Opinion
2 CA-CV 2023-0221
05-07-2024
Peter Christian Hessing, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Conoco Phillips Company and Phillips 66 Company, Defendants/Appellees.
Peter Christian Hessing, Douglas In Propria Persona Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Phoenix By J. Randall Jue Counsel for Defendants/Appellees
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Cochise County No. S0200CV202200381 The Honorable Joel A. Larson, Judge
Peter Christian Hessing, Douglas In Propria Persona
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Phoenix By J. Randall Jue Counsel for Defendants/Appellees
Chief Judge Vasquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Gard concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
VASQUEZ, CHIEF JUDGE
¶1 Peter Hessing appeals from the superior court's grant of summary judgment in favor of ConocoPhillips Company and Phillips 66 Company. Because Hessing has waived appellate review, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the summary judgment motion below. Keonjian v. Olcott, 216 Ariz. 563, ¶ 2 (App. 2007). Hessing was at a Conoco gas pump and slipped and fell on "oil and gas" on his way to Good2Go Stores. He filed a complaint, alleging he tore his left rotator cuff, resulting in $12 million in damages.
¶3 ConocoPhillips Company and Phillips 66 Company filed a joint motion for summary judgment, arguing "as a matter of law they were not legally responsible for maintaining the premises." Hessing filed a "Motion to Deny Defendant's Motion to Dismiss," which the superior court construed as his response to the summary judgment motion. The court granted the motion for summary judgment, finding Hessing's response did not comply with Rule 56(c)(3)(B), Ariz. R. Civ. P., and he had failed to establish that there were any genuine issues of material fact. The court entered judgment against Hessing pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ariz. R. Civ. P., dismissing all claims against ConocoPhillips Company and Phillips 66 Company with prejudice. Hessing appealed, and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and 12-2101(A)(1).
Hessing also named Subway and Good2Go Stores as defendants in his complaint. These defendants are not parties to this appeal.
Discussion
¶4 We generally review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC, 252 Ariz. 532, ¶ 9 (2022). Because Hessing's appeal is deficient in several respects, however, we are unable to meaningfully review his arguments, and we conclude he has waived his claims on appeal. Rule 13(a)(7)(A), Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., requires an appellant to provide "supporting reasons" and "citations of legal authorities" for each issue presented on appeal. This rule applies to pro se appellants as well as those represented by counsel. See Kelly v. NationsBanc Mortg. Corp., 199 Ariz. 284, ¶ 16 (App. 2000) ("[A] party who conducts a case without an attorney is entitled to no more consideration from the court than a party represented by counsel, and is held to the same standards expected of a lawyer."). An appellant waives any claim that he does not support with an argument containing citations to relevant authorities. Polanco v. Indus. Comm'n, 214 Ariz. 489, n.2 (App. 2007).
¶5 Hessing makes no argument in his brief related to the grant of summary judgment from which he appeals. He instead details numerous medical conditions that he suggests resulted from the accident. And he "seeks to recover compensation," requesting that we "give a jury trial, arbitration or rule for a reasonable settlement" for the related medical costs, future medical costs, pain and suffering, lost income, and punitive damages. He also claims, without explanation, that his right to a "jury trial in the U.S. Constitution 7th Amendment" was wrongfully denied because of racial and economic discrimination. See Ramos v. Nichols, 252 Ariz. 519, ¶ 8 (App. 2022) (arguments not supported by adequate explanation are waived).
¶6 Hessing's brief contains no relevant citations to legal authority or references to the record. Instead, he relies only on the several documents attached to his opening brief, including medical records, billing invoices, an explanation of benefits, and photographs. Although Rule 13.1(a), Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., allows Hessing to attach an appendix because he filed a paper brief, reference to an appendix does not substitute for proper citation to the record on appeal. See In re Property at 6757 S. Burcham Ave., 204 Ariz. 401, ¶ 11 (App. 2003) (materials attached to brief not incorporated into record on appeal); see also Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(d) ("In any brief, references to evidence or other parts of the record must include a citation to . . . where such evidence or other material appears."); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 11(a) (record on appeal consists of "official record" of documents filed in superior court and transcripts of oral proceedings). Moreover, Hessing does not state whether the documents attached to his brief are included in the record on appeal. See Lewis v. Oliver, 178 Ariz. 330, 338 (App. 1993) (court considers only record on appeal). We therefore will not consider them. Accordingly, he has waived any arguable claim he could have raised on appeal. See Polanco, 214 Ariz. 489, n.2.
He cites, without argument, A.R.S. § 12-252 and what we believe to be A.R.S. § 12-542, which are inapplicable to an appeal from a summary judgment motion.
Disposition
¶7 We affirm the superior court's grant of summary judgment in favor of ConocoPhillips Company and Phillips 66 Company.
After filing a reply brief, Hessing filed in this court a "Motion to Deny Defendants' Motion to Affirm, to Dismiss." He generally argues that the motion for summary judgment was improperly granted because the superior court "ignored . . . crucial evidence," and he requests we grant him "compensation." He maintains the judgment is contrary to prior rulings and is discriminatory. He also contends he has not waived or abandoned any appeal, citing § 12-542. We will not address these claims because he is not permitted to raise new matters or file additional briefs without the express authorization of this court. Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(c).