Search 

Azcourts.gov

Arizona Judicial Branch



FAQ

Register       Login

ATTENTION: This site has been recently moved. If you had an account on our old forum site, you will have to register a new account here in order to be able to post replies.

 

NEW! The Court acted on many pending rule petitions at its August 29, 2017 Rules Agenda.  

Click on the Amendments from Recent Rules Agendas link below to go directly to the amendments and orders for each one.

Message from the Chief Justice

Current Arizona Rules 

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence


Pending Rules List

         Proposed Local Rules
                 Welcome!
This website allows you to electronically file and monitor court rule petitions and comments and to view existing rules of court, recent amendments of those rules, and pending rule petitions and comments. Any visitor to this site may view posts on this website, but to post a petition or comment you must register and log in. To view instructions on how to register and how to file a petition or comment, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. 
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 14 Nov 2012 01:56 PM by  kcgreif
R-11-0031 Rule 4.1(i), Ariz.R.Civ.Proc. (“Service of process within Arizona”)
 60 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Page 1 of 41234 > >>
Author Messages
gtrachtenberg
Posts:

--
23 Sep 2011 05:37 PM
    Petition to Amend Rule 4.1(i), Ariz. R. Civ. P.

    Would permit service of process on an administrative assistant or employee of a chief executive officer, secretary, clerk, or recording officer of a public entity's governing group

    Petitioners:
    Geoffrey M. Trachtenberg (019338)
    LEVENBAUM & COHEN
    362 North Third Avenue
    Phoenix, Arizona 85003
    (602) 271-0183, Fax: (602) 271-4018
    gmt@lclegal.com
    Co-Petitioner

    David L. Abney, Esq. (009001)
    KNAPP & ROBERTS, P.C.
    8777 North Gainey Center Drive, Suite 181
    Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
    (480) 991-7677; Cell: (480) 734-8652
    abney@krattorneys.com, abneymaturin@aol.com
    Co-Petitioner

    Filed: September 26, 2011

    The Court issued the following Order on August 30, 2012:

    IT IS ORDERED that the attached draft amendment, which is based on the proposal made by the State Bar of Arizona in its comment, shall be opened for comment until November 9, 2012.

    COMMENTS DUE November 9, 2012.

    ADOPTED as modified, effective January 1, 2013.


    Attachment 1: Order reopening matter for comment on modified State Bar draft
    Attachment 2: Original Petition to Amend Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(i)
    Attachments
    rplattner
    Posts:

    --
    25 Oct 2011 07:10 PM
    Richard S. Plattner
    Plattner Verderame P.C.
    P.O. Box 36570
    Phoenix, AZ 85067-6570
    rplattner@plattner-verderame.com


    I support the Petition for the reasons stated by Geoff Trachtenberg and Dave Abney. The existing rule is a trap for the unwary, and a substantial and unjustified expense for the wary -- and sometimes the rule is impossible to comply with, especially in the context of Notices of Claim. Service of claims and lawsuits on governmental entities should be simple and easy, so that citizens' constitutional right to seek redress of government wrongs is a meaningful and protected right.
    khammond
    Posts:

    --
    02 Nov 2011 10:49 AM
    Kent Hammond
    Law Offices of Rudolph & Hammond, LLC
    8686 E. San Alberto Drive, Suite 200
    Scottsdale, AZ 85258
    Phone 480.951.9700
    Fax 480.951.1185
    kent@rudolphhammond.com
    State Bar #015100

    I support the Petition for the reasons stated by Geoff Trachtenberg and Dave Abney. The existing rule is a trap for the unwary, and in most cases results in unwarranted costs and expenes. As noted by Mr. Plattner, service of claims and lawsuits on governmental entities should be simple and easy.
    eawerkamp
    Posts:

    --
    09 Nov 2011 05:25 PM
    Eric C. Awerkamp
    1930 S. Alma School Rd. Ste. A-115
    Mesa, AZ 85210-3065
    480-632-9800
    Eric.Awerkamp@azbar.org


    I support the Petition for the reasons stated by Geoff Trachtenberg and Dave Abney. The existing rule is a trap for the unwary, and in most cases results in unwarranted costs and expenes. As noted by Mr. Plattner, service of claims and lawsuits on governmental entities should be simple and easy.

