Richard S. Plattner
Plattner Verderame P.C.
P.O. Box 36570
Phoenix, AZ 85067-6570
[email protected]


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.

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
[email protected]
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.

Eric C. Awerkamp
1930 S. Alma School Rd. Ste. A-115
Mesa, AZ 85210-3065
480-632-9800
[email protected]


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

Page Chancellor Marks
Management Attorney
Goldberg & Osborne
33 N. Stone, Suite 900
Tucson, AZ 85701
[email protected]
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

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
[email protected]
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.

Michael Magee
The Magee Law Firm, PLC
7411 E. Sixth Ave, Suite 106
Scottsdale AZ 85251
[email protected]

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.

Lincoln Combs
Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A.
2575 E. Camelback Road
Phoenix, Arizona 85016
602-530-8022
[email protected]
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.

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
[email protected]

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.

______________________________

Sara Siesco
2141 East Camelback, Suite 100
Phoenix, Arizona 85016
602-840-8787
602-840-0425
[email protected]
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.

William C. Bacon
Goldberg & Osborne
33 N. Stone 900
Tucson, AZ 85701
520-879-7165
Fax-520-620-3991
[email protected]
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 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: [email protected]


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.

Randall A. Hinsch
Plattner Verderame P.C.
316 E. Flower St.
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(602)266-2002
(602)266-6908
[email protected]
#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.

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 [email protected]

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.

Joey A. Flynn
2200 E. Speedway Blvd.
Tucson, AZ 85719-4727
[email protected]

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

Dev K. Sethi
Kinerk Schmidt & Sethi PLLC
1790 E. River Rd. Ste. 300
Tucson, AZ 85718-5958
[email protected]

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.

Michael J. Bell
Busby, Bell & Biggs P.C.
1241 E. Prince Rd
Tucson AZ 85719
Fax # 1-520-293-8347
[email protected]
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 P. Ramirez
The Robert P. Ramirez Law Firm, PLLC
826 N. 3rd Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
623-322-3400
623-322-3412
[email protected]
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.

Steven L. Evans
Steven L. Evans, PLC
322 W. Roosevelt St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(602) 288-3325
(602) 288-3328
[email protected]
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.

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
[email protected]
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