IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )"

Transcription

1 NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE SERPIL CAN, as the surviving wife of RAMAZAN CAN, deceased, for herself and on behalf of all surviving beneficiaries of RAMAZAN CAN, deceased; AYSEGUL KARADAG, as the surviving wife of OSMAN KARADAG, deceased, for herself and on behalf of all surviving beneficiaries of OSMAN KARADAG, deceased; and FATMA VURUCU, as the surviving wife of ADEM VURUCU, deceased, for herself and on behalf of all surviving beneficiaries of ADEM VURUCO, deceased, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. MD HELICOPTERS, INC., an Arizona corporation, Defendant/Appellee. 1 CA-CV DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CV The Honorable Larry Grant, Judge AFFIRMED Begam, Lewis & Marks, P.A. By Richard P. Traulsen Phoenix

2 and Nolan Law Group By Thomas P. Routh Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants Gust Rosenfeld P.L.C. By Charles W. Wirken James Marbuger Morrison & Foerster, L.L.P. By William D. Janicki Attorneys for Defendants/Appellees Chicago Phoenix San Diego H A L L, Judge 1 Serpil Can, Aysegul Karadag, and Fatma Virucu (collectively, appellants, residents and citizens of the Republic of Turkey (Turkey, appeal from the trial court s ruling dismissing their lawsuit against MD Helicopters, Inc. (MD Helicopters on grounds of forum non conveniens. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 The following relevant facts are undisputed. In October 2004, MD Helicopters, whose principal facilities are located in Mesa, Arizona, delivered a helicopter to Turkey to be used by the Turkish National Police (TNP. After delivering the helicopter, MD Helicopters continued to provide customer support to TNP and trained TNP personnel in Arizona on piloting and maintaining the aircraft. On July 19, 2006, while being operated by TNP personnel in Turkey, the helicopter crashed into 2

3 the ground, causing the deaths of everyone on board, including appellants spouses. 3 On July 18, 2008, appellants filed a wrongful death complaint against MD Helicopters alleging claims of product defect, negligence, and breach of warranty. In October 2008, MD Helicopters filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on grounds of collateral estoppel because the Indiana state court had recently dismissed a parallel lawsuit filed by appellants against manufacturers of the helicopter s component parts (Goodrich and Rolls-Royce based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Indeed, MD Helicopters noted that the Indiana court ordered appellants to file their claims in Turkey. After hearing oral argument on the issue, the trial court held that it is not required to give full faith and credit to that portion of the Indiana court s ruling ordering that the Plaintiffs file their action in the Republic of Turkey and denied MD Helicopter s motion to dismiss. 4 On June 29, 2009, MD Helicopters filed another motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens arguing that Arizona has almost no connection to this lawsuit and that the accident wreckage, aircraft records, and accident witnesses are all believed to be located in Turkey in the custody of the TNP. MD Helicopters further asserted that Turkey is an available and adequate forum and noted that it is already defending claims 3

4 stemming from the helicopter crash in Turkey. Finally, MD Helicopters attached a stipulation to its motion to dismiss stating that it would submit to the personal jurisdiction of the Turkish civil court and waive any statute of limitations defense it could otherwise assert. It also attached a signed affidavit of a practicing Turkish attorney who avowed that, under Turkish law, a defendant can waive the applicable statute of limitations. 5 In their August 3, 2009 response to the motion to dismiss, appellants asserted that their case has significant ties to Arizona, most notably, that the helicopter was manufactured in Arizona and the pilot of the aircraft was trained at an MD Helicopters facility in Arizona approximately one month before the crash. Appellants further argued that, absent evidence they had brought the action in Arizona to vex, harass, or annoy MD Helicopters, the court should defer to their forum preference. Finally, appellants claimed that most of the documentary evidence and witnesses they need to prove their product liability case are located either in Arizona or in the United States. 6 The trial court held oral argument on this issue on August 26, At the outset of the hearing, counsel for MD Helicopters noted that the parties did not dispute that Turkey is an available and adequate alternative forum; rather, the 4

