Camboni v. Brnovich

• Decision Date: 10 March 2020
• Docket Number: No. 1 CA-CV 18-0621,1 CA-CV 18-0621
• Parties: ANTHONY CAMBONI, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. MARK BRNOVICH, et al., Defendants/Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona

ANTHONY CAMBONI, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. MARK BRNOVICH, et al., Defendants/Appellees.

No. 1 CA-CV 18-0621

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

March 10, 2020

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

CV2017-050183

The Honorable James D. Smith, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Anthony Camboni, Sun City West

Plaintiff/Appellant

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix

By Byron Jeffords Babione

Counsel for Defendants/Appellees State of Arizona, Mark Brnovich, Susan M. Brnovich, Brian S. Rees, John R. Hannah, Jr.

Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, Phoenix

By Lisa T. Hauser, Carrie Ann Laliberte

Counsel for Defendant/Appellee State Bar of Arizona Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Phoenix

By Todd D. Erb, Nicholas Scott Bauman

Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Burk Panzarella Rich PC, Michael Rich, David T. Panzarella, Thomas P. Burke, II, Elizabeth L. Fleming

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Phoenix

By D. Andrew Bell

Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Hallmark Financial Services, Inc., Hallmark Insurance Company

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix

By Joseph J. Branco

Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Maricopa County

Elardo Bragg Rossi & Palumbo, PC, Phoenix

By Tico A. Glavas

Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Elardo Bragg Rossi & Palumbo PC, John A. Elardo, Venessa J. Bragg, Michael A. Rossi, Gary A. Kester, Rochelle D. Prins

Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros PA, Phoenix

By John A. Klecan

Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Brian Aaron Macias and Yolanda Barajas Munoz

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the court, in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

SWANN, Chief Judge:

¶1 Anthony Camboni appeals the superior court's dismissal of his First Amended Complaint ("FAC") for failure to state a claim under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6), its award of attorney's fees, and the court's vexatious litigant designation. Because all of Camboni's assertions are either waived or meritless, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDRAL HISTORY

¶2 Camboni's FAC asserted eighteen claims against various defendants (collectively "Defendants"). These claims arise from an earliercivil lawsuit in which Camboni and his wife, Shannon Chaboudy, sued Brian Macias and Yolanda Barajas Munoz for damages resulting from a car accident. Hallmark Insurance Company insured Macias and Munoz. Attorneys from Burke Panzarella Rich, P.L.C., and Elardo Bragg & Rossi, P.C., represented the defendants in that action. The superior court judge did not allow Camboni to represent his wife because he is not an attorney. A jury awarded Camboni $2,815 in damages.

¶3 In this lawsuit, Camboni asserted claims against a variety of defendants for declaratory judgment, multiple constitutional violations, breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, interference with a contractual relationship, abuse of process, aiding and abetting, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unjust enrichment, constructive fraud, and a violation of the racketeering statute. As he did in the earlier action, Camboni purported to represent Chaboudy, although she did not sign the FAC and, according to Camboni, did not know he filed it on her behalf. The FAC named the plaintiffs as "King, Ambassador Anthony Camboni, Esq." and "King, Ambassador Anthony Camboni, Esq.'s Wife."

¶4 The different groups of defendants moved to dismiss the FAC under Rule 12(b)(6).¹ In a comprehensive minute entry, the superior court dismissed all claims.² The court later declared Camboni a vexatious litigant, requiring him to request leave of the court before asking for any affirmative relief in this action. In a final order, the court awarded the Defendants' attorney's fees and costs. Camboni timely appeals thedismissal of the FAC, the award of attorney's fees, and the vexatious litigant designation.

DISCUSSION

I. CAMBONI'S OPENING BRIEF FAILS TO COMPLY WITH ARCAP 13.

¶5 As a preliminary matter, we note that Camboni's opening brief fails to comply with ARCAP 13(a), which requires an opening brief to include citations to relevant parts of the record, as well as the authorities and statutes relied upon. See ARCAP 13(a)(7). Failure to properly raise an argument on appeal, in most cases, results in abandonment and waiver of that argument. See Schabel v. Deer Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 97, 186 Ariz. 161, 167 (App. 1996); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Novak, 167 Ariz. 363, 370 (App. 1990). Camboni makes several broad generalizations unsupported by any factual or legal arguments or citations. His brief also raises many arguments that were not raised in the superior court. See Hawkins v. Allstate Ins. Co., 152 Ariz. 490, 503 (1987) (noting arguments raised for the first time on appeal, including constitutional challenges, may be waived).

