Martineau v. Maricopa County

• Decision Date: 25 March 2004
• Docket Number: No. 1 CA-CV 03-0056.,1 CA-CV 03-0056.
• Citation: 207 Ariz. 332,86 P.3d 912
• Parties: Tony MARTINEAU and Joseph Reyes, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MARICOPA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona; Fulton Brock, Don Stapley, Andrew Kunasek, Jan Brewer, and Mary Rose Wilcox, in their capacities as Members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

86 P.3d 912

207 Ariz. 332

Tony MARTINEAU and Joseph Reyes, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MARICOPA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona; Fulton Brock, Don Stapley, Andrew Kunasek, Jan Brewer, and Mary Rose Wilcox, in their capacities as Members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Defendants-Appellees.

No. -0056.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department D.

March 25, 2004.

Gunderson, Denton & Proffitt, P.C. by Brad A. Denton, Patrick J. Thurston, Mesa, Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Dean M. Wolcott, Phoenix, Attorney for Defendants-Appellees.

OPINION

WINTHROP, Judge.

¶ 1 The superior court granted summary judgment to Appellees ("the County"), dismissing Appellants' declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of a policy promulgated by the County. In this opinion, we decide whether Appellants complied, and were required to comply, with Arizona's public entity and county claim notice statutes as a prerequisite to maintaining their action for declaratory relief. We ultimately hold that Appellants were not required to comply with the claim notice statutes in order to challenge the validity of the County's policy.

FACTS AND RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS

¶ 2 Appellants are duly elected constables for justice precincts in Maricopa County, Arizona. In July 2001, the County promulgated Policy No. A2232 ("the policy"), entitled "Constables Personal Safety Training Policy." Under the policy, the County offered three levels of enhanced safety training for constables. Although no level of training was mandatory, the policy provided that constables who successfully completed and maintained Levels I and II training would be permitted to carry certain defensive (non-lethal) weapons during the performance of their duties; constables who successfully completed and maintained Level I and Level III training would be permitted to carry a firearm while performing their duties; and only constables who completed Level III training and obtained an Arizona concealed weapons permit would be permitted to carry a concealed weapon in the performance of their duties. The policy further provided that constables who were currently certified as peace officers in accordance with Az-POST¹ regulations did not need to duplicate applicable requirements under the policy.

¶ 3 Appellants filed a declaratory judgment action attempting to invalidate the policy and seeking a declaration that they are "peace officers and entitled to all the legal rights and benefits as such under Arizona law." Ancillary to Appellants' main action was their contention that they were entitled to counsel of their choice at County expense.

¶ 4 The County defended the validity of its policy and denied that constables are peace officers, or are entitled to perform the duties of peace officers, absent certification from the State of Arizona. The County also denied responsibility for Appellants' attorneys' fees.

¶ 5 Appellants moved for summary judgment in their favor, seeking a judgment that constables are "peace officers as a matter of [Arizona] law," and arguing that the superior court should declare the County's policy invalid on various grounds. The County moved for summary judgment in its favor on the grounds that Appellants failed to satisfy statutory notice of claim requirements and that Appellants' claims were moot because Appellants had satisfied the policy's requirements in all material respects.

¶ 6 The trial court did not address the statutory notice of claims argument, but ruled that Appellants were required to follow the County's policy, that the policy did not conflict with state law, and that the County was entitled to summary judgment.² The trial court also ruled that the County was not responsible for Appellants' attorneys' fees. After the trial court entered final judgment, Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101(B) (2003).

THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION

¶ 7 On appeal, Appellants contend that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the County and in ruling that the County was not responsible for their attorneys' fees. The County contends that the trial court's judgment may be upheld because Appellants failed to satisfy essential prerequisites to their cause of action by not serving their claim notice properly as required by A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) (2003) and failing to present their claim in accordance with A.R.S. § 11-622(A) (2001).³ Because only our resolution of the question whether Appellants were required to comply with Arizona's public entity and county claim notice statutes merits publication, we have addressed the remaining issues in a separately filed memorandum decision. See ARCAP 28(g); Ariz. R. Sup.Ct. 111(h).

