Login

u/mamasnanas

r/CasesWeFollow r/JusticeForClayton
▲ 68 r/JusticeForClayton

Foreclosure Lawsuit - Defendants Retain Counsel; Parties Request New Hearing Date | CV2026-039863

Documents:

September 29, 2026: Robert A. Riether of Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP filed a Notice of Appearance as attorney of record for Defendants (Select Portfolio Servicing, INC. & U.S. Bank Trust Company).

September 30, 2026: Defendants file their Stipulation to Vacate and Reset Order to Show Cause Hearing brief stating the following:

  • They've spoken with Ronn & Jan
  • Plaintiffs & Defendants request the Show Cause Hearing be scheduled for the first available court date after November 23, 2026 - pushed back from the current date of October 5, 2026.
    • Reasons given: To allow for certain settlement discussions & to conserve party and judicial resources
  • Parties agree Defendants' response to Complaint be due 2 weeks after any decision on Plaintiffs' Application for Preliminary Injunction.

Thank you to Hey Rob for obtaining these documents.

reddit.com
u/mamasnanas — 13 days ago
▲ 89 r/JusticeForClayton

Gingras Demands More Delay in State Bar Case: Escalates Discovery Demands as Jim Lee Formally Withdraws (PDJ2026-9010)

Documents:

TL;DR

Jim Lee has officially filed a Notice of Withdrawal as counsel for the State Bar of Arizona. Craig Henley, who was brought on months ago for a smooth transfer of the case once Jim Lee was preparing to retire, will take over as lead Senior Bar Counsel. Meanwhile, procedural battles are intensifying over discovery and witness testimony.

Gingras is continuing his standard playbook of trying to derail and delay the proceedings with frivolous discovery demands and procedural distractions. Gingras issued a deposition subpoena for attorney Markus Risinger - prompting the Bar to file an expedited motion to quash to shut down his fishing expedition.

Interestingly, Gingras withdrew his subpoena to Mr. Risinger, while also demanding a reclassification to Tier 3 discovery in a transparent bid to bury the Bar in burdensome, unnecessary requests. The Bar swiftly opposed the Tier reclassification request, pointing out that the case is straightforward, relies almost entirely on documents Gingras himself supplied, and belongs strictly in Tier 1. Finally, Gingras filed yet another Motion in Limine desperately trying to re-hash his defense regarding Judge Mata, even though Judge VandenBerg has already repeatedly shut down his flawed interpretations of ER 8.2(a).

Filing Summaries

  1. Motion in Limine Re Judge Mata (Sept. 29, 2026): Motion filed by Respondent Gingras addressing evidentiary limits and legal defenses regarding statements about Judge Mata under ER 8.2(a). Gingras seeks to preserve his argument that truth and subjective belief remain defenses, while referencing prior rulings by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge.
  2. Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel (Sept. 30, 2026): Senior Bar Counsel James D. Lee formally notifies the Presiding Disciplinary Judge (PDJ) and the parties of his withdrawal from representing the State Bar of Arizona due to his imminent retirement. Craig D. Henley, who was brought on months ago to prepare for this transition, continues as counsel of record.
  3. ISSUED Deposition Subpoena to Markus Risinger (Sept. 30, 2026): Subpoena commanding appellate attorney Markus Risinger to appear for a deposition on October 9, 2026.
  4. ISSUED Trial Subpoena to Markus Risinger (Sept. 30, 2026): Subpoena commanding Markus Risinger to appear and testify as a witness at the disciplinary trial scheduled for November 18–20, 2026.
  5. Expedited Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena to Markus Risinger (Sept. 30, 2026): Motion filed by Craig Henley requesting an expedited order quashing the deposition subpoena issued to appellate attorney Markus Risinger. The Bar argues that the subpoena provides unreasonably short notice (7 business days), improperly targets work-product protected information from Bar staff, and seeks to re-examine settled issues.
  6. Response to Motion to Quash (Sept. 30, 2026): Gingras states that the Bar's Motion to Quash is "moot" because he has withdrawn his subpoena to Markus Risinger. Gingras blames his filing the subpoena in the first place on Mr. Risinger's lack of response.
  7. State Bar Response to Motion Re Discovery Tier (Sept. 30, 2026): The State Bar's response opposing Gingras's attempt to elevate the case from Tier 1 (standard) to Tier 3 (complex) discovery. The Bar argues that the charges focus on discrete issues, that most relevant documents came directly from Gingras himself, and that expanded Tier 3 discovery requests are burdensome, unnecessary, and disproportionate.
reddit.com
u/mamasnanas — 14 days ago
▲ 120 r/JusticeForClayton

Let’s get Love Trapped a Signal Award! 🏆 VOTE NOW!

