Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2024-003271: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Val Vista Classic Community Association.

Case Number

CV2024-003271

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

2/20/2024

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Pineda, Susanna

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/08/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

01/07/2026

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

JUDGE PINEDA

ORDER ENTERED BY THE COURT

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees for the Defense
Against the Dismissed Counterclaims filed on November 18, 2025. In it, they seek attorneys’
fees totaling $17,674.00. They also filed their Statement of Costs. Defendant opposes the
requests for attorneys’ fees, arguing that Plaintiff’s motion contains block billing, is duplicative,
and would cause him hardship. The Court notes that Defendant is disabled and apparently
receives financial assistance to maintain his housing, including paying his HOA fees. On
December 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed its “Supplemental Affidavit Regarding Attorneys’ Fees,
increasing the amount of attorneys’ fees sought to $19,549.50.

The Court notes that on August 8, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion and
permitted Plaintiff to seek attorneys’ fees. Generally, a party must file their motion for
attorneys’ fees within 20 days from the clerk’s mailing of the Court’s decision on the matter. See
Rule 54, Ariz. R. Civ. P.; King v. Titsworth, 221 Ariz. 597 (App. 2009). Plaintiff did not file its
Application for Attorneys’ Fees until November 18, 2025, more than three months after the
Court’s ruling had issued. Plaintiff has also not sought an extension of time to do so.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

01/07/2026

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

Because Plaintiff’s Application is untimely,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees for the Defense
Against the Dismissed Counterclaims without prejudice subject to the outcome of Plaintiff’s
claim against Defendant.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/21/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

01/20/2026

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

JUDGE PINEDA

ORDER ENTERED BY THE COURT

This Court has reviewed Defendant’s Motion entitled “Defendant’s Motion Compel
Discovery and for Relief from Orders under Ariz.R.Civ. P. 60(b) and Response to Plaintiff’s
Application for Attorney’ Fees” filed on November 26, 2025, Plaintiff’s Response filed on
December 10, 2025, and Defendant’s December 19, 2025, reply.

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion regarding discovery as Defendant has
failed to follow Rule 26(d).

Defendant is reminded that he must comply with the Rules in presenting his motions,
including limiting his motions to one subject. Plaintiff’s Motion raises at least three separate and
distinct issues. Plaintiff’s Rule 60 motion is impossible to decipher. Assuming Defendant seeks
to vacate the Court’s order dismissing his cross-claims, he has failed to state good cause to do so.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

01/20/2026

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Defendant’s Rule 60 Motion.

Lastly, in his Motion, Defendant includes a response to Plaintiff’s Application for
Attorneys’ Fees. Defendant had already responded to the Application and the Court has ruled.

IT IS ORDERED finding this “Response” superfluous and improperly filed.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

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

CV 2024-003271

01/23/2026

Docket Code 021
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

EDM-QC-CCC
JUDGE PINEDA
MEEDS ADMINISTRATOR

NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER

IT IS ORDERED nunc pro tunc amending the Order Entered By The Court minute entry
dated January 20, 2026 and filed January 21, 2026, page 1, paragraph 3 to indicate:

“Defendant is reminded that he must comply with the Rules in presenting his motions,
including limiting his motions to one subject. Defendant’s Motion raises at least three separate
and distinct issues. Defendant’s Rule 60 motion is impossible to decipher. Assuming Defendant
seeks to vacate the Court’s order dismissing his cross-claims, he has failed to state good cause to
do so.”

in place and instead of

“Defendant is reminded that he must comply with the Rules in presenting his motions,
including limiting his motions to one subject. Plaintiff’s Motion raises at least three separate and

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

01/23/2026

Docket Code 021
Form V000A
Page 2

distinct issues. Plaintiff’s Rule 60 motion is impossible to decipher. Assuming Defendant seeks
to vacate the Court’s order dismissing his cross-claims, he has failed to state good cause to do
so.”

The minute entry dated January 20, 2026 is available for viewing at:
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov.

The balance of the minute entry remains unchanged.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/27/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

01/24/2025

Docket Code 041
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
C. Lacey

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

Pursuant to the Rule 16 Report, filed January 16, 2025,

IT IS ORDERED setting a Rule 16(d) Scheduling Conference on February 28, 2025, at
9:00 a.m. (30 minutes) before this Division.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

01/24/2025

Docket Code 041
Form V000A
Page 2

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#

Litigants and/or counsel are expected to appear using the TinyURL link, using a web
browser or Microsoft Teams, a web camera, and a microphone. Calling in by telephone is meant
as a supplemental measure only to be used if videoconferencing is unavailable.

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 ***

01/28/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

01/27/2025

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE PINEDA

ORDER ENTERED BY COURT

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, electronically signed by the Court on January 24, 2025,

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 June 17, 2025.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than March 19, 2025, 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

01/27/2025

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

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 ***

02/13/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

02/12/2026

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

This Court has received and reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed on
November 18, 2025, Defendant’s Response, and Plaintiff’s Reply.

IT IS ORDERED setting Oral argument on the pleadings for April 7, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.
(1 hour) before this Division.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that oral argument will be limited to 30 minutes for each
side unless permission to exceed this limit has been granted.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

02/12/2026

Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2

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.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

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

CV 2024-003271

02/28/2025

Docket Code 002
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

CV ARBITRATION
JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the Trial Setting Conference set to commence on August
18, 2025.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

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

CV 2024-003271

02/28/2025

Docket Code 350
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

JUDGE PINEDA
CV ARBITRATION

MINUTE ENTRY

East Court Building- Courtroom 913

9:12 a.m. This is the time set for a Rule 16 hearing. Plaintiff, Val Vista Community
Association, is represented by counsel, Ember Van Vranken, and Char Cruz on behalf of counsel
of record, Nikita Verma Patel. Defendant, Levi Rosenbaum, is present on his own behalf.