5 parties disputed whether Arizona is a convenient forum. MD Helicopters argued that the public and private factors to be considered in evaluating whether Arizona is a convenient forum weigh in favor of a finding that Arizona is an inconvenient forum, namely, that: (1 the accident occurred in Turkey; (2 all of the passengers were Turkish; (3 all of the eyewitnesses are Turkish; (4 most of the wreckage remains in Turkey; (5 over fifty Turkish government personnel investigated the accident; and (6 numerous relevant documents, such as maintenance records and pilot logs, are located in Turkey. In addition, MD Helicopters argued that Turkish law would govern the case, which would require the translation of the applicable code and common law and the expertise of Turkish lawyers. MD Helicopters also asserted that defending claims arising out of the helicopter accident in both the United States and Turkey would be unduly burdensome and that all of the litigation should be joined in Turkey. Finally, MD Helicopters noted that the Arizona court would have no jurisdiction to compel the testimony of Turkish witnesses, but it had already stipulated to submitting to the jurisdiction of the Turkish court. 7 In response, appellants countered that Arizona law, not Turkish law, would govern the case. Appellants also claimed that the Turkish court would have no jurisdiction over Goodrich and Rolls-Royce, the manufacturers of some of the helicopters 5

6 component parts, which would impede their ability to present their case. Before the trial court took the matter under advisement, however, MD Helicopters noted that Goodrich and Rolls-Royce had likewise entered a stipulation to submit to the Turkish court before the lawsuit in Indiana was dismissed. 8 On October 22, 2009, the trial court dismissed the appellants lawsuit based on forum non conveniens, finding that (1 Turkey is an available and adequate alternative forum; (2 appellants choice of a foreign forum is not assumed reasonable and is therefore entitled to little deference; (3 the crash site and eyewitnesses are located in Turkey and MD Helicopters has stipulated to submit to the jurisdiction of Turkey; (4 many of the documents and transcripts relevant to the litigation are written in Turkish and would require translation if the matter were litigated in Arizona; and (5 parallel litigation is currently pending in Turkey and [d]uplication of effort is not an effective use and administration of justice. 1 9 Appellants timely appealed and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. section (B ( Subsequent to the trial court s ruling in this case, the United States District Court in Connecticut dismissed appellants parallel litigation against Goodrich based on the preclusive effect of the Indiana court s forum non conveniens determination, but also independently finding forum non conveniens as well. Can v. Goodrich Pump & Engine Control Sys., Inc., 711 F.Supp.2d 241 (D. Conn

7 DISCUSSION 10 As their sole issue on appeal, appellants contend that the trial court erred by dismissing their lawsuit on grounds of forum non conveniens. They argue that the overwhelming weight of private and public interest factors favor Arizona as a convenient forum. 11 Because a decision on forum non conveniens requires a weighing of imponderables, we will not overturn the trial court s ruling on the application of forum non conveniens absent an abuse of discretion. Parra v. Continental Tire N. Am., Inc., 222 Ariz. 212, , 8, 213 P.3d 361, (App (internal quotation omitted. Indeed, when the trial court has considered all relevant public and private interest factors, and its balancing of those factors is reasonable, its decision deserves substantial deference. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257 ( As a preliminary matter, a court must consider the extent of deference that should be accorded the plaintiff s choice of forum. See Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 255. Generally, there is a strong presumption in favor of a plaintiff s choice of forum, which may be overcome only when the private or public interest factors clearly point towards trial in the alternative forum. Id. When the plaintiff is foreign, however, this assumption is much less reasonable. 7

8 Because the central purpose of any forum non conveniens inquiry is to ensure that the trial is convenient, a foreign plaintiff s choice deserves less deference. Id. at In this case, appellants are citizens of Turkey and their choice of forum therefore warrants less deference. Nonetheless, MD Helicopters, as the party seeking dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens, bears the burden of demonstrating that: (1 there is an available and alternative forum to hear the case, and (2 on balance, the alternative forum is a more convenient place to litigate the case. Parra, 222 Ariz. at 215, 10-11, 213 P.3d at Generally, the requirement of an adequate and available alternative forum is satisfied when the defendant is amenable to process in the other jurisdiction. Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 254 n.22 (internal quotation omitted. Only [i]n rare circumstances, such as when the alternative forum will not permit litigation of the subject matter of the dispute, will an alternative forum be deemed inadequate. Id. In the trial court, the parties did not dispute that Turkey was an available and adequate alternative forum. Thus, to the extent appellants 2 Contrary to appellants claim in their opening brief, a trial court need not find that an action is oppressive or vexatious to dismiss it on grounds of forum non conveniens. As explained in Parra, that is not the test to be applied in ruling on a forum non conveniens motion in Arizona. 222 Ariz. at 215 n.3, 213 P.3d at 364 n.3. 8