Love Trapped has been nominated for a Signal Award!

We all know what an incredible job Stephani Young & team did with this project. Her top-tier journalism and thorough deep dive made this podcast exceed all expectations, so let's show them some support and help them bring home the win!

Voting takes less than a minute:

  1. Click the link above to head straight to the voting page.
  2. Select Love Trapped.
  3. Create a quick account to confirm your vote (feel free to use the "Hide My Email" feature if you want to keep your inbox private!).

Voilà! You're done. Now let's get out there and VOTE!

vote.signalaward.com
u/mamasnanas — 15 days ago
▲ 85 r/JusticeForClayton

The Rise and Fall of Laura Owens’s Court of Appeal Drama (Owens v. Marraccini) + Documents

Documents:

Huge thank you to damnhealthydose for taking the initiative, filing the formal document request, and successfully obtaining these previously "confidential" California Court of Appeal filings! His persistent effort made accessing these primary case records possible for everyone following Mike’s case.

TL;DR

Following the San Francisco Superior Court's November 5, 2025 dismissal of her Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) renewal request, Laura Owens initiated an appeal in the California Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division One, Case No. A175236). Over the next nine months, she engaged in a relentless stream of delay tactics - seeking multiple ex-parte extensions, attempting to force unfiled emergency emails and extra-record medical receipts into the court record, and disputing docket calendar entries. After Michael Marraccini (Respondent) systematically dismantled her motions and Presiding Justice Humes issued a strict deadline warning, Owens abandoned her claims and voluntarily dismissed the appeal on September 4, 2026.

Chronological Breakdown of the 7 Appellate Filings

1. Petitioner-Appellant’s Notice of Appeal

  • Filing Date: December 4, 2025
  • Filing Party: Laura Owens (In Pro Per)
  • Summary: Owens initiated the appellate process by filing a formal Notice of Appeal along with a fee waiver application, challenging the San Francisco Superior Court’s November 5, 2025 order that dismissed her DVRO renewal request against Michael Marraccini.

2. Petitioner-Appellant’s First Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief

  • Filing Date: Spring 2026 (Granted)
  • Filing Party: Laura Owens (In Pro Per)
  • Summary: Owens requested her initial deadline extension to prepare and submit her opening brief. The Court of Appeal granted the extension, setting an initial revised schedule while the lower court assembly of the clerk's transcript was underway.

3. Petitioner-Appellant’s Second Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief

  • Filing Date: June 22, 2026 (Granted June 24, 2026)
  • Filing Party: Laura Owens (In Pro Per)
  • Summary: Owens sought a second 30-day extension (moving her brief deadline from June 29 to July 29, 2026). She argued that her trial court record was defective because it omitted her pre-hearing emergency emails, flight receipts, and medical accommodation notices. Presiding Justice Humes granted the request to July 29, 2026, but stamped the order with an explicit warning: "FURTHER EXTENSIONS ARE NOT CONTEMPLATED."

4. Appellant’s Motion to Augment and Correct the Record on Appeal

  • Filing Date: July 13, 2026
  • Filing Party: Laura Owens (In Pro Per)
  • Summary: After the trial court clerk rejected her request to modify the trial court file locally, Owens moved the appellate court under California Rules of Court, rules 8.155 and 8.340, to augment and correct the record. She requested that the court force unfiled email threads, airline bookings, and post-ruling HonorHealth hospital records into the record, while demanding a nunc pro tunc modification of the judge's November 5 minute order to replace the finding of her "unexplained non-appearance."

5. Respondent’s Opposition to Motion to Augment and Correct the Record on Appeal

  • Filing Date: July 24, 2026
  • Filing Party: Michael Marraccini (In Pro Per)
  • Summary: Marraccini opposed the motion in its entirety. He established that under Rule 8.155, appellate augmentation is strictly limited to documents actually filed or lodged in the trial court (excluding informal emails). He further noted that post-ruling hospital records generated after November 5 constitute improper extra-record evidence, and that the 718-page clerk's transcript already contained her sworn declarations setting forth her arguments.

