Background
Charity Isles sued Family Dollar and an employee in 2021, alleging false imprisonment, defamation per se, and assault and battery arising from an incident at a Family Dollar store. Family Dollar moved for summary judgment in 2023. Isles opposed the motion and referred to video-related exhibits, but did not include the videos with her filing. The superior court granted summary judgment for Family Dollar and later denied reconsideration.
In Isles’ prior appeal, the court affirmed the judgment after concluding that she had not presented admissible evidence supporting essential elements of her claims. While that appeal was pending, the superior court confirmed that it had not received or considered the thumb drives Isles said contained the missing exhibits. After the Arizona Supreme Court denied review, Isles moved in August 2025 for relief from judgment under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), alleging fraud, misconduct, and newly discovered evidence. The superior court denied the motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. Isles sought to rely on Rule 60(b)(4) and (6) on appeal, but she had sought relief below only under Rule 60(b)(2) and (3). The court declined to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal.
The court also held that Isles waived appellate review by failing to comply with appellate briefing requirements. Her opening brief misstated the record, did not adequately develop legal arguments, and largely made conclusory assertions; her reply brief could not cure those defects or raise a new Rule 60(b)(6) theory. The court awarded Family Dollar reasonable attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-349 and costs, finding the appeal lacked substantial justification and unreasonably expanded and delayed the proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 60 theories not presented to the superior court generally cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
- Self-represented parties must follow the same substantive and procedural rules as attorneys, including appellate briefing rules.
- A party opposing summary judgment is responsible for ensuring its evidence is properly filed and part of the record before the court rules.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Rule 60(b) is not a vehicle for relitigating an evidentiary-record issue already addressed in prior proceedings. Litigants must preserve their theories below and provide developed, record-supported appellate arguments.
It also illustrates the risk of fee sanctions where an appeal repeats claims that the record and earlier rulings have already rejected, particularly when the briefing misstates the record or lacks meaningful legal analysis.