I N TH E CO UR T OF A PP EALS S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA D I V I S I O N T WO
J AM E S A. GR E E N, C ro ss -C laim a n t/

C o u n ter d e f

e n d a n t/A p p e llan t,
v. L I SA FR A N K , I N C
. , an A r i zona corpor at i on, C ro ss -D e f e n d a n t/ C ount er cl ai m ant/ A ppel l ee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- C V 2008- 0028

DEPA RTM ENT A O P I N I O N

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERI OR CO UR T OF PI M A C OU NTY

C aus e N o. C
- 20055273 H onor abl e D ebor ah B erni ni , J udge AFF I RM ED I N PART ; VACATED I N PART
Le wi s a n d Roc a LLP B yJ ohn N
. I ur i no, Si van R
. K or n, and K i m ber l yA
. D emar chi
M c Na ma r a , Go l d s mi t h , J a c k s o n & M a c d o n a l d , P
. C. B yG
. T odd J acks on and Law O ff i c e s of M a r k W i e mel t , PC B yR ober tL
. K necht el T ucs on A tto rn e y s f

o r C ro ss -C laim a n t/ C ount er defe ndant/ A ppel l ant

T ucs on

C h ica g o , Ill in o is A tto rn e y s f

o r C ro ss -D e f

e n d a n t/ C ount er cl ai m ant/ A ppel l ee

J A N 20 20 09 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWOL is a F ra n k la te r d is m is s e d h e r c la im s a g a in s t L F I. 1 2 B R A M M E R , J udge. ¶1 A ppel l antJ ames G r een a ppeal s fr om t he t r i al cour t ’ s s anct i ons or ders t r i ki ng hi s r epl yt o t he count er cl ai m fi l ed aga i ns thi m byappel l ee L i s a Fr ank, I nc. ( L FI ) , ent er i ng defa ul ti n f

a v o ro f LFI , a n d d i s mi s s i n g wi t h p r e j u d i c e h i s c r o s s - c l a i m a g a i n s tLFI
. Gr een
a rg u e s th e trial c o u rt c o u ld n o t p ro p e rlyd ism iss h is c ro ss -c laim a n d r e p lyb e c a u se h is

v iolati o n s o f c o u rto rde rs di d n o t p reju d ice L F I. H e a d d it ion all yco n tend s the tr ial co u rt
e rre d b y e n ter in g d e f

a u lt ju d g m e n t o n se v e ra l o f L F I’s c laim s. W e a f f irm in p a rt a n d v a c a te in p a rt. Fac t ualand Pr oc e dur al Backg r ound ¶2 T hi s appea l ar i s es fr om pr ot r act ed l i t i gat i on conce r ni ng t he contr ol and

m an ag em en t of

L F I byG ree n an d L isa F ran k G ree n (L isa F ra n k ), w h o serv ed as d ir ec tors of LF I
. L i s a Fr ank i ni t i at ed the ac t i on i n Sept ember2005 byfi l i ng a l aw s ui tagai ns tG r een and LF I
. A s l at er am ended, L i s a Fr ank’ s compl ai nts ought , i nt eral i a, t o r emove G r een a s di r ect or , pr es i dent , and chi ef oper at i ng offi cer of L FI ; t o enfor ce a st ock buy
- s el l agr eement
am o n g h erse lf, G ree n , an d L F I; an d to as sert a claim ag ains t G ree n fo r b rea ch o f f idu ciary dut i es . G r een f

i l ed a c ount er cl ai m agai ns tL i s a Fr ank and a cr os s - cl ai m agai ns tL FI , s eeki ng 1 a dec l ar at i on t hatt he buy
- s el l agr eementw as unenfor cea ble, as s er t i ng L i s a Fr ank had vi ol at ed herfi duci arydut i es t o hi m and t o L FI , and m aki ng addi t i onal cl ai m s r el at ed t o an3

ai rpl ane pur chas ed byL FI
. L FI count er cl ai m ed aga i ns tG r een, s eeki ng an ac count i ng and al l egi ng he had “ expende d and di ver t ed corpor at e funds f orper s onal expendi tur es , r emoved
corpor at e p rop ertyfr om L FI ’ s offi ces and fa ci l i t i es , ” and us ed corpor at e pr oper t yfor p e r s o n a l r e a s o n s . L F I a l s o s o u g h td a m a g e s f r o m G r e e n f

o rb r e a c h o f

f i d u c i a r y d u t y,
c on ve r s i on , c omput e rfr a ud un de r18 U
. S. C. § 1 03 0, a nd c op y ri gh tvi ol a t i on s . LFI
a d d iti o n a llyre q u e ste d th a t G re e n b e re m o v e d a s a d ire c to r o f L F I a n d th a t th e b u y -se ll agr eementbe enf

or ced. ¶3 I n O ct ober2005, t he tr i al cour tent er ed a s t i pul at ed ord er, t he pr ovi s i ons of

w h ich i ncl uded t empora r i l yenj oi ni ng G r een f r om “r emovi ng anyi nt el l ectual pr oper t yor
o th e r a ss e ts f

ro m ” L F I. In A p ril 2 0 0 6 , L F I f iled a m o tio n a sk in g th e c o u rt to f in d G re e n in cont e mpto f

t h a to r d e ra n d i mpo s e s a n c t i o n s . LFI a s s e r t e d t h a t , o n a tl e a s tt wo o c c a s i ons i m m e d i a t e l y f

o l l o wi n g th e e n t r y o f t h e Oct o b e r 2 0 0 5 o r d e r , Gr e e n h a d u s e d a mov i ng van t o r e mo v e p r o p e r t y f

r o m LF I ’ s p r e mi s e s , i n c l u d i n g c o mp u t e r s c o n t a i n i n g p r o p r i e t a r yLFI dat a and ar t w or k, and “i t ems fr om a l ocked s t or age a r ea f oror i gi nal companyar t w or k and
a dv e r t i s i n g . ” LF I a l s o a s s e r t e d t h a t , p r i o r t o t h e Oc t o b e r o r d e r , Gr e e n h a d d i r e c t e d LFI
e m p lo y e e s to c re a te c o p ie s o f L F I c o m p u te r a rt f

ile s o n c o m p a c t d is c s . ¶4 A ft er a h ea ri ng on L FI ’ s m ot i on i n M ay2006, t he courton M ay23 or der ed G r een t o r etur n w i t hi n t hr ee da y s s peci fi ed pr oper t y , i ncl udi ng s ever al comput er s and s t or age
m edia; orde r ed hi m nott o “al t er , del et e, r emove, ort r ans feranyi nform at i on” fr om t he comput er s orot hers t or age medi a; and or der ed thatt he part i es ’ i nform at i on t echnol ogy4

expert s w oul d t hen “s egr egat e and pe r m anent l yr emove” anyof G r een’ s per s onal fi l es fr om th e re tu rn e d c o m p u ter s. T h e c o u rt w a rn e d G re e n th a t f a ilu re to c o m p ly w ith th e o rd e r c o u ld

r es ul ti n “s ever e cons equenc es , up t o and i ncl udi ng i ncar cer at i on. ” ¶5 A l t hough G r een r etur ned s ever al comput er s i n compl i ance w i t h t he or der , he di d notr etur n on e co m put ercont ai ni ng L FI dat a unt i l fi ve day s aft ert he dea dl i ne. I n a p rev iou s m o ti o n to m o d ifythe o rde r, G ree n h ad inf o rm ed the c o u rth e w as u n ab le t o return th a t co m p u ter o n tim e b e c a u s e h e w a s u n a b le to “ in su re th a t h e c [ o u ld ] a c c e ss [ p e rso n a l] p h o tograph s [st ored on that com pu t er] on a new com pu t er. ” In June 200 6, attac h e d to anotherm ot i on t o m odi fyt he M ay23 or der , G r een fi l ed a s i gned butundat ed dec l ar at i on l i s t i ng i t ems he ha d r etur ned t o t he court . I n i t G r een s t at ed thathe w as not“i n pos s es s i on
orcontr ol of anys t or age medi a, i ncl udi ng, butw i t houtl i m i t at i on . . . [compactdi s cs ]
. ” ¶6 L FI fi l ed anotherm ot i on fors anct i ons i n A ugus t2006, asse rt ing G r een ha d cont i n u e d t o v i o l a t e t h e M a y o r d e r b y f a i l i n g t o r e tu r n a l a p t o p c o mpu t e r a n d g i v i ng a

“ p re tex t” r e a so n f

o r th e late re tu rn . L F I re n e w e d its m o tio n in Ju ly2 0 0 7 , alle g in g f o re n sic anal y s i s of the re tur ned com put er s had r evea l ed that , aft ert he courthad ent er ed i t s M ay2006
o rde r, G ree n h ad co p ied L F I fil es f rom tho se c o m p u ters i n v iolati o n o f th e o rde r. ¶7 A fter a th ree -da yh ea ri n g o n L F I’s m o ti o n fo r san cti o n s in N o v em b er, th e c o u rt i n D ece m ber 2007 i s s ued a rul i ng cont ai ni ng i t s fi ndi ngs of fa ctand conc l us i ons of l aw . T he
courtfound th e e v iden ce p rese n ted e stab li sh ed that G ree n h ad rem o v ed co m put er s cont ai ni ng pr opr i et aryL FI d at a i n vi ol at i on of the O ct ober2005 or der
. I tfur t herfound that , t he day5

aft ert he courthad ent er ed i t s M ay2006 or derr equi r i ng G r een t o r eturn t hos e i t ems and pr ohi bi t i ng hi m fr om copy i ng anydat a, t en compactdi s cs of m at er i al had bee n copi ed fr om one of the LF I comput er s i n G r een’ s pos s es s i on— t he s ame com put erG r een ha d notr etur ned unt i l fi ve day s aft er t he deadl i ne t o do s o. I n addi t i on, t he cour tfound tw enty - t w o fi l es on t hatcomput erhad been “tr ans ferr ed t o an at t ache d pr i nt er , ” overfor t yL FI gr aphi cs fi l es had been tr ans ferr ed fr om t hatcomp u ter to one ow ned byG r een, and ni ne addi t i onal L FI fi l es had bee n “ac ces s ed i n a m anner cons i s t entw i t h an emai l at t achment
. ” The cour tal s o not ed t hat G reen had no treturned the t en co m pact di scs. ¶8 T he courtfound that“G r een, and notcouns el , [w a] s p erso nal l ycul pabl e for

w i l ful and r epea t ed vi o lat ion s o f t he C our t ’ s O r der s . . . i ncl udi ng, butnotl i m i t ed t o t he
rem oval and r et ent i on of har dw ar e, so ftw are , co m p u ter pro g ram s, intell ec tual an d p rop ri etary L F I p ro p e rt y , a rt w o rk a n d g r a p h ic s in d e lib e ra te v io la tio n o f th e C o u rt ’s O rd e rs .” C om m ent i ng t hati thad “c ons i der ed an a r r ay o f san ct i ons , i ncl udi ng t he i m pos i t i on of
a tto rn e y f

e e s a n d e v e n in c a rc e ra tio n ,” th e c o u rt c o n c lu d e d su c h sa n c tio n s “ h a v e f a iled to i m pr es s M r . G r een i n t he past and do not addr es s t he damage t o t he i nt el l ectual pr oper t yof [LF I ] t hathas occurr ed and c ont i nues t o occur as a re s ul tof G r een’ s cont empt fort he j udi ci al pr oces s , cour tor der s and thi s C our t . ” ¶9 T he tr i al co u rt e n ter e d a sa n c tio n s o rd e r d ism iss in g G re e n ’s c ross -cl ai m against L FI , s t r i ki ng hi s r epl yt o L FI ’ s count er cl ai m agai ns thi m , and gr ant i ng L FI j udgm ent“exc eptT he court ’ s rul i ng s t at ed thati thad s t ruck G r een’ s r epl y t o L FI ’ s “M ar ch 24, 2006” 2 count er cl ai m . B utt hatrep ly h ad been s uper s eded byG r een’ s r epl yt o L FI ’ s amended co u n terclai m . T h u s, str iking the f ir st r ep lyw o u ld h av e h ad n o ef fe ct. B ec au se th e c o u rt ’s cl eari nt entw as t o di s pos e of the cl ai m s betw een LFI a nd G r een, w e i nt erpr ett hi s rul i ng as strik in g G re e n ’s m o re re c e n tlyf iled re p ly a n d e n ter in g ju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f L F I o n its a me n d e d c o u n t e r c l a i m. 6 for the finding of

fraud in paragraph 3 9 o f t he F i ft h C l a im f o r R e li ef. ” T he co urtal so

