negligence Archives - Arizona HOA Transparency Project

Name: Joyce Jasper-Burnett v. Chateau De Vie Four Townhouse Association, et al.
Uploaded: 2018-07-18
Description: The superior court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss: it dismissed...

Joyce Jasper-Burnett v. Chateau De Vie Four Townhouse Association: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

Fiduciary Duty & Negligence | Rule 12(b)(6) | CV2017-015815

In this Maricopa County Superior Court case, Joyce Jasper-Burnett brought claims of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable estoppel against the Chateau De Vie Four Townhouse Association, and aiding-and-abetting and negligence claims against co-defendant AAM, LLC. Applying the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, the court dismissed the fiduciary-duty count against the Association and the negligence count against AAM, allowed the remaining counts to proceed, and — after the case was confirmed on the arbitration track and referred to a settlement conference — the parties settled in March 2019.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Joyce Jasper-Burnett v. Chateau De Vie Four Townhouse Association, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2017-015815.

Download motion-to-dismiss ruling

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2019-03-06. 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 Joyce Jasper-Burnett v. Chateau De Vie Four Townhouse Association, et al. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2017-015815) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, including the July 18, 2018 under-advisement ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. The minute entries recite the counts pleaded and the court’s orders but do not recite the underlying factual allegations. Currency caveat: the collected entries end with the court’s March 6, 2019 order — entered after the parties filed a Notice of Settlement — setting the case for dismissal on May 6, 2019 unless dismissal papers were submitted; the final dismissal order itself is not among the collected entries. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

In its July 18, 2018 under-advisement ruling, the court granted the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion in part and denied it in part. It dismissed Count Two — breach of fiduciary duty against the Chateau De Vie Four Townhouse Association and negligence against AAM, LLC — but denied dismissal of Count Three (negligence) and Count Four (equitable estoppel) against the Association and Count One (aiding and abetting) against AAM. Applying the standard from Coleman v. City of Mesa, the court accepted the plaintiff’s alleged facts as true and asked only whether dismissal was permitted because the plaintiff “would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” The surviving claims never reached trial: the case was confirmed on the arbitration track, referred to a settlement conference, and resolved by settlement in March 2019.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Joyce Jasper-Burnett (Plaintiff)
Plaintiff who sued the Chateau De Vie Four Townhouse Association and AAM, LLC on counts including negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable estoppel.
Joseph C. Dolan (Counsel)
Counsel of record for Plaintiff Joyce Jasper-Burnett, appearing at the June 2018 oral argument and the later status conferences.
Sally Odegard (Counsel)
Listed as counsel for the plaintiff in the court's case-party records; she does not appear in the collected minute entries.

Respondent Side

Chateau De Vie Four Townhouse Association (Defendant)
Townhouse association defendant. The court dismissed the breach-of-fiduciary-duty count against it but allowed the negligence and equitable-estoppel counts to proceed.
AAM, LLC (Defendant)
Co-defendant. The court dismissed the negligence count against it but allowed the aiding-and-abetting count to proceed.
Nicholas C.S. Nogami (Counsel)
Counsel of record for Defendants Chateau De Vie Four Townhouse Association and AAM, LLC throughout the collected minute entries.
Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for the Defendants, including at the June 27, 2018 oral argument (in place of Mr. Nogami) and the February 27, 2019 status conference.

Neutral Parties

Pamela Gates (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who heard the motion-to-dismiss argument, issued the July 18, 2018 under-advisement ruling, and presided over the settlement-conference and arbitration proceedings.
Randall H. Warner (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge assigned earlier in the case; set the June 2018 oral argument before the calendar rotated to Judge Gates.
Nicholas C. Abdo (Arbitrator)
Court-appointed arbitrator who filed a Notice of Potential Conflict in February 2019; the court excused him after the plaintiff objected to his continuing on the case.

What happened

Joyce Jasper-Burnett sued the Chateau De Vie Four Townhouse Association (the “Association”) and AAM, LLC in Maricopa County Superior Court under 2017 case number CV2017-015815. As reflected in the court’s July 2018 ruling, her complaint included counts for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable estoppel against the Association, and counts for aiding and abetting and negligence against AAM. The collected minute entries do not recite the underlying factual allegations behind those counts.

On April 23, 2018 the defendants jointly moved to dismiss certain counts of the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Judge Randall H. Warner set oral argument for June 27, 2018, noting that the June judicial rotation would move the civil calendar to Judge Pamela Gates. At the June 27 argument, Joseph C. Dolan appeared for the plaintiff and Lydia A. Peirce Linsmeier appeared for the defendants in place of Nicholas C.S. Nogami; Judge Gates took the motion under advisement.

Judge Gates issued the under-advisement ruling on July 18, 2018. Quoting Coleman v. City of Mesa, the court framed the question as whether the facts alleged were sufficient “to warrant allowing the [Plaintiff] to attempt to prove [her] case,” accepting all material facts alleged by the plaintiff as true and permitting dismissal only when a plaintiff “would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” Applying that standard, the court denied dismissal of Count Three (negligence) and Count Four (equitable estoppel) against the Association and Count One (aiding and abetting) against AAM, but granted dismissal of Count Two — breach of fiduciary duty against the Association and negligence against AAM.

The case then moved toward resolution. In October 2018 the parties jointly asked for a referral to a settlement conference, and at a November 7, 2018 status conference the court granted the request, referring the case to the Superior Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Department for appointment of a judge pro tempore to conduct a mandatory settlement conference no later than February 11, 2019. Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed the case was on the arbitration track, and the matter was continued on the dismissal calendar to February 28, 2019.

In February 2019 the parties jointly requested an emergency status conference. At that conference on February 27, 2019, the court found the parties had not knowingly or intentionally waived their right to arbitration and ordered arbitration to proceed. The court-appointed arbitrator, Nicholas C. Abdo, had filed a Notice of Potential Conflict; after the plaintiff’s counsel objected to his continuing, the court excused Mr. Abdo and sent the case to the arbitration desk for appointment of a new arbitrator. The dismissal deadline was extended to August 27, 2019.

Arbitration never ran its course. The parties filed a Notice of Settlement on March 5, 2019, and the next day the court vacated the August dismissal deadline, set the case for dismissal on May 6, 2019 unless a stipulated judgment or stipulation for dismissal was submitted, and deemed all pending motions moot. The collected minute entries end there.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Joyce Jasper-Burnett v. Chateau De Vie Four Townhouse Association, et al. (CV2017-015815 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). The superior court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss: it dismissed… 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 Joyce Jasper-Burnett v. Chateau De Vie Four Townhouse Association, et al.. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

Step 2018-04-23 Defendants Chateau De Vie Four Townhouse Association and AAM, LLC move to dismiss certain counts of the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).

Step 2018-05-31 Judge Warner sets oral argument on the motion to dismiss for June 27, 2018, noting the civil calendar will rotate to Judge Gates in June.

Step 2018-06-27 Oral argument before Judge Gates; the motion is taken under advisement.

Step 2018-07-18 Under-advisement ruling: the breach-of-fiduciary-duty count against the Association and the negligence count against AAM are dismissed; the negligence and equitable-estoppel counts against the Association and the aiding-and-abetting count against AAM proceed.

Step 2018-10-16 The parties file a Joint Request for Referral to Settlement Conference.

Step 2018-11-07 Status conference: the case is confirmed on the arbitration track, referred to the ADR Department for a mandatory settlement conference no later than February 11, 2019, and continued on the dismissal calendar to February 28, 2019.

Step 2019-02-27 Status conference: the court finds no knowing or intentional waiver of arbitration and orders arbitration to proceed; arbitrator Nicholas C. Abdo is excused after the plaintiff's objection, and the dismissal deadline is extended to August 27, 2019.

Type: Court order/minute entry

Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.

Download source file

2019-03-06_010_minute-entry.pdf

FAQ

What claims were at issue in this case?

