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