Court Opinion

ID: 9930382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 19:02:38.970611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:14:33.625066
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

       ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, Plaintiff/Appellee,

                                         v.

                MIKE MICHAEL, et al., Defendants/Appellants.

                              No. 1 CA-CV 22-0384
                                FILED 2-6-2024

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                           No. CV2020-006886
                 The Honorable Katherine Cooper, Judge

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Mike Michael, Phoenix
Defendant/Appellant

Berry Riddell LLC, Scottsdale
By Martin A. Aronson, Jeffrey D. Gross, Michael W. Zimmerman
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee

Osborn Maledon, P.A., Phoenix
By Joseph N. Roth, John S. Bullock
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
                          APS v. MICHAEL, et al.
                           Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr., and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.

F U R U Y A, Judge:

¶1          Mike Michael1 appeals the superior court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of Arizona Public Service (“APS”) in an action to
condemn his property for public use. For the following reasons, we affirm.

                FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            In early January 2019, APS approached Michael and his sister,
Bonnie Michael (collectively the “Michaels”) with an offer to purchase two
parcels of land for a total of $4,500,000, intending to use the parcels to
construct a new electrical substation. The Michaels never accepted the offer,
and it expired later that month.

¶3             In November 2019, APS sent an amended offer. The amended
offer did not state an expiration date but specified a contract would only be
formed when “executed by Buyer and Seller.” Later, during litigation, APS
submitted a declaration claiming the Michaels refused to sign the amended
agreement. In their Answer and Counterclaim, the Michaels allege they
faxed a signed acceptance to APS, which APS denied receiving in its
Response to Counterclaim. In March 2020, APS withdrew its offer to
purchase the property. The Michaels acknowledge receiving APS’s letter
withdrawing the offer and regard it as a termination.

¶4           In May 2020, APS sent the Michaels a final offer to purchase
the properties for the appraised value of $1,630,000. The Michaels did not

1      Mike Michael, Bonnie Michael Span, and Darlene Span initiated this
appeal. Mike Michael advised the court his sister Bonnie Michael Span is
now deceased. This court denied Michael’s motion to substitute himself
and Darlene Span as personal representatives for Bonnie M. Span and
dismissed her from this appeal. Further, the remaining appellants,
including Darlene Span, were ordered to file an opening brief. However,
only Mike Michael did so. Therefore, because Darlene Span failed to
comply with this directive, it is ordered dismissing her from this appeal.

                                     2
                          APS v. MICHAEL, et al.
                           Decision of the Court

respond, and APS filed an action to condemn the property under Arizona
Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 12-1111.

¶5            Throughout the ensuing litigation, the Michaels neither
responded to APS’s discovery requests—to include APS’s requests for
admissions per Rule 36 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure—nor
introduced any evidence that would be admissible at trial. Instead, they
submitted several unverified filings with captions such as “What?? Not
Allowed to Have a Lawyer Imposible [sic] – It’s Ungodly and Unfair” and
“A Demand Stop!! Everything – Stop the Plunder!!! Stop the Injustice!!! Stop
the Insanity.” These filings generally expressed the Michaels’ outrage
regarding the litigation and attached—without any attempt at providing
foundation—various photographs and newspaper clippings, an affidavit
from 1988, and their correspondence with APS. They also attached a copy
of the acceptance document they allegedly faxed to APS but did not indicate
when they sent it or when APS received it.

¶6            APS moved for summary judgment, attaching declarations of
one of its employees stating the public purpose for APS’s condemnation of
the property is for use as an electrical substation and another providing a
purported fair market value for the property. The court ordered the
Michaels to respond to APS’s motion by January 4, 2022. But the Michaels
did not respond until March 11, 2022, claiming a previous filing in February
2022 served as their response. Neither filing included a separate statement
of facts, nor did they attach any affidavits or declarations responsive to
APS’s motion.

¶7            On March 14, 2022, the superior court granted APS’s motion
for summary judgment. In its order granting summary judgment, the court
dismissed the Michaels’ counterclaim with prejudice, granted APS the right
to condemn the property, and set the compensation amount for the parcels
at $2,287,000. The Michaels timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under
A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1).

                              DISCUSSION

¶8             We review the entry of summary judgment de novo. ADP,
LLC v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, 254 Ariz. 417, 421 ¶ 5 (App. 2023). We view
the facts in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary
judgment was entered and draw all justifiable inferences in its favor. Id.
Summary judgment is appropriate when “the moving party shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Parties may

                                     3
                          APS v. MICHAEL, et al.
                           Decision of the Court

use affidavits to support or oppose motions for summary judgment, but
such “must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be
admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant is competent to testify on
the matters stated.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(5).

¶9             Where a movant supports its motion with an affidavit or
equivalent evidence, “an opposing party may not rely merely on allegations
or denials of its own pleading.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Rather, the resisting
party “must, by affidavits or as otherwise provided [by] rule, set forth
specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.” Id.

¶10             Michael argues the superior court erred by granting summary
judgment to APS because he filed a timely response and presented disputed
issues of fact. We disagree.

¶11           Following APS’s motion for summary judgment, the superior
court gave the Michaels until January 4, 2022 to file a response. Michael
claims in his March 11 filing that he responded in February. But both dates
were past the superior court’s deadline and thus, untimely.

¶12            Michael rejoins that the summary judgment rules do not
automatically entitle the moving party to judgment if a party fails to
respond to the motion. This is a correct expression of the law. Schwab v.
Ames Constr., 207 Ariz. 56, 59–60 ¶15 (App. 2004) (“A failure to respond to
a motion for summary judgment with a written memorandum or opposing
affidavits cannot, by itself, entitle the moving party to summary judgment.
The . . . court must consider the entire record before deciding a summary
judgment motion.”). Nevertheless, our review of APS’s motion does not
reveal any deficiencies.

¶13            APS supported its motion with declarations made upon
personal knowledge that purported to establish both APS’s qualifying,
necessary public use for the condemnation, see Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 17,
A.R.S. § 12-1111(10), and the fair market value of the property being taken,
see Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 17, A.R.S. § 12-1116. And Michael established no
genuine issues of material fact, as was his burden. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
And he filed no verification or controverting affidavits or declarations per
Rule 56(c)(5). Michael did so “at his peril because uncontroverted evidence
favorable to the movant, and from which only one inference can be drawn,
will be presumed to be true.” Choisser v. State ex rel. Herman, 12 Ariz. App.
259, 261 (1970). Such is the case here. Even if Michael’s filings could be
regarded as timely and responsive to APS’s motion, they do not adequately
contest the facts established by APS’s supporting declarations.

                                      4
                          APS v. MICHAEL, et al.
                           Decision of the Court

¶14          On this record, we perceive no abuse of discretion in the
superior court’s grant of APS’s motion. Accordingly, we affirm the grant of
summary judgment in favor of APS.

                               CONCLUSION

¶15          We affirm.

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

                                         5