NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.



## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

JOHNSON UTILITIES, LLC dba JOHNSON UTILITIES COMPANY, an Arizona limited liability company; THE CLUB AT OASIS, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company

, Plaintiff s /Appellant s/Cross

-

Appellees

,

v.

SWING FIRST GOLF, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company,

Defendant/Appellee/Cross

- Appellant

,

DAVID ASHTON, Defendant/Appellee

.

No. 1 CA

- CV 13

- 0625

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CV2008

- 000141 The Honorable John Christian Rea

, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Sanders & Parks

, P C
, Phoenix By Garrick L. Gallagher, Anoop Bhatheja

Margrave Celmins, P C , Scottsdale By Lat J. Celmins, Michael L. Kitchen C o

- C ounsel for Plaintiff

s /Appellant s/Cross

-

Appellees

Craig A. Marks

, PLC
, Phoenix By Craig A. Marks C ounsel for Defendant/Appellee /Cross

- Appellant Swing First Golf, LLCJOHNSON v. SWING Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Maurice Portley delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.

P O R T L E Y
, Judge:

¶1 Johnson Utilities, LLC (“Utility”) and The Club at Oasis, LLC (“Oasis”) ( collectively “ Utility /Oasis ”) challenge the jury verdict s and resulting judgment in favor of Swi ng Firs t Golf, LLC (“SFG”). The appellants argue: ( 1) the court

, and jury

, lacked jurisdiction to decide SFG’s breach of tariff contract claim ; ( 2) the court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict at the close of both trials, and in denying Utility ’s Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure ( “ Rule ” ) 50 m otion a t the conclusion of the second trial ; ( 3) the court erred by submitting SFG’s quantum meruit claim to the jury ; ( 4) the court erred in admitting impermissible an d prejudicial evidence ; and ( 5) the court a bused its discretion in awarding at torneys’ fees and costs to SFG. And on its cross

- appeal, SFG argu es the court erred in granting summary judgment to Utility and dismissing SFG’s breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment

.

FACTS 1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Utility is a water utility company in the San Tan Valley. Oasis owns a golf course

, and is owned by George Johnson, the president and majority owner of Utility

. SFG purchased a gol f course in 2004 from

1 We review the evidence in the light most favorable to sustain the verdict and judgment. Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix , 192 Ariz. 51, 53, 961 P.2d 449, 451 (1998) (citations omitted).JOHNSON v. SWING Decision of the Court

3 Johnson Ranch Holdings 2 and watered the course with water provided by Utility. 3

¶3 T wo years after SFG purchased the golf course, George Johnson and David Ashton , SFG’s manager, discussed a plan for SFG to manage the Oasis golf course and, in return for SFG’s management services, Johnson proposed to pay SFG with water credits provided by Utility

. Ashton d rafted a letter of u nderstanding (“Oasis Agreement”) outlining the scope of SFG’s management services and confirming that Utility wou ld provide water credits to pay for those services. 4 Ashton and Johnson shook hands in Johnson’s office to confirm the agreement. SFG then began to manage Oasis
, and Utility provided the agreed

- upon water credits. Specifically, Utility supplied SFG with irrigation water for its golf course each month and sent a monthly invoice. SFG did not pay the invoice

, and the following month ’s invoice did not show any balance due.

¶4 SFG managed Oasis for six months. SFG had not anticipated that Johnson would fire th e Oasis staff as SFG began managing the golf course and that it would also be responsible for being the golf course’s caretaker. As a result, and after training a new on

- site manager, SFG resigned i n November 2006

. The following month , after changing SFG ’s accounts for the CAP water and effluent

, Utility sent new invoices to SFG for the irrigation water that had been delivered and credited to SFG under the Oasis Agreement. T he invoices reflected that Utility had raised SFG’s rates for effluent from $0.62 per thousand gallons, the rate approved by the

2 Johnson Ranch Holdings ( “ JRH ” ) had a Utilities Services Agreement with Utility for water services. Although JRH did not, as part of the golf course sale, assign its rights under the a greement to SFG , SFG argued during the first trial that the parties adopted the agreement

. However, t he court found the Utilities Services Agreement was a discriminatory contract a nd held that it was “illegal and against public policy” because the a greement provided a benefit to one of Utility’s customers without providing that same benefit to its other customers.

3 Utility initially provided untreated water from the nearby Central Arizona Project cana l (“CAP water”). The parties, however, understood and agreed that Utility would provide treated wastewater (“ e ffluent”) to SFG for irrigati on upon completion of the waste water treatment plan t , and Utility eventually delivered effluent water.

4 During the first trial, the court held the Oasis Agreement to be unenforceable

, and granted Utility’s motion for summary judgment in part and dismissed SFG’s breach of contract (Oasis Agreement) claim.JOHNSON v. SWING Decision of the Court

4 A rizona C orporation C ommission ( “ ACC ” ), to $ 0.83 per thousand gallons

, and raised the CAP water rate from $ 0 .82 per thousan d gallons, the ACC tariff rate, to $3.75 pe r thousand gallons

. SFG paid for the water received at the tariff rate.

