ORDER

LTA24F-LTA012-ADH · Arizona State Department of Housing - LTA · 2024-07-19

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Rudy Navarrette, et al.,

Petitioner,

v.

The Meadows et al.,

Respondent.

No. LTA24F-LTA012-ADH

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS PETITION

On February 26, 2024, Petitioner filed his Petition For Hearing By the Mobile Home Parks Administrative Law Judge (Petition) with the Arizona Department of Housing (Department). Petitioner included therewith additional pages consisting of both type-written and handwritten pages setting forth various allegations and issues.

On April 1, 2024, the Department received Respondent’s Response to the Petition denying all allegations and indicating that all allegations/claims in the Petition had previously been litigated in the prior eviction actions and other prior court proceedings. In addition to a statute of limitations argument, Respondent argued that the Petition failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

On April 5, 2024, Petitioner requested a hearing, stating that Respondent had not “answered” any of the issues raised in the Petition. Petitioner then stated “I was not allowed, at Kyrene Court, to have any evidence presented to the court...”, and further proceeded to relate his disagreement with the previous court proceedings and the outcomes. Petitioner indicated, as to the relief sought:

I would like the hearing to be in person please. I would like all money I paid back to me , court cost , bonds, attorney fees I paid to Respondents , supersedes bonds I paid , rent payments I never owed, money transferred out of my account without my consent by the Respondent, hotel stay , truck rental, storage payments, and court reporter fee. My loss of enjoyment to live in my homes. Also what the court orders Respondents to pay for the injustice and violation of my rights.

On May 9, 2024, the Arizona Department of Housing (Department) issued a Notice of Hearing in the above-captioned matter setting an administrative hearing to convene on June 5, 2024.

On May 14, 2024, Respondent filed its Motion to Continue the matter due to a conflict, previously arranged, with the noticed hearing date.

On May 14, 2024, Respondent filed its Motion to Dismiss (Motion to Dismiss) in the above captioned matter arguing that Petitioner alleges violations that occurred more than a year before the filing, that Petitioner is not a “tenant” at the Respondent’s property, and that the relief sought cannot be granted by the Department. Respondent relates that it took two eviction actions against Petitioner in December 2021, which proceeded to trial; thereafter Petitioner appealed the two eviction judgments, one of which was perfected with a writ of restitution in March 2022 and the other of which he failed to timely appeal and it was subsequently perfected with a writ of restitution against Petitioner in August 2022.

The Tribunal issued an Order for Petitioner to file a response to the motions no later than June 3, 2024.

On June 4, 2024, Petitioner made a responsive filing to the Tribunal consisting of a one page document stating as follows and containing no attachments:

Respondent's Attorney Scott Baluha, from the beginning of the frivolous complaints filed at the justice court, Petitioner has been forced to defend baseless allegations that were made up and never had to be proven at he justice court. . Petitioner refuses to engage in the Respondents' games using the

courts to harrass the Petioner. , forcing Petioner to pay Bonds, Attorney Fees, Rent that was never owed, and forced a fake eviction in order to obtain a judgement to use to extort money out of a 75 year old senior.

( Petitioner).

Litigation is not.a game. The courts should not be used to file frivolous claims to harass and continuously punish the Petitioner just because the Respondents got upset because the Petitioner filed a complaint to the Arizona Attorney General, because the Meadows refused to cooperate on repairing a sewer line underground that was broken, which caused the sewer waste to back up into the shower , sink and toilet, which became a hazardous problem to the Petioner's home and health.

EXHIBIT A

RESPONDENT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Respondent's Attorney Scott Baluha not only misrepresented his name and signed legal documents under Scott Williams, from the beginning of the fake case, he submits allegations against the Petitioner, by submitting non- verified Memorandum of Points and Authorities, hoping the courts will rely on

non- verified allegations. Facts that are verified are treated as evidence. 28. U S.C.1746.

PETITIONERS' SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN THE ORDER THAT IT HAPPENED

1. Respondent's UNAUTHORIZED WITHDRAWAL OF $3500 OUT OF PETIONER'S ACCOUNT. WHICH IS THE SAME DAY RENT IS WITHDRAWN OUT OF PETITIONERS' SET UP Exhibit B

ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFER , SET UP SINCE 2015, WITH NO PROBLEMS TILL 10/2/2021.

2. ATTORNEY GENERAL CLOSED PETITIONERS COMPLAINT. ON 9/2021. ( EXHIBIT C)

3. RECEIVED A 14/30 FOR NEVER HAPPENED ALLEGATIONS. (A)

,4. TRIAL WAS MOVED TWICE. FROM 12/23 TO 12/30. PAST THE 5 DAY RULE

5. PETITIONERS' EVIDENCE WAS BLOCKED ,NOT TALKED ABOUT OR SUBMITTED AS EVIDENCE.

6. TRIAL JUDGE ORDERED PETITIONER NOT TO SPEAK DURING THE 3.5 HOURS OF THE

INTERRROGATING TRIAL. WITNESSES NOT ALLOWED TO SIT THROUGH TRIAL .

7. CASES WERE COMBINED WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE, SAME ALLEGATIONS FOR BOTH

COMPLAINTS. PAYING BONDS AND COURT FEES ARE SEPARATED.

8. SAME DAY THE PETITIONER PAID BONDS, RESPONDENTS ATTORNEY FILED A MOTION TO

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Petitioner is no longer a “tenant” as defined in A.R.S. Section 33-1409 and is no longer a “party to a rental agreement” as required by A.R.S. Section 41-1062(A). Additionally, the relief Petitioner seeks, as he has outlined them in his Petition and in his response to the Motion to Dismiss, falls outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the July 26, 2024 hearing is vacated.

ORDERED this day, July 18, 2024.

/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Joan Serviss, Director

Arizona Department of Housing

ATTN: Evelyn Estrella

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Zona Law Group P.C.

ATTN: Scott A. Baluha

[email redacted]

Rudy Navarrette

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff