01/14/2015 — LC2014000354 SAXTON, NANCY 01/14/2015 THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/15/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2014-000354-001 DT
01/14/2015
Docket Code 094
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN
J. Eaton
Deputy
NANCY SAXTON
RANDAL STUDER
v.
THE LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
(001)
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF FIRE BUILDING
AND LIFE SAFETY (001)
CHARLES E MAXWELL
MARY D WILLIAMS
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
ORAL ARGUMENT SET
Upon request of counsel,
IT IS ORDERED setting Oral Argument on February 23, 2015, at 10:30 a.m. for
Administrative Review before the Hon. Crane McClennen, Central Court Building,
Courtroom 504, 201 West Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that oral argument will be limited to 15 minutes for each
side unless permission to exceed this limit has been granted.
NOTE: If counsel for a party, or self-represented party does not appear at the scheduled
time for the oral argument, the Court may vacate the oral argument and make its determination
based on the appellate memoranda submitted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by January 29, 2015, counsel and self-represented
parties shall send an email to this Court’s Bailiff, Megan Dakai, at:
[email protected].
This email shall advise Ms. Dakai that the above named parties have received notice
and will be in attendance at this Oral Argument.
Court Reporter
All court proceedings are recorded by audio method and not by a court reporter.
Should a party want a court reporter, that party must submit to this Division a written
request at least 5 days prior to the scheduled hearing.
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a docu-
ment, the system does not generate a courtesy copy for the Judge. Therefore, you will have to
deliver to the Judge a conformed courtesy copy of any filings.
01/28/2015 — LC2014000354 SAXTON, NANCY 01/28/2015 THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/29/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2014-000354-001 DT
01/28/2015
Docket Code 095
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN
J. Eaton
Deputy
NANCY SAXTON
RANDAL STUDER
v.
THE LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
(001)
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF FIRE BUILDING
AND LIFE SAFETY (001)
CHARLES E MAXWELL
MARY D WILLIAMS
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
ORAL ARGUMENT RESET
On the Court's own motion,
IT IS ORDERED vacating the Oral Argument for Administrative Review currently
scheduled for February 23, 2015, at 10:30 a.m. and resetting same to March 2, 2015, at 10:00
a.m. before the Hon. Crane McClennen, Central Court Building, Courtroom 504, 201 West
Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that oral argument will be limited to 15 minutes for each
side unless permission to exceed this limit has been granted.
NOTE: If counsel for a party, or self-represented party does not appear at the scheduled
time for the oral argument, the Court may vacate the oral argument and make its determination
based on the appellate memoranda submitted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by February 12, 2015, counsel and self-
represented parties shall send an email to this Court’s Bailiff, Megan Dakai, at:
[email protected].
This email shall advise Ms. Dakai that the above named parties have received notice
and will be in attendance at this Oral Argument.
Court Reporter
All court proceedings are recorded by audio method and not by a court reporter.
Should a party want a court reporter, that party must submit to this Division a written
request at least 5 days prior to the scheduled hearing.
03/02/2015 — LC2014000354 SAXTON, NANCY 03/02/2015 THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/03/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2014-000354-001 DT
03/02/2015
Docket Code 020
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN
J. Eaton
Deputy
NANCY SAXTON
RANDAL STUDER
v.
THE LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
(001)
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF FIRE BUILDING
AND LIFE SAFETY (001)
CHARLES E MAXWELL
MARY D WILLIAMS
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
ORAL ARGUMENT
Courtroom: CCB 504
10:08 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument regarding Administrative Review.
Appellant Nancy Saxton is present and represented by counsel, Steve Cheifetz for Randal Studer.
Appellee The Lakes Community Association is represented by counsel, Charles E. Maxwell.
A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.
Arguments are presented to the Court.
IT IS ORDERED taking the matter under advisement.
10:58 a.m. Hearing concludes.
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a docu-
ment, the system does not generate a courtesy copy for the Judge. Therefore, you will have to
deliver to the Judge a conformed courtesy copy of any filings.
04/22/2015 — LC2014000354 SAXTON, NANCY 04/22/2015 THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Filed ***
04/24/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2014-000354-001 DT
04/22/2015
Docket Code 512
Form L512
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN
J. Eaton
Deputy
NANCY SAXTON
RANDAL STUDER
v.
