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

The Maricopa County Justice Court bench respectfully requests this Court reject the proposed amendments to Rule 11(d)(1) and to 18(d) of the Rules of Procedure for Eviction Actions.

www.lang.law
George H King
6730 N Scottsdale Rd Ste 101
Scottsdale, Az 85253
(480) 534-4875

My comment is not directed at the change requested, but instead to an additional very small, non-substantive revision to Rule 15 of this rule set that I believe would be beneficial. This revision would be to change "court days" to a corresponding number of "calendar days."

d. Where a post judgment motion does not affect possession of property, the other party may file a
response within (delete: 10 court; replace with [b]fourteen calendar days[/b]) of service of the motion. The moving party may then file a reply within (delete: 5 court; replace with [b]seven calendar days[/b]) of service of the response.

The eviction statutes (as does virtually every other statute) all count by actual days, not court days. See A.R.S. 1-243. Making a large population of unrepresented litigants have to juggle between two different counting schemes causes needless confusion. And the list of court holidays is not fixed for all time, but changes every few years as different holidays are recognized (MLK Day, day after Thanksgiving) and removed (Columbus Day).

For the record, my comments are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of my firm, or anyone else.

Thank you for your consideration.

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

Comment in support of R-25-0019 on behalf of:

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
Telephone: (602) 452-6700

Hull, Holliday & Holliday PLC, Attorneys for Commenting Party
7150 N 16th Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85020
(602) 230-0088

Denise Holliday
Bar Number: 017275
[email protected]

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

Katherine Henrichs
AZ Bar No. 035928
Disability Rights Arizona
4539 E Ft Lowell Rd
Tucson, AZ 85712
520-327-9547
[email protected]
www.disabilityrightsaz.org

Disability Rights Arizona respectfully requests this Court adopt the proposed amendments to Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure for Eviction Actions.

Comment of the State Bar of Arizona

Lisa M. Panahi
Bar No. 023421
State Bar of Arizona
4201 N. 24th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85016-6288
(602) 340-7236
[email protected]
[email protected]

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

Organized Power in Numbers ("OPIN") hereby respectfully submits this Comment in support of the Petition to amend Rule 15 of the Arizona Rules of Procedure for Eviction Actions.

Charles Lucking
AZ Bar No. 031964
Barton Mendez Soto PLLC
401 W Baseline Rd Suite 205
Tempe, AZ 85283
(480) 418-0668
[email protected]
Commenting Party, Charles Lucking, hereby submits this comment in support of Petition R-25-0019 based on the need to provide tenants with relief from judgments to ensure just outcomes. Commenting Party represents tenants.
There are very good reasons why an eviction order should be set aside, but there are some common-sense justifications missing from the Rules. If a judgment is void, either party should be able to have it set aside. The same if the judgement has been satisfied/released/discharged/reversed or vacated. These are clean-ups and should be incorporated into the RPEA.

The second change in this petition contemplates a stay of an eviction judgment for three days upon filing a post-judgment motion. This is a short period of time and in an emergency situation it would prevent a tenant who otherwise would be potentially be wrongfully locked out of their homes an opportunity to prevent such an injustice from happening to them. It would also provide the court the opportunity to prevent a mistake from happening that would otherwise land a person on the street. This is a good rule change and I encourage the court to strongly consider approving it.

My comments represent my own perspective and may not be reflective of that of my firm.

Attached, please find Petitioners' Reply to Comments in Arizona Supreme Court File No. R-25-0019.

Respectfully filed and submitted on this 2nd day of June 2025.

WILLIAM E. MORRIS INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE jointly and on behalf of COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, DNA PEOPLE'S LEGAL SERVICES, and SOUTHERN ARIZONA LEGAL AID

ANDREW P. SCHAFFER, AZ Bar. No. 037352
BRENDA MUÑOZ FURNISH, AZ Bar. No. 027280
MICHELLE J. SIMPSON, AZ Bar. No. 020199
WILLIAM E. MORRIS INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
3707 North Seventh Street, Suite 101
Phoenix, Arizona 85014-5095
(602) 252-3432
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]