According to the court’s July 18, 2018 ruling, the complaint included counts for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable estoppel against the Chateau De Vie Four Townhouse Association, and counts for aiding and abetting and negligence against AAM, LLC. The minute entries recite the counts and the court’s orders but do not describe the underlying factual allegations behind them.

What did the court decide in the July 18, 2018 ruling?

The court granted the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion in part and denied it in part. It dismissed Count Two — breach of fiduciary duty against the Association and negligence against AAM, LLC — but denied dismissal of Count Three (negligence) and Count Four (equitable estoppel) against the Association and Count One (aiding and abetting) against AAM, allowing those claims to move forward.

What standard did the court apply to the motion to dismiss?

The Rule 12(b)(6) standard from Arizona case law, including Coleman v. City of Mesa. The court asked only whether the facts alleged in the complaint were sufficient “to warrant allowing the [Plaintiff] to attempt to prove [her] case,” accepted all material facts alleged by the plaintiff as true, and could dismiss only if the plaintiff “would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” Surviving that standard means only that a claim may proceed — not that it will ultimately succeed.

Did the case go to trial or arbitration?

Neither. The case was on the superior court’s arbitration track — in February 2019 the court found the parties had not waived arbitration and ordered it to proceed — but before a new arbitrator could take up the case, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement on March 5, 2019. The court then set the case for dismissal and deemed all pending motions moot.

Why was the court-appointed arbitrator removed?

The court-appointed arbitrator, Nicholas C. Abdo, filed a Notice of Potential Conflict in February 2019. Plaintiff’s counsel objected to his continuing on the case, so the court excused him, sent the case to the Civil Court Administration/Arbitration Desk for appointment of a new arbitrator, and directed that Mr. Abdo be appointed as arbitrator in the next available case instead.

Is this decision binding on other Arizona HOA disputes?

No. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties to the case and are not precedent. The July 2018 ruling is still useful reading as an example of how Arizona courts screen homeowner claims against associations at the pleading stage: some counts were dismissed outright while others survived to be litigated. Because the case settled, no court ever decided the merits of the surviving claims.

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	CV2017-015815 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	July 18, 2018
Judge / panel	Hon. Pamela Gates, Hon. Randall H. Warner
Parties	Joyce Jasper-Burnett (Plaintiff) v. Chateau De Vie Four Townhouse Association and AAM, LLC (Defendants)
Topics	ProcedureBoard GovernanceMembershipNegligence
Outcome / holding	The superior court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss: it dismissed the breach-of-fiduciary-duty count against the Association and the negligence count against AAM, LLC for failure to state a claim, but allowed the negligence and equitable-estoppel counts against the Association and the aiding-and-abetting count against AAM to proceed. The surviving claims were never adjudicated on the merits because the parties settled in March 2019.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	10 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	9 roadmap entries
Video overview	Joyce Jasper-Burnett v. Chateau De Vie Four Townhouse Association, et al.
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	6 questions
Featured download links	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

Joyce Jasper-Burnett sued the Chateau De Vie Four Townhouse Association and AAM, LLC in Maricopa County Superior Court on counts including negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable estoppel against the Association, and aiding and abetting and negligence against AAM; the collected minute entries do not recite the underlying factual allegations. The defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss certain counts, and in a July 18, 2018 under-advisement ruling Judge Pamela Gates granted the motion in part: the breach-of-fiduciary-duty count against the Association and the negligence count against AAM were dismissed, while the negligence and equitable-estoppel counts against the Association and the aiding-and-abetting count against AAM survived. The case was confirmed on the arbitration track and referred to a court-supervised settlement conference; after the court excused the original arbitrator over a potential conflict and ordered arbitration to proceed, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement on March 5, 2019 and the court set the case for dismissal.

Key Issues & Findings

The July 18, 2018 under-advisement ruling turned entirely on the Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard. Quoting Coleman v. City of Mesa, the court framed the narrow question as whether the facts alleged in the complaint were sufficient "to warrant allowing the [Plaintiff] to attempt to prove [her] case," and, citing Fidelity Security Life Insurance Co. v. State Department of Insurance, noted that dismissal is permitted only when a plaintiff "would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof." The court accepted all material facts alleged by the plaintiff as true in assessing the motion.

Applying that standard, the court reached a mixed result stated in its orders: it denied dismissal of Count Three (negligence) and Count Four (equitable estoppel) against the Association and Count One (aiding and abetting) against AAM, LLC, but granted dismissal of Count Two — breach of fiduciary duty against the Association and negligence against AAM. The minute entry states the standard and the count-by-count orders without setting out claim-specific analysis, so the ruling's reasoning on each individual count is not reflected in the collected record.

The rest of the docket shows how the case resolved. The parties jointly sought a settlement-conference referral in October 2018, which the court granted in November while confirming the case remained on the arbitration track. In February 2019 the court found the parties had not knowingly or intentionally waived arbitration and ordered it to proceed, excusing the court-appointed arbitrator after he disclosed a potential conflict and the plaintiff objected. Before a new arbitrator took up the case, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement on March 5, 2019; the court then set the case for dismissal on May 6, 2019 and deemed all pending motions moot.

Why It Matters

This case is a compact example of how homeowner tort suits against Arizona community associations are screened at the pleading stage. The plaintiff's breach-of-fiduciary-duty count against the townhouse association did not survive the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, while her negligence and equitable-estoppel counts against the association — and an aiding-and-abetting count against co-defendant AAM, LLC — were allowed to proceed because, under Coleman v. City of Mesa, dismissal requires that the plaintiff could not recover under any provable interpretation of the alleged facts.

It also illustrates the procedural machinery that resolves most association disputes short of trial: the compulsory-arbitration track, court-ordered referral to a settlement conference before an ADR judge pro tempore, arbitrator conflict-of-interest handling, and the dismissal-calendar deadlines that keep a settling case moving. The dispute ended in a private settlement, so no court ever ruled on the merits of the surviving claims. As a superior-court minute-entry ruling, the decision binds only the parties and is not precedent.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Woodmar IV Association, Inc. v. Paul S. Rubin, Inc.: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on July 2, 2026 by [email protected]

HOA vs. Management Company | Discovery & Sanctions | CV2017-094721

In this Maricopa County Superior Court case, the Woodmar IV homeowners association alleged that Paul S. Rubin, Inc., doing business as PRM Association Management, stole roughly $244,000 from the association while serving as its property manager, pleading breach of contract, negligence, and conversion. The case never reached trial — it was a two-year discovery war. The court compelled forensic inspection of the management company’s servers, computers, and QuickBooks files, held the manager could not shield its records behind a claimed fiduciary-duty privilege, awarded the association fees as sanctions, denied the manager’s bid to end the case over contractual notice-cure-and-mediate conditions, and allowed a punitive-damages amendment before the parties settled in August 2019.

Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Woodmar IV Association, Inc. v. Paul S. Rubin, Inc., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2017-094721.

Download April 2019 under-advisement ruling

Current-status note: Pipeline note: the public raw-source folder contains source files that were not in the last staged NotebookLM source set. The page remains a source-linked record, but generated media should be rebuilt or rechecked after the staged source manifest catches up.

Allegations, settlements, procedural dismissals, and notices are not findings of liability unless a cited court order expressly makes that finding.

Video/audio is held from this page until a fresh media package is generated from the approved source record.

