Court Opinion

ID: 9549822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:25:19.546159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:57.228605
License: Public Domain

VOSS, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority in all respects with one exception. In affirming the trial court’s assessment of $30,000 in sanctions, the majority correctly concludes that:
it was untenable for Prakel to sue more than 190 individuals based on factually groundless allegations unwarranted by existing law and unsupported by a good faith argument for a change in Arizona law. These baseless claims needlessly extended litigation and caused the defendants substantial expense in defending them----
However, the majority declines defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees on appeal. Because Prakel’s allegations are equally groundless and costly on appeal, I would have awarded defendants attorneys’ fees pursuant to Rule 25 and A.R.S. section 12-341.01.