No photo
Asker
Posted over 1 year ago.

Landlord in Arizona files eviction against tenant. Tenant has potential counterclaims against landlord and landlord's managing agent. The managing agent of the property, however, is a true general partnership with its principal place of business in a different state (California), and has no statutory agent to serve in the state of Arizona. For the purpose of compulsory counterclaims (rule 13a), its my understanding that they would not have to be asserted at the time of the original action if its adjudication requires third parties of which the original court has no jurisdiction. As such, I'm trying to determine whether or not the general partnership being from another state would mean I don't have to file my counterclaims in the original action as compulsory counterclaims?

No photo
Asker
Posted over 1 year ago.

The eviction was filed in lower court (justice court), and the claims I wish to file against the landlord and the managing agent-general partnership (of which is not a party to the original action) I'd like to file in a higher court (Superior Court).

Maxim Volsky
Maxim Volsky, Business Attorney - New York, NY
Posted over 1 year ago.

It sounds like your are representing yourself in this case. I suggest you consult with an Arizona attorney. You raise complex issues of jurisdiction, which are impossible to answer without a deep dive into the fact of the case. However, I would not assume that Arizona courts don't have jurisdiction over the CA entity. For example, courts can gain personal jurisdiction over companies registered in other states if such foreign companies have sufficient contacts with those states. If the management company does business in Arizona, that is probably enough to gain personal jurisdiction.

No photo
Asker
Posted over 1 year ago.

Thank you, I greatly appreciate it. I will definitely need to consult with an AZ attorney on this. With regards to Rule 13(a) on compulsory counterclaims, when it says "unless the adjudication requires the presence or addition of third parties that the court cannot attain jurisdiction", does that rule generally refer to parties that literally need to be added to the lawsuit (as additional parties), or would that also include third party witnesses who have knowledge of the matter?