THE LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
(001)
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF FIRE BUILDING
AND LIFE SAFETY (001)
CHARLES E MAXWELL
MARY D WILLIAMS
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
RECORD APPEAL RULING / REMAND
Appellant Nancy Saxton (Saxton) asks this Court to review the Decision of the Administra-
tive Law Judge, dated June 2, 2014, which the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings
certified as the Final Administrative Decision for the Department of Fire, Building, and Life Safety
(DFB&LS) and thus for Appellee, the Lakes Community Association (LCA). For the following
reasons, this Court affirms that Decision.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.
On November 5, 2012, Saxton filed with the LCA a Demand To Inspect Financial Records.
On November 28, 2012, the LCA sent a response stating it was preparing the records. On No-
vember 29, 2012, Saxton filed with the LCA another Demand To Inspect Financial Records.
On December 6, 2012, Saxton received one set of records; on December 14, 2012, Saxton
received a second set of records; and on January 8, 2013, Saxton received a third set of records.
The LCA had redacted large portions of these records. On September 27, 2013, Saxton received a
letter from the LCA’s attorney offering to allow Saxton to view un-redacted documents in the
attorney’s office, but Saxton did not do so.
On November 25, 2013, Saxton filed a petition with the DFB&LS contending the LCA had
violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 33–1805. On April 29, 2014, ALJ M. Douglas held an Admin-
istrative Hearing at which time Saxton and three other witnesses testified. On June 2, 2014, ALJ
Douglas issued an Administrative Law Judge Decision making the following conclusions: (1) The
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2014-000354-001 DT
04/22/2015
Docket Code 512
Form L512
Page 2
DFB&LS did not have jurisdiction because Saxton had not sought to resolve the dispute through
arbitration before filing the petition with the DFB&LS; (2) the DFB&LS did not have jurisdiction
because Saxton did not file her petition within the 1-year statute of limitations; and (3) the LCA
did provide Saxton the opportunity to view un-redacted records. ALJ Douglas further made a
Recommended Order that the matter be dismissed.
Because the LCA did not take any action to accept, reject, or modify that Recommended
Order by July 7, 2014, on July 10, 2014, the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings
issued his Certification that the Decision of the ALJ was now the Final Administrative Decision of
the DFB&LS. On July 24, 2014, Saxton filed a Notice of Appeal for Judicial Review of Admin-
istrative Decision. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12–124(A) and A.R.S. § 12–
905(A).
II. GENERAL STANDARDS FOR REVIEW.
The Arizona statutory authority and case law define the scope of administrative review:
In reviewing an agency’s decision pursuant to the Administrative Review Act, the
superior court must affirm the agency action unless it is “not supported by substantial evi-
dence, is contrary to law, is arbitrary and capricious or is an abuse of discretion.”
Carlson v. Arizona St. Pers. Bd., 214 Ariz. 426, 153 P.3d 1055, ¶ 13 (Ct. App. 2007) (emphasis
added), quoting A.R.S. § 12–910(E).
The court must defer to the agency’s factual findings and affirm them if supported by sub-
stantial evidence. If an agency’s decision is supported by the record, substantial evidence
exists to support the decision even if the record also supports a different conclusion.
Gaveck v. Arizona St. Bd. of Podiatry Exam., 222 Ariz. 433, 215 P.3d 1114, ¶ 11 (Ct. App. 2009)
(citations omitted).
[I]n ruling on the sufficiency of the evidence in administrative proceedings, courts
should show a certain degree of deference to the judgment of the agency based upon the
accumulated experience and expertise of its members.
Croft v. Arizona St. Bd. of Dent. Exam., 157 Ariz. 203, 208, 755 P.2d 1191, 1196 (Ct. App. 1988).
A trial court may not function as a “super agency” and substitute its own judgment for that
of the agency where factual questions and agency expertise are involved.
DeGroot v. Arizona Racing Comm’n, 141 Ariz. 331, 336, 686 P.2d 1301, 1306 (Ct. App. 1984).
[The reviewing court must] view the evidence in a light most favorable to upholding the
Board’s decision and “will affirm that decision if it is supported by any reasonable inter-
pretation of the record.”
Baca v. Arizona D.E.S., 191 Ariz. 43, 46, 951 P.2d 1235, 1238 (Ct. App. 1998) (cites omitted).
A question of statutory interpretation involves a question of law, and [the reviewing court]
is not bound by the trial court’s or the agency’s conclusions [about] questions of law.
Siegel v. Arizona St. Liq. Bd., 167 Ariz. 400, 401, 807 P.2d 1136, 1137 (Ct. App. 1991).
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2014-000354-001 DT
04/22/2015
Docket Code 512
Form L512
Page 3
On appeal, [the reviewing court] is free to draw its own conclusions in determining if the
Board properly interpreted the law; however, the Board’s interpretation of statutes and
. . . regulations is entitled to great weight.
