Self v. Higher Logic LLC
| Decision Date | 24 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 1 CA-CV 20-0079,1 CA-CV 20-0079 |
| Parties | MELISSA SELF, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. HIGHER LOGIC LLC, et al., Defendants/Appellees. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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
No. CV2018-002287 CV2018-096003 (Consolidated)
The Honorable Daniel G. Martin, Judge
AFFIRMED
Melissa Self, Mesa
By Andrew S. Gordon, Roopali H. Desai, Koray J. Bulut
Acting Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge David B. Gass joined.
¶1 Melissa Self appeals from the superior court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Higher Logic LLC ("Higher Logic") and Socious, LLC ("Socious") (collectively "appellees") on her employment-related claims against them. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶2 Socious hired Self in 2016 as a business development representative. Socious paid Self commissions for locating potential customers and scheduling product demonstrations. In 2017, Higher Logic acquired Socious. Higher Logic then hired Self as a business development representative. Before the acquisition, Higher Logic and Socious were business competitors.
¶3 In February 2017, Self informed Higher Logic that she was having health problems and asked to be allowed to work from home due to a disability.1 Higher Logic sent Self its Americans with Disability Act ("ADA") forms to complete, but she did not return them. Self resigned from Higher Logic in May 2017.
¶4 In March 2018, Self filed a complaint in superior court (cause no. CV2018-002287) against appellees alleging causes of action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and statutory violations. She filed an amended complaint in November 2018 alleging causes of action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and constructive discharge.
¶5 Meanwhile, in July 2018, Self filed a separate pro per complaint against appellees (cause no. CV2018-096003), alleging disability discrimination against Higher Logic. The superior court consolidated thecases in December 2018. Self's attorney withdrew from the case, and she represented herself thereafter.
¶6 In September 2019, appellees filed a motion for summary judgment. Self failed to respond, and instead filed a pleading entitled "Motion to Schedule Emergency Hearing for Default Judgment for Fraud Upon Court." In her motion, Self said she had not responded to the motion for summary judgment because it was "void."
¶7 The superior court denied Self's motion because Self failed to explain why she was entitled to relief. The court further stated, "[Self's] apparent failure to have responded to a motion for summary judgment as required under the rules of civil procedure, [is] incompatible with her obligations as the plaintiff in this lawsuit." Despite this warning, Self still did not respond to the summary judgment motion. Appellees subsequently requested a ruling on the summary judgment motion, which Self opposed. The superior court granted the motion for summary judgment, finding Self had failed to respond despite the court's admonition, there were no genuine issues of material fact, and appellees were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Self filed a premature motion for a new trial, and the superior court entered judgment in December 2019.
¶8 Self timely appealed. In August 2020, we issued an order denying Self's motion to supplement the record on appeal with "many documents she contends are missing from the record," including discovery matters and email communication. We said that our review is limited to the record before the superior court when it entered judgment. See GM Dev. Corp. v. Cmty. Am. Mortg. Corp., 165 Ariz. 1, 4-5 (App. 1990). We have jurisdiction under Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21(A)(1), -2101(A)(1).
¶9 Summary judgment is appropriate if "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "We review the grant of summary judgment on the basis of the record made in the trial court, but determine whether the entry of judgment was proper de novo." Phx. Baptist Hosp. & Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Aiken, 179 Ariz. 289, 292 (App. 1994). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered. Espinoza v. Schulenburg, 212 Ariz. 215, 216, ¶ 6 (2006).
¶10 To begin, Self's opening brief fails to comply with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure ("ARCAP") 13(a).2 Specifically, her statements of the procedural path of the case and facts fail to include appropriate references to the record. In addition, the argument section of the brief fails to provide the applicable standard of appellate review and appropriate citations to the record and legal authority. See ARCAP 13(a)(4), (5), (7). We may dismiss an appeal when the appellant fails to comply with the rules. Adams v. Valley Nat'l Bank of Ariz., 139 Ariz. 340, 342-43 (App. 1984).
¶11 Even if we overlooked the deficiencies of the opening brief, we would still affirm. Self argues the superior court "only state[d] that [she] failed to contest the [appellee]'s Motion for Summary Judgment" in ruling on the summary judgment motion. Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) provides that a party opposing a summary judgment motion
¶12 An opposing party's failure to respond to a motion for summary judgment does not, by itself, entitle the moving party to summary judgment. Schwab v. Ames Constr., 207 Ariz. 56, 59, ¶ 15 (App. 2004). But nonmoving parties act at their peril. Id. at 60, ¶ 16. A court may Id. (internal citations omitted). Here, the superior court did not grant summary judgment solely because Self did not respond to appellees' motion for summary judgment. Instead, the court found no disputed genuine issues of material fact and appellees were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We agree.
¶13 Self's consolidated lawsuits involved claims that appellees breached their contractual obligations or were unjustly enriched by failing to pay Self for services and labor, and that Higher Logic breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, wrongfully constructively terminated Self's employment, and wrongfully discriminated against her.
¶14 Self alleged appellees breached her employment contracts by "refusing to pay all funds owed" to her. "To bring an action for the breach of [a] contract, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the existence of [a] contract, its breach and the resulting damages." Graham v. Asbury, 112 Ariz. 184, 185 (1975). The interpretation of the contract is a question of law for the court. C & T Land & Dev. Co. v. Bushnell, 106 Ariz. 21, 22 (1970).
¶15 Self admitted at her deposition that she received all of her lead commissions through December 2016 during her employment with Socious. Under Self's commission agreement with Higher Logic, which governed the quota year from February 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, Self was eligible to receive two types of commissions—commissions for completed demos and commissions for completed sales.3
¶16 Between February and May 2017, Higher Logic paid Self $1400.00 for eleven quality demos. It paid her another $250.00 for two additional demos it determined not to be quality demos. No sales resulting from Self's completed demos occurred before her resignation in May 2017.
¶17 The record supported Higher Logic's assertion that it paid Self all commissions it owed to her—specifically the declaration of HigherLogic's Senior Human Resources Manager, Holly Keener, and the attached business records. Self did not contradict the evidence because she failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the superior court was free to accept it as true and grant summary judgment to appellees on Self's contract claim. See Schwab, 207 Ariz. at 60, ¶ 16.
¶18 Self also claimed appellees were unjustly enriched when they failed to pay her for "services, labor, and other benefits received." "Unjust enrichment occurs whenever a person has and retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another." City of Sierra Vista v. Cochise Enters., Inc., 144 Ariz. 375, 381 (App. 1984). However, the doctrine of unjust enrichment has no application when there is a specific contract governing the relationship of the parties. Brooks v. Valley Nat'l Bank, 113 Ariz. 169, 174 (1976). Here, Self's right to commission payments and appellees' obligation to pay them was governed by her employment contracts. Because those contracts controlled Self's right to commission payments, her unjust enrichment claim is barred, and the superior court did not err by granting summary judgment.
¶19 Self further claimed that Higher Logic breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to comply with the commission agreement. There is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract that neither party will do anything to injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of their agreement. Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370, 383 (1985), superseded by statute on other...
To continue reading
Request your trial