CLAIRE v. CONTI
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 MARIE CLAIRE, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHARLES CONTI, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 21-0251 FILED 11-30-2021 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2021-090307 The Honorable Brian Kaiser, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED APPEARANCES Marie Claire, Phoenix Plaintiff/Appellant Miller Law Firm, PLLC, Scottsdale By Shane Miller Counsel for Defendant/Appellee CLAIRE v. CONTI Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined. W E I N Z W E I G, Judge: ¶1 Marie Claire appeals the superior court’s dismissal of her injunction against harassment. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Claire and Charles Conti were neighbors at an apartment complex in January 2021, when they got into a heated, public argument. Claire called 911 and the police responded to the complex, but officers made no arrests, issued no citations and filed no police report. ¶3 Claire filed for an injunction against harassment. A couple of months later, the superior court held an evidentiary hearing and heard testimony from four witnesses, including Claire, Conti, and two people who saw and heard the argument. Claire claimed that Conti hurled racial slurs and threats at her. Conti denied it. The people who witnessed the argument faulted both parties. Weighing the testimony, the court dismissed Claire’s injunction against harassment, finding she had not proven Conti engaged in a series of acts or conduct to warrant an injunction. DISCUSSION ¶4 Claire raises two evidentiary arguments on appeal. She argues that the superior court should not have considered Conti’s testimony because he lied and the two other witnesses were biased. She also contends the court improperly excluded her testimony about a 2019 incident with Conti. ¶5 Claire waived her arguments on appeal because she offers no record citations or supporting legal authority. See ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A) (requiring an appellant’s opening brief to contain “citations of legal authorities and appropriate references to the portions of the record on which the appellant relies”); Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, 305, ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (noting failure to comply with ARCAP 13 “can constitute abandonment and waiver” of a claim). 2 CLAIRE v. CONTI Decision of the Court ¶6 Even reaching the merits, however, her arguments still fail. We review the superior court’s evidentiary decision for an abuse of discretion and will not disturb the decision if “supported by any reasonable evidence.” Lohmeier v. Hammer, 214 Ariz. 57, 61, ¶ 7 (App. 2006) (citation omitted). The record has reasonable evidence to support the court’s decisions. CONCLUSION ¶7 We affirm. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 3
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.
