Lynn Eric Goar
Law Office of Lynn Eric Goar PC
1955 W. Grant Rd. Ste. 125
Tucson, Az 85745
520-740-1447
[email protected]

I have reviewed this petition to delete the requirement that certain plaintiffs post a cost bond in civil cases and I support it wholeheartedly. Insurance companies and big corporations have routinely used this requirement to prevent plaintiffs with valid claims from pursuing them in court. While I have defeated most requests for the posting of a bond, there have been other cases that have been dismissed. This is simply unfair to those plaintiffs with valid claims. The procedure for requesting and opposing the request for a bond unnecessarily adds time and costs to cases. This petition should be approved.

James Smith
No. 016760
2 N. Central Ave.
Suite 2200
Phoenix AZ 85004
602-364-7000

Arizona's existing rule is not unique by any stretch. For example, California, Nevada, and Florida have similar requirements, and I suspect a great number of other jurisdictions do as well. Indeed, LRCiv 54.1(c) imposes the same requirement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Absent a compelling reason to deviate from what seems to be the norm in jurisdictions throughout the country, I would not approve this proposed change.

Joseph D'Aguanno
Harris Powers & Cunningham
361 E. Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ 85004
602.271.9344 (p)
602.252.2099 (f)
[email protected]
AZ 020421

Dear Justices,

I support the proposed change to Rules 67(d) and (f), submitted by the Arizona Association for Justice in Petition R-13-0044.

The current Rules impose financial requirements on plaintiffs alone and needlessly discriminates against "non-property owning" plaintiffs. There is no similar requirement imposed on defendants. The reality is that this one-sided sword-and-shield is routinely wielded by insurance companies, on behalf of defendant insureds, to inhibit "non-property owning" plaintiffs from pursuing valid claims. Rule 67(d) makes no distinction about whether the plaintiff’s
case has merit, meaning that a defendant who has already harmed the plaintiff can now make it almost impracticable for the plaintiff to get justice. This is fundamentally unfair, and the process of requesting and opposing a cost bond needlessly wastes time, costs, and judicial resources.

The Court should eliminate these one-sided, discriminatory rules.

/s/ Joseph D'Aguanno

Cole D. Sorenson
Law Firm: The law Office of Cole D. Sorenson PLLC
Address: 1411 N. 3rd Street. Phoenix, AZ, 85004
Phone Number: 602-374-8009
FAX Number: 602-535-1201
E-mail Address: [email protected]
Bar Number: 013097

Dear Justices,

I have read the proposed change Rules 67(d) and (f) submitted by the Arizona Association for Justice and am writing in support of Petition R-13-0044.

Cost bonds for plaintiffs are fundamentally unfair. While owning real property is still a goal that many try and obtain, for the masses, that goal may never be obtainable. So do we bar these individuals from the court house because they are not affluent? I hope not. These are the type people that need the most protection and access to the courts.

Rules 67(d) and (f), which imposes arbitrary financial requirements on certain species of plaintiffs alone, needlessly creates an atmosphere of invidious discrimination against "non-property owning" parties at the expense of public confidence in an impartial judicial system.

The only entity that profits from this rule is insurance companies. Elimination of this rule will once again provide a level playing field. Plaintiffs in this position are not asking for a windfall, just a chance to be treated fairly.

Scott I. Palumbo
Palumbo Wolfe & Palumbo, PC
2800 N. Central Ave., Suite 1400, Phoenix, Arizona 85004
602-2655777
FAX 602-265-7222
[email protected]
021271

Dear Justices,

I write in support of the proposed change to Rules 67(d) and (f) submitted by the Arizona Association for Justice, Petition R-13-0044.


Rules 67(d) and (f) impose arbitrary financial requirements on certain plaintiffs (non-property owners, i,e. poor??????). As a result, those plaintiffs face hurdles to access the justice system that others (i.e. rich?????) do not. This is discriminatory and needs to end.

Gabriel D. Fernandez (016483)
437 W. Thurber Rd. #16
Tucson, AZ 85705
520-293-6255
Fax: 520-293-3937
[email protected]


I represent, and have represented many lower income clients with valid claims. The requirement that certain plaintiffs post a cost bond in civil cases is unfair to plaintiffs with valid claims, and serves to negatively impact lower income clients far more than clients with the financial means to post bonds; thus,effectively denying lower income clients access to the court system. As such, I support the approval of this petition.

