Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT
PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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.
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Donn Kessler delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding
Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.
EKWEANI v. CITIMORTGAGE et al.
Decision of the Court
K E S S L E R, Judge:
1 The Ekweanis statement of facts does not comply with Arizona Rule
of Civil Appellate Procedure 13(a)(5). Although we decline to strike the
statement of facts on that basis, see Ashton-Blair v. Merrill, 187 Ariz. 315, 316
(App. 1996), we rely on the answering brief and our review of the record
for our recitation of the facts and procedural background. See State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Arrington, 192 Ariz. 255, 257 n.1 (App. 1998).
2
EKWEANI v. CITIMORTGAGE et al.
Decision of the Court
DISCUSSION3
3
EKWEANI v. CITIMORTGAGE et al.
Decision of the Court
meets its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to present
sufficient evidence demonstrating the existence of a disputed fact. Id. at 119,
26. The nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but must call to the
courts attention evidence to explain why the motion should be denied. Id.
4
EKWEANI v. CITIMORTGAGE et al.
Decision of the Court
6 The superior court denied the request for injunctive relief in part
because the Ekweanis did not persuasively, or even coherently, explain
why they . . . did not seek this remedy in this particular court until now.
5
EKWEANI v. CITIMORTGAGE et al.
Decision of the Court
B. Bankruptcy Stay
6
EKWEANI v. CITIMORTGAGE et al.
Decision of the Court
7
EKWEANI v. CITIMORTGAGE et al.
Decision of the Court
CONCLUSION