Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2024-013613: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Safari Drive Condominium Association.

Case Number

CV2024-013613

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

5/30/2024

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Kreamer, Joseph

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/23/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

01/22/2025

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOHN R. HANNAH JR
A. Walker

Deputy

KARL STEPHENSON
JONATHAN A DESSAULES

v.

SAFARI DRIVE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
LORI A METCALF

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE HANNAH

MINUTE ENTRY

By minute entry dated October 15, 2024 and in accordance with AO 2023-009, this Court
directed parties to submit their certification as to their readiness to proceed with their ADR
settlement conference no later than January 14, 2025. The certification has not been submitted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED vacating the ADR referral. The parties may seek a new
ADR referral at such time they can certify their ability to proceed.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/20/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

02/19/2025

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOHN R. HANNAH JR
A. Walker

Deputy

KARL STEPHENSON
JONATHAN A DESSAULES

v.

SAFARI DRIVE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
LORI A METCALF

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE HANNAH

MINUTE ENTRY

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation to extend the deadline for participating in a settlement
conference,

IT IS ORDERED amending the Scheduling Order to extend the deadline for the parties
to participate in a settlement conference. The judge pro tempore is requested to conduct the
settlement conference no later than September 9, 2025.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than June 11, 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

02/19/2025

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2

Conference Under Rule 16(i), Ariz. R. Civ. P. is available through the Law Library Resource
Center website: https://tinyurl.com/CV-JointReq-English; https://tinyurl.com/CV-JointReq-
Spanish

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to file a Joint Request and Certification of
Readiness for Setting Settlement Conference will result in the Court vacating the ADR referral for
appointment of a judge pro tempore, with leave for the parties to seek another ADR referral upon
completion of the certification process.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

02/20/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

02/19/2025

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOHN R. HANNAH JR
A. Walker

Deputy

KARL STEPHENSON
JONATHAN A DESSAULES

v.

SAFARI DRIVE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
LORI A METCALF

JUDGE HANNAH

TELEPHONIC TRIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE RESET

In light of the parties’ Stipulation to Extend Deadlines,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the Telephonic Trial Scheduling Conference on May 28, 2025
at 8:30 a.m. and resetting same to October 23, 2025 at 8:45 a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes) in
this division.

HONORABLE JUDGE JOHN HANNAH
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING
101 W. JEFFERSON
8TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 811
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-372-0759

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

02/19/2025

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 2

Counsel/parties shall have their trial calendars available for the conference.

The Court is utilizing a virtual platform called Court Connect for online hearings. An auto-
generated e-mail with a link to the online “courtroom” has been sent to local counsel of record,
who should forward it to co-counsel, clients or client representatives, and others who will
participate in the hearing. You may forward the link to anyone who wants to attend the hearing,
but please advise the Court if you expect more than a few spectators so that we can make any
technical adjustments that may be necessary. If for some reason you did not receive the e-mail,
please advise the Court. The hearing may also be joined using the following
link: tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj07; or appearances may be made by telephone, by calling 1-917-781-
4590,
conference
ID
759-563-74#.
For
further
information,
please
visit: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect/

The physical courtroom (Courtroom 811, East Court Building, 101 W, Jefferson, Phoenix,
AZ) is open and accessible for most hearings. Attorneys and parties may choose to appear in
person; and spectators are always welcome in the courtroom at public hearings. If an in-person
appearance at a scheduled online hearing is anticipated, we ask as a courtesy that you let us know
in advance (and at the same time notify the opposing party or parties) so we can ensure that the
appearance is accommodated.

PRETRIAL ORDERS

The Court having been assigned to this case, the parties shall make note of the pretrial
orders set out herein. The Court makes every effort to ensure that all orders entered in the case are
consistent with these orders. If a party becomes aware that an inconsistent order has been entered
in this case, it is that party’s responsibility to request clarification as necessary.

Discovery Disputes:

A request for order compelling disclosure or discovery (Civil Rule 37(a)) or for a protective
order (Civil Rule 26(c)) must be presented to the Court through the expedited procedure set out in
Civil Rule 26(d). Requests for Rule 37 sanctions other than payment of expenses pursuant to Rule
37(a)(5) must be presented by motion, not the expedited Rule 26(d) procedure.

The parties must attempt first to resolve discovery disputes through good-faith personal
consultation. A letter or email to the opposing attorney threatening to file a discovery motion if
he or she does not respond, without more, does not satisfy the consultation requirement under the
rules. If consultation does not resolve the dispute, the parties having the dispute shall email the
Judicial Assistant a three-page summary of the dispute pursuant to Rule 26(d)(2), with each side
entitled to submit one and one-half pages of that text, and a good faith consultation certificate. No

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

02/19/2025

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 3

exhibits shall be included with the summaries. Division staff will contact the attorneys if the Court
determines, after reviewing the summary, that the parties should submit additional documents,

The judge may decide the issue on the papers, set a telephonic conference, or order full
briefing. If the judge decides that a telephonic conference is appropriate, the Judicial Assistant
will contact the parties by email or telephone to schedule the conference with the judge. When the
dispute has been resolved, the email communications and the written summary will be filed with
the Clerk as necessary to make a record.

Motion Practice Generally:

If you choose to combine the memoranda associated with different motions in a single
filing, the page limits in Civil Rule 7.1 nevertheless apply to that filing. For example, a
“response and cross-motion” is limited to 17 pages, not 17 for the response plus another 17 for the
cross-motion totaling 34 pages. All citations must be included in the body of the brief and not in
footnotes.

