David G. Campbell

In Silving v. Wells Fargo Bank, plaintiffs challenged a trustee sale of their Arizona home by U.S. Bank after it was offered at auction, filing an eleven-count complaint in state court asserting only Arizona-law claims related to the foreclosure process. Defendants removed the case to federal district court on diversity jurisdiction grounds, and plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing for Burford abstention due to state-law issues of first impression and invoking the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The court denied the motion to remand and request for fees, holding that removal was proper, abstention was inappropriate because Arizona lacks a complex regulatory scheme for trustee sales comparable to Burford, and Rooker-Feldman did not apply absent a prior state-court judgment. The opinion further addressed motions to dismiss various claims but focused its remand analysis on the absence of exceptional circumstances warranting abstention or dismissal.

propertyprocedure

This case stems from a 2005 single-vehicle rollover accident in Arizona in which two passengers were ejected, resulting in one death and one severe injury; the plaintiffs brought strict product liability, negligence, and wrongful death claims against TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc., alleging defects in the vehicle's seatbelts. After an earlier related suit against other defendants and a related entity was dismissed, the defendant moved for summary judgment on grounds including claim preclusion, lack of admissible expert testimony, superseding cause, and its status as a component supplier, along with motions to exclude experts and to strike the plaintiffs' statement of facts. The court denied all motions, holding that claim preclusion and duplicative litigation doctrines did not apply because the prior action involved different parties and produced no final judgment on the merits against this defendant, that genuine disputes of material fact existed on defect and causation issues precluding summary judgment, and that the controverting statement of facts substantially complied with local rules. Expert admissibility challenges were deferred to trial via motions in limine.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns environmental groups' challenge to the Bureau of Land Management's decision to allow resumption of uranium mining operations at the Arizona 1 mine near Grand Canyon National Park without requiring a new plan of operations or updated environmental reviews. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the General Mining Law, and the National Environmental Policy Act, claiming that the 1988 plan of operations had become ineffective after mining ceased in 1992 and that supplemental environmental analysis was required. The court granted the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment in part and denied them in part, holding that the 1988 plan remained effective under BLM regulations, that no new plan or supplemental NEPA review for the mine itself was required, and that BLM's interpretation of its own rules was reasonable and entitled to deference. The court further found that certain ancillary actions, such as a gravel permit, did not trigger additional NEPA obligations for the mine. BLM was directed to document its finding of no significant cumulative environmental impact in a format consistent with a categorical exclusion.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

In this case, plaintiff James Surowiec sued escrow agent Scott Romley and Capital Title Agency, Inc., alleging that they failed to disclose prior to closing that his Scottsdale condominium remained encumbered by junior liens held by investors in the development, which prevented him from selling the property and caused financial losses; the amended complaint asserted claims including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court granted in part defendants' motion for summary judgment, denying it as to compensatory damages but granting it as to punitive damages, denied plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment, and granted in part plaintiff's motions for sanctions. The court reasoned that the evidence, viewed favorably to the plaintiff, provided a reasonable basis for a jury to find more than $100,000 in compensatory damages with sufficient certainty based on the purchase price, comparable sales, and current appraised value, but found no evidence of an evil mind or malice to support punitive damages; it further found that Capital's discovery abuses, including failure to preserve evidence and late production, warranted reimbursement of expenses and attorneys' fees under Rule 37 and the court's inherent powers.

propertyproceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involves an appeal from a bankruptcy court judgment in a dispute between Gorilla Companies LLC and the sellers of event management companies (the Corwins and Holdings, LLC) regarding payments under an asset purchase agreement, including a seller note with an earnout based on EBITDA calculations. The bankruptcy court ruled for Gorilla on claims including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, awarding over $4.7 million in damages and nearly $1.8 million in attorneys' fees. On appeal, the district court affirmed the judgment in part and reversed in part, reversing the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims due to lack of evidence of justifiable reliance on the sellers' estimated EBITDA figures, reversing the breach of contract and related claims along with associated damages and fees, and affirming the unjust enrichment claim plus certain adjustments to the EBITDA calculation. The court reviewed factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo, remanding for further proceedings on fees.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns the U.S. Department of the Interior's 2010 decision to take a 54-acre parcel of land in Glendale, Arizona, into trust for the Tohono O’odham Nation under the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act, enabling the Nation to develop a casino on the property. Plaintiffs, including the Gila River Indian Community and local governments, challenged the decision as violating the Administrative Procedure Act, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and constitutional provisions such as the Tenth Amendment and Indian Commerce Clause. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the Trust Decision satisfied the statutory requirements of the Gila Bend Act and was not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful. The court reasoned that the land acquisition aligned with the Act's purpose of replacing flooded reservation lands and promoting tribal economic self-sufficiency, that IGRA's settlement-of-a-land-claim exception applied, and that Congress's actions fell within its authority under the Indian Commerce Clause without infringing state powers.

