Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case CV2024-022259: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for A A M.

Case Number

CV2024-022259

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

8/16/2024

Case Type

Civil

Judge

Martin, Daniel

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/10/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

01/09/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON
C. Lockhart

Deputy

RONALD C RUSS
RONALD C RUSS
6797 W EVERGREEN TER
PEORIA AZ 85383

v.

ROB LEWIS, et al.
ROB LEWIS
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD

JUDGE GORDON

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Extend
Deadline to Complete Service to January 31, 2025, filed December 27, 2024.

Good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED granting the motion. Plaintiff’s deadline to complete service is
extended to no later than January 31, 2025.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

01/10/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

01/09/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON
C. Lockhart

Deputy

RONALD C RUSS
RONALD C RUSS
6797 W EVERGREEN TER
PEORIA AZ 85383

v.

ROB LEWIS, et al.
ROB LEWIS
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD

JUDGE GORDON

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Extend
Deadline to Complete Service to January 31, 2025, filed December 27, 2024.

Good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED granting the motion. Plaintiff’s deadline to complete service is
extended to no later than January 31, 2025.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/17/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

03/14/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON
T. Aird

Deputy

RONALD C RUSS
RONALD C RUSS
6797 W EVERGREEN TER
PEORIA AZ 85383

v.

ROB LEWIS, et al.
MATTHEW S HOLT

JOSHUA M BOLEN
SCOTT CARPENTER
CHARLENE A CRUZ
NIKITA VERMA PATEL
MICHELLE B WELLNITZ
BRANDI CHRISTINE BLAIR
JUDGE GORDON
PEORIA POLICE DEPARTMENT

RULING

I.
Introduction

Pending is Defendants’ Rob Lewis, Liz Reynolds, A.A.M, Sonoran Mountain Ranch
Homeowners Association, David Heckler, Corey Rice, Vickie Bertini, Amber Coclaugh, and
Robert Galloway’s (Defendants) Motion to Dismiss (filed 2/19/25). No Response was filed, and
Plaintiff has not requested an extension to do so.

Also pending is Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Stay of Case for 60 Days (filed
2/14/25) to which Defendants have filed an Opposition on February 28, 2025. No Reply was
filed and Plaintiff’s deadline to file a Reply has expired.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

03/14/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

Both motions are ready for ruling.

II.
Rulings

A. Motion to Dismiss

In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court will “assume the truth of the
well-pled factual allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences therefrom.” Cullen v. Auto-
Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 419 (2008). The Court will grant the motion only if the plaintiff
is not entitled to relief “under any facts susceptible of proof in the statement of the claim.” ELM
Ret. Ctr., LP v. Callaway, 226 Ariz. 287, 289 (App. 2010), quoting Mohave Disposal, Inc. v. City
of Kingman, 186 Ariz. 343, 346 (1996). The Court, however, will not “speculate about
hypothetical facts that might entitle the plaintiff to relief.” Cullen, 28 at 420. Nor will the Court
“accept as true allegations consisting of conclusions of law, inferences or deductions that are not
necessarily implied by well-pleaded facts, unreasonable inferences or unsupported conclusions
from such facts, or legal conclusions alleged as facts.” Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Ariz., 211 Ariz. 386,
389 (App. 2005).

“Before the trial court grants a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the non-moving party
should be given an opportunity to amend the complaint if such an amendment cures its defects.”
Wigglesworth v. Mauldin, 195 Ariz. 432, 439 (App. 1999); see also Dube v. Likins, 216 Ariz.
406, 415 (App. 2007). But a request for leave to amend should be made in a proper motion.
Blumenthal v. Teets, 155 Ariz. 123, 131 (App. 1987).

Finally, a pro per litigant “is held to the same familiarity with court procedures and the
same notice of statutes, rules, and legal principles as is expected of a lawyer.” Higgins v.
Higgins, 194 Ariz. 266, 270 (App. 1999). “[A] party who conducts a case without an attorney is
entitled to no more consideration from the court than a party represented by counsel and is held
to the same standards expected of a lawyer.” Kelly v. NationsBanc Mortg. Corp., 199 Ariz. 284,
287 (App. 2000).

This case arises out of an alleged altercation at Homeowners’ Association Meeting.
Defendants seek dismissal and argue that the specific allegations alleged against them cannot be
deciphered and the matter should be dismissed. The Court agrees.

As required, the Court attempts to construe the Complaint to do substantial justice.
Rowland v. Kellogg and Root, Inc., 210 Ariz. 530 (App. 2005); Ariz. R. Civ. Proc. 8(f) (2025).
While a Complaint need not be formulaic, the plain statement of the claim must give the
defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. See Bell Atlantic

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

03/14/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3

Corp. v. Twomby, 550 U.S. 555 (S. Ct. 2007) (interpreting the Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure upon which the Arizona rules is based). Further, “Rule 8’s pleading standard
demands more than ‘an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” See
Ashroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (S. Ct. 2009 (citing Twomby at Id.).

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint in its current form is ‘an unadorned, the-
defendants-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. It details facts and circumstances for which he
feels aggrieved but its narrative is hopelessly confusing. He was required to plead facts sufficient
to demonstrate each of the elements for each of cause of action so as to give each defendant
notice of the causes of action be asserted against him. Because Plaintiff categorically failed do so
in any comprehensible way, the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

Defendants also claim that they were not served within the 90-day time frame as required
under Rule 4(i) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court will decline to dismiss the
Complaint on that basis.

