Search 

Azcourts.gov

Arizona Judicial Branch



FAQ

Register       Login

ATTENTION: This site has been recently moved. If you had an account on our old forum site, you will have to register a new account here in order to be able to post replies.

 

NEW! The Court acted on many pending rule petitions at its August 29, 2017 Rules Agenda.  

Click on the Amendments from Recent Rules Agendas link below to go directly to the amendments and orders for each one.

Message from the Chief Justice

Current Arizona Rules 

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence


Pending Rules List

         Proposed Local Rules
                 Welcome!
This website allows you to electronically file and monitor court rule petitions and comments and to view existing rules of court, recent amendments of those rules, and pending rule petitions and comments. Any visitor to this site may view posts on this website, but to post a petition or comment you must register and log in. To view instructions on how to register and how to file a petition or comment, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. 
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 02 Aug 2017 08:29 AM by  Michael A. Parham
R-16-0022 Rule 9(c), Rules of Procedure for Eviction Actions
 10 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Author Messages
State Bar of Arizona
New Member
Posts:26 New Member

--
08 Jan 2016 05:10 PM
    R-16-0022

    Petition to Amend the Rules of Procedure for Eviction Actions

    Would permit a change of judge as a matter of right and for cause in eviction actions in Justice Court

    John A. Furlong, Bar No. 018356
    General Counsel, State Bar of Arizona
    4201 N. 24th St., Suite 100
    Phoenix, AZ 85016
    Telephone: 602-340-7236
    Fax: 602-271-4930
    john.furlong@staff.azbar.org
    patricia.seguin@staff.azbar.org

    Date of Filing: January 8, 2016

    Comments due on or before May 20, 2016.

    ADOPTED as modified, on an experimental basis effective January 1, 2017.
    Amendment recirculated for comment, comments due July 14, 2017.

    ORDERED: Petition to Amend the Rules of Procedure for Eviction Actions= CONTINUED to December 2017 Rules Agenda.
    FURTHER ORDERED: Experimental Rule 9(c) =CONTINUED in effect until further order of this Court.
    Attachments
    Susan Pickard
    New Member
    Posts:9 New Member

    --
    27 Apr 2016 10:28 AM
    Hon. C. Steven McMurry, on behalf of the
    Committee on Limited Jurisdiction Courts
    C/o Administrative Office of the Courts
    1501 W. Washington St., Ste. 410
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    spickard@courts.az.gov
    602.452.3252

    Comment from the Committee on Limited Jurisdiction Courts opposing the Petition.
    Attachments
    Michael A. Parham
    New Member
    Posts:14 New Member

    --
    19 May 2016 03:05 PM
    Comments submitted on behalf of Manufactured Housing Communities of Arizona, Inc. and Michael A. Parham are submitted herewith.


    Michael A. Parham, # 4853
    Williams, Zinman & Parham P.C.
    7701 E. Indian School Rd., Suite J
    Scottsdale, AZ 85251
    Phone: (480) 994-4732
    Fax: (480) 946-1211
    TrailerParkLawyer@gmail.com
    Attachments
    Susan Pickard
    New Member
    Posts:9 New Member

    --
    19 May 2016 04:28 PM
    On behalf of Arizona Commission on Access to Justice
    1501 W. Washington St., Ste. 410
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    ksekardi@courts.az.gov
    602.452.3253

    The Arizona Commission on Access to Justice met on May 18, 2016 and voted to support the Petition to Amend the Rules of Procedure for Eviction Actions, R-16-0022. The ACAJ respects the views of the Limited Jurisdiction Committee and understands its concerns about the potential administrative burden that adopting a change of judge option for eviction cases may cause, particularly in stand-alone justice courts. There is no data, however, as to how many notices for change of judge the justice courts receive on other types of civil cases, nor any reported difficulty in accommodating those notices/requests, even in the stand-alone courts. Because many, if not most, of the eviction matters involve self-represented litigants, the ACAJ is concerned about the perception and reality of treating the eviction cases differently than other civil actions in the same court. The Commission’s support was also strongly influenced by the fact that, unlike earlier petitions, this proposal is for a one-year trial period. At the end of that year, there will be measurable data on the number of notices filed, who is filing them, and whether those courts have been able to administratively accommodate the notice in a manner that respects the rights of the self-represented litigant while also adhering to the statutory requirements affecting eviction matters.
    Wm. E Morris Institute for Justice
    New Member
    Posts:5 New Member

    --
    20 May 2016 02:58 PM
    Ellen Sue Katz
    William E. Morris Institute for Justice
    3707 North Seventh Street, Suite 220
    Phoenix, Arizona 85014
    (602) 252-3432
    (602) 257-8138
    eskatz@qwestoffice.net
    AZ State Bar No. 012214
    Attachments
    Michael A. Parham
    New Member
    Posts:14 New Member

    --
    20 May 2016 08:33 PM
    Comments of Arizona Multihousing Association are attached.

