Case Header

Maricopa County Superior Court Case LC2017-000307: public docket details, parties, minute entries, documents, and official source links for Terravita Country Club Inc.

Case Number

LC2017-000307

County

Maricopa

Caption

Not captured

Filed

8/23/2017

Case Type

Lower Court Appeals

Judge

Francis, Jillian

Location

Downtown

Official Court Record

Official Court Record

Parties

Minute Entries

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Filed ***

01/08/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

LC2017-000307-001 DT

01/05/2018

Docket Code 016
Form L000
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
C. Avena

Deputy

TERRAVITA COUNTRY CLUB INC
ANJALI J PATEL

v.

WILLIAM M BROWN (001)
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
(001)
WILLIAM M BROWN
1754 LAKEVIEW ESTATES DR
COLDSPRING TX 77331
LYNETTE EVANS

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has the Motion to Continue filed by Appellee William M. Brown on December
13, 2017. Appellant Terravita Country Club, Inc., has not filed a response.

Brown seeks an extension of time to file his answering brief until April 2, 2018. This
Court is willing to extend the time for the filing of the answering brief in this matter, but not for
such a lengthy period.

Thus, good cause being shown and no opposition having been filed,

IT IS ORDERED the answering brief is due no later than March 1, 2018.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

LC2017-000307-001 DT

01/05/2018

Docket Code 016
Form L000
Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED signing this minute entry as a formal order of the Court.

/s/ Patricia A. Starr

THE HON. PATRICIA A. STARR

JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

PLEASE NOTE: AMENDED RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR JUDICIAL
REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS ARE IN EFFECT AS OF JANUARY 1,
2018.

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 new filings.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Filed ***

03/23/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

LC2017-000307-001 DT

03/20/2018

Docket Code 023
Form L000
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
C. Avena

Deputy

TERRAVITA COUNTRY CLUB INC
ANJALI J PATEL

v.

WILLIAM M BROWN (001)
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
(001)
WILLIAM M BROWN
1754 LAKEVIEW ESTATES DR
COLDSPRING TX 77331
LYNETTE EVANS

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC

MINUTE ENTRY

This Court previously extended the due date for Appellee William Brown’s Answering
Brief to March 1, 2018.
No Answering Brief has been filed, nor has a request for a further extension of time been
filed. Pursuant to Rule 6(b), Rules of Procedure for Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions,
this matter is deemed submitted for decision based on the Opening Brief and the record.
The Court notes that the parties were previously engaged in negotiations, and the Court
denied Appellant’s request for a stay in part.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED this matter will be considered at issue as of the date of the filing of this
minute entry.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

LC2017-000307-001 DT

03/20/2018

Docket Code 023
Form L000
Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED if the parties have resolved the underlying matter, or if
Appellant wishes to withdraw the appeal for any reason, Appellant shall notify the Court within
30 days of the filing of this minute entry.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED signing this minute entry as a formal order of the Court.

/s/ Patricia A. Starr

THE HON. PATRICIA A. STARR

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 new filings.

Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court

*** Filed ***

05/23/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

LC2017-000307-001 DT

05/21/2018

Docket Code 512
Form L512
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
C. Avena

Deputy

TERRAVITA COUNTRY CLUB INC
ANJALI J PATEL

v.

WILLIAM M BROWN (001)
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
(001)
WILLIAM M BROWN
1754 LAKEVIEW ESTATES DR
COLDSPRING TX 77331
LYNETTE EVANS

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC

RECORD APPEAL RULING / REMAND

Appellant Terravita Country Club, Inc. (“Terravita”) seeks reversal of the July 24, 2017
Final Order of the Arizona Department of Real Estate requiring Terravita to comply with A.R.S.
§ 33-1805 regarding Appellee William M. Brown’s request for records. For the following
reasons, this Court affirms that Order.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 6, 2017, Brown requested records from Terravita. (Decision of
Administrative Law Judge, July 14, 2017 (“ALJ Decision”) at 1.) Terravita sent Brown an email
message eight days later, informing him that they would not provide the records, because they
related to pending criminal litigation against him. (ALJ Decision at 1.)
On April 13, 2017, Brown filed a Petition for Hearing with the Department of Real
Estate, alleging that Terravita violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A) when it failed to timely respond to
his records request. (Id.) Terravita answered, and the Department set the matter for a hearing
before an ALJ at the Office of Administrative Hearings. (Id. at 2.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