B. Emergency Motion to Stay

The Court has reviewed the reasons Plaintiff offered for the requested and stay and finds
them to lack good cause. Accordingly, the Motion will be denied.

III.
Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (filed 2/19/25).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint in a
manner that complies with Rule 8 no later than 20 days from the filing date of this
Minute Entry.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Stay of Case
for 60 Days (filed 2/14/25).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

03/14/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 4

SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT ADVISORY

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. 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). Except as
provided by Rule 31.1, a person not authorized to practice law in Arizona under Rule
31.1(a), (c), or Rule 31.3 Arizona Rules Of The Supreme Court Of Arizona must not engage
in the practice of law or provide legal services in Arizona. https://casetext.com/rule/arizona-
court-rules/arizona-rules-of-the-supreme-court/regulation-of-the-practice-of-law/supreme-court-
jurisdiction-over-the-practice-of-law/rule-313-exceptions-to-rule-312 .

EXPECTATIONS OF A SELF-REPRESENTED PARTY

The law requires the court to hold all persons representing themselves to the same
standard as a licensed attorney. Parties who choose to represent themselves “are entitled to no
more consideration than if they had been represented by counsel” and are held to the same
standards as attorneys with respect to “familiarity with required procedures and . . . notice of
statutes and local rules.” Smith v Rabb, 95 Ariz. 49, 386 P.2d 649 (1963); see also Higgins v.
Higgins, 194 Ariz. 266, 981 P.2d.134 (App. 1999). A party’s ignorance of the law is not an
excuse for failing to comply with it. In re Marriage of Williams, 219 Ariz. 546, 200 P.3d 1043
(App. 2008) citing Moore v. Meyers, 31 Ariz. 347, 253 P.2d 626 (1 927).

The parties should familiarize themselves with the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.
You can find them at:

https://www.azcourts.gov/rules/Recent-Amendments/Rules-of-Civil-Procedure
or https://govt.westlaw.com/azrules/

Pleadings Filed With The Court: Pleadings must comply with the Arizona Rules of
Civil Procedure and contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the Court’s
jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief and
the relief sought.

Motions Filed With The Court: All motions must legible, properly spaced and in a font
size which complies with the Arizona Rules of Court, including but not limited to Rule 7.1,
Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 2.16, Local Rules of Practice For The Superior Court
in Maricopa County. Specifically, all motions must state with particularity the grounds for
granting the motion, and set forth the relief sought. Motions must be accompanied by a

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

03/14/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 5

memorandum setting forth the reasons for granting the motion, along with citations to the
specific parts or pages of supporting authorities and evidence.

Before the judge can consider anything you send him, you must show him 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 he makes a decision.

Because of that, if you want the judge to consider something you send him, you must file
the original document with the Clerk of the Superior Court, mail or deliver a copy directly to this
Division 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:
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/llrc/fc_gn9/

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

03/17/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

03/14/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON
T. Aird

Deputy

RONALD C RUSS
RONALD C RUSS
6797 W EVERGREEN TER
PEORIA AZ 85383

v.

ROB LEWIS, et al.
MATTHEW S HOLT

JOSHUA M BOLEN
SCOTT CARPENTER
CHARLENE A CRUZ
NIKITA VERMA PATEL
MICHELLE B WELLNITZ
BRANDI CHRISTINE BLAIR
JUDGE GORDON
PEORIA POLICE DEPARTMENT

RULING

I.
Introduction

Pending is Defendants’ Rob Lewis, Liz Reynolds, A.A.M, Sonoran Mountain Ranch
Homeowners Association, David Heckler, Corey Rice, Vickie Bertini, Amber Coclaugh, and
Robert Galloway’s (Defendants) Motion to Dismiss (filed 2/19/25). No Response was filed, and
Plaintiff has not requested an extension to do so.

Also pending is Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Stay of Case for 60 Days (filed
2/14/25) to which Defendants have filed an Opposition on February 28, 2025. No Reply was
filed and Plaintiff’s deadline to file a Reply has expired.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

03/14/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

Both motions are ready for ruling.

II.
Rulings

A. Motion to Dismiss

In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court will “assume the truth of the
well-pled factual allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences therefrom.” Cullen v. Auto-
Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 419 (2008). The Court will grant the motion only if the plaintiff
is not entitled to relief “under any facts susceptible of proof in the statement of the claim.” ELM
Ret. Ctr., LP v. Callaway, 226 Ariz. 287, 289 (App. 2010), quoting Mohave Disposal, Inc. v. City
of Kingman, 186 Ariz. 343, 346 (1996). The Court, however, will not “speculate about
hypothetical facts that might entitle the plaintiff to relief.” Cullen, 28 at 420. Nor will the Court
“accept as true allegations consisting of conclusions of law, inferences or deductions that are not
necessarily implied by well-pleaded facts, unreasonable inferences or unsupported conclusions
from such facts, or legal conclusions alleged as facts.” Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Ariz., 211 Ariz. 386,
389 (App. 2005).

