Background
In June 2006, Josephine Ngaruiya obtained a mortgage loan secured by a deed of trust on residential property in Phoenix, Arizona. After she defaulted, a notice of trustee’s sale was recorded in April 2022, and the sale proceeded on July 19, 2022, transferring title to Jaspreet Gill. Ngaruiya did not seek injunctive relief before the sale occurred.
In July 2024, Ngaruiya filed suit against Gill and others, alleging that Gill took possession of personal belongings remaining in the home without notice. She repeatedly sought entry of default against Gill, but the Maricopa County Superior Court sua sponte dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) in October 2025, finding that the action arose from the trustee’s sale and that Ngaruiya’s failure to seek a pre-sale injunction was fatal to her claims.
Ngaruiya appealed pro se. The Court of Appeals identified two additional, independent grounds for dismissal beyond the merits: her opening brief contained no record citations as required by ARCAP 13, and it contained numerous fabricated or materially inaccurate legal citations consistent with unchecked use of generative AI.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on the merits. Under A.R.S. § 33-811(C) and controlling Arizona Supreme Court precedent, a trustor who fails to obtain injunctive relief before a properly noticed trustee’s sale waives all claims to title and all claims dependent on the validity of the sale — even where the plaintiff later alleges serious defects in the foreclosure process. Because every claim Ngaruiya asserted against Gill depended on the alleged invalidity of the July 2022 sale, and she obtained no pre-sale injunction, those claims were waived as a matter of law.
The court also found two independent procedural grounds that would have independently justified dismissal. First, Ngaruiya’s brief violated ARCAP 13 by omitting required citations to the record, leaving the court unable to assess her factual assertions. Second, the brief contained multiple fabricated quotations and materially inaccurate citations to both Arizona and federal authorities — a pattern the court described as consistent with generative AI misuse without human verification. The court catalogued seven specific examples, including invented quotations attributed to real cases and citations to cases that did not support the stated propositions.
Despite identifying grounds for sanctions, the court declined to sanction Ngaruiya because Gill had not responded to her brief and the court exercised its discretion accordingly under ARCAP 25.
Key Takeaways
- Under A.R.S. § 33-811(C), a trustor’s exclusive remedy to challenge a trustee’s sale is to seek injunctive relief before the sale occurs; failure to do so waives all claims dependent on the sale’s validity, including post-sale conversion and trespass claims against the purchaser.
- The Arizona Court of Appeals explicitly equated AI-generated fabricated citations with deliberate misrepresentation, stating that courts “can’t afford to treat the same lies more lightly because they come from generative AI programs” — both lawyers and pro se litigants bear full responsibility for the accuracy of every authority submitted to the court.
- An opening brief’s failure to cite the record as required by ARCAP 13 is independently sufficient grounds to dismiss an appeal under ARCAP 25, even when the court chooses to reach the merits.
Why It Matters
This decision is a pointed warning to both attorneys and self-represented litigants about the dangers of submitting AI-generated legal briefs without rigorous human verification. The court’s detailed catalogue of fabricated quotations and its unambiguous statement that AI-sourced falsehoods are no more excusable than deliberate fabrications signals that Arizona appellate courts will treat generative AI hallucinations as a sanctionable breach of the duty of candor — not a technological accident deserving leniency.
On the substantive side, the decision reinforces the strictness of Arizona’s pre-sale injunction requirement under the deed-of-trust statutes. The court applied the waiver rule even where the plaintiff alleged she was involuntarily hospitalized after the notice of sale was posted — underscoring that Arizona offers essentially no equitable escape hatch once a trustee’s sale is completed without a timely injunction.