Arizona Supreme Court holds that there is no conflict between mandatory arbitration under A.R.S. § 12-133 and the Court-created Fast Trial and Alternative Resolution (“FASTAR”) program.

The Arizona justice system offers a variety of alternatives to the typical civil complaint process.  The Legislature provided one such alternative in A.R.S. § 12-133, which requires Arizona superior courts to promulgate rules “[e]stablish[ing] jurisdictional limits of not to exceed sixty-five thousand dollars for submission of disputes to arbitration.”  Arbitration is required for any claim not exceeding that limit, and the arbitration decision can be appealed to the superior court de novo.

The Arizona Supreme Court has offered its own alternative, establishing the Fast Trial and Alternative Resolution (“FASTAR”) program in Pima County in 2015.  FASTAR allows a plaintiff to choose between a short trial and arbitration in cases seeking money damages not exceeding $50,000.  Those proceeding through the short trial option retain a right to appeal, but those electing for arbitration waive that right.

The overlap between these avenues to relief turned into a conflict when a woman sought damages from the Tucson Police Department.  Although her claim exceeded Pima County’s $1,000 maximum for compulsory arbitration under § 12-133, she moved for arbitration under that statute anyway, arguing that FASTAR was unconstitutional because it extinguished her right to a jury trial and to an appeal.  The trial court denied her motion, finding that FASTAR preserved her rights and, because her claim exceeded $1,000, she was not entitled to § 12-133 arbitration.

The woman petitioned the court of appeals for special action relief.  The court of appeals accepted jurisdiction but denied relief, holding that the woman was subject to FASTAR.  The court of appeals went a step further than the trial court and determined that § 12-133 was a procedural court rule.  As a result, the court of appeals concluded that § 12-133 infringed on the constitutional prerogative of the Arizona Supreme Court and that the rule promulgated by the Court—FASTAR—controlled.

The Arizona Supreme Court then granted review to determine whether FASTAR and § 12-133 conflict.  The Court found they do not.  Section 12-133 only set a jurisdictional maximum—it said nothing about minimums.  Therefore, it was permissible for a court, as Pima County Superior Court had, to set its § 12-133 as low as $1,000 and apply FASTAR to any claims between $1,000 and $50,000.  Because nothing in the statute prevented the superior courts from lowering the cap “so that few, if any, cases require mandatory arbitration,” no conflict existed between § 12-133 and FASTAR.  Thus, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial court and vacated the portions of the court of appeals’ opinion holding that there was a conflict between § 12-133 and FASTAR. 

Justice Bolick authored the opinion for a unanimous Court.