Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 1 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman & McAnally, P.L.C.
2800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 840 Phoenix, AZ 85004-1069 (602) 266-5557 José de Jesus Rivera, State Bar 4604 HARALSON, MILLER, PITT, FELDMAN & MCANALLY, P.L.C. One South Church Avenue, Suite 900 Tucson, Arizona 85701 (520) 792-3836 Stephen T. Portell, State Bar 18567 Peter T. Limperis, State Bar 19175 Nathan B. Webb, State Bar 28059 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Mundell and Baca me@hmpmlaw.com for minute entries IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA GARY DONAHOE and CHERIE DONAHOE, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. SHERIFF JOSEPH ARPAIO and EVA ARPAIO, husband and wife, et al, Defendants. ________________________________ SUSAN SCHUERMAN, Plaintiff v. SHERIFF JOSEPH ARPAIO and AVA ARPAIO, husband and wife, et al, Defendants. ________________________________ Lead No. CV-10-02756-PHX-NVW Consolidated with: No. CV-10-02757-PHX-NVW No. CV-10-02758-PHX-NVW No. CV-11-00116-PHX-NVW No. CV-11-00262-PHX-NVW No. CV-11-00473-PHX-NVW No. CV-11-00902-PHX-NVW No. CV-11-01921-PHX-NVW THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL (Assigned to Hon. Neil V. Wake)

1

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 2 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

SANDRA WILSON and PAUL WILSON, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. SHERIFF JOSEPH ARPAIO and AVA ARPAIO, husband and wife, et al, Defendants. ________________________________ CONLEY D. WOLFSWINKEL, a single man, et al, Plaintiffs, v. SHERIFF JOSEPH ARPAIO and AVA ARPAIO, husband and wife, et al, Defendants. ________________________________ STEPHEN WETZEL and NANCY WETZEL, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. SHERIFF JOSEPH ARPAIO and AVA ARPAIO, husband and wife, et al, Defendants. ________________________________ MARY ROSE and EARL WILCOX, wife and husband, Plaintiffs, v. SHERIFF JOSEPH ARPAIO and AVA ARPAIO, husband and wife, et al, Defendants.

2

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 3 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DONALD T. STAPLEY, JR. and KATHLEEN STAPLEY, husband and wife, Plaintiffs v. SHERIFF JOSEPH ARPAIO and AVA ARPAIO, husband and wife, et al, Defendants. ________________________________ BARBARA MUNDELL, Plaintiff v. JOSEPH ARPAIO, in his official capacity as Maricopa County Sheriff; JOSEPH and AVA ARPAIO, a married couple, DAVID HENDERSHOTT and ANNA HENDERSHOTT, a married couple, LISA AUBUCHON and PETER PESTALOZZI, a married couple; and ANDREW P. THOMAS and ANNE THOMAS, a married couple, Defendants. Plaintiff alleges: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Barbara Mundell, is currently, and at all relevant times was a

resident of Maricopa County, Arizona, and her causes of actions are based on events that occurred in Maricopa County. 2. The Maricopa County Sheriff is a County Officer and the sheriff for the

County. Defendant Joseph Arpaio is the current Maricopa County Sheriff and is joined as a Defendant in his official and individual capacity. Defendant Joseph Arpaio was at all relevant times a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

3

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 4 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

3.

Defendant Ava Arpaio is the wife of Joseph Arpaio and was at all

relevant times a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. At all material times Defendant Joseph Arpaio was acting for the benefit of the marital community of himself and Defendant Ava Arpaio. 4. Defendant David Hendershott was at all relevant times a resident of

Maricopa County, Arizona. Defendant Hendershott formerly served as Chief Deputy to Sheriff Arpaio. 5. Defendant Anna Hendershott is the wife of David Hendershott and was

at all relevant times a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. At all material times Defendant David Hendershott was acting for the benefit of the marital community of himself and Defendant Anna Hendershott. 6. Defendant Andrew P. Thomas was at all relevant times a resident of

Maricopa County, Arizona. Defendant Thomas was serving as Maricopa County Attorney at the time these incidents occurred. 7. Defendant Anne Thomas is the wife of Andrew Thomas and was at all

relevant times a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. At all material times Defendant Andrew Thomas was acting for the benefit of the marital community of himself and Defendant Anne Thomas. 8. Defendant Lisa Aubuchon was at all relevant times a resident of

Maricopa County, Arizona. Defendant Aubuchon served as a Deputy County Attorney in the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office at all relevant times. 9. Defendant Peter Pestalozzi is the husband of Lisa Aubuchon and was at

all relevant times a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. At all material times Defendant Aubuchon was acting for the benefit of the marital community of herself and Peter Pestalozzi.

