Assessment Litigation | Mandatory Counterclaims | CV2025-060700
This case shows the procedural risk of filing a separate lawsuit over HOA foreclosure and assessment issues while another case about the same property and assessments is already pending: the court dismissed the separate action because the subject matter belonged as a mandatory counterclaim in the earlier assessment case.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Steve Pandi v. Crown Point Homeowners Association, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-060700.
Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2026-02-10. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.
Allegations, settlements, procedural dismissals, and notices are not findings of liability unless a cited court order expressly makes that finding.
Scope note: This page covers Steve Pandi v. Crown Point Homeowners Association, et al. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2025-060700) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, including the December 16, 2025 litigation-privilege ruling and the February 2, 2026 dismissal ruling; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the collected entries end with denial of a motion to vacate dismissal; they also note a separate pending case, CV2023-013780, involving the same property and assessments. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
A homeowner who is already litigating unpaid assessments cannot safely split related foreclosure, fraud, bankruptcy, or de-annexation theories into a new lawsuit. The court dismissed this separate case because the subject matter was a mandatory counterclaim in the pending assessment case involving the same property and assessments. The court also protected the association’s lawyers with the litigation privilege for acts in the course and scope of representing the HOA.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Steve Pandi (Plaintiff)
Self-represented homeowner plaintiff who filed the separate action and multiple emergency, sanctions, and post-dismissal motions.
Respondent Side
- Crown Point Homeowners Association (Defendant)
Homeowners association defendant. The dismissal ruling states that a separate case was already pending in which the association sought to recover unpaid assessments involving the same property and assessments. - Beth Mulcahy (Defendant / Counsel)
Attorney defendant; the court held the claims against the Mulcahy defendants were barred by the litigation privilege because they acted in the course and scope of representing Crown Point Homeowners Association. - Mulcahy Law P.C. (Defendant)
Law firm defendant dismissed under the litigation privilege. - Joseph A. Brophy (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for Crown Point Homeowners Association in later minute entries. - Wm Michael Yohler (Counsel)
Counsel name appearing for defendants in earlier minute entries.
Neutral Parties
- Michael J. Herrod (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who issued the TRO, sanctions, litigation-privilege, dismissal, and post-dismissal rulings. - Richard Albrecht (Commissioner)
Commissioner identified for any Rule 55(b) default-judgment proceedings after the plaintiff sought default against the association.
What happened
Steve Pandi sued Crown Point Homeowners Association, Beth Mulcahy, and Mulcahy Law P.C. The January 22, 2026 minute entry identifies the attempted amended pleading as asserting fraud, fraudulent foreclosure, bankruptcy violations, and permanent de-annexation from the association. The court later stated that another case, CV2023-013780, already involved the same property and the same assessments, with the association seeking to recover unpaid assessments there.
The first ruling denied Pandi’s emergency request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Judge Michael J. Herrod wrote that the request was based on a damages complaint, asked the court to order the defendants to stop doing things the plaintiff said were bad, and did not seek equitable relief. The court later quashed the related order to show cause and denied another emergency TRO request.
The court dismissed Beth Mulcahy and Mulcahy Law P.C. on December 16, 2025. It held that Pandi’s claims against the Mulcahy defendants were barred by the litigation privilege because they were acting in the course and scope of representing Crown Point Homeowners Association. The court also found the fraud claims were not pleaded with specificity and that bankruptcy-violation claims were outside the superior court’s jurisdiction. Crown Point’s joinder in that motion was denied because many defenses did not apply to the association, but the court gave Crown Point leave to file its own dismissal motion.
January 2026 brought several procedural rulings. The court denied sanctions motions against Mulcahy, the firm, Crown Point, and a nonparty; denied a motion to strike bankruptcy assertions; denied a third TRO application because Pandi could not identify an actor for the alleged vandalism; denied a motion to strike or file a sur-reply; struck a first amended complaint filed without leave; and denied discovery and deadline motions while Crown Point’s dismissal motion was pending.
