01/07/2022 — LC2021000258 XIA, HAINING 01/07/2022 HONORABLE DANIEL J. KILEY View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/10/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2021-000258-001 DT
01/07/2022
Docket Code 019
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIEL J. KILEY
P. McKinley
Deputy
HAINING XIA
HAINING XIA
14830 E RHOADS CT
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
v.
DORSEY PLACE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION (001)
NICHOLAS C NOGAMI
JUDGE KILEY
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
MINUTE ENTRY
Case No. 21F-H2120016-REL
The Court has reviewed and considered the Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) filed by
Appellee Dorsey Place Condominium Association (“Appellee”), the Response to Motion to
Dismiss (“Response”) filed by Appellant Haining Xia (“Appellant”), and Appellee’s Reply in
Support of Its Motion to Dismiss (“Reply”).
In the Motion, Appellee asserts that this appeal should be dismissed because Appellant
purportedly “never filed a Notice of Action” with the Office of Administrative Hearings
(“OAH”), and so “the record on appeal has never been transmitted to the Court.” Motion at p. 2.
“[W]ithout the Record on Appeal,” Appellee maintains, it “will be unable to respond” to the
Opening Brief that Appellant filed on October 6, 2021. Id.
The record indicates, however, that Appellant did, in fact, file a Notice of Action with
OAH, and OAH has, in fact, transmitted the record on appeal to this Court. See Certification of
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2021-000258-001 DT
01/07/2022
Docket Code 019
Form L000
Page 2
Record on Review filed November 19, 2021. In its Reply, Appellee admits as much. Asserting
that, “at the time [the Motion] was filed, the Certification of Record on Review had not been
placed on the case docket,” Appellee acknowledges that “some of [the] concerns” it raised in its
Motion have been “alleviated” now that “the Record on Appeal…appear[s] on the case docket.”
Reply at pp. 1, 2.
The Court finds that Appellee is entitled to no relief on its Motion, and so will deny it.
Appellee also requests that the Court set a Status Conference, asserting that the Opening
Brief that Appellant filed on October 6, 2021 “is procedurally and substantively deficient
pursuant to JRAD Rules 6 and 7” and that Appellee is in need of “guidance on the briefing
schedule in this matter.” Appellee’s Request for Status Conference at pp. 1-2.
The Court sees no need for a Status Conference, but will, instead, set a deadline for
Appellee to respond to Appellant’s Opening Brief. If Appellee is of the view that Appellant’s
Opening Brief does not comply with applicable court rules, Appellee is free to assert that
position in a Motion to Strike, to which Appellant will then have the opportunity to respond.
Otherwise, Appellee shall file its Answering Brief pursuant to JRAD 6(a)(2).
In accordance with the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellee shall file either an Answering Brief or a
motion challenging the sufficiency of the Opening Brief no later than February 22, 2022.
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a
document, 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.
03/10/2022 — LC2021000258 XIA, HAINING 03/10/2022 HONORABLE DANIEL J. KILEY View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/11/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2021-000258-001 DT
03/10/2022
Docket Code 019
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIEL J. KILEY
P. McKinley
Deputy
HAINING XIA
HAINING XIA
14830 E RHOADS CT
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
v.
DORSEY PLACE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION (001)
NICHOLAS C NOGAMI
JUDGE KILEY
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
MINUTE ENTRY
OAH Case No. 21-F-H2120016-REL
The Court has reviewed and considered the Motion to Strike Appellant’s Opening Brief
(“Motion”) filed by Appellee Dorsey Place Condominium Association (“Appellee”) and the
Response to Motion to Strike Appellant’s Opening Brief (“Response”) filed by Appellant
Haining Xia (“Appellant”). No good cause appearing,
IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion to Strike Appellant’s Opening Brief.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellee shall file an Answering Brief no later than
April 8, 2022.
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a
document, 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.
