Opinion
No. 1 CA-CV 13-0179
01-14-2014
JOHN DOUGHERTY; FREDERICK SHUTE, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. YAVAPAI COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; MONTEZUMA RIMROCK WATER COMPANY, LLC, Defendants/Appellees.
COUNSEL The Shanker Law Firm, PLC, Tempe By Howard M. Shanker Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants Yavapai County Attorney's Office, Prescott By Sheila Sullivan Polk and Benjamin D. Kreutzberg Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Yavapai County Board of Supervisors
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT
AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. P1300CV201000585
The Honorable Kenton D. Jones, Judge
DISMISSED
COUNSEL
The Shanker Law Firm, PLC, Tempe
By Howard M. Shanker
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants
Yavapai County Attorney's Office, Prescott
By Sheila Sullivan Polk and Benjamin D. Kreutzberg
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Yavapai County Board of Supervisors
DECISION ORDER
Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.
CATTANI, Judge:
¶1 We have reviewed the record pursuant to our duty to determine whether this court has jurisdiction over this appeal. See Sorensen v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 191 Ariz. 464, 465, 957 P.2d 1007, 1008 (App. 1997).
¶2 The judgment on appeal was filed February 25, 2013. On March 11, 2013, Appellee Montezuma Rimrock Water Company, L.L.C., filed a Rule 59 motion for new trial pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. This was a timely, time-extending motion pursuant to ARCAP 9(b). Appellants filed a notice of appeal on March 12, 2013, one day after the time-extending Rule 59 motion for new trial.
¶3 The Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction over an appeal filed while a motion for new trial is pending, and such a notice of appeal is "a nullity." Craig v. Craig, 227 Ariz. 105, 107, ¶ 13, 253 P.3d 624, 626 (2011).
¶4 Appellants did not file an amended notice of appeal after the superior court ruled on the motion for new trial. Therefore,
¶5 IT IS ORDERED dismissing this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.