Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCourt Challenge Records - All Others - - 4/10/2026 "26 APR 10 N I :a G315 C IT Y C ERK. CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT FILED 1 04/06/2026 7:05 p.m. A.Cage 2 ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT DEPUTY CLERK 3 MARICOPA COUNTY 4 BART TURNER Case No. CV2026-014454 5 individually, ORDER TO APPEAR FOR TRIAL 6 V. Plaintiff, ' � 7 8 MICHAEL CALLES 9 , ET AL Defendants. 10 11 12 A nominating petition challenge has been filed in this matter. Arizona law 13 requires that the matter be heard on an accelerated basis. By statute, there is a strict 14 deadline for completing the trial. 15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all parties named in this action appear 16 for a virtual trial before the following judge at the date, time and location 17 indicated below: 18 JUDICIAL OFFICER: Honorable Gregory Como I 19 20 DATE: 04/15/2026 21 TIME: 8:00 A.M. 22 23 Please note that the Court is utilizing a virtual platform called Court 24 Connect. You may join the hearing using the following link. 25 tinyurl.com/jbazmc-cvj10 26 Teams Phone Number: +1917-781-4590 Access Code: 803 526 856# 27 28 If there is a failure to appear, the Court may make such orders as are just, including granting the relief requested b the party who 9 Y p ty appears. 3.9.26 i 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all parties named in this action must 3 appear at a virtual pre-trial hearing before Honorable Gregory Como on 4 April 14th, 2026 at 9:00 A.M. 5 Please note that the Court is utilizing a virtual platform called Court 6 Connect. You may join the hearing using the following link. 7 8 tinyuri.com/jbazmc-cvj10 9 Teams Phone Number: +1 917-781-4590 Access Code: 803 526 856# 10 If there is a failure to appear, the Court may make such orders as are just, including granting the relief requested by the party who appears. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ?0 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 3.9.26 EXHIBIT REQUIREMENTS IT IS ORDERED that the parties submit any proposed hearing exhibits as follows: I. Submit Hearing Exhibits through Case Center. This division is using Case Center (also known as Case Lines), a statewide electronic exhibit portal. Attorneys must submit exhibits through Case Center, Self-Represented Litigants can request to opt-out of Case Center by contacting the judge's division.Unless otherwise ordered, Exhibits must be submitted at least 2 business days before the hearing as provided below. 2. Opting Out of Case Center (Self-Represented Litigants only). A Self-Represented Litigant may opt out of Case Center no less than 2 calendar days before the trial/evidentiary hearing (or within 24 hours of being served with notice if the party is served less than 1 calendar day before the evidentiary hearing). The Self- Represented Litigant must email the other Self-Represented Litigants or counsel and the assigned judicial division to notify the court that they are opting out and to request instructions for submitting exhibits. Self-Represented Litigants must comply with the deadline for submitting Exhibits. Each party must make sure the Court has the party's valid current email address. If you do not have an email address,you can obtain a free one through accounts.google.com. Each party must register for Case Center at www.azcourts.gov/digitalevidence.The website has links to training resources that will guide you through uploading-exhibits and navigating Case Center. The Clerk of Cr�urt will send an email invitation to each party (or their attorney of record) with acase- specific Case Center link for uploading exhibits before the first hearing.For subsequent hearings in the same case,parties will not receive another email and should access the case on the Case List page. For instructions, See AccessPortalAndSearchForCase pdf (azcourts.g_ov)For assistance with Case Center invitations only, email the Clerk of Court at COCExhibitQuestions. maricopa.gov. The email subject line should include the case number. The body of the email should include the parties'names,the assigned judge's name and explain that the sender is requesting help with a Case Center invitation. 3. Exhibit Format. Case Center accepts most digital formats (including photographs, PDFs, Nord files, audio files, and video files). Case Center automatically numbers the exhibits. Plaintiff/Petitioner's exhibits have a P- prefix (Exhibit Pl, P2, etc.) and Defendant/Respondent's exhibits have a D- prefix (Exhibit D1,D2, etc.). During the hearing, the parties must refer to exhibits using the Case Center exhibit numbers. For assistance with Case Center, contact AOC Support Services at(602)452-3519(option 5) or pasupport@courts.az.gov, Monday — Friday 7 AM — 6 PM, excluding State holidays. 4. Exhibit Upload Assistance. Scanners are available at each of the regional court Law Library Resource Centers. Each scanner has an attached computer and instructions on how to upload exhibits into Case Center. 5. Exchange Exhibits. At least 2 business days (not including weekends) before the hearing, you must give the other party copies of all exhibits you submitted for use at the hearing. 