Search 

Azcourts.gov

Arizona Judicial Branch

Civil Appellate

 RULE  AFFECTS  SUMMARY AND IMPACT

Rule 5(c)

R-11-0002

AOC Contact: Mark Meltzer

 

Court of Appeals
Superior court

Judges
Clerks
Administrators

Summary: The amendment conforms the ARCAP rules to Rule 6(e) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, which is the calculation of time for a party to respond to a notice or other paper served by a method other than personal delivery. The amendments to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 6(e) became effective on January 1, 2011.

The ARCAP amendment was effectuated by deleting Rule 5(c), entitled “additional time after service by mail.” Rule 6(e) of the Ariz. R. Civ. P., entitled “additional time after service under Rule 5(c)(2)(C) or (D)” is already referenced in ARCAP Rule 5(a).

The comment to Ariz. R. Civ. P. Rule 6(e) clarifies the calculation of time to respond after service by mail, including service by electronic means.

Impact: Courts need to be aware of this conforming change for calculating time.


Rule 21(c)(1)

R-10-0033

AOC Contact: Mark Meltzer

Court of Appeals

Judges
Clerks
Administrators
Summary: The amendment was intended to make this rule clear on its face that applicants for attorneys’ fees must specifically cite -- at the time of a fee request on appeal -- the statute, rule, decisional law, contractual basis, or other authority authorizing an award of fees.   A citation merely to Rule 21 is not a sufficient citation of authority.   Rather, the citation of authority must demonstrate the substantive basis for the fee request.

Impact: Information only. 

Criminal Rules 31.13, 31.18, 31.19 ARCAP Rules 13, 22, 23

R-11-0011

AOC Contact: Mark Meltzer

Court of Appeals
Superior court

Judges
Clerks
Administrators

Summary:   Substantially parallel amendments are provided in these corresponding criminal and civil appellate rules.

  1. Ariz. R. Crim. P. Rule 31.13 and ARCAP Rule 13(d):
    • Ariz. R. Crim. P., Rule 31.13(a). Appellate briefs and appendices may now be filed electronically, as well as in person or by mail.
    • Ariz. R. Crim. P. Rule 31.13(c) and ARCAP Rule 13(d)(2). If an appendix is included with an electronically filed appellate brief, and if the appendix contains multiple documents, it must also include a table of contents with electronic bookmarks to the documents contained in the appendix and listed in the table of contents.
  2. Ariz. R. Crim. P. Rule 31.18 and ARCAP Rule 22:
    • Subsection (b) of these respective rules requires a request for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration be filed in the appellate court that issued the decision or opinion in question.
    • A new subsection (c) has been created regarding the response to a motion for reconsideration.
    • Subsection (d) requires that the form, length and contents of a motion for reconsideration conform to the provisions of Criminal Rule 31.12 or Civil Appellate Rule 6(c) “not otherwise suspended by any Administrative Order of the Supreme Court.”
  3. Ariz. R. Crim. P. Rule 31.19 and ARCAP Rule 23:
    • Subsection (a) requires petitions for review and cross-petitions for review from a decision of the Court of Appeals be filed in the Supreme Court instead of in the Court of Appeals. Motions to extend the time to file are now in subsection (a) of these rules, and these motions must be filed in the Supreme Court; current Rules 31.19(j) and 23(j) are deleted.
    • Subsection (b) regarding mailing is changed to permit electronic transmittal of documents. Additionally, in the event a petition or cross-petition becomes moot by the grant of a motion for reconsideration, the petitioner or cross-petitioner is required to notify the parties and the clerk of the Supreme Court.
    • Subsection (c) limits the requirement of filing copies of petitions or cross-petitions for review to petitions filed in hard copy; it also sets forth binding requirements for hard copies. An appendix to an electronically filed petition or cross-petition must include a table of contents with bookmarks to the documents contained in the appendix and listed in the table of contents.
    • Subsections (d) and (g): Language in these provisions is changed from “transmittal” of the record upon filing a petition for review to making the record “available.” These changes acknowledge that no actual record will be physically transmitted; the record will be available electronically. The amendments in subsection (d) also specify when the record is made available to the clerk of the Supreme Court in situations where a motion for reconsideration is pending in the Court of Appeals.
    • Subsection (e) requires the response to a petition for review and any appendix to the response to comply with the requirements of subsection (c) “not otherwise suspended by any Administrative Order of the Supreme Court.”
    • Subsection (h). The amendment to criminal Rule 31.19(h) provides that if the Supreme Court denies review, the order shall specify any justices who voted to grant review. (This provision already appears in ARCAP Rule 23(h).)
Impact: No impact on the trial courts. Note in the Order concerning these changes that a proposed amendment in this rule petition to Rule 11(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure concerning signatures on documents submitted electronically was not adopted, consistent with the amendment in R-11-0012 striking the text of Supreme Court Rule 124.

Rule 7

R-11-0019

AOC Contact: Mark Meltzer

Superior Court

Judges
Clerks
Administrators

Summary: Amendments have been made to Rule 7(a) concerning supersedeas bonds that conform this rule to recently enacted A.R.S. § 12-2108.

These amendments primarily concern the amount of a supersedeas bond. The amendments require that the court set the bond in the lesser of the following amounts:

(A) The total amount of damages awarded, excluding punitive damages;
(B) Fifty per cent of the appellant's net worth;
(C) Twenty-five million dollars.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the court may require an appellant to post a bond in an amount up to the full amount of the judgment if an appellee proves by clear and convincing evidence that the appellant is intentionally dissipating assets outside the ordinary course of business to avoid payment of a judgment.

The trial court may also lower the bond amount to an amount that will not cause an appellant substantial economic harm if the appellant proves by clear and convincing evidence that the appellant is likely to suffer substantial economic harm if required to post a bond in the amount set pursuant to the provisions of (A), (B), or (C) above.

The court may also consider whether there is security for the judgment, or if there is property in controversy held by the court or by the sheriff.

Impact: Under the provisions of Rule 7(a), the amount of the bond may be determined upon stipulation or upon motion. If determined upon motion, the rule amendments must be applied by the court to set the bond amount.