SAUCEDO v. HOLDEN

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ALICIA SAUCEDO, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

DEE DEE HOLDEN AND ARMER PC ATTORNEY OF LAW,
Defendants/Appellees.

No. 1 CA-CV 26-0195
FILED 09-17-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County
No. S1400CV202501066
The Honorable Claudia Maria Gonzalez, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Alicia Saucedo, Yuma
Plaintiff/Appellant Pro Se

Holden & Armer PC, Phoenix
By Michael J. Ryan
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee

SAUCEDO v. HOLDEN, et al.
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 Alicia Saucedo appeals the superior court’s dismissal of her
suit against attorney Carolyn Armer Holden (also known as “DeeDee”) and
Holden & Armer, P.C. (collectively “Holden”). For the following reasons,
we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Saucedo sued Holden’s client for medical malpractice. Then
she sued Holden, claiming Holden defamed her in court filings related to
the malpractice suit. Holden moved to dismiss, arguing that Saucedo’s suit
was barred by the litigation privilege and thus she failed to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Holden
contended that Saucedo “misconstrue[d]” the filings and that “any
statements [Holden] made . . . in pleadings or other court filings [were]
protected by the litigation privilege.” Saucedo responded, opposing
dismissal.

¶3 The superior court held an oral argument that Saucedo failed
to attend, despite briefing the issue and receiving notice of the hearing. It
dismissed the case with prejudice, finding upon review of the record that
Saucedo “failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).” The court also ordered
monetary sanctions under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and certified
the dismissal as final under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c).

¶4 Saucedo appealed and we have jurisdiction. A.R.S. §§ 12-
120.21(A)(1), -2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶5 To appeal from a civil judgment, an appellant must comply
with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure (“Rule”) 13. 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

2

SAUCEDO v. HOLDEN, et al.
Decision of the Court

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). Those who choose to proceed without
representation are held to the same standards as attorneys. Id. Rule 13
requires an appellant’s opening brief to provide “[a] ‘table of citations’ that
must alphabetically arrange and index the cases, statutes and other
authorities cited in the brief” and “citations of legal authorities and
appropriate references to the portions of the record on which the appellant
relies.” ARCAP 13(a)(2), (7)(A).

¶6 Saucedo’s brief fails to comply with Rule 13. It includes a
nominal “table of citations” citing the 14th Amendment to the United States
Constitution, A.R.S. § 12-120.21 (conferring appellate jurisdiction), and two
rules of civil procedure. See ARCAP 13(a)(2). Although she makes sweeping
statements about the law such as “[i]t is a well-established principle in
Arizona law that defaults are not favored,” neither her “table of citations”
nor the text of her argument include any citations to case law supporting
her contentions. See ARCAP 13(a)(7). Despite Saucedo’s repeated reference
to a “default judgment,” which she claims was entered on January 26, 2026,
no default judgement appears in the record—let alone one entered on that
date. We assume the judgment she refers to is the dismissal from which she
appealed, entered on January 27, 2026, after the hearing on January 26, 2026.
This issue illustrates that, in addition to the legal deficiencies of Saucedo’s
brief, it lacks any citations to the record to guide this Court. See ARCAP
13(a)(7). Rule 13 requires a brief make “appropriate references to the
portions of the record on which the appellant relies” which Saucedo failed
to do. See ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A).

¶7 Because Saucedo’s opening brief fails to comply with Rule 13,
her arguments are waived. See Ramos, 252 Ariz. at 522 ¶ 8. (holding that
waiver is the remedy for noncompliance); see also Flynn v. Campbell, 243
Ariz. 76, 83 ¶ 24 (2017) (“We hold unrepresented litigants in Arizona to the
same standards as attorneys.”).

3

SAUCEDO v. HOLDEN, et al.
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶8 We affirm. Holden requests attorney’s fees. In our discretion,
we award Holden a reasonable portion of attorney’s fees upon compliance
with Rule 21. Both Saucedo and Holden request their costs on appeal. As
the prevailing party, Holden is entitled to costs upon compliance with Rule
21. See A.R.S. § 12-341.

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

4