GARCIDUENAS v. MATRIX NEW WORLD

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MARIA E. GARCIDUENAS, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellees,

v.

MATRIX NEW WORLD ENGINEERING, INC., Defendant/Appellee/Cross-
Appellant.
_____________________________

MARICOPA MOUNTAIN DOMESTIC WATER IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT; WESTLAND RESOURCES INC., Defendants/Appellees.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0212
FILED 07-23-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CV2022-050782
The Honorable Melissa Iyer Julian, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Lindemann Law Firm, APC, Beverly Hills, CA
By Blake J. Lindemann
Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellees Garciduenas

The Law Offices of William D. Black, Scottsdale
By William D. Black
Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellees Garciduenas
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli P.L.C., Phoenix
By Elizabeth B.N. Garcia, William D. Holm, Mariah L. Logan
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellant Matrix

Beaugureau, Hancock, Stoll & Schwartz, P.C., Phoenix
By Anthony J. Hancock, Shimin Luo
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Maricopa Mountain

Schmitt Schneck Even & Williams, P.C., Phoenix
By Andrew Q. Everroad
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Westland

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1 S.G. ("Plaintiff") appeals the superior court's grants of
summary judgment in this wrongful-death action arising from a workplace
accident in which his father ("decedent") died. Cross-appellant Matrix New
World Engineering, Inc., ("Matrix") challenges the superior court's denial of
its request for sanctions against Plaintiff under A.R.S. § 12-349. For the
reasons set forth below, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In 2017, the Maricopa Mountain Domestic Water
Improvement District ("District") retained Westland Resources, Inc.
("Westland") to serve as an engineer and assist with upgrades to its water
system infrastructure, including the construction of new water wells.
Westland then entered a subconsultant agreement with Southwest
Groundwater, a division of Matrix, for hydrogeologic consulting services
for the project. In 2020, the District retained Morex Investments LLC dba
Arizona Beeman Drilling ("Beeman") to drill two new wells for the project
on land owned by the District.

¶3 Beeman employed decedent. In December 2020, while
Beeman worked on drilling a new well, decedent died after becoming
tangled in a rope connected to a Beeman drill rig. After the incident, the
Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health cited Beeman for a

2
 GARCIDUENAS, et al. v. MATRIX NEW WORLD, et al.
Decision of the Court

safety violation based on its failure to guard moving parts on the drill rig.
Beeman, through its insurer, paid worker's compensation benefits to
decedent's spouse.

¶4 In 2022, Plaintiff and decedent's parents (collectively
"Plaintiffs") sued Matrix, Beeman, and Westland for wrongful death based
on negligence, premises liability, negligent entrustment, and other claims.
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Beeman from their lawsuit. Plaintiffs then
filed their first amended complaint, which added the District and other
parties. The District moved to dismiss Plaintiff's parents on the grounds
that they failed to file a timely notice of claim against the District and
commence their action. The superior court granted the motion and
dismissed all claims brought by Plaintiff's parents. In 2023, Plaintiff filed,
with permission from the superior court, a second amended complaint,
leaving the District, Matrix, and Westland (collectively "Defendants") as the
only remaining defendants.

¶5 In April 2024, Plaintiff and Matrix had a discovery dispute
over emails allegedly sent between Beeman and Matrix. Matrix eventually
produced signed verifications from two of its employees stating they
searched Matrix's records, could not locate the alleged emails, and had no
reason to believe they were lost or destroyed. The superior court held a
hearing on the discovery dispute in May 2024. At that hearing, Plaintiff's
counsel stated the verifications had resolved the issue.

¶6 In May 2024, Defendants each moved for summary judgment
under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 56, arguing that they did
not owe duties for decedent's safety and did not breach any duties they may
have owed. Matrix also moved for sanctions against Plaintiff under A.R.S.
§ 12-349. Around the same time, the parties entered into a stipulated
scheduling order which delayed the disclosure of any defense expert
witnesses and modified other deadlines. The stipulated order provided:

Plaintiffs agreed to this extension subject to Defendants
agreement not to utilize any expert proof in connection with
the dispositive motion proceedings or otherwise object to
Plaintiff’s use of expert affidavits in response to the MSJ
Motions, and (2) that this extension will not impact the
scheduling of the pre-trial or trial in these proceedings.
Defendants so agreed.

