Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-01184/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-01184-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

Anita Pitroff,

Plaintiff, 

v.

Yavapai County Board of Supervisors,

Chip Davis and Lorna Street, 

 

 Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1184-PCT-MHM

 

ORDER

The Yavapai County Board of Supervisors, Chip Davis, and Lorna Street (“the 

Defendants”) have moved for partial reconsideration of this Court’s August 7, 2008 Order.

(Dkt. #37). Having considered the Defendants’ arguments, and finding a Response

unnecessary, the Court amends its August 7, 2008 Order as follows.

Notice of Claim

The Defendants argued previously that the Plaintiff’s state law claims must be

dismissed for failure to properly follow Arizona’s “Notice of Claim Statute.” (Dkt. #29);

A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A). The Defendants asserted that the deficiencies in the Plaintiff’s

Notice of Claim required dismissal of her state law claims, including her Whistle-Blower

claim, pursuant to Deer Valley v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293 (2007). 

The Court partially granted the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on August 7, 2008.

(Dkt. #36). The Court denied, however, dismissal of the Plaintiff’s state law claims on the

Case 3:06-cv-01184-MHM Document 38 Filed 08/21/08 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

1

The Notice of Claim was properly filed as an Exhibit to the Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt.

#29). The Court believes that the confusion may arise from the fact that the argument section

of the Defendants’ Motion fails to cite to the Notice of Claim document when discussing and

quoting from it.

- 2 -

mistaken conclusion that the actual Notice of Claim was not part of the record before it. (See

Order p. 4-5, Dkt. #36). The Defendants moved for partial reconsideration of the Order on

the basis that the Notice of Claim is in fact part of the record for the Court to review. (Dkt.

#37).1

 Having reviewed the Notice of Claim and the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that

dismissal of state law claims is mandated by Deer Valley v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293 (2007).

 In Deer Valley v. Houser, the Arizona Supreme Court established that compliance

with the statutory requirements of the Notice of Claim statute is strictly construed. 214 Ariz.

293, 299 (2007). The Deer Valley court dismissed the plaintiff’s state law claims because

her Notice of Claim failed to comply with the statutory requirements of the claim statute. Id.

at 297. The Notice did not comply with the statute because 1) it used qualifying language,

such as “approximately,” “no less than,” and “at least”; and 2) it failed to set forth a specific

amount for which the plaintiff was willing to settle her claims. Id. 

The court clarified and corrected the appropriate interpretation of the Notice of Claim

statute. It stated:

The notice of claim statute is clear and unequivocal. The statute

instructs that a claim “shall also contain a specific amount for

which the claim can be settled and the facts supporting that

amount . . . The attendant statutory obligation that claimants

present “facts supporting that amount” requires that claimants

explain the amounts identified in the claim by providing the

government entity with a factual foundation to permit the entity

to evaluate the amount claimed. This latter requirement ensures

that claimants will not demand unfounded amounts that

constitute “quick unrealistic exaggerated demands.”

Id. at 296 (citations omitted).

The Defendants argue here that the Plaintiff’s claim is deficient in precisely the same

manner as the claim described in Deer Valley. Although the subject notice of the claim lists

that the Plaintiff is asserting five causes of action, there are no facts to support liability

Case 3:06-cv-01184-MHM Document 38 Filed 08/21/08 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

- 3 -

beyond the statement that the Plaintiff was an employee and “was forced to resign her

position.” (Dkt. #29, Exhibit 1). The Notice of Claim does not contain a sum certain that

the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors may pay to settle the case. The Notice demands

money for lost salary, punitive damages, costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, but does not

provide any facts supporting the claimed losses and fails to specify a dollar amount for any

of these categories. (Id.) Finally, the Notice states that it seeks “recovery of any and all

compensation for lost wages and benefits since on or about May 2, 2005,” and also seeks

“general damages in an amount of not less than $250,000 . . ..” Id. This phraseology,

according to the Defendants, is exactly what the Deer Valley court finds insufficient to

comply with the statutory requirements. (Dkt. #29). 

The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s Notice of Claim is insufficient under the strict

construction announced in Deer Valley. The Plaintiff fails to set forth a specific amount for

which her claim can be settled, and provides no factual foundation to permit the Defendants

to evaluate the veracity of the claim and amount of damages the Plaintiff claims to have

sustained. Her claim for general damages “in an amount of not less than $250,000.00” is

insufficiently specific to satisfy the Notice of Claim statute. Deer Valley, 214 Ariz. at 296

(finding a Notice of Claim insufficient based on the statement that damages for emotional

distress and harm to reputation were “no less than” $300,000 and $200,000 respectively.

“These statements simply do not define a specific amount that [the plaintiff] would have

accepted to resolve her dispute with the [defendant].”) The Court therefore finds that the

Plaintiff may not proceed with her state law causes of action, including her claim under

Arizona’s Whistle-Blower statute, A.R.S. § 38-531 et seq. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED granting the Defendants’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration.

(Dkt. #37). 

Case 3:06-cv-01184-MHM Document 38 Filed 08/21/08 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED amending the Court’s August 7, 2008 Order to

dismiss the Plaintiff’s state law claims against the Defendants. (Dkt. #36).

DATED this 20th day of August, 2008.

Case 3:06-cv-01184-MHM Document 38 Filed 08/21/08 Page 4 of 4