All stipulations and unopposed motions, and motions asking to set or continue a hearing or
a deadline, must be accompanied by a proposed order. Litigants are strongly encouraged to submit
proposed orders with all routine motions. A proposed order/judgment must be attached as a Word
document (abcd.docx), using the proper Turbo Court code. If your system is not allowing you to
attach a Word order, please email a copy to the Judicial Assistant so he or she can attach it on our
end.

Motions ordinarily will be held for the period provided by the rules for the opposing party’s
response. A request in the caption or the body of a motion for “expedited ruling” or “expedited
consideration” of that motion will be honored only if the motion expressly states that opposing
counsel or unrepresented opposing parties have been consulted and do not oppose the relief
requested. Otherwise, a request for expedited briefing or ruling must be presented in a separate
motion with a proposed form of order, served on the opposing party by the most expeditious
method permitted by the rules, and delivered to the Division by email or hand delivery.

A party that has agreed with the opposing party or parties to extend the time for filing a
response or reply memorandum must file notice as required by Civil Rule 7.1(g)(2). In the absence
of notice, the Court might issue a ruling upon expiration of the deadlines provided in the rules. If
that happens, motions for reconsideration will be disfavored.

Oral argument time generally will be divided equally between the plaintiffs’ side and the
defendants’ side, subject to modification when the positions of the parties are not aligned or when
equity otherwise requires.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

02/19/2025

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 4

Dispositive Motions:

In most cases the scheduling order will establish a date-certain dispositive motion deadline.
If no date-certain deadline has been set, dispositive motions must be filed 120 days before the Final
Trial Management Conference or (if no Final Trial Management Conference is scheduled) 120
days before trial. The Court will reject a stipulated extension of the dispositive motion deadline
that places the deadline fewer than 120 days before the Final Trial Management Conference, absent
an explanation of why an earlier deadline is impractical in the circumstances.

The dispositive motion deadline is not automatically extended for cross-motions. Cross-
motions for summary judgment filed after the deadline may be summarily denied in the Court’s
discretion, particularly if it appears that the filing party delayed for tactical advantage.

Each party is limited to one dispositive motion on a particular issue or topic, unless the
Court orders otherwise for good cause shown. The Court in its discretion may summarily deny a
summary judgment motion directed to an issue that was raised and decided on a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion or an earlier summary judgment motion.

Daubert Motions:

A motion for a Daubert hearing or other hearing on the admissibility of an expert’s
testimony under Ariz.R.Evid. 702, must be filed no later than the dispositive motion deadline.
Failure to file such a motion in a timely manner may be deemed a waiver of (1) any objection that
the expert is not qualified to render expert testimony, and/or (2) any objection that any opinion of
the expert should be excluded under Ariz.R.Evid. 702.

Motions in Limine:

Motions in limine are usually addressed at the Final Trial Management Conference. The
Court will entertain a request for an early ruling on a motion in limine, however, if such a ruling
will facilitate settlement or trial preparation.

Miscellaneous Issues:

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

02/19/2025

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 5

fee is $140 for up to three hours and $280 for any hearing in excess of three hours, not including
preparation of transcripts. If no court-employed court reporter is available, the parties will be
notified and given an opportunity to bring in a private court reporter on the terms and conditions
set out in Supreme Court Rule 30(b)(3).

Should you want an unofficial copy of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may request
a CD of the proceedings for a $30.00 charge. If a CD is requested, please obtain a form 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.

Requests for interpreters must be made at least ten business days in advance of the hearing
date for which the interpreter is needed.

Pursuant to Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order, trials and evidentiary hearings
are presumptively presented in person in the courtroom, not by videoconference. If you intend to
present a witness or witnesses by live videoconference, you must notify the Court and opposing
counsel far enough in advance to allow time for objections to be heard and to ensure that the
courtroom will be set up for the presentation. The Court may exercise its discretion to deny
requests for videoconference testimony made for the first time on the day of the hearing.

If you anticipate using this Division’s courtroom technology but are not familiar with it,
please make an appointment at with this division’s courtroom assistant, Tomi Polvorosa, via email
at [email protected], to familiarize yourself with the equipment and make
sure that you are able to connect to it with your own electronic devices.

Preferred communication with this Division is via email to the Judicial Assistant, Gail
Cody, at [email protected]. We are able to respond much quicker to an email.
All email communications with the Judicial Assistant, except authorized ex parte
communications, must be copied to all attorneys and self-represented parties in the case even
if they have no involvement with or interest in the subject of the communication.

This Division is using Case Center, a statewide exhibit portal. All exhibits must be
submitted through Case Center. Inquiries regarding exhibit procedures should be directed to this
Division’s courtroom clerk at (602) 506-1375.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/31/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

03/25/2026

Docket Code 004
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOSEPH KREAMER
A. Walker

Deputy

KARL STEPHENSON
JONATHAN A DESSAULES

v.

SAFARI DRIVE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

ERIN E MCMANIS
JACOB A KUBERT
JUDGE KREAMER

MINUTE ENTRY

East Court Building – Courtroom 811-VC-CV

8:45 a.m. This is the time set for a virtual Trial Setting Conference. Plaintiff, Karl
Stephenson, is represented by counsel, Jacob A. Kubert for Jonathan A. Dessaules. Defendant,
Safari Drive Condominium, is represented by counsel, Erin E. McManis for Joshua M. Bolen. All
parties appear virtually.