9 argue on appeal that Turkey s statute of limitations bars their filing a claim there, we note that this argument and the supporting evidence attached to appellants opening brief were not presented to the trial court and we therefore do not consider it. N. Ariz. Gas Serv., Inc. v. Petrolane Transp., Inc., 145 Ariz. 467, 472, 702 P.2d 696, 701 (App (explaining appellate court review is limited to the evidence before the trial court when a ruling on a motion was decided. 15 The second prong of the forum non conveniens analysis requires the court to balance private and public reasons of convenience. Parra, 222 Ariz. at 215, 10, 213 P.3d at 364. The factors of private interest the court should consider include: (1 the relative ease of access to sources of proof, (2 the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining the attendance of unwilling witnesses, (3 the possibility to view the premises, and (4 all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. Id. at 215, 12, 213 P.3d at 364 (internal quotation omitted. 16 Here, the record supports the trial court s finding that critical evidence relating to the investigation and analysis of the helicopter wreckage as well as technical support, pilot training, and maintenance records are located in the United States and under MD Helicopters control. On the 9

10 other hand, the record also reflects that the eyewitnesses to the crash and numerous Turkish investigation reports are located in Turkey. Thus, as to access to sources of proof, whether the matter is litigated in Turkey or Arizona, significant witness testimony and other evidence will need to be translated. Balancing this factor with the other private interest factors, including the location of the accident and eyewitnesses, and MD Helicopters stipulation to submit to Turkey s jurisdiction, the private factors preponderate in favor of a finding that Arizona is not a convenient forum. 17 Next, the court should consider public interest factors, including: (1 the local interest of the lawsuit, (2 the court s familiarity with the relevant law, (3 the burden on the local courts and juries, (4 court congestion, and (5 the costs involved in resolving the dispute. Parra, 222 Ariz. at 217, 20, 213 P.3d at In this case, the record reflects that the helicopter at issue was owned by the TNP, the crash occurred in Turkey, and all of the victims on board were Turkish citizens or residents. Under these circumstances, Turkey has a substantial connection and interest in the case. In contrast, Arizona s connection to the matter is much weaker. Although the trial court did not expressly determine whether Turkish law would govern the case, given Turkey s relatively strong relationship to the case, its 10

11 law would most likely govern. See Garcia v. Gen. Motors Corp., 195 Ariz. 510, 516, 20, 990 P.2d 1069, 1075 (App ( Which forum s law applies to a particular issue depends on which forum has the most significant relationship to the issue. ; see also Restatement (Second of Conflicts of Law 175 ( In an action for wrongful death, the local law of the state where the injury occurred determines the rights and liabilities of the parties unless, with respect to the particular issue, some other state has a more significant relationship... in which event the local law of the other state will be applied.. Requiring the trial court to interpret and apply Turkish law would present a substantial burden on the court. Moreover, MD Helicopters is currently defending another case stemming from this crash in Turkey and, even accepting appellants argument that the matters could not be consolidated, all of the relevant evidence produced in that matter would need to be translated into English should the matter proceed in Arizona. Thus, on balance, the public interest factors weigh heavily in favor of finding Arizona is not a convenient forum. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellants case on grounds of forum non conveniens. 11

12 CONCLUSION 19 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court s dismissal of appellants case. CONCURRING: /s/ PHILIP HALL, Presiding Judge /s/ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Judge /s/ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge 12

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO. : O P I N I O N - vs - 7/20/2009 :

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO. : O P I N I O N - vs - 7/20/2009 : [Cite as Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Allstate Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 2009-Ohio-3540.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY CINCINNATI INSURANCE CO., : Plaintiff-Appellant,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 13-50106 Document: 00512573000 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED March 25, 2014 ROYAL TEN

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT

More information

Merchants Automotive Group, Inc. Alpine Limousine Service, Inc., et al. BMW of N. Am., LLC and BMW of Manhattan, Inc. No.

