Underhill v. Hon. Reeves/Underhill Sr.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE UNDERHILL TRANSFER COMPANY, INC., ) an Arizona corporation, ) ) Petitioner ) ) v. ) ) THE HONORABLE MARK WAYNE REEVES, ) Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF ) THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for ) the County of YUMA, ) ) Respondent Judge, ) ) JOHN T. UNDERHILL SR., a single ) man, ) ) Real Party in Interest. ) __________________________________) The Margaret court, Presiding H. Downie and 1 CA-SA 10-0180 DEPARTMENT C Yuma County Superior Court No. S1400 CV0200700801 DECISION ORDER Judge Daniel DIVISION ONE FILED: 09/21/2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH A. Maurice Portley Barker and Judges participating, has considered the petition for special action by Underhill Transfer Company, Inc. ( UTC ). For the following reasons, we accept jurisdiction and grant relief by lifting the discovery stay. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY John Underhill Sr. ( Underhill ) was shareholder of UTC, a publicly traded company. in January 2006. the principal He stepped down Within a year, UTC allegedly defaulted on Underhill s consulting agreement. 2007. He sued UTC for breach of contract in UTC filed a counterclaim for abuse of process. Underhill filed a motion to stay discovery after UTC had filed motion. a He successful sought to Arizona stay Civil discovery Procedure until Rule 56(f) the David after Caruthers bankruptcy hearings and the former shareholder trials in October 2010. The trial court granted the motion and stayed discovery until February 1, 2011. JURISDICTION Special action jurisdiction is discretionary. Ariz. Rev. Stat. ( A.R.S. ) § 12-120.21(A)(4) (2010); U-Totem Store v. Walker, 142 Ariz. 549, 551, 691 P.2d 315, 317 (App. 1984). If, however, can a party does not have a remedy exercise special action jurisdiction. 8(a). on appeal, we Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. Discovery issues can be resolved by special action. See Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Grant, 222 Ariz. 507, 511, ¶ 10, 217 P.3d 1212, 1216 (App. 2009). DISCUSSION A discovery, trial and its showing of abuse. court has decision broad will discretion not be in matters disturbed absent of a Plattner v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 168 Ariz. 311, 319, 812 P.2d 1129, 1137 (App. 1991). Discretion is abused when the reasons given by the court for its action 2 are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice. State v. Chappel, 135 Ariz. 281, 297 n.18, 660 P.2d 1208, 1224 n.18 (1983). Here, months. the superior court stayed discovery for six Although the superior court is in the best position to resolve discovery disputes, State v. Tankersley, 191 Ariz. 359, 368, ¶ 35, 956 P.2d 486, 495 (1998), absent a stipulation, the wholesale stay discretion. which is of The designed discovery stay to for contravenes ensure a determination of every action. the stay of six discovery months the just, is purpose speedy, an of and Ariz. R. Civ. P. 1. undermines the court s control discovery and resolve disputes. abuse of discovery, inexpensive Moreover, authority to See State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 167 Ariz. 135, 138, 804 P.2d 1323, 1326 (App. 1991). Although Underhill hopes that the ancillary litigation is favorably discovery resolved, that counterclaim UTC until may after the trial want to ancillary court conduct cannot to litigation limit all prosecute its is resolved. Instead, UTC should be allowed to conduct reasonable discovery to prosecute its counterclaim. If requested, the trial court can manage discovery disputes and keep the case on track to be settled or tried. 3 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, we accept jurisdiction, and grant relief by lifting the discovery stay. /s/ __________________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.