Cited by

To answer that, we begin our analysis with the phrase “may file.” ¶18 As the court of appeals correctly observed in Sullivan v. Metro Prods., Inc., “[t]he word ‘may’ is an auxiliary verb to the verb ‘file’ and serves to permit [a] private cause of action.” ¶ 7 (App. 2014) (interpreting A.R.S.

§§ 13-2301(D)(4), -2314.04(T)(3); -12, ¶¶ 7-8 (App. 2014).

¶ 25 (App. 2014) (“[W]e generally will not consider arguments that were not presented to the trial court for the first time on appeal .

Fund, ¶ 99 (2002) (civil conspiracy); –12, ¶ 7 (App. 2014) (racketeering); Wells Fargo, 201 Ariz. at 485, ¶ 34 (aiding and abetting).

See, ¶ 7 (App. 2014) (defining racketeering as “any act or preparatory act committed for financial gain, chargeable or indictable under the law where the act occurred and punishable by more than a year’s imprisonment”).

¶ 25 (App. 2014) ("[W]e generally will not consider arguments that were not presented to the trial court for the first time on appeal.").

¶ 25 (App. 2014) (appellate court generally will not consider arguments that were not presented to the trial court); City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 88 (App. 2008) (appellate court will not address issues or arguments waived by a party’s failure to develop them adequately).

Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 20, (appellate court generally does not consider issues “raised for the first time on appeal”) (quotations and citation omitted); ¶ 25, (“[A]rguments not raised in the trial court are waived on appeal.”) (citation omitted).

¶¶ 17-19, (holding internet gambler had no injury under RICO, where there was no allegation of cheating, because “Hannosh got what he Section 13-2314.04.