Merchants Automotive Group, Inc. Alpine Limousine Service, Inc., et al. BMW of N. Am., LLC and BMW of Manhattan, Inc. No. MERRIMACK, SS SUPERIOR COURT Merchants Automotive Group, Inc. v. Alpine Limousine Service, Inc., et al. v. BMW of N. Am., LLC and BMW of Manhattan, Inc. No. 2015-CV-677 ORDER This case arises out of a

More information

MILENA WALLACE, a single woman, Plaintiff/Appellant,

MILENA WALLACE, a single woman, Plaintiff/Appellant, NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE MILENA

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 8, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-2536 Lower Tribunal No. 14-1021 Victor Herrera-Zenil,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CASE NO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CASE NO [Cite as Owners Ins. Co. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 2010-Ohio-1499.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CASE NO. 1-09-60 v.

More information

PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN TOXIC TORT CASES. Personal Jurisdiction is frequently an issue in mass toxic tort litigation.

PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN TOXIC TORT CASES. Personal Jurisdiction is frequently an issue in mass toxic tort litigation. PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN TOXIC TORT CASES Personal Jurisdiction is frequently an issue in mass toxic tort litigation. Maryland employs a two-prong test to determine personal jurisdiction over out of state

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P J.A31046/13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 PAUL R. BLACK : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : : CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., : : Appellant : : No. 3058 EDA 2012 Appeal

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT

More information

PIPER AIRCRAFT COMPANY v. REYNO Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. 235, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419.

PIPER AIRCRAFT COMPANY v. REYNO Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. 235, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419. PIPER AIRCRAFT COMPANY v. REYNO Supreme Court of the United States, 1981. 454 U.S. 235, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419. JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court. These cases arise out of an air

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County. Cause No. V-1300-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County. Cause No. V-1300-CV NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 10a0379p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ZIONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOTO

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,173 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. MOOSEY INC., an OKLAHOMA CORPORATION, Appellant,

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,173 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. MOOSEY INC., an OKLAHOMA CORPORATION, Appellant, NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,173 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS MOOSEY INC., an OKLAHOMA CORPORATION, Appellant, v. MOHAMMAD A. LONE, an INDIVIDUAL; and MOHAMMAD A. LONE, DBA

More information

DANTAN SALDAÑA, Plaintiff/Appellant, No. 2 CA-CV Filed July 21, 2017

DANTAN SALDAÑA, Plaintiff/Appellant, No. 2 CA-CV Filed July 21, 2017 IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO DANTAN SALDAÑA, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHARLES RYAN, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MARLENE COFFEY, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY WARDEN, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT

More information

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, an Illinois insurance company, Plaintiff/Appellant, 1 CA-CV 10-0464 DEPARTMENT D O P I N I O N v. ERIK T. LUTZ

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE RONALD and TONYA BROOKOVER, husband and wife, v. Plaintiffs/Appellants, ROBERTS ENTERPRISES, INC., an Arizona corporation, Defendant/Appellee. 1 CA-CV

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT

More information

ANDREW SNYDER, Plaintiff/Appellant, ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV

ANDREW SNYDER, Plaintiff/Appellant, ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION

More information

RHYTHM MOTOR SPORTS, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellant,

RHYTHM MOTOR SPORTS, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellant, NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS

ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Appellate Court Dowd v. Berndtson, 2012 IL App (1st) 122376 Appellate Court Caption LISA DOWD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SCOTT A. BERNDTSON and SCOTT A. BERNDTSON, P.C., an Illinois

