Tag Archives: meetings-and-records

Current case status

Case snapshot

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

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings

Case Participants

What the record shows

The first case, CV2024-005545, began in 2024 when homeowner Sheila Janisch sued the Scottsdale Mountain Community Association. According to the court’s consolidation order, it started with claims for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and breach of contract over alleged rule violations and alleged unfair enforcement, and through later amendments grew to include claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, emotional distress, discrimination, tortious interference, libel and defamation, misappropriation of assets, disclosure of confidential information, and a records-statute violation under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

In early 2026 two more suits were filed over a single letter sent to Association members. In CV2026-002331 Ms. Janisch sued four individual board members — Lonnie Muto, Tom McVay, Bill Dube, and Yuri Ellis — alleging the letter defamed her and interfered with her business expectancy. In CV2026-002480 David Creed sued the same four, alleging the letter defamed him and placed him in a false light. These are the plaintiffs’ allegations; the board members dispute them, and no court has ruled on whether the letter was unlawful.

The court has so far declined every request for emergency or injunctive relief. On January 23, 2026 it denied an emergency temporary restraining order, writing that the motion’s central claims — including that the defendants mailed a defamatory “attack letter” using “stolen corporate data” and canceled a meeting to avoid a vote — were not supported by the evidence submitted. On February 18, 2026 it denied, without prejudice, a combined motion to remove the four directors, disqualify counsel, strike the answer, and grant an injunction, explaining that removing directors requires an evidentiary hearing rather than a motion and that the 600-plus pages submitted were not properly presented as admissible evidence. The court added that some of the alleged conduct, “if proven to be true, is highly suspect,” but that the plaintiff had not met the legal standard.

To manage the growing discovery fights, the court appointed retired Judge Kenneth Fields as a special discovery master on January 26, 2026, limited to resolving discovery and disclosure disputes. On April 20, 2026 the court consolidated all three cases under CV2024-005545, finding they share common facts, and reserved the option of separate trials for the Association and the individual board members.

On June 26, 2026 the court granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, while cautioning the plaintiffs to keep their pleadings short and to include only causes of action with a legal basis. On July 22, 2026 the court denied Mr. Creed’s application for a preliminary injunction to restore resident gate access, finding he lacked standing as a non-owner to challenge Association decisions and had not supplied admissible evidence of irreparable harm.

What the court has already decided

Litigation timeline

A dispute the judge has called “disheartening”

The court record itself charts how far the conflict has escalated. In roughly two years the matter has produced three separate lawsuits, more than fifty minute entries and orders, an outside discovery master, and repeated emergency motions — yet no ruling on the merits.

The judges have been unusually candid about the tenor of the filings. In appointing the discovery master the court wrote that it was “unimpressed and unpersuaded by hyperbole, disparaging the other party or counsel, and sweeping generalizations.” In allowing the Third Amended Complaint the court said it was “disheartening that amendments to pleadings are still being made in a case filed in 2024.” The court also had to bar motions that bundle multiple issues together and to enforce page limits on the filings.

None of that is a ruling for or against either side. It is included here because it is part of the public record and it shows why neighbors, homeowners, and the association have watched this dispute keep expanding.

In the news: a reported August 2026 pepper-spray incident

Reported news, not a court finding. The account in this section is drawn from news reporting — the Arizona Republic, republished through the Sacramento Bee and the local outlet Hoodline in October 2026 — which in turn cites police. It is not part of the civil court record summarized above. As reported, no criminal charge was filed and no arrest was made; a protective order is a civil order, not a finding of guilt; and every person involved is presumed innocent. We summarize what was reported and take no position on what actually happened.

According to that reporting, the long-running neighborhood dispute spilled off the court docket on August 6, 2026. News accounts say that a board member — identified in the reporting as Lonnie Muto — got out of his vehicle during a roadside encounter with pepper spray, a physical altercation followed, and both David Creed and Sheila Janisch were sprayed. The reporting says the board member was taken to a hospital and treated for minor injuries.

The reporting further states that police recommended an assault charge against the board member, that he was not arrested, and that, as of the reporting, no charge had been filed. A Scottsdale municipal court is reported to have issued a protective order on August 10, 2026. These are news reports about an out-of-court event; they were not adjudicated in the civil case described on this page, and the people named in them have not been convicted of anything.