2

o rde red that a w ri t of

rep levin issue to d eli v er “ a ll com pu t ers and digi t al st orage m edia in G r een’ s pos s es s i on orcontr ol t o t he custod y o f the C our tforfor ens i c r evi ew and r emoval of L F I dat a, artw ork, or docu m ents . ” A dd i t i on al l y , t he co urtt erm i nated G reen’ s st atus as a dir ect or of L F I and aw arded L F I i t s reas on able cost s, at t orneyfees, “and al l exp ertw i t ness
co sts, ex p en ses a n d fe es in cu rred in c o n n e c tio n w ith this an d p ri o r ef fo rt s to se cu re
e n f o rc e m e n t o f

th e C o u rt’s O rd e rs,” a s w e ll as a tto rn e y f e e s a n d c o sts “ a s th e p re v a ili n g p a rty on i t s C ount er cl ai m . ” The cour tt hen s i gned and e nt er ed a j udgm enti n fav o r of LFI. T he j udgm enti ncorpor at ed the s anct i ons or derand decl ar ed the buy
- s el l agr eementval i d and enfor cea bl e buts t at ed that“LF I ’ s m onet aryr ecove r ypur s uantt o i t s acc ount i ng and damage cl ai m s s hal l be det erm i ned bys ubs equentpr ocee di ngs . ” Thi s appea l fol l ow ed. Juri s di ct i on ¶10 W e f

ir s t a d d re s s th e f

u n d a m e n ta l is s u e o f

o u r j u r i s d ic tio n , a s w e m u s t. See O s una v. W

al

- Mar tSt or es , I

nc . , 2 1 4 A ri z. 2 8 6 , n . 2 , 1 5 1 P
. 3 d 1 2 6 7 , 1 2 7 0 n . 2 (A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). G re e n a rg u e s w e h a v e ju r isd ictio n to a d d re ss h is a p p e a l, w h ile L F I a rg u e s w e d o n o t. R el y i ng on A
. R
. S. § 12- 864, L FI r eas ons w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on beca us e the tr i al cour t ’ s or der7

san ct i on i ng G reen i s an order of contem pt, based on L F I’ s request t hat G reen be hel d in cont empt for di s obey i ng t he cour t ’ s or der s . L FI r el i es on Stat e v. Mul l igan , 126 A r i z. 210, 216, 613 P. 2d 1266, 1272 ( 1980) , i n w hi ch t he defe ndant , bes i des appea l i ng h is cri m i nal
co n v ict ion , also so u g h t to ap p ea l sev era l cri m inal co n tem p t ci tat ion s. O u r sup rem e c o u rt
s t at ed: “W e f

ind n o author i zat i on of s uch an a ppeal fr om t he cont empt char ges , ei t herby
s t atut e orrul es of thi s cour t . Fi ndi ngs of cont empt ar e non- appea l abl e or der s . ” I d. T h e c o u rt
co n clud ed i t s fi ndi ng of nonappe al abi l i t yw i t h t he obs ervat i on t hatM ul l i gan’ s “r evi ew
re m e d y ” o f

th e c o n te m p t c ita tio n s w a s b ys p e c ia l a c tio n . I d. at217, 613 P. 2d at1273. ¶11 I n i t s m ot i on for s anct i ons , L FI as ked t he t r i al cour t t o s anct i on G r een pur s uant t o R ul es 37 and 65(

j ) ( 1) , A r i z. R
. C i v. P. , butal so arg u ed the cour t“ha[ d] t he i nher ent
a u th o rityto sa n c tio n th o se w h o a b u s e th e ju d ic ia l p ro c e ss o r m ish a n d le evi dence ”— pr es um abl y a r eques tt hatt he courtfi nd G r een i n ci vi l cont empt under§ 12- 864. T he court ’ s m i nut e entr ygr ant i ng L FI ’ s m ot i on ci t ed m uch of t he same author i t y as L FI and
o rde red san cti o n s “[ a]s a resu lt o f G ree n ’s w il fu l v iolati o n o f th e C o u rt ’s p rev iou s o rde rs p e rta in in g to th e tu rn o v e r o f L F I p ro p e rtya n d e v id e n c e .” A lth o u g h th e c o u rt d id n o t cite § 1 2 -8 6 4 a s a u th o rityf o r th e sa n c tio n s it im p o se d a n d d id n o t ex p re ss ly f in d G re e n in
c o n tem p t, as w e e x p lain b e lo w in ¶ 29 i nfr a , i tnonethel es s appea r s t he courts anct i oned G reen pu rs uan tt o § 12 -864. B ut, w hethert he co urt ’s order i s corr ect l ycharact eri zed as a di s coverys anct i on, a fi ndi ng of ci vi l cont empt under § 12- 864, ors om e hybr i d of the tw o, is ult im atelyirrelev an t t o o u r ju ri s d ict ion
. T h e q u esti o n w e a d d ress is w h ethe r th e c o u rt ’sO u r su p re m e c o u rt h a s re p e a ted lyru led th a t co n tem p t o rd e rs a re n o t ap p e a lab le. B u t, 3 unl i ke the or derher e, none of the or der s addr esse d i n t hos e ca s es w hol l ydi s pos ed of a count er cl ai m and def

ens es i n a ci vi l acti on, and none of t he ca s es s ugges t s s uch an or der w o u ld n o t b e a p p e a la b le
. See Stat e v. Mul l igan , 126 A r i z. 210, 216- 17, 613 P. 2d 1266, 1272- 7 3 (19 8 0 ) (dism issi n g ap p ea l from crim inal co n tem p t ord ers se n tenc ing d ef en d an t t o jai l) ; 8 s a nc t i on s or de r i s a pp e a l a bl e un de r t he s t a tut e go ve r ni ng ou ra pp e l l a t e j ur i s di c t i on , A
. R. S. § 12- 2101. ¶12 I n c o n c l u d i n g we h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a d d r e s s t h i s a p p e a l , we b e g i n wi t h t wo pr i nci pl es : one found i n § 12- 2101 and the ot her cont ai ned w i t hi n t he r at i onal e of the ca s es h o ld in g th a t c o n tem p t o rd e rs a re n o t a p p e a lab le. T h e f irst pr in c ip le g u id e s o u r a p p e lla te j ur i s di ct i on— w e must ent er t ai n appea l s fr om s uper i or cour t or der s t hatfi nal l ydet erm i ne the

m e rits o f a c a u se o r a re o th e rw ise m a d e a p p e a lab le b ysta tu te. T h e se c o n d p rin c ip le lim its
ou r j uri sdi ct i on
— w e m ayno trevi ew l ow er co urt s’ con t em pt or ders. W e do no tfi nd t hese pri ncipl es i n co nfli cthere. R at her, w e con cl ud e w e i nd eed h ave jur i sdi ct i on ov er, and m ust add res s on the m eri t s, t he sup eri or courtorder fr om w hich G reen app eal s. ¶13 W e fi r s t acknow l edge t hat w e m ay not i gnor e and c annotal t eroroverrul e our
s u p re m e c o u rt . See C i t

y of P hoeni

x v. Ler oy’s Li quors , I

nc. , 177 A r i z. 375, 378, 868 P. 2d 958, 961 ( A pp. 1993) ( “[W ] e ar e bound by deci s i ons of t he A r i zona Supr eme Court and have

n o au tho ri tyto o v erru le, m o d ify , o r disreg ard them
. ”). A rev ie w o f o u r sup rem e c o u rt ’s deci s i ons i n t hi s ar ea, how ever , r evea l s cl ear l yt hatnone of t hem has hel d unappea l abl e an
or derr ender ed appe al abl e by§ 12- 2101, even w hen the or derr es t s i n w hol e ori n par t on a f in d in g o f c o n tem p t. A lth o u g h o n e c o u ld p o sit th e trial co u rt’s o rd e r sa n c tio n in g G re e n is

3E

x par t e W

r ight , 3 6 A riz . 8 , 1 6 , 2 8 1 P . 9 4 4 , 9 4 7 (1 9 2 9 ) (h o ld in g n o n a p p e a lab le c iv il c o n tem p t o rd e r res u lti n g in f in e s o r im p r is o n m e n t); V an D yke v. Su peri or C ou rt , 24 A r i z. 508, 543, 211 P. 576, 588 ( 1922) ( not i ng “comm on- l aw rul e t hateverycour tof r ecor d i s t he e x c l u s i v e j u d g e o f c o n t e m p t s c o m m i t t e d a g a i n s t i t s a u t h o r i t y a n d d i g n i t y, a n d , a s a c o r o l l a r y, t hatno appea l l i es fr om a j udgm enti n s uch pr ocee di ngs , i n t he abs ence of cons t i tut i onal or sta tu to rya u th o rityc o n f e rrin g th e rig h t”) ; Ex p a r t e Br o wn , 3 A r i z. 411, 412, 77 P. 489, 489 (T err. 1 8 9 2 ) (st ati n g co n tem p t o rde r n o t ap p ea lable an d rem an d ing p ri so n ers into s h eriff ’s cus t ody )
. W e al s o not e that , al t hough t hi s rul e has oftbeen r epea t ed byt hi s cour t , none of tho se d ec ision s en co m p asse s a f inal jud g m en t i n a c ivil ac ti o n b ase d o n a c o n tem p t ord er. See, e. g. , Stat e ex rel

. D ep’ t of E con. Sec. v. B ur t on , 205 A r i z. 27, ¶¶ 17- 18, 66 P. 3d 70, 73 (A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) (no ap p ea l from co n tem p t ord er f o r fa il u re to m ak e c h il d su p p o rtp ay m en ts) ; D ani el s on v. E vans , 2 0 1 A riz . 4 0 1 , ¶¶ 3 4 -3 5 , 3 7 , 3 6 P .3 d 7 4 9 , 7 5 9 (A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) (n o a p p e llate ju risd ictio n o v e r c o n tem p t o rd e r re late d to f a ilu re to m a k e p ro p e rtyse ttl e m e n t p a ym e n ts in d iss o lu tio n a c tio n ); E l i a v. P i f er , 194 A r i z. 74, ¶¶ 26, 30, 977 P. 2d 796, 802 ( A pp. 1998) ( no a p p e a l f ro m c o n tem p t f

in d in g f o r f a ilu re to m a k e su p p o rt p a ym e n ts); P ace v . P ace , 128 A r i z. 4 5 5 , 4 5 6 -5 7 , 6 2 6 P .2 d 6 1 9 , 6 2 0 -2 1 (A p p . 1 9 8 1 ) (s a m e ); I n r e M ar i copa C ount

y Juv
. A ct i on N o. JT- 295003 , 126 A r i z. 409, 410- 11, 616 P. 2d 84, 85- 86 ( A pp. 1 9 8 0 ) ( no appea l fr om cont empt or derof i m pr i s on m en t and fi nes foract i ons “obs t ruct i ng t he admi ni s t r at i on of ju stic e a n d les se n in g th e d ig n ity a n d a u th o rity o f th e C o u rt” in ju v e n ile a d ju d ica tio n ); R i l ey v. Su peri or C ou rt , 124 A r i z. 498, 498- 99, 605 P. 2d 900, 900- 01 ( A pp. 1979) ( cont empt or der o f im p ri so n m en t and fin e a g ains t pro sec u tor i n p rob ati o n v iolati o n h ea ri n g n o t app ea lable); H ag ga rd v. Su

peri or C ou rt , 26 A r i z. A pp. 162, 162- 63, 547 P. 2d 14, 14- 15 ( 1976) ( no appea l fr om cont empt or derfi n ing att o rneyforfai l ur e t o appea ron behal f of c l i enti n cr i m i nal p ro se c u tio n ); U

ni t ed Farm W

orker s N at ’ l U ni on v. Heggblade-M

ar gul eas - Tenneco, I

nc. , 21 A r i z. A pp. 514, 514- 15, 520 P. 2d 1191, 1191- 92 ( 1974) ( cont empt o rde rforvi ol at i ng ju d g m e n t n o t ap p e a lab le) ; V an B aa l en v. Superi or C ou rt , 19 A r i z. A pp. 512 , 512- 13, 508 P. 2d 771, 771- 72 ( 1973) ( ci vi l cont empt or der fi ni ng at t or ney for fai l i ng t o appea ri n cr i m i nal a c tio n n o t ap p e a lab le) ; I n r e Anonym ous , 4 A r i z. A pp. 170, 171, 418 P. 2d 416, 417 ( 1966) (sa m e ); Her

z og v. R ei nhar dt , 2 A ri z. A p p. 103, 104- 05, 406 P. 2d 738, 739- 40 ( 1965) ( no ap p ea l from co n tem p t ord er e n fo rcing ch il d cu stod yo rde r). 9 u n a p p e a l a b l e b e c a u s e i ti s a s s o c i a t e d wi t h , o rb a s e d o n , a n o r d e rs a n c t i o n i n g c o n t e mp t , we di s agr ee. ¶14 “ In A riz o n a , o u r statu tes a n d ru les o f a p p e llate p ro c e d u re p e rm it ap p e a ls o n ly fr om fi nal j udgm ent s oror der s . ” S. C al

. E dis on C o. v. P eabody W

. C oalC o. , 194 A r i z. 47,T he phr as e “on the mer i t s ” does notm ean the ca us e of a ct i on had t o be det erm i ned 4 aft ert r i al
. A deci s i on i s “‘ on t he mer i t s ’ i f i tfi nal l yr es ol ves a n act i on i n a mannert hat pr ecl udes l at err el i t i gat i o n of the cl ai m s i nvol ved. Such a j udgm entm ayr es ul tfr om an actual t r i al on t he s ubs t ant i ve i s s ues buti tneed notdo s o. ” 4501 N or thpoi ntLP v. Mar i copa C o u n ty , 212 A r i z. 98, ¶ 16, 128 P. 3d 215, 218 ( 2006) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. A deci s i on o n th e m e rits i n c lu d e s a ju d g m e n t re su lti n g f ro m a stip u latio n , a g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t, o r a d is m is s a l w ith p re

ju d ic e . I d. ¶ 17. 10 ¶ 16, 977 P. 2d 769, 774 ( 1999)
. “I n t he ci vi l cont ext , t he r i ghtt o appea l i s notabs ol ut e but exi s t s onl ybys t atut e. ” Id

. W h ethe r a n o rde r is fin al an d ap p ea lable d ep en d s n o t on it s fo rm b u t on “‘it s su b stan ce o r ef fe ct. ’” P r ops . I

nv. E nt ers . , Ltd. v. Found. f orA i r bor ne R el i ef

, I nc. , 1 1 5 A ri z . 5 2 , 5 4 , 5 6 3 P .2 d 3 0 7 , 3 0 9 (A p p . 1 9 7 7 ), quot i ng C onnol l y v. G r eat B as i n I

ns . C o. , 5 A r i z. A pp. 117, 120, 423 P. 2d 732, 735 ( 1967)
. A n appea lable fin al j udgm entunder § 12- 2101( B ) “‘ deci des and di s pos es of the ca us e on i t s m er i t s , l eavi ng no ques t i on open for jud ici al de term ination
. ’” I d. , quot i ng D eckerv. C i t y of Tucs on, 4 A r i z. A pp. 270, 272, 419 4 P .2 d 4 0 0 , 4 0 2 (1 9 6 6 ). ¶15 The j ud gmen tfr om w hi c h Gr e e n a pp e a l s di s mi s s e d h i s c r o s s - c l a i m a g a i ns tLFI

w i t h p rej ud ice a nd struck his repl yt o L F I’ s coun t ercl ai m , “grant [i ng ] j ud gm ent i n [L F I’ s] favor
. . . exce ptfort he fi ndi ng of fr aud. ” It d ec lared the buy
- s el l agr eementval i d and enfor cea bl e, or der ed thatagr eementt o be per form ed, enj oi ned G r een f r om us i ng or di s t r i but i ng L FI ’ s dat a and a r t w or k, t erm i nat ed G r een’ s s t atus as a d ir ec tor of LF I , and
o rde red G ree n to su rren d er L F I co m p u ters an d o ther m aterial s— all as re q u ested in L F I’s
c ou nter cl ai m . B ut, becau se t he j ud gm ent l eaves open t he quest i on of dam ages, i t i s n o t a fi nal j udgm entas cont empl at ed by§ 12- 2101( B )
. T he j udgm ent , how ever , cont ai ns t he tr i al11

cour t ’ s fi ndi ngs pur s uantt o R ul e 54( b) , A r i z. R
. C i v. P. , t hat t her e ar e “no r emai ni ng i s s ues on t he cl ai m s betw een G r een a nd L FI as i de fr om t he monet aryamount of LF I ’ s r ecove r yand t h a tt h e r e i s n o j u s tr e a s o n f o r d e l a y o n t h i s j u d g m e n t , ” a n d i t“ d i r e c t s t h e i m m e d i a t e e n t r y”
o f t h e j u d g me n t . T h u s , t h e j u d g me n t i s a p p e a l a b l e p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2
- 2 1 0 1 ( G) , wh i c h a l l o ws
a p p e a l “[ f