05/23/2022 — LC2021000258 XIA, HAINING 05/23/2022 HONORABLE DANIEL J. KILEY View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/24/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2021-000258-001 DT
05/23/2022
Docket Code 025
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIEL J. KILEY
J. Eaton
Deputy
HAINING XIA
HAINING XIA
14830 E RHOADS CT
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
v.
DORSEY PLACE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION (001)
NICHOLAS C NOGAMI
JUDGE KILEY
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court is in receipt of the briefs filed in accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules of
Procedure for Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions. This Administrative Review is now
set for determination by the Hon. Daniel J. Kiley, pursuant to Rule 9.9, Maricopa County Superior
Court Local Rules of Practice, within 60 days from the filing of this Minute Entry.
Oral argument will be set by separate minute entry if it is determined such argument will
assist the Court.
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a
document, 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.
06/15/2022 — LC2021000258 XIA, HAINING 06/15/2022 HONORABLE DANIEL J. KILEY View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Filed ***
06/16/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2021-000258-001 DT
06/15/2022
Docket Code 019
Form L512
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIEL J. KILEY
P. McKinley
Deputy
HAINING XIA
HAINING XIA
14830 E RHOADS CT
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
v.
DORSEY PLACE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION (001)
NICHOLAS C NOGAMI
JUDGE KILEY
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
JRAD DECISION / AFFIRMED
OAH Case No. 21F-H21200016-REL
Appellant Haining Xia (“Appellant”) appeals from the July 14, 2021 decision (“Final
Decision”) of Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella (the “ALJ”) dismissing Appellant’s
Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition. For the following reasons, this Court affirms.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In November 2019, Appellant, along with two other plaintiffs (the “Superior Court
Plaintiffs”), filed suit in Maricopa County Superior Court challenging the validity of a
termination agreement (the “2019 Termination Agreement”) that, by its terms, terminated the
condominium governing the residential complex where they lived. In their pleadings as
amended, the Superior Court Plaintiffs sought declaratory and other relief against Appellee
Dorsey Place Condominium Association (“Appellee”) and another defendant. See generally
Second Amended Complaint in Haining Xia, et al. v. Dorsey Place Condominium Association et
al., Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CV2019-055353 (the “Superior Court case”). In
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2021-000258-001 DT
06/15/2022
Docket Code 019
Form L512
Page 2
support of their claims, the Superior Court Plaintiffs alleged that the 2019 Termination
Agreement was “invalid and void” because it was not adopted in accordance with the governing
bylaws and statutory requirements, and therefore that the subsequent “transfer of title” is
“invalid.” Second Amended Complaint in Haining Xia, et al. v. Dorsey Place Condominium
Association et al., Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CV2019-055353 (“CV2019-
055353” or the “Superior Court case”), at ¶¶ 46, 55.
In August 2020, Appellee and the other defendant each filed motions to dismiss in the
Superior Court case. In Appellee’s motion to dismiss, Appellee argued that the Superior Court
Plaintiffs “have failed to state a claim” because their pleadings failed to “plead facts that, if true,”
would establish “that the condominium termination was not done in compliance with A.R.S. §
33-1228 and/or the Association’s governing documents.” [Appellee’s] Motion to Dismiss or, in
the Alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement, filed in CV2019-055353 at p. 7. The co-
defendant’s motion to dismiss asserted a similar argument. See Defendant PFP Dorsey
Investments, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, filed in
CV2019-055353 on August 13, 2020, at pp. 8-9 (“[T]aking the allegations [in the pending
complaint] as true, the condominium termination was completed pursuant to the statutory
requirements of A.R.S. § 33-1228.”).
The Superior Court Plaintiffs filed their response in opposition to Appellee’s motion to
dismiss on September 16, 2020. See [Superior Court Plaintiffs’] Response to [Appellee’s]
Motion to Dismiss and PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss, filed in CV2019-
055353 on September 16, 2020. In their response in opposition to Appellee’s motion to dismiss,
the Superior Court Plaintiffs asserted, inter alia, that Appellee “improperly terminated the
condominium” because it “failed to take steps consistent with its bylaws” and “did not comply
with A.R.S. § 33-1228.” Id. at pp. 2, 11, 13. As a result, the Superior Court Plaintiffs argued,
Appellee’s actions “in adopting” the 2019 Termination Agreement are “void and unenforceable,”
and so the Termination Agreement itself is “void and unenforceable.” Id. at p. 13.
