Lenk v. Monolithic

── Lenk v. Monolithic ── Case No.: 1 CA-CV 25-0190 Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 20, 2026 Category: General IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE KENNETH L. LENK, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0190 FILED 03-20-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2023-000673 The Honorable Brian J. Palmer, Judge VACATED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED COUNSEL Kenneth L. Lenk, Chandler Plaintiff/Appellant Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Phoenix By Jacob A. Maskovich and Matthew J. Stanford Counsel for Defendant/Appellee  LENK v. MONOLITHIC Opinion OPINION Judge Veronika Fabian delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Anni Hill Foster joined. F A B I A N, Judge: ¶1 Kenneth L. Lenk appeals the superior court’s domestication and enforcement of two orders for attorney fees and costs entered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”). He asserts the superior court erred because: 1) the statute of limitations for domestication had expired, 2) enforcement should have been stayed because of a pending appeal, and 3) his spouse was not properly joined. Because the statute of limitations for domesticating one of the orders for attorney fees and costs had expired, this Court vacates the superior court’s order in part and affirms in part. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 From 2015-2020, Lenk brought four separate lawsuits in the District Court against Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (“MPS”), his prior employer. All four cases were dismissed with prejudice and any appeals to the Ninth Circuit were unsuccessful. Only the procedural history of Lenk II and Lenk IV are relevant here. Lenk II (Case No. 16-cv-02625-BLF) ¶3 The District Court dismissed the complaint in Lenk II and entered judgment in MPS’s favor in July 2017. On January 19, 2018, the District Court entered an order awarding MPS $17,665.74 in attorney fees and costs (“order for fees and costs”). Although Lenk II was appealed, the record does not show that enforcement of the order for attorney’s fees and costs was ever stayed. In December 2018, the Ninth Circuit affirmed judgment in Lenk II. Lenk v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 754 F. App’x 554, 556 (9th Cir. 2018). In November 2022, the District Court issued an amended judgment, which incorporated the order for fees and costs. Lenk appealed again and the Ninth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in October 2023. 2  LENK v. MONOLITHIC Opinion Lenk IV (Case No. 20-cv-08094-BLF) ¶4 The District Court dismissed the complaint in Lenk IV in November 2021 and entered judgment for MPS. Lenk v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 2021 WL 5233078 (N.D. Cal. 2021). The Ninth Circuit dismissed Lenk’s appeal in April 2022. Lenk v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 2022 WL 2062162 (9th Cir. 2022). In November 2022, the District Court issued an amended judgment awarding $25,215.30, which incorporated a previous order for attorney fees and costs to MPS. Lenk did not appeal from that amended judgment. Arizona State Court Proceedings to Enforce Foreign Judgments ¶5 In January 2023, MPS filed the amended judgments in Lenk II and Lenk IV as foreign judgments under Arizona’s version of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (“UEFJA”). A.R.S. §§ 12-1701 to 1708. Lenk repeatedly moved to stay domestication of the amended judgments based on an ongoing appeal in another one of his cases. He also moved to vacate the domestication of t