Pfp dorsey/dorsey Place v. cao/xia

CourtArizona Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 20, 2025
DocketCV-25-0071
StatusUnknown

This text of Pfp dorsey/dorsey Place v. cao/xia (Pfp dorsey/dorsey Place v. cao/xia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pfp dorsey/dorsey Place v. cao/xia, (Ark. 2025).

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA

PFP DORSEY INVESTMENTS, LLC, a ) Arizona Supreme Court Delaware limited liability ) No. CV-25-0071-PR company; DORSEY PLACE ) CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, an ) Court of Appeals Arizona nonprofit corporation, ) Division One ) No. 1 CA-SA 25-0015 Petitioners, ) ) Maricopa County v. ) Superior Court ) No. CV2019-055353 JIE CAO and HAINING “FRAZER” XIA, ) a married couple, ) ) FILED 08/20/2025 Respondents. ) ) __________________________________)

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on a Petition for Review

seeking clarification of this Court’s Mandate issued in Cao et

al. v. PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC et al., 257 Ariz. 82 (2024).

This Court issued its Mandate on May 16, 2024, stating in

relevant part, “This Court, having considered the case, filed

its opinion on March 22, 2024, vacating the court of appeals’

decision, affirming the trial court except as to the issues

encompassed in Part II of this Opinion, and remanding to that

court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.”

Upon remand, Petitioners PFP Dorsey Investments, LLC and

Dorsey Place Condominium Association (collectively “Dorsey”)

took the position that this Court had affirmed the superior

court’s dismissal of Respondents Jie Cao and Haining “Frazer” Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-25-0071-PR Page 2 of 5

Xia’s (“the Xias”) claims, and that the only remaining issue to

be determined was the fair market value of the condominium unit

previously owned by the Xias. The Xias took the position that

all their previously dismissed claims had been reinstated on

remand.

Dorsey filed a motion to compel arbitration of the

valuation issue, pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1228 and the

Condominium Termination Agreement. In a minute entry dated

August 8, 2024, the superior court denied Dorsey’s motion to

compel arbitration. The Xias then filed a motion for leave to

file a Third Amended Complaint, realleging all their previously

dismissed claims and adding an additional party. In a minute

entry dated December 3, 2024, the superior court granted the

Xias’ motion.

Dorsey filed a Petition for Special Action in the court of

appeals, arguing that the superior court’s rulings were not

consistent with the Mandate, and seeking clarification

regarding how the Mandate should be interpreted and applied. On

February 25, 2025, the court of appeals entered an order

declining jurisdiction.

On March 19, 2025, Dorsey filed a “Petition for Review of

a Special Action Decision of the Court of Appeals,” seeking Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-25-0071-PR Page 3 of 5

clarification of this Court’s Mandate. On May 1, 2024, the Xias

filed “Respondents/Plaintiffs Jie Cao and Haining ‘Frazer’

Xia’s Response to Petition for Review.”

Upon consideration by the entire Court,

IT IS ORDERED that Dorsey’s “Petition for Review of a

Special Action Decision of the Court of Appeals” is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED clarifying that pursuant to this

Court’s Mandate issued in Cao on May 16, 2024, the trial court

is affirmed and the sole remaining issue to be determined is

the fair market value of the Xias’ condominium unit, to be paid

to the Xias as their total compensation in this matter.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the superior court’s Minute

Entry re: Under Advisement Ruling dated August 8, 2024 and

Minute Entry dated December 3, 2024 are vacated.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the

superior court for the parties to engage in final and binding

arbitration, as set forth in A.R.S. § 33-1228 and the

Condominium Termination Agreement, to determine the fair market

value of the Xias’ unit. Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-25-0071-PR Page 4 of 5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Dorsey reasonable attorney

fees incurred.

DATED this 20th day of August, 2025.

/s/ ANN A. SCOTT TIMMER Chief Justice Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-25-0071-PR Page 5 of 5

TO:

Louis D Lopez Charles E Markle Andrew B Haynes Eric M Fraser Matthew J Martin Hon. M Scott McCoy Hon. Joseph W Malka Hon. Pamela S Gates Raymond L Billotte Hon. Danielle J Viola West Publishing Company Lexis Nexis

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 33-1228
Arizona § 33-1228

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Pfp dorsey/dorsey Place v. cao/xia, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pfp-dorseydorsey-place-v-caoxia-ariz-2025.