    Sincerely,
    Eric Awerkamp
    PageMarks
    Posts:

    --
    10 Nov 2011 02:01 PM
    Page Chancellor Marks
    Management Attorney
    Goldberg & Osborne
    33 N. Stone, Suite 900
    Tucson, AZ 85701
    pchancellor@goldbergandosborne.com
    520-909-0915
    State Bar No. 014732


    I support Petition R-11-0031 for the reasons stated by Geoff Trachtenberg, Dave Abney and others.

    I am a Management Attorney for Goldberg & Osborne. I personally monitor our attorneys' compliance with all statute of limitations and deadline dates. As a result, I review all governmental notice claims and the service of such claims. Service of claims and lawsuits on governmental entities should be simple and easy, so that citizens' constitutional rights to seek redress of government wrongs is meaningful and protected.

    As the rule currently reads, service of such claims and lawsuits is extremely difficult and costly. It is a trap for the unwary. It creates substantial and unjustified expense. Many of our clients must spend hundreds of dollars to serve a governmental notice claim and subsequent lawsuit.

    In regards to school boards, the most prudent client, under the current rule and caselaw, must serve each of the school board members, the superintendent, and the responsible employee. In some cases, one might have to serve up to ten people with a notice of claim and attachments. Imagiine the amount of costs that go into copying and serving ten claim letters.

    We try to save costs of service, by serving the school board members at their meetings, however, say one officer misses the meeting, we must find that person and serve them either during their work hours or at home. This is an extreme inconvenience to the board member, plus costs significant amounts of money. Furthermore, it is an extreme waste of resources and money since the school board was on notice of the claim once any one of the members (especially the clerk of the board) was served at the meeting.

    As the Court is aware, Rule 4.1(j) has long allowed for service upon one member of a public body and that is the "default rule" when Rule 4.1(i) is not applicable. It makes no sense to allow this kind of service under one rule but not the other.

    With respect to serving an administrative assistant or similar employee, this change simply creates a long over-due efficiency and recognizes the modern reality that high-level officials subject to service have security concerns. As a result, it is frequently not possible for strangers effecting service to get access to these persons without undue expense and unreasonable tactics.

    The Petition should be adopted in full.

    Sincerely,
    Page Chancellor Marks


    ShaneHarward
    Posts:

    --
    11 Nov 2011 07:53 AM
    Shane Harward
    Law Offices of Shane L. Harward, P.L.C.
    10575 N. 114th Street, Suite 103
    Scottsdale, Arizona 85259
    Phone 480.874.2918
    Fax 480.588.5063
    ShaneHarward@cox.net
    State Bar #016532

    I agree with Mr. Trachtenberg and Mr. Abney and support the Petition. Rule 1, ARCP indicates that ALL rules should be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. Unfortunately, the existing Rule 4.1(i) ARCP is the exact opposite. As noted by my colleagues, it is literally a very expensive, and unjustified, trap. Service of process is to give the wrongdoer notice of a claim and lawsuit. It is nonsensical to force service on every single member of a public body when each individual member has been elected or appointed to supervise and oversee these important public functions. Service of claims and lawsuits on governmental entities should not be so complicated and expensive that it thwarts our citizens' constitutional right to seek redress for the harm caused by a government entity.

    As the Court is aware, Rule 4.1(j) has long allowed for service upon one member of a public body and that is the "default rule" when Rule 4.1(i) is not applicable. Why allow this kind of service under one rule but not the other?

    Allowing service on administrative assistant or similar employee simply creates a long over-due efficiency and recognizes the modern reality that high-level officials subject to service have security concerns. As a result, it is frequently not possible for strangers effecting service to get access to these persons without undue expense and unreasonable tactics.

