From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Saber v. Coppes

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO
Nov 29, 2019
No. 2 CA-CV 2019-0105 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2019)

Opinion

No. 2 CA-CV 2019-0105

11-29-2019

INGRID SABER, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. LEWIS A. COPPES, Defendant/Appellee.

COUNSEL Ingrid Saber, Tucson In Propria Persona Smack & Associates By Blaine S. Gaub, Tucson Counsel for Defendant/Appellee


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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. C20182498
The Honorable Brendan J. Griffin, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL Ingrid Saber, Tucson
In Propria Persona Smack & Associates
By Blaine S. Gaub, Tucson
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

¶1 Ingrid Saber appeals from the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Lewis Coppes. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

¶2 In reviewing the grant of summary judgment, we view all facts in the light most favorable to Saber, the party against whom judgment was entered. See Timmons v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc., 234 Ariz. 569, ¶ 2 (App. 2014). In May 2016, Saber was injured in a motor vehicle accident that she asserted "was the fault of . . . Allstate's insured Lewis Coppes's daughter, Jan Rau[c]h." Allstate apparently offered Saber a settlement, but she disagreed with the terms and filed suit against Allstate, "request[ing] relief as the Court may deem just and proper." Allstate filed a motion to dismiss, on the ground "there is no right of direct action against an insur[e]r for the torts of its insured." The trial court granted Allstate's motion, ordering that Saber could file an amended complaint against a different defendant. Saber subsequently did so, naming Lewis Coppes, the owner of the car driven by his adult daughter, explaining she "regretfully cannot accept Defendant's insurer's offer" and again "request[ing] relief as the Court deems just and proper."

Saber represented herself below, as she does on appeal.

¶3 Coppes's motion to dismiss was denied, and he thereafter moved for summary judgment. Coppes argued "no admissible evidence exists sufficient to prove . . . any cognizable theory such that liability or fault might attach" to him. Saber responded to the motion, claiming "Coppes made the serious error of allowing his daughter . . . to drive his vehicle," and "the submitted [d]eposition transcripts indicate a possible distraction." She simultaneously moved "to hasten [the] case's conclusion," requesting an "all-encompassing hearing" and for the trial court to "determine the settlement sum." The court set a hearing on the motions, at which it granted Coppes's motion for summary judgment and signed the minute entry as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(c), Ariz. R. Civ. P. We have jurisdiction over Saber's appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1).

Discussion

¶4 We generally review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Timmons, 234 Ariz. 569, ¶ 7. Because Saber's appeal is deficient in several respects, however, we are unable to meaningfully review her arguments, and we conclude she has waived her claims on appeal. Rule 13(a)(7)(A), Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., requires an appellant to provide "supporting reasons" and "citations to legal authorities" for each issue presented on appeal. This rule applies to pro se appellants as well as appellants represented by counsel. See Kelly v. NationsBanc Mortg. Corp., 199 Ariz. 284, ¶ 16 (App. 2000) ("[A] party who conducts a case without an attorney is entitled to no more consideration from the court than a party represented by counsel, and is held to the same standards expected of a lawyer."). An appellant waives any claim that she does not support with an argument containing citations to relevant authorities. Polanco v. Indus. Comm'n, 214 Ariz. 489, n.2 (App. 2007).

¶5 Saber makes no argument in her brief related to the grant of summary judgment from which she appeals, but rather recounts her general displeasure with Allstate and Coppes. She "seeks acceptance of fault by . . . Coppes . . . for all damages, injuries—healed and unhealed—and pain that [she] is incurring" from the accident. She further "requests of the Court to require [Coppes]—through Allstate—to collect all submitted bills to determine their true sums . . . then present them to the Court who will declare a settlement sum it deems suitable." Additionally, Saber's brief contains no relevant citations to legal authority or references to the record. Instead, she relies only on the several documents attached to her opening brief, some of which are correspondence from Allstate to Saber, as well as a portion of Jan Rauch's deposition. Accordingly, Saber has waived any arguable claim she could have raised on appeal. See Sholes v. Fernando, 228 Ariz. 455, n.1 (App. 2011).

Saber's only citations to legal authority are three citations to Rule 26.1, Ariz. R. Civ. P., which governs a party's disclosure duties. --------

¶6 Moreover, even if Saber had not waived her claims on appeal, she has failed to provide the transcript of the summary judgment hearing necessary to review the trial court's ruling. "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." Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995); see also Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 11(c)(1)(A). "When a party fails to include necessary items, we assume they would support the court's findings and conclusions." Baker, 183 Ariz. at 73.

Disposition

¶7 Because Saber has waived any arguable claim on appeal and has not provided a transcript of the relevant hearing, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

Saber v. Coppes

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO
Nov 29, 2019
No. 2 CA-CV 2019-0105 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2019)
Case details for

Saber v. Coppes

Case Details

Full title:INGRID SABER, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. LEWIS A. COPPES, Defendant/Appellee.

Court:ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO

Date published: Nov 29, 2019

Citations

No. 2 CA-CV 2019-0105 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2019)