6. Appellant’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Reply

  • Filing Date: July 27, 2026
  • Filing Party: Laura Owens (In Pro Per)
  • Summary: Concurrent with her reply, Owens requested judicial notice under Evidence Code sections 452(d) and 459 of trial court register entries and notices regarding Marraccini's withdrawn attorney fee motion. Owens attempted to use these procedural calendar notices to dispute statements made in Marraccini's opposition.

7. Appellant's Request for Voluntary Dismissal & Court Order Dismissing Appeal

  • Filing Date: September 4, 2026
  • Filing Party: Laura Owens (In Pro Per)
  • Summary: On the final deadline for filing her opening brief, Owens submitted a request to voluntarily abandon and dismiss her appeal. However, she did not merely ask for a standard dismissal; she attempted to slip in additional narrative claims, grievances, and conditions regarding the underlying conflict and procedural posture. The Court of Appeal explicitly ignored and refused to address any of her extra requests. In its order, the court stated directly that it was simply granting the dismissal of the appeal itself, completely bypassing her attempt to put secondary conditions or statements into the judicial record.
reddit.com
u/mamasnanas — 16 days ago
▲ 169 r/JusticeForClayton

BREAKING: Rule 65 TRO GRANTED in Owens Foreclosure Lawsuit - Foreclosure Auction Postponed

The court has GRANTED the Owens' Rule 65 Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), temporarily halting the foreclosure auction. Additionally, the mortgage company has postponed the trustee's sale date to December 23, 2026.

Here is what you need to know about what's happening next and how to watch the proceedings:

🚨 Current Status & Sale Postponement

  • The Foreclosure Is Frozen: The emergency TRO legally prevents the trustee from holding an auction while the order remains in effect.
  • New Foreclosure Date: ServiceLink Auction / Tiffany & Bosco have updated the sale calendar, moving the postponed auction date out to December 23, 2026, at 10:00 AM.
  • The Next Legal Step: The case now moves to an Order to Show Cause (OSC) hearing. This is where Judge David McDowell will decide whether to grant a long-term Preliminary Injunction to keep the sale paused while the full lawsuit plays out.

📅 Public Hearing Details & How to Watch

The Order to Show Cause hearing is open to the public and will take place virtually:

  • Date: Monday, October 5, 2026
  • Time: 9:00 AM MST / Arizona Time
  • Judge: Judge David McDowell (Maricopa County Superior Court)
  • Case: Owens v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., et al. (Case No. CV2026-039863)

How to Tune In:

Members of the public can observe virtual proceedings online.

(To join, head to the Maricopa County Superior Court Judicial Branch website, navigate to the Electronic / Virtual Courtroom Hearing page, search for Judge David McDowell*, and launch the public Microsoft Teams meeting link prior to 9:00 AM MST on October 5).*

Documents: Case # CV2026-039863

Please note that this case is being tracked for informational and educational purposes only. Out of respect for the court and all parties involved, members of the public attending the virtual hearing are asked to observe quietly, maintain proper courtroom etiquette, and refrain from attempting to disrupt or interact with the court proceedings. Furthermore, please do not attempt to visit the private property, contact the homeowners or legal representatives, or engage in any form of harassment, brigading, or unwanted outreach. Thank you for keeping the discussion respectful and civil.

reddit.com
u/mamasnanas — 16 days ago
▲ 315 r/JusticeForClayton

Down to the Wire: Ronn & Jan Owens File Emergency Hail-Mary TRO to Stop Tomorrow’s Foreclosure Sale

*Updated to add and summarize documents*

Documents:

*Thank you to CM and ATB for these documents*

TL;DR

The Plaintiffs, Ronn and Jan, filed an urgent Application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction in Maricopa County Superior Court on Sunday, September 27, 2026, attempting to block the trustee's foreclosure sale of their property scheduled for September 29, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.

