Rule Impacts Report

Justice Court Rules of Civil Procedure

 RULE  AFFECTS  SUMMARY AND IMPACT

JCRCP Rules
113, 115, 119, 120, 126, and 134

Appendices
3 & 4

R-12-0044

See the note for information re: effective date

 

Justice

Judges
Clerks
Admin

Summary:  These changes corrected technical errors in the Justice Court Rules of Civil Procedure, which became effective on January 1, 2013.  The changes also conform the JCRCP to a recent amendment to Rule 4.1, Ariz. R. Civ. P., regarding service of process on a governmental entity.  These changes:

  • Revised JCRCP Rule 113(c) regarding serving a government entity, pursuant to a corresponding change in Rule 4.1 of the Ariz. R. Civ. P., and conformed the JCRCP appendices to these revisions
  • In Rule 115(c), provided rule authority for a judge to extend (“enlarge”) time
  • Specified in Rule 119(a) the time for filing a response to an amended pleading
  • Clarified in Rule 120(g) that the content of each notice in the rules on discovery and motions is a requirement of each respective rule
  • Corrected a scrivener’s error in Rule 126(c) regarding the notation of service
  • Changed the reply time in Rule 128(c) from 5 days after filing to 5 days after service

A change in the number of peremptory challenges to jurors was superseded by R-13-0039.  Please see the following rule summary.

Note:  The Court adopted these changes on an emergency basis, effective February 13, 2013.  The Court opened the changes for comment until May 21, 2013, and thereafter permanently adopted the changes on August 28, 2013.

Impact:  Most of these changes affect practitioners.  However, the court should be aware of these rule amendments, and in particular, the expressed authority of a judge to extend time, and the clarification that notices in the rules on discovery and motions are requirements of the respective rules.


JCRCP
Rule 133
JCRCP
Rule 134

R-13-0039

See the note for information re: effective date

Justice

Judges
Clerks
Admin
Summary: Changes to Rules 133 and 134 are:
  • In Rule 133(b), that a party make a demand for a jury at least ten days before the trial date
  • In Rule 133(c), that a party file a motion for change of venue within ten days of filing an answer; and that a party’s loses the opportunity to  change venue if the judge in the precinct where the lawsuit was filed has heard an issue in the case on its merits
  • In Rule 134(a), a reduction in the number of peremptory challenges of trial jurors to two, which is consistent with the number of challenges in a justice court criminal case

Note: The Court adopted the rule changes on an expedited basis, effective August 27, 2013.  Following a comment period, the Court adopted the rule amendments on a permanent basis on November 13, 2013.

Impact:
  • Clerks should assure that parties timely file any motions for change of venue or demands for jury trial
  • A right to change venue is lost if the judge has heard a contested issue in a case on its merits
  • A party is allowed two peremptory challenges of jurors, which may affect the size of a panel of potential jurors that the court calls for a case