Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Belen Loan Investors, LLC v. Myers, Baumgardner, Los Luna Highlands, 296 P.3d 984.

51 citing documents.

  • Kcaz v. Phoenix Title Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    Under these prongs, knowledge and purpose are determinative, and an information provider owes “no duty to a third party who is merely a member of the larger class who might reasonably be expected sooner or later to have access to the information and foreseeably to take some action in reliance upon it.” Belen Loan Invs., ¶ 11 (App. 2012) (citation modified); see also Restatement § 552, cmt.
  • Stephens v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Stephens v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    See Belen Loan Investors, -53, ¶¶ 6-7 (App. 2012).
  • Brown v. Olde Fashioned Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Brown v. Olde Fashioned Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    See Belen Loan Investors, ¶ 7 (App. 2012) (holding that “extrinsic documents” did not convert defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to one for summary judgment because “the court did not rely on the extrinsic documents in ruling on [the] motion, instead basing its dismissal on the allegations of the complaint and the legal arguments of the pa
  • Starr Pass Resort Developments, LLC v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
  • Starr Pass Resort Developments, LLC v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
    Dicta in one case indicates that a court satisfies this requirement if it gives parties “the opportunity to file a written response or reply.” Belen Loan Investors, n.7 (App. 2012).
  • Lorence v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Lorence v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    oncurring in part and dissenting in part K I L E Y, Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: ¶47 This Court has long held that it “will not affirm” a dismissal for failure to state a claim “unless satisfied that as a matter of law [the plaintiff] would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” Belen Loan Invs., ¶ 7 (App. 2012) (cleaned up).
  • Date Street Capital, LLC v. Clearcover Insurance Company ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
  • Date Street Capital, LLC v. Clearcover Insurance Company ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
    CO. Opinion of the Court ¶12 In so concluding, the superior court improperly relied on factual assertions not contained in the complaint, which were “necessary to support its rationale for dismissal.” Workman, (quoting Belen Loan Invs., ).
  • Cavness v. Cavness-Engstrand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Cavness v. Cavness-Engstrand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    Belen Loan Invs., ¶ 5 (App. 2012) (internal quotation and citation omitted); see also Ariz. R. Civ.
  • Schumacher v. Hargrave Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Schumacher v. Hargrave Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    See Belen Loan Invs., ¶ 22 (App. 2012) (“[I]ssues not clearly raised and argued in a party’s appellate brief are waived.”).
  • Andrich v. Banner University Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Andrich v. Banner University Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    See Belen Loan Invs., ¶ 22 (App. 2012) (“[I]ssues not clearly raised and argued in a party’s appellate brief are waived.”).
  • McCoy v. Hassen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • McCoy v. Hassen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    See Belen Loan Invs., ¶ 7 (App. 2012).
  • Freer v. Cliftonlarsonallen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Freer v. Cliftonlarsonallen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    See Belen Loan Investors, ¶ 16 (App. 2012).
  • PEDRO U. DIAZ and NOEMI C. DIAZ v. BBVA USA, Fka COMPASS BANK 504 P.3d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
  • PEDRO U. DIAZ and NOEMI C. DIAZ v. BBVA USA, Fka COMPASS BANK 504 P.3d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
    See Belen Loan Invs., n.8 (App. 2012) (citing Strategic Dev.
  • Borges v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Borges v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶ 82 (App. 2012); Belen Loan Inv’rs, ¶ 22 (App. 2012).
  • Gallardo v. West Sand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Gallardo v. West Sand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    See Belen Loan Inv’rs, ¶ 5 (App. 2012) (“[I]f extraneous matters neither add to nor subtract from the deficiency of the pleading,” the motion to dismiss need not be converted into a motion for summary judgment).
  • Channel v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Channel v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 82 (App. 2012); see also Belen Loan Inv’rs, ¶ 22 (App. 2012) (recognizing issues not clearly raised and argued on appeal are waived and declining to address the dismissal of a claim with respect to which the appellant made no specific argument).
  • Kresock v. Depaoli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Kresock v. Depaoli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Although Kresock now argues, for the first time on appeal, the trial court should have allowed him to pursue discovery once it considered evidence outside the pleadings, “[t]he ‘reasonable opportunity’ requirement inherent in Rule 12(b) is satisfied when a party had the opportunity to file a written response or reply.” Workman, 240 Ariz. at 602, ¶ 15 (quoting Belen Loan Inv’rs, n.7, ¶ 7 (App. 2012)).
  • Camelback v. Cbre Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Camelback v. Cbre Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    I. Negligent Misrepresentation ¶9 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 (1977) (“Restatement”) “outlines the extent of an appraiser’s duty to a third party who justifiably relies on false information supplied by the professional.” Belen Loan Inv’rs, ¶ 10 (App. 2012).
  • Iftiger v. Weston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Iftiger v. Weston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Belen Loan Inv’rs, ¶ 22 (App. 2012) (citation omitted).
  • Melinda S. Workman v. Verde Wellness Center, Inc. 382 P.3d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • Melinda S. Workman v. Verde Wellness Center, Inc. 382 P.3d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    Opinion of the Court Loan Inv’rs
  • Mattison v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Mattison v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See Belen Loan Inv’rs, ¶ 7 (App. 2012) (“[I]f extraneous matters neither add to nor subtract from the deficiency of the pleading, the motion need not be converted.”) (citing Strategic Dev.
  • Lockerby v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Lockerby v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Co., ¶ 7 (2008), but not mere conclusory assertions or legal opinions, Belen Loan Investors, ¶ 18 (App. 2012).
  • Simmons v. ferrantelli/west Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Simmons v. ferrantelli/west Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Belen Loan Investors, ¶ 6
  • Midtown v. Farmers 334 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Midtown v. Farmers 334 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” Belen Loan Investors, ¶ 7 , (quoting Coleman, 230 Ariz. at 356, ¶ 8 , 284 P.3d at 867 ) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • Wells Fargo v. Crown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Wells Fargo v. Crown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Co., (holding that issues which are not clearly raised and argued by a party in his appellate brief are waived); Belen Loan Investors, ¶ 22, (same).
  • Southwest Non-Profit Housing Corporation v. Nowak, Kniffen, Martell 322 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • Southwest Non-Profit Housing Corporation v. Nowak, Kniffen, Martell 322 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • Callies v. United Heritage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014