Cited by

Id.; Canyon del Rio Investors, GREGG v. HASSAYAMPA, et al. Decision of the Court 341 ¶ 20 (App. 2011).

§ 1-602(E), (G); cf. Canyon del Rio Invs., ¶ 18 (App. 2011) (“When a justiciable controversy exists, the [UDJA] allows adjudication of rights before the occurrence of a breach or injury necessary to sustain a coercive action (one seeking damages or injunctive relief).”).

“When a justiciable controversy exists, [the UDJA] allows adjudication of rights before the occurrence of a breach or injury necessary to sustain a coercive action (one seeking damages or injunctive relief).” Canyon Del Rio Invs., ¶ 18 (App. 2011).

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).

¶18 The Declaratory Judgments Act is “an instrument of preventive justice that allows a court to determine a person’s rights, status or other legal relations.” Canyon del Rio Invs., ¶ 18 (App. 2011) (cleaned up).

§§ 49-241 and 12-1831, citing our decisions in Canyon Del Rio Inv’rs, ¶ 22 (App. 2011)

The limitations period for declaratory relief claims is determined by “examining the substance of th[e] action to identify the relationship out of which the claim arises and the relief sought.” Canyon del Rio Invs., ¶ 21 (App. 2011) (citation omitted).

rming dismissal of arguments made for the first time in superior court, because none of the “exceptional circumstances” excusing exhaustion of administrative remedies applied; exhaustion “is firmly entrenched in Arizona, for such sound reasons as judicial economy and reliance on the expertise of the administrative body for initial adjudication”); Canyon del Rio Invs., ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (holding limitation periods for damage and declaratory judgment claims do not begin to run “until administrative

¶ 17 (App. 2018) (quoting Canyon del Rio Inv’rs, ¶ 21 (App. 2011)).

shall be brought within one year after the cause of action accrues and not afterward.” A cause of action against a public entity accrues “when a plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that an injury was caused by the government’s action.” Canyon del Rio Inv’rs, ¶ 16 (App. 2011).

¶17 In determining the limitations period applicable to a claim for declaratory relief, we examine the substance of the action “to identify the relationship out of which the claim arises and the relief sought.” Canyon del Rio Inv’rs, ¶ 21 (App. 2011) (citation omitted).

See Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 11 (App. 2016) (finding the trial court “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)).

Cf. Canyon del Rio Inv’rs, ¶ 18 (App. 2011) (Arizona’s declaratory judgment act allows a court to determine legal rights “before the occurrence of a breach or injury necessary to sustain a coercive action (one seeking damages or injunctive relief).”); (“An action for a declaratory judgment is

.”); cf. Canyon del Rio Inv’rs, (documents attached to motion to dismiss converted motion to summary judgment).

plicable to declaratory relief actions, we determine the appropriate limitations period by “examining the substance of that 5 STEBBINS v. SULLIVAN Decision of the Court action to identify the relationship out of which the claim arises and the relief sought.” Canyon del Rio Inv’ ¶ 21 (App. 2011).

See, e.g., Canyon del Rio Investors, ¶ 18 (App. 2011) (declaratory judgments can be sought “[w]hen a justiciable controversy exists”).

§ 12-821.01(B)); see also Canyon del Rio Investors, ¶ 16

Canyon del Rio Investors, ¶ 19, (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Canyon del Rio Investors, , 340 ¶ 15

arising under” the statute or ordinance, “and obtain a declaration of [his] rights, status or other legal relations thereunder.” Canyon Del Rio Investors, ¶ 18

See Canyon Del Rio Investors, ¶¶ 24-26, (Section 12-821 applies to request for declaratory relief).

v. Gaines, ¶ 6 , Canyon Del Rio Investors, ¶ 24

Co. v. TRW Vehicle Safety Sys., Inc., & n.1, ¶ 28, & n.1, 981 (App. 1999) (court deemed to have considered extrinsic documents based on statement “arguments in [defendant]’s reply were persuasive,” where reply had referred to extrinsic documents); Canyon del Rio Investors, (Rule 12(b)(6) motion converted where court did not strike extrinsic documents attached to motion and response).