Lakeside v. Meyers
1 CA-CV 15-0521
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Mar 30, 2017Background
- Lakeside Lumber supplied raw lumber on credit to Oregon remanufacturer Whitsell; Lakeside retained title until payment and handled invoicing/collections. Benjamin Meyers (Northwest Reload) coordinated sales and received commissions from Lakeside.
- In 2011 Lakeside sued Benjamin for nonpayment of four invoices totaling $41,207.98; Meyers moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, which the trial court denied.
- Benjamin pleaded counterclaims and a cross-complaint asserting entitlement to commissions (over $180,000) and other tort claims; Lakeside and others moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted for the appellees on those claims.
- After a one-day bench trial where Benjamin represented himself, the court entered judgment for Lakeside for $41,207.98, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs; post-trial motions (including new trial and sanctions) were denied.
- On appeal, the Meyers raised multiple issues (judge bias, jurisdiction, dismissal of counterclaims/cross-claims, errors in final judgment); the Court of Appeals affirmed across the board and awarded Lakeside appellate attorney fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial bias | Meyers: judge was biased against out-of-state litigants and favored Lakeside | Appellees: rulings reflected credibility determinations and discretion, not bias | No bias; Meyers did not file a change-of-judge affidavit and record shows permissible credibility rulings and accommodation by judge |
| Personal jurisdiction | Meyers: transactions were in Oregon; no Arizona jurisdiction | Lakeside: Meyers directed business to Lakeside, had longstanding contacts, terms designated Arizona forum | Jurisdiction proper (both general and specific); minimum contacts shown by ongoing dealings, choice-of-forum terms, prior Arizona lawsuit |
| Dismissal of counterclaims/cross-claims (contract, fraud, unfair competition, defamation, interference, IIED) | Meyers: oral commission agreement and tort claims bar Lakeside’s recovery | Appellees: oral agreement barred by statute of frauds; fraud/unfair competition/IIED/defamation/interference lacked the required elements or were privileged | Summary judgment affirmed: oral commission agreement unenforceable under statute of frauds; fraud and unfair competition inadequately pleaded; attorney letter absolutely privileged; no IIED evidence of extreme conduct or severe distress |
| Final judgment, fees, prejudgment interest, new trial | Meyers: Lakeside used false statements; fees excessive; prejudgment interest improper; trial cut him off | Lakeside: evidence supported breach; fees reasonable given protracted litigation; interest arises from liquidated invoices | Judgment for Lakeside affirmed: substantial evidence supports breach; fee award within discretion; prejudgment interest proper; denial of new trial not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (minimum contacts and fair play/substantial justice standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (contract terms/longstanding relationship can support jurisdiction)
- Planning Grp. of Scottsdale, L.L.C. v. Lake Mathews Mineral Props., Ltd., 226 Ariz. 262 (App. 2011) (analysis of purposeful direction and totality of contacts for jurisdiction)
- Arizona Tile, L.L.C. v. Berger, 223 Ariz. 491 (App. 2010) (plaintiff must make prima facie showing of jurisdiction; resolve conflicts for plaintiff)
- Duckstein v. Wolf, 230 Ariz. 227 (App. 2012) (de novo review of personal jurisdiction rulings)
- Comerica Bank v. Mahmoodi, 224 Ariz. 289 (App. 2010) (elements and pleading particularity for common-law fraud)
- Rudinsky v. Harris, 231 Ariz. 95 (App. 2012) (statute of frauds bars oral contracts not performable within one year)
- Green Acres Trust v. London, 141 Ariz. 609 (1984) (absolute privilege for attorney communications preliminary to a judicial proceeding)
- Chartone, Inc. v. Bernini, 207 Ariz. 162 (App. 2004) (elements of breach of contract claim)
- Orfaly v. Tucson Symphony Soc’y, 209 Ariz. 260 (App. 2004) (trial court discretion in awarding attorney fees)