Rodriguez v. Rodriguez

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

LETICIA DIAZ RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff/Appellee,

v.

LUIS CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 24-0590
FILED 02-25-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CV2023-012977
The Honorable Bradley H. Astrowsky, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Leticia Diaz Rodriguez, Phoenix
Plaintiff/Appellee Pro Se

Luis Carlos Rodriguez, Phoenix
Defendant/Appellant Pro Se
 RODRIGUEZ v. RODRIGUEZ
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Chief Judge David B. Gass
joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 Luis Carlos Rodriguez appeals from the superior court’s
confirmation of an arbitration award against him and in favor of Leticia
Diaz Rodriguez. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Luis is a buyer-and-seller of cars (because the parties share a
last name, we refer to them by first name). In August 2023, Luis sold Leticia
a 2016 Nissan Rogue for $9,500. After experiencing mechanical issues,
Leticia brought the car to two vehicle repair shops. They both told her the
Rogue needed a new transmission. Leticia sued Luis for fraud, seeking
reimbursement of the purchase price. She then moved to compel arbitration
on the ground that the amount of money in controversy did not exceed
$50,000, and no other affirmative relief was sought.

¶3 The superior court found the action subject to compulsory
arbitration under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 72 and appointed an
arbitrator. Both parties were present and testified at the arbitration on
February 7, 2024. Leticia also provided documentary evidence. At the
hearing, Luis acknowledged the defect and agreed within 45 days to
repossess the vehicle, to return the vehicle after repairing or replacing the
transmission, and to compensate Leticia $100 per month until the vehicle
was returned.

¶4 After Luis failed to make the repairs or compensate Leticia,
the arbitrator entered a notice of decision and arbitration award on April
25, 2024, finding:

(i) Defendant was a ‘merchant’ in the business of buying and
selling vehicles like the Vehicle, (ii) the Vehicle was subject to
a material transmission defect on the date of sale, (iii)
Defendant knew or should have known of the defect, (iv)
Defendant possessed a duty to disclose and failed to disclose

2
 RODRIGUEZ v. RODRIGUEZ
Decision of the Court

the defect, (v) Defendant’s advertisements relating to the
Vehicle were false and misleading, (vi) the defect was
material and deprived Plaintiff of the use of the Vehicle, and
(vii) the cost to repair the defect would be approximately
$6,750.00.

Accordingly, the arbitrator awarded Leticia $9,000 in compensatory
damages for repairs to the vehicle and its loss of use.

¶5 Leticia moved for judgment on the award, and Luis
responded with a motion titled, “Civil Lawsuit Movement,” on May 24,
2024, that challenged the arbitrator’s findings. The court found the “Civil
Lawsuit Movement” was not a proper filing and untimely if it served as a
notice of appeal from the award. The court therefore confirmed the award.
Luis timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction. A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶6 On appeal, Luis argues that he fixed the transmission and
compensated Leticia $100 and that he did not have an opportunity to
present evidence. Leticia did not file an answering brief. If an appellant’s
opening brief and the record reveal a debatable question raised by the
appeal, “and no reasonable excuse for appellee’s failure to file a brief is
shown, we assume the latter confesses error.” Navarro v. State, 32 Ariz. 119,
120–21 (1927). However, because Luis’s brief and this record demonstrate
no debatable issues on appeal, “[i]n the exercise of our discretion, we
decline to treat her failure to file an answering brief as a confession of
error.” Michaelson v. Garr, 234 Ariz. 542, 544 ¶ 4 n.3 (App. 2014).

¶7 On appeal, we review a superior court’s confirmation of an
arbitration award for an abuse of discretion. Brake Masters Sys., Inc. v.
Gabbay, 206 Ariz. 360, 364 ¶ 12 n.3 (App. 2003). We review matters of
statutory construction de novo. Id. at 363 ¶ 4. Judicial review of arbitration
awards is severely limited. Atreus Cmtys. Grp. of Ariz. v. Stardust Dev., Inc.,
229 Ariz. 503, 506 ¶ 13 (App. 2012).

¶8 Any party who appears and participates in a compulsory
arbitration may appeal the arbitration award to the superior court. Ariz. R.
Civ. P. 77(a). To appeal an award, a party must file a notice of appeal no
later than 20 days after the award is filed. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 77(b).

¶9 Luis did not timely appeal the award to the superior court.
The arbitrator filed the award on April 25, 2024, but Luis did not file his
“Civil Lawsuit Movement” until May 24, 2024, outside the 20-day window

3
 RODRIGUEZ v. RODRIGUEZ
Decision of the Court

required by Rule 77(b). Further, even if Luis’s filing was timely, A.R.S. § 12-
1512(A) limits the grounds on which a party may oppose an award. Luis’s
motion disagreed with the arbitrator’s findings but did not allege any of the
statutory grounds such as corruption, evident partiality, or excess of
powers. See A.R.S. § 12-1512(A). The superior court therefore did not abuse
its discretion by confirming the award.

CONCLUSION

¶10 We affirm.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

4