The Arizona Court of Appeals recently ruled in a case involving Jeanette Enrichi-Roppe and several respondents, including Domitila Sanchez. The court's decision, filed on July 30, 2026, addressed Enrichi-Roppe's right to a change of judge in a vexatious litigant proceeding. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the rights of individuals designated as vexatious litigants and the procedures that must be followed in such cases.
The case stemmed from a dispute over property rights, where Enrichi-Roppe challenged Sanchez’s claim to a property title. The court's ruling has implications for how vexatious litigant designations are handled in Arizona and the rights of individuals who find themselves in similar legal situations.
Jeanette Enrichi-Roppe, the petitioner in this case, was previously designated as a vexatious litigant by Cochise County Presiding Judge David Thorn in January 2026. This designation came after a probate matter was decided against her. Following this, Enrichi-Roppe filed a new action in April 2026, seeking to challenge Sanchez’s right to the property title in question. However, Judge Thorn reassigned the case to himself and denied Enrichi-Roppe's request for a change of judge, leading to her filing for special-action review.
The dispute escalated when Judge Thorn issued an order to show cause, questioning whether Enrichi-Roppe's new action was merely an attempt to relitigate the earlier probate case. Enrichi-Roppe responded by filing a notice for a peremptory change of judge under Rule 42.1 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. However, Judge Thorn denied this request, stating that allowing the change would only delay the case and that Enrichi-Roppe was simply refusing to accept the previous ruling.
Ultimately, the court ruled that Enrichi-Roppe's notice for a change of judge was proper and should have been honored. The court found that the superior court had erred in denying her request, emphasizing that the denial was based on judicial efficiency and prior conduct, which are not valid grounds for denying a properly filed notice. The court stated, "The superior court erred by denying Enrichi-Roppe’s Rule 42.1 notice," and emphasized that the notice was timely and did not waive her right to a change of judge.
The court also addressed the respondents' argument that Rule 42.1 did not apply since Judge Thorn was acting as the presiding judge in the vexatious litigant proceedings. The court rejected this argument, affirming that allowing a party to request a change of judge is crucial for ensuring impartial treatment in the judicial process. The ruling clarified that a presiding judge must respect a litigant's right to a change of judge, even in vexatiousness proceedings.
The court's decision has significant implications for similar cases moving forward. It reinforces the rights of individuals designated as vexatious litigants, ensuring they can exercise their right to a change of judge without facing undue barriers. This ruling may influence how courts handle vexatious litigant designations in the future, potentially leading to more equitable treatment for individuals in similar situations.
As a result of this ruling, the court vacated the previous designation of Enrichi-Roppe as a vexatious litigant in the quiet-title action and dismissed the case. The court ordered that the matter be remanded for further proceedings, allowing for a new judge to be designated to address the vexatious-litigant issue if necessary.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether the respondents will appeal this decision. The ruling sets a precedent regarding the treatment of vexatious litigants and their rights to a fair judicial process. The court's emphasis on the importance of impartiality in judicial proceedings may lead to further scrutiny of how vexatious litigant designations are applied in Arizona.
In conclusion, the Arizona Court of Appeals' ruling in the case of Jeanette Enrichi-Roppe v. Domitila Sanchez highlights the importance of procedural rights in the judicial system. By affirming Enrichi-Roppe's right to a change of judge, the court has reinforced the principles of fairness and impartiality that are essential to the legal process.