Jump to content

Application for default even after I timely answered


Recommended Posts

Thanks for the info Seadragon

So today I recieved a notice from the plantiff that they are requesting a Notice of Change of Judge

Any ideas as to why they might do this ?

I am thinking to delay the process??

Maybe the judge here in Pima county has a record of not being friendly to JDB's?

Should I oppose this or let it slide?

any info appreciated. .. 

as always thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info Seadragon

So today I recieved a notice from the plantiff that they are requesting a Notice of Change of Judge

Any ideas as to why they might do this ?

I am thinking to delay the process??

Maybe the judge here in Pima county has a record of not being friendly to JDB's?

Should I oppose this or let it slide?

any info appreciated. .. 

as always thanks in advance.

She does, oppose this for every good reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No reason listed

just the standard required legal statements 

I have spent some hours trying to find info on how to best write up an opposition to this

but as they listed no reasoning for the request . . .I guess just a generic opposition?

I do not see anything particular about the judge. . .so far. . .. but maybe they have experienced his courtroom before?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arizona rules allow a "side" to change judges once as a matter of right.  The other "side" is entitled to oppose ONLY if the notice is not timely or the other party has waived its right subject to the following parameters:

 

 

Rule 133, JCRCP

d. Change of judge. For purposes of this section, a lawsuit has only two sides. A party or a side, if there is more than one plaintiff or one defendant in a lawsuit, may request a change of judge as a matter of right. The party or side must file a notice of change of judge as a matter of right in the precinct where the lawsuit is pending and provide a copy of the notice to the other parties as required by Rule 120. The notice must state that the party or side has not previously requested a change of judge in this lawsuit, that the party or side has not waived the party's right to a change of judge, and that the notice is timely. A notice is not timely if it is filed less than sixty (60) days before the trial date, or if it is filed more than ten (10) days after the court provided the parties with notice of the assignment of a new judge for trial. A party waives a right to a change of judge if the judge has conducted a conference in the lawsuit, if the judge has ruled on any contested motion or issue, or if the trial has started. When a proper and timely notice of change of judge as a matter of right is filed, the court must transfer the lawsuit to a new judge within the county for further proceedings. If a party believes that the party will not have a fair and impartial trial before a justice of the peace, then the party must proceed as provided in Arizona Revised Statutes § 22-204(A).

 

(Rule 42(f)(1) of the ARCP essentially mirrors this rule but applies to Superior Court.  The SC rule actually says the notice shall not specify the grounds for the Notice.)

 

If the request is timely and the right was not waived, "the court must transfer the lawsuit to a new judge".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...