Enrichi-Roppe v. Sanchez, No. 2 CA-SA 2026-0048 (App. Div. II, July 30, 2026) (J. Sklar) https://www.appeals2.az.gov/decisions/SA20260048Opinion.pdf

LITIGANT DESIGNATED “VEXATIOUS” BY COURT IS ENTITLED TO INVOKE RULE 42.1 PEREMPTORY NOTICE OF CHANGE OF JUDGE AGAINST THE PRESIDING JUDGE

Plaintiff was designated a “vexatious-litigant” by the presiding judge in Cochise County in a probate matter. She then filed a quiet title action on the same property at issue in the probate matter. The presiding judge assigned the quiet title matter to himself, whereupon plaintiff filed a Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 42 notice of peremptory change of judge which the presiding judge denied on the basis there was no right to this relief against a presiding judge by a vexatious litigant and that  plaintiff had been previously designated a “vexatious litigant” in the probate matter she lost and was now being more vexatious by trying to relitigate the same issue under the guise of a quiet title action. He then redesignated plaintiff a vexatious-litigant and dismissed the quiet title action with prejudice, whereupon plaintiff brought this special action.

The Arizona Court of Appeals accepted special action jurisdiction and granted plaintiff relief.

Allowing a litigant to exercise the change-of-judge right in a

vexatiousness proceeding also gives effect to Rule 42.1's purpose of

ensuring that a litigant receives impartial treatment at all stages of the

judicial process.  This is especially true where, as here, the presiding judge

and the judge assigned to consider the action on the merits are the same

person.

Here the administrative order designating plaintiff "vexatious" limited that designation to the initial probate case and did not apply to the quiet title action at it's inception.