Email Response

MPA response

A couple of days ago the East Valley Tribune published an article regarding Mesa Officer’s Special Action Claim against the City of Mesa and the City Manager, Chris Brady. Our firm actually filed a Special Action complaint in a timely fashion according to Rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure for Special Action.

As you read in the East Valley Tribune, the attorney for the City of Mesa and Chris Brady, has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, basing his argument on the fact that a Notice of Claim against the City of Mesa or Chris Brady was not filed. A Notice of Claim is required where a party is seeking damages. Special Actions do not seek damages, but rather only seek a review of the administrative decision under appeal. Thus, we are not seeking damages from the Court, but rather only a review by the Court of the administrative decision so that, hopefully, all Plaintiffs will obtain a meaningful and objective handling of their grievances.

It is our belief that the Motion is not well taken. If we were to be held to the Notice of Claim requirement, we would also be subject to the mandatory 60 days waiting period before filing any action. Of course, that makes no sense whatsoever since any Special Action should be filed as soon as possible after the rendering of the administrative decision under review. If we had filed a Notice of Claim, and then waited 60 days to file our Special Action, the City would be saying we waited too long. This is nonsense.

In short, we obviously feel that the Motion for Summary Judgment is without merit. We will keep you advised.