Knight v. Elias

── Knight v. Elias ── Case No.: 1 CA-CV 25-0618 Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 24, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. T’SHURA-ANN ELIAS, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0618 FILED 03-24-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County No. S8015CV202500843 The Honorable Megan A. McCoy, Judge AFFIRMED APPEARANCES Nancy Knight, Fort Mohave Plaintiff/Appellant Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, Phoenix By Matthew G. Kleiner and Solomon S. Krotzer Counsel for Defendant/Appellee MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the court, in which Judge Anni Hill Foster and Chief Judge Randall M. Howe joined.  KNIGHT v. ELIAS Decision of the Court G A S S, Judge: ¶1 Nancy Knight appeals the superior court’s order dismissing her complaint against T’Shura-Ann Elias, who was opposing counsel in a case in which Knight was a party. Because the superior court did not err in dismissing her complaint, the court affirms. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The court views the facts “in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., 235 Ariz. 68, 69 ¶ 2 (App. 2014). The court assumes “the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations and indulge[s] all reasonable inferences from those facts.” Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352, 356 ¶ 9 (2012). But the court does not accept as true “conclusions of law or unwarranted deductions of fact.” Folk v. City of Phoenix, 27 Ariz. App. 146, 150 (1976). I. Knight lost two earlier cases, one of which involved Elias as Knight’s opposing counsel. ¶3 Elias represented parties in an earlier case in which Knight was the plaintiff: Yavapai County Case No. CV2022-00177 (the 2022 case). The claims in the 2022 case are irrelevant to resolution of this appeal. Knight looks to the 2022 case because she believes Elias’s clients should not have prevailed at the superior court and on appeal in 1 CA-CV 24-0018. In this appeal, Knight asks the court to correct what she perceives were errors in the 2022 case and the appeal. And she seeks to hold Elias liable for acts and statements Elias made in representing her clients. ¶4 Knight also wants the court to correct perceived errors in another case: Mohave County Superior Court Case No. CV2018-04003 (the 2018 case) and the related appeal, 1 CA-CV 24-0075. Elias was not involved in the 2018 case. As with the 2022 case, the claims in the 2018 case are irrelevant to resolution of this appeal. Knight also did not prevail on the appeal of the 2018 case. ¶5 The appeals in the 2018 and 2022 cases have become final; the court mandated both on April 24, 2025. II. Knight sued Elias based on Elias’s representation of her clients in the 2022 case. ¶6 In her 63-page complaint, Knight alleged claims for “Fraud and Breach of Duty (negligence) as a Defense Counsel.” Knight alleged 2  KNIGHT v. ELIAS Decision of the Court Elias’s “Fraud and Breaches of Duty contributed to dismissal of all Defendants in Plaintiffs CV 2022 00177 and where Plaintiff seeks remedy on multiple levels as found in the Demands for Relief.” III. The superior court granted Elias’s motion to dismiss. ¶7 Elias moved to dismiss Knight’s complaint. The su