Filed: Oct. 06, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 06, 2017
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f). MEMORANDUM DECISION V SQUEZ , Presiding Judge . 1 David Black appeals from the trial court's ruling finding him in contempt of court and, as a sanction, dismissing his complaint against the Town of Thatcher without prejudice. For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jur
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f). MEMORANDUM DECISION V SQUEZ , Presiding Judge . 1 David Black appeals from the trial court's ruling finding him in contempt of court and, as a sanction, dismissing his complaint against the Town of Thatcher without prejudice. For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal for lack of juri..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f).
MEMORANDUM DECISION
VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge.
¶1 David Black appeals from the trial court's ruling finding him in contempt of court and, as a sanction, dismissing his complaint against the Town of Thatcher without prejudice. For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
¶2 In March 2015, Black filed a lawsuit against the Town, alleging it had "released information to the public" that suggested Black was a suspect in an ongoing criminal investigation. The Town served Black with a notice for his deposition and later filed a motion for contempt for Black's refusal to participate in that deposition. Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court concluded Black "willfully refused" to participate in the deposition and found him in contempt of court. As a sanction, the court dismissed Black's complaint without prejudice.
¶3 Although neither party has addressed the issue, this court has an independent obligation to determine whether we have jurisdiction over an appeal. Baker v. Bradley, 231 Ariz. 475, ¶ 8, 296 P.3d 1011, 1014 (App. 2013). "Our jurisdiction is defined by statute, and we must dismiss an appeal over which we lack jurisdiction." Id. Generally, an appeal may only be taken from a final judgment. Camasura v. Camasura, 238 Ariz. 179, ¶ 6, 358 P.3d 600, 602 (App. 2015); see A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1). "[A]ll judgments must be in writing and signed by a judge." Ariz. R. Civ. P. 58(b)(1).
¶4 The ruling from which Black is attempting to appeal is an unsigned minute entry and therefore not an appealable final judgment. See id. Indeed, no final, signed judgment appears in the record. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 9(c) ("A notice of appeal . . . filed after the superior court announces an order . . . —but before entry of the resulting judgment that will be appealable—is treated as filed on the date of, and after the entry of, the judgment."); see also McCleary v. Tripodi, 772 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 13, ¶ 11 (Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2017) (Rule 9(c) limited to "orders and decisions that actually culminate in a judgment"). Consequently, in the absence of a final judgment, we lack jurisdiction and therefore dismiss this appeal.
