▲ TrialVector
Workspace
The tribunal picks the rules — not habit

Arizona theaters

Eight Arizona machines, each a structured lifecycle whose illegal shortcut is unrepresentable and whose every step carries its citation — from the anti-SLAPP motion that lives inside § 12-751 to the county-conditional arbitration machine that asserts no dollar limit because the limit is a per-county local-rule fact. The machine shows the steps and the traps; whether and how to run it in your matter is a legal judgment.

The anti-SLAPP motion (§ 12-751)

Arizona's 2022-expanded shield for lawful expression: in any legal action involving a person's lawful exercise of the right of petition, speech, press, association, or assembly, the targeted party (other than a state actor) may move to dismiss or quash. The statute builds a burden-shifting test and an expedited track around the motion.

First mover: The defendant (or subpoena target) whose protected activity drew the action.

  1. 1. Confirm the action involves the lawful exercise of petition, speech, press, association, or assembly rights under the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.A.R.S. § 12-751(A)
  2. 2. File the motion to dismiss or quash on the statute's expedited track; the statute allocates burdens between movant and respondent once the showing is made.A.R.S. § 12-751
  3. 3. Discovery posture and fee consequences follow the statute's own terms — read them in the corpus before relying on any of them.A.R.S. § 12-751
  • — Former § 12-752 was REPEALED by the 2022 rewrite — everything, including the motion, now lives in § 12-751. A brief citing § 12-752 cites a dead section.
  • — The statute excludes state actors from movants and carves out certain actions — the definitions subsection controls.

Whether an action targets protected activity — and whether to answer or move first — is legal judgment for a licensed Arizona attorney.

The medical-malpractice certification + preliminary expert affidavit (§ 12-2603)

A claim against a health care professional must be accompanied by a written certification — filed and served WITH the claim — stating whether expert opinion testimony is necessary to prove the standard of care or liability. If it is, a preliminary expert opinion affidavit follows on the statute's schedule.

First mover: The claimant (or a party designating a nonparty at fault), at filing.

  1. 1. File and serve, with the claim or nonparty-at-fault designation, the written certification stating whether expert testimony is necessary.A.R.S. § 12-2603(A)
  2. 2. If expert testimony is necessary, serve the preliminary expert opinion affidavit as the statute and any scheduling order require.A.R.S. § 12-2603
  3. 3. The expert must satisfy Arizona's qualification statute for the specialty at issue.A.R.S. § 12-2604
  4. 4. The medical-records exchange and med-mal discovery limits run on their own rule track.Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26.3 (the renumbered med-mal rule; text pending consolidation in the order ledger)
  • — The certification travels WITH the claim — it is not a later filing.
  • — Expert qualification under § 12-2604 is specialty-matched; a mismatched affidavit invites dismissal.

Whether expert testimony is necessary — and who qualifies — is legal judgment for a licensed Arizona attorney.

The eviction machine (RPEA + § 12-1171 + the ARLTA)

Arizona eviction is a purpose-built speed lane: the forcible entry and detainer statutes define the grounds, the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act supplies the substantive tenancy law, and the Rules of Procedure for Eviction Actions run the courtroom — recorded proceedings, a scripted initial appearance, and trial procedures designed in days, not months.

First mover: The landlord files; the tenant's clock starts at service.

  1. 1. Grounds: forcible entry or detainer as the statute defines them (including willful holdover after the tenancy ends).A.R.S. § 12-1171
  2. 2. Substantive tenancy rights and obligations come from the ARLTA.A.R.S. § 33-1301 et seq.
  3. 3. The summons and complaint issue and are served under the eviction rules' own service provisions.Ariz. R. P. Evict. Actions 5
  4. 4. The initial appearance runs on the rules' script — recorded, parties identified, defenses taken up — with trial procedures immediately behind it.Ariz. R. P. Evict. Actions 11
  • — Eviction clocks are measured in DAYS — the ordinary civil rhythm does not apply (the RPEA displaces the ARCP except where it borrows).
  • — The 2023 amendments barred certain court fee charges and reworked Appendix A — stale forms are a real risk (R-22-0027).

Possession, habitability, and retaliation defenses are legal judgment — a licensed Arizona attorney or a certified LDP for document preparation.

Judicial review of administrative decisions (§ 12-901 et seq.)

The Administrative Review Act carries agency decisions into superior court: a notice of appeal within THIRTY-FIVE DAYS of service of the final decision commences the action, and the agency record frames the review.

First mover: The party aggrieved by the final administrative decision.