¶5 Additionally, SFG was not paid for its management services. Moreover, Utility began withholding e ffluent and, through the end of 2007, delivered almost exclusively the more expensive CAP w ater to SFG, and bill ed SFG at the rates above the ACC

- approved rates

. Utility also turned off SFG’s irrigation water in November 2007 claiming that SFG owed about $215,000

. SFG filed an informal complaint with the ACC and Utility restored SFG’s irrigation service

. Then s eeking t o prevent further service disruption, SFG filed a formal complaint with the ACC. Utility then resumed sending SFG effluent ; in fact, Utility once delivered so much effluent that the golf course lake flooded much of the 18th

- hole fairway.

¶6 Utility sued SFG and Ashton in January 2008 for failure to pay its water bills and for defamation

. 5 I n response , SFG answered and filed a thirteen

- cou nt counterclaim , including multiple breach of contract claims, quantum meruit, specific performance, negligence and a number of tort claims

. 6 After discovery, voluntary dismissals and pretrial motion s , including summary judgment for Utility on SFG’s bad f aith claim, the only claims r emaining for trial were the breach of contract claims, SFG’s claims for trespass and negligence related to the golf

- course flooding, its quantum meruit claim

, and defamation claim.

¶7 The dispute w as tried in March 2012. The jury ’s verdict s w ere as follows: (1) SFG owed Utility $151,156 for breach of contract ; (2) Utility owed SFG $1,000,000 for breach of contract; (3) Oasis owed SFG $54,600 on the quantum meruit claim related to the Oasis Agreement; (4) Ashton was awarded $10,00 0 for compensatory damages and $ 1 0,000 as punitive damages for defamation ; and (5) Utility was negligent and committed

5 Specifically, Utility alleged: (1) breach of contract (Utility Service Agreement) ; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) tortious interference; and (4) defa mation (as to SFG and Ashton).

6 SFG’s counterclaims included: (1) b reach of c ontract

– U tility S ervice Agreement; (2) b reach of c ontract

– Oasi s Agreement; (3) q uantum m eruit ; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) b reach of c ontract

– t ariff rate schedule; (6) b reach of c ovenant of f air d ealing ; (7) specific performance; (8) negligence ; ( 9) trespass to land; (10) interference with a business relationship; (11) defamation; (12) unlawful use of monopoly power; and (13) racketeering.JOHNSON v. SWING Decision of the Court

5 trespass by over

- delivering effluent and flooding the golf course, but no damages were awarded

. 7 Utility/Oasis filed a motion for a new trial and the court granted the motion, vacated the verdict s on the contract claim s and ordered a new trial on those claims

.
¶8 The parties then tried the breach of contract issues. After considering the evidence, argument and instructions

, the jury only found for SFG on its breach of contract claim and awarded it $41,8 8 3 .11

. The court consid ered SFG’s request for attorney s ’ fees, and in the final judgment awarded SFG $300,737 .25 in attorneys’ f ees.

¶9 Utility /Oasis then appealed the quantum meruit verdict f rom the first trial, the breach of contract verdict from the second trial

, and SFG’s award of attorneys’ fees

. SFG filed a cross

- appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12

- 2101(A)(1) 8 and Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 8(a).

DISCUSSION

I. UTILITY/OASIS’S APPEAL

¶10 In challenging the verdicts in favor of SFG on its quantum

mer uit and breach of tariff contract claim s , Utility/Oasis asks that we enter judgment in its favor , or a lternatively, for a new trial t o corr ect alleged evidentiary errors. Utility /Oasis also seeks a reduct ion in SFG’s attorneys’ fees.

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

¶11 Utility /Oasis argues that the trial court and, as a result, the jury
, lacked jurisdiction to decide SFG’s breach of tariff con tract claim because the ACC has exclusive jurisdiction over utility regulation. 9 Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law we review de novo. State v. Dixon

, 231 Ariz. 319, 320, ¶ 3, 294 P.2d 157, 158 ( App. 2013) (citation omitted).

7 Utility/Oasis does not appeal the defamation verdict and SFG does not appeal the verdict on its negligen ce and trespass claims.

8 We cite the current version of the statute unless otherwise noted.

9 Utility/Oasis filed a petition for special action asking this court to r eview the superior court’s denial of its m otion to d ismiss based on lack of subject

matter jurisdiction

. We denied the request for stay and declined to take special action jurisdiction.JOHNSON v. SWING Decision of the Court

6 ¶12 “ Subject matter jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the particular proceedings belong

, ” In re Marriage of Dorman, 198 Ariz. 298, 301, ¶ 7, 9 P.3d 329, 332 (App. 2000) (quoting Estes v. Superior Court, 137 Ariz. 515, 5 17, 672 P.2d 180, 182 (1983) ) (internal quotation marks omitted), and is conferred by our
constitution or statutes
, State v. Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 311, ¶ 14, 223 P.3d 653, 655 (2010)

. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be vested in a court solely by w aiver or estoppel. Guminski v. Ariz. State Veterinary Med. Examining Bd., 201 Ariz. 180, 184, ¶ 18, 33 P.3d 514, 518 (App. 2001)

