2025-03-13 — Paul Gounder, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Royal Riviera Condominium Association, Defendant/Appellee. ↑ top

Source

gounder-v-royal-riviera-condominium-association.pdf

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
PAUL GOUNDER, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
ROYAL RIVIERA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Defendant/Appellee.
No. 1 CA-CV 24-0594
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CV2023-002759
The Honorable Susanna C. Pineda, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Paul Gounder, Phoenix
Plaintiff/Appellant
Schneider & Onofry, P.C., Phoenix
By Charles D. Onofry, ReNae A. Nachman, Dee R. Giles
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
FILED 03-13-2025

GOUNDER v. ROYAL RIVIERA
Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Chief Judge David B. Gass
joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1
Paul Gounder (“Gounder”) appeals from the superior court’s
confirmation of an arbitration award against him in favor of Royal Riviera
Condominium Association (“Royal Riviera” or “HOA”). For the following
reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2
In early 2023, Gounder sued Royal Riviera, his homeowners’
association. His complaint alleged a litany of grievances, including that
Royal Riviera conducted meetings without a quorum and breached its
fiduciary duty by “not enforcing the rules,” and that the HOA’s president
and secretary were “in cahoots” because “they both are racist,” and
“hijacked” the HOA. Royal Riviera moved to dismiss for failure to state a
claim, arguing that Gounder’s complaint violated “basic pleading rules
making it impossible” for it to answer. The superior court granted Royal
Riviera’s motion, noting that the complaint did not comply with the
Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure and that Gounder did not show an
attempt to comply with the rules. The court granted Gounder leave to
amend his complaint in compliance with the rules, which he did.
¶3
In his amended complaint, Gounder raised functionally the
same arguments but clarified that he was seeking “the maximum amount
allowed for damage and [the] maximum allowable amount for punitive
damage,” requested various liens on individual units, and asked the court
to permanently ban individuals from serving on the Royal Riviera HOA
board. Royal Riviera moved to partially dismiss the amended complaint
for failure to state a claim. The superior court subsequently dismissed
several of Gounder’s claims and his request for punitive damages.
¶4
Royal Riviera sought to compel arbitration, which the
superior court ordered. The arbitrator held a hearing, found for Royal
Riviera, and awarded it costs and attorney’s fees. Both parties submitted

GOUNDER v. ROYAL RIVIERA
Decision of the Court

3
documents to the arbitrator and attended the hearing. In response to the
arbitrator’s notice of decision but before the award itself was filed, Gounder
objected to the arbitrator’s notice. Following the actual award, Gounder
moved to sanction the arbitrator and Royal Riviera. The superior court
entered judgment on the arbitration award for Royal Riviera. Gounder
timely appeals from that judgment, and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S.
§ 12-2101(A)(1).
DISCUSSION
¶5
On appeal, we review a superior court’s confirmation of an
arbitration award for an abuse of discretion. Brake Masters Sys., Inc. v.
Gabbay, 206 Ariz. 360, 364 n.3 ¶ 12 (App. 2003). Judicial review of arbitration
awards is severely limited. Atreus Cmtys. Grp. of Ariz. v. Stardust Dev., Inc.,
229 Ariz. 503, 506 ¶ 13 (App. 2012).
¶6
Gounder argues that the arbitrator made procedural
oversights, that the court committed “[p]otential [m]isconduct,” and that
the cumulative effect of these mistakes violated his due process rights.
Following an arbitration hearing, the arbitrator must notify the parties and
file a notice of decision with the court. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 76(a). An opposing
party then has 15 days after service of the proposed form of award to object,
after which the arbitrator resolves any objections and files the final award.
Ariz. R. Civ. P. 76(b). Then, any party who appears and participates in a
compulsory arbitration may appeal the arbitration award to the superior
court. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 77(a). To appeal an award, a party must file a notice
of appeal no later than 20 days after the award is filed. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 77(b).
¶7
Gounder participated in the arbitration. Although he timely
objected to the arbitrator’s notice of award, he did not timely appeal the
final award to the superior court. The arbitrator filed the award on March
18, 2024, which Gounder acknowledges in his opening brief. Although
Gounder moved to sanction the arbitrator later that same day, his motion
refers to the arbitrator’s February 22 notice, not the March 18 award itself.
Gounder also moved to sanction Royal Riviera on March 21. But neither
sanction request can be construed as a notice of appeal or appeal from the
final arbitration award. And Gounder filed his objection to the notice on
March 3, a full fifteen days before the arbitrator’s final award. All Gounder’s
other filings fall outside the 20-day window. The superior court thus did
not err in entering judgment on the award. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 77(b).
¶8
Even if Gounder’s motions constituted a timely appeal,
appeals from an arbitration award require “an adequate showing” of one

GOUNDER v. ROYAL RIVIERA
Decision of the Court
4
of the statutory grounds. A.R.S. § 12-1512(A); see also Nolan v. Kenner, 226
Ariz. 459, 461 ¶ 5 (App. 2011) (“The superior court may reject an arbitration
award only on narrow statutorily enumerated grounds.”). Gounder
disagrees with the arbitrator’s findings and claims the arbitrator was
biased, but he makes no adequate showing of his claims. See A.R.S. § 12-
1512(A); FIA Card Servs., N.A. v. Levy, 219 Ariz. 523, 526 ¶ 11 (App. 2008)
(explaining that the party alleging the arbitrator was biased bears the
burden to produce evidence of partiality). He argues the validity of the
award is in question because the arbitrator improperly accepted hard
copies of Royal Riviera’s documents. Even if this was problematic, Gounder
was not prejudiced because he acknowledged that he received a copy of the
documents before the arbitration. He also argues that the arbitrator used
the incorrect name for Royal Riviera during the proceedings. But both the
arbitration award and judgment use Royal Riviera’s proper name, and
Gounder does not demonstrate prejudice. Gounder has failed to provide
this Court or the superior court with evidence of partiality and the record
suggests no bias. The superior court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion
when it confirmed the award.
¶9
Gounder argues the superior court’s “failure to address”
motions “suggests a disregard for due process,” and alleges the court
“made false statements in [its] orders,” which “[i]f proven, [] could
constitute judicial misconduct.” Gounder fails to support these allegations,
and the record does not show that he was denied due process. See ARCAP
13(7) (requiring briefs to include support for contentions with “appropriate
references to the portions of the record on which the appellant relies”). The
superior court did not violate Gounder’s due process rights.
CONCLUSION
¶10
We affirm. Royal Riviera requests its attorney’s fees and costs
on appeal. A.R.S. §§ 12-341, -341.01. It also requests sanctions under A.R.S.
§ 12-349. As the successful party in this appeal, we award Royal Riviera its
reasonable attorney’s fees and reasonable costs upon compliance with
Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21. A.R.S. § 12-341, -341.01. In
our discretion, we deny Royal Riviera’s request under A.R.S. § 12-349.
MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR