Fuciarelli v. Good et al
Filing
39
ORDER denying 30 Motion to Dismiss Count Three of Plaintiff's Complaint. See order for details. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 1/27/2015.(LMR)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Kevin Fuciarelli,
No. CV-14-01078-PHX-GMS
Plaintiff,
10
11
v.
12
ORDER
Aaron B. Good, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
Pending before the Court is Defendant City of Scottsdale’s Motion to Dismiss
15
Count Three of Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. 30.) For the following reasons, the Motion is
16
denied.
17
BACKGROUND
18
Plaintiff Kevin Fuciarelli alleges that Scottsdale Police Department Officers Aaron
19
B. Good and Edward A. Chrisman restrained him without any reason or provocation and
20
caused him severe injury. Defendant City of Scottsdale (“Scottsdale”) brings the current
21
Motion, claiming that Fuciarelli failed to provide adequate notice, in his required Notice
22
of Claim (“Notice”) under Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 12-821.01(A), of the facts needed to
23
support a negligence claim for failure to use reasonable care in hiring, training, and
24
supervising Defendants Good and Chrisman. Fuciarelli, in his Response, contends that
25
the current Motion should be considered a motion for summary judgment instead of a
26
motion to dismiss, that his Notice was sufficient, and that Scottsdale waived its right to
27
28
1
raise the issue of an insufficient Notice.1
DISCUSSION
2
3
I.
Form of the Motion
4
Fuciarreli first claims that the current Motion should have been brought as a
5
motion for summary judgment and not as a motion to dismiss. The few Arizona courts
6
that have addressed this issue support Fuciarelli’s contention that a Notice of Claim “is a
7
document outside the pleadings,” which should be addressed in a motion for summary
8
judgment. Jones v. Cochise Cnty., 218 Ariz. 372, 375, 187 P.3d 97, 100 (Ct. App. 2008)
9
(“The trial court granted the motion, properly regarding it as a motion for summary
10
judgment pursuant to Rule 56(c), Ariz. R. Civ. P.”); Vasquez v. State, 220 Ariz. 304, 308,
11
206 P.3d 753, 757 (Ct. App. 2008) (“Because the court considered ‘matters outside the
12
pleading,’ it should have treated the motion as one for summary judgment.”). To convert
13
a motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment, the “parties must be given a
14
reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.” Fed. R.
15
Civ. P. 12(d). However, the parties here have already briefed the relevant issue and have
16
no need to provide further factual support because all facts relevant to the current Motion
17
are undisputed and contained in the Notice. Thus, the Court will simply treat the current
18
motion as one for summary judgment.
19
II.
Legal Standard
20
Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most
21
favorable to the nonmoving party, demonstrates “that there is no genuine dispute as to
22
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ.
23
P. 56(a). Because there are no disputes as to any material facts regarding the Notice, the
24
sole issue to be decided is whether the Notice was sufficient as a matter of law under
25
Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 12-821.01(A).
26
27
1
28
Because, as discussed below, Fuciarelli’s Notice was adequate under the statute,
the issue of whether Scottsdale waived this defense becomes moot and is not addressed in
this Order.
-2-
1
III.
Analysis
2
Section 12-821.01(A) states that a plaintiff bringing a claim against a public entity
3
or public employee must provide a Notice, which “shall contain facts sufficient to permit
4
the public entity or public employee to understand the basis on which liability is
5
claimed.” Arizona courts have held that plaintiffs who do not strictly comply with section
6
12-821.01(A) are barred from bringing suit. Salerno v. Espinoza, 210 Ariz. 586, 588, 115
7
P.3d 626, 628 (Ct. App. 2005); Harris v. Cochise Health Sys., 215 Ariz. 344, 351, 160
8
P.3d 223, 230 (Ct. App. 2007). However, the Arizona Supreme Court has held that (1)
9
section 12-821.01(A) “does not require a claimant to provide an exhaustive list of facts”
10
and (2) “courts should not scrutinize the claimant’s description of facts to determine the
11
‘sufficiency’ of the factual disclosure.” Backus v. State, 220 Ariz. 101, 107, 203 P.3d
12
499, 505 (2009).2 Other courts have held that the factual showing required in the Notice
13
is minimal and that a plaintiff’s failure to state a specific theory of liability will not bar
14
the claim so long as the facts in the Notice allow the public entity to anticipate the claim.
