Email Updates - Click here to subscribe for automatic notices when this page is updated.

The District of Arizona offers a database of opinions for the years 2012 to current, listed by year and judge.

Holding: The Court finds and concludes that the Debtor has met the requirements for confirmation under the Bankruptcy Code and that the Plan should be confirmed. 

Holding: Therefore, the landlord, R.S. Lots’ § 502(b)(6) damages consist of base rent and additional rent for the greater of one year or 15% of the remaining term of the Lease, calculated from the petition date. Any prepetition rent and damages awarded by this Court or the superior court not already paid are owed in full. R.S. Lots may recover from either Mountainside as lessor or Hatten as guarantor, but may recover only once. 

Holding: The Hold Harmless Provision in a state court Decree of Dissolution of Marriage is not a domestic support obligation under the Code.  As a result, Peck has not demonstrated that cause exists warranting relief from the automatic stay and the motion is denied.

Holding: This matter comes before the Court on an Interpleader action initiated by Peerless Indenmity Insurance Company and on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Zions First National Bank and Joinder to Zions' Motion by Business Development Finance Corporation/Small Business Administration. The Court finds Granite State Ins. Co. v. Employers Mutual Ins. Co., 125 Ariz. 275, 609 P.2d 90 (App. 1980) is dispositive on the issues before the Court. 

Holding: Debtor filed a Chapter 11 Plan which proposed to bifurcate U.S. Bank's proof of claim secured by a lien on real property. U.S. Bank has not shown that it is entitled to relief under Civil Rule 60, and by operation of a separate order, the motion will be denied. 

Holding: Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendants’ conduct constituted the use of a court process, therefore, they cannot demonstrate that Defendants committed the tort of abuse of process under Arizona law. Even if the Debtors’ conduct was a use of a court process, the evidence does not demonstrate that Defendants’ conduct met Arizona’s requirement that it be solely based on an improper motive. Accordingly, a judgment in favor of the Debtors will be entered this date. 

Holding:  Before the court is a controversy which requires interpretation of the Debtors' confirmed plan, and based upon such interpretation, the court must determine whether the Debtors defaulted thereunder, or if some other just remedy may be applicable. 

Holding: Mr. Beck, at all times in the Campos' transactions, acted ultra vires to the Dealership, because it was not within the corporation's charter to defraud customers and convert their funds, and thus, he and his marital community are liable to Mr. Campos. The court FINDS AND CONCLUDES that, by a preponderance of the evidence, Mr. Campos has proven a non-dischargeable liability under §§ 523(a)(2) and (6).