ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

Strategic Dev. v. 7th & Roosevelt, CV 09-0187, March 18, 2010.
 A Rule 12 motion to dismiss is not converted to a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment by referring to a contract attached to the complaint or to matters of public record (a recorded lien on real property). The trial judge had discretion to dismiss the case when plaintiff failed to timely respond to the motion to dismiss, even within the greater time available for a motion for summary judgment. However, the case was remanded because the trial court never ruled on plaintiff's request for more time to respond to the motion to dismiss as part of plaintiff's motion to reconsider the dismissal.

Solimeno v. Yonan, CV 09-0139, March 18, 2010.
 A medical malpractice defendant who also testifies as a standard of care expert is subject to expert disclosure requirements regarding that issue. Also, a party who causes a mistrial may, under appropriate circumstances, be assessed monetary sanctions.  Sanctions of $125,000 for attorney fees and costs was upheld.

Wilshire Ins. Co. v. S.A. , CV 09-0170, March 23, 2010.
 A business owner locked a 15-year-old girl in the company's basement and sexually assaulted her over a two-hour period.  Declaratory judgment for insurer based on the criminal-act exclusion was affirmed, including its application to the false imprisonment claim. Coverage would exist for an unreasonable but negligent imprisonment, but there is no coverage for intentional criminal conduct.

Aqua Management v. Abdeen, CV 09-0132, March 23, 2010.
 When considering Rule 77(f) sanctions following appeal from Superior Court mandatory arbitration, attorney fees awarded by the arbitrator must be considered as part of the "judgment."  Pre-judgment interest must also be included, but post judgment interest from the time of the arbitration award to the final judgment is not included.

Edwards v. Yavapai County Flood Control, CV 08-0427, March 30, 2010.
 Summary judgment for defendant was affirmed in this road design case.  Defendant offered testimony that road was designed to standard; pro per plaintiff offered no contrary evidence.  Evidence was held sufficient to support immunity defense under ARS § 12-820.03

Scottsdale Memorial v. Maricopa County, CV 07-0150/08-0241/08-0344, March 30, 2010.
 Consolidated appeals arising out of 40,000-plus hospital claims for reimbursement of fees incurred in providing emergency treatment to indigents. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the hospitals based on findings of a Special Master who employed a novel statistical sampling methodology.  The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the record lack sufficient evidence to support the methodology used, although noting that statistical sampling is allowed.

McCloud v. Kimbro, 2 CA-CV 2009-0116, March 23, 2010.
 An employee on a multi-day out-of-town work assignment is considered to be in the course and scope of employment when driving to dinner at the end of the work day.  Ironically, in this case this holding resulted in the dismissal of the case, because plaintiff filed suit more than one year after the car crash.