4

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 5 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

10.

The term “AHTA Defendants” refers collectively to Defendants Arpaio,

Hendershott, Thomas, and Aubuchon.

JURISDICTION 11. Plaintiff served a timely and proper Notice of Claim, pursuant to A.R.S.

§ 12-821.01, against the County Defendants on May 28, 2010. The claim is deemed denied because more than sixty days have elapsed since the date of service. 12. This Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s federal law claims pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 13. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the

parties are residents of Maricopa County, Arizona, and all events claimed occurred in Maricopa County. FACTS 14. Prior to her retirement in 2009, Judge Barbara Mundell (“Judge

Mundell”) was serving as a judge for the Arizona Superior Court in Maricopa County. A. The Fields Appointment 15. Judge Mundell appointed retired Judge Kenneth Fields to preside over

the criminal trial (Stapley I) involving Supervisor Don Stapley out of concern that all currently sitting judges would have a conflict in trying the case. 16. In retaliation, Defendant Hendershott renewed a twice-denied public

records request for all of Judge Mundell’s emails from November 1, 2007 to December 7, 2007. Defendant Hendershott threatened litigation if the request was not complied with by December 8, 2008. The request was once again denied. 17. After this denial, MCSO filed for administrative review of the request.

Judge Norman Davis of the Maricopa County Superior Court upheld the denials as

5

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 6 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

proper. After Judge Davis’s ruling, Defendant Arpaio issued a press release on or about January 29, 2010, announcing that he had filed an appeal regarding the denial of MCSO’s public records requests. Further stating that it “wasn’t surprising” that the trial Judge Davis ruled in favor of Judge Mundell, who was his superior and supervisor, implying collusion on the part of the judiciary to circumvent the law. Defendant Arpaio incorrectly accused the judiciary of “blatantly ignor[ing] the law.” 18. On or about December 18, 2008 Thomas issued a press release stating

that despite having knowledge of Judge Fields’s bias, Judge Anna Baca, then serving as presiding judge on the criminal bench, denied the State’s request for a new judge. He did not mention that the Judge Baca did not rule on the motion because MCAO had transferred Stapley I to the Yavapai County Attorney for prosecution. 19. The press release also stated that Judge Mundell had worked personally with Supervisor Stapley in the past and intimated that she selected Judge Fields to preside over the Stapley I case to make the charges against Stapley go away. Judge Mundell had appointed Judge Fields because he was the first retired judge she contacted to respond to her. 20. Aubuchon wrote letters to Judge Mundell, Judge Baca, and Judge Fields demanding personal interviews with them regarding the appointment of Judge Fields. The appropriate method to communicate with the court was through pleadings for the official record, seeking ex parte meetings with judges regarding ongoing litigation is inappropriate and unethical. B. Press Releases 21. On or about May 15, 2009, MCSO issued a press release, stating: • Judge Mundell accused MCSO of monitoring her house; • Judge Mundell conspired to create more court proceedings without consideration to the costs to the taxpayers; and

6

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 7 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

• MCSO planned on filing a judicial ethics complaint against Judge Mundell. It also demanded that Judge Mundell recuse herself from any involvement of MCSO’s investigation of the Board of Supervisors, the Court Tower, and leaks from the Maricopa County Grand Jury. The release concluded by saying that the actions were intended to “tactfully diffuse the formal ethics complaint” being prepared by MCSO against Judges Donahoe, Baca, and Mundell. 22. On or about September 11, 2009, Thomas issued a press release stating

that the Superior Court, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Thomas Irvine, acting together, “produced a ruling which makes it all but impossible to prosecute politicians for corruption.” C. Surveillance 23. Beginning in approximately April of 2009 Judge Mundell began to see