On February 2, 2026, the court granted Crown Point Homeowners Association’s Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The court found that Pandi had a pending case involving the same property and same assessments, that the association was seeking to recover unpaid assessments in that case, and that the subject matter of this separate action was a mandatory counterclaim that should have been raised there. Because no defendants remained, the court dismissed the matter in its entirety and deemed all pending motions moot. It later denied a sanctions motion and a motion to vacate the dismissal.
Video overview of the ruling
An AI-generated video overview of Steve Pandi v. Crown Point Homeowners Association, et al. (CV2025-060700 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). Separate HOA foreclosure claims were dismissed as mandatory counterclaims in a pending assessment case. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.
Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling
An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Steve Pandi v. Crown Point Homeowners Association, et al.. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.
Procedural timeline
The court summarily denies Pandi's emergency TRO/preliminary-injunction motion because it does not seek equitable relief.
The court dismisses Beth Mulcahy and Mulcahy Law P.C. under the litigation privilege and allows Crown Point to file its own dismissal motion.
The court denies sanctions against Crown Point, noting no substantive ruling yet supported sanctions and service was improper.
The court denies a third TRO request, denies a strike/sur-reply motion, and strikes the first amended complaint filed without leave.
The court grants Crown Point's motion to dismiss because the claims were mandatory counterclaims in pending case CV2023-013780 involving the same property and assessments.
The court denies Pandi's motion to vacate the dismissal order and for relief from judgment.
Complete source-document index
This index contains 14 PDFs from the reviewed public source packet. Byte-identical copies are listed once. Files are ordered by the date and sequence in the public filename, and party filings or research materials are labeled separately from court rulings.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling summarily denying Steve Pandi's emergency motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction because the motion did not seek equitable relief.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling dismissing the claims against Beth Mulcahy and Mulcahy Law P.C. under the litigation privilege while denying Crown Point Homeowners Association's joinder and allowing it to file its own motion to dismiss.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling quashing the order to show cause and denying Steve Pandi's December 10, 2025 emergency motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Steve Pandi's motion for sanctions against Beth Mulcahy and Mulcahy Law P.C. as procedurally improper, unsupported, and legally deficient.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Steve Pandi's sanctions motion against Crown Point Homeowners Association because no substantive ruling supported sanctions and service was improper.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Steve Pandi's motion to strike Crown Point Homeowners Association's bankruptcy assertions for the reasons stated in the association's response.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Steve Pandi's motion to deem a nonparty's nonresponse consent to sanctions because the sanctions motion was not properly served and the person was not a party.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Steve Pandi's third application for temporary restraining order, denying his motion to strike or seek leave for a sur-reply, and striking his first amended complaint filed without leave.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Steve Pandi's motion to compel as premature while Crown Point Homeowners Association's motion to dismiss was pending and denying his request to maintain existing deadlines.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling granting Crown Point Homeowners Association's Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss because the claims were mandatory counterclaims in the pending unpaid-assessments case involving the same property and assessments.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Steve Pandi's post-dismissal sanctions motion against the defendants and defense counsel because the matter had been dismissed.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling denying Steve Pandi's motion to vacate the dismissal order and for relief from judgment.
FAQ
Why did the court dismiss the claims against the HOA lawyers?
The court held the claims against Beth Mulcahy and Mulcahy Law P.C. were barred by the litigation privilege because the Mulcahy defendants were acting in the course and scope of representing Crown Point Homeowners Association. It also found the fraud allegations lacked specificity and bankruptcy-violation claims were outside superior-court jurisdiction.
Why did the court dismiss the claims against Crown Point Homeowners Association?
The court found that another case, CV2023-013780, already involved the same property and the same assessments, with the association seeking unpaid assessments there. The subject matter of this separate lawsuit was a mandatory counterclaim that should have been raised in that pending case.