Just a few days after the Superior Court Plaintiffs filed their response in opposition to
Appellee’s motion to dismiss in the Superior Court case, Appellant initiated this case by filing a
Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition (the “Petition”) with the Arizona Department
of Real Estate (the “Department”) on September 21, 2020. In his Petition, Appellant took the
same position that he took in the Superior Court case, i.e., that the 2019 Termination Agreement
is invalid because Appellee failed to comply with applicable procedural requirements.
Specifically, Appellant asserted in the Petition that,
[s]ince [he] purchased [his] unit on Feb 9, 2018 at [the complex], the HOA
never elected the board at its Annual Members Meetings…This is a direct
violation of HOA Bylaws Article 3.3, Article 4.1, and Article 4.4.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2021-000258-001 DT
06/15/2022
Docket Code 019
Form L512
Page 3
Petition at p. 2. Asserting that “there was no duly elected board directors and no duly appointed
officers,” Appellant insisted that the three individuals who are “named as directors of the board”
hold their offices as a result of “a usurpation of corporate powers.” Id. Appellant requested “a
ruling to declare” that documents signed by those individuals in their capacity as “corporate
officers,” “including the [2019] Termination Agreement,” are “null and void.” Id.
The Petition was assigned for a hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (the
“OAH”). Prior to the hearing, Appellee filed a Motion to Dismiss with the OAH, asserting that
“this matter must be dismissed…due to lack of jurisdiction.” Index of Record (“I.R.”) No. 14,
[Appellee’s] Motion to Dismiss, at p. 1. In support of its position, Appellee asserted that “[t]he
OAH only has jurisdiction to hear disputes between a ‘Unit owner’ and a ‘Condominium’ as
such terms are” statutorily defined, and that Appellee is not, in fact, “a Condominium.” Id. at pp.
1-2. Appellee explained that “its Condominium status was terminated in 2019,” and so the OAH
does not have jurisdiction over this dispute.” Id. at p. 2.
In his response to the Motion to Dismiss that Appellee filed with the OAH, Appellant
insisted that the OAH did, in fact, have jurisdiction over this case because “the so-called HOA
termination agreement” was not validly adopted. I.R. No. 18, Response to Motion to Dismiss, at
p. 2.
Meanwhile, after further briefing, the judge in the Superior Court case issued a ruling
granting the motions to dismiss “for the reasons advanced by Defendants in their motions and
reply briefs[.]” Minute Entry of December 15, 2020 in CV2019-055353 at p. 2.
In the reply it filed in support of the Motion to Dismiss that it had filed with the OAH,
Appellee informed the ALJ that the judge in the Superior Court case had dismissed Appellant’s
claims in that case and argued that “the judge’s decision in that case makes clear that the
Association’s Condominium status pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1202 is terminated.” [Appellee’s]
Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss at pp. 1-2.
On January 4, 2021, the ALJ issued a ruling stating that Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss
“cannot be ruled upon at this time.” Minute Entry dated January 4, 2021 at p. 1. The ALJ
explained as follows:
This conclusion is based upon the fact that the Minute Entry issued by [the
judge in the Superior Court case] referenced motions and reply briefs filed,
upon which the motion to dismiss with prejudice was granted based on the
“reasons advanced” in those filings. The undersigned has not had the benefit
of seeing those filings, and therefore, is unaware of the reasons asserted
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2021-000258-001 DT
06/15/2022
Docket Code 019
Form L512
Page 4
therein. Absent those documents, the undersigned cannot determine if
[Appellee’s] position is appropriate or can be granted.
Consequently, the Motion will be addressed at the scheduled hearing.
