Biddle v. Connor

── Biddle v. Connor ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 18, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 TRISTAN BIDDLE, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. THE CONNOR GROUP, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0872 FILED 05-18-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2024-035562 The Honorable Christopher Whitten, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Tristan Biddle, Scottsdale Plaintiff/Appellant Zona Law Group PC, Scottsdale By Scott E. Williams, Amy N. Toppel, Mark B. Zinman Counsel for Defendant/Appellee MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined.  BIDDLE v. CONNOR Decision of the Court P A T O N, Judge: ¶1 Tristan Biddle appeals the superior court’s judgment dismissing his complaint against The Connor Group (“Connor”) with prejudice. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Biddle entered into an agreement to lease an apartment from Aston Scottsdale XIV, LLC by its agent, Connor, starting in June 2024. Connor is a limited liability company registered in Ohio. ¶3 On November 22, 2024, Biddle emailed Connor’s corporate counsel to address a landlord-tenant dispute. Biddle then filed a complaint against Connor on December 10, 2024, alleging negligence, unsafe living conditions, and failure to maintain a habitable residence. ¶4 On December 13, 2024, Biddle filed an “affidavit of service by certified mail.” The affidavit was a pre-printed court form stating that Biddle served copies of an application for name change—not the summons and complaint—on Connor. Biddle attached to the affidavit a receipt dated December 10, 2024, for express two-day delivery by FedEx of a FedEx envelope addressed to Connor at an address in Ohio. Biddle also attached proof of delivery for the associated tracking number showing the envelope was delivered on December 12, 2024. Both the receipt and the proof of delivery stated, “no signature required.” Despite the notification that no signature was required, the proof of delivery stated in electronic form that the documents were signed for by “M. Mrtini.” There was no actual signature on the form. The form stated “no signature is currently available for this shipment. Please check again later for a signature.” ¶5 On January 15, 2025, Biddle filed a document styled “Request for Relief,” stating Connor failed to timely respond to the complaint. Biddle requested a default judgment. Biddle simultaneously filed an application and affidavit for default, which is automatically effective ten days after an application for entry of default is filed. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 55(a)(1). On the application, which was also a preprinted form, Biddle checked the box stating that Connor “is not represented by an attorney that I know of.” Biddle attested he had served Connor with the summons and complaint by “process server, alternative service, or by publication” and attested he attached proof of service to the application. Biddle asserted that he mailed, postage prepaid, the application and affidavit for default to Connor. Biddle 2  BIDDLE v. CONNOR Decision of the Court did not state that he mailed and emailed a copy of the application for entry of default on Connor’s co