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ROBERT BEHRENS and TERI BEHRENS, husband and wife, individually and as parents and next friend of CHRISTOPHER BEHRENS and MATTHEW BEHRENS, minors,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in La Paz County. Cause No.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in La Paz County. Cause No. NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION Doe et al v. Kanakuk Ministries et al Doc. 57 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, Individually and as Next Friends of JOHN DOE I, a Minor, VS.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

JUNE FISH, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, LIFE TIME FITNESS INC, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV FILED

JUNE FISH, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, LIFE TIME FITNESS INC, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV FILED NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz.R.Sup.Ct. 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS AMERICORP FINANCIAL, L.L.C., d/b/a PARATA FINANCIAL COMPANY, UNPUBLISHED January 16, 2014 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 312522 Oakland Circuit Court BACDAMM INVESTMENT GROUP,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Cause No.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Cause No. NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT

More information

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. The Honorable Edward O. Burke, Judge VACATED AND REMANDED

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. The Honorable Edward O. Burke, Judge VACATED AND REMANDED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE MARK R. PIPHER, a single man, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, KENT C. LOO, DDS and JANE DOE LOO, husband and wife, Defendants-Appellees. 1 CA-CV 08-0143 DEPARTMENT

More information

SECOND CIRCUIT REVIEW FORUM NON CONVENIENS

SECOND CIRCUIT REVIEW FORUM NON CONVENIENS P A U L, W E I S S, R I F K I N D, W H A R T O N & G A R R I S O N SECOND CIRCUIT REVIEW FORUM NON CONVENIENS MARTIN FLUMENBAUM - BRAD S. KARP PUBLISHED IN THE NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL JANUARY 10, 2002 PAUL,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COCHISE COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COCHISE COUNTY NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. IN THE COURT

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE JAMES J. HAMM and DONNA LEONE ) No. 1 CA-CV 12-0130 HAMM, ) ) DEPARTMENT C Plaintiffs/Appellants, ) ) v. ) O P I N I O N ) CHARLES L. RYAN, Director,

More information

MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee, YARED AMELGA, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV

MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee, YARED AMELGA, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION

More information

ANTHONY-ERIC EMERSON, Plaintiff/Appellant, JEANETTE GARCIA and KAREN L. O'CONNOR, Defendants/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV

ANTHONY-ERIC EMERSON, Plaintiff/Appellant, JEANETTE GARCIA and KAREN L. O'CONNOR, Defendants/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION

More information

In re the Marriage of: JAIME SHURTS, Petitioner/Appellant, RONALD L. SHURTS, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV

In re the Marriage of: JAIME SHURTS, Petitioner/Appellant, RONALD L. SHURTS, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION

More information

ZB, N.A., a National Banking Association, Plaintiff/Appellee,

ZB, N.A., a National Banking Association, Plaintiff/Appellee, IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE ZB, N.A., a National Banking Association, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. DANIEL J. HOELLER, an individual; and AZAR F. GHAFARI, an individual, Defendants/Appellants.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendant. Rodgers v. Stater Bros. Markets Doc. 0 0 JENNIFER LYNN RODGERS, v. STATER BROS. MARKETS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, Defendant. Case No.: CV-MMA (MDD) ORDER

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE TARUN VIG, an unmarried man, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. NIX PROJECT II PARTNERSHIP, an Arizona general partnership, Defendant/Appellee No. 1 CA-CV 08-0112

More information

KARL and FABIANA STAUFFER, Plaintiffs/Appellants, PREMIER SERVICE MORTGAGE, LLC, et al., Defendants/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV

KARL and FABIANA STAUFFER, Plaintiffs/Appellants, PREMIER SERVICE MORTGAGE, LLC, et al., Defendants/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE KARL and FABIANA STAUFFER, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. PREMIER SERVICE MORTGAGE, LLC, et al., Defendants/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV 15-0026 Appeal from the Superior

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

No. 2 CA-CV Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two, Department B

No. 2 CA-CV Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two, Department B Page 1 JEFFREY A. BOATMAN and ANNE BOATMAN, husband and wife; FRED RIEBE; and ROBERT MCDONALD, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. SAMARITAN HEALTH SERVICES, INC., an Arizona corporation, Defendant-Appellee No.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Cause No.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Cause No. NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE THOMAS E. BLANKENBAKER, D.C., an Arizona licensed chiropractic physician; SHAWN WHERRY, D.C., an Arizona licensed chiropractic physician; EMILIA INDOMENICO,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz.R.Sup.Ct. 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 19, 2008

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 19, 2008 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 19, 2008 CHERYL L. GRAY v. ALEX V. MITSKY, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 03C-2835 Hamilton V.