.
¶13 Disputes involving whether a contract is enforceable or breached, even when one party is a utility, is left to the exclusive juri sdiction of Arizona courts. See Ariz. Const. a rt

. 6, § 1; General Cable Corp. v. Citizens Utilities Co ., 27 Ariz. App. 381, 386, 555 P.2d 350, 35 5 (1976) (“We agree with the trial court that the construction and interpretation to be given to legal

r ights under a contract reside solely with the courts . . . .”); see , e.g., Nelson v. Rice , 198 Ar iz. 563, 567, ¶ 13, 12 P.3d 238 , 242 (App. 2000) ( noting that the trial court has to determine whether a contract is unconscionable as a matter of law)

. In fact, more than fifty years ago our supreme court stated that:

“ No judicial power is vested in or can be exercised by the corporation commission unless that power is express ly granted by the constitution.” Trico Elec. Coop. v. Ralston , 67 Ariz. 358, 36 3, 196 P.2d 470, 473 (1948)

. And although the ACC has broad jurisdiction over “public service corporations” pursuant to Article 15 of the Arizona Constitution, the provision does not give the ACC jurisdiction to entertain and resolve contract claims. S ee Trico

, 67 Ariz. at 362

- 65 , 196 P.2d at 472

- 74 (comparing Ariz ona Constitution Article 1 5 to Article 6, and concl uding that the Constitution vested no jurisdiction in the ACC to construe contract s and determine their validity);

s ee, e.g., Ariz. Corp. Com m ’n v. Tucson Gas, Elec. Light & Power Co ., 67 Ariz. 12, 189 P.2d 907 (1948)

.
¶14 Utility /Oasis , however, contend s that the ACC has exclusive jurisdiction in this case because SFG’s contract claim is not based on an enforceable contract. We disagree. This is not a case about setting water rates. Instead, Utility elected to sue SFG in the Maricopa County Superior Court for breach of contract and related legal theories for failing to pay its water bill, including the water that SFG received while it provided

m anagement services at the Oasis golf course

. The fact that Utility/Oasis

was unsuccessful given the totality of the evidence, does not wrest subject matter jurisdiction from the court

.
¶15 Moreover, even though one of SFG’s claim s against Utility involved whe ther Utility had billed SFG, its customer, above the ratesJOHNSON v. SWING Decision of the Court

7 approved by the ACC, the court had subject matter jurisdiction to resolve the contract dispute

. See Sommer v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co ., 21 Ariz. App. 385, 387

- 88, 519 P.2d 874, 876

- 77 (1974 ). Therefore, the superior court had subject matter jurisdiction to resolve the dispute between U tility and
its customer. See Trico , 67 Ariz. at 365, 196 P.2d at 474; see also General Cable

, 27 Ariz. App. at 386, 555 P.2d at 355 (concluding that the ACC cannot construe and interpret the parties’ rights under a contract, even if that contract had been specifically approved by the ACC).

¶16 Utility /Oasis also contends the jury had to decide water utility policy, even though the ACC has sole and exclusive jurisdiction. We disagree with the argument.

¶17 Neither jury in either trial was asked to decide water utility regulation policy. Instead, the jury in the second trial had to decide whether SFG or Utility breached any contract s and , if so, to decide damages. Because the jury was not asked to resolve water utility regulation policy or rates, and did not, the superior court was not divested of subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit

.

B. Breach of Tariff Contract Claim

¶18 Utility /Oasis next asserts that the superior court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict 10 at the close of both trials, and in denying its Rule 50(b) post

- judgment motion for judgment as a matter of law after the second trial. Utility /Oasis asserts tha t SFG failed to present any evidence to support its br each of tariff contract claim.

¶19 We review the court’s ruling on a motion for directed verdict and a motion for judgmen t as a matter of law de novo. Felder v. Physiotherapy Assocs. , 215 Ariz. 154, 162, ¶ 36, 158 P.3d 877, 885 (App. 2007);
Warne Inv s. , Ltd. v. Higgins , 219 Ariz. 186, 194, ¶ 33, 195 P.3d 645, 653 (App. 2008). We will affirm the ruling unless, like a motion for summary judgment, “the facts produced in support of the claim or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the

10 Utility /Oasis did not provide the tran script from the first trial. As a result, we presume that the record would support the court’s ruling. Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73, 900 P.2d 764, 767 (App. 1995). Consequently, the superior court did not err by denying the motion for directed verdict in the first trial. See id.JOHNSON v. SWING Decision of the Court

8 proponent of the claim or defense.” Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 309, 802 P.2d 1000, 1008 (1990); see Ariz. R. Civ. P. 50(a).

¶20 To prevail on its breach of contract claim, SFG was required to prove i t had a contract with Utility

, Utility breached the contract, and SFG suffered resulting damages. See Goodman v. Physical Res. Eng ’ g, Inc.
, 229 Ariz. 25, 28, ¶ 7 , 270 P.3d 852, 855 ( App. 2011)

. Utility does not dispute the existence of a contract

– it provided irrigation water to SFG for a fee

. Instead

, Utility argues that SFG claimed that it had a right to effluent for its irrigation water, but failed to prove a con tractual right to e ffluent instead of CAP water. The record belies the focus of the argument.