ANALYSIS

I. Standard of Review

¶ 8 Summary judgment may be granted when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and [ ] the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In reviewing the trial court's grant of summary judgment, we determine de novo whether any genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the trial court erred in applying the law. Eller Media Co. v. City of Tucson, 198 Ariz. 127, 130, ¶ 4, 7 P.3d 136, 139 (App.2000).

¶ 9 Additionally, statutory interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo. State Comp. Fund v. Superior Court (EnerGCorp, Inc.), 190 Ariz. 371, 374-75, 948 P.2d 499, 502-03 (App.1997)

. Our goal in interpreting a statute is to give effect to legislative intent. Id. at 375, 948 P.2d at 503. We begin our analysis with the plain language of the pertinent statute, Zamora v. Reinstein, 185 Ariz. 272, 275, 915 P.2d 1227, 1230 (1996), because a statute's plain language provides the best evidence of intent. EnerGCorp,

190 Ariz. at 375,

948 P.2d at 503. However, we may also infer intent from a statute's purpose. Id.

II. Failure to Comply With Notice of Claim Requirements

¶ 10 The County's cross-motion for summary judgment argued that Appellants' complaint should be dismissed for failure to serve their claim notice properly under the public entity notice of claim requirements of A.R.S. § 12-821.01, and failure to present their claim in accordance with the county claim notice statute, A.R.S. § 11-622(A). Although the trial court did not address this argument in its ruling, the County raises the issue again on appeal as an alternative ground for upholding the trial court's judgment in its favor. See ARCAP 13(b)(3) (stating that an appellee may present any issue properly presented in the superior court as grounds for affirmance of the judgment but may not seek expanded relief except by cross-appeal). We address this issue because, if the County is correct, Appellants failed to satisfy a "mandatory" and "essential" prerequisite to their cause of action, see Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427, 432, 788 P.2d 1178, 1183 (1990)

(interpreting the 1984 revision of former A.R.S. § 12-821, the predecessor public entity notice statute), and we therefore would not need to further consider Appellants' appeal.

¶ 11 "Persons who have claims against a public entity ... shall file claims with the person or persons authorized to accept service for the public entity ... as set forth in the Arizona rules of civil procedure...." A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A). Pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1(i), service upon a county "shall be effected by delivering a copy of the summons and of the pleading to the chief executive officer, the secretary, clerk, or recording officer thereof."

¶ 12 Appellants served notice of their objections to the County's policy upon the Risk Management Office of the Maricopa County Attorney's Office ("MCAO"), which is not one of the officers upon whom service is directed to be made under the civil rules. Appellants also did not present a claim in strict accordance with A.R.S. § 11-622(A), which provides:

A person having a claim against a county shall present to the board of supervisors of the county against which the demand is held an itemized claim executed by the person under penalties of perjury, stating minutely what the claim is for, specifying each item, the date and amount of each item and stating that the claim and each item of the claim is justly due.

¶ 13 Appellants contend that they substantially satisfied both statutory notice of claim requirements by serving the MCAO and by voicing their objections to the policy to the County's Board of Supervisors at a public hearing that took place before the policy was enacted. Appellants note that their objections to the proposed policy resulted in a delay in its enactment and the appointment of a committee to investigate their claim. They rely on Ames v. State, 143 Ariz. 548, 694 P.2d 836 (App.1985), to support their substantial compliance argument.

¶ 14 We find Ames unhelpful because the Ames court interpreted an earlier version of the public entity claim statute, former A.R.S. § 12-821, which "d[id] not contain any provisions expressly dealing with the question of to whom notice must be given or the manner of giving notice." Id. at 550 n. 1, 694 P.2d at 838 n. 1. The revision of § 12-821 in 1984 added the requirement that the notice of claim be given "in the same manner as that prescribed in the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure" for service of process in civil actions. 1984 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 285, § 5. The present notice of claim statute, § 12-821.01(A), perpetuates this requirement.

¶ 15 Neither party has cited Blauvelt v. County of Maricopa, 160 Ariz. 77, 80, 770 P.2d 381, 384 (App.1988), in which this court held that the failure to comply with the mandate in subsection (A) of the revised version of § 12-821, stating that service be made in accordance with Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d), meant that the plaintiff's "subsequent lawsuit must fall." The Blauvelt court specifically rejected the claim Appellants make here, that actual notice to the MCAO met the...