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

Discussion is held regarding the status of the case.

For the reasons stated on the record,

THE COURT FINDS this case is subject to compulsory arbitration. Therefore,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

02/28/2025

Docket Code 350
Form V000A
Page 2

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(c) (1), to the arbitrator for
consideration and ruling.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Ember Van Vranken and/or Char Cruz shall file a Notice
of Appearance if they will be representing Plaintiff.

9:34 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/07/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

03/06/2025

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
C. Lacey

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration of February
28,2025 Order” finding that the matter is subject to compulsory arbitration.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant respond to the motion no later than March 26, 2025.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/11/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

03/10/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
N. Howard/Y. Rodriguez

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery filed February 3,
2026, and Defendant’s Motion to Join Indispensable Party Under Ariz.R.Civ.P. 19 also filed on
February 3, 2026. The Court notes that neither of these pleadings were served upon Plaintiff as
neither has a certificate of service attached. Because the motions were not served upon the
opposing party, they would not be ruled upon.
Subsequently, Defendant filed his Motion to Submit Pending Motions for Decision. He
lists the two motions noted above. Defendant’s current motion was served upon Plaintiff’s via
email. Plaintiff, now aware of the February 3, 2026, pleadings, seeks time in which to respond to
the February 3, 2026, Motions.
IT IS ORDERED giving Plaintiff until 20 days from the date of this Order to Respond to
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion to Join Indispensable Party Under
Ariz.R.Civ.P. 19.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

03/10/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to Submit Pending Motions for Decision
as premature. Defendant may file an appropriate reply upon receipt of Plaintiff’s responses to the
pending motions.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/28/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

03/27/2025

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

ROBERT E PASTOR
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

By minute entry dated January 27, 2025, and in accordance with AO 2023-009, this
Court directed the parties to submit their joint certification as their readiness to proceed with
their ADR settlement conference by no later than March 19, 2025, the certification has not been
submitted. Therefore,
IT IS 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 ***

03/31/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

03/28/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
C. Lacey

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

ROBERT E PASTOR
CV ARBITRATION
JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s February
28, 2025 Order that this case is subject to compulsory arbitration. The Court has also reviewed
Defendant’s response, seeking that this matter proceed to arbitration.

While Plaintiff’s claim is for monetary damages under $50,000.00, the legislature has
chosen to give HOAs a remedy to collect on unpaid HOA fees and fines by way of foreclosure.
Due to the remedy sought, the Court finds that the case is not subject to compulsory arbitration.

IT IS ORDERED vacating the order assigning this case to the Arbitration Department.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties meet and confirm within 20 days of
today’s order and provide the Court with a joint report and proposed scheduling order, including
a date by which the parties must appear for mediation or Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/16/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

04/14/2026

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery filed on March 2,
2026, and Plaintiff’s Response. Defendant apparently seeks that Plaintiff obtain information
from a third-party who is not part of this case. Defendant has not filed a reply contradicting
Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant seeks discovery from a non-party and that a Motion to Compel is
inappropriate. Plaintiff also correctly notes that this issue is not subject to a motion to compel
but a discovery dispute that should have been filed pursuant to Rule 26(d) of the Arizona Rules
of Civil Procedure. Because Defendant seeks information not in Plaintiff’s control,

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to Compel.

Defendant has also filed a Motion to Join Indispensable Party filed on February 3,
2026. As previously noted, Defendant did not serve this Motion upon Plaintiff. Upon being
advised by the Court of Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff responded. Plaintiff notes that this case
involves solely the issue of whether Defendant is delinquent in his account with Plaintiff. There
is no third party necessary to this matter.

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to Join Indispensable Party.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

04/14/2026

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

Plaintiff seeks attorneys’ fees for having to respond to the above listed motions.

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees in this instance.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/17/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

04/16/2026

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Submit Pending Motions for
Decision as Unopposed, Plaintiff’s Response, and Defendant’s Reply. The Court having ruled
on Defendant’s Motion to Join Indispensable Party and Defendant’s Motion to Compel
Discovery,

IT IS ORDERED denying the motion as moot.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/22/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

04/20/2026

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has reviewed Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s April 16,
2026 Minute Entry, filed on April 16, 2026.

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s April
16, 2026 Minute Entry.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/25/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

04/24/2025

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
C. Lacey

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, electronically signed by the Court on April 23, 2025,

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 August 1, 2025.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than May 5, 2025, 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

04/24/2025

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

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 ***

05/11/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

05/08/2026

Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

EMBER ANN VAN VRANKEN
JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

East Court Building – Courtroom 913-VC-CV

11:01 a.m. This is the time set for a virtual Oral Argument regarding Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Judgment, filed November 18, 2025. Plaintiff, Val Vista Classic Community
Association, is represented by counsel, Ember Van Vranken for Nikita Verma Patel. Defendant,
Levi Rosenbaum, is present on his own behalf. All parties appear virtually.

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

Argument is presented.

For the reasons as set forth on the record,

IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.

