314 P.3d 1277
Ariz. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiffs (Dr. Drew and Sheila King / ASHP) provided speech therapy services and were on Prescott Unified School District’s approved provider list; renewal allegedly intercepted and they were excluded from district grounds.
- Plaintiffs served a notice of claim on Dec. 15, 2011, seeking damages and offering to settle for $120,200 plus reinstatement; the notice stated the offer would remain open only until Dec. 30, 2011 (15 days max) and could be withdrawn sooner.
- Defendants (the District and a district employee, Bayomi) did not deny the claim in writing within 60 days and did not accept the offer before Dec. 30.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in March 2012; defendants moved to dismiss for failure to comply with A.R.S. § 12-821.01 (notice-of-claim statute requiring a sum-certain offer and prescribing a 60‑day rule).
- Superior court treated the motion as summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a claimant may unilaterally limit a statutory 60‑day period for the public entity to accept a sum‑certain offer in a notice of claim | The statute only requires giving notice and then waiting 60 days before suing; plaintiffs complied by filing suit after 60 days | The notice must present a sum‑certain offer that remains open for 60 days unless the public entity timely denies the claim in writing | Court held claimant cannot shorten the 60‑day period; offer must remain open for 60 days unless entity denies the claim in writing |
| Whether plaintiffs’ notice of claim complied with A.R.S. § 12‑821.01 by including a sum‑certain offer that lapsed after 15 days | The limited offer satisfied notice requirements; defendants could have requested more time or accepted after expiration | The offer expired before the statutorily allocated investigation/response period, so it failed to comply with § 12‑821.01 | Court held the notice was noncompliant because the offer lapsed after 15 days, so claims are barred |
| Whether defendants waived the notice‑of‑claim defense by not responding during the short offer window | Plaintiffs argued defendants “set a trap” and should be deemed to have waived the defense | Defendants maintained plaintiffs bear the burden to make a statutorily compliant offer; no waiver shown | Court rejected waiver argument; burden is on claimant and defendants did not waive the defense |
| Proper remedy for noncompliant notice | Plaintiffs sought to treat the offer as effective despite the expiration language or to allow acceptance after expiration | Defendants sought dismissal | Court affirmed dismissal of the complaint for failure to comply with § 12‑821.01 |
Key Cases Cited
- Backus v. State, 220 Ariz. 101 (discusses notice‑of‑claim requirement to state a specific settlement amount and purposes of the statute)
- Deer Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 97 v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293 (requires a particular and certain settlement amount and emphasizes government’s ability to realistically consider claims)
- Falcon ex rel. Sandoval v. Maricopa County, 213 Ariz. 525 (explains that actual notice or substantial compliance do not excuse statutory requirements)
- Frey v. Stoneman, 150 Ariz. 106 (procedure: conversion of motion to dismiss to summary judgment when matters outside pleadings are considered)
- Orme School v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301 (summary judgment standard; construe facts in favor of nonmovant)