Donahoe v. Arpaio
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76181
D. Ariz.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Mary Rose and Earl Wilcox move to enforce their April 9, 2012 settlement with Maricopa County and stay discovery; hearing held May 11, 2012, after which the court granted enforcement.
- Board of Supervisors adopted a June 23, 2010 resolution authorizing the County Manager to resolve the lawsuits, directing actions including ADR and settlements; Smith understood this delegated authority to settle without further Board approval.
- The April 9, 2012 email exchange, initiated by Wilcox’s counsel and communicated through Skelly, stated Defendants would pay $975,000 with a customary release and confidentiality, and Campbell replied that they had an agreement.
- County argued the “subject to any further approvals deemed necessary by the parties” language made the settlement non-binding and/or required Board approval; the County conceded 11-626 does not apply.
- The court found the County Manager’s delegation valid, the Wilcox settlement binding, and that Arizona Revised Statutes § 11-626 does not apply to tort claims; the mediation privilege did not bar enforcement, and Wilcox is awarded fees and costs under § 12-341.01(A).,
- Final judgment awarded $975,000 principal, $27,222 in attorney fees, and $1,089.56 expenses, with interest, and extinguished other related claims; the court retained jurisdiction to resolve related motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to settle without Board approval | Wilcox argues Board approval not required under June 2010 Resolution | County contends Board approval or §11-626 needed | County Manager had binding settlement authority; contract enforceable |
| Binding nature of April 9, 2012 emails | Emails evidenced mutual intent to be bound immediately | Language about further approvals created ambiguity | Settlement binding despite ambiguity; terms definite |
| Applicability of §11-626 to tort claims | §11-626 not applicable to tort claims | §11-626 may require approvals | §11-626 does not apply to tort claims; not a condition to binding |
| Mediation privilege and enforceability | Privileges bar testimony about contract formation | Privilege should bar evidence | Mediation privilege does not bar enforcement of a signed contract; testimony admitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Emmons v. Superior Court in and for County of Maricopa, 192 Ariz. 509 (Ct.App.1998) (enforcement of settlements governed by contract principles)
- Schade v. Diethrich, 158 Ariz. 1 (1988) (manifestation of assent essential to contract formation)
- Taylor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 175 Ariz. 148 (1993) (mutual meaning of contract language; use of surrounding circumstances to interpret)
- City of Phoenix v. Mayfield, 41 Ariz. 537 (1933) (claims for tort not subject to counterclaims under contract-like statutes)
- Norcor of Am. v. S. Ariz. Int’l Livestock Ass’n, 122 Ariz. 542 (Ct.App.1979) (county claims statutes primarily apply to contract claims, not torts)