Scope note: This page covers Woodmar IV Association, Inc. v. Paul S. Rubin, Inc. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2017-094721) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, including the January 30 and 31, 2019 under-advisement rulings on discovery and sanctions and the April 3, 2019 under-advisement ruling on the pleadings; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the last collected minute entry, dated August 21, 2019, records that a Notice of Settlement was received and the case was placed on the court’s dismissal calendar for October 21, 2019 — the collected minutes do not include a final dismissal order or any terms of the settlement. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

This case never produced a merits verdict — it settled — but the association won every substantive contested motion in the collected record; the only defense motion granted was a scheduling-order amendment. The court compelled the former management company to permit forensic computer inspections, held that the company could not withhold association-related records under a claimed fiduciary-duty privilege because an association owes no fiduciary duty to its individual members and neither, therefore, does its agent, and ordered that the association could remove imaged copies of the manager’s servers, computers, and QuickBooks files from the manager’s premises. The court awarded the association attorneys’ fees and costs as discovery sanctions, denied the manager’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on contractual notice, cure, and mediation conditions — noting the parties had actually mediated unsuccessfully — and granted the association leave to add a punitive-damages claim based on what discovery had turned up. With a renewed sanctions motion awaiting argument, the parties settled in August 2019.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Woodmar IV Association, Inc. (Plaintiff)
Homeowners association formerly managed by the defendant; alleged the management company stole approximately $244,000 of association funds and mismanaged and withheld its financial records.
Clint G. Goodman (Counsel)
Counsel of record for the Association throughout the case; appeared at the January 2018 status conference and the March 2018 oral argument on the motion to amend.
Mark A. Holmgren (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for the Association at the December 2018 scheduling conference and the 2019 oral arguments and discovery conferences.

Respondent Side

Paul S. Rubin, Inc. (d/b/a PRM Association Management) (Defendant)
Property-management company that previously managed the Woodmar IV community; resisted forensic discovery of its computer systems and sought dismissal based on contractual conditions precedent.
Brian E. Ditsch (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for Paul S. Rubin, Inc. in the early 2018 phase, including the January 2018 status conference and the March 2018 oral argument.
James A. Robles Jr. (Counsel)
Counsel of record for Paul S. Rubin, Inc. from mid-2018, appearing at the December 2018 scheduling conference and the January 2019 oral argument.
Michael John Hrnicek (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for Paul S. Rubin, Inc. at the December 2018 conference and the 2019 oral arguments, including the February and April 2019 hearings.

Neutral Parties

Joshua D. Rogers (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who presided over the early phase, including the arbitration-track conference, the first motion to amend, and the referral to a settlement conference.
David J. Palmer (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who presided from September 2018, granted the Association's motion to compel by signed order, and issued the under-advisement rulings on reconsideration, sanctions, judgment on the pleadings, the second amended complaint, and the computer-imaging disputes.

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

Step 2017-07-31 Woodmar IV Association, Inc. files its complaint against Paul S. Rubin, Inc. (d/b/a PRM Association Management) in Maricopa County Superior Court (CV2017-094721).

Step 2018-01-23 Telephonic status conference: the court vacates the January 29 arbitration hearing and extends the arbitration deadline to April 30, 2018, while motions to amend the complaint and to vacate arbitration are briefed.

Step 2018-03-26 After oral argument, the court grants the Association's motion to amend the complaint.

Step 2018-06-20 Pursuant to the parties' joint scheduling order, the court orders a mandatory settlement conference to be held by November 30, 2018.

Step 2018-09-25 Order granting the Association's June 28, 2018 motion to compel — covering entry onto land and forensic computer inspections — is signed September 19 and entered September 25, 2018.

Step 2019-01-30 Under-advisement ruling denies PRM's motion for reconsideration of the motion-to-compel order, rejecting its fiduciary-duty privilege argument.

Step 2019-01-31 Under-advisement ruling on sanctions: striking PRM's answer and entering a $244,567 default judgment is too extreme for now, but the Association is awarded additional attorneys' fees and costs.

Step 2019-04-03 Under-advisement ruling denies PRM's motion for judgment on the pleadings (conditions precedent) and grants the Association leave to file a second amended complaint adding a punitive-damages claim.

Step 2019-04-29 Discovery ruling: the Association may remove imaged copies of PRM's computer servers, laptop and desktop computers, and QuickBooks files from PRM's premises for off-site examination.

Step 2019-06-04 With no response from PRM, the court awards the Association $8,000.00 in attorneys' fees and $54.20 in costs on the sanctions-related fee application.

Step 2019-08-12 The court adds an attorney-client clawback protocol to the imaging order and denies PRM's request to transfer the case to Commercial Court as impermissibly late.

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file

2019-08-14_020_oral-argument-set.pdf

Source 21 2019-08-21

Oral Argument Set

Type: Court/source PDF

Uploaded source file in the case record; read it in sequence with the surrounding filings to follow the procedure.

Download source file

2019-08-21_021_oral-argument-set.pdf

FAQ

What was this lawsuit about?

Woodmar IV Association, Inc., a homeowners association, sued Paul S. Rubin, Inc. — the property-management company doing business as PRM Association Management that previously managed the community — alleging that while PRM managed the property it stole approximately $244,000 from the association. The Association’s claims included breach of contract, negligence, and conversion, resting on allegations that PRM mismanaged the Association’s funds, failed to keep accurate financial records, and failed to properly disclose those records to the Association.

Who won the case?

No one won at trial, because there was no trial: on August 21, 2019 the court received a Notice of Settlement and placed the case on its dismissal calendar. But in the collected minute entries the Association prevailed on every substantive contested motion — the motion to compel, PRM’s reconsideration motions on discovery and on the pleadings (the latter denied twice), the computer-imaging dispute, the fee awards, the motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Commercial Court transfer request, and leave to add a punitive-damages claim; the only defense motion granted was a scheduling-order amendment. The settlement terms are not in the court’s minute entries.

Why did the court order the management company to open its computers to the HOA?

The Association served discovery seeking entry onto PRM’s premises and forensic computer inspections tied to the claims in the complaint, and after about a year without compliance it moved to compel under Rule 37(a)(3)(B). The court granted the motion, and on reconsideration rejected PRM’s argument that the records were privileged because of a fiduciary duty owed to individual homeowners — finding correct the Association’s position that an association owes no fiduciary duty to its individual members, so PRM, as the Association’s agent, owed none either. The court later ruled the Association could remove imaged copies of PRM’s servers, computers, and QuickBooks files for off-site examination, subject to a clawback protocol for any attorney-client material.

Was the management company sanctioned?

Yes, financially. The court awarded the Association its fees in connection with the motion to compel, and in the January 31, 2019 sanctions ruling awarded additional attorneys’ fees and costs — set in June 2019 at $8,000.00 in fees and $54.20 in costs after PRM filed no response. The court declined the Association’s harsher requests — striking PRM’s answer and entering a default judgment of $244,567.00 — as “too extreme” at that stage, but warned it would seriously reconsider such sanctions if PRM unreasonably delayed disclosure again. A renewed sanctions motion was awaiting argument when the case settled.

Why didn't the contract's notice, cure, and mediation clauses end the case?

PRM moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the Association failed to satisfy conditions precedent in the parties’ contract: notice of the alleged breach, a 30-day opportunity to cure, and an offer to mediate. The court denied the motion, noting the Association’s arguments that the cure provision was designed for parties in an ongoing business relationship — which no longer existed — that the parties had in fact mediated unsuccessfully, and that the Association had even offered to dismiss the litigation to mediate, an offer PRM refused. The court also denied PRM’s two motions to reconsider that ruling.

Is this case binding on other Arizona HOA disputes?

No. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent, and this case ended in a settlement rather than a judgment on the merits. It is still instructive reading for associations and management companies: it shows a court ordering forensic discovery of a former manager’s computer systems and financial files, rejecting a privilege theory built on fiduciary duty to homeowners, enforcing discovery orders with fee sanctions, and allowing a punitive-damages amendment based on what discovery revealed.

