American Express v. Earle
1 CA-CV 16-0059
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Feb 7, 2017Background
- American Express sued Robert Earle in superior court (consolidated with a justice-court action) for unpaid balances on two credit-card accounts totaling $15,026.79.
- American Express moved for summary judgment, submitting two affidavits from Linda Salas (assistant custodian of records) and account records and a December 2010 cardmember agreement.
- Salas’s affidavits stated Earle opened and used the accounts, received cardmember agreements by mail per standard business practice, defaulted, and owed stated balances.
- Earle opposed the motion but submitted no affidavit or admissible evidence controverting Salas’s statements; his arguments disputed receipt of statements and claimed the original contract was not produced.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for American Express and entered judgment for $15,026.79 plus costs; Earle appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding American Express met its summary-judgment burden under Rule 56 and Earle failed to present a genuine factual dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on the breach-of-contract claims | Amex: admissible business records and affidavits establish formation, breach, and damages | Earle: contested receipt of statements and asserted original contract not produced | Affirmed: Amex’s affidavits and records sufficed; no genuine issue for trial |
| Whether Salas’s affidavits were admissible as business records | Amex: affidavits fall under the business-records exception to hearsay | Earle: argued implicitly that records/affidavits were insufficient/originals required | Held admissible under Ariz. R. Evid. 803(6); properly supported summary judgment |
| Whether the nonmoving party may rely on pleadings to resist summary judgment | Amex: movant met burden; nonmovant must present specific contrary facts | Earle: relied on allegations and denials without affidavits or admissible evidence | Court reiterated Rule 56(e): nonmovant must present affidavits or specific facts; Earle failed |
| Whether Earle is entitled to costs and fees on appeal | Earle: requested costs and legal-document-preparer fees under A.R.S. §§ 12-341, -341.02 | Amex: prevailing party; Earle not entitled since he lost | Denied: Earle is not prevailing party, so request denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Chalpin v. Snyder, 220 Ariz. 413 (discussing de novo review of summary judgment and viewing evidence for nonmovant)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Allen, 231 Ariz. 209 (a plaintiff’s summary-judgment motion must stand on admissible evidence)
- Nat’l Bank of Ariz. v. Thruston, 218 Ariz. 112 (nonmoving party may not rest on pleadings; must present specific facts)
- Chartone, Inc. v. Bernini, 207 Ariz. 162 (elements plaintiff must prove in breach-of-contract action)