A legal battle over contract terms and payment disputes has taken center stage in Arizona’s appellate court system. Raba Kistner, Inc., a professional services firm, filed a complaint against Connect 202 Partners, LLC, alleging breach of contract and other claims. The case was filed in the Arizona Court of Appeals on February 12, 2026, following proceedings in the Superior Court of Maricopa County.
The dispute centers around a five-year commercial contract related to the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway Project. Raba Kistner entered into an agreement with Connect 202 Partners to provide quality assurance services for the construction project. The crux of the disagreement lies in Raba’s billing practices; specifically, Raba applied a labor multiplier to overtime hours despite the contract stating it should only apply to regular hours. When Connect conducted an audit two years into the agreement, they discovered this overbilling and began withholding payments to recoup the overpayments.
Raba Kistner contended that they did not overbill under the terms of their agreement and argued that even if they had, they should retain the payments under the voluntary payment doctrine. However, both parties’ motions for summary judgment led to mixed results in superior court. While Raba was initially awarded $1.95 million under this doctrine due to Connect’s lack of audit rights post-payment, Connect appealed this decision alongside other issues.
The appellate court ultimately reversed several key decisions from the lower court. It found that Connect indeed had audit rights per their contractual agreement and thus could reclaim overpayments made due to incorrect billing by Raba Kistner. Furthermore, it ruled that Raba could not rely on equitable estoppel as they failed to demonstrate any detrimental reliance on Connect’s previous conduct.
Raba’s cross-appeal concerning equitable estoppel was also dismissed by the appellate court which maintained that no substantial public policy considerations justified overriding explicit contractual terms between sophisticated commercial entities like Raba and Connect.
Both parties sought attorney fees and costs related to these proceedings; however, given its success on appeal, only Connect was granted these requests pending compliance with procedural rules.
This complex case highlights significant legal principles such as freedom of contract and limitations on doctrines like voluntary payment within business contexts where explicit audit rights are involved.
Representing Raba Kistner were attorneys from Holden Willits PLC in Phoenix along with Duane Morris LLP based out of Austin, Texas. On behalf of Connect 202 Partners were lawyers from Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP located in Phoenix. The opinion delivered by Judge David B. Gass saw concurrence from Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Chief Judge Randall M. Howe under Case ID No. 1 CA-CV 24-0072.
Source: 1CACV240072_Raba_Kistner_Inc_v_Connect_202_Partners_LLC_Complaint_Arizona_Court_of_Appeals.pdf