Professional Documents
Culture Documents
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE
v.
COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM DECISION
J O H N S E N, Judge:
2 The Honorable Jay M. Polk, Judge of the Arizona Superior Court, has
been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant to Article VI, Section 3, of the
Arizona Constitution.
2
HARDING, et al. v. STERNSHER, et al.
Decision of the Court
4 The plaintiffs filed this action against Sternsher and the other
former Kidz Connextion employees who signed the Dental Board
complaint, alleging they were responsible for the negative online reviews
and the anonymous letter to PHP. The complaint alleged defamation,
tortious interference with business relations, conversion, intentional
infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional
distress. In his answer, Sternsher alleged a counterclaim for breach of
contract.
5 Before trial, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against all the
defendants except Sternsher. The superior court granted Sternsher
summary judgment on the claims alleging conversion, intentional infliction
of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. That
left for trial Sternsher's counterclaim for breach of contract for failure to
reimburse him for orthodontic supplies, and the plaintiffs' claims for
defamation and tortious interference with business relations. The plaintiffs
did not assert any damages arising out of the letter to the Dental Board and
AHCCCS, but instead confined themselves to the online reviews and the
PHP letter.
DISCUSSION
3
HARDING, et al. v. STERNSHER, et al.
Decision of the Court
the facts in the light most favorable to the parties against whom summary
judgment was entered. Id. Summary judgment is appropriate "if the facts
produced in support of the claim or defense have so little probative value,
given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not
agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or
defense." Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 309 (1990).
1. Conversion.
4
HARDING, et al. v. STERNSHER, et al.
Decision of the Court
5
HARDING, et al. v. STERNSHER, et al.
Decision of the Court
6
HARDING, et al. v. STERNSHER, et al.
Decision of the Court
7
HARDING, et al. v. STERNSHER, et al.
Decision of the Court
also should be presented to the jury if the court allowed the recordings. On
the first day of trial, the court excluded the Lucero recordings, ruling the
proffered sections were confusing, misleading and unfair and that the
recordings were more prejudicial than probative. Nevertheless, the court
allowed the plaintiffs to impeach Sternsher with portions of the recordings
several times during his testimony.
8
HARDING, et al. v. STERNSHER, et al.
Decision of the Court
CONCLUSION