11:51 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/13/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

05/09/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
C. Lacey

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received Plaintiff’s pleading entitled Joint Request and Certification of
Readiness for Setting Settlement Conference, filed on May 5, 2025. While Ariz R. Civ. P. Rule
16(i) requires a joint certificate, Plaintiff has acknowledged that the request is being sought
unilaterally as Defendant has refused to engage with the Association. The certificate does not
comply with AO 2023-009. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED rejecting the certificate of readiness and vacating 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 ***

05/12/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

05/11/2026

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

EMBER ANN VAN VRANKEN
JUDGE PINEDA

UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING

On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff, Val Vista Classic Community Association filed its
Complaint against Defendant alleging Breach of Contract and Foreclosure based on unpaid HOA
fees that have accumulated on Defendant’s property. Plaintiff has placed a lien on the property
and seeks to foreclose on the lien.

On November 18,2025, Plaintiff filed their Motion for Summary Judgment indicating
that it is undisputed that Defendant has failed to pay the HOA fees due to the association. As a
result of the failure to pay, late fees were assessed. Additionally, when payments were returned
for insufficient funds, a “NSF Fee” was assessed. Pursuant to the CC&R’s for the community,
collection fees also were assessed, as well as attorneys’ fees. Normally, the monthly HOA fees
are $195.00. Plaintiff indicates that while Defendant made payments from August 2021 through
February 2022, those payments were returned due to insufficient funds. Defendant’s last actual

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

05/11/2026

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2

payment was made in March of 2022 for $145.00. Defendant’s account remained delinquent
due to the HOA commencing collections.

In June of 2022, Defendant inquired about a payment in the amount of $1,516.91 made
on his behalf. The check was apparently credited to another, unrelated account; Val Vista
Classic-P11 vs. Val Vista Classic. Defendant asked that Plaintiff apply the check to Val Vista
Classic and that Plaintiff open the payment portal and remove the case from collections.
Plaintiffs declined to open the normal payment portal and Defendant’s requests to remove the
case from collections.

In January 2025, after litigation had commenced, Defendant sent a check to Plaintiff in
the amount of $8,302.00. Defendant intended this payment to be “payment in full” for all
monies owed, including past due assessments, collection fees and attorneys’ fees authorized by
the CC&R’s. Plaintiff rejected the payment due to the outstanding balance having grown beyond
just the monthly assessments owed by Defendant.

In response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant seeks summary
judgment, alleging that Plaintiff misapplied a payment to the “sub account P-1” instead of the
Classic account, and arguing that he was unaware of the need to reapply for the assistance
program that was assisting him in paying his HOA assessments. Defendant has also expressed
his displeasure with Plaintiff’s counsel, specifically, their refusal to settle the matter for monthly
assessment and their refusal to allow payments to take place through the portal, rather than
through collections.

In reply, Plaintiff notes that the third-party payment was sent to the P-1 account and
credited to that account. Payment was not mailed to the Classic account.

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).

1 Defendant submitted the payment ledger for the P-1 account showing that he was in arrears in June of 2022, and
that the account was credited $1,214.41 which brought his balance down to $94.91 on this account. Subsequently,
Defendant has made no further payments on the P-1 account and the balanced had risen to $2,577.94 as of April 1,
2024. The P1 account is not subject of this litigation but, it appears that the account is in collections.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

05/11/2026

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3

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
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).

“If the moving party on a motion has made prima facie showing that no genuine issue of
material fact exists, the opponent of the motion has the burden to produce sufficient evidence
that there is indeed an issue.” W.J. Kroeger Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 112 Ariz. 285, 286
(1975). A motion for summary judgment should not be denied simply on the speculation that
some doubt, scintilla of evidence, or dispute over irrelevant or immaterial facts might blossom
into a controversy in the middle of trial. Shaw v. Petersen, 169 Ariz. 559, 560-61 (App. 1991)
quoting Orme Sch., 166 Ariz. at 309. “The court does not try issues of fact, but only whether
[facts] are genuine and in good faith disputed. The mere general statement in a pleading, when
attacked by such motion supported by proof of specific facts in the form of affidavit or
deposition, places on the author of the statement the obligation to present something which will
show that when the date of trial arrives, he will have some proof to support the allegation in the
pleading.” Stevens v. Anderson, 75 Ariz. 331, 334 (1953). 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).

Admittedly, determining credibility, weighing the evidence, and drawing legitimate
inferences from the facts are functions for a jury, not the judge. Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ridgely,
214 Ariz. 440, 444 ¶ 19, 153 P.3d 1069, 1073 (App. 2007) (declining to apply sham affidavit
rule; reversing summary judgment).

“Summary judgment is inappropriate where the facts, even if undisputed, would allow
reasonable minds to differ.” Nelson v. Phx. Resort Corp., 181 Ariz. 188, 191 (App. 1994), citing
Orme Sch., 166 Ariz. at 310. “[I]f a material issue concerns the state of mind or intent of one of

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

05/11/2026

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 4

the parties, summary judgment normally is not appropriate.” Mid-Century Ins. Co. v.
Duzykowski, 131 Ariz. 428, 429 (1982).

This Court must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the
motion for summary judgment and draw all inferences fairly arising from the evidence in that
party’s favor.” Phoenix Baptist Hosp. & Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Aiken, 179 Ariz. 289, 293, 877 P.2d
1345, 1349 (App.1994).

