Corrupt Brodman unseals records without offering the opposing party a hearing as required by local Rule 2.20(c)

Rule 2.20. Unsealing Court Records
a. Access. Court records that are sealed may be examined by judicial officers. Access by the public to sealed records will only be allowed after entry of a court order in accordance with this rule.
b. Motion; Service. A sealed court record shall be unsealed only upon stipulation of all the parties, upon the court’s own motion, or upon a motion filed by a named party or another person. A motion to unseal a court record must be served on all parties to the action in accordance with the applicable rules of service for the case type. If the movant cannot locate a party for service after making a good faith effort to do so, the movant may file an affidavit setting forth the efforts to locate the party and requesting that the court waive the service requirements of this rule. The court may waive the service requirement if it finds that further good faith efforts to locate the party are not likely to be successful.
c. Hearing. Any party opposing the motion shall appear and show cause why the motion should not be granted. The responding party must show that compelling circumstances continue to exist or that other grounds provide a sufficient legal or factual basis for keeping the record sealed.

Judge Brodman doesn’t read pleadings and doesn’t know the outstanding motions in a case

Judge Brodman sets oral arguments on a motion that he failed to even read. He states “to be honest I never read the pleadings” and “what are the outstanding motions in this case”. At least he is not a doctor.

Judge Brodman makes up new laws to fit his own agenda

Less than honorable Brodman makes up new laws to fit his own agenda. The Defendant files an affidavit to change judges and under Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure the Defendant never received a hearing as required by law.


Under Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 42(f) you have the right to change a judge before they make any contested rulings

Under Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 42(f) you have the right to change a judge before they make any contested rulings.
If you’re assigned Judge Brodman, I would highly suggested you talk to your lawyer about changing judges.
Rule 42(f). Change of judge
1. Change as a Matter of Right.
(A) Nature of Proceedings. In any action pending in superior court, except an action pending in the Arizona Tax Court, each side is entitled as a matter of right to a change of one judge and of one court commissioner. Each action, whether single or consolidated, shall be treated as having only two sides. Whenever two or more parties on a side have adverse or hostile interests, the presiding judge or that judge’s designee may allow additional changes of judge as a matter of right but each side shall have the right to the same number of such changes. A party wishing to exercise that party’s right to change of judge shall file a “Notice of Change of Judge.” The notice may be signed by an attorney; it shall state the name of the judge to be changed; and it shall neither specify grounds nor be accompanied by an affidavit, such as required by subsection (f)(2) of this rule, but it shall contain a certification by the party filing the notice or by the attorney that (i) the notice is timely, (ii) the party has not waived the right under subsection (f)(1)(D) of the rule, and (iii) the party has not previously been granted a change of judge as a matter of right in the case. A judge may honor an informal request for change of judge. When a judge does so, the judge shall enter upon the record the date of the request and the name of the party requesting change of judge. Such action shall constitute an exercise of the requesting party’s right to change of judge.
(B) Filing and Service. The notice shall be filed and copies served on the parties, the presiding judge, the noticed judge and the court administrator, if any, in accordance with Rule 5, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.
(C) Time. Failure to file a timely notice precludes change of judge as a matter of right. A notice is timely if filed sixty (60) or more days before the date set for trial. Whenever an assignment is made which identifies the judge for the first time or which changes the judge within sixty (60) days of the date set for trial, a notice shall be timely filed as to the newly assigned judge if filed within ten (10) days after such new assignment. A notice of change of judge is ineffective if filed within three (3) days of a scheduled proceeding unless the parties have received less than five (5) days’ notice of that proceeding or the assignment of the judge. The filing of such an ineffective notice neither requires a change of judge nor precludes the party who filed it from subsequently filing a notice of change of judge that otherwise satisfies the requirements of this rule.
(D) Waiver. After a judge is assigned to preside at trial or is otherwise permanently assigned to the action, a party waives the right to change of that judge as a matter of right when:
(i) the party agrees to the assignment; or
(ii) after notice to the parties
(aa) the judge rules on any contested issue; or
(bb) the judge grants or denies a motion to dispose of one or more claims or defenses in the action; or
(cc) the judge holds a scheduled conference or contested hearing; or
(dd) trial commences.
Such waiver is to apply only to such assigned judge.