Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pedrazzini v. Herrera

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division

December 10, 2013

Shandor Pedrazzini, Plaintiff/Appellee,
v.
Jeronimo David Herrera, Defendant/Appellant.

Not for Publication – Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. C20131947 The Honorable Alyce Pennington, Judge Pro Tempore

Jeronimo D. Herrera, Tucson In Propria Persona

Chief Judge Howard authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Vásquez and Judge Miller concurred.

MEMORANDUMDECISION

HOWARD, Chief Judge

¶1 Appellant Jeronimo Herrera appeals from an injunction against harassment entered against him and in favor of Shandor Pedrazzini and Pedrazzini's family. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

¶2 The record reflects the following procedural history. In April 2013, Pedrazzini filed a petition for an order of protection against Herrera. He requested the order prohibit Herrera from coming near his home, his children's schools, or places where his children frequently spend time. After an ex parte hearing that same day, the trial court set the matter for a contested hearing. That hearing took place just over a week later, and both Pedrazzini and Herrera were present. After both parties and additional witnesses were sworn and questioned, the court granted the requested injunction against harrassment. We have jurisdiction over Herrera's appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1), (5)(b). See Mahar v. Acuna, 230 Ariz. 530, 11, 287 P.3d 824, 827-28 (App. 2012).

Discussion

¶3 Herrera argues there was insufficient evidence to support granting the injunction, that Shandor perjured himself, and that the trial court did not properly weigh the evidence presented.[1] "We review orders granting injunctions under a clear abuse of discretion standard." LaFaro v. Cahill, 203 Ariz. 482, 10, 56 P.3d 56, 59 (App. 2002).

¶4 Even though Herrera is a nonlawyer representing himself, he is held to the same standards as a qualified attorney. See Old Pueblo Plastic Surgery, P.C. v. Fields, 146 Ariz. 178, 179, 704 P.2d 819, 820 (App. 1985). Herrera's opening brief does not comply in any meaningful way with Rule 13, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. The brief contains virtually no assertions of legally relevant facts, lacks argument with citations to authorities, and does not state the basis of this court's jurisdiction or articulate the proper standard of review. Because Herrerra has failed to comply with the rules or adequately develop his arguments, we summarily affirm the trial court's order granting the order of protection. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(6); In re $26, 980.00 U.S. Currency, 199 Ariz. 291, 28, 18 P.3d 85, 93 (App. 2000) (court does not consider bare assertion offered without elaboration or citation to legal authority).

¶5 Moreover, the trial court determines credibility. Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343, 13, 972 P.2d 676, 680-81 (App. 1998). And we view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the court's ruling. Mahar, 230 Ariz. 530, 14, 287 P.3d at 828. When the facts are so viewed and in the absence of any relevant argument, sufficient evidence supports the trial court's injunction.

Disposition

¶6 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.