¶21 SFG presented evidence to the jury that Utility br eached its tariff contract by: (1) overcharging SFG for deliveries of both CAP w ater and effluent ; (2) withho lding effluent; (3) improperly charging for minimum bills; (4) over

- delivering irrigation water resulting in flooding of the golf course ; (5) manufacturing bills; (6) using a manufactured account balance as a pretext to discontinue service; (7) failing to follow Arizona Administrative code regulations ; and (8) not providing appropriate credits for overcharges. And c iting to A.R.S. § 47

- 2306(B)

, SFG also claimed that Utility breached its contracts by failing to use its best effor ts to deliver effluent to SF G.

¶22 Because the water rates that Utility can charge its customers for CAP water and effluent are set by the ACC, the approved tariffs constitute an enforceable contract between Utility and its customer, SFG. See Sommer , 21 Ariz. App. at 387

- 88, 519 P.2d at 876

- 77

. SFG presented evidence that Utility breached the contract

. SFG also presented evidence that it was damaged as a result of Utility’s breach and the amount of those damages, including the amount SFG overpaid between Nov ember 2006 and December 2007

.
¶23 The jury heard the testimony. The jury had to determine the credibility of the witnesses, evaluate the exhibits and determine the facts in reaching its verdict. See Logerquist v. McVey , 196 Ariz. 470, 488, ¶ 52, 1 P.3d 113, 131 (2000)

. The jury fulfilled its role, found that Utility had breached the tariff rates , and awarded SFG $41,883.11 in damages. Because substantial evidence supported the jury’s breach of tariff contract verdict, we find no error.JOHNSON v. SWING Decision of the Court

9 C. Quantum Meruit Claim

¶24 Utility/ Oasis argues t hat the superior court erred in the first trial by submitting SFG’s quantum meruit claim to the jury because the claim was based on an illegal contract. We disagree.

¶25 “Quantum meruit” is the measure of damages imposed when a party prevails on the equitabl e claim of unjust enrichment. W. Corr. Grp., Inc. v. Tierney , 208 Ariz. 583, 590, ¶ 27, 96 P.3d 1070, 1077 (App. 2004) (citing Landi v. Arkules, 172 Ariz. 126, 135, 835 P.2d 458, 467 (App. 1992)). To recover quantum meruit damages, a plaintiff must prove “the defendant received a benefit, that by receipt of that benefit the defendant was unjustly enriched at the plaintiff ’ s expense, and that the circumstances were such that in good conscience the defendant should provide compensation.” Freeman v. Sorchyc h , 226 Ariz. 242, 251, ¶ 27, 245 P.3d 927, 936 (App. 2011).

¶26 Utility/ Oasis contends , however, that SFG cannot recover damages under its quantum meruit theory because the court found the Oasis Agreement to be unenforceable and against public policy. Althoug h the agreement was unenforceable, quantum meruit damages can be awarded when one party has perform ed in return for a promise that turns out to be unenforceable on public policy grounds. See Blue Ridge Sewer Improvement Dist. v. Lowry and Assocs., Inc., 149 Ariz. 373, 375, 718 P.2d 1026, 1028 (App. 1986) ( noting that a plaintiff may recover under quantum meruit despite the possible illegality of the underlying contract); Pelletier v. Johnson, 188 Ariz. 478, 937 P.2d 668 (App. 1996) (allowing a seller to recover on a quantum meruit claim against the buyer even though the contract was illegal under Arizona law); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 198 cmt. b (1981) (claimant entitled to restitution for performance under a contract determined to be against public policy where “the public policy is intended to protect persons of the class to which he belongs and, as a member of that protected class, he is regarded as less culpable.”); see also Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 32 (2011).

¶27 Here, SFG provided golf course management services for six months to Oasis pursuant to an agreement made between SFG and Johnson

, the owner of Oasis and Utility. Johnson, on behalf of Utility

, agreed that Utility would provide water credits to SFG in exchange for SFG’s management services. The superior court found the Oasis A greement unenforceable and against public policy because “[a] public utility must treat all customers without discrimination.” The court, as a result, dismissed SFG’s bre ach of Oasis Agreement claim, but allowed the jury to decide whether SFG was entitled to damages under its quantum meruitJOHNSON v. SWING Decision of the Court

10 claim. Because there were facts supporting the equitable quantum meruit claim and damages, the court did not err by allowing the jury to decide whether SFG was entitled to quantum meruit damages despite the illegality of the Oasis Agreement.

¶28 Utility/ Oasis also claims the superior court erred in denying its request in the first trial for a non

- uniform qua ntum meruit jury instruction. We review de novo whether jury instructions correctly state the law. State v. Torres , 233 Ariz. 479, 481, 314 P.3d 825, 827 ( App. 2013).
We review jury instructions as a whole to determine whether the jury was properly guided in its deliberations. See Ter ry v. Gaslight Square Assocs., 182 Ariz. 365, 368, 897 P.2d 667, 670 (App. 1994).

¶29 During the first trial, Utility/ Oasis requested the following

non

- uniform jury instructions:

A party may not recover on an unjust enrichment claim where the claimed amount is simply the amount allegedly due on a

contract.