    The Petition should be adopted in full.

    mfmagee
    Posts:

    --
    15 Nov 2011 01:08 PM
    Michael Magee
    The Magee Law Firm, PLC
    7411 E. Sixth Ave, Suite 106
    Scottsdale AZ 85251
    mike@themageelawfirm.com

    I support Petition R-11-0031 for the reasons stated by Geoff Trachtenberg, Dave Abney and others.

    Service of claims and lawsuits on governmental entities should be simple and easy, so that citizens' constitutional rights to seek redress of government wrongs is meaningful and protected. The existing rule is a trap for the unwary and creates substantial and unjustified expense.

    With respect to serving one member of a group, the problems with the existing rule became most evident after the Falcon decision which, in part, based its holding upon "fulfill[ing] the purposes of the notice-of-claim statute." The Court in Falcon, however, should not have interposed any Legislative intent while interpreting the Court's own Rules of Civil Procedure since the Legislature has no role in promulgating those rules.

    In addition, to the extent the Falcon decision rests upon concerns related to allowing service upon "one member" of a public body, it is important for the Court to recognize that these persons were elected or appointed to supervise and oversee important public functions. It certainly seems reasonable for those persons to be able to accept basic service related to their public office and, to the extent they cannot appreciate the significance of being served, its hard to imagine the entire group would be any better at appreciating the significance.

    As the Court is aware, Rule 4.1(j) has long allowed for service upon one member of a public body and that is the "default rule" when Rule 4.1(i) is not applicable. It makes no sense to allow this kind of service under one rule but not the other.

    With respect to serving an administrative assistant or similar employee, this change simply creates a long over-due efficiency and recognizes the modern reality that high-level officials subject to service have security concerns. As a result, it is frequently not possible for strangers effecting service to get access to these persons without undue expense and unreasonable tactics.

    The Petition should be adopted in full.

    lincolncombs
    Posts:

    --
    15 Nov 2011 01:59 PM
    Lincoln Combs
    Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A.
    2575 E. Camelback Road
    Phoenix, Arizona 85016
    602-530-8022
    lincoln.combs@gknet.com
    State Bar No. 025080

    I support Petition R-11-0031 for the reasons stated by Geoff Trachtenberg, Dave Abney and others.

    Service of claims and lawsuits on governmental entities should be simple and logical, so that citizens' constitutional rights to seek redress of government wrongs is meaningful and protected. The existing rule is a trap for the unwary and creates substantial and unjustified expense.

    With respect to serving an administrative assistant or similar employee, this change simply creates a long over-due efficiency and recognizes the modern reality that high-level officials subject to service have security concerns. As a result, it is frequently not possible for strangers effecting service to get access to these persons without undue expense and unreasonable tactics.

    The Petition should be adopted in full.

    jtorgenson
    Posts:

    --
    15 Nov 2011 04:45 PM
    John P. Torgenson (AZ Bar # 23505)
    Benedetto Torgenson, PLC
    An Arizona Professional Limited Liability Company
    The Phoenix Plaza | 2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 200 | Phoenix, Arizona 85012
    602.759.0013 (office) | 602.513.7066 (facsimile)
    www.bentorg.com
    jpt@bentorg.com

    I support Petition R-11-0031 for the reasons stated by Geoff Trachtenberg, Dave Abney and others.

    Service of claims and lawsuits on governmental entities should be simple and easy, so that citizens' constitutional rights to seek redress of government wrongs is meaningful and protected. The existing rule is a trap for the unwary and creates substantial and unjustified expense.

    With respect to serving one member of a group, the problems with the existing rule became most evident after the Falcon decision which, in part, based its holding upon "fulfill[ing] the purposes of the notice-of-claim statute." The Court in Falcon, however, should not have interposed any Legislative intent while interpreting the Court's own Rules of Civil Procedure since the Legislature has no role in promulgating those rules.