6. Physical Exhibits. The Courtroom Clerk will handle marking physical exhibits for Self-Represented Litigants who opt out of Case Center.Attorneys who submit physical exhibits must create a placeholder in Case Center and include"Physical Exhibit"in the name of the exhibit prior to submitting the physical exhibit(s) to the judge's division. The collection of physical exhibits must have a Physical Exhibit Case Coversheet that includes the following: (1)the name of the party submitting the exhibit(s); (2)the case number; (3) the date of hearing; and (4) the exhibit number(s) and description(s). In addition, each individual exhibit must have an Exhibit Coversheet printed on color paper indicating the physical exhibit's exhibit number in Case Center. For Self- Represented Litigants, if any individual exhibit is a document that is longer than ten (10) pages, each page of the exhibit should be numbered. Division staff will provide the exhibits to the Courtroom Clerk for marking. The Courtroom Clerk will mark physical exhibit(s)with the same exhibit number used in Case Center. 7. Remote Witnesses.Any party who calls a witness who is appearing remotely(i.e.,by telephone or videoconference) should either(1)provide the witness with a copy of all exhibits or (2) ensure that the remote witness has an electronic device available that allows them to view exhibits displayed on a screen through either Case Center or Teams. 8. Exhibit Presentation During Hearings. Unless indicated otherwise in any hearing- specific court minute entry or order, offerors may, but are not required to, use Case Center to present (e.g., show to the court, a witness, or the jury) evidence during a Hearing. Options for presentation of evidence include but are not limited to the following: (1) use of paper copies of the exhibits that have been uploaded to Case Center; (2)use of evidence presentation software and/or PDF viewers to display PDFs of exhibits that have been uploaded to Case Center; (3) screen sharing of Case Center through Court Connect (Teams); and (4) use of Case Center "Presentation" mode to share exhibits.Parties are strongly encouraged to download PDFs of their Case Center exhibits and/or have paper copies available in the event there are technological difficulties in the courtroom. 10.Additional resources. For Case Center related training and questions,the parties may wish to visit the Thomson Reuters Case Center Home Page at httI�s://answers lel=alnrofthomsonreuter.s.com/casecenter-us/search, For technical issues with Case Center,parties may contact AOC Support Services Monday—Friday from 7:00 AM — 6:00 PM, excluding State holidays, at (602) 452-3519, 1-800-720- 7743 (toll free),or 2gjjU2pVj1@courts,az,eov.The parties may also wish to review A.O. 2024-080 at ao2024-080-re-use-of-case-center-in-the-civil-de artment.odfm� f copa.gov�for additional information regarding Case Center. Dated 4/6/26 Honorable Melissa Julian Person Filing: 1 �L Address (if not protected):_Ft fI t FI 'I'- Lb?,- City, State, Zip Code: AP �� 26 Telephone: R CLERK OF'TFiS'Si1PER10 COUR Email Address: AP _ ®'r ya DEPUTY LERK Lawyer's Bar Number: Licensed Fiduciary Number(if applicable) ._...............�_.............__ _._.__._.....�... Representing XSelf without a Lawyer or ❑ Attorney for ❑ Plaintiff OR ❑ Defendant SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA IN MARICOPA COUNTY � ( Case Number: 0 o Name of Plaintiff CIVIL COVER SHEET - NEW FILING ONLY Name of Defendant (List additional plaintiffs or defendants on page 3 and/or attach a separate sheet). Is an Interpreter Needed? ❑ Yes XNo If yes,what language(s) RULE 26.2 DISCOVERY TIER OR MONETARY RELIEF CLAIMED: IMPORTANT: Any case category that has an asterisk(*) MUST have a dollar amount claimed or Tier selected. State the monetary amount in controversy or place an "X" next to the discovery tier to which the pleadings allege the case would belong under Rule 26.2. ❑Amount Claimed $ ❑ Tier 1 ❑ Tier 2 ❑ Tier 3 NATURE OF ACTION Place an "X" next to the one case category that most accurately describes your primary case. Any case category that has an asterisk( );MUST have a dollar amount claimed or Tier selected as indicated above. l0 Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County Page 1 of 3 CV 10f 010826 ALL RIGHTS RESERVE Case No: 100 TORT MOTOR VEHICLE: 120 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: ❑101 Non-Death/Personal Injury* 7121 Physician M.D.* ❑123 Hospital's ❑102 Property Damage* ❑122 Physician D.O* ❑124 Other* ❑103 Wrongful Death* 110 TORT NON-MOTOR VEHICLE: 130 & 197 CONTRACTS: ❑111 Negligence* ❑131 Account(Open or Stated)* ❑112 Product Liability—Asbestos* Ell 32 Promissory Note* ❑112 Product Liability—Tobacco* ❑133 Foreclosure* ❑112 Product Liability—Toxic/Other* ❑138 Buyer-Plaintiff` ❑113 Intentional Tort* ❑139 Fraud* 0114 Property Damage* 0134 Other Contract (e.g., Breach of Contract)* ❑115 Legal Malpractice* ❑135 Excess Proceeds-Sale* ❑115 Malpractice— Other professional* ❑ Construction Defects ❑117 Premises Liability* (Residential/Commercial)* 0118 Slander/Libel/Defamation* ❑13 6 Six to Nineteen Structures* ❑119 Recovery of Damages under A.R.S. §12- ❑137 Twenty or More Structures` 514* (Please provide Plaintiff DOB ❑197 Credit Card Debt(Maricopa County / / ) Filings Only)* ❑ 116 Other (Specify) * 144 & 150-199 UNCLASSIFIED CIVIL: 145 & 150-199 OTHER CIVIL CASE TYPES: ❑ Administrative Review(See Lower Court ❑156 Eminent Domain/Condemnation* Appeals cover sheet in Maricopa) ❑151 Eviction Actions ❑150 Tax Appeal(All other tax matters must (Forcible and Special Detainers)' be filed in the AZ Tax Court) ❑152 Change of Name ❑155 Declaratory Judgment ❑153 Transcript of Judgment ❑157 Habeas Corpus ❑154 Foreign Judgment ❑184 Landlord Tenant Dispute—Other* 7158 Quiet Title* ❑190 Declaration of Factual Innocence (A.R.S. ❑160 Forfeiture* §12-771) 9179 75 Election Challenge ❑191 Declaration of Factual Improper Party Status NCC-Employer Sanction Action ❑193 Vulnerable Adult(A.R.S. §46-451)* (A.R.S. §23-212)* 7165 Tribal Judgment ❑180 Injunction against Workplace Harassment ❑167 Structured Settlement(A.R.S. §12-2901) 7181 Injunction against Harassment []169 Attorney Conservatorships (State Bar) ❑182 Civil Penalty ❑170 Unauthorized Practice of Law(State Bar) ❑196 Water