Legally speaking, it was a busy year for Scottsdale.<\/p>\n
Just over a year ago, Sherry Scott resigned as Scottsdale\u2019s city attorney.<\/p>\n
On July 1, 2025, the first day of the 2025-26 fiscal year, City Council tapped Luis Santaella as Scott\u2019s interim replacement. Santaella, Scott\u2019s second-in-command and a longtime city employee, also took over Scott\u2019s annual salary of $319,000.<\/p>\n
In May, as the fiscal year was ending, Santaella had the \u201cinterim\u201d lifted from his title.<\/p>\n
\u201cUnder my leadership, the Scottsdale City Attorney\u2019s Office is moving forward with purpose and vision \u2013 fully dedicated to supporting the mission and goals of our City Council,\u201d Santaella began his June 19 report.<\/p>\n
His highlights included:<\/p>\n
Ordinance No. 4680.<\/strong> “This ordinance bars anyone under 16 from riding a Class 3 e-bike (21+ mph) or an electric motorcycle on city property and requires all electric motorcycles on roadways to be titled and registered with Arizona regardless of the age of the rider.”<\/p>\n Ordinance No. 4681.<\/strong> “This ordinance \u2026 prohibits smoking in or near city playgrounds and related outdoor recreational amenities.”<\/p>\n Ordinance No. 4684<\/strong>. “This ordinance creates a new prohibition \u2026\u00a0 that prohibits standing or remaining on a traffic median where the posted speed limit is 30 mph or greater, except for briefly occupying a median at a signalized intersection as a temporary refuge”<\/p>\n His bullet point of highlights includes: \u201cWorked on various changes to the Rules of Council Procedure and served as the Council\u2019s parliamentarian.\u201d<\/p>\n Santaella bypassed the controversy when his initiative to move non-agendized public comment from the beginning of meetings to the end. It was passed by a City Council majority.<\/p>\n Another big one, and even more controversial, was \u201cDrafted and collaborated on the Axon Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).\u201d<\/p>\n After negotiations and Santaella\u2019s legal wording, City Council passed the agreement Nov. 17, 2025.<\/p>\n It \u201ccreates a self-certification program for Qualified International Headquarters campuses\u201d \u2013 namely, Axon Enterprises, which agreed to reduce its apartment-condo count from 1,900 to 1,300 in return for self-certification and other allowances.<\/p>\n And, Santaella noted, his office \u201creceived 21,409 public records requests.\u201d<\/p>\n The report itself was provided to the Progress after a public records request.<\/p>\n Santaella also noted his office drafted a $3.7 million purchase agreement with Scottsdale Unified School District \u201cfor the purchase of real property for use as office and workspace for municipal employees\u201d and drafted a revised development agreement with One Scottsdale \u201cto change the zoning \u2026 for a mixed-use development, including residential, commercial, and hotel.\u201d<\/p>\n After Council approval, this allows the developer to build an extra 350 condos in North Scottsdale.<\/p>\n Lawsuits, resolved and unresolved<\/strong><\/p>\n An eagerly-anticipated portion of the annual report outlines the lawsuits filed against \u2013 and settled with \u2013 the city.<\/p>\n \u201cThe City actively defended\/prosecuted 93 civil litigation cases in FY25\/26,\u201d Santaella wrote. \u201cThis number increased by 55% from FY 24\/25 (60 cases) and by 79% from FY 23\/24 (52 cases).\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe city resolved 31 cases in FY25\/26.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Santaella highlighted \u201cSmith v. City of Scottsdale,\u201d in which \u201cthe plaintiff argues officers defamed her, invaded her privacy, and negligently inflicted emotional distress by photographing her injuries \u2026 and demanded $250,000 to settle her claims.\u201d<\/p>\n Santaella boasted that after the city refused to settle and filed a motion to dismiss the suit, \u201cthe court ruled that the officers\u2019 actions were protected by absolute immunity as part of an ongoing criminal investigation, rejected all asserted tort claims, and dismissed the case in its entirety.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe plaintiff recovered nothing.\u201d<\/p>\n A case floating for seven years had the same result: In 2019, the Neptune Swimming Foundation sued the city for $1.4 million over \u201cits pool licensing and procurement practices, arising from claims that its license with Scottsdale Aquatic Club violated the gift clause and the City Charter.\u201d<\/p>\n Scottsdale won a summary judgment in Maricopa County Superior Court, with the Court of Appeals affirming the decision.