Cited by

See generally Pawn 1st, -13, ¶ 21 n.3 (App. 2013); Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2016) (citations omitted).

The change of circumstances must have “end[ed] the underlying controversy and transform[ed] the litigation into ‘an abstract question which does not arise upon existing facts or rights.’” Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2016) (citation omitted).

P. 54(c); Madrid v. Avalon Care Ctr.-Chandler, L.L.C., –25 ¶ 11 (App. 2014) (holding that “inclusion of Rule 54(c) language in a judgment that does not resolve all claims by all parties” is improper); see also Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 7 (App. 2016) (“[A]n order dismissing without prejudice is not a final judgment because the plaintiff can refile the action.”).

Two categories of documents are not “outside the pleadings.” These are “a complaint’s exhibits” and “public records regarding matters referenced in a complaint.” see also Workman v. Verde Wellness Center, Inc., (noting case law not requiring conversion for documents “central to the complaint” but not attached to it, though also noting that Coleman arguably disapproves of this exception).

Co., (on Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “Arizona courts look only to the pleading itself” and must “assume the truth of the well-pled factual allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences therefrom”) with Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., (summary judgment appropriate when only one inference may be drawn from undisputed material facts).

DISCUSSION ¶4 “As a matter of judicial restraint, Arizona courts will not ‘issue advisory opinions [or] address moot cases.’” Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2016) quoting Home Builders Ass’n of Cent.

Generally, an order dismissing a case without prejudice is neither final nor appealable because “the plaintiff can refile the action and therefore ‘ha[s] nothing to appeal.’” Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 7 (App. 2016) (citation omitted).

In contrast, motions for summary judgment generally involve the parties presenting, and the court considering, additional evidentiary material beyond the allegations in the complaint, see Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 10 (App. 2016), and summary judgment is proper when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,” Ariz. R. Civ.

¶14 A case is moot if an event “ends the underlying controversy and transforms the litigation into ‘an abstract question which does not arise upon existing facts or right.’” ¶ 17 (App. 2016) (quoting Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’).

& Constr., Inc. v. 7th & Roosevelt Partners, LLC, -64, ¶¶ 10, 13 (App. 2010)); accord Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 10 (App. 2016).

See Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., -02 ¶¶ 10, 13 (App. 2016) (noting Rule 12(d) is not implicated when either the court does not consider extraneous materials or when extraneous materials are “central to the complaint”).

See Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 7 (App. 2016) (holding "an order dismissing without prejudice is not a final judgment"); see also Union Interchange, ("A dismissal without prejudice does not go to the merits of the plaintiff's cause and does not bar plaintiff from later filing on the same cause

A judgment dismissing a complaint without prejudice generally is not appealable, Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 7 (App. 2016), because it does not bar the plaintiff from refiling the action, Union Interchange

See Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2016) (A case becomes moot if “an event occurs that ends the underlying controversy” and transforms the litigation into an abstract question that does not arise upon existing facts or rights.); cf. Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. 5

A judgment dismissing a complaint without prejudice generally is not appealable, Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 7 (App. 2016), because it does not bar the plaintiff from refiling the action, Union Interchange

P. 41; see also Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 8 (App. 2016).

¶31 To initiate a claim in Arizona, a party must have standing— that is, a plaintiff must allege a “distinct and palpable injury.” ¶ 16 (1998) (citation omitted); see also Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2016).

see also Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 7 (App. 2016) (acknowledging that dismissal without prejudice “is not a final judgment because the plaintiff can refile the action”).

Workman v. Verde Wellness Center, Inc., ¶ 7 (App. 2016).

¶15 Finally, relying on Workman v. Verde Wellness Center, Inc., the Trust contends that continuous ownership is not necessary in the absence of a requirement in statute or rule that the plaintiff fairly and adequately represent the interests of the entity.

See Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., , ¶¶ 5, 9, , 815-16 (App. 2016) (rejecting argument that appeal must be immediately taken pursuant to § 12-2101(A)(3) from dismissal order lacking finality language); , ¶¶ 26-27 & n.8, , 1287 & n.8 (App. 2016) (order terminating probate

See Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 11 (App. 2016) (finding the trial court “necessarily considered matters outside the pleadings” when exhibits were attached to the motion and arguments at a hearing were based on the exhibits) ( ¶ 9 (2012)); Canyon del Rio Inv’rs, L.L.C. v. City of Flagstaff, 2

Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 7, (order dismissing without prejudice is not a final judgement under A.R.S.

P. 12(d); Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 10 (App. 2016) (public records regarding matters referenced in a complaint are not considered matters outside pleadings).