This week’s post about case law is actually from a Memorandum Decision in Dyrek v Dyrek 1 CA-CV 23-0237. We have seen language like this before. As a reminder, there are times when litigants file in Family Court and the case “feels like” it should have been filed as a Civil action (and vice versa). This past week Division One of the Court of Appeals issued the memo decision (reversing the lower court) (excerpt below) reflecting that rather than dismissing the case, the more appropriate course of action may be to transfer the case between departments rather than dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction on ARCvP Rule 12(b)(1) grounds [or correspond ARFLP Rule 29(a)(1)]. In Maricopa County, we departmentalize for convenience because of our size (4th largest trial court in the country). Smaller counties do not do this and therefore, there is a good chance similar dismissals do not happen (as much). The term “jurisdiction” sometimes gets thrown out and used improperly. The civil department has the same jurisdiction as the family court. However, given family court courtrooms generally don’t have jury boxes, the judges are often not trained to conduct jury trials, and the time it takes to conduct a jury trial all may be impediments to the family court judge conducting a jury trial. This however, is not a jurisdictional issue. Each case should be analyzed based on claims and facts. Dismissal could be warranted. Otherwise, the COA suggests we should transfer these cases between departments. Language from the memo decision is in the comments. I also included the link.
The Superior Court Has Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Wife’s Claims. ¶6 The superior court is a “single unified trial court of general jurisdiction.” L.H. v. Vandenberg, 256 Ariz. 44, 49 ¶ 17 (App. 2023) (quoting Marvin Johnson, P.C. v. Myers, 184 Ariz. 98, 102 (1995)). For administrative and organizational purposes, the superior court may have specialized trial departments, such as criminal, civil, family, and others. Id. And although we have occasionally referred to such departments as courts—for example, “criminal and civil” courts—this practice of convenience “does not make them discrete courts.” Id. Rather, we reiterate that the superior court’s decision to organize itself into departments as an “in-house administrative mechanism” does not alter its constitutionally granted subject matter jurisdiction, nor remove the power of its various judges to hear and decide all matters and “issue all writs necessary to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction.” Id.; see also Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 14; A.R.S. § 12-123.
Jamie Balson
4mo
What is the name of this case please? Am i missing it?
Helen Davis
4mo
The case is actually much more complex than is evident from this very brief Memo Decision. Frankly, I have never seen one division of the court transfer to another, but maybe this will inspire that outcome in the future. As the “there’s more to the story” update: As soon as the improper civil action was dismissed the plaintiff appealed and simultaneously filed a petition in family court under rule 85. That petition has been denied on summary judgment and is on appeal.
S. Turken
4mo
Great explanation, even for this criminal practitioner
¶8 When one department of the court is confronted with a case that may, or should, be assigned for resolution before a different department, the court may choose to transfer such cases between its departments. But filing a claim before one administrative department of the court versus another does not implicate jurisdiction, and it was error to dismiss Wife’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the superior court, as a “single unified trial court of general jurisdiction,” had subject matter jurisdiction over Wife’s claims, we vacate the court’s order dismissing Wife’s complaint on Rule 12(b)(1) grounds.