Under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-811(C)), the Plaintiffs must secure a court injunction before 5:00PM on Monday, September 28, 2026, or they waive all legal defenses and objections to the sale. The Plaintiffs base their emergency request on allegations that Select Portfolio Servicing (SPS) violated federal dual-tracking regulations under RESPA, failed to properly document public oral postponements under Arizona statute, breached the terms of the Deed of Trust, and failed to grant a Reasonable Accommodation under the Fair Housing Act due to Ronn’s hospitalization (allegedly for pneumonia beginning September 8). From the defense perspective (according to attached exhibits), SPS and the trustee complied with all investor guidelines and statutory postponement procedures, issued formal written loss mitigation determinations that lifted any foreclosure stays under Regulation X, and are lawfully exercising their contractual power of sale under the security instrument.

As of 3PM MST on September 28, 2026, the Court verbally confirmed the TRO had not yet been signed by a judge.

Breakdown of Court Document 1: The Emergency TRO Application & Complaint

  • Filing Context & Emergency Basis: Filed electronically on Sunday, September 27, 2026, seeking an immediate order to enjoin the September 29, 2026 trustee sale prior to the statutory deadline of 5:00 p.m. on September 28, 2026 (A.R.S. § 33-811(C)).
  • Borrowers' Disability & Hardship Allegations: Highlights that Ronn (80 years old) is a four-time cancer survivor currently diagnosed with Stage IV cancer and Parkinson's disease, and has been hospitalized with severe pneumonia since September 8, 2026.
  • Count 1 – Invalid Sale Postponements (A.R.S. § 33-810(B)): Plaintiffs claim past postponements (moving the sale date from May to July, and July to September) were invalid due to a lack of written crier logs or proof of public oral declarations.
  • Count 2 – RESPA / Dual-Tracking Violations (12 C.F.R. § 1024.41): Plaintiffs assert they submitted a complete loss mitigation packet on August 21, 2026 (39 days before the sale), alleging SPS improperly closed and denied the file without a full review.
  • Count 3 – Notice of Error Non-Compliance (12 C.F.R. § 1024.35): Plaintiffs claim SPS received a formal Notice of Error on September 15, 2026, but improperly set its response window after the scheduled sale date.
  • Count 4 – Breach of Contract / Deed of Trust: Plaintiffs contend that alleged servicing and RESPA violations constitute a direct breach of the Deed of Trust covenant requiring compliance with Applicable Law.
  • Count 5 – Fair Housing Act Violation (42 U.S.C. § 3604): Plaintiffs claim SPS violated federal law by ignoring written requests for a reasonable accommodation to temporarily stay the foreclosure during Ronn's emergency hospitalization.

Breakdown of Court Document 2: The Supporting Exhibits Index & Evidentiary Record

  • Exhibit A (Notice of Trustee's Sale): Recorded instrument dated February 20, 2026, setting the initial foreclosure sale for May 26, 2026.
  • Exhibit B (SPS Letter - May 12, 2025): Servicer's response to a CFPB inquiry stating the loan was ineligible for loss mitigation review per investor guidelines.
  • Exhibits C & D (SPS Postponement Letters): Written correspondence from SPS dated July 9 and August 5, 2026, confirming sale postponements pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-810(B) and referencing prior bankruptcy stays.
  • Exhibits E & F (Loss Mitigation Determination Notices): SPS notices dated August 24 and August 25, 2026, formally closing and denying the Plaintiffs' loss mitigation request.
  • Exhibit G (SPS CFPB Response - Sept 18, 2026): Servicer response to the CFPB stating there was no record of prior loss mitigation reviews on file, which Plaintiffs argue contradicts Exhibit B.
  • Exhibits J through O (Correspondence & Records Requests): Written demands sent to trustee Tiffany & Bosco, auctioneer ServiceLink, and SPS requesting crier logs, showing each entity disclaiming possession of internal crier records.
  • Exhibits R through U (Call Transcripts): Transcripts of recorded phone calls with SPS customer service representatives discussing account status, pending reviews, and sale holds.
  • Exhibit V (SPS Loss Mitigation Disclosure): Standard servicer notice dated May 28, 2026, outlining evaluation rights for applications submitted at least 37 days before a trustee's sale.

