Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02054/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02054-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander

---

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 

Richard Maloney, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Lois M. Kropp, 

Defendant.

No. CV-12-02054-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On December 10, 2012, Defendant Lois M. Kropp filed a motion for judgment on 

the pleadings. Doc. 18. The motion has been fully briefed. Docs. 14, 18. For the 

reasons that follow, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion with prejudice. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant and her daughter made false reports about him to 

the police. Based on those reports, he brings a claim for defamation, negligence, and 

civil conspiracy. 

I. Legal Standard. 

 A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(c) “is properly granted when, taking all the allegations in the non-moving 

party’s pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fajardo v. County of L.A., 179 F.3d 698, 699 (9th Cir. 1998); see Elvig v. Calvin 

Presbyterian Church, 375 F.3d 951, 955 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that in ruling on a 

Rule 12(c) motion the court must accept as true all allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint 

and treat as false the allegations in the defendant’s answer that contradict the plaintiff’s 

allegations). In other words, dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(c) is inappropriate if the facts 

Case 2:12-cv-02054-DGC Document 27 Filed 02/11/13 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

as pled would entitle the plaintiff to a remedy. Merchants Home Delivery Serv., Inc. v. 

Hall & Co., 50 F.3d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir.1995). 

II. Analysis. 

 A. Defamation. 

 In Arizona, defamation claims based on police reports are barred as a matter of 

law. See Ledvina v. Cerasani, 146 P.3d 70 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (“putative crime 

victims are entitled to absolute immunity when they complain to the police.”). The only 

conduct underlying Plaintiff’s defamation claim, which the Court must accept as true, is 

Defendant’s false report to the police. Because reports to the police are afforded absolute 

immunity, the Court will dismiss the defamation claim. 

B. Negligence. 

The complaint does little more than recite the elements of a negligence claim. 

Doc. 1 at 4-5. Plaintiff does not explain what duty Defendant owed him, how that duty 

was breached, or any causal connection between Defendant’s conduct and any resulting 

injury. See Gipson v. Kasey, 150 P.3d 228, 230 (Ariz. 2007) (identifying the elements of 

a negligence claim). In his response, Plaintiff cites the Arizona statute criminalizing false 

police reports (Doc. 14 at 7), but he does not explain how that statue gives rise to a duty. 

The Court will dismiss the negligence claim.1

C. Civil Conspiracy. 

In Arizona, a claim for civil conspiracy requires that two or more individuals agree 

to accomplish an “underlying tort.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters 

and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, 38 P.3d 12, 36 (Ariz. 2002). 

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s other two claims above, the Court finds no underlying tort 

upon which Plaintiff might base his claim for civil conspiracy. Accordingly, the Court 

will dismiss the claim. 

 

1 A similar negligence claim brought by Plaintiff against Defendant’s daughter was 

dismissed for similar reasons in Maloney v. Blair, No. CV 12-01955-PHX-JAT, 2012 

WL 6101998 (D. Ariz. Dec. 7, 2012). 

Case 2:12-cv-02054-DGC Document 27 Filed 02/11/13 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

III. Dismissal with Prejudice. 

 Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint to add additional details regarding the 

police report. Doc. 14 at 8. No additional details about the report can overcome absolute 

immunity. Nor can any additional facts establish that Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty 

with respect to reports made to the police. Accordingly, the Court finds that any 

amendment would be futile and will dismiss all claims with prejudice. See Doe v. Fed. 

Dist. Court, 467 F. App’x 725, 728 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding no abuse of discretion where 

a district court dismissed a pro se complaint when “the district court had good reason to 

believe that further amendments would be futile and prejudice the defendants.”). 

 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings 

(Doc. 12) is granted, and the complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed with prejudice. The 

Clerk shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 8th day of February, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-02054-DGC Document 27 Filed 02/11/13 Page 3 of 3