Author Archives: unknown

Shaw v. CTVT Motors (CA1 3/28/13)

Posted on by

This holds that the economic-loss rule does not apply to claims under the Consumer Fraud Act.

Defendant repaired Plaintiffs’ car poorly; Plaintiffs sue for various economic losses (loss of value, loss of use, cost of re-repair). Defendant argued that the economic-loss rule barred all but contract claims. The trial court agreed and dismissed.

The Court of Appeals reverses. The economic-loss rule applies to common-law tort claims, not statutory claims. The statute contains no such limitation. The court also doubts that the rule should be applied to a claim of fraud in the inducement.

By CA1 standards this is a pretty crisp analysis, save for some mostly-pointless footnotes; perhaps it was actually written by the pro tem who signed it.

(link to opinion)

Baker v. University Physicans (3/12/13)

Posted on by

We blogged the Court of Appeal’s opinion here. Go there for the facts. The Supreme Court’s disposition is the same but it analyzes the statute differently.

Principally, it holds that “specialty” includes subspecialty. The trial court was correct that Plaintiff’s expert had to be a pediatrician with a subspecialty in hematology/oncology.

While the court says that a “specialist” is one who is board-certified it doesn’t’ say anything about using web sites to make that determination, much less to decide appeals. It also decides that 12-2604 requires an expert in the same specialty only when the care or treatment was within that specialty. And it concludes that in order for the defendant doctor to qualify as a specialist he or she must have spent the majority of time practicing that specialty. That’s because the statute requires the plaintiff’s expert to have done so; the logic eludes us.

The court also holds the statute constitutional against various challenges.

The court vacates CA1’s opinion except insofar as that opinion vacated the judgment and remanded to give Plaintiff another bite of the apple. Why do that if the trial court’s ruling was correct? The Supreme Court mentions that it “declined to review” that issue. Its interesting to know that the disposition of a case is a separate issue. That confirms something we’ve said before in another context – though back then we thought we were being satirical: the disposition of an appeal isn’t the logical procedural consequence of the holding, its whatever the court wants to do.

(link to opinion)

Baker v. Bradley (CA1 3/5/13)

Posted on by

Yet another case about appeal procedure. This one discusses, tediously, the Barassi rule.

An unsigned minute entry granted a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff responded with a notice of appeal, before the Judgment was submitted and signed, and did not file another notice afterward.

Under Barassi, as explained by Craig, a premature notice is okay if no motion is pending, so that “the only remaining task is merely ministerial.” CA1 thinks the “merely ministerial” language a problem since a minute entry can always be changed prior to judgment. It decides that the Supreme Court didn’t really mean what it said and that Barassi applies when there is no motion pending. If there is, “the ruling of the court could change and the remaining task would not be merely ministerial.”

(That means, you might be thinking, that if no motion is pending then the entry of judgment is indeed merely ministerial. But if that’s right then the court has just spent several pages pointlessly chasing its tail. So that can’t be right, can it?)

In any event, since there was no motion pending Barassi applies to save the appeal. The fact that one defendant hadn’t been – and never was – served doesn’t change that; “unserved parties are not ‘parties’ within the rules.”

The dissent disagrees with that. Plaintiff still had time to serve the other defendant when he filed the notice of appeal (he had received an extension of time for service). “This possibility means the final decision could change,” though the dissent does not explain how. 

The majority opinion manages to be over fifteen pages long. One good edit could have saved some of those merely by not saying the same thing more than once. Eliminating the long, irrelevant footnote would also have helped (though there is only one). And the court takes the time to explain that this was a prisoner’s suit against some guards; pop quiz: how exactly does that affect the operation of Barassi?

But the court apparently raised the issue on its own (we’ll assume that the AG’s office spotted it but figured that Barassi applied). Decisions sua sponte tend to look like this – unfocused, at once both naïve and hyper-technical. Craig did say that Barassi was limited to its facts and Barassi was slightly different (the appeal was from denial of a motion for new trial), so perhaps the court was nervous about it; it does “invite the Arizona Supreme Court to further clarify [sic]” the rule, “if necessary.” Courts, though, are much better at responding to issues briefed by litigants than at going it alone.

(link to opinion)