How to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Arizona

Step-by-step

Here’s a practical walkthrough for running DocketMath’s Offer Of Judgment Analyzer for Arizona (US-AZ) using jurisdiction-aware rules—with a focus on the Arizona timing requirement.

Gentle disclaimer: This is a workflow guide to help you use the tool and understand the underlying statutory timing rule (not legal advice).

1) Open the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer

Start here:

• Primary CTA: /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer

If you’re already browsing DocketMath, you can also navigate to the tool from your internal menu and then set the jurisdiction to Arizona (next).

2) Set jurisdiction to Arizona (US-AZ)

In the tool’s jurisdiction selector:

• Choose **US-AZ (Arizona)

This matters because DocketMath applies Arizona-specific offer timing rules when evaluating your inputs and explaining results.

3) Enter the offer details the analyzer needs

DocketMath’s analyzer is built around the mechanics of Arizona offers of judgment. Use the fields to enter the information you have, especially:

• Offer amount (dollar value)
• Offer date (when the offer was made)
• Trial begins date (or the tool’s equivalent “trial begins” input, depending on the UI)
• Acceptance vs. rejection context (if you know it)
• Dismissal stipulation facts (whether the offer was accompanied by a dismissal stipulation, if your workflow tracks that)

If you’re missing one of the date inputs (especially trial begins or offer date), the analyzer may still run, but it may shift toward a “needs review / clarification” style output—because A.R.S. § 12-1501 is date-driven.

4) Confirm Arizona’s timing requirement (default rule)

Arizona’s statute establishes a general/default timing window. Based on the jurisdiction data provided, there is no claim-type-specific sub-rule identified, so you should treat the following as the baseline rule.

A.R.S. § 12-1501 (general rule):
A party may make an offer of judgment at any time more than 30 days before the trial begins and it is not accompanied by a stipulation for dismissal.

• Source: https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/01501.htm

Key takeaways to align your inputs with the statute:

• The offer must be made more than 30 days before trial begins (not “30 days or fewer”).
• The offer must not be accompanied by a stipulation for dismissal.

Practical tip for inputs (timing):

• If your offer date is 30 days or fewer before trial begins, expect the analyzer to flag a timing issue tied to A.R.S. § 12-1501.
• If the offer date is more than 30 days before trial begins, the analyzer can treat the timing requirement as satisfied—subject to any other facts you provide (like the dismissal stipulation element).

5) Understand how the tool changes output based on your dates

As you adjust the date fields, watch for changes in the results panel such as:

• Whether the analyzer concludes the timing requirement under A.R.S. § 12-1501 is satisfied or not met
• Whether it indicates the offer is prohibited due to being too close to “trial begins”
• Whether it prompts you to confirm facts about dismissal stipulation status

Because Arizona’s default rule is strict and tied to timing, small date differences can flip outcomes. Use the analyzer’s explanation text to verify you entered the correct “trial begins” date the statute is measuring against.

6) Run the calculation and review the jurisdiction-aware findings

Once the inputs are in place:

• Click Run Analyzer (or the button labeled similarly in the UI)
• Review the results with these lenses:

  • The statutory checklist aligned to A.R.S. § 12-1501
  • Any assumptions or flags that appear when dates or facts are incomplete
  • Any prompts like “needs confirmation” about dismissal stipulation handling

If the analyzer flags timing, treat it as a cue to double-check:

• The offer date
• The trial begins date
• Whether you selected the correct US-AZ jurisdiction setting

7) Use the results for documentation (not legal advice)

After you run the analyzer, you can use the output to structure your own notes, such as:

• Settlement evaluation summaries
• Litigation timeline drafts
• Internal discussion points for counsel review

Common pitfalls

These are common reasons the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer can produce confusing or “unexpected” results for Arizona, mainly because A.R.S. § 12-1501 depends on precise date facts.

• missing a required input
• using a stale rate or rule
• ignoring calendar or holiday adjustments
• skipping documentation of assumptions

Pitfall checklist (Arizona)

Under A.R.S. § 12-1501, the baseline rule requires the offer be made more than 30 days before trial begins. The statute measures timing against “trial begins.” If you entered a different calendar milestone (like a pretrial conference) your timing analysis may not reflect the statute’s benchmark. The default rule prohibits an offer that is accompanied by a stipulation for dismissal. If your case facts include that detail but it isn’t captured correctly in the tool inputs, the analyzer may flag inconsistencies. Running a non-Arizona jurisdiction setting changes the logic. Always verify US-AZ is selected before you interpret results. The provided jurisdiction data does not identify a claim-type-specific sub-rule. The article should treat “more than 30 days before trial begins” as the general/default rule.

Try it

Try a quick two-run test designed to isolate how timing affects the analyzer’s conclusions.

Open the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer calculator and follow the steps above: Run the calculator.

Capture the source for each input so another team member can verify the same result quickly.

Run A (should align with the default rule)

1. Select US-AZ
2. Enter an offer date that is more than 30 days before the trial begins date
3. Keep all other fields consistent

Expected result: The analyzer should treat the timing requirement under A.R.S. § 12-1501 as satisfied (again, subject to any other facts you provide such as dismissal stipulation status).

Run B (should trigger the timing issue)

1. Keep everything the same as Run A
2. Change only the offer date so it is:

   • exactly 30 days before trial begins, or
   • within 30 days of trial begins

Expected result: The analyzer should flag that the offer does not meet the “more than 30 days” baseline timing requirement under A.R.S. § 12-1501.

What to compare between runs

• Whether the tool changes from “timing satisfied” to “timing not met”
• Whether it continues to treat the timing as the general/default >30-days rule (since no claim-type-specific sub-rule was identified in the provided jurisdiction data)

If you want to jump straight into the tool, use:

• /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer

Related reading

• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Alabama
• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Colorado
• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Connecticut