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	CV2017-094721 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	April 3, 2019
Judge / panel	Hon. David J. Palmer, Hon. Joshua D. Rogers
Parties	Woodmar IV Association, Inc. (Plaintiff, homeowners association) v. Paul S. Rubin, Inc., d/b/a PRM Association Management (Defendant, former property-management company)
Topics	ProcedureBoard GovernanceAttorney FeesMeetings & RecordsNegligence
Outcome / holding	In its April 3, 2019 under-advisement ruling the court denied the management company's motion for judgment on the pleadings — rejecting its argument that the association's suit was barred by contractual conditions precedent requiring notice of breach, a 30-day cure period, and an offer to mediate, where the business relationship had ended and the parties had actually mediated unsuccessfully — and granted the association leave to file a second amended complaint adding a punitive-damages claim; the case then settled in August 2019 without any adjudication of the merits.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	21 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	13 roadmap entries
Video overview	Temporarily unavailable while the expanded case record is reviewed
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	6 questions
Featured download links	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

A Maricopa County homeowners association sued its former property-management company, Paul S. Rubin, Inc. (d/b/a PRM Association Management), alleging the manager stole approximately $244,000 of association funds while it managed the community, mismanaged the association's money, and failed to keep and disclose accurate financial records; its claims included breach of contract, negligence, and conversion. The two-year case was dominated by discovery fights: the court compelled forensic computer inspections, rejected the manager's argument that its records were privileged under a fiduciary duty to individual homeowners, ruled the association could remove imaged copies of the manager's servers, computers, and QuickBooks files for off-site examination, and awarded the association attorneys' fees and costs as discovery sanctions while declining, for the time being, to strike the manager's answer and enter a $244,567 default judgment. In an April 3, 2019 under-advisement ruling the court denied the manager's motion for judgment on the pleadings based on contractual notice, cure, and mediation conditions and granted the association leave to add a punitive-damages claim based on what discovery had revealed. With a renewed sanctions motion set for argument, the parties settled in August 2019 and the case was placed on the dismissal calendar.

Key Issues & Findings

On the pleadings, the court held the case could proceed despite the contract's conditions precedent. PRM argued the complaint had to be dismissed because the association never gave notice of the alleged breach, allowed a 30-day cure period, or offered to mediate before suing. The court credited the association's responses: the cure provision was aimed at parties working together in an ongoing business relationship, and there no longer was one; the parties had in fact engaged in mediation, albeit unsuccessfully; and the association had offered to dismiss the litigation to mediate, an offer PRM refused. On the same day the court granted leave to file a second amended complaint adding a punitive-damages claim, applying Rule 15(a)(2) and Owen v. Superior Court, 133 Ariz. 75 (1982): leave to amend must be freely given, mere delay is not enough to deny it, no trial date had been set, and the new claim arose from the same alleged conduct, so there was no unfair prejudice. PRM's motions to reconsider were denied in April and August 2019.

The discovery rulings carried the case's most consequential legal analysis. After granting the association's motion to compel entry onto PRM's premises and forensic computer inspections under Rule 37(a)(3)(B), the court denied reconsideration in a January 30, 2019 under-advisement ruling. It rejected PRM's claim that the information was privileged under a fiduciary duty owed to individual homeowners, finding correct the association's argument that an association has no fiduciary duty to its individual members and that PRM, as the association's agent, has no such duty either. The court also found PRM's reliance on an unpublished court of appeals decision about medical records, Manzutto v. Gass, improperly cited and easily distinguishable. In an April 29, 2019 ruling the court ordered 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, rejecting PRM's demand that review occur only at its offices under its expert's supervision; an August 12, 2019 ruling added only a clawback protocol for any attorney-client material and otherwise left the order unchanged.

On sanctions, the court's January 31, 2019 ruling acknowledged that striking PRM's answer and entering a default judgment of $244,567.00 under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) was 'clearly allowed by law,' but found those sanctions too extreme while the reconsideration motion had only just been decided — while warning it would seriously reconsider them if PRM unreasonably delayed disclosure again. It instead awarded the association attorneys' fees and costs on top of the fees already awarded with the motion to compel, fixed in June 2019 at $8,000.00 and $54.20 after PRM filed no response. The court separately denied PRM's request to transfer the case to Commercial Court as impermissibly late under either version of Rule 8.1. In August 2019, with the association's renewed sanctions motion unanswered and set for argument, the parties filed a notice of settlement and the case went on the dismissal calendar.

Why It Matters

This case is one of the clearest local examples of an Arizona homeowners association turning the litigation tables on its own former management company. HOA disputes usually feature owners suing boards; here the association itself pursued its manager for roughly a quarter-million dollars in allegedly stolen or mismanaged funds, and the court's rulings show what that recovery effort looks like in practice — forensic imaging of the manager's servers, computers, and QuickBooks files, off-site examination by the association's expert, and fee sanctions when the manager stalled.

Two rulings deserve particular attention. First, the court held a management company cannot resist producing association-related records by invoking a fiduciary duty to individual homeowners: the association owes no fiduciary duty to individual members, so its agent-manager owes none either. Second, contractual notice-cure-and-mediate conditions did not bar the suit where the business relationship had ended and mediation had actually been tried and failed. The case also shows the practical arc of many association-versus-manager fights: sustained discovery pressure, escalating sanctions exposure, and a settlement before trial. As a superior-court matter resolved by settlement, it binds no one beyond the parties — but it is a useful roadmap for associations auditing a former manager's books.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Merrick Avenue Management, LLC v. Troon Village Association: Arizona HOA Superior Court Case Guide

Posted on July 1, 2026 by [email protected]

Common Areas & Negligence | CC&R-Based Duty | CV2023-008406

In this Maricopa County Superior Court case, homeowners in a gated Scottsdale community — and a visitor who was shot in their driveway — alleged that homeowners associations, board members, and property companies were negligent because the community’s entrance gate was inoperative and left open. The court held that a recorded declaration’s allocation of common-area maintenance to an association creates a negligence duty running to owners and even their invitees, but granted the moving association and individual defendants summary judgment because the undisputed security-camera evidence would not let a jury reasonably infer that the shooter entered through the gate.

Last updated July 1, 2026. Case: Merrick Avenue Management, LLC v. Troon Village Association, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2023-008406 (consolidated with CV2023-012338).

Download summary-judgment ruling

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2025-06-19. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Video/audio is held from this page until a fresh media package is generated from the approved source record.

Scope note: This page covers Merrick Avenue Management, LLC v. Troon Village Association, et al. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2023-008406, consolidated with CV2023-012338) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, including the September 18 and October 12, 2023 rulings on motions to dismiss and the April 30, 2025 under-advisement ruling granting summary judgment; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the collected minute entries run through June 19, 2025, when the case was still active — the April 2025 summary-judgment ruling resolved the claims against Troon Fairways Homeowners’ Association and the individual defendants only, Amcor’s own summary-judgment motion had been noted but not decided, claims involving Troon Village Association and Cornerstone Properties, Inc. remained, and default judgments against two consolidated defendants had just been entered. Later docket activity may not be reflected here. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