Plaintiff then filed his own motion for partial summary judgment which
included declarations from two expert witnesses. Plaintiff requested

3
 GARCIDUENAS, et al. v. MATRIX NEW WORLD, et al.
Decision of the Court

summary judgment on duty, breach, and causation, leaving only damages
for the jury. Plaintiff also argued the superior court should have applied
adverse inferences against Defendants based on spoliation of evidence,
citing the alleged emails between Matrix and Beeman which formed the
basis for his earlier discovery dispute, and a machine guard Beeman built
for the drill rig after the accident. Matrix objected to Plaintiff's use of expert
declarations in his summary judgment motion and moved for relief under
Rule 56(d), arguing Plaintiff unfairly submitted expert declarations without
Defendants having a chance to respond to them given the previous
stipulated scheduling order. In July 2024, Matrix renewed its motion for
sanctions against Plaintiff.

¶7 After oral argument, the superior court granted summary
judgment for Defendants. The superior court ruled that the Defendants did
not owe decedent any duties. The superior court also denied Matrix's
requests for sanctions. The superior court deemed Plaintiff's motion for
partial summary judgment moot based on its grant of summary judgment
to Defendants and denied it and all other outstanding motions.

¶8 In January 2025, Plaintiff moved for amended or additional
findings, to reconsider, or for a new trial. In February 2025, the superior
court entered judgment in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal and Matrix filed a notice of cross-appeal. The superior court then
denied Plaintiff's motion.

¶9 In March 2025, Plaintiff moved to reconsider and vacate
judgment under Rules 7.1 and 60(b). The superior court responded and
noted it did not have jurisdiction to decide Plaintiff's motion due to the
notice of appeal. This Court then stayed this appeal and revested
jurisdiction in the superior court to consider Plaintiff's motion. The
superior court denied Plaintiff's motion.

¶10 We have jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§
12-120.21(A)(1), -2101(A)(1), (2), and 5(a).

DISCUSSION

¶11 We review the entry of summary judgment de novo. Joshua
Tree Health Ctr., LLC v. State, 255 Ariz. 220, 222, ¶ 8 (App. 2023). We view
the facts and all reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing
summary judgment. Id. "A motion for summary judgment should be
granted 'if the facts produced in support of the claim or defense have so
little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that
reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the

4
 GARCIDUENAS, et al. v. MATRIX NEW WORLD, et al.
Decision of the Court

proponent of the claim or defense.'" Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Pheasant
Grove LLC, 245 Ariz. 325, 330, ¶ 15 (App. 2018) (quoting Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 309 (1990)).

¶12 "To establish a defendant's liability for a negligence claim, a
plaintiff must prove: (1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a
certain standard of care; (2) breach of that standard; (3) a causal connection
between the breach and the resulting injury; and (4) actual damages."
Quiroz v. ALCOA Inc., 243 Ariz. 560, 563–64, ¶ 7 (2018). We review de novo
whether a duty exists. Wickham v. Hopkins, 226 Ariz. 468, 470–71, ¶ 8 (App.
2011). A "duty is based on either special relationships recognized by the
common law or relationships created by public policy." Quiroz, 243 Ariz. at
563, ¶ 2. "[I]n every negligence case, the plaintiff bears the burden of
proving the existence of a duty." Id.

¶13 We review the superior court's decision not to draw an
adverse inference based on spoliation for an abuse of discretion. See
Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen, 220 Ariz. 401, 409, ¶ 21 (App. 2008). "A court
abuses its discretion when its ruling is 'manifestly unreasonable, or
exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.'" Henderson v.
Henderson, 241 Ariz. 580, 590, ¶ 31 (App. 2017) (quoting Torres ex rel. v. N.
Am. Van Lines, Inc., 135 Ariz. 35, 40 (App. 1982)).

I. Contract Validity.

¶14 Plaintiff contends that Arizona's anti-indemnification
statutes, A.R.S. §§ 34-226, 41-2586, void the safety delegation clauses in the
Defendants' contracts. . Plaintiff points to Article 7 and section 9.09 in the
contract between the District and Beeman, and part of section E1.03(A)(9)(b)
of Westland's contract with the District. While Article 7 includes an
indemnification clause, the superior court did not rely on or mention that
clause in its summary judgment ruling. The clauses on which the superior
court relied are not indemnity provisions but specify which parties will
bear the responsibility for ensuring safety on the project. They do not
establish any duty for one party to reimburse any other party for a loss
related to a lapse in safety on the project. Contra Indemnify, Black's Law
Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (defining indemnify as "[t]o reimburse (another)
for a loss suffered because of a third party's or one's own act or default;
H[old] H[armless]"). The anti-indemnification statutes cited by Plaintiff do
not apply to these contractual provisions and thus provide no basis to
invalidate them.

