367 P.3d 72
Ariz. Ct. App.2016Background
- Watkins, owner of Cactus Towing, alleged Sheriff Arpaio initiated a politically motivated, groundless public investigation of him and his business beginning in 2005, including seizures and public statements; investigation was publicly declared concluded in October 2010.
- Watkins sued Arpaio and Maricopa County in September 2011 for multiple torts, including intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and false-light invasion of privacy; the superior court dismissed all claims as time-barred under A.R.S. § 12-821.
- This court previously reversed dismissal of the IIED and false-light claims based on allegations of post-2010 public statements; on remand Arpaio moved for summary judgment claiming no such statements occurred within one year of the complaint.
- After additional discovery, the superior court granted summary judgment for Arpaio, finding no evidence of tortious acts or public statements within the one-year limitations period required for suits against public employees.
- Watkins appealed; the court reviews summary judgment de novo and focuses on accrual rules in A.R.S. §§ 12-821 and 12-821.01(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IIED claim accrues only when a continuing wrongful investigation ends (continuing wrong doctrine) | Watkins: the investigation was a continuing wrong; accrual should be at its termination (Oct 2010) so claim filed in Sept 2011 was timely | Arpaio: under A.R.S. §§ 12-821 and -821.01(B), accrual occurs when plaintiff knows of injury and its cause; Watkins knew in 2005, so claim is time-barred | Court: statutes govern accrual for public-entity suits; Watkins knew facts and injury at outset, so IIED accrued in 2005 and is barred for lack of suit within one year |
| Whether false-light claim can be saved by the continuing wrong doctrine | Watkins: requests continuing-wrong treatment similar to IIED to delay accrual until investigation end | Arpaio: no actionable public statements within one year; statute controls accrual | Court: declined to apply continuing-wrong doctrine to false-light; no actionable statements within the limitations period; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. Revlon, Inc., 153 Ariz. 38 (1987) (elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Thompson v. Pima County, 226 Ariz. 42 (App. 2010) (accrual requires knowledge of injury and cause under § 12-821.01(B))
- Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta, 236 Ariz. 568 (App. 2015) (false-light invasion of privacy standard)
- Mears v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 225 Ga. App. 636 (1997) (applying continuing-tort theory to cumulative IIED allegations)
- Heard v. Sheahan, 253 F.3d 316 (7th Cir. 2001) (continuing-violation doctrine allowing aggregation of discrete acts for limitations)