Here, there is no question that the CC&R’s are a contractual agreement between the
homeowner and the association. Defendant has not disputed that beginning in 2021, his
payments were returned for insufficient funds. Defendant acknowledges that due to his
disability, he had applied for and obtained assistance to pay his assessments. Defendant
acknowledged that a payment was provided and mailed by the third-party payor to “the
association.” His own records show that that payment was sent to the P-1 account and credited
to the delinquency on that account. The Classic account shows no payment. Plaintiff also
indicates that he was not aware that he had to “reapply” for assistance, and as a result, he has lost
his eligibility to apply for additional assistance. Defendant provides no evidence showing that
Plaintiff misapplied this assistance payment, that they were required to accept his subsequent
settlement offer to pay the past due assessments only, or that “counsel” engaged in any kind of
fraudulent activity. In reality, Defendant acknowledges that he has been unable to make his
assessment payments (Classic and P-1) and that he sought assistance through a third-party payor.
He also acknowledges that he failed to reapply for assistance and does not have the funds to pay
the arrearages, fees or attorneys’ fees contractually required. While Plaintiff believes Plaintiff
improperly/fraudulently placed a lien on the property, he has provided no evidence in support of
this claim.

The evidence provided to the Court shows a contract, a breach of that contract including a
contractual agreement to pay assessments, and collections fees and attorneys’ fees resulting from
non-payment of monthly assessment. By statute, foreclosure on the HOA lien is permissible.

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as requested in
his Response.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that not later than 20 calendar days after the entry of this
order, Plaintiff must also submit a proposed form of judgment for the Court’s signature. That
form of judgment may incorporate by reference what is said here but otherwise should be
confined to the amount being awarded along with appropriate Rule 54(C) language.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

05/11/2026

Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 5

As a result of the Court’s ruling,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the Trial Management Conference set to commence on
December 11, 2026, and the 2-day Jury Trial set to commence on January 21, 2027.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all remaining motions are deemed moot.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/13/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

05/12/2025

Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
C. Lacey

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

Plaintiff has submitted a Statement of Discovery Dispute which appears to seek to
compel discovery and obtain sanctions. Because the Motion seeks to compel discovery and
seeks sanctions,

IT IS ORDERED setting a virtual Order to Show Cause Hearing to address the matter
on June 2, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. (30 minutes allotted).

The Court expects the parties to appear by videoconference unless permission is otherwise
given. 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 2024-003271

05/12/2025

Docket Code 056
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#

Litigants and/or counsel are expected to appear using the TinyURL link, using a web
browser or Microsoft Teams, a web camera, and a microphone. Calling in by telephone is meant
as a supplemental measure only to be used if videoconferencing is unavailable.

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.

JPR NOTICE

The Arizona Constitution requires the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance
Review to conduct performance evaluations of superior court judges. The Commission is asking
for your help to evaluate Maricopa County Superior Court judges currently undergoing
performance review. After your hearing, if the judge you are in front of is undergoing review, a
survey will either be given to you by court staff or will be emailed to you and you can take the
survey online. The survey is conducted by the Docking Institute of Public Affairs at Fort Hays
State University and is anonymous and confidential. Your participation in the review process is
important! More information on Judicial Performance Review can be found at azjudges.info.

La Constitución de Arizona exige que la Comisión de la Evaluación del Desempeño
Judicial realice evaluaciones de desempeño de los jueces de los tribunales superiores. La
comisión pide su ayuda para evaluar a los jueces del Tribunal Superior del Condado de Maricopa
a quienes actualmente se les está evaluando su desempeño. Después de su audiencia, si el juez
frente a usted está siendo revisado, el personal de la corte le entregará una encuesta o se le
enviará por correo electrónico y usted puede realizar la encuesta en línea. La encuesta es
realizada por el Docking Institute of Public Affairs de la Fort Hays State University y se
mantiene anónima y confidencial. ¡Su participación en el proceso de la evaluación es

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

05/12/2025

Docket Code 056
Form V000A
Page 3

importante! Para obtener más información sobre la evaluación del desempeño judicial, diríjase a
azjudges.info.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/18/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

05/15/2026

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has reviewed Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of May 11, 2026 Order
Granting Summary Judgment, To Quash April 22, 2026 Order, And For Stay of Judgment, filed
on May 12, 2026.

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s motion.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/04/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

06/02/2025

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
E. Valadez/C. Ladden

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

JUDGE PINEDA

STATUS CONFERENCE

East Court Building – Courtroom 913

9:59 a.m. This is the time set for a virtual Status Conference on Plaintiff’s Rule 26(D)
Statement of Discovery Dispute, which appears to seek to compel discovery and obtain sanctions
filed, May 6, 2025. Plaintiff Val Vista Classic Community Association is represented by counsel,
Ember Van Vranken who is appearing on behalf of counsel of record, Nikita Verma Patel.
Defendant Levi Rosenbaum is present on his own behalf.

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

Discussion is held regarding Counsel Vranken and her Notice of Appearance.

Discussion is held regarding discovery disclosure.

Discussion is held regarding Defendant’s payments and the portal.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

06/02/2025

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 2

Defendant requests Counsel Vranken be removed from this matter.

The Court advises Defendant to respond to the forms sent to him.

The Court, with the parties’ agreement, will grant a 30-day extension until July 2, 2025,
to allow Defendant Rosenbaum to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, written discovery
including the request for admission or denials, initial disclosure statement, and all discovery
requests. Defendant shall submit his requests in the proper format.

Discussion is held regarding reopening the payment portal, the ledger, and the associated
entity.

Defendant Rosenbaum shall make all his requests in a formal manner and is referred to
the Law Library website where he can obtain the forms he can mirror to follow the proper format
required. Defendant Rosenbaum can also mirror Counsel Vranken’s format when Defendant
receives emails.

Discussion is held regarding a proposed amended scheduling order. The Court will grant
a 30-day extension when Counsel Vranken submits a proposed amended scheduling order.

Discussion is held regarding the summary judgment process.