“Before the trial court grants a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the non-moving party
should be given an opportunity to amend the complaint if such an amendment cures its defects.”
Wigglesworth v. Mauldin, 195 Ariz. 432, 439 (App. 1999); see also Dube v. Likins, 216 Ariz.
406, 415 (App. 2007). But a request for leave to amend should be made in a proper motion.
Blumenthal v. Teets, 155 Ariz. 123, 131 (App. 1987).

Finally, a pro per litigant “is held to the same familiarity with court procedures and the
same notice of statutes, rules, and legal principles as is expected of a lawyer.” Higgins v.
Higgins, 194 Ariz. 266, 270 (App. 1999). “[A] party who conducts a case without an attorney is
entitled to no more consideration from the court than a party represented by counsel and is held
to the same standards expected of a lawyer.” Kelly v. NationsBanc Mortg. Corp., 199 Ariz. 284,
287 (App. 2000).

This case arises out of an alleged altercation at Homeowners’ Association Meeting.
Defendants seek dismissal and argue that the specific allegations alleged against them cannot be
deciphered and the matter should be dismissed. The Court agrees.

As required, the Court attempts to construe the Complaint to do substantial justice.
Rowland v. Kellogg and Root, Inc., 210 Ariz. 530 (App. 2005); Ariz. R. Civ. Proc. 8(f) (2025).
While a Complaint need not be formulaic, the plain statement of the claim must give the
defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. See Bell Atlantic

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

03/14/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3

Corp. v. Twomby, 550 U.S. 555 (S. Ct. 2007) (interpreting the Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure upon which the Arizona rules is based). Further, “Rule 8’s pleading standard
demands more than ‘an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” See
Ashroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (S. Ct. 2009 (citing Twomby at Id.).

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint in its current form is ‘an unadorned, the-
defendants-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. It details facts and circumstances for which he
feels aggrieved but its narrative is hopelessly confusing. He was required to plead facts sufficient
to demonstrate each of the elements for each of cause of action so as to give each defendant
notice of the causes of action be asserted against him. Because Plaintiff categorically failed do so
in any comprehensible way, the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

Defendants also claim that they were not served within the 90-day time frame as required
under Rule 4(i) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court will decline to dismiss the
Complaint on that basis.

B. Emergency Motion to Stay

The Court has reviewed the reasons Plaintiff offered for the requested and stay and finds
them to lack good cause. Accordingly, the Motion will be denied.

III.
Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (filed 2/19/25).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint in a
manner that complies with Rule 8 no later than 20 days from the filing date of this
Minute Entry.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Stay of Case
for 60 Days (filed 2/14/25).

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

03/14/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 4

SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT ADVISORY

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. 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). Except as
provided by Rule 31.1, a person not authorized to practice law in Arizona under Rule
31.1(a), (c), or Rule 31.3 Arizona Rules Of The Supreme Court Of Arizona must not engage
in the practice of law or provide legal services in Arizona. https://casetext.com/rule/arizona-
court-rules/arizona-rules-of-the-supreme-court/regulation-of-the-practice-of-law/supreme-court-
jurisdiction-over-the-practice-of-law/rule-313-exceptions-to-rule-312 .

EXPECTATIONS OF A SELF-REPRESENTED PARTY

The law requires the court to hold all persons representing themselves to the same
standard as a licensed attorney. Parties who choose to represent themselves “are entitled to no
more consideration than if they had been represented by counsel” and are held to the same
standards as attorneys with respect to “familiarity with required procedures and . . . notice of
statutes and local rules.” Smith v Rabb, 95 Ariz. 49, 386 P.2d 649 (1963); see also Higgins v.
Higgins, 194 Ariz. 266, 981 P.2d.134 (App. 1999). A party’s ignorance of the law is not an
excuse for failing to comply with it. In re Marriage of Williams, 219 Ariz. 546, 200 P.3d 1043
(App. 2008) citing Moore v. Meyers, 31 Ariz. 347, 253 P.2d 626 (1 927).

The parties should familiarize themselves with the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.
You can find them at:

https://www.azcourts.gov/rules/Recent-Amendments/Rules-of-Civil-Procedure
or https://govt.westlaw.com/azrules/

Pleadings Filed With The Court: Pleadings must comply with the Arizona Rules of
Civil Procedure and contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the Court’s
jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief and
the relief sought.

Motions Filed With The Court: All motions must legible, properly spaced and in a font
size which complies with the Arizona Rules of Court, including but not limited to Rule 7.1,
Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 2.16, Local Rules of Practice For The Superior Court
in Maricopa County. Specifically, all motions must state with particularity the grounds for
granting the motion, and set forth the relief sought. Motions must be accompanied by a

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

03/14/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 5

memorandum setting forth the reasons for granting the motion, along with citations to the
specific parts or pages of supporting authorities and evidence.

Before the judge can consider anything you send him, you must show him 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 he makes a decision.

Because of that, if you want the judge to consider something you send him, you must file
the original document with the Clerk of the Superior Court, mail or deliver a copy directly to this
Division 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:
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/llrc/fc_gn9/

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/10/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

04/09/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON
Y. Rodriguez

Deputy

RONALD C RUSS
RONALD C RUSS
6797 W EVERGREEN TER
PEORIA AZ 85383

v.

