Orosco v. Maricopa County Special Health Care District
241 Ariz. 529
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Brandon and Jennifer Orosco (and family) sued Maricopa County Special Health Care District for medical malpractice and obtained a jury verdict of $4.25 million with the District 99% at fault.
- Plaintiffs served two Rule 68 offers: $3,950,000 (Dec 13, 2013) and $3,949,999 (Sept 27, 2014); the District did not accept either.
- After the verdict exceeded both offers, plaintiffs sought sanctions under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 68(g) calculated from the date of the first offer, including prejudgment interest, expert fees, and doubled taxable costs incurred after the first offer.
- The superior court awarded sanctions (prejudgment interest from the first offer date, $147,441.33 in expert fees, and double taxable costs post-first-offer) and taxed costs for private process service of the summons and notice of claim.
- The District appealed; this opinion affirms the use of the first-offer date for Rule 68(g) sanctions and affirms taxing private process-server fees as costs (while other cost/sanction rulings were remanded per a separate memorandum decision).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a later offer of judgment extinguishes the effect of an earlier unaccepted offer for Rule 68(g) sanctions when the final judgment is less favorable to the defendant than both offers | Orosco: Sanctions should run from the date of the first offer because defendant failed to accept it and final judgment was less favorable than both offers | District: A successive offer should extinguish the prior offer's sanction effect (citing Albios) | Court held a later offer does NOT extinguish the first offer when the judgment is less favorable than both offers; sanctions may be calculated from the first offer date under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 68(g) |
| Whether costs for private process service (serving notice of claim and summons) are taxable under A.R.S. § 12-332(A)(1) | Orosco: Private process-server fees are taxable because § 12-3301(A) defines private process servers as "officers of the court," making their fees "fees of officers and witnesses" | District: No controlling authority supports taxing private process-server costs; argued potential conflict with Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(c) | Court held private process-server fees are taxable under § 12-332(A)(1); Rule 4.1(c) is consistent (it shifts costs when defendant refuses a proper waiver request) |
Key Cases Cited
- Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc., 132 P.3d 1022 (Nev. 2006) (held successive offer can extinguish prior offer under that state's rule)
- Martinez v. Brownco Constr. Co., 301 P.3d 1167 (Cal. 2013) (successive offer does not extinguish earlier offer when judgment is less favorable than both; sanctions may run from first offer)
- Arellano v. Primerica Life Ins. Co., 235 Ariz. 371 (App. 2014) (describing Rule 68's purpose to promote settlement and avoid protracted litigation)
- Farm & Auto Supply v. Phoenix Fuel Co., 103 Ariz. 344 (1968) (discussed taxing costs of private process service under a prior statute)