Background
Jeanette Enrichi-Roppe had been designated a vexatious litigant in January 2026 in connection with a probate matter decided by Cochise County Presiding Judge David Thorn. In April, she filed a quiet-title action challenging Domitila Sanchez’s right to property involved in that probate proceeding.
Judge Thorn issued an order to show cause and reassigned the quiet-title case to himself in the probate division. Enrichi-Roppe then timely filed a notice seeking a peremptory change of judge under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 42.1. Judge Thorn denied the notice based on efficiency concerns and Enrichi-Roppe’s prior litigation conduct, later designated her a vexatious litigant in the new case and dismissed the action with prejudice.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals accepted special-action jurisdiction and held that Enrichi-Roppe’s Rule 42.1 notice was effective and had to be honored. The superior court did not assess the rule’s timeliness or waiver requirements, and judicial efficiency and familiarity with a party’s earlier conduct are not valid grounds to deny an otherwise proper peremptory notice.
The court also rejected the respondents’ argument that the right to a peremptory change of judge does not apply when a county presiding judge considers a vexatious-litigant designation. Arizona’s vexatious-litigant statute permits the presiding judge to designate another superior-court judge to make that determination, so the statute and Rule 42.1 can be harmonized. All orders entered after the improper denial were void, including the new vexatious-litigant designation and dismissal.
Key Takeaways
- A timely, unwaived Rule 42.1 notice must be honored; efficiency concerns do not override it.
- A presiding judge may be peremptorily noticed in a vexatious-litigant proceeding.
- After a valid notice, the noticed presiding judge may only arrange reassignment, absent necessary temporary relief.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that vexatious-litigant proceedings do not create an exception to Arizona’s peremptory judge-change rule. It also reinforces that a case-specific vexatious-litigant designation does not automatically bar a litigant from filing other actions.
On remand, Judge Thorn may only designate a different judge to address vexatiousness if appropriate; the appellate court did not decide the merits of Enrichi-Roppe’s quiet-title claim.