Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-01804/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-01804-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of 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

Tamara Sue DeBinder, et al ) No. CV 06-1804-PCT-PGR

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) ORDER

)

)

Albertson’s, Inc., et al. )

)

Defendants. )

___________________________)

Currently pending before the Court is City of Bullhead City Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss State Law Claims (Doc. 62).

II. INTRODUCTION

According to the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 34), Plaintiff Tamara DeBinder

was the subject of: a false arrest, malicious prosecution, civil rights violations, and

defamatory statements. Her husband, Plaintiff Brian Ray DeBinder, has brought a derivative

loss of consortium claim due to these alleged offenses. The Defendants’ present motion

addresses the claims brought by the Plaintiffs which are recognized under state law: false

arrest (Counts Twenty, Twenty-Five and Twenty-Nine), malicious prosecution (Counts

Twenty-One, Twenty-Six and Thirty), defamation (Counts Three and Thirty-One) and loss

of consortium (Counts Twenty-Four, Twenty-Eight and Thirty-Two).

Counsel for Plaintiffs mailed three Notices of Claim, purportedly in compliance with

A.R.S. § 12-821.01, on April 3, 2006, April 21, 2006 and May 12, 2006. The April 3 and

Case 3:06-cv-01804-PGR Document 111 Filed 03/26/08 Page 1 of 6
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 -

May 12, 2006 notices were mailed to the Bullhead City Manager, Tim Ernster. The April

21, 2006 letter was mailed to the Bullhead City Police Department to the attention of

Corporal Eric Clevinger. With respect to Defendant Bullhead City and Defendant Vaughan,

the Plaintiffs concede that notice was not served on the proper individuals as required by

Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Therefore, the state law claims against the City of

Bullhead City and Dispatcher Vaughan are hereby dismissed. However, the Plaintiffs oppose

the Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss the state law claims against Defendant Clevinger and

argue that notice was properly served on this individual and that all claims against him

should proceed. The Defendants argue that their Motion to Dismiss should be granted as to

Defendant Clevinger since the Plaintiffs failed to adhere to the applicable notice filing

requirements.

II. DISCUSSION

On a 12(b)(6) motion, when matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not

excluded by the Court, the motion is to be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed

of as provided by Rule 56. Pritchard v. State of Arizona, 788 P.2d 1178, 1184 (Ariz. 1990).

In this case, the Defendants attached to their motion, as Exhibit A, the three letters that

purport to be the Plaintiffs’ notices of claim. Since these documents will be considered by

the Court, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be construed as a motion for summary

judgment. 

A. Service 

Under applicable Arizona law, “[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 the

Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-821.01.” Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97

v. Houser, 152 P.3d 490, 491 (Ariz. 2007). A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) states in relevant part:

 Persons who have claims against a public entity or a public

employee shall file claims with the person or persons

authorized to accept service for the public entity or public

employee as set forth in the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure

within one hundred eighty days after the cause of action accrues.

Case 3:06-cv-01804-PGR Document 111 Filed 03/26/08 Page 2 of 6
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 -

Failure to comply with the statute bars a plaintiff from pursuing the underlying cause of

action. Id.; see Salerno v. Espinoza, 115 P.3d 626, 627-28 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005)

(compliance with the notice of claim statute mandatory and essential to maintaining an action

against a public employee); Crum v. Superior Court, 922 P.2d 1097, 1101 (Ariz. Ct. App.

1996); State v. Barnum, 118 P.2d 1097, 1101 (Ariz. 1941)(state cannot be sued except upon

its own terms and conditions). 

The Plaintiffs assert that they fulfilled their obligation to file a notice of claim by

sending their notice by certified mail to Defendant Eric Clevinger’s place of employment,

the Bullhead City Police Department. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs point out that it is

undisputed that such notice was received. In support of their position, the Plaintiffs rely on

Creasy v. Coxon, 750 P.2d 903 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). In Creasy, the Arizona Court of

Appeals addressed whether “§12-821.01(A) requires that notice of a claim be presented to

a public entity or public employee in the same manner as a summons and complaint must be

served in a civil action.” Id. at 904. The Court held that the notice of claim statute permitted

a claim to be filed by sending it through the mail as long as it is shown that delivery was

accomplished. Id. at 906.

The Defendants argue that Creasy is inapplicable to the case at hand as Bullhead City

Municipal Code 3.04.030(A) requires the service of notices of claim against the city. The

Defendants concede that Creasy properly interprets the language of §12-821.01(A), which

allows the filing of claims by mail; however, the Defendants maintain that the city code

requires any claim to be both filed and served on the city. Accordingly, Defendants assert

that the city’s service requirement prohibits notices of claim to be sent by mail, thus

Plaintiffs’ notice is defective. In support of their position, the Defendants point out that the

Arizona Supreme Court has clearly held that:

[b]oth a city and a state may legislate on the same subject when

that subject is of local concern or when, though the subject is not

of local concern, the charter or particular state legislation

confers on the city express power to legislate thereon. 