The takeaway

In an April 30, 2025 under-advisement ruling, the court granted summary judgment to Troon Fairways Homeowners’ Association and all of the moving individual defendants on every count. Every claim rested on the allegation that the community’s inoperative gate at the Happy Valley Road entrance — left open at the direction of the board president — allowed the shooter in. Because undisputed security-camera evidence showed the shooter approaching from the north, fleeing to the north, and riding away on a bicycle from the north, and the plaintiffs admitted they had no evidence he came through the gate, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could infer gate entry, so causation failed. At the same time, the court held — following Gfeller v. Scottsdale Vista North Townhomes Association — that a declaration’s allocation of common-area maintenance to an association creates a negligence duty running to owners and their invitees. The defense won on causation, not on the absence of a duty.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Merrick Avenue Management, LLC (Plaintiff)
Lead plaintiff in CV2023-008406, suing alongside homeowners Edward Trenton Albarracin and Gretchen Marie Zamjahn on negligence claims arising from the open community gate.
Edward Trenton Albarracin (Plaintiff)
Co-owner of the Scottsdale residence where the February 18, 2023 shooting occurred; a plaintiff in this case and, per the January 2024 consolidation hearing, a defendant in Douglas Cordano's pre-consolidation case. Docketed in the party records as Trenton Edward Albarricin.
Gretchen Marie Zamjahn (Plaintiff)
Co-owner of the residence where the shooting occurred; a plaintiff in this case and, per the January 2024 consolidation hearing, a defendant in Douglas Cordano's pre-consolidation case.
Douglas J. Cordano (Consolidated Plaintiff)
Shooting victim. He went to the residence on February 18, 2023 to administer IV injections to the owners and was shot at close range in the driveway. His separate case, CV2023-012338, was consolidated into this case in January 2024; he later obtained default judgments against Patrick Gruchala and Carrie A. Luikens.
Cody J. Jess (Counsel)
Counsel listed in the minute-entry captions and party records for plaintiffs Merrick Avenue Management, LLC, Edward Trenton Albarracin, and Gretchen Marie Zamjahn.
Joshua Taylor Greer (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for the Merrick Avenue plaintiffs, including at the January 2024 consolidation hearing, the December 2024 order-to-show-cause hearing, and the April 30, 2025 summary-judgment argument.
Steven A. Cohen (Counsel)
Counsel of record for consolidated plaintiff Douglas J. Cordano throughout the collected minute entries.

Respondent Side

Troon Village Association (Defendant)
Association whose CC&Rs the complaint alleged apply to the plaintiffs' property and make it responsible in part for Common Areas, including the gates at issue. Its motion to dismiss (joint with Cornerstone) was denied in September 2023; it was not among the defendants granted summary judgment in April 2025.
Cornerstone Properties, Inc. (Defendant)
Co-defendant that moved to dismiss jointly with Troon Village Association; the motion was denied in September 2023. Not among the defendants granted summary judgment in April 2025.
Troon Fairways Homeowners Association (Defendant)
The association (called "the HOA" in the summary-judgment ruling) whose common areas include the Happy Valley Road entrance gate. It moved for summary judgment with the individual defendants on January 29, 2025 and prevailed on all counts on April 30, 2025; it withdrew its motions for entry of judgment and attorneys' fees in June 2025.
Jeffrey D. Kinney (Defendant)
Troon Fairways board president who, per the undisputed facts in the summary-judgment ruling, directed that the non-functioning gate be left open. One of only two individual defendants on the board on February 18, 2023, and the only one the evidence linked to the gate decision; summary judgment was nonetheless granted in his favor.
Pamela D. North (Defendant)
Individual defendant identified in the summary-judgment ruling as Mr. Kinney's spouse; granted summary judgment.
Shari L. Weintraub (Defendant)
The other individual defendant who served on the board on February 18, 2023; the court found no evidence linking her to any action. Listed pro per in the party records; granted summary judgment.
Sanford L. and Amy J. Friedman; Richard S. and Linda K. Jaffee; Eric and Melissa Mack Gold; Todd D. Weintraub (Defendants)
Individual defendants the court found had no facts tying them to the allegations; the ruling states summary judgment was appropriate for them regardless of the gate-entry analysis.
Amcor Property Professionals, Inc. (Defendant)
Defendant whose Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss was denied in October 2023 without prejudice to a later summary-judgment motion; at the April 30, 2025 argument the court noted Amcor's own motion for summary judgment had been filed but it was not decided in that ruling.
MC General Contracting, LLC (Defendant)
Defendant in the consolidated litigation that appeared through counsel at the January 2024 consolidation hearing and the December 2024 order-to-show-cause hearing.
Patrick Gruchala (Defendant (consolidated))
Identified in the April 2025 summary-judgment ruling as the shooter. A pro per defendant in the consolidated case; Commissioner Albrecht entered a default judgment against him on June 19, 2025.
Carrie A. Luikens (Defendant (consolidated))
Pro per defendant in the consolidated case; ordered in December 2024 to appear for a deposition, and a default judgment was entered against her on June 19, 2025.
Quinten T. Cupps (Counsel)
Counsel of record for Troon Village Association and Cornerstone Properties, Inc. through the January 2024 consolidation hearing.
Christina N. Morgan (Counsel)
Attorney listed for Troon Village Association and Cornerstone Properties, Inc. in the party records and minute-entry captions from September 2024 onward.
DeeAnn Marie Barnes (Counsel)
Counsel appearing for Troon Village Association and Cornerstone Properties, Inc. at the December 2024 hearing and the April 30, 2025 summary-judgment argument.
Geoffrey G. Collins (Counsel)
Counsel of record for Troon Fairways Homeowners' Association and individual defendants Kinney, North, the Friedmans, the Jaffees, and the Golds.
Tessa Knueppel (Counsel)
Counsel of record for Amcor Property Professionals, Inc.

Neutral Parties

Jay Ryan Adleman (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge originally assigned to the case; disqualified himself in September 2023.
Katherine Cooper (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who received the case on reassignment, denied the Troon Village/Cornerstone and Amcor motions to dismiss in 2023, and granted consolidation in January 2024.
Scott Minder (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who assumed the calendar effective June 21, 2024 and issued the April 30, 2025 under-advisement ruling granting summary judgment.
Richard Albrecht (Commissioner)
Maricopa County Superior Court commissioner who handled the default proceedings and entered the June 19, 2025 default judgments against Patrick Gruchala and Carrie A. Luikens.

What happened

Edward Trenton Albarracin and Gretchen Marie Zamjahn own a home in Scottsdale inside the Troon Fairways Homeowners Association; the complaint alleged the property is also part of Troon Village Association and subject to its CC&Rs. Under the governing CC&Rs, the association is contractually obligated to maintain the common areas, including the gate at the community’s entrance off Happy Valley Road. On February 18, 2023, Douglas J. Cordano went to the residence to administer IV injections to the owners. Security cameras recorded Patrick Gruchala — who in the preceding days had entered a business deal regarding his own home with Mr. Albarracin or Mr. Albarracin’s company — walking southbound past the driveway, then running into the driveway and shooting into Mr. Cordano’s driver’s-side window eight times at point-blank range before fleeing north on foot and, moments later, riding a bicycle south on Alma School Road. It is undisputed that the entrance gate was not functioning that day, had been inoperative for days or weeks, and had been left open at the direction of board president Jeffrey Kinney.

Merrick Avenue Management, LLC, Mr. Albarracin, and Ms. Zamjahn sued Troon Village Association, Cornerstone Properties, Inc., Troon Fairways Homeowners’ Association, individual owners and board members, and Amcor Property Professionals, Inc. in Maricopa County Superior Court (CV2023-008406), asserting negligence claims that all related to the open gate. Mr. Cordano brought his own case (CV2023-012338), in which Mr. Albarracin and Ms. Zamjahn appeared as defendants. The originally assigned judge, Jay Ryan Adleman, disqualified himself in September 2023, and the case was reassigned to Judge Katherine Cooper. On September 18, 2023, Judge Cooper denied Troon Village Association and Cornerstone’s motion to dismiss, finding the complaint adequately alleged that the TVA CC&Rs are the source of a contractual duty to maintain Common Areas, including the gates. On October 12, 2023, she denied Amcor’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion as well, while noting the ruling did not decide that Amcor actually owed a duty and did not preclude a later summary-judgment motion. In January 2024, all counsel stipulated to consolidating the two cases under CV2023-008406.

Through 2024 the case moved through amended scheduling orders: the trial-setting conference originally set for November 2024 was reset several times, ultimately to August 12, 2025, and Judge Scott Minder assumed the calendar effective June 21, 2024. Meanwhile, default applications against consolidated defendants Patrick Gruchala and Carrie A. Luikens were referred to Commissioner Richard Albrecht, and at a December 2024 order-to-show-cause hearing Ms. Luikens was ordered to appear for a deposition the following January.

