Cited by

Valet, ¶ 8 (App. 2016) (citation modified).

Arizona’s “notice pleading” rules do not require a plaintiff “to allege the evidentiary details of [the] plaintiff’s claim for relief,” ¶ 9 (App. 2016) (citation omitted), but merely to “give the opponent fair notice of the nature and basis of the claim and indicate generally the type of litigation involved.” Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins.

Valet, ¶ 9 (App. 2016) (holding that complaint will survive motion to dismiss if plaintiff could be “entitle[d] .

Valet, ¶ 9 (App. 2016) (citation omitted).

Valet, ¶ 11 (App. 2016) (quoting Daniel J. McAuliffe & Shirley J. McAuliffe, Ariz. Civil Rules Handbook at 144 (2015 ed.)).

Valet, ¶ 9 (App. 2016) (citation omitted), but their reliance is misplaced because Verduzco, too, provides that “knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally.” ¶15 Because the superior court erroneously dismissed Doe’s lawsuit with prejudice, we reverse and remand.

See, ¶ 9 (App. 2016) (quoting Ariz. R. Civ.

Valet, ¶ 12 (App. 2016).