Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2023-096192: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association.

Case Number

CV2023-096192

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

12/18/2023

Case Type

Civil

Judge

McDowell, David

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

No parties captured.

Minute Entries

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/07/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

01/03/2025

Docket Code 095
Form V094
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
T. Aird

Deputy

A Z N H REVOCABLE TRUST
JOHN SULLIVAN

v.

SUNLAND SPRINGS VILLAGE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
MEGAN E RITENOUR

TEHAURA R HENNING
JUDGE COFFEY

MINUTE ENTRY
ORAL ARGUMENT ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT – RESET

Courtroom 511 – East Court Building

3:12 p.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument conducted telephonically regarding the
Motion for Summary Judgment – Oral Argument Requested filed September 24, 2024, by
counsel for Plaintiff; Defendant’s Response filed October 24, 2024; and Plaintiff’s Reply thereto
filed October 28, 2024. Defendant, Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, is
represented by counsel, Téhaura R. Henning, who appears for counsel of record, Megan E.
Ritenour.

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

The Court notes that today’s Oral Argument was set to commence at 3:00 p.m.; however,
the time is now 3:13 p.m., and Plaintiff, AZNH Revocable Trust, is unaccounted for today
nor is its counsel appearing at this proceeding.

Accordingly,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

01/03/2025

Docket Code 095
Form V094
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED vacating today’s proceeding and resetting the same to commence as
Oral Argument (Total Time Allotted: 30 Minutes) to commence at 3:00 p.m. on Monday,
February 10, 2025, before this Division. Oral Argument is limited to 30 minutes, with the time
divided equally between the parties. Counsel and the parties, if representing themselves, are to
appear before:

THE HONORABLE RODRICK J. COFFEY
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING – FIFTH FLOOR
COURTROOM 511
101 W. JEFFERSON STREET
DOWNTOWN PHOENIX, AZ 85003
PHONE: (602) 372-1783

The parties/attorneys are advised that failure to appear for the hearing may result
in sanctions, including dismissal of the action per Rule 16(F), Arizona Rules of
Civil Procedure.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for Plaintiff(s) shall initiate the telephonic
conference by first arranging the presence of all other counsel or self-represented parties on the
conference call and then calling this division (602.372.1783) promptly at the scheduled time. All
parties appearing telephonically must be joined in a single conference call and be prepared to
hold until called upon.
 The call should be placed in an area with no background noise and not in a moving
vehicle. Failure to do so may prevent the parties from hearing the proceedings in the
courtroom and/or may prevent the Court from hearing the parties. State your name so
there may be a clear record as to which party is speaking.

3:15 p.m. Matter concludes.

PLEASE NOTE:
 All court proceedings are recorded by audio and video method 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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

01/03/2025

Docket Code 095
Form V094
Page 3

 This division requires that all motions, responses, replies and other Court-requested
filings in this case must be submitted individually. Counsel shall not combine any
motion with a responsive pleading. All motions are to be filed separately and
designated as such. No pleadings will be accepted if filed in combination
with another.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/24/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

01/23/2024

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
L. Mooney

Deputy

A Z N H REVOCABLE TRUST
JOHN SULLIVAN

v.

SUNLAND SPRINGS VILLAGE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
SUNLAND SPRINGS VILLAGE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
11214 E LAGUNA AZUL CIR
MESA AZ 85209

COMM. KAISER
JUDGE COFFEY

ORDER ENTERED BY THE COURT
MINUTE ENTRY

This division has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application for Default against Defendant(s),
Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association 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 Brian
Kaiser.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

01/23/2024

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 in the form of frequently asked
questions at:
 http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/howDoI.
asp

The parties/counsel can find additional information regarding the default judgment process
at:
 https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/llrc/cv_cvc6/.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/11/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

02/10/2025

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
S. Motzer

Deputy

A Z N H REVOCABLE TRUST
JOHN SULLIVAN

v.

SUNLAND SPRINGS VILLAGE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
MEGAN E RITENOUR

TEHAURA R HENNING
JUDGE COFFEY

MINUTE ENTRY

East Court Building – Courtroom 511

3:00 p.m. This is the time set for telephonic Oral Argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Summary Judgment. Plaintiff is represented by counsel, John Sullivan. Defendant is represented
by counsel, Tehaura R. Henning.

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

Argument is presented to the Court.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.

