Edwards v. Smith
1 CA-CV 16-0235
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Apr 4, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Stephen S. Edwards sued Sandra L. Smith, AAM, LLC, and Maureen G. Mulvaney alleging negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation (libel and slander), and, as to Mulvaney, trespass, based on allegedly false testimony/evidence in earlier litigation.
- The superior court dismissed the emotional distress claims under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
- Edwards failed to attend a court-ordered deposition; after an initial excused absence, he again failed to comply with the court-ordered deposition date.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 37(f) and 41(b); the court found Edwards unreasonably refused discovery and dismissed the entire action with prejudice.
- Edwards appealed, arguing factual sufficiency of his claims and judicial bias; the appellate court reviewed the pleadings de novo for the pleading dismissal and reviewed dismissal for failure to prosecute for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the emotional distress claims were adequately pleaded | Edwards asserts defendants used false/fraudulent testimony and evidence causing emotional distress | Statements made in judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged; pleadings lack required elements for negligent/intentional infliction claims | Dismissal affirmed: pleadings lacked elements and statements were privileged |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute was improper | Edwards did not contest in briefing on appeal other than alleging bias | Defendants argued willful refusal to participate in discovery justified dismissal under Rules 37(f) and 41(b) | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion in dismissing with prejudice |
| Whether judicial bias required recusal | Edwards claimed superior court was biased against him | Defendants and record show no evidence of bias; adverse rulings alone insufficient | No bias shown; claim unpreserved and fails on the merits |
| Whether procedural errors or special treatment for pro se litigant required | Edwards argued he should be held to a less stringent standard as self-represented | Law requires pro se litigants comply with rules; no special leniency | No special treatment; rules and dismissal properly applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352 (de novo review for dismissal) (dispositive standard for Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Gau v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc., 183 Ariz. 107 (negligent infliction requires risk of bodily harm/physical injury)
- Mintz v. Bell Atl. Sys. Leasing Int'l, Inc., 183 Ariz. 550 (intentional infliction requires outrageous conduct)
- Linder v. Brown & Herrick, 189 Ariz. 398 (absolute privilege for judicial participants)
- Lewis v. Swenson, 126 Ariz. 561 (witnesses have absolute privilege for trial-related statements)
- Old Republic Nat. Title Ins. Co. v. New Falls Corp., 224 Ariz. 526 (trial court discretion to dismiss for failure to comply with orders)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (judicial rulings alone almost never show bias)