5
 GARCIDUENAS, et al. v. MATRIX NEW WORLD, et al.
Decision of the Court

II. Duty Based on Retained Control under the Restatement (Second)
of Torts, Section 414.

¶15 Plaintiff argues Defendants owed decedent a duty under
Restatement (Second) of Torts § ("Section") 414 because they retained
control over the work being done on the well-drilling project. A general
contractor owes a duty of care to subcontractors to provide "a reasonably
safe place to work." Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enters., Inc., 170 Ariz. 384, 388 (1992).
The exact scope of that duty may be determined by the amount of control
retained over an independent contractor's work. Id.; Restatement (Second)
of Torts § 414 (1965).

¶16 In Lewis, a worker became injured when he stepped on a piece
of loose plyboard left on a roof and fell to the concrete floor below. 170
Ariz. at 387. The worker sued the general contractor on the project for
failure to provide a safe workplace. Id. Our supreme court held the general
contractor owed a duty to maintain a safe workplace and that the scope of
that duty was based on the amount of control over the work retained by the
general contractor. Id. at 388. The amount of the general contractor's
retained control could be determined based on its contract and its actual
exercise of control over the work. Id. at 390. The supreme court concluded
that the general contractor in Lewis retained control, because its contract
made it responsible for "all safety precautions" and because there was
"sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that the general contractor
actually controlled the roof construction on the day of the worker's
accident . . . ." Id. at 391–93.

¶17 Comment c to Section 414 provides guidance about the
amount of control necessary to establish a duty:

In order for the rule stated in this Section to apply, the
employer must have retained at least some degree of control
over the manner in which the work is done. It is not enough
that he has merely a general right to order the work stopped
or resumed, to inspect its progress or to receive reports, to
make suggestions or recommendations which need not
necessarily be followed, or to prescribe alterations and
deviations. Such a general right is usually reserved to
employers, but it does not mean that the contractor is
controlled as to his methods of work, or as to operative detail.
There must be such a retention of a right of supervision that
the contractor is not entirely free to do the work in his own
way.

6
 GARCIDUENAS, et al. v. MATRIX NEW WORLD, et al.
Decision of the Court

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 414 cmt. c (1965). A general contractor need
not control "the day-to-day details of a subcontractor's work in order to be
subject to liability under § 414." Lewis, 170 Ariz. at 391. But a general
contractor needs to do more than ensure contract specifications are met to
have retained control. See Lee v. M & H Enter., Inc., 237 Ariz. 172, 179, ¶ 25
(App. 2015) (finding that inspecting work and ensuring contract
compliance do not constitute retained control).

¶18 The parties dispute whether any Defendant qualifies as a
"general contractor" for this project. But that dispute is immaterial because
none of the Defendants retained sufficient control over Beeman's work to
be liable under Section 414. Though this is a question of fact, it "does not
prevent a trial court from granting summary judgment . . . in favor of either
a worker or a general contractor if such action is appropriate . . . ." Lewis,
170 Ariz. at 389.

¶19 Beeman's contract with the District makes clear that Beeman
had sole control over its drilling operations. Beeman's contract provides
that Beeman "shall be solely responsible for the means, methods,
techniques, sequences, and procedures of construction" and that Beeman
"shall be solely responsible for initiating, maintaining, and supervising all
safety precautions and programs in connection with the Work." These
contract provisions unequivocally establish that Beeman had sole
responsibility for conducting its work on the project and ensuring the safety
of its employees.

¶20 Plaintiff also argues that "Technical Specifications [which]
predetermined drilling type, depth, and methods before Beeman's formal
hiring" demonstrate control. We disagree. The Technical Specifications
cannot serve as evidence of retained control. In Lee, the Court held a
defendant had not retained control under Section 414 when the defendant
"exercised only the right to inspect the construction work to see that the
contract specifications are met . . . ." 237 Ariz. at 179, ¶ 25 (cleaned up). If
inspecting work to ensure compliance with contract specifications does not
qualify as retaining control, then the existence of the contract specifications
themselves cannot qualify. Additionally, as part of the contract documents,
the Technical Specifications should be read in light of Beeman's contract,
which expressly assigns Beeman responsibility for directing its own work
and maintaining its own safety precautions. The Technical Specifications
do not establish retained control by the Defendants.

