Updated as of: January 22, 2021
It is no secret that for close to a year, most industries in America have been affected by the COVID-19 virus. In response to the pandemic, the Arizona Supreme Court has periodically issued Administrative Orders providing information on updated guidelines with respect to court procedures. Other branches of the Arizona Court system have been issuing county-specific guidelines within the confines of those set forth by the Arizona Supreme Court. At Thomas Rubin & Kelley PC, we continue to actively monitor these updates. Set forth below is a summary of the guidelines that may affect ongoing matters, including those that are pre-litigation and those in active litigation. We will continue to provide updates as additional guidelines are set forth by Arizona Courts. If you have any questions about these issues, please contact:
Brian Rubin ● 602-604-7509 ● brubin@trkfirm.com
Michael Kelley ● 602-604-7505 ● mkelley@trkfirm.com
____________________________________________
ARIZONA SUPREME COURT
On December 3, 2020, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an updated order which provides protocols with respect to all Arizona state courts. The relevant guidelines are as follows:
Arizona Courts may continue transitioning to in-person proceedings to the extent this can be safely accomplished.
Judicial Officers shall liberally grant continuances and make accommodations, if necessary and possible, for attorneys, parties, victims, witnesses, jurors, and others with business before the courts who are at a high risk of illness from COVID-19 or who report any COVID-19 diagnosis, symptoms, or exposure notification by public health authorities.
Presiding Superior Court Judges shall determine for the courts in their respective counties how in-person court proceedings and courthouse activities are to be phased-in and conducted, in a manner that protects the health and safety of all participants.
____________________________________________
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
The Presiding Judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court issued an Administrative Order on December 3, 2020. This Order provides updated information with respect to conducting jury operations during the public health emergency in Maricopa County. The relevant guidelines are as follows:
Superior Court criminal jury trials will be held with appropriate screening and properly marked spacing. No more than two jury trials may proceed at any one time and no more than one jury shall be empaneled per day to minimize the number of jurors processed through the jury assembly room in a single day.
The empanelment of juries for civil trials is suspended through February 28, 2021.
____________________________________________
PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
The Presiding Judge of Pima County Superior Court issued an updated Administrative Order on January 15, 2021. The relevant guidelines for Pima County are as follows:
All jury trials in Pima County Superior Court and all Pima County limited jurisdiction courts are suspended until and through February 28, 2021.
Trials currently set to take place prior to February 28, 2021 shall be set for telephonic status conferences to set new dates for trial.
_____________________________________________
YAVAPAI COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
The Presiding Judge of Yavapai County Superior Court issued an updated Administrative Order on October 7, 2020. The relevant guidelines are as follows:
In light of the ongoing health crisis and restrictions on empaneling of juries, Yavapai County has been approved to participate in a Pilot Program called Yavapai County Expanded Alternative Dispute Resolution Program (YEADR).
The purpose of YEADR is to provide a mechanism for civil litigants to utilize an adversarial process to resolve their claims in the Superior Court and avoid the delay of waiting for a jury trial.
At the same time, YEADR preserves the parties’ rights to a trial by jury and an appeal as provided by law.
A case is eligible for YEADR, regardless of the value of the claim(s), if the case is in Tier 2 or 3 under Civil Rule 26.1 and is one where a jury trial is required by law and has not been waived.
Under the YEADR program, a decision on a case can be rendered by either a “fact finder judge” which is either a current superior court judge or a permanent or seasonal superior court judge pro tempore, or the parties may elect to have a panel of three fact finders including judges, attorneys, members of the public, or any combination of these categories.
In essence, in a case that would normally be appropriately tried before a jury (under our civil system, meaning a case valued in excess of $50,000), the parties now have a right to litigate their case under the YEADR program, which, in lieu of said jury trial, will allow a decision to be rendered by either a fact finder judge or a panel of three fact finders, akin to a private Arbitration Hearing. If the parties decide to have their case proceed under the YEADR program, they would still have the right to appeal the fact finder(s) decision to a jury trial.
However, like appeals from Compulsory Arbitration, the party which seeks a trial de novo must be “successful” at trial to avoid paying sanctions, which would include the other party’s (1) reasonable attorney’s fees for the trial de novo, and (2) reasonable expert witness fees, if any, for the trial de novo. A party is “successful” if the monetary judgment is at least 23% more favorable than the YEADR judgment. If no monetary judgment is involved, the party is “successful” if it obtains a judgment that is “qualitatively superior” to the YEADR judgment. If the party requesting a trial de novo is successful at the trial de novo on some but not all of its claims or defenses, the court must determine the successful party.