Opinion
No. 1 CA-CV 18-0431
05-16-2019
DAN DOOM, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. ANN SEYMOUR, Defendant/Appellant.
COUNSEL Dan Doom, Aztec, New Mexico Plaintiff/Appellee Ann Seymour, Paulden Defendant/Appellant
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Apache County
No. S0100CV201800017
The Honorable Steve Williams, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Dan Doom, Aztec, New Mexico
Plaintiff/Appellee
Ann Seymour, Paulden
Defendant/Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.
CRUZ, Judge:
¶1 Appellant Ann Seymour, appearing pro per, appeals a decision by the superior court in favor of Appellee Dan Doom. Appellant's brief asserts eleven separate issues but fails to give supporting reasons for any contention therein, cite to the record, cite to legal authority, or otherwise comply with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 13. Accordingly, and because we find no clear error on review of the record, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Appellee, a resident of New Mexico, filed a civil complaint in Apache County Superior Court against Appellant, a resident of Arizona, for breach of an agreement for sale of real estate and for damage to his property discovered upon reversion. Appellant answered and alleged counterclaims, and also filed a notice of removal to federal district court. The district court later remanded the case to state court, and Appellant filed a notice with the superior court indicating her intent to appeal the district court's remand to the Ninth Circuit, but the record reflects that Appellant did not do so. Appellant filed further motions to dismiss and to continue; each of these was denied on the date of the scheduled bench trial. The court, after hearing testimony and receiving exhibits in evidence, found in favor of Appellee, awarded $28,092.31 in damages and costs, and ordered that Appellant vacate the property.
¶3 Appellant timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1).
DISCUSSION
¶4 On appeal, opening briefs must, at a minimum, present arguments containing "Appellant's contentions concerning each issue presented for review, with supporting reasons for each contention, and with citations of legal authorities and appropriate references to the portions of the record on which the appellant relies." ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A). Appellant's brief does not comply with these requirements. In her brief, Appellant states that "[a] complete opening brief will be submitted to the court shortly [in] the form of an amended brief." However, no such brief was ever filed.
¶5 When an appellant fails to present an adequate argument to this court, we are under no obligation to attempt to decipher it. See Gillard
v. Estrella Dells I Imp. Dist., 25 Ariz. App. 141, 148 (1975) (noting the court of appeals is "justified in refusing to consider" an element of an appeal where "Appellants provide the Court with no assistance whatsoever in determining whether the trial court was proper").
¶6 Given the lack of guidance from Appellant as to the legal basis supporting her claim for relief, we nevertheless reviewed the record for any clear error and found none. The appealed order reflects that the court properly exercised its discretion in disposing of Appellant's motions, considered the record before it, and made sufficient findings and conclusions to support its judgment. Finally, Appellant's contention that her case belongs in federal court is moot. The district court remanded Appellant's case for lack of diversity and subject matter jurisdiction, and that remand is unreviewable by this or any other court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); Gravitt v. SW Bell Tel. Co., 430 U.S. 723, 724 (1977) (stating that remands by the district court to the state court from which removal was attempted are "not reviewable").
CONCLUSION
¶7 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the superior court.