Sheriff’s cars drive by her home. She also observed MCSO personnel and law enforcement vehicles at a vacant home in her neighborhood. This lasted approximately fourteen months. Judge Mundell's husband twice saw a maroon Ford Crown Victoria pull up to her driveway; the driver exited the vehicle and looked over the fence into the yard. 24. In December of 2009 Judge Mundell asked for help from the Paradise

Valley Police Department (“PVPD”). In response, PVPD officers would drive by the Mundell residence. John Bennett, the PVPD Chief of Police was “on call” should Judge Mundell have any problem with MCSO. D. Judicial Ethics Complaints 25. On or about November 30, 2009, Defendant Hendershott filed Judicial

Ethics Complaints against Judge Mundell and Judge Baca. He claimed that Judge Baca, with the help of Judge Mundell, conspired with the Maricopa County Public

7

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 8 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Defenders' office to bring the lawsuit regarding the jail visitation hours. He further alleged that Judge Mundell and Judge Baca conspired to conceal the public record communications that were requested by MCSO. 26. In his claim against Judge Mundell, Defendant Hendershott accused her

of soliciting Judge Fields to file a bar complaint against Thomas. Judge Mundell did not solicit Judge Fields to file a bar complaint against Defendant Thomas. Furthermore, Judge Fields never filed a bar complaint against Defendant Thomas. 27. He further claimed that Judge Mundell never explained why a retired

judge was selected. In the parallel complaint against Judge Baca, he acknowledged that MCSO learned in February 2009, prior to the Judicial Ethics Complaint, why Judge Fields was assigned. 28. Defendant Hendershott claimed that Judge Mundell sent a letter to a

prosecutor chastising her for questioning Judge Fields's appointment. The letter informed Defendant Aubuchon that her correspondence was an inappropriate ex parte communication with the court regarding the appointment of Judge Fields; it did not criticize her for questioning his appointment. 29. Defendant Arpaio continues to publish the Judicial Ethics Complaints

and press releases on MCSO’s website. Based on information and belief, this publication was made at the behest and with the permission of Defendant Hendershott. E. RICO Complaint 30. The AHTA Defendants prepared and filed a baseless civil lawsuit under

the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). The RICO lawsuit named Judge Mundell as a defendant. The suit lacked any direct evidence of the alleged wrongdoing and was wrought with false accusations.

8

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 9 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1

31.

Defendant Hendershott conducted the investigation that lead to the

filing of the RICO suit. Defendant Aubuchon drafted and signed the complaint on behalf of Defendant Thomas and the MCAO, naming Defendant Arpaio and Defendant Thomas as plaintiffs. 32. Despite Defendant Aubuchon's knowledge that Ogletree Deakins1

examined the possibility of a RICO complaint in October of 2009, and concluded that there was insufficient evidence, she continued the process that led to the filing of the RICO complaint. MCAO’s expert, Peter Spaw (“Spaw”), also advised Defendant Aubuchon that there was no evidence to pursue a RICO complaint. Spaw reiterated his concerns about the RICO complaint to Defendant Thomas. 33. Defendant Hendershott was also an active participant in pushing for a

RICO action. He attempted to pressure Spaw to go against Spaw’s better judgment and assist with the drafting and filing of the RICO action. 34. Other parties also expressed concerns with the proposed RICO action,

prior to its filing. MCAO supervisors Barnett Lotstein and Phil MacDonnell advised Defendant Thomas that the RICO suit was not an appropriate action to take under the circumstances. Up until the complaint was filed they believed that Defendant Thomas had agreed to follow their recommendations that the RICO lawsuit not be pursued. 35. Disregarding advice from these more experienced attorneys, on or

about December 1, 2009 Defendant Aubuchon assisted Defendant Thomas in filing the RICO complaint on behalf of Defendant Thomas and Defendant Arpaio. The RICO action alleged that the RICO defendants had engaged in a sweeping conspiracy to illegally block criminal investigations and prosecutions of themselves, including those related to the Court Tower Project.

