Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02093/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02093-0/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tamicia Currie, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Community College

District; Marvin Shapiro, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-2093-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendant Maricopa County Community College District’s

(“MCCCD”) motion for judgment on the pleadings (doc. 13), plaintiff’s response (doc. 14),

and MCCCD’s reply (doc. 15). 

Plaintiff filed a complaint on October 16, 2007, alleging sexual harassment and

educational discrimination against MCCCD and instructor Marvin Shaprio. She also alleged

state law claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and

“personal injury.” (doc. 1, exhibit B). Plaintiff claims that Shapiro began harassing her

during classes in the fall of 2005, and continuing into the fall of 2006. She alleges that she

was forced to withdraw from classes during the fall of 2006, and suffered personal injury and

damage to her business as a result of defendants’ actions.

Case 2:07-cv-02093-FJM Document 18 Filed 03/28/08 Page 1 of 3
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 -

MCCCD argues that plaintiff’s state law claims are barred because she failed to

comply with the notice requirements of A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A). Under Arizona’s notice of

claim statute, a plaintiff with a claim against a public entity or employee must first file a

notice of claim with the person authorized to accept service on behalf of that entity or

employee within 180 days after the cause of action accrues. Id. Compliance with the notice

provision is a "mandatory and essential prerequisite," Martineau v. Maricopa County, 207

Ariz. 332, 334, 86 P.3d 912, 914 (Ct. App. 2004), and a plaintiff's failure to comply bars any

claim. Falcon v. Maricopa County, 213 Ariz. 525, 527, 144 P.3d 1254, 1256 (2006). 

Plaintiff sent a notice of claim pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) on June 25, 2007.

Amended Complaint ¶ 22. In that notice, she alleged that her cause of action occurred on

November 14, 2006. Amended Answer, ex. A. Therefore, under § 12-821.01(A), plaintiff

was required to file her notice of claim no later than May 14, 2007. Because she did not file

her notice until June 25, 2007, some 42 days late, her state law claims are barred by A.R.S.

§ 12-821.01(A). 

Plaintiff claims for the first time in her response to defendants’ motion that the time

to file her notice of claim should be tolled because she suffered “severe depression” and was

“mentally paralyzed” for approximately seven weeks as a result of the harassment, rendering

her “insane or incompetent” under A.R.S. § 12-821.01(D). Plaintiff’s Response at 4. She

claims that she began “steps to recovery” and regained “mental stability” on or about January

8, 2007. Id. However, her amended complaint establishes that during this same period she

sent a formal certified complaint to Kay Martens, Chief Director of Student Affairs at South

Mountain Community College; “persistently pursued the offices of Kay Martens” demanding

that her claims be addressed; met with Kay Martens regarding her complaint; contacted the

Maricopa Community College legal department twice in pursuit of her claim; and withdrew

from South Mountain Community College and enrolled at another community college.

Amended Complaint ¶¶ 12-19. These activities belie her claim that she was insane,

incompetent, or otherwise unable to manage her affairs or understand her legal rights such

that she is entitled to equitable tolling of the notice of claim statute. 

Case 2:07-cv-02093-FJM Document 18 Filed 03/28/08 Page 2 of 3
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 -

Because plaintiff failed to comply with the 180-day filing deadline set forth in § 12-

821.01(A), and because she has failed to establish that she is entitled to equitable tolling

under § 12-821.01(D), we conclude that plaintiff’s state law claims are barred.

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING MCCCD’s motion for judgment on the pleadings

with respect to the state law claims (doc. 13). 

DATED this 27th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02093-FJM Document 18 Filed 03/28/08 Page 3 of 3