Kizzen James, et al. v. City Peoria, at al.

Phoenix, Arizona personal injury lawyer represented Plaintiffs, who sued Defendants on government tort claim theories.





¶3 On October 10, 2018, a vehicle struck and killed twelve-year- old I.M. near 77th Avenue and Peoria Avenue as he walked home from school.



¶4 On March 26, 2019, James, I.M.'s mother, timely delivered a notice of claim to the City Clerk's Office via a licensed process server. See § 12-821.01(A). Her notice of claim included a "City of Peoria, Arizona Notice of Claim" form, wherein James (1) disclosed information about herself and her claim, (2) referred to the "attached Notice of Claim Letter and exhibits," and (3) stated the "[s]pecific amount for which [her] claim can be settled [was] $10,071,016.72."



2



¶5 James' notice of claim also included a ten-page letter from her legal counsel with the heading "Notice of Claim (Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-821.01)." This letter (1) set forth the basis upon which she claimed the City was liable for I.M.'s death, (2) discussed the nature of her claim, and (3) proposed a settlement offer to the City of $10,071,016.72. The letter then stated, "[t]his compromise to settle is valid for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter." The City never responded to James' notice of claim.



¶6 On October 10, 2019, more than six months after serving the notice of claim, James filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the City and others. The City moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In its ruling, the trial court explained that a notice of claim "is not deemed denied until sixty days after filing unless the public entity denies" it earlier, pursuant to § 12-821.01. Relying on Drew v. Prescott Unified School District, 233 Ariz. 522, 526 ¶ 14 (App. 2013), the trial court concluded James' claim was barred by § 12-821.01 for not keeping the settlement offer open for at least sixty days. See § 12-821.01(E). Treating the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City and dismissed James' complaint with prejudice because the statutory 180-day time period to file a valid notice of claim had passed.



¶7 The court of appeals affirmed. See James v. City of Peoria, No. 1 CA-CV 20-0415, 2021 WL 1400064, at *1 ¶ 1 (Ariz. App. Apr. 13, 2021) (mem. decision). The court reasoned that James "failed to comply with the language and purpose of the notice of claim statute" by providing a thirtyday settlement offer window. Id. at *4 ¶ 20 (quoting Drew, 233 Ariz. at 526 ¶ 14). Further, "although James was at liberty to issue a general settlement offer that included a shorter window for acceptance," doing so meant that this "contract offer" was "ineligible to concurrently serve as her notice of claim under the statute." Id. at *3-4 ¶¶ 18-20.



¶8 We granted review to determine whether a notice of claim is invalid, under § 12-821.01, if it provides that a settlement offer will terminate in less than sixty days after the notice is served, which is a recurring issue of statewide importance. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article 6, section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution.

James v. City of Peoria (Ariz. 2022)



* * *





¶10 Section 12-821.01(A) sets forth the statutory prerequisites for a valid notice of claim:



Persons who have claims against a public entity . . . shall file claims with the person or persons authorized to accept service for the public entity . . . as set forth in the Arizona rules of civil procedure within one hundred eighty days after the cause of action accrues. The claim shall contain facts sufficient to permit the public entity . . . to understand the basis on which liability is claimed. The claim shall also contain a specific amount for which the claim can be settled and the facts supporting that amount. Any claim that is not filed within one hundred eighty days after the cause of action accrues is barred and no action may be maintained thereon.



§ 12-821.01(A). If a notice of claim fails to comply with any requirement in § 12-821.01(A), the claimant's claims are statutorily "barred and no action may be maintained thereon." Id.

¶25 For all these reasons, we conclude that James' attempt to shorten the City's statutory sixty-day response deadline in her notice of claim was a legal nullity that did not invalidate her notice of claim. We reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City and dismissal of James' complaint with prejudice, and we remand for further proceedings. We vacate the court of appeals' memorandum decision.