3:31 p.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/25/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

02/24/2025

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
S. Motzer

Deputy

A Z N H REVOCABLE TRUST
JOHN SULLIVAN

v.

SUNLAND SPRINGS VILLAGE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
MEGAN E RITENOUR

JUDGE COFFEY

UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment; Defendant’s
Response to that Motion; Plaintiff’s Reply in support of its Motion; the parties’ respective
statements of facts; and the oral arguments that were presented to the Court on February 10, 2025.

Motions for summary judgment “should be granted if the facts produced in support of the
claim or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that
reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or
defense.” Orme School v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 309, 802 P.2d 1000, 1008 (1990). When
considering a motion for summary judgment, all evidence of the non-moving party is to be
believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in the non-movant’s favor. Id. at 309-10,
802 P.2d at 1008-9. Summary judgment should not be used as a substitute for a trial simply
because the Court may believe the moving party will probably prevail or that the moving party
should prevail at trial. Id.

The party moving for summary judgment must produce evidence that it believes
demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and must explain why summary
judgment is warranted. Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Thruston, 218 Ariz. 112, 115 (App. 2008). If the
non-moving party has the burden of proof of the claim or defense at trial, the moving party need

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

02/24/2025

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2

not disprove the nonmoving party's claim or defense, but need only point out the lack of evidence
on an essential element of the claim or defense. Id. at 117. If the moving party meets its burden,
the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to present sufficient evidence demonstrating the existence
of a disputed fact. Id. at 119. The nonmoving party cannot then rest on its pleadings, but must call
to the Court's attention evidence to explain why the motion should be denied. Id. The opponents
of a motion for summary judgment do not raise a genuine issue of fact by merely stating in the
record that such an issue exists. Rather, they must show that competent evidence is available which
will justify a trial on the issue. Flowers v. K-Mart Corp., 126 Ariz. 495, 499 (App. 1980). “If the
party with the burden of proof on the claim or defense cannot respond to the motion by showing
that there is evidence creating a genuine issue of fact on the element in question, then the motion
for summary judgment should be granted.” Orme School at 310, 802 P.2d at 1009.

Plaintiff owns real property that is subject to the governance of Defendant, which is a
homeowners association (“HOA”). Plaintiff and Defendant disagree about whether Defendant’s
construction and application of A.R.S. § 33-1804 is erroneous and deprives Plaintiff of certain
statutory rights. A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) provides in relevant part:

Any portion of a meeting may be closed only if that closed portion of the meeting
is limited to consideration of one or more of the following:

1. Legal advice from an attorney for the board or the association. On final
resolution of any matter for which the board received legal advice or that
concerned pending or contemplated litigation, the board may disclose
information about that matter in an open meeting except for matters that are
required to remain confidential by the terms of a settlement agreement or
judgment.

2. Pending or contemplated litigation.

3. Personal, health or financial information about an individual member of the
association, an individual employee of the association or an individual employee
of a contractor for the association, including records of the association directly
related to the personal, health or financial information about an individual
member of the association, an individual employee of the association or an
individual employee of a contractor for the association.

4. Matters relating to the job performance of, compensation of, health records of
or specific complaints against an individual employee of the association or an
individual employee of a contractor of the association who works under the
direction of the association.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

02/24/2025

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3

5. Discussion of a member's appeal of any violation cited or penalty imposed by
the association except on request of the affected member that the meeting be
held in an open session.

Additionally, A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) states:

It is the policy of this state as reflected in this section that all meetings of a
planned community, whether meetings of the members' association or meetings
of the board of directors of the association, be conducted openly and that notices
and agendas be provided in advance for those meetings that contain the
information that is reasonably necessary to inform the members of the matters
to be discussed or decided and to ensure that members have the ability to speak
after discussion of agenda items, but before a vote of the board of directors or
members is taken. Toward this end, any person or entity that is charged with the
interpretation of these provisions, including members of the board of directors
and any community manager, shall take into account this declaration of policy
and shall construe any provision of this section in favor of open meetings.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s Board should be precluded from voting or taking any
formal action on any matter in a closed meeting because the word “consideration” as used in A.R.S.
§ 33-1804(A) does not include taking formal actions. The Court is not aware of any Arizona legal
authorities directly on point. Given the language of A.R.S. § 33-1804(F), the Court must construe
the statute in favor of open meetings. The statute expressly authorizes HOAs to close portions of
meetings for the “consideration” of the limited subjects set forth in the statute. Consideration of
issues is different from voting on issues. Consideration encompasses, thought and discussion
about matters. It does not encompass voting, which is the formal expression of a final decision
that occurs after a matter has been considered. Thus, the Court agrees with Plaintiff’s
interpretation of the statute with regard to the necessity that all votes by the HOA must occur in
open meetings.

