Southwest Barricades, L.L.C. v. Traffic Management, Inc.
240 Ariz. 139
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Southwest sued TMI for breach of contract and related claims over rental/damage to an attenuator truck; case was subject to compulsory arbitration.
- Arbitrator issued a decision in favor of Southwest and later an award granting $10,156 plus $4,000 in attorney fees.
- TMI filed a late notice of appeal (25 days after the award) after querying the arbitrator about an objection to fees; superior court dismissed the appeal as untimely.
- TMI moved for relief under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c), alleging excusable neglect, new evidence, and misconduct; the superior court set aside the arbitration award under Rule 60(c).
- After further proceedings (a second arbitration and a jury trial), judgment was entered for TMI; Southwest appealed the superior court’s use of Rule 60(c) to set aside the arbitration award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Southwest) | Defendant's Argument (TMI) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(c) may be used to set aside a compulsory arbitration award that was not entered as a court judgment | Rule 60(c) does not apply because the arbitration award was not a final judgment or court order | Rule 60(c) can apply because the arbitration award is final after the appeal period and can be set aside for new evidence or misconduct | Court held Rule 60(c) does not apply to arbitration awards that were not entered by the court as final judgments or orders; superior court erred in setting aside the award |
| Whether an arbitration award becomes a final judgment by passage of time (without court entry) | N/A (Southwest opposed treating award as self-executing) | The award becomes final after the appeal period and thus amenable to Rule 60(c) relief | Court held passage of time does not convert an award into a final judgment; the self-executing conversion language was removed in 2007 and Rule 76(c) requires application for court entry of judgment |
| Whether an arbitration award is a final "order" or "proceeding" under Rule 60(c) | Award is not a judicial order; arbitrator cannot dispose of the case | Award is a final proceeding and should be subject to Rule 60(c) | Court held the award is not a judicial order signed by a judge and the arbitrator lacks power to enter final judicial judgment; Rule 60(c) therefore inapplicable |
| Whether pre-2007 cases allowing late appeals by excusable neglect (Jarostchuk, Decola) control | Those cases are inapplicable under current rules | Relied on those cases to argue excusable neglect could save a late appeal | Court held Jarostchuk and Decola are inapposite because they were decided under superseded rules that allowed self-executing conversion of awards into judgments |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. Garcia, 237 Ariz. 407, 351 P.3d 1105 (App. 2015) (arbitration award is not a judgment until superior court enters judgment under Rule 76(c))
- Jarostchuk v. Aricol Communications, Inc., 189 Ariz. 346, 942 P.2d 1178 (App. 1997) (pre-2007 case allowing late appeal by excusable neglect)
- Decola v. Freyer, 198 Ariz. 28, 6 P.3d 333 (App. 2000) (pre-2007 case discussing appealability of arbitration awards)
- Altman v. Anderson, 151 Ariz. 209, 726 P.2d 625 (App. 1986) (Rule 60(b)/(c) limited to final judgments/orders)
- Prudential Real Estate Affiliates v. PPR Realty, 204 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2000) (interlocutory orders not subject to Rule 60(b))
- Felipe v. Theme Tech Corp., 235 Ariz. 520, 334 P.3d 210 (App. 2014) (de novo review of rule interpretation)