Court Opinion

ID: 9908084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-07 18:02:48.037905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:50.633305
License: Public Domain

IN THE
            ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
                            DIVISION ONE

  JACQUELIN JAMILEX LOPEZ SANCHEZ, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants,

                                  v.

               MARICOPA COUNTY, Defendant/Appellee.

                         No. 1 CA-CV 22-0572
                          FILED 12-7-2023

          Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                         No. CV2022-092441
               The Honorable Rodrick J. Coffey, Judge

                             AFFIRMED

                              COUNSEL

Rasmussen Injury Law, Mesa
By Chase W. Rasmussen, Alexander M. Hyde
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants

Ahwatukee Legal Office, P.C., Phoenix
By David L. Abney
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Darlene M. Cortina, Pamela A. Hostallero, Sean M. Moore,
Joseph J. Branco
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
                SANCHEZ, et al. v. MARICOPA COUNTY
                       Opinion of the Court

                                 OPINION

Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief
Judge David B. Gass and Judge Andrew M. Jacobs joined.

F U R U Y A, Judge:

¶1             Plaintiffs Jacquelin Jamilex Lopez Sanchez, Marlin Lopez
Sanchez, Rosario Lopez Sanchez, Iliana Ofelia Sanchez, and Orlando Lopez
filed this lawsuit against Maricopa County (the “County”) for injuries they
sustained as the result of a car accident involving a deputy (the “Deputy
Sheriff”) of the Maricopa County Sheriff (the “Sheriff”). The superior court
granted the County’s motion to dismiss the complaint under Arizona Rule
of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) because the County is not vicariously
liable for the Deputy Sheriff’s actions. Plaintiffs challenge that order,
arguing the County is vicariously liable for the Deputy Sheriff’s actions
under the doctrine of respondeat superior and they otherwise have no
remedy because they cannot sue the Sheriff.

¶2             We hold the County is not vicariously liable for the negligent
conduct of the Sheriff’s employees because the County does not have a
principal-agent relationship with them. And we hold under appropriate
circumstances plaintiffs can sue sheriffs, who qualify as “public entities”
within the meaning of A.R.S. § 12-820(7). Finally, no other statute creates
the right to sue the County on this record. Therefore, we affirm.

                 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3            On June 16, 2021, Plaintiffs were traveling eastbound on
Interstate 10 in a vehicle driven by Plaintiff Jacquelin Jamilex Lopez
Sanchez. As she slowed for traffic, the Deputy Sheriff rear-ended Sanchez’s
vehicle. At the time of the accident, the Deputy Sheriff was driving a vehicle
owned by the County.

¶4            Plaintiffs alleged they were injured in the collision and filed a
timely notice of claim under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 12-821.01
against the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. They then sued the
County for negligence and negligence per se based on a theory of vicarious
liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The complaint named
the County as the sole defendant.

                                      2
                 SANCHEZ, et al. v. MARICOPA COUNTY
                        Opinion of the Court

¶5             The County filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under
Rule 12(b)(6), arguing it was not vicariously liable for torts committed by
the Sheriff’s employees. Following briefing, the superior court granted the
County’s motion to dismiss. The court concluded the County is not liable
for common law torts committed by the Sheriff’s employees because the
County lacks control over how the Sheriff conducts his official duties.

¶6           Plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction
under A.R.S. §§ 12-2101(A)(1) and -120.21(A)(1).

                                DISCUSSION

¶7            We review de novo the court’s dismissal of a complaint under
Rule 12(b)(6). Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352, 355 ¶ 7 (2012). In doing
so, we assume the well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint to be true and
affirm the dismissal only if Plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief on any
interpretation of those facts. Chalpin v. Snyder, 220 Ariz. 413, 418 ¶ 18 (App.
2008).

