Maricopa County paid $100,000 to settle the first of several claims filed by county officials who say they were harmed by prosecutions and lawsuits initiated by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas.

The county paid the sum to retired county Superior Court Judge Kenneth Fields to settle his claim that Arpaio and Thomas retaliated against him for adverse rulings and that he had been wrongly named in a federal civil racketeering suit. Fields accused Arpaio and Thomas of abuse of process, malicious prosecution, defamation, slander and libel.

County representatives continue to meet with various parties to try to resolve remaining claims. Some litigants say they have walked out of discussions with county representatives and have so far failed to come to agreements on monetary damages.

Attorneys for several of the other plaintiffs against Thomas and Arpaio were in federal court Friday for a preliminary hearing on their claims, which are moving toward trial.

Among the questions argued before U.S. District Judge Neil Wake were whether Thomas has prosecutorial immunity for investigations he launched against other county officials and whether he and Arpaio are personally liable to pay any damages awarded to plaintiffs.

Wake indicated that he would rule within two weeks. He stressed that he wanted to move the combined cases forward.

Numerous retired judges, county supervisors, officials and others have filed notices of claim or lawsuits against the county and state, demanding upward of $125 million in damages.

Some plaintiffs claim they were wrongfully targeted or maliciously prosecuted in public-corruption probes initiated by Arpaio and Thomas. Others are former employees of Thomas' and Arpaio's who claim that they were harmed as a result of the fallout from those investigations and the ongoing political and legal battles.

Though Thomas himself had filed $47 million in claims, he said earlier this week that he decided not to pursue a lawsuit against the county.

Fields was the first to settle. Though he initially asked for $1.75 million, public records show he settled for $100,000. The county spent nearly as much - $75,510 - defending itself against the claim.

Fields and his attorney, Bruce Feder, said Thursday that the court would not permit them to talk about the settlement and there was no note of the payment in the court record. But county officials produced a copy of an invoice showing that $100,000 had been paid to Feder's law firm. Records show the county cut two checks on Aug. 18, each for $50,000.

Under county rules, the risk manager can settle claims totaling $100,000 or less without having to consult with the Risk Management Department's board of trustees, which must approve settlements up to $200,000. The five-member county Board of Supervisors must approve any settlement of more than $200,000.

"It's a very small amount of money . . . it was a fraction of the cost of defense," said private attorney Steve LaMar, who is overseeing the alternative dispute-resolution process for the county. "We have been reaching out, trying to settle some of the lawsuits that we thought we could for a small amount of money early on and to save an amount of money. It's case by case."

But attorney Colin Campbell, who represents county Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox in her lawsuit, told Wake in federal court Friday that he has not even been approached to discuss the possibility of settlement.

Wilcox is suing the county for damages she says she suffered when targeted for investigation by Arpaio and Thomas.

Others present Friday in federal court were legal representatives of Deputy County Manager Sandi Wilson; Supervisor Don Stapley; Stapley's executive assistant, Susan Schuerman; retired Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe; and Stapley business associate Conley Wolfswinkel, all of whom also have filed lawsuits against Thomas and Arpaio.

In a hearing full of offhand quips, Wake scolded all the attorneys for writing overly dramatic pleadings that quoted newspaper articles while not being specific enough as to whom they were accusing of what.

"When the complaints are written with an eye to the press instead of to the requirements of the court, it puts a burden on the defendants," he said.

Wake took all matters under advisement but indicated that he would likely ask most of the attorneys to rewrite their pleadings in a more acceptable form.

And he stated that Thomas has absolute prosecutorial immunity on matters of criminal prosecution, but he doubted that Thomas was immune from lawsuit over the racketeering lawsuit he filed against the county officials.

Wake's criticism was not limited to the plaintiffs. At one point, he confronted the county's lawyer over a contention that the county should not be liable for Thomas' and Arpaio's actions. He stressed that the county would indeed have to pick up the tab.