Cardoso v. Soldo
230 Ariz. 614
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Soldo obtained an ex parte order of protection against Cardoso on January 27, 2011 based on alleged harassment via texts and e-mails.
- Cardoso moved to dismiss and requested a hearing; the municipal court transferred the case to the superior court.
- After transfer, Cardoso renewed her motion to revoke the order; the superior court conducted a hearing and continued the order.
- Soldo testified Cardoso sent hundreds of messages with threatening content; a third party corroborated some messages.
- Cardoso challenged service, due process, and bias, but the court found no reversible error and continued the order.
- Cardoso appeals the continued order even though the order expired during the appellate process, and the court analyzes mootness and collateral consequences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expired orders of protection are moot | Cardoso contends mootness bars review. | Soldo argues mootness applies because the order expired. | Expired orders not moot due to collateral consequences. |
| Whether the evidence supports continuing the order | Cardoso argues insufficient evidence of harassment. | Soldo presents substantial evidence of harassment and threats. | Superior court did not abuse discretion; evidence supports continuation. |
| Whether service was proper | Cardoso alleges improper service. | Soldo contends service was proper; Cardoso waived any objection. | Waiver of service objection acknowledged; service sufficient. |
| Whether due process was violated at the hearing | Cardoso claims insufficient time and access to records. | Soldo maintains hearing afforded adequate opportunity. | Record shows reasonable opportunity to present case and review records. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bank of New York Mellon v. De Meo, 227 Ariz. 192 (App. 2011) (mootness prudential doctrine allows review in public-interest or repetition contexts)
- LaFaro v. Cahill, 203 Ariz. 482 (App. 2002) (injunctions; mootness exceptions for repetition)
- Ciulla v. Miller ex rel. Arizona Highway Department, 169 Ariz. 540 (App. 1991) (merits review despite expiring license suspension when impact persists)
- In re M.H. XXXX-XXXXXX, 220 Ariz. 160 (App. 2008) (merits review when record shows ongoing collateral consequences)
- Putman v. Kennedy, 900 A.2d 1256 (Conn. 2006) (reputation harm and collateral consequences keep mootness questions live)