A dispute arose over the terms of a commercial lease, and the landlord sued the tenant for certain operating expenses. The tenant then stopped paying rent and sought a preliminary injunction against any eviction proceedings. The landlord responded with an amended complaint for forcible detainer (eviction). The trial court granted the preliminary injunction and denied the eviction. Appeal ensued.
The Court of Appeals, Division 2, reversed, holding that the trial court did not have authority to enjoin eviction. The Forcible Detainer statute, A.R.S. §12-1171 et. seq., gives the landlord the right to an expeditious adjudication, and “the only issue shall be the actual right of possession”, A.R.S. §12-1177(A). Since claims for equitable relief inject additional considerations, such as relative hardship to the parties, a request for an injunction runs afoul of the express language of the statute.
Tucson Lot 4 v Sunquest Info. Sys (11/22/16)
The Empire State will implement licensure of pathologists’ assistants on November 28, 2017, under new Article 168 of the New York Education Law approved on November 28, 2016. Applicants for the new license will need at minimum a bachelor’s degree in an approved program and will have to pass an examination.
Licensees will be authorized, under the supervision of a physician who practices anatomic pathology, to prepare tissues samples, perform post-mortem examinations, and perform other related tasks to be determined by the State Education Department.
The bill’s sponsor explained that individuals currently doing this work often try to qualify as laboratory technicians under a law that soon going to sunset, even though they are certified by national bodies or hold international medical degrees.
2016 NY Laws Ch. 497
Parents sued an emergency room physician for malpractice after their son died from a methadone overdose. The defendants made a Rule 68 offer of $10,000.00. The jury found in favor of the doctor.
The parents argued that they should not have to pay the Rule 68(g) sanctions because the offer was made in bad faith. They asserted that the amount offered was not reasonable if measured against the damages that would have been awarded if they had won.
The Court of Appeals held that there was no standard of reasonableness in the rule, that the sanctions are “both mandatory and punitive”, and that “it is solely within the purview of the parties to prudently evaluate their causes of action and defenses”.
Stafford v Burns (Nov. 29, 2016); Ariz. R. Civ. P. 68