On January 29, 2025, Troon Fairways Homeowners’ Association and individual defendants Kinney, North, Friedman, Weintraub, Jaffe, and Gold moved for summary judgment on all counts. After oral argument on April 30, 2025, Judge Minder granted the motion the same day in an under-advisement ruling. The court explained that the inoperative gate underlay every claim, so the plaintiffs had to be able to show a jury that Mr. Gruchala entered the community through the Happy Valley Road gate. The undisputed video evidence pointed the other way: he approached the residence from the north, fled north after the shooting, and was recorded moments later on a bicycle on Alma School Road. The plaintiffs admitted they had no evidence he came through the gate and relied on a jury inference, but the court walked through the implausible alternative scenarios such an inference would require and concluded it was not reasonable on the record. A fallback theory — that the long-open gate let the shooter scout the area on an earlier date — was rejected as pure speculation.

The ruling is notable for what the defense did not win. On duty, the court followed Gfeller v. Scottsdale Vista North Townhomes Association and held that the CC&Rs’ allocation of common-area maintenance to the association creates a negligence duty — the association owed the owner plaintiffs, and their invitees, a duty to maintain the gate as part of the common areas. Citing Perez v. Circle K, the court refused the defendants’ invitation to define the duty narrowly as one to prevent an unforeseeable shooting, because that would intertwine duty with breach and causation. It rejected Mr. Cordano’s separate business-invitee theory against the association, since the association had not invited him for business purposes, but still extended the maintenance duty to residents’ invitees. On causation, the court said that if there had been a reasonable basis to conclude the shooter came through the gate, causation would have been for the jury — evidence suggested the association knew of prior security incidents potentially related to the open gate. And among the individual defendants, only Mr. Kinney and Shari Weintraub served on the board on the day of the shooting; the evidence linked only Mr. Kinney to the decision to leave the gate open, so all individual defendants except Mr. Kinney (and Ms. North as his spouse) would have been dismissed in any event. The court also observed that no complaint pleaded a negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim.

The collected minute entries end in mid-2025 with the case still active. The Troon Fairways defendants filed motions for entry of judgment and attorneys’ fees in May 2025 but withdrew them in June. On June 19, 2025, after an evidentiary default hearing at which Mr. Cordano testified, Commissioner Albrecht entered default judgments against Mr. Gruchala and Ms. Luikens. The claims involving Troon Village Association, Cornerstone Properties, and Amcor — whose own summary-judgment motion had been noted at the April 30 argument — were not resolved in the collected minute entries.

Procedural timeline

Step 2023-02-18 Douglas Cordano is shot in the driveway of the Albarracin/Zamjahn residence inside the Troon Fairways community; the Happy Valley Road entrance gate is inoperative and has been left open at the board president's direction.

Step 2023 Merrick Avenue Management, LLC, Edward Trenton Albarracin, and Gretchen Marie Zamjahn sue Troon Village Association, Cornerstone Properties, Troon Fairways Homeowners' Association, individual defendants, and Amcor (CV2023-008406); Douglas Cordano files a separate case (CV2023-012338).

Step 2023-09-14 Judge Jay Ryan Adleman disqualifies himself; the case is reassigned to Judge Katherine Cooper.

Step 2023-09-18 Judge Cooper denies Troon Village Association and Cornerstone's motion to dismiss: the complaint adequately alleges the TVA CC&Rs as the source of a duty to maintain Common Areas, including the gates.

Step 2023-10-12 Judge Cooper denies Amcor's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, without deciding that Amcor actually owed a duty and without precluding a later summary-judgment motion.

Step 2024-01-19 By stipulation of all counsel, CV2023-008406 and CV2023-012338 are consolidated under CV2023-008406.

Step 2024-03-04 to 2024-11-15 Scheduling orders are amended several times; the trial-setting conference is reset from November 2024 ultimately to August 12, 2025, and Judge Scott Minder assumes the calendar effective June 21, 2024.

Step 2024-10-04 Plaintiff's default applications against consolidated defendants Patrick Gruchala and Carrie A. Luikens are referred to Commissioner Richard Albrecht.

Step 2024-12-02 At an order-to-show-cause hearing on Cordano's failure-to-appear motion, Ms. Luikens is ordered to appear for a January deposition.

Step 2025-01-29 Troon Fairways Homeowners' Association and individual defendants Kinney, North, Friedman, Weintraub, Jaffe, and Gold move for summary judgment on all counts.

Step 2025-04-30 After oral argument, Judge Minder issues an under-advisement ruling granting the Troon Fairways defendants summary judgment on all counts: a jury could not reasonably infer the shooter entered through the gate, so causation fails, although the CC&Rs did create a duty to maintain the gate for owners and their invitees.

Type: Decision or judgment

Shows the filer trying to move the case forward because the opposing party had not timely appeared.

Download source file

2025-06-19_020_default-judgment.pdf

FAQ

Why did the case turn on how the shooter entered the community?

Because every negligence claim against the association defendants rested on the allegation that the inoperative, open gate at the Happy Valley Road entrance let the shooter in. The court held the plaintiffs therefore had to give a jury some basis to find that Mr. Gruchala actually entered through that gate. The undisputed security video showed him approaching the residence from the north, fleeing north, and riding a bicycle away on Alma School Road moments later; the plaintiffs admitted they had no evidence of gate entry. The court concluded a jury could not reasonably infer gate entry without setting aside that video evidence, so summary judgment was granted.

Did the court decide the HOA owed no duty to anyone?

No — the opposite. Following Gfeller v. Scottsdale Vista North Townhomes Association, the court held that the CC&Rs’ allocation of common-area maintenance to the association creates a duty for negligence purposes, and it extended that duty not only to owners but also to their invitees, like Mr. Cordano. Citing Perez v. Circle K, it refused to define the duty narrowly as one to prevent an unforeseeable shooting, because that would improperly mix duty with breach and causation. The association won on causation, not duty.

What happened to the individual board members and homeowners who were sued?

All of the moving individual defendants were granted summary judgment. The court also explained that most of them would have exited the case anyway: only Jeffrey Kinney and Shari Weintraub served on the board on the day of the shooting, the evidence linked only Mr. Kinney to the decision to leave the gate open, and no facts tied the Friedmans, the Jaffees, the Golds, or Todd Weintraub to the allegations at all. Neither plaintiff disputed that result.

Did the April 2025 ruling end the whole case?

No. It resolved all counts against Troon Fairways Homeowners’ Association and the moving individual defendants only. Troon Village Association and Cornerstone Properties — whose 2023 motion to dismiss had been denied — were not part of the motion, and Amcor’s own summary-judgment motion was noted at the April 30 argument but not decided in the ruling. In June 2025, default judgments were entered against consolidated defendants Patrick Gruchala and Carrie A. Luikens. The collected minute entries end on June 19, 2025 with the case still active.

What is an under-advisement ruling?

When an Arizona superior-court judge takes a motion “under advisement” after briefing or argument, the later written decision is filed as an under-advisement ruling in the court’s minute entries. The April 30, 2025 ruling in this case is that kind of decision: after the morning’s oral argument, the court issued a written order the same day setting out the undisputed facts, the summary-judgment standard, and its analysis of duty, causation, and the individual defendants. These rulings are public records available through the Clerk of the Superior Court.

Is this decision binding on other Arizona HOA disputes?

No. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. The case is still useful reading for two reasons: it applies Gfeller to hold that CC&R maintenance obligations create a negligence duty running to owners and their invitees, and it shows that duty alone does not carry a case — a plaintiff must still produce evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that the association’s alleged failure actually caused the harm. Note also that the case remained active against other defendants when the collected minute entries end in June 2025, so later rulings may exist.