¶8             Plaintiffs’ case here bears great resemblance to a case this
court recently decided, Loredo, et al. v. Maricopa Cnty., 1 CA-CV 22-0259,
2023 WL 2181126 (Ariz. App. Feb. 23, 2023) (mem. decision), review denied
(Aug. 22, 2023). Like here, the Loredo plaintiffs alleged they were injured in
a collision with a vehicle being driven by Maricopa County deputy sheriff.
Id. at ¶ 2. And like here, the Loredo plaintiffs sued Maricopa County but not
the sheriff or the deputy sheriff. Id In Loredo, this court held that Maricopa
County could not be held vicariously liable for the sheriff’s office. Id. at
¶¶ 6–13. Because Loredo’s facts are closely aligned with those at issue in this
case and because its analysis likewise addresses Plaintiffs’ claims, it is
highly persuasive, and we draw from its discussion and holdings. See Ariz.
R. Sup. Ct. 111(c).

I.     The County Is Not Vicariously Liable for the Deputy Sheriff’s
       Alleged Negligence.

¶9             To be liable for an employee’s negligence, an employer must
have control or right of control over that employee. Engler v. Gulf Interstate
Eng’g, Inc., 227 Ariz. 486, 491 ¶ 17 (App. 2011), aff’d, 230 Ariz. 55 (2012).
Generally, counties are not vicariously liable for the acts of elected officials
whose duties are imposed by statute or the Arizona Constitution. See
Hernandez v. Maricopa Cnty., 138 Ariz. 143, 146 (App. 1983) (quoting Fridena
v. Maricopa Cnty., 18 Ariz. App. 527, 530–31 (App. 1972)). The Sheriff is an
elected constitutional officer, Ariz. Const. art. 12, § 3, and the Legislature
establishes an elected sheriff’s duties. See Ariz. Const. art. 12, § 4, A.R.S. §§

                                       3
                 SANCHEZ, et al. v. MARICOPA COUNTY
                        Opinion of the Court

11-406(A), -441. In general, deputy sheriffs possess the same powers and
may perform the same duties as a sheriff. A.R.S. § 38-462(A).

¶10            By statute, a deputy sheriff’s duties include preserving the
peace, arresting those who commit crimes, attending court hearings,
serving process, securing the homes of deceased persons, and conducting
or coordinating search and rescue operations. See A.R.S. § 11-441(A)(1), (2),
(4), (7), (8), (C). To accomplish these duties, deputy sheriffs spend a
significant amount of their time operating vehicles.

¶11             Plaintiffs contend personnel who work in the Sheriff’s office,
including the Deputy Sheriff in this case, are not the Sheriff’s employees
“but are . . . employees of the [C]ounty.” In support of this contention, they
cite A.R.S. § 11-251(1), which grants a county board of supervisors’
authority to

       [s]upervise the official conduct of all county officers and
       officers of all districts and other subdivisions of the county
       charged with assessing, collecting, safekeeping, managing or
       disbursing the public revenues, see that the officers faithfully
       perform their duties and direct prosecutions for
       delinquencies, and, when necessary, require the officers to
       renew their official bonds, make reports and present their
       books and accounts for inspection.

Plaintiffs argue the phrase “[s]upervise the official conduct of all county
officers” establishes a “broad, at-all-times right of control.” Not so.

¶12            When read in context, the language of § 11-251(1) does not
grant plenary power to supervise county officers. It instead gives boards
the authority to supervise those who are “charged with assessing,
collecting, safekeeping, managing or disbursing the public revenues.” See
State v. Jones, 196 Ariz. 306, 307 ¶ 7 (App. 1999) (“Every provision of a
statute must be read in conjunction with the other provisions, giving
meaning, if possible, to ‘each word, clause or sentence, considered in the
light of the entire act itself and the purpose for which it was enacted into
law.’”) (quoting Frye v. S. Phoenix Volunteer Fire Co., 71 Ariz. 163, 168 (1950));
cf. Hounshell v. White, 220 Ariz. 1, 5 ¶ 21 (App. 2008) (interpreting § 11-251(1)
as granting the board authority to supervise county officers “in some
limited circumstances”). Indeed, if § 11-251(1) conferred broad authority to
supervise all county officer functions, the Legislature would have had no
reason to enact the other subsections of § 11-251, which authorize boards of
supervisors to direct the prosecution and defense of all actions to which

                                        4
                 SANCHEZ, et al. v. MARICOPA COUNTY
                        Opinion of the Court

their respective counties are a party, permit their sheriffs to offer rewards,
or direct their sheriffs to transport insane persons to the state hospital.
A.R.S. § 11-251(14), (25), (26).