Ogletree Deakins is a law firm that was hired to research the viability of a RICO complaint.

9

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 10 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

36.

Defendants Arpaio and Thomas announced the filing of the complaint

jointly with the announcement of Defendant Hendershott’s ethics complaint against Judge Mundell dated November 30, 2009. In the press release announcing the suit, Thomas restated accusations contained in the previous press releases and RICO complaint. 37. In conjunction with the RICO complaint, MCSO sent uniformed

deputies to the homes of Maricopa County Superior Court employees in order to interrogate them about the court tower project. This included going to the homes of many of Judge Mundell's administrative staff. Due to the staffs' fears and lack of knowledge about their legal rights, Judge Mundell asked the Arizona Attorney General (“AAG”) to provide legal advice to staff members. Defendant Arpaio’s response was to threaten to file charges against the AAG and Judge Mundell for interfering with a criminal investigation. 38. On or about December 8, 2009, Defendant Thomas issued a press

release stating that all of the defendants in the RICO suit were under criminal investigation for hindering prosecution and for other offenses. Defendants Arpaio, Thomas, Hendershott, and Aubuchon planned further attacks against Judge Mundell, including the issuance of a search warrant and indictment. 39. The plan to search Judge Mundell's office and home was leaked to the

press. According to the leak, MCSO was going to seize/search Judge Mundell's computers, which contained privileged judicial data. The second step in the plan was Judge Mundell's indictment. Defendant Aubuchon drafted the indictment without assistance from any law enforcement agency and had this indictment present at the

10

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 11 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

grand jury. The indictment was very broad and included the names of judges. There were different charges listed with date ranges marked with question marks. MCSO staff questioned the contents of the draft, asking Defendant Aubuchon what her evidence was, believing that they lacked sufficient evidence to move forward. 40. On or about March 11, 2010 Defendants Arpaio and Thomas dismissed the RICO suit. In conjunction with the dismissal, they held a press conference stating that it was being withdrawn because the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) had agreed to take over the investigation. This was untrue as the DOJ merely agreed to look at any facts brought to their attention, not “take over the investigation.” 41. In late March or early April 2010, Judge Mundell learned of Defendant Hendershott’s obsession with the RICO lawsuit. She was told that he had sequestered himself in his office with Defendant Aubuchon, in a “war-room” type atmosphere with papers pinned all over the walls. Judge Mundell was offered 24 hour security at County expense in part due to Hendershott’s behavior. 42. On or about June 22, 2010, Defendant Arpaio and Defendant Thomas issued a press release in response to Judge Baca and Judge Mundell filing a notice of claim. Defendants Arpaio and Thomas again alleged a wide spread conspiracy. Thomas stated that the claims were motivated by greed and a belief the Plaintiff’s friends in county administration would provide for a quick and substantial settlement without requiring them to actually file suit. 43. Thomas later authored an article claiming that county officials rigged

the system allowing insiders to receive payouts without having to testify or go to trial. Thomas also claimed that the judges stood to benefit from their own misconduct in filing claims barred by sovereign immunity laws.

11

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 12 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
48. 44.

COUNT I ABUSE OF PROCESS Defendant Arpaio willfully used or threatened to use legal process or

procedure primarily to accomplish an ulterior purpose for which the process or procedure was not designed, and this misuse of the legal process or procedure was a cause of injury to the Plaintiff. Paragraphs 30-31, 35-40. 45. Defendant Thomas willfully used or threatened to use legal process or procedure primarily to accomplish an ulterior purpose for which the process or procedure was not designed, and this misuse of the legal process or procedure was a cause of injury to the Plaintiff. Paragraphs 30-31, 34-36, 38, 40. 46. Defendant Hendershott willfully used or threatened to use legal process or procedure primarily to accomplish an ulterior purpose for which the process or procedure was not designed, and this misuse of the legal process or procedure was a cause of injury to the Plaintiff. Paragraphs 16, 25-28, 30-31, 33, 36, 38, 41. 47. Defendant Aubuchon willfully used or threatened to use legal process or procedure primarily to accomplish an ulterior purpose for which the process or procedure was not designed, and this misuse of the legal process or procedure was a cause of injury to the Plaintiff. Paragraphs 30-32, 35, 38-39, 41. COUNT II MALICIOUS PROSECUTION Defendant Arpaio initiated or took active part in the prosecution of a