Amy Hernandez
PIccarreta Davis PC
145 S. 6th Avenue
Tucson, Arizona 85701
520-622-6900
520-622-0521
[email protected]
022892

I am writing in support of Petition R-13-0044. Rules 67(d) and (f) require a plaintiff to give security for the costs of the action if they do not own property in Arizona. The court shall fix the amount of security.

Presumably a hearing would be necessary to hear evidence related to potential costs of the case and suggestions on the amount of security to be set by the court. This seems like a waste of time for courts that are already overloaded.

Second, these rules target plaintiffs. Defendants are not required to show proof that they can pay any judgment obtained by plaintiffs. Defendants are not required to prove they own property in Arizona in case they must pay the costs of plaintiffs. The rules are completely one-sided and discriminatory against plaintiffs.

Rules 67(d) and (f) just add another obstacle for plaintiffs. Interrogatories geared to Rules 67(d) and (f) and sent by defendants are generally used to intimidate plaintiffs. That should never be the intended or implied purpose of any tool under the civil rules.

Please eliminate Rules 67(d) and (f).

Very truly yours,

Amy Hernandez
Piccarreta Davis PC

Ryan Skiver
Warnock MacKinlay & Carman, PLLC
7135 E. Camelback Rd., Ste F240
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
602.381.6669 - P
602.381.6560 - F
[email protected]
AZ Bar #024552

Dear Justices,

I have read the proposed changes to Rules 67(d) and (f) submitted by the Arizona Association for Justice and am writing in support of Petition R-13-0044.

I have and do represent many lower income plaintiffs who have valid claims and deserve equal access to the Courts of Arizona. Rules 67(d) and (f), impose arbitrary financial requirements on certain species of plaintiffs, which promoties an atmosphere of discrimination against "non-property owning” parties at the expense of public confidence in an impartial judicial system. Nobody should be denied access to the courts because of their financial standing, and the requirement that they own property or post a cost bond puts an unnecessary burden on many injured parties.

Although most experienced lawyers and judges have recognized that the cost bond rules are fundamentally unfair for the past 20 or 30 years, the use of this mechanism has become more prominent since the opinion in Thiele v. City of Phoenix, 232 Ariz. 40, 301 P.3d 206 (App. 2013), Petition for Review denied on January 7, 2014, which overruled constitutional objections made by a pro per litigant.

The Court should eliminate these one-sided, discriminatory rules, and give everyone equal access to the courts without the fear of financial repercussions that could destroy an entire family. Thus not only are these people injured by the negligent acts of the defendants in their cases they are injured by this requirement that they own property to pursue recovery for their damages.

/s/ Ryan Skiver

i strongly support the elimination of costs bonds. The courts need to be open to everyone and the cost bond punishes the poor and effectively denies them access to the courts. Justice must not be limited to those that can afford it. Please eliminate these cost bonds.

Elliot Glicksman
The Law Office of Elliot Glicksman, PLLC
145 S 6th Ave
Tucson, Ariz. 85701
[email protected]
520-628-8878
fax 520-882-8618

Dear Justices,

I have read the proposed changes to Rules 67(d) and (f) and am writing in support of Petition R-13-0044.

The current rules at issue originated in a time when access to the courts was thought to be legitimately linked to property ownership. That time, thankfully, has passed.

I represent many indigent clients and can report that on some occasions, these provisions have been invoked against my clients. In each instance it was a strategic move by defense counsel to place additional financial burdens on indigent litigants and the attorneys who represent them, in order to gain an advantage in settlement negotiations. Never in my experience did it ultimately provide security to a defendant who later became entitled to security and would not otherwise have had it. In other words, it burdens indigent plaintiffs without accomplishing its stated objective, in my experience.

I would strongly urge the Justices to adopt the proposed changes.

/s/ Lance Entrekin
The Entrekin Law Firm
One East Camelback Road
#710
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
602-954-1123
Fax: 602-682-6455
[email protected]
Bar #016172

Randall A. Hinsch
P.O. Box 36570
Phoenix, AZ 85067-6570
ph:(602)266-2002
fax:(602)266-6908
[email protected]
#010280

I am writing in support of Petition R-13-0044. The rule is clearly meant to block the courthouse doors to those who are not affluent enough to be able to post the cost bond. Imagine if one had a son or daughter just starting out in life, recently graduated college, just got their first job but still rents an apartment and has not yet accumulated sufficient assets or funds and that child gets injured by a drunk driver and the billion dollar insurance company backing up the drunk demands the son or daughter post a cost bond. The young adult cannot. The billion dollar insurance company's drunk gets to walk away from the damage done to someone's child and the insurance company, of course, saves money. That is how the rule works. The rich are treated better, have access to the courts the poor do not so that they can walk away from the damage they have inflicted. This is not the life lesson I want to teach my kids.