federal powerpropertybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a dispute over whether insurance policies from Navigators Insurance Company cover legal malpractice claims brought against the insured law firm and attorney in the Aganowski action. The parties filed cross-motions for partial judgment on the pleadings regarding Navigators' right to recoup defense and settlement costs if it prevails on the underlying coverage issues. The court granted Navigators' motion and denied the insureds' cross-motion, holding that the insurer could seek reimbursement. The reasoning was that Navigators properly reserved its rights under both Arizona and California law, the insureds received notice and consented to the settlement, and allowing recoupment avoids forcing insurers into an unfair dilemma between settling or facing bad faith claims while preserving coverage defenses.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a homeowner who obtained a mortgage loan secured by a promissory note and deed of trust on Arizona property from National Bank of Arizona, later facing a trustee's sale after a successor trustee was appointed; the plaintiff filed state court claims seeking to enjoin the sale along with claims for breach of contract, declaratory relief, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and others. Defendants removed the action to federal district court, citing federal question jurisdiction under the National Bank Act. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, concluding that the well-pleaded complaint raised only state law issues, that complete preemption did not apply to recharacterize the claims as federal, and that defendants failed to meet their burden to establish removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved a motion by defendant Elisa Rojas-Cuadra, joined by others, to suppress evidence obtained from a wiretap of a telephone used by an individual identified as Juan LNU in a federal drug trafficking investigation. The court treated the motion as one to suppress and for a Franks hearing, then granted suppression while denying the hearing request as moot. The core reasoning was that the affidavit supporting the wiretap application for Juan's phone failed to establish necessity, as its necessity section was nearly identical to that of a prior affidavit for a different target and omitted detailed, case-specific explanations for why traditional investigative techniques had been or would be inadequate.

criminal lawprocedure

This consolidated case involves a contract dispute between the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation and Steven Kroeter and related entities (AA, AAI, and SFDA) arising from a 1983 licensing agency agreement, as amended in 2001, for the promotion and sale of Frank Lloyd Wright decorative designs. The Foundation sued the defendants for breach of contract and related claims, while AAI countersued for breach of contract regarding post-termination royalty payments. The court granted summary judgment to AAI on its breach of contract claim (except for damages) and on the Foundation's claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith, and unjust enrichment, finding that the Foundation materially breached the agreement by failing to make timely royalty payments, which excused AAI's further performance. The court granted summary judgment to the Foundation on AAI's negligent misrepresentation claim and denied the remaining motions for summary judgment and to strike.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Murray, the defendant was charged with possession of child pornography and filed motions to suppress evidence seized from his home pursuant to a search warrant as well as statements made during questioning by agents on the same day. The court denied both motions. The search warrant was found to be supported by probable cause based on an affidavit detailing the defendant's IP address being used to download files containing child pornography, with the information not deemed stale and the categories of items to be seized not overly broad. The statements were not suppressed because the interview occurred in a non-custodial setting where Miranda rights did not apply and the statements were voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.

criminal lawprocedure

In Cln Properties, Inc. v. Republic Services, Inc., two customer companies brought a putative class action against a waste disposal services provider, alleging that the defendant imposed and adjusted fuel recovery and environmental cost recovery fees in ways that did not match actual cost changes, thereby breaching express contract terms, violating the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, supporting claims for unjust enrichment, and constituting deceptive practices under state law. The court granted the defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the deceptive practices claim (Count Five) but denied the motion as to the remaining counts for injunctive relief, restitution, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant, and unjust enrichment. The ruling rested on the determination that the contract and equitable claims were plausibly pled under the laws of Missouri, Georgia, and Arizona (with alternative pleading permitted despite existing contracts) while the deceptive practices allegations failed to state a viable claim under those states' consumer protection statutes.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned a constitutional challenge by abortion providers to Arizona House Bill 2564, which imposed a 24-hour waiting period and informed consent requirements before an abortion and barred providers from obtaining payment for services until after that period. Plaintiffs argued that the waiting period unduly burdened the right to abortion and that the payment restriction was unconstitutionally vague. The district court denied a preliminary injunction, finding the plaintiffs unlikely to prevail because the waiting period did not impose a substantial obstacle on a large fraction of affected women, and it certified to the Arizona Supreme Court the question of whether the payment provision applied only in the context of an actual abortion or more broadly to any inquiry about abortion.

