McCOY v. TAYLOR

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO SHELLEY K. MCCOY, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. KEN TAYLOR, Defendant/Appellee. No. 2 CA-CV 2014-0137 Filed April 15, 2015 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f). Appeal from the Superior Court in Cochise County No. CV201400040 The Honorable Wallace R. Hoggatt, Judge APPEAL DISMISSED COUNSEL Shelley Knuffke McCoy, Huachuca City In Propria Persona Udall Law Firm, LLP, Tucson By Jeanna Chandler Nash Counsel for Defendant/Appellee McCOY v. TAYLOR Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Miller and Judge Espinosa concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Chief Judge: ¶1 Plaintiff/appellant Shelley McCoy attempts to challenge a judgment and several related orders of the Cochise County Superior Court that were entered in an appeal from the Benson Justice Court. The proceeding in that court concerned an injunction against harassment. As the defendant/appellee Ken Taylor correctly points out, our appellate jurisdiction is provided and limited by law, and an appeal to this court generally is unavailable from an appeal to the superior court. Anderson v. Valley Union High Sch., Dist. No. 22, 229 Ariz. 52, ¶¶ 2-3, 270 P.3d 879, 88182 (App. 2012); see Ariz. Super. Ct. R. App. P.—Civ. 14(b). ¶2 Although McCoy emphasizes in her reply brief that she is proceeding in propria persona and is legally untrained, parties who choose to represent themselves are held to the same standards as attorneys with respect to applicable rules, statutes, and procedures. In re Marriage of Williams, 219 Ariz. 546, ¶ 13, 200 P.3d 1043, 1046 (App. 2008). McCoy has failed to specify the jurisdictional basis for her appeal, as is required by Rule 13(a)(4), Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. She also has failed to respond to Taylor’s arguments that we lack appellate jurisdiction. “A failure to reply to arguments raised in an answering brief may justify a summary disposition of an appeal.” Ariz. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Indus. Comm’n, 170 Ariz. 275, 277, 823 P.2d 1283, 1285 (App. 1991). ¶3 For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. We grant Taylor’s request for costs, subject to his compliance with Rule 21, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. See Robinson v. Kay, 225 Ariz. 191, ¶ 8, 236 P.3d 418, 420 (App. 2010). We deny his request for attorney fees. 2

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.