Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr. -- Chandler, L.L.C.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

November 18, 2014

GLORIA Y. MADRID, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF JOSEPHINA Y. ODELL aka JOSEPHINE Y. ODELL, on behalf of the ESTATE OF JOSEPHINA Y. ODELL, deceased; and GLORIA MADRID, individually and on behalf of JOSEPHINA Y. ODELL'S statutory beneficiaries pursuant to A.R.S. section 12-612(A), Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
AVALON CARE CENTER -- CHANDLER, L.L.C., dba CHANDLER HEALTH CARE CENTER; AVALON HEALTH CARE INC., a Utah corporation; MARY ANN STANFORD, Administrator, Defendants/Appellees

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. No. CV2010-027775. The Honorable J. Richard Gama, Judge.

For Plaintiff/Appellant: Scott E. Boehm, Law Office of Scott E. Boehm, P.C., Phoenix, Melanie L. Bossie, Donna Y. Oh, Wilkes & McHugh, P.A., Phoenix.

For Defendants/Appellees: Barry C. Toone, Miller Toone, P.C., Salt Lake City, Utah.

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Andrew W. Gould joined.

OPINION

Page 329

[236 Ariz. 222] Samuel A. Thumma, Judge:

[¶1] This opinion addresses the issue of appellate jurisdiction over a judgment stating " that no further matters remain pending" pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 54(c) (2014),[1]

Page 330

[236 Ariz. 223] even though claims remain pending in the superior court. This court previously determined it lacked appellate jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal with this opinion to follow.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[¶2] Gloria Madrid, as personal representative of the Estate of Josephina Y. Odell, and on behalf of the statutory beneficiaries of the Estate, filed a complaint alleging three causes of action against three defendants.[2] The superior court later (1) granted defendants' motions to compel arbitration as to certain claims, but did not otherwise dispose of those claims; and (2) disposed of the remaining claims by granting defendants' motions for summary judgment. At defendants' request, the court then entered a written, signed judgment stating that the judgment was granted " on all claims not dismissed from this action," and " [t]here being no further matters pending, final judgment is to be entered pursuant to" Rule 54(c). Plaintiff appeals from this judgment.

DISCUSSION

[¶3] This court's " appellate jurisdiction is purely statutory." State v. Bayardi, 230 Ariz. 195, 197, 281 P.3d 1063, 1065 (App. 2012) (citing Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 9 and Hall Family Props., Ltd. v. Gosnell Dev. Corp., 185 Ariz. 382, 386, 916 P.2d 1098, 1102 (App. 1995)). " Generally, this court's jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final judgments which dispose of all claims and parties." Baker v. Bradley, 231 Ariz. 475, 479 ¶ 9, 296 P.3d 1011, 1015 (App. 2013) (citing Garza v. Swift Transp. Co., 222 Ariz. 281, 284, 213 P.3d 1008, 1011 (2009) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) § 12-2101(A)(1)). As potentially applicable here, there are two types of judgments from which an appeal may be taken: (1) a Rule 54(c) judgment and (2) a Rule 54(b) judgment.[3] The parties dispute whether the judgment is proper ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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