  1. 1. Commence by filing a notice of appeal within thirty-five days from the date a copy of the decision is served.A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  2. 2. Service method of the decision follows the agency's governing law or rule — it fixes the trigger date.A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
  3. 3. The record transmits and review proceeds under the Act (and, where applicable, the Rules of Procedure for Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions — a rule family not yet loaded, stated honestly).A.R.S. §§ 12-901 to 12-914
  • — The 35-day window is jurisdictional in effect — a late notice usually ends the case.
  • — The trigger is SERVICE of the decision as the agency's law defines service — not receipt, not awareness.

Whether the decision is final, who is a party, and what the record supports are legal judgment for a licensed Arizona attorney.

Special actions (Arizona's writ system)

Arizona folded the common-law writs — mandamus, prohibition, certiorari — into the 'special action.' The statutory writ of mandamus compels a legally required act where there is not a plain, adequate and speedy remedy at law; the Rules of Procedure for Special Actions supply the modern vehicle.

First mover: The party beneficially interested, on verified complaint.

  1. 1. Mandamus issues from the supreme or superior court to compel performance of an act the law specially imposes as a duty — only where there is not a plain, adequate and speedy remedy at law.A.R.S. § 12-2021
  2. 2. The modern procedural vehicle is the special action under its own rule family (registered in the ledger; not yet loaded — stated honestly).Rules of Procedure for Special Actions
  • — Special-action jurisdiction is DISCRETIONARY — the court may simply decline it.
  • — The 'no adequate remedy' element is the battleground; an available appeal usually defeats it.

Whether to seek special-action relief — and in which court — is legal judgment for a licensed Arizona attorney.

The garnishment machine (§ 12-1570 et seq.)

Post-judgment collection through third parties: Arizona splits garnishment into earnings and non-earnings tracks, each with its own writ, answer, objection, and exemption architecture defined by statute.

First mover: The judgment creditor, after judgment.

  1. 1. The earnings-garnishment article defines its own terms (including the debt-scheduling alternative) and drives the earnings track.A.R.S. § 12-1598 et seq.
  2. 2. Non-earnings garnishment runs on the general garnishment article.A.R.S. § 12-1570 et seq.
  3. 3. Exemptions and objection windows come from the statutes and the writ's own paperwork — the forms carry the clocks.A.R.S. Title 12, ch. 9
  • — Earnings garnishment has federal and state exemption floors — over-garnishment exposure is real.
  • — The garnishee's answer deadlines and the debtor's objection windows are short and form-driven.

Enforcement strategy and exemption fights are legal judgment for a licensed Arizona attorney.

Compulsory arbitration (ARCP 72–77, county-conditional)

Rules 72 through 77 apply ONLY where a county's superior-court judges vote to require arbitration of certain claims and set the jurisdictional limit by local rule under A.R.S. § 12-133 — the limit is a per-county fact. Cases under the county's limit go to a court-appointed arbitrator, with a de novo appeal safety valve.

First mover: The court, by case assignment under the county's local rule.

  1. 1. Check whether the county requires arbitration and what jurisdictional limit its local rule sets — the whole machine is county-conditional.Ariz. R. Civ. P. 72(a); A.R.S. § 12-133
  2. 2. Cases within the limit proceed to arbitration under Rules 73–76 (appointment, hearing, award).Ariz. R. Civ. P. 73–76
  3. 3. A party may appeal the award for a superior-court trial — the de novo safety valve, with its own deadline and consequences.Ariz. R. Civ. P. 77
  • — The baseline Rules 76–77 text was amended (post-hearing procedures, eff. 2024) and Rule 72(a) again by the FASTAR expansion (eff. 2025) — the corpus banners flag both; verify current text before relying on the appeal mechanics.
  • — Appealing the award and doing worse can carry fee/cost consequences under the rules' own terms.

Whether to try the case to the arbitrator or preserve the de novo appeal is legal judgment for a licensed Arizona attorney.

Injunctions and TROs (ARCP 65)

The emergency-relief machine: preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders, with notice as the default and the ex parte TRO as the tightly-boxed exception.

First mover: The party seeking to preserve the status quo.

  1. 1. A preliminary injunction or TRO issues only with notice to the adverse party — except as Rule 65(b) allows.Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1)
  2. 2. The ex parte TRO runs on Rule 65(b)'s specific-facts-and-certification track, with its own expiration clock.Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(b)
  3. 3. The hearing may be consolidated with trial on the merits, on the rule's terms.Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2)
  • — Security (bond) questions and the TRO's short life are built into the rule — an unrenewed TRO simply dies.
  • — Statutory injunction lanes (e.g., harassment) run on their own statutes and rule families, not Rule 65.

Emergency relief is the sharpest judgment call in civil practice — a licensed Arizona attorney, immediately.