Plaintiff also contends that Defendant must meet in an open session and explain what
subsection of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) permits the Board to consider a matter in closed session before
it commences a closed session. Defendant contends that it can identify what subsection of the
statute applies during an open session or that it can identify the applicable statutory exemption in
the meeting notice that is provided to its members before meetings occur. A.R.S. § 33-1804(C)
states, “Before entering into any closed portion of a meeting of the board of directors, or on notice
of a meeting under subsection D of this section that will be closed, the board shall identify the
paragraph under subsection A of this section that authorizes the board to close the meeting.” On
this issue, the Court agrees with Defendant. As long as a meeting notice identifies the subsection

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

02/24/2025

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 4

of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) that authorizes it to meet in a closed session, Defendant has satisfied its
obligations under A.R.S. § 33-1804(C).

Plaintiff also contends that Defendant’s meeting notices are inadequate because they do
not provide sufficient detail about meeting topics. The Court has reviewed the sample meeting
notices Plaintiff provided and determined that those meeting notices satisfy the requirements of
A.R.S. § 33-1804(F). Whether portions of Defendant’s closed meetings have exceeded the scope
of what is permissible for it to do or consider in a closed meeting would have to be determined on
a meeting by meeting basis and that is not something that can be resolved through a dispositive
motion. Arizona law limits the topics that can be considered during closed meetings. Any matters
that do not fall directly under one of the express provisions of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) must be
considered in open meetings. But, to the extent that issues fall within the scope of one of the
limited topics set forth in that statute, the descriptions given in Defendant’s meeting notices are
sufficient under A.R.S. § 33-1804(F).

Based upon the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED granting in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and declaring
that all votes by the HOA must occur in open meetings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
with regard to the other issues that were raised therein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall confer about this ruling to determine
whether a final judgment resolving all of the claims in this case should be entered. If so, Plaintiff
shall submit a proposed form of judgment by no later than March 10, 2025. If this ruling does not
resolve all of the issues in the case, the parties shall confer regarding what remaining steps must
be taken to conclude the pre-trial phase of the case and to decide whether any unresolved issues
should be resolved with a bench trial or whether there are issues in the case that can and should be
resolved by a jury. The Court does not intend to set the case for a trial until the parties have
participated in a mediation with a private mediator or in settlement conference with a judge pro
tempore.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/05/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

03/04/2024

Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
L. Mooney

Deputy

A Z N H REVOCABLE TRUST
JOHN SULLIVAN

v.

SUNLAND SPRINGS VILLAGE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
MEGAN E RITENOUR

JUDGE COFFEY

ORDER SIGNED
MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received and reviewed the Parties’ Joint Report, electronically filed
February 23, 2024. With good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED approving the Parties’ Joint Report, electronically filed February 23,
2024.

All in accordance with the formal written Order signed by the Court on February 27, 2024
and entered (filed) by the clerk on March 4, 2024.

This Division no longer sets trial setting conferences as part of an initial scheduling
order. Once the parties can certify to the Court in writing that: 1) all discovery is complete; and
2) they have already participated in a settlement conference or a mediation, they may request that
the Court schedule a trial setting conference. The Court will then endeavor to set the trial setting
conference shortly after it receives a request to do so as long as the request includes such a
certification.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

03/04/2024

Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 2

Please note: The Court has signed a hard-copy version of the order provided with an
electronically filed pleading. Therefore, copies of the order and self-addressed, stamped envelopes
were not available for mailing to the parties. Copies of this order may be obtained through
AZTurboCourt.gov and from the Customer Service Center located at 601 W. Jackson St., Phoenix,
AZ 85003 once the order has been scanned and docketed by the Clerk of Court.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/13/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

03/11/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
S. Motzer

Deputy

A Z N H REVOCABLE TRUST
JOHN SULLIVAN

v.

