(Dkt. 7 at 3). Kittelson then correctly discounts Plaintiff's reliance on Gainok v. Featherson, 131 Ariz. 421, 422-23, 641 P.2d 909, 910-11 (App. 1982), which construes an Arizona statute stating, in pertinent part, if a signature is not unambiguously made in a representative capacity, the representative is liable (Dkt. 9 at 3-4). The statute is not applicable to this action because it is a provision of Arizona's Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and applies only to negotiable instruments, which, according to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-3104, the Agreement is not. Kittelson further correctly discounts Plaintiff's reliance on Albers v. Edelson Technology Partners LP, 201 Ariz. 47, 52, 31 P.3d 821, 826 (App. 2001), which states that corporate officers are not shielded from liability when their conduct is intentionally harmful or fraudulent, as Plaintiff did not claim intentionally harmful or fraudulent conduct in his Complaint.