holding that claims of fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress against opposing counsel fail to comprise a recognized cause of action
How later courts described this case
- holding that claims of fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress against opposing counsel fail to comprise a recognized cause of action
- permitting sanctions after finding that the plaintiff’s reliance on Tucson Airport Authority 4 was “wholly misplaced” because unlike insurers and their insured, no fiduciary duties exist 5 between a party and opposing counsel
- finding that plaintiffs’ fraud and IIED claims 12 “against opposing counsel fail to comprise recognized causes of action”
- applying litigation privilege to claims of intentional infliction of 3 emotional distress and fraud.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
VOSS, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority in all respects with one exception. In affirming the trial court’s assessment of $30,000 in sanctions, the majority correctly concludes that:
it was untenable for Prakel to sue more than 190 individuals based on factually groundless allegations unwarranted by existing law and unsupported by a good faith argument for a change in Arizona law. These baseless claims needlessly extended litigation and caused the defendants substantial expense in defending them----
However, the majority declines defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees on appeal. Because Prakel’s allegations are equally groundless and costly on appeal, I would have awarded defendants attorneys’ fees pursuant to Rule 25 and A.R.S. section 12-341.01.