LC2017-000307-001 DT

05/21/2018

Docket Code 512
Form L512
Page 2

After the hearing, the ALJ found that when Brown requested the records, “Brown was
facing criminal charges” brought by the City of Scottsdale “and Terravita was not a party to the
criminal case.” (Id. at 5.) Because Terravita did not fulfill Brown’s request for records within
10 days, the ALJ found that it violated A.R.S. § 33-1805. (Id.) The ALJ deemed Brown the
prevailing party, ordered Terravita to comply with the request within 10 days, and ordered
Terravita to pay Brown’s filing fee of $500.00. (Id.) The ALJ did not impose a civil penalty.
(Id.)
The Department accepted the ALJ’s Decision. (Final Order, July 24, 2017.) Terravita
requested a rehearing; the Department denied the request.
This appeal followed. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-124(A) and
12 -905(A).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A reviewing court shall affirm the action of an agency unless, after reviewing the record,
the court concludes that the action is not supported by substantial evidence, is contrary to law, is
arbitrary and capricious or is an abuse of discretion. A.R.S. § 13-910(E).
In reviewing an agency’s decision, the superior court “does not conduct a trial de novo,
act as the trier of fact, nor substitute its view of the evidence for that of the agency.” Siler v.
Arizona Dept. of Real Estate, 193 Ariz. 374, 378, ¶ 13 (App. 1998). Instead, this court should
affirm an order “when substantial evidence exists to support it and the remedy ordered is within
the range of permissible dispositions.” Id. at ¶ 15. A trial court makes its own rulings on
questions of law. Smith v. Arizona Long Term Care Sys., 207 Ariz. 217, 220, ¶ 14 (App. 2004).
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS
At issue is the correct interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1805, which governs disclosure of
homeowner association records. Terravita argues that the records related to pending litigation at
the time of Brown’s request, and thus Terravita was authorized to withhold them.
The statute provides that in most instances, financial and other association records must
be made available to a member within 10 days of a request:
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, all financial and other
records of the association shall be made reasonably available for examination by

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

LC2017-000307-001 DT

05/21/2018

Docket Code 512
Form L512
Page 3

any member or any person designated by the member in writing as the member's
representative. The association shall not charge a member or any person
designated by the member in writing for making material available for review.
The association shall have ten business days to fulfill a request for examination.
On request for purchase of copies of records by any member or any person
designated by the member in writing as the member's representative, the
association shall have ten business days to provide copies of the requested
records. An association may charge a fee for making copies of not more than
fifteen cents per page.

In certain cases, records may be withheld, including when the records relate to “pending
litigation.” A.R.S. § 33-1805(B)(2).

Here, according to Terravita, the Department’s conclusion that the “pending litigation”
must be between the homeowner and the Association in order to justify withholding records is
too narrow a construction of the statute. This Court need not reach that issue, however.

Terravita has failed to show how the records requested by Brown relate to the pending
litigation between Brown and the City of Scottsdale. According to Terravita, the City prosecuted
Brown for threats made against it and several of its board members. But the records requested
are not for personal information about board members. Instead, Brown requested records
pertaining to business conducted by the Board. Terravita makes no connection between the
records and the prosecution, only conclusory statements.

Specifically, Brown requested infraction reports, documents regarding suspension of his
privileges, meeting minutes, non-privileged communications regarding sanctions against him,
justification for a fine, and an accounting for a $5,000 assessment. Terravita has not explained
how those documents related to the “pending litigation” - the City of Scottsdale’s prosecution
against Brown.

Terravita also argues that Brown could have requested the records from the City
Prosecutor. But it makes no showing that the City had the records. Moreover, if Terravita had a
statutory duty to provide the records, it makes no difference that Brown might have been able to
obtain them through another route.

Finally, Terravita makes a passing reference to the Arizona Victims’ Bill of Rights. But it
fails to explain how those provisions apply here, and has thus waived any argument based on the

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

LC2017-000307-001 DT

05/21/2018

Docket Code 512
Form L512
Page 4

Victims’ Bill of Rights. See, e.g., MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., 219 Ariz. 297,
305, n.7 (App. 2008) (issues not developed on appeal are waived.).