SUNLAND SPRINGS VILLAGE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
MEGAN E RITENOUR

JUDGE COFFEY

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/26/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

03/22/2024

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
L. Mooney

Deputy

A Z N H REVOCABLE TRUST
JOHN SULLIVAN

v.

SUNLAND SPRINGS VILLAGE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
MEGAN E RITENOUR

JUDGE COFFEY

STATUS CONFERENCE SET
MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received the Parties’ Joint Statement of Discovery Dispute, electronically
filed March 14, 2024.

IT IS ORDERED setting Telephonic Status Conference re: Discovery Dispute on April
2, 2024 at 2:30_p.m. (30 minutes allotted). The Telephonic Status Conference is set before:

The Honorable Rodrick J. Coffey
Southeast Judicial District
222 East Javelina Avenue
Courtroom 205
Mesa, Arizona 85210

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for Plaintiff(s) shall initiate the telephonic
conference by first arranging the presence of all other counsel or self-represented parties on the
conference call and then calling this division at 602-372-1783 promptly at the scheduled time. All

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

03/22/2024

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2

parties appearing telephonically must be joined in a single conference call and be prepared to hold
until called upon.

The call should be placed in an area with no background noise and not in a moving vehicle.
Failure to do so may prevent the parties from hearing the proceedings in the courtroom and/or may
prevent the Court from hearing the parties. State your name so there may be a clear record as to
which party is speaking.

The proceeding will take place in the Superior Court’s e-courtroom. A record of the
proceedings will be made digitally in lieu of a court reporter. Should you want an unofficial copy
of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may request a videotape or CD of the proceedings for a
$30.00 charge. If a CD or videotape is requested, please obtain a form from the courtroom clerk
or from the Self-Service Center to request a daily copy of a court hearing or trial proceeding being
conducted. Pay the applicable fee at the Self-Service Center. Attach the receipt showing
payment of the fee and present both the receipt and the form to the bailiff. For copies of hearings
or trial proceedings recorded previously, please call Electronic Records Services at (602)
506.7100. Should an official transcript be required, you may request that the court prepare it. The
party ordering the transcript must pay for it. To request a transcript, call (602) 506.7100 and
provide the date of the proceeding, the case number, the case caption, if the transcript is for an
appeal, and your name, address, and telephone number.

With this technology, a court reporter is likely not required and the parties are
encouraged to experience the court's video recording system before requesting a court
reporter. Pursuant to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any proceeding in
which a court reporter is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30, the party must submit
a written request to the assigned judicial officer at least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the
hearing and must pay the authorized fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial days
before the proceeding. The fee is $140 for a half-day and $280 for a full day.

PLEASE NOTE: This division requires that all motions, responses, replies and other
Court-requested filings in this case must be submitted individually. Counsel shall not combine
any motion with a responsive pleading. All motions are to be filed separately and designated as
such. No pleadings will be accepted if filed in combination with another.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/03/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

04/02/2024

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
C. Avena

Deputy

A Z N H REVOCABLE TRUST
JOHN SULLIVAN

v.

SUNLAND SPRINGS VILLAGE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
MEGAN E RITENOUR

JUDGE COFFEY

MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT

Courtroom – SEF 205

2:31 p.m. This is the time set for Telephonic Status Conference re: the Parties’ Joint
Statement of Discovery Dispute, electronically filed March 14, 2024. Plaintiff, AZNH Revocable
Trust is represented telephonically by counsel, John Sullivan. Defendant, Sunland Springs Village
Homeowners Association is represented telephonically by counsel, Megan E. Ritenour.

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

Discussion is held regarding the discovery dispute.

IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.

2:48 p.m. Matter concludes.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

04/02/2024

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2

NOTE: All court proceedings are recorded by audio and video method 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 ***

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

CV 2023-096192

04/03/2024

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
L. Mooney

Deputy

A Z N H REVOCABLE TRUST
JOHN SULLIVAN

v.

SUNLAND SPRINGS VILLAGE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
MEGAN E RITENOUR

JUDGE COFFEY

UNDER ADVISMENT RULING

At the conclusion of the hearing on April 2, 2024, the Court took under advisement the
parties’ Joint Statement of Discovery Dispute. After carefully considering the parties’ filing and
the arguments presented on April 2, 2024,

IT IS ORDERED that by no later than April 30, 2024, for the time period of January 1,
2023 through April 1, 2024, Defendant shall produce to Plaintiff the following documents or
records as they are kept in the usual course of business:

1. All notices of all Board of Directors meetings;
2. All agendas of all Board of Directors meetings; and,
3. All minutes of all Board of Directors meetings.