Id.
The hearing before the ALJ took place on January 7, 2021. Roughly two weeks later, the
ALJ issued an Administrative Law Judge Decision (the “January 22nd ALJ Decision”) stating in
part that “the issue regarding the validity of the termination agreement has been adjudicated in”
the Superior Court case and that the OAH “does not have the authority to overturn or modify that
ruling.” January 22nd ALJ Decision at p. 3 ¶ 9. The ALJ thus accepted the Superior Court’s
determination that the Termination Agreement is valid. See id. Instead of then dismissing the
OAH case for lack of jurisdiction, however, the ALJ proceeded to address the merits of
Appellant’s claim. Holding that Appellant had failed to present documentary evidence sufficient
to satisfy his burden of establishing a failure on Appellee’s part to comply with the provisions of
its governing documents, the ALJ dismissed Appellant’s Petition. Id. at p. 5 ¶¶ 7-8.
Appellant then requested a rehearing, asserting that he had, in fact, submitted
documentary evidence to the OAH prior to the January 7th hearing date. I.R. No. 42,
Homeowners Association Dispute Rehearing Request, at p. 1.
A rehearing was held on July 2, 2021. Shortly thereafter, the ALJ issued an
Administrative Law Judge Decision (the “July 14th ALJ Decision”) stating that, although
Appellant “alleged that [Appellee] failed to hold proper elections in 2018 and 2019,” he had
“failed to establish that an election was required during either of those years.” July 14th ALJ
Decision at p. 5 ¶ 7. Accordingly, the ALJ determined, again, that Appellant’s Petition should be
dismissed. Id. at p. 5.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz.
Const. art. VI § 16 and A.R.S. §§ 12-124 and -905(A).
DISCUSSION
After reviewing the Appeal Brief filed by Appellant and the Answering Brief filed by
Appellee, the Court agrees with Appellee that the Department and the OAH lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over this dispute.1
1 Although Appellee requested Oral Argument, the Court finds the parties’ positions well-presented in
the briefing, and so will rule without Oral Argument. See J.R.A.D. 9.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2021-000258-001 DT
06/15/2022
Docket Code 019
Form L512
Page 5
As Appellee correctly argues, the Department and the OAH have jurisdiction to hear
disputes between a “Unit owner” and a “Condominium” as such terms are defined by A.R.S. §
33-1202(10) and (23). See A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A) (providing that the Department may conduct
a hearing on “a dispute between an owner and a condominium association or planned community
association that is regulated pursuant to title 33…”). In the Superior Court case, Appellant and
the other Superior Court Plaintiffs challenged the validity of the 2019 Termination Agreement.
In their briefing on Appellee’s motion to dismiss, the parties disputed whether the 2019
Termination Agreement had been validly adopted, or whether Appellee had failed to comply
with applicable procedural requirements. In granting the motions to dismiss “for the reasons
advanced by Defendants in their motions and reply briefs,” Minute Entry of December 15, 2020
in CV2019-055353 at p. 2, the Superior Court judge accepted Appellee’s argument that the 2019
Termination Agreement had been validly adopted, and rejected Appellant’s argument to the
contrary.
The determination of the validity of the 2019 Termination Agreement in the Superior
Court case was entitled to preclusive effect in the administrative proceedings. See Guertin v.
Pinal County, 178 Ariz. 610, 612 (App. 1994) (administrative decision upholding dismissal was
entitled to collateral estoppel effect, barring employee from re-litigating wrongful discharge
claim in superior court). See also Thompson v. State Dep’t of Licensing, 982 P.2d 601, 603
(Wash. 1999) (trial court decision has preclusive effect in subsequent administrative proceedings
involving the same parties).
Because, as the Superior Court determined, the 2019 Termination Agreement is valid,
Appellee was no longer a condominium at the time the Petition was filed in September 2020.
