Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00198/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00198-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dorothy O’Connell, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

David R. Smith, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0198-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Currently before this Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 68) and

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Suggested

Wording of Certified Questions Requested by the Court One Day Late (Doc. 70). After

considering the motions the Court issues the following Order.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On February 3, 1997, Dorothy O’Connell (“Plaintiff”) was hired by Dr. Phillip Keen,

the duly authorized Maricopa County Medical Examiner, as the Deputy Director of the

Office of Medical Examiner of Maricopa County. (Doc. 7, ¶1.) On February 12, 1997,

Plaintiff’s appointment by Dr. Keen as Deputy Director of the Office of Medical Examiner

(OME) was approved by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. (Id., ¶2.) On October

27, 2005, Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave by Defendant Smith, County

Manager, and terminated effective June 30, 2006, as part of the reorganization of the Office

Case 2:07-cv-00198-SMM Document 72 Filed 01/02/08 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 2 -

of Medical Examiner. (Id., ¶3.) Plaintiff’s termination as Deputy Director of the Office of

Medical Examiner was allegedly “against [the] wishes” of Dr. Keen. (Id., ¶4 and Ex. 2, ¶6.)

DISCUSSION

Questions to Certify

The Court has determined that the following questions will be certified to the Arizona

Supreme Court:

1. Under the former A.R.S. § 11-594(B)(1), who had the legal authority to

terminate the employment of a deputy director of a county office of medical

examiner? (e.g. was it limited to the Maricopa County Medical Examiner, or

did it permit the Maricopa County Manager or Board of Supervisors to

terminate the employment of a deputy director of a county office of Medical

Examiner regardless any objection by the Maricopa County Medical

Examiner)

2. In light of the fact that the prohibition against retroactive application of

statutory amendments is not absolute, should the newly amended version of

A.R.S. § 11-594(B)(1) be given retroactive effect? (e.g. should it be applied

retroactively to the termination of employment of [a deputy director of a

county office of Medical Examiner] effective June 30, 2006?)

3. May a public entity waive the issue of the insufficiency of a notice of claim

because the basis for the alleged insufficiency is not specifically pleaded in its

answer? 

Motion for Reconsideration

With regard to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, minimal research has revealed

that the Arizona District Courts have adequately set forth what the inclination of the Arizona

Supreme Court is with regard to the retroactive application of Deer Valley. For example, in

Florian v. Perkinson 2007 WL 1317263, *3 (D.Ariz.) (D.Ariz.,2007), the court cited to Deer

Valley for the exact assertion set forth by Defendants. The court explained, “the Arizona

Supreme Court recently held that the notice of claim statute clearly and unequivocally

instructs claimants to not only ‘include a particular and certain amount of money that, if

Case 2:07-cv-00198-SMM Document 72 Filed 01/02/08 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 3 -

agreed to by the government entity, will settle the claim,’ but also to ‘present facts supporting

that amount.’” Florian v. Perkinson 2007 WL 1317263, *3 (D.Ariz. 2007)(citing Deer

Valley Unified Sch. Dist. v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, ----, 152 P.3d 490, 493 (2007)). In

Florian, Deer Valley was retroactively applied to facts that undisputedly occurred in 2004.

The fact that the issue of retroactive application of Deer Valley was not specifically discussed

in the opinion is irrelevant in that the case was in fact applied retroactively.

Furthermore, as the Court stated in its previous Order, the Arizona Supreme Court did

not specifically articulate that its decision was to have prospective effect only. In fact, to the

contrary, the Arizona Supreme Court applied its decision to the parties in Deer Valley, 152

P.2d at 496. Pursuant to the presumptive rule regarding the retroactive application of judicial

opinions explained in the Court’s previous Order, it follows that unless the presumption is

overcome, the decision must be applied retroactively to cases such as the present one, which

was “pending at the time of its issuance but arising from earlier operative facts.” Zavala v.

Arizona State Pers. Bd., 159 Ariz. 256, 265, 766 P.2d 608, 616 (App. 1988). The Court finds

that to date, Plaintiff has yet to overcome this presumption. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

(Doc. 68).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING in part and DENYING in part

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Suggested

Wording of Certified Questions Requested by the Court One Day Late (Doc. 70). It is

GRANTED insofar as the Court considered the motion. It is DENIED insofar as the Court

does not intend to certify Plaintiff’s specific questions.

Case 2:07-cv-00198-SMM Document 72 Filed 01/02/08 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 1The issues raised in the motion are directly related to the issues to be resolved

by the Arizona Supreme Court, and therefore they are not yet ripe for determination by

this Court. 

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13)

without prejudice, with leave to re-file if necessary subsequent to the certification of the

questions to the Arizona Supreme Court.1

 

DATED this 2nd day of January, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00198-SMM Document 72 Filed 01/02/08 Page 4 of 4