In sum, Terravita never established that the records themselves related to the “pending
litigation” against Brown. While there was apparently a criminal case pending against Brown
involving Board members and their property, Terravita has never shown how the records
requested by Brown related to that litigation. Thus, Terravita failed to establish that the
“pending litigation” exception to the records law applied.
IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, this Court concludes substantial evidence supports the Order, and
the Order was not contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

If any party wishes to appeal this decision, that party must do so pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-
913 and Rule 9(a), Ariz. R. Civ. App. Proc.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED affirming the July 24, 2017 Final Order of the
Department of Real Estate.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED lifting the partial stay entered by this Court on December
13, 2017.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this is a final judgment for purposes of appeal, as no further
matters remain pending. See Rule 54(c), Ariz. R. Civ. P.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED signing this minute entry as a formal order of the Court.

/s/ Patricia A. Starr

THE HON. PATRICIA A. STARR

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 new filings.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

09/01/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

LC2017-000307-001 DT

08/31/2017

Docket Code 023
Form L000
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
C. Avena

Deputy

TERRAVITA COUNTRY CLUB INC
ANJALI J PATEL

v.

WILLIAM M BROWN

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW ORDERS

On August 23, 2017, Appellant, Terravita Country Club, Inc, filed a Notice of Appeal
for Judicial Review of Administrative Decision, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated
(A.R.S.) §§ 12–901 to 12–914.
IT IS ORDERED that Appellant serve Appellee with a copy of the Notice of Appeal for
Judicial Review of Administration 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 Appellee with a copy of this
minute entry.
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).

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

LC2017-000307-001 DT

08/31/2017

Docket Code 023
Form L000
Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Notice of Appearance from Appellee 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 Appellee 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 new filings.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/11/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

LC2017-000307-001 DT

10/10/2017

Docket Code 019
Form L000
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
C. Avena

Deputy

TERRAVITA COUNTRY CLUB INC
ANJALI J PATEL

v.

WILLIAM M BROWN (001)
WILLIAM M BROWN
6751 E AMBER SUN DR
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85266

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court recently became aware that Appellant, Terravita County Club, Inc., filed a
Motion for Stay on August 23, 2017. Because this Court does not participate in e-file, and
Appellant did not provide a copy to this Division, the Court only found the Motion when
reviewing the docket for another purpose.
This Court may not grant a stay of an agency’s decision absent good cause. A.R.S. § 12-
911; Rule 3(a), Rules of Procedure, Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions. In the context
of administrative appeals, “good cause” means that a petitioner “must demonstrate, as regards
substantive merit, that [her] petition presents a seemingly valid, genuine, or plausible claim
under the circumstances of the case,” or in other words, that [s]he has a colorable claim. P & P
Mehta LLC v. Jones, 211 Ariz. 505, 510, ¶ 22 (App. 2005). In determining whether a petitioner
has demonstrated good cause, the Court must consider harm to the petitioner, as weighed against
the harm to the agency or other parties to the proceeding. “Only if the court concludes that the
balance of harm tips in favor of the petitioner has he shown the ‘harm’ necessary to constitute
‘good cause.’” Id. at ¶ 23.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

LC2017-000307-001 DT

10/10/2017

Docket Code 019
Form L000
Page 2

Here, the Motion does not present any facts or argument that would support a stay.
Thus,
IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion for Stay.
The Court also notes that the Notice of Appeals for Judicial Review is incorrectly
captioned. While Terravita Country Club, Inc. may have been the Respondent below, it is the
Appellant in this Court.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED amending the caption to indicate that Terravita Country Club, Inc., is
the Appellant, and William Brown is the Appellee.

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 new filings.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

10/16/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

LC2017-000307-001 DT

10/13/2017

Docket Code 022
Form L000
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
C. Avena

Deputy

TERRAVITA COUNTRY CLUB INC
ANJALI J PATEL

v.

WILLIAM M BROWN (001)
WILLIAM M BROWN
6751 E AMBER SUN DR
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85266

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC

ORDER SIGNED

The Court has received and considered Appellant’s Expedited Motion for an Order
Allowing Alternative Service, filed on September 27, 2017. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED approving Appellant’s Order Allowing Alternative Service, in
accordance with the formal written Order signed by the Court on October 13, 2017 and entered
(filed) by the Clerk on October 13, 2017.

Please note: The Court has signed a hard-copy version of the order provided. After the
order has been scanned and docketed by the Clerk of Court, copies of this order may be available
through ECR Online at clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov or through AZTurboCourt.gov and from the
Public Access Terminals at the Clerk of Court’s offices located throughout Maricopa County.

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 new filings.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

11/17/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

LC2017-000307-001 DT

11/16/2017

Docket Code 028
Form L000
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
C. Avena

Deputy

TERRAVITA COUNTRY CLUB INC
ANJALI J PATEL

v.

WILLIAM M BROWN (001)
WILLIAM M BROWN
6751 E AMBER SUN DR
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85266

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC

TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE SET

IT IS ORDERED setting telephonic Status Conference regarding a Renewed Motion to
Stay on November 20, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. to be held before the Honorable Patricia A. Starr.
Plaintiff-Appellant shall contact this division at (602) 506-4164 five minutes before the
scheduled hearing so that other parties may be added to the conference call.

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 new filings.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

11/21/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

LC2017-000307-001 DT

11/20/2017

Docket Code 028
Form L000
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
C. Avena

Deputy

TERRAVITA COUNTRY CLUB INC
ANJALI J PATEL

v.

WILLIAM M BROWN (001)
WILLIAM M BROWN
6751 E AMBER SUN DR
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85266

MARY D WILLIAMS
LYNETTE EVANS
RYAN MATTHEW KRENCH
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom OCH (309)

9:58 a.m. This is the time set for Status Conference regarding a Renewed Motion for
Stay, filed on October 12, 2017. Appellant, Terravita Country Club, Inc. is represented
telephonically by counsel, Joshua Bolen on behalf of Anjali J. Patel. Appellee, William M.
Brown is appears telephonically on his own behalf.

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

Discussion is held regarding the Renewed Motion for Stay.

For the reasons stated on the record,

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

LC2017-000307-001 DT

11/20/2017

Docket Code 028
Form L000
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED that Appellant shall serve the agency with the Renewed Motion for
Stay, Opening Brief, and Notice of Appeal.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting Telephonic Status Conference on November 29,
2017 at 2:00 p.m. to be held before the Honorable Patricia A. Starr.

Plaintiff-Appellant’s counsel shall obtain the presence of all parties on the telephone and
then call this division at (602) 506-4164.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED issuing a temporary stay.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the time for filing the Answering Brief is tolled pending
the appearance of counsel for the agency.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant shall serve this minute entry on the
Attorney General.

10:17 a.m. Matter 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 new filings.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***

12/01/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

LC2017-000307-001 DT

11/29/2017

Docket Code 029
Form L000
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
C. Avena

Deputy

TERRAVITA COUNTRY CLUB INC
ANJALI J PATEL

v.

WILLIAM M BROWN (001)
WILLIAM M BROWN
6751 E AMBER SUN DR
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85266

LYNETTE EVANS
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC

MINUTE ENTRY

Courtroom OCH (309)

2:08 p.m. This is the time set for Status Conference regarding the Renewed Motion for
Stay. Appellee, William M. Brown appears telephonically on his own behalf. Appellant,
Terravita Country Club Inc. is represented telephonically by counsel, Joshua Bolen on behalf of
Anjali J. Patel. Arizona Department of Real Estate is represented telephonically by Assistant
Attorney General, Lynette Evans.

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

Discussion is held regarding the Renewed Motion for Stay.

For the reasons stated on the record,

LET THE RECORD RRFLECT that the temporary stay shall stay in effect until
further notice from the court.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

LC2017-000307-001 DT

11/29/2017

Docket Code 029
Form L000
Page 2

IT IS ORDERED that Appellant shall file a notice regarding the status of the parties’
negotiations by December 6, 2017. At that time, if the parties have not resolved the matter, the
Court will rule on the Motion for Stay.

2:16 p.m. Matter 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 new filings.

Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Filed ***

12/18/2017 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

LC2017-000307-001 DT

12/13/2017

Docket Code 019
Form L000
Page 1

CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
C. Avena

Deputy

TERRAVITA COUNTRY CLUB INC
ANJALI J PATEL

v.

WILLIAM M BROWN (001)
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
(001)
WILLIAM M BROWN
1754 LAKEVIEW ESTATES DR
COLDSPRING TX 77331
LYNETTE EVANS

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC

MINUTE ENTRY

The Court has considered the Renewed Motion for Stay filed by Appellant Terravita
Country Club, Inc. (“Terravita”), the Response filed by Appellee William M. Brown, and
Terravita’s Reply. The Court has also considered the argument presented by the parties.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Terravita filed this action in August of 2017, along with a Motion for Stay. Because
Terravita did not provide a copy of the Motion to this division (which does not participate in e-
file), the Court only learned of the Motion in October of 2017. The Court considered and then
denied the Motion. Terravita filed a Renewed Motion for Stay shortly thereafter.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