Where a contract is alleged, a party has no claim for unjust enrichment.

An innocent party to an illegal contract may only seek restitution under the contract if a public interest is not threatened.

The c ourt rejected the requested instruction , and gave the following:

Quantum Meruit 11

Swing First is entitled to recover the reasonable value of the services rendered to Oasis unless you find that either one of two things was true in this case:

First, Swing F irst is not entitled to recover for his services if it was understood by Swing First and Oasis that the services were being rendered free of charge. It is Oasis’ burden to show that the parties had such an understanding.

11 This is the Revised Arizona Jury Instruction for Quantum Meruit. See Rev. Ariz. Ju ry Instr. (Civil) Contract 24 ( 5th ed. 2013 )

.JOHNSON v. SWING Decision of the Court

11 Second, Swing First may not recove r for his services if you find that, under all the circumstances, it was not unfair for Oasis to receive the benefit of Swing First’s services without paying for them.

Unless you find that Swing First and Oasis understood that the services were being rende red free of charge, or that under all the circumstances it was not unfair for Oasis to receive the benefit of those services without paying for them, you should award S wing First the reasonable value of the services. In determining what the reasonable val ue of Swing First’s services was, you may consider the nature of the services provided and the customary rate of pay for such services.

The instruction the court gave was not a misstatement of the law but reflected the current state of the law. And viewin g the instruction with the other instructions in this case, the jury was not misled by the instruction and, a s a result, we find no error. See Blue Ridge

, 149 Ariz. at 375, 718 P.2d at 1028.

¶30 Utility/ Oasis ’s last challenge to the quant um meruit verdict
is based on In re Estate of Newman

, and Utility/ Oasis contends that the claim should have been decided by the judge rather than the jury because it is purely an equitable claim. 219 Ariz. 260, 274, ¶ 55, 196 P.2d 863 , 877 (App. 2008). In Newman , a probate m atter, we stated that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial for equitable claims, including breach of fiduciary duty relating to a trustee’ s duties in probate proceedings. Id. at 273

- 74 , ¶¶ 53, 57, 196 P. 3 d at 8 76

- 77 ; see Henry v. Mayer, 6 Ariz . 103, 114, 53 P. 590, 593 (Ariz. Terr. 1898) (“[T]he cause being one of equitable jurisdiction, the court below was not bound to submit any issue of fact to a jury[.]”). This case, however, is not a probate action. Instead, it was a contract and tort di spute that was whittled down to just the equitable claim against Oasis after the verdicts in the first trial and the court’s grant of the motion for new trial. Moreover, Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 39( m ) provides:

In all actions not triable of right b y a jury the court upon motion or of its own initiative may try any issue with an advisory jury or, the court, with the consent of both parties, may order a trial with a jury whose verdict has the same effect as if trial by jury had been a matter of right.

And “even in equity cases, where a jury has been demanded, the court may not withdraw the case from the jury ’ s consideration if there areJOHNSON v. SWING Decision of the Court

12 controverted issues of fact.” Jones v. CPR Div., Upjohn Co. , 120 Ariz. 147, 150, 584 P.2d 611, 614 (App. 1978) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Although the quantum meruit claim is an equitable claim, the jury had to resolve diverse factual questions to determine if SFG was entitled to any damages under the theory. See id. Consequently, the court properly allowed the jury to decide the issue after properly instructin g the jury; we find no error.

D. Evidentiary Rulings

¶31 Utility /Oasis asserts that the court’s erroneous evidentiary rulings in both tria ls prejudiced Utility /Oasis and precluded a fair trial. We will not disturb the trial court ’ s rulings regarding the exclusion or admission of evidence unless there is a clear abuse of discretion and prejudice results. Larsen v. Decker , 196 Ariz. 239, 241 , ¶ 6 , 995 P.2d 281, 283 (App. 2000) (citations omitted)

.
¶32 First, Utility /Oasis argues that the court erred in admitting the unsigned Oasis Agreement in the first trial because it was an illegal contract. As discussed in ¶ 26

, supra , Arizona law allows the remedy of quantum meruit for an innocent party who has provided benefits under an illegal contract. See Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 32 (1981); Blue Ridge

, 149 Ariz. at 375, 718 P.2d at 1028

. T he court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the Oasis A greement . The agreement was relevant to show the meeting of the minds, the parties’ understanding of the scope of work

, and the expected cost for SFG’s management services.