abortionprocedure

In this case, an inmate at the Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail sued Sheriff Joseph Arpaio under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that a jail policy restricting incoming non-privileged mail to metered postcards violated his First Amendment rights by preventing general correspondence and by blocking legal mail from witnesses in his criminal case. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on both counts. It reasoned that the policy satisfied the Turner v. Safley test because it was rationally connected to the legitimate interest of preventing contraband smuggling, inmates had alternative means of communication, accommodating other mail would increase security risks, and no easy alternatives existed. The court further found that the policy did not apply to privileged legal mail, that the plaintiff had not shown his listed witnesses were improperly rejected, and that he failed to demonstrate any actual injury from the mail handling.

civil rightsfree speechcriminal law

The case involves the Grand Canyon Trust challenging the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's operation of Glen Canyon Dam, alleging violations of the Endangered Species Act through harm to the endangered humpback chub and its critical habitat, as well as non-compliance by Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service with related statutes including the Grand Canyon Protection Act. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Trust on one claim regarding the biological opinion's analysis of dam flows, in favor of Reclamation on two claims, and held the remaining claims under advisement. It remanded a portion of the Fish and Wildlife Service's 2008 biological opinion for further consideration by October 30, 2009, finding that the opinion inadequately addressed whether modified low fluctuating flows destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Mansour sued Aurora Loan Services, MERS, and Cal-Western after they initiated foreclosure on his Arizona property following his default on a 2006 mortgage loan, alleging that defendants lacked authority to foreclose without producing the original promissory note and that they violated the UCC, FDCPA, RESPA, HOEPA, TILA, and FTC Act. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). It held that Arizona's UCC and foreclosure statutes do not require production of the original note, that the FDCPA does not apply to loan servicers or creditors collecting their own debts, and that the remaining federal claims were too conclusory to state a plausible claim. The court also dismissed Cal-Western because, as trustee, it was not a proper party absent allegations of breach of its specific duties.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In United States v. Salabye, defendant Cedric Salabye was charged with selling parts of bald and golden eagles in violation of federal law and moved to suppress statements he made to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agent during a search of his home on the Navajo reservation. The court granted the motion to suppress after an evidentiary hearing. The core reasoning was that the interrogation was custodial under the totality of the circumstances, including the two-plus hours of questioning in a closed truck by an armed agent while other officers searched the home and remained visible outside, confrontation with evidence of guilt, and the impracticality of leaving one's own residence, so Miranda warnings were required but not given.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Blizzard Entertainment's claims against MDY Industries and its owner Michael Donnelly over Glider, a software bot that automates gameplay in Blizzard's World of Warcraft online game by circumventing Blizzard's Warden anti-cheat technology. The court had previously found MDY liable for tortious interference with contract as well as contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. Following a bench trial on the remaining issues, the court held that MDY violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by trafficking in a product designed to circumvent technological measures controlling access to and protecting Blizzard's copyrighted game software, that Donnelly was personally liable for MDY's tortious interference, copyright infringement, and DMCA violations, and that Blizzard was entitled to a permanent injunction against Glider's sale and distribution.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityproperty

This case arose from a business dispute in which American Generator, a supplier of remanufactured automotive parts, assigned its claims to AGA Shareholders after CSK Auto terminated their supply relationship in 2004. AGA sued CSK for breach of a written five-year agreement (characterized as a requirements contract under Arizona law), breach of an oral contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith, and related claims for specially manufactured goods and unpaid products; it also sued three former CSK officers for tortious interference, civil conspiracy, and aiding and abetting. The court granted summary judgment to AGA on CSK's liability for breaching the requirements contract, granted CSK summary judgment on the oral-contract claim, denied summary judgment on the remaining contract counts against CSK, granted the individual defendants summary judgment on all tort claims for lack of evidence that they personally directed the termination, and denied the motions to strike expert witnesses.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involves claims by the minor children and estate of Carol Anne Gotbaum, who died while in Phoenix police custody at Sky Harbor Airport after being detained for disruptive behavior, asserting negligence, gross negligence, and constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court denied plaintiffs' motion to transfer venue to Tucson, finding no basis to presume jury prejudice from publicity and that Phoenix was the more convenient forum. It granted the motion to dismiss the Phoenix Police Department, ruling it is not a jural entity suable under Arizona law separate from the City. The court denied the motion to dismiss pre-death pain and suffering claims, concluding Arizona's survival statute permits such recovery in this context.

civil rightstorts & liabilityprocedure