Court Opinion

ID: 9909112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-12 17:02:36.454382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:11.124419
License: Public Domain

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                                    IN THE
             ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
                                DIVISION ONE

                    RICHARD RYNN, Plaintiff/Appellant,

                                        v.

  AVONDALE COURT, CRAIG JENNINGS, et al, Defendants/Appellees.

                             No. 1 CA-CV 23-0092
                               FILED 12-12-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                          No. CV2022-011208
                      Avondale Municipal Court
                           No. P02019000235
                 The Honorable John R. Hannah, Judge

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

Richard Rynn, Chandler
Plaintiff/Appellant
Office of the City Attorney, Avondale
By Stephen M. Kemp, Lisa Maxie-Mullins, Brandon James Cartwright,
Nicholle Harris
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees City of Avondale, Avondale City Court,
Honorable Craig Jennings

Littler Mendelson, P.C., Phoenix
By R. Shawn Oller, Kimberly Shappley
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees First Transit and Patrick Camunez

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge Michael S. Catlett joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1            Richard Rynn appeals the superior court’s denial of special
action jurisdiction over his previously-litigated claims against the City of
Avondale, Avondale City Court, and Avondale City Court Judge Craig
Jennings (collectively “Appellees”). We affirm.

                  FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2           In 2019, Judge Craig Jennings issued an injunction against
harassment (“Injunction”) against Rynn as a result of his harassment of a
coworker at their mutual place of employment, First Transit. The
Injunction was upheld after a hearing on the merits and Rynn appealed to
the Maricopa County Superior Court where he fully litigated the matter.

¶3             Since May 2020, Rynn filed at least two other actions with the
superior court relating to the same Injunction. Both were removed to
federal court, fully litigated, and dismissed with prejudice. See Rynn v. First
Transit, Inc., 2:20-cv-01309-JJT, 2021 WL 3209665 (D. Ariz. 2021); see also
Rynn v. First Transit, Inc., 2:21-cv-01755-DWL, 2021 WL 6050312 (D. Ariz.
2021).

¶4           Then, in 2022, Rynn returned to the superior court belatedly
seeking special action relief from its rulings in the appeal. The superior
court denied special action jurisdiction.

                                      2
                        RYNN v. AVONDALE, et al.
                          Decision of the Court

¶5          Rynn timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 12-2101(A)(1).

                               DISCUSSION

¶6            As a preliminary matter we note that Rynn’s opening brief
fails to comply with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure (“ARCAP”)
13. ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A) requires an argument that includes “contentions
concerning each issue presented for review, with supporting reasons for
each contention, and with citations of legal authorities and appropriate
references to the [] record.” “We consider waived those arguments not
supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority.”
In re Aubuchon, 233 Ariz. 62, 65, ¶6 (2013).

¶7             Rynn identifies over thirteen issues for review on appeal, but
his arguments are not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the
record, or citations to relevant authority. Additionally, Rynn’s arguments
rely on factual assertions not found in the record.

¶8             To the extent that Rynn’s opening brief can be read to appeal
the superior court’s denial of special action jurisdiction over his belated
filing, we hold the superior court did not abuse its discretion. “A court’s
decision to decline or accept special-action jurisdiction is discretionary.”
Stapert v. Ariz. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 210 Ariz. 177, 182 (App. 2005).
“If the superior court declines jurisdiction of the special action and does not
rule on the merits, we determine only whether the court abused its
discretion in declining jurisdiction.” Files v. Bernal, 200 Ariz. 64, 65 (2001).
“Generally, a court abuses its discretion where the record fails to provide
substantial support for its decision, or the court commits an error of law in
reaching the decision.” Id.

¶9            The superior court denied special action jurisdiction,
explaining there was no legal basis for the action and that city judges enjoy
absolute judicial immunity in judicial acts.

¶10           Like in his briefs on appeal, Rynn failed to state discernible
claims in his petition for special action before the superior court. To the
extent the superior court denied Rynn’s petition for failing to state an
appropriate ground for relief under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60
(“Rule 60”), that ruling was not an abuse of discretion. Rule 60 lists the
grounds for relief from judgment. Depending on the grounds alleged, Rule
60(b) motions must be made within a reasonable time or “no more than 6
months after the entry of the judgment […].” Rynn’s special action was

                                       3
                       RYNN v. AVONDALE, et al.
                         Decision of the Court

filed three years after the Injunction was issued. All potentially applicable
grounds for relief in Rule 60 are now time barred except for that of relief
from a void judgment.

¶11            A judgment is void when the issuing court lacks jurisdiction.
Master Financial, Inc. v. Woodburn, 208 Ariz. 70, 74, ¶19 (App. 2004). Rynn
has not demonstrated, or even argued, that the city court lacked jurisdiction
to entertain the matter of the Injunction. The superior court did not abuse
its discretion in denying the motion for special action on this basis.

¶12           The superior court further noted that any claims against
Judge Jennings related to his issuance of the Injunction were barred by the
doctrine of judicial immunity because his entry of the Injunction was
plainly a judicial act. “[T]he judiciary, in carrying out its functions, is
entitled to absolute immunity.” Acevedo by Acevedo v. Pima County Adult
Probation Dept., 142 Ariz. 319, 322 (1984). Therefore, the superior court did
not abuse its discretion when it also denied special action jurisdiction on
this basis.

¶13            The City of Avondale, Judge Craig Jennings, First Transit,
Inc., and Patrick Camunez all request an award of attorneys’ fees under
A.R.S. § 12-349. Attorneys’ fees may be imposed against a party who brings
a claim without substantial justification. A.R.S. § 12-349. As defined in the
statute, a claim lacks substantial justification when it is both “groundless”
and “not made in good faith.” A.R.S. § 12-349(F). “While groundless is
determined objectively, bad faith is a subjective determination.” Takieh v.
O’Meara, 252 Ariz. 51, 61, ¶37 (App. 2021). “A claim is groundless if the
proponent can present no rational argument based upon the evidence or
law in support of that claim.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).

¶14           Rynn’s appeal of the special action is groundless and not
made in good faith. As discussed above, Rynn provides no legal basis for
his pursuit of special action relief years after a final judgment was entered
and appealed. Rynn has fully litigated his claims related to the Injunction
and each has been finally determined. See Rynn v. First Transit, 21-16836,
2022 WL 17176487 (9th Cir. 2022); Rynn v. First Transit, Inc., 2:20-cv-01309-
JJT, 2021 WL 3209665 (D. Ariz. 2021); Rynn v. First Transit, Inc., 2:21-cv-
01755-DWL, 2021 WL 6050312 (D. Ariz. 2021); Rynn v. First Transit Inc., CV-
21-01755-PHX-DWL, 2022 WL 287003 (D. Ariz. 2022). Rynn’s continuous
appeals without a legal basis cannot be considered to be made in good faith.
Therefore, we grant Appellees’ request for attorney’s fees upon compliance
with ARCAP 21.

                                     4
              RYNN v. AVONDALE, et al.
                Decision of the Court

                      CONCLUSION

¶15   We affirm.

                   AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                   FILED: AA

                                5