Opinion
No. 1 CA-CV 15-0619
10-04-2016
NOEL THOMAS BENOIST, Petitioner/Appellant, v. LA SIESTA MOBILE HOME & RV PARK, Respondent/Appellee.
COUNSEL Noel Thomas Benoist, Apache Junction Petitioner/Appellant Mark A. Tucker PC, Phoenix By Mark A. Tucker Counsel for Respondent/Appellee
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. LC2015-000222-001
The Honorable J. Richard Gama, Judge Retired
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Noel Thomas Benoist, Apache Junction
Petitioner/Appellant Mark A. Tucker PC, Phoenix
By Mark A. Tucker
Counsel for Respondent/Appellee
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Judge Donn Kessler, and Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court. PER CURIAM:
¶1 Noel Thomas Benoist appeals the superior court's denial of special action jurisdiction. Because the superior court declined to address the merits of Benoist's special action petition, the sole issue on appeal is whether the court abused its discretion in declining jurisdiction. Files v. Bernal, 200 Ariz. 64, 65, ¶ 2 (App. 2001) (citation omitted). For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 In a May 2015 administrative hearing, Benoist requested a change of judge for cause or, alternatively, as a matter of right pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 42. The Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH") denied his request, explaining that Rule 42 was inapplicable to the administrative proceeding and that Benoist had failed to demonstrate a change of the administrative law judge for cause was justified. Benoist sought a stay and special action review by the superior court, but the record does not show that the superior court granted a stay. The superior court issued a final judgment declining to exercise special action jurisdiction, stating Benoist had failed to establish grounds for acceptance of jurisdiction. Benoist then timely filed his notice of appeal with this court.
See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 1 (explaining the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure "govern the procedure in the superior courts of Arizona in all suits of a civil nature") (emphasis added); see also Ariz. Rev. Stat. ("A.R.S.") § 41-1092.02(B) (West 2015) (providing that unless waived by the parties, administrative law judges must conduct all administrative hearings pursuant to the procedural rules set forth in A.R.S. §§ 41-1092 to -1092.12).
¶3 Because the superior court did not grant a stay, the administrative hearing proceeded while this appeal was pending, and the relevant administrative agency adopted the administrative law judge's decision as a final order in November 2015. We have jurisdiction to review the special action proceeding pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 12-2101(A)(1).
We cite to the current version of the relevant statutes unless changes material to this decision have been made. --------
DISCUSSION
¶4 We review the superior court's decision to decline special action jurisdiction for an abuse of discretion. Files, 200 Ariz. at 65, ¶ 2 (citation omitted). Special action jurisdiction is typically reserved for "extraordinary circumstances" and appropriate only when no "equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal" exists. State ex rel. Romley v. Fields, 201 Ariz. 321, 323, ¶ 4 (App. 2001) (citations omitted); Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 1(a).
¶5 Under the rules applicable to administrative proceedings, an administrative law judge may only be disqualified for "bias, prejudice, personal interest or lack of technical expertise necessary for a hearing." A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(A) (West 2015). As the OAH properly noted, a challenge as a matter of right, like that provided for in Rule 42, is unavailable in an administrative proceeding.
¶6 The OAH found that Benoist failed to make the required showing of bias or prejudice contemplated by § 41-1092.07(A) and accordingly denied Benoist's motion. Although denial of a challenge as a matter of right must be challenged by special action, denial of a challenge for cause can be adequately remedied on appellate review. Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 186 Ariz. 221, 223 (1996); see also State v. Schackart, 190 Ariz. 238, 257 (1997) (reviewing claim of judicial bias on appeal from judgment); Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson, 232 Ariz. 562, 568-69, ¶¶ 20-24 (App. 2013) (same). Because denial of a challenge for cause can be adequately remedied on appellate review, the superior court did not abuse its discretion in denying special action jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
¶7 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court's ruling.