<\/p>\n \u00a0\u201cThe Arizona Supreme Court later confirmed there was no gift-clause violation but remanded a narrow procurement-code issue relating to a canceled 2018 pool-time RFP. On remand, the City obtained a second summary judgment after showing the license had expired, and no remedy remained, and the case was dismissed with the plaintiff taking nothing.\u201d<\/p>\n Regarding another lawsuit, \u201cThe city attorney\u2019s office successfully resolved a catastrophic injury lawsuit, arising from a man\u2019s fall over a boulder that encroached onto the Princess Drive sidewalk.\u201d<\/p>\n The man who fell \u201calleged he suffered a spinal cord injury causing quadriplegia with complete loss of sensory and motor function,\u201d filing a $20 million claim.<\/p>\n \u201cAfter a thorough investigation and hard-fought discovery in the case, we were able to negotiate a pre-trial settlement of the claims against the city for $20,000,\u201d Santaella wrote.<\/p>\n Missing lawsuit<\/strong><\/p>\n Discussion of a few notable lawsuits was missing from the annual report, however.<\/p>\n Shawn Fuller, a former city assistant attorney, sued the city and Scott in 2020. He claimed wrongful termination as retaliation for him bringing to light improper procedures in driving under the influence cases.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n According to Santaella\u2019s January agenda report, \u201cThe Superior Court of the State of Arizona County of Maricopa made rulings, decisions, and took other action which (Scottsdale) believed to be erroneous.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n A jury ruled in Fuller\u2019s favor in 2024, leading to a city appeal.\u00a0<\/p>\n After a Court of Appeals decision, Santaella advised Council\u00a0 \u201cit is in the best interest of the city \u2026 to authorize the City Attorney\u2019s Office and\/or outside counsel engaged by the City Attorney to file a petition or counter-petition and appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.\u201d<\/p>\n \u00a0Council unanimously approved Santaella\u2019s request to continue funding \u2013 at an undisclosed rate and\/or estimated total \u2013 an outside lawyer to continue defending the city in a case haunting it for years.<\/p>\n The 158 claims against the city in 2025-26 comprised a four-year low, down from an average 194 the previous three years.<\/p>\n But the 158 claims totaled a demand of $56.5 million from the city.\u00a0<\/p>\n Santaella\u2019s annual report noted the city \u2013 \u201cafter careful evaluation\u201d \u2013 agreed to settlement payments of $725,000, a mere \u201c1.28%\u00a0 of all amounts demanded.\u201d<\/p>\n But individual cases are not cited in the annual report.<\/p>\n On Feb. 10, Council approved paying Keith Lanning $135,000 to settle a lawsuit. Lanning is a former police detention officer who \u201csuffered a left shoulder injury during a physical struggle with a subject,\u201d according to the Feb. 10 agenda report.<\/p>\n \u201cAs a result of his injuries, he was unable to return to work as a police detention officer for the city.\u201d<\/p>\n Santaella\u2019s annual report also does not provide an estimate of the city\u2019s exposure regarding lawsuits looming after a fatal bad-landing at the Scottsdale Airport Feb. 10, 2025.\u00a0<\/p>\n As Santaella\u2019s May 5 agenda report noted, \u201cseveral of the parties involved have filed lawsuits against the city.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Legally speaking, it was a busy year for Scottsdale. Just over a year ago, Sherry Scott resigned as…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":992653,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[5131],"tags":[5229,5643,1587,166899,57353,1589,25535,397974,397975,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":["post-992652","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-phoenix","tag-america","tag-arizona","tag-az","tag-luis-santaella","tag-maricopa-county-superior-court","tag-phoenix","tag-scottsdale-unified-school-district","tag-sherry-scott","tag-smith-v-city-of-scottsdale","tag-united-states","tag-united-states-of-america","tag-unitedstates","tag-unitedstatesofamerica","tag-us","tag-usa"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/117070274254377351","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/992652","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=992652"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/992652\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/992653"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=992652"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=992652"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=992652"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}