Court Opinion

ID: 9624792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:17:44.303077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:54.617576
License: Public Domain

GERBER, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent for reasons that follow.
This case presents unusual circumstances in a number of respects. In the first place, all adversaries in this special action appear before this court in total agreement, even to the point of echoing each other’s off-the-record recollections of unrecorded communications with various judges. This court is thus deprived of any opposing authority or argument. Although the stated dispute is about Rule 42(f), it appears from a close reading of the minute entries that none of the parties could have *318been ready for the firm trial date set by Judge Howe for Jamiary 9, 1989. As of early November, 1988, with Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays on the near horizon, four sets of counsel still needed to schedule and take expert depositions of Chez, Ward, Drs. Loftus, Frey, and Depp, plus an unknown number of nurses, as well as interview a third group of non-expert witnesses. The deponents were geographically spread from New Jersey to Nevada to Washington, thus requiring extensive travel. Counsel were scheduling depositions as late as December 17, 1988. Plaintiffs counsel had failed to complete a promised “Day in the Life” film about the plaintiff. As of mid-November, 1988, counsel were not hurrying to complete discovery but were sparring with protective motions to prevent depositions from going forward in the short working time left before holidays and trial. Thus, although noticing Judge Howe was the stated purpose for the change of judge notice, its unstated purpose appears to have been to avoid trial before any judge on the firm trial date of January 9, for which discovery obviously could not have been completed.
These same adversaries argue in concert that Judge Howe had informally accepted an oral notice of change of judge as early as the second week in November, 1988. The record does not harmonize with this chorus. Judge Howe would not have honored the December 1 change of judge notice if he had accepted an earlier one. There is no showing of any compliance with Rule 42(f)(1)(A) requiring indication on the record of the date of the informal request and the name of the party requesting it. Furthermore, if an earlier informal request and had been made and honored, the case would have been transferred then, leaving no need for anyone to file the formal notice of change of judge on December 1.
These adversaries all admit that the December 1 change of judge notice was untimely because filed less than 60 days prior to trial as required by Rule 42. November 10, 1988 was in fact the last day for a timely notice; the December 1 notice was 20 days late. The tardy nature of the notice is said to be remedied by the argument, in which these adversaries again concur, that Mr. Reilly “intended” to file such a motion, “had it on his desk” or “would have filed it” had he not been lulled by Judge Howe into thinking that time was unimportant. Apart from paving the road to the underworld, intentions such as this count in the law only to the extent that they are put into effect. As to the reliance argument, Judge Howe had warned counsel that while he would disqualify himself to avoid being both the trial and settlement judge, he would honor a change of judge notice only absent waiver or objection (minute entry of November 3-4,1988). Counsel received this warning six days before November 10, 1988, the last day for a timely notice. Judge Howe’s comments indicate nothing but an effort to comply with the standards of Rule 42(f). Nowhere does he promise to honor an untimely notice.
Even if one assumes that Judge Howe created the impression he would honor an untimely notice, the fact remains that he lacked authority to honor an untimely notice. Honoring a “technically untimely” notice does not transform that notice into a timely one. Hendrickson only permits a late notice to be considered timely when it is based on facts discovered after the expiration of the time period. 85 Ariz. at 12, 330 P.2d at 508-09. In the present case, counsel did not acquire any facts giving rise to the notice after the expiration of the notice period; to the contrary, the discussion on November 3 and November 10, 1988 about honoring a notice occurred before expiration of the time period. Counsel simply let the time expire, and with it, Judge Howe’s authority to grant the notice. In Fendler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 130 Ariz. 475, 636 P.2d 1257 (App.1981), this court rejected an assertion that a trial court has authority to honor an informal, untimely notice:
... we address appellant’s argument that the trial judge should have recused herself “when asked to do so.” The record reflects no notice for change of judge either as a matter of right pursuant to Rule 42(f)(1) or for cause pursuant to Rule 42(f)(2), Arizona Rules of Civil *319Procedure. The right to apply for a change of judge for canse is waived if not timely filed.
Id. at 481, 636 P.2d at 1263 (emphasis added).
Central to the concurring arguments of counsel is the assertion that Judge Martone should not have “overruled” Judge Howe’s honoring of the December 1 notice. Again, this court is not presented with any contrary authority. I dissent here because I do not see Judge Martone’s minute entry order transferring the case back to Judge Howe as an “overruling” of Judge Howe but simply as a reassignment back to Judge Howe after a clearly untimely and thus ineffective notice. In Rules 2.7 and 3.1(b) of the Local Rules of Maricopa County, I find authority for a presiding judge to make such ministerial case assignments and reassignments as necessary for efficient case processing. True, Guberman does authorize the noticed judge to determine the validity of the notice; Guberman, however, also says, in a portion not quoted by concurring counsel:
We find that Rule 42(f) is not clear in this regard. Rule 42(f)(3) makes it clear that the effort to disqualify a judge to whom a case has been assigned must be by a timely application and if the application is not timely, or if there has been a waiver, then that judge has not been disqualified.
19 Ariz.App. at 593, 509 P.2d at 724 (emphasis added). Thus, while Guberman approved referring the matter back to the noticed judge to determine the validity of the notice, there is nothing “clear” in that opinion or in Rule 42(f) which precludes the civil presiding judge from also ruling on timeliness, which is merely a counting exercise having nothing to do with the legal merits of the controversy.
