AZ-D — Watchpoints
D. Ariz. — ## Watchpoints — District of Arizona AZ-D has several distinctive features of its local rules — Court Calendar Management as the opening...
Watchpoints — District of Arizona
AZ-D has several distinctive features of its local rules — Court Calendar Management as the opening rule (LRCiv 1.1), explicit FRCP 65 deference for ex parte restraining orders, surety bonds in Arizona state court form, division-coded case numbers, the 56.1 framework with no reply statement of facts permitted, a separate MSJ-specific oral argument rule (LRCiv 56.2 pointing to LRCiv 7.2(f)), and contemplated telephonic argument under LRCiv 7.2(h).
---
1. AZ-D's opening rule — LRCiv 1.1 — is about Court Calendar Management, not the typical scope-and-purpose provision
LRCiv 1.1 governs calendar management across the District: non-trial additions and deletions to court calendars require two business days' notice; counsel has a duty to notify judges of scheduling conflicts between courts within the District or between the federal and state courts; conflicting judges confer to resolve. Among our 10-court sample, AZ-D is the only district that places calendar management at the opening rule slot — most districts open with scope-and-purpose or definitions provisions. (D. Ariz. LRCiv 1.1)
Why: The rule's rationale is that AZ-D operates across divisions (Phoenix, Tucson, Prescott) and the calendar management rule is the court's mechanism for coordinating scheduling across divisions and across federal/state courts.
Read more → §9 Judge-Specific Procedures
---
2. Ex parte restraining orders in AZ-D issue only in accordance with FRCP 65 — LRCiv 65.1 explicitly defers to the federal rule
LRCiv 65.1 states: 'Ex parte restraining orders shall only issue in accordance with Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.' AZ-D imposes no additional substantive requirements at the district level for ex parte TROs. Among our 10-court sample, AZ-D's express deference to FRCP 65 is unusual — most districts layer additional district-level requirements on emergency relief. (D. Ariz. LRCiv 65.1)
Why: The rule's rationale is that the federal rule provides sufficient procedural rigor without district-level overlay; layering additional requirements creates unnecessary procedural friction.
Read more → §3 Motion Practice
---
3. Surety bonds in AZ-D are in the form provided by Arizona state court statutes and rules — not the federal default form
LRCiv 65.1.1 provides: 'Whenever by statute or rule of this Court surety is required to be given for any purpose by any party, such surety shall be in the form and manner provided for similar surety in the state courts under the statutes and rules of Arizona.' Counsel filing a federal action in AZ-D and posting a bond in federal form get rejected. Among our 10-court sample, AZ-D's adoption of state-court surety forms for federal practice is distinctive. (D. Ariz. LRCiv 65.1.1)
Why: The rule's rationale is to align with parallel state-court practice; the choice reduces friction for counsel handling concurrent state and federal matters.
Read more → §2 Filing & Service
---
4. PHV admission in AZ-D is restricted to attorneys who neither reside nor maintain a practice office in Arizona — and requires a certificate of good standing from a federal court
LRCiv 83.1(b)(2) limits pro hac vice admission to members in good standing of the bar of any federal court who neither reside in the District of Arizona nor maintain an office for the practice of law in the District of Arizona. Attorneys who become Arizona residents or establish a principal Arizona office must reapply for full bar membership under LRCiv 83.1(a). The application requires: (1) a current, original certificate of good standing from a federal court, and (2) payment of the application fee per the current schedule on the District Court website. (D. Ariz. LRCiv 83.1(b)(2))
Why: The rule's rationale is to distinguish attorneys temporarily appearing before the court from those who are effectively practicing in Arizona full-time, who must obtain full bar admission under LRCiv 83.1(a).
Read more → §8 Pro Hac Vice
---
5. AZ-D case numbers include the division designation — counsel filing in the wrong division get the case transferred
LRCiv 3.2(a) provides for case-numbering format that includes the division: 'PHX' for Phoenix, 'TUC' for Tucson, 'PCT' for Prescott. The division is determined by venue (which county the case arises from). Counsel filing in the wrong division get the case transferred under § 1406; the timeline cost is real. Among our 10-court sample, AZ-D's three-division case-numbering structure is distinctive. (D. Ariz. LRCiv 3.2(a))
Why: The rule's rationale is that AZ-D's three-division structure is administered through case-numbering — the format is the court's mechanism for tracking division assignment.
Read more → §9 Judge-Specific Procedures
---
6. AZ-D requires a separate Statement of Facts on summary judgment — and no reply statement of facts may be filed
LRCiv 56.1(a): movant files a separate statement of facts (separate from motion and memorandum of law); each material fact in a separately numbered paragraph with reference to a specific admissible portion of the record. Failure to submit a separate statement may constitute grounds for denial. LRCiv 56.1(b): opposing party files a controverting statement; *'No reply statement of facts may be filed.'* Counsel coming from districts that permit a movant's reply SMF (e.g., NJ-D's supplemental statement) misallocate the burden in their reply briefing. (D. Ariz. LRCiv 56.1)
Why: The rule's rationale is to focus the SMF on the movant's burden and the opponent's response; the no-reply rule prevents the movant from re-litigating the fact record after the opposing party has spoken.
Read more → §7 Summary Judgment
---
7. Oral argument on summary judgment in AZ-D has its own rule — LRCiv 56.2 (which points to LRCiv 7.2(f))
LRCiv 56.2 governs oral arguments on motions for summary judgment specifically: *'With regard to oral arguments on motions for summary judgment, see Rule 7.2(f), Local Rules of Civil Procedure.'* The rule is a separate-rule pointer rather than a substantive divergence; among our 10-court sample, however, AZ-D is the only district that gives MSJ oral argument its own rule number, signaling its procedural distinctiveness even where the substance defers to the general rule. (D. Ariz. LRCiv 56.2)
Why: The rule's rationale is to flag MSJ oral argument as procedurally distinct in the rule structure, even where the substantive standard is the same as for other motions.
Read more → §7 Summary Judgment
---
8. AZ-D's motion practice contemplates telephone arguments and conferences — the court may order telephonic argument unilaterally
LRCiv 7.2(h): *'The Court may, in its discretion, order or allow oral argument on any motion or other proceeding by speaker telephone.'* Counsel should expect that argument may be conducted by telephone rather than in person, and prepare accordingly. (D. Ariz. LRCiv 7.2(h))
Why: The rule's rationale is that AZ-D's three-division structure spans large geographic distances; telephonic argument is the court's calibration for ensuring access without requiring counsel travel.
Read more → §3 Motion Practice