Martinez v. Zuniga, No. 2 CA-CV 2023-0214-FC (App. Div. II, March 21, 2024) (J. Vasquez) https://www.appeals2.az.gov/decisions/CV20230214Opinion.pdf

ARIZONA COURTS MUST HAVE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A DEFENDANT BEFORE IT HAS ABILITY TO ISSUE PROTECTIVE ORDER AGAINST DEFENDANT/THE “MINIMUM CONTACTS” REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH JURISIDICTION REGARDING CLAIMS UNRELATED TO THE CONTACTS MUST BE HIGH

 Plaintiff filed an ex parte petition for an order of protection against defendant which the trial court granted despite the fact the defendant made a limited appearance and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant claimed she was not domiciled or a resident of Arizona and the acts complained of to support the order all occurred at the parties' residence in  California.  The trial court found it had “general personal jurisdiction” over defendant allowing it to issue the order of protection. Defendant moved to alter or amend the judgement which was also denied by the trial court. Defendant appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals which reversed and remanded the trial court.

The  court of appeals adopted the rule that in order to issue an order of protection against a defendant an Arizona court must have personal jurisdiction over that defendant to comport with due process. The defendant must have “minimum contacts” with Arizona “such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Such jurisdiction may exist even for claims unrelated to the defendant's contacts with Arizona but the level of contacts required is “quite high.”

Here where it was conceded the defendant was not domiciled or a resident of Arizona, the contacts were insufficient to create general personal jurisdiction. The fact defendant had resided in Arizona previously up to 2020, had processed a bankruptcy in Arizona in 2010 which terminated in 2015, and had three family court matters all filed in Arizona before 2020 when defendant still resided in Arizona “have no bearing on whether she currently has sufficient contact to subject her to Arizona's jurisdiction.”  The court concluded defendant's contacts with Arizona fell short of allowing for personal jurisdiction and because of the myriad of consequences that could befell a defendant subject to a protective order, a defendant's substantive rights are at stake and general personal jurisdiction must exist before an Arizona can issue such an order against a defendant.