PINEDA
JUDGE VIOLA

CASE REASSIGNMENT - CIVIL PRESIDING JUDGE

This case was previously assigned to the Honorable Susanna C. Pineda. A Notice of
Change of Judge has been filed by Plaintiffs. The case was transferred to the Civil Presiding Judge
for reassignment.

IT IS ORDERED that this case be reassigned to Civil Calendar CVJ-09, the Honorable
Scott Blaney, for all further proceedings. If any objections to the Notice of Change of Judge are
filed, the noticed judge retains jurisdiction to hear and decide the objections. Any objections must
be filed and a copy delivered to the noticed judge within 20 days of the date of this order.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

09/12/2023

Docket Code 066
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any and all hearings set by the noticed judge are
vacated, to be reset by the new division.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall jointly file within 10 days of the date
of this minute entry, a notice with the new division listing any outstanding motions (including
the file dates), whether they are ripe for resolution, and any hearings that need to be reset.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

09/14/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

09/12/2023

Docket Code 049
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MARY C. CRONIN
J. Lizardi

Deputy

MICHAL REILLY, et al.
JASON A CLARK

v.

JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L L C, et
al.
JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L
L C
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140

STEWART JACKSON
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140
JAMES J OSBORNE
EDITH I RUDDER
MARCUS D TAPPE
COMM. CRONIN

JUDGMENT SIGNED

IT IS ORDERED approving and settling formal written Default Judgment signed by the
Court on September 12, 2023 and filed (entered) by the Clerk on September 12, 2023.

PLEASE NOTE: Either the court has signed a paper copy of the judgment which was
originally provided electronically or not enough copies and/or envelopes have been provided by
the submitting party. When a judgment is signed by the Court, the Clerk’s office is required to
notify all parties either by mailing a conformed copy, or by minute entry. Notice is hereby given
via minute entry. After the judgment has been scanned and docketed by the Clerk of Court,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

09/12/2023

Docket Code 049
Form V000A
Page 2

copies will be available through the ECR online at: www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov or through
the Public Access Terminals at the Clerk of Court’s offices located throughout Maricopa County.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

09/13/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

09/12/2024

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

MICHAL REILLY, et al.
JASON A CLARK

v.

JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L L C, et
al.
JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L
L C
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140

MONA BASKIN
STEWART JACKSON
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140
JAMES J OSBORNE
EDITH I RUDDER
MARCUS D TAPPE
BRIAN J POUDEROYEN
KYLE A VON JOHNSON
RICHARD L RIGHI
JUDGE BLANEY

ORDER ENTERED BY COURT

The Court has reviewed Defendants/Counterclaimants Ryan Sieker and Katie Rogers’
Notice of Full Compliance with the Court’s March 12, 2024 Ruling, filed June 20, 2024, and
Defendant Orchard House Condominium Homeowners’ Association’s Response to Sieker
Defendants’ Notice of Compliance Filed June 20, 2024, filed July 1, 2024.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

09/12/2024

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED Defendants shall file a reply within ten (10) calendar days of this
order.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

09/18/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

09/17/2024

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

MICHAL REILLY, et al.
JASON A CLARK

v.

JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L L C, et
al.
JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L
L C
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140

MONA BASKIN
STEWART JACKSON
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140
EDITH I RUDDER
MARCUS D TAPPE
JAMES J OSBORNE
BRIAN J POUDEROYEN
KYLE A VON JOHNSON
RICHARD L RIGHI
JUDGE BLANEY

ORDER ENTERED BY COURT

The Court has reviewed Defendant Orchard House Condominium Homeowners’
Association’s Motion to Continue Status Conference Currently Scheduled for September 27, 2024
at 9:30 a.m., filed September 13, 2024.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

09/17/2024

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED that any responses to the motion to continue shall be filed by 5:00 p.m.
on Friday September 20, 2024 and immediately emailed to this division’s Judicial Assistant upon
filing ([email protected]).

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

09/19/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

09/18/2024

Docket Code 375
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

MICHAL REILLY, et al.
JASON A CLARK

v.

JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L L C, et
al.
JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L
L C
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140

MONA BASKIN
STEWART JACKSON
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140
EDITH I RUDDER
MARCUS D TAPPE
JAMES J OSBORNE
BRIAN J POUDEROYEN
KYLE A VON JOHNSON
RICHARD L RIGHI
JUDGE BLANEY

CASE ON DISMISSAL CALENDAR

The Court has received the Notice of Settlement filed September 17, 2024 by Defendant
Orchard House Condominium Homeowners’ Association.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

09/18/2024

Docket Code 375
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED placing this matter on the Dismissal Calendar for dismissal on January
14, 2025 without further notice, unless prior to said date a judgment is entered or filed, a stipulation
for dismissal is presented, or a proper joint report and proposed scheduling order is filed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating all future hearing dates and deadlines, including the
Status Conference on September 27, 2024 at 9:30 a.m.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED deeming any pending motions moot due to the parties’
settlement.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

11/13/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

11/09/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

MICHAL REILLY, et al.
JASON A CLARK

v.

JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L L C, et
al.
JACKSON BUILDERS OF ARIZONA L
L C
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140

WESLEY M COX
STEWART JACKSON
37852 N SANDY DR
SAN TAN VALLEY AZ 85140
JAMES J OSBORNE
EDITH I RUDDER
MARCUS D TAPPE
JUDGE BLANEY

RULING

The Court has reviewed and considered the following:

1. Defendants Ryan Sieker and Katie Rogers’ Motion to Dismiss Counts Five and Six of
Plaintiffs’ Complaint;
2. Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants Ryan Sieker and Katie Rogers’ Motion to Dismiss
Counts Five and Six of Plaintiffs’ Complaint;
3. Defendants Ryan Sieker and Katie Rogers’ Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss Counts Five and Six of Plaintiffs’ Complaint; and

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

11/09/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

4. The limited record in this case.

This case arises from a dispute between two homeowners in a two-story condominium
complex called “Orchard House Condominiums.” The complex and the homes included therein
are subject to, inter alia, the By-Laws for the Orchard House Condominium. Plaintiff’s unit sits
directly above Defendants Sieker and Rogers’ unit. Defendants engaged in renovation of their
unit, which Plaintiffs allege negatively impacted the structural integrity of Plaintiffs’
unit. Plaintiffs brought claims against Defendants Sieker and Rogers, as well as additional claims
against Defendants’ contractor and the homeowners association for Orchard House
Condominium. This ruling only addresses claims against Defendants Sieker and Rogers.

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ fifth and sixth claims for breach of contract and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs
have failed to plead the existence of a contract between Plaintiffs and Defendants, an element that
is essential to both contract claims. Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs may not base their
contract claims on the association’s governing documents, such as the By-Laws, and that only the
Board of Directors has the authority to sue.

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-pleaded factual allegations contained therein. Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ariz.
417, 419 (2008). The Court must assume the truth of the well-pleaded factual allegations and
indulge all reasonable inferences therefrom, “but mere conclusory statements are
insufficient.” Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352, 356 (2012) (quoting Fid. Sec. Life Ins. Co.
v. State Dep’t of Ins., 191 Ariz. 222, 224 (1998). “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.’” Id.

The Court notes that Defendants attached a copy of the By-Laws to their Motion, but the
By-Laws were not attached to the Complaint. The Court will review and consider the By-Laws in
this ruling without converting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss into a motion for summary
judgment. The By-Laws are central to the issues in this case. See Strategic Development and
Const., Inc. v. 7th & Roosevelt Partners, LLC, 224 Ariz. 60, 64 ¶ 14 (App. 2010) (court may
consider documents not attached to the complaint but central to the claim in the complaint without
converting motion to dismiss into summary judgment motion).

Plaintiffs are correct that deed restrictions in a planned community run with the land. They
constitute covenants that form a contract between the property owners as a whole and the
individual lot owners. Arizona Biltmore Estates Association v. Tezak, 177 Ariz. 447, 448 (App.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

11/09/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3

1993). But an action for breach of such covenants is typically brought as an action in equity to
enforce the covenants or an action for declaratory relief. Plaintiffs have not identified, nor has the
Court been able to find, any Arizona case in which a homeowner sued another homeowner in a
planned community for breach of contract based upon by-laws or CC&Rs. Nor have Defendants
identified any case affirmatively precluding such an action.

THE COURT FINDS support for Plaintiffs’ breach of contract action in the By-Laws
themselves, which state:

Every owner must perform promptly all maintenance and repair work within his
own apartment, which if omitted would affect the condominium in its entirety or in
a part belonging to other owners, being expressly responsible for the damages and
liabilities that his failure to do so may engender. Each apartment owner shall be
responsible for all damages to any other apartment unit and to the common
elements resulting from his failure to effect such maintenance and repairs. ***
All the repairs of internal installations of the apartment, such as water, light, gas,
power, sewage, telephone, air conditioners, sanitary installations, doors, windows,
lamps and other accessories belonging to the apartment area shall be at the owner’s
expense. *** An owner shall reimburse the Board of Directors for any
expenditures incurred in repairing or replacing any common area and facility
damages through his fault.

By-Laws, Article V, Section 4 (emphasis added). Thus, the By-Laws expressly state that a
homeowner is responsible for damages that he causes to another homeowner’s unit. The By-Laws,
again, are a form of contract to which all homeowners are bound. A breach of contract claim
would be an appropriate vehicle for a homeowner to recover damages caused to his privately-
owned unit when the damages arise from another homeowner’s failure to comply with the terms
of the contract. A claim for breach of contract requires well-pleaded allegations of: (1) the
existence of a contract; (2) breach thereof; and (3) resulting damages. Steinberger v. McVey, 234
Ariz. 125, 141 (App. 2014). All three elements are present here. Notably, the By-Laws
conspicuously address damage to “any other apartment unit” differently from damage to “the
common areas” or “any common area.” According to the By-Laws, costs specifically arising from
damage to any common area are to be paid to the Board of Directors. Id.

The Court rejects Defendants’ argument that the By-Laws grant exclusive authority to the
Board of Directors to bring an action for damages to a privately-owned unit. The Board clearly
has the authority to bring an action for damages to common areas. See id. But the By-Laws do
not state that the Board of Directors is the only entity that can bring an action to recover monetary
damages pursuant to Article V, Section 4, above. Indeed, it is unclear whether a provision
depriving individual homeowners of a common law remedy would be enforceable. It is also

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-010115

11/09/2023

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 4

unclear whether the Board of Directors would have standing to bring such an action in lieu of an
individual homeowner. This type of restriction would also place the Board of Directors in a
position where it could unilaterally determine that a homeowner has not suffered sufficient damage
to his privately-owned unit to justify litigation. The Court will not read such a veto into Article 2,
Section 2, para. k, when it is not clearly stated.

THE COURT FINDS that Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded their breach of contract
claim to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge. Further, because Plaintiffs have properly pleaded the
existence of a contract between the parties, Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing also survives.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

Documents