Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00198/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00198-5/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, 

vs.

David R. Smith, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0198-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 3) filed by Defendants David

Smith, Don Stapley, Fulton Brock, Andrew Kunasek, Max W. Wilson, and Mary Rose

Wilcox. Defendants request that the Court dismiss them as individually named Defendants

from Counts One, Two, and Three of Plaintiff Dorothy O'Connell's First Amended Verified

Complaint. After careful consideration, the Court finds the following. 

I. Procedural Background

On September 29, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Verified Complaint for Declaratory Relief

against County Manager David Smith, Maricopa County, the Board of Supervisors, and all

five members of the Board of Supervisors. (Dkt. 1, Ex. 4.) On January 12, 2007, Plaintiff

filed a First Amended Complaint alleging eight additional claims, termination/no legal

authority; wrongful termination/whistleblower; civil rights violation (§1983); tortious

interference with contract; false light invasion of privacy; intentional infliction of emotional

distress; civil conspiracy; and punitive damages. (Dkt. 1, Ex. 9.) In addition, Plaintiff added

Case 2:07-cv-00198-SMM Document 32 Filed 04/23/07 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 -

the following defendants, Deputy County Manager Sandi Wilson, Deputy Budget Director

of the County’s Office of Management and Budget Christopher Bradley, and six County

employees (collectively, “Defendants”). 

Plaintiff has alleged wrongful termination claims against Maricopa County's Manager

and all five members of Maricopa County's Board of Supervisors, and each is an individually

named Defendant. 

On January 26, 2007, Defendants David Smith, Don Stapley, Fulton Brock, Andrew

Kunasek, Max W. Wilson, and Mary Rose Wilcox filed a Motion to Dismiss seeking to be

dismissed as individually named defendants from Counts One, Two, and Three. The motion

is now fully briefed and ripe for disposition.

II. Background Facts 

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. (Dkt. 7, ¶1.) On February 12, 1997,

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

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 of Medical

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

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

III. Discussion

Relying on the Plaintiff's counsel's response to Defendant's motion, the Court

concludes that Plaintiff has no objection to the dismissal of Defendants David Smith, Don

Stapley, Fulton Brock, Andrew Kunasek, Max W. Wilson, and Mary Rose Wilcox as

individually named defendants. Significantly, Plaintiff's counsel stated in the brief,

"[u]ndersigned counsel is puzzled by the fact that Counts One, Two, and Three do not

mention Defendants Don Stapley, Fulton Brock, Andrew Kunasek, Max W. Wilson, and

Case 2:07-cv-00198-SMM Document 32 Filed 04/23/07 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

 1Contrary to his previous assertion, Plaintiff's counsel later contends that "[n]o legal

basis exists to dismiss any of the individuals named in this motion or any of the other individuals

that counsel represents from the allegations against them in the complaint." (Doc. 9, p. 4).

- 3 -

Mary Rose Wilcox in any capacity...How can this Court Dismiss them as individually-named

defendants when they were not named in those counts at all?" (Doc. 9). Plaintiff's Counsel

continues by explaining that Count One is a declaratory Judgment Action requesting this

Court to construe specific Arizona law, namely, who has the legal authority to terminate the

contract employment of an employee of a county medical examiner. (Doc. 9). Plaintiff's

Counsel's brief provides in pertinent part:

Count Two is an action alleging breach of an employment contract between

the plaintiff Dorothy O'Connell and Maricopa county. Count Three is a tort

action for wrongful termination of the plaintiff Dorothy O'Connell's contract

of employment by Maricopa County. Defendant Smith is mentioned in Count

Three as the person who actually terminated the employment contract of

Dorothy. (Doc. 9)

Thus, from the language set forth by Plaintiff's counsel, it is evident that Plaintiff did

not intend to include Defendants David Smith, Don Stapley, Fulton Brock, Andrew

Kunasek, Max W. Wilson, and Mary Rose Wilcox as individually named defendants in

Counts One, Two, and Three. Notwithstanding Plaintiff's counsel's express assertion, he

nevertheless opposed the Motion to Dismiss, contending that it should be denied. Notably,

he concluded with, "[s]o the Court is left to speculate with undersigned counsel why the

County is asking for relief from something which does not exist..." 

In reviewing the record, the Court found that Counts One, Two, and Three do in fact

name the individual Defendants. Further, Counts Two and Three allege that Smith and the

Board of Directors have damaged Plaintiff "in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional

amount." Count One is simply a declaratory judgment action and therefore need only bind

the County. As to Counts two and three, the Court must reconcile Plaintiff's counsel's

previous statements regarding Plaintiff's intent not to include the Defendants individually

in the first three counts with his extensive objection to the Motion to Dismiss.1

Case 2:07-cv-00198-SMM Document 32 Filed 04/23/07 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 - 4 -

In lieu of providing the Court with a complete analysis of the relevant issues including

proper case analysis, the parties ostensibly chose to rely on arguments which did not fully

address the issues of personal liability. 

Consequently, before the Court can rule on this motion, the parties must analyze

specifically, with pinpoint citations to relevant authority, (1) whether a county manager and

members of a board of supervisors are immune from suit for breach of an employment

contract between a plaintiff and the county; and (2) whether a county manager and members

of a board of supervisors are immune from suit for wrongful termination of plaintiff's

contract of employment by the County.

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that parties shall file their supplemental briefs no later

than Friday, May 18, 2007.

DATED this 23rd day of April, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00198-SMM Document 32 Filed 04/23/07 Page 4 of 4