Rights ❑171 Out-of-State Deposition for Foreign (Not General Stream Adjudication)* Jurisdiction ❑187 Real Property * 0 Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County Page 2 of 3 CV 10f 010826 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Case No: 7145 Special Action(See Lower Court 7172 Secure Attendance of Prisoner Appeals Cover Sheet in Maricopa) ❑173 Assurance of Discontinuance ❑194 Immigration Enforcement Challenge ❑174 In-State Deposition for Foreign (A.R.S. §§1-501, 1-502, 11-1051) Jurisdiction ❑ 199 Expungement ❑176 Eminent Domain—Light Rail Only ❑ 202 Out of State Restoration of Civil Rights ❑177 Interpleader—Automobile Only* ❑ 201 Seal Criminal Case Records Ell 78 Delayed Birth Certificate (A.R.S. §13-911) (A.R.S. §36-333.03) ❑ 203 Erroneous Conviction Claim ❑183 Employment Dispute—Discrimination* ❑185 Employment Dispute—Other* ❑198 Verified Rule 27(a)Petition* ❑196 Verified Rule 45.2 Petition ❑195(a)Amendment of Marriage License (Maricopa County Filings Only) ❑195(b)Amendment of Birth Certificate ❑200 Application/Motion Objecting to Foreign Subpoena ❑l63 Other* (Specify) EMERGENCY ORDER SOUGHT ❑ Temporary Restraining Order ❑ Provisional Remedy ❑ OSC Election Challenge ❑Employer Sanction ❑ Other(Specify) COMMERCIAL COURT (Maricopa Count% Qnlh ❑ This case is eligible for the Commercial Court under Rule 8.1, and Plaintiff requests assignment of this case to the Commercial Court. More information on the Commercial Court, including the most recent forms, are available on the Court's website at: htt}>s://vvwsv,su��erio�court.r aricopa.�7oyfcommercial-coiart�'. Additional Plaintiff(s): Additional Defendant(s): gyp, ®Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa Counts, Page 3 of 3 CV 10f 010826 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Person Filing: _-- Address(if not protected): #� City,State,ZIP Code: Telephone: r Email Address 14�--- I Lawyer's Bar Number: Representing ,Self,without a Lawyer or Attorney for ❑Plaintiff OR ❑ Defendant SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA IN MARICOPA COUNTY cV 2 a r) 6 _ 01 4 4 5 4 Cas a� qualified la wyer ame of Plaintiff , +;. '""4 ugh the Lawyer Referral 3imPIY scan the OR cod ;� ; an �56to corn late e And cL„ p a referral or call us kinn r•; directly at 6 -237 4434. t Li [ C.— ,� � f Sponsored by the Name of Defendant Naricopa County Bar Association WARNING:This is an official document from the court that affects your rights. Read this carefully. If you do not understand it,contact a lawyer for help. FROM THE .STATE OF:ARiZONA TO: Name of Defendant 1. A lawsuit has been filed against you. A copy of the lawsuit and other court papers are served on you with this `Summons." 2. If you do not want a judgment or order taken against you without your input, you must file an "Answer" or a "Response" in writing with the court, and pay the filing fee, If you do not file an "Answer" or "Response" the other party may be given the relief requested in his/her Petition or Complaint. To file your "Answer"or"Response"take,or send,the "Answer"or"Response"to the: • Office of the Clerk of the Superior Court,201 West Jefferson Street, Phoenix,Arizona 86003- 2206 OR • Office of the Clerk of the Superior Court,18380 North 40s'Street, Phoenix,Arizona 86032 OR • Office of the Clerk of Superior Court, 222 East Javelina Avenue, Mesa,Arizona 86210.6201 OR • Office of the Clerk of Superior Court,14264 West Tierra Buena Lane,Surprise,Arizona,86374. Mail a,copy of your "Response"or "Answer"to the other party at the address listed on the top of this Summons. m Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County GV11f 031820 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Page 1 of 2 Case Number: 3. If this "Summons"and the other court papers were served on you by a registered process server or the Sheriff,within the State of Arizona, your "Response"or "Answer"must be filed within TWENTY (20)CALENDAR DAYS from the date you were served,not counting the day you were served. If this "Summons"and the other papers were served on you by a registered process server or the Sheriff outside the State of Arizona,your Response must be filed within THIRTY(30)CALENDAR DAYS from the date you were served, not counting the day you were served. Service by a registered process server or the Sheriff is complete when made.Service by Publication is complete thirty(30)days after the date of the first publication. 4. You can get a copy of the court papers filed in this case from the Petitioner at the address listed at the top of the preceding page,from the Clerk of the Superior Court's Customer Service Center at: 601 West Jackson, Phoenix,Arizona 36003 • 18330 North 40111 Street, Phoenix,Arizona 85032 • 222 East Javelina Avenue, Mesa,Arizona 86210 • 14264 West Tierra Buena Lane,Surprise,Arizona 85374. 5. Requests for reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities must be made to the division assigned to the case by the party needing accommodation or his/her counsel at least three(3)judicial days in advance of a scheduled proceeding. 6. Requests for an interpreter for persons with limited English proficiency must be made to the division assigned to the case by the party needing the interpreter and/or translator or his/her counsel at least ten (10)judicial days in advance of a scheduled court proceeding. 