civil proceeding against the Plaintiff, which ended in the Plaintiff’s favor. He acted without probable cause and with malice. His malicious conduct was a cause of injury, damage, loss or harm to the Plaintiff. Paragraphs 30-31, 35-36. 49. Defendant Thomas initiated or took active part in the prosecution of a civil proceeding against the Plaintiff, which ended in the Plaintiff’s favor. He acted without probable cause and with malice. His malicious conduct was a cause of injury, damage, loss or harm to the Plaintiff. Paragraphs 30-31, 34-36.

12

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 13 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

50.

Defendant Hendershott initiated or took active part in the prosecution of

a civil proceeding against the Plaintiff, which ended in the Plaintiff’s favor. He acted without probable cause and with malice. His malicious conduct was a cause of injury, damage, loss or harm to the Plaintiff. Paragraphs 30-31, 33, 36. 51. Defendant Aubuchon initiated or took active part in the prosecution of a civil proceeding against the Plaintiff, which ended in the Plaintiff’s favor. She acted without probable cause and with malice. Her malicious conduct was a cause of injury, damage, loss or harm to the Plaintiff. Paragraphs 30-32, 35. COUNT III FALSE LIGHT INVASION OF PRIVACY 52. Defendant Arpaio gave publicity to a matter concerning the Plaintiff

that placed the Plaintiff before the public in a false light, which was highly offensive to a reasonable person. He had knowledge of and acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the Plaintiff would be placed. Paragraphs 17, 21, 29-31, 36, 40, 42. 53. Defendant Thomas gave publicity to a matter concerning the Plaintiff that placed the Plaintiff before the public in a false light, which was highly offensive to a reasonable person. He had knowledge of and acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the Plaintiff would be placed. Paragraphs 18-19, 22, 30-31, 36, 38, 40, 42-43. 54. Defendant Hendershott gave publicity to a matter concerning the Plaintiff that placed the Plaintiff before the public in a false light, which was highly offensive to a reasonable person. He had knowledge of and acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the Plaintiff would be placed. Paragraphs 25-31. 55. Defendant Aubuchon gave publicity to a matter concerning the Plaintiff that placed the Plaintiff before the public in a false light, which was highly offensive to a reasonable person. She had knowledge of and acted in reckless disregard as to

13

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 14 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the Plaintiff would be placed. Paragraphs 30-31. COUNT IV DEFAMATION 56. Defendant Arpaio knowingly or with reckless disregard published false

statements concerning the Plaintiff that damaged her. Paragraphs 17, 21, 29, 36, 42. 57. Defendant Thomas knowingly or with reckless disregard published false

statements concerning the Plaintiff that damaged her. Paragraphs 18-19, 22, 36, 4243. 58. Defendant Hendershott knowingly or with reckless disregard published

false statements concerning the Plaintiff that damaged her. Paragraphs 25-29. COUNT V INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 59. Defendant Arpaio’s conduct was extreme and outrageous, either

intentional or reckless, and caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress. Paragraphs 21, 23-24, 29-31, 36-40, 42. 60. Defendant Thomas’s conduct was extreme and outrageous, either

intentional or reckless, and caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress. Paragraphs 30-31, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42-43. 61. Defendant Hendershott’s conduct was extreme and outrageous, either

intentional or reckless, and caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress. Paragraphs 23-31, 33, 36, 38, 41. 62. Defendant Aubuchon’s conduct was extreme and outrageous, either

intentional or reckless, and caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress. Paragraphs 20, 30-32, 38-39, 41. ///

14

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 15 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

