In this Arizona appellate decision [1], the plaintiff, Danko, failed to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure that every state has. The defendant, Leavitt, filed for dismissal due to a deficient brief, upon which the plaintiff begged the court for leniency for failing to comply with the Rules. He claimed that he was filing pro per, without a lawyer. Plaintiff further asserted that “his claims should not be dismissed because of “meaningless” rules.” The court “found Danko had not sufficiently pleaded facts to support any of his other claims and dismissed them with prejudice as well” as required by the Rules.
The terse reply by the court makes the point that rules are rules.
“In furtherance of these goals, we have “a responsibility to see that litigants conform to an acceptable, minimal level of competency and performance and we owe this responsibility to the judiciary, the bar and, more importantly, to all litigants and the people as a whole. An appellant who fails to make a bona fide and reasonably intelligent effort to comply with the rules will waive issues and arguments.”
“Waived” means the party surrenders all rights to continue.
The court made a strong statement on not granting any leniency to pro per litigants;
Further, we hold litigants like Danko who choose to proceed without representation to the same standards as attorneys. Indeed, requiring a reviewing court to expend significant time and effort to make a party’s arguments for them not only wastes finite judicial resources, but is additionally improper because it trespasses dangerously close to the realm of impermissible advocacy.
Take heed! Rules are rules. Learn the rules before going to court.
Notes
1. Danko v. Leavitt, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0525 (Ariz. App. Div.1, 8-17-2023).
HOA Constitutional Government 