    In addition, to the extent the Falcon decision rests upon concerns related to allowing service upon "one member" of a public body, it is important for the Court to recognize that these persons were elected or appointed to supervise and oversee important public functions. It certainly seems reasonable for those persons to be able to accept basic service related to their public office and, to the extent they cannot appreciate the significance of being served, its hard to imagine the entire group would be any better at appreciating the significance.

    As the Court is aware, Rule 4.1(j) has long allowed for service upon one member of a public body and that is the "default rule" when Rule 4.1(i) is not applicable. It makes no sense to allow this kind of service under one rule but not the other.

    With respect to serving an administrative assistant or similar employee, this change simply creates a long over-due efficiency and recognizes the modern reality that high-level officials subject to service have security concerns. As a result, it is frequently not possible for strangers effecting service to get access to these persons without undue expense and unreasonable tactics.

    The Petition should be adopted in full.

    ______________________________
    SSiesco
    Posts:

    --
    15 Nov 2011 04:51 PM
    Sara Siesco
    2141 East Camelback, Suite 100
    Phoenix, Arizona 85016
    602-840-8787
    602-840-0425
    ssiesco@bojolaw.com
    State Bar #027803

    Petition R-11-0031 should be adopted in full. Service of claims and lawsuits on governmental entities should be simplified so that citizens' constitutional rights to seek redress of government wrongs are protected. The existing rule is a trap for the unwary and creates substantial and unjustified expense. The changes suggested by Geoff Trachtenberg and David Abney would create efficiency, preserve resources and relieve officials of security concerns due to invasive tactics used in effectuating service of process.

    With respect to serving one member of a group, the problems with the existing rule became most evident after the Falcon decision which, in part, based its holding upon "fulfill[ing] the purposes of the notice-of-claim statute." The Court in Falcon should not have interposed any Legislative intent while interpreting the Court's own Rules of Civil Procedure because the Legislature has no role in promulgating those rules.

    To the extent the Falcon decision rests upon concerns related to allowing service upon "one member" of a public body, it is important for the Court to recognize that these persons were elected or appointed to supervise and oversee important public functions. It is reasonable for those persons to be able to accept basic service related to their public office. Furthermore, Rule 4.1(j) is the "default rule" when Rule 4.1(i) is not applicable and allows for service upon one member of a public body. It makes no sense to allow this kind of service under one rule but not the other.

    bbacon
    Posts:

    --
    15 Nov 2011 04:52 PM
    William C. Bacon
    Goldberg & Osborne
    33 N. Stone 900
    Tucson, AZ 85701
    520-879-7165
    Fax-520-620-3991
    wbacon@goldbergandosborne.com
    State Bar #004895

    I support Petition R-11-0031 for the reasons stated by Geoff Trachtenberg, Dave Abney and others.

    Service of claims and lawsuits on governmental entities should be simple and easy, so that citizens' constitutional rights to seek redress of government wrongs is meaningful and protected. The existing rule is a trap for the unwary and creates substantial and unjustified expense.

    With respect to serving one member of a group, the problems with the existing rule became most evident after the Falcon decision which, in part, based its holding upon "fulfill[ing] the purposes of the notice-of-claim statute." The Court in Falcon, however, should not have interposed any Legislative intent while interpreting the Court's own Rules of Civil Procedure since the Legislature has no role in promulgating those rules.

    In addition, to the extent the Falcon decision rests upon concerns related to allowing service upon "one member" of a public body, it is imp ortant for the Court to recognize that these persons were elected or appointed to supervise and oversee important public functions. It certainly seems reasonable for those persons to be able to accept basic service related to their public office and, to the extent they cannot appreciate the significance of being served, its hard to imagine the entire group would be any better at appreciating the significance.

    As the Court is aware, Rule 4.1(j) has long allowed for service upon one member of a public body and that is the "default rule" when Rule 4.1(i) is not applicable. It makes no sense to allow this kind of service under one rule but not the other.

    With respect to serving an administrative assistant or similar employee, this change simply creates a long over-due efficiency and recognizes the modern reality that high-level officials subject to service have security concerns. As a result, it is frequently not possible for strangers effecting service to get access to these persons without undue expense and unreasonable tactics.

