Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT
PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE
v.
v.
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM DECISION
J O N E S, Judge:
1 North Star Charter School, Inc. (North Star), Kurt Huzar, and
Pierce Robinson appeal from final judgments entered in favor of Valley
Protective Services, Inc. and its employee, Daniel Vollmer (collectively,
VPS), on all claims and counterclaims. For the following reasons, we affirm.
2
NORTH et al. v. VPS et al.
Decision of the Court
Believing that the event would lead to a heated exchange at the very least,
and that it would therefore be best to have law enforcement available at the
meeting to make sure nothing crazy occurred, Robinson left a message
for local law enforcement advising of the upcoming meeting.
3
NORTH et al. v. VPS et al.
Decision of the Court
after. The guards ignored Robinson and Huzars requests to leave and, for
a time, prevented them from entering the meeting room. At 3:09 p.m.,
Phoenix Police officers responded to a call of unwanted guests at the
school. Vollmer immediately secured his handgun in his vehicle
eliminating any handguns at the facility before the meeting began. The
officers determined the dispute was a civil matter and left the premises.
4
NORTH et al. v. VPS et al.
Decision of the Court
arbitrator was appointed in July 2014. See A.R.S. 12-133. The parties did
not proceed to arbitration within the 120-day deadline, Ariz. R. Civ. P. 74(b),
and in January 2015, the court found no good cause for the delay and
dismissed the assault claim for lack of prosecution. The court also awarded
VPS attorneys fees and costs as the successful party in a contract action, as
well as double its taxable costs as a sanction pursuant to Arizona Rule of
Civil Procedure 68. Appellants timely appealed the final judgment, and we
have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1).
DISCUSSION
I. Summary Judgment
5
NORTH et al. v. VPS et al.
Decision of the Court
added) (citing Graham v. Asbury, 112 Ariz. 184, 185 (1975)), or (2) grant VPS
permission to enter the school premises to provide security services,
thereby vitiating the trespass claim, see Barry v. S. Pac. Co., 64 Ariz. 116, 120-
21 (1946) (A trespasser is a person who enters or remains upon land in the
possession of another without a privilege to do so created by the possessors
consent or otherwise.) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts 329
(1965)).
6
NORTH et al. v. VPS et al.
Decision of the Court
7
NORTH et al. v. VPS et al.
Decision of the Court
8
NORTH et al. v. VPS et al.
Decision of the Court
9
NORTH et al. v. VPS et al.
Decision of the Court
10
NORTH et al. v. VPS et al.
Decision of the Court
11
NORTH et al. v. VPS et al.
Decision of the Court
12
NORTH et al. v. VPS et al.
Decision of the Court
123 Ariz. 122, 122-23 (1979)). Under the circumstances, we find no abuse of
discretion.
CONCLUSION
13