According to the exhibits, the record demonstrates full compliance with both federal servicing guidelines and Arizona state foreclosure laws from the lender and servicer's perspective. Select Portfolio Servicing (SPS) formally processed and evaluated Ronn and Jan’s loss mitigation submissions, issuing written determination notices on August 24 and August 25, 2026, which confirmed the account's ineligibility for a loan modification under governing investor guidelines. Under federal Regulation X (12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(g)(1)), providing these official written decision notices satisfies the servicer’s evaluation obligations and legally lifts any prohibition against proceeding with the trustee sale. Furthermore, Regulation X grants servicers up to 30 business days to respond to a Notice of Error, and submitting such a notice shortly before an auction does not trigger an automatic statutory stay of a validly noticed sale.

Regarding the postponement procedures, SPS’s written correspondence (Exhibits C and D) confirms that previous sale postponements were executed in full accordance with Arizona statutory requirements (A.R.S. § 33-810(B)) via public oral declarations at the designated time and location. Arizona law does not require the creation or retention of third-party internal crier logs to validate a public declaration. Additionally, the phone call transcripts (Exhibits R–U) show SPS representatives maintaining that the loss mitigation evaluation had been completed and that no active hold existed on the account. Finally, while Ronn and Jan cite humanitarian and Fair Housing Act grounds, the Deed of Trust provides an enforceable security interest and contractual power of sale upon default, which is not stayed by an accommodation request to halt an otherwise lawful non-judicial foreclosure.

Original Post:

Well, it wouldn't be an Owens tale without an 11th-hour legal Hail Mary.

With their home officially scheduled to hit the auction block tomorrow morning at 10:00 AM MST, Ron[n] Owens and Elizabeth (Jan) Naylor have finally pulled another shady trick out of their fraud hat. Yesterday, R&J filed an emergency Application for a Rule 65 Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and civil suit in Maricopa County Superior Court. The targets? Their loan servicer (Select Portfolio Servicing), the actual noteholder (US Bank Trust Company), and the foreclosure trustee holding the gavel (Leonard J. McDonald). 

What Is a Rule 65 TRO (And Why Are They Praying It Works)?

In Arizona, foreclosures are non-judicial, meaning lenders don't need a judge's permission to sell your house out from under you. If a homeowner wants to slam on the brakes, A.R.S. § 33-811(C) mandates that they have to sue the lender and get a judge to sign a Rule 65 TRO before 5:00 PM on the last business day before the sale (today, in this case).

If granted, a TRO acts as an immediate emergency freeze, forcing the trustee to put down the auction gavel while everyone waits for a formal court hearing (scheduled for October 5 @ 9:00AM MST).

Where Things Stand Right Now

  1. The Calendar Entry: The court docket shows an Order to Show Cause (OSC) hearing is set for October 5 at 9:00 AM before Judge David McDowell. 
  2. The Huge Catch: Setting a hearing for next week is great, but it means absolutely nothing for tomorrow morning unless Judge McDowell also signed an immediate, emergency ex parte TRO to pause the auction until then. 
  3. The Legal Reality: Simply filing paperwork and getting a court date on the calendar does not magically stop a foreclosure.

 

⚠️ Reality Check: The Sale Is Still On (For Now)

As of right now, there is zero record or confirmation that the judge actually signed off on the emergency TRO.

Under Arizona law, if there’s no signed injunction physically served on the trustee before the deadline, the auction legally goes forward tomorrow morning at 10:00 AM MST. If that happens, any legal arguments in their shiny new complaint are officially waived forever.

Stay tuned for any updates and/or changes.

u/mamasnanas — 17 days ago
▲ 34 r/JusticeForClayton

JFC Weekly Discussion & Questions Thread: September 21-27, 2026

Welcome to the Weekly Discussion & Questions Thread!

Share your daily thoughts, burning questions, and engage in open discussion.

(Please share new media drops, podcast links, and video breakdowns as posts!)

Community Rules

Before joining the conversation, please review the full JFC Sub Rules.

  • TL;DR ➜ Focus on the actions rather than the individual and refrain from speculation on mental health.
  • Comment removed? Sometimes it's Automod, sometimes it's us. Edit to follow rules (if applicable) and modmail us for reinstatement.

Community Question

  • Do you think an eleventh hour maneuver will be pulled to avoid the September 29 foreclosure?