The takeaway

Case Participants

What happened

The plaintiff filed a broad civil complaint against the association, AAM, association-related individuals, police, and HOA-law-firm defendants. The court described the case as arising from an alleged altercation at a homeowners-association meeting.

The Sonoran defendants moved to dismiss. In March 2025, the court agreed that the complaint did not identify comprehensible claims against particular defendants. The ruling explained that a complaint must give fair notice of each claim and the grounds on which it rests, and that self-represented parties are held to the same procedural standards as lawyers.

The court dismissed without prejudice, declined to dismiss on the separate service-timing argument, denied a requested stay, and gave the plaintiff a deadline to file an amended complaint complying with Rule 8.

The plaintiff filed extension requests and later attempted amendment-related filings. The court denied several requests for lack of good cause or as moot. The CHDB defendants then pursued their own dismissal motion.

In May 2025, the court granted the CHDB defendants’ motion to dismiss, again finding that the complaint did not give proper notice of specific causes of action against those defendants. The court required any further effort to proceed to be made through a proper motion to amend under Rules 8 and 15.

The plaintiff did not timely file a compliant motion to amend by the court’s deadline. On June 17, 2025, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and signed the order as a final Rule 54(c) judgment.

Video overview of the ruling

An AI-generated video overview of Russ v. Sonoran Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association (CV2024-022259 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). HOA-meeting complaint was dismissed because the pleading did not give each defendant fair notice of the claims. 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 Russ v. Sonoran Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.

Procedural timeline

View all 8 source documents for this case ↓

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

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings

The takeaway

Case Participants

What happened

Woodmar IV Association, Inc. is a homeowners association; Paul S. Rubin, Inc., doing business as PRM Association Management, is the property-management company that previously managed the community. The Association filed its complaint on July 31, 2017, alleging that while PRM managed the property it stole approximately $244,000 from the association. As the case developed, the Association’s claims included breach of contract, negligence, and conversion, built on allegations that PRM economically damaged the Association by mismanaging its funds, failing to keep accurate financial records, and failing to properly disclose those records to the Association.

The case began on the compulsory-arbitration track. At a January 2018 telephonic status conference, Judge Joshua D. Rogers vacated a scheduled arbitration hearing and extended the arbitration deadline while the Association’s motions to amend the complaint and to vacate arbitration were briefed. In March 2018 the court granted the Association’s motion to amend the complaint after oral argument, and in June 2018 — under the parties’ joint scheduling order — it referred the case to a mandatory settlement conference to be held by the end of November 2018.

Discovery became the center of the case. After PRM failed for roughly a year to allow entry onto its premises and forensic inspection of its computers, the Association moved to compel in June 2018; Judge David J. Palmer granted that motion by an order entered September 25, 2018. PRM moved for reconsideration, arguing among other things that the material was privileged because of a fiduciary duty owed to individual homeowners. In a January 30, 2019 under-advisement ruling the court rejected that argument — finding correct the Association’s position that an association owes no fiduciary duty to individual members, so its agent-manager owes none either — and denied reconsideration. The next day the court ruled on the Association’s motion for discovery sanctions: striking PRM’s answer and entering a default judgment of $244,567.00 was “too extreme” at that point, but the court warned it would seriously reconsider such sanctions if PRM kept delaying, and it awarded the Association additional attorneys’ fees and costs. In June 2019, with no response from PRM, the court set those at $8,000.00 in fees and $54.20 in costs.

The forensic-inspection fight continued into 2019. After an April status conference, the court ruled on April 29, 2019 that the Association could remove imaged copies of data from PRM’s computer servers, laptop and desktop computers, and QuickBooks files from PRM’s premises for off-site examination, rejecting PRM’s insistence that review happen only at its offices with its own expert “looking over their shoulder.” When PRM sought “clarification” in May 2019 to protect attorney-client material — an issue the court noted had never before been raised — the court on August 12, 2019 simply added a clawback protocol: if the Association received a document reasonably deemed privileged, it must stop reading it, make no use of it, and notify opposing counsel. The same day, the court denied PRM’s request to transfer the case to Commercial Court as impermissibly late under either version of Rule 8.1.

