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.

Halt v. Gama

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

October 20, 2015

ROBERT J. HALT and LYNN D. HALT, husband and wife, Petitioners,
v.
THE HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA, Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of MARICOPA, Respondent Judge, SUNBURST FARMS EAST, INC., et al., Real Party in Interest

As Amended October 27, 2015.

Petition for Special Action from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. NOS. CV 0000-488397, CV 2008-000489, CV 2008-007832. The Honorable J. Richard Gama, Judge.

For Petitioners: McKeddie Cooley, P.L.L.C., Scottsdale, By Melanie C. McKeddie, Justin R. Cooley.

For Petitioners: Wong Carter, P.C., Phoenix, By Matthew A. Klopp.

For Respondent-Real Party in Interest Sunburst Farms East Inc.: Stoops, Denious, Wilson & Murray, P.L.C., Phoenix, By Stephanie Monroe Wilson.

For Respondent-Real Party in Interest Sunburst Farms East Inc.: James L. Sullivan, P.C., Phoenix, By James L. Sullivan.

For Real Party in Interest Lisi et al.: Lipson Neilson Cole Seltzer & Garin P.C., Phoenix, By Daxton R. Watson.

For Real Party in Interest Haney et al.: Jones Skelton & Hochuli P.L.C., Phoenix, By Brandi Christine Blair.

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop joined.

OPINION

Page 149

HOWE, Judge:

[¶1] Robert and Lynn Halt seek special action relief from the trial court's order awarding attorneys' fees entered on remand pursuant to this Court's memorandum decision and resulting mandate in Halt v. Sunburst Farms East, Inc., 1 CA-CV 12-0376, 2014 WL 173639 (App. 2014), in favor of Sunburst Farms East, Inc., Kenneth Braden, and David Haney (collectively, " Sunburst" ). As relevant to our disposition of this special action, the Halts argue that Sunburst waived its claim for pre-appeal attorneys' fees because it failed to request those fees in its appeal briefing or before oral argument as existing case law and Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure (" ARCAP" ) 21 in effect at the time of the briefing required.

[¶2] Special action jurisdiction is appropriate here because the Halts have no " equally plain, speedy and adequate remedy by appeal." Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 1(a). The appropriate method for seeking review of a trial court's judgment on remand entered pursuant to this Court's specific directions is through special action because the trial court's entry of judgment based on this Court's specific mandate and opinion is not appealable. Raimey v. Ditsworth, 227 Ariz. 552, 554 ¶ 1, 261 P.3d 436, 438 (App. 2011); Scates v. Arizona Corp. Com'n, 124 Ariz. 73, 75-76, 601 ...


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.