Judge Brodman loses the pro per Defendant’s exhibits for evidentiary hearing. Judge Brodman loses the pro per Defendant’s exhibits for evidentiary hearing. Naturally, the plaintiff’s exhibits were not lost just the pro per Defendant’s. The pro per Defendant did not receive as much time to present his case as a result of the Judge losing the hand-delivered exhibits. The Defendant was severely prejudiced as a result.
Tag: [email protected]
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.
affidavit_to_change_judge_as_a_result_of_rewriting_lawsUnder 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
(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.
(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.
Such waiver is to apply only to such assigned judge.