PRM’s main merits attack also failed. Its motion for judgment on the pleadings argued the Association had not complied with contractual conditions precedent — notice of the alleged breach, a 30-day opportunity to cure, and an offer to mediate. In an April 3, 2019 under-advisement ruling the court denied the motion, noting the Association’s arguments that the cure provision presupposed an ongoing business relationship that no longer existed, that the parties had actually mediated unsuccessfully, and that the Association had offered to dismiss the litigation to mediate — an offer PRM refused. The same ruling granted the Association leave to file a second amended complaint adding a punitive-damages claim based on information turned up in discovery, applying Rule 15(a)(2) and Owen v. Superior Court and finding no unfair prejudice since no trial date had been set. The court denied PRM’s motions to reconsider that ruling on April 30 and again on August 9, 2019.

The endgame came quickly. On August 14, 2019 the court set oral argument on the Association’s renewed motion to reconsider sanctions, to which PRM had filed no response in sixty days. One week later, on August 21, 2019, a Notice of Settlement was received; the court vacated the argument and placed the case on its dismissal calendar for October 21, 2019, to be dismissed unless a stipulated judgment or stipulation for dismissal was submitted first. The collected minute entries do not disclose the settlement terms.

Procedural timeline

View all 21 source documents for this case ↓

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

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings

The takeaway

Case Participants

What happened

Christine Davis and David Opstein sued the Westglen Villas Homeowners Association Inc and Phil Gardner in Maricopa County Superior Court under case number CV2015-091129. Erin Selene Iungerich represented the plaintiffs and Terry Wayne Straughn represented the defendants. The collected minute entries pick up in late 2015, with a defense motion for partial summary judgment already pending. The complaint itself is not among these records, but the court’s later ruling shows the case included at least two counts: Count 1, addressing whether the defendants violated the duties owed to the plaintiffs, and Count 2, alleging breach of A.R.S. § 33-1805 — the Arizona Planned Communities Act provision governing association records.

On November 20, 2015, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to continue the deadline for responsive pleadings, extending the plaintiffs’ time to respond to the pending motion for partial summary judgment through November 23, 2015. After receiving and reviewing the motion, the response, and the reply, Judge David K. Udall issued a January 11, 2016 order setting a one-hour oral argument for March 18, 2016 at the Southeast Courthouse in Mesa.

Oral argument was ultimately held on the morning of March 31, 2016. Counsel James Roger Wood appeared on behalf of Erin Iungerich for the plaintiffs, who were not present; Terry Straughn appeared for the defendants, who were also not present. After argument running from 9:02 to 9:26 a.m., the court took the motion under advisement.

The court issued its under-advisement ruling the same day. On Count 1, it found “there is enough evidence to go to the jury on the question of whether or not Defendants violated the duties owed to the Plaintiffs.” On Count 2, breach of A.R.S. § 33-1805, it found enough evidence for a jury as to Christine Davis. As to David Opstein, however, the court found he “is not a member of the Homeowners Association and has no standing with respect to this Count.” The court therefore denied the motion as to Davis on Counts 1 and 2 and as to Opstein on Count 1, granted the motion against Opstein on Count 2, and dismissed Count 2 with prejudice as to him.

The final collected minute entry is dated November 28, 2016: the court received, considered, and denied the plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate to Active Calendar and Compulsory Arbitration. The collected minutes do not show a trial, judgment, or other final disposition, so how the case ultimately ended is not reflected in these records.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Christine Davis v. Westglen Villas Homeowners Association Inc (CV2015-091129 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). The superior court denied the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment as to Christine Davis on both counts… This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court record and procedural posture in Christine Davis v. Westglen Villas Homeowners Association Inc. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

Procedural timeline

View all 5 source documents for this case ↓

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

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings

The takeaway

Case Participants

What happened

Legend Trail is a master planned community managed by The Legend Trail Community Association, which is responsible for enforcing the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (the CC&Rs) and for approving renovations to community homes. Susan Marcella owns a home there; Martin Lorenzo and Peter Kraus own a neighboring home. In 2023 Marcella sued the Association (CV2023-052094), asserting damages claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, “breach of duty,” and violations of A.R.S. § 33-1805 relating to the production of association records. Her suit is premised in part on the Association’s approval of renovations to her neighbors’ home, which she contends violated the CC&Rs and constitutes a “nuisance” that interferes with the “quiet enjoyment” of her home.