Last Week's Posts

Upcoming Dates & Calendar

  • 9/29/26 – Owens Home Foreclosure: Foreclosure Auction | 10:00 AM MST (confirmed)
  • 10/23/26 - Laura Owens Criminal Case Sentencing Hearing
  • TBD - David Gingras' AZ Bar Case Ruling

Think we missed something? Let us know!

u/mamasnanas — 24 days ago
▲ 20 r/JusticeForClayton

JFC Weekly Discussion & Questions Thread: September 14-20, 2026

Welcome to the Weekly Discussion & Questions Thread!

Share your daily thoughts, burning questions, and engage in open discussion.

(Please share new media drops, podcast links, and video breakdowns as posts!)

Community Rules

Before joining the conversation, please review the full JFC Sub Rules.

  • TL;DR ➜ Focus on the actions rather than the individual and refrain from speculation on mental health.
  • Comment removed? Sometimes it's Automod, sometimes it's us. Edit to follow rules (if applicable) and modmail us for reinstatement.

Last Week's Posts

Court & Legal

Videos & Creators

Community Discussion

Upcoming Dates & Calendar

  • 9/29/26 – Owens Home Foreclosure: Foreclosure Auction | 10:00 AM MST (confirmed)
  • 10/23/26 - Laura Owens Criminal Case Sentencing Hearing
  • TBD - David Gingras' AZ Bar Case Ruling

Think we missed something? Let us know!

reddit.com
u/mamasnanas — 1 month ago
▲ 192 r/JusticeForClayton

Laura Owens - Request for Travel | CR2025-007905-001 | September 8, 2026

Document:

Laura Owens has filed a request to travel in the Arizona criminal case in which she recently pled guilty to 4 felonies.

Requested dates: September 14 - September 21, 2026

Christian Lueders, Laura's criminal attorney, states in this filing that her father, Ronn Owens, has stage 4 cancer and will be visiting his other daughter, Sarah, in a different state. Mr. Lueders also states Ronn has not made the trip "in many years." However, in a filing Mr. Lueders filed on April 5, 2026, Ronn Owens is a listed travel companion for Laura to visit her sister Sarah in San Diego, California.

The September 8 request also states that Laura has been Ronn's primary caregiver for years, despite her mother Jan Black/Elizabeth Naylor recently testifying to being Ronn's primary caregiver.

The Owens' Scottsdale home will be going up for auction on September 29, 2026.

Thank you to JFCX and CM.

reddit.com
u/mamasnanas — 1 month ago
▲ 193 r/JusticeForClayton

David Gingras' Petition for Special Action DENIED by AZ Supreme Court

David Gingras had filed a Petition for Special Action regarding the lower court's denial of his anti-SLAPP argument. The AZ Supreme Court ruled today, without prejudice, that if Gingras wishes to appeal, he needs to do so via the proper channels (after a final ruling in the AZ Bar case is made).

u/mamasnanas — 1 month ago
▲ 29 r/JusticeForClayton

JFC Weekly Discussion & Questions Thread: September 7-13, 2026

Welcome to the Weekly Discussion & Questions Thread!

Share your daily thoughts, burning questions, and engage in open discussion.

(Please share new media drops, podcast links, and video breakdowns as posts!)

Community Rules

Before joining the conversation, please review the full JFC Sub Rules.

  • TL;DR ➜ Focus on the actions rather than the individual and refrain from speculation on mental health.
  • Comment removed? Edit to follow rules and modmail us for reinstatement.

Top Posts

​

News Articles

Upcoming Dates & Calendar

  • 9/08/26 – David Gingras v. State Bar of Arizona: Arizona Supreme Court Ruling
  • 9/29/26 – Owens Home Foreclosure: Foreclosure Auction | 10:00 AM MST
  • 10/23/26 - Laura Owens Criminal Case Sentencing Hearing
reddit.com
u/mamasnanas — 1 month ago
▲ 867 r/JusticeForClayton

BREAKING: Laura Owens' Appeal DISMISSED | Owens v Marraccini

On September 4, 2026, the day her appeal brief was due, Laura Owens requested the appeal she brought forth against Michael Marraccini be dismissed. The appeal court granted this request. It appears Laura requested more than just a dismissal. The appeal court states they are simply dismissing the appeal itself and does not address any other issues raised in her filing.

As of now, Laura Owens has no active cases against Michael Marraccini.

