Opinion
2 CA-CV 2021-0053
09-01-2021
Krystin Rae Lisaius, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Amy Eisenberg, Defendant/Appellant.
Krystin Lisaius, Tucson In Propria Persona Amy Eisenberg, Tucson In Propria Persona
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. C20210178 The Honorable Wayne E. Yehling, Judge
Krystin Lisaius, Tucson
In Propria Persona
Amy Eisenberg, Tucson
In Propria Persona
Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Espinosa and Vice Chief Judge Staring concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
ECKERSTROM, JUDGE
¶1 Amy Eisenberg appeals from the trial court's order affirming an injunction against harassment obtained by her neighbor, Krystin Lisaius. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Background
¶2 In January 2021, Lisaius obtained an ex parte injunction against harassment against Eisenberg. Eisenberg requested a hearing, at which both parties testified and were questioned by the trial court. Afterward, finding "that a series of acts of harassment have occurred in this matter," the court affirmed the injunction. Eisenberg appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 12-2101(A)(5)(b), and Rule 42, Ariz. R. Protective Order P.
Discussion
¶3 Eisenberg appears to challenge the factual basis for the trial court's decision to affirm the injunction against harassment, insisting that Lisaius's accusations of harassment are untrue. But a trial court is in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses and resolve conflicting evidence, and we thus defer to factual findings made by our trial courts. See Cardoso v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614, ¶ 17 (App. 2012).
¶4 Moreover, Eisenberg has failed to provide us with a transcript of the hearing at which the contested injunction against harassment was affirmed. See Ariz. R. Protective Order P. 18 (all contested protective order hearings are recorded electronically or by court reporter). The burden is on an appellant "to ensure that 'the record on appeal contains all transcripts or other documents necessary for us to consider the issues raised.'" Blair v. Burgener, 226 Ariz. 213, ¶ 9 (App. 2010) (quoting Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995)); see also Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 11(c)(1)(B). In the absence of a transcript, we presume that the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing supported the trial court's ruling. Blair, 226 Ariz. 213, ¶ 9; see also Baker, 183 Ariz. at 73 ("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," and "[w]hen a party fails to include necessary items, we assume they would support the court's findings and conclusions.").
¶5 Finally, Eisenberg has failed to develop any legal argument or cite any legal authority in support of her appeal. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7) (argument in opening brief on appeal "must contain" appellant's contentions, "with supporting reasons for each contention, and with citations of legal authorities and appropriate references to the portions of the record on which the appellant relies"). We therefore deem any claims she might have raised waived. See Boswell v. Fintelmann, 242 Ariz. 52, n.3 (App. 2017) (claims not supported by legal argument waived).
Although Eisenberg is not represented by counsel, she is "given the same consideration on appeal as one who has been represented by counsel" and "is held to the same familiarity with court procedures and the same notice of . . . rules . . . as is expected of a lawyer." Higgins v. Higgins, 194 Ariz. 266, ¶ 12 (App. 1999).
Disposition
¶6 We affirm the ruling of the trial court. As the prevailing party, Lisaius is entitled to recover her costs on appeal, if any, A.R.S. § 12-341, upon her compliance with Rule 21, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P.