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

Discussion is held regarding status and ongoing settlement efforts.

For the reasons as set forth on the record,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

03/25/2026

Docket Code 004
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED continuing this Trial Setting Conference to June 24, 2026 at 9:30 a.m.
in this division.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before 5:00 p.m. June 17, 2026 the parties
provide the Court with a Status Report.

8:50 a.m. Matter concludes.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/19/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

06/18/2025

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOHN R. HANNAH JR
A. Walker

Deputy

KARL STEPHENSON
JONATHAN A DESSAULES

v.

SAFARI DRIVE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
LORI A METCALF

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE HANNAH

MINUTE ENTRY

By minute entry dated February 19, 2025 and in accordance with AO 2023-009, this Court
directed parties to submit their certification as to their readiness to proceed with their ADR
settlement conference no later than June 11, 2025. The certification has not been submitted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED vacating the ADR referral. The parties may seek a new
ADR referral at such time they can certify their ability to proceed.
NOTICE TO PARTIES AND COUNSEL

If this case has not previously been reassigned from Judge Hannah to a different judicial
officer, it is reassigned effective June 30, 2025 to Judge Joseph Kreamer. The telephone number for
Judge Kreamer’s Division is 602-372-1764. Proceedings will continue to be conducted in the East
Court Building, 101 West Jefferson, Courtroom 811, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, or via Court Connect
at the previously provided link.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/30/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

06/27/2025

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOHN R. HANNAH JR
A. Walker

Deputy

KARL STEPHENSON
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

SAFARI DRIVE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
LORI A METCALF

JUDGE HANNAH

TELEPHONIC TRIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE RESET

In light of the parties’ Stipulation to Extend Deadlines,

IT IS ORDERED vacating the Telephonic Trial Scheduling Conference on October 23,
2025 at 8:45 a.m. and resetting same to December 17, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. (time allotted: 15
minutes) in this division.

HONORABLE JUDGE JOHN HANNAH
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING
101 W. JEFFERSON
8TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 811
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-372-0759

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

06/27/2025

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 2

Counsel/parties shall have their trial calendars available for the conference.

The Court is utilizing a virtual platform called Court Connect for online hearings. An auto-
generated e-mail with a link to the online “courtroom” has been sent to local counsel of record,
who should forward it to co-counsel, clients or client representatives, and others who will
participate in the hearing. You may forward the link to anyone who wants to attend the hearing,
but please advise the Court if you expect more than a few spectators so that we can make any
technical adjustments that may be necessary. If for some reason you did not receive the e-mail,
please advise the Court. The hearing may also be joined using the following
link: tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj07; or appearances may be made by telephone, by calling 1-917-781-
4590,
conference
ID
759-563-74#.
For
further
information,
please
visit: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect/

The physical courtroom (Courtroom 811, East Court Building, 101 W, Jefferson, Phoenix,
AZ) is open and accessible for most hearings. Attorneys and parties may choose to appear in
person; and spectators are always welcome in the courtroom at public hearings. If an in-person
appearance at a scheduled online hearing is anticipated, we ask as a courtesy that you let us know
in advance (and at the same time notify the opposing party or parties) so we can ensure that the
appearance is accommodated.

NOTICE TO PARTIES AND COUNSEL

If this case has not previously been reassigned from Judge Hannah to a different judicial
officer, it is reassigned effective June 30, 2025 to Judge Joseph Kreamer. The telephone number for
Judge Kreamer’s Division is 602-372-1764. Proceedings will continue to be conducted in the East
Court Building, 101 West Jefferson, Courtroom 811, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, or via Court Connect
at the previously provided link.

PRETRIAL ORDERS

The Court having been assigned to this case, the parties shall make note of the pretrial
orders set out herein. The Court makes every effort to ensure that all orders entered in the case are
consistent with these orders. If a party becomes aware that an inconsistent order has been entered
in this case, it is that party’s responsibility to request clarification as necessary.

Discovery Disputes:

A request for order compelling disclosure or discovery (Civil Rule 37(a)) or for a protective
order (Civil Rule 26(c)) must be presented to the Court through the expedited procedure set out in

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

06/27/2025

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 3

Civil Rule 26(d). Requests for Rule 37 sanctions other than payment of expenses pursuant to Rule
37(a)(5) must be presented by motion, not the expedited Rule 26(d) procedure.

The parties must attempt first to resolve discovery disputes through good-faith personal
consultation. A letter or email to the opposing attorney threatening to file a discovery motion if
he or she does not respond, without more, does not satisfy the consultation requirement under the
rules. If consultation does not resolve the dispute, the parties having the dispute shall email the
Judicial Assistant a three-page summary of the dispute pursuant to Rule 26(d)(2), with each side
entitled to submit one and one-half pages of that text, and a good faith consultation certificate. No
exhibits shall be included with the summaries. Division staff will contact the attorneys if the Court
determines, after reviewing the summary, that the parties should submit additional documents,

The judge may decide the issue on the papers, set a telephonic conference, or order full
briefing. If the judge decides that a telephonic conference is appropriate, the Judicial Assistant
will contact the parties by email or telephone to schedule the conference with the judge. When the
dispute has been resolved, the email communications and the written summary will be filed with
the Clerk as necessary to make a record.

Motion Practice Generally:

If you choose to combine the memoranda associated with different motions in a single
filing, the page limits in Civil Rule 7.1 nevertheless apply to that filing. For example, a
“response and cross-motion” is limited to 17 pages, not 17 for the response plus another 17 for the
cross-motion totaling 34 pages. All citations must be included in the body of the brief and not in
footnotes.

All stipulations and unopposed motions, and motions asking to set or continue a hearing or
a deadline, must be accompanied by a proposed order. Litigants are strongly encouraged to submit
proposed orders with all routine motions. A proposed order/judgment must be attached as a Word
document (abcd.docx), using the proper Turbo Court code. If your system is not allowing you to
attach a Word order, please email a copy to the Judicial Assistant so he or she can attach it on our
end.

Motions ordinarily will be held for the period provided by the rules for the opposing party’s
response. A request in the caption or the body of a motion for “expedited ruling” or “expedited
consideration” of that motion will be honored only if the motion expressly states that opposing
counsel or unrepresented opposing parties have been consulted and do not oppose the relief
requested. Otherwise, a request for expedited briefing or ruling must be presented in a separate
motion with a proposed form of order, served on the opposing party by the most expeditious
method permitted by the rules, and delivered to the Division by email or hand delivery.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

06/27/2025

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 4

A party that has agreed with the opposing party or parties to extend the time for filing a
response or reply memorandum must file notice as required by Civil Rule 7.1(g)(2). In the absence
of notice, the Court might issue a ruling upon expiration of the deadlines provided in the rules. If
that happens, motions for reconsideration will be disfavored.

Oral argument time generally will be divided equally between the plaintiffs’ side and the
defendants’ side, subject to modification when the positions of the parties are not aligned or when
equity otherwise requires.

Dispositive Motions:

In most cases the scheduling order will establish a date-certain dispositive motion deadline.
If no date-certain deadline has been set, dispositive motions must be filed 120 days before the Final
Trial Management Conference or (if no Final Trial Management Conference is scheduled) 120
days before trial. The Court will reject a stipulated extension of the dispositive motion deadline
that places the deadline fewer than 120 days before the Final Trial Management Conference, absent
an explanation of why an earlier deadline is impractical in the circumstances.

The dispositive motion deadline is not automatically extended for cross-motions. Cross-
motions for summary judgment filed after the deadline may be summarily denied in the Court’s
discretion, particularly if it appears that the filing party delayed for tactical advantage.

Each party is limited to one dispositive motion on a particular issue or topic, unless the
Court orders otherwise for good cause shown. The Court in its discretion may summarily deny a
summary judgment motion directed to an issue that was raised and decided on a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion or an earlier summary judgment motion.

Daubert Motions:

A motion for a Daubert hearing or other hearing on the admissibility of an expert’s
testimony under Ariz.R.Evid. 702, must be filed no later than the dispositive motion deadline.
Failure to file such a motion in a timely manner may be deemed a waiver of (1) any objection that
the expert is not qualified to render expert testimony, and/or (2) any objection that any opinion of
the expert should be excluded under Ariz.R.Evid. 702.

Motions in Limine:

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

06/27/2025

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 5

Motions in limine are usually addressed at the Final Trial Management Conference. The
Court will entertain a request for an early ruling on a motion in limine, however, if such a ruling
will facilitate settlement or trial preparation.

Miscellaneous Issues:

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 up to three hours and $280 for any hearing in excess of three hours, not including
preparation of transcripts. If no court-employed court reporter is available, the parties will be
notified and given an opportunity to bring in a private court reporter on the terms and conditions
set out in Supreme Court Rule 30(b)(3).

Should you want an unofficial copy of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may request
a CD of the proceedings for a $30.00 charge. If a CD is requested, please obtain a form 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.

Requests for interpreters must be made at least ten business days in advance of the hearing
date for which the interpreter is needed.

Pursuant to Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order, trials and evidentiary hearings
are presumptively presented in person in the courtroom, not by videoconference. If you intend to
present a witness or witnesses by live videoconference, you must notify the Court and opposing
counsel far enough in advance to allow time for objections to be heard and to ensure that the
courtroom will be set up for the presentation. The Court may exercise its discretion to deny
requests for videoconference testimony made for the first time on the day of the hearing.

If you anticipate using this Division’s courtroom technology but are not familiar with it,
please make an appointment at with this division’s courtroom assistant, Tomi Polvorosa, via email
at [email protected], to familiarize yourself with the equipment and make
sure that you are able to connect to it with your own electronic devices.

Preferred communication with this Division is via email to the Judicial Assistant, Gail
Cody, at [email protected]. We are able to respond much quicker to an email.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

06/27/2025

Docket Code 083
Form V000A
Page 6

All email communications with the Judicial Assistant, except authorized ex parte
communications, must be copied to all attorneys and self-represented parties in the case even
if they have no involvement with or interest in the subject of the communication.

This Division is using Case Center, a statewide exhibit portal. All exhibits must be
submitted through Case Center. Inquiries regarding exhibit procedures should be directed to this
Division’s courtroom clerk, Angie Walker, at [email protected].

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

06/30/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

06/27/2025

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOHN R. HANNAH JR
A. Walker

Deputy

KARL STEPHENSON
JOSHUA M BOLEN

v.

