Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01647/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01647-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Anthony B. Giunta and Agnes Lea Giunta,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

City of Phoenix, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV-07-1647-PHX-MHB

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant Maricopa County’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc.

#6), the City Defendants’ (City of Phoenix, Jack F. Harris, Officer Michael T. Rogers, and

Officer Vincent Atwell) Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #7), and Plaintiffs’ Motion to

Amend Complaint and Motion to Strike Section III of Defendant Maricopa County’s Reply

in Support of its Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #15). After considering the arguments raised by

the parties in their briefing, the Court now issues the following ruling.

BACKGROUND

This lawsuit arises from the arrest and incarceration of Plaintiff Anthony B. Giunta

on or around April 21, 2006. As a result of his arrest and incarceration, on April 28, 2007,

Plaintiffs, appearing pro se, filed suit in Maricopa County Superior Court against the City

Defendants, Maricopa County, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and several unnamed Defendants alleging

a civil rights violation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and several state law claims. The case

was removed to federal court on August 28, 2007, and on September 4, 2007, Maricopa

Case 2:07-cv-01647-MHB Document 26 Filed 01/30/08 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 -

County filed its Motion to Dismiss and the City Defendants filed their Partial Motion to

Dismiss. On that same date, Maricopa County, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and Defendants Rogers

and Atwell filed Answers to Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

Thereafter, Plaintiffs, through counsel, filed their Motion to Amend Complaint and

Motion to Strike Section III of Defendant Maricopa County’s Reply in Support of its Motion

to Dismiss. On December 13, 2007, pursuant to a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice

filed by the City Defendants and Plaintiff Anthony B. Giunta, the Court dismissed all of

Plaintiff Anthony B. Giunta’s claims against the City Defendants. The dismissal did not

affect Plaintiff Anthony B. Giunta’s claims against Maricopa County and Sheriff Joe Arpaio,

or Plaintiff Agnes Lea Giunta’s single claim for property damage against the City

Defendants.

DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Amend Complaint and Motion to Strike

In their Motion to Amend, Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their Complaint to eliminate

the unnamed Defendants, eliminate the state law claims asserted against Maricopa County,

and clarify the specific claims against the remaining Defendants. Specifically, the proposed

First Amended Complaint asserts the following claims for relief: Count One – civil rights

violation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City Defendants; Count Two – civil rights

violation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Maricopa County and Sheriff Joe Arpaio;

Count Three – Negligence against the City Defendants; Count Four – Negligence against

Sheriff Joe Arpaio; Count Five – False Arrest against the City Defendants; Count Six –

Assault and Battery against the City Defendants; Count Seven – Intentional Infliction of

Emotional Distress against the City Defendants and Sheriff Joe Arpaio; and Count Eight –

Conversion and/or Trespass to Chattels against the City Defendants. The only claim in the

proposed First Amended Complaint asserted by Plaintiff Agnes Lea Giunta is Count Eight.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) declares that “[t]he court should freely give

leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” The Ninth Circuit has noted that “Rule 15’s

Case 2:07-cv-01647-MHB Document 26 Filed 01/30/08 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 -

policy of favoring amendments should be applied with extreme liberality.” Eldridge v.

Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted). A court may deny a motion

to amend, however, if there is a showing of undue delay or bad faith on the part of the

moving party, undue prejudice to the opposing party, or futility of the proposed amendments.

See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The party opposing amendment bears the

burden of showing prejudice, futility, or one of the other recognized reasons for denying a

motion to amend. See DCD Programs, LTD. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987).

In response to Plaintiffs’ Motion, Maricopa County and Sheriff Joe Arpaio simply

argue that Plaintiffs should not be allowed “to rewrite their Complaint to make it better

because they are facing a Motion to Dismiss.” The Court finds this reasoning unpersuasive.

Notwithstanding the fact that Maricopa County and Sheriff Joe Arpaio completely fail to

demonstrate any undue delay or bad faith, prejudice, or futility of the proposed amendments,

Plaintiffs initially filed this matter pro se. Now, having legal representation, Plaintiffs

merely seek to clarify their specific claims.

The City Defendants assert in their response that Plaintiffs’ proposed First Amended

Complaint contains all of the claims asserted in the original Complaint. The City Defendants

allege – as they do in their Partial Motion to Dismiss – that many of these claims are

statutorily barred for failure to file a notice of claim. As such, the City Defendants contend

that any amendment would be futile. Additionally, the City Defendants argue that allowing

Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint while a motion to dismiss is pending would be

prejudicial. The Court is not persuaded by either argument. First, the Court will not address

the merits of the City Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss while considering Plaintiffs’

Motion to Amend. Second, as previously noted, the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff

Anthony B. Giunta’s claims against the City Defendants leaving only Count Eight –

Conversion and/or Trespass to Chattels – asserted by Plaintiff Agnes Lea Giunta as the single

remaining claim. Count Eight as alleged in the proposed First Amended Compliant is

essentially the same claim asserted in Plaintiffs’ original Complaint – to which the City

Case 2:07-cv-01647-MHB Document 26 Filed 01/30/08 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 -

Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss applies. Accordingly, the Court finds no prejudice

to the City Defendants.

