Sitar Bhatt - Partner

Sitar Bhatt is a Partner in Tyson & Mendes’ Scottsdale office. His practice focuses primarily on general liability, personal injury, premises liability, professional liability, employment, and bad faith litigation. Mr. Bhatt has successfully represented individuals and businesses in Arizona state and federal district courts as well as arbitrations. Mr. Bhatt also chairs the Tyson & Mendes Young Professionals Group.

Mr. Bhatt has successfully resolved a variety cases involving complex personal injury, property damage, employment claims, and insurance coverage. Mr. Bhatt has prevailed at multiple arbitrations, saving his clients substantial sums. He has also successfully settled multiple bodily injury and property damage cases.

Mr. Bhatt earned his J.D. in 2011 from Arizona Summit Law School. He is licensed to practice law in Arizona. Mr. Bhatt is a member of the Arizona Association of Defense Counsel. Additionally, he has been selected to the Southwest Rising Stars list for Super Lawyers from 2016 – 2021.

In his free time, Mr. Bhatt enjoys spending time with his wife and his family. He is an avid sports fan who loves watching and playing all sports.


Sitar J. Bhatt

Rated by Super Lawyers

loading …

Recent Posts

Suspension of Rules Lifted – Is Arizona Back to Normal? 

As the world adjusts after COVID-19 and trials get underway, the Arizona Supreme Court continues to roll back limitations, restrictions, and suspensions put into place during the pandemic…

What is a School’s Standard of Care?  Is it Based on Special Relationships, Public Policy, or Both?

The relationship between students and schools in negligence actions in Arizona has been the subject of multiple recent cases.  Recently, the Arizona Court of Appeals examined the standards for determining negligence in Arizona.  In Hale v. Window Rock Unified School District (“District”), the court discussed the evolution of these school-student relationships within the context of negligence.

Arizona Claim Preclusion: A Powerful Tool to Stop the Re-Litigation of a Claim

What is an insurance carrier to do when a claimant attempts to re-litigate a matter which reached a final judgment and involves identical parties? The carrier should check with its defense counsel for the merit of arguing claim preclusion.

Arizona 2021 Legislative Update

The Arizona legislature has been in session working on multiple bills which could have potential ramifications in the insurance defense world.  To date, 1,708 bills have been introduced, of which 143 have passed and 70 have been signed.  Below are proposed House and Senate bills of interest.

Pima County’s FASTAR Programs Do Not Violate Arizona’s Compulsory Arbitration Statute

In Duff v. Hon. Kenneth Lee, et al., the Arizona Supreme Court recently found no conflict between Pima County’s FASTAR program and A.R.S. § 12-133, which mandates compulsory arbitration. No. CV-19-0128-PR (November 25, 2020).

Arizona and an Excess Carrier’s Equitable Subrogation Claim

The Arizona Court of Appeals recently issued a memorandum that provided a great refresher of the doctrine of equitable subrogation in Arizona. In Navigators Insurance Company v. First Mercury Insurance Company, No. 1 CA-CV 19-0744 (October 6, 2020), the Court of Appeals ruled that to preclude an excess insurer from pursuing damages from the primary insurer because the insured is not personally liable would undercut the doctrine of equitable subrogation.

Future of Litigation in Arizona: Potential Influx of Non-Lawyer Money?

In August 2020, the Arizona Supreme Court approved non-lawyer ownership or investment in law firms. In a unanimous vote, the Arizona Supreme Court eliminated its ethics rule barring non-lawyers from having an economic interest in a law firm or participating in fee sharing. The Arizona Supreme Court adopted this change with the hope of improving access to justice and to encourage innovation in the delivery of legal services.

Arizona Dram Shop Law – Limiting Liability with an Intervening and Superseding Cause

It is an age-old question in dram shop cases: When does the scope of a liquor licensee’s liability end for injuries its customer caused after a night of drinking and irresponsible decisions?  An important secondary question is: What is considered an “intervening superseding cause,” which cuts off the liability of an establishment?   The general rule is, if an injured plaintiff can establish a “non-speculative causal connection” or argue that a reasonable person would not have continued to serve the defendant…

Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint – Not So Free

Camelot Homes v. Genaro’s Framing Construction LLC, No. 1 CA-CV 19-0704 (June 9, 2020) – Memorandum
Recently, the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s denial of leave to amend a complaint where it was unduly delayed and the proposed amendments were futile. Under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2): … a party may amend its pleading only with leave of court or with the written consent of all opposing parties who have appeared in the action. Leave to amend must be freely given when justice requires.

Tyson & Mendes Promotes Three to Partner: Sitar Bhatt and Kathryn Lee Colgan Promoted to Partner, Andrew Smith Elevated to Managing Partner

SAN DIEGO (May 28, 2020) – Leading civil defense firm Tyson & Mendes LLP announced today the promotion of Sitar Bhatt, Kathryn Lee Colgan and Andrew Smith. Bhatt joins the firm’s partnership in Phoenix, and Colgan in the San Diego and Orange County offices. Smith, meanwhile, was named branch managing partner of the firm’s Los Angeles office.

Copyright © 2001–2022 Tyson & Mendes LLP. All Rights Reserved. Website by Big Behavior.