¶6 Defendants jointly moved to dismiss the appeal for failing to comply with ARCAP 13(a), which another panel of this court denied without prejudice. The Defendants again ask this court to dismiss the appeal or summarily affirm the superior court's order. Despite Camboni's noncompliance with ARCAP 13(a), we will address the arguments on appeal to the extent they are not waived.³

II. THE SUPERIOR COURT PROPERLY DISMISSED THE FAC.

¶7 We review de novo the superior court's dismissal of a complaint. Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352, 355, ¶ 7 (2012). In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), we "assume the truth of the well-pled factual allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences therefrom." Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 419, ¶ 7 (2008). Because we consider only the complaint's well-pled facts, "mere conclusory statements are insufficient to state a claimupon which relief can be granted." Id. Dismissal is appropriate if the plaintiff "would not be entitled to relief under any facts susceptible of proof in the statement of the claim." Mohave Disposal, Inc. v. City of Kingman, 186 Ariz. 343, 346 (1996).

A. ARGUMENTS NOT RAISED BELOW OR PROPERLY DEVELOPED ON APPEAL ARE WAIVED.

1. CAMBONI DID NOT RAISE THE ARGUMENT BELOW THAT DISMISSING THE FAC VIOLATED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS.

¶8 Camboni argues that dismissing the FAC violated his constitutional right to a jury trial and due process. See Ariz. Const. art. 2, §§ 4, 23. He did not raise this argument in response to the motions to dismiss; therefore, it is waived. See Hawkins, 152 Ariz. at 503.

¶9 The grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is analogous to the summary disposition authorized under Rule 56, and granting summary judgment does not violate a party's right to a jury trial. Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 308-09 (1990) (holding the grant of summary judgment does not violate right to jury trial guaranteed in Art. 2, § 23 of Arizona Constitution). Here, Camboni's claims were not legally sufficient; therefore, a jury would have had nothing to consider.

2. CAMBONI DID NOT RAISE THE ARGUMENT THAT UNSIGNED MOTIONS TO DISMISS WERE INSUFFICIENT.

¶10 Camboni contends the motions to dismiss were insufficient because the individual defendants did not sign them. But the attorney for the State defendants signed the motion to dismiss, which satisfies Rule 11(a)(1) ("[Motions] must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented." (emphasis added)). And because Camboni did not raise this argument in responding to the other defendants' motions to dismiss, it is waived as to those defendants. See Hawkins, 152 Ariz. at 503.

3. CAMBONI WAIVED THE ARGUMENT THAT INDIVIDUALS VIOLATED AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.

¶11 Camboni argues that Judge James Smith, defense counsel, the Arizona State Bar, "and/or Appellees engaged in the Professional Practice of Law" violated their sworn oaths to uphold the Arizona Constitution. Camboni waived this argument by failing to support it with appropriate citation to the record and legal authority. See Schabel, 186 Ariz. at 167 ("Issues not clearly raised and argued in a party's appellate brief are waived.").

¶12 In a conclusory statement, Camboni also alleges that the FAC presented a well-reasoned argument, sufficient facts, and complied with the Rules of Civil Procedure. This statement is not supported by any citation to relevant facts or legal arguments as required by ARCAP 13(a). Therefore, it is waived. Id.

III. THE SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE WAS NOT BIASED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS.

¶13 Camboni argues the superior court judge showed bias in favor of the Defendants by dismissing the FAC, awarding attorney's fees to Defendants, and finding Camboni is not a licensed attorney. Trial judges are presumed to be free of bias and prejudice. Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson, 232 Ariz. 562, 568, ¶ 21 (App. 2013). The party alleging bias must overcome this presumption. Id. Without a showing of extrajudicial bias, a judicial ruling alone does not rebut this presumption. Id. Camboni bases his claim of bias only on the court's rulings. Therefore, he did not rebut the presumption.

IV. CAMBONI FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM THAT DEFENDANTS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO WORK OR TO EQUAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.

¶14 Camboni claims that the Arizona State Bar, the State defendants, and the Maricopa County defendants deprived him of his constitutional rights to work and to equal privileges and immunities because he was precluded from representing Chaboudy in court. See Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 13 (equal privileges and immunities) & art. 25 (right towork).⁴ Camboni argues these defendants require all licensed attorneys to become members of the Arizona State Bar, which he contends is a labor organization.⁵ Therefore, he reasons, the State defendants, the Arizona State Bar, and Maricopa County def...