]ro m a n in ter lo c u to ryju d g m e n t w h ich d e ter m in e s th e rig h ts o f th e p a r tie s a n d it di r ect s an ac count i ng orot her p roce edi ng t o det erm i ne the amountof the r ecove r y . ” See B ilke v . S ta te , 2 0 6 A ri z. 4 6 2 , ¶ 2 8 , 8 0 P
. 3 d 2 6 9 , 2 7 5 (20 0 3 ); Sal er no v. A t l

. Mut
. I ns . C o. , 198 A ri z. 54 , ¶ 1 2 , 6 P
. 3 d 7 5 8 , 7 6 1 -62 (A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). ¶16 In n o n e o f th e c a se s re c iti n g th e ru le th a t co n tem p t o rd e rs a re u n a p p e a lab le

w er e the or der s ati s s ue fi nal j udgm ent s
— unl i ke the tr i al cour t ’ s or derher e, t heydi d not deci de the mer i t s of the under l y i ng act ion , n ordi d t heyfal l w i t hi n t he def i ni t i on of an
a p p e a la b le in te rl o c u to ry o rd e r. See n

. 1 sup ra ; s ee al s o § 1 2 -21 0 1 (C ) th rou g h (L ); V an D yke

v . S up eri or C ou rt , 2 4 Ar i z . 5 0 8 , 5 4 4 , 2 1 1 P. 5 7 6 , 5 8 8 ( 1 9 2 2 ) ( c o n t e mpti s n o t“s peci al p r o c e e d i n g [ ] ” a l l o w i n g a p p e a l u n d e rs t a tu t e g o v e r n i n g a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n )
. A c c o r d i n g l y,
w e d o n o t f

in d th o se c a se s d isp o sitiv e o f o u r ju risd ictio n h e re . T h e q u e stio n w h e th e r a p a rty
m ayappea l a co n tem p tor dert hati s , i n s ubs t ance and ef fec t , an appe al abl e or derunder § 12- 2101 has notbeen pr evi ous l yad d resse d in A r i zona. W e nee d noti gnor e oral t erany pr i orA r i zona c as e l aw t o fi nd t hatw e have j ur i s di ct i on. ¶17 M or eover , t he r eas on behi nd t he rul e di s al l ow i ng appea l s fr om pur e cont empt
o rd e rs is s im p ly in a p p lic a b le h e re . A s D iv is io n O n e o f th is c o u rt h a s e x p la in e d ,12 T h e rati o nal e [f

ort he rul e] i s t hatpar t i es have a l r eadybeen g iv e n th e c h a n c e to a p p e a l f ro m th e o rd e r th a t f

o rm s th e b a sis forcont empt . E nfor cement of s uch or der s cannotbe hel d up by cont empt appea l s ; w her e r evi ew of a c ont empt or deri s neede d, i tm us tbe byt he s peedi err out e of s peci al act i on pet i t i on. E l i a v. P i f er , 194 A r i z. 74, ¶ 30, 977 P. 2d 976, 802 ( A pp. 1998)
. H er e, of cour s e, t her e i s no pr evi ous , appea l abl e orde rorj udgm ent“form [i ng] t he bas i s forcont empt . ” I d. Ind ee d , there i s no ot heror dert o enfor ce and not hi ng t o be del ay ed by an appeal ; t he act i on betw een G r een
an d L F I is overexce ptfort he det erm i nat i on of damages
. A n appea l i s t he onl yavenue
a va i l a bl e t ha t a s s ur e s r e vi e w of t he j ud gmen t t ha t fi na l l y de t e r mi ne d Gr e e n’ s l i a bi l i t yt o LFI
a n d d is p o s e d o f

h is c la im s a g a in s t it. ¶18 A l t hough a fi ndi ng of cr i m i nal cont empt i s s peci fi cal l y appea l abl e bys t atut e,
s ee A
. R
. S. § 12- 863( D ) , t her e i s no s uch pr ov isi o n i n § 12- 864, t he ci vi l cont empt s t atut e. A nd ours upr eme cour thas pr evi ous l yfound ci vi l cont empt or der s unappea l abl e, not i ng t hat § 12- 864 pr ovi des t hatt heybe gover ned by “the pra ct i ce a nd us age of t he comm on l aw . ” See E x par t e W

r ight , 36 A r i z. 8, 16, 281 P. 944, 947 ( 1929)
. A ccor di ngl y , one coul d concl ude

n o t o n lyth a t th e leg isla tu re h a s f a iled to p ro v id e e x p r e s s ly f o r a n a p p e a l f

ro m a c iv il
c o n tem p t o rd e r, b u t als o th a t th e c o m m o n law ru le th a t co n tem p t o rd e rs a re u n a p p e a lab le
con t rol s. ¶19 W e d i s a g r e e wi t h t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n f o rt h r e e r e a s o n s . F i r s t , a n a p p e a l f r o m a
c ri m in a l c o n te m p t c o n v ic tio n is m a rk e d ly d if f e re n t f ro m a t yp i c a l c ri m in a l a p p e a l. A
c rim in a l co n tem p t p ro c e e d in g m a y b e in iti a ted , in ter a lia, “ u p o n a f f id a v it o f so m e c re d ib le13

p e rso n .” A .R .S . § 1 2 -8 6 2 (A ). O u r c rim in a l ap p e a ls s tatu te, A .R .S . § 1 3 -4 0 3 1 , p e rm its
a p p e a l o n lyf

ro m a “ p ro se c u tio n b yin d ictm e n t, i n f o rm a tio n o r c o m p lain t,” w h ich w o u ld appea rt o excl ude cont empt pr ocee di ngs i ni t i at ed byaffidav it
. A nd § 12- 863( D ) pr ovi des th a t, du rin g a n a p p e a l f

ro m a c o n v ictio n f

o r c rim in a l c o n tem p t, th e e x e c u tio n o f se n ten c e is
s ta y e d . T h e s ta tu te s g o v e rn in g m o s t c r i m in a l a p p e a ls h a v e n o e q u iv a le n t p ro v is io n . See A .R .S . § § 1 3 -4 0 3 1 th ro u g h 1 3 -4 0 4 2 . T h u s, it ap p e a rs th e leg isla tu re in c lu d e d sp e c if ic appea l r i ght s under§ 12- 863( D ) beca us e thos e r i ght s ar e notconfe r r ed el s ew her e i n our st atutes . T he incl usi on of ap pell at e ri gh t s for cr i m i nal cont em pt does no tnecessari l ysugg est the f ail u re to p rov ide a p p ell ate righ ts f o r c iv il co n tem p t i n § 1 2 -86 4 m ea n s the legislatu re i nt ended t o pr ecl ude appe al fr om a ci vi l cont em p t o r der ; i ti s r eas onabl e t o concl ude the l e g i s l a tu r e i n t e n d e d § 1 2
- 2 1 0 1 t o g o v e r n a p p e a l s f r o m s u c h o r d e r s . M o r e o v e r , o u rs u p r e me
cour ts ugges t ed i n Mul l igan , 126 A r i z. at216- 17, 613 P. 2d at1272- 73, t hatappea l s fr om
co n tem p t ord ers w ere u n av ail ab le no t bec a u s e theyw ere p rec lud ed b ythe leg isl ature ’s

r efe r ence i n § 12- 864 t o t he comm on l aw , butr atherbeca us e theyw er e not p rov ided for
e ls e w h e re in o u r s ta tu te s o r r u le s . See al s o V an D yke , 24 A r i z. at543, 211 P. at588 ( no
a p p e a l f ro m c iv il co n tem p t “ i n the absenc e of cons t i t ut i onalors tat ut or y author i t

y conf er r i ng the r ight ”) ( emphasi s added)
. U nl i ke the cont empt or der s ati s s ue i n Mul l igan and V an D yke , how ever , t her e i s s t atut or yauthor i t yforan appe al fr om t he or derati s s ue her e. ¶20 Second, t he r eas on ci vi l cont empt or der s ar e typi cal l yunappealab le i s bas ed
o n th e c o m m o n la w , n o t o n th e f a ilu re o f § 1 2 -8 6 4 to p ro v id e a ri g h t to a p p e a l. See W r ight ,14

36 A r i z. at13, 281 P. at946. “ [ A ] s t a tu t o r y p r o v i s i o n a u t h o r i z e d b y t h e C o n s t i tu t i o n a l w a ys
s uper s edes t he comm on l aw . ” Stat e ex r el

. C onw ay v. G l enn , 60 A r i z. 22, 30, 131 P. 2d 363, 367 ( 1942)
. T hus , t o t he ext ent §§ 12- 864 and 12-2101 m ay be i n confl i cton t hi s ques t i on,
w e concl u d e the l egi s l atur e’ s s peci fi c del i neat i on of ourappel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under § 1 2-210 1 co ntr ols
. ¶21 T h ird , w e f in d n o c o n f

lict b e tw e e n § § 1 2 -8 6 4 a n d 1 2 -2 1 0 1 . W h e n e v e r it is

r eas onabl ypr act i cal t o do s o, w e musti nt erpr ets t atut es s o t heyar e ha rm o n iou s and
c o n s is te n t w ith e a c h o th e r. See Yarbor ough v. Mont oya- P aez , 214 A r i z. 1, ¶ 22, 147 P. 3d 755, 761 ( A pp. 2006)
. A nd “[s ] t atut es sh o u ld be cons t rued cons i s t entw i t h t he comm on l aw . ” U ni t ed Bank v. Mes a N

. O

. N el s on C o. , 1 2 1 A ri z. 438, 442, 590 P. 2d 1384, 1388 (19 7 9 ). T h e m o st ha rm o n iou s w ayto rea d thes e statutes is t o co n clud e th at co n tem p t ord ers
ar e unappeal abl e unl es s t he subs t ance or eff ectof the or deri n ques t i on— bey ond i ncl udi ng
a “fi ndi ng[] of cont empt , ” Mul l igan , 126 A r i z. at 216, 613 P. 2d at1272— qual i fi es t he or der
as one of thos e made appea l abl e pur s uantt o § 12- 2101. ¶22 T he S eventh C i r cui t C our t of A ppeal s i n Sz abo v. U
. S. Mar i ne C or

p. , 819 F. 2d 714 ( 7t h C i r . 19 8 7 ), h as reache d a conc l us i on s i m i l art o t he one w e r eac h her e. A cknow l edgi ng “[t ] he gene r al rul e . . . t hatan or derof ci vi l cont empt i s not appea l abl e, ” the
cour tr eas oned that“[a ] bl anketrul e aga i ns tappea l i ng or der s of ci vi l cont empt w oul d m ake
no s ens e” beca us e a cont empt or der“may
. . . be fi nal
. ” I d. at 716. N ot i ng t he exi s t ence of
s om e cr i t i ci s m of the gene r al rul e, t he courtconcl uded:Sect i on 1291, 28 U
. S. C
. , i s s i m i l ar t o A
. R
. S. § 12- 2101( B ) , and pr ovi des t hatfede r al 5 c o u rt s o f a p p e a ls “ s h a ll h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n f ro m a ll f in a l d e c i s i o n s o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s .” C ert ai n i nt er l ocut oryd ec isi o n s are ap p ea lable u n d er 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 9 2
. A d m ittedly , h o w ev er, u n lik e A ri z o n a ’s ju ri s p ru d e n c e , s ee Bi lke , 206 A r i z. 462, ¶ 28, 80 P. 3d at275; Sal er no , 198 A r i z. 54, ¶ 12, 6 P. 3d at761- 62, fede r al l aw gener al l ydoes notal low an ap p ea l fr om an in te rl o c u to ry o rd e r d e t e r m i n in g lia b ility b u t le a v in g o p e n th e q u e s tio n o f d a m a g e s . See Kas uk v. B aker

y & C onf ect i oner y U ni on & I ndus

. I nt ’ lP ens i on Fund , 7 9 1 F .2 d 5 4 8 , 5 5 3 (7 th C ir
. 1 9 8 6 ); I

nt ’ lC ontr ol

s C or p. v. V es co , 5 3 5 F
. 2 d 7 4 2 , 7 4 8 (2d C ir
. 1 9 7 6 ). 15 T he fa u lt
. . . l i es i n t he s t at ementof the rul e r athert han the pr act i ce of the court s . . . . [I ] tw oul d pr om ot e cl ar i t yt o s ayt hat an or der of ci vi l cont empt i s appea l abl e i f and onl yi f i ti s ei t her f i n a l f o r p u rp o s e s o f [ a p p e a l u n d e r 2 8 U. S. C. §] 1291 or ap p ea lable u n d er a statu te all o w ing the a p p ea l of interl o cu tory orders
. 5 Id
. ¶23 B ec au se w e c o n clud e w e ha v e ap p ell ate j u ri sd ict ion to rev iew the tri al co u rt ’s
s anct i ons or deragai ns tG r een, w e nee d not ent er t ai n t he par t i es ’ al t ernat i ve i nvi t at i on t o t r eat th e a p p e a l a s a re q u e s t f o r s p e c ia l a c tio n re lie f
.

