SchnitzelNinja Video Description:

Copy of the publicly available Superior Court of Arizona - Maricopa County proceedings of CR 2025-007905-001 | The State of Arizona v Laura Michelle Owens

On May 20, 2026, Laura Michelle Owens of Scottsdale, Arizona appeared for a Complex Case Management Conference for her criminal case. In this hearing, the plea deal was extended to Friday, June 26, 2026. The next hearing is set for Monday, June 29, 2026. Mr. Lueders, attorney for Laura Owens, states that this hearing will either be a Change of Plea or another CCMC. He states a firm decision on the plea will be made by June 26th. Still scheduled are the Final Trial Management Conference on July 22, 2026 @ 8:45 AM MST and Trial Assignment on July 29, 2026 @ 9:00 AM MST.

Case Documents: https://victimsoflauraowens.com/indictment-news/#documents

Express permission has been obtained by Maricopa County Court to post this publicly available video to YouTube.

A.R.S. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 57
(a) Availability of Information. Except as otherwise provided in these rules, the state bar file, the record maintained by the disciplinary clerk, and all proceedings shall be open to the public
(b) Exceptions to Availability of Information. Notwithstanding other provisions of these rules, including Rule 123, Rules of the Supreme Court, the following do not become public:
14. Previous recordings and written transcripts of audio and video witness interviews or statements, unless offered or admitted as exhibits in formal proceedings

"There Should Be No Secret Public Records - The public should be able to easily discover the existence and the nature of public records and the existence to which data are accessible to persons outside of the government."
The Bureau of Justice Assistance (bja.ojp.gov)

#lauraowens
#criminal
#justiceforclayton
#abc
#arizona
#caseupdates
#claytonechard
#courtcase
#courthearing
#crimenews
#criminal
#fakepregnancy
#felony
#forgery
#greggillespie
#identitytheft
#indictment
#justicesystem
#law
#lawandcrime
#lauramichelleowens
#legalnews
#maricopacounty
#michaelmarraccini
#mikemarraccini
#owenscase
#perjury
#police
#prison
#rachelmitchell
#scam
#scheme
#schemesandartifices
#schnitzelninja
#scottsdale
#thebachelor
#truecrime
#truecrimecommunity
#truecrimeupdate

SchnitzelNinja | Video Description

Copy of the publicly available United Bankruptcy Court, District of Arizona bankruptcy hearing, Bankruptcy Petition #: 2:25-bk-11801-BKM - Laura Michelle Owens, May 14, 2026.

After a Stipulated Motion to Dismiss was mutually agreed upon and signed by all parties on April 15, 2026 (Ilene J. Lashinsky (US Trustee), Jennifer Giaimo (Department of Justice attorney), Markus Risinger (Woodnick Law) and Laura Owens), a hearing was held, affirming the dismissal of the bankruptcy. The case was dismissed with prejudice, barring Laura Owens from filing for bankruptcy anywhere in the United States for one year.

Permission has been obtained by the District of Arizona Bankruptcy Court to post this publicly available audio recording to YouTube.

*While the hearing occurred over Zoom, only audio is available upon request*

Laura Owens Bankruptcy Documents: https://victimsoflauraowens.com/documents/#bankruptcy

A.R.S. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 57
(a) Availability of Information. Except as otherwise provided in these rules, the state bar file, the record maintained by the disciplinary clerk, and all proceedings shall be open to the public (b) Exceptions to Availability of Information. Notwithstanding other provisions of these rules, including Rule 123, Rules of the Supreme Court, the following do not become public: 14. Previous recordings and written transcripts of audio and video witness interviews or statements, unless offered or admitted as exhibits in formal proceedings.

