Edwards v. Lakewood
1 CA-CV 16-0379
Ariz. Ct. App.Apr 4, 2017Background
- Stephen S. Edwards sued The Lakewood Community Association in Dec. 2015 alleging contract and tort claims that matched a prior case he filed (CV2015-094117).
- Lakewood successfully moved to reassign the new case to the judge who had dismissed Edwards’s earlier suit; that judge then moved to dismiss the reassigned case as barred by res judicata.
- Edwards filed an opposition but did not address res judicata or move for leave to amend his complaint.
- The superior court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, awarded fees as sanctions under A.R.S. § 12-349, and entered final judgment after further motions.
- Edwards appealed, claiming misapplication of issue preclusion (he asserted bias, sought leave to amend, and raised other arguments), but the appellate court analyzed claim preclusion and procedural waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim preclusion / res judicata | The court misapplied preclusion (argued issue preclusion rather than claim preclusion) | The suit duplicates the prior case and is barred by res judicata | Affirmed: claims barred by res judicata; plaintiff waived challenge by not addressing it below, and elements (identity of claims, final judgment, same parties) were met |
| Leave to amend complaint | Edwards argued he should be allowed to amend | Lakewood noted no motion to amend was filed and preclusion still applies | Affirmed denial: Edwards waived by failing to move to amend; no showing amendment would avoid res judicata |
| Judicial bias / recusal | Judge was biased and should have recused | No evidence of bias; adverse rulings alone are insufficient | Affirmed: no evidence of bias; claim waived for failure to raise below |
| Appellate attorneys’ fees | N/A | Lakewood requested fees as prevailing party | Granted: appellate fees awarded under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and taxable costs if procedural rules met |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352 (2012) (standard of review for dismissals reviewed de novo)
- Stanhope v. State, 170 Ariz. 404 (App. 1991) (affirmance standard for failure-to-state-a-claim dismissal)
- In re Gen. Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in Gila River Sys. & Source, 212 Ariz. 64 (2006) (three elements of res judicata/claim preclusion)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial rulings alone generally do not show bias)
- Cont'l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utilities, LLC, 227 Ariz. 382 (App. 2011) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)