Austin v. Peoria ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                          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    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
    TONY AUSTIN, a single individual; KENNETH CARVER, a married individual,
    Plaintiffs/Appellants,
    v.
    PEORIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, an Arizona governmental agency,
    Defendant/Appellee.
    No. 1 CA-CV 14-0220
    FILED 3-5-2015
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    No. CV2013-070785
    The Honorable Eileen S. Willett, Retired Judge
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    The Law Office of Michael S. DeFine, L.L.C., Sun City
    By Michael S. DeFine
    Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., Phoenix
    By Michael E. Hensley, Erik J. Stone, Jonathan P. Barnes, Jr.
    Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
    AUSTIN v. PEORIA
    Decision of the Court
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding
    Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop joined.1
    S W A N N, Judge:
    ¶1             The superior court dismissed claims against a school district based
    on the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the requirements of Arizona’s notice of
    claim statute, A.R.S. § 12-821.01. We affirm. The plaintiffs were required to
    serve their notices of claim on all of the members of the district’s governing
    board. They did not do so. Likewise, plaintiffs’ provision of the notices of claim
    to the district’s counsel, who had made no representations to them regarding his
    authorization to accept service, was insufficient.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    ¶2            In April 2012, a bus operated by the Peoria Unified School District
    (“the District”) collided with a truck occupied by Tony Austin and Kenneth
    Carver. Austin, Carver, and Sarah Saldana, an occupant of the bus, all allegedly
    sustained injuries.
    ¶3            Soon after the accident, Saldana’s counsel, Gregory J. Lyon of
    Phillips & Lyon, P.L.C., sent written correspondence to the District. The
    District’s attorney, Michael E. Hensley, responded by letter in May 2012.
    Hensley informed Lyon that he was counsel for the District, asked Lyon to direct
    all future correspondence to him, and informed Lyon that presenting a claim
    against the District would require compliance with A.R.S. § 12-821.01.
    ¶4          In October 2012, Austin and Carver, represented by Michael S.
    DeFine of The Law Office of Michael S. DeFine, L.L.C., each mailed notices of
    claim to:
    1      On the court’s own motion, the clerk of this court is directed to amend the
    caption in this matter as shown above. The above caption shall be used on all
    future documents filed in this matter.
    2
    AUSTIN v. PEORIA
    Decision of the Court
    Peoria Unified School District
    Administration Center
    6330 West Thunderbird Road
    Glendale, Arizona 85306
    Peoria Unified School District
    Administration Center
    Attention: Hal Borhauer, Board Member
    6330 West Thunderbird Road
    Glendale, Arizona 85306
    Peoria Unified School District #11
    Cottonwood Elementary
    11232 North 65th Avenue
    Glendale, Arizona 85304
    JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI
    Attention: Michael E. Hensley, Esq.
    2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800
    Phoenix, Arizona 85012
    ¶5            In April 2013, Austin, Carver, and Saldana, all of whom were at
    that point represented by DeFine, commenced a negligence action against the
    District and the Arizona Department of Public Safety (“DPS”). Austin and
    Carver alleged claims against both the District and DPS; Saldana alleged claims
    against DPS only. The District moved to dismiss the claims against it, arguing
    that Austin and Carver had failed to comply with the filing requirement of § 12-
    821.01(A) because the notice of claim had not been served on every member of
    the District’s Governing Board. Austin and Carver argued in response that
    mailing the notices to the administration center where the Board met and to
    Borhauer, the Board’s president, was sufficient. Austin and Carver also argued
    that, in view of Hensley’s instruction to Lyon to direct all further correspondence
    to him, service on Hensley was sufficient.
    ¶6           The superior court granted the District’s motion to dismiss Austin
    and Carver’s claims against it and entered judgment under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
    Austin and Carver appeal.
    3
    AUSTIN v. PEORIA
    Decision of the Court
    DISCUSSION
    ¶7               A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) requires that a claim against a public entity be
    “file[d] . . . with the person or persons authorized to accept service for the public
    entity or public employee as set forth in the Arizona rules of civil procedure
    within one hundred eighty days after the cause of action accrues.” If the notice
    of claim is not properly filed, the claim is barred. Id.
    ¶8            At the time relevant to this appeal, Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(i) provided:
    Service upon a county or a municipal corporation or other
    governmental subdivision of the state subject to suit, and from
    which a waiver has not been obtained and filed, 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.2
    A school district is a political subdivision of the state that may sue and be sued
    through its governing board. A.R.S. §§ 15-101(22), -326(1). For the purpose of
    filing a notice of claim, the governing board is the school district’s “chief
    executive officer.” See Batty v. Glendale Union High School Dist. No. 205, 
    221 Ariz. 592
    , 594-95, ¶¶ 9-11, 
    212 P.3d 930
    , 932-33 (App. 2009). The question we must
    decide is whether the notice of claim must be filed with the entirety of the board.
