Aldasaro v. Pavlinch Arizona Court of Appeals: Maricopa Ruling Reversed

• An appeal titled *Aldasaro v. Pavlinch* was decided by the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, on September 24, 2026, with the court reversing and remanding the case.
• Juan Aldasoro is the appellant, challenging a decision involving Giovani Pavlinch and other defendants as appellees.
• The appellate case is identified by the number 1 CA-CV 25-0533.
• This appeal originates from the Superior Court in Maricopa County, involving case numbers CV2023-053700 and CV2023-094787.
• The initial proceedings were presided over by The Honorable Michael D. Gordon, Judge, Retired.

The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, issued its opinion in *Aldasaro v. Pavlinch* on September 24, 2026, reversing and remanding the case.

An appellate proceeding, identified as *Aldasaro v. Pavlinch*, was decided by the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, on September 24, 2026. This significant development in the state's judicial landscape resulted in the reversal and remand of a prior decision. The case involves Juan Aldasoro as the appellant, challenging a ruling that also names Giovani Pavlinch and other parties as appellees.

This decision marks a significant step in the Arizona civil appeal process, where the higher court examined the proceedings from a lower tribunal. The appellate court's involvement signifies judicial oversight regarding the initial judgment, underscoring the procedural steps available to parties seeking reconsideration of court outcomes in Arizona.

The specific appellate identifier for this case is No. 1 CA-CV 25-0533, designating it as an Arizona appellate case 1 CA-CV 25-0533 within the Division One docket. This appeal originates from the Superior Court in Maricopa County, indicating that the initial litigation and subsequent judgment occurred at the county level before being elevated to the state's intermediate appellate court. The underlying actions in the superior court are associated with two distinct case numbers: CV2023-053700 and CV2023-094787.

These Maricopa County appeal CV2023-053700 numbers confirm the foundational proceedings that led to the current appellate challenge. The process involved a comprehensive review of the record from the lower court, where the Arizona Court of Appeals assessed whether any errors of law or procedure warranted a modification or reversal of the original decision. The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, issued its decision on September 24, 2026, reversing and remanding the case.

The appellant in this matter is Juan Aldasoro, who sought to overturn or modify a prior ruling. Opposing Aldasoro are Giovani Pavlinch and other unnamed defendants, collectively referred to as the appellees in this legal action. The designation of 'et al.' alongside Giovani Pavlinch indicates that multiple parties are defending the original judgment against Aldasoro's appeal.

The initial proceedings that are now subject to appellate review were overseen by The Honorable Michael D. Gordon, Judge, Retired, in the Superior Court. The involvement of Juan Aldasoro and Giovani Pavlinch in this appellate dispute highlights the ongoing legal processes within the state's judicial system, where parties can seek redress from higher courts following trial court decisions.

The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, issued its opinion in *Aldasaro v. Pavlinch* on September 24, 2026. The opinion reveals that Juan Aldasoro appealed the superior court's entry of summary judgment against him on his negligence claim against the City of Phoenix and Officer Giovani Pavlinch, based on common law qualified immunity. The appellate court held that police officers do not enjoy common law qualified immunity from negligence claims and that A.R.S. § 28-624 does not grant statutory immunity but sets forth a standard of due care. Consequently, the court reversed the superior court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

This article merely identifies a new appellate filing in Arizona. Without the full opinion or details of the legal issues involved, there are no practical implications or actionable insights for lawyers or compliance officers at this stage.

Source: Original reporting via court filing.