¶13             Plaintiffs further point to A.R.S. §§ 11-441, -444(A), and
-444(C) to bolster their interpretation of § 11-251, arguing the Sheriff is a
“county officer” and that each county “bears the cost[s] of the sheriff’s
conduct.” See also Ariz. Const. art. 12, § 3. They suggest these statutes make
the Sheriff’s status as an officer derivative from the County, and his
dependence on County budgeting gives the County the right to control his
employees, making the Sheriff’s deputies County employees. But although
the Sheriff is indeed a “county officer,” see A.R.S. § 11-441, and his expenses
in fulfilling the statutory duties of his office are indeed a “county charge,”
see A.R.S. § 11-444(A), Ariz. Const. art. 12, § 3, those circumstances do not
justify Plaintiffs’ expansive reading of § 11-251. Rather, reading § 11-251(1)
to confer only oversight powers related to fiscal accountability is more
consistent with § 11-444, which obligates sheriffs to render a monthly
accounting and provides that most of a sheriff’s “actual and necessary
expenses” are “a county charge.” A.R.S. § 11-444(A), (C).

¶14            This more limited reading is also consistent with § 11-409,
which grants county officers—not the County—the power to appoint
deputies and other staff “necessary to conduct the affairs of their respective
offices” and only gives boards the limited authority to consent to those
appointments and fix salaries. A.R.S. § 11-409; see also Hounshell, 220 Ariz.
at 4 ¶ 14 (“The fact that the Board must consent to the appointment of a
given employee does not make the Board a separate appointing
authority.”). The constrained nature of these statutes suggests the authority
of boards of supervisors to supervise county officers under § 11-251(1) is
fiscal only; not, as Plaintiffs argue, a “broad, at-all-times right of control”
sufficient to convert the Deputy Sheriff into the County’s employee for tort
liability purposes. See State of the Neth. v. MD Helicopters, Inc., 250 Ariz. 235,
238 ¶ 8 (2020) (“[W]e interpret statutory language in view of the entire text,
considering the context and related statutes on the same subject.”) (quoting
Molera v. Hobbs, 250 Ariz. 13, 24 ¶ 34 (2020)).

¶15           Our conclusion accords with this court’s prior decision in
Fridena v. Maricopa County. 18 Ariz. App. 527. In Fridena, this court declined
to impose vicarious liability on the County for the tortious acts of deputy
sheriffs because the County had “no right of control over the Sheriff or his
deputies” in serving a defective writ of restitution. 18 Ariz. App. at 529–30.
Such control is critical to the imposition of vicarious liability. See Engler, 227
Ariz. at 491 ¶ 17.

                                        5
                 SANCHEZ, et al. v. MARICOPA COUNTY
                        Opinion of the Court

¶16            Plaintiffs argue we should not follow Fridena, again relying on
their expansive reading of § 11-251(1), rejected for the reasons noted above.
They also argue Fridena is distinguishable because service of a writ of
restitution is a “judicial-related activity.” But the holding in Fridena is not
so narrow:

       When duties are imposed upon . . . a board of county
       commissioners by law rather than by the county, the latter
       will not be responsible for their breach of duty or for their
       nonfeasance or misfeasance in relation to such duty.
       Furthermore, where the duties delegated to officers elected by
       public corporations are political or governmental, the relation
       of principal and agent does not exist and the maxim
       “respondeat superior” does not govern.

18 Ariz. App. at 530–31. Moreover, the statutory duties that cause a deputy
sheriff to drive a vehicle are often “judicial-related” in nature and therefore,
do not meaningfully distinguish the facts of this case from Fridena. See, e.g.,
A.R.S. § 11-441(A)(2), (4), (7).

¶17            Plaintiffs also rely on Falcon ex rel. Sandoval v. Maricopa County,
213 Ariz. 525, 527 ¶ 15 (2006), but our supreme court did not interpret § 11-
251(1) in Falcon. Falcon instead considered who could accept service of a
notice of claim against a county under A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) and Rule 4.1.
See id. at 528 ¶¶ 16–19. Thus, Falcon is inapposite.

