NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT 

PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

DENNIS ANDREW BALL, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

MARICOPA COUNTY, et al., Defendants/Appellees.

No. 1 CA-CV 15-0587

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CV2015-000768

The Honorable Colleen L. French, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Dennis Andrew Ball, Marion, Illinois

Plaintiff/Appellant

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph J. Branco, Maxine S. Mak

Counsel for Defendants/Appellees
BALL v. MARICOPA COUNTY, et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Mark R. Moran1 delivered the decision of the Court, in which Acting 

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Margaret H. Downie

joined.

M O R A N, Judge:

¶1 Plaintiff Dennis Andrew Ball appeals a final judgment 

dismissing his complaint against Defendants Maricopa County (the 

“County”) and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (the “BOS”) for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We reject Ball’s 

argument that the BOS (and, vicariously, the County) owed him a duty, 

and, therefore, affirm the trial court’s order dismissing his claims.

FACTS2 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In 2004, the Maricopa County Superior Court (the “Superior 

Court”) appointed Southwest Fiduciary, Inc. (“SFI”) as the guardian and 

conservator for Ball’s mother; SFI continued in that role until her death in 

2006. According to Ball, SFI failed to manage his mother’s assets for her 

benefit, resulting in loss and waste of her estate. In April 2011, Ball sued SFI 

and others in federal court based on an alleged conspiracy to defraud his 

mother and those defendants’ “unlawful actions during the time of their 

appointment.” 

¶3 In May 2015, Ball filed this action claiming the BOS breached 

a “duty of public trust” by failing to properly supervise the Superior Court, 

and, thus, the County was vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of 

the BOS. Ball alleged that he became aware in February 2014 of the role the 

BOS played in causing his injuries, which included the loss of his interest 

in his mother’s estate after her death. 

 

1The Honorable Mark R. Moran, Judge of the Arizona 

Superior Court, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant to Article 

VI, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution.

2We will “assume the truth of the well-pled factual allegations 

and indulge all reasonable inferences therefrom.” Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins. 

Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 419, ¶ 7, 189 P.3d 344, 346 (2008).
BALL v. MARICOPA COUNTY, et al.

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 The BOS and the County moved to dismiss for failure to state 

a claim upon which relief can be granted under Arizona Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6). The trial court granted the motion and denied Ball’s 

motion for a new trial. The trial court then entered a final judgment. See 

Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(c) (“A judgment shall not be final unless the court states 

that no further matters remain pending and that the judgment is entered 

pursuant to 54(c).”). Ball timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction 

pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-2101(A)(1)

(2016) (a party may appeal a final judgment).

3

DISCUSSION4

¶5 A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim may be granted 

if the plaintiff is not entitled to relief “under any facts susceptible of proof 

in the statement of the claim.” ELM Ret. Ctr., LP v. Callaway, 226 Ariz. 287,

289, ¶ 5, 246 P.3d 938, 940 (App. 2010) (quoting Mohave Disposal, Inc. v. City 

of Kingman, 186 Ariz. 343, 346, 922 P.2d 308, 311 (1996)). We review de novo 

the trial court’s decision to dismiss a complaint. Orca Commc’ns Unlimited, 

LLC v. Noder, 236 Ariz. 180, 181, ¶ 6, 337 P.3d 545, 546 (2014) (citation 

omitted). We may affirm a superior court’s order dismissing a claim if the 

dismissal was correct for any reason. Sw. Non-Profit Hous. Corp. v. Nowak, 

234 Ariz. 387, 391, ¶ 10, 322 P.3d 204, 208 (App. 2014).

¶6 To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must prove a 

duty requiring the defendant to conform to a standard of care, a breach by 

the defendant, a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and 

 

3This statute has not been amended since Ball filed his suit in 

May 2015. Thus, we cite to its current version.

4The opening brief does not comply with Arizona Rule of

Civil Appellate Procedure (“ARCAP”) 13(a) because, for example, it does 

not contain a table of contents, a table of citations, a statement of the case, a 

statement of the issues, or a conclusion. Unless the briefing is “totally 

deficient,” however, we prefer to decide a case on its merits rather than on 

procedural grounds. See Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., 139 Ariz. 340, 

342, 678 P.2d 525, 527 (App. 1984). Recognizing it is not our duty to develop 

arguments not clearly presented, see Ace Auto. Prods., Inc. v. Van Duyne, 156 

Ariz. 140, 143, 750 P.2d 898, 901 (App. 1987) (citation omitted), we will 

consider the merits of Ball’s arguments as best we can discern them, see In 

re Aubuchon, 233 Ariz. 62, 64–65, ¶ 6, 309 P.3d 886, 888-89 (2013).
BALL v. MARICOPA COUNTY, et al.

Decision of the Court

4

the resulting injury, and damages. Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141, 143, ¶ 9, 

150 P.3d 228, 230 (2007) (citations omitted). Whether a defendant owes the 

plaintiff a duty is a threshold issue; if a defendant owes no duty, the 

negligence claim cannot be maintained. Id. at 143, ¶¶ 9, 11, 150 P.3d at 230. 

Whether a duty exists is a question of law that we review de novo. Sullivan 

v. Pulte Home Corp., 237 Ariz. 547, 549, ¶ 6, 354 P.3d 424, 426 (App. 2015)

(citation omitted).

¶7 Ball claims that the BOS (and, vicariously, the County) 

breached a duty to supervise judicial officers of the Superior Court, 

essentially seeking to impute to the BOS the alleged malfeasance of others 

that deprived him of his “rightful inheritance.” Ball’s claim fails because the 

BOS cannot exercise supervisory power over the Superior Court. See

Hernandez v. Maricopa Cty., 138 Ariz. 143, 146, 673 P.2d 341, 344 (App. 1983)

(superior court is part of the judicial branch, not the executive branch; the 

BOS of Santa Cruz County had no right to control the activities of the Santa 

Cruz Superior Court) (citation omitted); see generally Mann v. Maricopa Cty., 

104 Ariz. 561, 566, 456 P.2d 931, 936 (1969) (judicial branch supervises 

employees of the judicial department). Ball’s claims that judicial officers are 

paid by the County does not alter the analysis or outcome. See Salerno v. 

Espinoza, 210 Ariz. 586, 588-89, ¶¶ 10-11, 115 P.3d 626, 628-29 (App. 2005) (a 

governmental entity’s statutory obligation to provide funds for employee 

salaries of another governmental entity’s employees does not alter the 

conclusion that the judicial branch oversees employees of the judicial 

department) (citation omitted). Ball cannot prove that the BOS (and, 

vicariously, the County) had a duty to supervise judicial officers of the 

Superior Court. Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed his claims.

CONCLUSION

¶8 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order 

dismissing Ball’s claims. We award costs to the BOS and the County upon 

their compliance with ARCAP 21.