Cited by

A Miner Contracting Inc., 2021 WL 4477441 at *9 ¶ 46 ( ¶ 10 (App. 2012)).

to cure a defect in the notice,” as long as the amendment is timely), ¶ 16 (App. 2012); cf. Pinal Cnty.

An attorney fees award is not mandated but “[i]t is within the trial court’s discretion to determine whether to award attorney’s fees to a party who has prevailed in a quiet title action and otherwise complied with the provisions of section 12– 1103(B).” Scottsdale Mem’l Health Sys., ¶ 13 (App. 2012) 9 FLAUM v. HOERNIG, et al. Decision of the Court (“[R]esolution of an application for attorneys’ fees is a discretionary determination, not a merely ministerial act.”).

¶ 10 (App. 2012) (concluding order that did not resolve attorney’s fees or contain Rule 54(b) language was not final); Ariz. R. Civ.

¶ 24 (App. 2012) (noting court should “try to avoid dismissing appeals on hypertechnical grounds” (quotation omitted)).

–17, ¶ 22 (App. 2012) (If successive judgments are entered, unless the later judgment alters substantive rights or obligations, the time to appeal runs from the earlier “final” judgment.).

¶ 22 (App. 2012) (“Where successive judgments are entered and the later judgment represents neither a material change of the earlier judgment nor a new exercise in discretion, the time for appeal is counted from the earlier judgment.” (citations omitted)).

See Turner v. City of Flagstaff , , ¶ 15, (amended notice of claim valid only if timely), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by Fields v. Oates , , ¶ 16

¶ 13, (stating that resolving the issue of attorney’s fees is a discretionary act, not a ministerial one).

§ 12- 2101(A)(6), “the superior court must expressly direct that the only issue remaining is the amount of recovery.” 1A ARIZONA APPELLATE HANDBOOK § 3.3.1.1 at 3-7 (6th ed. 2015) ( ¶ 15 (App. 2012)).

§ 12—2101 (A)(6), "the superior court must expressly direct that the only issue remaining is the amount of recoveiy.” 1A Arizona Appellate Handbook § 3.3.1.1 at 3-7 (6th ed. 2015) ( , 415 ¶ 15, ).

¶ 21 (App. 2012) (holding “substantively identical judgment” did not initiate a new period from which to appeal).

Baron is incorrect; the order dismissing the amended complaint without prejudice was not a final judgment because the issue of attorneys’ fees had not yet been resolved and because the dismissal order was not certified as final under Rule 54(b).4 ¶ 10 (App. 2012) (“The superior court ordinarily should not enter judgment until claims for attorneys’ fees are resolved.”).

DISCUSSION ¶6 “This court has an independent duty to determine whether it has jurisdiction over this appeal.” ¶ 7

Although a notice of claim may be amended or supplemented, the amended or supplemental notice must be served within 180 days when the facts are known to the claimant.4 ¶ 15, ¶ 16

neither revive[s] the former time for appeal nor initate[s] a new period within which to appeal.” ¶ 21

See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 12-2101(A) (Supp. 2012); ¶ 7

§ 12-2101(A) (2014); ¶ 7

See Rule 78(B); ¶¶ 10-13, -64 (App. 2012) (judgment not final and appealable in the absence of Rule 54(b) certification); ¶¶ 3-4, -32 (App. 2000) (special order appealable when it resolves “all the issues raised in the petition”).

See, , , Santee v. Mesa Airlines, Inc.

P. 54(b) (no appealable judgment where order lacks specific determination that judgment should be entered and no just reason for delay); (“A judgment on less than all claims without Rule 54(b) certification is subject to modification at any time prior to adjudication of all claims.”).