Baca, 191 Ariz. at 45–46, 951 P.2d at 1237–38.
Judicial deference should be given to agencies charged with the responsibility of carrying
out specific legislation, and ordinarily an agency’s interpretation of a statute or regulation it
implements is given great weight. However, the agency’s interpretation is not infallible, and
courts must remain the final authority on critical questions of statutory construction.
U.S. Parking Sys. v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210, 211, 772 P.2d 33, 34 (Ct. App. 1989) (citations
omitted).
III. ISSUE: WAS THERE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ACTION OF THE AGENCY,
AND WAS THE ACTION OF THE AGENCY CONTRARY TO LAW, ARBITRARY AND
CAPRICIOUS, OR AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
Saxton asks this Court to vacate what is now the Final Administrative Decision of the DFB&LS
(and thus the LCA) and order the LCA to provide to her un-redacted records. Saxton has provided to
this Court authorities and arguments in support of her position. The LCA asks this Court to affirm the
Final Administrative Decision of the DFB&LS (and thus the LCA), and has provided to this Court
authorities and arguments in support of its position.
In reviewing the actions of an agency, the Arizona Court of Appeals has said the following:
The court may not intervene if there is “any” evidence to support the administrative deci-
sion, and should not weigh the evidence in making that determination. We will not sub-
stitute our judgment for that of the agency if it was persuaded by the probative force of the
evidence before it. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the board, even where
the question is faulty or debatable and one in which we would have reached a different
conclusion had we been the original arbiter of the issues raised by the application.
Blake v. City of Phoenix, 157 Ariz. 93, 96, 754 P.2d 1368, 1371 (Ct. App. 1988); accord, Stant v.
City of Maricopa Employee Merit Board, 234 Ariz. 196, 319 P.3d 1002, ¶ 18 (Ct. App. 2014). This
Court agrees with the ALJ that Saxton was required to resolve the dispute through arbitration
before filing the petition with the DFB&LS and thus the DFB&LS did not have jurisdiction.
On the issue of the statute of limitations, if Saxton’s cause of action accrued on November 19,
2012, the date by which she had not received the requested records, then her petition filed on
November 25, 2013, with the DFB&LS was not timely and her claim would be barred by the
statute of limitations. On the other hand, if Saxton’s cause of action accrued on December 6, 2012,
when Saxton received the set of records with redactions, then her petition filed on November 25,
2013, with the DFB&LS was timely and her claim would not be barred by the statute of
limitations. This Court concludes that, because Saxton’s claim is not that she did not receive the
records in a timely manner and is instead that the records she did receive had impermissible redac-
tions, that cause of action did not accrue until she received the records and saw they were redacted.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2014-000354-001 DT
04/22/2015
Docket Code 512
Form L512
Page 4
On the issue of supplying Saxton with records, this Court concludes the LCA did provide Sax-
ton with the opportunity to view un-redacted records, and further concludes Saxton’s decision not to
go to the LCA’s attorney’s office to view those records does not give to Saxton a cause of action.
Finally, this Court concludes the authorities and arguments provided by the LCA are well-
taken, and this Court adopts those authorities and arguments in support of its decision.
IV. CONCLUSION.
Based on the foregoing, this Court concludes the DFB&LS did not have jurisdiction because
Saxton did not attempt to resolve the dispute through arbitration before filing the petition with the
DFB&LS, and further concludes the LCA did provide Saxton with the opportunity to view un-
redacted records. This Court further determines there is no just reason to delay entry of judgment
and no further matters remain pending, and thus this judgment is entered pursuant to Rule 54(c).
If any party wishes to appeal this Court’s Decision to the Arizona Court of Appeals, that party
must do so pursuant to A.R.S. § 12–913 and Rule 9(a) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate
Procedure. See Eaton v. AHCCCS, 206 Ariz. 430, 79 P.3d 1044, ¶ 7 (Ct. App. 2003) (“The
[Arizona Court of Appeals] will allow an administrative decision to stand if there is any credible
evidence to support it, but, because we review the same record, we may substitute our opinion for
that of the superior court.” “And when consideration of the administrative decision involves the
legal interpretation of a statute, this court reviews de novo the decisions reached by the admin-
istrative officer and the superior court.”); accord, Pendergast v. Arizona St. Ret. Sys., 234 Ariz.
