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
[email protected]
602.452.3252

Comment from the Committee on Limited Jurisdiction Courts opposing the Petition.

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
[email protected]

On behalf of Arizona Commission on Access to Justice
1501 W. Washington St., Ste. 410
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email protected]
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.

Ellen Sue Katz
William E. Morris Institute for Justice
3707 North Seventh Street, Suite 220
Phoenix, Arizona 85014
(602) 252-3432
(602) 257-8138
[email protected]
AZ State Bar No. 012214

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)

John A. Furlong, Bar No. 018356
General Counsel, State Bar of Arizona
4201 N. 24th St., Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85016
602-340-7236
[email protected]

Hon. K. Slaughter
Salome Justice Court
PO Box 661
Salome, Az. 85348
928-859-3871 phone
928-859-3709 fax
[email protected]

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.

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
[email protected]
602-452-3250

Report to the Supreme Court on the Experimental Rule Change Allowing Change of Judge in Eviction Actions

Ellen Sue Katz
William E. Morris Institute for Justice
3707 North Seventh Street, Suite 300
Phoenix, Arizona 85014
(602) 252-3432
[email protected]
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

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.