timely notice claim in Arizona

2021See Bishop v. State Dep’t of Corr., 172 Ariz. 472 , 474–75 (App. 1992) (explaining there is no abuse of discretion in denying a proposed amendment if allowing such would be futile). 2 Because we affirm the dismissal of these claims based on Strojnik’s failure to serve a timely notice of claim, we need not address the merits of the other grounds relied upon by the court to dismiss his damages claims. 6 STROJNIK v. BRNOVICH, et al.

2020See Walk, 202 Ariz. at 319 , ¶ 35 n.6. 12 HUMPHREY, et al. v. STATE Opinion of the Court Because Humphrey failed to file a timely notice of claim despite having the facts necessary to do so, his negligence claim against the State is barred.5 B.

2019A party is collaterally estopped from relitigating an issue when "an issue was actually litigated in a previous proceeding, there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue, resolution of the issue was essential to the decision, a valid and final decision on the merits was entered, and there is common identity of parties." Hullett v. Cousin, 204 Ariz. 292, 297-98, ¶ 27 (2003).

2019A. Accrual of Humphrey’s Claim ¶21 Section 12-821.01(B) provides that accrual begins when “the damaged party realizes he or she has been damaged and knows or 10 HUMPHREY, et al. v. STATE Decision of the Court reasonably should know the cause, source, act, event, instrumentality, or condition that caused or contributed to the damage.” We have interpreted § 12-821.01(B) “as a codification of the discovery rule for determining when causes of action against public entities . . . accrue.” Thompson v. Pima County, 226 Ariz. 42, 46, ¶ 12 (App. 2010).

2010See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 218 Ariz. 172, 178, ¶ 5 , 219 P.3d 219 , 225 (App.2008) (purpose of limitations defense is to avoid defendants having to litigate stale claims). ¶ 20 In sum, the Estate timely asserted the assigned claim for medical expenses.

2005Group, Inc. v. Tierney, 208 Ariz. 583 , 585 ¶ 7, 96 P.3d 1070, 1072 (App.2004) (emphasis added). ¶8 Salerno admits that he did not present the State with a timely notice of his claim.

2005Group, Inc. v. Tierney, 208 Ariz. 583 , 585 ¶ 7, 96 P.3d 1070, 1072 (App.2004) (emphasis added). ¶8 Salerno admits that he did not present the State with a timely notice of his claim.

2005Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427, 432-33 , 788 P.2d 1178, 1183-84 (1990). ¶ 6 We begin by analyzing the superior court’s stated basis for dismissal, i.e., the statutory requirement that a person with a potential claim against a public employee must provide a timely notice of the claim to the relevant governmental entity: Persons who have claims against ... a public employee shall file claims with ... the public entity ... within one hundred eighty days after the cause of action accrues.

2005Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427, 432-33 , 788 P.2d 1178, 1183-84 (1990). ¶ 6 We begin by analyzing the superior court’s stated basis for dismissal, i.e., the statutory requirement that a person with a potential claim against a public employee must provide a timely notice of the claim to the relevant governmental entity: Persons who have claims against ... a public employee shall file claims with ... the public entity ... within one hundred eighty days after the cause of action accrues.

2005See, e.g., Mulleneaux v. State, 190 Ariz. 535, 540 , 950 P.2d 1156, 1161 (App.1997) (citing A.R.S. § 12-821.01).

2005See, e.g., Mulleneaux v. State, 190 Ariz. 535, 540 , 950 P.2d 1156, 1161 (App.1997) (citing A.R.S. § 12-821.01).

1999See, e.g., Norcor, 122 Ariz. at 543, 596 P.2d at 378; City of Tucson v. Fleisch-man, 152 Ariz. 269, 272 , 731 P.2d 634, 637 (App.1986).

1999See, e.g., Norcor, 122 Ariz. at 543, 596 P.2d at 378; City of Tucson v. Fleisch-man, 152 Ariz. 269, 272 , 731 P.2d 634, 637 (App.1986).

1992See Coconino Pulp & Paper Co. v. Marvin, 83 Ariz. 117 , 317 P.2d 550 (1957); Wilshire Mtg.

1992See Coconino Pulp & Paper Co. v. Marvin, 83 Ariz. 117 , 317 P.2d 550 (1957); Wilshire Mtg.