Accordingly, the Department and the OAH lacked jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-
2199.01(A) to adjudicate the claims raised in the Petition. Therefore, the ALJ should have
dismissed the Petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Although the ALJ dismissed the Petition on the merits instead of jurisdictional grounds,
the Court must affirm the ALJ’s ruling if it is correct for any reason. See Spence v. Bacal, 243
Ariz. 504, 507 ¶ 3 (App. 2018) (ruling will be affirmed “the result was legally correct for
any reason”). See also Fappani v. Bratton, 243 Ariz. 306, 309 ¶ 8 (App. 2017) (“[W]e will
affirm the court’s order dismissing a complaint if it is correct for any reason.”). Accordingly, the
Court affirms the dismissal of Appellant’s Petition.
Appellee requests an award of attorney fees and costs. See Answering Brief at p. 11. The
Court is not prepared to determine, at this time, whether Appellee is or is not entitled to such an
award. The Court will therefore enter a partial final judgment affirming the dismissal of the
Petition, reserving the issue of attorney fees and costs to be addressed in further briefing.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2021-000258-001 DT
06/15/2022
Docket Code 019
Form L512
Page 6
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED affirming the July 14, 2021 Administrative Law Judge Decision
dismissing Appellant’s Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition.
Appellee’s request for an award of fees and costs is the only matter that remains pending
in connection with this appeal. This is a partial final judgment. There is no just reason for delay,
and so the Court directs entry of this partial final judgment pursuant to J.R.A.D. 13 and Ariz. R.
Civ. P. 54(b).
/s/ Daniel J. Kiley
THE HON. DANIEL J. KILEY
Judge of the Superior Court
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a
document, 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.
08/25/2022 — LC2021000258 XIA, HAINING 08/25/2022 HONORABLE DANIEL J. KILEY View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/26/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2021-000258-001 DT
08/25/2022
Docket Code 023
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIEL J. KILEY
P. McKinley
Deputy
HAINING XIA
HAINING XIA
14830 E RHOADS CT
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
v.
DORSEY PLACE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION (001)
NICHOLAS C NOGAMI
JUDGE KILEY
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
MINUTE ENTRY
OAH Case No. 21-F-H2120016-REL
In a ruling issued in June 2022, this Court affirmed the July 14, 2021 decision of an
administrative law judge with the Office of Administrative Hearings (the “OAH”) that had
dismissed the Homeowners Association Dispute Process Petition (“Petition”) that Appellant
Haining Xia (“Appellant”) filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (the “Department”)
in September 2020. See Minute Entry of June 15, 2022 at p. 6. This Court’s June 2022 ruling was
based on a prior ruling issued in litigation pending in the Superior Court involving the same
parties known as Haining Xia, et al., v. Dorsey Place Condominum Ass’n, et al., Maricopa
County Superior Court Case No. CV2019-055353 (the “Superior Court case”). The plaintiffs in
the Superior Court case, including Appellant, had challenged the validity of a termination
agreement (the “2019 Termination Agreement”) which, by its terms, terminated the
condominium governing the residential complex where the plaintiffs in the Superior Court case
resided. See Minute Entry of June 15, 2022 at pp. 1, 3. On December 15, 2020, the judge in the
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2021-000258-001 DT
08/25/2022
Docket Code 023
Form L000
Page 2
Superior Court case issued a ruling that essentially upheld the validity of a termination
agreement. Id. at p. 3.
Holding that “[t]he determination” by the judge in the Superior Court case “of the
validity of the 2019 Termination Agreement…was entitled to preclusive effect” in this appeal,
this Court ruled that the termination of the condominium in 2019 deprived the Department and
the OAH of jurisdiction to consider the Petition that Appellant filed in 2020. Minute Entry of
June 15, 2022 at p. 5. See also A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A) (conferring jurisdiction on the
Department to adjudicate disputes “between an owner and a condominium association or planned
community association…”). Accordingly, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the Petition, and
gave Appellee Dorsey Place Condominium Association (“Appellee”) leave to file an application
for an award of fees and costs. Minute Entry of June 15, 2022 at pp. 5-6.