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	CV2023-008406 (Maricopa County Superior Court)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	April 30, 2025
Judge / panel	Hon. Scott Minder, Hon. Katherine Cooper
Parties	Merrick Avenue Management, LLC; Edward Trenton Albarracin; Gretchen Marie Zamjahn (Plaintiffs) and Douglas J. Cordano (Consolidated Plaintiff) v. Troon Village Association; Cornerstone Properties, Inc.; Troon Fairways Homeowners Association; Amcor Property Professionals, Inc.; individual board members and homeowners; and consolidated defendants (Defendants)
Topics	CC&RsBoard GovernanceProcedureNegligence
Outcome / holding	The superior court granted Troon Fairways Homeowners' Association and the moving individual defendants summary judgment on all counts because no reasonable jury could infer that the shooter entered the community through the Happy Valley Road gate — the central allegation underlying every claim — while holding that the CC&Rs' allocation of common-area maintenance to the association creates a negligence duty running to owners and their invitees under Gfeller, and that causation would otherwise have been a jury question.
Primary public source	View source opinion/order

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	20 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	13 roadmap entries
Video overview	Temporarily unavailable while the expanded case record is reviewed
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	6 questions
Featured download links	1 download link

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

After Douglas Cordano was shot eight times at point-blank range on February 18, 2023 while parked in the driveway of a Scottsdale home inside the Troon Fairways community, the homeowners (with Merrick Avenue Management, LLC) and Cordano brought negligence suits against Troon Village Association, Cornerstone Properties, Troon Fairways Homeowners' Association, individual board members and homeowners, and Amcor Property Professionals. Every claim rested on the allegation that the community's entrance gate off Happy Valley Road — inoperative for days or weeks and left open at the direction of board president Jeffrey Kinney — allowed the shooter, Patrick Gruchala, into the community. In 2023 the court denied motions to dismiss by Troon Village/Cornerstone and Amcor, holding the complaint adequately alleged CC&R-based duties to maintain common areas including the gates, and the two cases were consolidated in January 2024. On April 30, 2025, the court granted the Troon Fairways defendants summary judgment on all counts: undisputed security video showed Gruchala approaching from and fleeing to the north, the plaintiffs admitted they had no evidence of gate entry, and a jury could not reasonably infer he came through the gate — so causation failed even though the court, following Gfeller, found the CC&Rs created a duty to maintain the gate for owners and their invitees. Default judgments against consolidated defendants Gruchala and Carrie Luikens were entered June 19, 2025; the case remained active against other defendants when the collected minute entries end.

Key Issues & Findings

Applying the Orme School standard, the court found the burden shifted to the plaintiffs once the defendants pointed to the undisputed security-camera evidence: Gruchala walked southbound on 104th Way from north of the residence, ran back north immediately after shooting Cordano, and was recorded moments later riding a bicycle southbound on Alma School Road. The plaintiffs admitted they had no evidence he came through the gate and relied entirely on a jury inference. The court walked through the alternative scenarios that inference would require — stashing or retrieving a bicycle over a wall, walking exposed along busy streets, passing the same cameras without triggering them — and concluded no jury could reasonably draw it, particularly given short walls and an ungated golf-cart opening beside the gate. A fallback theory that the long-open gate let Gruchala scout the area on an earlier day was rejected as pure speculation, noting he had searched the address online and no evidence showed any prior entry.

On duty, the court followed Gfeller v. Scottsdale Vista North Townhomes Association and held that the CC&Rs — which obligate the association to manage, maintain, repair, replace, and improve the Common Areas, with assessments used to promote the recreation, health, safety and welfare of the Owners — create a negligence duty to owner-members to maintain the common areas, including the entrance gate. Citing Perez v. Circle K, it refused to define the duty narrowly as one to prevent an unforeseeable targeted shooting, because framing duty that way would improperly intertwine it with breach and causation. The court rejected Cordano's business-invitee theory against the association, since the association had not invited him for any business purpose, but nonetheless found the maintenance duty ran to residents' invitees as well. Summary judgment therefore could not rest on absence of duty as to any plaintiff.

On causation, the court held the plaintiffs' inability to show gate entry was dispositive: without it, the open gate could not have caused any damages. It emphasized that if a reasonable basis for gate entry existed, causation would have gone to the jury, because evidence suggested the association knew of prior security incidents potentially related to the open gate and of the security value of a working gate. Separately, only Kinney and Shari Weintraub served on the board on the day of the shooting; evidence linked only Kinney to the decision to leave the gate open, so all individual defendants except Kinney (and North as his spouse) were entitled to judgment regardless — a result neither plaintiff disputed. The court also noted that no complaint pleaded negligent infliction of emotional distress and declined to limit the recoverable damages on the summary-judgment record. In June 2025 the Fairways defendants withdrew their motions for entry of judgment and attorneys' fees, and default judgments were entered against consolidated defendants Gruchala and Luikens.

Why It Matters

This case is a clear illustration of how Arizona courts treat an association's CC&R maintenance obligations in tort. Following Gfeller, the court held that when a declaration assigns common-area maintenance — here, a community entrance gate — to an association, that assignment creates a negligence duty for purposes of a lawsuit, and the duty runs not only to owner-members but to their invitees. Boards cannot assume that a criminal act by a third party, or the fact that an injury happened on a private driveway, erases the basic duty to maintain what the CC&Rs put in their charge; under Perez v. Circle K, those arguments go to breach and causation, not duty.

At the same time, the ruling shows that duty alone does not decide a case. The plaintiffs lost because they could not produce evidence from which a jury could reasonably find the open gate actually mattered — the shooter's recorded movements pointed to a different entry route, and speculation could not fill the gap. For individual board members, the decision is also instructive: directors who were not on the board at the relevant time, or whom no evidence ties to the challenged decision, were entitled to exit the case, while the board president who directed that the broken gate be left open was the one individual with potential exposure. As a superior-court decision it binds only these parties, and the case remained active against other defendants — including Troon Village Association, Cornerstone Properties, and Amcor Property Professionals — when the collected minute entries end in June 2025.

← Back to Superior Court cases

Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community Association: CC&Rs as Contract, Negligence, and the Limits of HOA Tort Claims

Posted on June 19, 2026 by [email protected]

Arizona HOA Litigation | PENDING | A.R.S. § 33-1805 | CV2024-005940

Rodriguez is an active, heavily litigated case on remand from the Court of Appeals. The latest substantive ruling narrowed it to negligence and CC&R-based contract claims, dismissed the retaliation, discrimination, and conspiracy theories, and sanctioned the pro se plaintiff. No final judgment has been entered.

Last updated June 19, 2026. Case: Sandra Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community Association, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-005940 (consolidated with CV2024-013806; Hon. Christopher Coury). Status: pending / not final.

Download omnibus ruling Download motion to dismiss Source-file index FAQ

Current-status note: This page is published as a litigation record based on the source files available through 2026-06-11. Later filings, appeals, mandates, settlements, or dismissal orders may change the posture; the linked court records control.

Pipeline note: the public raw-source folder contains source files that were not in the last staged NotebookLM source set. The page remains a source-linked record, but generated media should be rebuilt or rechecked after the staged source manifest catches up.

Allegations, settlements, procedural dismissals, and notices are not findings of liability unless a cited court order expressly makes that finding.

Status: PENDING / NOT FINAL (June 2026). This is an active Maricopa County Superior Court case on remand from the Court of Appeals; no final judgment has been entered and rulings may change. This page summarizes the uploaded record and is educational, not legal advice.

The takeaways so far

An HOA’s CC&Rs are the contract between owner and association, so breach-of-contract claims survive only against the association and only as to specific recorded CC&R terms — not against a management company that is not a party to that contract. Arizona recognizes no standalone tort of ‘retaliation,’ and the economic-loss doctrine can bar tort claims that merely restate CC&R breaches. But negligence and gross-negligence claims tied to common-area maintenance and management duties, and records-access claims under A.R.S. § 33-1805, can still proceed.