Case 3:06-cv-01804-PGR Document 111 Filed 03/26/08 Page 3 of 6
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 -

See Flagstaff Vending Co. v. City of Flagstaff, 578 P.2d 985, 988 (Ariz. 1978); Phoenix

Respirator & Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. McWilliams, 468 P.2d 951, 953 (Ariz. 1970).

According to the Defendants, how a municipality chooses to waive its sovereign immunity

is an area of local concern; therefore, there can be no doubt that the city has the right to pass

a more stringent notice of claim provision than the general provision applicable to actions

against the state. 

The Court finds the Defendants’ position persuasive. The Court disagrees with the

Plaintiff’s statement that there are no meaningful distinctions between A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A)

and the Bullhead City Municipal Code. Although the court in Creasy specifically stated that

§ 12-821.01(A) “does not require that a notice of claim be served in the same manner as a

civil summons and complaint,” this legal conclusion is not dispositive of the issue before this

Court. 750 P.2d at 906. Creasy addressed the requirement of the filing of a notice of claim

under A.R.S. § 12-821.01, and not the service of claims as required by the Bullhead City

Municipal Code. Clearly, the Plaintiff’s notice of claim was not properly served on Officer

Clevinger; therefore, the state law claims against him must be dismissed.

B. Proper Party

Next, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs failed to serve the proper party as the

notice of claim was sent to the “Bullhead City Police Department, Attn: Corporal Eric

Clevinger.” The Defendants contend that this is insufficient notice as these claims were to

be served on Defendant Clevinger personally. The Plaintiffs, however, oppose this argument

and maintain that Defendant Clevinger was, in fact, served personally at his place of

business. According to the Plaintiffs, the certified letter sent to Defendant Clevinger at his

place of employment was not service on the Bullhead City Police Department, but on Officer

Clevinger himself. As will be demonstrated below, the Court disagrees. 

 According to A.R.S. 12-821.01, a notice of claim must be “filed [] with the person

or person authorized to accept service . . .” A plaintiff’s failure to serve the proper person

is a defect which absolutely bars his state law claims. See, e.g., Falcon v. Maricopa County,

Case 3:06-cv-01804-PGR Document 111 Filed 03/26/08 Page 4 of 6
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 -

144 P.3d 1254 (Ariz. 2006). Furthermore, it is clear that the law requires that service be

made on public employees, in addition to the entities that employee them, as a prerequisite

to any lawsuit against such employees. Johnson v. Superior Court, 763 P.2d 1382, 1384

(Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). ]The delivery of a notice of claim via certified mail to the police

department, “Attn: Corporal Eric Clevinger” does not meet statutory requirements, and

provides an additional reason for the Court to grant the Defendants’ motion. 

C. Notice of Claim Form

The Defendants’ third and final argument is that the Plaintiffs failed to submit their

claim “on a form prescribed by the city manager with the city clerk’s office” as required by

Bullhead City Municipal Code 3.04.030(A). The Plaintiffs do not dispute that they failed to

comply with this provision of the Bullhead City Municipal Code. However, citing no

persuasive authority for their position, the Plaintiffs argue that it is not significant what form

is used. The Court disagrees. As noted by the Defendants, when considering whether a

plaintiff has complied with the state and city notice of claim provisions, the Court must apply

“fundamental principles of statutory construction, the cornerstone of which is the rule that the

best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning is its language itself and, when that

language is clear and unequivocal, it is determinative of the statute’s construction.” Janson

ex rel. Janson v. Christenson, 808 P.2d 1222, 1223 (Ariz. 1991). “Each word, phrase, clause

and sentence [of a statute] must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant

or trivial.” It would be contrary to the law for the Court to conclude that Plaintiff’s failure to

comply with the clear language of the Bullhead City Municipal Code is insignificant. As

previously concluded by the Arizona Supreme Court, actual notice and substantial compliance

do not excuse a failure to comply with statutory notice requirements. Falcon, 144 P.3d at

1256.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the above analysis,

Case 3:06-cv-01804-PGR Document 111 Filed 03/26/08 Page 5 of 6
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 -

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ State Claims is

GRANTED. The state law claims asserted against Defendant City of Bullhead City, Officer

Eric Clevinger, and Dispatcher Karen Vaughan are dismissed.

DATED this 25th day of March, 2008.

.

Case 3:06-cv-01804-PGR Document 111 Filed 03/26/08 Page 6 of 6