SHARKOZY v. ALLISON

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 FILED BY CLERK AUG 25 2010 COURT OF APPEALS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO WILLIAM SHARKOZY, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. DONNA ALLISON, Defendant/Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION TWO 2 CA-CV 2010-0030 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 28, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GILA COUNTY Cause No. CV20080203 Honorable Robert Duber II, Judge AFFIRMED William Sharkozy Jackson White By James L. Tanner Payson In Propria Persona Mesa Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee B R A M M E R, Presiding Judge. ¶1 William Sharkozy appeals from the trial court s order dismissing his complaint against appellee Donna Allison. As we understand his arguments, he asserts the court erred, both when it sanctioned him for failing to comply with its discovery order and in denying his motion to continue. For the reasons stated, we affirm. ¶2 This is at least Sharkozy s fifth appeal raising issues related to the guardianship and estate of his mother, Angeline Sharkozy. See Sharkozy v. Walker, No. 2 CA-CV 2009-0099 (memorandum decision filed June 4, 2010); Sharkozy v. Walker, No. 2 CA-CV 2009-0098 (memorandum decision filed Mar. 29, 2010); In re Estate of Angeline Sharkozy, No. 2 CA-CV 2008-0131 (memorandum decision filed Apr. 2, 2009); In re Guardianship/Conservatorship of Angeline Sharkozy, No. 2 CA-CV 2008-0001 (memorandum decision filed Oct. 9, 2008). On June 11, 2008, Sharkozy filed another of several complaints, this one asserting Allison was directly responsible for Ransacking his mother s property while acting in her fiduciary capacity as Angeline s guardian and the conservator of her estate. ¶3 After Sharkozy had failed to provide disclosure as required by Rule 26.1, Ariz. R. Civ. P., and failed to attend a hearing on that issue, the trial court on October 28, 2009, ordered that, by November 9, Sharkozy pay Allison $750 in attorney fees and provide disclosure identify[ing] the legal theory of each of his claims by a recognized cause of action and relating those claims to the contentions that he makes as grounds for relief or face dismissal of his action. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). After Sharkozy failed to comply with the court s order, it dismissed his complaint on November 13 and awarded Allison her attorney fees and costs. Although Sharkozy filed 2 his notice of appeal prematurely, we nonetheless deem it effective pursuant to Barassi v. Matison, 130 Ariz. 418, 421-22, 636 P.2d 1200, 1203-04 (1981). ¶4 Sharkozy s opening brief fails to comply in any meaningful way with Rule 13(a), Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. It contains no citations to the record or relevant legal authority. Accordingly, we would be justified in summarily refusing to consider his appeal. See In re $26,980.00 U.S. Currency, 199 Ariz. 291, ¶ 28, 18 P.3d 85, 93 (App. 2000) ( [Appellant s] bald assertion is offered without elaboration or citation to any . . . legal authority. We will not consider it. ); Brown v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 194 Ariz. 85, ¶ 50, 977 P.2d 807, 815 (App. 1998) (contention wholly without supporting argument or citation of authority, and accordingly[,] we reject it ). Despite Sharkozy s pro se status, he is held to the same standards as an attorney. See Old Pueblo Plastic Surgery, P.C. v. Fields, 146 Ariz. 178, 179, 704 P.2d 819, 820 (App. 1985). ¶5 In any event, our review of the record reveals no basis for disturbing the trial court s exercise of its discretion in sanctioning Sharkozy for his failure to comply with the court s order or in denying his motion to continue. See Hammoudeh v. Jada, 222 Ariz. 570, ¶ 5, 218 P.3d 1027, 1029 (App. 2009) (imposition of discovery sanctions reviewed for abuse of discretion); Ornelas v. Fry, 151 Ariz. 324, 329, 727 P.2d 819, 824 (App. 1986) (denial of continuance reviewed for abuse of discretion). We therefore affirm the court s orders dismissing Sharkozy s complaint and awarding fees and costs to Allison. Additionally, because Sharkozy has failed to provide citations to the record or to legal authority and has failed to make any cognizable legal argument, we find this appeal 3 constitutes harassment, is groundless and is not made in good faith. A.R.S. § 12-349(F). We therefore grant Allison s request for attorney fees pursuant to § 12-349(A), pending her compliance with Rule 21, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. /s/ J. William Brammer, Jr. J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief 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.