    Scott Clark, Esq. # 6759
    LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT M. CLARK, P.C.
    (602) 957-7877 ▪ (602) 957-7876 (Facsimile)
    Attachments
    State Bar of Arizona
    New Member
    Posts:26 New Member

    --
    29 Jun 2016 02:00 PM
    John A. Furlong, Bar No. 018356
    General Counsel, State Bar of Arizona
    4201 N. 24th St., Suite 100
    Phoenix, AZ 85016
    602-340-7236
    patricia.seguin@staff.azbar.org
    Attachments
    Hon. K. Slaughter
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    03 Feb 2017 02:57 PM
    Hon. K. Slaughter
    Salome Justice Court
    PO Box 661
    Salome, Az. 85348
    928-859-3871 phone
    928-859-3709 fax
    kslaughter@courts.az.gov

    I would like to incorporate Michael Parham's and the Hon. C. Steven McMurray's comments plus the already mentioned statutes regarding the time limitations courts have in dealing with eviction actions into my comments instead of repeating them here. Using this court as an example: The other courts in La Paz County are an hour's drive each way. Thus for a judge to cover an eviction case in another La Paz County court, their calendar would, at a minimum, have to have a 3 hour block of free time to be able to go to the other court, hear the case and return to finish their duties at their own court. Many of our cases are set a month or more in advance and having to reset cases is influenced by a number of factors. For example resetting is not always an option. Such changes are not fair to the participants of the other cases and logistically may not be able to be done in the time period allotted by law. In other civil cases, we do not have these time constraints and often are setting the next procedure out for a month thus having the ability to work it into our calendars. The one year trial basis makes no since to me. It would not matter if a court has one case a year or ten cases a year, if a court cannot comply with the statutes- one case is too many.

    There should be no right to a change of Judge for evictions actions. There is an argument that this is the only area where there is no right to a change of judge. There is not a right to a change of judge in civil traffic either Personally, I do not feel there should be a change of judge as a matter of right for any civil matter. As Justices of the Peace, we are voted in to hear these cases -not appointed. The voters have said they want us to hear their cases. Keep the matter of right at the poles. Special interest should not be able to pick a judge that they feel will be more favorable to their cause. Judges are supposed to be impartial. I read comments in the replies saying a judge is pro tenant or pro landlord. A judge is not to be pro either side, and a change of judge for cause should available but what must be shown to prove the prejudice needs to be greater than what is required at this time.

    I have been both a tenant for good and bad landlords and I have been a landlord for both good and bad tenants. I have adjudicated eviction actions. If a Rule for change of judge as a matter of right is passed, and it causes the case to be delayed longer than the current statutory limits, I can see tenants using it as a tool for no other reason than to get to stay in the premises longer.
    Julie Graber
    New Member
    Posts:6 New Member

    --
    11 Jul 2017 11:07 AM
    Hon. Lawrence F. Winthrop, on behalf of the
    Arizona Commission on Access to Justice
    c/o Administrative Office of the Courts
    1501 W. Washington St., Ste. 410
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    jgraber@courts.az.gov
    602-452-3250

    Report to the Supreme Court on the Experimental Rule Change Allowing Change of Judge in Eviction Actions
    Attachments
    Wm. E Morris Institute for Justice
    New Member
    Posts:5 New Member

    --
    14 Jul 2017 01:13 PM
    Ellen Sue Katz
    William E. Morris Institute for Justice
    3707 North Seventh Street, Suite 300
    Phoenix, Arizona 85014
    (602) 252-3432
    eskatz@qwestoffice.net
    AZ Bar. No. 012214

    Re: Comments in Further Support of Petition to Amend the Rules of Procedure for Eviction Actions and to Make Permanent the Change of Judge Rule
    Attachments
    Michael A. Parham
    New Member
    Posts:14 New Member

    --
    02 Aug 2017 08:29 AM
    Michael A. Parham, #004853
    Williams, Zinman & Parham P.C.
    Attorneys at Law
    7701 East Indian School Road, Suite J
    Scottsdale, Arizona 85251
    (480) 994-4732

    Please see the attached.
    Attachments
    Topic is locked