# Linder v. Brown & Herrick

> Court of Appeals of Arizona · January 7, 1997 · 189 Ariz. 398

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9549822

## Case

- **Full name:** Nancy L. LINDER and Charles G. Linder, Sr., Wife and Husband, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Judith M. Prakel, Attorney-Appellant, v. BROWN & HERRICK, an Arizona General Partnership; Robert B. Kaufman, P.C., an Arizona Professional Corporation; Kaufman, Apker & Nearhood, P.C., an Arizona Professional Corporation; Lancy, Scult & McVey, P.A., an Arizona Professional Corporation; Sandra J. Schaller; Et Al., and Lewis and Roca, an Arizona General Partnership; Rawlins, Burrus, Lewkowitz and Feinstein, P.C., an Arizona Corporation; Sue O. Schilleman, a Single Woman, and Trustee Under Trust Agreement Dated July 21, 1982; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arizona
- **Decided:** January 7, 1997
- **Citations:** 189 Ariz. 398; 233 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 16; 943 P.2d 758; 1997 Ariz. App. LEXIS 1
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Voss
- **Judges:** Gerber, Voss, Thompson
- **Cited by:** 37 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9549822

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that claims of fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress against opposing counsel fail to comprise a recognized cause of action
- 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.
- describing “other remedies” available to litigants who believe opposing counsel are guilty of misconduct in litigation, including filing of Rule 60 motion for relief from final judgment on basis of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9549822. Public record. Not legal advice.