Parker v. Meeks

── Parker v. Meeks ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: June 05, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 SHILOH PARKER, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ERNEST THOMAS MEEKS, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0549 FILED 06-05-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2024-026863 The Honorable Timothy J. Ryan, Judge (Retired) AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART COUNSEL Shiloh Parker, Sacramento, CA Plaintiff/Appellant Jones, Skelton & Hochuli P.L.C., Phoenix, AZ By Sanford K. Gerber, Jennifer M. Martin, and Luan Gurra Counsel for Defendant/Appellee  PARKER v. MEEKS Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Acting Presiding Judge Veronika Fabian delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Daniel J. Kiley and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined. F A B I A N, Judge: ¶1 Shiloh Parker appeals the dismissal of her complaint against Ernest Thomas Meeks and subsequent award of attorney fees and costs against her. This Court affirms the dismissal and award of costs but vacates the fee award and remands. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Parker and Meeks were involved in an automobile accident on January 22, 2022. That accident spawned two cases. Only one of the cases is the basis for this appeal, but the background of both will be provided for context. Case 1 ¶3 In January of 2023, Parker filed a complaint for damages against Meeks in superior court (Case No. CV2023-050155) (“Case 1”). Parker and Meeks engaged in litigation over the next 20 months. Dissatisfied with the judge, Parker sought reassignment for cause. When a new judge was not assigned, Parker moved to dismiss her case voluntarily. Case 2 ¶4 On September 25, 2024—just one day before moving to dismiss Case 1—Parker filed a new complaint for damages against Meeks in superior court (Case No. CV2024-026863) (“Case 2”). The complaint was based on the same accident as Case 1 and both complaints included the same causes of action and prayers for relief. Parker then purported to serve Meeks via process on October 29, 2024. When Meeks did not file a response within 30 days, Parker applied for entry of default. Meeks opposed the application based on improper service and filed a separate motion for a stay until Case 1 was dismissed. ¶5 The court denied Parker’s application for entry of default because she did not mail a copy to Meeks’s attorney. At a status conference, 2  PARKER v. MEEKS Decision of the Court Meeks’s counsel informed the court that Case 1 had been resolved and that he intended to file a motion to dismiss in Case 2. The court orally found that Meeks had made good faith efforts to meet and confer. ¶6 Meeks filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ariz. R. Civ. P., but did not include a good faith consultation certificate as required by subsection (j). In response, Parker argued the motion to dismiss was untimely and improper since it lacked the consultation certificate. The court granted Meeks’s motion to dismiss. ¶7 Meeks then applied for attorney fees and costs. In July of 2025, the court entered final judgment awarding Meeks fees under A.R.S. § 12-349 and costs under A.R.S. § 12-341. ¶8 Parker timely appealed. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Articl