Rash v. Town of Mammoth, 233 Ariz. 577

Background

Samuel Rash was terminated from the Town of Mammoth police force on March 22, 2011; the Town requested review and the Pinal County Employee Merit System Commission upheld the termination after a November 29, 2011 hearing.
Rash received the Commission’s written decision on March 31, 2012 and filed a statutory special action in superior court under A.R.S. § 38-1004 on May 25, 2012 challenging the Commission’s decision.
The Town and the Commission moved to dismiss as untimely and for failure to join an indispensable party; the superior court applied Rule 7(i) (Special Appellate Court Provisions) and Rule 9(a), Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., holding the 30-day appellate time limit applied and also found laches barred the action.
Rash appealed; the court of appeals considered whether appellate procedural time limits or the Administrative Review Act applied to statutory special actions under § 38-1004 and whether laches barred the petition.
The court concluded Rule 7(i) and Rule 9(a) do not apply to statutory special actions filed in superior court, the Administrative Review Act’s 35-day limit did not apply, and laches could bar only if unreasonable delay and prejudice were shown — which the superior court had not supported with evidence.
The court vacated the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings (including development of any laches defense evidence).

Issues

Issue	Rash's Argument	Town/Commission's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 7(i) (Special Appellate Court Provisions) and Rule 9(a) appellate time limits apply to statutory special actions filed in superior court	Rule 7(i)/Rule 9(a) do not apply; Rule 1(b) limits which special action rules apply to statutory special actions	Rule 7(i)/Rule 9(a) apply, so the 30-day appellate deadline barred the petition	Court: Rule 7(i)/Rule 9(a) do not apply to statutory special actions in superior court; dismissal as untimely under those rules was error
Whether the Administrative Review Act’s 35-day deadline (A.R.S. § 12-904(A)) governs appeals under § 38-1004	§ 12-904 does not apply; § 38-1004 provides its own judicial-review procedure and political subdivisions are excepted from the ARA	ARA applies and its deadline bars the petition	Court: ARA does not apply to § 38-1004 appeals; 12-904(A) deadline not applicable
Whether, absent a statutory deadline, a “normal appeal period” or precedent bars the petition	No fixed “normal” period applies; only laches can bar the remedy	Courts have applied a de facto normal period or earlier cases require prompt filing	Court: No automatic “normal” appeal period applies; any timeliness bar must proceed under laches doctrine
Whether laches barred Rash’s petition given ~6-month delay from when he became aware of the decision	Laches does not bar the petition absent proof of unreasonable delay and prejudice; Commission’s written decision was not received until March 31, 2012	Delay and policy favoring finality justify laches here	Court: Superior court abused its discretion; record lacked findings or evidence that delay was unreasonable or that defendants suffered prejudice; remand for further proceedings if laches pursued

Key Cases Cited

Old Republic Nat’l Title Ins. Co. v. New Falls Corp., 224 Ariz. 526 (procedural dismissal reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Villa de Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 227 Ariz. 91 (statutory interpretation; plain-meaning approach)
Justice v. City of Casa Grande, 116 Ariz. 66 (Administrative Review Act does not govern § 38-1004 special actions)
Felix v. Superior Court, 92 Ariz. 247 (discussing laches in context of certiorari; noted footnote about normal appeal period not adopted)
State v. Mahoney, 25 Ariz. App. 217 (special action dismissed on laches grounds in criminal-prosecution context)
State ex rel. Neely v. Rodriguez, 165 Ariz. 74 (where an appeal right was ignored, equitable time bar considerations apply; laches discussion)
Harris v. Purcell, 193 Ariz. 409 (factors for evaluating whether delay is unreasonable)
League of Ariz. Cities & Towns v. Martin, 219 Ariz. 556 (prejudice standard for laches: injury or change of position required)