7. Eviction Actions/Forcible Detainers: If you want to request a telephonic hearing, please contact the judge assigned to your case. If you do not know your assigned judge,or have not been assigned a judge,please contact Civil Court Administration at 602-606-1497. SIGNED AND SEALED this date cc)PY CLERK OF S P I COURT APR 0-6 2026 iT IV nEA CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT By J.THILL Deputy Clerk • "" ^T'' . DEPUTY CLERK ©Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County CV11f 031820 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Page 2 of 2 Person Filing: O%OW%Y Address(if not protected): � APR 0 6 2026 I City, State,Zip Code: �� � 53f1�"� ` Coy. s CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Telephone: J,THILL 9 FOR CIDWTS�IONLY Email Address: )Wr r,, ►^' '� �"� Lawyer's Bar Number: _---- - -___-- RepresentinSelf, without a Lawyer or ❑ Attorney for ❑Plaintiff OR ❑Defendant SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA IN MARICOPA COUNTY v - ^ 326 _ Case Number v _ PLAINTIFF, CERTIFICATE OF COMPULSORY VS. ARBITRATION DEFENDANT. *Notice to Defendant: If you agree with the Plaintiff's Certificate of Compulsory Arbitration,you DO NOT need to file this form. The undersigned certifies that this case is(Please check ONLY one option below): ❑ Subject to Arbitration — The amount of money in controversy DOES NOT exceed $50.000.AND no other affirmative relief is sought. Not Subject to Arbitration — The amount of money in controversy DOES exceed $50,000, OR other affirmative relief is sought. 0 Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County Page 1 of 2 CV03f 011226 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Case Number: Defendant—If you DISAGREE with the Plaintiffs_Certificate of Compulsory Arbitration. please explain why you disagree below: SUBMITTED this day of SIGNATURE _ ©Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County Page 2 of 2 CV03f 011226 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED -72 Person FilingFZP-->- 7a f -? . -- Address(if not protected):.aza N• 5 7�- I)T> Copy City,State,Zip Code: AIR G. Telephone: � �i CIE'RKOF Lawyer's Bar Numiber — ___--_-- — � ": p A hlttER10RCOURT Representing elf,without a Lawyer or ❑Attorney for ❑ Petitioner OR ❑Respondent U7YCLERK SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA IN MARICOPA COUNTY CV2026 - 014454 _e7?yVN(- -/ Case Number: Name of Plaintiff Title: CIVIL COMPLAINT -- 6+4e� — Name of Defendant Plaintiff hereby submits this complaint against Defendant(s) and alleges the following: JURISDICTION and VENUE 1. Maricopa County Superior Court has the legal authority to hear and decide this case because: (Check ail boxes that are true.) ❑ The value of this case exceeds $10,000 dollars. .2---R-eplevin or other nonmonetary remedy will take place in Maricopa County. 'The Plaintiff resides in Maricopa County. �he Defendant resides in Maricopa County. ❑ The Defendant does business in Maricopa County. ,Q-Th-e events, actions, or debts subject of this Complaint occurred in Maricopa County [] Other reason: _ ®Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County CVC10f 070118 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Page 1 of 4 Case Number:_----- - DISCOVERY TIER 2. Pursuant to Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26.2 (c) (3), the Court should assign my case to the following tier based on the amount of damages I request. ❑ Tier 1 = Actions claiming $50,000 or less in damages. 95"Tier 2 = Actions claiming more than $50,000 and less than $300,000 in damages, OR Actions claiming nonmonetary relief. ❑ Tier 3 = Actions claiming $300,000 or more in damages. PARTIES 3. The Plaintiff in this case is p )ET-- # in this case is 4. The Defendant STATEMENT OF FACTS AND BREACH 5. 9. CV010f 070118 ©Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County Rage 2 of 4 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Case Number: ____ 10. (if you need more space, add an attachment labeled "Statement of Facts and Breach," and continue consecutive numbering.) APPLICABLE LAW SUPPORTING CLAIMS r �- E,211 t C6r-1Otj 79 F.)15;6V ©F au (if you need more space, add an attachment labeled "Applicable Laws Supporting Claims," and continue consecutive numbering.) INJURIES CVC10f 070110 O Superior Court of Arizona in Maricope County Page 3 of 4 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED case i�u�n�Gi. t } At> �Ot� lgik!P (If you need more space, add an attachment labeled "injuries," and continue consecutive numbering.) DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against defendant(s), and each of them (if applicable) for the following dollars, interest, costs and expenses incurred herein, or non-monetary remedy, including reasonable attorneys' fees, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. C Ai :T7t - tarWD 1 (if you need more space, add an attachment labeled "Demand for Relief," and continue consecutive numbering.) Dated thisG (Data of signature) gnature of Plaintiff or PlainUffs Attomey) CVC90f 070118 ©Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County Page 4 of 4 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED � f� .Z- IN THE CIRCUIT COURT Maricopa County,Arizona Bart Turner Plaintiff -vs- Michael Caller (Case ID Number) Defendant AFFIDAVIT I,Randy Miller, of Glendale, in Maricopa County,Arizona,being duly sworn,deposes and affirm upon oath: 1.My name is Randy Miller. I reside at 6439 W.Townley, in the Barrel District in Glendale AZ. On January 12 of 2026 I signed a nomination petition for Michael Calles,who is running for the Glendale City Council from my district. After viewing a photograph of Michael Calles,from his campaign material, I am confident that Mr. Calles was not the circulator who brought the petition to my door. Under penalty of perjury,I hereby declare and affirm that the above stated facts,to the best of my knowledge,are true and correct. DATED this 4/6/2026 Signature an i ler Print Name Page 1 of 2 STATE OF ARIZONA cOUNTY OF MARICOPA SUBSCRIBED TO AND SWORN BEFORE ME,this 4/6/2026. (Signature) Randy Miller Signature_" (Seal) NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission