Arizona Judicial Branch


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 recent 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
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 Mar 2018 03:37 PM by  EileenGilBride
R-18-0017 Petition to Amend Rule 7, ARCAP, and Rules 62 and 69, Ariz. R. Civ. P.
 1 Replies
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
State Bar of Arizona
New Member
Posts:33 New Member

10 Jan 2018 03:43 PM
    Lisa M. Panahi, Bar No. 023421
    General Counsel, State Bar of Arizona
    4201 N. 24th St., Suite 100
    Phoenix, AZ 85016

    Would clarify the appeal bond scheme and computation of bond amounts, adopt aspects of Fed. R. Civ. P. 62, and create an automatic discovery stay.

    Filed January 10, 2018

    Comments must be submitted on or before May 21, 2018.
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    02 Mar 2018 03:37 PM
    Eileen Dennis GilBride
    40 North Central Ave., Ste. 2700
    Phoenix, AZ 85004
    (602) 263-1787
    Bar #009220

    This amendment has been sorely needed ever since the statute was enacted and the corresponding rule change was adopted. The unfortunate result of the current language has been that defendants who successfully defeat a claim and are awarded attorneys' fees or any kind of sanctions (including Rule 68 sanctions) are unable to require the plaintiff to post a bond during the pendency of an appeal, to protect the defendant's ability to collect such award when the appeal is over. This is so, even if the defendant has been awarded fees because the trial court has found plaintiff's claim to be frivolous. In other words, a plaintiff who has brought a frivolous claim and been sanctioned for it can cause further 'damages' to the defendant by prosecuting a frivolous appeal with no skin in the game. This undermines the purpose of supersedeas bonds to protect the successful party's ability to collect a judgment during the pendency of an appeal. I have two suggestions, however. First, add the word "sanctions" to section 7(a)(4)(A) to ensure that the successful party's right to collect those is as protected during the pendency of the appeal as fees costs, and pre-judgment interest. Second, add to that section "plus anticipated post-judgment interest accruing during the pendency of the appeal." Because the judgment will be accruing post-judgment interest during the pendency of the appeal, there is no reason to omit that amount from the bond. The successful party's ability to collect accruing interest is an important right that should be protected.

    You are not authorized to post a reply.