a Definitions. The term “judge” as used in this rule refers to any judge, judge pro tem, or court commissioner. The term “presiding judge” as used in this rule refers to the presiding superior court judge in the county where the action is pending, or that judge’s designee.
Rule 42.2.Change of judge for cause.
Last verified July 1, 2026
In one sentenceRule 42.2 lets a party seek a change of judge for cause by filing an affidavit establishing grounds under A.R.S. section 12-409, within 20 days of discovering that those grounds exist.
Full Text of Rule 42.2
b Grounds. A party seeking a change of judge for cause must establish grounds by affidavit as required by A.R.S. § 12-409.
d Timeliness and waiver. A party must file an affidavit seeking a change of judge for cause within 20 days after discovering that grounds exist for a change of judge. Case events or actions taken before that discovery do not waive a party’s right to a change of judge for cause.
e Hearing and assignment. If a party timely files and serves an affidavit complying with A.R.S. § 12-409:
1 Within 5 days after the affidavit is served, any other party may file an opposing affidavit or a responsive memorandum of no more than two pages in length. No reply memorandum or affidavits are permitted unless authorized by the presiding judge.
2 The presiding judge may hold a hearing to determine the issues raised in the affidavit, or may decide the issues based on any affidavits and memoranda filed by the parties.
3 On filing of the affidavit for cause, the named judge should proceed no further in the action except to make such temporary orders as are absolutely necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm from occurring before the request is decided and the action transferred. However, if the named judge is the only judge in the county, that judge may also perform the functions of the presiding judge.
4 The presiding judge must decide the issues by the preponderance of the evidence. Under A.R.S. § 12-409(B)(5), the sufficiency of any “cause to believe” must be determined by an objective standard, not by reference to the affiant’s subjective belief. If grounds for disqualification are found, the presiding judge must promptly reassign the action. Any new assignment must comply with A.R.S. § 12-411.
5 If the court determines that the party who filed the affidavit is not entitled to a change of judge, the named judge may proceed with the action.
Amendment History
Promulgated by R-16-0010, effective January 1, 2017.
Plain-English Summary
Unlike the no-questions-asked change of judge in Rule 42.1, a change for cause requires a party to put its reasons on the table. The party files and serves an affidavit establishing grounds under A.R.S. section 12-409, and must do so within 20 days of discovering that those grounds exist — though case events that happened before that discovery do not, on their own, waive the right to seek the change later.
Once a party files and serves a compliant affidavit, the other side has five days to respond with an opposing affidavit or a short memorandum, and no reply is allowed unless the presiding judge permits it. The presiding judge decides the dispute either after a hearing or on the papers, applying a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, and any question about whether there was sufficient cause to believe grounds exist is measured objectively rather than by the challenging party's own belief. While the request is pending, the named judge generally steps back except for orders necessary to prevent immediate harm.
Frequently Asked Questions
How is a change of judge for cause different from a change as a matter of right?
A change for cause requires the moving party to establish specific grounds by affidavit under A.R.S. section 12-409, while a change as a matter of right under Rule 42.1 requires no showing of grounds at all.
How much time does a party have to seek a change of judge for cause?
20 days after discovering that grounds for the change exist.
What standard does the presiding judge use in deciding the request?
A preponderance of the evidence, and whether there was sufficient cause to believe grounds exist is judged objectively rather than by the challenging party's subjective belief.
Source & verification. The rule text and History are reproduced verbatim from the
official Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (Ariz. R. Civ. P. 42.2). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Arizona (Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 1, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: change of judge for causejudicial disqualification