M eri t s D i s cus s i on St atut e of Li m i t at i ons ¶24 G r e e n a r gu e s LFI ’ s mot i on fo rs a nc t i on s w a s t i me- ba r r e d pur s ua ntt o A. R. S. § 12- 865, w hi ch pr ovi des t hat“[n] o pr ocee di ng forcont empt s hal l be i ns t i tut ed aga i ns tany per s on unl es s begun w i t hi n one y ear fr om t he dat e of t he act compl ai ned of. ” A ssu m ing,

w ith o u t d e c id in g , tha t a m o tio n f o r sa n c tio n s f

iled d u rin g lit ig a tio n is a “p ro c e e d in g ” w ith in t he m eaning o f § 1 2-865 , w e con cl ud e L F I’ s r equ estw as not barr ed. L F I f iled i t s fi rs t
m ot i on fors anct i ons i n A pr i l 2006, appr oxi m at el ys i x m ont hs aft erG r een ha d vi ol at ed the16

t r i al cour t ’ s O ct ober 2005 or der by r emovi ng comput er s , fi l es , and dat a fr om L FI , and thus

w e ll w ith in th e o n e -ye a r s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . ¶25 L FI fi l ed i t s s econd s anct i ons m ot i on i n A ugus t2006, l es s t han thr ee mont hs aft erG r een ha d vi ol at ed t he tr i al cour t ’ s M ay2006 or derr es ul t i ng fr om L FI ’ s fi r s tm ot i on f o r sa n c ti o n s . T h e c o u rt n e v e r ru led o n th e se c o n d m o tio n , an d L F I re n e w e d it w ith add i t i on al al l egati on s i n July20 07
. T he co urtfou nd t hat LF I ha d n o t di scovered those addi t i onal al l egat i ons
— t hatG r een ha d copi ed fi l es fr om an LF I comput erhe had r et ai ned p a s t th e d e a d lin e s e t in th e M a y2 0 0 6 o rd e r— u n til J u n e 2 0 0 7
. See Ci t y of Tucs on v. C l ear C h a n n el O utdoor, I

nc. , 2 1 8 Ar i z . 1 7 2 , ¶ 1 0 , 1 8 1 P. 3 d 2 1 9 , 2 2 5
- 2 6 ( App
. 2 0 0 8 ) ( “[The]
a c c ru a l o f a c a u se o f a c tio n o c c u rs w h e n th e ‘p lain tiff k n o w s o r, in th e e x e rc ise o f re a so n a b le d il i g e n c e , s h o u ld k n o w th e f a c ts u n d e rl y in g th e c a u s e .’” ), quot i ng G us t , R os enf eld & He n d e rs o n v . P r u d e n t i a lI n s . Co

. o f A m. , 1 8 2 A ri z . 5 8 6 , 5 8 8 , 8 9 8 P .2 d 9 6 4 , 9 6 6 (1 9 9 5 ). ¶26 G re e n a ss e rts, h o w e v e r, th a t L F I w a s n o t su f f icie n tlyd ili g e n t in c o m p letin g its for ens i c ana l y s i s of the comput er s he had obt ai ned i n vi ol at i on of the O ct ober2005 or derand t he LF I comput erhe had ke ptpas tt he dea dl i ne i m pos ed i n t he M ay2006 or der
. B utw e fi nd no l egal author i t ys ugges t i ng L FI had a dutyt o exer ci s e r eas onabl e di l i gence t o have the return ed co m p u ters fo ren sicall yan aly ze d to en su re G ree n h ad n o t fu rth er v iolated th e c o u rt ’s orders
. N or does t he record sugg estt he tr i al cou rt’s f i nd i ng on t his m at t er w as erroneou s. See H r udka v. H

r udka , 186 A ri z. 8 4 , 9 2 , 919 P. 2d 179, 187 ( A pp. 1995) ( “W e w i l l not d istu rb a tri al co u rt ’s fa ctua l fin d ing s u n less clea rl yerro n eo u s. ”). T h u s, fo r ea ch o f G ree n ’sT o t he ext entG r een a r gues t he tr ial co u rtcoul d notpr oper l ycons i derhi s pr evi ous 6 vi ol at i ons of i t s or der s w hen addr es s i ng L FI ’ s fi nal m ot i on for s anct i ons , w e di s agr ee. T he cour ts t at ed i n t he M ay 2006 or der t hat “[n] ot hi ng i n [thi s or der ] w i l l pr eventanypar t yfr om re f e rrin g to th e iss u e s in th e M o tio n [ f o r sa n c tio n s] o r ren e w in g th e M o tio n if w a rra n ted in a n yfurther cou rtproceed i ng . ” T hat the co urthad enter ed o rder s at t em pti ng t o ad dress G r een’ s noncompl i ance w i t h i t s ear l i eror der s does notpr eclud e itfr om cons i der i ng t hat no nco m pli ance in l at er cont em pt pr oceed i ng s. 17 v io latio n s o f

th e c o u rt’s o rd e rs, L F I file d its m o tio n se e k in g c o n tem p t sa n c tio n s w e ll w ith in t he one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i n § 12- 865. 6 B as i s forSanct i ons ¶27 T he p art i es ag ree a t ri al cou rtm aydis m i ss a par t y ’s cl ai m s, stri ke it s pl eadings, and enter a defa ult j ud gm ent ag ai nstt hat par t yfor fai l ure t o co m plyw i t h the cou rt ’s orders
. B efore reachi ng t he q uest i on w hethersanct i on i ng G reen w as approp ri at e, ho w ever, w e m ust f ir s t d e te rm in e o n w h a t au th o ri ty th e tr ia l co u rt re lie d in d o in g s o . A s w e n o te d a b o v e , s ee ¶ 11 supra , th e a n s w e r t o th a t q u e s tio n is n o t e n tir e ly cl e a r. ¶28 T h e c o u rt re f e rre d to its “ a u th o rity a n d d isc re tio n in e n f o rc in g o b e d ien c e o f

its
o rd e rs , in c lu d in g th e in h e re n t a u th o ri ty to s a n c tio n th o s e w h o a b u s e th e ju d ic ia l p ro c e s s .” A l t hough t he courtal s o ci t ed R ul e 37( b) , A r i z. R
. C i v. P. , t he orde r s G r een vi ol at ed w er e not di s coveryor der s fal l i ng w i t hi n t hatrul e. I tal s o ci t ed R ul e 65( j ) ( 1) , A r i z. R
. C i v. P. , al l ow i ng i tt o fi nd a part yi n co n tem ptforfai l i ng t o compl yw i t h an i nj unct i on. Sect i on 12- 864, governi ng ci vi l cont empt , does not expl i ci t l y author i ze a t r i al cour tt o di s m i s s an ac t i on, but i tdoes pr ovi de thatcont empt “may be puni s hed i n conform i t y t o t he pra ct i ce and usage of th e c o m m o n la w .”T h is au tho ri tyis r ef lected in R u le 4 1 (b), A ri z. R
. C iv. P., w h ich p erm it s a tri al co u rt 7 t o d i sm i ss an act i on for fai l ure t o co m plyw i t h it s order s. T h e t r i a l c o u r twa s n o tr e q u i r e d t o i d e n t i f ya u t h o r i t y s u p p o r t i n g i t s ru l i n g , a n d we 8 m ayuphol d t he tr i al cour t ’ s rul i ng “i f i ti s corr ectforanyr eas on, ” D ube v. Li ki ns , 216 A r i z. 406, n. 3, 167 P. 3d 93, 104 n. 3 ( A pp. 2007) , as l ong as t he tr i al cour tr eci t es , as i tdi d her e, “the fa ct s cons t i tut i ng t he cont empt . ” Stat e v. C ohen , 15 A r i z. A pp. 436, 439, 489 P. 2d 283, 2 8 6 (19 7 1 ). 18 ¶29 “I ti s w el l es t abl i s hed that[a t r i al ] cour t has t he aut hor i t y t o di s m i s s or t o ent er d e f a u lt ju d g m e nt, dep end i ng on w hich partyi s atfault , for fai l ure . . . t o co m plyw i t h it s
o rd e rs .” F l aks a v. Li t t l e R i verM ar i ne C ons tr . C o. , 3 8 9 F
. 2 d 8 8 5 , 8 8 7 , 8 8 7 n n . 2 -7 (5 th C ir
. 7 1 9 6 8 ) (c iti n g c a se s); s ee Cham bers v. N A SC O , I nc. , 501 U
. S. 32, 44- 45 ( 1991) ( cour tm ay

“ f a sh io n a p p ro p ria te s a n c tio n f o r c o n d u c t” in c lu d in g “ o u trig h t d ism iss a l”) ; Sh e p h e r d v . A m. B road

. C os. , 6 2 F .3 d 1 4 6 9 , 1 4 7 2 (D .C . C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) (tria l co u rt h a s in h e re n t au th o rityto
sa n c tio n c o n tem p t w ith d ism iss a ls a n d d e f a u lt j u d g m e n ts); U

ni t ed Stat es v. Shaf

f erE qui p. C o. , 1 1 F .3 d 4 5 0 , 4 6 1 -6 2 (4 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ) ( s a m e ) ; s ee al s o P hoeni

x N ew s papers , I

nc. v. Su peri or C ou rt , 101 A r i z. 257, 258, 418 P. 2d 594, 595 ( 1966) ( “[T] hi s C our t has r ecogni zed that the po w er t o p u n ish f o r co n tem p t i s inh ere n t i n the c o u rt s. ”); cf

. P recisi on C om

po nen t s, I n c . v . Ha r r is o n , Ha r

p e r, Ch r is t i a n & D i c ht e r, P. C. , 179 A r i z. 552, 556, 880 P. 2d 1098, 1 1 0 2 ( A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) ( t r i a l c o u r t h a s i n h e r e n t a u t h o r i t y t o s a n c t i o n m i s c o n d u c t o f a t t o r n e ys
a p p e a rin g b e f

o re it). A p a rtyis in c o n tem p t o f c o u rt if it “ f

a il[s ] to o b e ya law f

u l w rit, p roc ess, ord er, [o r] j u d g m en t of the c o u rt . ” § 1 2 -86 4
. T h u s, itap p ea rs th e tri al co u rt di s m i s s ed G r een’ s cr os s - cl ai m and s t ruck hi s rep ly t o L FI ’ s count er cl ai m bas ed on the
cou rt ’s i nh erentauthori t yt o sancti on a fai l ure t o co m plyw i t h it s order s. 819

N exus B etw een Conductand M er i t s of C l ai m s and D efe ns es ¶30 G r een as s er t s t hat , w hen a c our ts anct i ons a part yi n cont empt byt erm i nat i ng t he ac t i on, due pr oces s i s vi ol at ed i f “ther e i s no nexus b etw ee n the m i s conductand the ter m in a ted c laim s a n d d e f e n se s.” G re e n c o n ten d s n o su c h n e x u s e x ists h e re . T o c o m p lyw ith not i ons of due pr oces s , w hen a c our texer ci s es i t s i nher entauthor i t yt o di s m i s s a cl ai m for vi ol at i ons of i t s or der s , “[t ] her e mustbe a ne xus betw een the par t y ’ s act i onabl e conductand t he mer i t s of the ca s e. ” H a la c o E n g ’gC o . v. C o stle , 8 4 3 F .2 d 3 7 6 , 3 8 1 (9 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 ); s ee F j el s tad v. A m . H

onda Mot orC o. , 7 6 2 F .2 d 1 3 3 4 , 1 3 3 8 (9 th C ir. 1 9 8 5 ) (“ D u e p ro c e ss lim its th e im p o sitio n o f

th e se v e re sa n c tio n s o f d ism iss a l o r d e f

a u lt t o ‘e x tre m e c irc u m sta n c e s’ in

w hi ch ‘ t he dec ept i on r el at es t o t he mat t er s i n cont rov ers y ’ and pr event s t hei ri m pos i t i on

‘ m ere lyforpuni s hm entof an i nfr act i on t hatdi d nott hr eat en t o i nt er fer e w i t h t he r i ght ful d e c is io n o f

th e c a s e .’” ), quot i ng W yl e v. R
. J. R eynolds I

ndus

. , I nc. , 709 F. 2d 585, 589, 591 (9th C ir
. 1 9 8 3 ). ¶31 T h is n e x u s re q u ire m e n t, or , m o r e a c c u ra tely , d u e p ro c e ss re q u ire m e n t, i s der i ved fr om t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme Court ’ s deci s i ons i n H am m ond P acki ng C o. v. A rkans as , 212 U
. S. 322, 349- 54 ( 1909) , and H ovey v. E l l i ot , 1 6 7 U
. S
. 4 0 9 , 4 1 3 -14 (18 9 7 ). S e e W y le , 7 0 9 F .2 d a t 5 8 9 , P hocee ne Sous

- M ar i ne, S. A

. v. U
. S. P hos m ar i ne, I nc. , 682 F. 2d 802, 806 ( 9t h C i r . 1982)
. I n H ovey , t he C our t hel d due pr oces s pr event ed the tr i al cour tfr om
s um m ar i l ys t r i ki ng a def endant ’ s ans w er as puni s hm entforfai l ur e t o compl yw i t h t he tr i al
cour t ’ s or der t hat t he par t y depos i t i nt o cour t t he funds at i s s ue i n t he l aw s ui t . 167 U
. S. at20

411- 12, 413- 14. T hatrul e w as s ubs t ant i al l ym odi fi ed i n H am m ond , w her e the C our tfound

n o d u e p ro c e ss v io latio n in strik in g th e p lea d in g s o f a p a rtyth a t h a d f

a iled to c o m p ly w ith
a d isc o v e ryo rd e r. T h e C o u rt re a so n e d th a t th e re f u sa l to p ro d u c e th e re q u e ste d m a ter ials