¶33 Utility /Oasis next c ontends that the admission of evidence relating to the management of the Oasis golf c ourse in the second trial was prejudic ial and precluded a fair trial. Although the Oasis Agreement was

not directly relevant to the contract claims being litigated in the second trial, Utility asked Ashton question s about SFG’s payment history. On redirect, the court allowed Ashton to testify to a limited extent and explain why SFG did not make payments on its water accounts during the time it provided management services to Oasis. See Elia v. Pifer , 194 Ariz. 74, 79, 977 P.2d 796, 801 (App. 1998) (“[A] party will not be allowed to complain of the introduction of irrelevant evidence where he has asserted a position that makes such evidence relevant.”) (citing Morris K. Ud all et. al, Law of Evidence § 11, at 11 (3d ed. 1991))

.
¶34 Moreover, the court instructed the jury before the final jury
instructions to disregard any testimony about the alleged Oasis A greementJOHNSON v. SWING Decision of the Court

13 involving SFG and the management of anot her golf course because it had no bearing on the issues in the case. Therefore, even if Utility had not opened the door to allow Ashton ’s redirect testimony, the court’s limiting instruction cured any potential error. See Jimenez v. Starkey, 85 Ariz. 194, 196, 335 P.2d 83, 84 (1959) (when superior court properly instructs jury, an appellate court “must presume that the jury obeyed such instructions”); Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, 184 Ariz. 120, 140, 907 P.2d 506, 526 ( App. 1995) (“We must assume on review that the jury followed the instructions of the trial court.”).

¶35 Utility also contends the court erred in allowing the jury to hear testimony about the Utility Services Agreement

. During Ashton’s testimony in the second trial, a juror submitted the following question:

Was there ever anything in writing, such as a contract, that says you were only to get effluent from Johnson Utilities?

Utility objected to be question because the Utility Services A greement had been deter mined to be an illegal contract in the first trial and an y affirmative answer would “completely open[] up the door to lots of issues that have been thrown out already in this case.” The objection was overruled, and Ashton answered “Yes, there was.” Utili ty /Oasis argues that Ashton’s

answer caused it substantial prejudice and affected the jury’s verdict. We disagree. Both parties were given the opportunity to ask Ashton any follow

- up questions to clarify his answer to the question. Moreover, the
court, as noted in ¶ 34
, supra , gave a limiting instruction telling the jury to “disregard any testimony regarding any other golf course in reaching your decision in this case.” Finally, neither party mentioned the Utility Services
A greement i n closing arguments

. Consequently, given the answer to the one question and the limiting instruction, the court did not err by allowing Ashton to answer the juror’s question.

¶36 Finally, Utility /Oasis argues that the court abused its discretion by refusing to admit additional attachments to a letter Brian Tompsett , Utility’s Executive Vice President, sent to Ashton (Exhibit 8). Utility /Oasis , however, does not cite to any legal authority supporting its argument.

¶37 During the first trial, Utility offered Exhibit 22 t hat had the Tompsett letter as well as additional attachments, and it was admitted. In the second trial, SFG offered Exhibit 8, which included the Tompsett letter, but omitted 83 pages of the attached invoices from Exhibit 22. Utility argued that Exhibit 8 was incomplete and moved to admit the 83 page s ofJOHNSON v. SWING Decision of the Court

14 additional attachments to the Tompsett letter

. 12 SFG objected because the 83

- page document had not been disclosed nor provided before trial

, and the court sustained the objection. Because the trial cour t is the gate

- keeper to ensure that exhibits have been disclosed, s ee Ariz ona Rule of Civil Procedure 26.1

, see

, e.g., Lohmeier v. Hammer , 214 Ariz. 57, 66, ¶ 32, 148 P.3d 101, 110 (App. 2006) (noting a trial court must serve as an evidentiary gatekeeper), th e court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Exhibit 8 and precluding Utility’s undisclosed additional attachments.

E. Prejudgment Interest

¶38 Utility/ Oasis claims that the court erred by awarding SFG prejudgment interest on its quantum meruit claim. Wh ether a party is entitled to prejudgment interest is a question of law we review de novo. Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C. , 228 Ariz. 9, 13, ¶ 18, 261 P.3d 784, 788 (App. 2011); Alta Vista Plaza, Ltd. v. Insulation Specialists Co., 186 Ariz. 81, 82, 919
P .2d 176, 177 (App. 1995)

.
¶39 Oasis asserts that SFG was not entitled to prejudgment interest on its quantum meruit claim because the claim was not liquidated. Prejudgment interest is awarded as a matter of right on a liquidated claim. Alta Vis ta , 186 Ariz. at 82

- 83, 919 P.2d at 177

- 78. A claim is liquidated if there is credible data from which a precise amount of damages can be calculated without reliance on opinion or discretion. Id. ; see also John C. Lincoln Hosp. & Health Corp. v. Maricopa Cnty.

, 208 Ar iz. 532, 544, ¶ 39, 96 P.3d 530, 542 (App. 2004) (“A claim is liquidated if the plaintiff provides a basis for precisely calculating the amounts owed.”).

¶40 Here, the court awarded prejudgment interest on SFG’s quantum meruit damages from November 1, 2006

, th e date SFG resigned from managing Oasis, to the date of the judgment. T he record establishes that the reasonable value of the management services SFG provided to
Oasis w as ascertainable by accepted standards of valuation and the jury determined the value of those services

. SFG managed the Oasis golf course for six months according to the terms of the Oasis Agreement. A nd the agreement provided that Utility would provide to SFG as payment for its services water credits to 150 million gallons of irrigation per year. A lthough that agreement was unenforceable, it was some evidence of the value SFG was to receive for its management services. Given the agreement

, the value of the management services were ascertainable by reaso nable calculation

12 The additional attachments were marked a s Exhibit 42. The exhibit is not contained in the record on appeal.JOHNSON v. SWING Decision of the Court

15 after SFG resigned, and as the jury determined after reviewing the agreement and relevant exhibits. Accordingly, the court did not err by awarding SFG prejudgment interest on the value of its management services from the date it resigned

. See Alta Vista

, 1 86 Ariz. at 82

- 83, 919 P.2d
at 177

- 78.

