Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., 772 P.2d 1155.

38 citing documents.

Sanchez v. Jaime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sanchez v. Jaime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(quoting Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., ); see also Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (Garcia), (“The heavier the sanction contemplated, the more deliberate the process that is due and the more thorough the findings that should be made.”).
Toller v. Toller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Toller v. Toller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Takamiya v. Loiselle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Takamiya v. Loiselle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Although we generally review an order imposing a sanction for an abuse of discretion, “the trial court’s discretion [to dismiss a complaint] is more limited than when it employs lesser sanctions.” ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (quoting Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., ).
Garlan v. Garlan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Garlan v. Garlan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(quoting Lenze v. Snythes, Ltd., ).
Williamsfield v. Stren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Williamsfield v. Stren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶31 “[W]here the party is not guilty of misconduct in the discovery process, he should not suffer default as the result of his counsel’s guilty conduct.” Lenze v. Synthese, Ltd.
Pacheco v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Pacheco v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 18 (App. 2009) (citing Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., ).
Fitch v. Fitch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Fitch v. Fitch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶12 A “court’s power to employ the ultimate sanctions of dismissal or entry of default judgment is circumscribed by due process considerations.” Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd.
Floare v. Damian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Floare v. Damian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Further, based on due process considerations, the court’s discretionary power to enter a default as a sanction “is more limited than when it employs lesser sanctions.” Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., Montgomery Ward, 176 Ariz. at 622, 863 P.2d at 914 (“A party’s right to due process limits a trial court’s authority to strike a pleading.”); (“The law favors resolving a case on the merits rathe
Duckstein v. Wolf 282 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Duckstein v. Wolf 282 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 48 , Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., , (finding court abused its discretion in failing to set aside a default judgment entered as a sanction for a discovery violation without holding evidentiary hearing on fault).
HAMMOUDEH, Dba CALIFORNIA AUTO MARKET v. JADA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
HAMMOUDEH, Dba CALIFORNIA AUTO MARKET v. JADA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
However, the court’s discretion to dismiss based on a violation of the discovery rules “is more limited than when it employs lesser sanctions.” Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd.
Seidman v. Seidman 215 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Seidman v. Seidman 215 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., , (striking pleadings reviewed for abuse of discretion); ¶ 10 , (exclusion of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion).
Rivers v. Solley 177 P.3d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Rivers v. Solley 177 P.3d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(quoting Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., , ).
Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp 163 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp 163 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Some aspects of alleged Rule 26.1 violations require hearings, typically when the sanction is an entry of default, see Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., , but an entry of default is not at issue here.
Zimmerman v. Shakman 62 P.3d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Zimmerman v. Shakman 62 P.3d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(quoting Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., , ).
City of Casa Grande v. Arizona Water Co. 20 P.3d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
City of Casa Grande v. Arizona Water Co. 20 P.3d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
See Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., , (denial of request for evidentiary hearing reviewed for abuse of discretion).
Wayne Cook Enterprises, Inc. v. Fain Properties Ltd. Partnership 993 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Wayne Cook Enterprises, Inc. v. Fain Properties Ltd. Partnership 993 P.2d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Superior Court 863 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Superior Court 863 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Mission Insurance v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross 822 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Mission Insurance v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross 822 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See, , Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., , Birds Int’l
Weaver v. Synthes, Ltd.(USA) 784 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Weaver v. Synthes, Ltd.(USA) 784 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
We reverse and remand for the purpose of having the trial court conduct an evidentiary hearing as required by Birds Int’l , , and Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd.