Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, petitioners challenged the Superior Court's decision to deny their request for a change of judge under Rule 42(f)(1) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. The matter arose from an eminent domain action by the City of Phoenix, where the petitioners, having stipulated to the city's use and need for their property, did not attend the order to show cause hearing. The trial court granted the city's request for possession but later denied the petitioners' request for a change of judge, claiming they had participated in a 'contested matter.' The petitioners argued that the court misapplied the rule, as the hearing predated its amendment. However, the appellate court determined the amended rule applied since the notice was filed after the amendment took effect, with no resulting injustice. The core issue was whether the hearing was a 'contested matter,' which the court found it was not, given the lack of adversarial participation. Consequently, the court remanded the case, allowing the notice for a change of judge while denying the request for attorney fees.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Amended Rules in Judicial Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the amended version of Rule 42(f) because the notice for change of judge was filed after the rule's implementation, causing no injustice.
Reasoning: The Sarchetts argued that the trial court misapplied the relevant version of Rule 42(f) because the hearing occurred before the amended rule took effect. However, the court determined that the amended rule applied since the notice was filed after its implementation, and no injustice resulted from this application.
Change of Judge under Rule 42(f)(1) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Proceduresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the Sarchetts had not waived their right to a change of judge since the hearing was not adversarial.
Reasoning: The appeal focused on whether the OSC hearing constituted a 'contested matter' as defined by Rule 42(f)(1)(D). The court clarified that a 'contested matter' implies active dispute between the parties.
Definition of 'Contested Matter' in Judicial Contextsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court concluded that the hearing was not a 'contested matter' since the Sarchetts had stipulated to the issues, indicating no active dispute.
Reasoning: Since the Sarchetts had stipulated to the issues, the hearing was not adversarial, and thus they did not waive their right to change judges.