535, 323 P.3d 1186, ¶ 10 (Ct. App. 2014) (“On appeal, we review de novo the superior court’s
judgment, reaching the same underlying issue as the superior court: whether the administrative
action was not supported by substantial evidence or was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or
involved an abuse of discretion.”), quoting Carlson v. Arizona St. Pers. Bd., 214 Ariz. 426, 153
P.3d 1055, ¶ 13 (Ct. App. 2007); Pima Cty. Hum. Rts. Comm. v. Arizona D.H.S., 232 Ariz. 177,
303 P.3d 71, ¶ 7 (Ct. App. 2013) (“Because the superior court did not hold an evidentiary hearing
or admit any new evidence, we review its judgment de novo, ‘reaching the same underlying issue
as the superior court.’ ”); Blancarte v. Arizona D.O.T., 230 Ariz. 241, 282 P.3d 442, ¶ 7 (Ct. App.
2012) (“Applying a de novo review of the superior court’s decision . . . .”); Ritland v. Arizona St.
Bd. Med. Exam., 213 Ariz. 187, 140 P.3d 970, ¶ 7 (Ct. App. 2006) (“In reviewing the Board’s deci-
sion, we are not bound by the superior court’s judgment because we review the same record.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED affirming the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge,
dated June 2, 2014, which the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings certified as the
Final Administrative Decision for the Department of Fire, Building, and Life Safely (DFB&LS)
and thus for Appellee, the Lakes Community Association (LCA).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED signing this minute entry as a formal Order of the Court.
/s/ Crane McClennen
THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
042220151130•
07/27/2015 — LC2014000354 SAXTON, NANCY 07/27/2015 THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Filed ***
07/28/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2014-000354-001 DT
07/27/2015
Docket Code 023
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN
J. Eaton
Deputy
NANCY SAXTON
RANDAL STUDER
v.
THE LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
(001)
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF FIRE BUILDING
AND LIFE SAFETY (001)
CHARLES E MAXWELL
MARY D WILLIAMS
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
MINUTE ENTRY
On April 27, 2015, Appellee The Lakes Community Association filed a Statement of
Costs and Notice of Taxation requesting that this Court award to them $535.70. Appellant has
not filed a Response.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Appellant shall pay to Appellee $535.70 in costs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED signing this minute entry as a formal Order of the Court.
/s/ Crane McClennen
THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a docu-
ment, the system does not generate a courtesy copy for the Judge. Therefore, you will have to
deliver to the Judge a conformed courtesy copy of any filings.
07/29/2014 — LC2014000354 SAXTON, NANCY 07/29/2014 THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/30/2014 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2014-000354-001 DT
07/29/2014
Docket Code 023
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN
J. Eaton
Deputy
NANCY SAXTON
RANDAL STUDER
v.
THE LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
(001)
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF FIRE BUILDING
AND LIFE SAFETY (001)
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW ORDERS
On July 24, 2014, Appellant, Nancy Saxton, filed a Complaint for Judicial Review of
Administrative Decision against Appellee, The Lakes Community Association, and Appellee,
Arizona Department of Fire Building and Life Safety, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes
Annotated (A.R.S.) §§ 12–901 to 12–914.
IT IS ORDERED that Appellant serve both Appellees with a copy of the Complaint for
Judicial Review of Administrative Decision in the manner provided by A.R.S. § 12–906.1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant shall file proof of service with the Clerk of
the Superior Court of Maricopa County as required by Rules 4(g) and 4(i) of the Arizona Rules
of Civil Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant provide both Appellees with a copy of this
minute entry.
1 A.R.S. § 12–906 incorporates the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure for service of process. See Rules 4 and 4.1,
Ariz. R. Civ. P.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2014-000354-001 DT
07/29/2014
Docket Code 023
Form L000
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant shall file a notice of action as required by
A.R.S. § 12–904(B).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant shall order and make arrangements to pay
for the preparation of pertinent portions of the record as required by A.R.S. § 12–904(B)(5).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Notice of Appearance from all Appellees shall be
due 20 days from the date of service of Appellant’s appeal.
Appellant is advised that, if Appellant fails to effectuate service or to order the record or
the transcripts as ordered herein, this Court may dismiss these proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative agency or board shall transmit its
record to the Clerk of this Court as required by A.R.S. § 12–904(B) and provide a Certification
of Record on Review to Appellant and a notice to this Court that the transmittal has occurred.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant and Appellees are to file briefs in accord-
ance with Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure for Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions.
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a docu-
ment, the system does not generate a courtesy copy for the Judge. Therefore, you will have to
deliver to the Judge a conformed courtesy copy of any filings.