    The Petition should be adopted in full.
    Cole.Sorenson
    Posts:

    --
    15 Nov 2011 04:57 PM
    Cole D. Sorenson, #013097
    CANTOR LAW GROUP, PLLC
    One East Washington St., Suite 1800
    Phoenix, Arizona 85004
    Telephone: (602) 254-8880
    Facsimile: (602) 255-0815
    Email: c.sorenson@cantorlawgroup.com


    When I began practicing law in 1990 notice of claims were simple. You sent a letter to the governmental agency/risk management stating that you had a claim and the same could be settled for a certain figure.

    I left the practice of law for several years due to personal issues and when I came back we had the Deer Valley case. Since that time I have followed the roller coaster of decisions and have been amazed at the interpretation of the statute and rules and how even an educated lawyer with experience in these areas can fall into the "notice/service" trap.

    The purpose of the statute is simple: Put the State on notice and give them the opportunity to resolve meritorious claims. It's nothing more and nothing less.

    I support Petition R-11-0031 for the reasons stated by Geoff Trachtenberg, Dave Abney and others. Bring common sense back into this legal morass.
    rhinsch
    Posts:

    --
    15 Nov 2011 05:42 PM
    Randall A. Hinsch
    Plattner Verderame P.C.
    316 E. Flower St.
    Phoenix, AZ 85012
    (602)266-2002
    (602)266-6908
    rhinsch@pvazlaw.com
    #010280

    I support Petition R-11-0031 for the reasons stated by Geoff Trachtenberg, Dave Abney and others.

    Service of claims and lawsuits on governmental entities should be simple and easy, so that citizens' constitutional rights to seek redress of government wrongs is meaningful and protected. The existing rule is a trap for the unwary and creates substantial and unjustified expense.

    With respect to serving one member of a group, the problems with the existing rule became most evident after the Falcon decision which, in part, based its holding upon "fulfill[ing] the purposes of the notice-of-claim statute." The Court in Falcon, however, should not have interposed any Legislative intent while interpreting the Court's own Rules of Civil Procedure since the Legislature has no role in promulgating those rules.

    In addition, to the extent the Falcon decision rests upon concerns related to allowing service upon "one member" of a public body, it is important for the Court to recognize that these persons were elected or appointed to supervise and oversee important public functions. It certainly seems reasonable for those persons to be able to accept basic service related to their public office and, to the extent they cannot appreciate the significance of being served, its hard to imagine the entire group would be any better at appreciating the significance.

    As the Court is aware, Rule 4.1(j) has long allowed for service upon one member of a public body and that is the "default rule" when Rule 4.1(i) is not applicable. It makes no sense to allow this kind of service under one rule but not the other.

    With respect to serving an administrative assistant or similar employee, this change simply creates a long over-due efficiency and recognizes the modern reality that high-level officials subject to service have security concerns. As a result, it is frequently not possible for strangers effecting service to get access to these persons without undue expense and unreasonable tactics.

    The Petition should be adopted in full.
    bdombrowski
    Posts:

    --
    15 Nov 2011 05:46 PM
    Bonnie Shore Dombrowski
    Jacoby & Meyers Law Offices
    2343 E. Broadway
    Suite 112
    Tucson, Az. 85719
    520-622-2350 phone
    520-622-4543 Fax
    Bar # 011981
    Email bdombrowski@jacoby-meyersaz.com

    I support Petition R-11-0031 for the reasons stated by Geoff Trachtenberg, Dave Abney and others.
    Service of claims and lawsuits on governmental entities should be simple and easy, so that citizens' constitutional rights to seek redress of government wrongs is meaningful and protected. The existing rule is a trap for the unwary and creates substantial and unjustified expense.

    With respect to serving one member of a group, the problems with the existing rule became most evident after the Falcon decision which, in part, based its holding upon "fulfill[ing] the purposes of the notice-of-claim statute." The Court in Falcon, however, should not have interposed any Legislative intent while interpreting the Court's own Rules of Civil Procedure since the Legislature has no role in promulgating those rules.