SAFARI DRIVE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
LORI A METCALF

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE HANNAH

MINUTE ENTRY

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order signed by the Court on June 25, 2025 and filed (entered) by
the clerk on June 30, 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 November 12, 2025.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than August 14, 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://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/media/o4ilqst5/cvadr40fz.pdf

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

06/27/2025

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.

NOTICE TO PARTIES AND COUNSEL

If this case has not previously been reassigned from Judge Hannah to a different judicial
officer, it is reassigned effective June 30, 2025 to Judge Joseph Kreamer. The telephone number for
Judge Kreamer’s Division is 602-372-1764. Proceedings will continue to be conducted in the East
Court Building, 101 West Jefferson, Courtroom 811, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, or via Court Connect
at the previously provided link.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

07/24/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

07/23/2024

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOHN R. HANNAH JR
A. Walker

Deputy

KARL STEPHENSON
JONATHAN A DESSAULES

v.

SAFARI DRIVE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
LORI A METCALF

JUDGE HANNAH

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has read and considered the parties’ Statement of Discovery Dispute. A hearing
is unnecessary to resolve this dispute.

The defendant offers no authority for an order prohibiting the plaintiff from contacting the
defendant’s board members. The plaintiff’s attorney does not have “supervisory authority” over
his client for purposes of ER 5.3. There is no evidence that the attorney is directing the client’s
contacts or using the client to engage indirectly in unethical conduct.

IT IS ORDERED the defendant’s request for an order directing the plaintiff to discontinue
contacts with defendant’s board members and employees is denied.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

08/26/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

08/25/2025

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOSEPH KREAMER
A. Walker

Deputy

KARL STEPHENSON
JONATHAN A DESSAULES

v.

SAFARI DRIVE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE KREAMER

MINUTE ENTRY

By minute entry dated June 27, 2025 and in accordance with AO 2023-009, this Court
directed parties to submit their certification as to their readiness to proceed with their ADR
settlement conference no later than August 14, 2025. The certification has not been submitted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED vacating the ADR referral. The parties may seek a new
ADR referral at such time they can certify their ability to proceed.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/16/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

10/15/2024

Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOHN R. HANNAH JR
A. Walker

Deputy

KARL STEPHENSON
JONATHAN A DESSAULES

v.

SAFARI DRIVE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
LORI A METCALF

JUDGE HANNAH

TRIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE SET

Pursuant to the parties’ Scheduling Order electronically filed and granted by the Court,

IT IS ORDERED setting a Telephonic Trial Scheduling Conference for the purpose of
assigning a trial date on May 28, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes) in this division,
before:

HONORABLE JUDGE JOHN HANNAH
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING
101 W. JEFFERSON
8TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 811
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-372-0759

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

10/15/2024

Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 2

Counsel/parties shall have their trial calendars available for the conference.

The Court is utilizing a virtual platform called Court Connect for online hearings. An auto-
generated e-mail with a link to the online “courtroom” has been sent to local counsel of record,
who should forward it to co-counsel, clients or client representatives, and others who will
participate in the hearing. You may forward the link to anyone who wants to attend the hearing,
but please advise the Court if you expect more than a few spectators so that we can make any
technical adjustments that may be necessary. If for some reason you did not receive the e-mail,
please advise the Court. The hearing may also be joined using the following
link: tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj07; or appearances may be made by telephone, by calling 1-917-781-
4590,
conference
ID
759-563-74#.
For
further
information,
please
visit: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect/

The physical courtroom (Courtroom 811, East Court Building, 101 W, Jefferson, Phoenix,
AZ) is open and accessible for most hearings. Attorneys and parties may choose to appear in
person; and spectators are always welcome in the courtroom at public hearings. If an in-person
appearance at a scheduled online hearing is anticipated, we ask as a courtesy that you let us know
in advance (and at the same time notify the opposing party or parties) so we can ensure that the
appearance is accommodated.

PRETRIAL ORDERS

The Court having been assigned to this case, the parties shall make note of the pretrial
orders set out herein. The Court makes every effort to ensure that all orders entered in the case are
consistent with these orders. If a party becomes aware that an inconsistent order has been entered
in this case, it is that party’s responsibility to request clarification as necessary.

Discovery Disputes:

A request for order compelling disclosure or discovery (Civil Rule 37(a)) or for a protective
order (Civil Rule 26(c)) must be presented to the Court through the expedited procedure set out in
Civil Rule 26(d). Requests for Rule 37 sanctions other than payment of expenses pursuant to Rule
37(a)(5) must be presented by motion, not the expedited Rule 26(d) procedure.

The parties must attempt first to resolve discovery disputes through good-faith personal
consultation. A letter or email to the opposing attorney threatening to file a discovery motion if
he or she does not respond, without more, does not satisfy the consultation requirement under the
rules. If consultation does not resolve the dispute, the parties having the dispute shall email the
Judicial Assistant a three-page summary of the dispute pursuant to Rule 26(d)(2), with each side

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

10/15/2024

Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 3

entitled to submit one and one-half pages of that text, and a good faith consultation certificate. No
exhibits shall be included with the summaries. Division staff will contact the attorneys if the Court
determines, after reviewing the summary, that the parties should submit additional documents,

The judge may decide the issue on the papers, set a telephonic conference, or order full
briefing. If the judge decides that a telephonic conference is appropriate, the Judicial Assistant
will contact the parties by email or telephone to schedule the conference with the judge. When the
dispute has been resolved, the email communications and the written summary will be filed with
the Clerk as necessary to make a record.