expires: 0 dflftvA Notary Publia State of Arizona WACO a County Diane Klese My icamwAssion Expires 21S12030 Commission Number 694069 Page 2 of 2 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Marricopa County,Arizona Bart Turner Plaintiff I -vs- Michael Calles Defendant AFFIDAVIT I, Randy Miller, of Glendale, in Maricopa County,Arizona, being duly sworn, deposes and affirm upon oath: 1. My name is Randy Miller and I reside at 6439 W. Townley, in the Barrel District, in Glendale AZ. On February 15 of 2026 a woman came to my door and asked me to sign a nomination petition for Michael Calles who is running for the Glendale City Council from the Barrel District. I distinctly remember her remarking that she only needed one more signature to complete her page.You will note that I am the 10th and last signature on page 027. I am confident the woman was not Michael Calles. Under penalty of perjury,_I hereby declare and affirm that the above stated facts,to the best of my knowledge, are true and correct. DATED this 4/6/2026 Signature Randy Miller Print Name Page 1 of 2 STATE OF ARIZONA COUNTY OF MARICOPA } ` 4V � SUBSCRIBED TO AND SWORN BEFORE ME,this 4/6/2026. (Signature) Signature C AmR Seal) Randy Miller NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission expires:: o 3 0 Notary Pub1Ec State 01 V111na Madcopa County Diane Mesa My Commission Expires 2I3f2030 Commission Number E01058 . Page 2 of 2 Schedule of Challenged Signatures 1 am challenging all nomination signatures on all 52 nomination petitions submitted to the Glendale City Clerk because the defendant, Michael Calles, has falsely affirmed on the reverse of each page that he personalty circulated each page and witnessed the signing of each signature,which is not true. Person Filing:-- - - - — — --- - - - - —— --- Address(If not protected):-- --___— ---- - City,State,Zip Code: -- Telephone: — --- - - - ---- - ---- Email Address:-- __-- ---- --- - ---- - - Lawyer's Bar Number:_-_----- --- - — Representing 0 Self,without a Lawyer or ❑Attorney for ❑ Plaintiff OR ❑Defendant SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA IN MARICOPA COUNTY Case Number: — --- Name of Plaintiff Title: PLAINTIFF'S DEMAND for JURY TRIAL, Name of Defendant Plaintiff, , demands a trial by jury in this case. If this (Name of PlaintiT case is sent to compulsory arbitration, Plaintiff demands a trial by jury if there is an appeal from that compulsory arbitration. Dated this (Date of signature) (Signature of Plaintiff or Plaintiffs Attorney) CVC11f 050718 a Superior Court of Arizona in Marieopa County page 1 of 1 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED I - STATECRAFT 2 LAW- GOVERNMENT-CRISIS MANAGEMENT 3 649 North Fourth Avenue, First Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85003 4 (602) 382-4078 5 Kory A. Langhofer, Ariz. Bar No. 024722 korygstatecraftlaw.com 6 Thomas Basile, Ariz. Bar. No. 031150 7 tomgstatecraftlaw.com 8 Counsel for Michael Calles 9 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA 11 12 BART TURNER, an individual, 13 Case No. CV2026-014454 14 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT MICHAEL CALLES' vs. TRIAL MEMORANDUM 15 MICHAEL CALLES, an individual, (Assigned to the 16 et al., Honorable Greg Como) 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Defendant Michael Calles respectfully submits this memorandum in advance of the 21 trial that is set for April 15, 2026. 22 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 23 Mr. Calles is a candidate for Glendale City Council in the Barrel District. It is 24 undisputed that Mr. Calles timely filed with the Glendale City Clerk a nomination petition 25 that, on its face, contains more than the 217 signatures of qualified electors in the 26 jurisdiction that are required to qualify Mr. Calles for inclusion on the July 21,2026 primary 27 election ballot. See A.R.S. § 16-322(A)(10). 28 Printed on the back of each petition sheet is a statement of the circulator, which, inter I alia, "verif[ies] that each of the names on the petition was signed in [the circulator's] 2 presence on the date indicated." A.R.S. § 16-321(D).' Plaintiff seeks the invalidation of 3 the nomination petition in its entirety, on the putative grounds that Mr. Calles signed the 4 circulator verifications on 52 petition sheets but allegedly did not witness the affixation of 5 those signatures. The Plaintiff has disclosed affidavits from a certain Randy Miller, who 6 purports to have signed the nomination petition and who claims that Mr. Calles did not 7 witness his signature,as well as certain"social media posts and video." In addition,Plaintiff g has proffered the declaration of a certain Jessica Koory, who purports to offer opinions 9 concerning the handwriting featured on certain petition sheets. To date, Plaintiff has 10 disclosed no other evidence that relates to the truth or accuracy of the circulator verification 11 accompanying any other specific signature or any other specific signature sheet. 12 ARGUMENT 13 I. Plaintiff Has Not Proved That a Dispositive Number of Signatures Are Accompanied by a Knowingly False Circulator Verification 14 15 "[N]ominating petitions that are `circulated, signed and filed' are presumptively 16 valid, and the challenger bears the burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence," an T 17 alleged infirmity in the signatures. Jenkins v. Hale, 218 Ariz. 561, 562-63 ¶ 8 (2008); see 18 also McKenna v. Soto,250 Ariz. 469, 473 ¶ 18 (2021). Plaintiff is correct that if a circulator 19 verification contains a knowingly false statement with respect to any signature 20 accompanying it, then the sheet as a whole is disqualified. See Moreno v. Jones, 213 Ariz. 21 94, 101 ¶ 39 (2006); Brousseau v. Fitzgerald, 138 Ariz. 453, 456 (1984); but see Ross v. 22 Bennett, 228 Ariz. 174, 181 ¶ 37 (2011) (declining to strike signatures on recall petition 23 circulator affidavit where the challenger "provided no evidence that the circulators knew 24 that the signatures were invalid or that their affidavits were false."). 