“ w a s b u t an a d m iss io n o f th e w a n t o f

m e rit in th e a ss e rte d d e f e n se .” 2 1 2 U .S . at 3 5 1 ; s ee al s o S o ciet e I

nt er nat i onal e Pour Part i ci pat i ons I

ndus tr i el l es E tC om m er ci al es , S. A

. v. R og ers , 3 5 7 U
. S
. 1 9 7 , 2 1 0 (19 5 8 ). ¶32 T h e m a

j o r i ty o f c a s e s ap p l y i n g t h e d u e p r o c e s s r e q u i r e m e n td e s c r i b e d b y H ovey and H am m ond have addr es s ed di s covery vi ol at i ons , w her e t he rul e des cr i bed i n H am m ond
re a d ily c a n b e a p p lie d
. See, e. g. , V al l ey Eng’ rs I

nc. v. E l ec. E ng’

g C o. , 158 F. 3d 1051, 1053, 1 0 5 6 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); H al aco , 84 3 F
. 2d at37 8, 37 9 -8 0 ; F j el s tad , 762 F. 2d at1336, 1338; P ro f’l Se m in a r C o n su lta n ts, In c . v . S in o A m . T e c h . E x c h . C o u n c il , 727 F. 2d 1470, 1473- 74 (9th C ir
. 1 9 8 4 ); W

y le , 7 0 9 F .2 d a t 5 8 8 -8 9 . B u t w e f in d n o c a se s s u g g e stin g d u e p ro c e ss is

n o t si m il arlyreq u ir ed w h en im p o sing m erit s-t erm inating san cti o n s o u tsi d e o f th e d isco v ery cont ext . I ndeed, s ever al appel l at e cour t s have r el i ed on H ovey , H am m ond , and thei rpr ogeny
w h e n re v iew in g m e rits-te rm in a tin g sa n c tio n s b a se d o n c o n d u c t n o t so lelyre late d to d is c o v e ry. See, e. g. , C hen v. Stew art , 1 2 3 P
. 3 d 4 1 6 , 4 2 8 -29 (U tah 2 0 0 5 ) (sub o rnin g p erjury ); Es tr ada v. Speno & C ohen , 244 F. 3d 1050, 1058- 59 ( 9t h C i r . 2001) ( fai l u re to a p p ea r at d e p o sitio n s a n d c o u rt h e a rin g s); Tel eVi deo Sys

. , I nc. v. Hei denthal , 8 2 6 F .2 d 9 1 5 , 9 1 7 (9 th C ir
. 1 9 8 7 ) (l y ing in d ep o sitio n s a n d rec an ti n g b ef o re tri al t o “re ap a tac ti ca l adv an tage ”);F or purpo ses of t his argum ent, w e w i l l assum e, w i t ho ut deci ding, t hat the d ue p rocess 9 r equi r ementas G r een ha s ar t i cul at ed i tw as notm ether e. 21 P hocee ne Sous

- Mar i ne , 682 F. 2d at803- 05 ( l y i ng t o cour ti n s uppor tof m ot i on t o cont i nue tr ial ). ¶33 B asi ng his argum ent on t he due process requi rem ent, G reen assert s m eri t st erm i nat i ng s anct i ons ar e unava i l abl e unl es s t he conduc t“r es ul t ed i n t he abs ence of r el evant (o r p o te n tia lly re le v a n t) e v id e n c e , o b s tru c tin g th e o p p o n e n t’ s a b ility to l i t i g a t e th e c a s e .” 9 T his art i culat i on of the du e process r e q uir em ent i s t oo narr ow . F or exam ple, m eri t sterm inating san cti o n s co m p lyw ith d u e p roc ess w h ere the co n d u ct f o r w h ich s an cti o n s w ere
so u g h t w a s in ten d e d to o b tain a tac tica l ad v a n tag e , ev e n if a n a d v a n tag e w a s n e v e r a c tu a lly
re a liz e d
. See T

el eV i deo Sys. , 8 2 6 F .2 d a t 9 1 7 . A d d iti o n a lly , the d u e p ro c e ss re q u ire m e n t is
sa tisf ied w h e n a c o u rt ter m in a tes a p a rty ’s c a se a s a sa n c tio n f o r a p lan n e d f

ra u d o n th e c o u rt. See Chen , 123 P. 3d at 428- 29. T he H am m ond due proc es s r equi r ementi s m eti n t hes e ca s es beca us e t he s anct i oned conduct perm i t s an i nfer ence t hat t he s anct i oned part y ’s po s i t i on l acke d m er i t

—

j us tas w hen the mi s conductent ai l s w i t hhol di ng orhi di ng evi dence
. ¶34 N ordo w e r ead H am m ond a s re q u irin g th e sa n c tio n e d c o n d u c t to p o ten tially i nt er fer e w i t h evi dence t hatw oul d, orcoul d, have be en p rese n t ed dur i ng t he l i t i gat i on. E xampl es of s uch conduc ti ncl ude r efus i ng t o di s cl os e evi dence , r efu sing to at t end depos i t i ons , ors ubor ni ng per j ur y . T he C our ti n H

am m ond di d nots ayi t s concl us i on w as b a s e d o n t h e ma t e r i a l i t yo f th e u n d i s c l o s e d e v i d e n c e , b ut r a t h e rt h a ta c o u r tma yp r e s u me22

m a te ri a lity f

ro m th e p a r t y’ s r e f

u s a l to p ro d u c e it. See 21 2 U
. S
. at35 1. T hu s, H am m ond refl ect s a “con struct i ve w ai ver” of d ue p rocess , Ins. C o rp . o f I r . v. C om pagni e des B auxi t es de G ui nee , 456 U
. S. 694, 706 ( 1982) , bas ed on a r eas onabl e i nfer ence dr aw n fr om th e p a rt y ’s c o n d u c t th a t its p o s itio n is m e ri tle s s . See a l so id

. (“ D u e p ro c e ss is vio late d o n ly i f the behavi orof the def endantw i l l nots uppor tt he H am m ond P acki ngp resu m p ti o n . ”). We
s ee no r eas on t o l i m i t cons t ruct i ve w ai vert o m i s conducti nvol vi ng m at er i al evi dence w hen
o ther m isco n d u ct ca n b e e q u all y s u g g esti v e o f th e re lat ive m erit s o f a p arty ’s pos i t i on— es s ent i al l y , w hen a par t y w i t h a m er i t or i ous cas e or defe ns e s houl d have no ne ed to e n g a g e in s u c h a c tiv ity. ¶35 W e ther efo re concl ude that , i f the s anct i oned conduc ti nvi t es a nega t i ve i nfer ence aboutt he m er i t s of t he par t y ’ s cl ai m s or defe ns es , t he due pr oces s r equi r ementof H ovey and Hamm ondis m e t, an d m e rits-te rm in a tin g sa n c tio n s a re c o n stitu tio n a lly
a p p ro p ri a te . See Chen , 123 P. 3d at429 ( “[A ] cour thas t he inh er entauthor i t yt o s t r i ke a p a rty ’s p lea d in g s a n d e n ter a d e f a u lt j u d g m e n t if th e p a rtye n g a g e s in c o n d u c t d e sig n e d to i m pr oper l yi nfl uence the co ur t ’ s deci s i on on t he mer i t s of the ca s e, s uch as per j ur yor
o b stru cti on of j us t i ce, ori f the conduc ti t s el f t ends t o demonstr at e bad f ai t h o r a l ack of

m e rit
. ”) ( emphasi s added)
. A ccor di ngl y , w e now addr es s w hetherG r een’ s co n d u cti n t he trial c o u rt p e rm its a n in f e re n c e th a t h is c laim s a n d d e f e n se s la c k m e rit. ¶36 H e re , th e lit ig a tio n c o n c e rn s th e n a tu re o f G re e n ’s c o n tin u in g in ter e st a n d ro le i n L FI , i ncl udi ng hi s s t atus as a shar ehol der and di r ect or of t he com pany . A l t hough w e fi ndW e re cogni ze t hat t he pr oper t yati s s ue i n H ovey w a s th e sa m e m o n e yth e p a rtyin 10 c o n tem p t h a d re f

u se d to d e p o sit w ith th e c o u rt. 1 6 7 U .S . at 4 1 1 . T h a t situ a tio n is a rg u a b ly anal ogous t o t he o n e bef or e us w her e G r een ha s s oughtt o r et ai n contr ol overas s et s att he heartof the cont es tovercontr ol of L FI
. B ut t he Supr eme Court has neverdeci ded w hether i t w oul d now r eac h t he same r es ul ti tdi d i n H ovey gi ven i t s s ubs t ant i al m odi fi cat i on of that hol di ng i n H

am m ond
. T he s i tuat i on i n H ovey i s nonethel es s di s t i nct . T h e p artyi n H ovey m er el ym ai nt ai ned contr ol of an a s s eti n vi ol at i on of a cour t or der
. I tdi d not , as di d G r een, ac ti v elyan d im p rop erlysee k to o b tai n a n a s s et no t i n it s p o sses sion

— co n d u ct ev en m o re i ndi cat i ve of the w eakne s s of G r een’ s cl ai m s and def ens es . A ddi t i onal l y , t he as s et s ati s s ue her e ar e pr opr i et aryand uni que, pl aci ng a w r ongful pos s es s ori n a pos i t i on t o do s i gni fi cant harm t o L F I’ s busi ness i nter est s. T h a t L F I w o u ld h a v e leg a l re m e d ies a g a in st G re e n sh o u ld h e u se o r d isc lo se its 11 in telle c tu a l p ro p e rtyd o e s n o t ch a n g e o u r an a ly sis
. T h e q u e stio n is no t w h e th e r G re e n w o u ld 23 n o d ire c tlya p p li c a b le a u th o rity , itse e m s p lain th a t, w h e n a p a rtyv io late s c o u rt o rd e rs in
or dert o contr ol orharm t he as s et s at s t ake i n t he l i t i gat i on, s uch ac t i on perm i t s an i nfer ence t hat the p arty ’s po si t i on on t he m eri t s is w eak. A party w i t h a m eri t ori ou s cl ai m or defen se 10

w o u ld h a v e n o n e e d to v io late c o u rt o rd e rs to g a in o r re tain c o n tro l o v e r th e a ss e t in contr over s yand coul d aw ai ta dec i s i on on t he mer i t s perm i t t i ng i tt o do s o l aw ful l y . T he par t i es h ere agr eed t o t he or der s t he tr i al cour tent er ed t o pr ot ectL FI ’ s as s et s dur i ng t he lit ig a tio n . G re e n , h o w e v e r, v io late d o n e su c h o rd e r to im p ro p e rlyo b tain a n d a n o th e r to
r et ai n L FI ’ s pr oper t y
— i ncl udi ng pr opr i et ary i nt el l ectual pr oper t y t hat G r een hi m s el f s t at ed

w a s t he “ l i fe ” of

t he c ompa ny , w i t ho utw hi c h LFI w ou l d b e “ [n o] go od
. ” M or e ov e r , a n LFI empl oy ee t es t i fi ed thatpos s es s i on of t he pr oper t yw oul d gi ve a pa r t ys eeki ng t o “r e- engi neer
o r re- creat e” L F I’ s propri et aryartw ork a “b i g jum p. ” G reen’ s acquis i t i on of the p ro p e rty
m eans he w as abl e t o exer ci s e s om e meas ur e of c ont r ol overL FI ’ s pr opr iet aryas s et s and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e f a t e o f t h e c o m p a n y. 11ul t i m at el ybe s ucce s s ful i n us i ng t he pr oper t y , butw hetherhi s i m pr operat t empt t o contr ol

the a ssets at stake in the li ti g ati o n p erm it s the inf er e n c e th a t h is cl aim s an d d ef en ses a re m eri t l ess. 24 ¶37 Fur t her , G r een’ s cont i nued c o n d u cts tr ongl ys ugges t s he w oul d have be en
un w i l l i ng t o co m plyi n an ym eaningfu l w ayw i t h fu tu re tr i al cou rtorders , i ncludi ng t ho se
re s u ltin g f

ro m liti g a t i o n o n th e m e ri ts . See Chen , 1 2 3 P .3 d a t 4 2 9 (d ism iss a l ap p ro p ria te
w h e n p a rty ’s c o n d u c t d e m o n stra ted b a d f a ith ). In d e e d , th e trial co u rt re f e r r e d to th is pos s i bi l i t y , s t at i ng G r een had been “ca val i er ” aboutt he “e nt i r e pr oces s , fr om t he begi nni ng
r i ghtt hr ough unt i l t oday
. ” The cour t expr es s ed concern t hat G r een t hought hi m s el f “a bove th e p ro c e ss ” a n d u lti m a telyd e ter m in e d les se r sa n c tio n s w o u ld n o t en su re c o m p lian c e w ith its o rd e rs . S e e Min d e k

v . R ig a tti , 9 6 4 F .2 d 1 3 6 9 , 1 3 7 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (d ism iss a l ap p ro p ria te

“ w h e re th e d istric t c o u rt ju d g e h a s p ro p e rly d e ter m in e d th a t n o o th e r sa n c tio n w o u ld adequa t el yens ur e futur e com pl i ance ”)
. A cour t ’ s i nher ent author i t y t o s anct i on par t i es for fai l i ng t o compl y w i t h i t s or der s exi s t s , i n par t , t o pr event “‘ di s obedi ence [of] t he or der s of the Ju d ici ary , reg ard less o f w h ethe r su ch d isob ed ienc e interf ere d w ith the c o n d u ct of tr ial
. ’” C ha m bers , 5 0 1 U .S . a t 4 4 , q u o t i n gYou n gv . Uni t e d S ta t e s ex r e l

. Vu i t t o n e tFi l s , S

. A. , 481 U .S . 7 8 7 , 7 9 8 (1 9 8 7 ); s ee al s o G ul f H om es , I nc. v. B er on , 141 A r i z. 624, 628- 29, 688 P. 2d 632, 636- 37 ( 1984) ( aff i r m i ng di s coverys anct i ons , in p ar t , t o pr event“part i es t o ot her law su it s” f

rom “f ee l[i n g ] fre e[ ]
. . . to f

lou t othe r disco v eryo rde rs of o ther d istri ct co u rt s”). T he pos i ti o n G ree n advoca t es w oul d al l ow uns crupul ous l i t i gant s t o vi ol at e atw i l l , andD esp it e t hi s di s t i nct i on i n Kor m an , w e n o te th a t § 1 2 -8 6 4 p e rm its a trial c o u rt to 12
“ p u n ish [ ]” c iv il co n tem p t. 25 w ith o u t f

e ar of dis m i ssal , cou rtorders seeki ng t o p rot ectano t her party ’s i nter est s i f t ho se i nt er es t s w er e unr el at ed t o di s cover abl e evi dence
. W e dec l i ne t o adopts uch an a ppr oach. ¶38 G r een addi t i onal l y ar gues di s m i s s al s anct i ons i m pos ed “w her e the mi s conduct has no i m pacton t he opponent ’ s abi l i t yt o l i t i gat e the mer i t s ” ar e “pur el ypuni t i ve” a nd t her efor e pr ohi bit ed. B utt hi s ar gum enti s l ogi cal l yfl aw ed. W hethert he mi s conducthas af fe cted li ti g ati o n o n the m erit s h as n o co rrelat ion to w h ethe r th e sa n cti o n s im p o sed are p u n itiv e o r c o e rc iv e . In a n ye v e n t, th e s a n c tio n s h e re w e re n o t p u re ly p u n itiv e . C f