ROB LEWIS, et al.
MATTHEW S HOLT

JUDGE GORDON

MINUTE ENTRY

Pending is “Plaintiff Emergency Motion Requesting Leave for Addtl 8 days to Submit:
Reply to Defendant Answer to Plaintiff’s Rqst for 60-Day Stay of Case and Also: To Reply to
Motion to Dismiss” (filed 3/13/25) (Second Emergency Motion); and (2) “Plaintiff Emergency
Motion Requesting Leave for Addt’l 2 Days to Submit: Reply to Defendant Answer to Plaintiff’s
Rqst to Reply to Motion to Dismiss by Defense Party (Also Oppstn Reply to Oppstn to 60-Day
Stay Request: For Good Cause ‘Health’ and Addtl Good Cause Reasons.” (filed 3/24/25) (Third)
Emergency Motion).

The Court has reviewed the Second and Third Emergency Motion and the Sonora
Mountain Defendants’1 Response to the Third Emergency Motion (filed 4/4/25). The Court has
also reviewed CHDB Defendants’2 Joinder and Responses to all motions and has considered the
entire file.

1 Defendants Rob Lewis, Liz Reynolds, A.A.M. (AKA Associated Asset Management), Sonoran Mountain Ranch
Homeowners Association (Sonora Mountain HOA), Robert Galloway, Vickie Bertini, Amber Colclaugh, Bob
Bengford, Corey Rice, and Dave Heckler.
2 Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP ("CHDB"); Joshua Bolen; Charlene Cruz; Nikita Patel; Lydia
Pierce-Linsemeier; and Michelle Wellnitz.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

04/09/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

The Court previously ruled on Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Stay of Case for 60
Days (Motion to Stay) filed February 13, 2025, having denied it on March 14, 2025 (March 14
Ruling). The March 14 Ruling applies equally to the CHDB Defendants.

The Court has also granted the Sonora Mountain Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss filed
February 19, 2025, in the March 14 Ruling. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an Amended
Complaint within 20 days which expired on April 7, 2025.

Plaintiff nonetheless filed a Response to the Sonora Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, on
March 27, 2025, captioned “Plaintiff Answer/Reply to Defendant Motion to Dismiss”, and the
Sonora Defendants filed their Reply.3 Having reviewed these filings, the Court affirms the
March 14 Ruling.

The Court now turns to the Second Emergency Motion wherein in Plaintiff asks for an
extension of time to file a Response to the Sonoran Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and an
extension to file a Reply to the Motion to Stay. As noted, the Court has already considered the
“Response/Answer Plaintiff Answer/Reply to Defendant Motion to Dismiss,” and this portion of
Second Emergency Motion is therefore moot. The Court now finds an absence of good cause
with respect to extending the time to file a Reply in support of the Motion to Stay, and the Court
will deny this portion of the Second Emergency Motion.

With respect to the Third Emergency Motion, Plaintiff asks for additional time to file a
Response to the Sonoran Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss – which was filed and now has been
considered by the Court. Thus, the Third Emergency Motion is moot.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED denying the Second Emergency Motion that seeks an extension of
time to file a Reply to the Motion to Stay.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Second Emergency Motion that seeks an
extension of time to file a Response to the Sonoran Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Third Emergency Motion, as moot.

3 The Sonora Defendants’ Reply was filed in conjunction with their Response to the Third Emergency Motion.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/10/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

04/09/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON
Y. Rodriguez

Deputy

RONALD C RUSS
RONALD C RUSS
6797 W EVERGREEN TER
PEORIA AZ 85383

v.

ROB LEWIS, et al.
MATTHEW S HOLT

JUDGE GORDON

MINUTE ENTRY

Pending is “Plaintiff Emergency Motion Requesting Leave for Addtl 8 days to Submit:
Reply to Defendant Answer to Plaintiff’s Rqst for 60-Day Stay of Case and Also: To Reply to
Motion to Dismiss” (filed 3/13/25) (Second Emergency Motion); and (2) “Plaintiff Emergency
Motion Requesting Leave for Addt’l 2 Days to Submit: Reply to Defendant Answer to Plaintiff’s
Rqst to Reply to Motion to Dismiss by Defense Party (Also Oppstn Reply to Oppstn to 60-Day
Stay Request: For Good Cause ‘Health’ and Addtl Good Cause Reasons.” (filed 3/24/25) (Third)
Emergency Motion).

The Court has reviewed the Second and Third Emergency Motion and the Sonora
Mountain Defendants’1 Response to the Third Emergency Motion (filed 4/4/25). The Court has
also reviewed CHDB Defendants’2 Joinder and Responses to all motions and has considered the
entire file.

1 Defendants Rob Lewis, Liz Reynolds, A.A.M. (AKA Associated Asset Management), Sonoran Mountain Ranch
Homeowners Association (Sonora Mountain HOA), Robert Galloway, Vickie Bertini, Amber Colclaugh, Bob
Bengford, Corey Rice, and Dave Heckler.
2 Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP ("CHDB"); Joshua Bolen; Charlene Cruz; Nikita Patel; Lydia
Pierce-Linsemeier; and Michelle Wellnitz.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

04/09/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

The Court previously ruled on Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Stay of Case for 60
Days (Motion to Stay) filed February 13, 2025, having denied it on March 14, 2025 (March 14
Ruling). The March 14 Ruling applies equally to the CHDB Defendants.

