Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00319/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00319-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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 

David Bryant and Andrea Bryant, 

individually and as husband and wife, 

Plaintiffs,

vs. 

The City of Goodyear; William R. Newman, 

Jr. and Jane Doe Newman, husband and 

wife; Mark Brown and Jane Doe Brown, 

husband and wife; Ralph McLaughlin and 

Jane Doe McLaughlin, husband and wife; 

and Jeff Rogers and Jane Doe Rogers, 

husband and wife, 

Defendants.

NO. CV-12-00319-PHX-JAT

Pending before the Court are: (1) Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery and 

Dispositive Motion Deadline (Doc. 90) and (2) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of 

the Court’s May 6, 2013 Order or alternatively Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief Reinstating 

Some State Claims Against Newman, McLaughlin (Doc. 85). The Court now rules on the 

Motions. 

I. Background 

On February 15, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants (Doc. 1). On 

June 5, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Defendants (Doc. 6). On June 

7, 2012, the Amended Complaint was served on all Defendants, except for Defendant 

Case 2:12-cv-00319-JAT Document 108 Filed 08/07/13 Page 1 of 7
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

 

Brown, who waived service on June 13, 2012. (Doc. 7-15). On September 14, 2012, 

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 30) and a Motion for Summary Judgment 

(Doc. 31). On May 6, 2013, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

in part and denied it in part and granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ 

amended complaint. (Doc. 81). In that Order, the Court gave Plaintiffs leave to amend 

their Amended Complaint and extended the discovery deadline to August 1, 2013 and the 

dispositive motion deadline to August 30, 2013. (Id.). 

On May 28, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. On June 19, 

2013, Defendants moved to dismiss twenty-three of the twenty-five counts of the Second 

Amended Complaint. (Doc. 89). 

 II. Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadline 

 Defendants seek a stay of the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines until the 

Court has ruled on their Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs 

object to a stay and an open-ended discovery extension and argue that further delay in the 

case would be unfair. 

 Defendants’ request that this case be stayed is denied. However, in order to give 

the Court time to analyze Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, which has only been fully 

briefed since August 1, 2013, the Court will extend the discovery and dispositive motion 

deadlines as follows: all discovery, including depositions of parties, witnesses, and 

experts, answers to interrogatories, and supplements to interrogatories must be completed 

by October 30, 2013 and all dispositive motions shall be filed no later than December 6, 

2013. Such motions must be, in all respects, in full compliance with the Civil Local Rules. 

III. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s May 6, 2013 

 Order or alternatively Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief Reinstating Some 

 State Claims Against Newman, McLaughlin 

Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of part of the Court’s May 6, 2013 Order. In their 

Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants argued that Plaintiffs’ state law claims should 

be dismissed against Defendants Newman and Brown because Plaintiffs failed to properly 

comply with Arizona’s Notice of Claim Statute, Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-

Case 2:12-cv-00319-JAT Document 108 Filed 08/07/13 Page 2 of 7
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

 

821.01(A). In its May 6, 2013 Order, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment on that argument because Plaintiffs filed their complaint prior to serving their 

Notice of Claim on Defendants Newman and Brown. The Court specifically found: 

 Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on February 15, 

2012. Plaintiffs served their notice of claim on Defendants 

Newman and McLaughlin on March 6, 2012. Plaintiffs argue 

that “[t]he original complaint in this matter was filed on 

February 15, 2012 as a placeholder to avoid potential statute 

of limitations issues while the Bryants finalized their Notice of 

Claim.” (Doc. 40 at 3). In Reply, Defendants argue that 

section 12-821.01 requires that the claim be submitted and 

rejected before a lawsuit is filed. 

 Indeed, “[b]efore initiating an action for damages 

against a public entity, a claimant must provide a notice of 

claim to the entity in compliance with Arizona Revised 

Statutes (A.R.S.) section 12–821.01 (2003).” Deer Valley 

Unified School Dist. No. 97 v. Houser, 152 P.3d 490, 

491 (Ariz. 2007). “The statutory requirements serve several 

important functions: They ‘allow the public entity to 

investigate and assess liability, . . . permit the possibility of 

settlement prior to litigation, and . . . assist the public entity in 

financial planning and budgeting.’” Id. at 492 (internal 

citations omitted) (alterations in original). 

 Compliance with the notice provision of § 

12–821.01(A) is a mandatory and essential 

prerequisite to such an action. Failure to comply 

with the statute is not cured by actual notice or 

substantial compliance. Rather, plaintiff’s 

failure bars any claim against the entity or 

employee. 

Harris v. Cochise Health Systems, 160 P.3d 223, 230 (Ariz. 

Ct. App. 2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted) 

(emphasis in original). 

Accordingly, because Plaintiffs filed suit before serving 

their notice of claim, Plaintiffs did not comply with Arizona 

Revised Statutes section 12-821.01 and, thus, their state law 

claims are barred. See Andress v. City of Chandler, 115, 7 

P.3d 121, 124 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000) (finding that allowing 

Case 2:12-cv-00319-JAT Document 108 Filed 08/07/13 Page 3 of 7
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 

4

 

plaintiff to file their lawsuit before serving public entities or 

their employee defendants with a notice of claim “would 

clearly defeat the pre-litigation notification and settlement 

purposes of the notice of claim statute”); Arizona Dep’t. of 

Revenue v. Dougherty, 29 P.3d 862, 867 (Ariz. 2001) (stating 

that “the general claim statute requires exhaustion before 

action by making clear that no action may be maintained 

against a public entity without first filing a notice of claim.”) 

(internal citation omitted).FN1 

FN1 The following unpublished opinions from 

the Arizona Court of Appeals have all reached 

the same conclusion: Goldwater v. Parzych, No. 

CA-CV 07-0060, 2007 WL 5471738, at *2 

(Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2007) (holding that 

where notice of claim was served after Plaintiff 

filed his complaint, Plaintiff’s notice of claim 

was untimely as a matter of law and barred by 

section 12-821.01 because “Arizona courts have 

interpreted the claims statute, in accordance with 

the purpose of the statute, to require that a notice 

of claim must be filed and rejected by the public 

entity or public employee before a lawsuit can 

be filed.”) (internal citation omitted) (emphasis 

in original); Desert Heritage Ltd. Partnership v. 

City of Tucson, No. CA-CV 2009-0176, 2010 

WL 1931682, at *5 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 13, 

2010) (reasoning that reading of section 12-

821.01 that would require parties to file claim 

notices after litigation had begun would 

“render[] meaningless the purpose of § 12-

821.01”); Smith v. Johnston, Nos. 2 CA-CV 

2007-0145, 2 CA CV 2007-0061, 2008 WL 

4292735, at *3 (Ariz. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2008) 

(finding that “permitting a plaintiff to use his 

complaint as a notice of claim would wholly 

defeat the [purposes of the] statute”) (internal 

citation omitted). 

 Although the Court is not permitted to 

rely on these opinions under the Arizona Rules 

of Civil Procedure, the Court adopts the 

underlying reasoning in those opinions as an 

accurate statement of Arizona law. 

Case 2:12-cv-00319-JAT Document 108 Filed 08/07/13 Page 4 of 7
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 

5

 

Accordingly, the state law claims as asserted against 

Defendants McLaughlin and Newman for malicious 

prosecution, defamation, abuse of process, false light/invasion 

of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, 

negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence per se, 

and negligence are dismissed. 

(Doc. 81 at 8-9). 

 Plaintiffs argue that the Court should reconsider its ruling because the “basis for 

the Court’s ruling only arose in Defendants’ Reply [and] Plaintiffs had no opportunity to 

provide all applicable facts.” (Doc. 85 at 2). 

 While Plaintiffs overstate the extent to which Defendants’ argument was raised for 

the first time in reply, the exact nuance of Defendants’ argument that the Court’s ruling 

was based on was raised by Defendants as a reply to an argument Plaintiffs made in their 

response. Accordingly, the Court will consider Plaintiffs’ arguments that the Court erred 

in finding that they did not properly comply with Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-

821.01(A). 

 Plaintiffs argue that they complied with Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-

821.01(A) because they did not serve their original complaint and only served their 

amended complaint after their notice of claim was denied. Plaintiffs argue that the plain 

language of Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-821.01(A) does not require that the 

notice of claim be served and disallowed before a complaint is filed. Plaintiffs further 

argue that, by filing an amended complaint after the notice of claim was denied, the 

amended complaint superseded the original complaint and, thus, this lawsuit was not 

“filed” until the amended complaint was filed. Plaintiffs also argue that the legislative 

intent and purpose of the statute were met in this case because Defendants were given 

more than 60 days to consider the Bryant’s demand, investigate, budget if necessary, and 

settle with the Bryants prior to engaging in any litigation. 

