Cited by

To prevail, a plaintiff must prove the nine elements of fraud with particularity, and by clear and convincing evidence

See, –24 (App. 1984) (rejecting fraud claim based on statement that “you’ll never find a better, more secure investment”); Ellis v. First Nat’l Bank, (“[T]he law does not regard mere ‘puffing’ as to the value of stock as an investment the same as a false representation .

For that reason, claims based on undisputed facts “clearly brought outside the relevant limitations period are conclusively barred.” ¶ 4 (App. 2002); 127 (App. 1984) (granting summary judgment for moving party because non-moving party’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations).

-25 (App. 1984) (holding statute of limitations accrued when plaintiffs first learned of injuries, not after defendant failed to comply with attorney-general settlement or when plaintiffs sought leave to include fraud claim).

-24 (App. 1984) (rejecting fraud claim based on statement that "you'll never find a better, more secure investment.").

1Í13 Furthermore, the “purpose of enacting a statute of limitations is to fix a limit within which an action must be brought *229 and to prevent the unexpected enforcement of stale claims....” , Accordingly, A.R.S.

923, 925 (App. 2013); (finding no abuse of discretion when trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to amend after summary judgment had been entered against them).

(finding no abuse of discretion when trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend after summary judgment had been entered against them).4 3 A dismissal without prejudice is not a final judgment and thus, the trial court’s grant of RLI’s motion to dismiss is not an appealable order.

(appellate court will not overturn superior court’s denial of request for leave to amend absent abuse of discretion).

Co. of Am., , we further recognize that, generally, “claims that are clearly brought outside the relevant limitations period are conclusively barred.” ¶ 4 , ( , Gregory v. Porterfield, 26 Ariz.App.

P. 9(b); , (“[M]agic language is not necessary in pleading fraud, as long as the plead *572 ing, considered as a whole, can be construed to plead the [necessary] elements.”).

The decision on amendment lies within the trial court’s discretion, which we will uphold absent “a clear abuse of discretion.”

Gregory v. Porterfield, 26 Ariz.App.

(declining to apply the estoppel doctrine to bar the limitations defense because the defendant did not engage in conduct to induce the plaintiffs to forbear filing suit).