    In addition, to the extent the Falcon decision rests upon concerns related to allowing service upon "one member" of a public body, it is important for the Court to recognize that these persons were elected or appointed to supervise and oversee important public functions. It certainly seems reasonable for those persons to be able to accept basic service related to their public office and, to the extent they cannot appreciate the significance of being served, its hard to imagine the entire group would be any better at appreciating the significance.

    As the Court is aware, Rule 4.1(j) has long allowed for service upon one member of a public body and that is the "default rule" when Rule 4.1(i) is not applicable. It makes no sense to allow this kind of service under one rule but not the other.

    With respect to serving an administrative assistant or similar employee, this change simply creates a long over-due efficiency and recognizes the modern reality that high-level officials subject to service have security concerns. As a result, it is frequently not possible for strangers effecting service to get access to these persons without undue expense and unreasonable tactics.

    The Petition should be adopted in full.




    jflynn@tucsonlaw.com
    Posts:

    --
    15 Nov 2011 06:52 PM
    Joey A. Flynn
    2200 E. Speedway Blvd.
    Tucson, AZ 85719-4727
    jflynn@tucsonlaw.com

    I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Plattner and I echo the sentiments of Page Chancellor Marks regarding service of notices of claims on individual members of school boards. It is onerous, expensive, and can be cost-prohibitive in smaller-sized legitimate claims.

    The Petition should be adopted in full.

    Joey A. Flynn
    dsethi
    Posts:

    --
    16 Nov 2011 11:46 AM
    Dev K. Sethi
    Kinerk Schmidt & Sethi PLLC
    1790 E. River Rd. Ste. 300
    Tucson, AZ 85718-5958
    dsethi@kss-law.com

    I am a civil trial lawyer based in Tucson, with a practice throughout the state. My practice has included representing defendants, including public entities and public employees, in tort cases. For the past decade my practice has been limited to representing plaintiffs in tort cases.

    I am a past Chair of the State Bar of Arizona's Trial Practice Committee and Past President of the Arizona Minority Bar Association. I am involved in a variety of professional activities where defense side and plaintiff side lawyers share views and discuss issues relevant to our respective practices.

    With all of this background, I support the Petitioners' proposal to change Rule 4.1(i). The rule change should be adopted in its entirety.

    Nobody likes to be served. My experience has been that service of process is cumbersome, often embarrassing and often accompanied by private investigators or a server tracking down the subject -- even a public employee who is being served only in his or her official capacity.

    There is no reason why a duly authorized front line employee should not be authorized to accept service on behalf of a government agency. There is no danger that the agency won't have actual notice of the claim. There is no downside to the proposed change.

    Service of process on a public agency should be an easy, inexpensive and routine thing to accomplish. The current rule leads to an increase in delay, cost and inefficiency. These are the very things that Rule 1 so clearly directs against.

    For these reasons, and the reasons so well articulated by others who have commented in favor of this rule change, I urge its adoption.

    mikebell
    Posts:

    --
    16 Nov 2011 12:24 PM
    Michael J. Bell
    Busby, Bell & Biggs P.C.
    1241 E. Prince Rd
    Tucson AZ 85719
    Fax # 1-520-293-8347
    mike@busbylaw.com
    State Bar # 009020

    I support Petition R-11-0031 for the reasons stated by Geoff Trachtenberg, Dave Abney and others.

    Service of claims and lawsuits on governmental entities should be simple and easy, so that citizens' constitutional rights to seek redress of government wrongs is meaningful and protected. The existing rule is a trap for the unwary and creates substantial and unjustified expense.

    As the Court is aware, Rule 4.1(j) has long allowed for service upon one member of a public body and that is the "default rule" when Rule 4.1(i) is not applicable. It makes no sense to allow this kind of service under one rule but not the other.

    With respect to serving an administrative assistant or similar employee, this change simply creates a long over-due efficiency and recognizes the modern reality that high-level officials subject to service have security concerns. As a result, it is frequently not possible for strangers effecting service to get access to these persons without undue expense and unreasonable tactics.

    The Petition should be adopted in full.


    Robert Ramirez
    Posts:

    --
    16 Nov 2011 12:30 PM
    Robert P. Ramirez
    The Robert P. Ramirez Law Firm, PLLC
    826 N. 3rd Ave.
    Phoenix, AZ 85003
    623-322-3400
    623-322-3412
    robert@robertramirezlaw.com
    BAR# 0192655

    Petition R-11-0031 should be adopted in full for all of the reasons stated by Geoff Trachtenberg, Dave Abney and others.
    The purpose behind service of process is to place a Defendant or party on Notice of pending litigation. Under the current rules, formality and confusion are trumping the purpose behind the service of process rules. The existing rule is a trap for the unwary and creates substantial and unjustified expense.

    As Plaintiff's Counsel in Batty v. Glendale Union High School District No. 205, 221 Ariz. 592, 595 ¶ 11, 212 P.3d 930, 933 ¶ 11 (App. 2009), I can tell you first hand that much confusion exists over whom to serve for various public entities. What is appropriate for one body politic may not be for another. And what is required for service on certain Public Entities is not detailed or explained (at least the interpretation is not explained or detailed at all). Such should not be the case.... All that should be required is to place the body politic on notice of the litigation. How that is to be done should be spelled out specifically and clearly so that there is no confusion. To accomplish these goals the Petition should be adopted in full.

    stevenevans1
    Posts:

    --
    16 Nov 2011 12:41 PM
    Steven L. Evans
    Steven L. Evans, PLC
    322 W. Roosevelt St.
    Phoenix, AZ 85003
    (602) 288-3325
    (602) 288-3328
    sevans@sle-law.com
    AZ BAr No. 012998

    I support Petition R-11-0031 for the reasons stated by Geoff Trachtenberg, Dave Abney and many others.

    Service of claims and lawsuits on governmental entities should be simple and easy, so that citizens' constitutional rights to seek redress of government wrongs is meaningful and protected. The existing rule is a trap for the unwary and creates substantial and unjustified expense.

    With respect to serving one member of a group, the problems with the existing rule became most evident after the Falcon decision which, in part, based its holding upon "fulfill[ing] the purposes of the notice-of-claim statute." The Court in Falcon, however, should not have interposed any Legislative intent while interpreting the Court's own Rules of Civil Procedure since the Legislature has no role in promulgating those rules.

    In addition, to the extent the Falcon decision rests upon concerns related to allowing service upon "one member" of a public body, it is important for the Court to recognize that these persons were elected or appointed to supervise and oversee important public functions. It certainly seems reasonable for those persons to be able to accept basic service related to their public office and, to the extent they cannot appreciate the significance of being served, its hard to imagine the entire group would be any better at appreciating the significance.

    As the Court is aware, Rule 4.1(j) has long allowed for service upon one member of a public body and that is the "default rule" when Rule 4.1(i) is not applicable. It makes no sense to allow this kind of service under one rule but not the other.

    With respect to serving an administrative assistant or similar employee, this change simply creates a long over-due efficiency and recognizes the modern reality that high-level officials subject to service have security concerns. As a result, it is frequently not possible for strangers effecting service to get access to these persons without undue expense and unreasonable tactics.

    The Petition should be adopted in full.

    shumwayg
    Posts:

    --
    16 Nov 2011 08:21 PM
    G. Lynn Shumway
    Law Office of G. Lynn Shumway
    4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 230
    Phoenix, Arizona 85018
    Phone 602 795-3720
    Fax 602 795-3728
    shumway@gmail.com
    Arizona State Bar No. 011714

    I support Petition R-11-0031 for the reasons stated by Geoff Trachtenberg, Dave Abney and many others.

    Lynn Shumway
    Topic is locked
    Page 1 of 41234 > >>