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


Defendants.

________________________________

Lead No. CV-10-02756-PHX-NVW

Consolidated with:No. CV-10-02757-PHX-NVW

No. CV-10-02758-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


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.



Defendants.

________________________________

CONLEY D. WOLFSWINKEL, a single

man, et al,

Plaintiffs,

v.



Defendants.

________________________________

STEPHEN WETZEL and NANCY

WETZEL, husband and wife,

Plaintiffs,

v.



Defendants.

________________________________

MARY ROSE and EARL WILCOX, wife

and husband,

Plaintiffs,

v.



Defendants.



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.



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.



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.



5/21


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



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



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.



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.



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



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.



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


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


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


damage, loss or harm to the Plaintiff. Paragraphs 30-31, 34-36.



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


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



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.

///



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




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



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




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,



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.

///



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.



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



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


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


Attorneys for Defendants Thomas

Lawrence J. WulkanLeslie E. OHara

M. Elizabeth Nillen

Michael C. Manning

Stefan Mark Palys

Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP



Attorneys for Plaintiffs Donahoe, Wetzel,

Wilson and Schuerman

Colin F. Campbell

Kathleen Erin Brody OMeara

Osborn Maledon PA

PO Box 36379


Attorneys for Plaintiffs Wilcox



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

________________________


Documents

Amended Mundell