¶18            Plaintiffs further rely on Board of Supervisors of Maricopa
County v. Woodall, 120 Ariz. 391, 394 (App. 1978), aff’d in part, rev’d in part,
120 Ariz. 379 (1978), to contend the board of supervisors “is given direct
power to supervise all officers of the county and its subdivisions.” But
Woodall addressed a narrower question—whether a board of supervisors
could retain counsel other than its county attorney to provide legal advice.
Id. at 395. This court held that a board of supervisors could do so. Id. at 396.
Still, a county attorney’s office, “as with other county offices under the
constitution, is assigned express powers and duties which are separately
exercised.” Id. (emphasis added); see also A.R.S. § 11-532. The same is true
of sheriffs, whom the Legislature tasked with preserving the peace,
arresting those who commit crimes, and generally fulfilling other statutory
obligations. A.R.S. § 11-441(A), (C).

¶19          Plaintiffs cite three federal cases construing 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
arguing they show that the County’s funding of the Sheriff is “strong
evidence” that the Sheriff acts on the County’s behalf. But 42 U.S.C. § 1983

                                        6
                 SANCHEZ, et al. v. MARICOPA COUNTY
                        Opinion of the Court

does not impose vicarious liability on local governments for their
employees’ acts. Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011); see also Flanders
v. Maricopa Cnty., 203 Ariz. 368, 378 ¶ 61 (App. 2002) (“Liability [under 42
U.S.C. § 1983] is imposed, not on the grounds of respondeat superior, but
because the agent’s status cloaks him with the governmental body’s
authority.”). Additionally, the primary case on which Plaintiffs rely,
McMillian v. Monroe County, Ala., 520 U.S. 781 (1997), observes that “[a
state’s] counties are not liable under a theory of respondeat superior for a
sheriff’s official acts that are tortious” even though those counties may be
required by law to pay a sheriff’s salary, reimburse their expenses, and
provide that sheriff’s office with equipment, supplies, and lodging. Id. at
789, 791–92 (emphasis added).

¶20            In view of the above, we hold the County is not vicariously
liable for the negligent conduct of the Sheriff’s employees, including the
Deputy Sheriff, because the County does not control or supervise these
employees in any sense sufficient to give rise to a principal-agent
relationship between them. See Fridena, 18 Ariz. App. at 529–30.

¶21             Nor are we alone in this view. Other jurisdictions have
likewise found sheriffs to be independently elected county officers who are
therefore not employees of the county in which they serve. See Carver v.
Sheriff of La Salle Cnty., 787 N.E.2d 127, 136 (Ill. 2003) (“The parties at bar do
not dispute that . . . a sheriff is an independently elected county officer and
is not an employee of the county in which the sheriff serves.”); Green v.
Baldwin Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 842 S.E.2d 916, 917 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020) (“[I]t is
well established that deputy sheriffs are employees of the sheriff, not the
county, and the county cannot be held vicariously liable as their principal.”)
(citation omitted); McLaughlin v. Bailey, 771 S.E.2d 570, 576 (N.C. Ct. App.
2015), aff’d, 781 S.E.2d 23 (N.C. 2016) (“The fact that the county is the source
of funding to pay deputies does not change their status as employees of the
sheriff.”); Etowah Cnty. Comm’n v. Grant, 10 So. 3d 1009, 1012 (Ala. Civ. App.
2007) (“[A]ll deputy sheriffs in this state are considered employees of the
sheriff in whose county the deputy serves.”); Bryson v. Okla. Cnty. ex rel.
Okla. Cnty. Det. Ctr., 261 P.3d 627, 632–33 ¶ 12 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011)
(“[B]ecause the County was not [detention officer’s] employer it cannot be
held vicariously liable for his alleged torts.”).

II.    Plaintiffs Did Not Lack a Remedy.

¶22            Plaintiffs contend they have no remedy if the County cannot
be held vicariously liable because they cannot sue the Maricopa County
Sheriff’s Office (“Sheriff’s Office”). See Braillard v. Maricopa Cnty., 224 Ariz.