¶21 Moreover, Plaintiff offers no evidence that the parties' actual
practice departed from the contract's provisions. Plaintiff argues the

7
 GARCIDUENAS, et al. v. MATRIX NEW WORLD, et al.
Decision of the Court

Defendants controlled Beeman's work because "Matrix employees
discussed drilling methods with Beeman employees, including rig repairs,
drill depth, drill collar application, and other means and methods including
that air rotary [drilling] would be used on [the site where decedent died]."
But these practices only show that Matrix and the other Defendants worked
with Beeman to track their progress and ensure Beeman met contract
specifications. See id. at 179, ¶¶ 25–26; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 414
cmt. c (1965). Nowhere does Plaintiff point to any Defendant's actions that
suggest they controlled how Beeman did its work. See id. While Plaintiff is
not required to prove the Defendants controlled "the day-to-day details of
a subcontractor's work in order to be subject to liability under § 414," Lewis,
170 Ariz. at 391, the actions Plaintiff does identify are not enough to
establish control.

¶22 Because none of the Defendants retained control over
Beeman's work, the superior court did not err in finding Defendants owed
no duty to maintain a safe workplace and granting summary judgment to
Defendants.

III. Duty to Business Invitees under the Restatement (Second) of
Torts, Section 343.

¶23 Plaintiff argues that the District owed decedent a duty under
Section 343 because decedent was a business invitee on the District's
property. He further argues that Matrix and Westland are also liable to
decedent as a business invitee because they had legal and actual control of
the project site. See Dabush v. Seacret Direct LLC, 250 Ariz. 264, 267, ¶ 11
(2021) ("Defendants only owe a duty to [Plaintiff] if they had legal control
of the premises or exercised actual, physical control over it.").

¶24 Section 343 provides:

A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm
caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but only
if, he

(a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would
discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an
unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and

(b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the
danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and

8
 GARCIDUENAS, et al. v. MATRIX NEW WORLD, et al.
Decision of the Court

(c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the
danger.

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 (1965). "Generally, an independent
contractor and the contractor's employees are included in the category of
business invitees for the purpose of determining the duty owed by the
contractee." Robertson v. Sixpence Inns of Am., Inc., 163 Ariz. 539, 544 (1990).
Assuming Plaintiff is correct that Westland and Matrix are possessors of the
land, all three Defendants would owe decedent a duty as a business invitee.
But even assuming Defendants owed this duty, Plaintiff failed to show that
the Defendants breached their duty under Section 343.

¶25 While the possessor of land has a duty to protect invitees from
dangerous conditions on its property, "this duty extends only to latent
dangers which the contractor or his servants could not reasonably have
discovered and of which the [possessor] knew or should have known." E.
L. Jones Const. Co. v. Noland, 105 Ariz. 446, 455 (1970). The superior court
noted in its summary judgment ruling that "Plaintiff does not argue that
[decedent] was injured as a result of a concealed defect on the
premises . . . ." Later, the superior court denied Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration explaining that "the summary judgment record failed to
reflect facts sufficient to establish the existence of concealed defects . . .
which led to the decedent's injuries." We agree with the superior court.

¶26 Plaintiff asserts that decedent died because of an unsafe part
on the drill rig that Beeman brought and installed at the premises. "[T]he
common-law duty to furnish a safe place to work . . . refers to the owner's
plant and not to the contractor's equipment." Id. (quoting 2 Shearman &
Redfield on Negligence 689 (1941 ed.)). Decedent's "status as an invitee
does not impose upon the [Defendants] any duty to protect him from the
negligent acts of [Beeman]." Id. Because Plaintiff only alleges that Beeman's
drill rig, and not a pre-existing condition on the property, caused decedent's
death, Defendants cannot be liable to decedent as a business invitee under
Section 343. Defendants had no duty to know about or warn decedent of a
dangerous condition brought to the land by decedent's own employer. Cf.
German v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 11 Ariz. App. 91 (1969) (finding no
liability when the defendant did not retain control and "the evidence clearly
shows that plaintiffs were not injured by a previously existing dangerous
condition of the premises, but rather, solely by the active conduct of the
independent contractor").

¶27 Plaintiff cites Ft. Lowell-NSS Ltd. Partnership v. Kelly to argue
Defendants are liable, but Ft. Lowell addresses liability under Section 422,

9
 GARCIDUENAS, et al. v. MATRIX NEW WORLD, et al.
Decision of the Court

not Section 343. 166 Ariz. 96, 101–02 (1990). And Arizona law provides that
Section 422 does not apply to the employee of an independent contractor.
Lee, 237 Ariz. at 177, ¶¶ 16–18.