COUNT VI VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES 63. Defendant Arpaio, acting under the color of law, deprived the Plaintiff

of her particular rights under the United States Constitution, including, but not limited to, Amendments V and XIV, in that Judge Mundell was deprived of privileges and immunities guaranteed to all citizens of the United States, and was subject to: abuse of process, malicious prosecution, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Paragraphs 17, 21, 23-24, 29-31, 35-40, 42. 64. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Arpaio’s wrongful

conduct, Judge Mundell’s constitutional rights were violated and she has been injured. Paragraphs 17, 21, 23-24, 29-31, 35-40, 42. 65. Defendant Andrew Thomas, acting under the color of law, deprived the

Plaintiff of her particular rights under the United States Constitution, including, but not limited to, Amendments V and XIV, in that Judge Mundell was deprived of privileges and immunities guaranteed to all citizens of the United States, and was subject to: abuse of process, malicious prosecution, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Paragraphs 18-19, 22, 30-31, 34-36, 38, 40, 42-43. 66. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Thomas’ wrongful

conduct, Judge Mundell’s constitutional rights were violated and she has been injured. Paragraphs 18-19, 22, 30-31, 34-36, 38, 40, 42-43. 67. Defendant Hendershott, acting under the color of law, deprived the

Plaintiff of her particular rights under the United States Constitution, including, but not limited to, Amendments V and XIV, in that Judge Mundell was deprived of

15

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 16 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

privileges and immunities guaranteed to all citizens of the United States, and was subject to: abuse of process, malicious prosecution, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Paragraphs 16, 23-31, 33, 36, 38, 41. 68. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Hendershott’s wrongful

conduct, Judge Mundell’s constitutional rights were violated and she has been injured. Paragraphs 16, 23-30-31, 33, 36, 38, 41. 69. Defendant Aubuchon, acting under the color of law, deprived the

Plaintiff of her particular rights under the United States Constitution, including, but not limited to, Amendments V and XIV, in that Judge Mundell was deprived of privileges and immunities guaranteed to all citizens of the United States, and was subject to: abuse of process, malicious prosecution, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Paragraphs 20, 30-32, 35, 3839, 41. 70. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Aubuchon’s wrongful

conduct, Judge Mundell’s constitutional rights were violated and she has been injured. Paragraphs 20, 30-32, 35, 38-39, 41. COUNT VII VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 SUPERVISORY DEFENDANT IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY 71. Defendant Arpaio acted under the color of law. The acts of Defendant

Arpaio’s subordinate, Defendant Hendershott deprived the Plaintiff of her particular rights under the United States Constitution including, but not limited to, Amendments V and XIV, in that Judge Mundell was deprived of privileges and immunities guaranteed to all citizens of the United States, and was subject to: abuse of process,

16

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 17 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

malicious prosecution, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Paragraphs 16, 21, 23-31, 33, 36, 38, 41. 72. Defendant Arpaio directed Defendant Hendershott in the acts that

deprived the Plaintiff of these rights and he set in motion a series of acts by Defendant Hendershott that he knew or reasonably should have known would cause his subordinate to deprive the Plaintiff of these rights. Paragraphs 16, 21, 23-31, 33, 36, 38, 41. 73. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Arpaio’s wrongful

conduct, Judge Mundell’s constitutional rights were violated and she has been damaged. Paragraphs 16, 21, 23-31, 33, 36, 38, 41. 74. Defendant Thomas acted under the color of law. The acts of Defendant

Thomas’ subordinate, Defendant Aubuchon, deprived the Plaintiff of her particular rights under the United States Constitution including, but not limited to, Amendments V and XIV, in that Judge Mundell was deprived of privileges and immunities guaranteed to all citizens of the United States, and was subject to: abuse of process, malicious prosecution, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Paragraphs 18, 20, 30-32, 35, 38-39, 41. 75. Defendant Thomas directed Defendant Aubuchon in the acts that

deprived the Plaintiff of these rights and he set in motion a series of acts by Defendant Aubuchon that he knew or reasonably should have known would cause his subordinate to deprive the Plaintiff of these rights. Paragraphs 18, 20, 30-32, 35, 3839, 41. 76. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Thomas’s wrongful

conduct, Judge Mundell’s constitutional rights were violated and she has been damaged. Paragraphs 18, 20, 30-32, 35, 38-39, 41. ///

