One of the four elements for the doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion under Arizona law is previous case. Did the lower court err or alternatively abuse its discretion in granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment, based on Defendants' response using collateral estoppel, where the record showed Plaintiff's Arizona case was contemporaneously filed and therefore there was no prior decision that existed at the time Plaintiff filed this case?

Whether the lower court erred or abused its discretion in granting summary judgment based on collateral estoppel where the record showed the Arizona case was contemporaneously filed and there was no prior decision at the time the current case was filed