Business & Commercial Litigation

Three years. A.R.S. § 12-543(3) covers actions for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake, with a special accrual rule, the cause of action is not considered to have accrued until the fraud or mistake is discovered by the aggrieved party. That discovery rule is why fraud claims sometimes survive when a straight contract claim on the same facts would already be barred.

Sometimes. A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) provides that in any contested action arising out of a contract, express or implied, the court may award the successful party reasonable attorney fees. The word is may, the award is discretionary, not automatic. The same statute also lets a party who made a written settlement offer that the other side rejected be treated as the successful party if the final judgment is equal to or more favorable than that offer.

It can change who pays the lawyers. Under § 12-341.01(A), if a written settlement proposal is rejected and the judgment ends up equal to or more favorable to the offeror than the offer was, the offeror is deemed the successful party from the date of the offer and the court may award fees from that point. A serious, well-documented offer early in a case is a real strategic tool, not a formality.

Usually the clause controls, but not always. Arbitration provisions are generally enforced, and they change the forum, the discovery available, the cost structure, and the ability to appeal. Whether a particular clause reaches a particular claim, and whether it was validly formed, is a threshold question worth resolving before spending money on the merits.

That is a business decision, not just a legal one. The realistic recovery, the collectability of the other side, the fee-shifting exposure under § 12-341.01, and the cost of getting to judgment all belong in the same conversation. Nova Law Group handles business and civil litigation on an hourly basis, and part of the initial consultation is being straight with you about whether the case makes economic sense.

Yes. A private claim under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, A.R.S. § 44-1522, is a liability created by statute, and A.R.S. § 12-541(5) sets a one-year limitations period for it. Businesses that assume the three-year common-law fraud period under § 12-543(3) applies can lose the statutory claim entirely.

Generally not simply because you are an owner. Under A.R.S. § 29-3304, a member or manager is not personally liable for an LLC’s obligations solely by reason of that status. Courts will pierce the corporate veil where the company is the owner’s alter ego and respecting the separate entity would sanction a fraud or promote injustice. Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Ins. Co., 170 Ariz. 34 (1991). Personal guaranties and individual fiduciary duties are separate sources of personal exposure.

A formal written offer to allow judgment on specified terms. Under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 68(g), if the offer is rejected and the offeree does not obtain a more favorable judgment, the offeree must pay the offeror’s reasonable expert witness fees and double the taxable costs incurred after the offer was made. It works alongside the fee-shifting rule in A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Sometimes. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65 allows temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. The moving party must show a strong likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, a balance of hardships in its favor, and that public policy favors relief. Shoen v. Shoen, 167 Ariz. 58 (App. 1990). Courts apply a sliding scale, so a stronger showing of harm can offset a closer question on the merits.

If your business is facing a dispute, or you have been sued or threatened with a lawsuit, contact Nova Law Group for a confidential consultation.