Motion Practice Generally:

If you choose to combine the memoranda associated with different motions in a single
filing, the page limits in Civil Rule 7.1 nevertheless apply to that filing. For example, a
“response and cross-motion” is limited to 17 pages, not 17 for the response plus another 17 for the
cross-motion totaling 34 pages. All citations must be included in the body of the brief and not in
footnotes.

All stipulations and unopposed motions, and motions asking to set or continue a hearing or
a deadline, must be accompanied by a proposed order. Litigants are strongly encouraged to submit
proposed orders with all routine motions. A proposed order/judgment must be attached as a Word
document (abcd.docx), using the proper Turbo Court code. If your system is not allowing you to
attach a Word order, please email a copy to the Judicial Assistant so he or she can attach it on our
end.

Motions ordinarily will be held for the period provided by the rules for the opposing party’s
response. A request in the caption or the body of a motion for “expedited ruling” or “expedited
consideration” of that motion will be honored only if the motion expressly states that opposing
counsel or unrepresented opposing parties have been consulted and do not oppose the relief
requested. Otherwise, a request for expedited briefing or ruling must be presented in a separate
motion with a proposed form of order, served on the opposing party by the most expeditious
method permitted by the rules, and delivered to the Division by email or hand delivery.

A party that has agreed with the opposing party or parties to extend the time for filing a
response or reply memorandum must file notice as required by Civil Rule 7.1(g)(2). In the absence
of notice, the Court might issue a ruling upon expiration of the deadlines provided in the rules. If
that happens, motions for reconsideration will be disfavored.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

10/15/2024

Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 4

Oral argument time generally will be divided equally between the plaintiffs’ side and the
defendants’ side, subject to modification when the positions of the parties are not aligned or when
equity otherwise requires.

Dispositive Motions:

In most cases the scheduling order will establish a date-certain dispositive motion deadline.
If no date-certain deadline has been set, dispositive motions must be filed 120 days before the Final
Trial Management Conference or (if no Final Trial Management Conference is scheduled) 120
days before trial. The Court will reject a stipulated extension of the dispositive motion deadline
that places the deadline fewer than 120 days before the Final Trial Management Conference, absent
an explanation of why an earlier deadline is impractical in the circumstances.

The dispositive motion deadline is not automatically extended for cross-motions. Cross-
motions for summary judgment filed after the deadline may be summarily denied in the Court’s
discretion, particularly if it appears that the filing party delayed for tactical advantage.

Each party is limited to one dispositive motion on a particular issue or topic, unless the
Court orders otherwise for good cause shown. The Court in its discretion may summarily deny a
summary judgment motion directed to an issue that was raised and decided on a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion or an earlier summary judgment motion.

Daubert Motions:

A motion for a Daubert hearing or other hearing on the admissibility of an expert’s
testimony under Ariz.R.Evid. 702, must be filed no later than the dispositive motion deadline.
Failure to file such a motion in a timely manner may be deemed a waiver of (1) any objection that
the expert is not qualified to render expert testimony, and/or (2) any objection that any opinion of
the expert should be excluded under Ariz.R.Evid. 702.

Motions in Limine:

Motions in limine are usually addressed at the Final Trial Management Conference. The
Court will entertain a request for an early ruling on a motion in limine, however, if such a ruling
will facilitate settlement or trial preparation.

Miscellaneous Issues:

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

10/15/2024

Docket Code 026
Form V000A
Page 5

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 up to three hours and $280 for any hearing in excess of three hours, not including
preparation of transcripts. If no court-employed court reporter is available, the parties will be
notified and given an opportunity to bring in a private court reporter on the terms and conditions
set out in Supreme Court Rule 30(b)(3).

Should you want an unofficial copy of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may request
a CD of the proceedings for a $30.00 charge. If a CD is requested, please obtain a form 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.

Requests for interpreters must be made at least ten business days in advance of the hearing
date for which the interpreter is needed.

Pursuant to Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order, trials and evidentiary hearings
are presumptively presented in person in the courtroom, not by videoconference. If you intend to
present a witness or witnesses by live videoconference, you must notify the Court and opposing
counsel far enough in advance to allow time for objections to be heard and to ensure that the
courtroom will be set up for the presentation. The Court may exercise its discretion to deny
requests for videoconference testimony made for the first time on the day of the hearing.

If you anticipate using this Division’s courtroom technology but are not familiar with it,
please make an appointment at with this division’s courtroom assistant, Tomi Polvorosa, via email
at [email protected], to familiarize yourself with the equipment and make
sure that you are able to connect to it with your own electronic devices.

Preferred communication with this Division is via email to the Judicial Assistant, Gail
Cody, at [email protected]. We are able to respond much quicker to an email.
All email communications with the Judicial Assistant, except authorized ex parte
communications, must be copied to all attorneys and self-represented parties in the case even
if they have no involvement with or interest in the subject of the communication.

This Division is using Case Center, a statewide exhibit portal. All exhibits must be
submitted through Case Center. Inquiries regarding exhibit procedures should be directed to this
Division’s courtroom clerk at (602) 506-1375.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/16/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

10/15/2024

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOHN R. HANNAH JR
A. Walker

Deputy

KARL STEPHENSON
JONATHAN A DESSAULES

v.

