Opinion
1 CA-CV 21-0730
11-01-2022
JESSIE LEWIS, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA, et al., Defendants/Appellees.
Jessie Lewis, Tucson Plaintiff/Appellant Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Lindsey Gilman, Rebecca Banes Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Kimberly Yee Berke Law Firm PLLC, Phoenix By Lori V. Berke Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Katie Hobbs
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2020-092566 The Honorable Joan M. Sinclair, Judge
Jessie Lewis, Tucson Plaintiff/Appellant
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Lindsey Gilman, Rebecca Banes Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Kimberly Yee
Berke Law Firm PLLC, Phoenix By Lori V. Berke Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Katie Hobbs
Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the court, in which Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
HOWE, JUDGE
¶1 Jessie Lewis appeals the superior court's dismissal of his claims against Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs and Arizona State Treasurer Kimberly Yee. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 We assume the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations. Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352, 356 ¶ 9 (2012). Lewis, a prison inmate, sued Hobbs, Yee, and four unnamed individuals who are not parties to this appeal. He alleged (1) violations of his due process rights and state statutes, and (2) negligence. He alleged that Hobbs and Yee neglected their fiduciary duties by selling several bonds to the United States District Court in Phoenix, Arizona and failing to file certain forms. He also alleged that he had filed notices of claim with all the defendants, but the notices of claim were not attached to the complaint. His requested relief was the recall of all bonds that were sold, $5,000 in punitive damages from each defendant, and recovery of attorneys' fees.
¶3 Yee and Hobbs moved to dismiss Lewis's suit, arguing, among other things, that he had failed to comply with the notice of claim statute. Attached to the motion were the notices of claim they had received from Lewis. The notice of claim to Yee demanded that she "[c]ome and file GSA forms 90 release of lien on real property; and form 91 release of personal property from escrow, to have Jessie Lewis, release from ADC -Florence central unit immediately for the debt has been paid." The notice of claim to Hobbs demanded similar action. Neither notice of claim, however, contained a specific amount for which his claims could be settled.
¶4 Lewis failed to timely respond to the motion. He requested an extension to respond to the motion to dismiss. Yee and Hobbs objected to the request as untimely. The superior court granted the motion to dismiss and denied the request for an extension of time. Lewis timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
¶5 Lewis argues that the superior court erred in dismissing his lawsuit because he complied with Arizona's notice of claim statute, A.R.S. § 12-821.01. We review de novo a trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and whether a notice of claim complies with requirements in A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A). Yahweh v. City of Phoenix, 243 Ariz. 21, 22 ¶ 6 (App. 2017). First, Lewis has failed to comply with several requirements of the Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure ("ARCAP") 13. The statement of the case in his brief to this court does not concisely "explain the nature of the case," nor does it explain the case's background. The three-page argument section of his brief contains no reasoning or consistent references to the record. Such impermissible practice is an appropriate ground for this court to find an appellant's argument waived. Ramos v. Nichols, 252 Ariz. 519, 522 ¶ 9 (App. 2022). Even if we exercise our discretion and consider Lewis's argument not waived, Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp., 228 Ariz. 134, 137 ¶ 7 n.2 (App. 2011), his argument fails because he did not comply with A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A).
¶6 Arizona's notice of claim statute provides that a proper notice of claim must "contain a specific amount for which the claim can be settled and the facts supporting that amount." A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A). This statutory language "unmistakably instructs claimants to include a particular and certain amount of money that, if agreed to by the government entity, will settle the claim." Deer Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 97 v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 296 ¶ 9 (2007). If a notice of claim fails to comply with any requirement in A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A), the claimant's claims are "barred and no action may be maintained thereon." James v. City of Peoria, 253 Ariz. 301, 303 ¶ 10 (2022) (quoting A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A)).
¶7 Lewis's notice of claim directed to Yee lacked the specific settlement offer A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) required. The notice of claim demanded that Yee file certain forms but included no amount of money for which his claims could have been settled. Similarly, Lewis's notice of claim directed to Hobbs also lacked the specific settlement offer the statute required. The notice of claim demanded that Hobbs file certain forms but lacked a specific amount of money for which his claim could have been settled. Lewis's failure to include a specific amount for which his claims could have been settled is fatal to his claims against Yee and Hobbs. Thus, Lewis's claims against Yee and Hobbs are statutorily barred. A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A). Our resolution of this issue renders Lewis's other arguments moot, and we will not address them.
¶8 Because Lewis's notices of claim lacked the sum-certain settlement offer that A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) required, the superior court did not err in dismissing his complaint.
CONCLUSION
¶9 For the reasons stated, we affirm.