Appeal
from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV 2017-094921
The Honorable David K. Udall, Judge
Lonny
Brittner, Chandler Plaintiff/Appellant
Renaud
Cook Drury Mesaros PA, Phoenix By Michael D. Wolver, Karl J.
Gruse, Steven G. Mesaros Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Judge
Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the opinion of the Court, in
which Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Randall M.
Howe joined.
OPINION
CAMPBELL, Judge
¶1
Lonny Brittner appeals the superior court's dismissal of
his amended complaint. Because Dr. Mary Ann Lanzilotta is
entitled to judicial immunity as the court-appointed
therapeutic interventionist ("TI") in
Brittner's family court matter, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2
Brittner filed a civil action against Lanzilotta for
intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of power,
breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract after she
resigned from her role as a court-appointed TI in his
dissolution matter. In that proceeding, Brittner sought joint
legal decision-making and equal parenting time of his
children. The family court appointed Dr. Daniel Christiano as
a custody evaluator. Christiano recommended the family see a
TI. The parties provided the family court with a stipulated
agreement to appoint Lanzilotta, and the court appointed her.
Pursuant to the order, Lanzilotta was appointed to
rehabilitate relationships between Brittner and the minor
children, establish "rules for [the] exchange of [the]
children in order to enhance safety and health in the
family," make referrals for therapy as necessary, and
facilitate conflict resolution.[1] In his amended complaint,
Brittner acknowledged that Lanzilotta was appointed by court
order and that the court relied on Lanzilotta's
recommendations in issuing its final decree.[2]
¶3
Lanzilotta moved to dismiss the complaint under Arizona Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing she was entitled to
judicial immunity as a court-appointed TI. The court
dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Brittner timely
appealed from the resulting final judgment. See
DISCUSSION
¶4
We review the dismissal of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) de
novo. Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352, 355,
¶ 7 (2012). "When adjudicating a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss, Arizona courts look only to the pleading
itself and consider the well-pled factual allegations
contained therein." Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins.
Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 419, ¶ 7 (2008). We also
"assume the truth of the well-pled factual allegations
and indulge all reasonable inferences therefrom."
Id. We will affirm the dismissal if, as a matter of
law, the plaintiff is not "entitled to relief under any
interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof."
Fed. Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. State Dep't of Ins.,
191 Ariz. 222, 224, ¶ 4 (1998).
¶5
Brittner argues Lanzilotta is not entitled to judicial
immunity because she was hired to provide therapeutic
services to the parties, and not as an expert to assist the
court, relying in part on Paul E. v. Courtney F.,
244 Ariz. 46, 56-57, ¶ 32 (App. 2018) (review granted in
part Nov. 20, 2018). Brittner, however, admits that
Lanzilotta was appointed by the court. He also acknowledges
the court relied on Lanzilotta's recommendations when
making the final custody determination.
¶6
Judicial immunity protects judges from civil liability for
judicial acts performed in the exercise of their judicial
functions. In re Alexander, 232 Ariz. 1, 11, ¶
41 (2013). "Judicial immunity protects a non-judicial
officer performing a function pursuant to a court directive
related to the judicial process." Lavit v. Superior
Court, 173 Ariz. 96, 99 (App. 1992) (citing Acevedo
ex rel Acevedo v. Pima Cty. Adult Prob. Dep 't, 142
Ariz. 319, 321 (1984)). Absolute judicial immunity has been
extended to "certain other court officials who perform
functions integral to the judicial process," including
court-appointed psychologists and psychiatrists who assist
the court. Id. (citing Acevedo, 142 Ariz.
at 321). The existence of judicial immunity is a question of
law we review de novo. Widoff v. Wiens, 202 Ariz.
383, 385-86, ¶ 8 (App. 2002). Whether absolute immunity
protects a nonjudicial officer hinges on "the nature of
the function performed, not on the identity of the
actor." Lavit, 173 Ariz. at 99.
¶7
Here, the court appointed Lanzilotta to provide therapeutic
services and to give recommendations to the family
court regarding "rules for [the] exchange of [the]
children in order to enhance safety and health in the
family" and referrals for therapy, which the court
ultimately relied on in issuing its final order. Therapeutic
services in this matter are incidental to the court's
purpose-Lanzilotta was appointed to provide the court
information and make recommendations to assist in a custody
determination. To formulate her expert opinion, therapeutic
sessions were necessary to gather and evaluate the family
...