Patricia K. Norris

In Cardoso v. Soldo, Maria Cardoso appealed a superior court decision continuing an order of protection that her former husband, Paul Soldo, had obtained against her in municipal court based on allegations of ongoing harassment through texts and emails. The order, which barred Cardoso from contacting Soldo and a third party, expired before the appeal could be heard, raising a threshold question of mootness. The Arizona Court of Appeals held that the appeal was not moot due to potential collateral consequences of protective orders but affirmed the continuation of the order, finding that Cardoso's challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, procedural fairness, alleged judicial bias, and lack of findings were all unsupported by the record. The court reasoned that the superior court had properly conducted an evidentiary hearing, implicitly rejected Cardoso's requested findings, and followed applicable protective order procedures.

family lawprocedure

The case arose from an insurance dispute in which the Nardellis sued MetLife for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing after MetLife declined to declare their stolen and extensively damaged Ford Explorer a total loss and instead authorized repairs estimated at around $11,000. A jury found MetLife liable, awarding $155,000 in compensatory damages and $55 million in punitive damages; the trial court upheld the compensatory award but reduced the punitive award to $620,000. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of bad-faith liability and the Nardellis' entitlement to punitive damages, concluding that the evidence showed MetLife had acted with an "evil mind" by prioritizing company severity and profitability targets over a fair assessment of whether the vehicle could be restored to its pre-loss condition. The court reduced the punitive damages award to $155,000 to match the compensatory damages, holding that this amount was the appropriate measure under Arizona law.

torts & liabilitypropertybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether Val-Pak East Valley, an Arizona franchisee selling cooperative direct mail advertising, owed Arizona use tax on transactions with its Florida affiliate for the design, printing, and mailing of advertising coupons to Arizona residents. The Arizona Court of Appeals held that Val-Pak was not subject to the use tax. The court reasoned that the governing statutes tax the storage, use, or consumption in Arizona of tangible personal property, but Val-Pak purchased and paid for services rather than tangible property; the coupons were not owned, stored, or used by Val-Pak itself but instead mailed directly to third-party recipients; and the arrangement therefore fell outside the statutory definition of taxable use. The court distinguished contrary precedent and an agency policy statement as inapplicable or non-controlling.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether Arizona’s Proposition 204, a voter-approved initiative that expanded Medicaid (AHCCCS) eligibility to all persons up to 100% of the federal poverty level and required the tobacco-litigation-settlement fund to be supplemented “as necessary” by legislative appropriations or other available sources, obligated the Legislature to provide additional funding when the settlement fund proved inadequate. Petitioners sought to compel continued enrollment and funding for the expanded population after the Legislature, facing a budget crisis, passed measures authorizing a federal waiver and freezing new enrollment for certain adults once available monies were exhausted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s denial of relief. It held that, although Proposition 204 directs supplemental funding, the question of whether the Legislature has satisfied that directive by drawing on “any other available sources” is a non-justiciable political question because resolving it would require the judiciary to set spending priorities and make appropriations decisions constitutionally entrusted to the other branches.

electionshealthcare

The case concerned claims brought by the Arizona Attorney General against AutoZone under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) alleging that the retailer engaged in deceptive pricing practices by offering goods with inaccurate shelf prices or without any displayed prices, based on data from state inspections under a separate pricing statute. The Court of Appeals clarified the elements of CFA violations, holding that the act clause requires proof the retailer acted voluntarily but neither imposes strict liability nor demands an intent to deceive, that evidence of a deceptive act creates a rebuttable presumption of voluntariness, that nondisclosure can qualify as a deceptive practice only if the retailer had a legal duty to disclose, and that disgorgement is an authorized remedy to ensure compliance. The court rejected the superior court's rulings requiring proof of intent to post inaccurate prices or to induce reliance on omissions, reversed the grant of summary judgment to AutoZone, and remanded for further proceedings on liability and remedies.

business & regulatory

The case involved Tom Mulcaire Contracting, LLC suing the City of Cottonwood for a writ of mandamus to compel rebidding of a construction contract under Arizona procurement statutes after the City awarded it to another bidder. The superior court found the City had violated the statutes but denied mandamus relief because the City had terminated the contract to self-perform the work, intentionally mooting the claim; it then awarded Mulcaire attorneys' fees under A.R.S. § 12-2030 as the prevailing party. On appeal, the court held that a party generally must obtain mandamus or similar relief to qualify for fees under the statute but affirmed the award here under equitable principles, given the City's actions to moot the case and prevent adjudication. The core reasoning focused on the statute's requirement of prevailing by adjudication on the merits in a mandamus action, balanced against the unique circumstances where the City deliberately avoided the relief sought.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned negligence and wrongful death claims brought by the Estate of Timothy Maudsley against Meta Services, ValueOptions, and two psychiatrists after Maudsley, who had a mental disorder, was referred to a psychiatric recovery center for evaluation but was not admitted and later died. The superior court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that they owed no duty of care to Maudsley. The appellate court reversed and remanded, ruling that Arizona statutes governing mental health screening and treatment imposed a duty of reasonable care, and that a duty could also arise from a doctor-patient relationship whose existence presented a triable factual issue based on conflicting evidence about Maudsley's interactions at the facility.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

