|
Experience
Litigation
State of Arizona, et al. v. Arizona Board of Regents, et al.
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Superior Court of Arizona
Counsel for Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) in the Arizona Superior Court and the Court of Appeals of Arizona, defending suit by the State Attorney General concerning ABOR's lease of land to Omni Hotels for the construction of a hotel adjacent to the Arizona State University campus, where the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Arizona Superior Court to (1) dismiss three counts of the Attorney General's suit on the grounds that he did not have statutory authority to bring those three counts; (2) grant summary judgment to ABOR on the fourth count that alleged a violation of the Arizona Gift Clause on the grounds that the Attorney General's complaint was untimely under the Arizona statute of limitations; and (3) grant ABOR an award of nearly $1 million for attorneys' fees. (Decided April 20, 2021, No. TX2019-000011) ___ Ariz. ___, ___ P.3d ___ (2021)
State of Arizona, ex rel, Mark Brnovich, Attorney General v. Arizona Board of Regents
Supreme Court of Arizona
Counsel for Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) in the Arizona Superior Court, the Arizona Court of Appeals, and the Arizona Supreme Court, defending suit by the state attorney general alleging that ABOR’s tuition policies violated the state constitution. Agreeing with ABOR’s position, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial and court of appeals decisions holding that the attorney general did not have statutory authority to bring his constitutional claim. The Supreme Court also remanded for further proceeding the attorney general’s separate challenge to ABOR’s now-abandoned practice of charging in-state tuition to DACA students graduating from Arizona high schools. (Decided November 25 , 2020, No. CV-19-0247) 250 Ariz. 127, 476 P.3d 307 (2020)
Chant Manoukian v. Judge LaBianca and Kathryn Manoukian
Arizona Court of Appeals
Co-counsel for Petitioner Chant Manoukian in a special action challenging the superior court decision granting Kathryn Manoukian's motion for forum non conveniens in a marriage dissolution matter. The Arizona Court of Appeals vacated the superior court's order dismissing Chant Manoukian's petition for dissolution on the grounds of forum non conveniens and remanded for instructions to the superior court to apply and balance the relevant factors related to the application of forum non conveniens. (No. 1 CA-SA 20-0202)
Motorola Inc. v. Fairchild Camera and Instrument Corporation Inc.
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
Counsel for C. Lester Hogan in case involving alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and theft of trade secrets. Trial court granted Hogan's motion to dismiss under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 366 F. Supp. 1173 (D. Ariz. 1973)
Hifn Inc. v. Intel Corporation
Court of Chancery of Delaware
Counsel for Intel in contract claim brought by Hifn involving IPSec technology. Delaware Court of Chancery granted Intel's motion for summary judgment. (2006 - 2007)
Fulkerson v. Prescott Valley, et al.
Superior Court of Arizona, Yavapai County
Counsel for the Town of Prescott Valley in a constitutional challenge to its financing and accounting practices involving revenue bonds. Plaintiffs challenged over 10 years of funding, jeopardizing significant Town projects. The court granted the Town's motions to dismiss, finding that the Town's practices complied with the Arizona constitutional provisions regarding town debt, bond elections, and public gifts. (2007 - 2008)
Lyon, et al. v. Gila River Indian Community
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Counsel for Bankruptcy Estate where Gila River Indian Community challenged ownership of, access to, and zoning rights over a section of land surrounded by Indian reservation land. The trial court ruled that our client has title and access to Section 16 under several legal theories, and determined that the Community’s claim of zoning authority over the land was not ripe. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 626 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2010)
Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce v. City of Scottsdale
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
Counsel for SACC challenging administrative law judge's decision finding that SACC engaged in "express advocacy" when it published and distributed a brochure and broadcast an advertisement without registering as a political committee in violation of Arizona's Campaign Finance laws. The Superior Court found that the brochure and broadcast did not constitute "express advocacy" and reversed the administrative law judge's decision. (2010 - 2011)
Hotel and Casino Located on Tribal Lands
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
Represented tribal government on claims against design-build contractor to recover for design and construction defects in a resort and casino constructed on the reservation. Case settled on favorable terms shortly before trial.
State of Arizona v. Honeywell International Inc.
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
Represented Honeywell in suit alleging numerous environmental claims and claim of breach of an administrative order on consent. Honeywell's motions to dismiss the principal claims were granted. Confidential settlement reached after matter was fully briefed on appeal but before oral argument.
Appellate
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price-Waterhouse LLP
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
Arizona Court of Appeals
Counsel for Price-Waterhouse in post-trial proceedings, on appeal, and on remand. The case involved questions of first impression under the Arizona Securities Act and various common law theories. The Arizona Court of Appeals overturned a $338 million accountant malpractice verdict and directed judgment in favor of Price Waterhouse on all but a single claim, which was settled on remand. Ariz. 6, 945 P.2d 317 (Ariz. Ct. App.1996)
Paul E. v. Courtney F.