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE LINK_A_MEDIA DEVICES CORP., Petitioner. Miscellaneous Docket No. 990 On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF A RIZONA

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF A RIZONA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF A RIZONA CECELIA M. LEWIS AND RANDALL LEWIS, A MARRIED COUPLE Plaintiffs/Appellants v. RAY C. D EBORD AND ANNE N ELSON-D EBORD, HUSBAND AND WIFE, Defendants/Appellees

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Arizona State Tax Court. Cause No.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Arizona State Tax Court. Cause No. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE 4501 NORTHPOINT LP, a limited partnership, v. MARICOPA COUNTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, Defendant-Appellee. 1 CA-TX 02-0027 DEPARTMENT T O P I N I O N

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE DANIEL T. CHAPPELL, a single man, STEVE C. ROMANO, a single man, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. WILLIAM WENHOLZ, MICHAEL AND SHANA BEAN, Defendants/Appellees.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Special Action Industrial Commission

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Special Action Industrial Commission NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

VOLNEY FIKE, IV, a single man, Plaintiff/Appellant,

VOLNEY FIKE, IV, a single man, Plaintiff/Appellant, NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE VOLNEY

More information

Case MDL No Document 1 Filed 09/24/13 Page 1 of 13 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Case MDL No Document 1 Filed 09/24/13 Page 1 of 13 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Case MDL No. 2497 Document 1 Filed 09/24/13 Page 1 of 13 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION In re: AIR CRASH AT SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ON JULY 6, 2013 MDL

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE SALVATORE BALESTRIERI, ) 1 CA-CV 12-0089 ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) DEPARTMENT C ) v. ) O P I N I O N ) (As Modified) DAVID A. BALESTRIERI, ) ) Defendant/Appellee.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. ORDER v. Airline Training Center Arizona, Inc., Defendant.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. ORDER v. Airline Training Center Arizona, Inc., Defendant. Case :-cv-00-djh Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Manuel Bandres Oto, et al., No. CV--00-PHX-DJH Plaintiffs, ORDER v. Airline Training Center

More information

The Impact of Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno on the Foreign Plaintiff in the Forum Non Conveniens Analysis

The Impact of Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno on the Foreign Plaintiff in the Forum Non Conveniens Analysis Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 55 1989 The Impact of Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno on the Foreign Plaintiff in the Forum Non Conveniens Analysis Janet S. Washington Follow this and additional works

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 FILED BY CLERK

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE In the Matter of the Estate of: THOMAS J. STEWART, Deceased. SEAN STEWART; STACIE ANN STEWART; ANDREA CRYSTAL STEWART; AARON STEWART, Appellees, v.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE RSP ARCHITECTS, LTD., ) No. 1 CA-CV 12-0545 a Minnesota corporation, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) v. ) DEPARTMENT C ) FIVE STAR DEVELOPMENT RESORT

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Cause No.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Cause No. NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

US EXPRESS LEASING, INC.; CIT TECHNOLOGY FINANCING SERVICES, INC.; BANC OF AMERICA LEASING & CAPITAL, LLC, Plaintiffs/Appellees,

US EXPRESS LEASING, INC.; CIT TECHNOLOGY FINANCING SERVICES, INC.; BANC OF AMERICA LEASING & CAPITAL, LLC, Plaintiffs/Appellees, NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION

More information

MARICOPA COUNTY SPECIAL HEALTH CARE DISTRICT, a body politic for and dba MARICOPA INTEGRATED HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant/Appellant. No.