Michael Marraccini has spent over $150,000 in legal fees & costs due to Laura Owens' weaponization of the legal system against him.

u/mamasnanas — 1 month ago
▲ 128 r/JusticeForClayton

VIDEO | Fox 32 Chicago - ‘Love Trapped’ podcast case takes major turn as woman pleads guilty

Interview with Stephani Young about Love Trapped: Owens v Echard.

youtube.com
u/mamasnanas — 1 month ago
▲ 151 r/JusticeForClayton

Laura Owens Signed Plea Agreement | State of Arizona v Laura Michelle Owens | CR2025-007905-001 | August 28, 2026

Document:

TL;DR

On August 28, 2026, Laura Owens signed a plea deal in her criminal case (State of Arizona v Laura Michelle Owens, CR2025-007905-001). Under the agreement, she pleads guilty to 4 non-dangerous felonies. Counts 6, 9, and 10 guarantee supervised probation, but Count 1 remains completely open, exposing her to 3 to 12.5 years in prison at the judge's discretion. MCAO is dropping the remaining 10 felony counts.

The Sentencing hearing is currently scheduled to occur on Friday, October 23rd from 9:00 AM-12:00 PM MST.

Summary

Plea Allocution & Sentence Exposure

  • Count 1 (Fraudulent Schemes - Class 2 Felony): Open to judge's sentencing. Presumptive term is 5 years; total exposure ranges from 3 years (mitigated) to 12.5 years (aggravated) in prison. Supervised probation remains an available option.
  • Count 6 (Perjury - Class 4 Felony): Stipulated supervised probation. (Statutory prison range if revoked: 1 to 3.75 years).
  • Count 9 (Fraudulent Schemes - Class 2 Felony): Stipulated supervised probation. (Statutory prison range if revoked: 3 to 12.5 years).
  • Count 10 (Identity Theft - Class 4 Felony): Stipulated supervised probation. (Statutory prison range if revoked: 1 to 3.75 years).

 

Key Terms & Dismissals

  • Dropped Charges: Counts 2–5, 7–8, and 11–14 are dismissed by MCAO.
  • Full Victim Restitution: Laura agrees to pay full financial restitution to all victims covering all losses tied to MCAO Report 2024031. This includes dismissed charges, unfiled claims, insurance payouts, and MCAO Victim Compensation.
  • No Contact & Assessments: Strict no-contact order covering all victims. Subject to mandatory 78–79% statutory surcharges on potential fines up to $150,000 per count, along with mandatory DNA extraction within 30 days.
  • Waivers: Waives rights to preliminary hearings, grand jury determinations, pre-trial motions, double jeopardy claims, and appeals.
  • Judge's Rejection Clause: Sentence enhancement uses judicial fact-finding. If the court rejects the plea terms at sentencing, either party can withdraw, automatically reinstating all 14 original felony counts.

What the What?

Sentence Enhancements & Aggravation: Even though 10 of the 14 counts are being dropped, prosecutors reserved the right to use the facts and evidence behind those dismissed charges as "aggravating factors" during sentencing. This means prosecutors can bring up her conduct regarding the dropped charges to push the judge toward the maximum 12.5-year prison sentence on Count 1.

Community Supervision Requirement: If Judge Rueter decides to give her prison time rather than probation on Count 1, Laura is automatically required to serve a term of mandatory community supervision equal to one-seventh (1/7) of her prison sentence upon release.

What Do "Aggravated," "Mitigated," and "Revoked" Mean?

Think of Arizona sentencing like a scale:

  • Presumptive (The Baseline): The standard prison time a judge gives for a charge if nothing unusual stands out.
  • Mitigated (The Discount): A shorter prison term given if the defense proves extenuating circumstances (like having no prior criminal record or showing remorse).
  • Aggravated (The Penalty): A much longer prison term given if prosecutors prove severe harm, significant financial damage, or cruelty to the victims.

Probation Revocation means her probation comes with a major trapdoor. If she breaks any of her court-ordered probation rules, the judge can revoke (cancel) her probation on the spot. If that happens, the probation cushion vanishes, and the judge can lock her up in state prison to serve the full statutory sentence for those counts.

No Contact Order This is a standard protective condition prohibiting Laura Owens from directly or indirectly contacting any of the victims involved in the case file. That means no phone calls, text messages, emails, social media tags, indirect messages sent through third parties, or showing up at their homes or workplaces. Any attempt to reach out to a victim would constitute an immediate probation violation, potentially triggering probation revocation and risking prison time.

