Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02632/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02632-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

LESLIE NICOLE BROWN, a single 

woman, and BOBBIE WALKER, a 

single woman, 

Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

CITY OF CHANDLER and CITY OF 

CHANDLER POLICE 

DEPARTMENT; CITY OF PHOENIX 

and CITY OF PHOENIX POLICE 

DEPARTMENT; TIM CLICK AND 

JANE DOE CLICK, husband and wife; 

DAVID PILKINGTON AND JANE 

DOE PILKINGTON, husband and wife; 

JOHN AND JANE DOES I-X AND 

BLACK AND WHITE COMPANIES IX. 

Defendants. 

No. CV 12-02632-PHX-JAT 

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Defendants City of Chandler, Click, and Pilkington’s 

(“the Chandler Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Counts (Doc. 4) and Defendants City of 

Phoenix and Phoenix Police Department’s (collectively “Phoenix”) Motion to Dismiss 

parties (Doc. 6). Plaintiffs have filed a single Response to both motions to dismiss (Doc. 

10). Phoenix has filed a Reply (Doc. 11). 

WO 

Case 2:12-cv-02632-JAT Document 15 Filed 06/24/13 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

I. BACKGROUND 

 This case arises out of the events that occurred in the early morning hours of July 

27, 2010. Plaintiff Brown was driving Plaintiff Walker’s car in a residential 

neighborhood close to Plaintiff Brown’s residence. Defendants Click and Pilkington are 

members of the Glendale Police department and were involved in an undercover police 

operation with the Chandler and Phoenix Police departments that erupted in gunfire and 

police officers began pursuing suspects fleeing the scene. (Doc. 1-1 at 3). Plaintiff 

Brown was pulled over and detained by Defendants Click and Pilkington on suspicion of 

being involved. Plaintiff Brown was eventually released and Plaintiff Walker’s car was 

impounded and returned to Plaintiffs the next day. 

 On July 29, 2012, Plaintiffs filed the pending suit in State Superior Court making 

ten claims against Defendants, which included: (1) Count One against Defendant City of 

Phoenix for negligence; (2) Count Two against all other Defendants for negligence; (3) 

Count Three for negligent infliction of emotional distress; (4) Count Four for intentional 

infliction of emotional distress; (5) Count Five for false arrest and imprisonment; (6) 

Count Six for assault; (7) Count Seven for general allegations of civil rights violations 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (8) Count Eight for failure to train and implement appropriate 

policies, customs, and practices under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (9) Count Nine for use of 

excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (10) Count Ten for false arrest under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1-1 at 2-14). The Defendants subsequently removed this case to 

the Federal District Court on December, 11, 2012. (Doc. 1). 

 On the same day, the Chandler Defendants filed their pending motion to dismiss. 

(Doc. 4). On December 14, 2012, Phoenix filed its pending motion to dismiss. (Doc. 6). 

Plaintiffs filed one Response to both motions to dismiss. (Doc. 10). Only Phoenix filed 

a Reply. (Doc. 11 at 2). 

II. ANALYSIS 

A. Chandler Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) 

 The Chandler Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss Counts Two through Six 

Case 2:12-cv-02632-JAT Document 15 Filed 06/24/13 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 4). Plaintiffs have explicitly stated that “they do not 

currently oppose the Motions [to dismiss] filed by each of the Defendants.” (Doc. 10 at 

1). Plaintiffs’ only request is that any dismissal of any claims or parties be without 

prejudice. (Id.). The Chandler Defendants have not filed a Reply in response to 

Plaintiffs’ request. Accordingly, the Court grants the Chandler Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss Counts Two through Six. This leaves Counts Seven through Ten still pending in 

this case against the Chandler Defendants. 

B. Phoenix’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) 

 Phoenix has filed a motion to dismiss all claims against the City of Phoenix and 

the Phoenix Police Department. (Doc. 6). As with the Chandler Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss, Plaintiffs do not oppose Phoenix’s motion either. (Doc. 10 at 1). However, 

Plaintiffs’ request, that any dismissal of claims or parties be without prejudice, is 

opposed by Phoenix in its Reply. Phoenix does not oppose dismissal without prejudice 

against the City of Phoenix. (Doc. 11 at 2). However, Phoenix requests that dismissal of 

the Phoenix Police Department be with prejudice because the Police Department is a 

non-jural entity not subject to suit in any form. (Id.). 

 The Court has held before that the Phoenix Police Department is a subpart of the 

City of Phoenix and not a separate entity for purposes of suit. Gotbaum v. City of Phx., 

617 F. Supp. 2d 878, 886 (D. Ariz. 2008). Consequently, the Phoenix Police 

Department will be dismissed from this case with prejudice. 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 2:12-cv-02632-JAT Document 15 Filed 06/24/13 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

III. CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant City of Chandler, Defendants Click, and 

Defendants Pilkington’s Motion to Dismiss Counts Two through Six (Doc. 4) is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants City of Phoenix and the Phoenix 

Police Department’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is granted. The City of Phoenix is 

dismissed without prejudice the Phoenix Police Department is dismissed with prejudice. 

 Dated this 24th day of June, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-02632-JAT Document 15 Filed 06/24/13 Page 4 of 4