MARICOPA COUNTY SPECIAL HEALTH CARE DISTRICT, a body politic for and dba MARICOPA INTEGRATED HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant/Appellant. No. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE BRANDON OROSCO and JENNIFER OROSCO, husband and wife, individually, and as parents and next friends of KAYLEN OROSCO, MARISSA OROSCO, and SILAS OROSCO, Plaintiffs/Appellees,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE KOOL RADIATORS, INC, an Arizona 1 CA-CV 11-0071 corporation, DEPARTMENT A Plaintiff/Appellant/ Cross-Appellee, v. STEPHEN EVANS and JANE DOE EVANS,

More information

Patent Venue Wars: Episode 5 5th Circ.

Patent Venue Wars: Episode 5 5th Circ. Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Patent Venue Wars: Episode 5 5th Circ. Law360, New

More information

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petition For Special Action From the Superior Court in Yuma County JURISDICTION ACCEPTED; RELIEF GRANTED

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petition For Special Action From the Superior Court in Yuma County JURISDICTION ACCEPTED; RELIEF GRANTED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. JON SMITH, Yuma County Attorney, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE MARK W. REEVES, Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF

More information

Phillips v. Araneta, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV PR (AZ 6/29/2004) (AZ, 2004)

Phillips v. Araneta, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV PR (AZ 6/29/2004) (AZ, 2004) Page 1 KENNETH PHILLIPS, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE LOUIS ARANETA, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of Maricopa, Respondent Judge, STATE OF ARIZONA, Real Party

More information

RALPH JOHN CHAPA, Plaintiff/Appellant, MATTHEW B. BARKER. Defendant/Appellee, No. 1 CA-CV

RALPH JOHN CHAPA, Plaintiff/Appellant, MATTHEW B. BARKER. Defendant/Appellee, No. 1 CA-CV NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION

More information

v. NO. 29,253 and 29,288 Consolidated K.L.A.S. ACT, INC., APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY Edmund H. Kase, District Judge

v. NO. 29,253 and 29,288 Consolidated K.L.A.S. ACT, INC., APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY Edmund H. Kase, District Judge 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule -0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO OPINION AND ORDER. Pending before the court is Defendant Michele Vasarely s

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO OPINION AND ORDER. Pending before the court is Defendant Michele Vasarely s Rojas-Buscaglia v. Taburno Doc. 46 LUIS ROJAS-BUSCAGLIA, Plaintiff IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO v. CIVIL NO. 09-2196 (JAG) MICHELE TABURNO, a/k/a MICHELE VASARHELYI,

More information

Evidence and Practice Tips By: Joseph G. Feehan and Brad W. Keller Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, P.C., Peoria

Evidence and Practice Tips By: Joseph G. Feehan and Brad W. Keller Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, P.C., Peoria Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 24, Number 1 (24.1.47) Evidence and Practice Tips By: Joseph G. Feehan and Brad W. Keller

More information

ARMC 2011, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellant,

ARMC 2011, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellant, NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION

More information

JENNIFER NUNEZ f/k/a JENNIFER GORDON, Petitioner,

JENNIFER NUNEZ f/k/a JENNIFER GORDON, Petitioner, NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION

More information

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION

More information

DONDRA CRUSENBERRY, Appellee, and. CHARLES GRANT, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CV Filed November 24, 2015

DONDRA CRUSENBERRY, Appellee, and. CHARLES GRANT, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CV Filed November 24, 2015 IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DONDRA CRUSENBERRY, Appellee, and CHARLES GRANT, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CV 2014-0141 Filed November 24, 2015 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

More information

CITIBANK, N.A., Plaintiff/Appellee, No. 1 CA-CV

CITIBANK, N.A., Plaintiff/Appellee, No. 1 CA-CV NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION

More information

GREGORY F. MULLALLY, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV FILED

GREGORY F. MULLALLY, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV FILED NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION

More information

ISAACMAN KAUFMAN & PAINTER, P.C., a California professional corporation, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV

ISAACMAN KAUFMAN & PAINTER, P.C., a California professional corporation, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT

More information

COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ALMA HOLCOMB, et al., ) Court of Appeals ) Division One Plaintiffs/Appellants, ) No. 1 CA-CV 16-0406 ) v. ) Maricopa County ) Superior Court AMERICAN

More information