The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on Nov. 18 to ratify legal actions taken to recover funds linked to the Gutfar embezzlement and authorized additional legal steps against the Arizona Auditor General and the state.

County legal counsel told the board the agenda item encompassed two primary motions: first, ratification of all legal work the county and its outside counsel have already pursued in two civil cases connected to the Gutfar matter; and second, authorization for any additional legal action necessary to pursue recourse against the Auditor General and the state. "The first is the ratification of all of the legal action, especially with regards to both of the cases that the board... has been aware of for the last... a little over a year," counsel said during the meeting. He added the file includes one case against the Gutfar family and business entities and a second case against the Arizona Auditor General and the state.

A board member read the motion aloud, giving the two court filings the county cited: the county's lawsuit against Elizabeth Gutfar and associated parties filed Aug. 1, 2024 in Pima County Superior Court (case number C20244535), and the county's civil suit filed Nov. 14, 2024 in Maricopa County Superior Court (cited in the meeting as CV2024-032742). That motion to ratify the county's earlier legal steps carried by voice vote.

Board members then approved a second motion authorizing "any other legal action necessary to maintain or pursue legal recourse" in connection with the Maricopa County action and the Auditor General matter; that motion also passed unanimously.

The board framed the votes as open-meeting ratifications of steps already taken by county management, the county attorney's office and outside counsel (identified in the motion as Snell & Wilmer and Weissbroe). The county's agenda packet and memorandums, the board said, include more detailed background and links to the public record, including press releases, related criminal filings and receiver activity.

No members voted against either measure. The board did not record roll-call tallies in the public remarks reported in the transcript; the motion record in the meeting minutes and posted agenda materials should be consulted for the official vote register and any additional documents earmarked for public distribution.