By Melissa Rosequist
Twitter: @mrosequist_

The Scottsdale City Council is being asked to approve legal indemnification for councilmembers and city employees in a court case pending in United States District Court.

In total, council is being asked on Tuesday, May 19, to authorize the city to defend and indemnify all seven City Council members; City Manager Jim Thompson; City Clerk Carolyn Jagger; and former City Attorney Bruce Washburn.

Pending in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona is case Mark E. Stuart and Virginia G. Stuart v. City of Scottsdale. The Stuarts’ civil action seeks declaratory relief and damages, among other things, according to a city staff report accompanying the indemnification request.

Scottsdale city officials say this is the latest iteration of Mr. Stuart’s attempts to sue the city, calling the claims merit-less.

The complaint filed is based upon allegations of actions taken in the scope of their official duties, the report stated.

A copy of the complaint filed with the court was obtained by Independent Newsmedia through the city clerk’s office.

The complaint, dated April 21, outlines 11 claims for relief.

City Senior Assistant Attorney Eric Anderson is also named in the lawsuit.

Defendants Lane, Washburn, Klapp, Korte, Milhaven, Anderson and Thompson are sued in their individual capacities and their official capacities, the document states. Littlefield, Phillips, Whitehead and Jagger are sued in their official capacities only.

The lawsuit is an action seeking to redress the violation of plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Stuart, to freedom of speech, freedom to petition, and their due process and equal protection of the laws under the first and 14th amendments, the suit states, citing the Civil Rights Act.

According to the legal claim, the City of Scottsdale holds a judgment against Mr. Stuart, as an individual, in the amount of $30,115 plus interest as a result of a prior lawsuit. After receiving notice that Mr. Stuart had no sole and separate property from which the city could satisfy its judgment, defendants Lane, Washburn, Anderson, Thompson, Korte, Klapp and Milhaven “planned and conspired together to implement a garnishment action against the Stuarts’ marital property” between November 2018-April 2019.

The suit claims Washburn and Anderson knowingly submitted false affidavits in support of the garnishments.

Requests to councilmembers Korte, Milhaven and Klapp for comment on the matter were denied, citing the nature of the open lawsuit.

Scottsdale spokesman Kelly Corsette issued a statement on behalf of the city:

“Mark Stuart has filed a number of lawsuits against the City of Scottsdale and City Council members starting in 2013. He filed two separate lawsuits against the city in 2013, both of which were unsuccessful. The first case he filed was a legal challenge to an agreement the city entered into with a private entity. In 2015, the city prevailed in the case and also obtained a monetary judgment against Mr. Stuart for approximately $30,000. Please note that Mr. Stuart’s multiple merit-less cases filed against the city have cost Scottsdale taxpayers much more than that. Mr. Stuart then pursued a series of unsuccessful appeals and ultimately even the United States Supreme Court declined to hear his case.

"The city has reviewed the allegations set forth in Mr. Stuart’s newest lawsuit and is confident that the claims have no merit and that the Mayor and City Council members who are wrongfully named in this lawsuit will ultimately be dismissed from the litigation. This is simply Mr. Stuart’s most recently filed merit-less case against the city, which continues to unnecessarily exhaust the public’s funds and resources.”

Lawsuit facts and claims for relief

Mr. Stuart is no stranger to the Scottsdale City Council or the Charter officers employed within City Hall. In addition to challenging the city in court on more than one occasion, Mr. Stuart was escorted out of City Hall, 3939 N. Drinkwater Blvd., at a 2017 City Council meeting.

In the summer of 2013, Mr. Stuart filed a notice of claim against the city alleging the municipality was subsidizing the private operator of McDowell Mountain Golf Club with taxpayer dollars, according to Scottsdale Independent archives.

He has also brought civil claims in summer 2014 to Superior Court regarding financial arrangements surrounding TPC Scottsdale improvements made two years prior to the 2015 PGA Tour stop in Scottsdale.

Independent archives show Mr. Stuart claims --- and had provided documentation to the fact --- he was awarded $75,496.81 for his efforts in alerting the Internal Revenue Service to the usage of tax-exempt bonds for a private enterprise in Scottsdale.

He also filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court  accusing the City Council and charter officers of suppressing his free speech by using public money to promote the now-defunct Desert Discovery Center.

The current 2020 civil suit claims the defendants planned and conspired together to implement a garnishment action against the Stuarts’ marital property.

“...Defendants met together in late 2018 and in 2019, to discuss ways to discourage Mark Stuart form pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit against them,” the claim states.

“...Defendants knew, prior to implementing the garnishment, that the Stuarts’ marital property was not subject to garnishment to satisfy Scottsdale’s judgment against Mark Stuart. ...Defendants implemented the garnishment to retaliate against Mark Stuart for exercising his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights an Arizona Article II rights in a federal civil rights lawsuit...”

The claim states the garnishment was used as a way to discourage Mr. Stuart from pursuing a federal lawsuit and to encourage Mr. Stuart to discontinue the lawsuit; to intimidate the Stuarts; to create emotional distress for the Stuarts; and to create heavy time and cost burdens on the Stuarts.

“...Defendants brought the garnishment solely to injure the Stuarts and not as any legitimate justifiable litigation procedure,” the claim states.

On April 22, 2019, the Stuarts reportedly learned that their bank accounts were frozen, and the account balances were reduced from about $10,000 to $250.

The garnishment froze two of the Stuarts’ marital checking accounts indefinitely, preventing the Scottsdale couple from using the funds in those checking accounts to pay their bills and ordinary living expenses.

On May 4, 2019, Mr. Stuart was forced to file for chapter 13 bankruptcy in order to have the garnishment dismissed and the funds in the Stuart marital checking accounts released for living expenses, the claim states.

The legal claim states facts that Mr. and Mrs. Stuart have suffered severe physical and psychological injuries because of the garnishment, which are ongoing.

In addition, Mr. Stuart has reportedly loss business opportunities because of the garnishment, and his reputation in Scottsdale and within the general business community have been irreparably damaged.

“Defendants’ misconduct as summarized above, was subjectively and objectively unreasonable and violated Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights of freedom of speech and freedom to petition in federal courts,” the lawsuit states. “As a result of the above-named Defendants’ misconduct, Plaintiffs have suffered various injuries including loss of property an reputation, physical pain an suffering, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium and emotional distress.”

The six claims for relief listed in the lawsuit are:

1. Free speech, freedom to petition, first amendment burdening, first amendment retaliation, abuse of process, and defamation.
2. Conspiracy to violate plaintiffs constitutional rights.
3. Unconstitutional policies; customs and practices; and ratification of unconstitutional conduct by city employees, and failure to train.
4. Retaliation, actual suppression and chilling, declaratory relief, damages.
5. Wrongful garnishment, declaratory relief, damages.
6. Abuse of process, declaratory relief, damages.
7. Intentional infliction of emotional distress.
8. Loss of enjoyment of life.
9. Loss of consortium.
10. Defamation per se.
11. False light invasion of privacy.