Supreme Court of Arizona
Co-counsel for Paul E., a parent designated as the sole legal decision-maker for L, a son with gender identification issues, where the Arizona Supreme Court held that the family court could limit Paul E.’s authority only as necessary to prevent endangering L’s physical health or significantly impairing L’s emotional development. In ruling for Paul E., the Court also held that the family court exceeded its statutory authority by appointing specific treatment professionals for L and otherwise limiting Paul E.’s sole legal decision-making authority. (439 P.3d 1169 (2019))
United States of America v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona, et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Counsel for amicus curiae Gila Valley Irrigation District et al. urging the Ninth Circuit to dismiss an appeal (taken by a third party from an interlocutory order entered after a trial) for lack of jurisdiction, which the Ninth Circuit did in a memorandum opinion (472 Fed.Appx. 472).
League of Arizona Cities and Towns v. Dean Martin
Supreme Court of Arizona
Counsel for the League of Arizona Cities and Towns in an original special action before the Arizona Supreme Court challenging whether a provision in the general appropriations bill for fiscal year 2009 requiring cities and towns to deposit money into the state general fund was an appropriation. The Arizona Supreme Court held that the provision was not an appropriation that could be included in the general appropriations bill and therefore was unconstitutional under Article 4, Part 2, Section 20 of the Arizona Constitution. 219 Ariz. 556, 201 P.3d 517 (2009)
Arizona Early Childhood Development and Health Board v. Brewer, et al.
Supreme Court of Arizona
Represented the plaintiff in an original special action challenge in the Arizona Supreme Court to the Arizona Legislature's sweep of interest income from an account under the plaintiff's name created by a 2006 ballot initiative. The Arizona Supreme Court held that the legislative sweep violated a provision of the Arizona Constitution that prohibits the legislature from diverting funds “allocated to a specific purpose by an initiative measure” without a three-fourths majority in each legislative chamber and without furthering the purpose of the initiative. The court concluded that the act failed to pass with a three-fourths majority in each house and did not further the purpose of the initiative and was therefore unconstitutional. The court ordered the return of the $7 million plus interest. 221 Ariz. 427, 212 P.3d 805 (2009)
Town of Gilbert v. Maricopa County
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
Arizona Court of Appeals
Counsel for Town of Gilbert. Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed trial court's order invalidating statute authorizing creation of fire district on grounds that it violated the Arizona constitutional prohibition on special legislation. 213 Ariz. 241, 141 P.3d 416 (Ct. App. 2006)
Safeway Insurance Company v. Botma, et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Appellate counsel for Safeway. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Safeway on a multi-million-dollar claim for alleged bad faith insurance practices. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the evidence failed to show that Safeway acted unreasonably toward its insured. 2005 WL 775632 (9th Cir. 2005)
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District, Pinal County, AZ v. Arizona Public Service Company
Supreme Court of Arizona
Counsel for Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District. The Arizona Supreme Court established that irrigation districts have constitutional and statutory authority to sell electric power outside district boundaries and to nonagricultural customers, in competition with incumbent investor-owned utility. 204 Ariz. 394, 64 P.3d 836 (2003)
Sherman, et al. v. City of Tempe
Supreme Court of Arizona
Counsel for Barbara Sherman and other plaintiffs. The Arizona Supreme Court held that the word "election" as used in A.R.S. § 19-141 refers to election day rather than the date early ballots are distributed for purposes of determining when a city must begin distribution of ballot pamphlets containing arguments for and against amendment to city charter. 202 Ariz. 339, 45 P.3d 336 (2002)
Bahr v. State of Arizona and Intel Corporation
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Counsel for intervenor Intel Corporation. Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of state statute (A.R.S. § 42-162(A)(8)(b)) that gives preferential tax treatment to property located within a foreign trade zone by finding that this statute does not violate the uniformity clause of the Arizona Constitution (Article 9, §1). 195 Ariz. 79, 985 P.2d 564 (1999)
Arizona Board of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers Inc.
Supreme Court of Arizona
Counsel for Phoenix Newspapers in public records disclosure case. Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that Board of Regents had violated the Arizona Public Records Law (A.R.S. § 39-121 et seq.) by failing to disclose the names of the semi-finalist candidates for the position of President of Arizona State University. 167 Ariz. 254, 806 P.2d 348 (1991)
Dobson v. State of Arizona
Supreme Court of Arizona
Counsel for Members of Commission on Appellate Court Appointments. The Supreme Court invalidated under the Arizona Constitution a state statute that would alter the judicial nomination system, and awarded attorneys’ fees under the private attorney general doctrine. No. CV-13-0225-SA, P.3d (2013).
