Cited by

A claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence “when a logical relationship exists between the current cause of action and the previous one.” Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., – 71 ¶ 8 (App. 2014).

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 This Court “views the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., ¶ 2 (App. 2014).

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The court views the facts “in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., ¶ 2 (App. 2014).

I. Motion to dismiss ¶7 We review de novo a superior court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., ¶ 7 (App. 2014), whether a state statute preempts a city regulation, ¶ 9 (App. 2015), and the interpretation of statutory provisions, State ex rel.

See Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A.

Further, we view those factual allegations in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, here the County.

We view the facts “in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., ¶ 2 (App. 2014).

We view the facts “in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., ¶ 2 (App. 2014).

Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., ¶ 7 (App. 2014).

See Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., ¶ 7 (App. 2014); Ariz. R. Civ.

Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., ¶ 7 (App. 2014).

Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., ¶ 7 (App. 2014).

at 355 ¶ 7; Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., ¶ 15 (App. 2014).

See Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., ¶ 7 (App. 2014).

at 355, ¶ 7; Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., ¶ 15 (App. 2014).

See Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., ¶ 15 (App. 2014); see also ARCAP 13(a)(7)(B) (argument on appeal should contain “references to the record on appeal where the particular issue was raised and ruled on”); ¶ 23 (App. 2008) (declining to address argument that summary judgment was proper because claim

Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., ¶ 15 (App. 2014) (citations omitted).

¶16 “Compulsory counterclaims arise from the same transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim; and if such claims are not pled in the first action, they are waived and barred in any subsequent action under the doctrine of claim preclusion.” Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., ¶ 8, (-19 (App. 1992)).

Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., ¶ 7 (App. 2014).

See Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A.