The Court has also granted the Sonora Mountain Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss filed
February 19, 2025, in the March 14 Ruling. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an Amended
Complaint within 20 days which expired on April 7, 2025.

Plaintiff nonetheless filed a Response to the Sonora Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, on
March 27, 2025, captioned “Plaintiff Answer/Reply to Defendant Motion to Dismiss”, and the
Sonora Defendants filed their Reply.3 Having reviewed these filings, the Court affirms the
March 14 Ruling.

The Court now turns to the Second Emergency Motion wherein in Plaintiff asks for an
extension of time to file a Response to the Sonoran Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and an
extension to file a Reply to the Motion to Stay. As noted, the Court has already considered the
“Response/Answer Plaintiff Answer/Reply to Defendant Motion to Dismiss,” and this portion of
Second Emergency Motion is therefore moot. The Court now finds an absence of good cause
with respect to extending the time to file a Reply in support of the Motion to Stay, and the Court
will deny this portion of the Second Emergency Motion.

With respect to the Third Emergency Motion, Plaintiff asks for additional time to file a
Response to the Sonoran Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss – which was filed and now has been
considered by the Court. Thus, the Third Emergency Motion is moot.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED denying the Second Emergency Motion that seeks an extension of
time to file a Reply to the Motion to Stay.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Second Emergency Motion that seeks an
extension of time to file a Response to the Sonoran Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Third Emergency Motion, as moot.

3 The Sonora Defendants’ Reply was filed in conjunction with their Response to the Third Emergency Motion.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/14/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

04/10/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON
A. Larimer/C. Ladden

Deputy

RONALD C RUSS
RONALD C RUSS
6797 W EVERGREEN TER
PEORIA AZ 85383

v.

ROB LEWIS, et al.
MATTHEW S HOLT

JUDGE GORDON

MINUTE ENTRY

Pending is Defendants Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP, Joshua Bolen,
Charlene Cruz, Nikita Patel, Lydia Pierec-Linsemeier, and Michelle Wellnitz’s (CHDB) Joinder
in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Exhibit A to the Complaint, filed April 4,
2025. The Court has already granted the motion to dismiss --- to which seeks to CHDB joins.
The Court deems the CHDB Motion to be an independent Motion and will permit Plaintiff to
respond under the deadlines set forth by the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.

Also pending is Defendants Rob Lewis, Liz Reynolds, A.A.M. (AKA Associated Asset
Management), Sonoran Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association, Robert Galloway, Vickie
Bertini, Amber Colclaugh, Bob Bengford, Corey Rice and Dave Heckler’s (Sonoran Defendants)
Motion to Strike Untimely Reply to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed April 8, 2025. The
Court will deem this motion to be moot.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a Response to the CHDB Motion no later than
April 23, 2025.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

04/10/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Sonoran Defendants’ Motion to Strike
Untimely Reply to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

04/14/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

04/10/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON
A. Larimer/C. Ladden

Deputy

RONALD C RUSS
RONALD C RUSS
6797 W EVERGREEN TER
PEORIA AZ 85383

v.

ROB LEWIS, et al.
MATTHEW S HOLT

JUDGE GORDON

MINUTE ENTRY

Pending is Defendants Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP, Joshua Bolen,
Charlene Cruz, Nikita Patel, Lydia Pierec-Linsemeier, and Michelle Wellnitz’s (CHDB) Joinder
in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Exhibit A to the Complaint, filed April 4,
2025. The Court has already granted the motion to dismiss --- to which seeks to CHDB joins.
The Court deems the CHDB Motion to be an independent Motion and will permit Plaintiff to
respond under the deadlines set forth by the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.

Also pending is Defendants Rob Lewis, Liz Reynolds, A.A.M. (AKA Associated Asset
Management), Sonoran Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association, Robert Galloway, Vickie
Bertini, Amber Colclaugh, Bob Bengford, Corey Rice and Dave Heckler’s (Sonoran Defendants)
Motion to Strike Untimely Reply to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed April 8, 2025. The
Court will deem this motion to be moot.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a Response to the CHDB Motion no later than
April 23, 2025.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

04/10/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Sonoran Defendants’ Motion to Strike
Untimely Reply to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/06/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

05/02/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON
A. Larimer/C. Ladden

Deputy

RONALD C RUSS
RONALD C RUSS
6797 W EVERGREEN TER
PEORIA AZ 85383

v.

ROB LEWIS, et al.
MATTHEW S HOLT

JODI LEE MULLIS
JUDGE GORDON

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Additional Leave into
Monday, April 21, to File Amended Complaint, For Good Cause, filed April 20, 2025.

No good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/06/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

05/02/2025

Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON
A. Larimer/C. Ladden

Deputy

RONALD C RUSS
RONALD C RUSS
6797 W EVERGREEN TER
PEORIA AZ 85383

v.

ROB LEWIS, et al.
MATTHEW S HOLT

JODI LEE MULLIS
JUDGE GORDON

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Additional Leave into
Monday, April 21, to File Amended Complaint, For Good Cause, filed April 20, 2025.

No good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/12/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

05/05/2025

Docket Code 079
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON
J. Zinkowich

Deputy

RONALD C RUSS
RONALD C RUSS
6797 W EVERGREEN TER
PEORIA AZ 85383

v.