Presiding judges appear to have such supervisory authority. Rule 42(f)(1)(A) grants the presiding judge explicit authority in some cases to monitor a change of judge. That rule states that:
Whenever two or more parties on a side have adverse or hostile interests, the presiding judge may allow additional changes of judges as a matter of right____
(emphasis added).
The arguments of these concurring adversaries overlook language in analogous situations which supports the civil presiding judge’s authority to “preside.” For example, in Hendrickson, the court makes the following observation about determination of timeliness of an affidavit of bias and prejudice:
... the legal sufficiency and timeliness of an affidavit must be determined by the judge presiding or one to whom the matter may be assigned for that purpose.
85 Ariz. at 13, 330 P.2d at 509 (emphasis added). The civil presiding judge is at least implicitly one to whom the matter of counting days is assigned.
A presiding judge has analogous authority in ruling upon notices of change of judge on the basis of bias and prejudice and on transferring “last day” criminal matters. Similarly, the court administrator’s office regularly issues calendaring orders and inactive calendar dismissals which are frequently altered by one or more superior court judges. A presiding judge’s review of notices of change of judge is a ministerial calendaring function oriented toward efficient case management and docket control. To deny such authority in the face of a patently untimely notice leads to the result, among others, that a noticed judge has unfettered authority to indulge invalid notices to reduce caseload — hardly a procedure insuring judicial accountability. Admittedly, there is no evidence of any such improper motive in this case, but it has surfaced elsewhere.
Rather than an “appellate” decision overruling Judge Howe on a matter of “substance,” Judge Martone’s minute entry of December 2,1988 appears simply as a reassignment back to Judge Howe after a patently untimely and thus invalid notice. No case explicitly undermines this procedure. In Fraternal Order, cited by the majority, the Supreme Court vacated a court order purporting to enjoin an employee relations board from conducting a representation *320election mandated by a prior order of another judge. 122 Ariz. 563, 596 P.2d 701 (1979). In my view the ministerial calendaring function involved in this case is simply not akin to the conflicting substantive orders at issue in Fraternal Police. In addition, State v. Superior Court, 4 Ariz. App. 562, 422 P.2d 393 (1967) merely refers to cases “properly” before a judge; here, the case was indeed “properly” before Judge Howe because the notice was late and thus never took effect as a matter of law under Rule 42(f)(3).
Other cases acknowledge the authority of a superior court judge even to “overrule” decisions by judicial colleagues. I do not advocate such “overruling.” My point is that if Arizona jurisprudence allows occasional “overruling” on substantive points, then a fortiori it allows correction of counting errors. For example, Williams v. Garrett, 4 Ariz.App. 7, 9, 417 P.2d 378, 380 (1966) states:
Decisions generally acknowledge and we are in agreement that “... a trial judge has ‘power’ to vacate, modify, contravene, or depart from the ruling or order of another in the same case, whatever may be the consequences of his so doing.”
There the court adds pointedly that the function of a court of appeals is to “not interfere ... unless there has been an abuse of discretion,” which I submit can hardly lie in dishonoring a notice invalid on its face. Id. In addition, State ex rel. Herman v. Hague, 10 Ariz.App. 404, 459 P.2d 321 (1969) upheld a trial judge overruling another trial judge’s invalid order on trial severance, indicating that such overruling was appropriate when the prior ruling was manifestly invalid. Such approximates the situation here, for the December 1 notice was manifestly untimely. If such substantive “overruling” is permitted, a mere counting error ought to be even more subject to administrative correction.
I concur with the majority regarding the re-assignment of the case if the notice must be honored. The internal practice in Maricopa County Superior Court has been to discourage judges from agreeing to take cases on the basis of stipulation of counsel because it encourages forum shopping and shifts caseloads beyond the control of the presiding judge and the court administrator. Birdsall and the explicit language of Rule 42(f)(1)(F) make it clear, however, that if a valid notice of change of judge is filed and if counsel agree upon a willing judge, the presiding judge is bound, however reluctantly, to transfer the matter to the agreed-upon judge. 109 Ariz. at 582, 514 P.2d at 715. That part of the law, in my opinion at least, is clear. Obviously, in my view, there is no need to do so here because I find Judge Martone’s minute entry of December 2, 1988 referring the case back to Judge Howe to be proper. The bottom line is that I would decline jurisdiction to hear this special action because, as Garrett teaches, the function of a court of appeals is “not to interfere ... unless there has been an abuse of discretion.” 4 Ariz.App. at 9, 417 P.2d at 380.
Rule 42(f) deserves revisiting, redrafting or possibly interment. The practicing bar and trial judges are well aware of the fact that it is commonly used as a disguised motion to continue, particularly to delay a day of reckoning in court and often to allow time for uncompleted discovery. From an administrative point of view, these uses of Rule 42(f) frustrate a presiding judge’s efforts to maintain firm trial dates and to control judicial assignments.1 Rule 42(f) practice lends itself richly to legal gamesmanship. If Rule 42(f) must exist, a more workable version is the philosophy of Rule 10.2, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, which opens the change of judge window for a period of 10 days following the initial assignment to a judge. Better still, the rule could be abolished; the prop*321er time to change judges is at the ballot box, not on the eve of trial.

. Applicable rules in other state court systems require that motions affecting docket control be submitted directly to a presiding or coordinating judge. For example, California’s Code of Civil Procedure, § 170.6, provides that a motion alleging prejudice on the part of an assigned judge "shall be made to the judge supervising the master calendar,” where a master calendar exists.