Cal X-tra v. W.V.S.V. Holdings L.L.C. – 4/24/2012

May 31, 2012
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That (1) Relief from a Judgment Obtained by Extrinsic Fraud Is Appropriate under Rule 60(c) and (2) A.R.S. § 29-833(A) Does Not Permit an Award of Attorneys’ Fees in Favor of a Derivative Plaintiff Against Its Opponent in That Litigation.

State ex rel. Horne v. AutoZone, Inc. – 5/15/2012

May 22, 2012
Arizona Supreme Court Holds That (1) When the State Alleges Multiple Violations of A.R.S. § 41-2081 as the Basis for a Consumer Fraud Act Claim, a Jury May Determine That Either the “Act Clause” or the “Omission Clause” of A.R.S. § 44-1522(A) Applies; (2) A.R.S. § 44-1582(A)(1) Does Not Authorize Disgorgement to the State for Violations of the Consumer Fraud Act.