[Any of the Court of Appeals cases listed may currently be on review or pending reconsideration.]

JTF Aviation Holdings, Inc. v. CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP. CV19-0209-PR (9/18/20)

Arizona Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred by concluding that a contractual limitations provision can preclude nonparties to the contract from asserting tort claims that do not arise out of the contractual relationship.

Arizona has not adopted the “closely related party doctrine” so contractual provisions cannot preclude nonparties to the contract from asserting tort claims that do not arise out of the contractual relationship. The president and sole stockholder of the corporation was entitled to sue the defendant after the expiration of a contractual limitations period.

https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2020/CV190209PR.pdf

Perdue v. La Rue, 1 CA-SA 19-0657 (9/3/20)

“Sham Affidavit” rule requires the trial court to disregard an affidavit filed in contradiction to deposition testimony, even if in a different legal proceeding, when deciding a motion for summary judgment.

Court of Appeals held that the trial judge correctly applied the “sham affidavit” rule and disregarded an affidavit by plaintiff in the civil case that asserted facts squarely contradicted by her deposition testimony in an earlier divorce proceeding. Summary judgment for the defendant in the civil case was affirmed.

https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2020/CV%2019-0657%20Perdue%20v.%20La%20Rue.pdf

Torres v. JAI Dining Services 1 CA-CV 19-0544 (9/10/20)

Arizona Court of Appeals vacated an $800K verdict against the Jaguar strip club and bar accused of overserving alcohol to a patron who later killed two people in an auto collision. The drunken patron had gone to his own home and gone to sleep. The drunken patron awakened and then got behind the wheel while still drunk. The Court of Appeals founds these facts constituted a superseding, intervening cause.

https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/court-of-appeals-division-one-published/2020/1-ca-cv-19-0544.html

Clayton v. Hon. Kenworthy, et al. 1 CA-SA 20-0086 (9/15/20)

On a special action, Court to Appeals reversed the trial court for a abuse of discretion. Trial judge had granted a defense motion to prohibit a Rule 35 neuropsychological exam from being recorded based upon an objection by the examiner. The defense examiner claimed that third-party observers or recording devices would “alter and impact the scientific reliability of the assessment process.” Court of Appeals held that the plain language of Rule 35 entitles the examinee to record the exam.

https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/court-of-appeals-division-one-published/2020/1-ca-sa-20-0086.html

Harianto v. State of Arizona 1 CA-CV 18-0446 (9/24/20)

Court of Appeals found that A.R.S. 12-820.02 gave DPS officers and the dispatcher qualified immunity. This case arises from the failure of DPS to stop a wrong-way driver on the freeway before he caused a crash. Harianto sued the State alleged the State was negligent in (1) failing to take appropriate measures including providing reasonable warnings to prevent wrong-way driving and related accidents, and (2) failing to adopt or implement any law enforcement standards to prevent such accidents. The trial judge granted the State’s motion for summary judgment based upon the State’s qualified immunity unless the State intended to cause injury or was grossly negligent.

Harianto’s argument was based on Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix, 188 Ariz. 183 (App. 1986). However, Court of Appeals stated the Arizona Supreme Court forbids considering vacated Hutcherson, even if it was vacated on unrelated grounds.

https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/court-of-appeals-division-one-published/2020/1-ca-cv-18-0446.html

E.H. v. Slayton (State) CR-19-0118-PR (8/4/20)

“[P]lacing a cap on the amount of restitution a defendant may be liable for in a plea agreement, without the victim’s consent, violates the right to restitution.” The Arizona Supreme Court held that any prior cases to the contrary are overruled. The Court also held that “A lawyer representing a victim has a presumptive right to sit in front of the bar in the courtroom during a proceeding where the victim’s constitutional or statutory rights are at issue.”

https://law.lclark.edu/live/news/44155-eh-v-slayton-p3d-no-cr-19-0118-pr-2020-wl

Ibarra v. Gastelum 1 CA-CV 19-0597 (7/23/20)

Jury verdict for defendant in this premises case was affirmed. Arizona Court of Appeals held that it was not error to refuse a negligence per se instruction based on A.R.S. 33-1324(A)(2) which provides: “A landlord shall . . . [m]ake all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in fit and habitable condition.” Court of Appeals held that the statute is not sufficiently specific to sustain a negligence per se jury instruction.

https://casetext.com/case/ibarra-v-gastelum

Heaphy v. Willow Canyon Healthcare DBA Pueblo Springs Rehab 2 CA-SA 2020-0001 (6/18/20)

Defendants sought medical records of the surviving statutory beneficiary in a wrongful death action. The trial judge ordered that the records had to be produced. Arizona’s Court of Appeals vacated the order, holding that the statutory beneficiaries had not placed their medical conditions at issue when bring their wrongful death lawsuit. Relevance is not sufficient to overcome privilege.

https://www.anylaw.com/case/shirley-heaphy-v-metcalf/court-of-appeals-of-arizona/06-18-2020/AW2e03IBvjaUG3RuaTtX

In re the Stephens Revocable Trust 2 CA-CV 2019-0102 (7/31/20)

Although the Arizona Adult Protective Service Act (“APSA”) requires an interested party to request the court’s permission to file a lawsuit for financial exploitation, the Arizona Court of Appeals held it was error for the trial court to deny that permission. The party was in fact an “interested party” under A.R.S. 46-456 and there was no competing interested party who might have been more appropriate to bring the claim.

https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/court-of-appeals-division-two-published/2020/2-ca-cv-2019-0102.html