Rodriguez v. Opendoor — Court upholds ADR dismissal and fee award

Case
Sandra Rodriguez v. Opendoor Property C, LLC, et al.
Court
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Judge
Angela K. Paton (Doug Ducey, 2021); Cynthia J. Bailey (Doug Ducey, 2020); Michael J. Brown (Janet Napolitano, 2007)
Date Decided
September 22, 2026
Docket No.
1 CA-CV 25-1051
Topics
Alternative dispute resolution; Arbitration; Injunctions; Attorneys’ fees
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Sandra Rodriguez bought a home from Opendoor Property C, LLC in June 2023. The purchase agreement required mediation of disputes arising from the contract and, if mediation failed, binding arbitration unless either party opted out within 30 days after mediation ended. The agreement also provided for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to the prevailing party in contract-related disputes.

Rodriguez sued Opendoor over the home purchase and sought emergency injunctive relief, including relief related to foreclosure and the ADR provision. The superior court denied immediate injunctive relief, compelled the parties to use the contractual ADR process, and dismissed Rodriguez’s claims without prejudice. It later awarded Opendoor $7,000 in attorneys’ fees and $281.50 in costs. Rodriguez appealed the ADR ruling, the denial of injunctive relief, the fee judgment, and the denial of her motion to vacate.

The Court’s Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Rodriguez’s claims fell within the contract’s broad ADR clause and that her request for an injunction did not exempt the underlying claims from mediation. The contract’s provisional-remedy language preserved the ADR obligation; it did not create an exception for claims seeking injunctive relief. The court also held that dismissal rather than a stay was permissible because mediation—not arbitration—had been ordered, and arbitration might never occur because either party could opt out after unsuccessful mediation.

The court further held that Rodriguez had not preserved several arguments because she raised them too late, and her deficient appellate briefing limited review. It found no abuse of discretion in denying immediate injunctive relief, particularly because the asserted supporting exhibits were not properly before the superior court when it ruled and no hearing transcript was supplied. The fee award was enforceable under the contract, and a waiver of court fees and costs based on indigency did not bar an award of the opposing party’s contractual attorneys’ fees. Rodriguez’s premature notices of appeal did not divest the superior court of jurisdiction to enter final judgment.

Key Takeaways

  • A contractual requirement to mediate disputes remains enforceable even when a party seeks provisional injunctive relief.
  • A court-ordered mediation process does not trigger the statutory requirement to stay an action pending arbitration when arbitration is contingent and has not been ordered.
  • Indigency-based waivers of court fees do not eliminate a contractual obligation to pay a prevailing party’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores that parties must follow the sequencing of their ADR agreements. A request for an injunction may preserve access to provisional judicial relief, but it does not necessarily permit a party to bypass contractually required mediation or arbitration procedures.

It also illustrates the importance of timely issue preservation, proper record filing, and compliant appellate briefing—especially where a party seeks to challenge interlocutory rulings and a later fee judgment.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top