§ 3.7.2.6.5.1 Pretrial Orders Generally.
Jurisdiction | Arizona |
§ 3.7.2.6.5.1 Pretrial Orders Generally.
Many pretrial orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Generally, a trial court abuses its discretion where the record fails to provide substantial support for its decision or the court commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion. See Nucor v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau, 231 Ariz. 411, 422, ¶ 45, 296 P.3d 74, 85 (App. 2012); Ariz. Ass’n of Providers v. State, 223 Ariz. 6, 12, ¶ 14, 219 P.3d 216, 222 (App. 2009) (superior court abuses its discretion if it commits an error of law). The court of appeals will not find an abuse of discretion if a reasonable basis exists for the trial court’s ruling. See Amparano v. ASARCO, Inc., 208 Ariz. 370, 376, ¶ 19, 93 P.3d 1086, 1092 (App. 2004). However, the trial court abuses its discretion if it makes a legal error in formulating its ruling. See Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe, 217 Ariz. 103, 107, ¶ 9, 170 P.3d 712, 716 (App. 2007).
Examples of pretrial orders reviewed for abuse of discretion include:
Admissions. When an admission has been made inadvertently, it may be an abuse of discretion not to permit the admission’s withdrawal. See DeLong v. Merrill, 233 Ariz. 163, 168, ¶ 17, 310 P.3d 39, 44 (App. 2013).
Allocation of Defense Costs. See Nucor Corp. v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau, 231 Ariz. 411, 422, ¶ 45, 296 P.3d 74, 85 (App. 2012) (allocation of defense costs among insurers).
Alternate Dispute Resolution. See Romer-Pollis v. Ada, 223 Ariz. 300, 302-03, ¶ 12, 222 P.3d 916, 918-19 (App. 2009) (whether a party failed to participate in good faith in an arbitration proceeding; a court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion, reaches a conclusion without considering the evidence, commits some other substantial error of law, or the record fails to provide substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding).
Amendment of pleadings. See Tumacacori Mission Land Dev., Ltd. v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 231 Ariz. 517, 519, ¶ 2, 297 P.3d 923, 925 (App. 2013) (denial of motion to amend complaint; where trial court does not state its reasons, court of appeals will affirm if result is correct for any reason); Alosi v. Hewitt, 229 Ariz. 449, 452, ¶ 13, 276 P.3d 518, 521 (App. 2012) (denial of motion to amend reviewed for clear abuse of discretion; trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to amend if it finds futility in the amendment); Elm Retirement Ctr., LP v. Callaway, 226 Ariz. 287, 292, ¶¶ 25-26, 246 P.3d 938, 943 (App. 2010) (denial of motion to amend reviewed for abuse of discretion; denial not an abuse of discretion where proposed amendment would be futile).
Appearance Bail Bonds. The court of appeals reviews a superior court’s order forfeiting an appearance bail bond for abuse of discretion. See State v. Liberty Bail Bonds, 233 Ariz. 474, 476, ¶ 8, 314 P.3d 820, 822 (App. 2013).
Appointment of Receivers. See Gravel Res. of Ariz. v. Hills, 217 Ariz. 33, 36, ¶ 6, 170 P.3d 282, 285 (App. 2007).
Arbitration Awards. Trial court confirmation of an arbitration award is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See FIA Card Servs., N.A. v. Levy, 219 Ariz. 523, 524, ¶ 5, 200 P.3d 1020, 1021 (App. 2008).
Bond Forfeitures. See State v. Copperstate Bail Bonds, 222 Ariz. 193, 195, ¶ 11, 213 P.3d 342, 344 (App. 2009) (evidence reviewed in light most favorable to supporting trial court’s judgment); State v. Old West Bonding Co., 203 Ariz. 468, 471, ¶ 9, 56 P.3d 42, 45 (App. 2002); State v. Garcia Bail Bonds, 201 Ariz. 203, 205, ¶ 5, 33 P.3d 537, 539 (App. 2001). However, interpretation of court rules governing bail bonds is reviewed de novo. See State v. Copperstate Bail Bonds, 222 Ariz.193, 195, ¶¶ 11-12, 213 P.3d 342, 344 (App. 2009); Garcia Bail Bonds, 201 Ariz. at 205, ¶ 5, 33 P.3d at 539.
Change of Judge. The court of appeals reviews for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for change of judge based on a claim of judicial bias. A change of judge for cause is not warranted if bases merely on speculation, suspicion, apprehension or imagination. See Stagecoach Trails MHC v. City of Benson, 232 Ariz. 562, 568, ¶ 21, 307 P.3d 989, 995 (App. 2013), rev’d on other grounds, 231 Ariz. 366, 295 P.3d 943 (2013).
Change of Venue. See Curtis v. Richardson, 212 Ariz. 308, 311, ¶ 8, 131 P.3d 480, 483 (App. 2006) (change for convenience of witnesses).
Class Certification. See ESI Ergonomic Solutions v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 203 Ariz. 94, 97-98, ¶ 11, 50 P.3d 844, 847-48 (App. 2002); Cont’l Townhouses E. Unit One Ass’n v. Brockbank, 152 Ariz. 537, 540, 733 P.2d 1120, 1123 (App. 1986). In general, factual considerations inherent in the decision to grant or deny class certification are left to the trial judge’s discretion and will not be set aside absent an abuse of that discretion. See Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Dougherty, 200 Ariz. 515, 517, ¶ 7, 29 P.3d 862, 864 (2001). Class actions may be pursued against governmental entities in Arizona. See id. ¶ 8.
Consolidation. See Cypress on Sunland Homeowners Ass’n v. Orlandini, 227 Ariz. 288, 295, ¶ 20, 257 P.3d 1168, 1175 (App. 2011) (order consolidating cases); Hancock v. McCarroll, 188 Ariz. 492, 495, 937 P.2d 682, 685 (App. 1996).
Continuance. See In re MH 2007-001264, 218 Ariz. 538, 539, ¶ 5, 189 P.3d 1111, 1112 (App. 2008); In re Maricopa Cty. Superior Court No. MH2003-000240, 206 Ariz. 367, 369-70, ¶ 10, 78 P.3d 1088, 1090-91 (App. 2003).
Damages. Wide discretion is afforded the trial court to determine whether damages are an adequate remedy in contracts concerning the sale of real property, and specific performance is never an absolute right. See Woliansky v. Miller, 135 Ariz. 444, 446, 661 P.2d 1145, 1147 (App.1983).
Equitable Estoppel. The trial court’s discretion to apply estoppel is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Robertson v....
To continue reading
Request your trial