"There Should Be No Secret Public Records - The public should be able to easily discover the existence and the nature of public records and the existence to which data are accessible to persons outside of the government." The Bureau of Justice Assistance (bja.ojp.gov)

#lauraowens
#scam
#justiceforclayton
#abc
#arizona
#bankruptcy
#caseupdates
#claytonechard
#courtcase
#courthearing
#crimenews
#criminal
#fakepregnancy
#felony
#forgery
#fraud
#greggillespie
#identitytheft
#indictment
#justicesystem
#law
#lawandcrime
#lauramichelleowens
#legalnews
#maricopacounty
#bankruptcy
#owenscase
#perjury
#police
#prison
#rachelmitchell
#scheme
#schemesandartifices
#schnitzelninja
#scottsdale
#thebachelor
#truecrime
#truecrimecommunity
#truecrimeupdate

Documents:

• JP Morgan Chase Bank Complaint
• JP Morgan Chase Certificate of Compulsory Arbitration
• JP Morgan Chase Summons

JPMorgan Chase v. Ronn Owens - New Lawsuit Summary

JPMorgan Chase Bank has officially refiled its legal action against Ronn Owens and Jan Black in the Maricopa County Superior Court. The case follows a previous filing that was interrupted by a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

Case Details

• Case Number: CV2026-017935.
• Filing Date: April 30, 2026.
• Court: Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County.
• Total Amount Claimed: $51,861.07.
• Legal Basis: Breach of Contract, Open Account, and Account Stated.

The Allegations

• Account History: The lawsuit concerns a JPMorgan Chase credit account in Ronn Owens' name. Chase claims Owens used the account for goods, services, or cash advances but failed to make the required periodic payments, leading to a "charged-off" status.
• Successor by Merger: JPMorgan Chase is suing as the successor by merger to Chase Bank USA, N.A..
• No Disputes: The bank asserts there are no unresolved disputes regarding the account and the full balance is now due. Chase is seeking the principal amount only and is not seeking post-charge-off interest.

What Are These Documents?

• The Summons: This is the official notice to the defendants. Since it was issued in Arizona, they generally have 20 calendar days from the date of service to file a written "Answer" or "Response" with the court to avoid a default judgment.
• Compulsory Arbitration: The case has been flagged for compulsory arbitration under Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. This typically applies to civil cases where the amount in controversy falls below a specific local threshold, aiming for a faster resolution than a full trial.
• Legal Representation: Chase is represented by The Moore Law Group (specifically attorney James Hammond) based out of Santa Ana, CA.

During a scheduled hearing today, Laura Owens' bankruptcy case was officially dismissed. She may not file for bankruptcy in any US court for a year from the date the agreement was submitted.

Document:

• Respondent's Notice of Withdrawal of Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, and Correction of Procedural Posture Statement

Summary

Michael Marraccini has formally withdrawn his Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. As a result, the hearing previously scheduled for July 20, 2026, has been removed from the court’s calendar.

The withdrawal was filed "without prejudice," meaning Mike maintains the right to refile the motion at a later date.

The filing includes a correction regarding the procedural status of a related bankruptcy case (In re Owens). While a previous motion stated the bankruptcy had been dismissed on April 15, 2026, Michael clarified that the court has not yet entered an official order of dismissal. A hearing on that matter is currently set for tomorrow, May 14, 2026. This withdrawal ensures the court record accurately reflects the status of those proceedings.

Thank you to Steev for obtaining this document!

Fox32 Chicago interviews Stephani Young about Love Trapped

According to this interview with KTAR News today, Laura Owens has rejected her plea offer. Her criminal case will be going to trial.

Thanks to Ktar News and Rachel Mitchell for the update!

Document:

• Petitioner-Appellant's Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief

"...independent of the outcome of this application, she [Laura] intends to seek a new domestic violence protective order arising from Respondent's recent and ongoing conduct."

On April 23, 2026, Laura Owens requested an extension to file her appellate brief. She argued that without a 60-day extension to "correct and augment" the record, an opening brief would misrepresent what actually happened. The Court of Appeal granted the request, moving her deadline to June 29, 2026.

Summary

• Declinations by Attorneys: She revealed that in the weeks just before this filing, two separate sources of legal counsel declined to represent her after conducting substantive reviews of the case.
• Reasons for the Turn-Downs: According to Owens, these attorneys did not decline because the appeal lacked merit. Instead, they stated they could not take the case because the central facts she relies on are not currently part of the "official record".
• Path to Representation: Both legal sources reportedly told Owens they would reconsider representing her once the record deficiency is corrected.
• The "Record Deficiency": Owens argued the current five-page transcript is inaccurate because it omits her pre-hearing medical notifications and her hospital admission. She claimed sixty days were necessary to "correct and augment" this record to make her case attractive to the counsel who had previously turned her down.
• Financial Constraints: She further noted that her ongoing bankruptcy proceedings in Arizona have made it difficult to access the funds necessary for private appellate representation.
• Allegations of Legal Misconduct: The filing also claims that the attorneys who secured the dismissal against her are under active State Bar investigation, which she believes complicates her ability to find counsel who can navigate such a high-conflict dynamic.
• Notice of New Litigation: Owens concluded the document by formally notifying Michael Marraccini of her intent to file a new domestic violence protective order based on his recent public media appearances.

Documents:

• Respondent Michael Marraccini's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs; Memorandum of Points and Authorities
• Declaration of Omar Serrato in Support of Respondent's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs
• Supporting Exhibits
• Proposed Order

On May 4, 2026, Michael Marraccini filed a motion seeking $109,633.98 in attorney fees and costs against Laura Owens. The motion and the supporting declaration from his attorney, Omar Serrato, argue that Owens's attempt to renew a restraining order was frivolous and intended to harass.

Summaries

Respondent Michael Marraccini's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs

This filing provides the legal arguments and a detailed timeline intended to prove that Laura Owens' conduct warrants a heavy financial penalty.

• The "Frivolous" Standard: Under Family Code section 6344, Michael can only recover fees if he proves the petition was "frivolous" or meant to "harass". The motion argues this case meets both bars because Owens allegedly failed to even check the box on the form stating she was afraid of him.
• The Scottsdale Equestrian Timeline: The motion details what it calls a pattern of deception regarding Owens's health. It states that on October 21, 2025, she told the court travel was "life-threatening," yet she was already registered for and actively competing in the Scottsdale Fall Classic 2 horse show later that same week. Evidence is included showing she was photographed as a "Champion" on the winner's podium shortly after skipping the court-ordered trial in San Francisco.
• Allegations of Forgery: The filing highlights a forensic report (the Berryhill Report) identifying two medical messages as forgeries. These messages, dated from 2016, purportedly confirmed a cancer diagnosis and a surgical procedure.
• Ability to Pay: To satisfy the legal requirement that the payer has the "ability to pay," Michael’s team points to Laura's lifestyle. They cite the high costs of maintaining a horse (Scirocco 91), her ability to hire private criminal defense firms in Arizona, and her alleged control over several business entities like Quartet Farms LLC and LizMax Investments LLC.
• Bankruptcy and Criminal Context: The motion mentions that Owens's Chapter 7 bankruptcy was dismissed with prejudice in April 2026, meaning there is no longer an "automatic stay" preventing this fee award. It also references her felony indictments in Arizona for perjury and fraudulent schemes.
• Future Litigation: The document concludes by noting that Owens has already formally stated her intent to file a new domestic violence protective order against Michael, highlighting what his team describes as a cycle of litigation.

Declaration of Omar Serrato

This filing serves as the formal evidentiary support for the fee request, signed under penalty of perjury.

• Financial Breakdown: Serrato requests a total award of $109,633.98. This is broken down into $90,100 for the merits of the case, $5,850 for "fees-on-fees" (time spent preparing the fee motion), $9,825 for paralegal work, and $3,858.98 in specific costs.
• Billing Rates and Justification: Serrato lists his rate at $500 per hour and his paralegal’s at $150 per hour, asserting these are at the low end of market rates for contested family law matters in the Bay Area.
• Redactions and Privacy: The declaration explains that while the public version is redacted to protect attorney-client privilege and the identity of a confidential witness, a full unredacted version is available for the judge to review in private.
• Voluntary Reductions: Serrato points out that the firm did not bill for certain expenses, such as travel and lodging for in-person trial appearances, or the independent fees of associated counsel Rachel Juarez.
• GoFundMe Disclosure: In the interest of transparency, Serrato discloses that Michael raised roughly $47,000 through a GoFundMe campaign. He clarifies that Michael remains contractually obligated to pay the full legal bill regardless of those donations.
• Authentication of Evidence: Serrato uses this declaration to officially "authenticate" several exhibits, including the Maricopa County indictment of Owens and equestrian records from a competition in Scottsdale.

Thank you SO much to Steev for obtaining these documents and to everyone who donated to the document fund!