Discussion is held regarding ADR.

Discussion is held regarding the related entity and a counterclaim.

Discussion is held regarding Ember Van Vranken’s role in this matter and additional
counsel as back up in this case. The Court states it does not have control over an attorney who
represents a litigant and cannot preclude Counsel Vranken from doing her job.

Discussion is held regarding judicial rotation.

10:44 a.m. Matter concludes.

Self-Represented Litigant Advisory

ATTENTION SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS: Unless an attorney files a notice
that he or she represents a party, the person(s) not represented by an attorney will act as his or her
own attorney. The law requires the court to hold all persons representing themselves to the

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

06/02/2025

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 3

same standard as a licensed attorney. Self-represented litigants are encouraged to review the
Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, paying particular attention to Rule 26. Please note that only a
licensed attorney may represent a corporation, LLC, or similar business entity in the
Superior Court. Ramada Inns v. Lane & Bird Advertising, 102 Ariz. 127, 426 P.2d 395
(1967). You may not file motions or request for relief on behalf of another self-represented party.

Before the judge can consider anything you send her, you must show her that you have
given a copy of your request:

1. To the Clerk of the Court. The Clerk of the Court is a separately elected official. It is
the clerk’s job to keep an independent record of everything that happens at the
court. The court cannot act on a document that has not been made a part of that record;
and

2. To every other party involved in the case. This is so all parties have a fair chance to tell
the judge what they think before she makes a decision.

Because of that, if you want the judge to consider something you send her, you must file
the original document with the Clerk of the Superior Court, mail or deliver a copy directly
to this division (that is, to the judge, using her specific courtroom address)

HONORABLE JUDGE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
101 W. JEFFERSON
9TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 913
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-372-2958

and mail or deliver a copy to all opposing parties. In addition, on each document you must include
a signed certificate that says whether you mailed or hand delivered each copy, when you did so,
and states the specific people and the specific addresses to which you mailed or hand delivered
each copy. If a party is represented by a lawyer, you must send or deliver the copy to the lawyer,
not to the party. All proposed orders submitted to this division must include copies of the order
with self-addressed, stamped envelopes for all parties/counsel.

Do not mail or send papers for the clerk or other parties to the judge.

If you want to file papers with the Clerk of the Court by mail, please send them to:

Clerk of the Superior Court’s Office
Civil File Counter

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

06/02/2025

Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 4

201 W. Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ 85003

The clerk’s guidelines for filing by mail can be found at:

Civil and Tax Filing | Maricopa County Clerk of Superior Court

If you are not represented by a lawyer you must contact this division immediately and give
us a current address, telephone number, and email address. If your address, phone number, or email
address changes in the future, you must file a notice of change of address/phone number/email
address. That form can be downloaded at no charge from the following website:

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

REFERRAL INFORMATION

Community Outreach & Education Arizona Attorney General's Office
2005 N Central Ave Phoenix, AZ 85004
(602) 542-2123 (Phoenix)
(800) 352-8431*
*Toll free in AZ (outside Maricopa and Pima counties)
[email protected]

Maricopa County Bar Lawyer Referral Service
(602) 257-4434
https://maricopabar.org/index.cfm?pg=LRSHome

Community Legal Services
(602) 258-3434
(800) 852-9075
Home


All parties representing themselves must keep the Court updated with name and
address changes.

An update form may be downloaded at: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/llrc/fc_gn9/

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/05/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

08/04/2025

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the November 20, 2025, at 9:15 a.m. Trial Setting
Conference and resetting same to November 24, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. (15 minutes) before this
Division.

The Court expects the parties to appear by videoconference unless permission is otherwise
given by the Court. 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 2024-003271

08/04/2025

Docket Code 083
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#

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 ***

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

CV 2024-003271

09/04/2024

Docket Code 376
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
F. Luchycky/C. Hall

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

Defendant has been served and no answer filed. Pursuant to Rule 38.1(d) of the Arizona
Rules of Civil Procedure,

IT IS ORDERED extending this matter on the dismissal calendar until October 21,
2024.

This case will be dismissed without further notice on October 21, 2024, unless Plaintiff
commences and completes the default process prior to the date of dismissal.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

09/10/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

09/09/2024

Docket Code 376
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
C. Hall

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

Defendant having been served and no answer filed, pursuant to Rule 38.1(d), Arizona Rules
of Civil Procedure,

IT IS ORDERED extending this matter on the Dismissal Calendar for dismissal on
October 21, 2024 without further notice unless Plaintiff completes the default process prior to that
date.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/18/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

10/17/2024

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

This Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Application and Affidavit for Default. The Court notes
that Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss. This Motion to Dismiss is a responsive pleading
precluding default at this time. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Application and Affidavit for Default.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/11/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

12/06/2024

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
C. Lacey

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has reviewed Defendant’s Response, Motion to Dismiss and [Proposed Orders].

IT IS ORDERED treating Defendant’s Response as the Answer to the Complaint.

The Court has also reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff’s Response to
the Motion to Dismiss. No reply has been filed.

In his Motion to Dismiss, Defendant apparently argues that he was precluded from making
payments by lack of access to the payment portal. Plaintiff denies the allegation. However, the
Court notes that Plaintiff’s claim of lack of access (affirmative defense) is an issue to be addressed
at trial and not in a Motion to Dismiss.

Therefore,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

12/06/2024

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss based on a potential affirmative
defense.

Defendant also appears to claim that service was improper. Defendant has provided no
proof that service was not accomplished as permitted by the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of service.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/18/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

12/17/2025

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 1

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

Deputy

VAL VISTA CLASSIC COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
NIKITA VERMA PATEL

v.