The case’s first year was procedural. In October 2023 the court referred the parties to a mandatory settlement conference; in December it rejected their joint readiness certification for failing to certify good-faith settlement discussions. On December 13, 2023 the Association moved to join Lorenzo and Kraus as indispensable parties. The court granted that motion as unopposed on January 22, 2024 — then discovered Marcella had filed a belated response that had not yet appeared on the docket. In a February 15, 2024 ruling, Judge Melissa Iyer Julian vacated the mistaken order and denied the motion on the merits: despite the parties’ assumptions, the complaint contained no request for declaratory or injunctive relief compelling the Association to take any action against the Lorenzo/Kraus home — its only declaratory request was an order “requiring the Association to produce records” — so the neighbors were not indispensable to Marcella’s damages claims. The court denied the motion without prejudice to amended pleadings, stayed all deadlines to March 20, 2024, and warned that the case would go on the Rule 38.1 dismissal calendar if the parties failed to propose an amended schedule. The court’s later party record nonetheless lists Lorenzo and Kraus as defendants appearing pro per.

Scheduling and discovery fights followed. The Association asked in May 2024 to amend the March 28, 2024 scheduling order; the court denied Marcella leave to file a sur-reply and heard argument on July 25, 2024, granting the request in part and entering an amended Tier 2 scheduling order. At the same hearing the court deemed Marcella’s motion to quash a subpoena (or for a protective order) moot in light of the extended deadlines, encouraged the parties to meet and confer before bringing written-discovery disputes under Rule 26(d), and ordered that the defendants were entitled to conduct a Rule 34 inspection of Marcella’s home on or before August 16, 2024.

The substantive turning point in the collected minutes came on Marcella’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed July 15, 2024 and argued October 18, 2024. In an under-advisement ruling issued the same day, the court denied the motion in full. It observed that Marcella sought “partial summary judgment” on various issues without tying the motion to her specific claims or their elements. On breach of contract and the implied covenant, the record showed disputed issues of material fact — conflicting evidence about whether the parties had a meeting of the minds sufficient to form a binding contract, and about their intent in reaching the agreement allowing Marcella to erect a temporary fence “during” construction on her neighbor’s property. Because that agreement is reflected only in a very basic description in the ACC’s meeting minutes, the court held, the parties’ intent and any alleged breach must be evaluated by a jury.

The ruling rejected Marcella’s other theories as well. She had not identified any authority supporting the proposition that an association’s failure to promptly produce records as required by A.R.S. § 33-1805 creates a private right of action for damages, nor had she provided any evidence of damages suffered as a result of the alleged statutory violations. And promissory estoppel, the court explained, is an alternative remedy available only in the absence of a binding contract — because Marcella alleges a binding contract exists, she could not win summary judgment on the estoppel theory unless her contract claim is unsuccessful. The court reset a trial-setting conference for November 22, 2024.

The last collected minute entry is a February 28, 2025 status conference. The court and the parties discussed mediation, an amended scheduling order, a document-discovery dispute, and the status of the case. The court ordered Marcella’s counsel to provide a redlined proposed amended complaint to the Association’s counsel by March 24, 2025, with any motion to amend due March 28, 2025 if the parties could not stipulate; ordered the parties to submit a stipulation and proposed scheduling order by March 28, 2025; and directed them to keep meeting and conferring on the document dispute, with a Rule 26(d) statement due by the same date if it could not be resolved. As of that entry, the case remained active with no dispositive judgment.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Susan M. Marcella v. The Legend Trail Community Association (CV2023-052094 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). The superior court denied the homeowner’s motion for partial summary judgment on all grounds, holding that disputed… This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.

Listen: audio deep dive on the case record

An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court record and procedural posture in Susan M. Marcella v. The Legend Trail Community Association. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

Procedural timeline

View all 9 source documents for this case ↓

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

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings

Current case status

Case snapshot

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

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Key Issues & Findings

Case Participants

Video: claims, defenses and the October rulings

This updated overview explains the records, voting and participation allegations, Tara’s defenses, the claims expressly dismissed and the insurance challenge allowed to proceed. It distinguishes Count VI’s analysis from the final ordering paragraphs. The court’s filings and orders control.

Listen: the broader case and what the rulings mean

The replacement discussion covers individual member rights, the derivative-action defense, the earlier adverse rulings, the distinct insurance theories and the September motion withdrawals. Surviving a pleading challenge does not prove liability.

What the record shows

Marx’s September 15, 2025 Second Amended Complaint asserts overlapping contract, statutory and declaratory theories. It alleges personal losses of participation, voting and inspection rights, monetary and property-value harm, and interference with property enjoyment. Those are pleaded allegations, not findings that she proved each injury.

