Cited by

• for the proposition that “[t]he trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs under A.R.S.

and budget for settlement or payment of large claims.” ¶ 11 (App. 2008).

See, e.g., Canyon del Rio Investors, (motion to dismiss attached zoning documents and response incorporated correspondence and other zoning documents); (motion to dismiss attached notice of claim and 100 pages of medical records).

¶¶ 22-24 (App. 2008); Picht v. Peoria Unified Sch.

P. 12(d); ¶ 6 (App. 2008).

¶ 6 (App. 2008); ¶ 15 (App. 2009); ¶ 7 (App. 2008) (“We review de novo a trial court’s determination that a party’s notice of claim failed to comply with [A.R.S.]

3 LEWIS v. STATE, ¶ 6 (App. 2008); ¶ 15 (App. 2009); ¶ 7 (App. 2008) (“We review de novo a trial court’s determination that a party’s notice of claim failed to comply with [A.R.S.]

of Regents , , 223, ¶ 27, , 1072 (App. 2008) ; see also Yollin v. City of Glendale , , 27, ¶ 6, , 1043 (App. 2008).

t “necessarily considered matters outside the pleadings” when exhibits were attached to the motion and arguments at a hearing were based on the exhibits) ( ¶ 9 (2012)); Canyon del Rio Inv’rs, ¶ 15 (App. 2011) (converting motion because exhibits were not stricken) ( ¶ 6 (App. 2008); ¶ 7 (App. 2008)).

¶11 to support his contention that the NOC he delivered to the City contained a valid settlement offer.

¶ 9 (App. 2013) ( ¶ 6 (App. 2008)).

This narrow interpretation, however, is contrary to generally used definitions of the word “related.” See Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (“[c]onnected in some way; having relationship to or with something else”); Webster’s II New College Dictionary (3d ed. 2005) (“connected” or “associated”); ¶ 9 (App. 2008) (explaining we may consult respected dictionaries for the plain meanings of words that are undefined in a statute).

¶ 9, (-36, ¶ 19, -16 (App. 2004)); -29, ¶ 11, -45 (App. 2008).

will affirm only if there is no genuine [dispute] of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 3 KCI v. HOLM WRIGHT et al. Opinion of the Court ¶ 6, (citing Lemons v. Showcase Motors, Inc., ¶ 6, ).

If that decision turns out to be favorable for Munic, that is a benefit it should reap for advancing Arizona policy by settling its claim; the Laoses should not “reap the benefit of a settlement to which [they were] not a party.” McConal Aviation, (“‘It has always been the policy of [Arizona] law to favor compromise and settlement; and it is especially important to sustain that principle in this age of voluminous litigation.’”)

and budget for settlement or payment of large claims.” ¶ 11

Ctr., construing all facts in favor of the nonmoving party, Yollin v. City of Glendale, 219 Ariz. 24, ¶ 6

See Canyon del Rio Investors, L.L.C., 258 P.3d at 158 (Rule 12(b) dismissal deemed summary judgment on appeal, even absent notice and express opportunity for parties to present additional relevant material to trial court); (same); Unique Equip.

P. 12(b); ¶ 6 , (basing summary judgment conversion on incorporation of a notice of claim and other documents filed with response to motion to dismiss).

P. 12(b); ¶ 6 , (basing summary judgment conversion on incorporation of the notice of claim and other documents with party’s response to motion to dismiss); ¶ 7 , (treating motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment b