Crick v. Globe, City of, 606 F.Supp.3d 912

Background

Plaintiffs April and Timothy Crick own a commercial property in Globe, Arizona; April alleges multiple incidents in 2020 in which Globe police officers threatened her, pointed firearms, used excessive force, and later arrested her; the criminal case was tried and dismissed.
Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (federal constitutional claims) and asserted state-law tort claims (assault and battery, negligence, IIED, negligent hiring/training) against the City of Globe, the Globe Police Department, Police Chief Walters, and Officers Hernandez and Hudson.
Defendants moved for partial summary judgment seeking: dismissal of the Globe Police Department as a non‑jural entity, dismissal of state-law claims against the individual officers for failure to comply with Arizona’s notice-of-claim statute, and dismissal of related state-law claims against the City.
The Notice of Claims for the individual officers was delivered by a constable to front-office personnel (Kathleen Vega and Beth McCreary) at the Globe Police Department rather than to the officers personally; plaintiffs contend this was an accepted prior practice.
The court held that (a) the Globe Police Department is not a separate suable entity and was dismissed; (b) delivery to front-office staff did not satisfy A.R.S. § 12-821.01 and the state-law claims against the individual officers were dismissed; and (c) the City of Globe’s vicarious liability (state-law) claim survives because dismissal for failure to serve a notice of claim is not an adjudication on the merits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Globe Police Department is a jural entity that can be sued	Crick argued department can be held responsible / allocated fault	Defendants: police department is a subpart of the municipality and not suable	Dismissed Globe Police Department as non‑jural entity; City remains proper defendant
Whether service of the notice of claim on individual officers was valid under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(d) and A.R.S. § 12‑821.01	Crick: constable’s long‑standing practice of leaving notices with front‑office personnel and lack of objection made such service effective	Defendants: front‑office employees were not authorized agents; officer declarations deny authorization	Service insufficient; state‑law claims against Walters, Hernandez, Hudson dismissed for failure to strictly comply
Whether dismissal of individual officers for failure to serve notice precludes vicarious liability against the City	Crick: dismissal for lack of notice is not an adjudication on the merits, so City’s vicarious liability survives	Defendants: if employee claims are dismissed, City cannot be vicariously liable	Court followed Arizona Supreme Court precedent in Banner and held dismissal for failure to serve notice is not a merits adjudication; vicarious claim against City survives
Whether state‑law claims against the City must be dismissed because employee claims were dismissed	Crick: City can still be liable under respondeat superior	Defendants: employee dismissals bar City’s vicarious liability	Denied as to City: state‑law vicarious liability claim remains pending against the City of Globe

Key Cases Cited

Gotbaum v. City of Phoenix, 617 F. Supp. 2d 878 (D. Ariz. 2008) (police department is not a separate suable entity)
Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 2015) (county office is a non‑jural entity for suit purposes)
Braillard v. Maricopa Cnty., 232 P.3d 1263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010) (Arizona courts treat police departments as non‑jural entities)
Crum v. Superior Court In and For Cnty. of Maricopa, 922 P.2d 316 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996) (notice must be given to both public employee and employer when claim arises in course and scope of employment)
Harris v. Cochise Health Sys., 160 P.3d 223 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (strict compliance with A.R.S. § 12‑821.01 is mandatory)
Banner Univ. Med. Ctr. Tucson Campus, LLC v. Gordon, 502 P.3d 30 (Ariz. 2022) (dismissal for failure to serve notice of claim is not a final merits adjudication; vicarious liability not necessarily precluded)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and burden allocation)