LEVI ROSENBAUM
LEVI ROSENBAUM
1639 E CHELSEA LN
GILBERT AZ 85295

EMBER ANN VAN VRANKEN
JUDGE PINEDA

MINUTE ENTRY

East Court Building – Courtroom 913

9:00 a.m. This is the time set for a Trial Setting Conference. Plaintiff, Val Vista Classic
Community Association, is represented by counsel, Ember Ann Van Vranken on behalf of
counsel of record, Nikita Verma Patel. Defendant, Levi Rosenbaum is present on his own behalf.
All parties appear virtually.

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

Discussion is held regarding a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Plaintiff on
November 18, 2025. Defendant asks the court to provide additional time to respond to the
pleading. With no objection,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

12/17/2025

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant Levi Rosenbaum until January 22, 2026, to
provide his Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Plaintiff.

The Court and counsel discuss the status of the case and setting trial.

IT IS ORDERED setting a virtual Trial Management Conference on December 11, 2026,
at 9:00 a.m. (1 hour allotted).

1. Click www.Tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj12 or enter it in the browser of your device
2. Enter your full name and role in name field.
3. Wait for the facilitator to admit you to the proceeding (note that you may wait to be
admitted and the Court may not be able to communicate with you while you wait).

Self-represented litigants may call in if access to internet is not
available.
Phone: +1 917-781-4590
Conference ID: 508 176 593#

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a 2-Day Jury Trial beginning on January 20, 2027,
before this Division. Scheduled Trial days are Monday through Thursday, January 20, 2027,
through January 21, 2027. Counsel (and any self-represented party) shall appear at 10:00 a.m. on
all trial days. Trial will promptly commence at 10:00 a.m., with the afternoon session promptly
beginning at 1:30 p.m. A fifteen-minute break will be taken mid-afternoon. Trial days will
conclude at 4:30 p.m.

HON. SUSANNA PINEDA
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building
101 West Jefferson Street
9th Floor, Courtroom 913
Phoenix, AZ 85003

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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

12/17/2025

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 3

NOTE REGARDING COURTROOM TECHNOLOGY: Parties who intend to use
laptops in conjunction with the courtroom’s technology are encouraged to set up an
appointment with the Division’s Courtroom Assistant at 602-372-2958.

9:21 a.m. Matter concludes.

DUTIES PRIOR TO THE TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

1. MOTIONS IN LIMINE. All Motions in Limine shall be filed no later than 5:00 p.m. on
November 20, 2026, and such motions must meet the test of State v. Superior Court, 108
Ariz. 396, 397; 499 P.2d 152 (1972): The primary purpose of a Motion in Limine is to
avoid disclosing to the jury prejudicial matters which may compel a mistrial. See also,
Ariz. R. Evid. 103(d). Any written Response to a Motion in Limine shall be filed no later
than 5:00 p.m. on (2 weeks after MIL) December 4, 2026. The Court may rule on
Motions in Limine without oral argument. No Replies shall be filed. Prior to filing a
Motion in Limine, the parties are to confer and attempt to resolve those issues. The parties
shall further certify to the Court the efforts made to resolve those issues before filing a
Motion in Limine. The parties must comply with Rule 7.2(a) Ariz.R.Civ.P., prior to filing
any Motion in Limine. Any Motion in Limine filed without the movant having first
complied with Rule 7.2(a), will be stricken by the Court.

2. DAUBERT MOTIONS. The deadline for any Daubert motion or any motion brought
under Ariz.R.Evid. 702, is the same as the dispositive motion deadline. Failure to file
such a motion by this date shall constitute a waiver of (1) any objection that the expert
is not qualified to render expert testimony and (2) any objection that any opinion of the
expert should be excluded under Ariz.R.Evid. 702.

3. JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT. The parties shall deliver to the trial judge at
[email protected] no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 4, 2026, a copy of
the Joint Pretrial Statement signed by all parties.
a. Deposition Summary: In addition to the information required by Rule
16(f), the parties shall provide to the Court copies of any deposition
transcripts to be read to the jury. The offering party will highlight the
portions to be read, the other side will highlight Rule 106 additions, and
any objections for the court to rule on will be clearly marked in the margin.
The parties are encouraged to agree on narrative summaries of deposition
testimony, using brief question and answer excerpts only to emphasize
very important testimony or to cover areas of testimony that cannot be
summarized to the satisfaction of all parties. No stipulation should be
unreasonably refused.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

12/17/2025

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 4

b. Final Trial Witnesses: In addition to the information required by Rule
16(f), the Joint Pretrial Statement shall include an exhibit titled: Final
Trial Witness List. This list shall contain the name of each witness a party
actually intends to call at trial, the day on which they intend to call each
witness and the estimated time needed for direct, cross and re-direct
examination.

4. JURY INSTRUCTIONS; VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS. The parties shall meet and agree
on as many proposed jury instructions as possible. The parties shall deliver to the trial
judge, with their Joint Pretrial Statement, copies of:
a. Proposed voir dire questions.
b. A joint set of agreed-upon preliminary and final jury instructions and
proposed forms of verdicts.
c. Separate sets of requested instructions that have not been agreed upon.
Please read Rosen v. Knaub, 175 Ariz. 329; 85 P.2d 381 (1993) and the
RAJI Civil 6th Statement of Purpose and Approach before preparing
requests for non-RAJI instructions.

Recommended Arizona Jury Instructions (RAJI) need not be typed and may be requested in
the following manner: RAJI 6th Edition (civil) - Duty of Jurors. Non-RAJI instructions should be
typed. Each instruction should cover only one subject.

