Lisa Aubuchon v. County of Maricopa
708 F. App'x 436
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- Lisa Aubuchon (disbarred) and Rachel Alexander (suspended) sought to require Maricopa County to pay bar-disciplinary costs assessed by the Arizona Supreme Court. The underlying disciplinary orders are In re Aubuchon and In re Alexander.
- Plaintiffs sued the County in federal district court asserting contract, unjust enrichment, tort, and Section 1983 claims; County moved for summary judgment.
- Alexander failed to file a pre-suit governmental notice of claim under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821.01(A).
- Aubuchon relied on (1) alleged terms of her original employment contract, (2) a County Trust Agreement, and (3) past Trustee approvals for other employees as bases for County liability.
- The Trust Agreement expressly excluded coverage for disciplinary costs absent prior trustee approval; Aubuchon conceded the Trust did not automatically cover such costs.
- District court granted summary judgment for the County on all claims; this appeal affirms. Judge Eaton concurred in part but would have reversed on Aubuchon’s contract and unjust-enrichment issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance with Arizona notice-of-claim statute | Alexander: County should pay despite not filing the statutory notice | County: Alexander failed to strictly comply with § 12-821.01(A) | Alexander’s claim barred for failure to comply with the notice statute |
| Whether original employment contract obligated County to pay bar costs (Aubuchon) | Aubuchon: contract (and supervisor statements) created duty for County to pay disciplinary costs | County: no contractual term requiring payment; supervisor’s statements are insufficient to alter written contract | No triable issue; Aubuchon produced no evidence that original contract required payment |
| Whether Trust Agreement or past approvals obligated County to pay Aubuchon’s costs | Aubuchon: Trust or pattern of payments for others shows obligation or modification | County: Trust expressly excludes such costs absent prior written trustee approval; past discretionary payments do not modify contract | Trust does not obligate County; isolated approvals do not modify the contract |
| Unjust enrichment / restitution | Aubuchon: County benefited and equity requires disgorgement for costs it should have paid | County: Aubuchon provided no extra-contractual work nor was a benefit retained that warrants restitution | Unjust enrichment claim dismissed for lack of benefit conferred or expectation of non-gratuitous performance |
| § 1983 — First Amendment retaliation | Aubuchon: denial of payment was retaliation for protected speech about corruption | County: decision not to pay occurred before Aubuchon testified; no causal link | Retaliation claim fails (action preceded the speech) |
| § 1983 — Equal protection (class-of-one) | Aubuchon: County treated her differently without rational basis | County: class-of-one theory not applicable in public-employment context | Equal protection claim fails under Engquist; unavailable to public employees |
| § 1983 — Monell municipal liability | Aubuchon: County policy or custom caused deprivation | County: no showing of a policy amounting to deliberate indifference to rights | Monell claim fails for lack of policy or deliberate indifference evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Simon v. Maricopa Med. Ctr., 225 Ariz. 55, 234 P.3d 623 (Arizona 2010) (statute requires strict compliance with governmental notice-of-claim rule)
- Thornhill Publ’g Co. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs. Corp., 594 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1979) (party’s legal conclusion about contract terms is not admissible evidence of those terms)
- Flooring Sys., Inc. v. Radisson Grp., Inc., 160 Ariz. 224, 772 P.2d 578 (Ariz. 1989) (elements of unjust enrichment/restitution require a benefit retained that equity demands disgorgement)
- Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591 (U.S. 2008) (class-of-one equal protection theory inapplicable in public-employment context)
- Daugherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (municipal liability under Monell requires showing a policy or deliberate indifference to constitutional rights)
- In re Aubuchon, 233 Ariz. 62, 309 P.3d 886 (Ariz. 2013) (disciplinary order referenced in underlying dispute)
- In re Alexander, 232 Ariz. 1, 300 P.3d 636 (Ariz. 2013) (disciplinary order referenced in underlying dispute)