Gerald A. Williams
Arizona Bar No. 018947
North Valley Justice Court
14264 West Tierra Buena Lane
Surprise, AZ 85274

The Justice of the Peace Bench in Maricopa County unanimously requests that the proposed amendment, and any alternative, be rejected. This highly problematic rule change would impact every residential action filed in the state. It is an attempt to address the comparatively rare situation of a tenant being defaulted either due to a problem interacting with court technology or due to not having reliable transportation. When such a situation occurs, a tenant already has an existing legal remedy because a tenant can file a motion to set aside a default judgment . There are existing remedies and it is clear that the proposed rule, and any alternatives, are as unworkable as they are unnecessary.

Zona Law Group P.C., attorneys for Commenting Party Manufactured Housing Communities of Arizona
7701 E. Indian School Rd.,
Suite J
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
(480) 949-1400
Scott A. Baluha
[email protected]
Bar Number: 029957
Tatianna Dunne
[email protected]
Bar Number: 036776

Samuel A. Thumma
Chair, Arizona Commission on Access to Justice
Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals
Division One
State Courts Building
1501 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007-3329
[email protected]
Telephone: (602) 452-6700

The Arizona Commission on Access to Justice has authorized Judge Sam Thumma, Chair, to submit this comment in support of Petition R-24-0022.

Charles Lucking
Arizona House of Representatives
1700 W Washington St, Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602) 926-4221
[email protected]
Arizona State Bar: 031964

This very simple one-year pilot program would require judges to recall an eviction action at the earlier of either the end of a docket, or after one hour, if either the plaintiff or defendant does not answer the initial call. Many judges are already doing this based on the fact that there are occasional technical difficulties with the virtual hearings, and occasionally plaintiffs and defendants are a few minutes late to the beginning of the hearing. This is an even-handed approach that would prevent defaults on the part of both plaintiffs and defendants, ensuring that each party has the opportunity to be heard on the merits of their case.

Maxine M. Becker, Arizona Bar. No. 019951
Wildfire: Igniting Community Action to End Poverty in Arizona
340 E. Palm Lane, Suite 315
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
[email protected]
Telephone: 602-832-7839

Petitioners request an amendment to Rule 11(b)(1) of the Rules of Procedure for Eviction Actions to accommodate a pilot program to recall an eviction action at the earlier of either the end of a docket or after one hour if either the plaintiff or defendant does not answer the initial call should be adopted by this Court. Such a pilot would allow the exploration of a solution that would help even the playing field between self-represented tenant litigants, many of whom have never been to court before, may have poor-quality internet, phones, or transportation, and plaintiffs, who are almost always represented by attorneys who have staff who will call the court clerk to let them know the attorney is delayed, or have an IT department available to assist with technical difficulties. While many judges do recall cases if there are technical problems in an online hearing, this practice is not followed in every court. Because the consequences of an eviction case is so significant for both parties, this pilot offers the opportunity to implement a simple approach that ensures equal access to the justice system before a judgment is entered.

Natalie Trouard (SBN 037365)
Leslie Ross (SBN 027207)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
2005 N. Central Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: (602) 542-4909
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

The Arizona Attorney General’s Office respectfully submits the following comment supporting Petition No. R-24-0022.

Hull, Holliday & Holliday PLC, Attorneys for Commenting Party
7150 N 16th Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85020
(602) 230-0088
Christopher T. Hoynicki
Bar Number: 034840
[email protected]

Denise Holliday
Bar Number: 017275
[email protected]

Kevin Holliday
Bar Number: 017276
[email protected]

Judy Drickey-Prohow
Bar Number: 005796
[email protected]

Keally L. Cieslik, AZ Bar No. 038984
Unemployed Workers United, a project of Working Families Power
100 N Howard Street, Suite #400
Spokane, WA 99201-0508
(508) 250-0518
[email protected]


Unemployed Workers United (“UWU”) hereby respectfully submits this Comment in support of the Petition to amend Rule 11(b)(1) of the Arizona Rules of Procedure for Eviction Actions.

Joseph Falcon-Freeman, SBN 036798
DISABILITY RIGHTS ARIZONA
4539 E. Ft. Lowell Rd,
Tucson, AZ 85712
Telephone: 520-327-9547
Fax: 520-884-0992
[email protected]

Comments of Disability Rights Arizona (DRAZ) in support of the Petition are attached.[img]/Portals/0/Users/025/73/53273/DRAZ Comment Supporting R-24-0022.docx[/img][img]/Portals/0/Users/025/73/53273/DRAZ Comment Supporting R-24-0022.pdf[/img]

Christopher Walker
Clark & Walker, P.C.
4222 E. Thomas Rd., Ste. 230
Phoenix, Arizona 85018
Ph: (602) 957-7877
Email: [email protected]

On behalf of myself and Clark & Walker, P.C., I join in the comments filed in opposition to this Petition. Specifically, the petition sought will unduly burden the court as expressed by the very judges whom are tasked with adjudicating these matters. Petitioners and those who seek to comment in support are not regularly in court and, therefore, are unable to fully grasp the gravity of this change. While it may seem like a simple change it is not. During the third and fourth week of every month, most court dockets are filled with eviction matters, sometimes in the hundreds. To recall every single case that has been initially called and defaulted to confirm that the named defendant is still not on the line is not only unnecessary but it clogs the docket and forces those who have appeared on time in compliance with the summons to wait even longer for their matter to be heard by the court. Petitioners have not explained how or why a motion under Rule 15 of the RPEA to set aside a default for excusable neglect is not the appropriate remedy for someone who missed their court date. Having reviewed hundreds of these motions, I can attest that they are readily available to litigants to use and they are frequently used. As such, this petition and proposed pilot program offers no tangible benefit for anyone other than to give someone the chance to verbally unwind their default as opposed to filing a motion just like any other litigant in any other area of law.

For these reasons, I respectfully request the Court deny this petition.

Comment of the State Bar of Arizona

Lisa M. Panahi
Bar No. 023421
General Counsel
State Bar of Arizona
4201 N. 24th St., Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85016
602-340-7236
[email protected]