Antitrust & Unfair Competition Litigation
Fairchild Camera and Instrument Corporation v. Data General Corporation Antitrust Litigation
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Counsel for Fairchild Camera and Instrument Corporation in a claim under § 1 of the Sherman Act and § 3 of the Clayton Act relating to Data General's software licensing practices. The case settled favorably after reinstatement of a liability verdict and entry of a broad injunction, with a $52.5 million payment to client. 490 F. Supp. 1089 (N.D. Cal. 1980); 529 F. Supp. 801 (N.D. Cal. 1981); 734 F.2d 1336 (9th Cir. 1984)
Cyrix Corporation, et al. v. Intel Corporation, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for Intel Corporation in antitrust counterclaim brought by Cyrix alleging violations of § 1 and § 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act regarding sale of 386 and 486 microprocessors. Case settled during trial. (1993 - 1994)
In re Application of Southern Wine & Spirits of Arizona
State Board of Liquor Licenses and Control of Arizona
Obtained liquor license for national wholesaler at hearings before the Arizona Liquor Board.
Political Law
Vince Leach, et al. v. Katie Hobbs, Arizona Secretary of State, et al.
Supreme Court of Arizona
Co-counsel for amicus curiae Kathy Hoffman, et al. in support of Arizonans Fed Up With Failing Healthcare's appeal from superior court's decision determining that Arizonans Fed Up With Failing Healthcare did not submit a sufficient number of valid signatures in support of initiative petition and that the 100-word description required by A.R.S. § 19-102(A) was misleading and confusing and therefore refused to certify that initiative for the 2020 general election ballot. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the superior court on the grounds that Arizonans Fed Up With Failing Healthcare did not submit a sufficient number of valid signatures in support of initiative petition but declined to rule on whether the 100-word description was in compliance with A.R.S. § 19-102(A); Justice Bolick wrote a concurring opinion stating that the 100-word description was not in compliance with A.R.S. § 19-102(A). (Decided March 31, 2021, No. CV-20-0233-AP/EL) ___ Ariz. ___, ___ P.3d ___ (2021)
Molera v. Katie Hobbs, Arizona Secretary of State, and Invest in Education, a Political Action Committee
Supreme Court of Arizona
Co-counsel for amicus curiae Kathy Hoffman, Terry Goddard and Kris Mayes in support of Invest in Education’s appeal from the superior court’s decision striking Invest in Education’s initiative proposition from ballot on the grounds that the 100-word description on the initiative petitions did not comply with A.R.S. § 19-102(A). The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the superior court, ruled in favor of Invest in Education, and allowed the Invest in Education initiative proposition to appear on the 2020 general election ballot.
Tobin, et al. v. Rea
Supreme Court of Arizona
Counsel for amicus curiae We Build Arizona in support of superior court's decision that Arizona Legislative Council's analysis of sales-tax initiative proposal was not impartial as required by A.R.S. § 19-124(B). The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the superior court in part. 231 Ariz. 189, 291 P.3d 983 (2013)
Pedersen v. Bennett
Supreme Court of Arizona
Counsel for amicus curiae We Build Arizona in support of superior court's decision holding that sales-tax initiative complied with applicable constitutional and statutory requirements even though proponent filed two different versions of the initiative. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the superior court. 230 Ariz. 556, 288 P.3d 760 (2012)
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, et al. v. Janice K. Brewer, et al.
Supreme Court of Arizona
Counsel for amicus curiae Common Cause, et al. in support of Colleen Mathis being reinstated as chair of the Arizona Redistricting Commission after the Arizona Governor and Arizona Senate removed Mathis in violation of the Arizona Constitution. The Arizona Supreme Court reinstated Mathis. 229 Ariz. 347, 275 P.3d 1267 (2012)
Adams v. Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, et al.
Supreme Court of Arizona
Counsel for amicus curiae Lattie Coor, et al. in support of position that a member of a tribal court of an Arizona Indian Tribe is eligible to be a commissioner on the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission pursuant to A.R.S. Const. Art. 4, Pt. 2, § 1(3). The Arizona Supreme Court held that tribal court member was eligible. 227 Ariz. 128, 254 P.3d 367 (2011)
Transportation Infrastructure Moving Arizona's Economy v. Brewer
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
Arizona Supreme Court
Counsel for Transportation Infrastructure Moving Arizona's Economy. T.I.M.E. sought order requiring Arizona Secretary of State Janice Brewer to count certain initiative petitions. Trial court granted Brewer's motion to dismiss on grounds that the only action available was under A.R.S. § 19-122 (A) and that time to file such an action had expired. The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the trial court's dismissal but strongly urged the Arizona Legislature to "modify the statutory scheme" to avoid the problems created by this case. 219 Ariz. 207, 196 P.3d 229 (2008)
Jenkins v. Hale, et al.
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
Arizona Supreme Court
Counsel for The Hon. Arizona State Senator Albert Hale in elections case that sought to invalidate signatures of hundreds of registered voters who listed post office box numbers as their addresses on Hale's candidate nomination petitions. Many of the petition signers lived in rural areas of the Navajo Reservation and did not have residential addresses. The Arizona Supreme Court upheld trial court's ruling that Apache County properly counted the signatures of those people who listed P.O. boxes, which gave Hale a sufficient number of signatures to qualify for the ballot. 218 Ariz. 561, 190 P.3d 175 (2008)
Moreno v. Jones, et al.
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
Arizona Supreme Court
Counsel for Paul Moreno, challenger to nomination petitions filed by Russell L. Jones, a candidate for state senate in Legislative District 24. Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Superior Court finding that Jones had falsely verified petitions as a circulator, but nevertheless held that Jones had not committed petition forgery under A.R.S. § 16-351(F) and therefore allowed Jones' name to remain on the ballot. 213 Ariz. 94, 139 P.3d 612 (2006)
The 47th Legislature of the State of Arizona, et al. v. Napolitano, et al.
Supreme Court of Arizona
Appellate counsel for Governor Napolitano. The State Supreme Court held that the Governor's use of line-item veto authority violated the Arizona Constitution. 143 P.3d 1023 (2006)
Meyers v. Bayless, et al. and Arizonians for Clean Elections
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
Arizona Supreme Court
Appellate counsel for Arizonans for Clean Elections. The Arizona Supreme Court held a ballot initiative to establish the Citizens Clean Elections Act complied with State constitutional requirements and should be placed on the general election ballot. 192 Ariz. 376, 965 P.2d 768 (1998)
Fairness and Accountability in Insurance Reform v. John Greene, et al.
Supreme Court of Arizona
Counsel for Fairness and Accountability in Insurance Reform in Arizona Supreme Court Special Action. Arizona Supreme Court held that Arizona Legislative Council's description of Proposition 103 was in violation of A.R.S. § 19-124(B), which requires Legislative Council to prepare "an impartial analysis of the provisions of each ballot proposal." 180 Ariz. 582, 886 P.2d 1338 (1994)
Mecham v. Gordon, et al.
Supreme Court of Arizona
Counsel for Board of Managers of the Arizona House of Representatives in impeachment of Governor Evan Mecham. Arizona Supreme Court denied Mecham's petition to enjoin the Arizona Senate from sitting as a Court of Impeachment. 156 Ariz. 297, 751 P.2d 957 (1988)
Shirley v. Superior Court of the State of Arizona, et al.
Supreme Court of Arizona
Counsel for Tom Shirley, an enrolled member of Navajo Tribe elected to the Apache County Board of Supervisors in 1972, in his claim to be seated as a member of the Board of Supervisors. Arizona Supreme Court reversed trial court order enjoining Shirley from taking his seat on the Apache County Board of Supervisors and held that Native Americans living on reservations are entitled to hold political office in State of Arizona. 109 Ariz. 510, 513 P.2d 939 (1973)
Media Law
Crane v. Arizona Republic, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Counsel for Arizona Republic in libel case where defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted on grounds that article at issue was privileged under California Civil Code § 47(4) and alternatively that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the article was written with actual malice. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on all but three paragraphs of the article. 729 F. Supp. 698 (C.D. Cal. 1989), aff’d in part, 972 F.2d 1511 (9th Cir. 1992)
Scottsdale Publishing Inc., et al. v. Superior Court of the State of Arizona, et al.
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
Arizona Court of Appeals
Counsel for Scottsdale Publishing Inc. in libel case. Arizona Court of Appeals reversed trial court's denial of summary judgment in public figure libel case and ordered that judgment be entered in favor of Scottsdale Publishing. 159 Ariz. 72, 764 P.2d 1131 (1988)
Case Filed Against Am Law 200 Firm
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
Lead counsel for defendant in case alleging malpractice arising out of sale of property in bankruptcy proceedings; case dismissed by Superior Court on motion to dismiss and not appealed.
Case Filed Against Southwest Law Firm
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Lead counsel for defendant in case alleging violation of federal and state securities acts and various state law torts; case dismissed on motion to dismiss; Ninth Circuit reversed dismissal of federal securities act claim and remanded to district court for further proceedings on that claim.
Case Filed Against Southwest Law Firm
Lead counsel for defendant in case alleging malpractice in representation of school district; case dismissed on motion to dismiss and not appealed.
