Background
Preferred Choice Restoration LLC sued Maria Dimova, alleging that she failed to pay for restoration work performed on her home. After eight unsuccessful attempts at personal service, the superior court extended the service deadline and authorized alternative service. Preferred Choice then posted the summons and complaint at Dimova’s address and mailed additional copies there by first-class and certified mail.
Konstantine Vrazhilov, who was neither a lawyer nor a party, filed a motion to dismiss and requested an interpreter on Dimova’s behalf. He asserted that Dimova spent summers in Europe, did not speak English, and could have been contacted by email. Dimova filed no response herself, and no attorney appeared for her. The superior court later entered a default judgment totaling almost $16,000 and denied Vrazhilov’s motion because he could not represent Dimova.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Vrazhilov’s motion to dismiss did not constitute a responsive pleading or other defense by Dimova because a nonlawyer may not represent another person in court. A pleading filed and signed by a nonlawyer on another party’s behalf is a nullity, not merely a technically defective filing.
Because Dimova neither represented herself nor retained an attorney to appear for her, she failed to plead or otherwise defend as required by Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a)(1). The superior court therefore properly entered default judgment. Although Preferred Choice filed no answering brief on appeal, the court declined to treat that omission as a confession of error because Dimova had not raised a debatable issue.
Key Takeaways
- A nonlawyer who is not a party cannot file a motion or otherwise represent a litigant in Arizona court.
- A pleading filed by an unauthorized nonlawyer on another person’s behalf is a nullity and does not prevent entry of default.
- An appellee’s failure to submit an answering brief is not automatically a confession of error when the appeal presents no debatable issue.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a civil defendant must respond personally or through a licensed attorney; an attempted response by a friend, caretaker, or other nonlawyer does not preserve the defendant’s rights or stop the default process.
The memorandum decision is designated not for official publication and is nonprecedential under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c), although it may be cited as that rule permits.