IV. Negligent Selection under the Restatement (Second) of Torts,
Section 411.

¶28 Plaintiff argues the Defendants are liable to decedent under
Section 411 for negligently selecting Beeman to be the drilling contractor.
Section 411 provides:

An employer is subject to liability for physical harm to third
persons caused by his failure to exercise reasonable care to
employ a competent and careful contractor

(a) to do work which will involve a risk of physical harm
unless it is skillfully and carefully done, or

(b) to perform any duty which the employer owes to third
persons.

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 411 (1965).

¶29 Plaintiff argues that Ft. Lowell establishes that the employee of
an independent contractor may qualify as a third person. We disagree. In
Ft. Lowell, the employee of one independent contractor received an electric
shock caused by wiring negligently installed by a different independent
contractor. Id. at 98. Ft. Lowell does not address whether a party can be
liable to the employee of an independent contractor for negligently
selecting that contractor.

¶30 Plaintiff also cites Pacheco v. Coffman, an unpublished Arizona
decision, to suggest Arizona should recognize the employees of
independent contractors as third persons under Section 411. No. 1 CA-CV
23-0107, 2023 WL 7896261 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2023) (mem. decision).
In Pacheco, an aunt hired her nephew to renovate her cabin. Id. at *1, ¶ 2.
The nephew and three laborers worked on the cabin and an accident injured
one laborer. Id. at ¶¶ 4–6. The laborer sued, arguing aunt negligently
selected nephew as her independent contractor. Id. at ¶ 7. The Court
ultimately rejected the laborer's claims. Id. at *3, ¶ 21. In addressing the
negligent selection claim, the Court noted that the parties disputed whether
the laborer was an employee of the nephew. Id. at *2, ¶ 12. If the laborer
was an employee of the nephew, the Court explained that the laborer's
"remedy for work-related injuries [was] through the workers’

10
 GARCIDUENAS, et al. v. MATRIX NEW WORLD, et al.
Decision of the Court

compensation statute." Id. This suggests that the laborer would not have
had an independent claim for negligent selection as a third person.

¶31 The majority of states hold that the employee of an
independent contractor is not a third person under Section 411. See, e.g.,
Hancock v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 480 Md. 588, 611–12, 612 n.5
(2022) (collecting cases); Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy, 25 Cal. 4th 1235, 1241–42
(2001) ("The overwhelming majority of the courts of other jurisdictions that
have addressed the question have concluded that an employee of a
contractor is not a third person for the purposes of section 411."); but see
Bagley v. Insight Commc'ns Co., L.P., 658 N.E.2d 584, 588 (Ind. 1995) (holding
employees of independent contractors are third persons). Policy
considerations support this approach. See Carney v. Union Pac. R. Co., 77
N.E.3d 1, 18, ¶ 84 (Ill. 2016) (discussing Section 411's purpose). Plaintiff
argues that Alonzo v. Menholt offers policy reasons to depart from this
majority rule. 9 N.W.3d 148 (Minn. 2024). But Alonzo is inapposite because
it does not address whether the employee of an independent contractor is a
third party under Section 411. Id.; see also Schip v. Pabst Brewing Co., 64
Minn. 22, 24 (1896) (declining to hold the employer of an independent
contractor liable for the injury of an employee of the independent
contractor).

¶32 Ultimately, Plaintiff offers no compelling reason to depart
from the prevailing view that the employees of independent contractors are
not third persons for purposes of determining legal duties under Section
411, and we see none. Because decedent was an employee of the allegedly
negligently selected independent contractor, Defendants did not owe
decedent a duty under Section 411. Cf. Mason v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 127
Ariz. 546, 551 (App. 1980) ("Generally, in the absence of retained control,
the duties owed by a landowner to third persons are not owed to the
employees of an independent contractor.").

V. Strict Liability under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section
519.

¶33 Plaintiff also argues Defendants should be held strictly liable
for decedent's death. Section 519, which addresses strict liability, provides:

(1) One who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is
subject to liability for harm to the person, land or chattels of
another resulting from the activity, although he has exercised
the utmost care to prevent the harm.

11
 GARCIDUENAS, et al. v. MATRIX NEW WORLD, et al.
Decision of the Court

(2) This strict liability is limited to the kind of harm, the
possibility of which makes the activity abnormally
dangerous.