. Kor m an
v. Str i ck , 133 A r i z. 471, 473- 74, 652 P. 2d 544, 546- 47 ( 1982) ( di s t i ngui s hi ng cr i m i nal and ci vi l cont empt ; cr i m i nal cont empt s anct i ons “s ol el y ” puni t i ve w hi l e ci vi l cont empt s anct i ons
coer ci ve)
. T he thr eatof s anct i ons pr om ot es compl i ance w i t h a cour t ’ s or der s even i f the

12

s anct i ons t hr eat ened a r e neveri m pos ed. G r een’ s fai l ur e t o avoi d t he s anct i ons her e does not
re n d e r th e ir im p o sitio n im p ro p e r m e re lyb e c a u se c o m p lian c e n o w , af ter a m p le o p p o rtu n ity to a v o id th e sa n c tio n s, w o u ld n o t r e v e rse th e sa n c tio n s’ e f f e c t. O th e rw ise , d ism iss a l w o u ld

n e v e rb e a n a p p r o p r i a t e s a n c t i o n f o rc i v i l c o n t e mp t . T h a ti s c l e a r l yn o tt h e l a w. ¶39 F o r th e re aso n s stat ed , u n d er the circu m stan ce s p rese n ted h ere , the tri al co u rt ’s dis m i ssal of G reen ’s c l ai m s and en t ryof d efau l tagainsthim com pli ed w i t h d ue p rocess . G ree n ’s co n tum ac iou s co n d u ct pe rm itted th e c o u rt to inf er that h is c lai m s an d d ef en ses w ere26

m e ri tle s s a n d th u s f

in d h e h a d c o n s tru c tiv e ly w a iv e d a h e a ri n g o n th e irm e ri ts . See I ns . C or p.
o f I r ., 4 5 6 U .S . a t 7 0 6
. Pr opr i etyof D i s m i s s al ¶40 T h a tt h e d i s m i s s a l h e r e d o e s n o tv i o l a t e d u e p r o c e s s d o e s n o te n d o u ri n q u i r y. W e agr ee w i t h G r ee n t hat , as a gene r al pr opos i t i on, s anct i ons forfai l ur e t o obeya tr i al
c o u rt ’s o rd e rs s h o u ld b e lim ite d to a c h ie v e th e ird e s ir e d re s u lt. See H ays , 205 A r i z. 99, ¶ 17, 67 P
. 3d at69 8. M oreove r, a cl ai m shou l d n ot be di sm i ssed absent extrem e ci rcum st ances. S e e B ir d s In t’ l C o r

p . v . A r iz . Ma in t. C o ., 135 A r i z. 545, 547, 662 P. 2d 1052, 1054 ( A pp. 1 9 8 3 ); F l aksa , 3 8 9 F .2 d a t 8 8 7 . A riz o n a c o u rts p re f e r th a t cla im s b e a d

ju d ica ted o n th e ir

m e ri ts . C f

. A s s oc’ d A vi at i on U

nder w r i t ers v. W

ood , 209 A r i z. 137, ¶ 147, 98 P. 3d 572, 614 (A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). W e re v ie w th e im p o s itio n o f s a n c tio n s f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . See H

ays
v . Ga ma , 2 0 5 A riz . 9 9 , ¶ 1 7 , 6 7 P .3 d 6 9 5 , 6 9 8 (2 0 0 3 ); F l aksa , 3 8 9 F
. 2 d at 88 7
. W h ethe r a t r i al cour thas t h e d is cr et i on t o i m pos e the s anct i on of di s m i s s al depends on w hethert he
s peci fi c fa ct s and ci r cum stan ces of the ca s e ar e s uffi ci ent l yextr eme t o w arr ants uch a
s a n c tio n . See Bi r ds I

nt ’ l C or p. , 135 A r i z. at 547, 662 P. 2d at1054; F l aksa , 389 F. 2d at887. ¶41 T her e i s l i t t l e A r i zona l aw out s i de t he di s coverycont extt hataff or ds gui dance
o n w h at fa ctors a tr ial co u rtm u st co n side r be fo re d ism issi n g an ac tio n f o r the c lam an t’ s f a ilu re to c o m p ly w ith its o rd e rs . See, e. g. , C ar m an v. Hef t er , 136 A r i z. 597, 601, 667 P. 2d 1 3 1 2 , 1 3 1 6 (1 9 8 3 ) (d ism iss a l p ro p e r u n d e r R u le 4 1 (b ), A riz . R . C iv . P ., w h e re p a rty
m e n tio n e d in su ra n c e tw ice d u rin g trial i n v io latio n o f c o u rt o rd e r); G oodm an v. C us hm an ,27

9 2 A riz
. 2 7 6 , 2 7 8 -7 9 , 3 7 6 P .2 d 3 9 4 , 3 9 5 (1 9 6 2 ) (R u le 4 1 (b ) d ism iss a l im p ro p e r w h e re p a rty in “s u b stan ti al co m p li an ce ” w ith co u rt ’s o rde r to co rrect c o m p lai n t to o m itce rt ain m aterial ). ¶42 H ow ever , i n addr es s i ng t he pr opr i etyof sanc t i ons fordi s coveryvi ol at i ons under R u l e 37( b) , A r i zona c our t s have i dent i fi ed s ever al fac t or s t hatar e equa l l yr el evant her e. Forexampl e, i n G ul f H om es , our s upr eme c our t uphel d di s m i s s al as a s anct i on w hen a part yhad ac t ed i n “‘ fl agr antbad fa it h ’” b yr efus i ng t o r es pond t o ques t i ons dur i ng a depos i t i o n . 1 4 1 Ar i z . a t 6 2 9 , 6 8 8 P. 2 d a t 6 3 7
. Th e c o u r t n o t e d t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n s as ked “w er e mat er i al t o t he cl ai m s ” and thatt he part y ’ s r efu sal to ans w eri nj ect ed del ayand “exa cerbat ed the cos t s i n h ere n t i n t he l i t i gat i on. ” Id

. E v e n a ss u m in g G re e n ’s f a ilu re to compl yw i t h t he tr i al cour t ’ s or der s her e di d notaff ectL FI ’ s abi l i t y t o l i t i gat e i t s cl ai m s , t he

r emai ni ng fac t or s t he s upr eme cour tdi s cu ssed i n G ul f H om es are p rese n t. T h e tri al co u rt found G r een ha d w i l l ful l yand r epea t edl yfai l ed t o compl yw i t h i t s or der s an d h ad “f i l ed a decl ar at i on” s t at i ng t hathe w as no l ongeri n pos s es s i on of any L FI m at er i al s des pi t e havi ng fa il ed to r eturn ten co m p ac t d iscs co n tai n ing m aterial co p ied fro m an L F I c o m p u ter. M o r e o v e r , Gr e e n ’ s c o n d u c t p l a i n l y d e l a y e d t h e p r o c e e d i n g s a n d g r e a t l y i n c r e a s ed t he
e x p e n se o f

th e lit ig a tio n : b o th p a rties f iled v o lu m in o u s m o tio n s in su p p o r t o f a n d in
o p p o sit ion to sa n cti o n s, an d the c o u rth eld a leng thy ev iden ti ary h ea ri n g to ex p lore G ree n ’s
c o n d u c t. ¶43 I n N

esm i th v. Su

peri or C ou rt , 164 A r i z. 70, 71- 72, 790 P. 2d 768, 769- 70 ( A pp. 1 9 9 0 ), D ivisi o n O n e o f th is co u rtrev erse d a d ism issal san cti o n im p o sed fo r disco v ery28

v iolati ons beca us e: ( 1) t he tr i al cour terr ed as a mat t erof l aw byr equi r i ng t he s anct i oned pl ai nt i ff t o tur n overor i gi nal bus i nes s r ecor ds ; ( 2) t he tr i al courtdi d notexpr es s l yfi nd “that t he pl ai nt i ff pe r s onal l y , as oppos ed t o t he pl ai nt i ff’ s at t or ney , obs t ruct ed di s covery ”; ( 3) t he t r i al cour tdi d not“thor oughl ycons i derot her , l es s s ever e s anct i ons ”; and ( 4) t he s anct i oned par t y di d notvi ol at e a c our tor derand had, al bei tt ar di l y , compl i ed w i t h t he di s coveryrul es b ef o re th e d e f

e n d a n t f il ed a m o ti o n to co m p el disco v ery . H ere , in co n tr ast, the tri al co u rt
ex p resslyfo u n d that G ree n , n o t h is att o rne y , w as re sp o n sible fo r th e v iolati o n s. M o reo v er, G r een di d notvi ol at e proc ed u ral rul es ordi s coverydeadl i nes buti ns t ead i gnor ed a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i o n an d s ubs equentcour tor der s s eeki ng t o enfor ce that in ju n c tio n
— o rd e rs w ith w h ich G re e n still h a s n e v e r fu lly c o m p lied
. A n d th e c o u rt e x p re ss ly found l es s ers anct i ons w oul d be i neff ect i ve. ¶44 W e d raw fu rth er g u id an ce fro m fe d era l cou rt s’ discu ssion s o f a tr ial co u rt ’s i nher entauthor i t yt o di s m i s s cas es for contum aci ous conduct
. For exampl e, i n Shaf f er , 11 F. 3d at462- 63, t he Four t h C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s s t at ed:

[B ]ef o re ex erc isi n g the i n h ere n t p o w er t o d ism iss a ca se, a c o u rt m us tcons i der the fo ll ow i ng fac t or s : ( 1) t he degr ee of t he w ron g d o er’s cu lpab il ity ; ( 2 ) th e e x tent o f th e c li en t’ s b lam e w o rth in e ss if

th e w ro n g f

u l co n d u c t is c o m m itt e d b yits at t orney , recogn i zi ng t hat w e sel do m dis m i ss cl ai m s agai nst bl amel es s cl i ent s ; ( 3) t he pr ej udi ce t o t he j udi ci al p r oces s and t h e a d mi n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e ; ( 4 ) t h e p r e j u d i c e t o t h e v i c t i m; ( 5) t he ava i l abi l i t yof o ther s anct i ons t o r ect i fyt he w r ong by puni s hi ng cul pabl e per s ons , compensa t i ng harm ed per s ons , and d e ter rin g sim ilar c o n d u c t in th e f u tu re ; an d (6 ) th e p u b lic in ter e st.29

O th e r c o u rt s h a v e e n u m e ra te d s im ila r f a c to rs . See, e. g. , C havez v. C i t y of A l buquer que , 402 F
. 3d 10 39 , 10 44 (10t h C i r. 20 05 ) (pr ej ud i ce t o other party , i nter ference w i t h judi ci al process, l i t i gant ’ s cul pabi l i t y , advanc e w arni ng of pos s i bi l i t yof di s m i s s al , eff i cacyof l es s er
san cti o n s); I

n r e Am tr ak , 136 F. Supp. 2d 1251, 1267 ( S. D
. A l a. 2001) ( col l ect i ng cas es and listin g f a c to rs: p re

ju d ice to o th e r p a rty , int e rf e re n c e w ith ju d icia l p ro c e ss , rela tio n sh ip to
m er i t s , cul pabi l i t yof vi ol at i ng par t y , w i l l ful orbad fa i t h conduct , w arn ing o f di s m i s s al as
san cti o n , av ail ab il ity o f l esse r san cti o n s, p u b lic in te re st) ; A nheus er - B us ch, I nc. v. N at ur al B everag e D istri bs. , 69 F. 3d 337, 34 8 ( 9t h C i r . 1995) ( publ i c i nt er es t“i n expedi t i ous
r es ol ut i on of l i t i gat i on, ” court ’ s need to m an age docket , r i s k of pr ej udi ce t o par t ys eeki ng sanct i on s, pu bli c po l i cyfavo ri ng dis po si t i on on t he m eri t s, avail abil i t yof les sersanct i on s, b a d f a ith o f v io latin g p a rty , rela tio n sh ip b e tw e e n c o n d u c t an d m e rits); P ou l is v. Stat e Farm F i r e & C as . C o. , 747 F. 2d 863, 868 ( 3d C i r . 1984) ( per s onal r es pons i bi l i t yof part y , pr ej udi ce t o ot her par t y , hi s t or y of di l at or y conduct , w i l l ful nes s orbad fa i t h, ot hers anct i ons , m er i t s of
c la im o r d e f

e n s e ). ¶45 Synt hes i zi ng t hes e ca s es , w e conc l ude the mostr el evantfac t or s cour t s have typ ica llyc o n sid e re d a re : (1 ) p re ju d ice to th e o th e r p a rty , b o th in ter m s o f its a b ili tyto lit ig a te i t s cl ai m s and otherharm s caus ed byt he di s obedien t p arty ’ s act i ons ; ( 2) w hethert he vi ol at i ons w er e comm i t t ed by t he par t y or by couns el ; ( 3) w hether t he conductw as w i l l ful or i n b ad fa i t h an d w hether t he vi olat i on s w ere repeat ed or con t i nu ou s; (4) t he p ub l i c i nter est i n t he i nt egr i t yof the j udi ci al s y s t em and compl i ance w i t h cour t or der s ; ( 5) pr ej udi ce t o t heG reen ci t es He rn a n d ez v. C ity o f E l Mo n te , 138 F. 3d 393, 399 ( 9t h C i r . 1998) , for 13 the p rop o sit ion that “[ t] h e c o sts of ad d it ion al li ti g ati o n ca u sed b y a p arty ’s m isco n d u ct are i n s u f f i c i e n tp r e