Did the court decide whether the HOA foreclosure or assessment allegations were true?
No. The January 13, 2026 sanctions ruling expressly said no motion for summary judgment had been filed by the plaintiff or granted on any factual issue, and the February 2 dismissal rested on the mandatory-counterclaim problem rather than merits findings on foreclosure or assessment liability.
What happened to the TRO requests?
The court denied repeated emergency TRO or preliminary-injunction requests. It said the first request did not seek equitable relief, later quashed an order to show cause, and denied the third TRO request because the plaintiff could not identify an actor who committed the alleged vandalism.
What is the practical lesson for homeowners?
If an HOA has an active lawsuit over unpaid assessments involving the same property, related claims about foreclosure, fraud, or association status may need to be raised as counterclaims in that case. Filing a separate lawsuit can lead to dismissal without a merits ruling.
Is this ruling precedent for other Arizona HOA disputes?
No. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This case is useful primarily as a procedural example of litigation privilege and mandatory-counterclaim treatment in an HOA assessment dispute.
Case Dossier
This dossier combines the case metadata, linked court sources, and the explanatory sections below. It distinguishes court rulings from party filings, allegations, and requested relief.
Case Summary
| Case ID / citation | CV2025-060700 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | February 2, 2026 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Michael J. Herrod |
| Parties | Steve Pandi (Plaintiff, homeowner) v. Crown Point Homeowners Association, Beth Mulcahy, and Mulcahy Law P.C. (Defendants) |
| Topics | AssessmentsForeclosureLiensProcedureFDCPABankruptcy |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court dismissed the separate lawsuit against Crown Point Homeowners Association because the claims were mandatory counterclaims in a pending case involving the same property and assessments, and it dismissed the association's lawyers under the litigation privilege for acts within the course and scope of representing the HOA. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Reviewed source package | 14 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 6 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Steve Pandi v. Crown Point Homeowners Association, et al. |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Featured download links | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Steve Pandi sued Crown Point Homeowners Association, Beth Mulcahy, and Mulcahy Law P.C. over alleged fraud, fraudulent foreclosure, bankruptcy violations, and permanent de-annexation from the association. The court denied repeated emergency TRO requests and sanctions motions. It dismissed the Mulcahy defendants because the litigation privilege protected acts taken in the course and scope of representing Crown Point, because fraud was not pleaded with specificity, and because bankruptcy-violation claims were outside superior-court jurisdiction. The court then granted Crown Point's Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss because Pandi already had a pending case involving the same property and assessments, so the subject matter belonged as a mandatory counterclaim in that assessment case.
For the lawyer defendants, the court held that the litigation privilege barred claims against Beth Mulcahy and Mulcahy Law P.C. because they were acting in the course and scope of their representation of Crown Point Homeowners Association. The court added that fraud claims were not pleaded with specificity and that bankruptcy-violation claims were not within superior-court jurisdiction.
For the association, the court focused on claim splitting. It found that Pandi already had a pending case involving the same property and the same assessments, CV2023-013780, where the association was seeking to recover unpaid assessments. The subject matter of the new case therefore was a mandatory counterclaim that should have been raised in the pending assessment case. The court granted Crown Point's Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) motion, dismissed the matter in its entirety because no defendants remained, and later denied post-dismissal sanctions and relief-from-judgment motions.
This case is a procedural caution for HOA assessment litigation. When an association has already sued over unpaid assessments involving the same property, related homeowner theories about foreclosure, fraud, bankruptcy effects, or association status may have to be raised in that action as counterclaims. A separate lawsuit can be dismissed before the court reaches the merits.
The case also illustrates how the litigation privilege can protect HOA collection counsel for conduct within the representation, even when the homeowner names the lawyer and law firm as defendants. It is standard rather than must-read because it does not interpret Title 33 or a declaration provision on the merits; as a superior-court ruling, it binds only the parties and is not precedent.