Isles v. College Nannies & Tutors LLC, 011221 AZAPP1, 1 CA-CV 19-0637

• Opinion Judge: BROWN, Judge
• Party Name: CHARITY ISLES, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. COLLEGE NANNIES & TUTORS LLC, et al., Defendants/Appellees.
• Attorney: Charity Isles, Phoenix Plaintiff/Appellant Jones, Skelton & Hochuli PLC, Phoenix By Michael A. Ludwig, Andrew I. Clark, Alejandro Barrientos Counsel for Defendants/Appellees
• Judge Panel: Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge David B. Gass joined.
• Case Date: January 12, 2021
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

CHARITY ISLES, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

COLLEGE NANNIES & TUTORS LLC, et al., Defendants/Appellees.

No. 1 CA-CV 19-0637

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

January 12, 2021

Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV 2018-090932 The Honorable Tracey Westerhausen, Judge

Charity Isles, Phoenix Plaintiff/Appellant

Jones, Skelton & Hochuli PLC, Phoenix By Michael A. Ludwig, Andrew I. Clark, Alejandro Barrientos Counsel for Defendants/Appellees

Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge David B. Gass joined.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

BROWN, Judge

¶1 Charity Isles appeals from the superior court's order granting summary judgment in favor of College Nannies & Tutors, LLC ("College Nannies") and its employee, Kathleen Connely. Because genuine disputes of material fact exist relating to Isles's claim that College Nannies breached its written contract, we vacate that portion of the court's order. We also vacate the court's denial of Isles's motion for reconsideration, but we affirm the remainder of the court's judgment, including the dismissal of all claims alleged against Connely. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Isles contracted with College Nannies for nanny services to take care of her two children. Isles agreed to pay a one-time fee plus an hourly rate for the nanny. In return, College Nannies would "identify, screen and place a suitable nanny," who would engage in "role modeling behavior." According to Isles, the parties also verbally agreed to various stipulations. Although several nannies were assigned to work in Isles's home ("Home"), this litigation involves only Connely's actions.

¶3 Isles's mother-in-law, Lorraine Isles, also lived in the Home. Isles instructed Connely that Lorraine was not to be alone with the younger child or feed him because Lorraine had Alzheimer's and Isles did not trust her with the child.

¶4 While Connely was working as a nanny in the Home, Lorraine disclosed to Connely that she was being abused and that Isles was preventing her from contacting other family members. On two occasions, Lorraine used Connely's phone to call Michelle, who is Lorraine's daughter. Connely also started communicating with Michelle. At one point Lorraine asked Connely to mail several pages of documents from the Home to Michelle. Eventually, the suspected abuse was reported to Adult Protective Services and law enforcement.

¶5 Isles and her husband (not a party to this appeal) filed a complaint in superior court against College Nannies and Connely for breach of contract, and the torts of intrusion upon seclusion and defamation. Isles later filed an amended complaint, adding a claim for false light. She later filed a second amended complaint, adding breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing but removing her defamation claim.

¶6 College Nannies and Connely sought summary judgment on Isles's claims for intrusion upon seclusion, defamation, and breach of contract. The superior court granted the motion. Isles filed a motion for reconsideration. In a separate filing, she requested spoliation sanctions, asserting that Connely had deleted text messages that were relevant to the litigation. After the court denied the motion for reconsideration, it issued a signed order, under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 54(b), granting the motion for summary judgment. The next day, the court filed an unsigned minute entry denying Isles's motion for spoliation sanctions. Isles then filed a timely notice of appeal from the Rule 54(b) order.

¶7 College Nannies later filed another motion for summary judgment relating to Isles's claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and false light. The superior court granted summary judgment as to those claims, reciting that under Rule 54(c), there were no further matters pending. Isles did not appeal the Rule 54(c) judgment.

DISCUSSION

¶8 Summary judgment is proper when "there is no genuine dispute of any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56(a). We review the superior court's grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Ochser v. Funk, 228 Ariz. 365, 369, ¶ 11 (2011). And the interpretation of a contract is a question of law that we review de novo. Grosvenor Holdings, L.C. v. Figueroa, 222 Ariz. 588, 593 ¶ 9 (App. 2009). We will affirm the superior court's disposition if it is correct for any reason. Glaze v. Marcus, 151 Ariz. 538, 540 (App. 1986).

¶9 The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of College Nannies on Isles's claims for intrusion upon seclusion, defamation, and breach of contract. Isles argues issues of material fact exist on her breach of contract claim relating to College Nannies. She does not challenge the court's ruling that summary judgment was proper on her contract claim against Connely, or her claims against both defendants for the intrusion upon seclusion and defamation claims. We therefore address only whether summary judgment on the breach of contract claim against College Nannies was appropriate. See...