SAFARI DRIVE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
LORI A METCALF

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE HANNAH

MINUTE ENTRY

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order signed by the Court on October 15, 2024 and filed (entered)
by the clerk on October 16, 2024,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties participate in a mandatory settlement conference. This
case is referred to the Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Department for the
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 April 14, 2025.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than January 14, 2024 the parties file with
the Court a Joint Request and Certification of Readiness for Setting Settlement Conference Under
Rule 16(i), Ariz. R. Civ. P. The Joint Request and Certification of Readiness for Setting Settlement
Conference Under Rule 16(i), Ariz. R. Civ. P. is available through the Law Library Resource
Center website: https://tinyurl.com/CV-JointReq-English; https://tinyurl.com/CV-JointReq-
Spanish

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

10/15/2024

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 ***

10/17/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

10/16/2024

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOHN R. HANNAH JR
A. Walker

Deputy

KARL STEPHENSON
JONATHAN A DESSAULES

v.

SAFARI DRIVE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
LORI A METCALF

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION - CCC
JUDGE HANNAH

CORRECTING MINUTE ENTRY

A clerical error having been made,

IT IS ORDERED correcting the Court’s Minute Entry dated October 15, 2024, filed
October 16, 2024, with docket code 023, page 1, paragraph 3 to replace “January 14, 2024” with:
“January 14, 2025”

To further clarify and specify, the sentence shall read:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than January 14, 2025 the parties filed with
the Court a Joint Request and Certification of Readiness for Setting Settlement Conference Under
Rule 16(i), Ariz. R. Civ. P.

The balance of the minute entry shall remain the same.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/19/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

12/17/2025

Docket Code 004
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE JOSEPH KREAMER
E. Valadez

Deputy

KARL STEPHENSON
JONATHAN A DESSAULES

v.

SAFARI DRIVE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
JOSHUA M BOLEN

ADRIAN R BRAUDE
ERIN E MCMANIS
JUDGE KREAMER

HEARING CONTINUED

East Court Building – Courtroom 811 – VC- CV

8:30 a.m. This is the time set for a virtual Trial Setting Conference to set a trial date.
Plaintiff Karl Stephenson, who is not present, is represented by counsel, Adrian R. Braude, who is
appearing on behalf of counsel of record, Jonathan A. Dessaules. Defendant Safari Drive
Condominium Association is represented telephonically by counsel, Erin E. McManis, who is
appearing on behalf of counsel of record, Joshua M. Bolen.

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

Discussion is held on the Court’s Order Granting Stipulation to Stay Deadlines, filed
September 8, 2025.

Discussion is held regarding the status of the case.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

12/17/2025

Docket Code 004
Form V000A
Page 2

Counsel inform the Court they filed a stipulation to stay today’s trial setting conference
and proceed with mediation in an attempt to resolve this matter.

The Court informs counsel that if a conference is no longer necessary or a motion is filed,
counsel shall email the division so they can be removed from the Court’s calendar.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED continuing today’s Virtual Trial Scheduling Conference for the
purpose of assigning a trial date on February 9, 2026 at 8:45 a.m. (time allotted: 15 minutes) in
this division, before:

HONORABLE JUDGE JOSEPH KREAMER
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING
101 W. JEFFERSON
8TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 811
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-372-1764

This matter will be heard by video/audio conference using Court Connect. Court Connect
is the Superior Court in Maricopa County’s video court hearing platform. For more information
about Court Connect, please visit: https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-connect. Counsel shall
have their calendars available for this proceeding.

A Court Connect video link will be emailed to counsel of record (or self-represented
parties) the day before the hearing. All parties must appear by video and ensure their
environment is free from distractions.

Join on your computer or mobile app by copying the link below and pasting it into an
internet browser

https:\\tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj07

Or call in (audio only)
1-917-781-4590,
Phone Conference ID: 75956374#

8:35 a.m. Matter concludes.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

12/17/2025

Docket Code 004
Form V000A
Page 3

PRETRIAL ORDERS

The Court having been assigned to this case, the parties shall make note of the pretrial
orders set out herein. The Court makes every effort to ensure that all orders entered in the case are
consistent with these orders. If a party becomes aware that an inconsistent order has been entered
in this case, it is that party’s responsibility to request clarification as necessary.

Discovery Disputes:

A request for order compelling disclosure or discovery (Civil Rule 37(a)) or for a protective
order (Civil Rule 26(c)) must be presented to the Court through the expedited procedure set out in
Civil Rule 26(d). Requests for Rule 37 sanctions other than payment of expenses pursuant to Rule
37(a)(5) must be presented by motion, not the expedited Rule 26(d) procedure.

The parties must attempt first to resolve discovery disputes through good-faith personal
consultation. A letter or email to the opposing attorney threatening to file a discovery motion if
he or she does not respond, without more, does not satisfy the consultation requirement under the
rules. If consultation does not resolve the dispute, the parties having the dispute shall email the
Judicial Assistant a three-page summary of the dispute pursuant to Rule 26(d)(2), with each side
entitled to submit one and one-half pages of that text, and a good faith consultation certificate. No
exhibits shall be included with the summaries. Division staff will contact the attorneys if the Court
determines, after reviewing the summary, that the parties should submit additional documents,

The judge may decide the issue on the papers, set a telephonic conference, or order full
briefing. If the judge decides that a telephonic conference is appropriate, the Judicial Assistant
will contact the parties by email or telephone to schedule the conference with the judge. When the
dispute has been resolved, the email communications and the written summary will be filed with
the Clerk as necessary to make a record.