j u d i c e t o s u p p o r td i s m i s s a l
. ” B u tt h a td o e s n o tm a k e c o s t s a n d d e l a ys i r r el evantt o t he ana l y s i s . T he N i nt h C i r cui tal s o s t at ed i n Hernan dez t h a t e x c e s s i v e d e l a ys a n d c o n s u m p tio n “ ‘o f th e c o u rt ’s v a lu a b le tim e ’” f a v o re d d is m is s a l. I

d. , quot i ng Fer di k v. B onz el et , 9 6 3 F
. 2 d 1 2 5 8 , 1 2 6 1 (9th C ir
. 1 9 9 2 ). 30 j udi ci al s y s t em, i ncl udi ng delay s an d t he bur den pl ace d on t he tr i al cour t ; ( 6) eff i cac yof l es s ers anct i ons ; ( 7) w hethert he part yw as w arned t hat vi ol at i ons w oul d be s anct i oned; and ( 8) publ i c pol i cyfavor i ng t he r es ol ut i on of cl ai m s on t hei rm er i t s . T hi s l i s t , of cour s e, i s not exclusi ve. A t ri al cou rtm ayi den t i fyand add res s anyotherrel evan tci rcum st ances. ¶46 M os tof the fa ct or s des cr i bed above a re pr es enther e. A gai n, i tw as G r een p erso n all y , n o t h is a tt o rne y , w h o co n ti n u o u sly an d w il lfu ll yv iolated th e tri al co u rt ’s ord ers and made m i s r epr es ent at i ons to t he courtaboutt hos e vi ol at i ons . G r een’ s t r ans gr es s i ons
r es ul t ed i n s i gni fi cantdel a y s a n d e x p e n s i v e , u n n e c e s s a ryl i t i gat i on r equi r i ng ext ens i ve fi l i ngs and l engthyevi dent i aryhear i ngs t hati ncl uded expe r t t es t i m ony . H i s conduct t hus bur dened t he tr i al cour tand hi nder ed t i m el y r es ol ut i on of t he m er i t s of the cl ai m s . T he or der s G r een 13 vi ol at ed w er e i n pl ace t o pr ot ectL FI ’ s s i gni fi canti nt er es ti n i t s pr oper t y , bot h phy s i cal and intell ec tual. G ree n co n test s n o n e o f th is, a rg u in g o n lythat d ism issal san cti o n s are i nappr opr i at e bec aus e hi s vi ol at i ons di d noti nt er fer e w i t h L FI ’ s abi l i t yt o l i t i gat e t he ca s e. W e r ecog n ize that s uch pr ej udi ce i s one fa ct ora tr i al cour tm aycons i derbefor e i m pos i ng
s anct i ons and thatpr ej udi ce t o L FI ’ s abi l i t yt o l i t i gate it s clai m s i s notappar entfr om t he
re c o rd
. A f

in d in g o f p re

ju d ic e , h o w e v e r, is n o t re q u ir e d to s u p p o rt d is m is s a l. See H al aco31

E n g ’g C o. , 8 4 3 F. 2 d a t3 8 2 ( f i n d i n g o f p r e j u d i c e “ p u r e l yo p t i o n a l ” )
. Ev e n a s s u mi n g t he abs en c e o f

t h a tf a c t o r , t h e c o u r td i d n o ta b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n g i v e n t h e p r e s e n c e o f s ever al
o th e r f a c to rs f a v o rin g d ism iss a l. ¶47 G r een a l s o ar gues t he t r i al cour t fai l ed t o cons i derw hetherL FI w as pr ej udi ced and, “[f ] or t hi s r eas on al one, t he t r i al cour t ’ s R ul i ng s houl d be vaca t ed. ” B utthe c o u rt cl ear l ydi d cons i dert he harm G r een’ s conducthad ca us ed t o L FI , fin d ing t her e had be en “damage t o [i t s ] i nt el l ectual pr oper t y . ” M or eover , t hatt he courtm ade no f i ndi ng of p reju d ic e to L F I’s ab il ityto li ti g ate the ac ti o n d o es n o t r eq u ir e the co n clus ion the c o u rt
w hol l yfai l ed t o cons i der t hat fac t or . I ti s equal l ypos s i bl e the courtcons i der ed i tbutdi d not f in d it d is p o sitiv e . A d d iti o n a lly , w h e th e r d ism iss a l sa n c tio n s a re a p p ro p ria te is a f a c ti nt ens i ve i nqui ryand mayi nvol ve cons idera ti on of m anyfac t or s , i ncl udi ng s om e w e have

n o t i d en ti fied h ere . W e se e n o rea so n fo r a tri al co u rtto arti cu lat e it s f in d ing s o n ev ery
con cei vab l e factor
. A ccordi ng l y , for t he reas on s st at ed, w e con cl ud e t he co urtdid not abuse its d isc re tio n in strik in g G re e n ’s re p ly , d ism iss in g h is cro ss -c laim , an d e n ter in g ju d g m e n t in fa v o r of L F I. T e rm in a tio n o f

D ire c to rsh ip ¶48 G reen argues t he tr i al cou rterr ed in t erm i nati ng him as di rect or of L F I because it ex p licitly re

jec ted a “ f

in d in g o f f

ra u d ” a n d f

a iled to m a k e a n yo th e r f in d in g s p e rm itt in g h is

r emova l u n d er A
. R
. S. § 10- 809. W e r evi ew de novo ques t i ons of l aw , i ncl udi ng t he interpre tat ion o f st atutes, b u t w il l no t distu rb a tr ial co u rt ’s fa ctua l fi n d ing s u n less theyare32

c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . See Spauldi ng v. P oul i ot , 218 A r i z. 1 9 6 , ¶ 8 , 1 81 P. 3d 243, 246 ( A pp. 2 0 0 8 ). ¶49 I n i t s count er cl ai m agai ns tG r een, L FI s oughtG r een’ s r emoval as di r ect orof L FI pur s uantt o § 10- 809( A )
. A ft er s t r i ki ng G r een’ s r epl y t o L FI ’ s count er cl ai m and ent er i ng hi s defa ul t , t he tr i al cour t“gr ant ed j udgm enti n [L F I’s] f av or. . . exce ptfort he fi ndi ng of f ra u d ” re latin g to L F I’s c laim th a t G r e e n sh o u ld b e re m o v e d a s a d ire c to r p u rsu a n t to § 10- 809. N onethel es s , t he t r i al cour t t erm i nat ed “G r een’ s s t atus as di r ect or of L FI
. . . for a per i od of tw o y ear s . ” See § 1 0 -80 9 (B ). ¶50 “A n entryof def aul tes t abl i s hes as pr oven al l w el l
- pl eade d fac t s . ” Mor an v. Mor an , 1 8 8 A riz . 1 3 9 , 1 4 6 , 9 3 3 P .2 d 1 2 0 7 , 1 2 1 4 ( A p p . 1 9 9 6 ). It d o e s n o t, ho w e v e r, h o ld the p arty in defa ul t“t o have a dm i t t ed conc l us i ons of l aw . ” I d. A ccor di ngl y , “[i ] f a compl ai nt fai l s t o s t at e fac t s l egal l y ent i t l i ng pl ai nt i ff t o a r ecove r y , a defa u ltjud g m ent
r ender ed ther eon i s voi d. ” P r i ce v . Sunm as t er , 27 A r i z. A pp. 771, 774, 558 P. 2d 966, 969 (1976 ). T he tr i al cou rt ’s j ud gm ent i n fav or of L F I on i t s clai m t o h ave G reen r em ov ed as a di r e c t orw a s t he r e fo r e on l ypr op e ri f LFI ’ s c ou nt e r c l a i m al l e ge d f a c t s s uf fi c i e ntt o e nt i t l e LFI to re lie f u n d e r § 1 0 -8 0 9 (A ). See Pri ce , 27 A r i z. A pp. at774, 558 P. 2d at969. ¶51 S e c tio n 1 0 -8 0 9 (A ) p e rm its ju d icia l r e m o v a l o f th e d ire c to r o f a c o rp o ra tio n if t he courtfi n d s ( 1) t he di r ect or“enga ged i n fr audul entconductori nt ent i onal cr i m i nal
c o n d u c t ” a n d ( 2 ) “ [ r ] e mo v a l i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c o rp o r a t i o n . ” I n i t s c o u n t e r c l a i m, L F I e n u me r a t e d “ a s e r i e s o f a c t i o n s ” Gr e e n h a d u n d e r t a k e n “ i n f u r t h e r a n c e o f [ h i s ] o wn33

p erso n al i n terests, ” a ll eg ed tho se a cti o n s w ere “f rau d u lent, ” an d asse rt ed , b ase d o n G ree n ’s act i ons , “hi s cont i nued as s oci at i on w i t h L FI
. . . i s noti n [i t s ] bes ti nt er es t s . ” ¶52 B eca us e the tr i al cour tent er ed def aul taga inst G r een, L FI ’ s al l egat i on
c o n c e rn in g its b e s t in te re s ts is d e e m e d a d m itte d
. See M or an , 188 A r i z. at146, 933 P. 2d at 1214. A s w e ex p lai n, how ever , and as t he courti m pl i ci t l yfound, L FI ’ s as s er t i on t hat G ree n ’s ac ti o n s w ere fra u d u lent w as n o t a “w ell -plea d ed ” f ac t th a t th e e n tr yo f G ree n ’s d e f a u lt c o u ld b e d e e m e d to h a v e e s ta b lis h e d
. See i d. ¶53 A n all eg ati o n o f frau d m u st b e pled w ith p arti cu lari ty . A ri z. R
. C iv. P. 9(b ). “A l t ho ug h ther e i s no ‘m agic l ang uag e’ r equ i red t o st at e a cl ai m for fraud, ” a cl ai m ant m ust

“ p le a d a ll th e e s s e n tia l e le m e n ts o f . . . f ra u d ” in h is c o m p la in t. Li nder v. B r ow n & H er r i ck , 189 A r i z. 398, 404- 05, 943 P. 2d 758, 764- 65 (A p p . 1997)
. Fr aud maybe ei t heractual or
c o n s tru c tiv e . S e e B ra ze e v . Mo rr is , 6 8 A ri z . 2 2 4 , 2 2 7 -2 8 , 2 0 4 P .2 d 4 7 5 , 4 7 6 -7 7 (1 9 4 9 ). A sh o w in g o f

a c tu a l f ra u d re q u ire s: ( 1) a r epr es ent ati o n , ( 2) i t s fal s i t y , ( 3) i t s m at er i al i t y , ( 4) t he s pe a k e r ’ s k n o wl e d g e o f i t s f a l s i t yo ri g n o r a n c e o f

i t s t ru t h, ( 5) the sp eake r ’ s i nt entt hatt he i nform at i on s houl d be ac t ed upon byt he hea r er a n d i n a mannerr eas onabl ycont empl at ed, ( 6) t he hear er ’ s i gnor ance of t he i nform at i on’ s fal s i t y , (7) t he h e a re r’s re lian c e o n its tru th , (8 ) th e h e a re r’s rig h t to re ly t h e r e o n , a n d ( 9 ) t h e h e a r e r ’ s c o n s e q u e n ta n d p r o x i m a t e i n j u r y. T aeg er v. C athol i c Fam i l y & C m t y. Servs. , 196 A r i z. 285, ¶ 28, 995 P. 2d 7 2 1 , 7 3 0 (A pp. 1 9 9 9 ); s ee al

s o E chol s v. B eaut

y Bui l tH

om es , I nc. , 132 A r i z. 498, 500, 647 P. 2d 629, 631 ( 1982)
. C ons t ruct i ve fr aud, i n con tr ast , i s “‘ a br eac h of l egal orequi t abl e dutyw hi ch,34

w i t houtr egar d t o m or al gui l tori nt entof th e p erso n char ged, t he l aw decl ar es fr audul ent beca us e the br eac h t ends t o dece i ve ot her s , vi ol at es publ i c or pr i vat e confi dence s , ori nj ur es p ubl i c i nt er es t s . ’ ” D aw s on v. W i thycom be , 2 1 6 Ar i z . 8 4 , ¶ 7 2 , 1 6 3 P. 3 d 1 0 3 4, 1057 ( A pp. 2 0 0 7 ), q u o t i n gL a s l e

y v . He lms , 1 7 9 A ri z. 58 9 , 5 9 1 , 8 8 0 P .2 d 1 1 3 5 , 1 1 3 7 (A p p . 1 9 9 4 ). A lth o u g h c o n stru c tiv e f ra u d “ d o e s n o t re q u ire a sh o w in g o f in ten t to d e c e iv e o r d ish o n e sty of purpos e, i tdoes r equi r e a f i duci aryorconfi dent i al r el at i ons hi p, ” a “ br eac h of dutybyt he per s on i n t he conf

i dent i al or fi duci ary r el at i ons hi p, ” and t hatt he per s on i n br eac h “i nduce[ d] j us t i fi abl e r el i ance by t he ot her t o hi s detr i m ent . ” D aw s on , 216 A r i z. 84, ¶ 72, 163 P. 3d at 1 0 5 7 (cit ati o n o m itted). ¶54 D es pi t e i t s enumer at i on of G r een’ s al l egedl y fr audul ent act i vi t i es , L FI fai l ed to a lle g e in its c o u n te rc la im a n y f a c ts c o n s titu tin g th e e le m e n ts o f a c tu a l f ra u d
. See Taege r , 1 9 6 A ri z. 28 5 , ¶ 2 8 , 9 9 5 P
. 2 d at 73 0
. R eg ard ing co n stru c tiv e f ra u d , alth o u g h L F I’s count er cl ai m does as s er t G r een br eac hed fi duci ary dut i es he ow ed L FI , i tdoes notal l ege a ny f a c ts th a t w o u ld su p p o rt a f in d in g th a t G re e n in d u c e d L F I to re lyo n h im to its d e trim e n t. D a w s on , 2 1 6 Ar i z . 8 4 , ¶ 7 2 , 1 6 3 P. 3 d a t 1 0 5 7
. Be c a u s e LFI f a i l e d t o p l ead “ t he ci r cumst ance s cons t i tut i ng fr aud .
. . w i t h par t i cul ar i t y ” as r equi r ed b y R u le 9 (b), t he tr i al
cour t pr oper l y decl i ned t o fi nd t hat t he ent r y of defaul t es t abl i s hed L FI ’ s fr aud al l egat i on as p ro v e n . See M