ROB LEWIS, et al.
MATTHEW S HOLT

BOB BENGFORD
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
JODI LEE MULLIS
JUDGE GORDON
DOCKET CV TX

MINUTE ENTRY

I.
Introduction

Pending is: (1) Defendants Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP (CHDB);
Joshua Bolen; Charlene Cruz; Nikita Patel; Lydia Pierce-Linsemeier; and Michelle Wellnitz
(collectively, "CHDB Defendants") Joinder in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to
Strike Exhibit A to the Complaint, filed April 4, 2025 (CHDB’s Motion to Dismiss); (2)
Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Add’l Leave Fri April 25/Mond. 4/28: to file Amended Comp.
for Good Cause (filed 4/27/25) (Emergency Motion); (3) CHDB’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (filed 5/1/25) (Motion for Summary Disposition); and Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion
for Add’l Leave to File Amended Complaint (for Good Cause) (And Reply to Motion to Strike
also.) (filed 5/2/25) (Emergency Motion and Amended Complaint)

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

05/05/2025

Docket Code 079
Form V000A
Page 2

II.
Rulings

A. CHDB’s Motion to Dismiss

The Court previously ordered that Plaintiff file a Response to CHDB’s Motion to Dismiss
by April 23, 2025. He has not done so. The matter is ready for ruling.

In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court will “assume the truth of the
well-pled factual allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences therefrom.” Cullen v. Auto-
Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 419 (2008). The Court will grant the motion only if the plaintiff
is not entitled to relief “under any facts susceptible of proof in the statement of the claim.” ELM
Ret. Ctr., LP v. Callaway, 226 Ariz. 287, 289 (App. 2010), quoting Mohave Disposal, Inc. v. City
of Kingman, 186 Ariz. 343, 346 (1996).

The Court, however, will not “speculate about hypothetical facts that might entitle the
plaintiff to relief.” Cullen, 218 Ariz. at 420. Nor will the Court “accept as true allegations
consisting of conclusions of law, inferences or deductions that are not necessarily implied by
well-pleaded facts, unreasonable inferences or unsupported conclusions from such facts, or legal
conclusions alleged as facts.” Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Ariz., 211 Ariz. 386, 389 (App. 2005).

Before the trial court grants a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the non-moving party
should be given an opportunity to amend the complaint if such an amendment cures its defects.
Wigglesworth v. Mauldin, 195 Ariz. 432, 439 (App. 1999); see also Dube v. Likins, 216 Ariz.
406, 415 (App. 2007). But a request for leave to amend should be made in a proper motion.
Blumenthal v. Teets, 155 Ariz. 123, 131 (App. 1987).

Finally, a pro per litigant “is held to the same familiarity with court procedures and the
same notice of statutes, rules, and legal principles as is expected of a lawyer.” Higgins v.
Higgins, 194 Ariz. 266, 270 (App. 1999). “[A] party who conducts a case without an attorney is
entitled to no more consideration from the court than a party represented by counsel and is held
to the same standards expected of a lawyer.” Kelly v. NationsBanc Mortg. Corp., 199 Ariz. 284,
287 (App. 2000).

CHDB argues that dismissal is required because Plaintiff has failed to meet minimum
pleading requirements. On March 14, 2025, the Court granted co-defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
for this reason.

The Court has reviewed the Complaint, yet again, this time with respect to the CHDB
Defendants and the Court reaches the same conclusion. The Complaint must be dismissed.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

05/05/2025

Docket Code 079
Form V000A
Page 3

The Court, again, attempts to construe the Complaint to do substantial justice. Rowland v.
Kellogg and Root, Inc., 210 Ariz. 530 (App. 2005); Ariz. R. Civ. Proc. 8(f) (2025). The Court
finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to offer the CHDB Defendants proper notice of the causes
of action asserted against them. Like the co-defendants, the Complaint amounts to “an
unadorned, the defendants-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” It details facts and circumstances
about which he disagrees, but his narrative is hopelessly confusing and offers no meaningful way
to decipher specific causes of action in a manner which could engender a meaningful Answer. As
noted in the Court’s previous ruling, Plaintiff was required to plead facts sufficient to
demonstrate each of the elements for each cause of action he alleges--- so as to give each
defendant notice of the claims asserted against him or her. Because Plaintiff categorically failed
do so in any comprehensible way, the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

The CHDB defendants have asked the Court to dismiss the matter with prejudice finding
that amending would be futile. The Court will decline to do so given that the Court has no
substantial understanding of the allegations. For the same reasons, the Court declines to address
futility on other grounds.

Given Plaintiff’s failure to meet the deadlines to file an amended Complaint with respect
to co-defendants, the Court will not offer him the same opportunity. Instead, Plaintiff may file a
motion to amend no later than May 23, 2025, to pursue the matter further. But, if Plaintiff
chooses to file a motion to amend, that motion must comply with the applicable Arizona Rules of
Civil Procedure including, but not limited to Rules 8 and 15.

B. Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion.

Plaintiff continues to file emergency motions without good cause. The Court finds that
extant Emergency Motion does not demonstrate good cause, and it will be denied.

C. Motion for Summary Disposition.

CHDB seeks summary disposition on its Motion to Dismiss. The Court, having ruled on
CHDB’s Motion to Dismiss, finds that this motion is now moot.

