Strojnik v. Brnovich
1 CA-CV 20-0423
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jul 20, 2021Background
- Peter Strojnik, formerly an Arizona attorney who filed hundreds of ADA/AzDA suits, was suspended and later disbarred after disciplinary proceedings in which the Attorney General’s office participated.
- AG Mark Brnovich intervened in and moved to consolidate/dismiss numerous ADA/AzDA cases brought by Strojnik in 2016–2017.
- Strojnik served a notice of claim on AG Brnovich on June 10, 2019 and filed a verified complaint on September 3, 2019 alleging conspiracy, aiding/abetting, tortious interference, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and seeking mandamus to compel periodic AzDA compliance reviews.
- The superior court granted the AG’s amended Rule 12(b)(6) motion: dismissed damages claims with prejudice as time-barred under A.R.S. § 12-821.01, dismissed mandamus claim for lack of appropriate relief/standing, denied leave to amend (futility), and awarded § 12-349 attorney-fee sanctions to the AG.
- The court of appeals affirmed: exhibits attached to the motion were properly considered; damages claims accrued no later than November 2018 (so the June 2019 notice was untimely); AG acted within official duties (immunity); mandamus was unavailable because the statutory duty was discretionary; sanctions were appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attachments to the amended Rule 12(b)(6) motion converted it into a Rule 56 motion | Exhibits outside the verified complaint required conversion to summary judgment | Exhibits were public records or matters referenced in the complaint; plaintiff waived objections to others | Court properly considered the exhibits; no conversion required |
| Whether damages claims were time-barred under A.R.S. § 12-821.01 (accrual/notice) | Strojnik discovered AG’s role in March 2019, so June 2019 notice was timely | Strojnik knew or should have known by Nov 2018 (op-ed, suspension, disbarment proceedings); notice untimely | Accrual occurred by Nov 2018; June 10, 2019 notice was untimely; damages claims dismissed |
| Whether AG Brnovich is personally liable for Strojnik’s alleged torts | AG acted with improper motives and is personally liable | AG acted within official duties and is entitled to immunity | AG acted within scope of official duties; immunity bars personal liability |
| Whether mandamus may compel AG to perform “periodic” AzDA compliance reviews | "Periodic" implies at least once; beneficial interest suffices for standing; mandamus appropriate | Statute gives no timing or manner; duty is discretionary, not ministerial; mandamus inappropriate | Duty discretionary (no specified timing/manner); mandamus unavailable; claim dismissed |
| Whether sanctions under A.R.S. § 12-349 were improper | Right to petition protects the suit; sanctions inappropriate | Claims were frivolous/harassing and lacked substantial justification | Sanctions affirmed; appellate fees awarded to appellees |
Key Cases Cited
- Brittner v. Lanzilotta, 246 Ariz. 294 (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352 (public records referenced in a complaint may be considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
- Cruz v. City of Tucson, 243 Ariz. 69 (accrual requires knowledge a wrong occurred and a reason to investigate the likely source)
- Walk v. Ring, 202 Ariz. 310 (accrual focuses on when a reasonable person would be on notice to investigate)
- Ponderosa Fire Dist. v. Coconino Cnty., 235 Ariz. 597 (mandamus only to compel purely ministerial duties)
- White Mountain Apache Indian Tribe v. Shelley, 107 Ariz. 4 (public officials have immunity for actions within scope of duties)
- Hunter Contracting Co., Inc. v. Super. Ct. In and For Cnty. of Maricopa, 190 Ariz. 318 (constitutional petition rights do not protect frivolous suits)