F. Attorneys’ Fees

¶41 Utility /Oasis contend s that the court erred by awarding SFG its attorneys’ fees. We review the award, including the amount, for an abuse of discretion. Assyia v. State Farm Mut. A uto. Ins. Co. , 229 Ariz. 216,
22 2 , ¶ 25, 273 P.3d 668, 67 4 (App. 2012). We consider whether “a judicial mind, in view of the law and circumstances, could have made the ruling without exceeding the bounds of reason.” Associated Indem. Corp. v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 567, 571, 694 P.2d 1181, 1185 (1985) (citation omitted). But, the application of A.R.S. § 12

- 341.01(A) is a question of law we review de novo. Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass ’ n , 216 Ariz. 482, 490, 167 P.3d 1277

, 1285 (App. 2007).

¶42 After two trials, Utility did not prevail on its lawsuit, but SFG was awarded damages against Utility/Oasis for quantum meruit and breach of the tariff contract ; the total exceed ing $ 95,000. In ruling on competing request s for attorneys’ fees, the court denied Utility’s request, found that SFG was the prevailing party and, after deducting the fees associated with the non

- contract claims and unsuccessful claims, awarded SFG $ 300,737.25 in attorneys’ fees.

¶43 Utility /Oasis assert s that the court erred by award ing SFG fees for the breach of tar iff contract and quantum meruit because th os e claims were not “actions arising under contract.” See A.R.S. § 12

- 341.01 (A) ( “In any contested action arising out of a contract, express or implied, the court may award the su ccessful party reasonable attorney fees.” )

. We disagree

. As discussed above in ¶ 15
, supra, SFG’s breach of tariff contract counterclaim arose because it was a customer of Utility and Utility unlawfully billed it above the rates set by the ACC for CAP w a ter and

e ffluent

. See Sommer , 21 Ariz. App. a t 387

- 88, 519 P.2d at 876

- 77. Moreover
, a party prevailing on a quantum meruit claim may recover attorneys ’ fees under A.R.S. § 12

- 341.01 (A)

. See Pelletier , 188 Ariz. at 482

- 83, 937 P.2d at 672

- 7 3. Therefore , the court did not abuse its discretion by awarding SFG its attorney s ’ fees associated with the two claim s under A.R.S. § 12

- 341.01(A).JOHNSON v. SWING Decision of the Court

16 ¶44 Utility also challenges the court’s decision that SFG was the “successful party

, ” and therefore eligible for an award of fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12

- 341.01

. Determining the “successful” party for the purposes of attorneys ’ fees is within the trial court ’ s discretion and “will not be disturbed on appeal if any reasonable basis exists for it.” Vortex Corp. v. Denkewicz

, 23 5 Ariz. 551, 562, ¶ 39, 334 P.3d 734, 745 (App. 2014) ( internal citation and quotation marks omitted) ; see also Assyia , 229 Ariz. at 223, 273 P.3d at 675 (“ [T] he trial court has substantial discretion to determine who is a ‘successful party.’” ) ( internal citation omitted)

. Here, SFG was the “successful party” because it prevailed and received a monetary judgment and Utility/Oasis did not

. See Berry , 228 Ariz. at 14, ¶ 24, 261 P.3d at 789 (finding that buyer was the successful party because it received a monetary judgment); see also Ocean W. Contractors, Inc. v. Halec Constr. Co., 123 Ariz. 470, 473, 600 P.2d 1102, 1105 (1979) (monetary award not dispositive but “an important item to consider when deciding who, in fact, did prevail”). Although it did not prevail on all of its counterclaims or claims that were tried, SFG prevailed more than Utility/Oasis and the court did not abuse its discretion by finding that SFG was the successful party.

¶45 Finally, Utility /Oasis argues that the court abused its disc retion by awarding SFG attorney s ’ fees because ( 1) SFG did not provide sufficient detail to determine the reasonableness of the fees sought, and ( 2) the fees were excessive. SFG ’ s fee affidavit, as required, disclosed “the type of legal se rvices provided, the date the service was provided, the attorney providing the service .

. . and the time spent in providing the service.” See Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., 138 Ariz. 183, 188, 673 P.2d 927, 932 (App. 1983)

. T he fee affidavit also provided “sufficient detail to enable the court to assess the reasonableness of the time incurred.” See i d.

