GARD, PRESIDING JUDGE
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2022091498 The Honorable Rodrick Coffey, Judge
John Danko III, Mesa In Propria Persona
Shorall McGoldrick, Phoenix By Paul J. McGoldrick Counsel for Defendants/Appellees
Presiding Judge Gard authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Staring and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
GARD, PRESIDING JUDGE
¶1 John Danko III appeals from the superior court's order dismissing with prejudice his complaint against Craig Louis Cline and Udall Law Firm, LLP (collectively "Udall") under Rule 37(b), Ariz. R. Civ. P. Because Danko's opening brief does not comply with Rule 13, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., his arguments are waived on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
Danko has been designated a vexatious litigant in Maricopa County Superior Court and Division One of this court. Danko, however, initiated this appeal before Division One issued its order finding him vexatious.
Factual and Procedural Background
¶2 In December 2018, Danko emailed members of Udall Law Firm requesting legal representation in his marriage dissolution case. Udall informed Danko that it does not practice family law and referred him to other counsel. Although Danko and Udall did not enter into a written retention or engagement agreement, Danko filed a complaint against Udall and several of its members in April 2022, alleging among other things that Udall had refused to perform services on his behalf while still retaining payment he had tendered. In his complaint, Danko alleged a variety of claims, including: slander, libel, defamation, professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, attractive nuisance, fraud, false light, abuse of process, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, negligent misrepresentation, and trespass.
¶3 Over the next year, the superior court dismissed numerous claims for Danko's lack of compliance with applicable rules and his failure to meet deadlines. In October 2023, Udall attempted to conduct discovery on the remaining claims by scheduling depositions with Danko; Danko, however, objected, refused to provide dates on which he was available, and ultimately failed to appear. The court thereafter ordered Danko to appear in-person for a deposition by a certain date and noted that it would consider dismissing the case as a sanction if Danko failed to comply. After Danko again failed to appear without explanation, Udall moved to dismiss the complaint as a sanction under Rule 37(b), Ariz. R. Civ. P. In June 2024, the court granted the motion and dismissed Danko's case with prejudice as a sanction for his refusal to obey its order that he appear for a deposition. This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and 12-2101(A)(1).
Discussion
¶4 On appeal, Danko makes numerous arguments that appear to be unrelated to the superior court's dismissal of his complaint. It is not until the last page of his opening brief that Danko contends that Udall's motion to dismiss "fail[ed] to state any legal grounds, merits, or basis as to why [his] complaint should be dismissed." And even then, Danko does not explain how the court erred by concluding otherwise. Because we are unable to discern the legal bases of Danko's arguments, and his failure to comply with Rule 13(a), Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., prevents our review, we consider his arguments waived and affirm the court's judgment.
¶5 An opening brief must contain an argument with "[a]ppellant'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." Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7)(A). Specifically, for each contention, the appellant must include "references to the record on appeal where the particular issue was raised and ruled on" as well as include "the applicable standard of appellate review with citation to supporting legal authority." Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7)(B). Arguments that are "not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority" are deemed waived. See In re Aubuchon, 233 Ariz. 62, ¶ 6 (2013); Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, ¶ 62 (App. 2009).
¶6 Danko has not provided citations to the record to support his factual assertions, nor has he meaningfully cited to relevant legal authority. And most of Danko's arguments do not concern the court's order dismissing his complaint or any arguments he raised below. See Modular Sys., Inc. v. Naisbitt, 114 Ariz. 582, 587 (App. 1977) (issues deemed abandoned where appellant "fail[s] to state with any particularity why or how the trial court erred in making these rulings and simply concludes that error was committed"). Danko's arguments are conclusory and unsupported, and we conclude he has waived them on appeal. See id.; Sholes v. Fernando, 228 Ariz. 455, ¶ 16 (App. 2011).
¶7 Although Danko represents himself, "[w]e hold unrepresented litigants in Arizona to the same standards as attorneys" and "may not afford [them] special leniency." Flynn v. Campbell, 243 Ariz. 76, ¶ 24 (2017); In re Marriage of Williams, 219 Ariz. 546, ¶ 13 (App. 2008) ("A party's ignorance of the law is not an excuse for failing to comply with it."); Higgins v. Higgins, 194 Ariz. 266, ¶ 12 (App. 1999) (unrepresented litigants "held to the same familiarity with court procedures and the same notice of statutes, rules, and legal principles as is expected of a lawyer"). Because Danko has waived appellate review, we affirm the superior court's dismissal of his complaint with prejudice.
Attorney Fees and Costs
¶8 Udall requests its attorney fees and taxable costs on appeal under Rule 21(a), Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., and A.R.S. §§ 12-341.01, 12-342, 12-346, and 12-347. Udall further requests sanctions under Rule 25, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., arguing that Danko's appeal is frivolous.
¶9 An appellate court may sanction a party if it determines that an appeal is frivolous or if a party violates the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 25. Sanctions may include imposing attorney fees or costs. Id. Although sanctions are not imposed lightly, "when a party files a frivolous appeal, this court can award attorneys' fees to the opposing party for the cost of defending the appeal." Ramos v. Nichols, 252 Ariz. 519, ¶ 12 (App. 2022).
¶10 As discussed above, Danko has violated Rule 13, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., by filing a brief with no supporting record citations and no relevant legal arguments. See Ramos, 252 Ariz. 519, ¶ 13. To "discourage similar conduct in the future," see Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 25, we award Udall its reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in responding to this appeal upon Udall's compliance with Rule 21, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. Ramos, 252 Ariz. 519, ¶ 12; Doherty v. Leon, 249 Ariz. 515, ¶ 24 (App. 2020) (prevailing party entitled to costs upon compliance with Rule 21); §§ 12-341, 12-342.
Disposition
¶11 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court's order dismissing Danko's complaint.