LC2017-000307-001 DT

12/13/2017

Docket Code 019
Form L000
Page 2

The Court notes that the agency issued its final order on July 24, 2017; the order was
“effective immediately from the day service is complete.” (July 24, 2017 Final Order at 1.) The
Commissioner noted that the Order would “not be stayed unless a stay is obtained from the court
in conjunction with the judicial review action.” (Id.) The Commissioner denied Terravita’s
Request for Rehearing on August 16, 2017.
Thus, Terravita has been subject to a Final Order since at least August of 2017, but has
not complied. Admittedly, Terravita filed the first Motion to Stay in August; but the filing of the
Motion did not stay the Order. Terravita never informed this Court that there was a pending
Motion for Stay, nor did Terravita request a ruling on the Motion. The Court only discovered the
Motion while reviewing the court docket for another purpose.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
This Court may not grant a stay of an agency’s decision absent good cause. A.R.S. § 12-
911; Rule 3(a), Rules of Procedure, Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions. In the context
of administrative appeals, “good cause” means that a petitioner “must demonstrate, as regards
substantive merit, that [its] petition presents a seemingly valid, genuine, or plausible claim under
the circumstances of the case,” or in other words, that [it] has a colorable claim. P & P Mehta
LLC v. Jones, 211 Ariz. 505, 510, ¶ 22 (App. 2005). In determining whether a petitioner has
demonstrated good cause, the Court must consider harm to the petitioner, as weighed against the
harm to the agency or other parties to the proceeding. “Only if the court concludes that the
balance of harm tips in favor of the petitioner has he shown the ‘harm’ necessary to constitute
‘good cause.’” Id. at ¶ 23.
Under this standard, the Court finds that Terravita has made a colorable claim. As
defined by P & P Mehta, supra, “colorable” simply means “seemingly valid, genuine, or
plausible.” The Court cannot and is not determining the merits of the appeal at this stage of the
proceedings; the Court is only deciding whether Terravita’s claim is colorable. It has met that
low bar.
That is not the end of the inquiry, however. The Court must still balance the potential
harms to the parties when determining whether there is good cause to issue a stay.
Terravita argues that it will suffer irreparable harm if a stay is not granted. Terravita
argues that if forced to comply with the Commissioner’s Order, “the damage will have been
done,” regardless of any success on appeal, and it will be forced to divulge “protected records.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

LC2017-000307-001 DT

12/13/2017

Docket Code 019
Form L000
Page 3

(Reply at 2.) But as clarified at oral argument on the Motion, the litigation on which Terravita
relies is not “pending,” as it claims. The Scottsdale Municipal Court action has concluded. The
fact that an Order of that Court may still be in effect does not mean that the litigation itself is still
“pending.” Instead, the criminal prosecution has concluded.
Moreover, Terravita has failed to identify the “books and records” it believes are
protected with any particularity. Without a description of the types of records sought, this Court
is left in the dark as to the harm that might be inflicted by their disclosure, if indeed there is any.
Terravita argues that the agency will suffer no harm by the imposition of a stay. But that
argument ignores the harm to Brown, the requestor of the records. The Commissioner entered an
order under which Brown is entitled to production of those records.
“Only if the court concludes that the balance of harm tips in favor of the petitioner has
[it] shown the “harm” necessary to constitute “good cause.” P & P Mehta LLC v. Jones, supra,
211 Ariz. 505, at ¶ 23. Here, while Terravita may have established a colorable claim, it has not
shown the balance of harm tips in its favor in relation to the records request, and thus has not
shown harm necessary to constitute good cause.
As to the order that Terravita pay Brown his $500.00 filing fee, good cause for a stay has
been established. If Brown is ultimately successful on appeal, Terravita will be required to pay
him the filing fee. In the meantime, a stay of that order is appropriate. Moreover, Brown has
made no real argument regarding this portion of the order.
III. CONCLUSION
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED denying the Renewed Motion for Stay in regard to the records request.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the Renewed Motion for stay in regard to the
payment of the $500.00 filing fee.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED lifting the temporary stay entered by this Court on
November 29, 2017.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Brown’s Answering Brief must be filed with this Court no
later than January 15, 2018.

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

LC2017-000307-001 DT

12/13/2017

Docket Code 019
Form L000
Page 4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED any Reply Brief must be filed in accordance with Rule 6,
Rules of Procedure for Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions.

/s/ Patricia A. Starr

THE HON. PATRICIA A. STARR

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 new filings.

Documents