Guest Editor: Ashley Kaye
February 1, 2021 7:57pm
In Dabush, et al. v. Seacret Direct, LLC, et al., the Arizona Supreme Court recently held tenants who helped conduct repairs owed no duty to a third party injured on the premises.
Guest Editor: Ashley Kaye
February 1, 2021 7:46pm
Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(F) presumptively limits each side to one expert to testify on a particular issue. The intent of one-expert-per-side rule is to limit cumulative evidence. Sanchez v. Old Pueblo Anesthesia, P.C., 218 Ariz. 317, ¶ 18 (App. 2008) (citing Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26 cmt. to 1991 amend.). While a bright-line rule for determining when a treating physician crosses the line from fact witness to expert witness has been difficult to articulate, some…
Guest Editors: Wendy Skillman, Ashley Kaye
January 11, 2021 9:00am
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).
Guest Editors: Wendy Skillman, Ashley Kaye
January 11, 2021 9:00am
Courthouses and court staff are continuously finding creative solutions to provide services while maintaining compliance with public health orders.
Guest Editors: Nathan Berkeley, Ashley Kaye
November 30, 2020 2:45pm
A recent Ninth Circuit Order in the matter Adams v. Maricopa County, CV-19-05253-PHX-MTL, 2020 WL 6383248 (D. Ariz. Oct. 30, 2020), granted the Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing a plaintiff’s discrimination claim as untimely. While the case has yet to be officially published, the entered order sheds light on the significance of an employee’s prompt reporting of disability-related limitations and request for timely accommodation.
Guest Editors: Nathan Berkeley, Ashley Kaye
November 30, 2020 2:34pm
In Arizona, a plaintiff can present the entire billed amount of past economic damages (such as past medical damages), to the jury. Plaintiffs rely on Lopez v. Safeway Stores, Inc.,[1] which applies the collateral source rule to medical expenses. Lopez provides, “plaintiffs are entitled to claim and recover the full amount of reasonable medical expenses charged, based on the reasonable value of medical services rendered…
Guest Editor: Amy Chambers
November 2, 2020 3:00pm
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.
Guest Editor: David Kahn
October 5, 2020 1:22pm
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.
Guest Editor: David Kahn
October 5, 2020 1:18pm
In Clayton v. Kenworthy, the Arizona Court of Appeals held the superior court abused its discretion by completely prohibiting the recording of a Rule 35(c)(2)(A), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, independent neuropsychological examination.
Guest Editor: Allen Aho
September 1, 2020 8:30am
A horse’s nature is different from other animals. Despite their size, and surprising to many, horses are prey animals. The natural temperament of a horse is similar to a rabbit, which can be very unpredictable. For this reason, equine activities are therefore inherently dangerous. Nevertheless, equine owners or agent(s) of the owner (“equine owner(s)”) and owner(s), agent(s), or lessor of any riding stable, rodeo ground, training or boarding stable or other private property (“equine facility owner(s)”) may still be held liable of the injury or death of another.
Guest Editor: Allen Aho
September 1, 2020 8:30am
In response to COVID-19 and its impact on civil jury trials, Maricopa County has created the Late Case Fair Limits Proceedings for all civil cases not assigned to compulsory arbitration. As early as the date upon which discovery and disclosure close, the court may order the parties to participate in the proceeding. A Late Case Fair Limits officer is appointed by the court. This officer can be a current judge who has had no affiliation with the case or any retired judicial officer or attorney.
Guest Editor: Robert Bernstein
August 3, 2020 9:00am
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…
Guest Editor: Robert Bernstein
August 3, 2020 9:00am
In response to the COVID-19 public health crisis, Maricopa County Superior Court recently announced a new program designed to help move cases to resolution during this unprecedented time. The Certified Arbitrator Program is the result of research conducted by various task forces who studied measures across departments to make court operations and procedures more efficient and responsive. This program allows the parties to any case where the amount in controversy is between $50,001 and $300,000…
Guest Editor: Raymond K. Wilson Jr.
July 8, 2020 12:00pm
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.
Guest Editor: Raymond K. Wilson Jr.
July 8, 2020 12:00pm
Humphrey, et al. v. Arizona[i]
On May 14, 2008, Pamela Humphrey and her sister-in-law, Ann Quinn were traveling on Interstate 10 between Tucson and Phoenix in Arizona when Pamela lost control of the vehicle, crossed the median, and collided with a semi-truck traveling the other direction. Both women did not survive. The accident triggered a wrongful death action for their statutory beneficiaries, including their husbands, James Humphrey (“Humphrey”) and Lynn Quinn (“Quinn”).
Guest Editor: Ashley Kaye
June 1, 2020 9:00am
Challenging a summons and complaint can prove to be an expensive and often futile endeavor that fails to achieve the intended goal of dismissal, given the Court’s leniency towards permitting plaintiff to amend or otherwise let plaintiff’s action proceed. Arizona’s abatement rule, which required plaintiff to serve defendant with a summons and complaint within the statutorily…
Guest Editor: Ashley Kaye
June 1, 2020 9:00am
Arizona courts have remained open to serve the public, adjusting in-court practices and operations to continue moving cases forward despite the restrictions imposed by COVID-19. Beginning on June 1, 2020, Arizona courts will begin to transition to in-person proceedings to the extent they can be safely accomplished, and on June 15, 2020, jury trials may resume, subject to the…
May 6, 2020 4:28pm
Helmreich, et al. v. AHC, et al., No. 1 CA-CV 19-0435 (April 21, 2020) – Memorandum
Recently, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled Arizona’s intoxication statute, A.R.S. §12-711, is not encompassed within the comparative fault jury instructions. A party is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory of the case if it is reasonably supported by the evidence.
May 6, 2020 4:21pm
Supreme Court of Arizona addresses conflict between rules for extension of service under Rule 4(i) and its interplay with Rule 6(b), the general rule for extending time.
Guest Editor: Ashley Kaye
April 6, 2020 2:21pm
On March 9, 2020, the Arizona Supreme Court settled a reoccurring issue of concern in personal injury matters. In Ansley v. Banner Health Network, the Supreme Court held that 1) plaintiffs had a private right of action to challenge the lien statutes; and 2) the lien statutes are unconstitutional as applied.
Guest Editor: Wendy Skillman
March 4, 2020 10:00am
The 54th Arizona Legislature kicked off a very busy second Regular Session on January 13, 2020. On February 10, 2020, the Arizona Legislature cutoff the introduction of new bills. There are total of 1,581 bills pending before the House and Senate committees which must be heard by February 21, 2020. March 27, 2020, is the deadline for passed House bills to be heard in Senate committees and passed Senate bills to be heard in a House committees.
Guest Editor: Wendy Skillman
March 4, 2020 10:00am
Protection for proprietary commercial documents just got stronger in Arizona. The Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Center for Auto Safety v. Goodyearexpressly rejected the old “compelling reasons” standard and instead required a showing of “extraordinary circumstances”.
February 3, 2020 10:00am
Bradford Martin, et al. v. Victor K. Staheli, M.D., et al., No. S0900CV201600214, Dec. 19, 2019.
Plaintiffs, a husband and wife, filed a medical malpractice claim against the husband’s medical providers arising from a misdiagnosed spinal injury. The wife pled claims for familial loss-of-consortium and economic damages. After the case was filed, the husband suddenly died of cancer, from causes unrelated to the injuries alleged in…
January 8, 2020 11:00am
Center For Auto Services v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company: Arizona Appeals Court Determines That the Same Factors Apply to Unseal a Document as Are Required to Seal It
Guest Editor: Terra Davenport
January 8, 2020 11:00am
Arizona does not have specific overtime laws. Instead, Arizona adheres to Federal law with respect to overtime pay requirements. Recently, the Department of Labor issued a new ruling on the requirements to qualify as an “overtime exempt” worker. On September 24, 2019, the DOL issued a ruling increasing the minimum salary required to qualify as an exempt worker from $455 weekly (or $23,660 annually) to $684 weekly (or $35,568).