Any jury instructions not delivered with the Joint Pretrial Statement will be deemed waived
by the Court, unless the Court concludes that good cause exists for the untimely submission.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than 5:00 p.m. on January 13, 2027, the
parties shall file a Trial Memorandum setting forth their respective positions and e-mail same to
[email protected].

PLEASE NOTE: Counsel must notify this Division no later than two business days before
trial if a jury is not needed to allow for sufficient notice to the Jury Office. Failure to notify the
Court of the need to cancel the jury panel may result is costs being assessed against the parties.

DUTIES AT THE TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

1. At the Trial Management Conference, counsel (and any self-represented party) shall be
prepared to discuss:

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

12/17/2025

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 5

a) Time limits in voir dire, opening statements, examination of witnesses and
closing arguments.
b) Stipulations for the foundation and authenticity of exhibits.
c) Preliminary jury instructions, juror notebooks (and shall bring any
proposed juror notebooks to the conference), mini opening statements and
voir dire.
d) Agreed-upon deposition summaries and excerpts from deposition
transcripts and the editing of any videotaped depositions.
e) Use of short-trial or summary jury trial.
f) Any special scheduling or equipment issues.

One day's jury fees will be assessed unless the court is notified of settlement before 2:00 p.m.
on the judicial day before the trial. The parties are reminded to promptly notify the court of any
settlement pursuant to Rule 5.3(d), Ariz.R.Civ.P.

The dates set forth in this Order are FIRM dates and will not be extended or modified by
this Court absent good cause. Lack of preparation will not ordinarily be considered good cause.

PLEASE NOTE: If/when a party files a pleading within 5 business days of a scheduled
event, the party should also e-mail same to the Court’s Judicial Assistant and Courtroom Assistant
at [email protected].

NOTE: THE PARTIES SHALL UPLOAD AND E-FILE ALL PROPOSED
ORDERS IN WORD FORMAT ONLY TO ALLOW FOR POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS
BY THE COURT.

EXHIBIT REQUIREMENTS
IT IS ORDERED that the parties submit any proposed hearing exhibits as follows:
1. Submit Hearing Exhibits through Case Center. This division is using Case Center
(also known as Case Lines), a statewide electronic exhibit portal. Attorneys must
submit exhibits through Case Center; Self-Represented Litigants can request to opt-
out of Case Center by contacting the judge’s division at 602-372-2958. Unless
otherwise ordered, Exhibits must be submitted at least 5 business days before the
hearing as provided below.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

12/17/2025

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 6

2. Opting Out of Case Center (Self-Represented Litigants only). A Self-Represented
Litigant may opt out of Case Center no less than 10 calendar days before the
trial/evidentiary hearing (or within 24 hours of being served with notice if the party is
served less than 10 calendar days before the evidentiary hearing). The Self-
Represented Litigant must email the other Self-Represented Litigants or counsel and
the assigned judicial division to notify the court that they are opting out and to request
instructions for submitting exhibits. Self-Represented Litigants must comply with the
deadline for submitting Exhibits. Each party must make sure the Court has the party’s
valid current email address. If you do not have an email address, you can obtain a free
one through accounts.google.com. Each party must register for Case Center at
www.azcourts.gov/digitalevidence. The website has links to training resources that
will guide you through uploading exhibits and navigating Case Center. The Clerk of
Court will email each party (or their attorney of record) a case-specific Case Center
link that the party will use to upload exhibits. For assistance with Case Center
invitations only, email the Clerk of Court at [email protected].
The email subject line should include the case number. The body of the email should
include the parties’ names, the assigned judge’s name, and explain that the sender is
requesting help with a Case Center invitation.

3. Exhibit Format. Case Center accepts most digital formats (including photographs,
PDFs, Word files, audio files, and video files). Case Center automatically numbers
the exhibits. Plaintiff/Petitioner’s exhibits have an A- prefix (Exhibit A1, A2, etc.)
and Defendant/Respondent’s exhibits have a B- prefix (Exhibit B1, B2, etc.). During
the hearing, the parties must refer to exhibits using the Case Center exhibit numbers.
For assistance with Case Center, contact AOC Support Services at (602) 452-3519
(option 5) or [email protected], Monday – Friday 7 AM – 6 PM, excluding
State holidays.

4. Exhibit Upload Assistance.  Scanners are available at each of the regional court Law
Library Resource Centers. Each scanner has an attached computer and instructions on
how to upload exhibits into Case Center.

5. Exchange Exhibits. At least 5 business days (not including weekends) before the
hearing, you must give the other party copies of all exhibits you submitted for use at
the hearing.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

12/17/2025

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 7

6. Physical Exhibits. The Courtroom Clerk will handle marking physical exhibits for
Self-Represented Litigants who opt out of Case Center. Attorneys who submit
physical exhibits must create a placeholder in Case Center and include “Physical
Exhibit” in the name of the exhibit prior to submitting the physical exhibit(s) to the
judge’s division. The collection of physical exhibits must have a Physical Exhibit
Case Coversheet that includes the following: (1) the name of the party submitting the
exhibit(s); (2) the case number; (3) the date of hearing; and (4) the exhibit number(s)
and description(s). In addition, each individual exhibit must have an Exhibit
Coversheet printed on color paper indicating the physical exhibit’s exhibit number in
Case Center. For Self-Represented Litigants, if any individual exhibit is a document
that is longer than ten (10) pages, each page of the exhibit should be numbered.
Division staff will provide the exhibits to the Courtroom Clerk for marking. The
Courtroom Clerk will mark physical exhibit(s) with the same exhibit number used in
Case Center.