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 519 (1965). Plaintiff argues the Defendants
are strictly liable for decedent's death because well drilling using a drill rig
with an unguarded moving part is an abnormally dangerous activity. But
strict liability applies to the injuries of third persons, not employees of
independent contractors. See Welker v. Kennecott Copper Co., 1 Ariz. App.
395, 403–04 (1965). In Welker, the Court held that Section 427, which
imposes liability on landowners that employ independent contractors
engaged in inherently dangerous work, only applied to injuries to third
persons and not to employees of the contractor doing the work. Id. at 404.
The same logic applies to the abnormally dangerous activities considered
in Section 519. See Lee v. City of Kingman, 124 F. Supp. 3d 985, 991 (D. Ariz.
2015) ("Section 519's general strict liability standards are incorporated into
Section 427 and were addressed in Welker."). Strict liability does not apply
here.

VI. Duty under Other Restatement Sections.

¶34 Plaintiff argues Defendants are liable under Section 413.
Section 413 provides:

One who employs an independent contractor to do work
which the employer should recognize as likely to create,
during its progress, a peculiar unreasonable risk of physical
harm to others unless special precautions are taken, is subject
to liability for physical harm caused to them by the absence of
such precautions if the employer

(a) fails to provide in the contract that the contractor shall take
such precautions, or

(b) fails to exercise reasonable care to provide in some other
manner for the taking of such precautions.

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 413 (1965). But Arizona law provides that
the duty in Section 413 is "not owed to employees of an independent
contractor." Welker, 1 Ariz. App. at 404. Therefore, none of the Defendants
could owe decedent a duty under this section.

¶35 Plaintiff also argues that Matrix and Westland are liable
under Sections 383, 384, and 385. These Sections address the liability of

12
 GARCIDUENAS, et al. v. MATRIX NEW WORLD, et al.
Decision of the Court

those acting on behalf of a possessor. See Restatement (Second) of Torts §§
383, 384, 385 (1965). Section 385 does not apply here, because it deals with
completed work, and the well remained under construction when decedent
died. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 385 (1965). Sections 383 and 384
provide that those acting on behalf of a possessor have the same liability as
a possessor. Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 383, 384 (1965). Because we
find no liability for any Defendant, there is no need to consider the effect of
Sections 383 or 384 in this case.

VII. Statutory Duties.

¶36 Plaintiff argues the Defendants owed duties to decedent
under 40 U.S.C. § 3704 and 29 CFR 1926.300. We disagree.

¶37 40 U.S.C. § 3704(a)(1) addresses safety requirements for
projects receiving certain types of federal funding. The remedies for a
violation of this statute are that the federal government may cancel its
contract with the offending party or withdraw financial support for the
project. 40 U.S.C. § 3704(b)(2). The statute does not purport to establish
any duties or to have any other effect on private tort actions. See 40 U.S.C.
§ 3704. Further, it does not create any enforceable duties for Defendants to
decedent. See Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482, 491 (2022) (suggesting it is not
the role of the courts to imply causes of action Congress has not provided).

¶38 29 C.F.R. § 1926.300 is a federal Occupational Safety and
Health Administration ("OSHA") regulation. OSHA regulations only apply
to employers. 29 C.F.R. § 1975.1. Beeman employed decedent, and
therefore this regulation does not apply to the Defendants and cannot create
a duty to decedent by Defendants. Plaintiff argues that "OSHA's
multi-employer policies establish liability for controlling employers" and
that Defendants may owe a duty to decedent as "putative employers." But
no authority cited by Plaintiff advances this proposition. Defendants did
not owe a duty to decedent under 29 C.F.R. § 1926.300. See Egbert, 596 U.S.
at 491.

VIII. Contractual, External, and Internal Duties.

¶39 Plaintiff asserts the superior court erred by failing to
recognize that the Defendants owed decedent contractual, external, and
internal duties. We disagree.

13
 GARCIDUENAS, et al. v. MATRIX NEW WORLD, et al.
Decision of the Court

A. Contractual Duties.

¶40 Plaintiff argues that "Westland and Matrix, acting on the
District's behalf, contractually undertook extensive supervisory and
oversight responsibilities that created independent legal duties." While
Arizona recognizes that duties may arise from contractual undertakings,
Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141, 145, ¶ 18 (2007), Plaintiff does not point to
any here. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have duties based on
contractual undertakings. But Plaintiff cites only one specific contract
provision for this argument. Plaintiff otherwise supports this contention by
citing nearly his entire statement of facts, which contains numerous
contractual provisions from various contracts and citations to even more.
It is unclear which provisions of which contracts between which parties
establish the contractual duties Plaintiff alleges existed.