When complying with the above, the Defendant may only redact from such documents or
records:

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

04/03/2024

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2

1. Names and addresses of any member of the Sunland Springs Homeowners
Association who have any matter under consideration by the Board of Directors in closed
sessions;
2. Names and addresses of any employee (or contracted employee) of the Sunland
Springs Homeowners Association who have any matter under consideration by the Board
of Directors in closed sessions;
3. Personal, health or financial records of an individual member of the association, an
individual employee of the association or an individual employee of a contractor for the
association, including records of the association directly related to the personal, health or
financial information about an individual member of the association, an individual
employee of the association or an individual employee of a contractor for the association;
4. Records relating to the job performance of, compensation of, health records of or
specific complaints against an individual employee of the association or an individual
employee of a contractor of the association who works under the direction of the
association;
5. Discussions or deliberations by members of the Board of Directors in closed
sessions; and
6. Communications from or to an attorney engaged to provide legal services to the
Sunland Springs Homeowners Association.

When complying with the above, the Defendant shall not redact any information that is
reasonably necessary to inform the Plaintiff of the matters to be discussed or decided at any Board
of Directors meeting, and Defendant shall not redact any information disclosing the voting or other
official actions by the Board at any such meeting.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall not allow anyone other than its Trustees,
its attorneys, the Court, court reporters, deponents at depositions or expert witnesses retained by
Plaintiff to assist it in this lawsuit, to view these documents unless they are given written
permission to do so by Defendants’ attorneys or the Court.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/12/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

07/11/2024

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
C. Avena

Deputy

A Z N H REVOCABLE TRUST
JOHN SULLIVAN

v.

SUNLAND SPRINGS VILLAGE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
MEGAN E RITENOUR

JUDGE COFFEY

STATUS CONFERENCE SET
MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received the Parties’ Joint Statement of Discovery Dispute, electronically
filed July 3, 2024.

IT IS ORDERED setting Telephonic Status Conference re: Discovery Dispute on July
30, 2024 at 10:30_a.m. (30 minutes allotted). The Telephonic Status Conference is set before:

The Honorable Rodrick J. Coffey
Southeast Judicial District
222 East Javelina Avenue
Courtroom 205
Mesa, Arizona 85210

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for Plaintiff(s) shall initiate the telephonic
conference by first arranging the presence of all other counsel or self-represented parties on the
conference call and then calling this division at 602-372-1783 promptly at the scheduled time. All

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

07/11/2024

Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2

parties appearing telephonically must be joined in a single conference call and be prepared to hold
until called upon.

The call should be placed in an area with no background noise and not in a moving vehicle.
Failure to do so may prevent the parties from hearing the proceedings in the courtroom and/or may
prevent the Court from hearing the parties. State your name so there may be a clear record as to
which party is speaking.

The proceeding will take place in the Superior Court’s e-courtroom. A record of the
proceedings will be made digitally in lieu of a court reporter. Should you want an unofficial copy
of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may request a videotape or CD of the proceedings for a
$30.00 charge. If a CD or videotape is requested, please obtain a form from the courtroom clerk
or from the Self-Service Center to request a daily copy of a court hearing or trial proceeding being
conducted. Pay the applicable fee at the Self-Service Center. Attach the receipt showing
payment of the fee and present both the receipt and the form to the bailiff. For copies of hearings
or trial proceedings recorded previously, please call Electronic Records Services at (602)
506.7100. Should an official transcript be required, you may request that the court prepare it. The
party ordering the transcript must pay for it. To request a transcript, call (602) 506.7100 and
provide the date of the proceeding, the case number, the case caption, if the transcript is for an
appeal, and your name, address, and telephone number.

With this technology, a court reporter is likely not required and the parties are
encouraged to experience the court's video recording system before requesting a court
reporter. Pursuant to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any proceeding in
which a court reporter is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30, the party must submit
a written request to the assigned judicial officer at least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the
hearing and must pay the authorized fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial days
before the proceeding. The fee is $140 for a half-day and $280 for a full day.