25 A corollary, however, is that disqualification is limited only to those specific sheets 26 ' Contrary to the Complaint's repeated characterization of this statement as "sworn," the 27 circulator verification on a nomination petition is not executed under oath or penalty of perjury. Contrast A.R.S. § 19-112(D) (prescribing sworn affidavit for initiative and 28 referendum petitions). 2 I for which the challenger has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, a knowing falsity 2 in the circulator verification. For example, the Moreno court disqualified 83 signatures that 3 were specifically and directly linked to a false verification, but left otherwise valid 4 signatures intact and found that the candidate ultimately qualified for the ballot. See 213 5 Ariz. at 101 ¶ 39 n.4, 102-03 ¶ 46; see also Brousseau, 138 Ariz. at 456 (holding that 6 signatures on "such petitions" that contain false verifications "may not be considered in 7 determining the sufficiency of the number of the signatures to qualify for placement on the 8 ballot"). The unpublished decision order in Orona v. Butts,No. CV-24-0088-AP/EL (Ariz. 9 May 10, 2024), cited by the Complaint likewise reflected a sheet-by-sheet disposition. 10 The upshot is that the Plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that 11 each petition sheet he seeks to invalidate is accompanied by a knowingly false circulator 12 verificationi.e., that Mr. Calles did not, in fact, witness the affixation of signatures on 13 that particular sheet. Thus far, Plaintiff has provided affidavits from Randy Miller, who • 14 purportedly signed page 027, line 10 of Mr. Calles' petition and avers that Mr. Calles did 15 not witness his signature. Even if the Court were to credit their representations,they supply 16 a predicate only for disqualifying the signatures on page 027. To date, the Plaintiff has not T 17 disclosed any admissible evidence—let alone adduced clear and convincing proof—that 18 any other petition sheet is accompanied by a knowingly false circulator verification. 19 Plaintiff's other proffered affidavit, from a certain Jessica Koory, is both 20 inadmissible and carries little probative value. Ms. Koory, a retired schoolteacher, does not 21 purport to have any personal knowledge concerning the identity of the individuals who 22 circulated any of the sheets comprising Mr. Calles' nomination petition. Instead, she 23 expounds what purports to be an expert opinion based on her supposed review of school 24 children's handwriting during her teaching career and involvement in other unspecified 25 petition circulation efforts. The affidavit is not admissible. Plaintiff has not qualified Ms. 26 Koory as an expert under Arizona Rule of Evidence 702. A non-expert can offer opinions 27 on handwriting only if she has "familiarity with it that was not acquired for the current 28 litigation." Ariz. R. Evid. 901(b)(2); see also Johnson v. Maehling, 123 Ariz. 15, 20 (1979) 3 I (plaintiff's handwriting opinions in connection with petition were not admissible where 2 "was not qualified as an expert, nor was she familiar with the handwriting in question prior 3 to this litigation"). State v. Stotts, 144 Ariz. 72, 83 (1985) ("Familiarity with a person's 4 handwriting can be attained by working with that person over a period of time."). There is 5 no indication that Ms. Koory has any prior familiarity, unrelated to this litigation, with the 6 handwriting on Mr. Calles' petition. Finally, even if they were admissible, Ms. Koory's 7 opinions carry little to no probative value. Although the circulator and signers must 8 personally affix their own signatures to the appropriate fields of the petition, any person 9 may lawfully complete any other field of the petition. See Johnson, 123 Ariz. at 21 ("We 10 find no defect in the petitions, the backs of which were filled in by someone other than the 11 circulator, so long as the circulator himself verifies the petition properly"). 12 Because Plaintiff has not established a prima facie case that a diapositive number of 13 petition signatures are underpinned by a knowingly false circulator verification, the • 14 nomination petition retains its presumption of validity, and the Plaintiff's challenge fails. 15 H. Mr. Calles Will Prove That He Personally Collected A Dipositive Number of Signatures 16 T 17 It bears emphasis that it is incumbent upon the Plaintiff to collect and disclose 18 admissible evidence that clearly and convincingly proves the invalidity of each petition 19 sheet or signature he is challenging. See Jenkins, 218 Ariz. 561 at 563 ¶ 8; Blaine v. 20 McSpadden, 111 Ariz. 147, 149 (1974) (agreeing that "a showing of insufficient signatures 21 on a petition must be by `clear and convincing' evidence before a court is justified in 22 keeping the name of a candidate off the ballot, and that doubts concerning the validity of 23 signatures should be resolved in favor of the candidate"). Mr. Calles does not bear the 24 burden of proving anything. Nevertheless, Mr. Calles intends to offer testimonial and/or 25 documentary evidence from his wife in support of his nomination petition's legal 26 sufficiency. Upon information and belief, Mrs. Calles will testify that she has been 27 extensively involved in her husband's campaign and personally accompanied him when he 28 solicited and collected petition signatures. Mr. Calles believes that Mrs. Calles' testimony 4 I will corroborate the truthfulness of the circulator verifications that accompany at least 269 2 of the petition's signatures, which is well in excess of the 217 valid signatures required for 3 ballot placement. 4 CONCLUSION 5 The Court should enter judgment in favor of Mr. Calles, deny the Plaintiff's request 6 for an injunction, and dismiss the Complaint in its entirety with prejudice. 7 8 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 14th day of April, 2026. 9 STATECRAFT PLLC 10 By: /s/Thomas Basile 11 Kory Langhofer Thomas Basile 12 649 North Fourth Avenue, First Floor 13 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 14 Counsel for Michael Calles 15 16 T 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on April 14, 2026, I electronically transmitted the attached 3 document to the Clerk's Office using the AZTurboCourt System for filing and transmittal 4 of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following AZTurboCourt registrants: 5 Bart Turner 6 8217 N 571h Dr 7 Glendale, AZ 85302 bart_turner(a,cox.net 8 [served by email only] 9 Christina Estes-Werther 10 Amy B. Chan PIERCE COLEMAN PLLC 11 17851 N 85th Street, Suite 175 12 Scottsdale, AZ 85255 ChristinakPierceColeman.com 13 AmykPierceColeman.com 14 Attorneys for Defendant Julie Bower 15 Rosa Aguilar Dhakal Jack O'Connor 16 MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 17 225 West Madison St Phoenix, AZ 85003 18 aguilarr(c�r�,mcao.maricopa.gov 19 oconnorjgmcao.maricopa.gov Attorneys for Maricopa County Defendants 20 21 22 23 By: /s/Daxon Ernvei 24 Daxon Ernyei 25 26 27 28 Certificate Clerk of the Superior Court ***Filed*** 04/16/2026 8:00 A.M. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2026-014454 04/15/2026 CLERK OF THE COURT HONORABLE GREG S. COMO C. Lacey Deputy BART TURNER BART TURNER 8217 N 57TH DR GLENDALE AZ 85302 V. MICHAEL CALLES, et al. KORY A LANGHOFER ROSA AGUILAR ANNA CHRISTINA ESTES-WERTHER AMY BELL CHAN DOCKET CV TX JUDGE COMO MINUTE ENTRY There is a "LATER"at the end of this minute entry. Prior to the commencement of the proceedings, Plaintiff s exhibits 2 through 10, and 15 through 21; as well as Defendants' exhibit 1 are submitted electronically. Central Court Building - Courtroom 401 8:00 a.m. This is the time set for a virtual Election Challenge Hearing. Plaintiff Bart Turner is present on his own behalf. Defendant Michael Calles is represented by counsel, Kory A. Langhofer. Defendants Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder are represented by counsel, Rosa Aguilar Dhakal. Defendant Glendale City Clerk is represented by counsel, Amy B. Chan. Docket Code 901 Form VOOOA Page 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2026-014454 04/15/2026 A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter. Brief discussion is held regarding witness testimony. At the request of Plaintiff, the Rule of Exclusion of Witnesses is invoked. Preliminary discussion is held regarding the admission of exhibits. By stipulation of the parties, Plaintiffs exhibits 2, 3, 4, and 8 are received in evidence. Plaintiffs exhibits 5, 6, 7, 15 through 18, and 21 are received in evidence. Opening statements. Plaintiff s case: Bart Turner is sworn and testifies. Bart Turner briefly stops testifying. Jessica Koory is sworn and testifies. Discussion is held regarding a Rule 901(b) objection lodged by Defendants. The Court finds that Jessica Koory is not qualified to testify regarding the authenticity of petition signature handwriting. Jessica Koory finishes testifying. Bart Turner continues testifying. Bart Turner finishes testifying. Plaintiff rests. Defendants' case: Joy Calles is sworn and testifies. Docket Code 901 Form VOOOA Page 2 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2026-014454 04/15/2026 Joy Calles finishes testifying. Defendants rest. Closing arguments. For reasons stated on the record, IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement. The deadline for appeals and finalization of ballots are briefly discussed. 9:58 a.m. Matter concludes. LATER: The Court has reviewed and considered the parties' submissions, together with the evidence and arguments presented to the Court at the trial on April 15, 2026. Plaintiff Bart Turner seeks to disqualify Defendant Michael Calles (the "Candidate") from appearing on the July 21, 2026,primary election ballot as a candidate for the Glendale City Council. Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to gather the requisite 217 valid signatures' necessary to be placed on the ballot. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Calles engaged in petition fraud by falsely asserting that he was the Circulator on all the handwritten Petition Sheets2. Plaintiff contends that all the handwritten signature sheets collected by the Candidate should be rejected. If these Petition Sheets are rejected, the Candidate will fall short of the 217 valid signatures needed. Nominating petitions that are circulated, signed, and filed are presumptively valid. Plaintiff bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that a signer is not a qualified elector. Jenkins a Hale, 218 Ariz. 561 (2008). Petitions "containing false certifications by circulators are void, and the signatures on such petitions may not be considered in Plaintiff's Complaint does not allege how many valid signatures are required to appear on the ballot for this office. Defendant's Trial Memorandum states that 217 signatures of qualified electors are needed. Plaintiff did not dispute this figure at trial 'The Court uses the phrase"handwritten signature Petition Sheets"to distinguish them from the electronic E-Qual Sheets. The Candidate submitted 48 handwritten signature Petition Sheets. Docket Code 901 Form VOOOA Page 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2026-014454 04/15/2026 determining the sufficiency of the number of signatures to qualify for placement on the ballot."Brousseau a Fitzgerald, 138 Ariz. 453, 456, 675 P.2d 713, 716 (1984). THE COURT FINDS as follows: 1. To qualify for placement on July 21, 2026,primary election ballot for the Glendale City Council, the Candidate is required to submit 217 valid signatures. 