Yahweh v. Phoenix, 1 CA-CV 16-0270-FC

Terry Yahweh, a former Phoenix Police detective, alleges a 2014 Public Standards Bureau report defamed him and placed him on the Brady list, harming his employment and future earnings.
In May 2015 Yahweh sent a Notice of Claim (NOC) to the City asserting defamation and FMLA violations and stating he "will be bringing legal action... seeking damages for 1.5 million dollars" for projected earnings.
The NOC did not specify a settlement amount for the FMLA claim and contained no explicit, sum-certain offer to settle all claims.
The City did not respond to the NOC and its silence was deemed a denial after 60 days under A.R.S. § 12-821.01(E).
Yahweh sued in November 2015; the superior court dismissed under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failing to present a valid sum-certain settlement offer as required by A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A).
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the NOC did not manifest an intent to be bound by a particular settlement sum and thus failed the statutory requirement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Yahweh’s NOC satisfied § 12-821.01 by including a sum-certain settlement offer	The NOC’s statement of $1.5M and instruction to contact counsel to "obtain an agreeable resolution" constituted a valid offer	The NOC only stated litigation demands and invited bargaining; it lacked a sum-certain, binding offer	NOC was insufficient: no sum-certain offer and no intent to be bound; claim barred
Whether ambiguous language could be salvaged as an offer under precedent	Ambiguity plus a stated amount shows intent to settle	The NOC lacked the clear words permitting the City to settle all claims for a stated sum	Ambiguous/invitational language here did not create an enforceable offer
Whether the City had a duty to seek clarification of a deficient NOC	The City should have requested clarification to cure defects	Public entities are not required to assist claimants; claimant must strictly comply	No duty on the City to cure; strict compliance required

Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352 (2012) (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) and pleading inference review)
Jones v. Cochise County, 218 Ariz. 372 (App. 2008) (review scope for NOC compliance)
Simon v. Maricopa Med. Ctr., 225 Ariz. 55 (App. 2010) (notice-of-claim must comply with § 12-821.01 before suing a public entity)
Deer Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 97 v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293 (2007) (NOC must contain a specific amount and facts supporting it; offer must manifest willingness to be bound)
Yollin v. City of Glendale, 219 Ariz. 24 (App. 2008) (ambiguous equivocations may still constitute offers when combined with plain settlement language)
Backus v. State, 220 Ariz. 101 (2009) (public entities not required to request additional facts to cure deficient NOCs)
State v. Brooks, 23 Ariz. App. 463 (1975) (settlement valuation often includes litigation costs and risk beyond liability)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutorial duty to disclose exculpatory evidence; explains Brady list practice)