Parker Law v. Cec 141202761

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

PARKER LAW TEAM, PLLC, Plaintiff/Appellee,

v.

CEC 141202761, LLC, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0176
FILED 11-20-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CV2022-017020
The Honorable Scott A. Blaney, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Dessaules Law Group, Phoenix
By Jonathan A. Dessaules
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee

Ahwatukee Legal Office PC, Phoenix
By David L. Abney
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant
 PARKER LAW v. CEC 141202761
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 Defendant CEC 141202761, LLC (CEC), appeals the denial of
its motion for relief from judgment. Because CEC has shown no error, the
denial is affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Plaintiff Parker Law Team, PLLC, sued CEC in December
2022 for breach of contract. Parker Law alleged CEC failed to pay more than
$80,000 in attorneys’ fees in two litigation matters. In early February 2023,
when CEC failed to answer or otherwise respond, Parker Law applied for
entry of default. Parker Law served CEC, a limited liability company, with
the complaint and the application for entry of default through CEC’s
statutory agent. Later in February 2023, attorney Mark Goldman (on behalf
of CEC) filed an answer. Parker Law then sent copies of its filing to
Goldman, and the court endorsed Goldman on its rulings.

¶3 In April 2023, Parker Law notified the court that CEC had
failed to participate in drafting a joint discovery report. Although the court
set a scheduling conference for mid-July 2023, neither Goldman nor any
CEC representative appeared at that hearing. The resulting minute entry
noted CEC apparently failed to respond to discovery. The court ordered
Goldman to file a notice by late July 2023, explaining why he failed to attend
the hearing and showing any cause for why he should not be sanctioned.
Goldman did not file such a notice.

¶4 On August 10, 2023, Parker Law moved to strike CEC’s
answer and sought entry of default judgment. Along with serving
Goldman, starting with that filing, Parker Law also sent copies of its filings
to CEC’s statutory agent. Parker Law then moved for summary judgment.
In late September 2023, Parker Law filed a notice of CEC’s failure to respond
to the motions to strike and for summary judgment, and requested
summary adjudication.

2
 PARKER LAW v. CEC 141202761
Decision of the Court

¶5 In early October 2023, the superior court issued a minute
entry granting Parker Law’s motion to strike CEC’s answer and request for
entry of default judgment. The court found that Goldman and CEC failed
to participate in the drafting and filing of the joint report; failed to
participate in discovery; failed to appear at the July 2023 hearing and failed
to communicate with Parker Law. The court also found that Goldman
violated the order to show cause and that his and CEC’s violations of
procedural rules and court orders were willful.

¶6 The court noted that it had afforded CEC and Goldman
“multiple opportunities to respond to the allegations against them or to
request an additional hearing, but they failed to do so.” Having found that
“no lesser sanction than default would ensure the just resolution of this
case,” the court granted Parker Law’s motion to strike CEC’s answer. The
court “enter[ed] default judgment against” CEC as a sanction. Given the
entry of default judgment, the court denied Parker Law’s motion for
summary judgment as moot.

¶7 In mid-October 2023, Parker Law lodged a proposed final
judgment. At that same time, Parker Law notified the court that Goldman
had been suspended from practicing law for 30 days beginning September
18, 2023. On October 19, 2023, the court issued a minute entry noting the
suspension and stating that Goldman had not notified the court of the
suspension. The minute entry recounted the procedural history of the case,
concluding that setting another hearing would be futile. A few days later,
the court issued an order endorsing CEC via its statutory agent and
providing a link to the October 19, 2023 minute entry. After waiting more
than two months, during which neither Goldman nor CEC made any
filings, on December 22, 2023, the court entered final judgment, again
endorsing CEC through its statutory agent.

¶8 Six months went by. Then, in late June 2024, CEC—through
new counsel—moved for relief from judgment citing Rules 60(b)(1) and
(b)(6). That motion was accompanied by a declaration, a revised declaration
and a supplemental declaration by Scott Ayers, CEC’s sole member and
manager. Ayers originally denied knowledge of any issue regarding the
court proceedings. However, in his November 2024 supplemental
declaration, provided after oral argument on the Rule 60(b) motion, Ayers
admitted that, beginning in October 2023, he and CEC “did, in fact, receive
court filings in this matter after the [c]ourt ordered counsel for Parker Law
Team, PLLC to send them directly to [CEC’s] . . . statutory agent.” Ayers
added that he forwarded those documents to Goldman and that Goldman
“continued to actively mislead me and CEC by providing assurances that

3
 PARKER LAW v. CEC 141202761
Decision of the Court

he was addressing all matters in the litigation and had everything under
control in the litigation.” The court denied CEC’s motion for relief from
judgment, finding no good cause had been shown for the requested relief
and that CEC failed to establish a meritorious defense.

¶9 This court has jurisdiction over CEC’s timely appeal pursuant
to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised
Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1) (2025).1

DISCUSSION

I. CEC Has Not Shown that the Superior Court Abused its Discretion
in Denying the Motion for Relief from Judgment.

¶10 CEC argues the superior court erred in denying its request for
relief from the entry of judgment based on Rule 60(b)(6).2 The denial of a
Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, see Gonzalez v.
Nguyen, 243 Ariz. 531, 533 ¶ 8 (2018), and will be affirmed unless
undisputed facts and circumstances require a different ruling, see City of
Phoenix v. Geyler, 144 Ariz. 323, 330 (1985). This court defers to the superior
court’s factual findings if they are reasonably supported. See Roberts v. City
of Phoenix, 225 Ariz. 112, 119 ¶ 24 (App. 2010).