Motion Practice Generally:

If you choose to combine the memoranda associated with different motions in a single
filing, the page limits in Civil Rule 7.1 nevertheless apply to that filing. For example, a
“response and cross-motion” is limited to 17 pages, not 17 for the response plus another 17 for the
cross-motion totaling 34 pages. All citations must be included in the body of the brief and not in
footnotes.

All stipulations and unopposed motions, and motions asking to set or continue a hearing or
a deadline, must be accompanied by a proposed order. Litigants are strongly encouraged to submit

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

12/17/2025

Docket Code 004
Form V000A
Page 4

proposed orders with all routine motions. A proposed order/judgment must be attached as a Word
document (abcd.docx), using the proper Turbo Court code. If your system is not allowing you to
attach a Word order, please email a copy to the Judicial Assistant so he or she can attach it on our
end.

Motions ordinarily will be held for the period provided by the rules for the opposing party’s
response. A request in the caption or the body of a motion for “expedited ruling” or “expedited
consideration” of that motion will be honored only if the motion expressly states that opposing
counsel or unrepresented opposing parties have been consulted and do not oppose the relief
requested. Otherwise, a request for expedited briefing or ruling must be presented in a separate
motion with a proposed form of order, served on the opposing party by the most expeditious
method permitted by the rules, and delivered to the Division by email or hand delivery.

A party that has agreed with the opposing party or parties to extend the time for filing a
response or reply memorandum must file notice as required by Civil Rule 7.1(g)(2). In the absence
of notice, the Court might issue a ruling upon expiration of the deadlines provided in the rules. If
that happens, motions for reconsideration will be disfavored.

Oral argument time generally will be divided equally between the plaintiffs’ side and the
defendants’ side, subject to modification when the positions of the parties are not aligned or when
equity otherwise requires.

Dispositive Motions:

In most cases the scheduling order will establish a date-certain dispositive motion deadline.
If no date-certain deadline has been set, dispositive motions must be filed 120 days before the Final
Trial Management Conference or (if no Final Trial Management Conference is scheduled) 120
days before trial. The Court will reject a stipulated extension of the dispositive motion deadline
that places the deadline fewer than 120 days before the Final Trial Management Conference, absent
an explanation of why an earlier deadline is impractical in the circumstances.

The dispositive motion deadline is not automatically extended for cross-motions. Cross-
motions for summary judgment filed after the deadline may be summarily denied in the Court’s
discretion, particularly if it appears that the filing party delayed for tactical advantage.

Each party is limited to one dispositive motion on a particular issue or topic, unless the
Court orders otherwise for good cause shown. The Court in its discretion may summarily deny a
summary judgment motion directed to an issue that was raised and decided on a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion or an earlier summary judgment motion.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

12/17/2025

Docket Code 004
Form V000A
Page 5

Daubert Motions:

A motion for a Daubert hearing or other hearing on the admissibility of an expert’s
testimony under Ariz.R.Evid. 702, must be filed no later than the dispositive motion deadline.
Failure to file such a motion in a timely manner may be deemed a waiver of (1) any objection that
the expert is not qualified to render expert testimony, and/or (2) any objection that any opinion of
the expert should be excluded under Ariz.R.Evid. 702.

Motions in Limine:

Motions in limine are usually addressed at the Final Trial Management Conference. The
Court will entertain a request for an early ruling on a motion in limine, however, if such a ruling
will facilitate settlement or trial preparation.

Miscellaneous Issues:

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 up to three hours and $280 for any hearing in excess of three hours, not including
preparation of transcripts. If no court-employed court reporter is available, the parties will be
notified and given an opportunity to bring in a private court reporter on the terms and conditions
set out in Supreme Court Rule 30(b)(3).

Should you want an unofficial copy of the proceedings, the parties or counsel may request
a CD of the proceedings for a $30.00 charge. If a CD is requested, please obtain a form 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 email Electronic Records Services at
[email protected].

Requests for interpreters must be made at least ten business days in advance of the hearing
date for which the interpreter is needed.

Pursuant to Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order, trials and evidentiary hearings
are presumptively presented in person in the courtroom, not by videoconference. If you intend to

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-013613

12/17/2025

Docket Code 004
Form V000A
Page 6

present a witness or witnesses by live videoconference, you must notify the Court and opposing
counsel far enough in advance to allow time for objections to be heard and to ensure that the
courtroom will be set up for the presentation. The Court may exercise its discretion to deny
requests for videoconference testimony made for the first time on the day of the hearing.

If you anticipate using this Division’s courtroom technology but are not familiar with it,
please make an appointment at with this division’s courtroom assistant, Tomi Polvorosa, via email
at [email protected], to familiarize yourself with the equipment and make
sure that you are able to connect to it with your own electronic devices.

Preferred communication with this Division is via email to the Judicial Assistant, Katy
Snyder, at [email protected]. We are able to respond much quicker to an
email. All email communications with the Judicial Assistant, except authorized ex parte
communications, must be copied to all attorneys and self-represented parties in the case even
if they have no involvement with or interest in the subject of the communication.

This Division is using Case Center, a statewide exhibit portal. All exhibits must be
submitted through Case Center. Inquiries regarding exhibit procedures should be directed to this
Division’s courtroom clerk Angie Walker at [email protected].

Documents