                                        7
                 SANCHEZ, et al. v. MARICOPA COUNTY
                        Opinion of the Court

481, 487 ¶ 13 (App. 2010) (stating that the Sheriff’s Office is a non-jural
entity that cannot be sued). They argue such a ruling would be tantamount
to a grant of full immunity to the County for the negligent driving of the
Sheriff’s employees because there would be no party to sue. We disagree.
Other plaintiffs have sought relief for the tortious acts of a sheriff’s deputies
by suing1 the relevant sheriff. See, e.g., Ryan v. Napier, 245 Ariz. 54 (2018);
Watkins v. Arpaio, 239 Ariz. 168 (App. 2016); Zupancic v. Penzone, 1 CA-CV
20-0288, 2021 WL 2435643 (Ariz. App. June 15, 2021) (mem. decision).

¶23            Plaintiffs further argue the County must remain in the case as
the responsible party to ensure there is a public entity liable to pay damages
for the torts committed by public employees. See A.R.S. § 12-823 (“If
judgment is rendered for the plaintiff, it shall be for the amount actually
due from the public entity to the plaintiff[.]”). For support, they point to
Melendres v. Maricopa County, 815 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 2016), contending the
County conceded it would bear the financial costs of any judgment against
the Sheriff or against any employees of his office. But Melendres is a 42
U.S.C. § 1983 case that did not address vicarious liability. Id. at 650–51
(quoting Flanders, 203 Ariz. at 378 ¶ 61). The Melendres court did not
determine whether the County supervised the Sheriff or his employees in
fulfilling their statutory duties. It instead stated the County could “rely on
the degree to which it can control [the Sheriff’s] behavior to potentially
avoid . . . adverse consequences” if the Sheriff chose not to comply with an
already-entered injunction. Id. at 651.

III.   The Statutes Governing Claims Against Public Employees and
       Public Entities Do Not Establish County Liability.

¶24           Plaintiffs argue “the notice-of-claim system’s structure”
proves they have the statutory right to sue the County for the tortious
conduct of the Sheriff and the Deputy Sheriff. See A.R.S. §§ 12-820 to -826.
This argument fails for two reasons. First, the argument is premised on an
incorrect reading of the claim statutes. Second, the claim statutes do not
create a substantive right to sue public entities.

1      Of course, a plaintiff must also timely assert any such suit under the
relevant statutes of limitation. See Porter v. Spader, 225 Ariz. 424, 427 ¶ 7
(App. 2010) (explaining statutes of limitation establish the period after
which claims are “too stale to be enforceable”). We express no opinion as to
whether Plaintiffs here could timely assert their claims. See A.R.S. §§ 12-821,
-821.01.

                                       8
                 SANCHEZ, et al. v. MARICOPA COUNTY
                        Opinion of the Court

       A.     Sheriffs are “Public Entities” Under the Claim Statutes.

¶25           Plaintiffs’ argument that the claim statutes support the
County’s vicarious liability for the negligence of the Deputy Sheriff relies
on their reading of A.R.S. § 12-820(1), (6), and (7) to conclude that the Sheriff
and his employees are “public employee[s]” who, by definition, must be
employed by a “public entity.” A public entity, they argue, means only this
state and “any political subdivision of this state.” A.R.S. § 12-820(7). As the
primary political subdivision sponsoring the Sheriff, they conclude the
County is the only possible “public entity” that can employ the Sheriff and
his employees and, therefore, the County must be vicariously liable for their
negligence. Plaintiffs read the definition of “public entity” too narrowly.

¶26             The statute states “‘Public entity’ includes this state and any
political subdivision of this state.” Id. (emphasis added). The use of
“includes” suggests that “public entity” encompasses—but is not
necessarily limited to—the state and its political subdivisions. See State ex
rel. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Torres, 245 Ariz. 554, 558 ¶ 14 (App. 2018) (“[W]hen
the legislature does not define a term, but states that the term ‘includes’
specified items, we construe the term to also include other items that fall
within the term’s ordinary meaning.”).

¶27            Constitutional officers—such as sheriffs—are persons
fulfilling a public role through service in duly elected governmental offices.
Ariz. Const. art. 12, § 3. In other words, they are personal entities who act
in a public capacity by virtue of their elected office. Plaintiffs correctly
observe that the word “entity” is not further defined in the statute and
argue that “entities” refer only to organizations, such as corporations and
political subdivisions.