Larry E. Coben
8700 E. Vista Bonita Dr., Ste. 268
Scottsdale, AZ 85255-3203
[email protected]

Dear Justices,

I have read the proposed change Rules 67(d) and (f) submitted and I am writing in support of Petition R-13-0044.

Rules 67(d) and (f) impose financial requirements on plaintiffs which are in my opinion needless and create circumstances which discriminate against "non-property owning” parties who do not have the financial means to satisfy this obligation --- and which can force impecunious plaintiffs out of the judicial system.

Although most experienced lawyers and judges have recognized that the cost bond rules are fundamentally unfair to plaintiffs who cannot afford to obtain a bond, some parties have pursued cost bonds since the opinion in Thiele v. City of Phoenix, 232 Ariz. 40, 301 P.3d 206 (App. 2013), Petition for Review denied on January 7, 2014, which overruled constitutional objections made by a pro per litigant.

The Court should eliminate these one-sided, discriminatory rules.

H Christian Bode
Bode & Collins, P.L.C.
7377 E. Doubletree Ranch Road #210
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
480.355.5020
480.355.5021 (fax)
[email protected]
Bar No. 0007346

I am writing in support of the proposed amendment to Rule 67. For years, based on a string of Superior Court decisions finding Rule 67 to be unconstitutional, this Rule has not been invoked by defendants and the system has operated just fine. My practice consists entirely of civil tort litigation and in the last twenty five years I have never seen a plaintiff required to post a cost bond. In fact, notwithstanding the Court of Appeals opinion in Thiele v. City of Phoenix, I do not know of an entity that provides security bonds of the type contemplated under the rule.

Moreover, the current rule is superfluous. The vast majority of civil cases settle with each side bearing its own costs. Requiring a motion for the posting of security for costs, a hearing to determine the amount of the security, the submission of presumably cash to the court as secutity for those costs, and then the relinquishment of the security when the case settles, will only add to the court's (and the parties') paperwork, workload and costs.

Finally, the rule is unfair. Cost bonds are required only of Plaintiffs even in cases where the defendant has admitted liability and the only issue to be adjudicated is the amount of damages owed by the defendant.

If the purpose of the rule is to deter frivolous litigation, Rule 11 and A.R.S 12-341 already provide that deterrent to lawyers and their clients and do so in a more efficient and even handed way.

Chris Bode

Matthew L. McClellan
The McClellan Law Firm, PLC
361 E. Coronado Road, Suite 101
Phoenix, AZ 85004
602-386-4800 (phone)
602-386-4801 (fax)
[email protected]
022586

Dear Justices,

I have had an opportunity to review the proposed change Rules 67(d) and (f) submitted by the Arizona Association for Justice. I write in support of Petition R-13-0044.

Rules 67(d) and (f), have the unfair effect of preventing less affluent plaintiffs from pursuing legitimate claims. These Rules are being used (and abused) by large and wealthy insurance companies to bar the court house doors to those with legitimate cases who do not have the financial resources to own property in Arizona.

Moreover, this rule is unfairly directed at Plaintiffs, only. Defendants are not required to prove they own property in Arizona in case they must pay the costs of plaintiffs. The rules are unfairly discriminatory against plaintiffs.

I urge the Court to eliminate these one-sided, discriminatory rules.

/s/ Matthew McClellan

Craigg M. Voightmann
Voightmann Law Firm PC
16700 N. Thompson Peak Pkwy., Suite 110
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
(480) 348-5000
[email protected]
SBN 018678

Dear Your Honors:

I have read the proposed changes to Rule 67(d) and (f) submitted by the Arizona Association for Justice and am writing in support of Petition R-13-0044.

The requirement for a cost bond seems wholly unnecessary, discriminatory all while limiting access to the Court. In my experience Maricopa County Superior Court Judges routinely deny requests for these bonds on the grounds they are unconstitutional.

