McHazlett v. Otis Engineering Corp.

35 Citing cases

  1. Baker v. Bradley

    231 Ariz. 475 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 82 times
    Explaining the need to determine whether substantive or ministerial issues are pending when addressing a premature notice of appeal

    In the context of judgments, it is established that a judgment resolving all claims between the participating parties will be final and appealable, without Rule 54(b) language, even though it does not adjudicate claims against unserved parties who have not appeared in the action. See McHazlett v. Otis Eng'g Corp., 133 Ariz. 530, 532, 652 P.2d 1377, 1379 (1982) (holding unserved defendants are not “parties,” within the meaning of the Rules); Simon v. Maricopa Med. Ctr., 225 Ariz. 55, 58 n. 5, ¶ 7, 234 P.3d 623, 626 n.5 (App.2010) (same); Comerica Bank v. Mahmoodi, 224 Ariz. 289, 291 n. 2, ¶ 11, 229 P.3d 1031, 1033 n. 2 (App.2010) (same). ¶ 22 In McHazlett, our supreme court agreed with several federal courts construing Federal Rule 54(b) (upon which Arizona's Rule 54(b) is based) and several state courts construing similar rules in holding that the “better view” is that “unserved ‘parties' are not ‘parties' within the rules.

  2. Panzarella v. Yavapai Cnty. Sheriff's Office

    1 CA-CV 11-0580 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 28, 2012)

    In turn, this court has no jurisdiction over an appeal from matters over which the trial court lacked authority to rule. McHazlett v. Otis Eng'g Corp., 133 Ariz. 530, 533, 652 P.2d 1377, 1380 (1982) (citations omitted); Leroy's Liquors, Inc., 177 Ariz. at 380-81, 868 P.2d at 963-64 (citation omitted); Apache E., Inc., 124 Ariz. at 14, 601 P.2d at 618 (citations omitted). Consequently, this court lacks jurisdiction except to dismiss an appeal from a matter presented to the superior court after a notice of appeal has been filed; we will not consider such issues for the first time on appeal. McHazlett, 133 Ariz. at 533, 652 P.2d at 1380 (citations omitted); Apache E., Inc., 124 Ariz. at 14, 601 P.2d at 618 (citation omitted).

  3. SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership

    228 Ariz. 271 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 64 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that conversion claims apply only to chattels, and not to real property

    ¶ 107 Under these circumstances, the superior court lacked jurisdiction to grant Augusta Ranch's request for fees. McHazlett v. Otis Eng'g Corp., 133 Ariz. 530, 533, 652 P.2d 1377, 1380 (1982); see also Castillo v. Indus. Comm'n, 21 Ariz.App. 465, 467, 520 P.2d 1142, 1144 (1974). Because the superior court lacked jurisdiction to award supplemental fees while the case was pending on appeal, we have no jurisdiction to consider Augusta Ranch's appeal on this issue.

  4. In re Marriage of Moncur

    2 CA-CV 2024-0176-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2024)

    And if the trial court lacks "jurisdiction to issue an order[,] an appeal from that order gives the appellate court no jurisdiction except to dismiss the appeal." McHazlett v. Otis Eng'g Corp., 133 Ariz. 530, 533 (1982). We therefore do not have jurisdiction to consider Mother's appeal.

  5. Robbins v. Emerald Springs Assisted Living, LLC

    1 CA-CV 23-0444 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 25, 2024)

    Further, "unserved parties are not parties," McHazlett v. Otis Eng'g Corp., 133 Ariz. 530, 532 (1982) (internal quotation marks omitted), and an order is final for purposes of appeal if it dismisses all served parties, Baker, 231 Ariz. at 481, ¶ 22 (citing Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616, 621-22 (9th Cir. 1997)).

  6. Choy Lan Yee v. Yee

    251 Ariz. 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 47 times
    In Yee v. Yee, 251 Ariz. 71, 76, ¶¶ 12–13, 484 P.3d 650, 655 (App. 2021), this court held that fully resolved post-decree orders are appealable under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(2), despite lacking specific references to Rule 78.

    As a result, the family court lacked the authority to grant Mother's self-styled Rule 83 motion, and this court will not review that ruling. Cf. McHazlett v. Otis Eng'g Corp. , 133 Ariz. 530, 533, 652 P.2d 1377, 1380 (1982) (if the superior court lacks "jurisdiction to issue an order[,] an appeal from that order gives the appellate court no jurisdiction except to dismiss the appeal."). ¶20 Mother cites Desmond v. J.W. Hancock Enterprises, Inc. , 123 Ariz. 474, 600 P.2d 1106 (1979), and Tripati v. Forwith , 223 Ariz. 81, 219 P.3d 291 (App. 2009) in support of her appeal.

  7. In re Marriage of Sherman

    No. 2 CA-CV 2019-0084-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Because the trial court had no authority to order a retroactive increase of spousal maintenance as requested in Jim's August 2018 counterpetition filed under § 25-327, we cannot address such issues on an appeal from the resulting judgment. Cf. McHazlett v. Otis Eng'g Corp., 133 Ariz. 530, 533 (1982) ("If a lower court has no jurisdiction to issue an order[,] an appeal from that order gives the appellate court no jurisdiction except to dismiss the appeal."). ¶24 To the extent Jim challenges the trial court's 2016 reduction in maintenance, we do not address any alleged error because he failed to appeal from that judgment.

  8. State ex. rel. DES v. McEvoy

    No. 1 CA-CV 18-0694 FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2019)

    And because the superior court has no authority to address spousal maintenance and child support arrearages and interest on a petition filed under A.R.S. §§ 25-503(E) or -527(A), we cannot address such issues on an appeal from the resulting judgment. See McHazlett v. Otis Eng'g Corp., 133 Ariz. 530, 533 (1982) ("If a lower court has no jurisdiction to issue an order an appeal from that order gives the appellate court no jurisdiction except to dismiss the appeal."). ¶10 Here, the evidence presented by the State at the hearing and the evidence within the record demonstrates that McEvoy's obligation to provide spousal maintenance and child support had already terminated by 2017 and that the remaining judgments only concerned arrearages and interest.

  9. Tucson Estates Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Estate of Jenkins

    247 Ariz. 475 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 14 times

    The judgment dismissed all fictitious defendants not named and served, leaving only the Estate of Ross E. Jenkins; Ross E. Jenkins Jr.; Patricia Boileau; Kathryn Jenkins; and Unknown Heirs and Devisees as defendants subject to appeal. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(b) ; McHazlett v. Otis Eng’g Corp. , 133 Ariz. 530, 532, 652 P.2d 1377, 1379 (1982) (unserved named defendants and fictitious defendants not parties within meaning of Rule 54(b) ). The trial court entered default judgment totaling $6,719.

  10. Huffman v. Jackson

    No. 2 CA-CV 2018-0181 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Huffman's complaint also named the Arizona Association of Community Members as a defendant, but it was never served. Unserved defendants are not parties. McHazlett v. Otis Eng'g Corp., 133 Ariz. 530, 532 (1982). ¶3 Huffman amended his complaint, alleging the same claims and defendants as before, except for his claim of nuisance, which he removed.