Phillips v. Garcia
237 Ariz. 407
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Phillips sued Garcia in Maricopa County superior court (breach of contract, bad-faith, fraud). Court ordered compulsory arbitration.
- Arbitrator filed a notice of decision on January 3, 2013 and later signed a document titled “Judgment” on January 29, 2013; that document was not signed by a judge or commissioner.
- No party requested the superior court to enter a formal judgment after the arbitrator’s award.
- More than 120 days after the notice of decision, Phillips sought post-judgment collection relief; Garcia moved to dismiss under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 76(d) for failure to request entry of judgment within 120 days.
- The trial court denied Garcia’s motion; Garcia appealed. The court of appeals concluded it lacked appellate jurisdiction but exercised special action jurisdiction to decide the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrator-signed document labeled “Judgment” constituted a true court judgment | Phillips: The arbitrator’s signed document (and A.R.S. § 12-133(E)) operates as a judgment; no appeal was taken | Garcia: The document was the arbitrator’s award, not a judicially entered judgment; Rule 76(c) and Rule 58 require the court to enter judgment on the award | The document was the arbitrator’s award (not a true court judgment); entry of a formal judgment requires an affirmative act by the court under Rules 76 and 58 |
| Whether dismissal under Rule 76(d) was required because no application for entry of judgment was filed within 120 days of the notice of decision and no appeal was pending | Phillips: The award/"Judgment" constituted judgment so Rule 76(d) inapplicable | Garcia: No application for entry of judgment was filed within 120 days; Rule 76(d) mandates dismissal | Rule 76(d)’s plain language required dismissal; the case should have been dismissed (court ordered dismissal without prejudice) |
| Whether A.R.S. § 12-133(E) automatically converts an arbitrator’s award into a judgment in compulsory arbitration | Phillips: § 12-133(E) gives the award the effect of a judgment | Garcia: Applying § 12-133(E) to compulsory arbitration would conflict with Rule 76(c); the rule requires court entry | The court harmonized the statute and rules: § 12-133(E) does not obviate Rule 76(c)/Rule 58 requirement that the court enter judgment; the award is not self-executing |
| Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review the trial court denial of the motion to dismiss | Phillips: (implicit) appealable | Garcia: (procedural) trial court’s denial is interlocutory | The denial of the motion to dismiss was interlocutory (no appellate jurisdiction), but the appellate court exercised special action jurisdiction and granted relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Bittner v. Superior Court (Galati), 182 Ariz. 434 (explaining distinction between notice of decision and final award and that mislabeling an award is not always fatal)
- Graf v. Whitaker, 192 Ariz. 403 (holding arbitration rules implement statute and harmonizing statutory and rule provisions governing compulsory arbitration)
- Engle Bros., Inc. v. Superior Court, 23 Ariz. App. 406 (non-appealability of interlocutory orders)
- Diggs Realty & Ins. v. Pertile, 114 Ariz. 85 (arbitrator is divested of jurisdiction after filing an award and file returns to superior court)
- State ex rel. Romley v. Superior Court (Stewart), 168 Ariz. 167 (plain language of court rules must be enforced)