¶28             When interpreting statutes, “courts generally give words
their ordinary meaning and may look to dictionary definitions.” Windhurst
v. Ariz. Dep’t of Corr., ___ Ariz. ___, ___ ¶ 19, 536 P.3d 764, 771 (2023). At the
time of its adoption and effective date,2 Merriam-Webster Dictionary

2      Section 12-820 became effective in 1984. 1984 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.
285, § 3 (2nd Reg. Sess.) (S.B. 1225). Therefore, we use the definition in
existence at the time the Legislature enacted the relevant statute. See
Matthews v. Indus. Comm’n of Ariz., 254 Ariz. 157, 175 ¶ 36 (2022) (explaining
the definition in a published dictionary at the time a provision was adopted
“reflects its common usage at the time”).

                                        9
                SANCHEZ, et al. v. MARICOPA COUNTY
                       Opinion of the Court

defined “entity” as: (1) “being, existence; esp: independent, separate, or
self-contained existence”; (2) “the existence of a thing as contrasted with its
attributes”; and (3) “something that has separate and distinct existence and
objective or conceptual reality.” Entity, Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate
Dictionary (9th ed. 1984). These definitions show “entities” are commonly
understood to include natural persons, such as Sheriff. Thus, including
such constitutional officers within the definition of “public entity” under
A.R.S. § 12-820(7) is consistent with a practical, commonsense
understanding of that term. See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.,
218 Ariz. 172, 183 ¶ 33 (App. 2008) (explaining we adopt practical,
reasonable, and commonsense constructions.) Therefore, we conclude
county sheriffs, as natural persons, duly elected as constitutional officers
acting in official, public capacities, qualify as “public entities” under A.R.S.
§ 12-820(7).

¶29           In their motion for reconsideration, Plaintiffs cite part of the
2020 Merriam-Webster’s dictionary definition of “entity” as “an
organization (such as a business or governmental unit) that has an identity
separate from those of its members.” They argue sheriffs are not
“organizations” and this definition excludes sheriff from qualifying as
“public entities” under A.R.S. § 12-820(7). Plaintiffs’ motion, however,
omits the two other definitions recounted here, which remain part of the
current entry for “entity” and continue to be valid definitions for that word.
See Entity, Merriam-Webster.com, https://www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary/entity (last visited Dec. 4, 2023). The additional, newer,
understanding of “entity” as including organizations is not exclusive of the
other accepted meanings of the word, which are applicable to natural
persons. Thus, even if a more current definition is used, our analysis
remains the same.

¶30           Because we conclude sheriffs themselves qualify as “public
entities” pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-820(7), we disagree that the County is the
only viable public entity-employer of the Deputy Sheriff in this case.

       B.     The Victim of a Tort Committed by a Public Employee Does
              Not Have the “Statutory Right” to Serve the Notice of
              Claim, and to Sue, the Public Employee, the Public Entity,
              Or Both.

¶31            Finally, we reject Plaintiffs’ reliance on A.R.S. §§ 12-821
and -821.01 to establish a “statutory right” to serve a notice of claim on, and
to sue, a public employee or the public entity, or both. These statutes do not
create an independent right for plaintiffs to serve notices of claim on, or to

                                      10
                SANCHEZ, et al. v. MARICOPA COUNTY
                       Opinion of the Court

sue, public employees or entities. See, e.g., McKee v. State, 241 Ariz. 377, 384
¶ 30 (App. 2016) (“[T]he notice of claim statute does not . . . contain
language suggesting its purpose is to confer the power to sue and be sued
on a nonjural entity.”). Arizona courts may imply an independent right of
action only when doing so is consistent with “the context of the statutes, the
language used, the subject matter, the effects and consequences, and the
spirit and purpose of the law.” Transamerica Fin. Corp. v. Superior Ct., 158
Ariz. 115, 116 (1988). But nothing in these statutes’ context, language,
subject matter, effects, consequences, or spirit and purpose indicates they
confer on putative plaintiffs an independent right to sue. Rather, the
statutes govern how such claims must be pursued when they exist by virtue
of other law.

                                CONCLUSION

¶32           For the reasons stated above, we affirm.

                          AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                          FILED: AA

                                         11