The Arizona Court of Appeals recently upheld the dismissal of a personal injury claim against the City of Glendale. The court ruled that the claimants did not provide adequate notice regarding the amount they were willing to settle for, which is a requirement under Arizona law. This decision affects the claimants, Blanca and Arthur Hernandez, and Leopoldo Gomez, who were involved in a vehicle collision allegedly caused by a Glendale police officer.

The case, titled Hernandez v. City of Glendale, was filed under docket number 1 CA-CV 26-0319 and was decided on November 12, 2026. The ruling emphasizes the importance of complying with legal requirements when filing claims against public entities.

Background

The claimants, Blanca E. Hernandez, Arthur Hernandez, and Leopoldo Gomez, served a notice of claim to the City of Glendale in March 2025. This notice was related to a vehicle collision that occurred in October 2024. The claimants alleged that a Glendale police officer was responsible for the accident. They detailed their claimed monetary damages in the notice, specifying amounts of $200,000 for Blanca, and $150,000 each for Arthur and Leopoldo.

However, the City of Glendale did not respond to the notice of claim, which led to it being deemed denied after sixty days. Following this, the claimants filed a complaint against the City, seeking damages from the collision. The City then moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the notice of claim did not meet the requirements set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 12-821.01.

The Ruling

The Arizona Court of Appeals, led by Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the claimants' complaint. The court found that the notice of claim did not include a specific amount that the claimants were willing to accept to settle the claim. According to the court, “Claimants’ notice did not communicate a settlement offer.”

The judges noted that the statute requires claimants to present a valid settlement offer to the public entity they wish to sue. The court emphasized that simply stating the amounts the claimants would demand in damages was not sufficient. The ruling clarified that a notice of claim must express a willingness to settle for a specific amount, which the claimants failed to do.

The court explained, “An offer is the manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain,” and that the claimants’ notice lacked any language indicating they were making a settlement offer. The court compared the case to a previous ruling, stating that the claimants’ notice resembled a case where the claimant's notice was also deemed insufficient because it did not communicate a willingness to settle.

Impact

This ruling underscores the strict requirements for filing claims against public entities in Arizona. It highlights the necessity for claimants to clearly communicate their willingness to settle and provide a specific amount in their notice of claim. The decision may impact other individuals considering similar claims against public entities, as it reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory requirements.

The ruling may also serve as a cautionary tale for claimants to ensure that their notices of claim are properly formatted and include all necessary details. Failure to do so could result in dismissal, as seen in this case.

What's Next

The claimants have the option to appeal this decision, although details regarding any potential further legal action were not available in the court filing. There is no indication of related cases pending that might affect this ruling.