General Civil Litigation

 

	Phoenix Courthouse Ceiling

Our attorneys pride ourselves on having successfully litigated matters for public and private sector clients in Arizona and federal courts, including the United States District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in filing Petitions for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.

As an example our attorneys prevailed with a jury verdict in defending a wrongful termination lawsuit, captioned Caravella v. Town of Gilbert, CIV 99-0215-PHX-SRB. This case involved allegations of sexual harassment, retaliation and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Our attorneys also successfully defended the Town of Gilbert in a class action case brought by hundreds of homeowners related to airport overflights from the Williams Gateway Airport. In Levenson et al. v. Town of Gilbert, CV 99-11909, CV 99-16034, the homeowners alleged that airport noise created a nuisance and constituted a "taking" of their property. However, the Court granted summary judgment to the Town on all counts, ruling that the homeowners could not prove any of their claims. The case was affirmed on appeal, and certiorari was denied.

Attorneys of the Firm regularly provide legal advice on public bidding, including issues of responsibility and responsiveness of bidders.  We have successfully defended the Town of Gilbert in two bid protest-related lawsuits. In Archon, Inc. v. Town of Gilbert, (CV 96-11956), the court agreed with our argument that the low bidder's failure to submit an affidavit of non-collusion and page of subcontractor's list prior to bid opening were minor defects and could be cured without penalizing the Town. In Talis Construction et al. v. Town of Gilbert, (CV 2000-000411), the court held that the low bidder's failure to submit an affidavit of non-collusion prior to bid opening did not prejudice other bidders.

We also represent municipalities in annexation disputes. When necessary, we litigate these claims. More often, we settle these disputes. Settlement of annexation issues can involve complex intergovernmental agreements. We are experienced in negotiating the minutiae of these detailed agreements. We have also successfully defended municipalities against de-annexation attempts.

Attorneys of the Firm also secured a ruling in favor of a client water company in West Maricopa Combine, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources, 26 P.3d 1171, 349 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 17 (2001). In this case, the Court concluded that the consent of streambed owners is not required before a water company may make beneficial use of an existing natural watercourse to move its appropriated water and for water storage purposes.

In our most recent cases, we have filed a Motion to Dismiss the claims of an earthmoving contractor for improper termination against the Town of Wickenburg and have defended the Clerk of the Town of Oro Valley in an election referendum procedural matter.