NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

DEBORA YELLOWMAN, Plaintiff/Appellant, 

v.

RISHA VANDERWEY AND JOSEPH R. SMITH, both of whom are named 

in their official capacity as employees of the Tuba City Unified School 

District; TUBA CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants/Appellees. 

No. 1 CA-CV 21-0116 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino County

No. S0300CV202000141 

The Honorable Ted Stuart Reed, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

The Law Offices of David R. Jordan PC, Gallup, NM

By David R. Jordan

Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant

Jones, Skelton & Hochuli PLC, Phoenix, AZ 

By Georgia A. Staton, Ravi V. Patel, Justin M. Ackerman 

Counsel for Defendants/Appellees

FILED 12-2-2021
YELLOWMAN v. VANDERWEY, et al. 

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Debora Yellowman appeals the superior court’s judgment 

dismissing her complaint for mandamus relief and compensation against 

defendants Risha Vanderwey, Joseph R. Smith, and Tuba City Unified 

School District (“the District”). For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Yellowman, a guidance counselor with the District, 

unsuccessfully pursued eligibility for guidance counselors to receive

classroom site funds available to teachers under Arizona Revised Statutes 

(“A.R.S.”) § 15-977. The District’s governing board denied her grievance 

appeal, concluding that guidance counselors had not shown they met the 

board-approved classroom site fund plan’s eligibility criteria.

¶3 Yellowman did not serve a notice of claim pursuant to A.R.S. 

§ 12-821.01 on the District or its employees. Instead, she filed a special 

action complaint in superior court asking the court to order the board to 

hold a vote of teachers on a performance-based compensation system, and 

that Vanderwey and Smith carry out the directives and distribute funds to 

her because she meets the definition of “teacher” under the performancebased compensation system. She further demanded the retention pay and 

salary increase that certified teachers received. 

¶4 The superior court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss 

finding improper service, failure to comply with the notice of claim statute,

lack of verification, and lack of standing. It then entered final judgment. 

We have jurisdiction over Yellowman’s timely appeal under Article 6, 

Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and -

2101(A)(1). 

DISCUSSION

¶5 Yellowman argues the superior court erred by dismissing her 

claims for failing to serve a notice of claim pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-821.01 
YELLOWMAN v. VANDERWEY, et al. 

Decision of the Court

3 

because that statute does not apply in this mandamus action. The District 

argues the statute applies because Yellowman was seeking monetary 

compensation.

¶6 The District attached documents outside the pleadings in 

support of its motion to dismiss. The superior court's consideration of those 

documents converted the motion to one for summary judgment. Ariz. R. 

Civ. P. 12(d); Yollin v. City of Glendale, 219 Ariz. 24, 27, ¶ 6 (App. 2008). We 

construe all facts in favor of Yellowman and will affirm only if there is no 

genuine material fact dispute and the District “is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Yollin, 219 Ariz. at 27 ¶ 6. Whether a 

statute is applicable is a question of law, which we review de novo. Home 

Builders Ass’n of Cent. Ariz. v. Kard, 219 Ariz. 374, 381, ¶ 30 (App. 2008). 

¶7 Section 12-821.01(A) provides that:

Persons who have claims against a public entity, public school 

or a public employee shall file claims with the person or 

persons authorized to accept service . . . within one hundred 

eighty days after the cause of action accrues. . . . Any claim 

that is not filed within one hundred eighty days after the 

cause of action accrues is barred and no action may be 

maintained thereon.

¶8 The timely filing of a notice of claim that satisfies § 12-

821.01 is a necessary prerequisite to filing a lawsuit against a public 

entity. Deer Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 97 v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 294, ¶ 1 

(2007). The failure to properly file a notice of claim within the statutory 

time bars a plaintiff’s claim. Falcon v. Maricopa County, 213 Ariz. 525, 527, ¶ 

10 (2006). 

¶9 The notice-of-claim statute applies to all “claims” against 

public entities, except for claims in eminent domain cases for just 

compensation. A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A), (H). The purpose of the statute is to 

allow a “public entity to investigate and assess liability, to permit the 

possibility of settlement prior to litigation, and to assist the public entity in 

financial planning and budgeting.” Martineau v. Maricopa County, 207 Ariz. 

332, 335-36, ¶ 19 (App. 2004). Case law exempts injunctive and declaratory 

relief claims from compliance with the statute. State v. Mabery Ranch 

Co., 216 Ariz. 233, 245, ¶¶ 48–53 (App. 2007); Martineau, 207 Ariz. at 335–37, 

¶¶ 18–24. Plaintiffs cannot avoid the notice-of-claim requirement by 

couching their claim as one for injunctive or declaratory relief when they 

are seeking monetary damages. See Martineau, 207 Ariz. at 337, ¶ 24 n.7; see 
YELLOWMAN v. VANDERWEY, et al. 

Decision of the Court

4 

Arpaio v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 225 Ariz. 358, 362, ¶ 11 (App. 

2010) (a claimant seeking declaratory relief resulting in recovery of funds 

from a governmental entity required to comply with the notice-of-claim 

statute). 

¶10 Yellowman’s complaint sought an order directing the board 

to hold a vote of teachers on a performance-based compensation system

and the District’s employees to implement the compensation system

directives by distributing funds to her; she also sought retention pay and a 

salary increase. Although Yellowman presented her complaint as one for 

mandamus relief, there is no record evidence that she sought anything 

other than compensation from the District. Instead, the record shows that 

Yellowman requested “Guidance Counselor eligibility for Classroom Site 

Funds.” Her request would require the District to expend funds, which 

affects financial planning and budgeting. Thus, she must comply with the 

notice-of-claim statute, which she undisputedly did not do. See Martineau, 

207 Ariz. at 337, ¶ 24 n.7; Arpaio, 225 Ariz. at 362, ¶ 11. The plain language 

of the statute supports its application to her claims, and the superior court 

did not err by granting judgment in defendants’ favor. Deer Valley, 214 

Ariz. at 294, ¶ 1; Falcon, 213 Ariz. at 527, ¶ 10. 

¶11 Because Yellowman failed to satisfy a mandatory and

essential prerequisite to her cause of action, we do not further consider her

appeal or the other grounds addressed in the superior court’s ruling

granting judgment. Martineau, 207 Ariz. at 334, ¶ 10. 

CONCLUSION

¶12 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court’s 

ruling. We award costs to defendants upon compliance with Arizona Rule 

of Civil Appellate Procedure 21.