The dispute is broader than roof repairs or master-policy spending. Count II concerns access to non-exempt association records; Count VII concerns maintaining accurate minutes and records of actions; Count VIII concerns printed ballots, ballot-return information and in-person voting. Counts I and III challenge notice, meetings, discussion, votes and authorization under the declaration and open-meeting statute. The same events sometimes support more than one theory, which does not make every theory equally viable.

A separate insurance/declaration dispute, CV2025-062973, was consolidated, and its complaint was treated as a Rule 15(d) supplemental pleading in March 2026. The public first amended filing describes challenged amendments, ballot inspection and a transfer of insurance responsibilities to owners. Tara’s March 30 response admits that amendments were approved, a vote occurred and the prior master policy expired, while denying unlawful conduct, injury and liability and asserting procedural and substantive defenses.

The July filings requested partial summary judgment on grouped issues. Later official orders changed that posture: the court directed withdrawal of fourteen motions, and the September 11 order listed thirteen withdrawn without prejudice. The July motion papers remain useful descriptions of Marx’s arguments, but eight of the nine featured July motions are no longer awaiting decision as filed.

Records, voting and participation are distinct issues

What the court has already done

The Rule 12(c) motion and the Colby discovery stay

Tara’s May 27, 2026 motion for judgment on the pleadings argues that community-wide claims over common property, association funds, insurance, and governance belong to the association and must satisfy derivative-action requirements.

The scope of Tara’s motion matters. Section IV.C, pages 13–14, expressly excludes the records-inspection and voting counts, personal subsets of Counts I and III, and personal inspection rights in the supplemental pleading, while reserving defenses. It also does not seek judgment on the corporate-records counts. The motion therefore does not ask the court to dispose of the entire case.

Marx’s June 2, 2026 opposition accepts that Iqtunheimr is published Arizona authority, but argues it decided only a common-area maintenance derivative claim and does not convert open-meeting, notice, voting, records, insurance-accounting, or declaration-amendment claims into derivative claims.

The same June 2 packet opposed Tara’s request to stay the pending Colby Management discovery dispute. Marx argued that the subpoenaed Colby materials go to direct claims already recognized by the June 26, 2025 ruling.

The court later granted Tara’s stay request in a July 16, 2026 minute entry, reasoning that deciding Rule 12(c) first could promote efficiency and might make the discovery request moot. The court said it would address Marx’s pending discovery issues after the Rule 12(c) ruling.

The October 6 ruling decided the Rule 12(c) motion in part. The October 20 order then denied reconsideration. The reviewed later orders do not resolve the separate Colby discovery dispute; the July stay should not be described as a merits denial of discovery.

The June packet’s two proposed orders remain only proposed forms of relief. They are not signed rulings.

The October 6, 2026 ruling on judgment on the pleadings

On October 6, 2026 (minute entry filed October 12, 2026), Hon. Adele Ponce ruled on Tara’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted it in part. The court first denied Marx’s motion to file a sur-reply, adding that the sur-reply would not have changed the result.

The ruling applies Iqtunheimr, LLC v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association, 586 P.3d 1081 (Ariz. App. 2026), which distinguishes an injury belonging to the association from an injury to an individual owner. A derivative action enforces a corporate claim and has separate standing and demand requirements. That does not prevent every individual claim involving the same subject matter.

Applying that framework, the court dismissed the claims it found derivative and let the individual-right claims proceed. It dismissed Count IV and Declaratory Judgment Count IV (unit boundaries, A.R.S. § 33-1212) and Count V and Declaratory Judgment Count V (upkeep, A.R.S. § 33-1247), reasoning that they concern a roof-repair assessment against a different owner and master-policy claims for unit damage—harm to the association or to another owner, not a particularized injury to Marx. In its analysis the court also agreed that Count VI (insurance, A.R.S. § 33-1253) alleging improper master-policy claims is derivative, though the court’s ordering paragraph enumerated only Counts IV and V and the fiduciary-duty claim.

The court declined to dismiss Marx’s open-meeting claims. It held that Counts I and III, and their declaratory counterparts, which allege violations of open-meeting requirements in the declaration and statutes, are not automatically derivative just because every owner was similarly affected; Marx clarified she seeks only to vindicate her own participation rights, to invalidate actions improperly taken, and to recover costs she personally bore. The court noted it will still need to consider whether any proven violation was merely technical and whether later board action ratified the challenged decisions.