¶41 Regardless, Beeman's contract with the District makes clear
that Beeman assumed sole responsibility for "initiating, maintaining, and
supervising all safety precautions" related to its work. Plaintiff does not
identify any contractual provision which contradicts this one. Plaintiff has
not demonstrated any of the Defendants owed a relevant contractual duty
to decedent.

B. External Duties.

¶42 Plaintiff argues that by referencing the International
Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC) in their contractual documents
and technical specifications, the Defendants accepted a duty to ensure
compliance with IADC's guidelines. To support this contention, Plaintiff
points to Westland's final plans and specifications, which were
incorporated into Beeman's contract with the District and provide that
"Published Standards" may be used to resolve conflicts between contract
documents. Plaintiff also points to a provision of Matrix's technical
specifications, which provide that "[t]he daily driller's report forms must be
International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC) or equal approved
by the CONSULTANT." Nothing in these references to the IADC suggest
that any of the Defendants intended to adopt the entirety of IADC's
standards. Even if they did, these standards would not establish a legal
duty. See Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication Serv., Inc., 224 Ariz. 335, 341, ¶ 27 (App.
2010) ("The undisputed facts of the limited undertaking, rather than an
alleged industry standard, must form the foundation for determining
whether a duty exists.").

14
 GARCIDUENAS, et al. v. MATRIX NEW WORLD, et al.
Decision of the Court

C. Internal Duties.

¶43 Plaintiff argues that Defendants' internal health and safety
policies created duties owed to decedent. But the "[v]iolation of a self-
imposed rule does not create actionable negligence unless plaintiff (1)
suffers the type of harm sought to be prevented by the rule and (2) is a
member of the class of people for whose protection the rule was
promulgated." Gilbert Tuscany Lender, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 232 Ariz. 598,
603, ¶ 22 (App. 2013) (quoting Software Design & Application, Ltd. v. Hoefer
& Arnett, Inc., 56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 756, 762 (1996)). Plaintiff points to the
Defendants' internal safety manuals and argues they created duties
between the Defendants and the decedent. But Plaintiff fails to identify any
specific provisions in any of these manuals which suggest decedent, as the
employee of an independent contractor tasked with maintaining its own
safety, qualified as a person these safety manuals were meant to protect.

IX. Spoliation Issues.

¶44 Plaintiff asserts that spoliation of evidence required the
superior court to make an adverse inference against the Defendants.
Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed to preserve a machine guard fashioned
after decedent's accident to protect the moving part that killed decedent.
He also alleges Matrix failed to produce emails with Beeman discussing
their safety plan. Plaintiff made these claims in his motion for partial
summary judgment which the superior court deemed moot after its grant
of summary judgment to Defendants. Plaintiff was not entitled to any
adverse inferences.

A. The Machine Guard.

¶45 Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to an adverse inference
based on Defendants' failure to preserve a machine guard for the part that
killed decedent. Plaintiff acknowledged that Beeman and not any of the
Defendants owned the machine guard but asserted that Defendants had an
obligation to ensure Beeman preserved it as parties to contracts with
Beeman. Only the District entered a contract with Beeman, so this
argument does not apply to Westland or Matrix. In discovery, parties must
produce requested documents or tangible things in their "possession,
custody, or control." Ariz. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Plaintiff acknowledges that
Beeman owned the machine guard, and while the District had a contract
with Beeman, Plaintiff does not point to any specific provision of that
contract, which suggests the District had the right to obtain the machine

15
 GARCIDUENAS, et al. v. MATRIX NEW WORLD, et al.
Decision of the Court

guard on demand. As such, the District did not have the machine guard in
its possession, custody, or control, and the superior court did not err.

B. The Alleged Emails.

¶46 Plaintiff argues he is entitled to an adverse inference based on
Matrix's failure to produce emails allegedly sent between Matrix and
Beeman, discussing project safety and equipment inspection forms.
Plaintiff first raised the issue of undisclosed emails in a discovery dispute
in April 2024. Matrix eventually produced signed verifications from two of
its employees stating they searched Matrix's records, could not locate such
emails, and had no reason to believe they were lost or destroyed. The
superior court held a hearing on the discovery dispute in May 2024. At that
hearing, Plaintiff's counsel stated he had received the verifications and they
resolved the issue. Plaintiff then argued in his motion for partial summary
judgment that he was entitled to an adverse inference based on the missing
emails. But Plaintiff had already conceded the verifications resolved the
matter. After accepting Matrix's verifications that the emails did not exist,
Plaintiff is not entitled to an adverse spoliation inference.