Why doesn't the current Rule allow for the plaintiff to seek a cost bond against the defendant?

The current version of the Rule is simply used as an harassment tool or technique by those with power, resources and money. Has any defendant ever collected on a cost bond?

Respectfully submitted,

Craigg M. Voightmann

Nicholas A. Moceri
Moceri & Kille, PLLC
Prescott Valley, AZ 86314
928-778-2444
[email protected]
006038

Justices:
I have been a trial lawyer in Arizona since 1979. I practiced in Illinois and Missouri for three years before moving here, and I never ran into anything like Rule 67. Fortunately, I did not face a motion for Rule 67 cost bond until 2012.

The rule makes no sense. Half the population rents their abode and lives from paycheck to paycheck. By what reasoning should those persons be precluded from exercising their legal rights in court?
As a practical matter a paycheck to paycheck plaintiff cannot give "strict proof of inability to give the security" and the would have to make a decision whether to forego normal purchases of his or her daily life to put up the cash. No cost bond would be obtainable without security, in my experience, and if that security existed the motion for a cost bond would not have been granted in the first place.
One should also consider that according to the language of subsection (d), a residence with equity of less than $150,000 should not be considered property meeting the requirements of the rule because it cannot be executed against to pay costs.
My experience with the Rule is in personal injury litigation where the attorney hired by the insurance company uses the rule a tactic to oppress the plaintiff during litigation in which the insurance company already knows it will pay the plaintiff but is arguing over how much. The company knows it will never actually try to collect costs. The company also knows that it will never be required to post a bond for costs. The actual defendant runs no risk since he is not incurring costs, the insurance company is. This imbalance of power applied to access to the courts in indefensible in an environment where in excess of 99.5% of the litigated matters are settled.
The Rule has several other deleterious effects. It wastes judicial time. Motions and Responses and Affidavits have to be read, evaluated and ruled upon. Furthermore, information regarding the Plaintiff which is irrelevant to the proceedings is given to Defendant. I am referring to Plaintiff's financial information that could be used by Defendant to Defendant's advantage in settlement negotiations.
The Rule is discriminatory. It is the result of a bias that it is the plaintiff who is causing the matter to be litigated. It ignores the fact that plaintiffs file lawsuits when Defendants have committed a ciivil wrong causing inujry for which the Defendant has failed to hold itself accountable. The fees for filing a Complaint and for service of process are onerous enough. The provision for a cost bond is too much. While there may have been actual concerns about collecting costs when the Rule was first passed, the practical effect has been its use by the rich as a weapon against working class plaintiffs. The Amendment should be adopted.

/s/ Nicholas A. Moceri

B. Elliot Grysen
806 River
Spring Lake, MI 49456-1953
800-727-1470
[email protected]

Justices:

I have been practicing law in Arizona since 1987. I am writing in support of the above referenced Petition to Amend Rule 67.

Rule 67 has been used as a sword to attack several of my clients after filing a medical malpractice claim. In the latest example, long time Arizona residents who sold their home and were living in a retirement apartment became the target of the Defendants in a one sided arbitrary financial requirement because they no longer owned a home.

It was nearly impossible to explain to them why the court would require a cost bond in order to bring what they believed, and experts supported, was a meritorious claim for injuries suffered.

The court should eliminate this discriminatory rule. I would be happy to present other client examples if requested.

Respectfully submitted, B. Elliot Grysen

Michael Napier
NAPIER, COURY & BAILLIE, P.C.
2525 East Arizona Biltmore Cir.
Suite 135
Phoenix, Arizona 85016
(602) 248-9107
[email protected]
State Bar No. 002603

Dear Justices,

I recently became aware of the proposed changes to Rules 67(d) and (f) and am writing in support of Petition R-13-0044.

The requirement of a cost bond will, for an injured indigent person, mean the difference between having access to the courts -- or not. No one should be deprived of his day in court because of poverty. It is my hope the Court will eliminate the bond requirement.

Thank you for your consideration.

/s/ Mike Napier

Sam Saks
3003 N. Central Avenue, Suite 600
Phoenix, AZ 85012
602-200-1022 (phone)
602-200-0106 (fax)
[email protected]
Bar no. 024260

This change is a reasonable solution to a problem of access to justice. The fact that other states may have such a requirement does not matter. Arizona has, and should continue to, take a leading role in improving access to justice.