¶11 Rule 60(b) provides six subparts for relief from judgment.
Summarized broadly, the first five subparts permit relief from mistake;
newly discovered evidence; fraud; voidness; or satisfaction of the
judgment. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(5). Rule 60(b)(6), the sixth subpart
that is applicable here, is the catch-all provision, allowing for relief from a
judgment for “any other reason justifying relief.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).

1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.

2 In 2016, the Arizona Supreme Court reorganized into Rule 60(b) what had

been Rule 60(c). Gonzalez v. Nguyen, 243 Ariz. 531, 532 ¶ 1 n.1 (2018). For
ease of reference, this decision uses Rule 60(b) throughout. CEC does not
argue Rule 60(b)(1) on appeal. Although Parker Law argues CEC waived
any Rule 60(b)(6) argument in superior court, CEC’s motion cited Rule
60(b)(6). Moreover, waiver is discretionary. See Noriega v. Town of Miami,
243 Ariz. 320, 326 ¶ 27 (App. 2017). Accordingly, this court addresses the
merits of CEC’s Rule 60(b)(6) arguments.

4
 PARKER LAW v. CEC 141202761
Decision of the Court

¶12 CEC argues that Goldman’s inability to represent it during his
suspension, his effective abandonment of CEC, and his affirmative
misrepresentations to CEC warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6). But
abandonment of a client, without more, does not mandate relief under Rule
60(b)(6). See Panzino v. City of Phoenix, 196 Ariz. 442, 448 ¶ 21 (2000) (“We
simply cannot adopt a rule that encourages lawyers, once their misconduct
or inattention has made successful representation of a client unlikely, to
abandon the client so that the client can later seek relief under” Rule
60(b)(6).). While acknowledging Goldman’s abandonment of CEC, and that
Goldman may have been untruthful with CEC, the superior court based its
denial of the motion for relief on CEC’s own culpability.3

¶13 The superior court found that CEC’s “claims of ignorance
regarding case status are simply false,” noting both Parker Law (starting in
August 2023) and the court (starting in October 2023) “began sending
filings and court orders directly to [CEC’s] statutory agent, the same
statutory agent that [Parker Law] initially served with its Complaint.” “And
even if [CEC] had not been made aware of its former counsel’s failure to
respond to filings and to orders to show cause,” the court found “it is
entirely unreasonable that [CEC] would have failed to inquire with the
Court about the status of its case after its counsel allegedly stopped
communicating.”

¶14 The record supports the superior court’s findings. CEC
received the complaint served through its statutory agent; otherwise it
would not have known to hire Goldman and file an answer. Beginning in
August 2023, with its motion to strike CEC’s answer and enter default
judgment, Parker Law began sending copies of its filings to CEC via its
statutory agent. The court then issued a minute entry with a link to the
October 2023 minute entry – recounting Goldman’s suspension, the
inaction of both Goldman and CEC, sanctions imposed against CEC, and
that the entry of a proposed judgment was looming – to CEC via its

3 Accordingly, this court need not address CEC’s other arguments on
appeal, including the merits of CEC’s defense, the impact of sending
courtesy copies sent to CEC’s statutory agent, the length of Goldman’s
suspension, or the alleged misrepresentations by Goldman to CEC.
Similarly, no “culprit hearing” was requested, and the court’s denial of the
Rule 60(b)(6) motion based on the record of CEC’s own culpability meant
no such hearing was required. See Est. of Brady v. Tempe Life Care Vill., Inc.,
254 Ariz. 122, 127 ¶ 20 n.3 (App. 2022).

5
 PARKER LAW v. CEC 141202761
Decision of the Court

statutory agent. Then, after waiting two months, when CEC took no action,
the court entered judgment in late December 2023.

¶15 Ayers admitted that both he and CEC received documents
sent to the statutory agent after the superior court endorsed CEC’s statutory
agent in October 2023. But on the record presented, the superior court
properly could conclude that CEC received the motion to strike CEC’s
answer and enter default judgment, which Parker Law served on CEC’s
statutory agent in August 2023. Yet, again, CEC took no action in response.

¶16 More directly, Ayers admitted that both he and CEC received
in October 2023 a link to the court’s October 2023 minute entry recounting:
(1) the suspension of Goldman’s law license; (2) that CEC and Goldman
failed to comply with court orders and participate in the proceedings; (3)
the ruling striking CEC’s answer and imposing sanctions; and (4) the
lodging of the proposed judgment against CEC. There can be no doubt that
the October 2023 minute entry was a red flag. Yet CEC took no action in
response, allowing judgment to be entered two months later in December
2023. CEC then waited six more months until filing the Rule 60(b)(6) motion
in June 2024. The record on appeal provides a reasonable basis for the
superior court’s denial of CEC’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion for relief from
judgment. See Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Walker, 127 Ariz. 432, 437 (App. 1980).

CONCLUSION

¶17 The denial of CEC’s motion for relief from judgment is
affirmed. Parker Law is granted its reasonable attorneys’ fees, under A.R.S.
§ 12-341.01, and taxable costs incurred on appeal, contingent upon its
compliance with ARCAP 21.

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

6