Opinion
No. 2 CA-CV 2019-0052
12-20-2019
VALERIE GOMEZ, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. SYLVIA NUNEZ, Defendant/Appellant.
Sylvia Nunez, Tucson In Propria Persona
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. DV20190107
The Honorable Greg Sakall, Judge
AFFIRMED
Sylvia Nunez, Tucson
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vásquez and Judge Brearcliffe concurred. STARING, Presiding Judge:
¶1 Sylvia Nunez appeals from a contested order of protection preventing her from having any contact with her granddaughter. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
¶2 In January 2019, Valerie Gomez, on behalf of her minor daughter M.N., sought renewal of an order of protection against Nunez, M.N.'s paternal grandmother. The trial court issued an ex parte order of protection prohibiting Nunez from contacting or approaching Gomez and M.N. Nunez requested a hearing to contest the order, during which the court found she had admitted she violated the previous order of protection by communicating with M.N. by text message. After the hearing, the court kept the order in place as to M.N., but removed Gomez from the order. Nunez appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1), (5)(b) and Rule 42, Ariz. R. Protective Order P.
In August 2019, we suspended the appeal and revested jurisdiction in the trial court to consider whether judgment was final and, if so, to issue a judgment containing language pursuant to Rule 54(c), Ariz. R. Civ. P., or Rule 78(c), Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. See Ariz. R. Protective Order P. 2 (Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure apply when not inconsistent with these rules). In September 2019, the court issued an order finding no matters remained pending and the order of protection was final and appealable under Rule 54(c). We then vacated the stay and reinstated the appeal.
Discussion
¶3 Although we have jurisdiction, Nunez has failed to comply with the rules of appellate procedure to such an extent that she has waived her arguments on appeal. An opening brief must contain an argument with "[a]ppellant's contentions concerning each issue presented for review, with supporting reasons for each contention, and with citations of legal authorities and appropriate references to the portions of the record on which the appellant relies." Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7)(A). And, "[w]e generally decline to address issues that are not argued adequately, with appropriate citation to supporting authority." In re J.U., 241 Ariz. 156, ¶ 18 (App. 2016) (citing Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7)).
¶4 In her opening brief, Nunez contends she should be allowed to have contact with M.N. because she is responsible, cooperative, and has provided financial and emotional support to her granddaughter since she was born. Nunez also claims Gomez "has intentionally restricted the paternal family's contact with [M.N.] in order to ensure that [she] does not disclose any of the concerning details of her household to paternal family." However, although she makes a number of factual assertions supporting her desire to have contact with M.N., Nunez does not make any discernable legal argument, nor does she provide any "citations of legal authorities . . . on which [she] relies" to establish that the trial court erred. Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7)(A). Nunez's noncompliance with the rules supports finding waiver. See State v. Carver, 160 Ariz. 167, 175 (1989) ("Failure to argue a claim usually constitutes abandonment and waiver of that claim.").
It is not incumbent on this court to develop legal arguments for a party. See Ace Auto. Prods., Inc. v. Van Duyne, 156 Ariz. 140, 143 (App. 1987). Moreover, although self-represented, Nunez is "entitled to no more consideration from the court than a party represented by counsel, and is held to the same standards expected of a lawyer." See Kelly v. NationsBanc Mortg. Corp., 199 Ariz. 284, ¶ 16 (App. 2000). --------
Disposition
¶5 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.