PLEASE NOTE: This division requires that all motions, responses, replies and other
Court-requested filings in this case must be submitted individually. Counsel shall not combine
any motion with a responsive pleading. All motions are to be filed separately and designated as
such. No pleadings will be accepted if filed in combination with another.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/01/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

07/29/2024

Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
L. Mooney

Deputy

A Z N H REVOCABLE TRUST
JOHN SULLIVAN

v.

SUNLAND SPRINGS VILLAGE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
MEGAN E RITENOUR

JUDGE COFFEY

ORDER SIGNED
MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received and reviewed the Parties’ Assented Motion to Modify Scheduling
Order, electronically filed June 6, 2024. With good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED approving the Parties’ Assented Motion to Modify Scheduling Order,
electronically filed June 6, 2024.

All in accordance with the formal written Order signed by the Court on July 16, 2024 and
entered (filed) by the clerk on July 29, 2024.

This Division no longer sets trial setting conferences as part of an initial scheduling
order. Once the parties can certify to the Court in writing that: 1) all discovery is complete; and
2) they have already participated in a settlement conference or a mediation, they may request that
the Court schedule a trial setting conference. The Court will then endeavor to set the trial setting
conference shortly after it receives a request to do so as long as the request includes such a
certification.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

07/29/2024

Docket Code 022
Form V000A
Page 2

It is important that counsel and self-represented parties read the order that the court signed.
The Court may have made changes to the order that the parties submitted.

Please note: The Court has signed a hard-copy version of the order provided with an
electronically filed pleading. Therefore, copies of the order and self-addressed, stamped envelopes
were not available for mailing to the parties. Copies of this order may be obtained through
AZTurboCourt.gov and from the Customer Service Center located at 601 W. Jackson St., Phoenix,
AZ 85003 once the order has been scanned and docketed by the Clerk of Court.

NOTE: All court proceedings are recorded by audio and video method 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 ***

08/01/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

07/30/2024

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
L. Mooney

Deputy

A Z N H REVOCABLE TRUST
JOHN SULLIVAN

v.

SUNLAND SPRINGS VILLAGE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
MEGAN E RITENOUR

TEHAURA R HENNING
JUDGE COFFEY

STATUS CONFERENCE

Courtroom – SEF 205

10:30 a.m. This is the time set for Telephonic Status Conference re: the Parties’ Joint
Statement of Discovery Dispute, electronically filed July 3, 2024. Plaintiff, AZNH Revocable
Trust, is represented by Counsel, John Sullivan, who is present telephonically. Defendant, Sunland
Springs Village Homeowners Association, is represented by Counsel, Megan E Ritenour and
Tehaura Henning, who are present telephonically.

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

Discussion is held regarding the discovery dispute.

Based on the matters presented,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

07/30/2024

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED the Defendant is to provide supplemental responses to interrogatory
number 4 no later than August 30, 2024.

10:43 a.m. Matter concludes.

NOTE: All court proceedings are recorded by audio and video method 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 ***

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

CV 2023-096192

12/11/2024

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE RODRICK COFFEY
S. Motzer

Deputy

A Z N H REVOCABLE TRUST
JOHN SULLIVAN

v.

SUNLAND SPRINGS VILLAGE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
MEGAN E RITENOUR

JUDGE COFFEY

ORAL ARGUMENT SET
MINUTE ENTRY

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

Good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED setting telephonic Oral Argument on January 3, 205 at 3:00 p.m. (30
minutes allotted) in this division.

Oral argument is limited to 30 minutes, with the time divided equally between the parties.
Counsel and the parties, if representing themselves, are to appear telephonically before:

THE HONORABLE RODRICK J. COFFEY
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING
5TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 511
101 W. JEFFERSON STREET
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
PHONE: (602) 372-1783

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2023-096192

12/11/2024

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for Plaintiff(s) shall initiate the telephonic
conference by first arranging the presence of all other counsel or self-represented parties on the
conference call and by calling this division at 602-372-1783 promptly at the scheduled time. All
parties appearing telephonically must be joined in a single conference call and be prepared to hold
until called upon.

The parties/attorneys are advised that failure to appear telephonically for the hearing
may result in sanctions, including dismissal of the action per Rule 16(F), Arizona Rules of
Civil Procedure.

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

PLEASE NOTE: This division requires that all motions, responses, replies and other
Court-requested filings in this case must be submitted individually. Counsel shall not combine
any motion with a responsive pleading. All motions are to be filed separately and designated as
such. No pleadings will be accepted if filed in combination with another.

Documents