What the case is about

Sandra Rodriguez, a Gilbert homeowner appearing pro se, sued the Gardens-Gilbert Community Association, its management company (Focus HOA Management, LLC), and three individual agents, alleging they failed to maintain common areas and address health-and-safety hazards, obstructed remediation of water-intrusion damage at her property, denied her access to records and meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1805, and retaliated against her.

After the trial court dismissed several defendants, the Court of Appeals (1 CA-CV 24-0790/25-0040, August 2025 memorandum decision) reinstated her negligence, gross-negligence, and intentional-tort claims and remanded. On remand, Judge Coury’s May 27, 2026 omnibus ruling narrowed the case to surviving negligence and CC&R-based contract claims, dismissed the discrimination, retaliation, and conspiracy theories, sanctioned the plaintiff for a missed deposition, and imposed a filing restriction; a summary-judgment motion remains pending and a third appeal was filed June 1, 2026.

Video overview of the case record

An AI-generated video overview of Sandra Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community Association, et al. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-005940 (consolidated with CV2024-013806)). On the operative pleading, the court held that an HOA’s CC&Rs are the contract between owner and association, so… 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 Sandra Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community Association, et al.. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked case records below.

Audio overview generated with Google NotebookLM from the case’s court filings.

Procedural timeline

Step 2024-03-21 Complaint filed (CV2024-005940)

Step 2025-08-12 Court of Appeals reinstates negligence/gross-negligence/intentional-tort claims; remands (1 CA-CV 24-0790/25-0040)

Step 2025-09-03 Cases CV2024-005940 and CV2024-013806 consolidated

Type: Procedural/service filing

Service document used to notify a defendant or respondent that the case has been filed.

Download source file

undated_218_summons.pdf

Source 219 Undated

Verified Answer

Type: Responsive pleading

Responding party's first substantive response to the complaint or petition.

Download source file

undated_219_verified-answer.pdf

Key holdings (so far)

Breach-of-contract claims run against the association, limited to recorded CC&R terms.
A management company is not a party to that contract.

Arizona recognizes no standalone HOA retaliation tort.
The economic-loss doctrine bars tort claims that merely restate CC&R breaches.

Negligence and gross negligence tied to common-area maintenance.
Records-access theory under A.R.S. § 33-1805.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Sandra Rodriguez (Plaintiff)
Self-represented homeowner plaintiff.

Respondent Side

Gardens-Gilbert Community Association (Defendant/Appellee)
Association party named in Rodriguez’s complaint and appeal.
Focus HOA Management, LLC (Defendant/Appellee)
Management-company defendant in the case record.
Harman Cadis (Defendant)
Focus HOA Management
Individual defendant named in the verified partial answer.
Brooke Sortor (Defendant)
Focus HOA Management
Individual defendant named in the verified partial answer.
Anna Schultz (Defendant)
Focus HOA Management
Individual defendant named in the verified partial answer.
Augustus H. Shaw IV (Counsel)
Counsel for defendants in the verified partial answer.
Dominick D. Detente (Counsel)
Counsel for defendants in the verified partial answer.

Neutral Parties

Rodrick Coffey (Judge)
Superior Court judge listed in one order.
David McDowell (Judge)
Superior Court judge assigned in later pleadings.
Christopher Coury (Judge)
Superior Court judge addressed in later notices.

FAQ

Is this case final?

No. It is active and pending on remand, with a summary-judgment motion outstanding and a third appeal filed June 1, 2026. Nothing here is a final ruling and the outcome may change.

Can I sue my HOA's management company for breach of contract?

Generally not on the CC&Rs alone. This ruling holds the CC&Rs are the contract between the owner and the association; a management company that is not a party to that contract is not liable for breach of it.

Does Arizona recognize an HOA 'retaliation' claim?

This ruling holds it does not as a standalone tort, and that the economic-loss doctrine can bar tort claims that simply restate CC&R breaches.

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	Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2024-005940 (consolidated with CV2024-013806)
Court / tribunal	Superior Court
Decision / key date	May 27, 2026
Judge / panel	Hon. Christopher Coury
Parties	A Gilbert homeowner, appearing pro se, sued her HOA, its management company, and three individual agents over common-area maintenance, records access, and alleged retaliation; the case is active on remand from the Court of Appeals.
Governing law	A.R.S. § 33-1805 A.R.S. § 12-1809
Topics	ProcedureCC&RsNegligenceRecords RequestsEconomic Loss DoctrinePro Se Litigant
Outcome / holding	On the operative pleading, the court held that an HOA's CC&Rs are the contract between owner and association, so breach-of-contract claims survive only against the association and only as to specific recorded CC&R terms (not against the non-contracting management company); the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires a contract; Arizona recognizes no standalone tort of 'retaliation' and the economic-loss doctrine bars tort claims that merely restate CC&R breaches; but the plaintiff's negligence and gross-negligence claims tied to common-area maintenance and management duties, and her § 33-1805 records theory, survive for further litigation.

Parties, Court, and Research Coverage

Reviewed source package	219 PDFs
Step-by-step docket roadmap	5 roadmap entries
Video overview	Sandra Rodriguez v. Gardens-Gilbert Community Association, et al.
Study / briefing material	1 section
FAQ / homeowner questions	3 questions
Featured download links	3 download links

Key Issues & Findings

Case Summary

CURRENT STATUS (June 2026): NOT FINAL — this is an active, heavily litigated Maricopa County Superior Court case on remand from the Court of Appeals; no final judgment has been entered. Sandra Rodriguez, a homeowner in the Gardens-Gilbert community, sued the association, its management company (Focus HOA Management, LLC), and three individual agents, alleging the defendants failed to maintain common areas and address health-and-safety hazards, obstructed remediation of water-intrusion damage at her property, denied her access to records and meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1805, and retaliated against her. The trial court initially dismissed several defendants, but in August 2025 the Court of Appeals (1 CA-CV 24-0790/25-0040, memorandum decision) reinstated her negligence, gross-negligence, and intentional-tort claims and remanded. On remand, the latest substantive ruling is Judge Coury's May 27, 2026 omnibus order, which narrowed the case to surviving negligence and CC&R-based contract claims, dismissed the discrimination, retaliation, and conspiracy theories, sanctioned the plaintiff for a missed deposition, and imposed a filing restriction; a summary-judgment motion remains pending and a third appeal was filed June 1, 2026.

Key Issues & Findings

Taking the well-pleaded allegations as admitted, the court held that several counts failed as a matter of law: breach of contract requires a contract, so claims against the management entity and individuals failed and the association claim was limited to the recorded CC&Rs; the implied covenant cannot exist without a contract; Arizona does not recognize a tort of retaliation, and to the extent the retaliation theory rested on CC&R duties the economic-loss doctrine barred it; and the discrimination count failed for lack of any protected-characteristic facts. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the appellate remand was narrow, reviewing each claim de novo because the earlier dismissal had been without prejudice. Applying the four-factor injunction test, it denied the plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order and harassment injunction, finding no likelihood of success or irreparable harm and noting the request appeared aimed at avoiding a deposition; it also denied her motion to declare defense counsel vexatious, imposed an intermediate sanction for the missed deposition, and restricted further motion practice pending decision on summary judgment.

Why It Matters

For Arizona HOA disputes, the case reinforces that CC&Rs are the contract between owner and association — breach-of-contract claims are confined to specific recorded CC&R terms and generally cannot be brought against a management company that is not a party to that contract. It confirms that Arizona recognizes no standalone tort of HOA 'retaliation' and that the economic-loss doctrine can bar tort claims that simply restate CC&R breaches, while showing that records-access claims under A.R.S. § 33-1805 and common-area maintenance failures can still proceed as negligence theories. It is also a cautionary example of how a sprawling pro se HOA case can draw sanctions, filing restrictions, and repeated appeals. Because the case is ongoing, nothing here is a final ruling.

← Back to Superior Court cases