The court also declined to dismiss the consolidated insurance-change claims at this stage. Marx challenges an amendment of governing documents that ended master-policy coverage for portions of units and alleges she must now pay for replacement coverage. The court treated the alleged insurance cost as distributed among individual holders. It separately dismissed the consolidated breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim as not valid under Rohde v. Beztak of Arizona.

The final ordering paragraphs expressly dismiss Count IV/DJ IV, Count V/DJ V, and the consolidated fiduciary-duty claim. Although the analysis describes Count VI as derivative, those paragraphs do not separately name Count VI. Counts II (inspection), VII (corporate records) and VIII (voting) are discussed in the complaint summary but not named in the final dismissal paragraphs. Neither that omission nor the survival of Counts I and III decides the truth, remedy or ultimate viability of every overlapping allegation. The October 20 reconsideration denial does not supply a new explanation or additional disposition.

What the October 6, 2026 ruling decided, claim by claim

September withdrawals and the latest reconsideration order

The August 28, 2026 trial-setting conference minute entry directed withdrawal of fourteen partial-summary-judgment motions or they would be denied as moot. The September 11 order, filed September 17, then recorded thirteen motions withdrawn without prejudice in response to Marx’s September 2 notice. Eight are from the nine-motion July 5–21 group summarized below; five were filed from July 24 through August 2. The order states that the court will take no further action on the withdrawn motions.

The July 5 motion concerning the 2025 declaration amendment is not on that withdrawal list. The September order’s introductory description expressly distinguishes the fully briefed declaration motion. None of the reviewed orders decides that motion on its merits. The absence of that disposition is a limit of the reviewed record, not a prediction of the outcome.

On October 20, in a minute entry filed October 22, the court denied Marx’s October 13 motion for reconsideration. The one-page order provides no further reasoning. The docket checked October 26 also lists an October 16 clarification motion and Marx’s response; their contents and any later resolution have not been incorporated here.

These distinctions matter: a withdrawn motion is not a judgment against the underlying claim; a claim surviving Rule 12(c) is not a finding of liability; and an analytical discussion of a count is not a substitute for the final ordering paragraphs.

What the June 2026 response packet adds

June 2026 filings added to the record guide

The July 2026 motion packet and its later withdrawals

The earlier public packet contains nine partial-summary-judgment motions filed July 5–21, 2026, with supporting statements, declarations and exhibit indexes. They divide the dispute into claim groups rather than seek judgment on the whole case. The later September 11 order records withdrawal without prejudice of eight of those nine motions; it does not list the July 5 declaration-amendment motion.

The table below preserves the history of what Marx asked the court to decide, with the later status made explicit. Party arguments and descriptions of evidence do not establish a legal violation. Withdrawal of these motions did not dismiss the underlying pleaded claims or adjudicate them for either side.

The exhibit notices and master index are public below. The 71 loose exhibit copies delivered with this update were reviewed for context but are not republished here because many are discovery or Bates-labeled materials containing private identifiers, and their status as public docket attachments was not independently established.

What the July motions argued, and what happened next

How the July packet was incorporated

Timeline highlights

Curated document roadmap

The complete source index below lists the reviewed public files. This earlier document-by-document roadmap preserves the chronology, document type, and stated case relevance supplied with the original packet so readers can understand how the pre-July materials fit together.

The separate July motion map above covers the new 2026 summary-judgment filings. This earlier roadmap intentionally excludes drafts that were not confirmed as part of the court record.

Reference numbers in the final column come from the supplied roadmap. They are not legal findings, and the linked court filings and orders remain the controlling sources.

Earlier document-by-document roadmap

How to read this case without overclaiming it

1. Treat interim rulings as interim rulings. The June and July 2025 orders are important, but they do not equal a final merits judgment on every later claim.
2. Separate association claims from individual-director claims. The uploaded record shows the court was willing to let some claims proceed against the association while dismissing individual board members.
3. Track the exact injury theory. The direct-versus-derivative question turns on whether the claim seeks to remedy a member’s individual statutory/contractual injury or a generalized association injury.
4. Do not skip the procedural posture. Preliminary injunction, motion to dismiss, judgment on the pleadings, and final judgment apply different standards.
5. Use the source index. The upload is large. The normalized roadmap and complete source-document index are the safest way to follow the record in order.

Practical lessons for condo disputes

Complete source set