Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00198/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00198-14/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, 

v.

DAVID R. SMITH, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0198-PHX-SMM

Order

In preparing the certification of questions to the Arizona Supreme Court, the Court

has reviewed the docket in its entirety, as well as analyzed, in depth, the applicable authority

cited by both parties. Due to the nature of this case, there have been motions dismissed

without prejudice, with leave to refile at a later date, including a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13)

filed by Defendants addressing the issue of notice of claim. Despite an earlier decision by

this Court that the issues pertaining to notice of claim and A.R.S. § 12-282.01 would be

better left undecided until this Court was able to certify questions to the Arizona Supreme

Court, the Court finds that waiting for such certification is unnecessary on this issue. Indeed,

the Court has determined that the notice of claim issue must be decided prior to the

submission of questions to the Arizona Supreme Court, because the potential dispositive

nature of this issue renders it necessary to decide as a preliminary matter. 

Since Defendant filed the Motion to Dismiss, additional case law citing Deer Valley

Unified Sch. Dist. No. 97 v. Houser, 152 P.3d 490 (Ariz. 2007) has arisen and has led this

Court to conclude that the notice of claim issue now has been adequately addressed by the

Case 2:07-cv-00198-SMM Document 77 Filed 10/15/08 Page 1 of 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

 1 These cases include Yollin v. City of Glendale, 191 P.3d 1040, 1044 (Ariz. Ct.

App. 2008); Lee v. State, 182 P.3d. 1169, 1173 (Ariz. 2008); State v. Mabery Ranch, Co.,

165 P.3d 211, 223 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).

- 2 -

state courts.1 As a result, the notice of claim issue previously set aside by the Court has

become pertinent and must be resolved. Consequently, this Court has determined that the

pending matters are best addressed through the traditional briefing previously completed by

the parties.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall have until Friday, November 7,

2008 to re-file their Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13). The motion will be considered fully

briefed on the date the Motion to Dismiss is filed.

DATED this 14th day of October, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00198-SMM Document 77 Filed 10/15/08 Page 2 of 2