SURPRISE v. HON. PADILLA/SPRAU

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE CITY OF SURPRISE, an Arizona Municipal Corporation, for itself and on behalf of the CITY OF SURPRISE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) THE HONORABLE JOSE M. PADILLA, ) Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF ) THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for ) the County of MARICOPA, ) ) Respondent Judge, ) ) AMMON M. SPRAU and LORETTA K. ) SPRAU, ) ) Real Parties in Interest. ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 08/16/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls No. 1 CA-SA 12-0149 DEPARTMENT A Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV 2012-070018 CV 2012-070021 DECISION ORDER The City of Surprise ( City ) seeks special action review of the superior court s denial of its motion to dismiss. We accept jurisdiction and grant relief. In February 2012, real parties in interest Ammon and Loretta Sprau delivered a notice of claim to the City, alleging damages arising from actions by City police officers. The notice of claim described the allegedly actionable conduct and included the following language: $8,000,000.00, plus medical expenses . Total Claim Amount: The notice of claim did not explain how the alleged damages were calculated, what they encompassed, why and The incurred. or for next day, whom the medical Spraus expenses filed suit in had been superior court. The City moved to dismiss, arguing, inter alia, that the notice of claim was legally deficient because it did not include a sum certain for which the Spraus would settle. After briefing and argument, the superior court denied the City s motion. City thereafter sought special action relief. of our discretion, we accept jurisdiction. In the The exercise See Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 1(a) (special action jurisdiction proper when party has no plain, adequate or speedy remedy by appeal); State ex rel. Romley v. Martin, 203 Ariz. 46, 47, ¶ 4, 49 P.3d 1142, 1143 (App. 2002) (special action jurisdiction appropriate for purely legal questions). Before suing the City, the Spraus were required to submit a notice of ( A.R.S. ) claim that section complied with 12-821.01. See Arizona Deer Revised Valley Statutes Unified Sch. Dist. No. 97 v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 296, ¶ 9, 152 P.3d 490, 493 (2007). We review de novo satisfies statutory requirements. whether a notice of claim Jones v. Cochise County, 218 Ariz. 372, 375, ¶ 7, 187 P.3d 97, 100 (App. 2008). A notice of claim must include, among other things, a specific amount for which the claim can be settled and the facts 2 supporting that amount. also Deer Valley, 214 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821.01(A); see Ariz. at 296, ¶ 9, 152 P.3d at 493 (claimants must state a particular and certain amount of money and explain that sum in a manner that permit[s] the entity to evaluate the amount claimed ). Substantial compliance with the notice of claim requirements is insufficient. Falcon ex rel. Sandoval v. Maricopa County, 213 Ariz. 525, 527, ¶ 10, 144 P.3d 1254, 1256 (2006) ( Actual notice and substantial compliance do not excuse failure to comply with the statutory requirements of A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A). ). The Spraus demanded notice $8,000,000 quantified the claim plus claimed support for them. of was medical medical legally deficient. expenses, expenses nor but provided It neither factual Unlike the notice of claim at issue in Yollin v. City of Glendale, 219 Ariz. 24, 27 n.1, ¶ 2, 191 P.3d 1040, 1043 n.1 (App. 2008), where the claimant offered to release the city in medical exchange expenses, for the $150,000, notice of notwithstanding claim here his included ongoing no sum- certain settlement demand that, if accepted, would extinguish the City s liability. Because the notice of claim did not comply with statutory requirements, the superior court was legally bound to dismiss the Spraus complaint. See Harris v. Cochise Health Sys., 215 Ariz. 344, 351, ¶ 26, 160 P.3d 223, 230 (App. 2007) (failure to 3 comply with notice of claim statute bars claim against public employee or entity). We therefore grant relief and direct the superior court to grant the City s motion to dismiss. We deny the Spraus motion to dismiss the special action petition, as well as their request for sanctions. /s/ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ PETER B. SWANN, Presiding Judge /s/ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, 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.