Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00937/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00937-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Allan U. Sobol,

Plaintiff, 

v.

Linda Grau, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-937-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Allan U. Sobol’s (“Plaintiff”) “Motion to Preclude

and Disqualify Attorney General” (Dkt. 8). Plaintiff seeks to preclude and disqualify the

Arizona Attorney General’s office from representing the Defendants in this action. In

support of his motion, Plaintiff cites Arizona Revised Statute § 41-192.02(A), which

states as follows:

The attorney general in his discretion is authorized to represent an officer or

employee of this state against whom a civil action is brought in his

individual capacity until such time as it is established as a matter of law that

the alleged activity or events which form the basis of the complaint were

not performed, or not directed to be performed, within the scope or course

of the officer’s or employee’s duty or employment. 

A.R.S. § 41-192.02(A).

Plaintiff asserts that, because the Complaint alleges that Defendants acted

outside the scope of their employment, the Attorney General’s office has no

authority to represent Defendants. Plaintiff misreads the above statute by

Case 2:07-cv-00937-SMM Document 11 Filed 06/02/08 Page 1 of 2
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 -

substituting “alleges” for “established.” (See Mot. at 2:25-3:2.) Thus, in Plaintiff’s view,

his allegations that Defendants acted outside the scope of their employment precludes and

disqualifies the Attorney General’s office. As shown by the text of the statute, Plaintiff is

mistaken. Plaintiff’s mere allegations being insufficient to establish as a matter of law

that the alleged activities occurred outside the scope or course of Defendants’ duties or

employment, representation of Defendants remains in the Attorney General’s discretion. 

Plaintiff’s motion will therefore be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude and

Disqualify Attorney General (Dkt. 8).

DATED this 2nd day of June, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00937-SMM Document 11 Filed 06/02/08 Page 2 of 2