From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pfile v. Rios

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO
May 21, 2019
No. 2 CA-CV 2018-0137 (Ariz. Ct. App. May. 21, 2019)

Opinion

No. 2 CA-CV 2018-0137

05-21-2019

AMANDA SUE PFILE, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. MIGUEL ANGEL RIOS, Defendant/Appellant.

Amanda Sue Pfile, Tucson In Propria Persona Miguel Angel Rios, Tucson In Propria Persona


THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. DV20180478
The Honorable Renee T. Bennett, Judge

APPEAL DISMISSED

Amanda Sue Pfile, Tucson
In Propria Persona Miguel Angel Rios, Tucson
In Propria Persona

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Espinosa concurred. ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge:

¶1 Miguel Rios appeals from an order of protection precluding him from contacting Amanda Pfile and her three children, two of whom are also Rios's children, for one year. As explained below, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

¶2 In March 2018, Pfile obtained an ex parte order of protection against Rios pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3602 prohibiting him from contacting Pfile or any of her children. After a hearing at which Rios and Pfile were both present, the trial court modified the order to allow Rios supervised contact with his children and limited contact with Pfile to coordinate those visits. In July 2018, the court set a hearing to address "the interpretation and application" of the amended order of protection. Neither Rios nor Pfile appeared at that hearing. Two days later, upon Pfile's petition, the court entered ex parte a second amended order of protection that again prohibited Rios from contacting Pfile and her children. Rios now seeks to challenge this second amended order of protection.

¶3 "[T]his court has an independent duty to determine whether it has jurisdiction to consider an appeal." Sorensen v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 191 Ariz. 464, 465 (App. 1997). Rios cannot appeal an ex parte order of protection without first requesting a hearing with the trial court. Ariz. R. Protective Order P. 42(a)(3) ("An ex parte protective order is not appealable; rather, a defendant may contest it by requesting a hearing[.]"). Here, Rios never requested a hearing with regard to the second amended order of protection currently in place. We therefore lack jurisdiction to consider Rios's challenge and dismiss the appeal.

Rios may contest the ex parte order by requesting a hearing with the trial court. Section 13-3602(I) provides that "at any time during the period during which the order is in effect, a party who is under an order of protection or who is restrained from contacting the other party is entitled to one hearing on written request." The second amended order of protection similarly informs Rios that he has "the right to request a hearing which will be held within 5 to 10 business days after [his] written request has been filed in the Court that issued th[e] [o]rder." --------


Summaries of

Pfile v. Rios

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO
May 21, 2019
No. 2 CA-CV 2018-0137 (Ariz. Ct. App. May. 21, 2019)
Case details for

Pfile v. Rios

Case Details

Full title:AMANDA SUE PFILE, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. MIGUEL ANGEL RIOS…

Court:ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO

Date published: May 21, 2019

Citations

No. 2 CA-CV 2018-0137 (Ariz. Ct. App. May. 21, 2019)