Willis v. Dentists Benefits, 1 CA-CV 16-0390

In 2013 Willis filed a medical-malpractice suit against his dentist that was dismissed for failure to comply with expert-witness requirements; two years later he sued the dentist’s insurer, Dentists Benefits Insurance Company (DBIC), alleging a conspiracy to deprive him of recovery.
DBIC moved to dismiss Willis’s complaint under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the superior court granted leave to amend, Willis filed an amended complaint, and DBIC’s second motion to dismiss was denied.
DBIC then moved under A.R.S. § 12-3201 to have Willis declared a vexatious litigant; the superior court deferred for about a year while Willis filed additional pleadings and ultimately granted the motion limited to the present case.
The superior court’s order required Willis to obtain leave before filing any new pleading, motion, or document in that action; Willis appealed only the vexatious-litigant designation to the court of appeals.
The court of appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed, finding Willis repeatedly filed claims of default after the court had ruled otherwise, failed to comply with discovery and disclosure obligations, was sanctioned, and continued conduct amounting to statutorily defined vexatious conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the superior court abused its discretion in designating Willis a vexatious litigant under A.R.S. § 12-3201	Willis argued DBIC’s motion relied on prior-case conduct and that at the time of the motion he had filed only three motions (insufficient to justify designation)	DBIC argued Willis repeatedly filed meritless defaults/pleadings, ignored disclosure and discovery obligations, was sanctioned, and continued vexatious conduct in this case over a year	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; Willis’s repeated filings, discovery abuse, and sanctions-supporting record meet statutory vexatious conduct; order limited to this case and appropriate

Madison v. Groseth, 230 Ariz. 8 (App. 2012) (recognizing inherent authority to limit vexatious litigants and that such orders must be sparingly used)
Flying Diamond Airpark, LLC v. Meienberg, 215 Ariz. 44 (App. 2007) (standard of review for injunctive relief is abuse of discretion)
De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990) (vexatious-litigant orders reviewed for abuse of discretion)
McMurray v. Dream Catcher USA, Inc., 220 Ariz. 71 (App. 2009) (dismissal without prejudice is not a final appealable judgment)
State v. McCall, 139 Ariz. 147 (1983) (issues not raised in opening brief are waived)