 In Response, Defendants argue that Arizona case law has interpreted the Notice of 

Claim statute as requiring that a notice of claim be served and disallowed before a lawsuit 

Case 2:12-cv-00319-JAT Document 108 Filed 08/07/13 Page 5 of 7
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 

6

 

is filed. Defendants further argue that there is no substantive difference between 

Plaintiffs’ original complaint and the amended complaint and, regardless of any 

difference, this case was filed before the notice of claim was served and disallowed as 

required by Arizona case law. 

 In Reply, Plaintiffs argue that this case is exceptional and they should not be held 

to the requirement that a claim must be filed and disallowed before a lawsuit may be 

maintained. 

 As noted above, Plaintiffs argue that, by filing an amended complaint after the 

notice of claim was denied, the amended complaint superseded the original complaint and, 

thus, this lawsuit was not “filed” until the amended complaint was filed. While it is true 

that, under federal law, the amended complaint superseded the original complaint, an 

amended complaint does not change the filing date of the lawsuit. To hold otherwise 

would mean that every time an amended complaint is filed, the Court would have to do a 

new statute of limitations analysis for claims asserted in the original complaint and 

reasserted in the amended complaint. Plaintiff has cited to no case law, and the Court can 

find no case law, where the filing date of the lawsuit is recalculated based on the filing of 

an amended complaint. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ argument that the date of the lawsuit is 

recalculated based on the filing of an amended complaint is belied by their argument that 

they filed their original complaint as a placeholder to avoid potential statute of limitations 

issues. Accordingly, the date of the filing of the original complaint is the day this lawsuit 

was filed. 

 Plaintiffs’ argument that the Arizona notice of claim statute does not by its terms 

require that the notice of claim be served and disallowed before a lawsuit may be filed is 

similarly unpersuasive. As discussed at length in the Court’s May 6, 2013 Order, 

numerous Arizona cases, including Arizona Supreme Court cases, have interpreted 

Arizona’s notice of claim statute as requiring a claim to be filed and disallowed before a 

lawsuit may be filed. Even if this Court were to disagree with that interpretation, this 

Court cannot replace its own opinion for that of the opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court 

interpreting an Arizona statute. 

Case 2:12-cv-00319-JAT Document 108 Filed 08/07/13 Page 6 of 7
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 

7

 

 Although Plaintiff argues that this case should be an exception to the general rule 

that a notice of claim must be served and disallowed before a lawsuit is filed because it 

does not implicate the policy reasons behind requiring a notice of claim to be served and 

disallowed before filing a lawsuit, as noted in the Court’s May 6, 2013 Order, Arizona 

courts have been clear that “[f]ailure to comply with the statute is not cured by actual 

notice or substantial compliance. Rather, plaintiff’s failure bars any claim against the 

entity or employee.” Harris v. Cochise Health Systems, 160 P.3d 223, 230 (Ariz. Ct. App. 

2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs are not entitled to a special exception to the requirements of Arizona Revised 

Statutes section 12-821.01(A) in this case. 

 IV. Conclusion 

Based on the foregoing, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery and Dispositive 

Motion Deadline (Doc. 90) is granted in part and denied in part as follows: Defendants’ 

Motion to Stay this case is denied. IT IS ORDERED amending the Court’s Scheduling 

Order (Doc. 23) as follows: IT IS ORDERED that all discovery, including depositions 

of parties, witnesses, and experts, answers to interrogatories, and supplements to 

interrogatories must be completed by October 30, 2013. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED 

that all dispositive motions shall be filed no later than December 6, 2013. Such motions 

must be, in all respects, in full compliance with the Civil Local Rules. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the 

Court’s May 6, 2013 Order or alternatively Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief Reinstating 

Some State Claims Against Newman, McLaughlin (Doc. 85) is denied. 

 Dated this 6th day of August, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-00319-JAT Document 108 Filed 08/07/13 Page 7 of 7