WEBB v. KNIGHT

── WEBB v. KNIGHT ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE SAMANTHA WEBB, an adult individual, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. COLLIN REED KNIGHT and JANE DOE KNIGHT, husband and wife; COCONINO COUNTY, a governmental entity; SHERIFF JIM DRISCOLL, an adult individual; COCONINO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, a governmental entity, Defendants/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0401 FILED 05-15-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino County No. S0300CV202300466 The Honorable Brent Davidson Harris, Judge AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART COUNSEL Sweet James Lawyers, LLC, Phoenix By Jeffrey J. Spamer Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant Jellison Law Offices, PLLC, Scottsdale By James M. Jellison Counsel for Defendants/Appellees  WEBB v. KNIGHT, et al. Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Angela K. Paton joined. P E R K I N S, Judge: ¶1 Samantha Webb appeals from the superior court’s order dismissing her complaints against Coconino County Deputy Collin Knight and former Coconino County Sheriff Jim Driscoll under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, we affirm the grant of dismissal against Knight, vacate the dismissal against Driscoll, and remand for proceedings consistent with this decision. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 On September 14, 2022, Knight rear-ended Webb while driving a Coconino County Sheriff’s Office (“CCSO”) vehicle. In March 2023, Webb’s process server delivered notices of claim against Knight and Driscoll to front desk staff at the CCSO. In September 2023, Webb filed a complaint alleging direct negligence claims against Knight and vicarious liability claims against Driscoll, Coconino County, and the CCSO. ¶3 In January 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss Webb’s complaint on the grounds that 1) Knight was improperly served with the notice of claim, 2) the notice of claim against Driscoll did not satisfy the sum certain requirement, 3) Coconino County could not legally be liable for a deputy, and 4) the CCSO was a non-jural entity which could not be sued. With their motion, the defendants attached the notices of claim and an affidavit from Knight stating that he did not know the front desk employee and never authorized her, nor anyone else, to accept a notice of claim on his behalf. ¶4 Webb filed a response, attaching her own exhibits showing the front desk employee told Webb’s process server the employee was authorized to accept service for deputies, and that deputies had been served in this manner before. Webb also requested discovery into whether the CCSO front desk staff were in fact authorized by the Sheriff to accept service for deputies. Webb agreed Coconino County and the CCSO should be dismissed, and the court dismissed them with prejudice. 2  WEBB v. KNIGHT, et al. Decision of the Court ¶5 After a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the court dismissed Webb’s claims against Knight and Driscoll. Webb has timely appealed the dismissal, and we have jurisdiction. A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1). DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review ¶6 When the defendants filed their motion to dismiss, they attach