or an , 188 A r i z. at146, 933 P. 2d at1214. ¶55 N ot w i t hs t andi ng L FI ’ s fai l ur e t o pr oper l ypl ead— and the tr i al cour t ’ s corr ect ref u s al t o fi nd— fr aud, t he court , w i t houtexpl anat i on, ent er ed j udgm enti n L FI ’ s favor,L F I su g g e sts th e trial c o u rt ter m in a ted G re e n ’s d ire c to rsh ip a s a sa n c tio n f o r h is 14 n o n c o m p lian c e w ith c o u rt o rd e rs a n d , th e re f o re , th e c o u rt w a s n o t b o u n d b yth e re q u ire m e n ts of § 10- 809. B ut§ 10- 809 governs j udi ci al r emoval of corpor at e di r ect or s , and w e nei t her fin d n o r ha s L F I cit ed , an yau th o ri ty s u g g esti n g a tri al co u rtm aycircu m v en t th e statuto ry pr er equi s i t es forr emoval bychar act er i zi ng i t s rul i ng as a s anct i on. 35 re m o v in g G re e n a s d ire c to r p u rsu a n t to § 1 0 -8 0 9
. In th e a b se n c e o f f ra u d , § 1 0 -8 0 9 p e rm its 14

a d ire c to r’s re m o v a l o n lyif h e o r sh e e n g a g e d in in ten tio n a l c rim in a l a c tiv ity
. B u t L F I d id
no t plead any fact s all eging t hat G reen had eng aged i n int enti on al cri m i nal cond uct. B ecause L FI fai l ed t o al l ege f

act s s uffi ci entt o ent i t l e i tt o r el i ef unde r§ 10- 809, t he courterr ed by
re m o v in g G re e n a s a d ire c to r o f L F I , a n d w e m u st th e re f o re v a c a te th a t p o rtio n o f its ju d g m e n t. P r i ce , 27 A r i z. A pp. at774, 558 P. 2d at969. F ra u d A g a in st C o m p u ter s C laim ¶56 G reen con t end s the tr i al cou rt ’s rejec t i on of L F I’ s fr aud al l egati on al so p re c lu d e s ju d g m e n t ag a in st h im o n L F I’s c laim p u rsu a n t to 1 8 U .S .C
. § 1 0 3 0 . T h a t sta tu te g o v e rn s c iv il an d c rim in a l li a b ili tyf o r “ f r a u d a n d re late d a c tiv ityin c o n n e c tio n w ith comput er s . ” 18 U
. S. C
. § 1030. N one of i t s s ubs ect i ons , how ever , r equi r e a f i ndi ng of ac tual fr aud. G r een a ppar ent l yr efe r s t o s ubs ect i on ( a) ( 4) , w hi ch r equi r es a fi nd ing t hata per s on
acc es s ed a pr ot ect ed comput erw i t h “i nt entt o defr aud” a nd i n fur t her ance of “the i nt ended fraud. ” A ssum i ng , arguen do , t hat t he court ’s rej ect i on of L F I’ s fraud al l ega tio n a l so i mp l i c i t l yr e

j e c t e d a n y a s s e r t i o n o f i n t e n t t o d e f r a u d , h o we v e r , o t h e rs u b s e c t i o n s o f 1 8 U. S
. C. § 1030 r equi r e no s uch fi ndi ng. Forexampl e, s ubs ect i on ( a) ( 5) ( C ) pr ohi bi t s i nt ent i onal unauthor i zed a cce s s “ca us [i ng] damage and l os s . ” I n any event , L FI di d notexpl i ci t l yal l ege36

fr aud i n t hi s por t i on of i t s compl ai nt , i ns t ead a s s er t i ng G r een ha d damaged i tby“abs condi ng
w ith and r et ai ning i nfo rm at i on belonging t o L F I. ” P end i ng L F I’ s proof of dam age s, th is conductfal l s w i t hi n 18 U
. S. C
. § 1030( a) ( 5) ( C ) , and the cour t pr oper l y ent er ed defa ul t on t hat
c l a i m. C o p yrig h t In f

rin g e m e n t C laim ¶57 L as t , G r een c ont ends t he tr i al cour tl acke d s ubj ect m at t er j ur i s di ct i on t o ent er j udgm enti n favorof LF I on i t s copyr i ght i nfr i ngementcl ai m br oughtpur s uantt o T i t l e 17 of t he U nit ed Stat es C od e. H e furt her ass ert s the co urt ’s j ud gm ent r egardi ng t hat cl ai m m ust t her efor e be va cat ed. A s G r een not es , s ubj ect m at t erj ur i s di ct i on cannotbe w ai ved and may b e ra is e d a t a n y s ta g e o f a p ro c e e d in g . See Swi t chenbe r g v. B r i m er , 171 A r i z. 77, 82, 828 P. 2d 1218, 1223 ( A pp. 1991)
. “A j udgm entm aybe att acke d as voi d” i f the courtt hatent er ed it la c k e d s u b

je c t m a tte r j u r i s d ic tio n . In re A d o p tio n o f H a d tra th , 121 A r i z. 606, 608, 592 P. 2d 1262, 1264 ( 1979)
. W hethera j udgm enti s voi d i s a ques t i on of l aw w e r evi ew de novo. I n r e Estat e of

de Escandon , 2 1 5 A ri z. 24 7 , ¶ 7 , 1 5 9 P
. 3 d 5 5 7 , 5 5 9 (A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶58 Pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1338( a) , fede r al d ist ri ctcour t s al one have “or i gi nal ju ri s d ic tio n o f

a n yc iv il a c tio n a ri s in g u n d e r a n y A c t o f C o n g re s s re la tin g to . . . c o p yri g h ts .” T h is in c lu d e s ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r c la im s , lik e L F I’ s , th a t a ri s e o u t o f T itle 1 7 , U .S .C
. See i d. L F I d o e s n o t su g g e s t o th e rw is e o r p ro v id e a n y re s p o n s e to G re e n ’s a s s e rt io n . See I n r e 1996 Nissan Sen tra , 2 0 1 A riz . 1 1 4 , ¶ 7 , 3 2 P .3 d 3 9 , 4 2 (A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) (f a ilu re to a d d re ss in
an sw ering b ri ef

issue s raised o n a p p e a l “ca n b e c o n side red a c o n fe ssion o f e rror”).Be c a u s e we a f f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s e n t r yo f d e f a u l ta s t o t h e b u y - s e l l a g r e e me n t , we 15 d o n o t r e a c h L F I’ s a rg u m e n t th a t th e is s u e is m o o t. 37 A ccor di ngl y , w e vac at e t he por t i on of t he tr i al cour t ’ s j udgm entr el at i ng t o L FI ’ s copyr i ght i nfr i ngementcl ai m as voi d forl ack of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on. D i s posi t i on ¶59 Fort he r eas ons s t at ed above, w e vaca t e thos e por t i ons of the tr i al cour t ’ s rul i ng gr a nt i ng LFI j ud gmen t on i t s c l a i m of c op yr i gh ti nf r i ng e menta nd t e r mi na t i ng G r e e n’ s LFI d ire c to rsh ip . W e a f

f irm th e re m a in d e r o f

th e ju d g m e n t. 15

J
. W I L L I A M B R A M M E R , J R
. , J udge CO NC UR RI NG:

J O H N PE L A N D E R , C hi ef J udge

H O W A R D , J udge, di s s ent i ng. ¶60 I m us tr es pect ful l y di s s ent fr om t he m aj or i t y beca us e onl yt he l egi s l atur e ca n change a s t atut e and onl y t he s upr eme c our t can c hange i t s i nt erpr et at i on of a s t atut e. U nderT h e m ajorityp o ints ou t som e a m b igu ityin the rec o rd a s to w h ethe r th e tri al co u rt ’s 16 o rd e r w a s a c o n te m p t o rd e r u n d e r § 1 2 -8 6 4 o r a d is c o v e ry sa n c tio n . Su pra , ¶ 11. B utG r een hi m s el f ar gues on appeal that the o r derw as a cont empt or dergoverned by§ 12- 864. M o reo v er, as the m ajority lat er d iscu sses , the o rde rs th at G ree n v iolated w ere n o t disco v ery o rd e rs . Su

pra , ¶¶ 27- 29. 38 the cu rren t st at e of the l aw , t hi s cour tdoes nothave j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s appea l fr om t he t r i al cour t ’ s ci vi l cont empt or deri s s ued underA
. R
. S. § 12- 864. 16 ¶61 “‘ [T]he r i ght t o appea l exi s t s onl y by for ce of s t atut e. ’ ” O suna v. W al-Mart St or es , I nc. , 2 1 4 A ri z . 2 8 6 , ¶ 9 , 1 5 1 P .3 d 1 2 6 7 , 1 2 7 0 (A p p . 2 0 0 7 ), q u o tin gC o rd o v a v . C ity of Tucs on , 15 A r iz. A p p . 4 69, 470, 489 P. 2d 727, 728 ( 1971) ( al t er at i on i n O s una )
. I n Ex par t e W r ight , 36 A r i z. 8, 13, 281 P. 944, 946 ( 1929) , ours upr eme cour ts ai d: “C as es fal l i ng
w i t hi n s ect i on 4474 [now A
. R
. S. § 12- 864]
. . . m us t be governed byt he ‘ pr act i ce a nd us age
o f th e c o m m o n law .’ A c c o rd in g to su c h p ra c tice a n d u sa g e th e c o n tem n o r is n o t en tit led to
a j ur y t r i al nor t o an appe al ort o bai l
. ” See a l so V an D yke v. Su peri or C ou rt , 24 A r i z. 508, 5 3 7 , 5 4 4 , 2 1 1 P . 5 7 6 , 5 8 5 -8 6 , 5 8 8 (1 9 2 2 ). A d d iti o n a lly , in Stat e v. Mul l igan , 126 A r i z. 210, 216, 613 P. 2d 1266, 1272 ( 1980) , t he court s t at ed: “W e fi nd no author i zat i on fors uch an appea l fr om t he cont empt char ges , ei t herbys t atut e orrul es of thi s cour t . F indi ngs of cont empt ar e non- appea l abl e or der s . ” ¶62 W e hav e no auth o ri t yt o ignore or al t er s up rem e cou rtprono un cem ents . P ho enix N

ew spap ers, Inc. v. D ep’tof C orrs. , 188 A r i z. 237, 241, 934 P. 2d 801, 805 ( A pp. 1997)
. Sect i on 12- 864 s t i l l cont ai ns t he s ame l an g u ag e re qui r i ng t hatcont empt cas es be governed byt he “pr act i ce and us age of t he comm on l aw . ” A nd t he cont empt s t atut es s t i l l do39

notexpl i ci t l ypr ovi de foran appe al fr om ci vi l cont empt , alt h o u g h t heydo pr ovi de foran
a p p e a l f ro m c ri m in a l c o n te m p t. See A
. R
. S. §§ 12- 861, 12- 863. T her efor e, acc or di ng t o t he bi ndi ng pr ece denti n W

r ight , w h ich h a s n e v e r be e n o v e rru led , the leg isla tu re h a s s p e c if ica lly p ro v id e d th a t n o a p p e a l w ill li e f ro m a c iv il c o n te m p t o rd e r. ¶63 T h e o r d e r h e r e d e t e r m i n e s a p a rt y ’ s l i a b i l i t y , a n d i t h a s R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , Ar i z . R. C iv . P ., lan g u a g e m a k in g it p ro c e d u ra lly a f in a l o rd e r. M o st f

in a l o rd e rs a re su b sta n tiv e ly ap p ea lable p u rsua n t to A
. R
. S
. § 1 2 -21 0 1 (B ), an d interl o cu toryo rde rs de term ining a p arty ’s

r i ght s m ay be appea l abl e under§ 12- 2101( G )
. B uta s peci fi c s t atut e contr ol s overa gene r al
s ta tu te . S e e L a C a n a da Hills L td . P ’s h ip v . K ite , 217 A r i z. 126, ¶ 9, 171 P. 3d 195, 198 ( A pp. 2007)
. B yr equi r i ng ci vi l cont empt s t o be “puni s hed i n conform i t y t o t he pr act i ce a nd us age of t he comm on l aw , ” § 12- 864, t he l egi s l atur e has s peci fi cal l ydi r ect ed thats uch cont empt orders are s ub st a n tiv e ly n o t a p p e a la b le
. See W r ight , 36 A r i z. at13, 281 P. at946

. A ccor di ngl y , t he gener al appea l s t atut e cannot confe r s ubs t ant i ve appea l abi l i t y on an or der th a t th e le g is la tu re h a s s p e c if ic a lly d e te rm in e d is n o t s u b je c t to a p p e a l. ¶64 M o reo v er, th e g en era l app ea l st atute, § 1 2 -2 1 0 1 , e x ist ed in it s p rese n t fo rm
w hen t he s upr eme cour ti s s ued Mul l igan . T he supr eme cour t di d nots ayt hat , i f a c ont empt
or derw as cas e- di s pos i t i ve, i tw as exemptfr om t he br oad l anguage that “[f ] i ndi ngs of cont empt ar e non- appea l abl e or der s ” and w as i ns t ead governed by t he gener al appea l s t atut e. Mul l igan , 126 A r i z. at216, 613 P. 2d at1272. A nd I do nots ee how the n ature of the
s anct i on i m pos ed byt he nonappe al abl e cont empt or der can i nves tt hi s cour tw i t h j ur i s di ct i on40

t he l egi s l atur e has w i t hhel d. A ddi t i onal l y , as s t at ed above, w e have no pow ert o i gnor e or
a lte r s u p re m e c o u rt p ro n o u n c e m e n ts . See P ho enix N ew spap ers , 188 A r i z. at 241, 934 P. 2d
a t 8 0 5 . N o r c a n w e g u e s s h o w th a t c o u rt m ig h t re s o lv e a n is s u e in th e f u tu re . See Stat e v. Ke ith , 2 1 1 A ri z . 4 3 6 , ¶ 3 , 1 2 2 P .3 d 2 2 9 , 2 3 0 (A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). ¶65 I w o u ld d ism iss G re e n ’s a p p e a l f o r l a c k o fju risd ictio n a n d , th e re f o re , I d iss e n t.

J O SE PH W
. H O W A R D , Pr es i di ng J udge