SHARON CRAIN-HODGE v SHARNAI FISHER et al (Decision Order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA SHARON CRAIN-HODGE, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) SHARNAI FISHER, et al., ) ) Defendants/Appellants. ) ) __________________________________) Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-22-0105-AP/EL Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2022-004836 FILED 05/06/2022 DECISION ORDER The Court, by a panel consisting of Vice Chief Justice Timmer, Justice Bolick, Justice Lopez and Justice Beene, has considered the briefs of the parties, the superior court’s minute entry judgment, and the relevant statutes and case law in this expedited election matter. Candidate/Appellant Sharnai Fisher is running for a seat on the Goodyear City Council in the primary election scheduled for August 2, 2022. Appellee Sharon Crain-Hodge filed an action challenging Appellant’s nominating petitions for lack of valid signatures. Appellant Appellee failed had requirements set to forth moved to comply in dismiss with A.R.S. § the the action, service 16-351(D). of The arguing process superior court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the Goodyear Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-22-0105-AP/EL Page 2 of 3 City Clerk’s Office had the authority to accept service of process on behalf of Appellant, including waiving any defects in service or entering a voluntary appearance in court obviating the need for formal service. On April 27, 2022, the parties stipulated that Appellant did not submit enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Appellant timely appealed, raising only the service issue before this Court. After consideration, the Court agrees with the superior court that the Goodyear City Clerk’s Office had authority to accept service of process on behalf of Appellant and waived any defects in service by voluntarily appearing in court. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)–(4); see also Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hosp., Inc., 119 Ariz. 448, 452 (1978) (“It is a rule of ancient and universal application that a general appearance by a party who has not been properly served has exactly the same effect as a proper, timely and valid service of process.”). Appellant generally appeared by participating in Similarly, the status conference and indicating her intention to withdraw from the election, thereby waiving any defects in service of process. See Montano, 119 Ariz. at 452. Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-22-0105-AP/EL Page 3 of 3 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED affirming the superior court’s judgment filed April 27, 2022. DATED this 6TH day of May, 2022. TO: David L Erlichman Timothy A LaSota Angela Lane Karen J Hartman-Tellez Joseph Branco Joseph Eugene La Rue Roric V Massey Hon Sally Schneider Duncan Hon Jeff Fine Alberto Rodriguez Alicia Moffatt ___________/S/________________ ANN A. SCOTT TIMMER Vice Chief Justice
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.
