Kizzen James v. City of Peoria, 513 P.3d 277

In October 2018, a 12‑year‑old (I.M.) was killed in Peoria; his mother, Kizzen James, timely served a notice of claim on the City on March 26, 2019.
The notice complied with A.R.S. § 12‑821.01(A), including a specific settlement demand of $10,071,016.72 and an attached counsel letter stating the offer was "valid for thirty (30) days."
The City did not respond within 60 days; James filed a wrongful‑death lawsuit more than six months after serving the notice.
The trial court (relying on Drew) dismissed James’ complaint as barred because her notice allegedly shortened the statutory 60‑day response period; the court of appeals affirmed.
The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide whether a notice of claim is invalid if it conditions a settlement offer to expire before the 60‑day period in § 12‑821.01(E).
The Court held that an otherwise valid notice of claim is not invalidated by a claimant’s unilateral attempt to shorten the public entity’s statutorily granted 60‑day response period; the 30‑day deadline was a legal nullity, trial judgment reversed, and the court of appeals decision vacated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a notice of claim is invalid if it states a settlement offer expires in less than 60 days under § 12‑821.01	James: Notice complied with § 12‑821.01(A); her 30‑day offer cannot negate a valid notice or shorten the entity’s statutory response period	City: § 12‑821.01(E) gives the public entity 60 days; claimant cannot unilaterally shorten that period—short offer invalidates the notice (per Drew)	The 30‑day condition was a legal nullity; an otherwise compliant notice remains valid and the public entity has the 60‑day statutory response window (reversed)
Whether a claimant may file suit before the 60‑day period expires	James suggested suit may be filed before 60 days in some circumstances	City argued procedural timing should be respected	Not decided; Court expressly left the question for another day

Drew v. Prescott Unified Sch. Dist., 233 Ariz. 522 (App. 2013) (court of appeals decision holding a short acceptance window could invalidate a notice of claim; overruled)
Falcon ex rel. Sandoval v. Maricopa County, 213 Ariz. 525 (2006) (discussing the practical effect of the 60‑day statutory response period)
Backus v. State, 220 Ariz. 101 (2009) (legislative purpose of claims statutes—to hold public entities responsible and facilitate settlement)
Deer Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 97 v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293 (2007) (§ 12‑821.01 requirements promote investigation, settlement, and budgeting)
BSI Holdings, LLC v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., 244 Ariz. 17 (2018) (standard of review: statutory construction and summary judgment reviewed de novo)