Christopher Regenold appealed his sentence for luring a minor for sexual exploitation after pleading guilty to offering sexual conduct to a detective posing as a 14-year-old. The superior court had imposed an enhanced prison term under a provision for victims under 15, but the appellate court vacated that sentence and remanded for standard sentencing. The court reasoned that although conviction is possible with a posing officer, the enhanced sentencing statute explicitly requires an actual minor under 15, as confirmed by the statute's plain language and similar interpretations in related cases.

criminal law

This case involved Charles Loftus, a full-time ASU police officer and member of the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System, who also worked part-time as a faculty associate teaching courses at ASU. The Arizona State University Public Safety Personnel Retirement System Local Board determined that Loftus's teaching salary did not qualify as compensation for calculating his retirement benefits under the System, and the superior court affirmed that decision. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that System-eligible compensation must be generated from a member's regular assignment to hazardous duty, and because Loftus's teaching role was separate from and unrelated to his police officer duties, the salary from teaching was not includable. The court also rejected the Board's cross-appeal seeking attorney fees, finding no abuse of discretion in the superior court's denial. The ruling turned on the statutory definitions limiting eligible compensation to base salary tied to hazardous duty assignments for public safety employees.

labor & employment

This case involved a dispute over a construction contract between W Inc. and Pioneer Family Investments, LLC, managed by Krishna Pinnamaneni, where W Inc. sought to confirm an arbitration award after the defendants failed to participate. The superior court confirmed the award against both defendants, but on appeal, the court held that Pioneer waived its defense regarding W Inc.'s lack of contractor's license by not raising it during arbitration, as such defenses are subject to waiver. However, the court reversed the confirmation against Pinnamaneni because it was unclear whether he, as a non-party to the contract, was bound by the arbitration clause, and remanded for further proceedings on that issue.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved the State of Arizona seeking civil forfeiture in rem of assets seized from Jaime Lopez Campos's auto sales business, which the State alleged were proceeds of racketeering offenses including money laundering tied to a 2004 vehicle sale. The superior court granted the State's application for an in rem forfeiture order because Campos had not filed a timely claim under A.R.S. § 13-4311(D) and also granted partial summary judgment for forfeiture based on Campos's conviction for facilitation of money laundering. On appeal, the court held that the State waived any objection to Campos's untimely claim by actively litigating the case and treating him as a claimant for more than three years. The court further held that the State had shown no genuine issue of material fact supporting forfeiture of certain property but not all of it, and therefore reversed the in rem order in full while affirming the partial summary judgment only in part and remanding for further proceedings.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute over child support calculations in a divorce proceeding between Raquel Helena Patterson and Shawn Jamaal Patterson, where the mother argued that the value of the father's on-base military housing should be included in his gross income under the Arizona Child Support Guidelines. The family court had excluded that value from the calculation, citing that the father was not receiving a cash housing allowance and concerns about speculation. The Court of Appeals held that the guidelines require assigning cash value to in-kind benefits like free housing if they are significant and reduce personal living expenses, and that the family court erred by excluding the housing without making that determination. It therefore remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the guidelines' definition of gross income as including income from any source and non-cash benefits.

family law

In State v. Unkefer, the defendant appealed the denial of his motion to vacate a criminal restitution order entered 12 years after he completed his prison sentence for fraudulent schemes. The court held that under A.R.S. § 13-805 and prior precedent in State v. Pinto, the statutory requirement to enter the order "at the time" of sentence completion is advisory rather than jurisdictional, so the delay alone did not invalidate the order. However, the court vacated the superior court's denial because it failed to evaluate whether the 12-year delay was reasonable given the purposes of restitution and the specific circumstances of the case.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a settlement between the Arizona State Land Department and the Flood Control District of Maricopa County that resolved competing claims over a 1964 easement on state trust land granted without compensation for the construction and maintenance of flood control dams. Under the agreement, the Flood Control District returned about 13,000 acres to the state and retained a modified easement over 6,000 acres. School districts objected to the settlement as unconstitutional and imprudent under the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act and the state constitution for failing to require compensation or public auction procedures. The court affirmed the superior court's approval, ruling that constitutional challenges were barred by the Arizona Supreme Court's prior decision in Mayer Unified School District v. Winkleman and that the record supported rejection of the prudence objections.

