Danko v. Csontos

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

JOHN DANKO III, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

JAMES LUIS CSONTOS, et al., Defendant/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 24-0487
FILED 01-30-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CV2023-093347
The Honorable Adam D. Driggs, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

John Danko III, Phoenix
Plaintiff/Appellant

Jennings Haug Keleher McLeod Waterfall LLP, Phoenix
By Joseph A. Brophy
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
 DANKO v. CSONTOS, et al.
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Andrew M. Jacobs
joined.

HOWE, Judge:

¶1 John Danko, III (“Danko”) appeals the superior court’s
dismissal of his suit against James Csontos and Blake Whiteman. For the
reasons below, we affirm.

¶2 Both this Court and the Maricopa County Superior Court
have designated Danko as a vexatious litigant. Ariz. Ct. App., Div. 1,
Admin. Ord. No. 2024-10; Maricopa Cnty. Super. Ct. Admin. Ord. No. 2023
-0135; Danko v. Dessaules, 1 CA-CV 23-0017, 2023 WL 5214129, at *3 ¶ 15
(Ariz. App. Aug. 15, 2023) (mem. decision). This Court recently outlined the
pattern that led to those designations, and Danko continues that pattern
here. See Danko v. Reash, 1 CA-CV 24-0301, 2024 WL 4705801, at *3–4
¶¶ 15–19 (Ariz. App. Nov. 7, 2024) (mem. decision).

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶3 Csontos and Whiteman (“Attorneys”) are attorneys licensed
in the State of Arizona. Danko alleged that he hired them to appeal a decree
of dissolution of marriage and that they “took [his] money” but “made
absolutely no efforts to appeal” on his behalf. The superior court ordered
Danko to provide a preliminary expert affidavit in accordance with A.R.S.
§ 12-2602 by January 26, 2024. He failed to do so.

¶4 In March, Danko requested “leave to file [his] certificate
regarding expert testimony pursuant to A.R.S. §12-2602(A),” arguing that
“expert opinion testimony is not necessary” for this case, but he also
included an expert opinion that discussed a different case and wholly failed
to mention Attorneys. Soon after, Attorneys moved for summary judgment.
The court granted Attorneys’ motion, finding both that Danko failed to
provide an expert report as ordered and that his subsequent filing was
irrelevant and “did not rise to the level sufficient to address or overcome
the [Attorneys’] Summary Judgment claims.” The court thus dismissed
Danko’s claim with prejudice.

2
 DANKO v. CSONTOS, et al.
Decision of the Court

¶5 Danko timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction. See A.R.S.
§12-2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶6 Danko argues the superior court erred in dismissing his
complaint. To appeal from a civil judgment, an appellant must comply with
the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. See ARCAP 13. Arizona
Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure (“Rule”) 13 requires an appellant’s
opening brief to provide “citations of legal authorities and appropriate
references to the portions of the record on which the appellant relies.”
ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A).

¶7 Danko’s brief does not comply with Rule 13. It includes a
nominal “table of citations” referring to Arizona statutes, federal statutes,
the United States Constitution, and case law. However, the cases recited do
not have volume or case numbers, and he does not explain how or where
any of these legal authorities apply to the arguments in his brief. See
ARCAP 13(f) (references to case law must include the volume and case
number, among other requirements as applicable). Danko also does not
specify how the statutes listed apply to his argument. In fact, the section of
Danko’s brief labeled “legal argument” contains no citations to legal
authority. Further, Danko’s statement of facts includes many irrelevant
“facts” concerning non-parties and provides no record citations. Danko
“requests this court review ‘the facts’ that [he] has clearly placed on the
record” but does not specify which facts he refers to or where in the record
they might appear. He argues “the undisputed facts unequivocally show
that Plaintiff is able to meet his burden of proof,” but again he does not
provide citations to these “undisputed facts.”

¶8 The only paragraph of Danko’s brief that references the
statute under which the superior court dismissed his case is not contained
within the “argument” section and does not contain necessary citations to
legal authority, the record, or the relevant standard of review. See ARCAP
13(a)(7) (requiring an “argument” section of a brief, including support from
legal citations, appropriate references to the record, and the applicable
standard of review). Even assuming this paragraph represents Danko’s
argument, it is opaque and insufficient. See Modular Sys., Inc. v. Naisbitt, 114
Ariz. 582, 587 (App. 1977) (holding a failure “to state with any particularity
why or how the superior court erred in making [its] rulings and simply
conclud[ing] that error was committed” leads to abandonment of the
relevant issues on appeal).

3
 DANKO v. CSONTOS, et al.
Decision of the Court

¶9 Danko argues that this “court should grant [him] leeway to
comply with rules.” But this Court has repeatedly reminded Danko that he
must comply with the rules of procedure. See Reash, 1 CA-CV 24-0301, at *3
¶¶ 14–15 (finding that Danko has “routinely violated” Rule 13 and this
court has “repeatedly explained” these violations to him). And we have “a
responsibility to see that litigants conform to an acceptable, minimal level
of competency and performance.” Ramos v. Nichols, 252 Ariz. 519, 522 ¶ 8
(App. 2022) (cleaned up). “An appellant who fails to make a bona fide and
reasonably intelligent effort to comply with the rules will waive issues and
arguments not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record,
or authority.” Id. (cleaned up) (citation omitted). Those who choose to
proceed without representation are held to the same standards as attorneys.
Id. Danko’s opening brief fails to comply with Rule 13 and thus his
arguments are waived. See id. (holding that waiver is the remedy for
noncompliance).

CONCLUSION

¶10 We affirm. Danko’s brief includes a request for oral argument.
We deny his request. See ARCAP 18(b) (this Court has discretion to deny a
request for oral argument).

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

4