¶46 Once a party establishes entitlement to fees and meets the minimum requirements in an application and affidavit, as SFG did here, the burden shifts to the party opposing the fee award to demonstrate the impropriety or unreasonableness of the requested fees. Assyia , 229 Ariz. at 223, ¶ 29, 273 P.3d at 675

. The argument that $400 was an unreasonable hourly rate because SFG’s counsel, Craig Marks, lac ked sufficient litigation experience is not persuasive. See State ex rel. Corbin v. Tocco, 173 Ariz. 587, 594, 845 P.2d 513, 520 (App. 1992) (citing State v. Maricopa C nty. Med. Soc ’ y, 578 F. Supp. 1262, 1264 (D. Ariz. 1984)) (opposing party cannot simply claim that the rates submitted are “too high”). SFG supported its fee request with an affidavit from counsel that documented Mr. Marks’ experience and credentials, including more than 30 years ’ experience in utility law. SFG was entitled to retain competent, experienced counsel to represent it, and a commensurate hourly rate was not unreasonable. See Assyia , 229 Ariz. atJOHNSON v. SWING Decision of the Court

17 223, ¶ 30, 273 P.3d at 675. Therefore, finding no error, we affirm the court’s award of SFG’s attorneys’ fees.

II. S FG ’S CROSS

- APPEAL

¶47 In its cross

- appeal, SFG argues that the trial court erred in granting Utility’s motion for summary judgment and dismissin g SFG’s claim that Utility torti ously breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. SFG seeks to rev erse the court’s ruling, and remand the claim for a jury trial. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶48 SFG, as part of its claims against Utility, asserted a claim for breach of good faith and fair dealing as it related to Utility’s alleged breach of contr act. Specifically, SFG argued that Utility breached its duty of good faith by failing to make payment under the Oasis Agreement and by failing to abide by the ACC

- mandated tariffs in providing water service. Utility

mov ed for summary judgment, which incl uded SFG’s bad faith claim, the

court granted the motion in part and dismissed the claim. 13 SFG filed a motion for reconsider ation, which the court denied.

¶49 We review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact” a nd to determine whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Unique Equip. Co. v. TRW Vehicle Safety Sys., Inc. , 197 Ari z. 50, 52, ¶ 5, 3 P.3d 970, 972 (App. 1999). If “the evidence or inferences would permit a jury to resolve a material issue in favor of either party, summary judgment is improper.” Comerica Bank v. Mahmoodi , 224 Ariz. 289, 292, ¶ 19, 229 P.3d 1031, 1034 (App. 2010) ( internal citation and quotation marks omitted). We view the facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the

13 SFG argues that Utility’s motion for summary judgment only requested that the court dismiss SFG’s bad faith claim as to the Utility S ervices A greement and the Oasis Agreement, but not as to the tariff contract. SFG contends, “the C ourt granted a motion t hat was not made and to which [ SFG ] did not respond.” In its summary judgment motion, Utility claimed it was entitled to summary judgment on Count Six of SFG’s First Amended Counterclaim, which a lleged that Utility breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by breaching the terms of the Utility S ervice A greement, the Oasis Agreement, and tariffs. The record, as a result, supports the court’s ruling that the motion encompassed SFG’s b ad faith claim in its entirety.JOHNSON v. SWING Decision of the Court

18 party against whom judgment was entered. Unique Equip. Co. , 197 Ariz. at 52, ¶ 5, 3 P.3d at 972.

¶50 Tort damages for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing are available only when there exists a “special relationship” between the parties, which is characterized by “ ‘ elements of public interest, adhesion, and fiduciary responsibility. ’ ” Rawlings v. Apodaca , 151 Ariz. 149, 158 , 726 P.2d 565, 574 (1986) (quoting Seaman’s Direct Buying Serv. , Inc. v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal

. , 686 P.2d 1158, 1166 (Cal. 1984)) (emphasis added). Examples of the “special relationship” include the relationship between common carrier and passenger, innkeeper and guest, physician and patient, and attorney and client. Rawlings , 151 Ariz. at 15 9, 726 P.2d at 575

. A nd a s the superior court noted in its ruling, Arizona case law does not perm it tort damages “based on the adhesive nature of the contract alone

– the Supreme Court used ‘and,’ not ‘or,’ in listing the elements.” See id. at 158 , 726 P.2d at
574

.
¶51 Here, SFG alleged the special relationship between the parties

was based solely on th e adhesive nature of the contract, and it did not allege any additional elements of public interest or fiduciary responsibility in its

a mended c ounterclaim. In its cross

- appeal

, SFG now argues that Utility’s relationship with its customers is subject to t he public interest and involved fiduciary elements. SFG did not raise the argument in response to the summary judgment motion, but only in its motion for reconsideration. The superior court did not reconsider its ruling, and we generally do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration. See Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., 215 Ariz. 237, 240, ¶ 15, 159 P.3d 547, 550 (App. 2006). Because we find no reason to consider an argument the court did not address, SFG failed to preserve its argument for appellate review.

III. ATTORNEYS ’ FEES AND COSTS ON APPEAL

¶52 Both parties have requested an award of attorney s ’ fees and costs upon appeal pursu an t to A.R.S. § 12

- 341.01. Because Utility/Oasis has not prevailed, we deny the request. In the exercise of our discretion, we award SFG its reasonable attorney s ’ fees on appeal in an amount to be determined pursuant to A

. R

. S

. § 12

- 341.01, as well as its c osts on appeal upon compliance with A rizona R ule of C ivil A ppellate P rocedure 21.JOHNSON v. SWING Decision of the Court

19 CONCLUSION

¶53 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the court’s judgment

.