Brittner v. Lanzilotta
246 Ariz. 294
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Brittner sued Dr. Mary Ann Lanzilotta after she resigned as the court‑appointed therapeutic interventionist (TI) in his custody/dissolution matter, asserting claims including intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of power, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract.
- Family court appointed Lanzilotta (via a court order) after a custody evaluator recommended a TI; the court relied on her recommendations in its final custody decree.
- The appointment tasked Lanzilotta with rehabilitating parent‑child relationships, establishing exchange rules to enhance family safety, making therapy referrals, and facilitating conflict resolution.
- Brittner’s amended complaint acknowledged the appointment and the court’s reliance on Lanzilotta’s recommendations; his allegations tied her conduct to the work she performed in the family action.
- Lanzilotta moved to dismiss under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), asserting she was entitled to judicial immunity as a court‑appointed TI; the superior court dismissed with prejudice and Brittner appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court‑appointed therapeutic interventionist is entitled to absolute judicial immunity for actions taken pursuant to the appointment | Brittner: Lanzilotta was hired to provide therapeutic services (treating capacity), not to serve as an expert advising the court, so she lacks judicial immunity | Lanzilotta: She was appointed by court order to provide information and recommendations the court used in its custody determination; her role was integral to the judicial process and thus entitled to judicial immunity | Court: Affirmed dismissal; Lanzilotta entitled to judicial immunity because her therapeutic work was integral to the court’s fact‑finding and recommendations used in the final order |
| Whether therapeutic sessions can be separated from evaluation/reporting for immunity purposes | Brittner: Some services may be ministerial or for one party and thus not immune | Lanzilotta: Therapy sessions were part of information gathering to formulate expert opinion; cannot be practically parceled out | Court: Cannot separate therapy from the evaluative/reporting function here; immunity covers the court‑ordered therapeutic/evaluative role |
Key Cases Cited
- Paul E. v. Courtney F., 244 Ariz. 46 (App. 2018) (distinguishes treating therapist from court‑appointed advisor when therapist is not ordered to report to the court)
- Lavit v. Superior Court, 173 Ariz. 96 (App. 1992) (absolute judicial immunity extended to certain court officials performing functions integral to the judicial process)
- Acevedo ex rel. Acevedo v. Pima Cty. Adult Prob. Dep’t, 142 Ariz. 319 (1996) (judicial immunity applies to nonjudicial officers performing court‑directed functions)
- In re Alexander, 232 Ariz. 1 (2013) (judicial immunity protects judges for judicial acts; provides background on immunity doctrine)
- Widoff v. Wiens, 202 Ariz. 383 (App. 2002) (existence of judicial immunity is a question of law reviewed de novo)