Statutory Fines & Surcharges (78–79%) Under Arizona state law, any criminal fine imposed by a judge is subjected to automatic state penalty surcharges.

  • Base Fine: Arizona Class 2 and Class 4 felonies carry a statutory maximum fine of up to $150,000 per count.
  • The 78–79% Penalty Surcharge: Arizona tacks an additional 78% or 79% tax on top of any fine standardly ordered by the court. These automatic state surcharges fund state programs like victim compensation, DNA databases, public safety funds, and court operations.
  • The Math: If a judge imposes a $10,000 fine on a count, the total bill owed to the court becomes $17,800 to $17,900 once the surcharge and flat court fees are tacked on.

Mandatory DNA Extraction Under A.R.S. § 13-610, anyone convicted of a felony in Arizona must submit a mandatory DNA sample (typically via a cheek swab or blood draw) to law enforcement within 30 days of sentencing. This genetic profile is permanently logged into state and national law enforcement databases (such as CODIS) for future identification and criminal investigation purposes.

reddit.com
u/mamasnanas — 1 month ago
▲ 54 r/JusticeForClayton

State of AZ v Laura Owens | Minute Entry - Settlement Conference | August 28, 2026

Document:

Case Details & Status

  • Case: State of Arizona v. Laura Michelle Owens (Case No. CR2025-007905-001 DT)
  • Date of Hearing: August 28, 2026 (Filed August 31, 2026)
  • Judge: Hon. Jeffrey Rueter
  • Prosecutor: Edward Leiter
  • Defense Attorney: Christian Lueders

Hearing Outcome

  • Settlement Conference / Change of Plea: After an informal chambers conference, the Court reviewed the plea agreement and rights with the Defendant

(Laura Owens)

  • .
  • Plea Entered:

Laura Owens

  • entered a plea of Guilty to four counts:
    • Count 1: Fraudulent Schemes and Artifices (Class 2 Felony; Offense date 05/17/2023–06/10/2024)
    • Count 6: Perjury (Class 4 Felony; Offense date 06/10/2024)
    • Count 9: Fraudulent Schemes and Artifices (Class 2 Felony; Offense date 07/01/2021–08/17/2022)
    • Count 10: Taking the Identity of Another (Class 4 Felony; Offense date 08/06/2021)
  • All plead offenses are designated as Non-Dangerous and Non-Repetitive.
  • Plea Accepted: The Court officially accepted the guilty plea and vacated all other pending dates. Remaining counts/allegations referenced in paragraph 3 of the plea agreement will be formally submitted for dismissal/resolution at sentencing.

Upcoming Schedule

  • Sept 30, 2026 at 8:45 AM: Non-appearance Status Conference regarding the Presentence Report.
  • Oct 23, 2026 at 9:00 AM: Sentencing hearing scheduled (3-hour block).

Prior release orders remain affirmed pending sentencing, and the Adult Probation Department was ordered to prepare a presentence report.

reddit.com
u/mamasnanas — 1 month ago
▲ 29 r/JusticeForClayton

JFC Weekly Discussion & Questions Thread: August 31-September 6, 2026

Welcome to the Weekly Discussion & Questions Thread!

Share your daily thoughts, burning questions, and engage in open discussion.

(Please share new media drops, podcast links, and video breakdowns as posts!)

Community Rules

Before joining the conversation, please review the full JFC Sub Rules.

  • TL;DR ➜ Focus on the actions rather than the individual and refrain from speculation on mental health.
  • Comment removed? Edit to follow rules and modmail us for reinstatement.

Top Stories

News Articles

Upcoming Dates & Calendar

  • 9/0

8

  • /26 – Owens v. Marraccini: Laura's Appeal Brief due
  • 9/08/26 – David Gingras v. State Bar of Arizona: Arizona Supreme Court Ruling
  • 9/29/26 – Owens Home Foreclosure: Foreclosure Auction | 10:00 AM MST
  • 9/20/26 - Non-appearance Status Conference regarding the Presentence Report | 8:45 AM MST
  • 10/23/26 - Laura Owens Criminal Case Sentencing Hearing | 9:00 AM - 12:00 PM MST
reddit.com
u/mamasnanas — 2 months ago