ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

Porter v. Spader, CV 09-0678, September 21, 2010.

Rule 60(c)(1), Ariz. R. Civ. P., does not allow relief from a judgment entered based on a statute of limitations. Excusable neglect of law office staff doesn't matter if the limitations period was not suspended or tolled.

Ochser v. Funk, CV 09-0141, September 28, 2010.

Sheriff's deputies arrested plaintiff on a warrant which had previously been quashed. Summary judgment for defendant deputies was affirmed based on qualified immunity, because the warrant was listed as outstanding in their department's records - despite the fact that plaintiff was arrested at work and defendants were told that a certified copy of the order quashing the warrant was present on plaintiff's desk. "We find that "officers of reasonable competence could disagree" as to whether they were required to investigate further the warrant's validity in light of [plaintiff]'s claims he had a certified copy of the minute entry quashing the warrant. Because reasonable officers could disagree as to whether further investigation was required, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity." Judge Johnsen dissented, pointing out that the defense expert and the deputies' supervisors testified that, if plaintiff told the deputies he had the court order readily available, the deputies should have looked at it.

Little v. State of Arizona, 2 CA-CV 2010-0079, September 30, 2010.

Summary judgment for defendant was affirmed in this medical malpractice wrongful death case. Plaintiff's ARS § 12-821.01 notice of claim was filed 2 ½ years after the death, and more than 180 days after plaintiff's agent filed a complaint with the Board of Medical Examiners, but within 180 days after the Board found "unprofessional conduct" by the campus health care physician. The court held that the filing of the Board complaint was the latest date the cause of action could have accrued, since the facts stated in the complaint demonstrated adequate knowledge to put a reasonable person on notice to investigate the claim. The agent's knowledge was legally imputed to plaintiff. The fact that two attorneys had declined to pursue the claim on plaintiff's behalf did not justify application of the doctrine of equitable tolling.