15
See Yollin v. City of Glendale, 219 Ariz. 24, 32, 191 P.3d 1040, 1048 (Ct. App. 2008)
16
(“The claim statute anticipates that government entities will investigate claims, and the
17
supporting facts requirement is intended to be a relatively light burden on claimants, just
18
enough to facilitate the government's investigation.”); Mitchell v. City of Flagstaff, No.
19
CV 11-8140-PCT-FJM, 2011 WL 5826014, at *3 (D. Ariz. Nov. 18, 2011) (“Although a
20
notice of claim must apprise the public entity of the basis of liability, it need not satisfy
21
the pleading standards of Twombly and Iqbal.”)
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
The court in Backus held this in relation to another portion of 12-821.01(A),
which requires a plaintiff to state in the Notice the specific amount of damages that it
claims and also requires, similar to the factual burden at issue here, “facts supporting that
amount.” Other courts have considered this factual burden for the amount of damages
under section 12-821.01(A) to be sufficiently analogous to the factual burden for a
plaintiff’s claims in section 12-821.01(A) that they have applied the holding in Backus to
both factual burdens. See Picht v. Peoria Unified Sch. Dist. No. 11 of Maricopa Cnty.,
641 F. Supp. 2d 888, 896 (D. Ariz. 2009).
28
-3-
1
In Mitchell, the court held that a plaintiff’s Notice sufficiently alerted the City of
2
Flagstaff to a negligent training and supervision claim stemming from the conduct of one
3
of its police officers though the notice of claim did not separately identify negligent
4
training and/or supervision by the city. Mitchell, 2011 WL 5826014 at *2-3. The Notice
5
identified the officer as belonging to the city police department and provided specific
6
details of the officer’s “actions and movements from the moment that he arrived at
7
[Mitchell’s] apartment.” Id.
8
Similar to the city in Mitchell, in the present case, Scottsdale contends that
9
Fuciarelli has provided no facts in his Notice from which it could have anticipated a
10
direct claim for negligence—as opposed to a vicarious liability claim—based on failure
11
to use reasonable care in hiring, training, and supervising Defendants Good and
12
Chrisman. However, as with the Notice in Mitchell, the Notice here identifies Officers
13
Good and Chrisman as officers of the Scottsdale Police Department and provides a
14
detailed account of their interactions with Fuciarelli. (Doc. 30, Ex. 1.) For example, the
15
Notice states that Officers Good and Chrisman held Fuciarelli and his father under
16
“investigative detention” without any reason and that, after this, “[s]uddenly, without
17
provocation or warning, Officer Good grabbed [Fuciarelli] from behind, placed him in a
18
chokehold, threw Claimant to the ground, and handcuffed him.” (Id.) The Notice also
19
states that Officer Chrisman assisted in restraining Fuciarelli and in taking him down.
20
(Id.) Further, the Notice states that neither Officer Good nor Officer Chrisman assisted
21
Fuciarelli despite him “complaining that he was injured,” and that he was only given
22
medical assistance with the arrival of a third officer. (Id.) Just as the Notice in Mitchell
23
made the city aware of a negligence claim, Fuciarelli’s Notice was “sufficient to place the
24
City on alert that its training or supervision” of the officers involved “might have been
25
negligent.” Mitchell, 2011 WL 5826014 at *3. Fuciarelli’s failure to specifically state his
26
theory of liability as one of negligence in the Notice does not alter this conclusion.
27
28
-4-
CONCLUSION
1
2
Fuciarelli’s Notice was sufficient to alert Scottsdale to a potential negligence
3
claim for failure to use reasonable care in hiring, training, and supervising Defendants
4
Good and Chrisman.
5
6
7
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant City of Scottsdale’s Motion to
Dismiss Count Three of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 30) is DENIED.
Dated this 27th day of January, 2015.
8
9
10
Honorable G. Murray Snow
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?