Appellee filed its Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs in this case shortly
thereafter.
Subsequently, on July 7, 2022, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an opinion vacating
the December 15, 2020 ruling by the judge in the Superior Court case. See Cao v. PFP Dorsey
Investments, LLC, 1 CA-CV 21-0275, 2022 WL 2526694 at *7 ¶ 35 (Ariz.App., Div. 1, July 7,
2022).
In the wake of the Court of Appeals decision, Appellant has filed a Motion to Vacate
Minute Entry, asserting that this Court’s ruling affirming the dismissal of the Petition must be set
aside because the basis for this Court’s ruling - - i.e., the preclusive effect accorded the
December 15, 2020 ruling in the Superior Court case - - is no longer valid because the December
15, 2020 ruling has been vacated. Motion to Vacate Minute Entry at pp. 1-2.
As Appellee correctly notes, however, the decision of the Court of Appeals that vacated
the December 15, 2020 ruling in the Superior Court case is not final. See Objection to
Appellant’s Motion to Vacate Minute Entry at p. 1. The decision of the Court of Appeals will not
be final until a mandate is issued pursuant to Rule 24 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate
Procedure. See State v. Ward, 120 Ariz. 413, (1978) (“Unless [otherwise] indicated by the
appellate court,” an appellate court’s “decision is not final until after time for rehearing has
passed and the order (or mandate) has issued.”). Until the mandate is issued in the appeal in the
Superior Court case, the Court will not address the Motion to Vacate Minute Entry, nor will the
Court take any action on the other filings that are pending before this Court.1
1 The filings that are pending before this Court are Appellee’s July 6, 2022 Application for Attorneys’
Fees and Costs; Appellee’s July 6, 2022 Affidavit in Support of Attorneys’ Fees; Appellee’s July 6,
2022 Statement of Costs; Appellant’s July 11, 2022 Response to Application for Attorneys’ Fees and
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2021-000258-001 DT
08/25/2022
Docket Code 023
Form L000
Page 3
In accordance with the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that, within ten calendar days of the issuance of the mandate in Cao v.
PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC, 1 CA-CV 21-0275, each party shall file a Notice with this Court
attaching a copy of the mandate and indicating whether the opinion issued by the Court of
Appeals on July 7, 2022, has been affirmed, reversed, or modified. Upon receipt of the Notice
filed by each party, the Court will address the Motion to Vacate Minute Entry and the other
filings that are pending in this appeal.
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a
document, 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.
Costs; Appellee’s July 20, 2022 Reply in Support of [Appellee’s] Application for Attorneys’ Fees and
Costs; Appellant’s July 15, 2022 Motion to Vacate Minute Entry; Appellee’s July 27, 2022 Objection
to Appellant’s Motion to Vacate Minute Entry; Appellant’s August 2, 2022 Reply in Support of Motion
to Vacate Minute Entry; and Appellee’s August 10, 2022 Motion to Strike Appellant’s Motion to
Dismiss Appellee’s Application for Attorneys Fees and Costs. The last filing is puzzling, because it
makes reference to a motion to dismiss purportedly filed by Appellant on or about August 2, 2022. The
Court file contains no such motion to dismiss.
10/04/2021 — LC2021000258 XIA, HAINING 10/04/2021 HONORABLE DANIEL J. KILEY View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/05/2021 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2021-000258-001 DT
10/04/2021
Docket Code 023
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DANIEL J. KILEY
J. Eaton
Deputy
HAINING XIA
HAINING XIA
14830 E RHOADS CT
FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268
v.
DORSEY PLACE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION (001)
JUDGE KILEY
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
Case No. 21F-H2120016-REL
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW ORDERS
On September 22, 2021, Appellant, Haining Xia, filed a Notice of Appeal of
Administrative Decision against Appellee, Dorsey Place Condominium Association, 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 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 Appellee 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
LC2021-000258-001 DT
10/04/2021
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).
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 accordance
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
document, 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.
