United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
NEIL
V. WAKE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before
the Court are the parties' responses to its order to show
cause pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f).
(Docs. 305, 309, 311.) For the reasons below, summary
judgment will be granted in favor of Defendant Marie Trombi.
I.
BACKGROUND
A.
Factual Background
Plaintiffs
Austin Flake and Logan Brown (collectively, the
“Flakes”) sued Defendants Joseph Michael Arpaio
(“Arpaio”), Maricopa County (the
“County”), and Marie Trombi
(“Trombi”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
Arizona state tort law. (Doc. 101.)
Logan's
parents, Jesse and MaLeisa Hughes, ran a dog kenneling
business. (Doc. 134 at 1.) The kennel was a small,
air-conditioned room, roughly nine by twelve feet in size,
attached to the Hugheses' home. (Id. at 2.)
When
the Hugheses went out of town in June of 2014, the Flakes
watched the dogs. (Id. at 1-2.) The Flakes stayed in
the main house, which had its own air conditioning system.
(Id. at 2.) Although the “first five days
passed without incident, ” at around 5:30 a.m. on June
20, 2017, Austin went to the kennel and “found the room
so hot that the twenty-one dogs had either died or grown
seriously ill.” (Id.)
The
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, then led by Arpaio,
promised a full investigation of the incident. (Id.
at 2.) Trombi, a deputy sheriff, was the appointed
investigator. (Id. at 4.) She repeatedly briefed
Arpaio on the investigation's status. (Id.) As
part of the investigation, an electrical engineer prepared a
report concluding the air conditioning unit was
“inadequate and improperly configured” but had
been operating all night. (Id. at 3-4.)
The
investigation progressed for several months. On September 9,
2014, Arpaio held a twenty-two minute press conference where
he announced he was recommending the Hugheses and Flakes be
charged with twenty-one felony counts and six misdemeanor
counts of animal cruelty. (Id.)
On
October 10, 2014, a grand jury indicted the Hugheses and the
Flakes on those charges. (Id. at 4-5.) Trombi had
testified before the grand jury. (Id. at 5.) She was
specifically questioned about whether the air conditioning
was on and answered that, according to the electrical
records, it was on all night. (Id.) The Flakes were
not arrested, but they were prevented from leaving the State
of Arizona without permission, which was granted when
requested. (Id.; Doc. 309-2, Ex. B at 69, 76.) They
were also prohibited from having “custody or control
over another person's animal/pet.” (Doc. 134 at 5.)
On
December 2, 2014, the Flakes moved to “return the case
to the grand jury in light of ‘material
misrepresentations and omissions' in Trombi's
testimony.” (Id.) “It turned out that
the electric company records did show the air conditioner may
have failed.” (Id.) Three weeks later, the
County Attorney's Office voluntarily dismissed the case
against the Flakes. (Id.) The County Attorney told
the press that the original theory of the case, as presented
to the grand jury, did not take into account possible
problems with the air conditioning unit. (Id.)
B.
This Lawsuit Through Trial
On June
19, 2015, the Flakes filed this lawsuit, alleging malicious
prosecution under state and federal law, defamation, false
light invasion of privacy, and First Amendment retaliation.
(Id. at 6.) After discovery closed, Defendants moved
for summary judgment. (Doc. 107.) The Flakes moved for
partial summary judgment. (Doc. 114.) The Court granted
summary judgment to Defendants on the defamation, false light
invasion of privacy, and First Amendment retaliation claims.
(Doc. 134 at 19-20.)
The
only other claim was malicious prosecution. The Flakes had
pleaded malicious prosecution against Arpaio under state law
and under federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They failed to
meet Arizona's notice-of-claims deadline against Trombi,
...