MARICOPA v. HON. POTTS/ZARAGOZA

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE MARICOPA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, MARICOPA COUNTY SPECIAL HEALTH CARE DISTRICT, et al, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE KAREN POTTS, Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of MARICOPA, Respondent Judge, MARGARITA ZARAGOZA, Real Party in Interest. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 CA-SA 12-0136 DIVISION ONE FILED: 07/19/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls DEPARTMENT C Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV 2012-090080 DECISION ORDER This special action arises out of a slip and fall negligence Special claim Healthcare filed against District petitioners ( District ) and Maricopa County Maricopa County ( County ) by the real party in interest, Margarita Zaragoza. In the petition, the County argues the superior court should have dismissed Zaragoza s claim against it because it cannot be vicariously liable to her, as a matter of law, and the District argues the superior court should have dismissed the claim against it because Zaragoza failed to file a notice of claim with the District, as required under A.R.S. § 12-821.01 (Supp. 2011). IT IS ORDERED the court, Presiding Judge Patricia K. Norris, and Judges Donn Kessler and Samuel A. Thumma, denies special action jurisdiction of the issue raised by the County. See City of Phoenix v. Yarnell, 184 Ariz. 310, 315, 909 P.2d 377, 382 (1995) (special action to review superior court denial of partial summary judgment is disfavored). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED accepting jurisdiction of the issue raised by the District. Cf. Henke v. Superior Court, 161 Ariz. 96, 99-100, 75 P.2d 1160, 1163-64 (App. 1989) (immunity actions are particularly appropriate for review by special action because immunity would be lost if defendant were forced to go to trial); A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) (claim barred if not filed within 180 days after accrual of cause of action). Under A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A), before filing most 1 court claims against a public entity or employee, a claimant must file claims 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 Zaragoza the did cause not file of action accrues. a notice of claim It with is undisputed the District, although she did with the County. 1 For inapplicable to Casey, 487 U.S. This exception, example, the notice of claim statute is claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Felder v. 131, 108 S. Ct. 2302, 101 L. Ed. 2d 123 (1988). however, is not implicated here. 2 Zaragoza argues she was not required to file a notice of claim with the District directly but could serve the Clerk of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors because serves as the District s chief executive officer. the Board See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(i). In support of this argument, she points out, inter County alia, District the and the provides County owns insurance the coverage Maricopa building, which it leases to the District. for Medical the Center We disagree that these facts demonstrate or create an issue of fact that the County was serving as the District s chief executive officer for filing of the notice of claim. The District was created under A.R.S. § 48-5501.01(D) and, therefore, is a political subdivision under Article 13, Section 7, of the Arizona Constitution. own independent governing board. 2011). Moreover, A.R.S. § The District has its See A.R.S. § 48-5541.01 (Supp. 48-5541(2) District may [s]ue and be sued. (2005) provides the Although the District has entered into various legal arrangements and agreements with the County, these County and relationships the District do not are change separate the legal fact that entities the with separate governing boards, nor do they transform the Board into the District s chief executive officer. 3 For the foregoing requested by the District. reasons, we grant the relief We remand this case to the superior court with directions to dismiss the District from this action. /s/ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Presiding Judge 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.