The Court, finding that the City Defendants, Maricopa County and Sheriff Joe Arpaio

have failed to demonstrate undue delay or bad faith, prejudice, or futility of the proposed

amendments, will grant Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint.

Within Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint, Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to

Strike Section III of Defendant Maricopa County’s Reply in Support of its Motion to

Dismiss. To the extent that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike is construed as an objection and

notice to the Court that Maricopa County has raised a new argument for the first time in its

reply brief, Plaintiffs’ Motion will be granted.

The general rule is that a party cannot raise a new issue for the first time in its reply

brief. Courts will not ordinarily consider matters raised for the first time in a reply brief as

the issues involved may not be fully explored. Maricopa County’s assertion that Plaintiffs

failed to adequately articulate a civil rights claim was raised for the first time in its Reply in

Support of its Motion to Dismiss. Since Plaintiffs have not had an opportunity to respond

to Maricopa County’s assertion, the Court will not address the merits of this argument at this

time.

B. Maricopa County’s Motion to Dismiss

In their Motion to Dismiss, Maricopa County argues that Plaintiffs failed to serve a

notice of claim on Maricopa County or the Board of Supervisors as required by A.R.S. § 12-

821.01. As such, Maricopa County asserts that it should be dismissed from this action. In

response, Plaintiffs contend that although the notice of claim requirement applies to state law

claims, the requirement may not be applied to a federal civil rights violation alleged pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In its Reply, Maricopa County maintains its position regarding the

notice of claim requirement as applied to state law claims, but agrees with Plaintiffs’

assertion that the requirement is not a precondition to a civil rights action.

Case 2:07-cv-01647-MHB Document 26 Filed 01/30/08 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

1

 As previously noted, the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff Anthony B. Giunta’s

claims against the City Defendants leaving only Count Eight – Conversion and/or Trespass

to Chattels – asserted by Plaintiff Agnes Lea Giunta. Accordingly, in addressing the City

Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss, the Court will focus exclusively on the arguments

relating to Plaintiff Agnes Lea Giunta’s claim.

- 5 -

The Court finds that, in light of the fact that Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint

eliminates the state law claims asserted against Maricopa County to which the notice of claim

requirement applies, and the fact that Maricopa County agrees that the notice of claim

requirement is not a precondition to a civil rights action, Maricopa County’s Motion to

Dismiss will be denied as moot.

C. The City Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss1

In their Partial Motion to Dismiss, the City Defendants argue that Plaintiff Agnes Lea

Giunta’s claim is barred because she failed to file a notice of claim with any of the City

Defendants as required by A.R.S. § 12-821.01. Arizona’s notice of claim statute, A.R.S. §

12-821.01, requires anyone with a claim against a public entity or employee to file notice of

the claim with the public entity or employee prior to initiating legal proceedings. See Tryon

v. Avra Valley Fire Dist., 659 F.Supp. 283, 284 (D. Ariz. 1986); Pritchard v. State, 788 P.2d

1178, 1183 (Ariz. 1990). A notice of claim must be filed within 180 days of the claim’s

accrual. See A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A). “[A] cause of action accrues when the damaged party

realizes he or she has been damaged and knows or reasonably should know the cause, source,

act, event, instrumentality or condition which caused or contributed to the damage.” A.R.S.

§ 12-821.01(B).

In response to the City Defendants’ assertion, Plaintiffs do not dispute that Plaintiff

Agnes Lea Giunta failed to file a notice of claim with any of the City Defendants. The

Court’s review of the record fails to demonstrate otherwise. Thus, the City Defendants’

Partial Motion to Dismiss will be granted.

Case 2:07-cv-01647-MHB Document 26 Filed 01/30/08 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 -

CONCLUSION

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint and Motion to Strike

Section III of Defendant Maricopa County’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss (Doc.

#15) are GRANTED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Maricopa County’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #6)

is DENIED as moot;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss

(Doc. #7) is GRANTED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint be filed in

conformance with this Order, and the Order for Dismissal with Prejudice entered by this

Court on December 13, 2007 (Doc. #25), on or before February 11, 2008.

DATED this 29th day of January, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01647-MHB Document 26 Filed 01/30/08 Page 6 of 6