Opinion
2 CA-CV 2024-0116
09-17-2024
Elka Miralda, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Chandler Regional Hospital, Defendant/Appellee.
Elka Miralda, Chandler In Propria Persona Gust Rosenfeld P.L.C., Phoenix By Kari Zangerle and Maddalena Savary Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2023093313 The Honorable Peter Thompson, Judge
Elka Miralda, Chandler In Propria Persona
Gust Rosenfeld P.L.C., Phoenix By Kari Zangerle and Maddalena Savary Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Judge Kelly authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge O'Neil and Judge Sklar concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
KELLY, JUDGE
¶1 Elka Miralda appeals from the superior court's order dismissing with prejudice her medical malpractice claim against Chandler Regional Hospital (CRH). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
¶2 "We view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court's ruling." Mahar v. Acuna, 230 Ariz. 530, ¶ 2 (App. 2012). Miralda filed a complaint for medical malpractice against CRH in July 2023, alleging that the defendant hospital refused to provide her medical care. She filed a demand for jury trial, but failed to file or serve a preliminary expert witness testimony certification pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2603(A), or provide an initial disclosure statement pursuant to Rule 26.1, Ariz. R. Civ. P. In October, the superior court placed her case on the dismissal calendar, noting that no action had been taken since August. The court advised the parties that the case would be dismissed on or after December 11, 2023, unless prior to that date, a "Joint Report and Proposed Scheduling Order is filed, Judgment is entered, a Stipulation for Dismissal is filed, or the dismissal deadline is otherwise extended by the Court for good cause shown."
¶3 None of that occurred, and CRH filed a motion to dismiss Miralda's claim pursuant to Rule 41(b), Ariz. R. Civ. P., asserting that she had "failed to prosecute the case, to comply with the rules of court, or to comply with this Court's order pending dismissal." CRH further argued that Miralda had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The superior court granted CRH's motion to dismiss with prejudice and subsequently entered judgment in favor of CRH pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ariz. R. Civ. P. This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and 12-2101(A)(1).
Discussion
¶4 On appeal, Miralda makes numerous claims regarding her medical history and her allegations that CRH has denied her medical care. However, she has not presented any significant arguments supported by proper legal authority, and has not shown any entitlement to relief.
¶5 An appellant must support all claims raised in the opening brief with "appropriate references to the record," "supporting reasons for each contention," and "citations of legal authorities and appropriate references to the portions of the record on which the appellant relies." Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(5), (7)(A). Failure to comply with these rules may constitute waiver of an argument on appeal. Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, ¶ 62 (App. 2009). Although she is not represented by counsel, we must "hold unrepresented litigants in Arizona to the same standards as attorneys," and we "may not afford special leniency to pro se litigants." Flynn v. Campbell, 243 Ariz. 76, ¶ 24 (2017). Miralda is therefore "given the same consideration on appeal as one who has been represented by counsel." Higgins v. Higgins, 194 Ariz. 266, ¶ 12 (App. 1999). She is also held to "the same familiarity with court procedures and the same notice of statutes, rules, and legal principles as is expected of a lawyer." Id. Because any arguments she has raised on appeal have not been "argued adequately, with appropriate citation to supporting authority," we deem Miralda's arguments waived and do not address them. In re J.U., 241 Ariz. 156, ¶ 18 (App. 2016).
Disposition
¶6 We affirm the superior court's order dismissing Miralda's case with prejudice.