Knight v. Mohave
── Knight v. Mohave ──
Case No.: 1 CA-CV 25-0528
Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona
Date: March 30, 2026
Category: General
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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
NANCY KNIGHT, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
MOHAVE COUNTY, Defendant/Appellee.
No. 1 CA-CV 25-0528
FILED 03-30-2026
Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015CV202500624
The Honorable Eric Gordon, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Nancy Knight, Fort Mohave
Plaintiff/Appellant
Mohave County Attorney’s Office, Kingman
By Matthew J. Smith, Jason Mitchell
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Andrew J. Becke and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.
KNIGHT v. MOHAVE
Decision of the Court
T H U M M A, Judge:
¶1 Plaintiff Nancy Knight appeals the dismissal of her claim
against defendant Mohave County as barred by claim preclusion. Because
she has shown no error, the dismissal is affirmed.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 In 2010, Knight bought a home in Desert Lakes Subdivision
Tract 4076-B located in Fort Mohave, Arizona. Homes in Desert Lakes are
subject to covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs), first recorded in
1989, which include setback requirements.
¶3 In 1993, Mohave County adopted Resolution No. 93-122 (Res.
93-122), amending the zoning setback requirements applicable to Desert
Lakes to conform to the CC&Rs’ setback requirements.
¶4 In 2021, Knight sued several Desert Lakes homeowners and
Mohave County Development Services (the Hogue case). In the Hogue case,
Knight sought to enforce the CC&Rs’ setback requirements and to prevent
the County from approving setbacks smaller than those in Res. 93-122.
Mohave County, the real party in interest, moved to dismiss her claims as
time barred. The court granted that motion and entered judgment for the
County and against Knight. Knight appealed, and in September 2024, this
court affirmed. See Knight v. Hogue, 1 CA-CV 24-0018, 2024 WL 4294777, at
*6 ¶ 32 (Ariz. App. Sept. 26, 2024) (mem. decision).
¶5 In March 2025, Knight filed this suit against Mohave County,
again seeking to enforce Res. 93-122. This time, Knight sought certification
as a class action on behalf of similarly situated Desert Lakes homeowners.
Mohave County moved to dismiss arguing that, as relevant here, the
judgment in the Hogue case meant Knight’s claim in this case was barred by
claim preclusion. After full briefing, the superior court granted the motion,
concluding the judgment in the Hogue case barred Knight’s claim in this
suit. The court also denied her request for class certification.
¶6 After entry of final judgment, see Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(c) (2026),1
Knight timely appealed. This court has jurisdiction under Article 6, Section
9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 12-
2101(A)(1) and -120.21(A)(1).
1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited
refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.
2
KNIGHT v. MOHAVE
Decision of the Court
DISCUSSION
¶7 This court reviews de novo an order dismissing a complaint
for failure to state a claim. State ex rel. Brnovich v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 250
Ariz. 127, 130 ¶ 7 (2020) (citing cases).
¶8 Claim preclusion bars
{# E23 (Nick, ruling section 1 answer 10): quoting a bill or a court opinion works
the way quoting a news article works. Select a passage above and the same panel
opens: the passage goes to the official you choose, with this document's own
address as its source and its own type. #}