Amended Mundell
Transcript of Amended Mundell
-
8/3/2019 Amended Mundell
1/21
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
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
Jos 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 28059Attorneys for Plaintiffs Mundell and Baca
[email protected] 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,
Plaintiffv.
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)
Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 1 of 21
-
8/3/2019 Amended Mundell
2/21
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
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.
Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 2 of 21
-
8/3/2019 Amended Mundell
3/21
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DONALD T. STAPLEY, JR. and
KATHLEEN STAPLEY, husband and wife,
Plaintiffsv.
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 aresident 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 theCounty. 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.
Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 3 of 21
-
8/3/2019 Amended Mundell
4/21
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3. Defendant Ava Arpaio is the wife of Joseph Arpaio and was at allrelevant 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 ofMaricopa County, Arizona. Defendant Hendershott formerly served as Chief Deputy
to Sheriff Arpaio.
5. Defendant Anna Hendershott is the wife of David Hendershott and wasat 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 ofMaricopa 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 allrelevant 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 ofMaricopa County, Arizona. Defendant Aubuchon served as a Deputy County
Attorney in the Maricopa County Attorneys Office at all relevant times.
9. Defendant Peter Pestalozzi is the husband of Lisa Aubuchon and was atall 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.
Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 4 of 21
-
8/3/2019 Amended Mundell
5/21
-
8/3/2019 Amended Mundell
6/21
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
proper. After Judge Daviss ruling, Defendant Arpaio issued a press release on or
about January 29, 2010, announcing that he had filed an appeal regarding the denial of
MCSOs public records requests. Further stating that it wasnt 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 statingthat despite having knowledge of Judge Fieldss bias, Judge Anna Baca, then serving
as presiding judge on the criminal bench, denied the States request for a new judge.He did not mention that the Judge Baca did not rule on the motion because MCAO
had transferred Stapley Ito the Yavapai County Attorney for prosecution.
19. The press release also stated that Judge Mundell had worked personallywith Supervisor Stapley in the past and intimated that she selected Judge Fields to
preside over the Stapley Icase 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 Fieldsdemanding 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
Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 6 of 21
-
8/3/2019 Amended Mundell
7/21
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MCSO planned on filing a judicial ethics complaint against JudgeMundell.
It also demanded that Judge Mundell recuse herself from any involvement of MCSOs
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 statingthat 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 seeSheriffs 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 ParadiseValley 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 JudicialEthics Complaints against Judge Mundell and Judge Baca. He claimed that Judge
Baca, with the help of Judge Mundell, conspired with the Maricopa County Public
Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 7 of 21
-
8/3/2019 Amended Mundell
8/21
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
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 herof 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 retiredjudge 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 aprosecutor 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 notcriticize her for questioning his appointment.
29. Defendant Arpaio continues to publish the Judicial Ethics Complaintsand press releases on MCSOs 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 underthe 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.
Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 8 of 21
-
8/3/2019 Amended Mundell
9/21
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
31. Defendant Hendershott conducted the investigation that lead to thefiling 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 Deakins1examined 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. MCAOs 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 aRICO action. He attempted to pressure Spaw to go against Spaws 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 advisedDefendant 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 orabout 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.
1Ogletree Deakins is a law firm that was hired to research the viability of a RICO complaint.
Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 9 of 21
-
8/3/2019 Amended Mundell
10/21
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
36. Defendants Arpaio and Thomas announced the filing of the complaintjointly with the announcement of Defendant Hendershotts 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 uniformeddeputies 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 Arpaios
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 pressrelease 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 thepress. 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
Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 10 of 21
-
8/3/2019 Amended Mundell
11/21
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
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 dismissedthe 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
Hendershotts 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 Hendershotts behavior.
42. On or about June 22, 2010, Defendant Arpaio and Defendant Thomasissued 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 Plaintiffs
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 riggedthe 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.
Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 11 of 21
-
8/3/2019 Amended Mundell
12/21
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
COUNT I
ABUSE OF PROCESS
44. Defendant Arpaio willfully used or threatened to use legal process orprocedure 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 orprocedure 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 processor 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 orprocedure primarily to accomplish an ulterior purpose for which the process orprocedure 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
48. Defendant Arpaio initiated or took active part in the prosecution of acivil proceeding against the Plaintiff, which ended in the Plaintiffs 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 acivil proceeding against the Plaintiff, which ended in the Plaintiffs 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.
Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 12 of 21
-
8/3/2019 Amended Mundell
13/21
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
50. Defendant Hendershott initiated or took active part in the prosecution ofa civil proceeding against the Plaintiff, which ended in the Plaintiffs 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 acivil proceeding against the Plaintiff, which ended in the Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffthat 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 Plaintiffthat 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 thePlaintiff 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 recklessdisregard 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 Plaintiffthat 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
Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 13 of 21
-
8/3/2019 Amended Mundell
14/21
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
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 falsestatements concerning the Plaintiff that damaged her. Paragraphs 17, 21, 29, 36, 42.
57. Defendant Thomas knowingly or with reckless disregard published falsestatements concerning the Plaintiff that damaged her. Paragraphs 18-19, 22, 36, 42-
43.58. 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 Arpaios conduct was extreme and outrageous, eitherintentional or reckless, and caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress.
Paragraphs 21, 23-24, 29-31, 36-40, 42.
60. Defendant Thomass conduct was extreme and outrageous, eitherintentional or reckless, and caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress.
Paragraphs 30-31, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42-43.
61. Defendant Hendershotts conduct was extreme and outrageous, eitherintentional or reckless, and caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress.
Paragraphs 23-31, 33, 36, 38, 41.
62. Defendant Aubuchons conduct was extreme and outrageous, eitherintentional or reckless, and caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress.
Paragraphs 20, 30-32, 38-39, 41.
///
Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 14 of 21
-
8/3/2019 Amended Mundell
15/21
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
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 Plaintiffof 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 Arpaios wrongfulconduct, Judge Mundells 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 thePlaintiff 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 wrongfulconduct, Judge Mundells 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 thePlaintiff 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
Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 15 of 21
-
8/3/2019 Amended Mundell
16/21
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
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 Hendershotts wrongfulconduct, Judge Mundells 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 thePlaintiff 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, 38-
39, 41.
70.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Aubuchons wrongfulconduct, Judge Mundells 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 DefendantArpaios 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,
Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 16 of 21
-
8/3/2019 Amended Mundell
17/21
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
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 thatdeprived 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 Arpaios wrongfulconduct, Judge Mundells 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 DefendantThomas 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 thatdeprived 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, 38-
39, 41.
76. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Thomass wrongfulconduct, Judge Mundells constitutional rights were violated and she has been
damaged. Paragraphs 18, 20, 30-32, 35, 38-39, 41.
///
Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 17 of 21
-
8/3/2019 Amended Mundell
18/21
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
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 Arpaios actions, Judge Mundell suffered harmto 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 Thomass actions, Judge Mundell sufferedharm 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 Hendershotts actions, Judge Mundell sufferedharm 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 Aubuchons actions, Judge Mundell sufferedharm 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. For general and compensatory damages;
B. For attorneys fees and costs incurred;
C. For punitive damages;
D. 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.
Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 18 of 21
-
8/3/2019 Amended Mundell
19/21
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
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
Jos 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 OConnor 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. AudilettKimble Nelson Audilett & Kastner PC
335 North Wilmot, Suite 500
Tucson, AZ 85711-2636
Attorneys for Defendants Arpaio, Halverson, Roshetko
Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 19 of 21
-
8/3/2019 Amended Mundell
20/21
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
James P. Mueller
Douglas V. Drury
MUELLER & DRURY, PC8110 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. WulkanLeslie E. OHara
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 OMeara
Osborn Maledon PA
PO Box 36379
Phoenix, AZ 85067-6379
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Wilcox
Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 20 of 21
-
8/3/2019 Amended Mundell
21/21
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Lawrence C. Wright
Wright & Associates
1201 S. Alma School Road, Suite 3500Mesa, 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 PetersenPinal County Attorneys Office
PO Box 887
Florence, AZ 85232-0887
Attorney for Paul Babeu
________________________
Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 242 Filed 11/21/11 Page 21 of 21