propertyfederal powerenvironment

In State v. Aguilar, two jurors conducted unauthorized Internet research on definitions of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and premeditation during deliberations in a trial for attempted first-degree murder, then shared the material with other jurors who considered it before reaching unanimous guilty verdicts. The superior court denied the defendants' motions for a new trial after finding the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the misconduct did not taint the verdicts. On appeal, the court reversed the denial and remanded for a new trial on the attempted murder charges, ruling that once extraneous legal information reaches the jury, prejudice is presumed and the State bears the burden to disprove taint beyond a reasonable doubt, which it failed to meet here. The misconduct did not affect the verdicts on the remaining charges of kidnapping and forgery.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a veterinary malpractice lawsuit brought by David Kaufman against Dr. William Langhofer and Scottsdale Veterinary Clinic after his pet scarlet macaw, Salty, died following two surgeries for a prolapse condition. Kaufman sought damages including emotional distress, loss of companionship, and loss of society in addition to the bird's fair market value and veterinary expenses. The trial court dismissed the emotional distress and loss of companionship claims, and the jury awarded no damages after being instructed that recovery was limited to fair market value. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that pets are personal property under Arizona law and that emotional distress or loss of companionship damages are not recoverable for negligent injury to or death of a pet. The court reasoned that the majority of U.S. jurisdictions follow this rule and declined to expand Arizona common law to allow such damages.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case involved Maria Mendoza's claim that McDonald's breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing in handling her workers' compensation claim after she injured her arm at work in 1997, specifically by denying authorization for carpal tunnel surgery and terminating disability benefits. A jury found in favor of Mendoza on the bad faith claim, but the trial court made errors in instructing the jury on compensatory damages and respondeat superior, and in evidentiary rulings that prevented consideration of punitive damages. McDonald's cross-appealed arguing punitive damages should not have been submitted to the jury. The appellate court agreed with Mendoza's challenges and disagreed with McDonald's, reversing in part, vacating in part, and remanding for a new trial limited to compensatory and punitive damages based on the need for proper jury instructions and admissible evidence to fairly determine the extent of damages.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case concerns a special action by Salt River Sand and Rock Company challenging a superior court order that denied its request to reduce the amount of a supersedeas bond needed to stay execution of an $18.4 million judgment pending appeal in a mining royalty dispute with Gravel Resources. The superior court had interpreted prior precedent as limiting its discretion to set a bond below the judgment amount when based on the debtor's inability to pay. The Court of Appeals clarified that trial courts retain discretion to approve alternate security arrangements in extraordinary circumstances where a full bond cannot be posted, as long as the creditor's interests are protected, and remanded the matter for the superior court to evaluate Salt River's proposed $5.5 million bond plus other security.

procedure

The case concerned Max Koepnick's challenge to the Arizona State Land Department's reclassification of 900 acres of state trust land that he leased for agriculture, changing it to commercial use on the Commissioner's initiative because surrounding development made commercial the highest and best use and would benefit the trust; the reclassification automatically canceled the leases under statute. Koepnick appealed to the Land Board of Appeals, arguing the action was unlawful, violated constitutional and contractual duties to the lessee, and was motivated by a desire to avoid compensation for improvements tied to a county right-of-way. After an evidentiary hearing, the Board affirmed the reclassification, the superior court upheld that decision on review, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Commissioner acted within statutory authority, that substantial evidence supported the best-interest determination, and that the process complied with the Enabling Act's trust requirements.

propertyprocedurefederal power

This case arose from a construction defect lawsuit in which Monterey sued subcontractor BBP for indemnity and breach claims; BBP tendered its defense to insurer Federated, which defended under a reservation of rights and paid substantial defense costs. BBP later entered a walk-away settlement with Monterey releasing all claims, including any defense payments, without Federated's consent. Federated sought to intervene in the action to pursue subrogation against Monterey for the defense costs it had paid, but the superior court denied the motion. The appeals court reversed, holding that because Federated had relinquished control of the litigation by reserving rights, BBP could negotiate a release of defense payments, yet Federated's subrogation rights would turn on whether it received adequate notice of the settlement and whether the settlement was reasonable and prudent, questions that required intervention to resolve.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability