03/02/2026 — CV2025064908 KAUR, JASJEET 03/02/2026 HONORABLE QUINTIN CUSHNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/04/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-064908
03/02/2026
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE QUINTIN CUSHNER
A. Cage
Deputy
JASJEET KAUR
JASJEET KAUR
20100 N 51ST AVE
STE F 635
GLENDALE AZ 85308
v.
JOHN YORK, et al.
JOHN ERIC YORK
JONATHAN A DESSAULES
CHANDLER W TRAVIS
FABIAN ZAZUETA
JUDGE Q CUSHNER
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed and considered: (1) Defendants Chandler W. Travis and Melissa
S. Doolan’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on January 5, 2026, Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’
Chandler W. Travis and Melissa S. Doolan’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on January 9, 2026, and
Defendant Travis and Doolan’s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss, filed on January 14, 2026;
(2) Defendants Dessaules’ Motion to Dismiss, filed on January 12, 2026, Plaintiff’s Opposition to
Defendant Jonathan Dessaules’ Motion to Dismiss, filed on January 16, 2026, and Defendant
Dessaules’ Reply in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on February 2, 2026; (3)
Defendant York’s Motion to Dismiss With Respect to Defendant John York for Failure to State a
Claim on Which Relief Can be Granted, filed on January 26, 2026 and Plaintiff’s Opposition to
Defendant John York’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on January 29, 2026; and (4) Defendants Degnan,
Horne, and Langtry’s Notice of joinder in Motions to Dismiss, filed on February 12, 2026.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-064908
03/02/2026
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
The Court notes that Defendants Degnan, Horne, and Langtry filed a Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on February 27, 2026. Any response shall be filed on or before March
20, 2026. Any reply shall be filed within 14 days of the filing of a response.
IT IS ORDERED that all pending Motions will be taken under advisement, once
the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) filed on February 27, 2026 is fully briefed and
all motions to dismiss may be considered collectively.
03/24/2026 — CV2025064908 KAUR, JASJEET 03/24/2026 HONORABLE QUINTIN CUSHNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/26/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-064908
03/24/2026
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE QUINTIN CUSHNER
A. Hayes
Deputy
JASJEET KAUR
JASJEET KAUR
20100 N 51ST AVE
STE F 635
GLENDALE AZ 85308
v.
JOHN YORK, et al.
JOHN ERIC YORK
BARRY M AYLSTOCK
JONATHAN A DESSAULES
CHANDLER W TRAVIS
FABIAN ZAZUETA
JUDGE Q CUSHNER
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed and considered: (1) Defendants Chandler W. Travis and Melissa
S. Doolan’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on January 5, 2026, Plaintiff Jasjeet Kaur’s Opposition to
Defendants’ Chandler W. Travis and Melissa S. Doolan’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on January 9,
2026, and Defendant Chandler W. Travis and Melissa S. Doolan’s Reply in Support of Motion to
Dismiss, filed on January 14, 2026; (2) Defendant Jonathan Dessaules’ Motion to Dismiss, filed
on January 12, 2026, Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Jonathan Dessaules’ Motion to Dismiss,
filed on January 16, 2026, and Defendant Jonathan Dessaules’ Reply in Support of Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss, filed on February 2, 2026; (3) Defendant John York’s Motion to Dismiss With
Respect to Defendant John York for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief Can be Granted,
filed on January 26, 2026 and Plaintiff Jasjeet Kaur’s Opposition to Defendant John York’s Motion
to Dismiss, filed on January 29, 2026; (4) Defendants David Degnan, Mark Horne and Sarah
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-064908
03/24/2026
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
Langtry’s Notice of Joinder in Motions to Dismiss, filed on February 12, 2026; (5) Defendants
Degnan, Horne, and Langtry’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), filed on February 27,
2026, Plaintiff’s Opposition to David Degnan, Mark Horne and Sarah Langtry (“Defendants”)
Motion to Dismiss, filed on March 3, 2026, Defendants David Degnan, Mark Horne and Sarah
Langtry’s Notice of Joinder in Motions to Dismiss, which the Court construes as a reply, filed on
March 16, 2026; and (6) Defendant Barry Aylstock’s Notice of Joinder in Motions to Dismiss and
Replies, filed on March 19, 2026.
I.
Background
Plaintiff Jasjeet Kaur filed this action on December 8, 2025, asserting six claims against
multiple attorneys: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) aiding and abetting; (3) civil
conspiracy; (4) fraud and deceit, (5) abuse of process, and (6) negligence and breach of fiduciary
duties. Plaintiff alleges the claims arise from litigation in CV2023-053991, Sohnasukh, LLC v.
Escuda Office Plaza Unit Owners Association, and that Plaintiff is the sole member of Sohnasukh,
LLC.
The above-referenced motions to dismiss have been filed in this case, which the Court
addresses in this Order.
II.
Analysis
“Arizona follows a notice pleading standard.” Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352, 356
(2012) (quoting Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 419 (2008)). The purpose of a
complaint is to “give the opponent fair notice of the nature and basis of the claim and indicate
generally the type of litigation involved.” Cullen 218 Ariz. at 419 (quoting Mackey v. Spangler,
81 Ariz. 113, 115 (1956)). A complaint that states only legal conclusions, without supporting
factual allegations, does not comply with Rule 8’s notice pleading standard. Id. If a complaint does
not comply with Rule 8, the defendant may move to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Id.; Ariz.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Claims based upon alleged fraud must be pled with particularity. Ariz. R. Civ.
P. 9(b).
When reviewing 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,” but only to the
extent that those allegations are well-pleaded and not legal conclusions. Cullen, 218 Ariz. at 419 ¶
7. 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 ¶ 5 (App. 2010) (quoting Mohave Disposal, Inc. v. City of Kingman, 186 Ariz. 343, 346
(1996)). The Court will not “speculate about hypothetical facts that might entitle the plaintiff to
relief,” nor will it supply missing elements of a claim. Cullen, 218 Ariz. at 420 ¶ 14. 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
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-064908
03/24/2026
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3
conclusions from such facts, or legal conclusions alleged as facts.” Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Ariz., 211
Ariz. 386, 389 ¶ 4 (App. 2005).
Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges misconduct by multiple attorneys.
The Complaint alleges “collusion,” “conspiracy,” “fabrications,” and “undisclosed arrangements”
in a manner that does not consistently place each Defendant on notice of what conduct is being
alleged as to that Defendant. See Cullen, 218 Ariz. at 419. Further, the Court finds that certain
allegations allege fraud, which requires pleading with particularity. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
The Court also notes that the Complaint makes repeated reference to CV2023-053991,
which was brought by Sohnasukh, LLC, not Plaintiff. The Court does not find that Plaintiff’s
Complaint clearly alleges what Plaintiff alleges were personal to Plaintiff, rather than derivative
of Sohnasukh, LLC’s interests.
Therefore, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice pursuant to
Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In so finding, the Court does not reach Defendant York’s
request for dismissal pertaining to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 13(a), and grants Defendant York’s motion only
on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds. The Court notes that Plaintiff has sought leave to amend in Plaintiff’s
response to at least some of the motions to dismiss. Therefore, the Court will provide Plaintiff with
30 days to amend Plaintiff’s complaint.
III.
Ruling
IT IS ORDERED granting without prejudice Defendants Chandler W. Travis and Melissa
S. Doolan’s Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting without prejudice Defendant Jonathan Dessaules’
Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting without prejudice Defendant John York’s Motion
to Dismiss With Respect to Defendant John York for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief Can
be Granted to the extent set forth in this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting without prejudice Defendants Degnan, Horne, and
Langtry’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting all pending joinders to the extent consistent with
this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order
to file an amended complaint.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-064908
03/24/2026
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all requests for attorney fees, costs, and sanctions,
including under A.R.S. § 12-349, are denied without prejudice.
05/18/2026 — CV2025064908 KAUR, JASJEET 05/18/2026 HONORABLE QUINTIN CUSHNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/19/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-064908
05/18/2026
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE QUINTIN CUSHNER
A. Hayes
Deputy
JASJEET KAUR
JASJEET KAUR
20100 N 51ST AVE
STE F 635
GLENDALE AZ 85308
v.
JOHN YORK, et al.
JOHN ERIC YORK
BARRY M AYLSTOCK
JONATHAN A DESSAULES
CHANDLER W TRAVIS
FABIAN ZAZUETA
JUDGE Q CUSHNER
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed and considered the following: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
File Supplemental Complaint to Add Aaron Ludwig and Andrew Meier as Defendants filed on
April 3, 2026, to which no response was filed; (2) Defendant York’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss
With Respect to Defendant York for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief Can be Granted,
filed on April 6, 2026 and Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant York’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss,
filed on April 13, 2026; (3) Defendant Dessaules’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint, filed on April 8, 2026; Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Jonathan Dessaules’s
Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, filed on April 13, 2026, and Defendant Dessaules’s Reply
in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, filed on April 27, 2026; (4)
Defendants Travis and Doolan’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, filed on April 10, 2026,
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants Travis and Doolan’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint,
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-064908
05/18/2026
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
filed on April 13, 2026, and Defendants Travis and Doolan’s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Amended Complaint, filed on April 21, 2026; (5) Defendants Degnan, Horne, and Langtry’s
Renewed Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), filed on April 20, 2026, Plaintiff’s
Opposition to Degnan, Horne, and Langtry’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss First Amended
Complaint, filed on April 27, 2026, and Defendants Degnan, Horne, and Langtry’s Reply in
Support of Renewed Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), filed
on May 11, 2026; (6) Defendants’ Motion to Strike Pages from Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, filed on May 4, 2026 and Plaintiff’s Opposition to
Degnan, Horne, and Langtry’s Motion to Strike Pages from Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’
Renewed Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, filed on May 11, 2026; and (7) Defendants
Travis and Doolan’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Opposition to Degnan, Horne, and Langtry’s
Motion to Strike Pages from Plaintiff’s Response, filed on May 14, 2026 and Plaintiff’s Opposition
to Defendants Doolan and Travis’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Opposition to Degnan, Horne, and
Langtry’s Motion to Strike Pages from Plaintiff’s Response, filed on May 15, 2026.
IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint to Add
Aaron Ludwig and Andrew Meier as Defendants. The second amended complaint shall be filed as
a single consolidated pleading within 10 days of the entry of this minute entry.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED holding the Motions to Dismiss and Motions to Strike in
abeyance pending the filing and service of the second amended complaint. Plaintiff shall serve
Defendants Aaron Ludwig and Andrew Meier in accordance with Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure
4 and file proof of service. Defendants Aaron Ludwig and Andrew Meier’s time to respond shall
run from the date of service. Within 14 days after the second amended complaint is filed, the
currently appearing defendants shall file either (a) a notice adopting any pending motion as
directed to the second amended complaint to the extent it remains applicable, (b) an amended
motion directed to the second amended complaint, or (c) an answer.
06/03/2026 — CV2025064908 KAUR, JASJEET 06/03/2026 HONORABLE QUINTIN CUSHNER View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/05/2026 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-064908
06/03/2026
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE QUINTIN CUSHNER
A. Hayes
Deputy
JASJEET KAUR
JASJEET KAUR
20100 N 51ST AVE
STE F 635
GLENDALE AZ 85308
v.
JOHN YORK, et al.
JOHN ERIC YORK
BARRY M AYLSTOCK
JONATHAN A DESSAULES
CHANDLER W TRAVIS
FABIAN ZAZUETA
JUDGE Q CUSHNER
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint filed on May 25, 2026. The Court
previously held the pending motions to dismiss and motions to strike in abeyance pending filing
of a consolidated Second Amended Complaint.
To promote efficiency and avoid full re-briefing, the Court will permit defendants who
have made an appearance in this matter and who previously filed motions directed to the prior
operative pleading to re-urge those motions, subject to optional supplemental briefing limited to
changes and new allegations in the Second Amended Complaint.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-064908
06/03/2026
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED that the pending motions to dismiss and motions to strike are no longer
held in abeyance, and the Court sets the following procedure for streamlined supplemental
briefing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any defendant who has appeared in this matter who
intends to rely on a previously filed motion to dismiss or motion to strike shall file a Notice
identifying the specific motion(s) being renewed and stating that the motion(s) are asserted against
the Second Amended Complaint to the extent applicable. Any such Notice shall be filed within 14
days of entry of this Minute Entry. Any Notice regarding previously filed motions that was filed
before entry of this Minute Entry is deemed compliant with this requirement.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any defendant filing a Notice may file, at the same
time, a supplemental memorandum not exceeding five (5) pages, limited solely to (1) identifying
the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint that are new or materially changed as to that
defendant, and (2) explaining whether and how those changes may affect the previously filed
motion. No new arguments unrelated to changes or new allegations in the Second Amended
Complaint may be raised in the supplemental memorandum. No new exhibits may be attached
without leave of Court. If no supplemental memoranda are filed, the Court will rule on the pending
motions based on the existing motions and briefing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file one consolidated supplemental
response to all supplemental memoranda, not exceeding twenty (20) pages, within 14 days after
the last supplemental memorandum is filed. Plaintiff’s consolidated supplemental response shall
be limited to the issues raised in the supplemental memoranda and the new or materially changed
allegations in the Second Amended Complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to Plaintiff’s consolidated supplemental
response shall be limited to five (5) pages per defendant and shall be filed within 7 days after
Plaintiff’s consolidated supplemental response is filed. Replies shall be limited to the issues raised
in the supplemental memoranda and Plaintiff’s consolidated supplemental response.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that except for the limited supplemental briefing
authorized above, the Court will consider the previously filed motions and prior briefing already
filed by the parties as applicable to the Second Amended Complaint to the extent the allegations
and issues are unchanged.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve Defendants Aaron Ludwig and
Andrew Meier in accordance with Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and file proof of service.
Defendants Ludwig and Meier’s time to respond shall run from the date of service.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2025-064908
06/03/2026
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will determine whether oral argument is
necessary after the supplemental briefing is complete.