X. Plaintiff's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment.

¶47 Plaintiff argues he is entitled to partial summary judgment in
his favor. We disagree. The superior court held that its grant of summary
judgment to Defendants mooted Plaintiff's motion for partial summary
judgment. Plaintiff argues that Defendants' waived their right to oppose
the expert proof in his summary judgment motion when they entered into
a stipulated scheduling order that provided Defendants agreed "not to
utilize any expert proof in connection with the dispositive motion
proceedings . . . ." Plaintiff's expert proof addresses the breach and
causation elements of negligence. But Plaintiff has failed to establish a
breach of any duty Defendants owed to decedent, and the expert proof does
not alter the result. Plaintiff is not entitled to partial summary judgment.

XI. Sanctions on Cross-Appeal.

¶48 Matrix cross-appeals the superior court's denial of its request
to sanction Plaintiff. Matrix argues it is entitled to an award of attorney fees
or costs under A.R.S. § 12-349. Matrix asserts that Plaintiff brought claims
without substantial justification and unreasonably expanded the
proceedings. We review the denial of a motion for sanctions under A.R.S.
§ 12-349 de novo. See Hormel v. Maricopa County, 224 Ariz. 454, 461, ¶ 27
(App. 2010). "Courts should not impose sanctions lightly." Matter of Est. of
Craig, 174 Ariz. 228, 239 (App. 1992).

16
 GARCIDUENAS, et al. v. MATRIX NEW WORLD, et al.
Decision of the Court

¶49 Matrix argues Plaintiff brought its claims against it without
substantial justification. While Plaintiff's claims were certainly "long
shot[s]" and ultimately "lack[ed] winning merit," they were not "sufficiently
devoid of rational support to render [them] groundless." Arizona Republican
Party v. Richer, 257 Ariz. 237, 243, ¶ 15 (2024).

¶50 Matrix also argues Plaintiff unreasonably expanded the
proceedings in superior court by filing a motion for summary judgment,
attempting to preclude Matrix from relying on expert testimony in
opposition to his motion for summary judgment, and arguing that
Defendants spoliated evidence. While these actions may have expanded
the proceedings, Plaintiff's actions were related to advancing the core
contentions of his case. But cf. Hohokam Res. v. Maricopa County, 169 Ariz.
596, 606 (App. 1991) (awarding sanctions for "extensive and immaterial
analysis" of an irrelevant issue). Matrix has not sufficiently established the
unreasonableness of Plaintiff's behavior. We agree with the superior court's
denial of Matrix's request for sanctions.

XII. Costs and Attorney Fees on Appeal.

¶51 Plaintiff and Defendants all request attorney fees on appeal
under A.R.S. § 12-349. Because Defendants prevailed on appeal, we decline
to award attorney fees to Plaintiff. See Montano v. Luff, 250 Ariz. 401, 407,
¶ 18 (App. 2020). We decline to award attorney fees to Westland, Matrix,
or the District under A.R.S. § 12-349 because we are not persuaded Plaintiff
improperly expanded the proceedings on appeal and because there is
insufficient evidence to establish Plaintiff failed to act in good faith.1 See

1 We note that Plaintiff's counsel filed a consolidated reply brief on
November 17, 2025. That reply brief contained 34 citation errors, including
14 incorrect citations, and 20 quotations that did not appear in the cited
cases, including five quotations that were not consistent with the case cited.
On December 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended consolidated reply brief
"to correct errors and make the Reply Brief more precise and specific." The
amended reply brief corrected many errors but still contained 14 incorrect
reporter citations and 13 misquoted authorities. Although errors remained,
the amended brief did not cite nonexistent cases and the cases cited
generally supported the propositions for which they were offered. While
we suspect that generative artificial intelligence may have been involved,
because counsel corrected the substantive errors without requiring action
by the Court or appellees, we have chosen not to take further action on our
own motion. Nevertheless, we urge Plaintiff's counsel to be more diligent
in the future.

17
 GARCIDUENAS, et al. v. MATRIX NEW WORLD, et al.
Decision of the Court

Richer, 257 Ariz. at 243, ¶ 15. We award Defendants their costs on appeal
as prevailing parties upon compliance with ARCAP 21.

CONCLUSION

¶52 We affirm.

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

18