7. Devices and WiFi. If needed, hearing participants may request to use a court-
provided devices to view and present exhibits during an evidentiary hearing. All
requests for access to a court-provided device must be submitted to the division via
email 5 calendar days before the Hearing. Hearing participants can connect to the
court’s free MCPUBLIC WiFi for up to 90 minutes. For evidentiary hearings/trials
longer than 90 minutes, WiFi users, the parties may request access to MCSponsored
WiFi which will allow access to WiFi without the need to reconnect after 90 minutes
by emailing the assigned division 10 calendar days in advance of any Hearing. Self-
Represented Litigant access will be valid for 60 days; lawyer and nonlawyer
representative access will be valid for 365 days.

8. Remote Witnesses. Any party who calls a witness who is appearing remotely (i.e., by
telephone or videoconference) should either (1) provide the witness with a copy of all
exhibits or (2) ensure that the remote witness has an electronic device available that
allows them to view exhibits displayed on a screen through either Case Center or
Teams.

9. Exhibit Presentation During Hearings. Unless indicated otherwise in any hearing-
specific court minute entry or order, offerors may, but are not required to, use Case
Center to present (e.g., show to the court, a witness, or the jury) evidence during a
Hearing. Options for presentation of evidence include but are not limited to the
following: (1) use of paper copies of the exhibits that have been uploaded to Case

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

12/17/2025

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 8

Center; (2) use of evidence presentation software and/or PDF viewers to display
PDFs of exhibits that have been uploaded to Case Center; (3) screen sharing of Case
Center through Court Connect (Teams); and (4) use of Case Center “Presentation”
mode to share exhibits. Parties are strongly encouraged to download PDFs of their
Case Center exhibits and/or have paper copies available in the event there are
technological difficulties in the courtroom.

10. Additional Resources. For Case Center related training and questions, the parties
may wish to visit the Thomson Reuters Case Center Home Page at
https://answers.legalprof.thomsonreuters.com/casecenter-us/search. For technical
issues with Case Center, parties may contact AOC Support Services Monday – Friday
from 7:00 AM – 6:00 PM, excluding State holidays, at (602) 452-3519, 1-800-720-
7743 (toll free), or [email protected]. The parties may also wish to review
A.O. 2024-080 at https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/media/30ylnjsa/ao2024-080-re-
use-of-case-center-in-the-civil-department.pdf for additional information regarding
Case Center.

Self-Represented Litigant Advisory

ATTENTION SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS: Unless an attorney files a notice
that he or she represents a party, the person(s) not represented by an attorney will act as his or her
own attorney. The law requires the court to hold all persons representing themselves to the
same standard as a licensed attorney. Self-represented litigants are encouraged to review the
Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, paying particular attention to Rule 26. Please note that only a
licensed attorney may represent a corporation, LLC, or similar business entity in the
Superior Court. Ramada Inns v. Lane & Bird Advertising, 102 Ariz. 127, 426 P.2d 395
(1967). You may not file motions or request for relief on behalf of another self-represented party.

Before the judge can consider anything you send her, you must show her that you have
given a copy of your request:

1. To the Clerk of the Court. The Clerk of the Court is a separately elected official. It is
the clerk’s job to keep an independent record of everything that happens at the
court. The court cannot act on a document that has not been made a part of that record;
and

2. To every other party involved in the case. This is so all parties have a fair chance to tell
the judge what they think before she makes a decision.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

12/17/2025

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 9

Because of that, if you want the judge to consider something you send her, you must file
the original document with the Clerk of the Superior Court, mail or deliver a copy directly
to this division (that is, to the judge, using her specific courtroom address)

HONORABLE JUDGE SUSANNA C. PINEDA
101 W. JEFFERSON
9TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 913
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-372-2958

and mail or deliver a copy to all opposing parties. In addition, on each document you must include
a signed certificate that says whether you mailed or hand delivered each copy, when you did so,
and states the specific people and the specific addresses to which you mailed or hand delivered
each copy. If a party is represented by a lawyer, you must send or deliver the copy to the lawyer,
not to the party. All proposed orders submitted to this division must include copies of the order
with self-addressed, stamped envelopes for all parties/counsel.

Do not mail or send papers for the clerk or other parties to the judge.

If you want to file papers with the Clerk of the Court by mail, please send them to:

Clerk of the Superior Court’s Office
Civil File Counter
201 W. Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ 85003

The clerk’s guidelines for filing by mail can be found at:

Civil and Tax Filing | Maricopa County Clerk of Superior Court

If you are not represented by a lawyer you must contact this division immediately and give
us a current address, telephone number, and email address. If your address, phone number, or email
address changes in the future, you must file a notice of change of address/phone number/email
address. That form can be downloaded at no charge from the following website:

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

REFERRAL INFORMATION

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-003271

12/17/2025

Docket Code 089
Form V000A
Page 10

Community Outreach & Education Arizona Attorney General's Office
2005 N Central Ave Phoenix, AZ 85004
(602) 542-2123 (Phoenix)
(800) 352-8431*
*Toll free in AZ (outside Maricopa and Pima counties)
[email protected]

Maricopa County Bar Lawyer Referral Service
(602) 257-4434
https://maricopabar.org/index.cfm?pg=LRSHome

Community Legal Services
(602) 258-3434
(800) 852-9075
Home


All parties representing themselves must keep the Court updated with name and
address changes.

An update form may be downloaded at: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/llrc/fc_gn9/

Documents