Case Studies & Updates
We believe in the power of partnership. Our legal case studies are a testament to our unwavering commitment to successful collaboration with clients as they navigate complex legal landscapes and turn ambitions into reality. Each story reflects our innovative approach, showcasing how we not only address challenges but also lead transformative change together. We invite you to delve into these narratives and discover how our shared vision can empower you on your legal journey.
Case Studies
Legal Updates
CASE STUDY: Arizona Court of Appeals Affirms Superior Court’s Authority in Jurju v. Ile: Superior Court Has Authority to Issue Injunction Under Exception
Arizona Court of Appeals Affirms Superior Court’s Authority in Jurju v. Ile. In a recent ruling, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that a superior court has jurisdiction to enjoin a separate forcible entry and detainer judgment issued by a different court. Jurju v. Ile, 534 P.3d 926 (2023). The case involved two families working together to run a business. The dispute arose when the second family claimed they had an oral option to purchase the property on which the business was run, justifying excess rental payments.
The first family contested the allegation, asserting that the payments were standard payments. The first family initiated a forcible entry and detainer lawsuit and secured judgment against the second family.
The second family filed a separate lawsuit seeking a preliminary injunction. The court granted the injunction, prompting an appeal by the first family, questioning the superior court’s authority to issue such an injunction.
The Anti-Injunction Act prohibit an injunction “[t]o stay a judicial proceeding pending at the commencement of the action in which the injunction is demanded, unless the restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of such proceedings.” A.R.S. 12-1802(1). The Injunction Limits Act similarly restricts when an injunction can be issued: “[a]n injunction shall not be granted to stay any judgment or proceedings at law, except so much of the recovery or cause of action as plaintiff in the complaint shows himself equitably entitled to be relieved against, and so much as will cover the costs.” A.R.S. § 12-1805.
The appellate court held that facts established at a preliminary injunction hearing (alleged wrongful eviction in the breach of contract for sale and that resolution of title litigation would entitle them to the property notwithstanding the FED judgment) were sufficient under the Injunction Limits Act to demonstrate equity favoring an injunction against the judgment. And the court required the second family to post a bond “so much as will cover the costs.” Thus, the superior court satisfied the conditions to meet the Injunction Limits Act’s exception, allowing it to issue the injunction.
CASE STUDY: The Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two held that the statute of limitations for contract debt enforcement: 6-Year Statute of Limitations Applies to Foreclosure Actions
The Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two held that the statute of limitations for contract debt enforcement also governs foreclosure actions to satisfy the debt. A.R.S. § 12-548 provides that actions to enforce a debt founded on contract are subject to a six-year statute of limitations and extends to foreclosure actions on the underlying debt pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-816, which explicitly indicates foreclosure actions on a deed of trust are bound by the limitations period for the underlying contract. Aroca, et al. v. Tang Investment Company LLC, 2 CA-CV 2023-0046 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
LEGAL UPDATE: ARIZONA EMBRACES TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS.Effective January 1, 2024: January 1, 2024 Superior Court Accepts Electronic Signatures
Effective January 1, 2024, the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure were amended allowing the use and acceptance of electronic signatures and notarized documents. The amendments mark a pivotal shift toward embracing modern technology in legal practices.
Under Rule 5.1, “[t]he clerk must accept for filing any document that purports to have a signature, including documents that appear to be electronically signed or electronically notarized in accordance with applicable law. If the authenticity or sufficiency of an electronic signature or electronic notarization is disputed, a judicial officer will make a determination under applicable substantive law.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 5.1(f).
This move toward digital signatures reflects Arizona’s commitment to adapting legal processes to the realities of an era characterized by increased remote work and technological advancements. As legal processes continue to evolve, these amendments position Arizona as a forward-thinking jurisdiction that understands the importance of embracing technology to enhance efficiency and accessibility in the legal system.
CASE LAW UPDATE: The Arizona Court of Appeals held that residential tenants: Return of Security Deposit, No Demand for Itemized Deductions Required
The Arizona Court of Appeals held that residential tenants have a right to a return of their security deposit without requiring them to demand a list of itemized deductions. A.R.S. § 33-1321(G) requires all refundable deposits be refunded to a tenant at the end of a tenancy. The Arizona Supreme Court held in a 1982 case, Schaefer v. Murphey, 131 Ariz. 195 (1982), that to make charges against a security deposit a landlord must deliver an itemized list of the deduction as required by statute. Moreover, only a landlord knows what itemized deductions it wishes to claim. Requiring a tenant to demand an itemized list of deductions would improperly shift a landlord’s statutory obligation. Accordingly, a tenant does not need to demand an itemized list of deductions when demanding a return of their security deposit in order to retain their right to the deposit return. Teneyck v. Popovich, 543 P.3d 275 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
LEGAL UPDATE: The Arizona Court of Appeals has held that the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses: Potential Liability for AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control
The Arizona Court of Appeals has held that the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control may owe a duty to victims of drunk drivers if the driver was overserved at a bar licensed by the department. The statutory scheme creating the department and providing it with power refers expressly to preventing the overserving of patrons due to risk to the public. Thus, persons who suffer harm from overservice fall within the class of persons the statutes aim to protect. The department’s specific aim is to prevent specific harms relating to alcohol abuse. Accordingly, an acknowledgement of an actionable duty would not make the department a general insurer of public safety. Sanchez-Ravuelta v. Yavapai Cnty. (2024).
LEGAL UPDATE: Governor Hobbs Appoints Supreme Court Justice Maria Elena Cruz
On January 29, 2025, Governor Katie Hobbs appointed Maria Elena Cruz to the Arizona Supreme Court. Justice Cruz is the first justice of Latina and African descent to serve on the state’s highest court. Prior to her appointment to the Arizona Supreme Court, she served as a judge on the Cocopah Tribal Court, Yuma County Superior Court, and Arizona Court of Appeals. In announcing Justice Cruz’s appointment, Governor Hobbs said that she “prioritized an appointee who is not only eminently qualified, but also someone who reflects our state, and who is committed to making our legal system work for everyday people.” Justice Cruz filled the vacancy left by the retirement of Justice Robert Brutinel and was selected by a list submitted by the nonpartisan Commission on Appellate Court Appointments.
LEGAL UPDATE: The Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two held that the statute of limitations for contract debt enforcement
The Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two held that the statute of limitations for contract debt enforcement also governs foreclosure actions to satisfy the debt. A.R.S. § 12-548 provides that actions to enforce a debt founded on contract are subject to a six-year statute of limitations and extends to foreclosure actions on the underlying debt pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-816, which explicitly indicates foreclosure actions on a deed of trust are bound by the limitations period for the underlying contract. Aroca, et al. v. Tang Investment Company LLC, 2 CA-CV 2023-0046 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).