17

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 18 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

JUDGE MUNDELL SUFFERED DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF THE AHTA DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT 77. As a result of Defendant Arpaio’s actions, Judge Mundell suffered harm

to her professional and personal reputation, physical and mental anguish, and other harm. Paragraphs 16-17, 21, 23-31, 33, 35-42. 78. As a result of Defendant Thomas’s actions, Judge Mundell suffered

harm to her professional and personal reputation, physical and mental anguish, and other harm. Paragraphs 18-20, 22, 30-32, 34-36, 38-43. 79. As a result of Defendant Hendershott’s actions, Judge Mundell suffered

harm to her professional and personal reputations, physical and mental anguish, and other harm. Paragraphs 16, 23-31, 33, 36, 38, 41. 80. As a result of Defendant Aubuchon’s actions, Judge Mundell suffered

harm to her professional and personal reputations, physical and mental anguish, and other harm. Paragraphs 20, 30-32, 35, 38-39, 41. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: A. B. C. D. For general and compensatory damages; For attorney’s fees and costs incurred; For punitive damages; For injunctive relief against the Defendants to remove false statements

about the Plaintiffs from the Defendants’ websites, public statements and press releases; and E. For such other and further relief as the Court and jury deem just and

proper under the circumstances.

18

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 19 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DATED this 21st day of November, 2011. HARALSON, MILLER, PITT, FELDMAN & MCANALLY, P.L.C.

By: /s/ Peter T. Limperis José de Jesus Rivera Stephen T. Portell Peter T. Limperis Nathan B. Webb ORIGINAL filed electronically on the 21st day of November, 2011 with the Clerk of the Court, and service to all parties on the electronic service list: Honorable Neil V. Wake United States District Court Sandra Day O’Connor Courthouse, Suite 524 401 W. Washington, SPC52 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Steven A. LaMar Rebecca H. Moskowitz Nicole Suzanne Kaseta BEER & TOONE, PC 76 East Mitchell Drive Phoenix, AZ 85012 Attorneys for Defendant Maricopa County Daryl A. Audilett Kimble Nelson Audilett & Kastner PC 335 North Wilmot, Suite 500 Tucson, AZ 85711-2636 Attorneys for Defendants Arpaio, Halverson, Roshetko

19

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 20 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

James P. Mueller Douglas V. Drury MUELLER & DRURY, PC 8110 E. Cactus Road, Suite 100 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Attorneys for Defendants Aubuchon and Pestalozzi Barry M. Markson Caleb S. Lihn THOMAS THOMAS & MARKSON PC 2700 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, AZ 85004-1185 Attorneys for Defendants Hendershott Sarah L. Barnes Donald Wilson, Jr. Richard E. Chambliss BROENING OBERG WOOD & WILSON PC 1122 E. Jefferson PO Box 20527 Phoenix, AZ 85036-0527 Attorneys for Defendants Thomas Lawrence J. Wulkan Leslie E. O’Hara M. Elizabeth Nillen Michael C. Manning Stefan Mark Palys Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP 1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4584 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Donahoe, Wetzel, Wilson and Schuerman Colin F. Campbell Kathleen Erin Brody O’Meara Osborn Maledon PA PO Box 36379 Phoenix, AZ 85067-6379 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Wilcox

20

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 21 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Lawrence C. Wright Wright & Associates 1201 S. Alma School Road, Suite 3500 Mesa, AZ 85210 Attorney for Plaintiff Wolfswinkel Shannon Marie Eagan Stephen C. Neal Cooley, LLP 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Wolfswinkel, Vanderbilt Farms LLC, ABCDW, LLC, Stone Canyon LLC, Vistoso Partners, LLC, and W. Harquahala, LLC Kenneth B. Vaughn Merwin D. Grant Grant & Vaughn, PC 6225 N. 24th Street, Suite 125 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Attorney for Plaintiffs Stapley Wendy Ann Petersen Pinal County Attorney’s Office PO Box 887 Florence, AZ 85232-0887 Attorney for Paul Babeu ________________________

21

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful