Not for Publication – Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2011-099070, The Honorable Emmet J. Ronan, Judge
ANTHONY CAMBONI, Apache Junction Plaintiff/Appellant in propria persona
BROENING OBERG WOODS & WILSON, PC, Phoenix By Donald Wilson, Jr. and Brian w. Purcell Co-Counsel for Defendants/Appellees
Judge Patricia A. Orozco delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Samuel A. Thumma, joined.
PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Judge
¶1 Anthony Camboni (Camboni) appeals from the trial court's order dismissing his claim for failure to timely serve Defendants. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 On September 30, 2011, Camboni filed a complaint against Defendants seeking declaratory relief, alleging legal malpractice, and negligent misrepresentation. On December 31, 2011, the court notified Camboni that, in accordance with Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i), the deadline for completing service on Defendants was January 30, 2012, and if Defendants were not served by that date, the complaint would be dismissed.
¶3 Citing relocation and a job transfer, Camboni filed a motion for enlargement requesting additional time to serve Defendants. On January 30, 2012, the trial court granted Camboni's motion and extended the date for service on Defendants an additional ninety days (to approximately April 30, 2012). Notwithstanding the trial court's extension of time, on May 16, 2012, Camboni filed a "Motion for Judicial Determination Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargement (Motion for Judicial Determination), " requesting that the court rule on his initial Motion for Enlargement. On July 10, 2012, the trial court issued a minute entry advising Camboni that its order granting the initial motion was previously granted and had been available for review on the trial court's docket since February 7, 2012. In the same minute entry, the trial court further advised Camboni that "all persons representing themselves are held to the same standard as a licensed attorney."
¶4 On July 26, 2012, Camboni filed a second Motion for Enlargement. Camboni argued he required additional time because he was unaware that the trial court granted his initial motion, and thus his failure to serve Defendants resulted from "excusable neglect." Defendants' attorney filed a notice of appearance and objected to the trial court again extending the time to serve Defendants.
¶5 On August 20, 2012, at a pretrial conference, Camboni asserted he had not yet served Defendants and repeated his request for an extension of time. Finding Camboni had not demonstrated good cause to justify another extension of time to serve Defendants, the trial court denied Camboni's request for an extension of time, granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the matter without prejudice. Camboni timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) section 12-2101.A.
I. Opening ...