Isles v. Family Dollar
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One · Ariz. Ct. App. · Arizona bar guidance
Conduct
Self-represented plaintiff's appellate briefs contained about 60 case citations, of which the court found only a handful accurate and properly used.
Consequence
Appeal lost on waiver; court warned of future ARCAP 25 sanctions and, separately, awarded appellees fees under A.R.S. 12-349 for a groundless appeal.
Lesson
Division One pointed this self-represented filer to its AI guidance and warned that inaccurate assertions may be sanctioned in the future.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Isles v. Family Dollar, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0918 (Ariz. App. Aug. 6, 2026) (mem. decision)
- Decided
- August 6, 2026
Summary
Self-represented appellant Charity Isles appealed the denial of her Rule 60(b) motion to set aside a summary judgment for Family Dollar and one of its employees in her 2021 false imprisonment, defamation, and battery suit, a judgment the Court of Appeals had already affirmed in January 2025. The court found that her opening brief misstated the record, relitigated an exhibit issue already rejected three times, and "relies on (and mischaracterizes) inapposite authority." In a footnote it added: "Of the approximately 60 case citations in Isles' briefing, we've identified only a handful that are accurate, proper in scope, support the propositions for which they're cited and the accompanying analysis, and provide correct pincites." The court noted that it provides public guidance for self-represented litigants, "including guidance regarding the use of artificial intelligence," and said that "[t]o the extent Isles relied on artificial intelligence in preparing her briefing, we encourage her to consult those resources." It did not find that she used AI.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the decision says only "[t]o the extent Isles relied on artificial intelligence in preparing her briefing"; it makes no finding of AI use)
- Amount or terms:
- No sanction for the citations; footnoted warning that future inaccuracies may draw ARCAP 25 sanctions. Separately, appellees awarded reasonable attorney fees under A.R.S. 12-349 and costs under A.R.S. 12-341 because the appeal lacked substantial justification
What did the court warn about?
In a memorandum decision (Gaona, J., joined by Presiding Judge Gass and Judge Foster), the court held that Isles waived appellate review by raising Rule 60(b)(4) and (6) grounds for the first time on appeal, failing to comply with ARCAP 13, and trying to develop arguments in her reply brief, and it affirmed. On the citations it imposed no sanction but warned: "In the future, Isles may face sanctions if she fails to ensure her assertions are accurate," citing ARCAP 25 and In re Estate of Acciavatti. Separately, it granted Family Dollar's request for reasonable attorneys' fees under A.R.S. section 12-349(A)(1) and (A)(3), finding the appeal lacked substantial justification and unreasonably expanded and delayed the proceedings, with costs under A.R.S. section 12-341, upon compliance with ARCAP 21. The fee analysis rests mainly on her relitigation of the exhibit issue, though it also notes that her briefing "relies on inapposite authority."
Why does Isles v. Family Dollar matter for law firms using AI?
The decision handles the citation problem lightly but on the record. The court’s substantive ruling rests on waiver: arguments raised for the first time on appeal, an opening brief that did not comply with ARCAP 13, and a reply brief that tried to recast the appeal under Rule 60(b)(6). The citation problems appear in a footnote, which reports that only a handful of roughly 60 case citations were accurate, properly scoped, and correctly pinpointed, and which warns that “[i]n the future, Isles may face sanctions if she fails to ensure her assertions are accurate.”
The court’s reference to artificial intelligence is conditional. It pointed Isles to the court’s public resources for self-represented litigants, “including guidance regarding the use of artificial intelligence,” and encouraged her to consult them “[t]o the extent” she relied on AI. That is a prompt, not a finding, and the entry records it that way.
The attorney fee award rests on several grounds. Family Dollar sought fees under A.R.S. section 12-349, and the court granted them because Isles pursued claims she knew or should have known were refuted by the record after three prior rejections, and did so with briefing that “misstates the record, relies on inapposite authority, and largely consists of conclusory assertions unsupported by meaningful analysis” and “fails to preserve or meaningfully develop any challenge to the denial of Rule 60(b) relief.” It held the appeal lacked substantial justification under section 12-349(A)(1) and that “Isles has unreasonably expanded and delayed these proceedings” under section 12-349(A)(3). Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that this decision pairs a warning about citation accuracy with a statutory fee award for a groundless appeal, even though the citation problems themselves were not separately sanctioned.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Review whether an opponent's appeal supports a fee request under A.R.S. 12-349 when it relitigates resolved issues with defective briefing; the court granted one here.
- Consider that Division One provides public resources for self-represented litigants, 'including guidance regarding the use of artificial intelligence,' and referred this appellant to them.
- Document that a first-instance warning in one appeal can set up sanctions in a later one; the court's footnote puts this litigant on notice for future filings.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution: the decision raises AI only conditionally ('To the extent Isles relied on artificial intelligence') and makes no finding that she used it. The AI attribution is a Charlotin tracker inference ('Implied').