Opinion
No. 1 CA-CV 14-0702
09-24-2015
RASOOL KASHKOOL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. FABIOLA JEAN-GILLES, Defendant/Appellee.
COUNSEL Rasool Kashkool, Phoenix Plaintiff/Appellant Law Office of Boyle and Stanewich, Phoenix By Robert B. Stanewich Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CV2011-005346
The Honorable Katherine M. Cooper, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Rasool Kashkool, Phoenix
Plaintiff/Appellant
Law Office of Boyle and Stanewich, Phoenix
By Robert B. Stanewich
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Patricia K. Norris delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Donn Kessler and Judge Andrew W. Gould joined. NORRIS, Judge:
¶1 This appeal arises out of a personal injury lawsuit filed by Plaintiff/Appellant Rasool Kashkool against Defendant/Appellee Fabiola Jean-Gilles. On appeal, Kashkool argues the superior court should not have granted Jean-Gilles' motion for judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL"). On the record before us, and exercising de novo review, we disagree with Kashkool's arguments and affirm the superior court's JMOL. See Warne Invs., Ltd. v. Higgins, 219 Ariz. 186, 194, ¶ 33, 195 P.3d 645, 653 (App. 2008).
¶2 "A trial court should grant a motion for JMOL 'if the facts produced in support of the claim or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense.'" Acuna v. Kroack, 212 Ariz. 104, 110-11, ¶ 24, 128 P.3d 221, 227-28 (App. 2006) (quoting Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 309, 802 P.2d 1000, 1008 (1990)).
¶3 Kashkool has not provided this court with the trial transcripts, and thus we are unable to determine what evidence he presented at trial in support of his personal injury claim or the basis of the superior court's ruling. See ARCAP 11(c)(1)(B) ("If the appellant will contend on appeal that a judgment, finding or conclusion, is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant must include in the record transcripts of all proceedings containing evidence relevant to that judgment, finding or conclusion."). "A party is responsible for making certain the record on appeal contains all transcripts or other documents necessary for us to consider the issues raised on appeal. When a party fails to include necessary items, we assume they would support the court's findings and conclusions." Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73, 900 P.2d 764, 767 (App. 1995). Thus, we assume the record supports the superior court's ruling on Jean-Gilles' motion for JMOL.
¶4 Kashkool also argues the superior court, "refused to Allow the Appellant Asking Appellee any questions." The record does not support this argument; the superior court's trial minute entry reflects Kashkool "rested" his case-in-chief without calling Jean-Gilles as a witness. Kashkool further argues the superior court "refused to Allow the Appellant to use[] any Exhibits at all." As reflected in the superior court's trial minute entry, however, Kashkool introduced exhibits into evidence, testified, and answered questions from the jury.
CONCLUSION
¶5 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court's JMOL in Jean-Gilles' favor.
Kashkool also accuses the superior court of bias and discrimination in granting the JMOL. We have closely examined the record in this matter, and it contains no evidence of bias or discrimination by the superior court. --------