The plaintiffs in these cases complied with that requirement. Likewise, the damages plaintiffs claimed they incurred were non-differentiated;  read fairly, the notices of claim alleged that the harm the claimants alleged resulted from all the alleged wrongful acts together. Martin suspected tribal members' diabetes was related to genetics and diet. Co., 125 Ariz. 53, 55, 607 P.2d 372, 374 (1980);  see Jones v. Cochise County, 218 Ariz. 372, 379-81, ¶¶ 22-29, 187 P.3d 97, 104-06 (App.2908) (county's waiver of right to assert notice-of-claim defense was independent reason to reverse summary judgment against plaintiff).

For purposes of our review, we will assume the Tribe's claims accrued at least as of September 8, 2003, the date of its first notice-of-claim letter.7  ASSUMING FOR PURPOses of argument that the tribe's claim agaInst abor and Markow accrued no earlier than that date, the Tribe's September 8 and March 5 letters may be read together to constitute a timely notice of claim.

But, as noted above, ¶ 39, nothing in section 12-821.01 requires a claimant to provide all the facts pertaining to a damage claim or even all the facts that the claimant might know as of the time the notice is filed. Oh, Pharrell Is Part Native American? ¶ 70 The superior court denied the Tribe's motion for leave to file a third-amended complaint based on the court's conclusion that the claims asserted therein were barred due to the Tribe's failure to serve a proper notice of claim. Under the “parens patriae ” doctrine, a government may prosecute a lawsuit on behalf of a citizen, particularly a citizen unable to bring a suit on her own.

¶ 8 ABOR retained Phoenix attorney Stephen Hart to perform the promised independent investigation. Instead, it is whether the notice of claim, read as a whole, provides facts supporting the settlement demand. The Hualapai Health Department serves Hualapai Tribal members and other Native Americans living within the area. Ins.

¶ 4 Although the project ended for the purposes allegedly consented to by the Havasupai, researchers at ASU and elsewhere, including the University of Arizona, continued to perform research and publish articles based on data from tribal members' blood samples. But we will not consider the March 31 letter, which was filed more than 180 days after September 8.8, ¶ 38 We look, then, to the September 8 and March 5 notices to determine whether, taken together, they satisfy the requirement of section 12-821.01 to provide “the facts supporting” the settlement demand. Manakaja, Jeffrey Manakaja, Roland Manakaja, Gretchen Putesoy, Bemus Uqualla, Debbie D. Uqualla, Floranda Uqualla, Lucinda Watahomigie, Dennie Wescogame, Germaine Paya Watahomigie, Vivian Wecogame, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Arizona Board of Regents;  Therese Ann Markow;  John Martin and Daniel Benyshek, Defendants/Appellees. at 41, 938 P.2d at 90. Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select. ¶ 20 After briefing was complete on ABOR's motion but before the court issued its ruling, our supreme court decided Deer Valley Unified School District No. In 1989, a member of the Tribe asked Martin to look into a perceived “epidemic” of diabetes among tribal members. In each case, the superior court entered summary judgment against the plaintiffs because it concluded they failed to comply with Arizona's notice-of-claim statute, Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-821.01 (2003). Because the notice of claim at issue in that case failed to set forth a sum-certain settlement demand, however, the court did not reach the issue of whether the notice stated “the facts supporting” the settlement demand. See CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C., 198 Ariz. 173, 178, ¶ 19, 7 P.3d 979, 984 (App.2000) (declining to consider issues not presented to the superior court). ¶ 42 Bearing in mind our conclusion that section 12-821.01 does not require a notice to contain facts sufficient to prove a claim, we conclude the superior court erred in granting summary judgment against the Tribe because the extensive factual detail included in the Tribe's September 8 and March 5 notices of claim, read together, complied with the statute's requirement to contain “the facts supporting” its $50 million demand.

But the statute is meant to allow the government “to realistically consider a claim,” by requiring “that claimants explain the amounts identified in the claim by providing ․ a factual foundation” for such an evaluation, which evaluation can lead to an expenditure of public funds in settlement. § 12-821.01.

This letter explained that counsel then represented 52 listed members of the Tribe. The Tribe believes that this amount would be adequate to compensate the Tribe and those individual members for whom the Tribe is acting in parens patriae for the litany of injuries inflicted on them by ASU, and to punish ASU for its wrongful conduct.

¶ 72 For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the superior court's summary judgment orders and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶ 17 Finally, on March 4, 2004, plaintiffs' counsel sent a fourth letter addressed to Goddard, ABOR, the Chair of the University of Arizona Committee on Ethics & Commitment, the general counsel of the University of Arizona, Markow and three other researchers. If a notice of claim is not properly served, the claim is barred. We see no incorporation language in any of the Tribe's notice letters.

§ 12-821.01 moots the issue of the increase in the settlement demand stated in the March 4 notice.

The common theme of the majority's observations here is that appellants need not show anything more than the fact of tort liability in their claim notices.

Because the Tribe does not assert that its notices alleged any exception to this general rule, we may not conclude that the notices satisfied section 12-821.01 merely because they alleged repeated outrageous or reprehensible acts of the sort that otherwise might support a claim for punitive damages. Rep. 26, ¶ 28, 204 P.3d 399 (App.2008) (notice is sufficient if it contains “any facts”);  Ariz. Bd. Rep. at ¶ 22, 220 Ariz. at 147, 204 P.3d at 405 (general damages “relate to things that cannot be objectively measured with certainty”). They also contend the March 4 letter was untimely because it was filed more than 180 days after the August 14, 2003 notice. ¶ 48 More generally, it has been held that “dignitary torts” such as those alleged by the Tribe do not require proof of physical manifestation of injury. Infra ¶ 76.

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. – Fifty-two members of the Havasupai Tribe have filed a $25 million lawsuit against Arizona State University, alleging that blood samples collected in the early 1990s from tribal members were used for far more than just the agreed-upon diabetes research. (Emphasis added.) Native American Research Center for Health (NARCH) Project (, The project is the first step in developing a plan to address underage drinking by collecting data and evaluating resources to address the problem. In the absence of a full record and the benefit of the superior court's consideration of the evidence, we decline to address whether defendants waived their rights under the statute or are estopped from asserting them by their promises to investigate the matter, their commissioning of the Hart investigation, their engaging in the settlement meetings or like acts.