Cases

278 P.3d 321 (2012) BASELINE FINANCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Ruth MADISON, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 11-0557. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department C. June 5, 2012. Skarecky & Holder P.A. By William W. Holder, Phoenix, Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant. Clarke Law Firm P.L.C., By Marilee Miller Clarke, Scottsdale, Attorneys

OPINION NORRIS, Judge. ¶ 1 Plaintif&'Appellee, Sun Valley Financial Services of Phoenix, L.L.C. (“Sun Valley”), purchased a tax lien on real property located in Maricopa County, Arizona. Subsequently, it redeemed a prior tax lien on the property that had been sold to someone else. Although Sun Valley had redeemed the prior tax lien, it nevertheless sued to foreclose the rights to redeem the prior lien

HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge. Nicole Payne appeals the district court’s dismissal of her suit against Progressive Financial Services, Inc. (Progressive). The court dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the ground that Progressive’s unaccepted offer of judgment rendered Payne’s claims moot. For the reasons below, we reverse and remand for proceedings consisten

OPINION NORRIS, Judge. ¶ 1 This appeal and cross-appeal arise out of claims for unpaid wages and misappropriation of trade secrets between Plaintiff/Appellant Michael Calisi and Defendants/Appellees Unified Financial Services (“UFS”) and Unified Wealth Management (“UWM”). The superior court granted Calisi’s claim for unpaid wages and UFS’s counterclaim for misappropriation of trade secrets, leaving a net

OPINION WEISBERG, Judge. ¶ 1 Neil and Shirlene Rand appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Porsche Financial Services (“PFS”) dismissing the Rands’ claims of civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and trespass and granting PFS a deficiency judgment arising out of the Rands’ lease of a Porsche financed by PFS. For the following reasons, we reverse the trial court’s rulings d

208 P.3d 218 (2009) STATE of Arizona, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant/Appellee. No. CV-08-0241-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc. June 3, 2009. Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General by Cameron H. Holmes, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix, Attorneys for State of Arizona. Steptoe & Johnson LLP by Karl M. Til

199 P.3d 592 (2008) STATE of Arizona, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 07-0178. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department C. July 1, 2008. Review Granted in Part December 4, 2008. *597 Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General, by Cameron H. H

752 F.Supp.2d 1127 (2010) PROGENY VENTURES, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. CV 09-06741 DMG (VBKx). United States District Court, C.D. California. November 16, 2010. *1129 Robert M. Ross, Klass Helman & Ross, Encino, CA, for Plaintiff. C

MEMORANDUM *** Manual A. Lopez (“Lopez”) appeals the district court’s summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) in favor of the defendants, Country Insurance & Financial Services, et al., (“CIFS”). Lopez asserted claims against CIFS under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985. He also alleged claims for breach of contract, wrongful discharge, bad faith, unfair labor pra

741 F.Supp. 734 (1990) PHOENIX AIRWAY INN ASSOCIATES, Plaintiff, v. ESSEX FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 89 C 1867. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. July 25, 1990. Emil P. Caliendo, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff. Andrew B. David, William J. Gigler, Sugar, Freidberg & Felsenthal, Chicago, Ill., for defendants.

166 P.3d 916 (2007) STATE of Arizona ex rel. Terry GODDARD, Appellee, v. WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES INC., dba Western Union, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 06-0700. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department A. September 11, 2007. *917 Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Cameron H. Holmes, Assistant Attorney General, Phoeni

613 F.3d 943 (2010) Patricia MURRAY, a married woman, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; Principal Life Insurance Company, an Iowa corporation; Princor Financial Services Corporation, an Iowa corporation, Defendants-Appellees. No. 09-16664. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 17, 2010. <

236 B.R. 1 (1999) In re Cynthia L. COHEN, Debtor. Modern Financial Plans & Services, Inc., Appellant, v. Robert P. Abele, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee. BAP No. AZ-98-1567-RMeP. Bankruptcy No. B-97-11212-PHX-RTB. Adversary No. 98-00112. United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 20, 1999. Decided June 3, 1999.<

185 Ariz. 80 (1995) 912 P.2d 1309 PREMIER FINANCIAL SERVICES, Judgment Creditor-Appellee, v. CITIBANK (ARIZONA) and Jacque Rosholm, Garnishees-Appellants. No. 1 CA-CV 93-0096. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department D. July 27, 1995. Review Denied March 19, 1996. *82 Gammage &a;

OPINION FELDMAN, Chief Justice. Elizabeth Maxwell petitions us to review a court of appeals opinion affirming a trial court ruling that the doctrine of novation barred Maxwell’s claim that a contract was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. See Maxwell v. Fidelity Fin. Servs., Inc., 179 Ariz. 544, 880 P.2d 1090 (Ct.App.1993). We granted review to examine the law dealing with grounds for no

OPINION CONTRERAS, Judge. Elizabeth A. Maxwell (“Maxwell”) appeals the trial court’s grant of Appellee Fidelity Financial Services’ (“Fidelity”) motion for summary judgment and dismissal of her complaint. The central issue is whether the trial court erred in determining that a loan transaction between Fidelity and Maxwell was valid and not unconscionable, and therefore not an unenforceable contract as asse

OPINION KESSLER, Judge: ¶ 1 Appellants Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (“Association”) and several of its members (collectively, “Owner-Operator”) appeal the superior court’s dismissal of their complaint pursuant to Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6), refusal to allow them to amend their complaint, and award of attorneys’ f

175 Ariz. 310 (1993) 856 P.2d 1188 TRANSAMERICA FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl LAFFERTY, an unmarried man, Defendant-Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 91-0173. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department A. July 20, 1993. Robert D. McCoy, Wickenburg, for plaintiff-appellee. Crosby and Gladner, P.C. by G. Lee Crosby,

FILED FOR PUBLICATION JAN 03 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel Terry L. No. 11-80086 Goddard ex rel Thomas C. Horne,

MEMORANDUM ** Albert Knutson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment on the pleadings in his action for breach of contract against Providian National Bank. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(c), McGann v. Ernst & Young, 102 F.3d 390, 392 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm. The district court properly