2. The Candidate timely submitted signatures on his nominating petitions. He collected 461 signatures.3 3. Michael Calles signed as the Circulator on each of the nominating petitions he submitted. In doing so, he verified that"each of the names on the petition was signed in my presence on the date indicated . . . ... 4. To find in favor of Plaintiff and invalidate all the hand-written signatures collected by the Candidate, the Court must find true fraud by this petition circulator. See Ross u Bennett, 228 Ariz. 174, 181, 265 P.3d 356, 363 (2011) (challengers reading of Brousseau "ignores the distinction between mere `omissions or irregularities' . . . and true fraud by petition circulators on the other"). 5. Plaintiff must present clear and convincing evidence that the Candidate (who also signed as the circulator) obtained signatures by fraud, or that his oath was fraudulent. Id. 6. "The clear and convincing standard is reserved for cases where substantial interests at stake require an extra measure of confidence by the factfinders in the correctness of their judgment, though not to such degree as is required to convict of a crime."State v Renforth, 155 Ariz. 385, 387, 746 P.2d 1315, 1317 (App. 1987). The standard applies in most civil fraud cases because of"the value society attributes to untarnished reputation."Id. 7. "Fraud requires an element of knowledge—a guilty mental state." Ross, 228 Ariz. at 181, 265 P.3d at 363. 8. Plaintiff did not present clear and convincing evidence that the Candidate made a false or fraudulent statement on each of the 48 of the handwritten signature Petition Sheets. s In calculating this total,the Court disregarded signatures that were crossed out on the Petition sheets. Docket Code 901 Form VOOOA Page 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2026-014454 04/15/2026 9. If a circulator verification contains a knowingly false statement with respect to any signature accompanying it, the entire Petition Sheet is disqualified.Moreno a Jones, 213 Ariz. 94 (2006). 11. The Candidate's wife, Joy Calles, testified at trial. The Court found her testimony to be credible. Ms. Calles testified that the Candidate was the circulator for all the petitions except on two dates when volunteers helped circulate petitions. These two dates were January 17 and 31, 2026. There was corroborating evidence that volunteers assisted the Candidate in obtaining signatures on these two dates. There is no evidence that any circulator other than the Candidate obtained signatures on the other dates shown on the Petition Sheets. 12. Clear and convincing evidence shows that Mr. Calles made a false statement on the Petition Sheets that were signed by electors on January 17 and 31, 2026. On those dates, each of the names on the petition were not signed in Mr. Calles'presence, despite his verification to the contrary. 13. The following Petition Sheets include signatures dated January 17 and 31, 2026: Sheet No. #of Signatures 6 10 10 10 11 10 13 10 17 10 Sheet No. #of Signatures 17 10 19 10 21 10 23 10 32 10 Docket Code 901 Form VOOOA Page 5 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2026-014454 04/15/2026 36 10 38 9 40 9 41 9 46 7 48 5 50 3 14. All of the above listed Petition Sheets, and the signatures appearing on them, are invalid because the circulator attestation is false. The evidence shows that these Petition Sheets were not signed in Mr. Calles'presence. This a total of 142 invalid signatures. 15. The Candidate submitted a total of 461 signatures, of which 142 are invalid. This leaves 319 valid signatures. 17. The Candidate's 319 valid signatures exceed the 217 signatures required to appear on the ballot. Based on the above and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED declaring that Plaintiff has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Candidate submitted fewer than the 217 valid signatures required by law. With enough valid signatures having been submitted, the Candidate, Michael Calles, is eligible for placement on the ballot for the primary election to be held on July 21, 2026, for the Glendale City Council. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED entering judgment in favor of Defendant Michael Calles and against Plaintiff Bart Turner, on the Complaint filed April 6, 2024. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED signing this minute entry as a final written Order of the Court pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c). No further matters remain pending. Docket Code 901 Form VOOOA Page 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2026-014454 04/15/2026 The parties are notified that,under A.R.S. § 16-351(A), any notice of appeal must be filed within five calendar days after the superior court's decision in a challenge to the nomination of a candidate. See Bohart a Hanna, 213 Ariz. 480, 143 P.3d 1021 (2006).An appeal that is belatedly prosecuted, such as one filed on the last day of the statutory deadline, may be dismissed on grounds of lathes even if timely filed. See McClung a Bennett, 225 Ariz. 154, 235 P.3d 1037 (2010). Special procedural rules govern expedited appeals in election cases.Ariz. R. Civ.App. P. 10. DATED this 15th day of April, 2026. Is/HONORABLE GREGORYS. COMO HONORABLE GREGORY S.COMO JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Docket Code 901 Form VOOOA Page 7