    ¶9             We are guided by Falcon v. Maricopa County, 
    213 Ariz. 525
    , 
    144 P.3d 1254
     (2006). In Falcon, the supreme court held that a county’s “board of
    supervisors is the chief executive officer of the county for purposes of Rule 4.1(i)
    and that delivering a notice of claim to only one member of the board does not
    comply with the requirements of either the statute [§ 12-821.01] or the rule [Rule
    4.1(i)].”3 Id. at 526, ¶ 2, 
    144 P.3d at 1255
    . The court explained that because
    2      The current version of Rule 4.1 specifies particular officials who must be
    served with respect to the state, the counties, and municipal corporations, and
    provides that service upon “any other governmental entity” must be made upon
    the person designated by statute to receive service for the entity or, if there is no
    such person, upon “the chief executive officer(s), or, alternatively, the official
    secretary, clerk, or recording officer of the entity as established by law.” Ariz. R.
    Civ. P. 4.1(h).
    3     After Falcon was decided, Rule 4.1 was amended to provide that service
    upon a county is effected by service upon the clerk of the county’s board of
    supervisors. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(h)(2).
    4
    AUSTIN v. PEORIA
    Decision of the Court
    individual supervisors lack authority to settle claims against the county,
    “[d]elivery of a notice of claim to only one board member does not further the
    purpose of A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) by providing the county the opportunity to
    consider the claim and possibly settle it.” Id. at 528, ¶ 21, 
    144 P.3d at 1257
    . The
    court further explained that “service of a notice of claim upon a single member of
    a multi-member political entity does not necessarily result in successful notice to
    the entity as a whole, which is the point of A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) and Rule 4.1(i).”
    Id. at 529, ¶ 25, 
    144 P.3d at 1258
    . The court posited that “[m]any of the part-time
    members of political subdivisions, such as school boards, may not appreciate the
    significance of a notice of claim or realize that such a claim must be acted upon
    within sixty days,” and, “[m]oreover, the individual served may have no reason
    to think that he or she was the only member served, and so might not think it
    necessary to inform others.” Id. at ¶ 26 (emphasis added).
    ¶10           Applying the reasoning of Falcon, we hold that a notice of claim is
    filed with a school district’s “chief executive officer” when it is filed with all of
    the members of the governing board.4 Austin and Carver did not do this.
    Though they delivered notices to the building where the Board met, the notices
    were not addressed to each of the Board members (or even to the Board
    generally). They were instead addressed to a single Board member (who was not
    delegated by the Board to receive service of process, and who did not serve as
    the Board’s secretary, clerk, or recording officer) and to the District generally.
    This was insufficient.
    ¶11          Austin and Carver contend that equitable estoppel nonetheless
    precluded dismissal of their claims because they sent their notices of claim to
    Hensley, the District’s counsel, in reasonable reliance on his statement to Lyon,
    Saldana’s former counsel, that all further correspondence should be directed to
    4      Austin and Carver contend for the first time on appeal that this rule
    violates Arizona’s anti-abrogation clause, Ariz. Const. art. 18, § 6. They argue
    that our holding requires notices of claim to be served on board members during
    public meetings -- which are only occasional -- because under the state open
    meetings law, A.R.S. §§ 38-431 et seq., members cannot take official actions except
    at such meetings. Austin and Carver’s arguments are unfounded. Nothing in
    Rule 4.1 requires that a public official be fulfilling his or her official duties at the
    moment of service. Further, it is well-established that a notice of claim may be
    served by mail. Lee v. State, 
    218 Ariz. 235
    , 239, ¶ 19, 
    182 P.3d 1169
    , 1173 (2008).
    Though the open meetings law may bear upon the process by which a governing
    board responds to a notice of claim, it has no relation to the manner by which the
    claimant must file the notice.
    5
    AUSTIN v. PEORIA
    Decision of the Court
    Hensley. Equitable estoppel requires that the party to be estopped engage in
    conduct inconsistent with its later position, and that the other party reasonably
    rely on the conduct to its detriment. Valencia Energy Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue,
    
    191 Ariz. 565
    , 576-77, ¶¶ 35, 37, 
    959 P.2d 1256
    , 1267-68 (1998). Here, the letter in
    question was not directed to Austin, Carver, or their counsel, and it made no
    comment regarding Austin or Carver. The letter was in no way inconsistent with
    the District’s later position regarding Austin and Carver, and Austin and
    Carver’s purported reliance on the letter was not reasonable. The fact that
    Saldana later came to be represented by the same attorney as Austin and Carver
    is immaterial.
    CONCLUSION
    ¶12            We affirm for the reasons set forth above. The District requests an
    award of attorney’s fees on appeal under ARCAP 25, Ariz. R. Civ. P. 11, and
    A.R.S. § 12-349. We note that Rule 11 does not provide grounds for an award of
    fees on appeal. Villa de Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, 
    227 Ariz. 91
    , 99 n.10, ¶ 26,
    
    253 P.2d 288
    , 296 n.10 (App. 2011). In the exercise of our discretion, we deny the
    District’s requests for fees under ARCAP 25 and § 12-349.
    :ama
    6