D. Emergency Motion and Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion seek an extension to file an Amended Complaint due April
23, 2025. He attaches the Amended Complaint.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

05/05/2025

Docket Code 079
Form V000A
Page 4

Plaintiff has not provided good cause to extend the deadline and the Amended Complaint
is ineffective. The Court, however, will extend to Plaintiff leave to file a motion to amend no
later than May 23, 2025 , to pursue the matter further. But, if Plaintiff chooses to file a motion to
amend, that motion must comply with the applicable Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure including,
but not limited to Rules 8 and 15.

III.
Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED granting CHDB’s Motion to Dismiss.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing the Complaint against the CHDB Defendants.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Emergency Motion and Amended Complaint.

IT IS FURHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff leave to file a Motion to Amend no later
than May 23, 2025.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED deeming CHDB’s Motion for Summary Disposition to be
moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERD that if Plaintiff files a Motion to Amend, he shall comply
with the applicable Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure including, but not limited to Rules 8 and
15.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

05/12/2025 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

05/05/2025

Docket Code 079
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON
J. Zinkowich

Deputy

RONALD C RUSS
RONALD C RUSS
6797 W EVERGREEN TER
PEORIA AZ 85383

v.

ROB LEWIS, et al.
MATTHEW S HOLT

BOB BENGFORD
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
JODI LEE MULLIS
JUDGE GORDON
DOCKET CV TX

MINUTE ENTRY

I.
Introduction

Pending is: (1) Defendants Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP (CHDB);
Joshua Bolen; Charlene Cruz; Nikita Patel; Lydia Pierce-Linsemeier; and Michelle Wellnitz
(collectively, "CHDB Defendants") Joinder in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to
Strike Exhibit A to the Complaint, filed April 4, 2025 (CHDB’s Motion to Dismiss); (2)
Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Add’l Leave Fri April 25/Mond. 4/28: to file Amended Comp.
for Good Cause (filed 4/27/25) (Emergency Motion); (3) CHDB’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (filed 5/1/25) (Motion for Summary Disposition); and Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion
for Add’l Leave to File Amended Complaint (for Good Cause) (And Reply to Motion to Strike
also.) (filed 5/2/25) (Emergency Motion and Amended Complaint)

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

05/05/2025

Docket Code 079
Form V000A
Page 2

II.
Rulings

A. CHDB’s Motion to Dismiss

The Court previously ordered that Plaintiff file a Response to CHDB’s Motion to Dismiss
by April 23, 2025. He has not done so. The matter is ready for ruling.

In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court will “assume the truth of the
well-pled factual allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences therefrom.” Cullen v. Auto-
Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 419 (2008). The Court will grant the motion only if the plaintiff
is not entitled to relief “under any facts susceptible of proof in the statement of the claim.” ELM
Ret. Ctr., LP v. Callaway, 226 Ariz. 287, 289 (App. 2010), quoting Mohave Disposal, Inc. v. City
of Kingman, 186 Ariz. 343, 346 (1996).

The Court, however, will not “speculate about hypothetical facts that might entitle the
plaintiff to relief.” Cullen, 218 Ariz. at 420. Nor will the Court “accept as true allegations
consisting of conclusions of law, inferences or deductions that are not necessarily implied by
well-pleaded facts, unreasonable inferences or unsupported conclusions from such facts, or legal
conclusions alleged as facts.” Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Ariz., 211 Ariz. 386, 389 (App. 2005).

Before the trial court grants a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the non-moving party
should be given an opportunity to amend the complaint if such an amendment cures its defects.
Wigglesworth v. Mauldin, 195 Ariz. 432, 439 (App. 1999); see also Dube v. Likins, 216 Ariz.
406, 415 (App. 2007). But a request for leave to amend should be made in a proper motion.
Blumenthal v. Teets, 155 Ariz. 123, 131 (App. 1987).

Finally, a pro per litigant “is held to the same familiarity with court procedures and the
same notice of statutes, rules, and legal principles as is expected of a lawyer.” Higgins v.
Higgins, 194 Ariz. 266, 270 (App. 1999). “[A] party who conducts a case without an attorney is
entitled to no more consideration from the court than a party represented by counsel and is held
to the same standards expected of a lawyer.” Kelly v. NationsBanc Mortg. Corp., 199 Ariz. 284,
287 (App. 2000).

CHDB argues that dismissal is required because Plaintiff has failed to meet minimum
pleading requirements. On March 14, 2025, the Court granted co-defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
for this reason.

The Court has reviewed the Complaint, yet again, this time with respect to the CHDB
Defendants and the Court reaches the same conclusion. The Complaint must be dismissed.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

05/05/2025

Docket Code 079
Form V000A
Page 3

The Court, again, attempts to construe the Complaint to do substantial justice. Rowland v.
Kellogg and Root, Inc., 210 Ariz. 530 (App. 2005); Ariz. R. Civ. Proc. 8(f) (2025). The Court
finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to offer the CHDB Defendants proper notice of the causes
of action asserted against them. Like the co-defendants, the Complaint amounts to “an
unadorned, the defendants-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” It details facts and circumstances
about which he disagrees, but his narrative is hopelessly confusing and offers no meaningful way
to decipher specific causes of action in a manner which could engender a meaningful Answer. As
noted in the Court’s previous ruling, Plaintiff was required to plead facts sufficient to
demonstrate each of the elements for each cause of action he alleges--- so as to give each
defendant notice of the claims asserted against him or her. Because Plaintiff categorically failed
do so in any comprehensible way, the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

The CHDB defendants have asked the Court to dismiss the matter with prejudice finding
that amending would be futile. The Court will decline to do so given that the Court has no
substantial understanding of the allegations. For the same reasons, the Court declines to address
futility on other grounds.

Given Plaintiff’s failure to meet the deadlines to file an amended Complaint with respect
to co-defendants, the Court will not offer him the same opportunity. Instead, Plaintiff may file a
motion to amend no later than May 23, 2025, to pursue the matter further. But, if Plaintiff
chooses to file a motion to amend, that motion must comply with the applicable Arizona Rules of
Civil Procedure including, but not limited to Rules 8 and 15.

B. Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion.

Plaintiff continues to file emergency motions without good cause. The Court finds that
extant Emergency Motion does not demonstrate good cause, and it will be denied.

C. Motion for Summary Disposition.

CHDB seeks summary disposition on its Motion to Dismiss. The Court, having ruled on
CHDB’s Motion to Dismiss, finds that this motion is now moot.

D. Emergency Motion and Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion seek an extension to file an Amended Complaint due April
23, 2025. He attaches the Amended Complaint.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

05/05/2025

Docket Code 079
Form V000A
Page 4

Plaintiff has not provided good cause to extend the deadline and the Amended Complaint
is ineffective. The Court, however, will extend to Plaintiff leave to file a motion to amend no
later than May 23, 2025 , to pursue the matter further. But, if Plaintiff chooses to file a motion to
amend, that motion must comply with the applicable Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure including,
but not limited to Rules 8 and 15.

III.
Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED granting CHDB’s Motion to Dismiss.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing the Complaint against the CHDB Defendants.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Emergency Motion and Amended Complaint.

IT IS FURHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff leave to file a Motion to Amend no later
than May 23, 2025.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED deeming CHDB’s Motion for Summary Disposition to be
moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERD that if Plaintiff files a Motion to Amend, he shall comply
with the applicable Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure including, but not limited to Rules 8 and
15.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

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

CV 2024-022259

06/17/2025

Docket Code 042
Form V047
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON
T. Aird/K. Pasia

Deputy

RONALD C RUSS
RONALD C RUSS
6797 W EVERGREEN TER
PEORIA AZ 85383

v.

ROB LEWIS, et al.
MATTHEW S HOLT

BOB BENGFORD
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
JODI LEE MULLIS
JUDGE GORDON
PEORIA POLICE DEPARTMENT

COMPLAINT DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims but with leave to file a motion to amend in
compliance with Rules 8 & 15 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. See Minute Entry (dated
5/5/25). The Court imposed a deadline of May 23, 2025. Id.

Plaintiff has not timely filed a motion to amend in compliance with Rules 8 & 15 of the
Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court will, therefore, dismiss the Complaint, without
prejudice.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED dismissing the Complaint without prejudice.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

06/17/2025

Docket Code 042
Form V047
Page 2

This minute entry disposes of all outstanding claims and issues in this case. Because no
further matters remain pending, the Court signs this minute entry as a final judgment entered
pursuant to Rule 54(c) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

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

CV 2024-022259

06/17/2025

Docket Code 042
Form V047
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON
T. Aird/K. Pasia

Deputy

RONALD C RUSS
RONALD C RUSS
6797 W EVERGREEN TER
PEORIA AZ 85383

v.

ROB LEWIS, et al.
MATTHEW S HOLT

BOB BENGFORD
NO ADDRESS ON RECORD
JODI LEE MULLIS
JUDGE GORDON
PEORIA POLICE DEPARTMENT

COMPLAINT DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims but with leave to file a motion to amend in
compliance with Rules 8 & 15 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. See Minute Entry (dated
5/5/25). The Court imposed a deadline of May 23, 2025. Id.

Plaintiff has not timely filed a motion to amend in compliance with Rules 8 & 15 of the
Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court will, therefore, dismiss the Complaint, without
prejudice.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED dismissing the Complaint without prejudice.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

06/17/2025

Docket Code 042
Form V047
Page 2

This minute entry disposes of all outstanding claims and issues in this case. Because no
further matters remain pending, the Court signs this minute entry as a final judgment entered
pursuant to Rule 54(c) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

11/18/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

11/15/2024

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON
M. Dern

Deputy

RONALD C RUSS
RONALD C RUSS
6797 W EVERGREEN TER
PEORIA AZ 85383

v.

ROB LEWIS, et al.

JUDGE GORDON

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Extend Deadline
to Complete Service 45 Days to Dec. 29, 2024 filed November 13, 2024. Good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline to complete service is extended to
December 29, 2024.

Clerk of the Superior Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

11/18/2024 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CV 2024-022259

11/15/2024

Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MICHAEL D. GORDON
M. Dern

Deputy

RONALD C RUSS
RONALD C RUSS
6797 W EVERGREEN TER
PEORIA AZ 85383

v.

ROB LEWIS, et al.

JUDGE GORDON

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Extend Deadline
to Complete Service 45 Days to Dec. 29, 2024 filed November 13, 2024. Good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline to complete service is extended to
December 29, 2024.

Documents